The ACLU -- Thoughts? [Archive]

Jason Tate

02/01/07, 04:26 PM

Discussing the arrest warrants (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/01/world/europe/01germany.html?ref=world) a German court had issued that day for 13 CIA agents in connection with the kidnapping of German citizen Khaled El-Masri and his lawsuit (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/28/cbsnews_investigates/main2213638.shtml) against former CIA Director George Tenet and others, filed with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Bill O'Reilly (http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/people/billoreilly) asked CBS News terrorism analyst Michael Scheuer on the January 31 edition of Fox News' The O'Reillly Factor: "Do you think these people are traitors, the ACLU? Are they putting us all in danger?" Scheuer replied that "they have a right to their opinion" but asserted, "[T]hey're very lucky that most Americans are willing to fight to protect their ability to denigrate America." O'Reilly then stated that the ACLU "go[es] beyond that" and that, actually, "they put us in danger." Scheuer agreed, saying: "Oh, I think they do. I think that's certainly true, sir."
As Media Matters for America previously noted (http://mediamatters.org/items/200701290009), Scheuer, a former CIA analyst, was head of the CIA's Osama bin Laden unit during the Clinton administration. Scheuer anonymously authored Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.potomacbooksinc.com/Books/BookDetail.aspx?productID=89740) (Potomac Books, July 2004).
From the January 31 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: People are going to be rounded up, and they shouldn't be. This is what happens in a war.
But Angela Merkel's supposed to be a friend -- the chancellor of Germany -- is supposed to be a friend of the USA. Do you think this was some overzealous left-wing prosecutor doing this?
SCHEUER: Well, that's what it turned out to be in Italy. I'm not sure what the game plan is in Germany, sir. I don't -- I really don't know that much about German politics.
But I think, at the end of the day, the duplicity of the Germans will come through. Most of the Europeans are rather duplicitous. They're more than willing to take the information the CIA has gathered from these people to protect their countries, but they're not willing to avoid playing politics with the career of CIA officers who risk their lives.
O'REILLY: Yeah. I mean, I think it's outrageous myself, unless there is a clear pattern of abuse here.
Final question -- ACLU, of course, behind all of this al-Masri business: Do you think these people are traitors, the ACLU? Are they putting us all in danger?
SCHEUER: Well, I think they're like pacifists, sir. They have a right to their opinion. They have a right to do and think what they say. But they're very lucky that most Americans are willing to fight to protect their ability to denigrate America.
O'REILLY: You bet. But I think they go beyond that. I think they put us in danger. I really do.
SCHEUER: Oh, I think they do. I think that's certainly true, sir.
O'REILLY: I do. Mr. Scheuer, always a pleasure. Thanks very much.

HeyCoffeeEyes

02/01/07, 04:29 PM

I am a member of the ACLU.

aminorthreat55

02/01/07, 05:09 PM

The ACLU exists solely to protect the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights yet somehow they are demonized at traitorous? Clearly Bill O'Reilly is a genius.

captainhampton

02/01/07, 05:11 PM

Jason Tate

02/01/07, 05:24 PM

The ACLU is a joke. here are some issues not including the NAMBLA/boy scouts issue.

maybe defend their stance on the first amendment rights of pro-life protesters
http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2005...-civil-rights/ (http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2005/07/15/selective-civil-rights/)

or defend their view on national security:
http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2005...onal-security/ (http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2005/08/22/aclu-vs-national-security/)

or their policy to legalize child porn distribution
http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2005...-distribution/
How did I know you'd be the one here with something negative to say about a group defending civil liberties?

Do you want them? Or not? How about for Iraq? Isn't your current talking point that we're bringing liberty to the Iraqi people?

/Great "source" btw, "StoptheACLU.com" that just screams credibility.

aminorthreat55

02/01/07, 05:29 PM

The ACLU is a joke. here are some issues not including the NAMBLA/boy scouts issue.[/URL]
Protecting their rights guaranteed by the Constitution is not condoning their actions, despite what you want to imply.

captainhampton

02/01/07, 05:47 PM

Jason Tate

02/01/07, 05:53 PM

I will not say anything positive about a group who chooses to defend a group like NAMBLA while going after groups like The boy scouts.

don't complain about the source, read the links. and if you find information that isn't true let me know.
So, who's allowed freedom of speech? Only those you agree with? The cliche line is from Voltaire, is it not? "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

As for something not true, I'll start with this passage, "During times of war, sometimes unusual responses are implemented, often requiring suspension of certain liberties."

aminorthreat55

02/01/07, 05:55 PM

I will not say anything positive about a group who chooses to defend a group like NAMBLA while going after groups like The boy scouts.
Right, because all defense attorneys in murder cases condone and support murder as well as support the death of innocent people.

x togepi x

02/01/07, 07:56 PM

The ACLU is a joke. here are some issues not including the NAMBLA/boy scouts issue.

maybe defend their stance on the first amendment rights of pro-life protesters
http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2005...-civil-rights/ (http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2005/07/15/selective-civil-rights/)

or defend their view on national security:
http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2005...onal-security/ (http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2005/08/22/aclu-vs-national-security/)

or their policy to legalize child porn distribution
http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2005...-distribution/

so...i can use this tactic to prove God doesn't exist by quoting Nietzche and a bunch of atheist websites, right?

People like you are a joke. *gasp* the constitution gives everyone the right to fair trial and the ACLU picks up cases that others won't, therefore ensuring that right to fair trial.

WHY DID THE FOUNDERS OF THE US AND THE CONSTITUTION HATE AMERICA?

captainhampton

02/01/07, 08:34 PM

Right, because all defense attorneys in murder cases condone and support murder as well as support the death of innocent people.

I am not trying to say that NAMBLA doesn't deserve to be defended. that's not my point. The ACLU chooses their cases. they are not required to defend NAMBLA, they chose the case. Why not leave NAMBLA in the hands of court appointed attorney? The idea of the ACLU is a good one if they choose to defend people who really need and deserve their help. A bunch of sickos like NAMBLA do not deserve to be defended by a powerful group like the ACLU.

and honestly, choosing to defend NAMBLA and go after the Boy Scouts? and talking about how free speech is imporatant, but when it is a group of pro-life protestors who cares about free speech. is that the goal of the ACLU? so let's take these examples, defending criminals like NAMBLA, going after a group with religious values like the boy scouts, and going after pro-life protestors. looks like a liberal agenda to me.

HeyCoffeeEyes

02/01/07, 08:56 PM

Membership in NAMBLA is not criminal. Statutory rape is. NAMBLA lobbies to CHANGE currently existing laws so that the relationships are legal. Now I personally disagree with their case, and I think ages of consent are incredibly important. The point its, NAMBLA doesn't acutally DO anything illegal. And if you say that lobbying against current laws is criminal activity ALL reformists would be criminals. So even though I would never support NAMBLA's goal, I have to acknowledge that, like ALL groups, they have the right to peacefully express their opinion. It's important for the ACLU to defend groups like them because if a court can take a publicly reviled group like NAMBLA and use their case to abridge free speech and assembly rights guaranteed in the first ammendment, then that precedent can be used to justify restricting the rights of other groups as well. Protecting liberty means protecting the liberty of all, not just people you agree with.

As for the Boy Scouts, their employment process openly discriminates based on sexual orientation, plain and simple. The ACLU has always been anti-discrimination, and they don't give a shit if the discrimination is based on Christian values or not.

Jason Tate

02/01/07, 09:00 PM

I am not trying to say that NAMBLA doesn't deserve to be defended. that's not my point. The ACLU chooses their cases. they are not required to defend NAMBLA, they chose the case. Why not leave NAMBLA in the hands of court appointed attorney? The idea of the ACLU is a good one if they choose to defend people who really need and deserve their help. A bunch of sickos like NAMBLA do not deserve to be defended by a powerful group like the ACLU.

and honestly, choosing to defend NAMBLA and go after the Boy Scouts? and talking about how free speech is imporatant, but when it is a group of pro-life protestors who cares about free speech. is that the goal of the ACLU? so let's take these examples, defending criminals like NAMBLA, going after a group with religious values like the boy scouts, and going after pro-life protestors. looks like a liberal agenda to me.
You use "liberal agenda" as though it's a slur. Are you sure you know what it means?

They don't "go after pro-life protesters" they simply choose not to represent them as it would be a conflict of interest.

Furthermore, pointing out one example does change millions of things they do good for this country, and advocate a "The ACLU is a joke" comment.

As for NAMBLA:

In representing NAMBLA, the ACLU does not advocate (http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11289prs20000831.html) sexual relationships between adults and children. What we do advocate is robust freedom of speech. This lawsuit strikes at the heart of freedom of speech. The defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. For more information, please read the ACLU's press release (http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11289prs20000831.html).

In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.

What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.

It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.

HeyCoffeeEyes

02/01/07, 09:00 PM

As for the pro-lifers...

ACLU is committed to reproductive rights, period. That means that a general opposition to the RICO act might be circumvented when crazy fucking pro-lifers do shit like obstructing the entrances to abortion clinics, or physically initmidating women and their doctors.

Ambulance X

02/02/07, 02:15 PM

ACLU is the communist party. It's everything America stands against.

Love As Arson

02/02/07, 07:29 PM

Nations have every right to hold accountable those that break the law, including superpowers.

asmolitor

02/03/07, 09:51 PM

the ACLU is good in moderation. the only thing is, constitutionally, they're pretty much within their realm a fair amount of the time.

birdman

02/04/07, 11:51 AM

I will say that the aclu can go a bit too far sometimes...but as an american I appreciate the right to say whatever you want and express yourself, anyone that fights for that is appreciated as well

s.t.e.v.e.n.

02/04/07, 01:18 PM

personally, i know my view of the ACLU is effected because of what cases I actually hear about. The cases that get media hype compared to all the cases that dont make a huge difference.

ThaVince

02/10/07, 10:24 PM

Here is the problem...The ACLU doesn't want to hear anything that the people that are against them want to say and vice versa. But, the ACLU goes to far and are way to hypocritical. They want to bend the rules so that the people that they are "protecting" can say/do whatever they want for their voice to be heard even if it breaks the law. Look at Cindy Shehan. Its ok for her to break federal laws and trespass on areas where she had been told several times to leave but its not ok for here to be apprehended for it. It is utterly ridiculous. Ever since the 10 commandments incident, i have absolutely no respect and the utmost hatred for this group.

The Revisionist

02/11/07, 02:13 AM

I am just a big NAMBLA fan.

HeyCoffeeEyes

02/11/07, 09:35 AM

Ever since the 10 commandments incident, i have absolutely no respect and the utmost hatred for this group.

Um, the "10 Commandments incident" was quite obvioulsy unconstitutional.

ThaVince

02/11/07, 09:50 AM

No it isn't. If you are thinking of the separation of church and state, it never appears in the constitution, and the basis of the phrase was to not allow the government to force people to be a certain religion and force them to pay dues to a certain church. Plus, its another example of the ACLU being hypocritical because its they are taking away the governments right to free speech.

thejetstolehome

02/11/07, 09:52 AM

rufiocardtime

02/11/07, 10:26 AM

so posting the framework of two major western religions in a courthouse isn't forcing a certain religion on people? right.

exactly. it doesn't force anything on anyone. it just bothers you personally that somebody else makes a public display of their differing beliefs. and that's why you don't like it.

thejetstolehome

02/11/07, 10:35 AM

exactly. it doesn't force anything on anyone. it just bothers you personally that somebody else makes a public display of their differing beliefs. and that's why you don't like it.

i don't care if someone publicly displays their faith or beliefs in anything but when religion hits a government building like that, i don't like it. the church and the state should be miles and miles apart no matter what the circumstance.

and, yes, dispalying the ten commandments is, in my eyes, pushing beliefs on someone.

rufiocardtime

02/11/07, 10:36 AM

earl browder, one of the founders of the ACLU even said at one point, "communism is the goal."

also, planned parenthood is pretty fucking ridiculous.

i love how you guys just regurgitate this liberal bullshit that you feed each other about "reproductive rights", etc. etc.

most of these major liberal organizations were not founded on the premises that most liberals claim they were.

margaret sanger, a feminist, an advocate of eugenics, and the founder of planned parenthood wrote that, "the most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."

thejetstolehome

02/11/07, 11:06 AM

ThaVince

02/11/07, 03:53 PM

he doesn't have to shut up. you are violating his right to free speech...i'm gonna call the ACLU to come protect him!!!!!

Jason Tate

02/11/07, 04:02 PM

rufiocardtime

02/11/07, 06:07 PM

Source?

excuse my misinformation. it was roger baldwin (the other founder), not earl browder, in 1935 that wrote the following in his thirtieth anniversary harvard classbook, "i am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. i seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and social control of those who produce wealth. communism is the goal." (peggy lamson, roger baldwin: founder of the american civil liberties union: a portrait [boston: houghton-mifflin, 1976] p. 192)

roger baldwin writing to his members of the american union against militarism, describing the organizations transition from the AUAM to the newly created ACLU clearly said this: "do steer away from making it look like a socialist enterprise. we want to get a lot of flags, talk a good deal about the constitution and what our forefathers wanted to make of the country and show that we are really the folks that stand by the spirit of our institutions." (donohue, twilight of liberty, quoting william h. mcihaney II, the ACLU on trial, new rochelle, new york: arlington house, 1976, p. 194)

roger baldwin has a record of over 100 communist-front affiliations documented in detail (CONGRESSIONAL RECORD may 26, 1952.)

but i mean, let's face it: most of the people that support the ACLU already hold socialist/communist views. this shouldn't be surprising.

i would love to see how the fouding fathers would have re-worded the constitution if they knew that there would be such an organization as the ACLU.

as far as margaret sanger...

on the right of married couples to bear children:
"couples should be required to submit applications to have a child" (margaret sanger, "plan for peace." birth control review, april 1932.)

"the most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." (margaret sanger [editor]. the woman rebel, volume I, number 1. reprinted in woman and the new race. new york: brentanos publishers, 1922.) - this is supposedly an "ironic" comment, not a prescriptive one, according to planned parenthood.

"while there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, i assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in america each year are a disgrace to civilization." (margaret sanger, woman and the new race. new york: brentanos publishers, 1922, chapter 10: "contraceptives or abortion?"

"...we explained simply what contraception was; that abortion was the wrong way — no matter how early it was performed it was taking a life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way — it took a little time, a little trouble, but was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun." (margaret sanger: an autobiography. 1938)

regardless, i found planned parenthood's information on margaret sanger very interesting in and of itself. i even found it laughable how often they repeated the phrase about a woman's "right to control her own body" as if that's the only element and ultimately the bottom line within the abortion debate.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/margaret-sanger-planned-parenthood-founder.htm

thejetstolehome

02/11/07, 06:19 PM

regardless, i found planned parenthood's information on margaret sanger very interesting in and of itself. i even found it laughable how often they repeated the phrase about a woman's "right to control her own body" as if that's the only element and ultimately the bottom line within the abortion debate.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/margaret-sanger-planned-parenthood-founder.htm

then what is the bottom line? because as someone who is pro-choice, i'd say that's the bottom line. as long as a woman in this country still has a right to control her own body and what happens to it, i'll be more or less satisfied.

rufiocardtime

02/11/07, 06:23 PM

and your conservative talking points are any better? please. of course you believe that everyone who isn't pro-life wants to abort every pregnancy that happens because you have your head very far up your ass. pro-choice isn't about "killing," it's about letting a woman choose the course of her own life and her own body. please, shut up.

i find that my conservative talking points have much more integrity than your liberal talking points.

you were quite the observant and attentive reader when you pointed out my belief that "everyone who isn't pro-life wants to abort every pregnancy that happens". i mean, you should just give up on conservatives in online forums and become a full-time detective. we could call you "detective dipshit".

i agree that women should choose the course of their own lives. isn't it ironic that women don't want children, are aware that sexual intercourse may produce children, and yet they continue to engage in sexual intercourse?

and women have never been legally allowed to choose WHATEVER THEY WANT with their own bodies in the first place. this is incongruent with many of the other laws that govern our citizens. this is why there are laws against things like prostitution and suicide.

to say that the unborn entity is part of its mother is to claim that the mother possesses four legs, two heads, two noses, and (with the case of a male conceptus) a penis and two testicles. furthermore, since scientists have been able to achieve conception in a petri dish in the case of the "test-tube" baby, and this conceptus if it has white parents can be transferred to the body of a black woman and be born white, we know conclusively that the unborn is not part of the pregnant woman's body.

certainly a woman has a right to control her own body, but the unborn entity, though for a time living inside her body, is not part of her body.

i'm sorry, dude. but you are a fucking moron.

thejetstolehome

02/11/07, 06:31 PM

i agree that women should choose the course of their own lives. isn't it ironic that women don't want children, are aware that sexual intercourse may produce children, and yet they continue to engage in sexual intercourse?

accidents don't ever happen, right? a condom never breaks and every birth control method is 100% fool-proof? abortion in and of itself should not be used as a birth control method.

and women have never been legally allowed to choose WHATEVER THEY WANT with their own bodies in the first place. this is incongruent with many of the other laws that govern our citizens. this is why there are laws against things like prostitution and suicide.

you know what is meant by "controling their own bodies." bring prostitution and suicide into the conversation is completey out of context.

to say that the unborn entity is part of its mother is to claim that the mother possesses four legs, two heads, two noses, and (with the case of a male conceptus) a penis and two testicles. furthermore, since scientists have been able to achieve conception in a petri dish in the case of the "test-tube" baby, and this conceptus if it has white parents can be transferred to the body of a black woman and be born white, we know conclusively that the unborn is not part of the pregnant woman's body.

certainly a woman has a right to control her own body, but the unborn entity, though for a time living inside her body, is not part of her body.

it's been a while since i learned the reproductive cycle but i'm pretty sure the fertilized egg attaches itself to the mother's uterus?

anyway, that aside, this is where everyone's defense of, or attack at, abortion starts--whether or not one believes life begins at conception or another point. i believe the latter and from what i gather, you believe the former.

rufiocardtime

02/11/07, 06:38 PM

accidents don't ever happen, right? a condom never breaks and every birth control method is 100% fool-proof? abortion in and of itself should not be used as a birth control method.

see, that's the funny thing. "accidents" don't happen when you aren't practicing sexual intercourse. this is why i find it ironic that women that don't want "accidents", and are aware that sexual intercourse may produce an "accident", still engage in sexual intercourse.

but, i prefer to call children "miracles". not "accidents".

you know what is meant by "controling their own bodies." bring prostitution and suicide into the conversation is completey out of context.

no, to be honest with you i really don't know what pro-choicers mean by the phrase "controlling their own bodies" if it wasn't in the context that i just used. maybe you could inform me what it specifically means?

it's been a while since i learned the reproductive cycle but i'm pretty sure the fertilized egg attaches itself to the mother's uterus?

anyway, that aside, this is where everyone's defense of, or attack at, abortion starts--whether or not one believes life begins at conception or another point. i believe the latter and from what i gather, you believe the former.

very well. would you mind backing up your own statement and telling me at what point you believe life begins?

thejetstolehome

02/11/07, 06:52 PM

see, that's the funny thing. "accidents" don't happen when you aren't practicing sexual intercourse. this is why i find it ironic that women that don't want "accidents", and are aware that sexual intercourse may produce an "accident", still engage in sexual intercourse.

but, i prefer to call children "miracles". not "accidents".

this isn't the 19th century. sex isn't just for making babies anymore.

no, to be honest with you i really don't know what pro-choicers mean by the phrase "controlling their own bodies" if it wasn't in the context that i just used. maybe you could inform me what it specifically means?

to compare prostitution and suicide to the prospect of abortion just seems strange to me. prostitution and suicide are both relatively voluntary, while getting pregnant is not always voluntary.

very well. would you mind backing up your own statement and telling me at what point you believe life begins?

i'd say when the heart, brain, and nervous system are developed in the fetus. to me, zygote =/= fetus.

Jason Tate

02/11/07, 07:35 PM

but, i prefer to call children "miracles". not "accidents"

:crackup:

Okay, this one floored me ... I couldn't keep reading after this.

Jason Tate

02/11/07, 07:36 PM

and women have never been legally allowed to choose WHATEVER THEY WANT with their own bodies in the first place. this is incongruent with many of the other laws that govern our citizens. this is why there are laws against things like prostitution and suicide.

i'm sorry, dude. but you are a fucking moron.

But women are allowed to legally do what they want with their bodies in this circumstance: Roe vs Wade, you may have heard of it.

I'm sorry, dude, but you're a virgin aren't you?

rufiocardtime

02/11/07, 08:32 PM

this isn't the 19th century. sex isn't just for making babies anymore.

you're exactly right. but why would somebody have sex if they didn't want a child, knowing that sex produces children?

to compare prostitution and suicide to the prospect of abortion just seems strange to me. prostitution and suicide are both relatively voluntary, while getting pregnant is not always voluntary.

pregnancy is voluntary probably upwards of 95-99% of the time because that's the percentage of people that understand that sexual intercourse creates life. but the correct analog here would be..."prostitution and suicide are both relatively voluntary, while abortion is always voluntary."

i'd say when the heart, brain, and nervous system are developed in the fetus. to me, zygote =/= fetus.

so do you think that it should be illegal for a woman to have an abortion if the heart, brain, and nervous system have already developed?

Jason Tate

02/11/07, 08:38 PM

you're exactly right. but why would somebody have sex if they didn't want a child, knowing that sex produces children?

Yep. You're a virgin. Hello, Biology 101.

pregnancy is voluntary probably upwards of 95-99% of the time because that's the percentage of people that understand that sexual intercourse creates life.

Source? That's ridiculous.

but the correct analog here would be..."prostitution and suicide are both relatively voluntary, while abortion is always voluntary."

Now that's interesting wishful logic.

so do you think that it should be illegal for a woman to have an abortion if the heart, brain, and nervous system have already developed?

Yes, and she should face capital punishment. It will be the greatest irony of our day.

rufiocardtime

02/11/07, 08:42 PM

:crackup:

Okay, this one floored me ... I couldn't keep reading after this.

uh oh. here comes tate to save the day with a one-liner, making an ignorant exit on the debate. were you taking notes from bill maher? where his bad jokes become his arguments? or did you really just have nothing better to say?

i mean, let me clarify, instead of replying to my original arguments against the integrity of the ACLU, you respond with nervous laughter because i refer to a child as a "miracle"?

with all due respect, what the hell is wrong with you? why would you make such a joke out of your own existence?

rufiocardtime

02/11/07, 08:46 PM

But women are allowed to legally do what they want with their bodies in this circumstance: Roe vs Wade, you may have heard of it.

haha you really are that obstinant to miss the whole point i was making?

"it's her body. she ought to be able to do whatever she wants with it..." is a very illogical argument.

rufiocardtime

02/11/07, 08:50 PM

Yes, and she should face capital punishment. It will be the greatest irony of our day.

haha what? does that stem from the bad logic that "we can't kill people to show others that killing people is wrong"?

you should be teaching philosophy, tate. you're a regular socrates.

Jason Tate

02/11/07, 08:51 PM

haha you really are that obstinant to miss the whole point i was making?

"it's her body. she ought to be able to do whatever she wants with it..." is a very illogical argument.
"Obstinant"? That's not a word (http://www.google.com/search?q=define:&q=obstinant&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8).

Your point's irrelevant - you're a guy - you have as little say as I do about her body. We can talk about removing things from your body if you want.

Jason Tate

02/11/07, 08:52 PM

haha what? does that stem from the bad logic that "we can't kill people to show others that killing people is wrong"?

you should be teaching philosophy, tate. you're a regular socrates.
It was a joke, did you not get it?

/Off topic: capital punishment is not a deterrent - that's an economical fact.

Jason Tate

02/11/07, 08:57 PM

uh oh. here comes tate to save the day with a one-liner, making an ignorant exit on the debate.

Do you mean entrance?

were you taking notes from bill maher? where his bad jokes become his arguments? or did you really just have nothing better to say?

As I showed yesterday in the Obama thread, I didn't even know who Bill Maher was until someone sent me his videos yesterday.

i mean, let me clarify, instead of replying to my original arguments against the integrity of the ACLU, you respond with nervous laughter because i refer to a child as a "miracle"?

An attack on someone's "integrity" is not a logical argument - I simply read your points, said, "eh, that could be true - doesn't impact anything or change my feelings" and moved on. Then I got to your "child is a miracle" line and felt like I was watching "Seventh Heaven" or "Touched by an Angel" and started laughing that someone would actually use that line in public. I thought it was just for bad TV.

with all due respect, what the hell is wrong with you? why would you make such a joke out of your own existence?

Because my existence is still in question and simple probability doesn't make it a miracle, it makes it a relative certainty. You can't prove either of us exist - and therefore I find a subtle humor in the unknown, especially when someone uses a cliche to try and define it. I'm okay with no answer - or an unknown answer - I don't try and put a "word" on everything I can't explain.

rufiocardtime

02/11/07, 08:58 PM

"Obstinant"? That's not a word (http://www.google.com/search?q=define:&q=obstinant&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8).

Your point's irrelevant - you're a guy - you have as little say as I do about her body. We can talk about removing things from your body if you want.

"obstinate". apologies for the typo.

no...i think men have a lot to say. i can name at least two men that i know personally that were suppose to be fathers but for one reason or another they basically just had to sit back and watch their girlfriends kill their children.

but that's fine. you don't have to listen to me on the subject. i could refer you to all the women i know that have children, don't have children, have had abortions, haven't had abortions, you name it, that share in my same viewpoint.

Salomonbz90

02/11/07, 08:58 PM

It was a joke, did you not get it?

/Off topic: capital punishment is not a deterrent - that's an economical fact.
Exactly. Capital punishment does nothing to deter crime. It is proven that in countries that do not enforce the death penalty as strongly that murder rates have dropped. There is absolutely no connection between crime and the death penalty.
If death was a strong deterrent of crime, then it would show to be affective, but it doesn't seem to be showing that trend.
And as a side note, the US judicial system allows for so much appealing and let-offs that more people die on death row waiting for approved appeals than actually dying by any form of capital punishment.

/rant

Jason Tate

02/11/07, 09:01 PM

"obstinate". apologies for the typo.

That conjugation doesn't work well with your sentence, you can call me stubborn -- it's okay.

no...i think men have a lot to say. i can name at least two men that i know personally that were suppose to be fathers but for one reason or another they basically just had to sit back and watch their girlfriends kill their children.

Well, if that's true - shouldn't you call the police? Because if they actually killed "children" - that would be against the law and is known as murder.

but that's fine. you don't have to listen to me on the subject. i could refer you to all the women i know that have children, don't have children, have had abortions, haven't had abortions, you name it, that share in my same viewpoint.

I'm not interested in third-party testimony. I'm interested in what you should be allowed to comment on or not -- and a woman's body is not one of them.

rufiocardtime

02/11/07, 09:02 PM

It was a joke, did you not get it?

/Off topic: capital punishment is not a deterrent - that's an economical fact.

no i got the joke. it just wasn't funny. because you were basing it off the capital punishment/deterrent debate.

lyke omgzz source?

this is a retarded debate. of course killing people deters killers from killing again. how can a killer kill again if he's dead?

Jason Tate

02/11/07, 09:13 PM

no i got the joke. it just wasn't funny. because you were basing it off the capital punishment/deterrent debate.

lyke omgzz source?

this is a retarded debate. of course killing people deters killers from killing again. how can a killer kill again if he's dead?

How was I basing it off the deterrent debate? The joke was that we should kill someone if they wanted to kill their kid, thereby killing their kid.

Sure - I thought this was common knowledge by now.

http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/KatzLevittShustrovich2003.pdf

And follow-ups:
http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/KesslerLevitt1999.pdf
http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittWhyDoIncreasedArrest1998.pdf

saysmydoctor

02/11/07, 09:18 PM

Pwnt. That's what a Rufio fan deserves.

thejetstolehome

02/11/07, 09:38 PM

Jason Tate

02/11/07, 09:40 PM

i think i read that first one for sociology last year.
That's awesome ... Katz and Levitt are two of the most well known economists in the recent years. I think two of the contemporary minds I'm completely content with labeling as "geniuses."

I've read all their stuff I can find.

rufiocardtime

02/11/07, 09:41 PM

An attack on someone's "integrity" is not a logical argument - I simply read your points, said, "eh, that could be true - doesn't impact anything or change my feelings" and moved on.

it doesn't bother you what the intentions were of the people that paved the way for liberalism?

when liberals claim one thing about their "cause" and the roots of their cause are altogether something different. i'd say it seems a little "illogical"?

Then I got to your "child is a miracle" line and felt like I was watching "Seventh Heaven" or "Touched by an Angel" and started laughing that someone would actually use that line in public. I thought it was just for bad TV.

have you ever known somebody that has dreamed about having a child and can't get pregnant?

there's millions of families that are waiting to adopt right now.

i'd say it's pretty far from "bad TV". and it makes you look like a pretty big asshole regardless of what you want to say to me in this thread.

Because my existence is still in question and simple probability doesn't make it a miracle, it makes it a relative certainty. You can't prove either of us exist - and therefore I find a subtle humor in the unknown, especially when someone uses a cliche to try and define it. I'm okay with no answer - or an unknown answer - I don't try and put a "word" on everything I can't explain.

but see, there are good explanations. one of them is called "god". but having to be accountable to an absolute moral lawmaker would completely violate your own wish to define a personal code of morality as you see fit. but this relativistic philosophy you hold is somewhat humorous in and of itself. if you admit that everything you've spouted about what's right and wrong with the world (in general...or in particular) is "relatively certain" or "objectively uncertain", your own relativistic philosophy kills the force of your own argument(s). your lack of willingness to admit any objective absolute morality kills any and all objective weight to any of the statements you've ever made that include the words "should" or "ought to".

thejetstolehome

02/11/07, 09:41 PM

That's awesome ... Katz and Levitt are two of the most well known economists in the recent years. I think two of the contemporary minds I'm completely content with labeling as "geniuses."

I've read all their stuff I can find.

it was either that or something else by Katz. it would make a lot of sense if that were it as it was a sociology course about Civil Society. my profsessor looked like the woman on those old Keystone Light ads, ya know, the "bitter beer face."

thejetstolehome

02/11/07, 09:49 PM

but see, there are good explanations. one of them is called "god". but having to be accountable to an absolute moral lawmaker would completely violate your own wish to define a personal code of morality as you see fit. but this relativistic philosophy you hold is somewhat humorous in and of itself. if you admit that everything you've spouted about what's right and wrong with the world (in general...or in particular) is "relatively certain" or "objectively uncertain", your own relativistic philosophy kills the force of your own argument(s). your lack of willingness to admit any objective absolute morality kills any and all objective weight to any of the statements you've ever made that include the words "should" or "ought to".

morality is always subjective.

rufiocardtime

02/11/07, 09:52 PM

How was I basing it off the deterrent debate? The joke was that we should kill someone if they wanted to kill their kid, thereby killing their kid.

Sure - I thought this was common knowledge by now.

http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/KatzLevittShustrovich2003.pdf

And follow-ups:
http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/KesslerLevitt1999.pdf
http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittWhyDoIncreasedArrest1998.pdf

it'll take me a bit to read through the 26 pages of this...but from the outside, it philosophically doesn't make any sense.

if a killer kills once, and is then put to death by the government. how would this not reduce murder rates?

we will never know because this is a study that legally can't be carried out. therefore it really can't be "proven" either way until the law is changed one way or another.

rufiocardtime

02/11/07, 09:53 PM

morality is always subjective.

if you're godless.

s.t.e.v.e.n.

02/11/07, 09:57 PM

it'll take me a bit to read through the 26 pages of this...but from the outside, it philosophically doesn't make any sense.

if a killer kills once, and is then put to death by the government. how would this not reduce murder rates?

we will never know because this is a study that legally can't be carried out. therefore it really can't be "proven" either way until the law is changed one way or another.

it stops that specific killer from killing, but it doesn't stop others from killing. and it creates another killer in the dead killer's place....the state.

s.t.e.v.e.n.

02/11/07, 09:58 PM

and i find it ironic that you argue against abortion but for the death penalty

rufiocardtime

02/11/07, 10:10 PM

it stops that specific killer from killing, but it doesn't stop others from killing. and it creates another killer in the dead killer's place....the state.

oh god...

rufiocardtime

02/11/07, 10:11 PM

and i find it ironic that you argue against abortion but for the death penalty

how is justice ironic?

babies are innocent. murderers are not.

atticus1492

02/11/07, 10:12 PM

if you're godless.

Not true. You and I both can easily find two different people that both believe very strongly in God, that have very different moral views regarding something.

s.t.e.v.e.n.

02/11/07, 10:15 PM

how is justice ironic?

babies are innocent. murderers are not.

so a life is not a life?

saysmydoctor

02/11/07, 10:18 PM

In ur clinicz, killin ur babiez

rufiocardtime

02/11/07, 10:19 PM

Not true. You and I both can easily find two different people that both believe very strongly in God, that have very different moral views regarding something.

that depends on whether or not you believe people always answer honestly when you ask them about their belief (or lack thereof) in a god or their moral views.

what people believe and what people say they believe are VERY VERY different things.

Jason Tate

02/11/07, 10:21 PM

it doesn't bother you what the intentions were of the people that paved the way for liberalism?

I wouldn't decree those you named as those who "paved the way for liberalism" in the first place. But, it bothers me about as much as knowing the intentions of our founding fathers.

when liberals claim one thing about their "cause" and the roots of their cause are altogether something different. i'd say it seems a little "illogical"?

Roots must be followed no matter what? I'm curious why you adhere to this edict - I think a shifting foundation and model of fluidity is vastly important in the success of any entity.

have you ever known somebody that has dreamed about having a child and can't get pregnant?

Yes.

there's millions of families that are waiting to adopt right now.

Not sure what the relevance to this topic this holds.

i'd say it's pretty far from "bad TV". and it makes you look like a pretty big asshole regardless of what you want to say to me in this thread.

Come on -- it sounded like a Hallmark card cliche. I'm willing to bet others snickered too.

but see, there are good explanations. one of them is called "god".

A God of the gaps isn't a good explanation in my opinion.

but having to be accountable to an absolute moral lawmaker would completely violate your own wish to define a personal code of morality as you see fit.

Well, no, but if there was an absolute moral law - could you point me to it? Are all these laws written somewhere for me?

but this relativistic philosophy you hold is somewhat humorous in and of itself. if you admit that everything you've spouted about what's right and wrong with the world (in general...or in particular) is "relatively certain" or "objectively uncertain", your own relativistic philosophy kills the force of your own argument(s).

Putting aside the fact that's not what I'm implying by using the words "relatively certain" (I'm talking about mathematical models), please explain how it kills the force of my argument.

your lack of willingness to admit any objective absolute morality kills any and all objective weight to any of the statements you've ever made that include the words "should" or "ought to".

Your stringent adherence to the changing written words of fallible men makes my personal code of ethics no different than yours. If I find my morals from direct communication with God, would that not make them no more more reliable than that of The Bible? Or are you going to argue that the Bible is infallible and completely coherent in all matters of moral and ethical code?

it was either that or something else by Katz. it would make a lot of sense if that were it as it was a sociology course about Civil Society. my profsessor looked like the woman on those old Keystone Light ads, ya know, the "bitter beer face."

Hahaha, I love that that's what you remember about the course. Classic.

Jason Tate

02/11/07, 10:23 PM

how is justice ironic?

babies are innocent. murderers are not.
So, we only can kill the non-innocent? Interesting. Here I thought that your "moral guidebook" was telling us that all life is sacred, or is it an eye for an eye, or I'm not sure which passage applies to this debate because everyone just starts selectively quoting whenever the topic is brought up.

thejetstolehome

02/11/07, 10:24 PM

if you're godless.

:rolleyes: i know plenty of religious people who share a lot of the same morals i do. even amongst religious people, morality is subjective.

rufiocardtime

02/11/07, 10:24 PM

so a life is not a life?

it depends if you think murderers and unborn children should have the same rights.
that's the real irony: murderers have more rights than unborn children.
one is completely innocent. the other is completely guilty.

thejetstolehome

02/11/07, 10:25 PM

Hahaha, I love that that's what you remember about the course. Classic.

haha, some kid said it one day and everyone in the class just died. it was actually a really good course, though--except for when we had to read The Postman. good god did that book suck something awful. the only thing worse was the movie.

atticus1492

02/11/07, 10:27 PM

that depends on whether or not you believe people always answer honestly when you ask them about their belief (or lack thereof) in a god or their moral views.

what people believe and what people say they believe are VERY VERY different things.

Point taken. However, that does not at all take away from my point, and quite frankly it is irrelevant.

An example: Some God-fearing individuals would say that drinking any alcohol whatsoever would constitute a sin (my grandmother). And some other, still God-fearing individuals would say that it is perfectly alright to drink alcohol as you see fit (my mother). Now, as these two are related to me, I know them. That being the case, I can honestly say that they are telling the truth from both of their perspectives, and that they both believe very strongly in God.

Jason Tate

02/11/07, 10:33 PM

it'll take me a bit to read through the 26 pages of this...but from the outside, it philosophically doesn't make any sense.

if a killer kills once, and is then put to death by the government. how would this not reduce murder rates?

we will never know because this is a study that legally can't be carried out. therefore it really can't be "proven" either way until the law is changed one way or another.

I'm sorry that the facts don't fit your philosophy. But you can't change what the data says.

s.t.e.v.e.n.

02/11/07, 10:34 PM

it depends if you think murderers and unborn children should have the same rights.
that's the real irony: murderers have more rights than unborn children.
one is completely innocent. the other is completely guilty.

i think that human life should be protected
be it an unborn child or murderer, i dont believe in the perpetuation of killing
you do though, in certain circumstances

Jason Tate

02/11/07, 10:35 PM

it depends if you think murderers and unborn children should have the same rights.
that's the real irony: murderers have more rights than unborn children.
one is completely innocent. the other is completely guilty.
How's that ironic? That stands by the common thought and current legal opinion that "unborn" actually means "unborn."

If unborn babies have rights - I'm making sure my wife's charging hers rent.

thejetstolehome

02/11/07, 10:36 PM

it'll take me a bit to read through the 26 pages of this...but from the outside, it philosophically doesn't make any sense.

if a killer kills once, and is then put to death by the government. how would this not reduce murder rates?

we will never know because this is a study that legally can't be carried out. therefore it really can't be "proven" either way until the law is changed one way or another.

if the death penalty were a detterent to violent crime, there would be no violent crime in America.

Jason Tate

02/11/07, 10:36 PM

oh god...
I guess I thought you were religious from your posts -- should you use the lord's name in vain like that? Isn't a sin a sin - and therefore you're no better off than the "murderers" you're talking about in here?

rufiocardtime

02/11/07, 10:42 PM

I wouldn't decree those you named as those who "paved the way for liberalism" in the first place. But, it bothers me about as much as knowing the intentions of our founding fathers.

really? who do you think paved the way for liberalism then?

A God of the gaps isn't a good explanation in my opinion.

that's because the god of the gaps follows a weak line of reasoning.

Well, no, but if there was an absolute moral law - could you point me to it? Are all these laws written somewhere for me?

i think that there are a lot of things that point towards it. for the sake of brevity, go read the works of c.s. lewis.

Putting aside the fact that's not what I'm implying by using the words "relatively certain" (I'm talking about mathematical models), please explain how it kills the force of my argument.

relativism basically says that your idea of morality is no greater than anyone else's idea of morality because there is no absolute, objective standard. so when an argument arises, your pride forces you to then assume that you are the objective standard for the moral argument which in turn contradicts the relativistic philosophy you hold in the first place (that there is no objective standard). therefore, your moral argument commits suicide.

Your stringent adherence to the changing written words of fallible men makes my personal code of ethics no different than yours. If I find my morals from direct communication with God, would that not make them no more more reliable than that of The Bible? Or are you going to argue that the Bible is infallible and completely coherent in all matters of moral and ethical code?

could you give me a specific example of the so-called "changing written words" that i adhere to?

rufiocardtime

02/11/07, 10:46 PM

How's that ironic? That stands by the common thought and current legal opinion that "unborn" actually means "unborn."

If unborn babies have rights - I'm making sure my wife's charging hers rent.

i don't know? is it really common thought that unborn children shouldn't have any rights to life? i know what the legal opinion says. but i'd need to see some kind of statistic to know what the popular view is. i'm betting the legal view and the popular view are quite different judging by the last two presidential elections.

s.t.e.v.e.n.

02/11/07, 10:47 PM

i don't know? is it really common thought that unborn children shouldn't have any rights to life? i know what the legal opinion says. but i'd need to see some kind of statistic to know what the popular view is. i'm betting the legal view and the popular view are quite different judging by the last two presidential elections.

and what do you know? two elections, pro-life president, nothing changes
vote obama

rufiocardtime

02/11/07, 10:48 PM

Point taken. However, that does not at all take away from my point, and quite frankly it is irrelevant.

An example: Some God-fearing individuals would say that drinking any alcohol whatsoever would constitute a sin (my grandmother). And some other, still God-fearing individuals would say that it is perfectly alright to drink alcohol as you see fit (my mother). Now, as these two are related to me, I know them. That being the case, I can honestly say that they are telling the truth from both of their perspectives, and that they both believe very strongly in God.

it seems to me like either one of them or both of them are mistaken on the nature of god.

they are describing two different gods. not the same god.

atticus1492

02/11/07, 10:50 PM

it seems to me like either one of them or both of them are mistaken on the nature of god.

they are describing two different gods. not the same god.

Wrong. It is the same guy. I am sure of it.

Damn. I was hoping for a better rebuttal than that. Come on.

rufiocardtime

02/11/07, 10:50 PM

I guess I thought you were religious from your posts -- should you use the lord's name in vain like that? Isn't a sin a sin - and therefore you're no better off than the "murderers" you're talking about in here?

i'm better off in relation to the law of the land. but no better off in relation to god's law.

thejetstolehome

02/11/07, 10:50 PM

and what do you know? two elections, pro-life president, nothing changes
vote obama

yup.

it seems to me like either one of them or both of them are mistaken on the nature of god.

they are describing two different gods. not the same god.

how are they describing two different gods? if they're related, i'd assume they share the same religion.

aminorthreat55

02/11/07, 10:51 PM

unborn children
It's a fetus. This term should never be used, as it appeals to emotion.

aminorthreat55

02/11/07, 10:53 PM

i'm betting the legal view and the popular view are quite different judging by the last two presidential elections.
Last I checked, laws govern this country, not fickle popular opinion.

rufiocardtime

02/11/07, 10:53 PM

Wrong. It is the same guy. I am sure of it.

Damn. I was hoping for a better rebuttal than that. Come on.

sorry. a god that's supposedly unchanging doesn't say "drink however you see fit" one day and "drinking is wrong the next". this would either be an inconsistency in the same god, an inconsistency within your relatives, and/or an inconsistency within yourself.

thejetstolehome

02/11/07, 10:54 PM

Last I checked, laws govern this country, not fickle popular opinion.

i was looking for a way to appropriately capture this thought, thank you.

Jason Tate

02/11/07, 10:55 PM

really? who do you think paved the way for liberalism then?

Depends how far back you're willing to go. Marcus Aurelius, Machiavelli, the Magna Carta ... it really is just a matter of historical preference.

that's because the god of the gaps follows a weak line of reasoning.

Then why engage in it?

i think that there are a lot of things that point towards it. for the sake of brevity, go read the works of c.s. lewis.

I've read everything Lewis has ever written, I quote him often. One of my favorite authors. Fail to see how you telling me to "go read so and so" is proof of anything except your own inability to answer the question.

relativism basically says that your idea of morality is no greater than anyone else's idea of morality because there is no absolute, objective standard.

I know what it means - that's why I asked you to provide the absolute/objective standard for me. I wanted to read it.

so when an argument arises, your pride forces you to then assume that you are the objective standard for the moral argument which in turn contradicts the relativistic philosophy you hold in the first place (that there is no objective standard). therefore, your moral argument commits suicide.

Not at all -- my apathy toward the situation (and gender) forces me to accept no moral argument except that of the masses; the collective majority/morality if you will. Furthermore, you're taking the stance that I hold a relativistic philosophy from the get go, an assumption you'd be unable to prove.

could you give me a specific example of the so-called "changing written words" that i adhere to?

I'm assuming from your previous posts the correct answer is The Bible.

i don't know? is it really common thought that unborn children shouldn't have any rights to life?

Wouldn't rights to life imply life? I fail to see how an unborn child can be considered "alive" while it acts in a symbiotic manner with it's host.

i know what the legal opinion says. but i'd need to see some kind of statistic to know what the popular view is. i'm betting the legal view and the popular view are quite different judging by the last two presidential elections.

The last two presidential elections that have yet to have an impact on this manner? Either way - here's the collective polls on the matter: http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

I think you'll find the data to be along the lines of my present argument.

thejetstolehome

02/11/07, 10:55 PM

Jason Tate

02/11/07, 10:56 PM

It's a fetus. This term should never be used, as it appeals to emotion.
I've been subtly interjecting that into my posts - but I've yet to come out and say it, thank you for that.

rufiocardtime

02/11/07, 10:58 PM

Last I checked, laws govern this country, not fickle popular opinion.

It's a fetus. This term should never be used, as it appeals to emotion.

haha because i dont know you, i'm not sure if these last two posts were sarcasm or seriousness...

Jason Tate

02/11/07, 10:58 PM

it seems to me like either one of them or both of them are mistaken on the nature of god.

they are describing two different gods. not the same god.
The Bible itself describes many different Gods and even variations of their own God. The image of God has also changed over the years as preachers have moved to popularize the religion and moved away from "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" conjured by Jonathan Edwards.

My point from the get go - that you've missed - is that the Bible is unable to give one answer; therefore, the interpretations that are strewn from it's words are all, in an essence worth looking at (ie: no absolute moral law). But then, this line of (logical) thinking brings you into the relativistic modus does it not?

thejetstolehome

02/11/07, 11:00 PM

haha because i dont know you, i'm not sure if these last two posts were sarcasm or seriousness...

they were serious and correct.

atticus1492

02/11/07, 11:03 PM

sorry. a god that's supposedly unchanging doesn't say "drink however you see fit" one day and "drinking is wrong the next". this would either be an inconsistency in the same god, an inconsistency within your relatives, and/or an inconsistency within yourself.

Better, but you are still veering away from my example. The Bible really doesn't say much on the subject, other than do not waste away all of your day drinking and go to work, basically. But what we WERE talking about, is relative morality. My grandmother would say that it is immoral to drink at all. My mother would say that it is ok to drink. They both believe in the same god, you are going to have to trust me on this one. Is this really that hard to understand? They are not godless, but they have differing moral views which are both acceptable and follow what the Bible says.

Maybe I shouldn't say "drink however you see fit." It is more "drink however you see fit as long as you do not over-do it and go to work," which I can also vouch that she does.

rufiocardtime

02/11/07, 11:13 PM

Depends how far back you're willing to go. Marcus Aurelius, Machiavelli, the Magna Carta ... it really is just a matter of historical preference.

really? marcus aurelius' views on abortion and gay marriage...hit me with a source.

Then why engage in it?

was that suppose to be an insinuation that because i believe in the existence of a god he must be a god of the gaps?

I've read everything Lewis has ever written, I quote him often. One of my favorite authors. Fail to see how you telling me to "go read so and so" is proof of anything except your own inability to answer the question.

apparently you just skimmed over mere christianity then.

I know what it means - that's why I asked you to provide the absolute/objective standard for me. I wanted to read it.

cool. let's go at it then: the bible.

I'm assuming from your previous posts the correct answer is The Bible.

and your proof that it's been changed?

Wouldn't rights to life imply life? I fail to see how an unborn child can be considered "alive" while it acts in a symbiotic manner with it's host.

have you ever watched the video of a live abortion? this of course might influence whether or not you think "a fetus" has conciousness and whether it can therefore experience pain.

rufiocardtime

02/11/07, 11:15 PM

Better, but you are still veering away from my example. The Bible really doesn't say much on the subject, other than do not waste away all of your day drinking and go to work, basically. But what we WERE talking about, is relative morality. My grandmother would say that it is immoral to drink at all. My mother would say that it is ok to drink. They both believe in the same god, you are going to have to trust me on this one. Is this really that hard to understand? They are not godless, but they have differing moral views which are both acceptable and follow what the Bible says.

Maybe I shouldn't say "drink however you see fit." It is more "drink however you see fit as long as you do not over-do it and go to work," which I can also vouch that she does.

you apparently haven't read the bible then. the bible speaks quite a bit on the subject.

thejetstolehome

02/11/07, 11:15 PM

really? marcus aurelius' views on abortion and gay marriage...hit me with a source.

have you ever watched the video of a live abortion? this of course might influence whether or not you think "a fetus" has conciousness and whether it can therefore experience pain.

1. way to completely miss what is meant by "liberalism."
2. i think the attitude is that most people who believe in a women's right to choose would not change that view regardless of watching a video of an abortion.

atticus1492

02/11/07, 11:16 PM

you apparently haven't read the bible then. the bible speaks quite a bit on the subject.

Quotes?

It could just be me, but I seem to remember the first recorded miracle Jesus performed was turning water into wine.

aminorthreat55

02/11/07, 11:16 PM

have you ever watched the video of a live abortion? this of course might influence whether or not you think "a fetus" has conciousness and whether it can therefore experience pain.
Red herring: appeal to emotion

rufiocardtime

02/11/07, 11:19 PM

Quotes?

It could just be me, but I seem to remember the first recorded miracle Jesus performed was turning water into wine.

http://www.gotquestions.org/sin-alcohol.html

atticus1492

02/11/07, 11:20 PM

http://www.gotquestions.org/sin-alcohol.html

Are you kidding me? I just said exactly what is on that page! What are you trying to prove?

rufiocardtime

02/11/07, 11:23 PM

Red herring: appeal to emotion

no. there's no emotion needed to be a judge here.

it's obvious in many abortions that the fetus is actively trying to get away from the device that is trying to suck it out. this would lead most rational people to believe that the fetus has consciousness. and since consciousness is essentially "human existence" it should therefore be granted legitimate and reasonable human rights.

Jason Tate

02/11/07, 11:26 PM

really? marcus aurelius' views on abortion and gay marriage...hit me with a source.

You asked for the foundation of liberalism. Are you unsure of the correct definition of the word? Or are you discussing something completely different.

was that suppose to be an insinuation that because i believe in the existence of a god he must be a god of the gaps?

No, it was because of your usage of the basics of the argument in an earlier post.

apparently you just skimmed over mere christianity then.

Hahaha, not at all. I'm trying to see what this point is -- you tell me to read something, I say I have, and therefore that's the "end all"? If I tell you to go read Sartre or Strobel does that end the debate there?

cool. let's go at it then: the bible.

Is your argument that the Bible is absolute in all manners of moral law? Therefore polygamy, slavery, beating my wife, incest, and other items are perfectly acceptable? Or has the moral law shifted over time?

and your proof that it's been changed?

Translation, canonization, differing versions, interpretations. For starters.

have you ever watched the video of a live abortion? this of course might influence whether or not you think "a fetus" has conciousness and whether it can therefore experience pain.

I try not to let emotions dictate my thoughts on manners such as this. I'm disturbedby many images; however, my personal feelings are not of real importance on the matter. I get grossed out looking at squash -- that doesn't mean I think it should be destroyed for all humans. Your emotional attachment to the issue keeps you illogically influenced.

However, to answer your question - yes I have. I've also had bloody fetus posters shoved in my face and "tiny babies" hung in front of me.

Now, if you're going to become "emotional" on the topic - my emotional response is to imagine a young girl sticking a screwdriver, hanger, or other instrument inside of herself in order to try and end the pregnancy on her own. Abortions will never stop - regardless of their legality. This is simply fact. In turn the rich will still find ways to get abortions while the poor have the kids they're unable to take care of and society will suffer as the crime rate rises.

Picture a teenager being forced to give birth to her incestuous or rape conceived baby -- or the life that the child will have.

If we're going to play with emotions ... why not look at all sides?

aminorthreat55

02/11/07, 11:27 PM

no. there's no emotion needed to be a judge here.

it's obvious in many abortions that the fetus is actively trying to get away from the device that is trying to suck it out. this would lead most rational people to believe that the fetus has consciousness. and since consciousness is essentially "human existence" it should therefore be granted legitimate and reasonable human rights.
Non sequitur, argumentum ad populum, non sequitur, non sequitur, non sequitur.

atticus1492

02/11/07, 11:27 PM

no. there's no emotion needed to be a judge here.

it's obvious in many abortions that the fetus is actively trying to get away from the device that is trying to suck it out. this would lead most rational people to believe that the fetus has consciousness. and since consciousness is essentially "human existence" it should therefore be granted legitimate and reasonable human rights.

NO!!!! Why did you get off line? I want to know what you thought you were proving to me! Answer me!

Jason Tate

02/11/07, 11:28 PM

no. there's no emotion needed to be a judge here.

it's obvious in many abortions that the fetus is actively trying to get away from the device that is trying to suck it out. this would lead most rational people to believe that the fetus has consciousness. and since consciousness is essentially "human existence" it should therefore be granted legitimate and reasonable human rights.
So can we measure at what age the fetus isn't trying to "get away" from the device and just allow abortions from that time-period back? Would you be okay with that logic?

Jason Tate

02/11/07, 11:29 PM

NO!!!! Why did you get off line? I want to know what you thought you were proving to me! Answer me!
He went invisible... I can still see if he's online or not. ;-)

atticus1492

02/11/07, 11:30 PM

He went invisible... I can still see if he's online or not. ;-)

And.....

rufiocardtime

02/11/07, 11:31 PM

Are you kidding me? I just said exactly what is on that page! What are you trying to prove?

hahahaha i don't know man.

what? you're 19?

(of course you would read this in light of all other scripture...)
"everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which god has established. the authorities that exist have been established by god. consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what god has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves." - romans 13: 1 - 2

if you're not 21 , it would be sinful to drink.

thejetstolehome

02/11/07, 11:33 PM

hahahaha i don't know man.

what? you're 19?

(of course you would read this in light of all other scripture...)
"everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which god has established. the authorities that exist have been established by god. consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what god has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves." - romans 13: 1 - 2

if you're not 21 , it would be sinful to drink.

where does the bible talk about drinking ages (which are arbitrary anyway)?

Jason Tate

02/11/07, 11:35 PM

hahahaha i don't know man.

what? you're 19?

(of course you would read this in light of all other scripture...)
"everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which god has established. the authorities that exist have been established by god. consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what god has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves." - romans 13: 1 - 2

if you're not 21 , it would be sinful to drink.
Didn't Jesus rebel against authority? Didn't every apostle rebel against authority? Isn't the Bible full of stories of those that rebel against authority!?

rufiocardtime

02/11/07, 11:35 PM

So can we measure at what age the fetus isn't trying to "get away" from the device and just allow abortions from that time-period back? Would you be okay with that logic?

haha as if "getting away" is some subjective/objective argument now. like if we put somebody in a room with lions we couldn't really call it trying to "get away" even if they were grasping for their life?

but sure. i'm ok with that logic as a starting place. it'd be a huge improvement from where things are at right now.

rufiocardtime

02/11/07, 11:37 PM

Didn't Jesus rebel against authority? Didn't every apostle rebel against authority? Isn't the Bible full of stories of those that rebel against authority!?

didn't he allow himself to be handed over to the authorities to be crucified?

aminorthreat55

02/11/07, 11:37 PM

if you're not 21 , it would be sinful to drink.
That's not what the law says, thanks for playing.

atticus1492

02/11/07, 11:40 PM

hahahaha i don't know man.

So, is that it? Are you agreeing that I am right?

what? you're 19?

(of course you would read this in light of all other scripture...)
"everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which god has established. the authorities that exist have been established by god. consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what god has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves." - romans 13: 1 - 2

if you're not 21 , it would be sinful to drink.

Correct. However, Nowhere did I say that I drank, or made any references to anyone drinking other than my 80-year-old grandmother and 50-year-old mother. And for the record, while I have had alcohol before in my life (twice, and neither time did I get drunk, which is what I am talking about), I have not had ANYTHING in months.

But this, once again, has nothing to do with what I was asking.

Jason Tate

02/11/07, 11:40 PM

haha as if "getting away" is some subjective/objective argument now.

Well, it can't be both subjective and objective. Which do you mean? And you're the one that made the argument.

like if we put somebody in a room with lions we couldn't really call it trying to "get away" even if they were grasping for their life?

Why not?

but sure. i'm ok with that logic as a starting place. it'd be a huge improvement from where things are at right now.

It accepts as fact that there is a point after conception where abortions are acceptable. Therefore putting the law you stated as absolute on subjective grounds and becoming a relative decision. Furthermore it gives the state the right to decree when an abortion can take place, not unlike what laws are currently in place.

rufiocardtime

02/11/07, 11:40 PM

Didn't Jesus rebel against authority? Didn't every apostle rebel against authority? Isn't the Bible full of stories of those that rebel against authority!?

such as...?

Jason Tate

02/11/07, 11:41 PM

didn't he allow himself to be handed over to the authorities to be crucified?
Depends which book you're reading.

IamTheINDUSTRY

02/11/07, 11:41 PM

How did I know you'd be the one here with something negative to say about a group defending civil liberties?

Do you want them? Or not? How about for Iraq? Isn't your current talking point that we're bringing liberty to the Iraqi people?

/Great "source" btw, "StoptheACLU.com" that just screams credibility.

why would you post this under the title that you did instead of "bill o'reilly is a fucking communist" like you know (and everyone else does to) that you obviously always want to. if your going to jump down someone's throat who disagrees? sometimes i don't understand you. there are ways to be civil to people with opposing viewpoints about things. ESPECIALLY when you own a website and on that website you basically ban people whenever you want about whatever you want no matter the circumstance (politics? whats that called again where one guy does whatever he wants just because he has the power to do so?). i agree with you on a lot of things but its getting old with the "if you don't side with me your wrong and i will just basically out-asshole you to be right" thing.

rufiocardtime

02/11/07, 11:42 PM

So, is that it? Are you agreeing that I am right?

Correct. However, Nowhere did I say that I drank, or made any references to anyone drinking other than my 80-year-old grandmother and 50-year-old mother. And for the record, while I have had alcohol before in my life (twice, and neither time did I get drunk, which is what I am talking about), I have not had ANYTHING in months.

But this, once again, has nothing to do with what I was asking.

and...i already answered your question. your mother and your grandmother are saying two different things.

rufiocardtime

02/11/07, 11:43 PM

Depends which book you're reading.

have you done any research in the areas of textual criticism on new testament scripture?

Jason Tate

02/11/07, 11:46 PM

such as...?
What do you mean such as? Why do I know more about this work than you do?

David, Moses, Samson, Jesus, Paul, Matthew, Luke, John, Peter ... would not all that were persecuted in some form or another be considered "rebels" by even a relaxed definition of the word?

atticus1492

02/11/07, 11:47 PM

and...i already answered your question. your mother and your grandmother are saying two different things.

Well, that is NOT what you said, but I can agree with you there: they are saying two different things regarding drinking that are both completely "moral" actions in the sight of the SAME god that YOU proved to me by citing passages from the Bible that completely corroborate my claim that you can have relative morality and not be godless.

Jason Tate

02/11/07, 11:48 PM

why would you post this under the title that you did instead of "bill o'reilly is a fucking communist" like you know (and everyone else does to) that you obviously always want to. if your going to jump down someone's throat who disagrees? sometimes i don't understand you. there are ways to be civil to people with opposing viewpoints about things. ESPECIALLY when you own a website and on that website you basically ban people whenever you want about whatever you want no matter the circumstance (politics? whats that called again where one guy does whatever he wants just because he has the power to do so?). i agree with you on a lot of things but its getting old with the "if you don't side with me your wrong and i will just basically out-asshole you to be right" thing.
I really have no idea why you're quoting that passage while going off on me ... what are you talking about? Asking questions is bad? Offering debate is bad?

I fail to see what this is in reference to ... so further explanation would be nice.

Jason Tate

02/11/07, 11:49 PM

have you done any research in the areas of textual criticism on new testament scripture?
Did you not just say the Bible was absolute? Which form are you taking here? You can't have it both ways.

rufiocardtime

02/11/07, 11:49 PM

Well, that is NOT what you said, but I can agree with you there: they are saying two different things regarding drinking that are both completely "moral" actions in the sight of the SAME god that YOU proved to me by citing passages from the Bible that completely corroborate my claim that you can have relative morality and not be godless.

the bible supports one view of drinking. because your mother has one view and your grandmother has a different view, they logically cannot both be correct. therefore, it is impossible for both of them to both be making "moral" choices on the matter.

thejetstolehome

02/11/07, 11:51 PM

the bible supports one view of drinking. because your mother has one view and your grandmother has a different view, they logically cannot both be correct. therefore, it is impossible for both of them to both be making "moral" choices on the matter.

that's because morality is....SUBJECTIVE! there is no right or wrong on the issue!

rufiocardtime

02/11/07, 11:51 PM

What do you mean such as? Why do I know more about this work than you do?

David, Moses, Samson, Jesus, Paul, Matthew, Luke, John, Peter ... would not all that were persecuted in some form or another be considered "rebels" by even a relaxed definition of the word?

uh...do you mean rebels because they were christians? they were persecuted for their beliefs.

Jason Tate

02/11/07, 11:52 PM

Jason Tate

02/11/07, 11:53 PM

uh...do you mean rebels because they were christians? they were persecuted for their beliefs.
Rebels for whatever reason.

I didn't see a clarifying statement in the passage you quoted that said, "respect all authority or face judgment ..... unless you're a Christian, then you can disobey this passage."

thejetstolehome

02/11/07, 11:53 PM

uh...do you mean rebels because they were christians? they were persecuted for their beliefs.

and why were they persecuted? their beliefs went against the norm and pretty radical for the day--hence, rebellious and revolutionary.

rufiocardtime

02/11/07, 11:54 PM

Did you not just say the Bible was absolute? Which form are you taking here? You can't have it both ways.

i assumed you were referring to the gnostic gospels as a source for your line of reasoning. either way, i hold the view that the bible (including the new testament canon) is absolute in substance.

so were you going to answer my question...have you done any research in the areas of textual criticism on new testament scripture?

Jason Tate

02/11/07, 11:56 PM

i assumed you were referring to the gnostic gospels as a source for your line of reasoning. either way, i hold the view that the bible (including the new testament canon) is absolute in substance.

so were you going to answer my question...have you done any research in the areas of textual criticism on new testament scripture?
Yes.

ThaVince

02/11/07, 11:56 PM

i just want to throw this out there because i have been working all day and haven't had time to read/reply to any of this.

Heres my point of view. Abortions should be completely legal and completely free to any woman in the world. Under one condition. They only have to take one test. A DNA test, and if whatever she is carrying inside of her turns out to be anything but a human, a dog, cat, elephant, lion....kill it...becuase no matter how you look at it, a zygote, fetus, unborn child, whatever, it is a human being, whether it can breathe, or survive on its own, it doesn't matter because it is a human

Jason Tate

02/11/07, 11:56 PM

and why were they persecuted? their beliefs went against the norm and pretty radical for the day--hence, rebellious and revolutionary.
I thought that was a pretty logical and linear thought chain too.

rufiocardtime

02/11/07, 11:57 PM

Rebels for whatever reason.

I didn't see a clarifying statement in the passage you quoted that said, "respect all authority or face judgment ..... unless you're a Christian, then you can disobey this passage."

did you read the line above it that said "read this in light of the rest of scripture"?

because if you did, and you really knew anything about scripture, you would know that respecting and submitting to authority isn't the greatest commandment. it doesn't take priority over all the others.

(i.e. love the lord above all things: this is the greatest commandment. hence, you would be forced to disobey authority if they commanded you to do the opposite.)

Jason Tate

02/11/07, 11:58 PM

thejetstolehome

02/11/07, 11:59 PM

rufiocardtime

02/11/07, 11:59 PM

Yes.

awesome. could you please provide me with some examples of textual criticism that would show that scripture has indeed changed in substance over the course of history?

ThaVince

02/12/07, 12:00 AM

A zygote's a human? A zygote's two haploid cells.

Does it have human DNA?

atticus1492

02/12/07, 12:01 AM

the bible supports one view of drinking. because your mother has one view and your grandmother has a different view, they logically cannot both be correct. therefore, it is impossible for both of them to both be making "moral" choices on the matter.

Did you not send ME the quotes? Do you have no idea what they say? I will summarize: the Bible clearly warns against drunkenness. However, it is perfectly acceptable to casually or socially drink. (Jesus turned water into wine.)

My grandmother, by not drinking at all, is morally fulfilling this obligation. My mother, by drinking in moderation, is morally fulfilling this obligation. Now, you tell me, which one is not morally fulfilling this obligation?

Does it make sense? No, no it doesn't. Neither of them are not morally fulfilling this obligation.

Edit: Just to beat the dead horse: MORALITY IS SUBJECTIVE

thejetstolehome

02/12/07, 12:02 AM

Does it have human DNA?

one of my cheek cells has DNA. is it a human being?

Jason Tate

02/12/07, 12:02 AM

did you read the line above it that said "read this in light of the rest of scripture"?

because if you did, and you really knew anything about scripture, you would know that respecting and submitting to authority isn't the greatest commandment. it doesn't take priority over all the others.

(i.e. love the lord above all things: this is the greatest commandment. hence, you would be forced to disobey authority if they commanded you to do the opposite.)
That line didn't appear to be there when I quoted you.

That's completely irrelevant. That doesn't answer anything. I'm not referring to anyone who was solely commanded to do the opposite. I'm talking about actual acts of rebellion.

And doesn't this contradict your drinking passage to begin with!? The Lord says we can drink, therefore being commanded to not drink would be disobeying what God has said we're allowed to do.

This is circular reasoning - and absolutely ridiculous.

Jason Tate

02/12/07, 12:03 AM

Does it have human DNA?
The piss I just took in the bathroom has human DNA - is it human?

thejetstolehome

02/12/07, 12:04 AM

The piss I just took in the bathroom has human DNA - is it human?

maybe if you piss on my discarded cheek cells it'll make a person.

ThaVince

02/12/07, 12:04 AM

you can still fully develop and live missing a cheek cell.

ThaVince

02/12/07, 12:05 AM

either way it is or will lead to a human being and whether it is breathing on its own or not is irrelevant.

thejetstolehome

02/12/07, 12:06 AM

you can still fully develop and live missing a cheek cell.

but according to your previous statement, all something needs is human DNA for it to qualify as a human.

rufiocardtime

02/12/07, 12:07 AM

That line didn't appear to be there when I quoted you.

That's completely irrelevant. That doesn't answer anything. I'm not referring to anyone who was solely commanded to do the opposite. I'm talking about actual acts of rebellion.

And doesn't this contradict your drinking passage to begin with!? The Lord says we can drink, therefore being commanded to not drink would be disobeying what God has said we're allowed to do.

This is circular reasoning - and absolutely ridiculous.

please, give me some specific acts of rebellion that you are referring to.

and no. the lord doesn't command anybody to drink. he simply allows it in certain moderations. therefore, to abstain from drinking is not sinful because god has never commanded us to do so in the first place.

thejetstolehome

02/12/07, 12:08 AM

please, give me some specific acts of rebellion that you are referring to.

and no. the lord doesn't command anybody to drink. he simply allows it in certain moderations. therefore, to abstain from drinking is not sinful because god has never commanded us to do so in the first place.

how dense are you? my god, simply having their belifes at the time they believed them was revolutionary in and of itself. that is why they were perscuted for them! i haven't been to church for something other than a funeral since i was 16 and i know this.

rufiocardtime

02/12/07, 12:08 AM

check it homies: i'm going to bed. i'll get back at this debate tomorrow.

ThaVince

02/12/07, 12:09 AM

If whatever is growing inside the uterus of a pregnant woman, no matter what stages of development, a zygote or a crowning baby, is made up of human DNA, the abortion of that being should be illegal.

atticus1492

02/12/07, 12:10 AM

check it homies: i'm going to bed. i'll get back at this debate tomorrow.

What?!!!? That is too bad. I really wanted the satisfaction of finishing this tonight. Now it seems like I have wasted hours for nothing. Oh well.

Jason Tate

02/12/07, 12:26 AM

awesome. could you please provide me with some examples of textual criticism that would show that scripture has indeed changed in substance over the course of history?
If you choose to address my answer from 40 posts ago (http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=5655132#post565513 2), then I'll quote from the obvious sources, A Critical History of the Text of the New Testament, Greek New Testament, and The Age of Reason.

Then we can even move toward the contemporary ideas if you wish and address the internal inconsistencies that were already brought up in an earlier thread (such as the inability to accept a literal view of Genesis).

Jason Tate

02/12/07, 12:31 AM

If whatever is growing inside the uterus of a pregnant woman, no matter what stages of development, a zygote or a crowning baby, is made up of human DNA, the abortion of that being should be illegal.
By your logic a tumor on a uterus should not be removed because it's made up of DNA cells. You can't be serious.

Love As Arson

02/12/07, 12:46 AM

The early church fathers made a distinct definitions between the fetus and a human which suggested that that which was in the womb was not of human value, as ensoulment does not occur until is enters into this world.

Love As Arson

02/12/07, 12:49 AM

Incidentally, Erasmus, an editor of the bible, upon going through the text, found entirely fraudulent passages included in the bible.

IamTheINDUSTRY

02/12/07, 12:53 AM

I really have no idea why you're quoting that passage while going off on me ... what are you talking about? Asking questions is bad? Offering debate is bad?

I fail to see what this is in reference to ... so further explanation would be nice.

sorry. i read the first page alone. didnt feel the need to go in to any more. it's one of your first replies to a post on the first page of the thread.

rufiocardtime

02/12/07, 08:00 AM

If you choose to address my answer from 40 posts ago (http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=5655132#post565513 2), then I'll quote from the obvious sources, A Critical History of the Text of the New Testament, Greek New Testament, and The Age of Reason.

Then we can even move toward the contemporary ideas if you wish and address the internal inconsistencies that were already brought up in an earlier thread (such as the inability to accept a literal view of Genesis).

could you provide me with a specific example from any of those sources which supports your claim?

maybe in the form of..."the following manuscripts from the following dates read 'passage abc' while our current versions of the bible read 'something entirely different', therefore the text is conclusively unreliable."

or could you even provide me with the author of the first source. i couldn't find that one listed on amazon.

additionally, why is one unable to accept a literal view of genesis?

rufiocardtime

02/12/07, 11:36 AM

sorry that i missed this one.

You asked for the foundation of liberalism. Are you unsure of the correct definition of the word? Or are you discussing something completely different.

"liberalism" generally supports the rights to gay marriage and the right to abortion, does it not? i had always been under the impression that liberalism stemmed from the mantra of the 60's: "do your own thing". and it seemed to me that this phrase had gotten it's roots from alistair crowley's "do what thou whilst".

Hahaha, not at all. I'm trying to see what this point is -- you tell me to read something, I say I have, and therefore that's the "end all"? If I tell you to go read Sartre or Strobel does that end the debate there?

no, absolutely not. i was just hoping you'd have something more intelligent to say on what you had read rather than acting like you're having trouble "seeing what the point is". i was hoping you'd have more maturity than the evasiveness you've been maintaining through all my questions.

there are all sorts of things that point towards a higher absolute law of morality. "guilt" is one thing. here is another...

c.s. lewis on the moral law...
"everyone has heard people quarreling. sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds merely unpleasnt; but however it sounds, i believe we can learn something very important from listening to the kinds of things they say. they say things like this; "how'd you like it if anyone did the same to you?"-"that's my seat, i was there first"-"leave him alone, he isn't doing you any harm"-"why should you shove in first?"-"give me a bit of your orange, i gave you a bit of mine"-"come on, you promised." people say things like this every day, educated as well as uneducated, and children as well as grown-ups. now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man's behavior does not happen to please him. he is appealing to some kind of (objective) standard of behavior which he expects the other man to know about. and the other man very seldom replies: "to hell with your standard." nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse. he pretends there is some special reason in this particular case why the person who took the seat first should not keep it, or that things were quite different when he was given the bit of orange, or that something has turned up which lets him off from kieeping his promise. it looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had in mind some kind of law or rule of fair play, or decent behavior, or morality, or whatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed. and they have. if they had not, they might, of course, fight like animals, but they could not "quarrel" in the human sense of the word. quarreling means trying to show that other man is in the wrong. and there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what right and wrong are, just as there would be no sense in saying that a football player had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the rules of football. now this law or rule about right and wrong used to be called the law of nature. nowadays, when we talk of the "laws of nature," we usually mean things like gravitation, or heredity, or the laws of chemistry. but when the older thinkers called the law of right and wrong "the law of nature," they really meant the law of "human" nature. the idea was that, just as all bodies are governed by the law of gravitation and organisms by biological laws, so the creature called man also had his law - with this great difference, that a body could choose either to obey the law of human nature or to disobey it."

Is your argument that the Bible is absolute in all manners of moral law? Therefore polygamy, slavery, beating my wife, incest, and other items are perfectly acceptable? Or has the moral law shifted over time?

it depends on your understanding of the moral law, which seems pretty superficial. many of the laws given to the israelites were civil and ceremonial (but, also "moral"), but were not necessarily specific commandments for all people at all times and all places. god's moral law is unchanging, while jesus christ is the complete fulfillment of the law. since it seems as though you're having trouble understanding how to read the different types of literature found within scripture, maybe you should read the book: how to read the bible for all it's worth by gordon d. fee.

could you find me some examples from scripture where polygamy, slavery, beating your wife, and incest are commended?

Translation, canonization, differing versions, interpretations. For starters.

how does this demonstrate changes in substance?

I try not to let emotions dictate my thoughts on manners such as this. I'm disturbed by many images; however, my personal feelings are not of real importance on the matter. I get grossed out looking at squash -- that doesn't mean I think it should be destroyed for all humans. Your emotional attachment to the issue keeps you illogically influenced.

what an appropriate analogy: fetuses to squash. does the word "f a g g o t" give you an emotional response? of course it does. that's why you censor it within your threads. you make all kinds of "logical" decisions in light of your emotions. additionally, i've seen you end threads and completely shut down logically because you can't emotionally handle the debate. emotions don't stop me from making rational decisions. i am an intellectual being that can understand what emotions are and i can choose to act on them or to act otherwise. my logic is not trapped by them.

However, to answer your question - yes I have. I've also had bloody fetus posters shoved in my face and "tiny babies" hung in front of me.

hahaha. you poor thing.

Now, if you're going to become "emotional" on the topic - my emotional response is to imagine a young girl sticking a screwdriver, hanger, or other instrument inside of herself in order to try and end the pregnancy on her own. Abortions will never stop - regardless of their legality. This is simply fact. In turn the rich will still find ways to get abortions while the poor have the kids they're unable to take care of and society will suffer as the crime rate rises.

haha that's the dumbest argument i've ever heard. you're basically using the logic that "since we can't put an end to all abortions they should be legal"? that's like saying because we can't stop all rapists from raping we shouldn't make rape illegal.

Picture a teenager being forced to give birth to her incestuous or rape conceived baby -- or the life that the child will have.

If we're going to play with emotions ... why not look at all sides?

yeah. i'm down for looking at that side as well. that would be a hard thing for a girl to face. no doubt. but i've heard women speak about why they chose to keep their child that was conceived by rape. adding one atrocity onto another doesn't solve anything.

Love As Arson

02/12/07, 11:40 AM

additionally, why is one unable to accept a literal view of genesis?
It conflicts with reason and scientific evidence.

rufiocardtime

02/12/07, 11:44 AM

It conflicts with reason and scientific evidence.

cool. cite me a specific scientific study that demonstrates the biblical creation account to be unreasonable.

atticus1492

02/12/07, 11:46 AM

sorry that i missed this one.

"liberalism" generally supports the rights to gay marriage and the right to abortion, does it not? i had always been under the impression that liberalism stemmed from the mantra of the 60's: "do your own thing". and it seemed to me that this phrase had gotten it's roots from alistair crowley's "do what thou whilst".

NOW I understand why you could not understand what I was talking about. You know nothing about politics at all. That is not at all the definition of Liberalism. Try an intro to politics course.

thejetstolehome

02/12/07, 11:59 AM

sorry that i missed this one.

"liberalism" generally supports the rights to gay marriage and the right to abortion, does it not? i had always been under the impression that liberalism stemmed from the mantra of the 60's: "do your own thing". and it seemed to me that this phrase had gotten it's roots from alistair crowley's "do what thou whilst".

again, you're missing the point of what is meant by "Liberalism."

adding one atrocity onto another doesn't solve anything.

but when the state kills a convicted murderer, it's okay? this just screams hypocrisy.

rufiocardtime

02/12/07, 12:10 PM

NOW I understand why you could not understand what I was talking about. You know nothing about politics at all. That is not at all the definition of Liberalism. Try an intro to politics course.

haha ok? give me the definition of liberalism?

rufiocardtime

02/12/07, 12:11 PM

but when the state kills a convicted murderer, it's okay? this just screams hypocrisy.

maybe you've heard of the term "justice"? maybe not?

some behaviors in life are justified. some are not. killing and murdering are two completely different things.

thejetstolehome

02/12/07, 12:15 PM

haha ok? give me the definition of liberalism?

we mean Liberalism in a classic sense, dating back to the 18th and 19th centuries.

maybe you've heard of the term "justice"? maybe not?

some behaviors in life are justified. some are not. killing and murdering are two completely different things.

i don't consider the state murdering a convict justice. it's all just more killing which solves absolutely nothing.

Jason Tate

02/12/07, 12:19 PM

haha ok? give me the definition of liberalism?
Check out Wikipedia if you're bored and actually curious, might as well start with an elementary source.

/I'll be back to this thread after I finish posting news.

Jason Tate

02/12/07, 12:19 PM

maybe you've heard of the term "justice"? maybe not?

some behaviors in life are justified. some are not. killing and murdering are two completely different things.
Justice is subjective. I thought all judgment/justice was to come only from God, and God alone?

"Let he without sin cast the first stone."

rufiocardtime

02/12/07, 12:20 PM

i don't consider the state murdering a convict justice. it's all just more killing which solves absolutely nothing.

it ensures that the murderer never becomes a repeat offender. how is that not a solution?

thejetstolehome

02/12/07, 12:22 PM

it ensures that the murderer never becomes a repeat offender. how is that not a solution?

it also puts blood on the state's hands and lowers it to the level of a murderer. to me, that's unacceptable. there's another thing that prevents a murderer from becoming a repeat offender: a life sentence without possibility of parole. also, like Tate just said, justice, like morality, is subjective.

rufiocardtime

02/12/07, 12:24 PM

Justice is subjective. I thought all judgment/justice was to come only from God, and God alone?

"Let he without sin cast the first stone."

if judgement and justice only came from god, then how could justice be subjective? justice is objective.

god commanded people to judge, but to judge by a righteous standard.

thejetstolehome

02/12/07, 12:26 PM

if judgement and justice only came from god, then how could justice be subjective? justice is objective.

god commanded people to judge, but to judge by a righteous standard.

here's proof that justice is subjective: i consider the death penalty unjust. you consider it just. ta da! subjectivity! how do you not grasp this?

rufiocardtime

02/12/07, 12:26 PM

it also puts blood on the state's hands and lowers it to the level of a murderer. to me, that's unacceptable. there's another thing that prevents a murderer from becoming a repeat offender: a life sentence without possibility of parole. also, like Tate just said, justice, like morality, is subjective.

ok so then you agree that you're wrong? you said it solves nothing and i just showed you that it does in fact solve something.

i think i've made my point.

Love As Arson

02/12/07, 12:27 PM

"liberalism" generally supports the rights to gay marriage and the right to abortion, does it not? i had always been under the impression that liberalism stemmed from the mantra of the 60's: "do your own thing". and it seemed to me that this phrase had gotten it's roots from alistair crowley's "do what thou whilst".
Your assessment of liberalism is off by a few centuries. Its roots are in the humanism of the Renaissance and were further developed in the Age Of Enlightenment. The idea of individual rights and democracy were quite progressive for their time. The late nineteenth century saw the advent of a social liberalism closer to that which we currently see, which supposed that an individual is free to do as they will so long as it does not infringe on the rights of other.

there are all sorts of things that point towards a higher absolute law of morality. "guilt" is one thing. here is another...
Guilt is dependent on the social context of the act.

could you find me some examples from scripture where polygamy, slavery, beating your wife, and incest are commended?
Abraham engages in intercourse with his slave because Sarah is barren and cannot provide him with an heir. Presumably, Adam and Eve's children engaged in incest in order to create more people.

how does this demonstrate changes in substance?
The traditions built around the reinterpretations of each era are a determinant of what we know of the substance. For example, it was widely held that the selling of salvation was biblical in medieval times and now, the inerrancy of the bible is of the same order; that is, fundamentalism suggests that inerrancy is biblical, but one would be hard-pressed to find a passage in the text which calls for inerrancy and a literal interpretation of Genesis.

what an appropriate analogy: fetuses to squash. does the word "f a g g o t" give you an emotional response? of course it does. that's why you censor it within your threads. you make all kinds of "logical" decisions in light of your emotions. additionally, i've seen you end threads and completely shut down logically because you can't emotionally handle the debate. emotions don't stop me from making rational decisions. i am an intellectual being that can understand what emotions are and i can choose to act on them or to act otherwise. my logic is not trapped by them.
Appealing to emotion, however, is fallacious, as the burden is placed, not upon how thorough the argument is, but how bad one can make an individual feel for holding such views.

haha that's the dumbest argument i've ever heard. you're basically using the logic that "since we can't put an end to all abortions they should be legal"? that's like saying because we can't stop all rapists from raping we shouldn't make rape illegal.
I believe the argument is that, since the body is dependent upon the woman, and the woman's individual rights trump that of the fetus, she should have the option of having proper medical care as opposed to being forced to go to extreme lengths. Your analogy fails because the rapist does not have agency over the body of the other individual, while the mother does over her bodily faculties.

yeah. i'm down for looking at that side as well. that would be a hard thing for a girl to face. no doubt. but i've heard women speak about why they chose to keep their child that was conceived by rape. adding one atrocity onto another doesn't solve anything.
But, one should not make the decision for the women, as they may perceive it as far more beneficial to her mental condition to simply abort it.

thejetstolehome

02/12/07, 12:28 PM

ok so then you agree that you're wrong? you said it solves nothing and i just showed you that it does in fact solve something.

i think i've made my point.

the state killing someone also solves nothing. all it does is create more sorrow and grief for the family of the convict who is killed. it's also, in my eyes, not justice but revenge. those two are not the same. every time the state performs an execution, it brings the state down to the level of the murderer they are executing. it's a vicious cycle that needs to be stopped.

rufiocardtime

02/12/07, 12:32 PM

here's proof that justice is subjective: i consider the death penalty unjust. you consider it just. ta da! subjectivity! how do you not grasp this?

i'm right and you're wrong.

ta da??!?!

you are LITERALLY one of the biggest fucking dumbasses i've ever spoken with in my life.

if i was sitting in math class and a math teacher said, "alright class what is 2 plus 2?"

and then you piped up like the fucking moron you are and said, "math is subjective! there is no objective answer here!"

and then i said, "sorry douchebag. math is objective. numbers are objective. they always have been and always will be. 2 plus 2 equals 4."

and then you said, "here's proof that math is subjective: i consider 2 plus 2 to be 5. you consider it to be 4. ta da! subjectivity! how do you not grasp this?"

i would still call you a fucking moron.

thejetstolehome

02/12/07, 12:35 PM

i'm right and you're wrong.

ta da??!?!

you are LITERALLY one of the biggest fucking dumbasses i've ever spoken with in my life.

if i was sitting in math class and a math teacher said, "alright class what is 2 plus 2?"

and then you piped up like the fucking moron you are and said, "math is subjective! there is no objective answer here!"

and then i said, "sorry douchebag. math is objective. numbers are objective. they always have been and always will be. 2 plus 2 equals 4."

and then you said, "here's proof that math is subjective: i consider 2 plus 2 to be 5. you consider it to be 4. ta da! subjectivity! how do you not grasp this?"

i would still call you a fucking moron.

and here we go with the ad hominem attacks. of course math isn't subjective. i never said that it was. morality and justice are not math. they are not objective. what i consider to be just, you don't and vice versa. there is no right and wrong, just a difference of opinion.

Love As Arson

02/12/07, 12:38 PM

cool. cite me a specific scientific study that demonstrates the biblical creation account to be unreasonable.
The text itself is a bit vague in its execution. Take the use of "day" as a word to describe the passage of time, the word has no meaning in the earlier portion of the creation story because god had not yet created the dividing factors for day and night. How, then, can we presume to know what "day" meant in that context? Upon further inspection of the Hebrew writings, the word for "day" refers to an indefinite period of time rather than a twenty-four hour cycle. The evidence of a much older earth and the processes that many species went through in order to attain their current form indicates that the biblical representation could not have occurred as the creation story suggests.

rufiocardtime

02/12/07, 12:39 PM

and here we go with the ad hominem attacks. of course math isn't subjective. i never said that it was. morality and justice are not math. they are not objective. what i consider to be just, you don't and vice versa. there is no right and wrong, just a difference of opinion.

the point here is that...just because you have a different answer than i on the subject of justice or morality, doesn't intrinsically make or prove that the idea of justice or morality is subjective.

hence, you're line of logic is like that of a 1st grader.
and my logic is superior to yours.

thejetstolehome

02/12/07, 12:42 PM

the point here is that...just because you have a different answer than i on the subject of justice or morality, doesn't intrinsically make or prove that the idea of justice or morality is subjective.

hence, you're line of logic is like that of a 1st grader.
and my logic is superior to yours.

there is no one definition of "justice" and "morality." it will ultimately vary from person to person.

thejetstolehome

02/12/07, 12:46 PM

correction, if i may amend my previous statement. while the definitions might be the same, interpretations of said definitions will be different.

rufiocardtime

02/12/07, 12:46 PM

The text itself is a bit vague in its execution. Take the use of "day" as a word to describe the passage of time, the word has no meaning in the earlier portion of the creation story because god had not yet created the dividing factors for day and night. How, then, can we presume to know what "day" meant in that context? Upon further inspection of the Hebrew writings, the word for "day" refers to an indefinite period of time rather than a twenty-four hour cycle. The evidence of a much older earth and the processes that many species went through in order to attain their current form indicates that the biblical representation could not have occurred as the creation story suggests.

except the the hebrew word for "day" already had definition when the genesis story was put into writing. therefore it isn't quite as vague as you make it out to be. please cite your source that "day" refers to an "indefinite period of time".

because i can tell you right now that you're flat out wrong.

also, the evidence of an older earth and "the processes that many species went through" is also just that: evidence. not proof.

it's speculation. and it isn't even "scientific" really. the scientific method can't really prove or disprove darwin's theory.

rufiocardtime

02/12/07, 12:48 PM

correction, if i may amend my previous statement. while the definitions might be the same, interpretations of said definitions will be different.

and interpretations can still be demonstrated to be right or wrong.

Jason Tate

02/12/07, 12:49 PM

if judgement and justice only came from god, then how could justice be subjective? justice is objective.

god commanded people to judge, but to judge by a righteous standard.
I don't believe justice came from God, I was assuming your position for sake of argument. You can't state that judges have the authority from God and then not abide by their rulings.

Justice is subjective, that's why we have the system in place we do - this is common sense, seeing as we've having this very debate - that's proof of this fact.

thejetstolehome

02/12/07, 12:49 PM

except the the hebrew word for "day" already had definition when the genesis story was put into writing. therefore it isn't quite as vague as you make it out to be. please cite your source that "day" refers to an "indefinite period of time".

because i can tell you right now that you're flat out wrong.

also, the evidence of an older earth and "the processes that many species went through" is also just that: evidence. not proof.

it's speculation. and it isn't even "scientific" really. the scientific method can't really prove or disprove darwin's theory.

i've heard many people that subscribe to Creationism refer to "day" as something that is an undetermined period of time. no word has a single definition.

Jason Tate

02/12/07, 12:50 PM

and interpretations can still be demonstrated to be right or wrong.
To use the word "demonstrate" demands you are using a subjective viewpoint.

thejetstolehome

02/12/07, 12:51 PM

and interpretations can still be demonstrated to be right or wrong.

such as when you were provided with 3 articles disproving the death penalty as a deterrent to crime?

Jason Tate

02/12/07, 12:54 PM

i'm right and you're wrong.

ta da??!?!

you are LITERALLY one of the biggest fucking dumbasses i've ever spoken with in my life.

if i was sitting in math class and a math teacher said, "alright class what is 2 plus 2?"

and then you piped up like the fucking moron you are and said, "math is subjective! there is no objective answer here!"

and then i said, "sorry douchebag. math is objective. numbers are objective. they always have been and always will be. 2 plus 2 equals 4."

and then you said, "here's proof that math is subjective: i consider 2 plus 2 to be 5. you consider it to be 4. ta da! subjectivity! how do you not grasp this?"

i would still call you a fucking moron.
Are you really comparing math to morality?

:eyebrow:

thejetstolehome

02/12/07, 01:00 PM

Are you really comparing math to morality?

:eyebrow:

i guess it makes sense from his point of view. he sees morality and justice as things that, like math, are black and white or right and wrong. you and i see the gray areas, he doesn't seem to.

rufiocardtime

02/12/07, 01:01 PM

Are you really comparing math to morality?

:eyebrow:

in order to show you guys that your logic on subjectivity/objectivity is flawed, yes. but if you're going to take the comparison to some unwarranted exaggeration, then no.

rufiocardtime

02/12/07, 01:03 PM

To use the word "demonstrate" demands you are using a subjective viewpoint.

no it doesn't.

rufiocardtime

02/12/07, 01:08 PM

I don't believe justice came from God, I was assuming your position for sake of argument. You can't state that judges have the authority from God and then not abide by their rulings.

Justice is subjective, that's why we have the system in place we do - this is common sense, seeing as we've having this very debate - that's proof of this fact.

no justice is objective. but perfect justice is "an ideal". just as perfect arithmetic is "an ideal". you will certainly make some mistakes in some of your calculations. but these mistakes which produce debate don't intrinsically make justice subjective.

Jason Tate

02/12/07, 01:13 PM

could you provide me with a specific example from any of those sources which supports your claim?

I don't have the books here, so I'm unable to do this.

or could you even provide me with the author of the first source. i couldn't find that one listed on amazon.

That's because it was published in 1689 and is considered one of the original "textual criticisms," the author is Richard Simon (a French priest).

additionally, why is one unable to accept a literal view of genesis?

This was posted in another thread (http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=5626625#post562662 5), and so I'm quoting from it:

The bible gives great scope to creativity in interpreting and presenting the data. The biblical narrator even feels license to dischonologize the events. Certain “difficulties” in the order of the days seem clearly to represent a dischronologization. On the first day God creates the evening and morning, but he does not create the luminaries to divide them until the fourth day. If this is a straightforward historical account, God created evening, morning, and days without luminaries and then created luminaries in order to effect them. Are we really to conclude that the division occurs without the dividers? It seems reasonable to assume that the narrator has offered a dischronologized presentation of the events in order to emphasize a theological point. God is not dependent on the luminaries. The narrator also subtly suggests a dischronologization by speaking of each of the first five days as “a day,” not “the day.” The narrator’s concern is not scientific or historical but theological and indirectly polemical against pagan mythologies. The narrator wishes clearly to establish that it is God who has created all and has dominion over all, including the seas, sun, and moon....The days of creation may also pose difficulties for a strict historical account. Contemporary scientists almost unanimously discount the possibility of creation in one week, and we cannot summarily discount the evidence of the earth sciences. General revelation in creation, as well as the special revelation of Scripture, is also the voice of God. We live in a "universe," and all truth speaks with one voice....Narrator must use metaphor and anthropomorphic language so that the reader can comprehend. When the text says that God said, commanded, called, and saw, are we to understand that God has vocal cords, lips, and eyes? Obviously this language is anthropomorphic, representational of the truth that God creates. If the narrator’s descriptions of God are anthropomorphic, might not the days and other aspects also be anthropomorphic? […]the time of creation is presented in anthropomorphic language of days so that humankind might mime the Creator. Since we cannot participate in vast stretches of time, how else could we imitate the creator, except with finite terms such as a week?

"liberalism" generally supports the rights to gay marriage and the right to abortion, does it not? i had always been under the impression that liberalism stemmed from the mantra of the 60's: "do your own thing". and it seemed to me that this phrase had gotten it's roots from alistair crowley's "do what thou whilst".

You've been under the wrong impression and using a definition that is not correct.

no, absolutely not. i was just hoping you'd have something more intelligent to say on what you had read rather than acting like you're having trouble "seeing what the point is". i was hoping you'd have more maturity than the evasiveness you've been maintaining through all my questions.

What evasiveness? Your answer was "read this book" - I responded I had read the book. How is that evasive?

there are all sorts of things that point towards a higher absolute law of morality. "guilt" is one thing. here is another...

Again, quoting me passages from an author I know better than you, is redundant. My point was that absolutes are not possible when discussing morality because even the Bible is inconsistent in it's teachings.

it depends on your understanding of the moral law, which seems pretty superficial.

Moral law is a misnomer; probably even a oxymoron.

many of the laws given to the israelites were civil and ceremonial (but, also "moral"), but were not necessarily specific commandments for all people at all times and all places.

Therefore proving inconsistency and a selective (and therefore subjective) interpretation of the Bible. Why accept it as literal when it suits you and not here when it does not? The Bible is either infallible and you accept it all - or it's not and you can interpret. Why are you changing your stance based on which is better for your argument?

god's moral law is unchanging, while jesus christ is the complete fulfillment of the law. since it seems as though you're having trouble understanding how to read the different types of literature found within scripture, maybe you should read the book: how to read the bible for all it's worth by gordon d. fee.

Again, telling me to read books? Is this part of your everyday life? If Jesus is the complete fulfillment of the law - then your arguments in this thread are pointless. Your stance on capital punishment wrong, and your stance on justice and rebels and abortion - also wrong.

could you find me some examples from scripture where polygamy, slavery, beating your wife, and incest are commended?

Polygamy:
Exodus 21:10, 2 Samuel 5:13, 1 Chronicles 3:1-9, 14:3 (Backed by: Matthew 5:17-18) and then Matthew 19:1-12, Matthew 22:23-32, and Matthew 25:1-13.

Slavery:
Leviticus 25:44-46, Exodus 21:2-6, Ephesians 6:5, 1 Timothy 6:1-2, Luke 12:47-48.

Wife Abuse:
Exodus 21:7

Incest:
Two humans cannot populate the earth without incest having taken place. (Genesis 20:11-12)

how does this demonstrate changes in substance?

How is that not obvious?

what an appropriate analogy: fetuses to squash. does the word "f a g g o t" give you an emotional response? of course it does. that's why you censor it within your threads. you make all kinds of "logical" decisions in light of your emotions. additionally, i've seen you end threads and completely shut down logically because you can't emotionally handle the debate. emotions don't stop me from making rational decisions. i am an intellectual being that can understand what emotions are and i can choose to act on them or to act otherwise. my logic is not trapped by them.

The point is that an appeal to emotion is not rational or logical (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nizkor.org%2Ff eatures%2Ffallacies%2Fappeal-to-emotion.html&ei=ysnQRdCQAZP2owL24oCvAw&usg=__O_Gi3wI4hm_f_6mabcVyFsmrs-4=&sig2=LqKwXlxRegiEC7Pft-a5lw).

hahaha. you poor thing.

Your hypocrisies know no bounds.

haha that's the dumbest argument i've ever heard.

Yet you're unable to rebut it? Interesting.

you're basically using the logic that "since we can't put an end to all abortions they should be legal"?

Correct, saving the lives of those that would attempt self-abortions or seek unclean abortions and making the lives better for the populace is important to me.

that's like saying because we can't stop all rapists from raping we shouldn't make rape illegal.

Not at all, one's a self made choice, the other is not.

yeah. i'm down for looking at that side as well. that would be a hard thing for a girl to face. no doubt. but i've heard women speak about why they chose to keep their child that was conceived by rape. adding one atrocity onto another doesn't solve anything.

And the point you bring up: is the women's choice to do so. That's important to note -- you're allowing them that choice. Think about it.

Jason Tate

02/12/07, 01:19 PM

in order to show you guys that your logic on subjectivity/objectivity is flawed, yes. but if you're going to take the comparison to some unwarranted exaggeration, then no.

But they're not the same -- or even remotely related. How is that a valid analogy?

no it doesn't.

Well, all be, I'm convinced! Haha.

To "demonstrate" and "interpret" you must impart a subjective fold onto the subject at hand.

no justice is objective. but perfect justice is "an ideal". just as perfect arithmetic is "an ideal". you will certainly make some mistakes in some of your calculations. but these mistakes which produce debate don't intrinsically make justice subjective.

Then why is the Bible inconsistent in it's teaching of Justice? Why in one passage is it an "eye for an eye," and in the other "turn the other cheek"? How do we utilize an "absolute justice" system that is not absolute in itself?

How do we force a nation that does not all adhere or believe in where the system comes from to follow it blindly? We cannot. This is why there is a separation between church and state. Because while you may believe in the moral ruler that comes from your interpretation (key word) of the Bible, others do not -- therefore, justice becomes, for it's own benefit and survival: subjective.

Love As Arson

02/12/07, 01:28 PM

except the the hebrew word for "day" already had definition when the genesis story was put into writing. therefore it isn't quite as vague as you make it out to be. please cite your source that "day" refers to an "indefinite period of time".

The Hebrew word yom which is translated "day" occurs no less than 1,480 times in the Old Testament, and is translated by something over fifty different words, in*cluding such terms as time, life, today, age, forever, con*tinually and perpetually. With such a flexible use of the original term, it is impossible to either dogmatize or to demand unswerving restriction to one only of those meanings. It is frequently assumed that originally orthodox belief held to a solar day of twenty-four hours, and that the church altered her exegesis under the pres*sure of modern geological discoveries. This as Dr. Shedd points out is one of the "errors of ignorance." The best Hebrew exegesis has never regarded the days of Genesis as solar days, but as day-periods of indefinite duration. The doctrine of an immense time prior to the six days of creation was a common view among the earlier fathers and the schoolmen. Only with the schol*astics of the middle ages and the evangelical writers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was this idea current. Previous to this a profounder view was taught by the acknowledged leaders of the Church. Thus Augustine says, "Our seven days resemble the seven days of the Genesis account in being a series, and in having the vicissitudes of morning and evening, but they are multum in pares. He calls them naturae (natures or birth), and morae (delays or solemn pauses). Hence they are God-divided days in contradistinction to sun-*divided days; they are ineffable days (dies ineffabiles) as in their true nature transcendent, while the sun*-divided days (vicissitudines coeli) are due merely to changes in planetary movements. He affirms, there*fore, that the word day does not apply to the duration of time, but to the boundaries of great periods. Nor is this a metaphorical meaning of the word, but the orig*inal, which signifies "to put period to" or to denote a self-completed time.

http://wesley.nnu.edu/holiness_tradition/wiley/wiley-1-16.htm

also, the evidence of an older earth and "the processes that many species went through" is also just that: evidence. not proof.
An individual must conclude that the likelihood of the theory being correct is greater than that of the creation theology because there is evidence of it. Many of the the universal physical laws we take as true are merely theories, which have some evidence, but cannot necessarily be proven. The date set we do have, however, allows us to make educated decisions as to the viability of them. Creationism, on the other hand, cannot be objectively verified because of its foundation in the metaphysical.

it's speculation. and it isn't even "scientific" really. the scientific method can't really prove or disprove darwin's theory.
This is patently false. Evolution has been observed and tested many times within nature. For example, the rise of different forms of species and viruses are evidence of evolution. There have laboratory experiments on various species that have shown natural selection and the dominance of new characteristics, while others become recessive.

atticus1492

02/12/07, 01:51 PM

haha ok? give me the definition of liberalism?

This is very easy for you to find yourself. Try Wikipedia, your local library, lots of places. I am not going to spoon-feed you something as elementary as this.

rufiocardtime

02/12/07, 05:01 PM

I don't have the books here, so I'm unable to do this.

i would have figured that if such a large amount of scripture has been so blatantly and carelessly minstranslated, distorted, etc. over the ages that at least one small example in particular might come to mind?

This was posted in another thread (http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=5626625#post562662 5), and so I'm quoting from it:

The bible gives great scope to creativity in interpreting and presenting the data. The biblical narrator even feels license to dischonologize the events. Certain “difficulties” in the order of the days seem clearly to represent a dischronologization. On the first day God creates the evening and morning, but he does not create the luminaries to divide them until the fourth day. If this is a straightforward historical account, God created evening, morning, and days without luminaries and then created luminaries in order to effect them. Are we really to conclude that the division occurs without the dividers? It seems reasonable to assume that the narrator has offered a dischronologized presentation of the events in order to emphasize a theological point. God is not dependent on the luminaries. The narrator also subtly suggests a dischronologization by speaking of each of the first five days as “a day,” not “the day.” The narrator’s concern is not scientific or historical but theological and indirectly polemical against pagan mythologies. The narrator wishes clearly to establish that it is God who has created all and has dominion over all, including the seas, sun, and moon....The days of creation may also pose difficulties for a strict historical account. Contemporary scientists almost unanimously discount the possibility of creation in one week, and we cannot summarily discount the evidence of the earth sciences. General revelation in creation, as well as the special revelation of Scripture, is also the voice of God. We live in a "universe," and all truth speaks with one voice....Narrator must use metaphor and anthropomorphic language so that the reader can comprehend. When the text says that God said, commanded, called, and saw, are we to understand that God has vocal cords, lips, and eyes? Obviously this language is anthropomorphic, representational of the truth that God creates. If the narrator’s descriptions of God are anthropomorphic, might not the days and other aspects also be anthropomorphic? […]the time of creation is presented in anthropomorphic language of days so that humankind might mime the Creator. Since we cannot participate in vast stretches of time, how else could we imitate the creator, except with finite terms such as a week?

i agree with most of that. except for the last point that was made. the bible uses all sorts of better language to describe vast streches of time other than in terms of "days" or "a week" in order to communicate the idea. i don't see why this particular instance should be given such a liberal interpretation. that would be inconsistent with how one reads the rest of scripture.

You've been under the wrong impression and using a definition that is not correct.

haha so again i'll ask you guys, what is your definition for "liberalism"? is it really that hard to define it? i mean i read the introduction for the wiki entry on liberalism, but it's so vague that almost all conservatives would fall within their scope of liberalism.

What evasiveness? Your answer was "read this book" - I responded I had read the book. How is that evasive?

well, let's talk about how you're still being evasive...

does the c.s. lewis passage not point to a higher moral law? (because you just completely ignored it again)

Again, quoting me passages from an author I know better than you, is redundant. My point was that absolutes are not possible when discussing morality because even the Bible is inconsistent in it's teachings.

if you don't know how to read the bible it is. if you're jason tate, and you're trying to argue instead of understand, then yeah, you're absolutely right. orr...maybe just "right". i'm not sure about the "absolutely" part. right?

Moral law is a misnomer; probably even a oxymoron.

but that's just your subjective interpretation right? so your interpretation of the phrase "moral law" really doesn't matter. i've met hundreds of other people that would say otherwise. and objectivity aside, subjectively, i like their interpretation a lot more than i like yours. they seem like more sincere people.

Therefore proving inconsistency and a selective (and therefore subjective) interpretation of the Bible. Why accept it as literal when it suits you and not here when it does not? The Bible is either infallible and you accept it all - or it's not and you can interpret. Why are you changing your stance based on which is better for your argument?

when have i changed my stance?

Again, telling me to read books? Is this part of your everyday life? If Jesus is the complete fulfillment of the law - then your arguments in this thread are pointless. Your stance on capital punishment wrong, and your stance on justice and rebels and abortion - also wrong.

how so?

Polygamy:
Exodus 21:10, 2 Samuel 5:13, 1 Chronicles 3:1-9, 14:3 (Backed by: Matthew 5:17-18) and then Matthew 19:1-12, Matthew 22:23-32, and Matthew 25:1-13.

exodus 21:10 is addressing a female servant, not a spouse.
2 samuel 5:13, 1 chronicles 3:1-9, and 1 chronicles 14:3 don't speak as to whether or not god approves of david's concubines and wives. they merely state that he had them.
matthew 19:1-2, matthew 22:23-32, and matthew 25:1-13 don't support polygamy.
matthew 5:17-18 supports the law, not polygamy.

did you even give those a semi-close read before you posted them?

Slavery:
Leviticus 25:44-46, Exodus 21:2-6, Ephesians 6:5, 1 Timothy 6:1-2, Luke 12:47-48.

the bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery. tt gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (deuteronomy 15:12-15; ephesians 6:9; colossians 4:1), but does not outlaw the practice altogether. many see this as the bible condoning all forms of slavery. what many people fail to understand is that slavery in the biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. the slavery in the bible was not based on race. people were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. in biblical times, slavery was more of a social status. people sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their family. in new testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, even politicians were slaves of someone else. some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their master. the slavery of the past few centuries was often based exclusively on skin color. black people were considered slaves because of their nationality – many slave owners truly believed black people to be inferior human beings to white people. the bible most definitely does condemn race-based slavery. consider the slavery the hebrews experienced when they were in egypt. the hebrews were slaves, not by choice, but because they were hebrews (exodus 13:14). the plagues god poured out on egypt demonstrate how god feels about racial slavery (exodus 7-11). so, yes, the bible does condemn some forms of slavery. at the same time, the bible does seem to allow for other forms of slavery. the key issue is that the slavery the bible allowed for in no way resembled the racial slavery that plagued our world in the past few centuries.

Wife Abuse:
Exodus 21:7

exactly what kind of abuse are you referring to? secondly, where does this passage speak about a wife?

Incest:
Two humans cannot populate the earth without incest having taken place. (Genesis 20:11-12)

the command for humans not to engage in incest was also given hundreds if not thousands of years after cain...most likely because genetic imperfections hadn't started accumulating at this point in time. i thought you were pretty biblically literate?

How is that not obvious?
people disagree on things all the time. this doesn't mean that all of them are equally valid.
if somebody says, "i want to throw out the book of john." and when asked why, they reply, "i just don't like what it's communicating...personal preference," this would not follow the rules of canonization. there are guidelines for all the things that you listed. just as there are good and bad people in the world. many bad people distort scripture based on their personal preferences. this, however, doesn't mean that he original substance hasn't been completely transmitted without error. discoveries such as the dead sea scrolls support me in this claim. differences in style should also never be confused with differences in substance.

The point is that an appeal to emotion is not rational or logical (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nizkor.org%2Ff eatures%2Ffallacies%2Fappeal-to-emotion.html&ei=ysnQRdCQAZP2owL24oCvAw&usg=__O_Gi3wI4hm_f_6mabcVyFsmrs-4=&sig2=LqKwXlxRegiEC7Pft-a5lw).

i understand. asking if you've ever watched an live abortion isn't an appeal to emotion. it's a matter of factuality.

Your hypocrisies know no bounds.

how am i being hypocritical?

Yet you're unable to rebut it? Interesting.

i did rebut. that's what you responded to right below this.

Correct, saving the lives of those that would attempt self-abortions or seek unclean abortions and making the lives better for the populace is important to me.

who do you think has more potential for success in this world...?
1. a girl who tries to give herself an abortion with a coat hanger or
2. a newborn baby

Not at all, one's a self made choice, the other is not.

so getting pregnant isn't a choice? when people have sex they are choosing the possibility of preganancy are they not?

And the point you bring up: is the women's choice to do so. That's important to note -- you're allowing them that choice. Think about it.

no. i think you missed the point i was making. these same women that were able to make that (difficult) choice, also believe that women shouldn't have a choice in the matter. and because they show that much more character, i'm more inclined to listen to them than a girl that feels the need to kill her baby for "economic" reasons and then scream "pro-choice".

s.t.e.v.e.n.

02/12/07, 05:16 PM

who do you think has more potential for success in this world...?
1. a girl who tries to give herself an abortion with a coat hanger or
2. a newborn baby

they are both lives though
again, i'm pro-life
that statement however, makes me sick

rufiocardtime

02/12/07, 05:29 PM

But they're not the same -- or even remotely related. How is that a valid analogy?

because they are both objective in nature.

Well, all be, I'm convinced! Haha.

well maybe now you can see why conservatives (in general) spend much more time on philosophy and worldviews than liberals (in general). conservatives know that two people arguing from two different philosophies is futile argument. most liberals i've met still fail to grasp this in the slightest. (i.e. all your little cronies that suck your dick in this thread.)

To "demonstrate" and "interpret" you must impart a subjective fold onto the subject at hand.

and...? what does that have to do with the subject itself being objective or subjective in nature? let's not forget that somebody's description of the subject and the subject itself are still two different things.

Then why is the Bible inconsistent in it's teaching of Justice? Why in one passage is it an "eye for an eye," and in the other "turn the other cheek"? How do we utilize an "absolute justice" system that is not absolute in itself?

jesus addressed this head on in matthew 5. "an eye for an eye" was a civil law. jesus knows that our governments would be completely ineffective if they just "turned the other cheek" when enforcing the law of the land. but this sermon isn't address to governments, it's addressed to individuals. the higher moral law for us as individuals is to show mercy and forgiveness. but of course if our governments forgave every wrong doing, this world would be absolute chaos and defeat the whole purpose of governments. and the bible tells us that the lord instituted governments among men for a reason. there is no inconsistency here if you approach the teaching with the slightest humility.

How do we force a nation that does not all adhere or believe in where the system comes from to follow it blindly? We cannot. This is why there is a separation between church and state. Because while you may believe in the moral ruler that comes from your interpretation (key word) of the Bible, others do not -- therefore, justice becomes, for it's own benefit and survival: subjective.

no. justice remains objective. some people just wish to redefine the whole concept, namely liberals.

rufiocardtime

02/12/07, 05:30 PM

they are both lives though
again, i'm pro-life
that statement however, makes me sick

good. we can agree on something then.

atticus1492

02/12/07, 05:39 PM

haha so again i'll ask you guys, what is your definition for "liberalism"? is it really that hard to define it? i mean i read the introduction for the wiki entry on liberalism, but it's so vague that almost all conservatives would fall within their scope of liberalism.

That is because Liberalism is the political ideology generally followed by American conservatives.

thejetstolehome

02/12/07, 05:42 PM

because they are both objective in nature.

only math is objective of the three. there is only one answer in a math problem, there are multiple "answers" to the "questions" of morality and justice.

no. justice remains objective. some people just wish to redefine the whole concept, namely liberals.

please, define justice then. from what you've been saying i assume you mean it in a biblical, religious sense?

Jason Tate

02/12/07, 05:47 PM

i would have figured that if such a large amount of scripture has been so blatantly and carelessly minstranslated, distorted, etc. over the ages that at least one small example in particular might come to mind?

You asked for specifics from the text, not broad examples. I will be unable to explain in detail and back up any of the claims made because I'm without the source material.

However, if you wish we can start with how the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" states that inerrancy applies only to the original languages.

I suppose the elementary source online would be Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_English_Bible).

We must also take into account, the discoveries of the Dead Sea scrolls and Codex Sinaiticus, and how they have led to modern translations differing from the older ones.

The famous findings are Comma Johanneum, Mark 16, and John 21.

i agree with most of that. except for the last point that was made. the bible uses all sorts of better language to describe vast streches of time other than in terms of "days" or "a week" in order to communicate the idea. i don't see why this particular instance should be given such a liberal interpretation. that would be inconsistent with how one reads the rest of scripture.

Then you accept that the Bible cannot be taken literally; which was the original task you asked me to discuss.

haha so again i'll ask you guys, what is your definition for "liberalism"? is it really that hard to define it? i mean i read the introduction for the wiki entry on liberalism, but it's so vague that almost all conservatives would fall within their scope of liberalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

This is elementary education here from an elementary source.

well, let's talk about how you're still being evasive...

Ok? Go for it ...

does the c.s. lewis passage not point to a higher moral law? (because you just completely ignored it again)

Again? This was the first time you posted it. The passage points to many things, however it does not point to an ABSOLUTE moral law which is at the fundimentals of our argument.

if you don't know how to read the bible it is.

How to read the Bible? Interesting - I think the Bible's quite clear on this topic. I'm more than capable of reading it.

if you're jason tate, and you're trying to argue instead of understand, then yeah, you're absolutely right. orr...maybe just "right". i'm not sure about the "absolutely" part. right?

The goal is not understanding - the goal is righting your misinterpretations of scripture. I am not sure what you're trying to make me "understand." You will not convince me of your convoluted view of the Bible, nor will you convince me to abandon the brain I've been given. Turning off reason simply to suit your argument is ridiculous.

but that's just your subjective interpretation right? so your interpretation of the phrase "moral law" really doesn't matter.

It matters to me, and me alone.

i've met hundreds of other people that would say otherwise. and objectivity aside, subjectively, i like their interpretation a lot more than i like yours. they seem like more sincere people.

Well, an appeal to popularity (Argumentum ad Populum) does not make your argument logical or valid. And if you are going to change your line of thinking to be that of the masses, you must accept their decision on all things -- not just those you agree with. This would render your abortion claims obsolete.

when have i changed my stance?

You just argued for a subjective interpretation while claiming objectivity from the start.

how so?

I thought even a Sunday school examination and understanding of Jesus' life would suffice in answering this. Matthew 5:38-42.

exodus 21:10 is addressing a female servant, not a spouse.
2 samuel 5:13, 1 chronicles 3:1-9, and 1 chronicles 14:3 don't speak as to whether or not god approves of david's concubines and wives. they merely state that he had them.

This selective reasoning from the Bible is quite humerous. You realize once again you've entered into the subjective Bible realm, right?

matthew 19:1-2, matthew 22:23-32, and matthew 25:1-13 don't support polygamy.

In the above verses, we see that Jesus was approached with a question about whether or not it is allowed for a man to divorce his wife (Matthew 19:3). Jesus immediately referred to the Old Testament for the answer in Matthew 19:4. He referred to Adam and Eve, one man and one woman and while the story of Adam and Eve as one husband and one wife is correct it is also the Old Testament in which polygamy is allowed.

http://www.biblicalpolygamy.com

matthew 5:17-18 supports the law, not polygamy.

Supports the old law, which allowed polygamy.

did you even give those a semi-close read before you posted them?

Of course I did.

the bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery. tt gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (deuteronomy 15:12-15; ephesians 6:9; colossians 4:1), but does not outlaw the practice altogether. many see this as the bible condoning all forms of slavery. what many people fail to understand is that slavery in the biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. the slavery in the bible was not based on race. people were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. in biblical times, slavery was more of a social status. people sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their family. in new testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, even politicians were slaves of someone else. some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their master. the slavery of the past few centuries was often based exclusively on skin color. black people were considered slaves because of their nationality – many slave owners truly believed black people to be inferior human beings to white people. the bible most definitely does condemn race-based slavery. consider the slavery the hebrews experienced when they were in egypt. the hebrews were slaves, not by choice, but because they were hebrews (exodus 13:14). the plagues god poured out on egypt demonstrate how god feels about racial slavery (exodus 7-11). so, yes, the bible does condemn some forms of slavery. at the same time, the bible does seem to allow for other forms of slavery. the key issue is that the slavery the bible allowed for in no way resembled the racial slavery that plagued our world in the past few centuries.

I think you're the first slavery apologist I've ever seen. Wow. If anything your interpretation opens the up even more subjective morality. Moses killed his slave master - are we therefore allowed to do this?

exactly what kind of abuse are you referring to? secondly, where does this passage speak about a wife?

Did you not read it?

the command for humans not to engage in incest was also given hundreds if not thousands of years after cain...most likely because genetic imperfections hadn't started accumulating at this point in time. i thought you were pretty biblically literate?

Be careful with the phrase "genetic imperfections" - that implies evolution. The question was if incest occurred and if it was at one time sanctioned. My example was that it was (and again after Noah was again).

people disagree on things all the time. this doesn't mean that all of them are equally valid.

Not what I was getting at all.

if somebody says, "i want to throw out the book of john." and when asked why, they reply, "i just don't like what it's communicating...personal preference," this would not follow the rules of canonization. there are guidelines for all the things that you listed. just as there are good and bad people in the world. many bad people distort scripture based on their personal preferences. this, however, doesn't mean that he original substance hasn't been completely transmitted without error. discoveries such as the dead sea scrolls support me in this claim. differences in style should also never be confused with differences in substance.

Differences in selective substance however is what I'm refering to.

i understand. asking if you've ever watched an live abortion isn't an appeal to emotion. it's a matter of factuality.

And I answered.

how am i being hypocritical?

Oh come on.

i did rebut. that's what you responded to right below this.

Hahaha, really? Left out 90% of the issue - but okay - I'll let it go.

who do you think has more potential for success in this world...?
1. a girl who tries to give herself an abortion with a coat hanger or
2. a newborn baby

You think who lives or dies should be based on potential success in the world? Now, that's an interesting twist I didn't see coming. Damn man, that's messed up.

so getting pregnant isn't a choice?

Not 100% of the time it's not.

when people have sex they are choosing the possibility of preganancy are they not?

When I drive my car do you find it acceptable that I'm "choosing the possibility" of death and therefore if I'm struck by another individual he should be let off free? Possibilities don't equal reality - that's why they're called POSSIBILITIES. Words mean things.

no. i think you missed the point i was making. these same women that were able to make that (difficult) choice, also believe that women shouldn't have a choice in the matter. and because they show that much more character, i'm more inclined to listen to them than a girl that feels the need to kill her baby for "economic" reasons and then scream "pro-choice".

Again, you can listen to whoever you want to -- that's your prerogative, but making a moral statement and declaration for all based on the few is absurd. This can't be something you'd hold to be universal or would allow someone to use if it impacted you.

rufiocardtime

02/12/07, 05:50 PM

http://wesley.nnu.edu/holiness_tradition/wiley/wiley-1-16.htm

there's quite a few scholars that make a compelling case in the other direction. but because i don't speak hebrew, i'm going to sit on the sidelines and watch the debate of the word "day" or "yom" and how it should be applied here. i lean in the direction of a literal day. others lean elsewhere. it really doesn't make or break the old testament either way.

An individual must conclude that the likelihood of the theory being correct is greater than that of the creation theology because there is evidence of it. Many of the the universal physical laws we take as true are merely theories, which have some evidence, but cannot necessarily be proven. The date set we do have, however, allows us to make educated decisions as to the viability of them. Creationism, on the other hand, cannot be objectively verified because of its foundation in the metaphysical.

don't photons exists within the metaphysical? they have no spacial demensions, mass, and aren't bound by the limitations of time. they don't really exist within the physical world, although they interface with it and we are next to certain that they exist?

This is patently false. Evolution has been observed and tested many times within nature. For example, the rise of different forms of species and viruses are evidence of evolution. There have laboratory experiments on various species that have shown natural selection and the dominance of new characteristics, while others become recessive.

humans have never once witnessed a new species arrive from another. natural selection and macro evolution are two COMPLETELY different things. natural selection has been observed. macro evolution has not. darwin's theory was that natural selection was the mechanism for macro evolution. so, no, my statement was accurate.

Jason Tate

02/12/07, 05:56 PM

because they are both objective in nature.

Wrong - this has already been discussed and you've shown yourself that the text you declare to be the moral "objective" source is itself subjective. Therefore - this cannot be true.

well maybe now you can see why conservatives (in general) spend much more time on philosophy and worldviews than liberals (in general).

Uh. What?

conservatives know that two people arguing from two different philosophies is futile argument.

Then why do you (according to the quote above) spend "so much more time" on it?

most liberals i've met still fail to grasp this in the slightest. (i.e. all your little cronies that suck your dick in this thread.)

Are you not in here engaging them in discussion as well? Not my fault the masses disagree with you.

and...? what does that have to do with the subject itself being objective or subjective in nature? let's not forget that somebody's description of the subject and the subject itself are still two different things.

Descriptions are subjective.

jesus addressed this head on in matthew 5. "an eye for an eye" was a civil law. jesus knows that our governments would be completely ineffective if they just "turned the other cheek" when enforcing the law of the land.

Really? Where's he say that?

but this sermon isn't address to governments, it's addressed to individuals.

So we have two separate moral laws now?

the higher moral law for us as individuals is to show mercy and forgiveness.

Ok, the higher moral law is for us as individuals -- therefore, those individuals that choose to reject it can. Therefore it's not meant to be attached to the government. Therefore, abortion should be legal because it's a government event. I can accept that.

but of course if our governments forgave every wrong doing, this world would be absolute chaos and defeat the whole purpose of governments.

Sounds hypocritical to me.

and the bible tells us that the lord instituted governments among men for a reason. there is no inconsistency here if you approach the teaching with the slightest humility.

Of if you look for what you want to read and apply a "moral law" to everyone across the board regardless of their faith.

no. justice remains objective. some people just wish to redefine the whole concept, namely liberals.

You already proved yourself wrong on this topic as you yourself have used a subjective view to define justice.

Stop using your twisted religion to declare what's right and just for everyone.

Jason Tate

02/12/07, 05:57 PM

aminorthreat55

02/12/07, 06:28 PM

Jason, I don't even know why you bother with this kid.

rufiocardtime

02/12/07, 07:47 PM

Wrong - this has already been discussed and you've shown yourself that the text you declare to be the moral "objective" source is itself subjective. Therefore - this cannot be true.

how did i show the source to be subjective?

Uh. What?

did i stutter? that question is rhetorical.

Then why do you (according to the quote above) spend "so much more time" on it?

understanding the foundations of liberal philosophy allows me to better communicate with liberals. it allows me to win more people over towards objectivism.

Are you not in here engaging them in discussion as well? Not my fault the masses disagree with you.

i guess if you consider "the masses" your few online buddies that run around and kiss your ass.

Descriptions are subjective.

sometimes. sometimes not. if i asked you to describe the color blue, your description would be subjective in nature. if i asked you to describe a geometric line, your description would have to be objective in nature (you just might be lying and/or making a mistake in regards to your description of it).

Really? Where's he say that?

i thought common sense didn't always require an explanation. refer back to "worship him with all your heart, soul, [B]and mind[B]."

So we have two separate moral laws now?

are you playing stupid? i can't tell if you're faking it or not. i can't see your expression or hear your tone of voice.

Ok, the higher moral law is for us as individuals -- therefore, those individuals that choose to reject it can. Therefore it's not meant to be attached to the government. Therefore, abortion should be legal because it's a government event. I can accept that.

but in our government, individuals determine the government. the government doesn't determine the individuals. and your argument is still faulty. as individuals we could still choose to murder, this doesn't mean that our government should allow it just because individuals can choose to reject the moral law.

Sounds hypocritical to me.

how so?

Of if you look for what you want to read and apply a "moral law" to everyone across the board regardless of their faith.

that (wasn't a) statement didn't make any sense.

You already proved yourself wrong on this topic as you yourself have used a subjective view to define justice.

haha but i haven't given a definition of justice yet? are you even reading what i write?

Stop using your twisted religion to declare what's right and just for everyone.

stop begging the question and learn how to debate with a little bit of rationality.

Jason Tate

02/12/07, 09:15 PM

Jason, I don't even know why you bother with this kid.
He's already proved himself wrong -- no real reason for me to continue; however, it's engaging - and almost entertaining when he starts calling people names. It's interesting to see what's allowed by his "objective moral law" and what's not. Quite interesting indeed.

Love As Arson

02/12/07, 09:41 PM

there's quite a few scholars that make a compelling case in the other direction. but because i don't speak hebrew, i'm going to sit on the sidelines and watch the debate of the word "day" or "yom" and how it should be applied here. i lean in the direction of a literal day. others lean elsewhere. it really doesn't make or break the old testament either way.
The usage of the word depends on context, so one may understand the way in which it was used by looking at the text. The use of day is done prior to the creation of the sun and the moon, therefore one may gather from that that the usage of the word was not the twenty-four hour period, because it did not exist.

don't photons exists within the metaphysical?
No.

they have no spacial demensions, mass, and aren't bound by the limitations of time. they don't really exist within the physical world, although they interface with it and we are next to certain that they exist?
The theological branch of metaphysics does not provide cannot verifiable evidence of anything. Furthermore, Christian theology necessitates such a thing, because it is rooted in faith.

humans have never once witnessed a new species arrive from another. natural selection and macro evolution are two COMPLETELY different things. natural selection has been observed. macro evolution has not. darwin's theory was that natural selection was the mechanism for macro evolution. so, no, my statement was accurate.
The arrival of variations in species have been witnessed. An example of evidence for macroevolution is the fossils reptiles with characteristics of birds that now exist. On the other hand, one has no evidence for the argument that the world was created as it is.

Love As Arson

02/12/07, 09:58 PM

but in our government, individuals determine the government. the government doesn't determine the individuals.
Governments do play a role in the socialization process, so one finds things like the belief that one's country is the best in existence. This sort of system of propaganda exists to perpetuate the rule of government.

as individuals we could still choose to murder
Murder is fine in our society; one simply needs the proper context.

this doesn't mean that our government should allow it just because individuals can choose to reject the moral law.
Murder is not only immoral, but it is not functional for a society, especially one in which natural rights are presupposed.

Love As Arson

02/12/07, 10:04 PM

i thought common sense didn't always require an explanation. refer back to "worship him with all your heart, soul, [B]and mind[B]."
That contradicts the supposition that Christ's law is absolute. In essence, you are arguing this:

Christ's law must be followed by the people in order to get salvation.
The law are not used best for governmental policy.
The government is able to disregard the moral law.
Government is made up of people.
Some people are above the moral law.

rufiocardtime

02/12/07, 10:31 PM

That contradicts the supposition that Christ's law is absolute. In essence, you are arguing this:

Christ's law must be followed by the people in order to get salvation.
The law are not used best for governmental policy.
The government is able to disregard the moral law.
Government is made up of people.
Some people are above the moral law.

no. i'm not.

salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in christ, not by the works of man.

x togepi x

02/12/07, 10:32 PM

haha i wish i wouldn't have missed this objective moral law argument

it's always funny because most people who claim said laws always seem to pick the laws that themselves profess to follow...even though most of the time they don't even follow them.

rufiocardtime

02/12/07, 10:33 PM

i'll try to catch back up with all the replies tomorrow. and i haven't forgotted about your long-winded reply a page or two back, tate. i'm off to bed for the evening.

take care.

rufiocardtime

02/12/07, 10:34 PM

Love As Arson

02/12/07, 10:35 PM

no. i'm not.

salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in christ, not by the works of man.
Perhaps I mischaracterized your theological beliefs, however, you still seem to be saying that god's moral law may be disgarded by those in government, despite the supposition that it is absolute.

x togepi x

02/12/07, 10:39 PM

no. i lust all the time. i know that it's wrong. but i still continue to do it.

You realize that basing a universal moral law on your religious beliefs cannot be justified philosophically, correct?

It's a faith based issue. There's no way you can logically argue for it.

Jason Tate

02/12/07, 10:47 PM

You realize that basing a universal moral law on your religious beliefs cannot be justified philosophically, correct?

It's a faith based issue. There's no way you can logically argue for it.
He's arguing a faith based moral law that he himself has interpreted is absolute. It's ridiculous, one can not argue that faith or interpretation are absolute.

Jason Tate

02/12/07, 10:49 PM

no. i'm not.

salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in christ, not by the works of man.

So now there is no law except that by which we're judged when we die?

x togepi x

02/12/07, 10:58 PM

He's arguing a faith based moral law that he himself has interpreted is absolute. It's ridiculous, one can not argue that faith or interpretation are absolute.

you can, you just have to prove 4 or 5 things that are impossible to prove.

clubberlang

02/12/07, 11:01 PM

holy bratwurst.

i just read this ENTIRE thing, and that rufiocardtime kid is freakin ignorant. IT DROVE ME CRAZY READING WHAT HE WAS SAYING!!! it wasnt just because i disagreed with him, it was because he wouldnt give ANY other opinion a chance. this was very entertaining, though frustrating. thanks to all that took part in this. lol.

Jason Tate

02/12/07, 11:03 PM

you can, you just have to prove 4 or 5 things that are impossible to prove.
Hahaha. Easier said than done. ;-)

rufiocardtime

02/13/07, 07:01 AM

You realize that basing a universal moral law on your religious beliefs cannot be justified philosophically, correct?

It's a faith based issue. There's no way you can logically argue for it.

so is darwin's theory of evolution. you still must accept it on a certain level of faith.

rufiocardtime

02/13/07, 07:11 AM

So now there is no law except that by which we're judged when we die?

all men will be judged when they die by god's perfect judgement.

but the "good news" of christ's coming was that jews would no longer be judged by their obedience to the law, they would be judged apart from the law. salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in christ alone. salvation is not through faith in the law.

although this principle was still upheld in the old testament (as we see abraham was still made righteous by faith, not by the law) christ was the complete embodiment of this concept and also the complete fulfillment of the law.

Love As Arson

02/13/07, 08:47 AM

There is evidence for evolution. The supernatural, by definition, cannot be proven, as it exists outside of the realm of science.

x togepi x

02/13/07, 02:55 PM

so is darwin's theory of evolution. you still must accept it on a certain level of faith.

Darwin's theory of evolution is something that is completely irrelevant to how i act. People don't base their decisions on what theory of creation is correct. That's a false analogy.

You are claiming that there is an objective moral law based on your religious beliefs. You have the burden of proof. Show me God is real. Show me he's the only God. Show me these objective beliefs that supposedly exist. Then show me how you're using the correct interpretation. Then show me how your interpretation of that interpretation is correct. Then show me that my interpretation of your interpretation is correct.

you can't. If you could prove that God is real, it wouldn't be faith. It'd be fact. I don't have faith that I'm typing this on a laptop...I just am. Likewise, I want to tie morality, if such a thing exists, onto principles that can be proven by reason, not via a faith based exercise.

The purpose of my "you prove me this and this and this" paragraph was to show that nothing is truly objective. There are always going to be subjective interpretations of this so-called objective thing. The Bible is a perfect proof of this. There are so many denominations claiming to have the correct interpretation of the bible, and even within these denominations there are individuals who claim to have a more correct interpretation than those around them. Yet, the truth of God is supposed to be objective?

Jason Tate

02/13/07, 03:03 PM

Darwin's theory of evolution is something that is completely irrelevant to how i act. People don't base their decisions on what theory of creation is correct. That's a false analogy.

You are claiming that there is an objective moral law based on your religious beliefs. You have the burden of proof. Show me God is real. Show me he's the only God. Show me these objective beliefs that supposedly exist. Then show me how you're using the correct interpretation. Then show me how your interpretation of that interpretation is correct. Then show me that my interpretation of your interpretation is correct.

you can't. If you could prove that God is real, it wouldn't be faith. It'd be fact. I don't have faith that I'm typing this on a laptop...I just am. Likewise, I want to tie morality, if such a thing exists, onto principles that can be proven by reason, not via a faith based exercise.

The purpose of my "you prove me this and this and this" paragraph was to show that nothing is truly objective. There are always going to be subjective interpretations of this so-called objective thing. The Bible is a perfect proof of this. There are so many denominations claiming to have the correct interpretation of the bible, and even within these denominations there are individuals who claim to have a more correct interpretation than those around them. Yet, the truth of God is supposed to be objective?
It's like an echo!

That's what I've been trying to say from the start: Interpretations and faith are subjective entities, nothing objective for an entire populace can therefore come from them.

rufiocardtime

02/13/07, 10:09 PM

Darwin's theory of evolution is something that is completely irrelevant to how i act. People don't base their decisions on what theory of creation is correct. That's a false analogy.

wrong.

i've met so many people that use darwin's theory of evolution as their rationale for being "an atheist". this makes absolutely no sense of course, because darwin's theory doesn't really have much to argue in terms of the existence of a god. and so with a closer examination we see that these individuals don't really like the idea of an absolute moral lawmaker in the first place and that's where they've started their supposed "investigation of the facts". the individual is fully aware that the admission of a god would require the individual to behave differently and thus make different decisions in life. so yes, these individuals try to use darwin's theory over and over again as part of their worldview in which they make decisions based upon. it is not a false analogy whatsoever. anything taken on faith (including the theory of evolution) that determines part or all of any worldview always influences personal decisions and behaviors.

You are claiming that there is an objective moral law based on your religious beliefs. You have the burden of proof.

technically anybody who makes a claim bears the burden of proof in formal debate. you guys have all made the claim that morality is subjective. and you guys have still failed bear the burden of your own claim as well because you haven't proved anything conclusively. but i think this is a little silly in the first place. as tate has already pointed out, i can't even "prove" that i'm a real person. so why should i be able to prove much else? anybody that wants to argue can always show you how your arguments don't equate with proof.

Show me God is real. Show me he's the only God. Show me these objective beliefs that supposedly exist.

despite what you tell others, what may be known about god is plain to you because god has made it plain to you. for since the creation of the world, god's invisible qualities (his eternal power and divine nature) have been clearly seen and can be understood from what has been made by observing the world around you. this was done so that you would be left without an excuse.

Then show me how you're using the correct interpretation. Then show me how your interpretation of that interpretation is correct. Then show me that my interpretation of your interpretation is correct.

i've already accomplished the first two. i could never accomplish the third though. i would never be able to know for certain whether you were lying or not.

you can't. If you could prove that God is real, it wouldn't be faith. It'd be fact. I don't have faith that I'm typing this on a laptop...I just am.

which still doesn't technically prove that you are...

Likewise, I want to tie morality, if such a thing exists, onto principles that can be proven by reason, not via a faith based exercise.

first of all, my faith is not irrational. my faith does not contradict facts or rationality. i simply look at as much evidence as i can within the world around me and put my faith in the best explanation. and so far the best explanation is that an absolute moral lawmaker exists and he's the same entity that created this universe. i've come to this conclusion by examining my own motives, educating myself on matters of philosophy, science, math, religion, phsychology, etc. and coming to a verdict. this doesn't mean that i've stopped looking for new evidence on all sides. i'm always open to new ideas, new facts, and new information that i can test in light of the other things that i know already know are true. i hold fast to that which is absolutely certain and keep looking for alternate explanation to everything else in the hopes that their may be a better explanation.

can't you agree that there are plenty of certainties in life that you cannot "prove"? of course you can. a closer examination at the world around you would show you that the world really doesn't put the truth in the highest esteem. their are so many elephants in the room that people don't like discussing. people ask for the truth but very few would like the whole thing. each of us wants to make out that his own modification of the truth is in fact the truth itself (each of us would like more matters to be subjective in life). you will find this again and again about anything that is obejctively true: everyone is attracted by parts of it and wants to pick out those parts (subjectively) and leave the rest. that is why we don't get much further and that is why people who are righting for quite opposite things can both say they are fighting for the obejective truth. most people are approaching the facts in the hope of finding support/justification for their own party.

The purpose of my "you prove me this and this and this" paragraph was to show that nothing is truly objective. There are always going to be subjective interpretations of this so-called objective thing.

then your last two statements commit suicide. if your last two statements can't be considered objectively true (because by your own admission within them "nothing is truly objective"), then your argument is self-refuting.

The Bible is a perfect proof of this. There are so many denominations claiming to have the correct interpretation of the bible, and even within these denominations there are individuals who claim to have a more correct interpretation than those around them.

i've already explained why disagreements among humans don't equate with a subjective reality in some of my other posts here.

Yet, the truth of God is supposed to be objective?

yes.

and i still haven't forgotten about your long response, tate.

when i get a good chunk of time i'll sit down and address it.

s.t.e.v.e.n.

02/13/07, 10:18 PM

to the human mind, a faith in the God of the Bible is irrational

x togepi x

02/13/07, 11:29 PM

wrong.

i've met so many people that use darwin's theory of evolution as their rationale for being "an atheist". this makes absolutely no sense of course, because darwin's theory doesn't really have much to argue in terms of the existence of a god. and so with a closer examination we see that these individuals don't really like the idea of an absolute moral lawmaker in the first place and that's where they've started their supposed "investigation of the facts". the individual is fully aware that the admission of a god would require the individual to behave differently and thus make different decisions in life. so yes, these individuals try to use darwin's theory over and over again as part of their worldview in which they make decisions based upon. it is not a false analogy whatsoever. anything taken on faith (including the theory of evolution) that determines part or all of any worldview always influences personal decisions and behaviors.

You're wrong. First, you generalize all people who are atheists, implying that they all have the same ethical system. That's not true.

You didn't actually understand what I said. On face value, Darwin's Theory of Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with morality. Nothing. It's a false analogy. you can try and spin this with your logic, but it doesn't matter what some people do in the real world. We're arguing about theoretical concepts. Like I said, on face value, this has nothing to do with ethics. Darwin's theory neither proves nor disproves the idea that there's universal moral law.

You were using it to discount my analysis of your ideas. You can't do that. It's fallacious reasoning.

technically anybody who makes a claim bears the burden of proof in formal debate. you guys have all made the claim that morality is subjective. and you guys have still failed bear the burden of your own claim as well because you haven't proved anything conclusively. but i think this is a little silly in the first place. as tate has already pointed out, i can't even "prove" that i'm a real person. so why should i be able to prove much else? anybody that wants to argue can always show you how your arguments don't equate with proof.

If this is silly, why are you arguing with us?

The only claim I have made in this discussion is that you shouldn't be arguing about universal moral values because you can't prove they exist. If you want burden of proof, just look at your posts. You haven't proved anything.

So here's my argument:
P1: You can't prove God Exists
P2: Since you can't prove God Exists, you can't prove that God has given us universal moral laws.
P3: You claim that God gives us universal moral laws.
Conclusion: Since You can't prove God exists, you can't prove your universal moral laws.

despite what you tell others, what may be known about god is plain to you because god has made it plain to you. for since the creation of the world, god's invisible qualities (his eternal power and divine nature) have been clearly seen and can be understood from what has been made by observing the world around you. this was done so that you would be left without an excuse.

lol.

You cannot prove to observe God's existence. Your proof can also be explained scientifically, hence the idea that this is something you have on faith. If you could prove God was real, we wouldn't be having this debate. We'd look it up on wikipedia. You can't reference any source other than "observation"

If God's invisible, has eternal power (which can't be observed by time) and created the world before we existed, then he's NOT observable. You're bringing a mystic element in a debate that's coming from reason. You can't do that. Factually back your claims up.

Otherwise, I can say that Darfur, The Holocaust, Hurricane Katrina, The 2004 Tsunami all prove that God doesn't exist. That's not a claim I want to make, but if you're saying we can observe instances of God's existence in this world, then I can turn around say here's some glaring instances that show there's no existence.

Both of these claims are faith based. We're not talking about your specific faith. When you say that there's a universal moral law, you are claiming that said we are bound to said law regardless of our faith. If you're going to do something like that, you need to prove that these laws exist outside of faith. You can have faith in said universal moral law all you want, but you can't prove it.

i've already accomplished the first two. i could never accomplish the third though. i would never be able to know for certain whether you were lying or not.

which still doesn't technically prove that you are...

You haven't accomplished any of them, but you already admit that you can't accomplish the third (proof of your interpretation being the correct one) Say goodbye to your universal objective moral values, as you have now proved that they don't apply to everyone, since others disagree on what these laws are, and that they're not objective because your belief in which laws exist and which don't is solely based on your own subjective interpretation of them.

Couple that with the fact that I will also interpret whatever you say in my own subjective way, there's no way you can show objective moral laws exist, as they will always be interpreted in a subjective way. They're subjective. You just want to claim they're objective.

first of all, my faith is not irrational.

Read some Kierkegaard please.

my faith does not contradict facts or rationality.

Yes it does. It's not a fact, otherwise you could prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. God's existence would be like the boiling point of water, we could just look it up. We can't, thus it's not a fact.

But you do contradict rationality. You're using a mystical concept of God which exists outside of reality. You can't do that. You can't take something like that, which you admit to being mysterious and invisible, and claim that this is rational.

I'm sure belief in God makes sense to you, but in the terms of this debate, you are not using reason at all. You're deferring to religious authority. I show you why you can't do that, and you just turn around and say God proves it again. If you could use this religious authority as a rational source, I wouldn't be taking an Ethics class. all those philosophers would just turn to the Bible.

i simply look at as much evidence as i can within the world around me and put my faith in the best explanation. and so far the best explanation is that an absolute moral lawmaker exists and he's the same entity that created this universe. i've come to this conclusion by examining my own motives, educating myself on matters of philosophy, science, math, religion, phsychology, etc. and coming to a verdict. this doesn't mean that i've stopped looking for new evidence on all sides. i'm always open to new ideas, new facts, and new information that i can test in light of the other things that i know already know are true. i hold fast to that which is absolutely certain and keep looking for alternate explanation to everything else in the hopes that their may be a better explanation.

This is a nice story, but it shows a subjective look for the truth. I'm really glad that you do all this, don't get me wrong, but this story won't apply to humanity. You can't use your subjective search for truth as proof that there's universal moral law. It's not an objective proof at all. What you're doing is just saying "here's how i got to my conclusion", without actually showing any evidence to back it up.

But, if you've educated yourself on philosophy, i'd say keep reading, because if you had really, you'd know that you can't prove a universal moral law through religious authority. There are much better ways to make this argument.

can't you agree that there are plenty of certainties in life that you cannot "prove"?

If you can't prove it, it's not a certainty.

of course you can. a closer examination at the world around you would show you that the world really doesn't put the truth in the highest esteem. their are so many elephants in the room that people don't like discussing. people ask for the truth but very few would like the whole thing.

This sounds exactly what you're doing. You have an idea in your head, we say you can't prove it. You just go along claiming you proved it. You're not putting truth to the highest esteem. if you were, you'd be enlightening us on how to prove this objective universal law exists

each of us wants to make out that his own modification of the truth is in fact the truth itself (each of us would like more matters to be subjective in life). you will find this again and again about anything that is obejctively true: everyone is attracted by parts of it and wants to pick out those parts (subjectively) and leave the rest.

That's because these things aren't objectively true! Every claim you will ever make in your life will be subjective. The things you think are true will be based on your outlook on life which applies only to you.

then your last two statements commit suicide. if your last two statements can't be considered objectively true (because by your own admission within them "nothing is truly objective"), then your argument is self-refuting.

to be human is to be a contradiction. we're constantly searching for the meaning of life in an existence that looks absurd. that, in itself is a contradiction.

You already admit that you lust even though you think it's wrong. You can't claim that my argument is self refuting now that you admit that you, yourself is a contradiction. But hey, this will really piss you off but, every claim I make is subjective, so it's not self refuting. I'm not saying what I say is true will be true to everyone else. That's what you're doing.

i've already explained why disagreements among humans don't equate with a subjective reality in some of my other posts here..

it is impossible for us to look at the world objectively. objectivity does not exist.

rufiocardtime

02/16/07, 12:18 AM

You're wrong. First, you generalize all people who are atheists, implying that they all have the same ethical system. That's not true.

no, i generalized SOME atheists in order to show that darwin's theory affects peoples decisions in life and proving your previous claim wrong.

You didn't actually understand what I said. On face value, Darwin's Theory of Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with morality. Nothing. It's a false analogy. you can try and spin this with your logic, but it doesn't matter what some people do in the real world. We're arguing about theoretical concepts. Like I said, on face value, this has nothing to do with ethics. Darwin's theory neither proves nor disproves the idea that there's universal moral law.

at face value, believing that the bible gives an accurate historical account has nothing to do with morality either.

You were using it to discount my analysis of your ideas. You can't do that. It's fallacious reasoning.

no. you said that darwin's theory of evolution doesn't affect people's decisions in life. i proved to you that it does. there was no fallacy. i'm right and you're wrong.

If this is silly, why are you arguing with us?

i believe that anybody who is asking me questions about what i believe and why i believe it deserves good answers. but if it reaches a certain level of ridiculousness (which you guys aren't too far from), then i'll have no choice but to cut you guys off.

So here's my argument:
P1: You can't prove God Exists
P2: Since you can't prove God Exists, you can't prove that God has given us universal moral laws.
P3: You claim that God gives us universal moral laws.
Conclusion: Since You can't prove God exists, you can't prove your universal moral laws.

i don't necessarily need to prove that god exists in order to demonstrate the existence of universal moral laws.

You cannot prove to observe God's existence. Your proof can also be explained scientifically, hence the idea that this is something you have on faith. If you could prove God was real, we wouldn't be having this debate. We'd look it up on wikipedia. You can't reference any source other than "observation".

If God's invisible, has eternal power (which can't be observed by time) and created the world before we existed, then he's NOT observable. You're bringing a mystic element in a debate that's coming from reason. You can't do that. Factually back your claims up.

if there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe – no more than the architect of a house could actually be a wall or a staircase or fireplace in that house. the only way in which we could expect it to show itself would be inside ourselves as an influence or a command trying to get us to behave in a certain way. and that is just what we do find inside ourselves. - c.s. lewis

Otherwise, I can say that Darfur, The Holocaust, Hurricane Katrina, The 2004 Tsunami all prove that God doesn't exist. That's not a claim I want to make, but if you're saying we can observe instances of God's existence in this world, then I can turn around say here's some glaring instances that show there's no existence.

how would these catastrophes show that there is no existence of a god? if anything, i would say that they add more evidence to the case that i'm making.

Both of these claims are faith based. We're not talking about your specific faith. When you say that there's a universal moral law, you are claiming that said we are bound to said law regardless of our faith. If you're going to do something like that, you need to prove that these laws exist outside of faith. You can have faith in said universal moral law all you want, but you can't prove it.

i don't really need to prove that you are bound by it because you just are. just as, i don't really need to prove (and i can't prove) that you are a real person sitting behind a computer. i just have faith that you are. i can't prove that when i wake up tomorrow morning my car is going to start. i just have faith that it will. if you would like to disobey the moral law, i cannot stop you. everything that we accept in life must be taken on a certain level of faith. it's a very real possibility that this is all one big hallucination. we both just have faith that it isn't.

You haven't accomplished any of them, but you already admit that you can't accomplish the third (proof of your interpretation being the correct one) Say goodbye to your universal objective moral values, as you have now proved that they don't apply to everyone, since others disagree on what these laws are, and that they're not objective because your belief in which laws exist and which don't is solely based on your own subjective interpretation of them.

but it's also true that you can't prove your subjective philosophy is the correct one either. on these grounds alone, there is no reason why one should accept your claims over mine. thus, one is forced to look at other evidence and put their faith in the best explanation rather than ending the debate at the "you can't prove anything" argument.

Couple that with the fact that I will also interpret whatever you say in my own subjective way, there's no way you can show objective moral laws exist, as they will always be interpreted in a subjective way. They're subjective. You just want to claim they're objective.

if the very thing you just said is subjective, then once again, it commits suicide. if what you just said has no bearing within an objective frame of reference, then the very significance of all your words has no real bearing on anyone or anything except yourself.

Read some Kierkegaard please.

maybe one day when i have more time. i've been given enough recommended reading to last me at least a couple years right now.

Yes it does. It's not a fact, otherwise you could prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. God's existence would be like the boiling point of water, we could just look it up. We can't, thus it's not a fact.

so being able to just "look up" a peice of information makes it true?

But you do contradict rationality. You're using a mystical concept of God which exists outside of reality. You can't do that. You can't take something like that, which you admit to being mysterious and invisible, and claim that this is rational.

no, as of yet, i have not contradicted rationality at all within this conversation. "mystical" is your word. not mine. don't set up a straw god. "mysterious"? yes. "invisible"? yes. but these qualities don't disqualify anything or any idea from debate.

I'm sure belief in God makes sense to you, but in the terms of this debate, you are not using reason at all. You're deferring to religious authority. I show you why you can't do that, and you just turn around and say God proves it again.

please quote me saying "god proves it again." right now you're just making things up. if this was a real debate the judge would have already thrown you out.

If you could use this religious authority as a rational source, I wouldn't be taking an Ethics class. all those philosophers would just turn to the Bible.

i can use it as a rational source if you'd give me the opportunity to explain why it's rational. so far you've just been saying "it's irrational" and "that doesn't prove anything" in response to everything i've said. which, as i previously stated, is ridiculous.

This is a nice story, but it shows a subjective look for the truth. I'm really glad that you do all this, don't get me wrong, but this story won't apply to humanity. You can't use your subjective search for truth as proof that there's universal moral law. It's not an objective proof at all. What you're doing is just saying "here's how i got to my conclusion", without actually showing any evidence to back it up.

manuscript evidence, archaeological evidence, predictive prophecy, and statistics all point towards the historical reliability of the canon of scripture.

But, if you've educated yourself on philosophy, i'd say keep reading, because if you had really, you'd know that you can't prove a universal moral law through religious authority. There are much better ways to make this argument.

i've never made the claim that a "religious" authority is the only way to make a case of a universal moral law. i've said that it's one way. and it's a a good way. because i'm able to give good evidence as to why the bible demands authority.

If you can't prove it, it's not a certainty.

i can't prove that i exist. but i'm certain that i do. sorry, but you're wrong again.

This sounds exactly what you're doing. You have an idea in your head, we say you can't prove it. You just go along claiming you proved it. You're not putting truth to the highest esteem. if you were, you'd be enlightening us on how to prove this objective universal law exists.

no. i'd be enlightening you as to why my case is superior to yours, which is what i'm currently doing. you're the one regurgitating "that doesn't prove anything" over and over again like you have no intelligence.

That's because these things aren't objectively true! Every claim you will ever make in your life will be subjective. The things you think are true will be based on your outlook on life which applies only to you.

so if i say, "1 + 1 = 2" that claim only applies to myself?

to be human is to be a contradiction.we're constantly searching for the meaning of life in an existence that looks absurd. that, in itself is a contradiction.

what you just said makes no sense whatsoever. right now, the only thing that contradicts itself are your arguments.

You already admit that you lust even though you think it's wrong. You can't claim that my argument is self refuting now that you admit that you, yourself is a contradiction.

i already know that i preach repentence of sins while being a sinner myself. but this doesn't take any truth away from my words.

But hey, this will really piss you off but, every claim I make is subjective, so it's not self refuting. I'm not saying what I say is true will be true to everyone else. That's what you're doing.

it is impossible for us to look at the world objectively. objectivity does not exist.

be careful what you wish for.