This is scientifically illiterate. Belonging to a human and being a human are very different things. A toenail is not a human as a scientific fact. But you knew this, so I guess you’re trolling.
The legal system now defines morality or reality? I take it you used to be on board with blacks only being 3/5ths of a person too. But again, you are arguing terms you refuse to define. Define human being before you go asserting things about it. How early can you get double murder charges for killing a pregnant woman anyway?
If no one can factually define it, it has no place in law. Keep your religious views to yourself. Taking this view, you forfeit the claim to the side of science. But again, you are arguing that human life has no innate value, whether you choose to declare it explicitly or not.
The fact that you just compared the ethics of dealing with clipped toenails to that of killing a human in the early stages of life, and in the very next statement accused someone of trolling is pretty audacious there even for a troll.
I remember that thread. It was an EXCELLENT conversation. miss conversations with those three, and Kamui/Dr. Matt are both incredibly smart. I had some awesome chats with them
I think you are having difficulty reading. I did say that belonging to a human is different than being A human. And no, a toenail is not a human being because of something called a dictionary, not scientific fact.
As far as blacks being 3/5ths of a person, I couldn’t have been on board with that since I was not even alive at that time.
Why should I define human being when it has a dictionary and legal definitions? It doesn’t mean I agree with them but I accept them for what they are. I think that’s the problem for some of you. You can’t divorce your personal beliefs from the reality outside of them.
And again you put words in my mouth. If it isn’t because you are trolling then it’s because you are dense. I never said human life had no innate value. I am not arguing that point at all. I am simply saying that people need to know what the words they use actually mean.
Logical consistency of theism is perfectly researchable. Reams and reams of documentation exist supporting a theistic reality.
The common denominator is that you have already made a decision, impervious to any argument to the contrary of your belief without appealing to attacking the messenger or groups who hold this same world view.
We couldn’t even come to a consensus about the word ‘rational’.
When the world is purely subjective, then nothing objective can penetrate because I don’t know how you feel nor your real world experience. It therefore means, my (nor anybody else’s) feelings and personal experience can never penetrate.
If we have no objective truth or fact, we merely live in a world of well ordered nihilism.
Quibble: supporting rationality of theistic belief. “Reality” depends on ABSOLUTE (or near absolute) proof, which any ideology or belief structure struggles with.
There are however very many documents showing that belief in God is rational.
I stated your belief in eugenics as means of purifying the population by means of killing off those who don’t measure up to an arbitrary definition of what a human should be is nazi-esc. I absolutely stand by it.
Except as we’ve discussed before, logic is subjective. The very nature that I don’t find it logical while you do proves that on its own. So when I say “logical inconsistencies” I’m referring to the nature of how I’m yet to hear something logically compelling.
To be fair, it’s because you don’t understand that being rational is subjective.
There’s plenty of objective truth. We give things objective truth. But that’s the point you keep ignoring. WE decided this is how we define the universe. The only reason anything means what it means is because we have decided it to be so.
For one person to GENUINELY BELIEVE (such as yourself) in their respective religion and that a higher power exists, you believe yourself to be rational and logical, while I believe you to be irrational and illogical. As someone who doesn’t believe (such as myself) in any religion or higher power, I believe myself to be rational and logical, while you believe I’m irrational and illogical.
Which of us is right? We can’t both be
Of course there are. That makes absolute perfect sense. Because if someone genuinely believes in god, they’re perfectly rational for living that way.