Belief in God can be arrived at via rational thinking however, at some point, irrationality is necessary when making that leap of faith.
OMG, you are wasting my time. Go insult people or do whatever else gets your dick hard.
You donāt know shit, not even the most basic simplistic shit. I have wasted way to much time on you.
Youāre full of shit and from I read most everyone knows it.
You donāt know what youāre talking about but I got to give you props for the audacity to talk about that which you know nothing about as if you did.
1 Like
Not a single more false statement has ever been uttered. There is nothing more objective than logic. It is the most basic unit of knowledge that without it, nothing can be known or discovered.
Nothing is less subjective than logic itself. It is basis of truth for the entirety of human history. It is purely objective, thatās the point. This is a basic truth known even before Plato and Socraties. Not even fellow atheists would agree.
If logic is subjective than all is nihilism. And we are all balls of meat with an illusion, but a false one, of what can and cannot be known.
Without the objectivity of logic, nothing is true and nothing matters. Any teacher who taught you this is a pathological idiot, or you were a terrible student. You are attacking the most basic tenets of propositional knowlege. Simply, you are saying all things are unknowable. So then in the end, all you care about is how you feel and you will not be made to feel bad.
I am disappointed, I thought you were smarter than that, but this statement cannot be ignored. If logic is subjective, then all things are not only permissible but but right. Even if solid logic disproves it.
Fortunately, science doesnāt work this way. You cannot throw subjective bullshit at science and expect things to work. Itās a good litmus test for your theory. Because science is a slave to logic, which proves it indisputable that logic is absolutely objective impervious to subjectivity.
I am disappointed, I thought resonable conversation was possible with you, but completely invalid statements like this cause me to lose hope.
Itās never about the reality of things but only how they make you feel. You bought the identity bullshit hook, line and sinker.
How you feel, makes not a fuck about the reality of things. That which is true is still true and that which is false is still false and no amount of subjectivity will change it.
If something is rationally obtained, it cannot be then irrational to believe it.
I provided scientific documentation that proves it. Youāve provided zero refutation to that the scientific documentation.
So, you will need some hella credibility to prove science wrong. I am very comfortable in the fact you lack said credibility.
Did you bother to look at the documentation? Or self research that proves otherwise? I am guessing no, since you are professing my researched point is falseā¦cause you said so and by jolly, you of all people you ought to know. After all, Barney said you were special, at 3.
See the link I provided or by God use google! Or something. The truth is available for free, donāt take my word for it. Look at the science.
At least we agree youāre a child. I donāt have time for know-it-all children that arenāt my own, so sorry if I donāt respond to all your nonsense. Let me just ask you one thing. You are now (contrary to what you argued previously) arguing about some exact textbook definition of āhuman beingā. Can you give me the exact definition you are using and claiming is the absolute right one? If itās just the one from the dictionary please post it.
The really ironic thing here is that Z is arguing there is no scientific (factual) distinction about the āhuman being-nessā of a human life throughout the entire life cycle. For whatever reason he thinks this favors the pro-abortion argument. The fact that there is no scientific fact based distinction to delineate the nature or value of a human life from any stage is exactly the pro-life argument. It is a direct admission that science would say they are indistinguishable in person-hood and that the pro-abortion argument lies exclusively in fact-less emotionally based feelings.
1 Like
Also, for anyone out there that might be following, though I asked this question to Z earlier and he ignored it. The majority of states have fetal homicide laws, and about half of states laws apply to a human life at ALL stages of the life cycle. Homicide: āthe deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another; murder.ā
Again this totally undermines Zās accretion that if it were a human being there would be a law about it. There are lots of laws about it. Literally hundreds. 38 states legally award ābeingā status to fetuses, 23 explicitly define ābeing statusā from conception.
1 Like
Yes, IF.
No, it would always be murder when clearly it isnāt always murder. In fact, you only help my position as those laws show we donāt view all fetuses as sharing the same state of personhood.
Again you are making up things. I never said any of that. So are you lying or ignorant?
Move the goal posts. The state I live in defines a fetus as a person along with a majority of all states.
You havenāt argued that there is no scientific distinction in being status within the human life cycle? OK, what scientifically distinguishes ābeing-nessā?
Is abortion also legal?
No I havenāt as what you just posted makes no sense. You are either a human being or not.
Science can tell us details about the various stages but scientists donāt define who is a human being. The courts and law makers do at the moment.
Moving the goalposts againā¦
You mean medical fetal homicide?
Point is that the law isnāt on your side as you claimed. Itās at best contradictory on the subject as a large majority of states legally grant person status to fetuses.
Right, you are arguing that human being, as you use it, is a non-scientific term not based in factual evidence. It isnāt defined or explained by science and fact.
Also need to point out that z has again failed to offer his definition of human being that he claimed to have.