Women's Lives Before Politics

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
381

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

And yet you care so much for women that you’d take them into protective custody [in a roundabout way] rather than let women decide for themselves what to do with a pregnancy.
[/quote]

Late to the party E. I am not actually concerned with punishment as I am in stopping this abominable practice it a general sense. I want people to see an acknowledge it for what it is, be honest about it and find better ways to deal with bad situations. I am tired of people whitewashing this issue as a “choice” and own body bullshit. When you have become pregnent you have brought somebody else in to the mix. No matter what you choose from that point on you are affecting at least two, not just one person.
You yourself agree that fetal people are in fact people at 21 weeks.
I am not interested in raising the prison population, I am interested in stopping the killing.[/quote]

Provide proper sex education to children from the age of 12.

Allow girls from age 16 to go to their m.d. without parental consent for birth control.

End the abstinence-only programs.

Keep birth control part of the healthcare package.

And most difficult of all; affect a change in mindset about teenagers having sex. Because teenagers will have sex.

Acknowledge this and provide a safe environment for them to experiment. They’re gonna do it anyway so make sure you don’t end up with an unwanted pregnancy.

This alone will reduce abortions. The USA has the highest instances of teenage pregnancies in the western world. Abolishing abortion won’t solve any of this.

Be pragmatic, not dogmatic.[/quote]

Okay, I agree with all but the going to the doc without parental consent.

382

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

If you found out tomorrow with absolute certainty there was no god do you think you would start raping and murdering people?[/quote]

That’s not even hypothetically possible. A theory isn’t even ‘absolutely certain.’ So how could I contemplate the absolute non-existence of something that science doesn’t even claim to be able to falsify? Who knows what I would be in a hypothetical, absolute certain science, universe. Well, perhaps I would be a God, with that kind of omniscience.

[/quote]

I vote this the most dodging post of the year. Nice work.
[/quote]

The silence is deafening.[/quote]

It’s not a dodge. I can’t answer a question involving the non-existence of God, which at the same times proposes that I am a god.

384

[quote]Grneyes wrote:<<< These moral precepts are not the grand invention of <<<>>> Christ. [/quote]They are the reflection of His divine nature. That nature was finitely replicated in the creation of man in His image and likeness. Though dead and corrupt in sin, that image remains and is the source of every true moral principle in every last man women and child who has even been conceived. Even the ones you like to kill.

385

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

If you found out tomorrow with absolute certainty there was no god do you think you would start raping and murdering people?[/quote]

That’s not even hypothetically possible. A theory isn’t even ‘absolutely certain.’ So how could I contemplate the absolute non-existence of something that science doesn’t even claim to be able to falsify? Who knows what I would be in a hypothetical, absolute certain science, universe. Well, perhaps I would be a God, with that kind of omniscience.

[/quote]

I vote this the most dodging post of the year. Nice work.
[/quote]

The silence is deafening.[/quote]

It’s not a dodge. I can’t answer a question involving the non-existence of God, which at the same time proposes that I am a god.[/quote]

Now see, I’m a little perturbed with you guys now. A proper atheist, of scientific learning, doesn’t even state that we can know the non-existence of a deity with ‘absolute certainty.’ That science could even falsify such a thing. The question assumes I exist outside of the limits of physics. Unconstrained by the limits of the scientific method, etc. Come now, don’t get cute.

386

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

If you found out tomorrow with absolute certainty there was no god do you think you would start raping and murdering people?[/quote]

That’s not even hypothetically possible. A theory isn’t even ‘absolutely certain.’ So how could I contemplate the absolute non-existence of something that science doesn’t even claim to be able to falsify? Who knows what I would be in a hypothetical, absolute certain science, universe. Well, perhaps I would be a God, with that kind of omniscience.

[/quote]

I vote this the most dodging post of the year. Nice work.
[/quote]

The silence is deafening.[/quote]And I will state also for the one trillionth time that the non existence of the God I worship is the most utterly impossible of all impossibilities. He is the ground and basis of both your existence and your ability to so much as even postulate 2+2 equaling 4. Being the ultimate source of all existence save for Himself alone, He is the first unspoken assumption of every God hating pagan on this Earth regardless of their empty contentless protestations to the contrary.

There is His meaning or none at all. I am still waiting the very first person to coherently make a dent in that truth. Not really though because by definition that truth is the first noncontingent basis of everything else including untruth.

Yes that makes perfect sense. In fact, nothing else does.

387

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

If you found out tomorrow with absolute certainty there was no god do you think you would start raping and murdering people?[/quote]

That’s not even hypothetically possible. A theory isn’t even ‘absolutely certain.’ So how could I contemplate the absolute non-existence of something that science doesn’t even claim to be able to falsify? Who knows what I would be in a hypothetical, absolute certain science, universe. Well, perhaps I would be a God, with that kind of omniscience.

[/quote]

I vote this the most dodging post of the year. Nice work.
[/quote]

The silence is deafening.[/quote]

It’s not a dodge. I can’t answer a question involving the non-existence of God, which at the same time proposes that I am a god.[/quote]

Now see, I’m a little perturbed with you guys now. A proper atheist, of scientific learning, doesn’t even state that we can know the non-existence of a deity with ‘absolute certainty.’ That science could even falsify such a thing. The question assumes I exist outside of the limits of physics. Unconstrained by the limits of the scientific method, etc. Come now, don’t get cute.
[/quote]

If you found out there was no God, would you become a murdering rapist?

Says nothing of science - now answer the question or admit you’re dodging. No sematics, no answering with another question, it’s very straighforward.

388

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Anyways, I disagree with Oleena. I think the source of morals is reason. When I speak of morality I’m referring to method by which we derive and apply our values. Both core values and what we do with them.

The internal moral compass we have is a result of reasoning and being empathetic creatures. Religions love to co opt the natural aspects of humans, the idea of why we are the way we are.

All you need is two individuals interacting who are thinking, reasoning human beings empathetic to one another that understanding the consequences of their actions to develop a moral system. Life is generally preferable to death etc.

Those values arise as emergent phenomenon in the interactions of thinking beings.

[/quote]

Then religion in history makes no sense. Atheism would’ve hit the ground running, radiating out self-evident godless systems of morality, skipping right past one of the most widespread human conditions throughout history, religiosity. [/quote]

No, because since the dawn of time people have been interested in what they cannot understand. They want to understand the thunder and the winds and the rainy seasons. To explain this, they came up with gods and goddesses in charge of them. They wondered where they came from. Thus creation stories were invented. People have always been interested in what they cannot see and invent stories to explain what were then inexplicable happenings. It’s just that with modern religion (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc) have morals and human behavior been intertwined with those things. Murder has always been wrong, but it wasn’t addressed in pagan religions, it just a societal wrong. You weren’t acting against Pan or the Morrigan, or Zeus and Hera, you were committing a societal taboo.

389

This s is great LOL!!!

390

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:<<< So anyways how do you believers explain morals for Atheists? Most Atheists would agree there are good moral principles in the bible but a result of where they originated are irrelevant.[/quote]I’ve been over this one trillion times. Everybody is created in the image of God. That remaining image though broken in sin explains not only morality, but absolutely everything else unbelievers do, think, say and are. The good that they do and the bad that they don’t is the merciful hand of God restraining their sin. This has been called the doctrine of common grace for centuries.

Every actual truth and advancement accomplished by sinners is done so in spite of their declared delusion of autonomous existence. I am not going over this again here. If you care, I can point you to where this discussion has happened already. You’re welcome to participate there.
[/quote]

I reject this, emphatically. I’m not arguing with you because you believe what you do and I believe what I do and all we would do is go in circles. But, I REJECT THIS PREMISE.

391

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

If you found out tomorrow with absolute certainty there was no god do you think you would start raping and murdering people?[/quote]

That’s not even hypothetically possible. A theory isn’t even ‘absolutely certain.’ So how could I contemplate the absolute non-existence of something that science doesn’t even claim to be able to falsify? Who knows what I would be in a hypothetical, absolute certain science, universe. Well, perhaps I would be a God, with that kind of omniscience.

[/quote]

I vote this the most dodging post of the year. Nice work.
[/quote]

The silence is deafening.[/quote]

It’s not a dodge. I can’t answer a question involving the non-existence of God, which at the same time proposes that I am a god.[/quote]

Now see, I’m a little perturbed with you guys now. A proper atheist, of scientific learning, doesn’t even state that we can know the non-existence of a deity with ‘absolute certainty.’ That science could even falsify such a thing. The question assumes I exist outside of the limits of physics. Unconstrained by the limits of the scientific method, etc. Come now, don’t get cute.
[/quote]

If you found out there was no God, would you become a murdering rapist?

Says nothing of science - now answer the question or admit you’re dodging. No sematics, no answering with another question, it’s very straighforward.[/quote]

I can’t ‘find out’ that there was no God. Impossible. There is no way to frame the question, or consider the question, without considering the impossible. So my actions may or not still be constrained by the possibility of a God in my thoughts (doubt, 'better safe than sorry), by the nurture of a society/culture that is STILL influenced by religious thought, and by risk vs. reward.

Think I’m dodging? Ok then, how did you ‘find out’ that were was no God, Mak? No, we’re not talking belief. How did you find out there was no God? Did you publish your methods in a journal so they might be reproduced?

392

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:<<< So anyways how do you believers explain morals for Atheists? Most Atheists would agree there are good moral principles in the bible but a result of where they originated are irrelevant.[/quote]I’ve been over this one trillion times. Everybody is created in the image of God. That remaining image though broken in sin explains not only morality, but absolutely everything else unbelievers do, think, say and are. The good that they do and the bad that they don’t is the merciful hand of God restraining their sin. This has been called the doctrine of common grace for centuries.

Every actual truth and advancement accomplished by sinners is done so in spite of their declared delusion of autonomous existence. I am not going over this again here. If you care, I can point you to where this discussion has happened already. You’re welcome to participate there.
[/quote]

I reject this, emphatically. I’m not arguing with you because you believe what you do and I believe what I do and all we would do is go in circles. But, I REJECT THIS PREMISE.[/quote]YOU DO??? Well bless yer heart. I guess it’s settled then ROFL!!! No offense, but you would not be much of a challenge. Leave it to somebody else. Oleena at least eventually gave it a shot. I gotta email Elder Forlife. You guys need him back.

393

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]

The problem is most morality has been taken over by religion, so any morals or right/wrong behavior I list has already been co-opted by religions as their basic tenets. If I say murder is wrong, then you would counter with the 10 Commandments. However, I’m sure the Greeks and Romans and Byzantines and Persians and Ancient Chinese and civilizations before those all agreed murder is wrong. If I say adultery is wrong, you would counter with the 10 Commandments, though I’m pretty sure all the civilizations I’ve listed had similar thoughts. Wanting someone else’s belongings (or wife) is wrong, I’m sure the cavemen knew it. These moral precepts are not the grand invention of Abraham and Moses and Christ. [/quote]

This would be the first type of atheist. Morals exist though we can’t falsify good and evil.[/quote]

I’m posting a link so you know the definition of atheist/atheism. I however, am a theist, I DO believe in deity, a God and Goddess, to be exact, who are equal. I know that equates atheist to you, but not to Merriam-Webster.

394

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:<<< So anyways how do you believers explain morals for Atheists? Most Atheists would agree there are good moral principles in the bible but a result of where they originated are irrelevant.[/quote]I’ve been over this one trillion times. Everybody is created in the image of God. That remaining image though broken in sin explains not only morality, but absolutely everything else unbelievers do, think, say and are. The good that they do and the bad that they don’t is the merciful hand of God restraining their sin. This has been called the doctrine of common grace for centuries.

Every actual truth and advancement accomplished by sinners is done so in spite of their declared delusion of autonomous existence. I am not going over this again here. If you care, I can point you to where this discussion has happened already. You’re welcome to participate there.
[/quote]

This makes sense. So without God morals would not exist? Or just be defined a different way?

395

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:<<< So anyways how do you believers explain morals for Atheists? Most Atheists would agree there are good moral principles in the bible but a result of where they originated are irrelevant.[/quote]I’ve been over this one trillion times. Everybody is created in the image of God. That remaining image though broken in sin explains not only morality, but absolutely everything else unbelievers do, think, say and are. The good that they do and the bad that they don’t is the merciful hand of God restraining their sin. This has been called the doctrine of common grace for centuries.

Every actual truth and advancement accomplished by sinners is done so in spite of their declared delusion of autonomous existence. I am not going over this again here. If you care, I can point you to where this discussion has happened already. You’re welcome to participate there.
[/quote]

I reject this, emphatically. I’m not arguing with you because you believe what you do and I believe what I do and all we would do is go in circles. But, I REJECT THIS PREMISE.[/quote]YOU DO??? Well bless yer heart. I guess it’s settled then ROFL!!! No offense, but you would not be much of a challenge. Leave it to somebody else. Oleena at least eventually gave it a shot. I gotta email Elder Forlife. You guys need him back.
[/quote]

I’m not trying to be a challenge. I just know that these arguments are futile. You believe what you believe and I believe what I believe and trying to change each other’s minds is not going to happen, so why bother?

396

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:
Besides morality =/= religion. You can have morality without religion, you know. [/quote]

Could you share a ‘moral’ precept with me? I want to dissect it… Or, at least do mathematics with it. Thanks.

[/quote]

The problem is most morality has been taken over by religion, so any morals or right/wrong behavior I list has already been co-opted by religions as their basic tenets. If I say murder is wrong, then you would counter with the 10 Commandments. However, I’m sure the Greeks and Romans and Byzantines and Persians and Ancient Chinese and civilizations before those all agreed murder is wrong. If I say adultery is wrong, you would counter with the 10 Commandments, though I’m pretty sure all the civilizations I’ve listed had similar thoughts. Wanting someone else’s belongings (or wife) is wrong, I’m sure the cavemen knew it. These moral precepts are not the grand invention of Abraham and Moses and Christ. [/quote]

Nope.

Your historical perspective is skewed. In other words you don’t understand the histories of the cultures you mentioned along with accurate timelines and the comparables of biblical history.

I’m not making fun of you, just stating that you need more study in this area.[/quote]

No, I don’t think so.

397

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]

The problem is most morality has been taken over by religion, so any morals or right/wrong behavior I list has already been co-opted by religions as their basic tenets. If I say murder is wrong, then you would counter with the 10 Commandments. However, I’m sure the Greeks and Romans and Byzantines and Persians and Ancient Chinese and civilizations before those all agreed murder is wrong. If I say adultery is wrong, you would counter with the 10 Commandments, though I’m pretty sure all the civilizations I’ve listed had similar thoughts. Wanting someone else’s belongings (or wife) is wrong, I’m sure the cavemen knew it. These moral precepts are not the grand invention of Abraham and Moses and Christ. [/quote]

This would be the first type of atheist. Morals exist though we can’t falsify good and evil.[/quote]

I’m posting a link so you know the definition of atheist/atheism. I however, am a theist, I DO believe in deity, a God and Goddess, to be exact, who are equal. I know that equates atheist to you, but not to Merriam-Webster.[/quote]

No need for the link. Saying you’re a pagan is adequate. I might even have missed you saying it earlier (or forgotten). But then you’re doubly a believer in the unfalsifiable, morals and deities.

398

[quote]Grneyes wrote:<< trying to change each other’s minds is not going to happen, so why bother?[/quote]Oh I know better than this my dear. You don’t need a change of mind. You need a resurrection from death. Only the Holy Spirit of almighty God can do that. All I can do is tell ya. Also, I apologize for my arrogance and it was. That was a snide personal insult that was not Christlike. The old man still gets the best of me sometimes which is not an excuse though.

399

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

No resurrection is needed, thanx. Don’t need a zombie telling me how to live.

400

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

…All you need is two individuals interacting who are thinking, reasoning human beings empathetic to one another that understanding the consequences of their actions to develop a moral system. Life is generally preferable to death etc.

Those values arise as emergent phenomenon in the interactions of thinking beings.

[/quote]

Prove it. Cite some cases in history.

Ready.

Set.

Go.[/quote]

Modern western society.

How do you think we developed the complex moral system we have now?

Take for instance “thou shalt not kill”

If I run over someone with my car is it murder? Is it felony murder? Is it manslaughter? What if it was an accident? Is it negligent homicide?

You and the rest of us have been using a secular moral system built on reason all along.