You Libs keep 'dancing around the issue' (page 4)

Shining One

Jeff,
Thanks for the voice of reason!
Rex

John Doe,
Please deal with this....
Some of you believe that some moral absolutes exist. Though there may be some things that are individual moral calls, some things aren't, right? You have admitted that some moral absolutes (rules) exist, yet you cannot see or touch this rule, nor will any of your five senses reveal it to you. What kind of thing is it?
You of the agnostic, unbelieving variety said that you believe that something exists somewhere in a realm which you can't see, taste, touch, smell or hear. You believe something exists that you can't prove empirically. This is the very same argument against those who believe in God as a basis for saying "there is no proof of God".
You don't realize that you believe in a lot of things that you can't test in that way, that aren't evident to you. But just because you can't sense it by the five senses doesn't mean that it's unreasonable for you to believe that such a rule exists. In other words, there are other ways to learn about things than just the five senses.
If you believe that it’s wrong to kill, steal or hurt others then that rule applies to everyone. This is a moral absolute! You have just affirmed a belief in something that is immaterial that you don't access by your five senses but you do access with some certainty by some other means.
Either way you can be considered rational in believing that such a rule actually exists. Once you do that, it does a lot of work for you. You've made an admission that has profound implications for many other beliefs. There are a whole bunch of other beliefs are bundled with that computer!.
For example, when you say that some absolute moral laws exist, you're saying that immaterial things, moral laws, certainly do exist. Therefore, materialism as a world view is false. Instead, it is reasonable to believe in things you don't see and can't test with the five senses. Strict empiricism would be false, then! For those that are agnostic or atheistic you have a ‘argument that is suicidal’. It disproves itself!
My argument is that the creator sets the absolutes and we can see that they do exist, despite them being immaterial and not empirical. The fact that we live as beings aware of our own mortality is also a proof that God exists. In order to be consistent you must admit that fact. If you argue that things cannot be proven that are not empirical you are not being logical.

Rex

Shining One

>I'm still and Atheist with absolute moral standards. Still no god needed.
Then Jstalin, you are not at all logical and your belief is sheer fantasy.
Rex

Shining One

Good question, Steve.
>OK, strawman to strawman: Would you have aborted Hitler or Stalin
Divine providence is the key here. I, being an imperfect, mortal human, would have been sorely tempted to do so and suffer the sin. God chose not to.
Rex

Shining One

Go ahead, Midwich. This is perhaps better as a IM to me directly. I will be headed out of town soon.
Rex

Shining One

Celia,
>The Pro-Life folks say all abortions are wrong.... Killing innocent babies is wrong.... Even when the abortion takes place in the first 4 weeks of the pregnancy.... Is it really a baby you're aborting ? or a bunch of cells so tiny that it can't be see with the naked eye .... Christian conservatives argue there is never ever a reason for a woman to have an abortion.... even when the "woman" is a 13 y.o. girl who has been gang-raped, or just raped by her mom's boyfriend... she must carry the pregnancy to term.... How twisted is this?
Was it the baby's fault who the father is? What about adoption instead of murder?

>Where are these Pro-Lifers when it comes to sending 18 year olds to Iraq to be blown up?

If they are consistent they will accept the decision of the 18 year old in question. Would you question the courage of some person who decided to go to war in order to defend their country? How about to free another country from a despot who threatened the world? People who join the armed services know that at any point they may be called to defend their homeland from enemies within or enemies without.
Rex

daniel-p

"I will be headed out of town soon."

!!!PRAISE JEHOOVER!!! FOR HE HAS BESTOWED UPON US MANY BLESSINGS.

wozadummy

Rex,respectfully, perhaps reading John ch:18 vs37,38 will help get things in perspective.

Shining One

Wander,
The point isn't about abortion as much as it is any person or group of people's right to tell someone else what they have to do. Unless it's you in the circumstances that put you in the position of making a decision to abort a pregnancy, what right do you have to say what is or isn't the "moral" thing to do?
Okay, your local Islamist believes it is his right to kill any jews or gays. Who are you to say he can't do so?
>When does "majority rule" override a persons right to make decisions about thier own body?
The child within is only connected to her body, he/she is not a 'part of her body'.
> If this is ok, what's next? Holding people accountable for their actions also means letting them make choices we may not agree with, and then live with the consequences.
Then let's abandon all of the police stations and let everyone do what they may, to each his own.
Rex

daniel-p

PEOPLE IN ORANGE HATS EVERYWHERE AGREE: Shining One (aka Whining One) heading out of town is a good thing.

You Libs keep 'dancing around the issue'

Share this