- Joined
- Sep 16, 2005
- Messages
- 5,623
- Reaction score
- 605
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
So you now demonstrate ignorance of what it means to debate semantics? THIS IS: Telling you the right word is not the same thing as telling you the right meaning of a word. You claimed that the word "athiest" applied to me, and I disputed it, with evidence. That is, when debating what a word means, then one is debating semantics. But that is not what I did in that other message. That was more like "arguing apples and oranges", instead of arguing whether Granny Smith apples are more relevant than Rome apples.ptsdkid said:
Meanwhile, you continue to abjectly fail at answering a simple question, regarding why mindless human animals should be considered more valuable than equally mindless nonhuman animals. Shall I assume that you are blathering about other things just to try to hide the fact that you are so ignorant you cannot answer that simple question?
Actually, that is not quite accurate. I have encountered various pieces of evidence which add up to a reasonable probability that some sort of God-like entity may exist. What I don't believe is the idiotic illogical nonsense that is commonly associated with God. For example, you cannot say (A) that God is omniscient, superintelligent, etcetera, (B) that God specified the Laws of the Universe, and (C) that God Created Life, because this is illogical. See, (A) and (B) alone suffice to explain Life, no extra effort needed. Therefore, in true agnostic fashion, I maintain my right to insist that each arbitrary claim associated with God be supported with evidence. Because proof that God exists is not hardly proof that God claimed such-and-such. As an analogy, consider the first part of what Neil Armstrong said when he first stepped onto the Moon: "That's one small step for man" We have recordings. And we also have statements written by Neil Armstrong, to the effect that he thought he said, "That's one small step for a man". Well, if we lost those recordings, and after a century or three people dug up one of those written statements by Armstrong, claiming he went to the Moon and said a certain thing, and if those people went to the Moon and found the evidence that Armstrong had indeed been on the Moon, what do you suppose would be the result of someone claiming that Armstrong had only said "That's one small step for man"? Therefore, when Statement A and Statement B are distinct statements, no matter how related, it is legitimate to request that each statement be independently supported with evidence. And every statement ever attributed to God falls into that category!!!ptsdkid said:
This is an invitation to argue semantics, about what a "Christian" is. I shall not do that here, but I shall point out, because I will assume you are ignorant of this fact, that during World War II a great many Germans claimed to be Christians, even while carting Jews off to the concentration camps. Perhaps you will claim that they were deluded Christians -- and perhaps I shall claim that you are a deluded Christian, who obviously doesn't know the difference between a mindless animal, such as a human fetus, or a brain-dead human on life-support, and an able-minded adult human Person. Can you prove otherwise?ptsdkid said:
Arguing about morals is stupid, because morals are arbitrary. If morals were really all that they were advertised as being, then they would be the same everywhere. But instead, various cultures claim different things to be moral. It is immoral to eat pork in some places, and immoral to eat beef as well, in others, and moral to eat both in still others. It is immoral to have more than one spouse in some places, and it is moral to have up to four wives in other places, and it is moral to have even more in still other places. Actual cannibalism is immoral in some places, is moral in others, and in representative form is moral in still others ("communion service"). All in all, it could be said that arguing about morals is stupid because morals are so arbitrary they are themselves stupid. So, why don't you consider "ethics" instead of morals? Since Ethics has a different foundation than the arbitrariness of Religious Pronouncement that is behind morals, it is theoretically possible for Ethics to be Universally Applicable, the same everywhere. Well, Ethics is about People getting along with each other. It will never dictate that animals be treated like persons. Which means that mindless unborn human animals will forever be excluded, both from being required to behave in an Ethical manner (not that they have the brainpower to comply), and from being the recipient of any more benefits than granted to ordinary animals.ptsdkid said:
And when a fetus can tell me that she or he is of equal importance to me, then I might start listening to the rest of your philosophical tome.ptsdkid said:
ptsd said:
The evidence accumulates, that you indeed are unable to learn, and thereby become less ignorant. Tsk, tsk.FutureIncoming said:
