Hitchen's Challange

[Kooky]

Is having reckless sex for fun and then killing the unborn civilized?

It certainly was during the days of the Roman Empire.

 

[ppp]

There is no evidence or rational way to do moral value, since such a value is a subjective personal evaluation.

I disagree.

 

[ppp]

I define 'faith' to be commitment to and reliance on beliefs that lack satisfactory justification.

Good start. What am I convinced of that lacks a satisfactory justification?
Or, if you like, how do you know that I am convinced of a proposition that lacks satisfactory justification?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I disagree.

I gave you more text than that. Now answer with a correct quote. And try to include more.

 

[leroy]

I am not an abortionist and I do not have a need to feel morally superior, so if you want to make moral judgements that is your prerogative, not mine.

You said that abortion is not killing (implyign that the embryo/fetus)) is not a human)

I am just asking if under your view this applies at all points or if there is a point where abortion becomes “killing”

Your statistic about the fact that most late abortions are necessary is irrelevant to this question

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Good start. What am I convinced of that lacks a satisfactory justification?
Or, if you like, how do you know that I am convinced of a proposition that lacks satisfactory justification?

Because of this:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12
Or this:
What is a naturalistic fallacy? The Ethics Centre Article
Or even this:
Princeton - News - Brain imaging study sheds light on moral decision-making

Now again. In short, just explain how you use a satisfactory justification? You would be the first person in recorded history to have done so non-subjectively, if you can do it.

 

[ppp]

I gave you more text than that. Now answer with a correct quote. And try to include more.

No. I am not going past a sentence with more than one unjustified assumption. Especially when they are nested. I might cut some other people some slack, but you know better.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No. I am not going past a sentence with more than one unjustified assumption. Especially when they are nested. I might cut some other people some slack, but you know better.

So how do you do morality?

 

[ppp]

Because of this:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12
Or this:
What is a naturalistic fallacy? The Ethics Centre Article
Or even this:
Princeton - News - Brain imaging study sheds light on moral decision-making

Now again. In short, just explain how you use a satisfactory justification? You would be the first person in recorded history to have done so non-subjectively, if you can do it.

Provide support after your explanation. Not in lieu of it,.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Provide support after your explanation. Not in lieu of it,.

Well, I am wrong. Now you just have to explain how you do morality and all is solved. I do want to learn.

 

[lukethethird]

You said that abortion is not killing (implyign that the embryo/fetus)) is not a human)

I am just asking if under your view this applies at all points or if there is a point where abortion becomes “killing”

Your statistic about the fact that most late abortions are necessary is irrelevant to this question

No, I do not equate abortions with killing.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, I do not equate abortions with killing.

Those legal or also those illegal, if there is a law for abortions.
I do consider some abortions legal and thus not killing but for others I would consider it murder. But that is just me.

 

[leroy]

No, I do not equate abortions with killing.

So my next question is what is the difference between croshing the head of a 7month old fetus and killing a new born that was born premature at 7 months?

Is there any relevant difference between a new born and a fetus given that both have “the same age”?

 

[blü 2]

Yes I've heard that one, however this was a very specific biblical story, where the deity was depicted as angrily murdering a new born baby, that was left gravely ill and suffered for 7 days. (What is about the bible and 7 days btw?) Just because that deity was angry that King David had fathered the baby boy in an adulterous affair. This is also a deity depicted a shaving limitless choice, as it is omniscient and omnipotent.

Indeed the bible is easily read as one long recital of God's brutalities. [He]'s not a do-no-harm entity. But it seemed to me the way you expressed yourself above could be read as claiming some moral absolute.

 

[We Never Know]

In other words, we're born with our sexual orientation.

Nobody asks how someone became a heterosexual. Why is that?

I don't ask either. In my opinion we don't know if anyone is born either way.

You need me to define pregnancy for you?

I want to know how you define pregnancy.

 

[DNB]

That is errant nonsense, else our societies now would still reflect the bronze and iron age morality of those cultures the bible and koran originated in, and they quite demonstrably do not.

Love was the same love, and for all the same reasons all throughout history, as was hate, compassion, altruism, charity, avarice and lasciviousness. Nothing has changed as far as the heart of man is concerned. Therefore, the Bible is as pertinent and valid as it was from 3,500 years ago, as it is today.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Name an ethical statement made or action performed by a person of faith that could not have been made or performed by a nonbeliever.

Name a wicked statement made or action performed precisely because of religious faith?

1. A miracle.
2. Overzealousness.

 

[Audie]

Love was the same love, and for all the same reasons all throughout history, as was hate, compassion, altruism, charity, avarice and lasciviousness. Nothing has changed as far as the heart of man is concerned. Therefore, the Bible is as pertinent and valid as it was from 3,500 years ago, as it is today.

Some few parts are "pertinent " tho
we note those merely state or record
folk wisdom about human nature, things
well known to all societies.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You said that abortion is not killing (implyign that the embryo/fetus)) is not a human)

I am just asking if under your view this applies at all points or if there is a point where abortion becomes “killing”

Your statistic about the fact that most late abortions are necessary is irrelevant to this question

It's very relevant, actually.
You are referring to them as though they are "killings" done by people who are just inconvenienced by being pregnant, when they are not. And you're trying to compare it to the murder of a 7 month old healthy child who has already been born.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So how do you do morality?

Here's a succinct explanation for how I go about doing it:

"I get my limits from a rational consideration of the consequences of my actions, that's how I determine what's moral. I get it from a foundation that says my actions have an effect on those people around me, and theirs have an effect on me, and if we're going to live cooperatively and share space, we have to recognize that impact. And my freedom to swing my arm ends ends at their nose, and that I have no right to impose my will over somebody else's will in that type of scenario. That's where I get them from. I get them from an understanding of reality, not an assertion of authority.”
-Matt Dillahunty