Originally posted by FMFWhat drew me to the story was the moral position of the woman in question who had been reported to have done such a thing. The moral logistics facinated in terms of her being motivated to have been reported as having done such a thing.
What [b]moral position were you taking when you started this Thread with a hoax story,
Originally posted by FMFThe people who carried out the Holocaust are the people that I am referring to. As I have said, their moral position seems to have been that Jews are bad so killing them off would make the world a better place. You see we all seem to have the need to tell ourselves that what we are doing is what is "good" to some degree. It helps us to be able to live with ourselves.
And who are these people who "defend the Holocaust" you keep talking about?
Originally posted by FMFSo you find me to be immoral? What about the woman in question?
[Quite frankly, I am beginning to find your moral position - certainly in terms of your apparent willingness to cheapen the greatest atrocity of the C20th for your feeble-minded, worthless debating ends - to be outrageous and repugnant.[/b]
Originally posted by whodeyTo derive morality from evolution is ridiculous.
Not so fast. People can and have derived morality from Darwinian science. For example, the term survival of the fittest come to mind. I know of people who choose not to show empathy for those who are hanicapped in some way or of lower intellect than they because helping them goes against the natural order of what is known as survival of the fittest. The ...[text shortened]... n of the material world and nothing more. It is human beings that then add meaning to it all.
"Survival of the fittest" (Actually, to put it more correctly it's "survival and reproduction of the adapted enough" but I guess it's less catchy.)
is the natural state of things - but natural does not mean right.
I mean, falling down is natural but you don't see physicists running around shoving people to the ground and protest the use or airplanes.
I'm thinking that many creationists (/IDists) want to discredit evolution that way. And, well, that's just stupid.
Originally posted by mrstabbyNext thing will be that Mr Bush calls his wars art .... and what will you be saying then, mrstabby.
Making something into art trivialises it? There's a new one.
Whether or not it's any good I don't know, but society cannot put constraints on the definition of art, not even for life and death reasons. Same goes for banning violent porn in the UK.
Why not call the Columbine murders art ?
whodey said a mouthful...my reply is: the teleology of Darwinism, that is, the final effects of this so called "scientific doctrine" which has holes in its -logy large enough to make it into a hypothesis at best, is to say there is no God, the source of our moral values. We are only creations by "accident" and therefore all moral values are just a product of our culture, made up by some, and therefore there is no ABSOLUTE STANDARD of right and wrong.
Originally posted by rhemalogosThis is in response to Whodey also.
right and wrong do exist contrary to the teleology of Darwinism. Abortion is wrong because the thing people rationalizing call a fetus is a baby. An innocent human being, who when killed, has been murdered. Art is good, but not everything goes.
Darwinisim, (incorrect term but the one you used) says nothing about right or wrong, it simply states the facts as seen by evolutionary science. If PEOPLE choose to take this information further and push the survival, thats the choice of those people nothing more. I resent the implication that just because I firmly support modern science, I lack empathy. does this make me a holocaust supporting nazi?
😛
As to the Abortion issue, its all about what you define as a human being, personally I don't believe a ball of cells smaller than my thumbnail is a human being. Any more than the unused eggs from females are humans or the millions of sperm lost when a male masturbates are humans. They are all potential humans, but until the brain develops and awareness kicks in they become aware they're just balls of organic mush.
On a side note I'm also not sure that men should even be allowed to even vote on the issue, men don't have to go through 9 months of hell, and men can much more easily walk away and pay child support from afar if you decide its not what you want.
Oh and Abortion is still illegal at home. Just to show you don't need a hardline religious govt. to have law's based in the past.
Originally posted by ivanhoeIf his intent was to create forms to express beauty then yes it was art, same for Columbine murders. This has nothing to do with how the real world should respond, except to sit back and try and find beauty in it. I'm guessing there's very little in there making it pretty shoddy stuff.
Next thing will be that Mr Bush calls his wars art .... and what will you be saying then, mrstabby.
Why not call the Columbine murders art ?
You can call them art depending on the creator's intent, but it doesn't change anything in the real world.
God is very scientific. Just lookat the reasoning He used when He created the physical universe. We call that reasoning by names like physics, biology and chemistry. God and faith do not contradict science. God is the creator of it. We are only rediscovering God's ways when we discover the mysteries of science.
A human being is not defined as some one who is outside the uterus. An unborn baby is a human being who is aware of it's surroundings. It can feel and react with pain when torn in half by abortion procedures.
I agree a sperm and an egg separately are not a fetus, Latin word for baby, but the two, when combined form a embryo with is a human who just hasn't been born yet. The soul is part of that child from the from the time of inception. God in the Old Testament stated the punishment for killing an unborn child was death.