19 Nov 12
Originally posted by vivifyBecause your example is under described. I am exhausted, and will write more tomorrow. But answer me this one question: Why would it be just as morally wrong to harm or enslave a Vulcan as a human? What on your account yields this result? It can't be because they are human; they're not. So why would they matter morally, on your view?
You said treating the person in my example is "probably" wrong, but never explained why. Please, educate me.
19 Nov 12
Originally posted by bbarrWhat a silly question. I am sure you must know Star Trek is science fiction just like evolution.
Because your example is under described. I am exhausted, and will write more tomorrow. But answer me this one question: Why would it be just as morally wrong to harm or enslave a Vulcan as a human? What on your account yields this result? It can't be because they are human; they're not. So why would they matter morally, on your view?
Originally posted by bbarrRemember though, that God gave man dominion over the Earth and all its animals, plants, and resources. Also remember that--though it is not addressed specifically--it can safely be assumed that plants and animals are not infused with a soul. On the other hand, when considering the hypothetical "Vulcan,": (a) We were not given dominion over extra-terrestrial life forms, and (b) Vulcans, being hardly distinguishable from human beings, could safely be assumed to have a soul, and, therefore would be protected by our Commandment not to murder. Having a soul, Vulcans would obviously have a personal stake in the process of salvation and/or damnation, and thus would inherently have their fate and lifespan determined by God Himself -- not us human creatures.
Because your example is under described. I am exhausted, and will write more tomorrow. But answer me this one question: Why would it be just as morally wrong to harm or enslave a Vulcan as a human? What on your account yields this result? It can't be because they are human; they're not. So why would they matter morally, on your view?
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
19 Nov 12
Originally posted by RJHindsdo you mean 'some animals have souls', as in some dogs (for example) do and some dont, or some species animal do and some dont.
I believe God made some animals souls, too.
Animal souls may be different from human souls, but I believe there will be a place in paradise for them too.
if its the later, whats the criteria for which species get souls?
19 Nov 12
Originally posted by stellspalfieI would assume that would also apply to near humans like Australipiticus or Florensis? Would they have souls and would Neandertals have souls?
do you mean 'some animals have souls', as in some dogs (for example) do and some dont, or some species animal do and some dont.
if its the later, whats the criteria for which species get souls?
19 Nov 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeAppreciate your point, but couldn't disagree more.
No, actually you did.
Labelling a bunch of cells that happen to contain human DNA as "a human life" is really pretty stupid.
And totally and utterly unsupported by science.
A human being has a mind.
A zygote doesn't.
Thus it's not a human.
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
And before you were born I consecrated you;
I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5 NASB)
19 Nov 12
Originally posted by bbarrSo you're too exhausted to answer my question, but not too exhausted to post questions about fictional characters?
Because your example is under described. I am exhausted, and will write more tomorrow. But answer me this one question: Why would it be just as morally wrong to harm or enslave a Vulcan as a human? What on your account yields this result? It can't be because they are human; they're not. So why would they matter morally, on your view?
And my example about a human being in a vegetative state, who can't feel, think, and thus has no mind, and is only a pulled-plug away from death, and the morality of doing whatever you want to such a human, due to your assertion that a person must be able to feel, think, and have a mind... is "underdescribed"? Hmm.
If such a thing as a Vulcan existed, there'd be no moral difference between them and a human, and my questions would be phrased different to account for it. That was easy.
So let's review: we have you dodging a question---presumably to give yourself more time just to answer why you believe what you believe---with a question about the morality of fictional characters. Shall I use "sad" here?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
19 Nov 12
Originally posted by kd2aczYes but that is a religious argument.
Appreciate your point, but couldn't disagree more.
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
And before you were born I consecrated you;
I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5 NASB)
I just asked you if you could justify your position without resorting to your religion.
And you told me that your position had nothing to do with your religion.
So what is your argument that doesn't use your religion?
19 Nov 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeThe fertilized human egg within the womb of a women is life that grows to become a human being if not interferred with. So to deliberately terminate this growth could be easily considered involuntary manslaughter just the same as when a pregnant women is assaulted and the unborn baby inside her dies as a result. Whoever causes the death of the unborn baby should at least be found guilty of manslaughter in my opinion and anyone that helped should to found guilty as an accomplice.
Yes but that is a religious argument.
I just asked you if you could justify your position without resorting to your religion.
And you told me that your position had nothing to do with your religion.
So what is your argument that doesn't use your religion?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accomplice
19 Nov 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeI posted an illustration a few posts back that had to do with the journey of life. It is an analogy that I believe clearly shows how life, specifically human life, has a beginning and an end. All we as people need to do, is leave it alone. You, I, sonhouse, avalanchthecat, rjhinds, sumydid, vivify, stellspalfie, suzianne, etc. to name a few are all a product of this early life and have had the same beginning.
Yes but that is a religious argument.
I just asked you if you could justify your position without resorting to your religion.
And you told me that your position had nothing to do with your religion.
So what is your argument that doesn't use your religion?
Some would argue that in all of our beginnings we had no minds and therefore were not human, do you believe this to be true? We are all made up of mind body and spirit and undergo different stages of development at different times throughout this thing we call life. Science can prove the body, it can prove the mind, but it cannot prove the spirit but that does not change the fact we have one, and I think we all know this to be the truth deep within us if we dare be honest with ourselves.
Relating to our spirits…
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
And before you were born I consecrated you;
I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5 NASB)
You were known before you were formed!
I fully understand that many can’t or won’t accept this reasoning for many different reasons, and I am good with that… we all come from different walks of life, have had different experiences, and carry loads of baggage from this that or the other thing that have formed our belief system. The culture in which we live where political correctness, fear of being outside of public opinion, etc. is something we often are not willing to go against. I am not saying this is your story, but it is for many and it is a pity.
You and many others present on this forum use science as your basis for truth as to what makes something true or not, legitimate or not... it is your moral compass, it is in many ways your religion.
GF, I cannot give you an argument that will satisfy you to your liking. From what I have seen throughout the different forums, this is almost never possible, IMO. My observation is that you generally take a US vs. THEM approach (science vs. faith/religion) on things when faith is concerned… as do many others. If something cannot be 'proven' by the means of science, it becomes invalid or untrue. Science cannot explain everything and it won’t. I hope this satisfies your request for argument on this topic.
If my argument to you is religious, then your's to me is as well, because science is your faith, IMHO (no disrespect meant if taken that way).
There really is not much more I can say.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
19 Nov 12
Originally posted by kd2acz
I posted an illustration a few posts back that had to do with the journey of life. It is an analogy that I believe clearly shows how life, specifically human life, has a beginning and an end. All we as people need to do, is leave it alone. You, I, sonhouse, avalanchthecat, rjhinds, sumydid, vivify, stellspalfie, suzianne, etc. to name a few are all a produ ...[text shortened]... IMHO (no disrespect meant if taken that way).
There really is not much more I can say.
Some would argue that in all of our beginnings we had no minds and therefore were not human, do you believe this to be true?
No, I know it to be true.
What makes us people, what makes us something other than an object, are our minds.
As we don't start with a mind we thus don't start as humans.
We start as something that MIGHT someday become a human.
We are all made up of mind body and spirit ...
No we are not.
There is no such thing as spirit (souls/life force/afterlives/ghosts/ect), this is a scientific fact.
...Science can prove the body, it can prove the mind, but it cannot prove the spirit but that does not change the fact we have one ...
Actually yes it can. Don't know why you think it can't.
There is a host of stuff in Biology and medicine that shows this, but Physics is all you need.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=X5Fel1VKEN8#t=45s
I skipped the annoying introducer for you.
... and I think we all know this to be the truth deep within us if we dare be honest with ourselves. ....
Then you are deluded, and rather insulting.
We do not 'all know this'. And it's demonstrably not true.
You and many others present on this forum use science as your basis for truth as to what makes something true or not, legitimate or not...
it is your moral compass, it is in many ways your religion.
In no way is science a religion, this is a really stupid argument.
Science is the study of the natural world, the reality we live in, by objective and rigorous methods designed to counter and eliminate/correct for any biases.
In science nothing is worshipped and nothing taken of faith.
It is not a religion or anything like a religion.
GF, I cannot give you an argument that will satisfy you to your liking. From what I have seen throughout the different forums, this is almost never possible, IMO.
My observation is that you generally take a US vs. THEM approach (science vs. faith/religion) on things when faith is concerned… as do many others.
If something cannot be 'proven' by the means of science, it becomes invalid or untrue. Science cannot explain everything and it won’t.
I hope this satisfies your request for argument on this topic.
Of course it doesn't.
If something can't be explained by science then it can't be explained. Pretty much by definition.
Nothing can be, or ever has been, explained via faith.
However the point of this discussion wasn't to try to convince you not to believe, although that would be nice.
But to point out that your ENTIRE basis for wanting to ban all abortions is founded in your religious beliefs.
Beliefs that are both demonstrably false, but (ridiculously) more importantly are not in any way shape or form universal.
It is illegal (unconstitutional) in the USA to impose religious laws or impose anyone else's religion on anyone else.
Much as it would be great for everyone to come to their senses and not believe in evil non-existent gods, I don't see that happening any time soon.
However you don't get to make laws based on the existence of your god, in the same way that nobody else gets to make laws based on their gods.
So can you accept that while you may not like abortion.
You don't get to impose your religion on anyone else by banning it (either legally or practically by forcing the closure of clinics and such)?
19 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsSpirit resides in everything, including seemingly lifeless things like rocks. We know now that at a quantum level there are all sorts of quantum particles behaving weirdly.
I believe God made some animals souls, too.
Animal souls may be different from human souls, but I believe there will be a place in paradise for them too.
It is clear to me that the most important "souls" ( 'part of Spirit that resides within humans' ), are human souls. We have most to learn from each other and this knowledge may just save our race one day.
It is also clear , just by observation, that the animal kingdom is the next most important form of Spirit that should be revered. As should all plants. Dont kill your plants if you dont have to!
Walk on the Earth, as if every blade of grass should be treaded on lightly , as if somewhere out there in a far out dimension some superior being is 'treading lightly' when they 'walk' on us.