50k Challenge reopened with higher stakes

[Phil153]

Actually, that's exactly what I meant. Perhaps I wasn't clear. The first one is exactly what the debate is about, and the OP claims that science that can answer that question for us. Which is nonsense.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, that's exactly what I meant. Perhaps I wasn't clear. The first one is exactly what the debate is about, and the OP claims that science that can answer that question for us. Which is nonsense.

[/ QUOTE ]

The OP stated -
[ QUOTE ]
The scientific view of when life begins is better than the biblical view of at conception.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right the debate is about 'what value do we place on X', but it's often wrapped and disguised as an objective measurement. That's the way the nonsense slips into the discussion and the OP is in a sense answering this falsely framed question.

luckyme

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
I consider my Christianity to have very little to do w/ my feelings on abortion.

[/ QUOTE ] What does then? And more importantly what reasons force your hand on issues of stem cells? Where do you get your moral conditioning that holds these views?

[ QUOTE ]
I imagine I would be very much a utilitarian

[/ QUOTE ]
Utilitarians really miss the mark becuase they don't have the correct way to determine what value is. Happiness although usually the marker of correct action doesn't gaurentee it.


[ QUOTE ]
the only reason I would no longer be pro-life

[/ QUOTE ] You will likely always be pro life, but you would have a better idea of what life is.

[ QUOTE ]
You "moral" atheists baffle me.

[/ QUOTE ] We shouldn't our life is important to us. We want to make the correct choices. Morality existed before theology. It have changed over the years. The most progressive person on the morality scale of 2000 years ago should sicken us today. And he certainly offends my moral sense.

[DougShrapnel]

Quite true, I mispoke. There is no point that something becomes a human life, and something that was a human life is now dead. Howevr Phil gives me pause to continue advocating this position. Seeing as he wants to be able to kill toddlers.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Also do you know what major african leader opposed anti-AIDS programs? If you answered Nelson Mandela you answered correctly. Only recently has the south african gov't put much emphasis on fighting AIDS.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bluff,

Put away your red herring and let us deal with the issue at hand.

[/ QUOTE ]


To the contrary, because you are implicitly asserting the church's teaching is the primary factor here. It was fun to use that term "red herring" you learned in a 1 semester philosophy class wasn't it, even if you did use it wrongly? Too bad you didn't learn enough to break an arguement (like your own) down into its constituent parts and see if it was logically formed.




All of you logically challenged (or maybe you're just intentionally being dishonest and using logial fallacies as rhetoric to persuade the gullible) are making the following case:

1) The RCC opposes condoms (true)

2) There are a great many deaths from AIDS in africa (true)

3) Therefore, there is a causal connection between #1 and #2, AND the church having no right to put forth those views should be punished somehow



So to make that logical leap to #3, equivalent to jumping across the Grand Canyon at its widest point, you have to show both that the Church's position influenced governments/organizations to not distribute condoms, was the primary factor in same AND was successful, AND that the unfortunate individuals who contracted AIDS had no other choices in their behaviour that would not have led to their getting AIDS, and thus but for the Church's position, they most likely wouldn't have gotten it.

So stop your lying rhetorical manipulations and use of inflammatory inappropriate terms like "genocide", or if that wasn't your motivation and intent, then go take a course on logic and don't be a fool next time.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Doug,

Define what you mean by "hold accountable". You just mean the vocal censure of like-minded liberals like yourself? Or something more substantive?

[/ QUOTE ]BluffThis what do you think we should do toward people that believe that killing people that don't follow the same faith as them will secure a place in heaven with 70 some odd virgins? What about people that insist the existence of a soul in a blastula forbids it's use as a mehtod to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of people?

[/ QUOTE ]

You answered a question with a question. It's your thread and your assertion so it's on you to define what you mean.

[/ QUOTE ] Well I'm opened to ideas. Lawsuit's are an exceptable avenue. What we do toward the fire shouter we should do to the stem cell research is murder shouter. We might want to prevent suicede bombers by disallowing them to marry. My idea is to treat religion like it's anything else and not automatically valid becuase one holds a belief. Further more that the religious beliefs aren't very different amognst the 3 major monotheistic religions. All are dangerous.

[BluffTHIS!]

Doug,

You still aren't really answering the question I put to you. Furthermore, by logical extension, any talk of "holding responsible" must also extend to any group, including political parties, who through their exercise of free speech, advocate actions even when they don't incite violence (but especially when they do), but which do in the opinion of others, have deleterious effects. As an example, to myself and likeminded people, the Democrat party's advocacy of legal abortion. Or to liberals, the Republican party's advocacy of the war in Iraq. So we religious repubs can sue the dem party for abortion, and you lib dems can sue the repub party for the lives of soldiers lost in the war. That sound right?

[JayTee]

[ QUOTE ]
To the contrary, because you are implicitly asserting the church's teaching is the primary factor here.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I'm not. The church's teachings are in complete contradiction of what is in the best interest of the health of these people.

[ QUOTE ]
It was fun to use that term "red herring" you learned in a 1 semester philosophy class wasn't it, even if you did use it wrongly?

[/ QUOTE ]
I've never taken a philosophy class. I've always used it in this way, but I'll definately look it up when I get a chance if you say I'm wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
Too bad you didn't learn enough to break an arguement (like your own) down into its constituent parts and see if it was logically formed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that is a very big assumption to make, considering what I have posted in this thread. I may not be formally educated in logic but your changing the subject to Nelson Mandela was obviously a dishonest tactic.




[ QUOTE ]
All of you logically challenged (or maybe you're just intentionally being dishonest and using logial fallacies as rhetoric to persuade the gullible)

[/ QUOTE ]

You shouldn't insult educated Christians.

[ QUOTE ]
are making the following case:

1) The RCC opposes condoms (true)

2) The use of condoms decreases the probability of transmission of the AIDS virus (true)

2) There are a great many deaths from AIDS in africa (true)

3) Therefore, the teaching of the RCC to not use condoms will increase the probability of AIDS transmission for those who accept these teachings but would have used condoms otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is what I am thinking.


p.s. You get to bent out of shape over disagreements. Relax a little and have a merry Christmas.

[DougShrapnel]

Bluff I certianly want to respond to you. You bring up some interesting points of discussion. I want to skirt the political aspects, but I'm not sure if I can. I will take me a day or two. Have a merry xmas bud.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
3) Therefore, the teaching of the RCC to not use condoms will increase the probability of AIDS transmission for those who accept these teachings but would have used condoms otherwise.

That is what I am thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]


So, you are asserting that someone accepts one teaching of the church and doesn't use condoms, but then doesn't accept another one about having pre/extra marital sex? I guess that makes sense to you.