Debate thread (revived)

[CoBB]

Have you conceded your defeat to us, or should Timendus like to save the day?

Is this supposed to be a contest of some sort? Oh, well.

[thecheat]

here's a story you may enjoy:

two doctors were disscussing about abortion

Doctor 1: I heard of a woman, she was pregnant, had pnumonia and might die if she delivers, she's had a few miscarages already and other unhealthy babys, would you have aborted?

doctor 2: well, the evedence doesn't look too good for the baby, I don't think it's going to have much of a chance of survival, it'll probably die soon after birth or not have much of a life, yes, I'd say abort

doctor 1: you would have killed mozart


ok, now, just because the baby came from a rape doesn't mean it can't be great, does it? I know being a raped, then having a child would be emotionally excruciating, the child would forever be a reminder, but, you don't know what that child will become in time, perhaps cure cancer, or invent something better than sliced bread ( ), you just never know, good DOES come out of bad things.

[Arcane WIzard]

i agree with everything lloyd just said. also, if (somehow) the baby doesn't want to live, we all gotta die one day anyway so let it live. let it hate life. let it commit suicide. dont kill it cause if you kill it then it doesnt have the choice of life but if you let it live it still has the choice of death.

Maybe if it's dead it still has the choice to live. If you don't think it's capable of not wanting to life, how can you think it's capable of not wanting to die? It doesn't know what life or death is, it's selfish to assume they do and automatically choose for life.

nobody knows if they want to live or die. letting it live still gives it the choice of life and death. killing it only leaves it with death. so if the baby wants to die, you can still let it live and then let it kill itself. if the baby wants to live, let it live cause if you kill it, that choice will be taken away. and as lloyd said, its a human's instinct to survive. want to prove me wrong? hold your breath for 10 minutes.

I never said anything about the consequences of my proposition, just that the other was wrong. Yes it's human instinct to survive, but a) you don't know when that instinct starts and b) people still commit suicide.

And if someone doesn't want a baby and they're pregnant, they can just put it up for adoption.

Because being pregnant 9 months, giving birth, and then giving the child away is so easy.

well its an inconvenience and i know it wasnt the victim's idea to have an unplanned pregnancy, but paying thousands of dollars to get an abortion, killing the baby, and even risking your own life in the process is better than waiting 9 months and putting it up for adoption? did you know in order to get an abortion the developing baby has to be a certain maturity or else it wont work? you cant get one too early so if you already waited 6 months, why not wait 3 more and save its life and even maybe save your own.

Did you know that there are a handfull of different possible methods of abortion? Some that can be applied before 13 weeks into the pregnancy? That there is an abortion pill that terminates pregnancy within the first 3 weeks? Abortion isn't even legal after 6 months pregnancy here in the Netherlands. Please do some research on the subject before stating "facts".

Here's another interesting fact or two:
The Netherlands has one of the best advice and education around abortion in the world.
Premarital sex is legal in the Netherlands.
Abortion (up to 24 weeks pregnancy, usually no logner allowed after 21 weeks and a few days, but 24 is the law) is legal in the Netherlands.
The Netherlands has the lowest abortion rates in the world.

doctor 1: you would have killed mozart

Life would go on. Besides, how is that worse than killing Jane Doe the 16 year old prostitute who eventually overdoses on cocaine? We are all equal, except those who earn more money, become more famous, or have higher IQs? Right.

[lloydkirk1989]

Exactly, religion has no place in politics, especially in America, with out freedom of religion.

Though officialy, America is a secular nation, it was founded on Christian principles. Most of the founding fathers were Christians. Hence, "one nation under God". The whole purpose of 'seperation of church and state' was to prevent a 'tyrannical church'. Man is corrupt by nature, therefore a church can easily be corrupted too. The founding fathers wanted a country governed by Christian values, not a pope. The clergy has fault, the Bible doesn't.

[threefingeredguy]

"One nation" was in the original pledge, but "under God" was not added until Eisenhower's administration. And most of the founding fathers were deists. Deists believe in God, but believe more in science. Deism Defined. They were the original believers in ID. You are probably right about the religion thing, but there is a bit more to it. Since many American colonies were founded because of religious oppression, one of the main things that the founders wanted was to continue the tradition of religious freedom that had helped bring about the country.

Anyway, throw some more stuff at me and I'll try to dispell the myths.

[dysfunction]

...Again with the insults.

Please don't whine about insults from Homestar after claiming my opinions are perverted. If you give yourself the freedom to insult then so should you treat others. Thanks.

...When did I claim anybody's opinion was perverted? That was lloydkirk. I don't believe I've insulted anyone in this thread except 4sberg when he made his "Bush is a socialist, if you don't believe that then you should get your head examined" comment. In fact, I apologize even for that; it just enraged me that he would make such a ridiculous claim, and then have the gall to insult anyone who disagreed with him.

[Arcane WIzard]

You are right, I'm sorry, I thought you where the one who said that.

[4sberg]

@ threefingeredguy: Incase you didn't know the Old Testament was commands for the Jews, not Christians.

Um, I hate to break it to you, anti-semite, but Christians are Jews. I'll put it in Java format. There's a class Jew. class Christian extends Jew and class Muslim extends Christian. The religions were built on top of each other.

The Old Testament was for the Jews only. At the same time, it was for everyone to believe (this is what the Jews call block logic. I don't know if you realized it, but this is eastern reasoning. Its also called the both and system The Old Testament was written in that culteral context, and has quite an eastern flavor to it. But I digress). All you had to do was to become a Jew. There was a ceremonial process that you had to go through, then you officially became a Jew. There are times in the Old Testament that God would do something (using the Jews) in order that the whole earth would know that the Lord is God. 1 kings 8:60 says "that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God; there is no other." Psalm 77:14 says "You are the God who works wonders; you have made known your might among the peoples.

Now, Jesus was the fulfillment of the Old Testament. What the law could not do, Jesus did. So, Messianic Jews are actually completed Jews. Gentile christians are not actually physical Jews, but Jewish in spirit. So, your almost right. When Jesus died on the cross, he said, "It is finished." He fulfilled the law and the prophets. There didn't need to be any more fulfillment. Therefore, Islam is not built upon the foundation of the Bible, but is a travesty.

But if you want to go ahead and decide that the Old Testament is rules for Jews only you are saying 3 things:

Well, I proved that the Old Testament wasn't "only" for Jews.

1) The Jewish faith is every bit a legitimate faith as Christianity. Everyone knows it is and your statement verifies this, even though previous statements you made would have us believing that Christianity is the only right religion and the Judaism is wrong. Or maybe you are just contradicting yourself because you've backed yourself into a corner. Hmm, I think must be it.

The Jewish faith was dependent on a Messiah. It wasn't completed--remember the thing about Jesus fulfilling the prophecies in the Old Testament. Christianity is the Old and New Testaments. We are under a New Covenant that relies mainly on the New Testament.

2) The rules on homosexuality, beastility, and incest don't apply to Christians either, since they are in the same book, just 1 chapter before. Thus your view on homosexuality is based off your prejudice and not your religion making you a bigot and a bane on society.

Well, 1 Timothy 1:10, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and Romans 1:26, 27 all condemn Homosexuality.

3) The ten commandments don't apply to you then, since they are part of the Old Testament. So "Thou shall not kill" is not a rule that applies to Christians and so your view on abortion is baseless and is the product of your own feelings. Now you can have your own view on it, but please, if you want effective policy-making, don't bring religion into the discussion but intelligence.
While religion is important, what is more important is the safety and happiness of the citizens in a country. Read some Locke. Learn about how a government should work. Impartial judges judge the morality of decisions, not people who are blinded by rules that they themselves have stated don't apply to them.

If you don't contradict yourself and you base accusations and arguments from an intelligent thought process instead of rules that were "commands for the Jews, not Christians", I'm sure you'll have much more success in this argument.

If you read the New Testament clearly, you would know that Jesus never came to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. He made sin a matter of the heart when he said, "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire" or "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart." It became much more than religious do's and don'ts. So, Christ didn't abolish the law, but made it better.

If religion is good, then we must obey it. Well here is Psalm 2:10-12:

Now therefore, O kings, be wise;be warned, O rulers of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

[4sberg]

Have you conceded your defeat to us, or should Timendus like to save the day?

Is this supposed to be a contest of some sort? Oh, well.

Nah, just trying to be funny.

[lecks]

i thought we agreed to keep religion off this thread

[threefingeredguy]

Well, 1 Timothy 1:10, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and Romans 1:26, 27 all condemn Homosexuality.

And they are all written by Paul. A person, with his own opinion, not necessarily God's.

Edit: whoops, except Timothy.

[Homestar]

i thought we agreed to keep religion off this thread

I did too, but it's threefingeredguy who keeps stepping in it.

------------------------

@Threefingeredguy: Those weren't paul's personal opinions, they were inspired scripture. When I say inspired I mean it by the definition that God wrote those scriptures through Paul.

... isn't that something. a 'christian' who thinks the scriptures are a man's personal opinion.

[threefingeredguy]

i thought we agreed to keep religion off this thread

I did too, but it's threefingeredguy who keeps stepping in it.

Yup, cause most of these people's opinions come straight from their religion.

I'm sure Paul was inspired by God, but there is evidence that many things he and others have said were just clever ploys to win converts. Christmas, which actually happened in May, was celebrated in December to conflict with pagan solstice celebrations. Easter was named easter after a goddess who was worshipped on the same day. The Christian religion compromised many things to accomodate Pagan converts.

And why is Christian in quotes? How am I not Christian?

[DarkerLine]

Not being Christian is as much against the Bible as homosexuality is. If one legislates against homosexuality based on the Bible, consistency would require making non-Christians criminals.

[thecheat]

well, the problem with not using religion in the thread is: that's where all your idea are "biased" from, why does the atheist not want to accept some of the religious' opinions, he's BIASED, you can't help that, so, the religion's going to make a difference wether you think killing everyone from euthanasia, suicide, or abortion is good, bad, or doesn't matter.

so, like threefingeredguy said, your religion's going to bias you no matter how hard you try. Now we COULD try to keep the theoloigy to Pm's just for the sake that bystanders don't think the talkers' religion idiotic as they have a disagreement where one, or both of them may be wrong (not pointing fingers, (fingers doesn't refer to the guy with only three )) causing a huge thing wether it's macro or micro evolution would sure look to me like they don't know what they're talking about, so it must be the same way around.