For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
That's a very silly argument. There's no requirement that we create the maximum number of possible children...just that we don't kill the ones we've willfully created. And rape is contrary to other moral absolutes, as even Dube has recognized. So that's pretty straightforward, and not at all hard to debunk.
It's as non-absolute as Jesus dying for our sins since we never stopped doing what he supposedly died for, just as rapes consistently happen in spite of it being denoted a crime.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 12:31 pmThen your former claim was simply untrue. You admit of no exceptions to the rule that rape is wrong. So it is not the case, as you first said, that "nothing is absolute." At least one thing, for you, is absolute: the prohibition on rape.Dubious wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:32 amSo do IImmanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 2:42 am
Okay, then. I happen to think rape, to take one example, is objectively wrong. Maybe you can explain the circumstances under which you would regard rape as okay by you. Then we can maybe explore some of those others.
But then most aborted children weren't willfully created, that's why they get aborted. You're contradicting yourself.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 4:30 pmThat's a very silly argument. There's no requirement that we create the maximum number of possible children...just that we don't kill the ones we've willfully created. And rape is contrary to other moral absolutes, as even Dube has recognized. So that's pretty straightforward, and not at all hard to debunk.
Once again you are lying, and thus in thrall to your master, Satan. If you called a fetus "human", you would, at least, have a case. Calling it a "baby" is equivalent to calling an adult a baby, a baby an adult, or a septagenarian a teenager. All misrepresent (in your case inentionally) the truth about the age and stage of development of the organism involved.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 3:39 pm
Nope. It's a biological fact. A fetus is not a cat or an emu. A human being, her child, is exactly what the aborter is trying to cut off. And she knows it.
The logic above is very, very straightforward. No problem at all.Dubious wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 4:31 pmYou certainly seem to have a self-inflicted cognition problem when it comes to understanding references which counter yours.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 12:31 pmThen your former claim was simply untrue. You admit of no exceptions to the rule that rape is wrong. So it is not the case, as you first said, that "nothing is absolute." At least one thing, for you, is absolute: the prohibition on rape.
For an Atheist, not only can rape not be objectively wrong...nothing can. Whatever is, simply is. It's neither good nor evil, in any objective sense.I agreed with you when I wrote "so do I" in reference to rape being "objectively wrong" as you put it. I would also declare it to be in every sense morally wrong, but then being an atheist, what credentials could I possibly have to classify anything as morally wrong based on your own over developed biblical standards?
On the contrary: statistically, 99% of them are the result of an act of will. Maybe in some cases the perps did not want a child out of the deal, but they certainly knew they were choosing to take the chance they'd create one.Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 4:33 pmBut then most aborted children weren't willfully created...Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 4:30 pmThat's a very silly argument. There's no requirement that we create the maximum number of possible children...just that we don't kill the ones we've willfully created. And rape is contrary to other moral absolutes, as even Dube has recognized. So that's pretty straightforward, and not at all hard to debunk.
Thanks Atto, but you're wrong if you think that an atheist would not be interested in an esoteric or otherwise abstract comprehension of the god Concept as opposed to Deity. Actually I was never against the idea that a god motive within human consciousness can be a catalyst to drive individuals including civilizations forward and beyond. It can never be something constitutionalized or mandated by some overweening human authority but something which highlights the correct path moving into the future. Since we cannot ever move backward, such a guide becomes not only a personal sage but a collective destiny. It's hard to explain but mythically I think of it as a kind of Holy Grail concept, its emergence from the purely religious now becoming instead an instrument of guidance. Didn't the old sailors for the longest time steer by the stars?attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 8:47 amWELL SAID Dubious.Dubious wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:32 amSo do I which is the reason if it results in pregnancy, abortion is completely admissible, understandable and likely even preferable!Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 2:42 am
Okay, then. I happen to think rape, to take one example, is objectively wrong. Maybe you can explain the circumstances under which you would regard rape as okay by you. Then we can maybe explore some of those others.
Also, where have I stated that rape is ok...or put another way, you still haven't learned how to read and quote correctly - which, of course, never has happened and after all this time is not ever expected to happen. Who do you think you're still fooling with your age-old techniques of purposeful distortion?
It's always the same with theists: Behold the honesty of the absolute god believers!
From the beginning of time, theism has been the legitimate platform for the most egregious lies and liars; good of you to carry on the venerable tradition!
IC has NO backbone in any "philosophical" debate - I won't bother with the coward again. *My sage\God confirmed on a couple of occasions that he is not well rated as a Christian and he continuously proves Y. (not that an atheist would be interested in my esoteric comprehension)
That he seems to think there should be no ethical standards in a philosophical debate is astounding.
..as I get tapped on my right knee "RIGHT" on re-read of that last sentence
You'll find that abuse and slander are poor ways to start any conversation, and merely make look lunatic. But you can please yourself about that; I just ignore the nonsense.Alexiev wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 4:33 pmOnce again you are lyingImmanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 3:39 pm
Nope. It's a biological fact. A fetus is not a cat or an emu. A human being, her child, is exactly what the aborter is trying to cut off. And she knows it.
I don't have to. She's that already, regardless of what I call her. CIf you called a fetus "human", you would, at least, have a case.
The "biological fact" is irrelevant.
That's a pretty funny thing to say, actually. So biology's against you, but still you want to rage...Of course, understood! The world is divided into the two main factions of good and evil as represented by theists and atheists, respectively!Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 4:54 pm
For an Atheist, not only can rape not be objectively wrong...nothing can.
Then either rape is also an act of will and you should have done it, but you've chosen to murder the future children instead. Or they did not want a child and so they weren't willfully created, so you agree with abortion.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 4:57 pmOn the contrary: statistically, 99% of them are the result of an act of will. Maybe in some cases the perps did not want a child out of the deal, but they certainly knew they were choosing to take the chance they'd create one.Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 4:33 pmBut then most aborted children weren't willfully created...Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 4:30 pm
That's a very silly argument. There's no requirement that we create the maximum number of possible children...just that we don't kill the ones we've willfully created. And rape is contrary to other moral absolutes, as even Dube has recognized. So that's pretty straightforward, and not at all hard to debunk.
I'm just taking the Atheists at their word. They claim they believe there's no basis for any objective morality...I'm just treating them as speaking seriously when they say that.Dubious wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:03 pmOf course, understood! The world is divided into the two main factions of good and evil as represented by theists and atheists, respectively!Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 4:54 pm
For an Atheist, not only can rape not be objectively wrong...nothing can.
No, some acts of will are evil.Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:03 pmThen either rape is also an act of will and you should have done it,...Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 4:57 pmOn the contrary: statistically, 99% of them are the result of an act of will. Maybe in some cases the perps did not want a child out of the deal, but they certainly knew they were choosing to take the chance they'd create one.
But, apparently, a foetus can be opinioned into something otherwise.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 4:21 pmWell, then, your application of logic has failed you, obviously.
A thing is what it is, regardless of opinions. If a child is a child, no "opinon" will make her otherwise; and if she is not, then "opinion" can't make her into one.
Nope, I pointed out that you're having the problem with basic logic.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:07 pmNo, some acts of will are evil.Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:03 pmThen either rape is also an act of will and you should have done it,...Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 4:57 pm
On the contrary: statistically, 99% of them are the result of an act of will. Maybe in some cases the perps did not want a child out of the deal, but they certainly knew they were choosing to take the chance they'd create one.
You're really having trouble with basic logic today, it seems.
I said the opposite. And it's true: you can't make something not-what-it-is by way of an opinion.Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:09 pmBut, apparently, a foetus can be opinioned into something otherwise.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 4:21 pmWell, then, your application of logic has failed you, obviously.
A thing is what it is, regardless of opinions. If a child is a child, no "opinon" will make her otherwise; and if she is not, then "opinion" can't make her into one.
What they all have in common is what philosophers term, "personhood," meaning "being a creature capable of rights."A person could be anything from new born baby to a 100 year old man, and relate to various different characteristics of a human being.
