₦airaland Forum

striktlymi: Oh boy ye...this pikin just dey remind me of those days wey I dey come first for debating society in the year 1925.

lol, bros you take style old o!

OLAADEGBU: Do we all agree on absolute morality? and if not whose moral code should we follow? Am sure some believe its OK to kill babies just as others who equally think that they should kill people of other religions.

If we cannot agree that murder is absolutely wrong, we cannot even begin to have a conversation at all.

wiegraf: Che. You assumed I assumed you were asking him to subscribe to your opinion, no?

ok my bad

Criteria you make up on the go is fiat everywhere?

please rephrase

wiegraf: Let's take wiki

wiki:

Humans (Homo sapiens) are primates of the family Hominidae, and the only extant species of the genus Homo.[2][3] Humans are characterized by having a large brain relative to body size, with a particularly well developed neocortex, prefrontal cortex and temporal lobes, making them capable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection, problem solving and culture through social learning. This mental capability, combined with an adaptation to bipedal locomotion that frees the hands for manipulating objects, has allowed humans to make far greater use of tools than any other species. Humans are the only extant species known to build fires and cook their food, as well as the only known species to clothe themselves and create and use numerous other technologies and arts. The scientific study of humans is the discipline of anthropology.



This definition I'm fine with. Fetuses are incapable of any of that, they've not developed any (or most) of the tools.

By your definition, 1 week old babies do not count as human since they are incapable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection, problem solving and culture through social learning. combined with an adaptation to bipedal locomotion that frees the hands for manipulating objects.

In fact monkeys are this stage are considerably more human according to you.

No, baby can eat, piss, shit, breathe, etc on its own. They have the capability to do the above listed. All the tools are there, even if they're just fresh and new, learning, etc. At that point it's a full human being. In fact, somewhere along the late term I would say it becomes 'human'.

Are you arguing that a human being is only human as long as it has the right body parts? Are amputees therefore less human than those with complete limbs?

What's this, some sort of emotional blackmail?

No it is not, I'm only bringing you face to face with your thesis.

It's funny how you can call an 'organ' a person just to trample over people's rights, while ingratiating yourself with god so you could continue slaving in heaven. See how stoopidly simplistic that sounds?

Yawn, you still haven't explained why it is an organ and not a human being? What does this 'organ' do for the body exactly?

I hope you're not calling me a murderer because of your silly religious whargarbl?

religious? no I am only wondering what else to call a person who thinks it is morally acceptable for women to have the right to kill their own children.

thehomer: Analogies are to draw comparisons, if what you think is an analogous comparison is incorrect, then you cannot use that analogy.

You have not shown that the analogy is incorrect. You merely state it.

I've told you what it is. You disagreed with me. Now why don't you tell me what you think it is before you start trying to read other people's minds? You have to first say what you think it is before jumping on to something else for us to be sure your conception is even correct.

pro-choice (advocating a woman's right to control her own body (especially her right to an induced abortion)) wordnetweb.princeton.edu

pro-choice Favoring or supporting the legal right of women and girls to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term. www.thefreedictionary.com/pro-choice

Again I ask: As science improves the age of viability has steadily gone lower. Why would a pro-choice advocate deny a woman her "right to choose" just because science improved? Could it be that there is something morally wrong with choosing to kill babies in the womb?

No I don't but you ignored the valid point which is that mutations are the source of the difference. Or do you think cancer cells are human beings?

the mutations are caused by cancer viruses. therefore these cancer cells are not human as they lack the potential of ever becoming people.

You haven't answered the question. You said it is a unique and different being not that it is a human being. Unless you think that all unique and different cells are human beings, then you haven't answered the question.

Will you at least grant that there are is such a thing as a human cell distinct from the cell of another organism?

Now please answer by relating your response to the conclusion that what you're talking about is a human being.

Would you also grant that you are still the same person even though more or less all the cells that constituted your body when you were 2 years old are now dead?

If the above is true then I am justified in saying that
a zygote is the same person as the embryo at 1 week old,
the same person as the foetus at 6 months old,
the same person as the baby at 1 year,
same as the teenager at 15,
the same as the adult today
and will still be the same as the elderly person 40 years from now.
All that happened is that this zygote grew.

Now if you accept that you are the same person that was born to your mother, then I don't see why that baby is not the same as the zygote that was formed at fertilization. You are the same human being all through your life from conception to death regardless of which parts of your body you may lack or have lacked at any point in time.

If you reject this, then I'll have to ask you to tell me precisely when you became a human being and what exactly was the defining factor.

thehomer: Clearly, you're not being serious because your answer won't be fallacious if it were valid. Or do you think I've committed a fallacy by answering the question?

It is common knowledge between the two of us that I base morality on a creator. The reason you opened this thread was to contest that very assumption. Why then should I assume it when it is precisely what we are contesting.

Wrong. Certain states are objectively better than others.

By what objective standard?

Wrong you cannot disregard my responses unless you have some idea of what it is to be good in any sense of the word.

I can disregard a response that hasn't made any sense. if you can say "God is objectively bad because I think He is bad." I can as well say "thehomer is bad because I think he is bad". All we've done is give voice to our opinions without giving any valid reasons.

Wrong again. The burden of proof shifts from time to time in a discussion. I've met mine, you're supposed to present your own point and be ready to defend it but for some reason, you're skittish.

Urhm no you haven't met yours. Remind me what is "good" again?

I've shown you that it is related to well-being while you have simply tried to avoid answering any single question. Even the questions in the OP.

You may as well have said it is related to how people like their tea in the morning. As long as you haven't defined an objective well-being, you have essentially said nothing.

In fact, you're welcome to answer those questions using your own idea of what it means to be good. Just be ready to defend it when asked. That much has been clarified. So please answer the questions in the OP.

As soon as you establish an objective good, I will be happy to weigh 1Sam 15:3 against it.

wiegraf: And I state you're asking him to, where? It's a simple question, and for a good reason I might add.

And I state that you stated that I was asking him to, where?
As I implied in my response an objective formula must exist or else we have no basis for valuation. It is not "my formula" if it is objective.

thehomer: Wrong yet again. That is one of the requirements not the only requirement. Otherwise, even someone who used to be a born again Christian who becomes a Buddhist would still get into heaven.

Lololol, you truly are ignorant of the bible. Perhaps that's where we should have started from. It is clear that you don't know what it means to be born again. A christian who becomes a buddhist was never born again.

Take some time to study the gospel of John chapter 3 also study the first epistle of John so that you can get some basic understanding of what you are talking about. I'm happy to discuss those passages with you if you would like.

How do you know it is a conjecture? Once again, you have to show me that the idea is wrong and you're yet to do that.

A conjecture doesn't necessarily mean wrong, it only means that the view is drawn from inferences and not a stated fact.
I am still curious as to why you prefer to argue based on conjectures instead of fact. Are you sure you are serious about accurately expressing the christian worldview that you want to argue against?

Once again, you're missing the point and misusing the fallacy. Take a look at this person's write up. Is that view wrong? Is that person a fake Christian? Or don't you think that his views are based on the Bible? Despite his references?

Once again, what is your view of what happens to them? I've presented a valid Christian view. Can you present your own view and show that this Christian's view is wrong?

As I said from the onset, I don't know that to be true. What I know to be true is that those who are born-again go to heaven. Would you like to argue along that line?

thehomer: I just said it was a properly basic assumption. Rejecting that means you automatically reject your own claim too.

fair enough, we'll have a stalemate there.

I'm saying life isn't like property at all. It isn't in a category similar to property. If you think it is like property, then you've not understood my point.

what is life like?

Go ahead and do that.



Once more, lets take things one at a time because you're the one beginning to lack consistency. Your argument is supposed to be that such a person shouldn't be blamed. Mine is that the person has done something which has to be evaluated. After all, if a 3 year old child shoots another child, that is an unjust killing which has to be considered or evaluated.

...and by "evaluating"(morally) you are not trying to find who to blame? if not, how so?

I hadn't gotten to that question because you're still confusing the idea of a person having their life with a person owning a car. I think this confusion will continue until you resolve the fact that a person having their life is different from having a belonging.

A person is free within certain bounds, like not unjustly deny other people their own rights, to lead their lives however they choose.

Who exactly determines these freedoms and restrictions?

Once again, I'm answering your question while you try to evade my own questions with irrelevant questions.

My questions are not irrelevant. The aim is to help make your position clear to me. . . .or are you not confident of your position anymore?

Now this is just ridiculous. All you had to do was to accept that you took my response out of context rather than playing around here with the idea of objective morality. We can continue that on the other thread I created but just chucking out questions for the sake of questions is quite pointless.

We are there

Kay 17: No it doesn't.

Good, then we are in agreement. You need your subjective tools (your eyes) to experience the green grass however it is not your eyes that makes the grass green.

thehomer: On the contrary, the Bible doesn't make that absolutely clear since born-again Christians can actually sin and it appears that what happens to them when they die in a sin is that they go to hell. The Bible is silent about abortion yet you seem to have pretty strong views about it for some reason. But Jesus wasn't really silent about the acceptance of children (who are the best examples of people who have a childlike mind) into heaven.

And here you have shown your bible ignorance. It is precisely born-again Christians that get to go to Heaven.

"Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Jesus Christ(John 3:3)

Wow. are you now a mind reader? I told you why I brought up little children, backed it up with biblical reasoning and now you declare that isn't what I "really" think? Come on. You should address what I actually say rather than addressing what you imagine I think.

That's why it is curious to me why you reject the same bible that clearly says that born again people make heaven. Why are you so intent on rejecting an unambiguously stated fact in favour of a conjecture?

When you claim the position I presented is a strawman, you're ultimately saying that a lot of Christians hold on to the wrong belief. Are you qualified to make that assessment?

Argumentum ad populum. The Christian worldview is based on THE BIBLE. By the way who are these "many Christians" you keep talking about?

thehomer: No they weren't. Children were an example, Paul was using a metaphor. Very different ideas entirely.

Same thing to me. In both cases Jesus and Paul were referring to a particular attribute to be emulated

In that case, you're actually wrong. 1 year old children don't have a volition or a will because they can't actually choose.

fine.

I mean sapient creatures. Claiming that he keeps them sapient to makes no more sense than saying he makes water wet. Now can you tell me how his mere presence grants him any authority?

Are you sure you are talking about the Christian worldview. . .or are you just cooking up anything you like as long as it suites you?

You're yet to actually answer my direct question. Let's take this one step at a time. Did the God actually command genocide?

Is it Genocide to destroy your own creation?

Maybe not but I am presenting a valid Christian view and if you have no position on it, then you can actually say that those who have the view I'm presenting are wrong and go ahead to defend your claim.

The important thing is: Is your position biblically based?

Is anyone qualified to speak about the Bible?

Of course.

A step at a time. Did God command it? Whether it is right or wrong?

As I have asked many times, how do you determine right and wrong?

Please try to answer my direct question before trying to throw a curve ball. As a sign of good faith, I'll answer this one but please try to answer my own questions too.
The other citizen can be arrested depending on whether or not the person is wanted by the state.

Good, in the same way the state has authority over her citizens and has the right to empower any of her citizens as an enforcer of her will, so does God have absolute authority over His creations and therefore has the right to empower any of His creations as an enforcer of His will

It isn't axiomatic that God is good. When you assert that goodness is his nature, that means it is possible that evilness can also be his nature. My question remains how do you know his nature is goodness and not evil?

The same way I know that the laws of logic are universal and binding without asking if the laws of logic are logical.

It is up to you to fix your own flawed analogies.

fair enough, perhaps I should start throwing in irrelevant answers so that we see how you enjoy explaining and re-explaining your arguments.

One step at a time. Did God command genocide? You asked for a definition, I provided it at some point, you'll need to start trying to have a conversation you know.

Is it genocide to destroy your own creation? You'll need to start having a conversation too.

That's just it. You haven't shown it is a strawman, you're only claiming that you disagree with the views other Christians have. Despite the fact that we began with you actually accepting the first two premises and claiming ignorance on the third. Now, you're claiming the third premise is a false construct despite the fact that it is a view actually held by Christians.

Question remains: Is the view biblical?

If you disagree with that view that is actually held by Christians, then you need to actually say why those Christians are wrong and actually be committed to some point of view otherwise you're just trying to obfuscate something that is pretty clear.

Christians have one standard, it is called the bible. All you have to do is biblically support the stance you have been claiming "most christians" have.

thehomer: Okay.



Please answer my own question first. Just humour me by begging the question and presenting your answer. I'm asking for what your idea of objective morality is.

Interesting. Now you are asking me to commit a logical fallacy? Are you really serious about this discussion at all?

Well being isn't something absolute but something assessed based on the effects on conscious creatures. It is basically an objective fact of subjective experiences of conscious creatures.

If there is no objective well-being, then there is no objective good since an objective good cannot depend on a subjective well-being.
You have failed to tell us what you mean by good and therefore I can disregard your rant against God as nothing but your subjective bias.

Now what do you think goodness depends on? And how do you know this?

That's your burden. Don't shift it to me

Once again, I notice that after your initial questions have been clarified, you're yet to answer the initial questions in the OP. Please try to do that in your next response.

You have not clarified anything. We still don't know what you mean by good.

thehomer: You didn't paraphrase my responses properly.

I said:


You responded with:


And I simply pointed out to you that your first statement there wasn't actually correct. Or do you have sources supporting that claim?

My general point of course is that you didn't actually show that the sentence I pointed out to you as being wrong was actually correct.

My answer was appropriate because you indicated that Jews died in both cases while I was questioning your claim of Nazis being punished for killing Jews by beating. If Nazis weren't being punished for that, then your analogy falls apart. And I think that was important in that analogy.

No it doesn't an analogy doesn't have to be factual. In fact most analogies aren't. what matters is the validity of the argument they are trying to convey. Surely you must know this. . .or perhaps you were only being deliberately irrational.

I'm telling you what the pro-choice view on this is so when you say my response isn't true, then you need to say what you think the pro-choice position is rather than once again, throwing out irrelevant questions that my response renders moot.

I only asked you a question so as to determine how pro-choice the pro-choice movement really is. Here it is again: As science improves the age of viability has gone steadily lower and lower. Why would a pro-choice advocate deny a woman her "right to choose" just because science improved? Could it be that there is something morally wrong with choosing to kill babies in the womb?

God via mutations.

I thought God didn't exist for you. Do you also believe in the virgin birth now?

I think you should first answer my own question before I answer this one. You've skipped far too many questions now. Here it is again.

How do you determine that a foetus is a human being? You'll notice that I answered your preceding question directly but you instead tried to once again, throw out questions rather than answering my own question directly.

It is not my fault that you conveniently skipped my answers only to ask me the same question again.

I answered the same question directly here:

https://www.nairaland.com/1292227/abortion/1#15763616

Now answer my question. Here it is again:

What amount of dependency do you think is appropriate? Can we kill one week old babies? how about 2 year olds? Where do we draw the line on dependency? and why should we draw it there?

thehomer: Once again, you begin by ignoring the direct questions posed to just chuck out yours. I think that at the very least you could try to answer my own questions.

Asking for clarification is not the same as ignoring.

Yes. Do you believe absolute truth exists?

Yes. we are agreed

Yes one can be morally right or wrong objectively but it isn't in the same way that one can be objectively right or wrong mathematically.

Please explain. Note that Mathematics only has absolutely true answers.

And what idea of morality do you subscribe to? Do you subscribe to the idea of divine command theory i.e whatever is commanded by God is good?

My answer to the bold will result in me begging the question. It will be wrong for me to assume the conclusion that is precisely what we are here to contest.
Also my idea of morality is irrelevant at this point, only an objective morality is what counts here.

Something being objectively good means that it is good regardless of what any person thinks and of course that has to at the very least, relate to the well being of conscious creatures.

Of course you are right here but since you think objective good depends on well-being, it only follows that there must be an objective well-being. Could you please tell me what that is? Objectively please.

Now can you tell me what you mean by objective goodness?

Same as you: Something being objectively good means that it is good regardless of what any person thinks

Kay 17: True, however we intuitively regard the bold in the OP as shocking and bad, inspite of the lack of definition. As I'm typing this, I'm in shock and I'm convinced destruction of infants is alarming.

So the ball is in your court to swiftly break apart thehomer's post and expose the flaws and re-convince us observers otherwise.

Although it is thehomer's duty to define good, but we the observers already have gone further. It is preferable you ground your answers with your own definitions which will sufficiently enlighten us.

My definition of good is unnecessary here. thehomer's is what counts. Mere intuition justifies nothing

Logicboy03: Human rights = decided by courts. Are we humans without rights? Is there a human rights case against abortion? nope, rather, it is for abortion as a woman's rights

Wonderful! so it is now up to the courts to determine if you are human or not?
So by your logic human beings didn't exist until 1948 when the Universal declaration of human rights was made?
In which case Hitler didn't kill 6 million human beings because he only killed them in 1944 a good 4 years before they could be human.

I have explained my points clearly, you are simply obfuscating.

Or your "points" are failing

If abortion is murder, then God is a murderer...cant escape that.

But according to you God does not exist. How can someone that doesn't exist commit murder?

A phsyical presence is what determines our human interaction. Inside a womb, you are not physically present to the outsid world. No court appearance, no birth certifate, nothing. Birth is a good line to draw it.

Nonsense. Inside my room, I am not physically present to the outside world. does that mean I don't exist?

People like you have caused so much miseries around the world...ofrcing women to have children that they cant take care of....leaving the childen top die of starvation after escaping abortion....how foolish.....

Lol, if I have a one year old and I'm broke, am I allowed to kill him so that he doesn't suffer from starvation?

Secondly, if abortion is not a bad thing why would you describe it as something to escape from?

Worse, dying by child abuse after surviving abortion.

Again, if abortion is not bad, why survive it?

Silly poeple like you only think in one dimension

ad hominem has started showing up. It seems your rational tank is now empty

Logicboy03:

As a response to nothing.....mtchew....


Of course to stimuli....

What stimuli if I may ask? I hope you realize that "spontaneous" by definition means that it isn't a response to any stimuli.

thehomer: If you think I raised a strawman, you're welcome to demonstrate it.

Ok then, let me spell it out for you.

Dr Gosnell was convicted of first degree murder for killing babies minutes after delivery.
If only he had killed them while they were yet in the womb or partially delivered, he would have been an innocent man.

I find the above story absurd. As someone put it, "It is like sentencing a Nazi soldier to prison for beating a Jew to death instead of conveniently sending him to the gas chamber as he had been trained to do.

Notice the parallels in the analogy The same action produces the same outcome yet different punishments are handed out.
Gosnell kills the baby in the womb = innocent man
Gosnell kills baby 5 minutes later outside the womb = murderer

In both cases the babies die. Why is one deserving of punishment and the other justified?

compare with
Nazi kills Jew by beating = criminal
Nazi kills Jew by gas chamber = model citizen

In both cases the Jews die. Why is one deserving of punishment and the other justified?

Your answer

Punishing Nazis doesn't kill Jews.

What has that got to do with the context of the analogy?

You have this bad habit of trying to throw arguments of course by deliberately trying to misunderstand them and throwing in totally unrelated answers.

It is basically that abortion is permissible until the age of viability.

Actually that is not true. As science improves the age of viability has gone steadily lower and lower. Why would a pro-choice advocate deny a woman her "right to choose" just because science improved? Could it be that there is something morally wrong with choosing to kill babies in the womb?

You haven't answered my question. Does that then mean it is a human being? Because a cancer cell to has a different and unique genetic code.

And the cancer cell got it's unique genetic code from where? Who provided the other half of it's genetic make up?

I don't think it is a human being deserving of rights equal to or greater than the mother because of how dependent it is on the mother.

What amount of dependency do you think is appropriate? Can we kill one week old babies? how about 2 year olds? Where do we draw the line on dependency?

Logicboy03: 1) Even a dead person moves after death......rigor mortis and spontaneous movements.....

As a response to stimuli?

2) If abortion is murder, God is the best murderer since natural abortion is the most common abortion. Simple one dimensional silliness

What are you talking about? I thought God doesn't exist.

3) You are human or not....no 50% human. Out of the womb, human. Half in the womb not human, still potential

Lol, why draw the line at birth? why not conception? or first cry? or first laugh?

4) A physical presence is needed to have a birth certificate. A physical presence is need for a lot of legal things including a driver's licence, a passport and an appearance in court. Why do we then claim that a baby in the womb is a human rather than a potential human.

Seriously? Do the courts now determine who is human and who isn't? So if the courts start giving conception certificates, will that make the foetus human for you? Mind you the foetus has a physical presence IN THE WOMB!

5) You forget that there are limits to abortion. I dont advocate that every woman should just run to an abortion clinic just like that. Counselling first to know options and the decision then is left for the woman.

Is the purpose of the counselling to dissuade her from the act? or is it to help her "make up her mind"?

Kay 17: By stating God is Good, all the above questions except 3 is answered in the positive. I'm sure thehomer is aware of that assumption. However I believe you ought to define Good, cos its well known to be your declaration/statement. So you have a better opportunity of educating us all.

The question we are contesting is "Is God Good?" Thehomer raised this question. I will be better placed answer him if he can explain to us what he means by good.

Logicboy03: The op totally destroys your claim in bold (and in total). Why? Because The homer said "good in any sense of the word"- this means that according to any sensible definition of "good"

Lol, and how exactly do you determine which definitions of good are sensible and which ones aren't?

Logicboy03: 1) A day old baby is a human and conscious. It cries when it is uncomfortable. That much we know.

An 8 month old foetus in the womb kicks when it is uncomfortable

2) Coming out of the womb is a good place to draw the line for a human.

Lol so during delivery there are points when a baby is 50% human? How about when the baby brings out it's hand and takes it back in, has the baby just moved in and out of humanness? Your argument here is laughable

On a more serious note: How is a baby different in substance 5 minutes after birth than it was 5 minutes ago when it was still in the womb?
Secondly, why draw the line at birth?

3) No one here justifies murder. Please keep your strawmen to yourself. One dimensional thinking is always silly

Lol, and all this time you have been trying to justify the premeditated killing of another human being just because he/she is in the womb. Yeah sure that's not murder.

Logicboy03:
Answering question with questions. Please show The homer some respect. He answered your questions on your thread head-on. He did not try to deviate or fire back questions to obfuscate. He deserves more even if he doesnt ask for it.
https://www.nairaland.com/1289140/death-inviting-deepsight-thehomer-ihedinobi/1#15722214

I am showing him a lot of respect here by not trying to read his mind. If he claims that an action is not good. Then it is only fair that he says why. It will be wrong of me to assume that I know what he means by good and hence run the risk of arguing a strawman.

Logicboy03: Smh......I tire for this Anonynizing nonsense.....truly and truly, I see arguing with you as a waste of time nowadays.

I thought you missed me

1) Murder and killing are two different terms

I agree

2) A baby in the womb is a potential human being not a human being

where do you draw the line for what is human?

3) You can not discern a point at which a baby is conscious in the womb.

Same applies to a day old baby. Can we kill it?

4) What if the mother is in danger and will die if the pregnancy carries on?

Then it is a case of choosing the lesser of two evils.

These one dimensional stereotypical christian thinking worries me because people who reason like this are in power....

I'd prefer that any day to multi-dimensional thinking that justifies murder

striktlymi: Morning peeps,

I believe firmly that a zygote is human...my argument is very simple really and it is thus:


Every human being is gifted with a human life...

Human life does not change irrespective of the stage of human development...

A zygote possesses this human life...

Hence a zygote is a human being...

I agree with you totally and absolutely

thehomer: No it isn't because the so-called born-again Christians have been known to sin and beg for forgiveness. Children are more innocent so the issue there is much clearer.

If a God cannot welcome Children that young, then I'm sorry but he has no business being a judge.

Lol interesting, you would deny the very people the bible makes absolutely clear that they will go to heaven in favour of those the bible is silent about?

As I said earlier, the reason you brought up little children is not because of their innocence (born-again christians are 100% innocent according to scripture). You only brought up children because "killing babies" has more emotional power than "killing born-again christians"

Your motives have been exposed. Come back when you are ready to argue honestly and biblically. For now it is obvious that all you want to do is pursue a strawman.

thehomer: Can the God who gave such a command be good in any sense of the word?

If a good God is giving such a command, then what would an evil command from the devil look like?

Beautiful.

The verses you quoted were from 1Samuel 15:3. I'll come back to answer them but before we continue, I'd like to ask you

1. Does absolute truth exist? i.e. Is there such a thing as an absolute and objective truth about things not subject to personal bias and if yes is it possible for us to know that some things are absolutely true?

2. Do you subscribe to moral realism? i.e. do you subscribe to the school of thought that one can be morally right or wrong objectively in much the same way one can be objectively right or wrong mathematically and logically?

3. If you believe that there is objective good, can you define it for us?

After you have defined what is good, then we can proceed to judging the goodness of God's actions in 1Samuel 15.

I'm as always very happy to carry this conversation to it's logical conclusion.

thehomer: So what actually happens to the little children who actually the faith being presented as an example not a metaphor? Paul was using the endurance of athletes as a metaphor just as he described the Christian journey as a race. You're really confusing things here just to avoid answering a direct question.

I'm not, they were both used in the same way.

Do you think they have a will?

Same as the answer I gave for 3 year olds

How exactly does it grant him any authority over sapient creatures? You really need some justification for your assertion.

Do you mean sapient creatures that he made sapient and keeps sapient?

Here you go.

Let's first determine whether or not the Christian God committed genocide.

Good. Now why exactly is genocide wrong?

I just told you what the Bible teaches and pointed out to you that many Christians disagree with you. i.e once you've actually taken a position on it.

Many christians disagreeing with me doesn't give your point automatic validity

An appeal to authority isn't a fallacy if the authority is qualified to speak on the issue. Now do you have any justification for your position?

Lol, the bible doesn't give theologians the authority you are giving them.

Check out Deuteronomy 2:33 and 34 for a taste.

Interesting. and why is genocide wrong again?

Does any man have the right to kill another man for any reason? Despite the fact that he neither creates nor sustains the other man's life.

Again we come back to authority. Does a citizen of a country have the right to arrest another citizen if he is not empowered by the state?

You're again trying to evade a direct question I asked. Like we said, the issue of objective goodness can be sorted out on another thread. In fact, I've started it here. Now can you tell me how you know the Christian God is actually good?

that's like asking me how I know that 2+2=4. As I have said before, there is no such thing as a "christian God", there is just God and Goodness is His nature.

Your analogy is fatally flawed and cannot be helped. It isn't my fault that your analogy was flawed. I think you should have done a better job in constructing an analogy.

This is how you conveniently evade the points of an argument. It has become your trade mark.

Yep. See Deuteronomy above.

See my answer above

So many real world Christians worship a straw God? Or do you think that your idea of Christianity is the one that all Christians must obey?

Lol, then what use is your whole argument against Christianity if you want to reserve the right to redefine it to take hits from you.
It is funny how you not only want to argue a strawman but you insist I subscribe to you strawman as well.

wiegraf:

Will your formula will somehow be more objective than his by default?

In case you didn't notice, I am not asking him to subscribe to my opinion. I have only asked him to give an objective standard by which we can make judgments.

Kay 17: If green is green without someone experiencing it, where does the need for subjective experience??

does green grass stop being green whenever you close your eyes?

thehomer: If you like. Then it is a properly basic assumption that a person has the right to their life.

Lol, if you accepted mine as a properly basic assumption, then you'll have to show that human's own their life

Come on. Surely you know that life isn't property. I've shown you the difference between having a life an having a car.

Actually, I hold a person's life isn't his property rather it is a gift since he neither created it nor can sustain it by effort. You are the one who thinks humans own their lives autonomously much like a house or a car.

Then go right ahead and do that.

Lol, fine

Considered in the fact that the murderer has unjustly denied someone of their life.

Unjustly? and yet no blame? C'mon man you are beginning to lack consistency.

No, I'm saying a life isn't like a car that can be given to someone else to live.

Still haven't answered my question. Do you believe that a person is free to lead his life in whichever way he chooses?

We're not there yet. I'm simply pointing out that you took my statement out of context.

Lol, am I objectively morally obliged to do so? Was it wrong of me to take your statement out of context? If yes, by what objective moral standard did you judge me in the wrong?