Another Christian Being Offered On The PC Alter?

[seer]

He's a fundy atheist, nothing will get through that thick skull of his.

More than that, he is angry. Probably had some bad experiences with religion, or is caught up in some behavior that he knows is labeled sin by theists.

[lilpixieofterror]

That's your opinion.

And your opinion, that anybody should take him seriously, is noted and dismissed as such.

From A History Of Ancient Near Eastern Law which your link cites:

Foreigners in Israel could be taken into slavery by force and kept for life just as Stark said in his quote and just as in Leviticus 25:44-46 says.

That's nice, now can you show me where the link where he actually agrees with that or are you trying a desperate gambit in which citing a source somehow automatically means the person(s) in question are in 100% lock step agreement with everything the cited source says? Fascinating, I can't wait for you to actually refute the article given instead of trying this little diversion, to avoid having to deal with what the article actually says.

And here's some wonderful "objective" biblical wisdom of the ANE:

Let's make this law today folks, since hey, morality isn't relative to time, place, and culture as the Christian fundies keep saying.

Diversion noted. Your attempts to not answer the article, but try distraction after distraction is noted. What's the problem, do you think these little games impress anybody here? Now sweety, you wanted to play the elephant hurling game, now go ahead and refute what the article specifically says instead of calling people a bunch of names and trying to link up guilt by association as a way to slither your way out of the hole you dug for yourself. Keep digging and remember, you wanted to play this game so I just returned the favor. Don't get mad at me because you don't want to play your own game.

[The Thinker]

Stop trying to turn it around, show us how your moral ideal is objective. Or stop accusing us of "fantasy" when you have one of your own. It is amazing how some of you atheists need to borrow from theism to try and develop an objective moral standard - knowing that without it ethical systems are bankrupt.

The the euthyphro dilemma shows that theism has no objective basis for morality, it exists independently of god. That's all I need to have an objective moral standard. Whether a person chooses to ignore or deny this is no different from a person choosing to ignore or deny the commands you claim on faith come from your deity.

[Christianbookworm]

The the euthyphro dilemma shows that theism has no objective basis for morality, it exists independently of god. That's all I need to have an objective moral standard. Whether a person chooses to ignore or deny this is no different from a person choosing to ignore or deny the commands you claim on faith come from your deity.

Silly human. The third option is that morality is based on God's nature. You are just a troll and my entertainment.

[lilpixieofterror]

I just had a browse of the wiki article about abortion here in NZ, and it's got this gem:
"In New Zealand today, abortion is not a major political issue.[citation needed]"

Yep, using an article, that has been spotted with having issues and just makes a political opinion, without care to facts or reason. Yep, a typical wiki article on anything with even a slight amount of controversy surrounding it. Unlike you though, I prefer to do my research before I speak because first off you're distracting from your original statement because you are incapable of admitting you're wrong. Second, while reading about abortion policy, in New Zealand, I actually went to read abortion issues from actual sources vs your lazy Wiki way and discovered some interesting stuff. Your Green party ran on changing current New Zealand abortion laws to remove some restrictions (as they said here, 13 months ago). Which made me wonder... why would they be running on that kind of platform, if your claim was true? Well, I discovered that your country actually has some of the most restrictive laws, in terms of abortion, in the western world. How do I know this? For starters, this pro abortion group here gives us a map and that map shows that much (Ireland seems to be the only current Western country, that is more restrictive). So the answer here seems to be pretty obvious, your claim is rather dishonest because not all abortion laws are the same. Why isn't there as much opposition? Because your countries laws are more restrictive, in terms of abortion vs most of the western world. Since it seems kind of clear that your Green Party doesn't seem to have much luck on passing it's abortion policies into law; I highly doubt that your country is as accepting of abortion as you keep trying to claim and it is rather ignorant and/or dishonest for you not to mention this critical detail. Simply put, your countries laws are more abortion restrictive vs many other western countries so you're not going to run into as much opposition as is found in other countries. My guess is that you don't really know your countries laws that well and simply glance over what your opponents say and end up making rather embarrassing mistakes (such as this). Again, if you don't even know what is going on, in your home country, why should I expect you to know what is going on in the US since you seem rather ignorant of your own countries laws and current events?

[lilpixieofterror]

The the euthyphro dilemma shows that theism has no objective basis for morality, it exists independently of god. That's all I need to have an objective moral standard. Whether a person chooses to ignore or deny this is no different from a person choosing to ignore or deny the commands you claim on faith come from your deity.

Actually, it shows that you don't have a clue what most objective morality people actually believe and prefer to attack piles of straw.

[lilpixieofterror]

Not a fan of Peter Singer, eh?

If we're taking about his views of animal life depends. I have no issue, with animals rights, in of itself. I do have a problem though with the fact that a dog is given more rights vs an unborn human.

[seer]

The the euthyphro dilemma shows that theism has no objective basis for morality, it exists independently of god. That's all I need to have an objective moral standard. Whether a person chooses to ignore or deny this is no different from a person choosing to ignore or deny the commands you claim on faith come from your deity.

What are you talking about? Christians escape the euthyphro dilemma because God's law can not be arbitrary, since it is grounded in His immutable moral character. And therefore, He does not answer to an standard external to Himself. And God's law is objective to humankind. And has authority. But even if you do not accept that - it is still on you to show how an objective moral standard is logically possible in your godless universe, and as I also asked, even if there is one - why are we morally responsible to follow it. What authority does it have over us?

[Christianbookworm]

Peter Singer deserves the lecture too. Though, you could argue that the whole of the human species deserves a lecture!

[lilpixieofterror]

Peter Singer deserves the lecture too. Though, you could argue that the whole of the human species deserves a lecture!

To say the least.

[Sam]

If we're taking about his views of animal life depends. I have no issue, with animals rights, in of itself. I do have a problem though with the fact that a dog is given more rights vs an unborn human.

Well, that's the thing to grapple with when it comes to Singer and utilitarian ethics. If we find the killing of persons abhorrent, we have to define "person". And in trying to do so, we end up with all sorts of idiosyncrasies. My little niece is about to turn six months and I've been joking that she's almost a person now. At what point does she become a person? At what point should her personhood be preferenced above another's? If I'm faced with the choice of saving my five-month old niece from drowning or my six year-old nephew from drowning, who do I save? On what basis? Do I have a higher obligation to the six year-old, as he is actually aware of what's happening to him? Do I have any obligations toward non-persons?

You keep trying to cudgel Starlight over his ethics on this but I haven't seen you "dive deep" into a refutation of utilitarianism on this front. It can be done, I think, but it's a serious platform that deserves serious thought.

[lilpixieofterror]

Well, that's the thing to grapple with when it comes to Singer and utilitarian ethics. If we find the killing of persons abhorrent, we have to define "person". And in trying to do so, we end up with all sorts of idiosyncrasies. My little niece is about to turn six months and I've been joking that she's almost a person now. At what point does she become a person? At what point should her personhood be preferenced above another's? If I'm faced with the choice of saving my five-month old niece from drowning or my six year-old nephew from drowning, who do I save? On what basis? Do I have a higher obligation to the six year-old, as he is actually aware of what's happening to him? Do I have any obligations toward non-persons?

You keep trying to cudgel Starlight over his ethics on this but I haven't seen you "dive deep" into a refutation of utilitarianism on this front. It can be done, I think, but it's a serious platform that deserves serious thought.

Who came up with the idea of 'personhood' and how does 'personhood' define your right to be able to live? If we want to justify killing off a group of people, could we first start with the idea that they are not really 'persons' and therefore killing them off really isn't any different than killing a pesky bug? You might say this is nonsense, but no it isn't and it has been tried over and over again across the centuries. Did the Nazi's consider the Jews 'persons'? Did the Turks consider the Armenian's persons? Did the Hutu consider the Tutsi (Rwanda Genocide) persons? See the problem that we are running into here yet? All you need to do is declare groups of people, you don't like, as being 'non persons' and the justification of murdering them begins.

As for your question, it kind of does a rather good way of refuting your claims. If the choice wasn't tough, than who cares if the 6 month old is left to drown? Unless of course, the personhood argument is just a farce that is commonly used to justify killing off the unborn though. Do both lives matter or not?

[Zymologist]

Well, that's the thing to grapple with when it comes to Singer and utilitarian ethics. If we find the killing of persons abhorrent, we have to define "person". And in trying to do so, we end up with all sorts of idiosyncrasies. My little niece is about to turn six months and I've been joking that she's almost a person now. At what point does she become a person? At what point should her personhood be preferenced above another's? If I'm faced with the choice of saving my five-month old niece from drowning or my six year-old nephew from drowning, who do I save? On what basis? Do I have a higher obligation to the six year-old, as he is actually aware of what's happening to him? Do I have any obligations toward non-persons?

You keep trying to cudgel Starlight over his ethics on this but I haven't seen you "dive deep" into a refutation of utilitarianism on this front. It can be done, I think, but it's a serious platform that deserves serious thought.

You seem to be suggesting that those of us on here who oppose infanticide haven't given the issue serious thought.

I kind of figured that most of the liberals around here would have disagreed with Starlight's position on infanticide. Now I'm not so sure, and that disturbs me.

[seer]

Well, that's the thing to grapple with when it comes to Singer and utilitarian ethics. If we find the killing of persons abhorrent, we have to define "person". And in trying to do so, we end up with all sorts of idiosyncrasies. My little niece is about to turn six months and I've been joking that she's almost a person now. At what point does she become a person? At what point should her personhood be preferenced above another's? If I'm faced with the choice of saving my five-month old niece from drowning or my six year-old nephew from drowning, who do I save? On what basis? Do I have a higher obligation to the six year-old, as he is actually aware of what's happening to him? Do I have any obligations toward non-persons?

You keep trying to cudgel Starlight over his ethics on this but I haven't seen you "dive deep" into a refutation of utilitarianism on this front. It can be done, I think, but it's a serious platform that deserves serious thought.

This is why this whole idea of "personhood" as a workable criterion is arbitrary and useless. Human beings are such ontologically, from the moment of conception to natural death.

[Sam]

You seem to be suggesting that those of us on here who oppose infanticide haven't given the issue serious thought.

I kind of figured that most of the liberals around here would have disagreed with Starlight's position on infanticide. Now I'm not so sure, and that disturbs me.

I would say with certainty that most of those who oppose infanticide haven't given Singer et al.'s argument serious weight.

It's one thing to seriously consider a matter, another to seriously consider the opposition's argument. Most of the arguments regarding personhood around here end up being "Person = Human", with no further explanation.

Most people, liberal or conservative or whathaveyou, find infanticide abhorrent. But everyone involving themselves in debate on the matter should be able to answer the strongest arguments, not the weakest.

I would personally argue that Singer's utilitarianism is wrong because utilitarianism has some hard ethical boundaries. But I'm not going to pretend I could beat Singer in a debate over the matter, either.