- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Also with the legalization of marijuana as medicine leads to significantly less death by overdosage on painkillers, I'm sure god if he were to exist would be happy about that rather than mad or sad, that is making the best for what he supposedly offered us and making it a good thing.
That is actually a fair point, and I cannot contest... So I shall concede in my counterpoint to yours and change my argument instead.
Rather that the difference between deities and morality, justice, truth, all do exist and are evident. Though I imagine that we might have fundamentally different ideas of what these things are supposed to be and that is likely where our disagreement will stem from.
Also "And it is as equally true of these things that they do not exist as it is of truth." Do you not see the irony in this statement? How can you say X is true and in the same sentence proclaim that truth does not exist? I find that to be rather contradictory.
You know honestly I wouldn't be too shocked to learn that extraterrestrial life had their own religions. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a phenomenon amongst intelligent life. For all we know it could be perfectly natural for intelligent life to develop religions and not because their is a creator but because of other reasons.
I mean the concept of god isn't really all that complex, all we are talking about here is a cosmic agent. The combination of two concepts: the cosmos, and beings. We look at everything around us, the sky, our world, wondering how far it goes and we sum up all of our reality that we can possibly figure there to be and call it the cosmos.
If an omniscient being knows every decision it is to make an eternity before, and if knowledge is "true (as in it is correct), logical belief" then that would mean it is incapable of making any other decision otherwise it wouldn't know it's own decisions. However I'd argue that "responsibility" combined with "omniscience" can never coexist with free will so
What about me? Don't I deserve some praise, after all I am only the best guy on here ;P you will rue the day you didn't acknowledge my superiority!!!
In all seriousness, if dana really bothers you that much, perhaps you are better off going, I do however think it seems unreasonable to allow someone to drive you away from here, when you can simply ignore them
If a thing had sentience, but no longer has sentience, can we still abort it?
I see no reason to object.
You said it can be pinned down, but requiring a wide range is the opposite of pinned down.
Wide? not knowing within a couple of seconds when sentience develops is considered to wide? that's funny... It comes down to a matter of weeks, and days.
Whatever moment you pin sentience to, there will be a pro-lifer saying "why is it human now, but not 2 seconds ago?" And the pro-choice movement will have to think of something.
We don't pin-point the exact second a fetus becomes sentience, medical professionals are probably significantly more cautious than that and would not perform an abortion before it could possibly develop sentience, and if they didn't I would hold the position that they should.
Earlier you said something like: "the only truth expressed in moral statements is that of individual preference". If we accept that moral statements can truly reflect preference, this means we accept that moral statements CAN be true in at least some sense. Will you agree that all intelligible moral statements are statements about what is valued?
All "moral statements" are supposedly "good advice".
Personally, I think that's a really neat way of explaining morality in laymans terms.
Good is determined by what is valued. If following the advice in question reliably results in attaining/maintaining desirable conditions, then the moral statement is at least somewhat true. For example, if health is your primary value....smoking cigarettes is clearly wrong
smoking cigarettes would be wrong for improving ones health. I would concur.
I am given to incoherent rambling now and again, but with the "events that impoverish sicken and kill, as opposed to those that enrich, heal, and allow us to flourish and thrive." statement I was thinking of the logical basis of MY morality, and talking like everyone justifies their idea of morality the same way I do...oops!
I am still confused... I was hoping you could articulate your point there, in another way.
It is true that setting standards to live by and taking them seriously will produce "approvable" results more consistently than taking a laissez faire approach to habit formation.
One's values are always based on recognition of more or less "preferred conditions". A description of a value can be true, false or a messy mixture of both. Values are..... held or not held .....NOT.... true or untrue
What makes a value true or untrue? what truth does a value hold?
Morality IS honoring a value system. A moral statement is true, if it amounts to an expression of good advice (ie it helps attain/keep what's valued)
Again, if I value genetic superiority, then that would make it morally right to enslave and exterminate the genetically inferior, no? After all that is honoring a system of values is it not?
They express truths about what we value
I would agree.