SeVeR

mid left. Hi NBFenceSitter!

I actually have hope for this one.

I guess what i'm saying is there is a moral code of ethics, but it's very short: "That which threatens our personal survival or the survival of [insert species] is wrong." This would be the same for any species.

The rest of the world would have voted even more in favour of Obama. The rest of the world is rejoicing that Americans have found some sense and elected a decent un-corrupted individual as President.

You're right that survival of the species explains why we do not murder, but not why murder is wrong. However, is there any right or wrong at all? We call things right or wrong because of our collectively held beliefs, and this is what develops into a moral code, but what justification do we have for our beliefs? The simple answer is, we don't have any. There is no justification to call murder, theft and rape wrong, other than that they inflict pain and threaten trhe survival of others. Surely then we must not want to hurt others because by threatening someone elses survival we threaten our own (retaliation). As i've mentioned though, there are times when murder, theft and rape may be favourable, and many a time have these acts been justified in human society. Moral relativity is therefore the only conclusion. This does not mean we can't explain where our morals come from, and it seems clear to me that they come from the will to survive. By interpretting our morals as the result of the will the survive, we see that there is no absolute right or wrong, other than that which threatens our survival. Murder is therefore not absolutely wrong as it is a byproduct of something far more fundamental. As for money. Money = food = survival of self. Money = improved prospects of finding a mate = pro-creation = survival of the species. And yes, survival is innate and not learned, which is why i call it more funadamental than any learned morals we have... yet it can be the reason why we have developed those morals in society, even if the teaching of them never refers to the reason we have them.

Why is abortion wrong to Christians? God created life. Humanity (adam and eve) sinned (created an injustice in a just world (injustice cannot co-exist with justice)), therefore a separation between humanity and god occurred (kicked out of the garden). The consequence for sin (injustice) is death (destruction) (cause justice will always prevail over injustice). God did not want all humanity to be separated from him forever (specifically the people who wanted to go back and live a just life/the way god originally wanted us to live (the right way/righteousness). God had mercy and grace on us and created a way for justice and righteousness to be learned in an injust world (the whole old testament leading up to and climaxing with Jesus, as he is the perfect example (for those who seek righteousness) of a just/righteous person living in an injust world). The way God was able to fulfill this plan, was by using humans who were faithful to him (people who trusted him and were willing to give up their lives to follow him (give up their lives meaning give up their own selfishness (should i do what i want and see fit? or should i do what god wants, even though i do not know what his plan for me is?) and this can also mean physical death in some cir!@#$%^&*stances). God wants people who are willing to make that kind of choice to follow him for obvious reasons. (it's hard to fulfill your plan if people are on the edge about doing what you say. kind of like how the NAVY SEALS do not want people who are on the edge about being a SEAL, and that is why they push them till they almost die for them to be accepted). God wants people who are willing to go the extra mile for him. You have to want it enough to die for it kind of thing. Your argument hinges on this long list of !@#$%^&*umptions being true. Did God create life? What reason do we have to believe this? Was there a garden of Eden? Why? And so on... I'm glad you respect choice though. What i can't stand is Christians who want to decide how other people make their choices. Another example is censorship, and how Christians want everything un-Godly censored from the media. Yet Jesus didn't censor the devil did he?.. he told us to avoid temptation. Parents would rather not have to do the job of teaching their children how to avoid temptation, it seems they would rather not have to teach them at all.

Considering how much i have argued for moral relativity in the past, it's rather cheap of you to distort my argument in this way. I've said the will to survive is the reason why people do not murder. It is also the reason why murder is acceptable in some situations. If someone is about to invade your land or attempt to kill you then murdering them would be favourable. You're asking me to prove that murder is absolutely wrong in all situations, and seem to be arguing against my inability to do so. Either we have misunderstood eachother or you have created an argument to argue against, since i have not been arguing this from the start. I've said survival is the reason why people don't murder, and you've implied a whole lot more! Again you're dealing with meaningless absolutes. Not all the weak will want to become strong, but most will. Not everyone is divided into weak/strong, there is a middle ground. Protecting your tribe from the onslaught of another, or successfully invading neighbouring tribes will ultimately secure your survival for longer. Thus being better at murder will help you survive for when you need to do it.

We may have accidently survived better than other extinct tribes, but it was always our goal in the first place, as it was theirs. We have an innate sense of pain to tell us what to avoid, and what we avoid are threats to our survival. There is no thought process as to why we choose not to die; we are born with this mission. For this mission we develop morality in order to dominate other species and other tribes.

I have pointed out that societies that murder within their own society will not survive. You seem to have taken one line from my last post, namely "It is wrong to murder because it threatens our survival", and ignored everything else i've already said. If people accept the divine right of the Church then the Church can murder freely as they have almost no fear of reprisals. Without a threat to survival, murder becomes acceptable as a method of domination. No, because it is beneficial to make the weak into the strong in order to increase your allies. What you've said would only work if all the strong were somehow allied to eachother, and if the weak had no potential for strength. So no, you're clearly wrong.

The prime characteristics of all life on Earth are to survive and propagate the species. Through the evolution of man-kind we have found more and more complex ways in which to ensure our survival. Survival is our goal, and thus a moral against murder can be explained with a cause and purpose. It is wrong to murder because it threatens our survival. We have developed complex ways to ignore our basic natural instincts (such as religion), but once you see humanity as just another form of life, albeit the most compliated form, all of our moral code is explainable through those same primal characteristics.

I am agnostic and agree that there is nothing that can disprove God. It can be nothing other than natural selection, which is the largest chunk of evolutionary theory. The people that killed eachother died out because the people that worked together to bring down larger prey whilst protecting eachother from danger, survived and dominated society. It's simple evolution. We know that tribal co-operation is something humanity developed, and the benefits it serves tells us exactly where the "do not kill" moral came from. So i don't think you're seeing the point. They still killed people from other tribes, in much the same way America has little problem bombing Iraq to kingdom come.

Well that's why Bush ordered Georgia to provoke the Russians right? Except it didn't work too well then.

That's a bad statistic. I thought everyone knew that people declare themselves as Christian while not actually being one. Firstly because they don't know what else to put and don't understand what atheist or agnostic means. Secondly because they believe in God but not the Bible. Thirdly because they feel pressured into saying they are Christian because atheist has negative connotations attributed to it in America. There are countless reasons... the useful statistic would be "Church-going Christians". http://www.thinkchristian.net/index.php/20...rch-in-decline/ Only about 50% of Americans attend Church reguarly enough to call themselves Christian, and i would guess alot of them over-estimated their attendance to appear as morally upstanding good people. Lol, just try it. Go to a church and try it. Yet as usual you take the conservative Christian argument and back it up with "debatable" statistics and statements. Human's learnt to co-exist in tribes for two reasons. It offered collective security, and it offered the possibility of bringing down larger prey. Thus, murdering your tribesmen is detrimental to survival. The tribe would have to exact a punishment for the murder of an individual, bringing about the law against murder - the first moral for a working society. On a personal, non-societal level, to murder someone brings a threat to your survival from your victim, their family, and all the people who now "fear" you. They may alleviate their fear by murdering you. To answer your point, no matter how weak a tribe member is, the simple fact that he adds to the population of the tribe is use enough when it comes to battling against other tribes. However, there are cases of human sacrifice of women and children (weaker), and cases such as in Sparta where imperfect children were murdered at birth. To go even further, human kindness developed from the survival instinct. When the survival needs of the individual are fulfilled, it may be beneficial to help or save the life of your fellow man in order to create a strong ally. They may return the favour when you are in trouble. I could go on, but it's not worth it if you disagree with anything i've said so far, and i've said plenty. Many of the morals that a 2000 year old society produced and labelled as "divine" would still be relevent today,

This only proves that you don't ask questions of your beliefs. What is murder? The taking of a life. What is life? Is a foetus alive? If someone chooses to die is it murder to help them? If you can definately answer all those questions, start asking why. Why is a foetus alive? Why is it murder to help someone die? Do you really have to authority to presume to know God's will. Who's will is it? Yours, the church's or God's.

As much as i agree with flabby that she has hurt McCain significantly, and is probably responsible for his massive dip in the polls, i would rather just not see her on the ticket at all. I suppose she has damaged the reputation of people like her though so i'm glad for that.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7662820.stm Considering Palin's history of abusing power, in particular to fire people who disagreed with her, i'm not surprised by the outcome of this investigation. Lets hope that she is stopped in her tracks and will lose any opportunity to gain further power from this point on.

Lol yea... never seen so much bull!@#$%^&*ting. When asked the same question after she'd been prepared with the correct answers she said The New York Times and the Economist. What a surprise... the Economist! It's so fake. I bet the only book she's ever read is the Bible. -EDIT- Her verbal diarrhea continues: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7653132.stm

Most people know about it somewhat, but i for one had no idea the risk increased THAT much.

Well, if you can't see the humour in that statement... You're !@#$%^&*uming there IS overwhelming bias. I pointed out how you made an incorrect !@#$%^&*umption. You ignored this by saying "it's not about McCain and Obama". What a ridiculous counter because if there is no comparison for the alleged bias then there is no bias! Not to mention, how can my "Republican bias" be against Palin and not McCain. I see neither McCain or Biden as being mistaken because it's a non-issue: whatever the amount was, the point is still the same. You somehow think i would have attacked Palin for saying it, which is why i'm calling you a defender of the Republican candidate for personal ideological reasons. You've !@#$%^&*umed bias where there is none, and as such, you've revealed your own.

If its not wrong then what's the problem? I don't see any problem. I see it as inconclusive evidence that she is anti-contraception, but that's all. -EDIT- Having said that, that table is quite alarming. If i was a woman in my forties i would certainly think about that. This is the first time i've seen that data, so i doubt Mrs Palin, who quite probably hasn't even read a scientific paper in her life, has read it.

Clutching at straws. Women can have five children and still be having them in their forties. I think you're dodging the real reason. The real reason for mentioning it is not supported by fact or research. The real reason we criticise her is because many of us have known women with five children and don't like what it's done to their mental state and their personality. Blaming medical reasons is a nice excuse.

I don't have time to reply to everything, but this makes my point: