The Last Presidential Debate

[NBVegita]

Well sever then I state that you have not proven murder is bad on an evolutionary scale.

 

Your statements argue that it is evolutionary detrimental to murder your tribesmen. That does not prove that it is evolutionarily wrong to murder period, which was what I was asking you to do in the first place.

 

Also your tribe based argument is almost solely based that you can develop the weak to become strong. This is also !@#$%^&*uming that the weak even WANT to become strong. No matter how you cut the pie, weak people hurt evolution. Now if you're weak physically but strong mentally, you can overcome your one weakness and vice versa. Someone who is weak mentally and physically is a negative on a species survival and evolution.

 

Also every argument you've used to "prove" murdering your tribesman is bad scientifically is based on theories that you cannot yourself prove. Which makes your arguments as translucent as the religious ones you're so [sarcasm]fond of[/sarcasm]

 

In fact looking at the history of man the only thing you can conclude is that as we have become more efficient at killing/murder we, almost on a parallel, evolved as societies.

[vetta64]

after watching the last debate online, I decided I am am going to vote for Canada tomorrow.

[mfisch2004]

The thought process goes: Abortion = Murder = Going against what God said...

 

And it sure as !@#$%^&* isn't the result of independent thought. If it were, then to put it simply... they wouldn't all agree.

 

 

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.

 

SO....with this the problem with abortion arises: You are essentially killing a person that God can use/work with to fulfill his plan. Someone that could hold potential to do great things for God, and humanity. Jesus did not just pop out of heaven. He descended from a line of people who were willing to have faith for God and follow God. Not all of them perfect, some were pros!@#$%^&*utes, some were raped and still gave birth, and their child was a part of the line of Jesus. That is how God works with humanity, through us. That is why murder is wrong. Also because we are not good judges because we cannot read the hearts and minds of other humans and know for sure what their intentions are. God can, and that is why he can judge people, also because he is the definition of good, just, righteousness and truth. <---All defined by the Bible not my personal opinion.

 

 

BUT it gets interesting when God gives people the CHOICE, yes the choice to follow him. So if you choose not to follow god then you will see no harm in abortion, since it will probably benefit you in some way, and that is all that matters then (what is good for you, cause without God that is really the only thing you can live by).

 

And this creates a problem. Should Christians on a public scale ban abortion for all? Is this right? Is this what they should fight for.?..cause abortion to them is wrong? I believe that people have the right, the GOD given right, to choose what they want to. And if they feel they should have an abortion then it is between them and God. Does that mean Christians should too? !@#$%^&* NO! It is not the right thing for a christian to do. People who choose to be Christians and follow god and have faith in him should not have abortions, and that is what they should focus on. Should they try to prevent everyone from doing so? Well if people choose not to follow god then it won't make sense for them not to have abortions, and again it is really between them and God. The relationship between a christian and a non-christian should be like this: the christian should let people know what the right thing to do is, by example (the best way) and telling them. They should not force the right way. They should clear up misconceptions about God, Jesus, Christianity and righteousness and let people make an EDUCATED decision on it for themselves. And if people choose not to follow God then it is between them and God, and the christian should act like the prodigal sons father to them.

 

 

Christianity is not meant to be on a collective level, but on an individualistic level (not one person/group tells you what to do). The "Church" is not what defines what a christian is. God/Jesus defines what a christian is. The christian would go to God, not the "church" to learn how they should live. And that in itself is the true test of Christianity; if there is no god then it will fail. If there is then it will succeed. Jesus defines the Church as a Body, and Jesus is the Head. So should the hand tell the leg what to do? That's foolishness. Jesus/God tells the Church what to do. Does that justify what the "Church" has done in the past 2000 years? no. Because people have manipulated the church for their own agendas. Putting their selfishness ahead of God. The real Church is consisted of real Christians, not people who say they are and are not. And there is no "organization" where they all congregate and are united. They are united through God and Jesus, making it possible for people who have never met each other to be united in their christian faith. And again if there is no God then they will not be united.

 

that's about it. sorry for it being so long.

Edited November 4, 2008 by mfisch2004

[Samapico]

*checks votes*

 

Ok, so if SSForum was the only population of the USA, Obama would win

 

So if Obama really wins, that means we should take over USA

[»Ducky]

*checks votes*

 

Ok, so if SSForum was the only population of the USA, Obama would win

 

So if Obama really wins, that means we should take over USA

 

This board has always had a liberal slant for as long as I can remember.

[rootbear75]

well the election is today (polls open in 3 hours) so we shall see.

[SeVeR]

Well sever then I state that you have not proven murder is bad on an evolutionary scale.

 

Your statements argue that it is evolutionary detrimental to murder your tribesmen. That does not prove that it is evolutionarily wrong to murder period, which was what I was asking you to do in the first place.

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!

 

Also your tribe based argument is almost solely based that you can develop the weak to become strong. This is also !@#$%^&*uming that the weak even WANT to become strong. No matter how you cut the pie, weak people hurt evolution. Now if you're weak physically but strong mentally, you can overcome your one weakness and vice versa. Someone who is weak mentally and physically is a negative on a species survival and evolution.

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.

 

Also every argument you've used to "prove" murdering your tribesman is bad scientifically is based on theories that you cannot yourself prove. Which makes your arguments as translucent as the religious ones you're so [sarcasm]fond of[/sarcasm] [/quotre] There is plenty of evidence. All of human history, every motive for murder. It's not completely provable in the same way evolution is not.

 

[quotre] In fact looking at the history of man the only thing you can conclude is that as we have become more efficient at killing/murder we, almost on a parallel, evolved as societies.

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.

[SeVeR]

The thought process goes: Abortion = Murder = Going against what God said...

 

And it sure as !@#$%^&* isn't the result of independent thought. If it were, then to put it simply... they wouldn't all agree.

 

 

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.

[Hate The Fake]

just casted my vote for Mccain took less then 5 mins

[PaRa$iTe]

You still don't quite get my point, though =) even if murder had a definitely negative impact on the survival of a species in every situation, that would still only explain why we do not murder, not why murder is wrong. That is, science cannot result in a universalist ethical theory. I'd argue that from a relativist point of view, the whole debate is futile, since relativism implies that nothing is wrong as such. What I'm looking for is, then, something which would actually be able to define murder as WRONG, as opposed to RIGHT, not why "people are programmed not to murder".

About survival of the species being our goal.. well, in a sense, just like earning money is a goal for some people; however, that's a relativistic goal, and it simplifies the issue. If we accept the theory of evolution, and do not accept any kind of intelligent design theory, we can conclude that the fight for survival is a result of, not a factor in, evolution. Simply put, it's basically the equivalent of a working digestion or our limbs. There's something in us that makes us fight for our survival, just as there's something which supplies us with energy; both are RESULTS of natural selection, and should not be confused with the theory of evolution as such or with any kind of ethics.

 

(Also, the reason why I reply so irregularly is that these forums rarely actually work for me, for some reason)

[rootbear75]

POLL CLOSED:

 

Final Tally:

 

Obama/Biden [ 10 ] ** [38.46%]

McCain/Palin [ 6 ] ** [23.08%]

Other Party/Independent/Write-in [ 2 ] ** [7.69%]

Undecided [ 2 ] ** [7.69%]

(Foreign Resident) Obama/Biden [ 5 ] ** [19.23%]

(Foreign Resident) McCain/Palin [ 1 ] ** [3.85%]

(Foreign Resident) Don't Know / Don't Care / Other [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]

[SeVeR]

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.

[SeVeR]

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.

Edited November 6, 2008 by SeVeR

[PaRa$iTe]

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.

I've thought a lot about this, and, even though this may seem to be the case, given certain premices, we can deduce some moral rules - which is what I tried to do in my first post. That is, a LOGICAL reason why murder can't be right, which is in no way related to any moral codes I've learned

Surely then we must not want to hurt others because by threatening someone elses survival we threaten our own (retaliation).

Although I must admit that I've done decisions based on this, I cannot say I consider that an ethical base for any decision. As is, I make no ethical decisions based on my own survival - I have yet to find a logical explanation why it would be worth any more than anyone else's, which is one reason why I'm a left-wing wuss.

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.

Depending on what you mean here, you might be absolutely correct or dead wrong. The fact that murder, theft and rape have been justified does mean that moral RULES have been relative; it does not, however, in any way supply evidence that moral relativity, as a philosophical term, is correct. About our morals coming from a will to survive, that is very possibly the original origin; however, I, for example - and probably half of the world with me - have found other sources for the morals I currently follow.

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.

Although I see what you mean here, the choice of words is inaccurate. Given moral relativity is true, then things that threaten our survival are not in fact WRONG. I'm sure you agree with this, though, but I still must make it clear; even if every single moral code we have was created to ensure our survival, it doesn't mean that threatening it is wrong, but only that evolution, in fact, works.

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.

Being born with something might make it more fundamental than learning it; however, that doesn't mean it's more important. Heck, I was born with a long string coming out of my stomach, and look what happened to that =) I, for one, place much less value on built-in rules than rules that actually make sense.

 

As for "That which threatens our personal survival or the survival of [insert species] is wrong.", it's a rule which is possible to follow, but which I do not regard as any kind of ultimate moral rule. It is only a sort of "law of life" which comes as a byproduct of evolution; any species not following such a rule would be at a disadvantage, but there is no definite rule saying the extinction of our species is wrong. Or if it is, we must ask ourselves why; simply put, there are two cases. Either there IS a universal ethical code (which, in my opinion, cannot then be decided upon simply by analyzing species that because of evolution will be bound to have certain characteristics) which would say extinction is wrong; or, there is no rule which would make our survival a good thing, and thus we have no reason at all to follow our instincts to do so.