[Kazan]

Originally posted by 01010
Who needs religion to tell you what to think, nowadays we have [Fox News]

fixed it

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Deepblue
I maintain neutrality, but do to the number of political ( ) threads popping up there might as well be balance.

Dos:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&u=/ap/20041006/ap_on_el_pr/debate_web_sites_1&printer=1

I just noticed - this one is incomplete;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3723090.stm
Mr Cheney could not even win support from the Factcheck.org website.

In a statement the site's editors said the vice president "wrongly implied that we had rebutted allegations Edwards was making about what Cheney had done as chief executive officer of Halliburton."

"In fact we did post an article pointing out that Cheney hasn't profited personally while in office from Halliburton's Iraq contracts, as falsely implied by a Kerry TV ad," the statement said.

It concluded: "Edwards was talking about Cheney's responsibility for earlier Halliburton troubles. And in fact, Edwards was mostly right."

[Ford Prefect]

I'm severely irked by the notion that sex is sacred. Sex is sacred if both parties want it to be that way, but I see no reason to judge people for indulging in meaningless pleasure. The taboo our society has placed on indulgence is unhealthy. How can it make sense to assume that sex is a sacred expression when it brings pleasure so indiscriminately? These vaunted moral standards that people seem so eager to impose are unrealistic and arbitrary.

[Kazan]

Originally posted by Ford Prefect
The taboo our society has placed on indulgence is unhealthy.  

[Mongoose]

Indulgence for pure gratification of self and no other purpose is what is unhealthy.  Suffering breeds strength; indulgence breeds weakness.

aldo, are you in the wrong thread?

Ghostavo, in my earlier post, I was referring to having one egg cell or one sperm cell sitting by itself.  Alone, neither of these things will do anything more than just float/swim around.  However, take a fertilized egg in utero, leave it alone for nine months, and you have a baby.  That's the key difference.  Also, what is up with some of these utterly ridiculous arguments about women being arrested for not having sex while ovulating, or for people being arrested for masturbation?  This has nothing to do with the current argument and is laughably absurd.  Most noably of these is the notion of what one's intention is.  When a woman has an abortion, she's willingly and knowingly ending some type of life, whether you consider it to be human or not.  Does a woman have similar control (by natural means) over the menstrual cycle?  Of course not; don't be ridiculous.  Ovulation is just a natural bodily function; it can no more be controlled or directed than one's nose can from running.  As for masturbation, that has to do with one's personal beliefs.  At any rate, in either case, the type of cell in question is incapable of developing into a fully functional human being on its own.  This is not true with the fertilized egg.  It will develop into a baby without any outside interference; willfully doing anything to halt this development is an abortion and prevents this life from being realized.  That's murder in my book, at least.

One more thing:  arguments about imposing religious beliefs on others don't hold up here.  Many atheists are pro-life; the issue goes beyond religious convictions or even moral issues.  The main issue is the consideration of a human, at any stage of development, from conception until natural death, of being worthy of protection and the right to live unmolested.  This is why I and many others work to get abortion outlawed; we see this as murder, and we wish to stop it.

[Liberator]

Your unbridled hedonism appalls me, too much of anything, especially indulgance, is a bad thing.  What's to look forward to on the wedding night if you've already had the "cake" months before?  Before you get in a tizzy again, I believe that it is right and proper for a man to marry the woman he loves.

[Kazan]

too little of something can be as dangerous as "too much of anything" liberator -  

marriage is _NOTHING_ but a piece of paper - it's just officially telling everyone else what you should have already known for a long time, and they should have unofficially known for a long time

[StratComm]

Originally posted by Ford Prefect
I'm severely irked by the notion that sex is sacred. Sex is sacred if both parties want it to be that way

This is precisely why I absolutely hate this debate.  I have trememndous respect for those who choose to abstain from sex before marriage.  Not because it's "right" or "wrong" to do it (both options being heavily biased by society or religion) but because it is something that they personally believe in.  It's better than most can do.  However, that doesn't mean I want them to pretend that they are on higher moral ground for doing it, or for them to try to impose their beliefs on others.

Now first off you can't pretend that everyone ascribes to those beliefs (no, not even all Christians), so the abstinance as sex-ed crap is utterly worthless.  Secondly, while I might think somewhat less of a person if they had unprotected sex often enough to get into a situation where getting an abortion became a viable option (nevermind that cost is always ignored.  No operation is cheap, and I don't know of any insurance company that covers an abortion if it isn't absolutely necessary) on more than one or two occasions, the option really has to be there for those who don't.  Please spare me the bigotry that is the "slut" / "animal" argument, because that completely leaves the man out of the equation.  (Besides the fact that it's a) untrue, b) demeaning and c)extremely close-minded, I can think of a number of situations where the consequences of one's actions might not be weighed as heavily as it should.  And I don't think there is anything wrong with that.)  Without all of those things, the pro-life argument is left standing on a very shaky support.  So lets move on to the "life begins at..." argument.  While the US currently only has a temporary ban on third trimester abortions (it will expire sooner or later), the ban does exist.  And this is good, because third-trimester abortions are significantly risky to the mother.  It's also good because not only does a fetus actually approach a viable state at this mark, it also finishes developing all of the internal and external traits that make it a fully functional human being during that time span.  So life doesn't begin at birth.  Then again, it doesn't begin at conception either, as it's still just an egg.  (Actually, by definition, life is, it is not created.  A baby is the continuation of the "life" of the parents in a strictly biological sense).  The only distinction left then is when does the baby become human enough to earn a "right" to life - when does it become a being independent of its mother - and that doesn't happen until after the point at which an abortion is no longer possible by law.

[Mongoose]

Originally posted by Kazan
marriage is _NOTHING_ but a piece of paper - it's just officially telling everyone else what you should have already known for a long time, and they should have unofficially known for a long time

There are those of us who believe it is a sacred covenant of undying love between a man and a woman, a vow of fidelity, trust, and total kinship, but I guess that's beside the point, isn't it?

[Kazan]

that is a religious belief and therefore it is unconstitutional to legislate from that assumption, furthermore it doesn't make your statement right


numerous religious positions blatantly contradict fact, most religious "solutions" to problems end up doing nothing but exhasterbating said problems - that's enough evidence against using religious reasoning for law if you ignore the constitutional issue

[StratComm]

Good god, how do you respond to this stuff so fast?

[Kazan]

I'm monitoring the thread, i type fast, and i've participated in arguments like this thousands of times

[Liberator]

Kazan, I have what will come across as a dumb question, but please indulge me.

What did organized religion ever do to you?  Your irrational hatred is entirely too visceral to be based on simple disagreement.

[Kazan]

your presumption that my displeasure with "organized religion" [incorrect again: i dislike _ALL_ religious, just fundamentalist psychopaths more than others] is based upon irrationality is completely and totally wrong

my displeasure with religion comes from the fact that is is unequivocally an act of basing your worldview upon irrationality.  Someone who bases their worldview upon irrationality cannot be trusted to make rational deicisions, and therefore them voting makes them dangerous to the survival of a country: theorectically.

In this case theory and reality agree 100% and we have a long history of demonstrating this.  This thread itself is a demonstration of the problem of people basing their worldviews off irrationality.

Religion is the biggest threat to the survival of our species in the modern era - nd it is the cause of most of the wars in human history.  It once, very long ago, served a purpose to meld society, but now we've outgrown it - we have the knowledge to know better, but still members of our species think reality is whim to their emotional "needs"

[Liberator]

Interesting, you say God doesn't exist then, because there is no proof.  The problem is this, you're breathing the proof, you're walking on it, you see it in the sky at night.

A belief in God doesn't imply irrationality, just that when rationality and science fails to explain or define something, you still have a way to explain it.  One doesn't neccessaryily exclude the other.

[StratComm]

Liberator, don't try it.  Number 1, your "proof" rests in faith, which is something that you must consciously choose to have.  (If you don't choose to have it - which I suspect that you might not - you have a distorted perception of humanity, history, and reality in its very essence).  Faith rests on, well, faith.  If Kazan does not have that faith, then your arguments are complete nonsense to him.

[Falcon]

Uhgggg all you guys are arguing back and forth on who's right and who's wrong. Question, has this argument of yours accomplished anything at all? I mean really you guys are going in a huge never ending loop. Arguements don't do anything but cause strife which is clearly evident in this thread. Heres what I say If you have an opinion please keep it to yourself and if your having trouble holding it in.... take a metal bat and hit yourself on the head a couple of times (sure enough you will forget about what you were going to say ).

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Falcon
Uhgggg all you guys are arguing back and forth on who's right and who's wrong. Question, has this argument of yours accomplished anything at all? I mean really you guys are going in a huge never ending loop. Arguements don't do anything but cause strife which is clearly evident in this thread. Heres what I say If you have an opinion please keep it to yourself and if your having trouble holding it in.... take a metal bat and hit yourself on the head a couple of times (sure enough you will forget about what you were going to say ).

This sort of argument isn't going to pursuade anyone like Lib or Kazan. There are people in the middle however who haven't quite decided or who don't hold any firm beliefs. That's who the debate is for.

If you don't like the argument don't read it.

As for causing strife most of us are adults or capable of acting like one. I've not seen any of this spill over in the modding forums etc so what's the harm?

Originally posted by Liberator
Interesting, you say God doesn't exist then, because there is no proof.  The problem is this, you're breathing the proof, you're walking on it, you see it in the sky at night.

What a load of crap. Even if that is proof of a god (and it isn't) how is it proof of YOUR god? Without refering to the bible tell me how any of that proves that you're right and the Hindus are wrong?