Angel: http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/personhood_apple.htm
He’s explaining about abortion and how it’s wrong.

Dan: ah
*gets ready to tear it apart with rhetoric*

A: Using long words, in order to confuse the stupid.

D: of course

A: … like me.

D: naturally using the long words wrong, I’d imagine.
And you’re intelligent, love.

A: I don’t know what he’s talking about!
I cannot parse step three.

D: Hang on.
I shall read it.
Man
hahaha
it sounds like the Chewbacca defence.
If this is an Apple, Roe vs Wade must be overturned!
If Chewbacca lives on Endor you must aquit!

A: I am so confused, what the fuck is he trying to say there.
Oh, step 4!!
There is where it falls apart!
Our fourth principle is that we know what we are. If we know what an apple is, surely we know what a human being is. For we aren’t apples; we don’t live as apples, we don’t feel what apples feel (if anything). We don’t experience the existence or growth or life of apples, yet we know what apples are. A fortiori, we know what we are, for we have “inside information”…

D: but!

A: But humans are *infinitely* more complicated than an apple!

D: Yes!
And he didn’t actually *DEFINE*
what a human is!
He just said he knows what a human is.
Okay… then What is a Human!
(Random Capitals of Anger!)
((also, I didn’t actually finish reading yet))

A: Go on, go on.

D: Step 2 is completely gibberish.

A: YES I KNOW.

D: Alright, I MUST refute this article in my blog.

A: ohgod. The opening sentence of step 5. “The fifth principle is the indispensable, common-sensical basis for human rights”.
WHAT ARE YOU, DR. FUCKING SEUSS!!!

D: hahahaha!

A: “common-sensical”??!
THAT IS NOT A WORD I DON’T CARE *WHAT* YOU SAY

D: hahahaha nooo!

A: *hyperventilates with rage*

D: *hugs*
breath, my love.

A: I THINK HE WAS HIGH WHEN HE WROTE THIS.
*inhales*

D: hahaha!

A: *exhales*

D: maybe

A: “By this point in our argument, some are probably feeling impatient.”
NO SHIT, SHERLOCK.

D: “From Step 2, I deduce the third principle, also as an immediate logical corollary, that we really know what some things (other things than apples) really are. This follows if we only add the minor premise that an apple is another thing.”
no.
No it doesn’t.
You took as an axiom, “you know what an apple is”.
From there you say, “oh, also, we know what other things are.”
So why don’t you just take the axiom “We know what some things are” to begin with!?
Well, ignoring the fact that it’s a stupid wording.
And it says almost nothing.
an apple is another thing!?
So wait, what’s an apple now?
Did he just disprove his own premise right there?
it takes me so long to read these fregging things, because I have to *figure out* what *each sentence* means after I read it.
“All talk about rights, about right and wrong, about justice, presupposes this principle that we really know what some things really are. We cannot argue about anything at all—anything real, as distinct from arguing about arguing, and about words, and attitudes—unless we accept this principle. We can talk about feelings without it, but we cannot talk about justice. We can have a reign of…”
short version:
Morality presupposes objective reality.
Therefore, for the purposes of this argument, let’s ignore skepticism.
say what you mean in as few words as possible!
hahaha

A: Oh, he called me stupid.

D: Don’t worry, love.

A: I kill him now.

D: I’m going to write a full response to this.

A: I find where he lives and kill him dead.
“Scientific ignorance, if it is not ignoring, or deliberate denial or dishonesty, is perhaps pitiable but not morally blame-worthy. You don’t have to be wicked to be stupid.”
So, because I don’t know when a human becomes a human, I’m *stupid*???

D: His logic is truely… nonexistant.
Is the only word for it. 4 does not follow.
and is irrelivent.
nnng!

A: *hug*

D: listen:
“There is obviously more mystery in a human than in an apple, but there is also more knowledge.”
so there’s more we know, and more WE DON’T KNOW!
Like when life begins!

A: “So they have to deny the moral principle that leads to the pro-life conclusion. This, I suspect, is a vast and major sea change. The camel has gotten not just his nose, but his torso under the tent.”

D: ???

A: So we’re talking about the sea, and a camel, and… don’t camels live in the desert, where there IS no sea?…
AAAAH.’

D: His metaphors are as bad as his general talking!!!
His English License should be revoked.

A: “I think most people refuse to think or argue about abortion because they see that the only way to remain pro-choice is to abort their reason first.”
I see what you did there.
Ho-ho. A pun. How devilishly witty of you.

D: yees.
also unintentionally ironic.
As he has, you know, no reasoning skills to speak of.
“Knowledge and mystery are no more incompatible than eating and hungering for more.”
umm…
no one said it wasn’t?
eating knowledge??
um, okay, if you say so..
*eats an encyclopedia*

A: Nom nom nom.

D: haha!

A: Knowledge. It has a flavr. It tastes lyke applez.

D: mhm
oh!
I see what you did there
hahaha
*kiss*
right, on to #5…
5 doesn’t really say anything.
Moving on…
NNG!

A: ?

D: #6, I DISAGREE!
Morality is based on Logic!
not metaphysics!

A: Oh, you’re not going to like the rest of this.

D: I’m sure I won’t.
Now to read the actual point.

A: “Suppose that not a single principle of this essay is true, beginning with the first one. Suppose that we do not even know what an apple is. Even then abortion is unjustifiable.” Oh, I can’t *wait* to hear this idiot explain that.

D: right…
I know I sure as hell don’t know what an apple is.

A: “Let’s assume not a dogmatic skepticism (which is self-contradictory) but a skeptical skepticism.”

D: ??

A: For some reason, that is my new favourite sentence.

D: hahahaha!

A: Also, try saying skeptical skepticism five times fast.

D: It’s just nonsensical enough to be fun.
I keep saying “skiptical skipticism”
hahaha
“Metaphysics means simply philosophizing about reality. The sixth principle means that rights depend on reality, and our knowledge of rights depends on our knowledge of reality.”
DISAGREE DISAGREE!
Rights depend on what you base them on. Reality is irrelevant.
If you base all rights on Total Freedom, that’s your morality. If you base all rights on Complete Equality, *that’s* your morality. If you base them on life, you have a morality that protects life at all costs.
The problem with modern morality,
is that varying people base them on various combinations of things.
And no one quite agrees on what’s more important.
It doesn’t matter if the world is floating in a giant turtle’s dream, created by a god, or spontaneously banged into existence.
Life, freedom, equality, religious morality, and other bases exist regardless of the actual reality of things!

A: He is such a jerk.

D: mmhm.

A: I finished it, I’m ready to listen to your tirade.

D: alright.
2nd paragraph of 6:
yeah, you answered that one a while back
hahaha
“Ah, but I suspect we began with the controversial stuff. For not all are impatient; others are uneasy. “Too simplistic,” “not nuanced,” “a complex issue”—do these phrases leap to mind as shields to protect you from the spear that you know is coming at the end of the argument?”
umm…
no.
For your argument is a dull stick to begin with, and as such I am proceeding to break it to pieces.
A shield is very unnessisary.
Like wearing bulletproof armour to a water-pistol fight, that would be.
“what is right depends on what is”
Counterexample:
According to you, we all know what is.
Yet, we do not, apparently, all know what is right.
As everyone is still arguing about it.

A: this guy is such an asshole!

D: yep

A: “dogs are not rational”, my ass.

D: god, I can barely read this scribbledygoop.

A: A dog will stay away from fire because the dog knows that it’ll hurt.

D: yes

A: A dog will bark at a stranger because the dog doesn’t trust people it doesn’t know.

D: anyone who said dogs aren’t rational beings has never owned a dog.
Also:
Humans are animals too!
As some people seem to forget.
“…but it’s not wrong to break a limb off a tree”
I’m sure that some would disagree with even that.
Dogs don’t have the right to vote because they don’t understand the issues involved!
I would argue that for the same reason, some *people* shouldn’t have the right to vote.
And just because a dog can not grasp the complexities of human society, does not mean that they don’t posess some level of reasoning.
On to #7.
How many are there, out of curiosity?
13.

A: And an extra.

D: Okay, that’s not too bad.

A: Begging you to dispute him.

D: mhm

A: Bastard’s asking for it.

D: hahaha!
“The main reason people deny that morality must (or even can) be based on metaphysics is that they say we don’t really know what reality is, we only have opinions.”
That’s not what I said, therefore your counterargument is irrelivent.
It’s amazing how seldom people correctly predict counterarguments.
“But the very fact that we argue about it—a fact the skeptic points to as a reason for skepticism—is a refutation of skepticism. We don’t argue about how we feel, about subjective things. You never hear an argument like this: ‘I feel great.’ ‘No, I feel terrible.’ “
Again, I am not arguing from scepticism, I am arguing for absolute morality with a different basis than yours.
Also, who *hasn’t* been confused about whether to feel great or terrible at some point?
hahaha
“For instance, both pro-lifers and pro-choicers usually agree that it’s wrong to kill innocent persons against their will and it’s not wrong to kill parts of persons, like cancer cells.”
so it’s not wrong to kill an arm, apparently?
Bad wording.

A: *stab stab stab* DEATH TO THE ARM… OF HATE!!!

D: The reason it’s alright to kill cancer cells is that the person *doesn’t want* cancer cells in their body!

A: … ow, my arm.

D: hahahaha!
Not because it’s *only part* of a person.

A: And also!
By that logic! (people don’t want cancer cells in their body, therefore we can kill them)
Some women don’t want a baby in their body.

D: yes!

A: Also! Would you not concede that an embryo, before it develops into a sentient being, is part of its mother’s body? It’s connected to her, feeding off of what she eats, using her blood and her energy.

D: mhm

A: Therefore, since you yourself stated it was okay to kill a part of a person, wouldn’t it be okay to kill the part of the mother that will eventually, given enough time, become a human?
Seeing that it’s a part of her body and all.

D: Mhm, by that argument.

A: Continue with the reaming of this man’s idiocy.

D: “And both the proponents and opponents of capital punishment usually agree that human life is of great value; that’s why the proponent wants to protect the life of the innocent by executing murderers and why the opponent wants to protect the life even of the murderer. They radically disagree about how to apply the principle that human life is valuable, but they both assume and appeal to that same
principle”
wow…
I actually agree with that passage.
Of coure, he missed that point that it’s because people place different emphasis on different values,

A: This is why he’s such an asshole. He goes and says stuff that makes sense, just to fuck with you.
also, it is snacks time for Angel. Keep talking, I’ll catch up.

D: and it’s because some people value the lives of the innocent higher than the lives of murderers, and some people, on principle, value all lives the same…
hahaha!
okay
8. is a good argument against Biblical morality. How can someone be so close and yet so wrong?
Humans don’t have rights because they’re human…
Humans have rights because the rights of thinking beings follow from logic.
It all starts with freedom. It’s the order of the individual freedoms that the jury’s still out on.
But if one thinks about it, it can be deduced.
Life follows from freedom.
Because you can’t have the freedom to do anything else if you don’t have the freedom to live.
Therefore, life is the most fundamental freedom. Most everyone agrees with this.
The question that people don’t know is, ‘where does life begin?’.
And when is a life a thinking being, and as such, subject to human rights?
You have never, once, adressed the question: “When is a human a human?”.
You just vaguely stated “We know what a human is.”
Which DOESN’T ANSWER ANYTHING!
Rights follow from freedoms.
We all have the freedom to live, therefore we have the RIGHT to live.
I agree that there is no authority that can arbitrarily declare rights.
Rights must be derived from thought and logic.
Point 9:

A: (I’m back, by the way, and have been since point 8.)

D: ah
Hi!

A: Hai!
I didn’t want to interrupt, you were ranting so impressively.

D: okay
*kiss*
so, point 9:
umm, yes?
You forgot the possibilty that no one has rights,
but for a discussion on morality, that’s irrelivent anyway.
All humans have the same rights because all humans are fundamentally the same.
To discriminate on any basis against any group by giving them less rights is to arbitrarily declare one group superior, and penalizing people for something they have no control over.
And as we already agreed that rights are not arbitrary,
It would not follow from any logical system of morality for any group to be discriminated against.
moving on.
WOW!
the first point that actually has to do with the actual premise!
hm.
“I won’t address the morality of voluntary euthanasia here.”
And then he goes on to…
wait for it…
Address the morality of voluntary euthanasia!

A: OMG!

D: so we know *he’s* a liar.
hahahaha
I will do you one better, sir, and actually *not* argue against your opinion on euthanasia.
That is all you will hear about the matter.

A: Haha!

D: “But harming or killing another against his will, not by free contract, is clearly wrong; if that isn’t wrong, what is?”
I never argued that it wasn’t wrong.
You have yet to define ‘another’ though.
“But that’s what abortion is. Mother Teresa argued, simply, ‘If abortion is not wrong, nothing is wrong.’ “
You’re wrong.

A: Ahahahahahahaha.
I love you.

D: *kiss*
I love you too.
“The fetus doesn’t want to be killed; it seeks to escape.”
Of course the fetus doesn’t want to be killed!
It doesn’t *want* anything!
It’s a fetus!
It can not think!
Therefore it is not the same as other humans!
Therefore it has not the same rights as humans!
There, I just argued for abortion in three lines.
Which is far more elegant than this windbag.

A: I’m odd — I’m totally pro-choice, and I hate pro-lifers, and yet I won’t ever have an abortion.

D: Well it’s your choice.
Hense, pro-choice.

A: I choose it for totally selfish reasons.
Surgery scares me.

D: well there you go then.
That’s totally consistant.
(which is a great compliment from me, by the way)
hahaha

A: Thank you, dear. You do realize that if you get me pregnant, you’ll have to have the baby with me.

D: I know
So we’ll be careful.
It’s good to be careful anyway, even if you would have one, abortions are damn expensive.

A: I have a friend who got a girl pregnant, she had an abortion.
$32,000.

D: WOW
I knew they were expensive, but holy zombie Jesus!

A: Haha!
I know!
Maybe $3200.

D: hmm

A: Either way, a lot.

D: that was more what I was guessing
yeah, either way
so anyway, back to ripping apart this guy’s essay.

A: Yees.
I’m sure your blog people don’t need to know about our sex life.

D: hahaha
yeah

A: … That said, I’m the only one who reads your blog…

D: true
*shrug*
oh well.
*waves* hello other blog people who may or may not exist!
Maybe the author of this article I’m critiquing will read this.
“Did you dare to watch The Silent Scream? Did the media dare to allow it to be shown? No, they will censor nothing except the most common operation in America.”
‘The Media’.
I love it when people refer to ‘The Media’ as one entity
hahaha
Anyway, this is irrelivent to the topic at hand.

A: Wait.
If you know that the media censored it, and so a lot of people didn’t get to see it…
WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU USING IT AS A REFERENCE!!

D: hahaha!

A: It’s like, “If you didn’t see this, then you don’t deserve to understand my opinions.”

D: cause obscure references that no one looks up are a good tool to ‘win’ arguments that are wrong
yes
hahaha
I do not wish to watch a movie about surgery, thank you.
That would not be fun.

A: Especially with a pretentious name like “The Silent Scream”.

D: yeah

A: I’m gonna look that up, right now.

D: Also, I’d like to see citation for “the most common operation in America”
It’s irrelevent to the point, but still.
Especially when it’s illegal in so many states.

A: The Silent Scream is a 1984 video about abortion directed and filmed by Dr. Bernard Nathanson. The film depicts the abortion process via ultrasound and vividly shows an abortion taking place on the fetus. In detail, the fetus is described as appearing to make outcries of pain and discomfort during the process.

D: right
animals feel pain.
And yet we hunt them.

A: 1984?? I read that as 1994!

D: That argument is either irrelivent or an argument for vegitarianism.

A: Oh, well, fuck, why are you believing something from 24 years ago!

D: hahahaha

A: * CLAIM: The 12-week fetus experiences pain.
* FACTS: At this stage of the pregnancy, the brain and nervous system are still in a very early stage of development. The beginnings of the brain stem, which includes a rudimentary thalamus and spinal cord, is being formed. Most brain cells are not developed. [...]
Without a cerebral cortex (gray matter covering the brain), pain impulses cannot be received or perceived. Additionally, experts find that newborns at 26–27 weeks’ gestation (24–25 weeks’ fetal age) who survive have significantly less response to pain than do full term newborns.
* CLAIM: The fetus emits “the silent scream.”
* FACTS: A scream cannot occur without air in the lungs.
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/issues-action/abortion/anti-choice-activity/reports/facts-speak-louder-than-silent-scream-6136.htm

D: ah, cool
I like all facts to be thouroughly researched.
Anyway, on to 11.
“Are persons a subclass of humans, or are humans a subclass of persons?”
Umm… I think we already established the latter.
the question is when something *becomes* a human, and hense a person!
“the possibility that there are nonhuman persons, like extraterrestrials, elves, angels, gods, God, or the Persons of the Trinity…”
I love how he puts elves in the same catagory as extraterrestrials.
hahaha
“…or the possibility that there are some nonpersonal humans, unpersons, humans without rights.”
We already established that there aren’t!
Get on with it!
“Traditional common sense and morality say all humans are persons and have rights.”
‘Traditional common sense’!?
Then why, prey tell, have we had discrimination, slavery, serfdom, and general opression, racisim, sexism, homophobia, etc, etc, for MOST OF HUMAN HISTORY!?
Fail.
“all humans are persons and have rights.”
I agree with your point, though not your appeal.
“Modern moral relativism says that only some humans are persons, for only those who are given rights by others (i.e., those in power) have rights.”
Noo,
Moral relativism says morals are relative depending on the situation.
Hense, *relativism*

A: That’s why it’s called — yes.

D: *Modern* ideas are for equality!
You got it backwards!

A: You amaze me.

D: hahaha
*kiss* thanks.
“Thus, if we have power, we can “depersonalize” any group we want: blacks, slaves, Jews, political enemies, liberals, fundamentalists—or unborn babies.”
…rright
Ignoring the list before the last as irrelivent,
You can only, to use your neologism (though it pains me), “depersonalize” a group that is a person to begin with!
And you have *yet* to establish that an unborn baby is a person!
“A common way to state this philosophy is…”
Really?
I’ve *never* heard that philosophy stated that way in my life.
If, indeed, it is a philosophy at all,
and not just something you made up for the point of your argument.
It is not, in any case, moral relativism.

A: Well, he calls himself a philosopher, you see.

D: ahhh
rright.
This paragraph is, again, irrelivent to the topic at hand.
You do not “assign rights”
to animals arbitrarily.
Many have none, or nearly none. How you choose to treat a member of that species is up to you.
However,
some animals *do* have recognized rights.
Most people agree that killing a dog is wrong.
Unless maybe it’s really sick and dying… which is euthenasia so I’ll stop talking about that now as I said I wouldn’t.
Or, another example.
An elephant.
It’s not just because they’re endangered.
Elephants are intelligent creatures, and people know this.
Dolphins, whales, the list goes on.
One could say, then, that these creatures are, indeed, people.

A: Sure, if intelligence is all you’re going by.
OOH!
Actually, if I may, I have something to comment with.

D: okay

A: So, regarding what makes a human “human”.
I saw a documentary today about a family that walks on all fours. It was about genes and stuff like that and was really quite interesting.
It brought up the point that there are three basic things unique to humans.
Walking upright, the size of the brain as compared to other creatures, and speech.
A fetus can do none of these things.
And has none of these things.
A fetus’s legs aren’t developed enough to walk erect, even if you took it out of the womb and placed it on the ground. Its brain is nowhere near as developed as it will be at birth. And language? No.
Therefore!

D: Point 12.
Which is a long one.
“To be pro-choice, you must deny at least one of them, because taken together they logically entail the pro-life conclusion.”
I’ve pretty much shown that they *don’t* logically entail the pro-life conclusion, but go on.
“But there are three different kinds of pro-choice positions, depending on which of the three pro-life premises is denied.”
It’s always dangerous to put people into definitive categories, for oftentimes one doesn’t fit in any,
but go on.
“The scientific premise is that the life of the individual member of every animal species begins at conception.”
You NEVER SAID THIS before in your essay until now!

A: And can you cite this source anywhere?
WHERE does it say this?

D: he says it’s a “truism”
“(This truism was taught by all biology textbooks before Roe and by none after Roe; yet Roe did not discover or appeal to any new scientific discoveries.)”
What the hell is a truism?

A: “a self-evident, obvious truth.” (Dictionary.com.)

D: So, it’s not a truism then.

A: “a statement which is pliantly true; a proposition needing no proof or argument;”
Yeah, no.

D: Regardless of whether you define ‘life’ as beginning at conception,
you have yet to show that this lifeform is a person.
and seeing as we’re nearing the end of this, I don’t think you will.
“In other words, all humans are human, whether embryonic, fetal, infantile, young, mature, old, or dying.”
Yes, A=A!
But you didn’t show that B,
B being an embryo
is in any way the same as an adult human!

A: Or even a child or infant.

D: mhm
but let’s not get into that here.
“The moral premise is that all humans have the right to life because all humans are human.”
Your tautology skills never cease to amaze me.
“It is a deduction from the most obvious of all moral rules, the Golden Rule, or justice, or equality. If you would not be killed, do not kill. It’s just not just, not fair. All humans have the human essence and, therefore, are essentially equal.”
DISAGREE!
THE GOLDEN RULE IS INHERENTLY FLAWED!
So, basically,
you’re saying,
If you would not be killed, do not kill,
so therefore, the inverse of that is,
if you would be killed, kill.
So by the golden rule,
Suicidal people have the right to murder!

A: SWEET.
Good news for meeee.

D: hahaha

A: That’s not funny.

D: *hugs*

A: Your girlfriend just insinuated she’s suicidal.
(I’m not, go on.)

D: okay, good.
So, yes, golden rule is wrong.
Perhaps that’s why this society is so messed up!
We derive our morality from a flawed principle.
It should not be “Do unto others as you would have them do on to you”!
That doesn’t work.
I’m trying to make up a new rule but failing.

A: Maybe people should make their own rules.
There shouldn’t *be* a set rule for humanity.

D: yes!
exactly!
*that’s* the problem!
It’s because of the golden rule that we have all these people forcing others to do what they don’t want to.
“I worship Jesus, therefore everyone else should”
“I would not engage in homosexual intecourse, therefore no one else should”
“I am personally appaled at destoying an embryo even though there’s no logical basis against it.
Therefore, no one else should be able to.
Is the logic that follows from the golden rule.

A: I’m fine with the golden rule being like, “Be nice to people if you want people to be nice to you”.

D: Yes.

A: But the problem is people take it to such massive extremes.

D: mhm
It’s a case of good intention but bad application.
The golden rule is not a sound basis for morality, is what I’m saying.
“All humans have the human essence and, therefore, are essentially equal.”
What is The Human Essence?
You have not defined that!
You just arbitrarily stated that humans have it!
Frogs have The Frog Essence!

A: Eew.

D: Coats have The Coat Essense
Envelopes have The Envelope Essence.
It is meaningless!
And again, he’s not shown that unborn fetuses are the same as born humans.

A: I don’t think he intends to.

D: Yeah, I figured.

A: “The legal premise is that the law must protect the most basic human rights. If all humans are human, and if all humans have a right to life, and if the law must protect human rights, then the law must protect the right to life of all humans.”
12.
The word “human” has lost all meaning.

D: gaaah!
Yes
If A=A…
nnng

A: If A = A then A = A, therefore A = A.

D: NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT A DOES NOT EQUAL A!
And the conclusion is stated from the outset in the premise.
It doesn’t even follow, actually! He never even established that the right to life is a basic human right.
I agree that it is, but I didn’t even notice that.
In any case, this argument says absolutely nothing.
“If all three premises are true, the pro-life conclusion follows.”
No.
No it doesn’t.
Not at all.
“From the pro-life point of view, there are only three reasons for being pro-choice: scientific ignorance—appalling ignorance of a scientific fact so basic that nearly everyone in the world knows it; moral ignorance—appalling ignorance of the most basic of all moral rules; or legal ignorance—appalling ignorance of one of the most basic of all the functions of law.”
Hm.. I’m surprised, actually.
He’s managed to go until just before this point without actually personally insulting me.

A: And then, here we go.
This is where I got pissed, remember.
“Scientific ignorance, if it is not ignoring, or deliberate denial or dishonesty, is perhaps pitiable but not morally blame-worthy. You don’t have to be wicked to be stupid”
So, he’s coming right out and calling us stupid.
But we’re not *wicked*, so that’s nice of him.

D: hahaha
adressing the author:
YOU have not shown me ANY scientific evidence that the state of being a person begins at conception.
If I were indeed, ignorant as you say,
then one would think that this lengthy essay would be a good place to enlighten me.
And yet,
over the course of it, you have not shown me one fact that could possibly change my or anyone’s mind.

A: And YOU. Are calling US. STUPID

D: apparently.
“…a scientific fact so basic that nearly everyone in the world knows it”
For one thing, you have not shown me any scientific facts.
Only tautologies and conclusions that do not follow from the premises.
I have yet to figure out, therefore, what it is you are refering to here.
Humans are humans?

A: He might me referring to the “fact” that humanity begins after conception.

D: A bird is a bird, and a squeebledy is a squeebledy.
I have no idea what else a squeebledy might be, but I know it’s a squeebledy.

A: A fucking equals A, okay, we fucking GET IT.

D: YES!

A: MAKE A POINT WHY DON’T YOUI
YOU*

D: So yes, in what is probably the umptenth and a halfth time that I’ve told you, I will tell you again:
You have *not* proven humanity begins after conception!
You have stated that “it’s a fact”, “everyone knows it”, it’s “self-evident”, “basic”, “a truism”.
That IS NOT PROOF!

A: You refer to people who dispute it as just “skeptics” who deny that apples are apples.
APPLES MAY BE APPLES, BUT HUMANS ARE SO MUCH MORE COMPLEX.
Oh, here’s one.
Is an apple seed an apple?
If an apple seed is an apple, then a fetus is a human.

D: I would say that it has the capacity to be an apple, but is not yet an apple.

A: Yes,
And, after it has been planted, there is a window of time when it is still not yet an apple, and hasn’t taken root yet.
So that is not killing the apple if you remove the seed.

D: you could say that it’s an apple tree once it pokes up out of the ground.

A: That’s fine.
But an apple seed is not an apple.
*That* is a truism, sir.

D: *kiss*

A: I love you too

D: Couldn’t have said it better myself.

A: So, yes.
Shall we go on?

D: yes.
next quotation:
“If you believe an unborn baby is only ‘potential life’ or a ‘group of cells,’ then you do not believe you are killing a human being when you abort and might have no qualms of conscience about it.”
One of his rare semi-intelligent moments there.
He admits, right there, that it’s possible for some people to believe the unborn babies are not humans.

A: Wow, how remarkably open-minded of him.
We stupid people are very grateful.

D: yees
“(But why, then, do most mothers who abort feel such terrible pangs of conscience, often for a lifetime?)”
does not follow.

A: How do you know?
How the fuck would you know that?

D: I know!
He couldn’t possibly!

A: Never mind that he’s *male*.

D: mhm
pangs of conscience, regardless, may or may not actually show that something is immoral.

A: Like, I feel bad sometimes after I eat chocolate.
Does that make eating chocolate immoral?

D: All it means is that you *feel* that it’s wrong somehow
yes, exactly!

A: … Chocolate is yummy.

D: mmhm!

A: It’s just also bad for me.
And sometimes, I feel fat when I eat it. But that doesn’t mean it’s *bad*.

D: exactly.

A: That just means I’m an insecure mess.

D: *hugs*
You’re beautiful *kiss*
“Most pro-choice arguments, during the first two decades after Roe, disputed the scientific premise of the pro-life argument.”
Because it *has none*!
“It might be that this was almost always dishonest rather than honest ignorance, but perhaps not, and at least it didn’t directly deny the essential second premise, the moral principle. But pro-choice arguments today increasingly do.”
Dishonest how?
I’m lying to others in order to further the ‘pro-choice agenda’ now?
Or do you mean I’m just lying to myself, so that I can abort fetuses with a clear conscience.

A: See, the problem with this sort of person is that they’re *convinced* that those who disagree with them have some sort of “agenda”. The homosexual agenda, the pro-choice agenda…
Your opinion is not the be-all and end-all.
Oh boy, the next paragraph is the one with the camels!
(Which I do not understand AT ALL.)

D: Yeah, I’m getting to it, hold on.
“Perhaps pro-choicers perceive that they have no choice but to [deny the moral principle], for they have no other recourse if they are to argue at all. Scientific facts are just too clear to deny, and it makes no legal sense to deny the legal principle, for if the law is not supposed to defend the right to life, what is it supposed to do?”
“So they have to deny the moral principle that leads to the pro-life conclusion.”

A: “So pro-choicers believe they don’t have a choice.”
Doesn’t that… um… defy the whole… PREMISE of…
AAAH.
the stupid. it are consuming me.

D: Well, I already told you that I deny all your ‘principles’ in that they are all nonsensical and meaningless, saying nothing and convincing no one. But yes, I deny your basis of morality, and your “facts”.
And just because it’s so ridiculous, I’ll quote the metaphor again.
“This, I suspect, is a vast and major sea change. The camel has gotten not just his nose, but his torso under the tent.”

A: What in the FUCK does that mean?

D: If anyone who may read this wishes to do some sort of interpretation of that metaphor, that might be entertaining.

A: I mean… really, I think his entire argument can be discarded in light of this metaphor alone.
… seriously!
What the FUCK does that even MEAN!!
I think he put it in there just to confuse us!

D: the tent?
what tent?
and why the hell is a camel under it?
Pro-choice people are camels now?
How?

A: So, we’re stupid, lying camels.
by the sea.
Apparently.
We are lying, stupid, aquatic camels.

D: Aquatic Camel!
That’s awesome!

A: Fucking hell, I think I’m going to go shoot myself.

D: *hugs*
don’t shoot yourself, love, we’re almost done.

A: okay, okay.

D: “I think most people refuse to think or argue about abortion because they see that the only way to remain pro-choice is to abort their reason first.”
Hmm… well aborting your reasoning skills didn’t seem to stop you from writing this argument.

A: I see wat u did thar.

D: hahaha
Woah, this came out of left field:
“Or, since many pro-choicers insist that abortion is about sex, not about babies, the only way to justify their scorn of virginity is a scorn of intellectual virginity. The only way to justify their loss of moral innocence is to lose their intellectual innocence.”

A: Who are these pro-choicers he’s talking to?
I’d like to meet some.

D: I have no idea
hahaha
They scorn virginity, apparently.

A: Boo virginity!
Let’s have promiscuous sex, and then copious amounts of surgery to get rid of the podling that will inevitably develop!
yes, THAT is what I want to happen.
(Nooo.)

D: and we have thousands of dollars to burn.
Apparently.

A: Nng.
It actually *hurts* me.

D: I know
The sheer stupidity.
Which is far worse that mere ignorance.
If, you know, we actually had it.
So having sex is now a ‘loss of moral innocence’, in case you missed that.

A: I got it.
I don’t particularly want to be morally innocent.

D: Noo.
Not to mention he didn’t state from which moral system *that* derives.
I’m pretty sure he’s religious.

A: All pro-lifers are.
ultimately, it goes along with pregnancy being part of sex, which is a sin, which means NO ABORTION FOR YOU.
You live with god’s punishment!

D: hahahaha
Anyway, what the hell do you think this means?:
I’m ‘intellectually guilty’?

A: No.
No, I think it means the idea of being pure.
You’re innocent if you haven’t done anything.
So you’re intellectually innocent…
if you don’t know anything.

D: Ah, yes.
Let’s all eat the apple.

A: This suddenly makes a LOT of sense.

D: I mean, really.
Who the hell wants to be ignorant?

A: Eternal sin, versus eternal ignorance.
Ignorance is bliss.
I BET YOU *ANYTHING* THAT PHRASE CAME FROM THE BIBLE.

D: “If the above paragraph offends you, I challenge you to calmly and honestly ask your own conscience and reason whether, where, and why it is false.”
Umm, yeah, I just did.
It’s false in several places.
most every sentence, in fact.

A: That is, the parts we can *comprehend* are false.

D: yeah
I suppose ‘meaningless’ is a separate truth-category from ‘false’.
Ahhh
the thirteenth,
and final section.
except the last one.
Which has no number, for some reason.
Perhaps he likes 13.
14 is unlucky, you see.
It used to be 13, but, you know, inflation and all.

A: LMAO
OHGOD.
You make me die, in a good way. *kisskisskiss*

D: yay!
*kisskisskiss back*
fishfishfish!
And Aquatic Camel!
he swims with the fishfishfish.

A: Of course.
Now get on with it, honey, I’m sure our audience of, um, me, is very anxious to see the rant against– *deep threatening voice* SECTION THIRTEEN.

D: alright then.
“The most likely response to this will be the charge of dogmatism. How dare I pontificate with infallible certainty, and call all who disagree either mentally or morally challenged!”
umm, yes, actually.
Wow.

A: I know.
That’s what I kind of like/hate about this guy.
He calls us SO PERFECTLY.

D: He actually correctly predicted my responce for a change
he never ceases to surprise me.

A: Asshole.

D: Adressing author: so yes, that’s me. How will you answer that?
“All right, here is an argument even for the metaphysical skeptic, who would not even agree with my very first and simplest premise, that we really do know what some things really are, such as what an apple is. (It’s only after you are pinned against the wall and have to justify something like abortion that you become a skeptic and deny such a self-evident principle.)”
Oh, nope, you’re wrong again.
*previous paragraph should be in quotes*

A: I’ve been a skeptic since before I even heard of your stupid apple idea.

D: No one is saying A DOES NOT EQUAL A!
yeah, I know
also, listen to what he says here:
here’s an argument for people who would deny my premise: HOW COULD YOU DENY MY PREMISE!?
oh, no wait, sorry,
I thought that was a question.
The actual argument’s on the next paragraph.

A: ouch. nice one, love.

D: “Roe used such skepticism to justify a pro-choice position. Since we don’t know when human life begins, the argument went, we cannot impose restrictions.”

A: Totally.

D: I would say that since we don’t know when human life begins, (and we don’t), and there is strong evidence that a fetus can NOT think and feel like a born human can, then people have no right to restrict other’s choices on the matter.
*others’
As it has NOT been shown to be morally wrong.
And until you have a reason for something to be wrong, it is not wrong.
You have not given us a reason.

A: You cited ONE source, that has been proven to be inaccurate.

D: Yep.
“(Why it is more restrictive to give life than to take it, I cannot figure out.)”
The issue is not ‘giving’ or ‘taking’ life; it’s about choice, and whether one of the choices is wrong.
“So here is my refutation of Roe on its own premises, its skeptical premises:-” I think you’re confusing two types of skepticism here. “Suppose that not a single principle of this essay is true, beginning with the first one. Suppose that we do not even know what an apple is. Even then abortion is unjustifiable.”
Apples have NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING,
YOU
SILLY
PERSON
but, go on…
“Let’s assume not a dogmatic skepticism (which is self-contradictory) but a skeptical skepticism.”
…right

A: *gigglefit*

D: “Let us also assume that we do not know whether a fetus is a person or not.”
We don’t.

A: So let’s move on.

D: “In objective fact, of course, either it is or it isn’t (unless the Court has revoked the Law of Noncontradiction while we were on vacation), but in our subjective minds, we may not know what the fetus is in objective fact. We do know, however, that either it is or isn’t by formal logic alone.”
So it couldn’t possibly be a person in some ways but not a person in others?
Well, I suppose to truly be a person it would have to be a person in all ways.
so, yes.
Either it is or it isn’t.
Brilliant.
“A second thing we know by formal logic alone is that either we do or do not know what a fetus is. Either there is ‘out there,’ in objective fact, independent of our minds, a human life, or there is not; and either there is knowledge in our minds of this objective fact, or there is not.”
Define “know what a fetus is”.
If you mean “know whether or not it is a person,” then, yes, you just said that.
Obviously there’s an objective fact.
The universe can’t just be undefined.
Unless it’s quantum stuff, but yes, not for big things.
And there *is not* knowledge in our minds, else we would not be arguing.
There *can not* be knowledge of this until we *define* what a person *is*.
And we both agree on it.
You have not attempted to do this.
“So, there are four possibilities:
1. The fetus is a person, and we know that; The fetus is a person, but we don’t know that; The fetus isn’t a person, but we don’t know that;
2. The fetus isn’t a person, and we know that. What is abortion in each of these four cases?”
umm…
I think you need to check your maths.
…

A: I know.
Ordered lists. UR DOIN IT RONG.

D: “In Case 1, where the fetus is a person and you know that, abortion is murder. First-degree murder, in fact. You deliberately kill an innocent human being.”

A: Fair enough.
Since we don’t know a fetus is a person, though, then it’s not murder.
you said yourself that we don’t know that.

D: mhm.
we don’t.
“In Case 2, where the fetus is a person and you don’t know that, abortion is manslaughter.”

A: He said that it wasn’t wicked to be ignorant, or “stupid”.
THEREFORE.
Abortion isn’t a wicked act. By your logic.
Since we *are* ignorant.

D: I would use evidence to point out the fact that the fetus *isn’t* a person by any reasonable definition of the term.
As we have plenty.
you said some of it yourself earlier.

A: … where?

D: how they don’t feel,
they can’t think
they are not *alive* in the strictest sense.
They are connected to the mother, essentially a part of her.

A: Right, yes.
They don’t breathe, either.
Even *trees* breathe.

D: So yes, if case 2 were indeed the case, it would be irresponsible, but not strictly immoral to have an abortion.
Case 3, the inverse of 2, is pretty much the same.
“Only in Case 4 is abortion a reasonable, permissible, and responsible choice. But note: What makes Case 4 permissible is not merely the fact that the fetus is not a person but also your knowledge that it is not, your overcoming of skepticism.”
It’s not a person and I know it isn’t.
It has nothing to do with scepticism.
What about objective evidence?
Which we *have*
Case 4 is, indeed, the case.
Therefore, By your own reasoning:
abortion is permissable.
The only way to deny it is to deny the evidence.
Face the fact: unborn fetuses don’t think.
They don’t feel
They are *not alive yet*

A: They don’t breathe!

D: To say that something that has only the *potential* to be a human has all the rights of a human, is like saying every single sperm and egg must develop into a human.

A: *is very proud of that point* And yes!

D: Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate…
Is how that song goes.
Ahh, Monty Python.

A: Mhmm.
And we saw how wonderfully THAT worked out for them.

D: hahahaha
*kiss*

A: So, yes.

D: Finally:
on “One Last Plea”
“I hope a reader can show me where I’ve gone astray in the sequence of 13 steps that constitute this argument. I honestly wish a pro-choicer would someday show me one argument that proved that fetuses are not persons.”
Done and done.
It was all of them, by the way.
“It would save me and other pro-lifers enormous grief, time, effort, worry, prayers, and money.”

A: I just want to mail this to him, and say, “Here you go.”

D: You’re welcome.
hahahaha

A: And, Mr Jerkface?
I fucking *dare* you to prove me wrong.

D: “But until that time, I will keep arguing, because it’s what I do as a philosopher.”
You ain’t a philosopher.

A: Prove *us* wrong.

D: Yes.
“It is my weak and wimpy version of a mother’s shouting that something terrible is happening: Babies are being slaughtered.”
FETUSES AREN’T BABIES!
They are different things!
Look it up!

A: Fetus: “the young of an animal in the womb or egg, esp. in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation.”
I.e. After the period of time in which an abortion can be had safely.
Baby: “an infant or very young child”
I.e. After it has been born.
Fetus: “the young of an animal in the womb or egg, esp. in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation.”
I.e. After the period of time in which an abortion can be had safely.
Baby: “an infant or very young child”
I.e. After it has been born.

D: Thanks, dear, for that clarification *kiss*

A: Y’welcome.
*feels kind of patronized*
*but okay!*

D: No, it’s a compliment.
I was patronizing the author.

A: Yes, I know.

D: “I will do this because, as Edmund Burke declared, ‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.’ “
And, finally, he goes right out and calls us evil.

A: He said we weren’t wicked!
Just stupid!

D: And then he calls us evil.
I know.
Make up your mind!

A: *kicks him*

D: *kicks him as well*
well,
this concludes this week’s episode of Aquatic Camel.

A: I do hope you’ve learned something.

D: Join us next week: our guest will be William Shatner.

A: REALLY??
DUDE, COOL!

D: hahaha!

A: That sounds… UTTERLY… fan… TAS… tic…
*read in shatner voice*

D: of course *kiss*

10. Music doesn’t make promises it won’t keep.

9. Music is always there, even when it’s not playing.

8. Music most definately exists.

7. You can make up your own music, and no one says it’s wrong or false.

6. Music can comfort you when you’re feeling upset.

5. Music doesn’t hate you if you listen to something different.

4. Music doesn’t make you do anything special.

3. Music never makes you feel guilty, and doesn’t care how you live your life.

2. Music never hurt anyone.

1. Music doesn’t demand that you love it over anything else.

I am in love.  I have been for several months, and it feels like I will be for the rest of my life.  And I’m not the kind of person to say this lightly.  She is everything that I could ask for and more.  She makes me be everything that I want to be.  And I have never felt the way I do with her before.

I’ve been too happy in general, lately, to come up with good topics for this.  Or to bother writing.  But, oh, how she makes me feel…

I wnat to be more poetic.  I love poetry, but nothing I can think of does her justice.  But she appreciates my clumsy attempts to capture her essence in words.  One day, I will do so in music.  I don’t know where to begin, though.  She deserves a song like no other.  I will compose it for her.

Life is… this is the unsolvable thing about life.  It’s completely chaotic, yet ordered.  It’s planned spontaniety.  It’s random patterns.  It’s impossible possibilities.  Which side came first, I don’t know, but the end result is the same.  I don’t know if this makes any sense to anyone, or if I’m communicating this well, but it makes sense to me.

We’re nothing and everything.  We’re love.  We eixist.

And I still can’t get over that.

“…And the Holy Bible says that people will get more evil because of the lack of teachings. You yourself can observe that as far as religion is concerned, the earth was never out of it, but then again, listen to the teachings and you won’t wonder why people become more crazy and evil.” [strikethrough his]

Now, let’s try to ignore the horrible, horrible sentance structure here, and try to figure out what he was trying to say. He seems to claim that Bible says people are evil due to lack of teachings. Then, he appears to say that people become ‘crazy and evil’ because of the Bible’s teachings. Or religion in general. An interesting thought. Let’s examine that thesis, shall we? In more comprehensible terms, of course. Throughout human history, the minds of mankind have been warped by organized religion, and religion has caused untold amounts of suffering through the ages. The obvious example that springs to mind is the crusades. Then, of course, the holocaust and World War 2, easily one of, if not the most pointless war in human history. There are current examples of needless suffering caused by religion as well, most notably in two areas of the world; the conflict in the middle east, and in India.

You know what? I was going to write an entire essay on this, but I don’t have the energy to research it all. And you know why? Because it’s too damn obvious. If anyone cares, read for yourself on these topics. The point is, conflicts were, and are started for no good reason, other than pointless religious reasons. And why do these people do this? It’s because people believe that their beliefs are the only thing that could possibly be right.

Note the wording there. Everyone, by definition, believes that their beliefs are the correct ones, or at the very least the ones that work the best. And most of these people get along fine with those of different faiths or values. That’s because they acknowledge that theirs aren’t the only set of values. Now, the reason I have nothing against the religious per se, is that even though I don’t agree with what they believe, I realize that there is a possibility (however minute) that they may be right. It is when people don’t stop to consider the other point of view when the harm begins.

When they start to think that they are definitely right, and others are certainly and completely wrong, that’s when harm starts to come from religion. Which was why I took issue from this argument in the first place. I say this to everyone, and anyone who will listen: you are most likely not right. You are most likely wrong in many things. I am most like likely wrong in many things. You can not know what, if anything, gods, if there are any, want. What you think is right may not be right. What you think is wrong may not be wrong. Everyone, just get the fuck over yourselves.

One thing I do know is that thinking one is superior only leads to hatred. And than can never be a good thing if we want to live in a peaceful world.

http://elmantheman.wordpress.com/2008/02/28/how-a-homosexual-can-be-a-christian/. 

What follows is my reply to his post.  Be forwarned, it is extremely long, and repeats a lot of the same things.  I had no choice, however, as his post was extremely long and repetitive.

To begin with, you misquoted me.  I never said .”..And the Holy Bible says that people will get more evil because of the lack of teachings. You yourself can observe that as far as religion is concerned, the earth was never out of it, but then again, listen to the teachings and you won’t wonder why people become more crazy and evil.”  I do not know where you got this from.  It is most definately not the sort of syntax or phrasing I would use.  In fact, the voice sounds a lot like you.  I am forced to think you intentionally put words in my mouth.  If so, I would politely ask that you do not do so in the future, as this is libel.

So, that unplesentness aside, to quote something you said,

“Am I committing sin just for being born as a gay or homosexual individual? Does the bible really condemn gay or homosexual people? Or is just the sinful acts committed?”

So to summerize the first part of your post, you believe that it is not the state of being attracted to the same gender that is a sin, but a homosexual act.  I admit, this is not a contradiction.  I do not know how one could live like this, but it is your choice, so I will comment no further on the matter.

“I will give more verses which I always remember when the integrity of the Holy Bible is being questioned.”

So let me get this straight; when you start disbelieving in the Bible, you read verses of the Bible which make you believe in it again?  A verse which says you are a fool if you don’t believe in the Bible?  Right… I’m going to ignore the holes in your logic there for the moment, painful as they may be.

And I will remind you that I am not debating with you the existance of a god.  I fully accept that there may be one.  Which leads nicely into your next point:

“Some say they believe that there is a God, a good one, but you cannot see the concept of their God from their deeds, but the opposite of good, they are liars too.”

I know for a fact, Elmantheman, that you do not know Scaramouche personally.  I do.  And I love her.  You also do not know me.  Now, you are calling her, me, and by extention, everyone who does not believe in your specific god evil and a liar.  Do you understand why some of us may resent that?  You do not know our actions.  You can not call us evil.  And you certianly can not say that us saying what we truly believe is lying.  I do not believe what you believe.  But I do not claim that you are lying when you state your beliefs, because they are your beliefs.  And I certainly do not call you evil, not knowing you, and not knowing your actions.

“Can’t you see how useful and very truthful the Holy Bible is? It gives exact description of the subject. I do not even need to reflect on the verse by writing. But because you asked, then, I will try to write more of what I learned from it, but I cannot disregard my reference, the verses from the Holy Bible.”

No, I can not see how useful and truthful the Bible is.  I know you believe it to be truthful, however, and I respect that.  However, naming a subject and then finding a bible verse that vaguely talks about it does not imply truthfulness.  You must understand that although you believe it to be true, I do not.

“Imagine, people changed their views about God into something different! They now thought that immorality is a good thing because changing their perception becomes their license to do what their hearts desire to do. If it did not come from them, most likely, it came from their teachers, even friends who practice such immorality. They do not need God, they think that they are actually a god to themselves.”

Now, by very definition no one thinks that immorality is a good thing.  Others may have a different system of morality than you, however.  My own blog has a couple posts on the subject of my system of morality http://6d60.wordpress.com/category/morality/.  I do believe that we should mostly be able to do what our hearts should do, however, there are exceptions.  For example, I believe hurting another is immoral.  And I do not believe I am a god.  Far from it.  My system of morality, however, derives from only one axiom.  Hurting another is immoral.

“And among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen something horrible: They commit adultery and live a lie. They strengthen the hands of evildoers, so that no one turns from his wickedness. They are all like Sodom to me; the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah.”

Again, using your verse this time, you imply that I and all other non-christians are liars and evil.  Can you see why we find you intolerant?  I do not ‘strangthen the hands of evildoers’.  And I certianly have never commited, and will never commit adultery.

“Some people are open to talk about these things, indeed, they are even proud to say and accept that they pollute their own bodies.”

I do not ‘pollute’ my own body.  I would not personally take drugs.  However, I would not say that this is inherently wrong either.  If one takes drugs it is their own choice to pollute their body.  They are hurting no one but themselves.  Again, I say you do not know me.

“Notice the above verses? God can see that a fool really believes in his heart that there is no God. No matter how hard he tries to hide that belief, God can see his heart. And no matter how obvious their foolishness, the more they profess that they are wise. The more they commit sin, the more they deny God who created them.”

Now, here’s the catch with that: you are not arguing with an Athiest here.  I never once said I believe there is no god.  I never said that I completely deny the possibility that there is a god.  And I can not deny the possibility that it may be your god.  However, there are many, many other possibilities that I can not deny either.  There are several other major religions in the world.  Although you are convinced of the truth of yours, all of them seem equally likely to me.  What makes Christianity uniquely true?  Your bible?  Other religions have sacred texts as well.  And I will say also that there is a possibility that none of them are right.  Maybe there is no god.  Maybe there are several gods.  Maybe the truth is something no human has thought of.  You have so far given me no reason to believe in your specific religion, and your specific Bible.

“Even logic and plain analysis will dictate or will tell us that some people love to get drunk, they just do not admit that they are after drinking a lot. Some people deny that they are immoral because they believe that orgies makes them happy and they love doing it with other people who loves doing it with them too, especially, it is their belief, and will ask you to mind your own business!”

Orgies?  That came out of nowhere.  But yes.  I would ask you to mind your own business.  Because if you choose not to partake in such endeavors, this issue does not affect you.  This is an example of why many people get annoyed with Christians.  It does not affect you, and we resent you trying to control that.  If it does not hurt anyone, and everyone involved consents to it, then there is nothing inherently wrong with it.  If you do not believe in the morality of it, that is fine.  Then don’t participate in it.  Accept, however, that other people may have different systems of morality.

“Do you really deny what is truly happening on the earth that we are living now? Do you still believe that using the verses in the Holy Bible are illogical and irrelevant?”

Deny what is happening on Earth?  Many things are happening on Earth.  I do not deny any of them.  If, however, you mean all the pointless wars that are going on today, I do not believe that the cause of all this is a lack of morality as you define it.  I would argue that a lot of the world’s problems are caused by intolerance.  And yes, I believe that using verses from the Bible is illogical and irrelevant when you are arguing with someone who does not believe in the Bible.

“The Holy Bible teaches us how we should behave towards different people with an emphasis on not to discriminate.”

If you truly believe this, then why do you discriminate against non-Christians, calling us liars and evil?

You claim “The Holy Bible teaches about logic too.”  And you follow that with a verse on obediance.  Obviously this is a question of definition, as you and I clearly see logic as completely different things.  To me, logic is critical thinking; applying thought to your own observations and drawing your own conclusions.  Starting with simple axioms and using only those axioms and nothing else to draw non-contradictory conclusions.  In short, logic is about as far as you can get from blind obedience.  And no, non-Christians do not use the Bible as a reference for anything.  Because we’re not Christians.

That’s it with that section.  You follow this with more talk about distinguishing homosexual acts from being gay, a point which I already conceded.

“Haven’t you noticed that it is a real man, heterosexual man who is being admonished here? That is, due to sexual immorality and perversion, he might have changed his preference from a woman to a man. Even women who changed her sexual preference from man to woman because of sexual immorality and perversion?”

I very much doubt that one can voluntarily change their sexual perference.  If it were possible to willfully change one’s orientation, due to “sexual immorality and perversion” or otherwise, would you not have done it already if you believe homosexual acts to be immoral.

“Even nature teaches as that a heterosexual man will not even think of having sex with a man too! I saw once, a man, was asked about this and he had goosebumps and his cheeks got red, he even looked very squeamish. That’s how a heterosexual woman feels too, what more of homosexual man and woman? Why did these things happen? Why was there a change of preference for a partner?”

I deny the premise of your questions, because you have not shown me that it is possible for one to change their orientation at will.

“If you think the Holy Bible discriminates or condemns gay people as a person, then I will not wonder why you talk like that and insinuate that I would have a change of heart and mind on my understanding of the Holy Bible. Why would we disregard or will not consider the Holy Bible in an argument? As a person, what can you contribute to an argument? Is it your experience or is it your own knowledge? But then again, 6d60, you don’t even have a concrete evidence of your existence here in the internet. But we do not argue if you are real or not. It is the teaching that is important. Did it make you less a better person, or did it make you a better person?”

You seem to ask questions, elmantheman, that you consider to be rhetorical, but which are not rhetorical to me in the slightest.  I would disregard the Bible in an argument because I do not believe in it.  Plain and simple.  Yes, as a person I can contribute my own knowledge and experience.  But more than that, I can contribute logic.  Something that you have completely failed to use in your post so far.  And by logic, of course, I mean my definition of using established axioms and critically thinking to draw a conclusion.  Not your definition of blind obedience.  The reason your arguments have failed with me is because I do not take to be axiomatic what you take to be axiomatic.  That is, the bible.  Until you convince me of the truthfulness of the Bible, you can not use the Bible in a logical argument with me.  And it is for this same reason that you can not use the Bible in your arguments that the Bible is true, because in order for me to accept this argument, I would have to take as axiomatic the very thing that you are trying to prove.

I hope that clears things up a bit.  Do you understand now why I asked you to refrain from using bible verses in your post?  Now, on to the rest of it.

“Let me just remind you that as a Christian, we believe too that only a man and woman should marry, not both man having the same gender nor both woman. But what about us, gays? We also have feelings like yours but then again, we feel them towards the same sex. It is never a question in the Bible if a gay is person or not. The Bible gives a sense of direction for us. We are people too. We can never change what we feel, we were born this way. But one thing is for sure, be it a man, a woman, or a gay, we are all given the freedom but as Christians, we are taught not to use it given the freedom to lust on the same sex or even to the opposite sex? Of course not!”

Oh, how little you know me.  I do not believe that only a man and a woman should be able to marry.  I believe that if they love each other it should not matter.  But, of course, your belief is your own, and if your religion wants to keep marriage the way you currently define it, that is your right.  However, you have no control over anyone else.

“One of the privilege of a Christian is to know the Truth, because it will set us free from the eyes of the hypocrites and even the myths that comes along in believing them. If you take time to read my blog, you will learn how the impossible becomes possible for those who love God and His teachings. Probably you do not know God’s teachings and Gospel.”

I know you believe that you know the one and only truth-with-a-captial-t.  That’s fine.  However, I am many things, but I am not a hypocrite.  My beliefs and my actions are entirely consistent with each other.  And again, how little you know me.  I would not be magically converted just by reading your blog or the gosples.  Because I do not believe in the Bible to begin with.  However, I am not going to read the entire Bible or your entire blog just to prove you wrong, because, frankly, I find them both extremely long-winded and boring.

Alright, you contradict yourself completely in these next two paragraphs.  You claim “I am not commenting to convert anyone of you in that post to be Christians.”  Then you go on to say “They were able to distinguish what belief needs correcting and what belief has a basis. So what if I use a bible verse?”  You say Scaramouche’s belief “needs correcting.”  How can you say that this is not trying to convert her?  You say that you are not discriminatory, elmantheman, but you are.  Her beliefs do not need correcting.  Accept her beliefs for what they are.  They work for her, as she pointed out.  You do not have to agree with them.  Just accept that she believes it.

“So what if I use a bible verse? Can you prove that the verses are wrong,”

No, I can not prove that the bible is wrong.  I could prove it logically inconsistant, but that’s not the same thing.  No, I can not prove that all of the bible is wrong.  But nor can you prove that all of the bible is right.  And the burden of proof right now lies with you.  I don’t care if you believe the bible is right.  But if you wish to argue using a bible verse, you must first prove to me that it is right.

“…when in fact nature even teaches us and testifies, even the good values in us, if ever you have one, that those are facts.”

Really?  That’s not my experience.  How does nature teach that the bible is fact?  If you can actually show this to me, you might have an actual argument.

“I learned that by taking a firm stand and having the Holy Bible as a basis is better than arguing without any.”

I do argue with a basis, sir.  It’s called logic.

“The Holy Bible is enough to learn how to make sense by using biblical logic and analysis. The logic for you still remains incomplete without God’s wisdom for man.”

As I said before, I would not call what you use ‘logic’.  I would argue, however, that my definition is complete, and is a useful tool for understanding the world.  Unlike yours, which is all based off of a single axiom that many people do not agree with.  And unlike you, if I learn something new about the world, I can change my axioms, my basic beliefs from which my entire logic, and therefore system of beliefs, derives.  This will reflect in a better understanding of the world around me.  You, however, are stuck with your Bible.  Your one foundation for all of your beliefs.  And when the world changes, when the world learns, you don’t.  You stay the same.  And you do not learn.  You can not learn.

Oh, and then we come to your misquote of me.  Something which I never said.  I had almost forgotten about it.  You even have the nerve to lead into it by telling me that I said it.

“Actually you have been accusing that the teachings in the Holy Bible are the reason why we have this kind of world populated by crazy and evil people. That is the main reason why the Holy Bible should be used to answer your accusations.”

I have never made such a claim.  I wonder why you would say I did, knowing full well that I would read this.  Or perhaps you thought that I would not read it.  That I would see the start of your post, see how long it is, then give up and just ignore you.  Well I’ll admit I almost did.  And then I saw this slander, this misquotation.

So of course I’m going to ignore your rambling reply to the words you placed in my mouth, and move on to your reply to something I actually said.

You claim my request to not include scripture in your reply was “very rediculous.”  Perhaps you “real Christians”, by which I am forced to assume to believe means ‘you and anyone who agrees with everything you say’, can not separate the Bible from logic and reasoning, since your entire sense of reasoning seems to be based upon it.

Conversely, however, it is also very rediculous to attempt to talk to a non-christian, because when you talk to a non-christian, you can not connect the Holy Bible with logic and reason.  Because to me they are two very separate things indeed.  So you see, it was not a rediculous request for me to ask you to argue without using scripture.  It was to save you all of your efforts to come up with arguments that would mean nothing to me.

You go on to claim:

“The Holy Bible actually can show to you the real score of the world we live in full detail and accuracy of words to describe it. What is secular morality by the way? According to the Internet, it is based upon the principle that happiness is the chief end and aim of mankind.”

First of all, “According to the Internet?”  You cite the internet as a source?  Umm, do you mind if I asked where on the Internet?  The internet is a big place.  It’s an entire medium.  That’s like saying ‘according to books’, or ‘people say that…”.  But citations aside, I reject the definition.  I would define secular morality as “any system of morality that is not based upon a religion”.  That’s right, any.  This includes many systems of morality, not just one.  I just meant do not base your moral arguments upon religion, as it would fall upon deaf ears.  By the way, “The Holy Bible actually can show to you the real score of the world we live in full detail and accuracy of words to describe it”?  What exactly do you mean by that.  It makes absolutely no sense.  I mean, I know the meanings of each individual word, but they do not go together to form a coherent idea.

You go on to ask what happiness is.  An interesting philosophical question in and of itself, but since this is now irrelevent to the argument at hand, I shall ignore that paragraph.

“Do you really want me to agree with you and tell you that we know what love is on the earth we live in?”

Again with the putting words in my mouth.  Although at least this time it was indirectly.  I never said anything of the kind.  And how did we get to talking about love, anyway?  This has nothing to do with anything.  Love is a very mysterious thing, and the mystery of it is actually one of the reasons I think there may be some sort of god or spiritual force out there.

Oh, I’m sorry to go out of order, but I just noticed this question, “What can you offer me that makes sense when you die?”

First off, I never claimed to offer anything that would.  Secondly, you don’t even seem to be offering me anything that makes sense to me when I’m alive.  Let alone death, which is another matter entirely.

“The earth that you kept on holding on will vanish sooner or later, even some scientists say so.”

Hmm… again, you cite a vague, general source.  “Some scientists”.  Wow, that’s just oozing with credibility.  But sarcasm aside, no, the Earth is not due to ‘vanish’ at any time.  It will, however, be rendered uninhabitably hot in about a billion years or so by the sun’s slow expansion.  Perhaps that is what you meant.  Admitedly it is a stretch of definition, but it’s not like you haven’t done that before.  And who says I’m ‘holding on to the Earth’?

“Nevertheless, let me tell you how the Holy Bible agrees with you too on how you feel and what you have been doing.”

I am going to ignore this next part for a few reasons.  You do not know how I feel or what I have been doing, and as such, you can not possibly tell me how the Holy Bible ‘agrees with me’ on it.  Never mind how an inanimate book that was written thousands of years ago can ‘agree’ with me on anything.  Especially since I disagree with the book in so many ways.

“You may want to know how the Holy Bible defines what kind of world are the Christians like me, and even you share.”

Not perticularly, no.  Out of curiosity, is there any reason why the word ‘you’ is a link?

“As a Christian, we learned that we cannot set aside the Holy Bible. We say, “evil,we have enough of you! Sin, we are no longer your slaves!”

Again with the first person plural.  You change pronouns in the middle of your sentence.  Unless you mean ‘we’ as in the singular royal ‘we’.  Fancy yourself a king, do you?

And, blah blah blah, God gave his son, blah, blah, blah.

And that’s the end of that.

Now, I am really growing weary of this argument, so I really do not care if you reply to this or not.  If you do, I would insist that you not use bible verses in your proofs, otherwise I shall ignore it completely.  Oh, and don’t think I’ll just sit idlely by if you attempt to slander my name again, because I won’t.

Here’s what happens: I see everything; the way the world is, how everything is, and of course, I want to change it.  Who wouldn’t?  How does one go about changing the world?  One with no power, and very little influence.  Fortunately, in this information age we’re living in, one can cry out in the internet in the form of a blog.  One tiny voice in the darkness.  Sure, not many people may hear at first, but who knows?

Oh, don’t think I’m dilusional.  I know I’m not actually changing anything with this thing.  I’ve barely even started with this.  And I know very few people read this right now.  As I said before, though, the purpose of this bolg is more for me, really, to get my thoughts in order.  Because I do eventually want to change the world for the better.  The key word there, however, is eventually.

See, this is the thing right now; and it’s been happening for decades: everyone says they want to change things, but very few do much about it.  Most people are pretty much complacent with everything.  And I know, right now I’m just joining that mass of voices, that mass that cries out loudly, and yet remains motionless.  But the reason I don’t move is because I don’t have a plan yet.  Yet I plan on making a plan.  For everything in this world is not okay, as much as I like to remain an optimist.  Good parts of it are extremely fucked up, actually.  And of course, even the parts that aren’t as much could still use some fixing.

How is this going to happen?  Really, it could not be simpler in concept.  As I said before, this is the information age.  Communication has never been simpler, more direct.  It is possible for anyone to reach nearly everyone in the world using just a computer.  And if a group of people big enough agree on something?  Well, the possibilities are endless.  The people of this world are just starting to come together; just now starting to realize that all of us are the same people, the same group.  All it needs, I think, is something, something to draw it together just that much more.

The world needs something, someone to unite around.  It’s been too long without that.  Maybe it’s possible that that can happen soon.  Within our lifetimes.  And the world could see changes previous generations have only dreamed of.  It seems fantastic, impossible.  But then again, maybe it isn’t.  As a wise man once said, “You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one.”  The world needs someone like John Lennon again.  Maybe that would change some things.  And if enough things change, everything can change.

The universe is a crazy place.  It has some crazy laws that humans have only recently determined.  Quantum mechanics, for example.  When a photon has two possible paths, the path it takes isn’t determined until it’s observed.  So until someone detects it, it went down both paths and none at the same time.  It’s almost like, there’s random to the universe, but the universe doesn’t like things being random, so it’s just like, “I’ll wait to see if I actually need to determine which way this photon went.  Right now it doesn’t matter.”  The universe is lazy, really.  But who could blame it; it has a lot of work to do.  You, know, making sure the forces work at the same strength, keeping the speed of light constant; that sort of thing.

Speaking of which, the fundemental forces: what’s up with that?  So there are four, right?  Gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces.  But for some reason, gravity is a lot weaker than the other three.  Like, a lot weaker.  For example, take a small magnent, and lift another magnent with it: the magnetism of that one small magnent just overcame the gravitational force of the entire Earth!

And another thing: physics right now is, and has been for a while, at a bit of a standstill.  There are two leading theories of the universe: Relitivity and Quantum Mechanics.  Basically quantum mechanics explains the behaviour of atoms and subatomic particles, and relitivity explains everything bigger than that.  And of course, the two theories can’t be reconciled with each other.  So people are making up new theories to try to explain this.  Some of these theories involve extra demensions in order to work.

Okay, think about that for a second: we’re famillar with three dimensions in everyday life.  Okay, four if you want to include time, but some of the string theories out there call for ten or even more dimensions of space.  That’s seven more than we’re aware of!  For that to work, the dimesions would have to be curled up on themselves, so small that only subatomic particles can move through them.  It’s like those old video games where when you walk off one side of the screen, you appear on the other side.  It’d be like that.  One superstring theory I read calls for the existance of an extra temporal dimesion!  That’s right, two dimensions of time.  Don’t ask me how that works.

I for one, think these theories are kind of ineligant.  Why add extra dimensions if you can’t even detect them?  We have no idea if those exist at the moment.  The musician in me, however, likes the idea of the universe being made out of tiny strings that vibrate at different frequencies to make up everything.  I’ll have some more on some of this stuff later.  The crazy thing about the universe right now, though, really, is that we think we know so much about it, but any day now, some new theory could come along to blow all this out of the water.  It’s happened many times before.

These kind of posts will have random thoughts and bits of semi-coherent philisophical wisdom.  For example: I’ll just see what happens.  This has been my philosophy of life as of late.  Because sometimes, all you can do is just see what happens.  Although a lot of the time it’s a long wait.  Hmm, so here’s a question: why haven’t I been posting much?  Other than the chore aspect of it, as I mentioned.

Well, it seems, as of right now, my bolg has split up into three vains; morality, politics, religion, and random musings.  So, hey, that’s what I can do!  I’ll tell you of the current progress of my thinking in those vains.  Morality: haven’t thought about that much lately, to be honest.  I was going to do one on the nature of good and evil- oh, that’s another thing: I want to make this blog about some slightly more concrete topics, for example, a piece on good and evil in the DND world, and how it relates to the real world (or not, as the case may be).

Politics: I wanted to do a few things on this: one, I had recently read V for Vendetta, and so sometime soon I shall do a commentary on that, focusing on the issue of anarchy VS authoritarianism.  As well, as I think I mentioned before, my state of political opinion is in a bit of a flux at the moment.  Actually, it might be interesting to write about that, even if I don’t have a clear-cut opinion on it at the moment.  Who knows, it might actually help me decide something.  Hmm, or I could do a piece on the approaching US election.

Religion: wow, now that’s an interesting one.  I still am of the opinion that love is a sort of religion of mine, and I suppose I’m starting to see some spiritual aspects of life, but I am still an agnostic at heart.  Maybe an optimistic agnostic though.  I’ll write some more on that soon, I think.  There’s also, a few debates I could have with myself over the existance of a few supernatural elements: psychic powers, spirits, things like that.

And don’t think I haven’t forgotten about my life, universe, everything series.  I’m actually halfway through the second part in that.  I got distracted.  Actually I may finish it today or tomorrow.  That falls under the musings catagory, obviously.

Alright, well that accomplished more than I thought it would, actually.  I have ideas and am somewhat inspired.  I believe I will go finish that universe post.

Now, many people don’t quite understand evolution, especially those creationists who fervantly deny it.  But creationists are silly.  Besides, the ideas of the universe being created is not mutually exclusive with evolution.  It’s only when you want to take literally a 2000-year-old book that contradicts facts that are now obvious that you run into problems.  We have no idea how life began, but we know how it changed.  When you have random changes in life, such as what happens when it reproduces, the stronger mutations survive to reproduce.  You give it several billion years, and all the complexities of life arise.

That is one of the most amazing things about life; you start with something extremely simple, and over time, due to completely natural laws– not even laws, due to logic; strong survive, weak die– it grows complex and intricate.  And if you keep life for the four billion or so years its been on Earth, you get things as complex as a whale, or an oak, or an eagle, or a human.  Which brings me to another marvel of life: intelligence.

I am a sentient, self aware being.  I can think.  How is this possible?  How am I doing this?  I am capable of abstract thought; I can think; I can think about thinking.  And I can communicate what I’m thinking.  This is incredible.  I often am deep in thought, only to suddely snap back to reality and realize I exist.  I am alive in this body.  This is very strange.  Thought is such a mystery, really.  What causes thought?  No one knows; the inner workings of the mind are extremely mysterious.

There are, of course, theories, as there is for everything.  But does the entire process of sentient thought arise solely from bioelectric chemical reactions in the brain?  How does a bunch of neurons clumped together form a person.  I am inclined to believe that there is something more at work here.  But what?  And how does it work?  I doubt thought can ever be fully explained, really.

Oh, life is a spectacular state of being.  So many mysteries to contemplate.  So many things to experience, to think about.  Which was, really, one of the purposes of this blog to begin with.  Well actually, I had begun hoping I would think up some answers.  I’m starting to doubt I’ll come up with many.  But it’s just as well, really.

One thing I’ve changed my views on is I’m not quite what you’d call an agnostic anymore.  It’s hard to say what I am religiously because it doesn’t really have a term.  I suppose you could say I’m somewhat of a spiritualist.  So what brought about this sudden change of convictions?  It was experience, pure and simple.  A few days ago, I experienced something profound.  It is nearly indescribable to one who has not experianced such a thing, suffice to say it was powerful.  And I know I am not just crazy, because my girlfriend experienced it with me.

I love her.  There is something powerful in love.  Something strong, and also completely unscientific.  It defies explanation.  And this is why I know there is something else to the universe.  Before, I wasn’t sure.  Now I know.  I felt, that night, a connection, an energy between us.  And more than that, I could see it, in my mind’s eye.  An aura of white light surrounded her, and a connection, like rope of light joining her heart and mine.  If this is the point where you say I’m crazy, I don’t care.  I know what I felt.  What we felt.  It was a feeling in my heart like it was expanding, and pure pleasure, like I’ve never felt before.  It was love, plain and simple.  It was magic.  And I could not explain it for the life of me.

So, having a scientific mind, I do what I do when I can’t explain something: make a new theory.  There has to be some force at work here.  So I call it now what my girlfriend calls it.  The Divine.  I have no idea as to the nature of it, but divine seems to describe it.  There was something magical going on there night, and there is something magical to love.  If you haven’t experienced it yet, I hope you do, for it is amazing.  And it threw out everything I thought I knew, or rather, thought I didn’t know about the universe.  In that now I know.

There is something.  There is a divine force.  There is love.  There are auras of energy.  We saw them.  And I mean literally, my girlfriend saw one around me.  I saw it too, altough it was faint.  And there is a sort of telepathy.  How it all works, I have no idea.  I doubt I ever will.  But the mystery is part of the magic.  I’m not expecting anyone to believe any of this.  I’m not trying to convert anyone to anything, any religion.  I don’t even know what religion I am now.  It doesn’t have a name, and it has only two followers.  But maybe I can give people hope, if I tell them, I know there is something out there.  And it is wonderful.  And there is love.  And it is wonderful.