Why do all you people hate religions??

Well I have proof God exists, so I am not just saying he exists because we popped out of no where.But you really think we could pop out of no where with no creator? You honestly think everything on this earth wasn't created by a higher power and it just appeared here? :| joshrocks2245

Aaaaand belief is the problem that we're discussing here as opposed to logic and reason. Belief holds no place in the realm of law, science, and man.Vandalvideo

That doesn't answer the question. If you felt sure that something was causing the deaths of human lives, but others disagreed, would you be swayed by arguments that you shouldn't argue against the procedure just because you shouldn't stand in the way of science? That's the biggest problem I've found with those who are okay with the legality of abortion and such like (of whom I am one): they are unwilling to recognize that, to opponents, the procedure is basically murder. Of course they're not going to stand idly by while people are being killed (in their view).

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]Stem cell research qua stem cell research. Holding back science for your own moralistic tendencies is opression.Vandalvideo

If you believe that some procedure is causing the deaths of innocent human lives, would it not be morally treasonable not to speak out against it?

All law is is legalised belief, and our beliefs are a fundamental part of humanity.

1. No it is not. I'm giving you one last chance: Tell me what logic and reason are or this discussion is over.. Yet you still haven't established what logic/reason is or what faith is.Theokhoth

3. Galileo was forced to do so because after stepping out of line, his findings could not be accepted. The Church ACCEPTED heliocentricism before they condemned Galileo, and THAT is the fact.

4. The law is wrong and unjust, and like any other wrong and unjust law, should be opposed. By biology they are human.

All law is is legalised belief, and our beliefs are a fundamental part of humanity. Theokhoth

That doesn't answer the question. If you felt sure that something was causing the deaths of human lives, but others disagreed, would you be swayed by arguments that you shouldn't argue against the procedure just because you shouldn't stand in the way of science? That's the biggest problem I've found with those who are okay with the legality of abortion and such like (of whom I am one): they are unwilling to recognize that, to opponents, the procedure is basically murder. Of course they're not going to stand idly by while people are being killed (in their view)GabuEx

Your beliefs, not matter how much you feel for them, should NOT supersceed logic and reason. And abortion is NOT murder. There is absolutly NO Mens Rea involved in abortion.Vandalvideo

Where's the supersession in people who believe that abortion is the killing of another human being? They think that it's killing; they also think that killing is wrong; therefore, the obvious conclusion is that it's wrong. It's not as if they arrived at the conclusion that it's wrong out of absolutely nowhere. The legal definition of something is obviously not the be-all and end-all; otherwise, one would be forced to accept a couple hundred years ago that black people were only three-fifths a person.

And fine, abortion is technically incapable of being murder. That's just semantics.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]Stem cell research qua stem cell research. Holding back science for your own moralistic tendencies is opression.GabuEx

If you believe that some procedure is causing the deaths of innocent human lives, would it not be morally treasonable not to speak out against it?

1 I could very easily go grab my logic book right now and give you a very matter-of-fact definition of what constitutes logic and reason. I'm trying to give you a common place definition to rationalize the differences between the two. But since you seem so obstinant; "Logic may be defined as the organized body of knowledge, or science, that evaluates arguments and knowledge as a whole" - Patrick J Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic, Chapter one. 2Actually, the church FORCED Galileo to adopt the opposing view where the earth was the center of the universe, because that was the then accepted dogma of the church. At that time, Heliocentricism was not accepted by the church. That is a fact. 3 According to what you believe in. I could care less what you believe. All that matters is that law is an objective measurement of the social contract between the citizens and the government for prosperity. By law, logic, and reason they are not human.Vandalvideo

1. Much better. Now how does religion not fit that?

2. Galileo's theories were first accepted. He and the pope were FRIENDS. The Pope actually PULLED STRINGS for Galileo and his theories. Things were fine. Then Galileo began to trty to re-write the Bible as per Augustine's belief that the Bible must be reinterpreted when opposing evidence discounts an accepted interpretation, and as Galileo was not a Church authority, he stepped out of line and was tried for heresy. And you know what? The Church was right. Afterward, his theories were rejected because to accept them is to accept the man behind them, and to do that would be impossible for the Church. It's mere politics from there on.

3. No, biologically, they are human. there is absolutely no way around that. Law is not the judge of logic and reason, and law is not the judge of morality.

Where's the supersession in people who believe that abortion is the killing of another human being? They think that it's killing; they also think that killing is wrong; therefore, the obvious conclusion is that it's wrong. It's not as if they arrived at the conclusion that it's wrong out of absolutely nowhere.GabuEx

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]All law is is legalised belief, and our beliefs are a fundamental part of humanity. Vandalvideo

Yes, based on what is believed to be right. "Prosperity" is subjected to belief. "The state of nature" and whether or not it shpould be "avoided" is subject to belief. All laws are legalised beliefs.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]Where's the supersession in people who believe that abortion is the killing of another human being? They think that it's killing; they also think that killing is wrong; therefore, the obvious conclusion is that it's wrong. It's not as if they arrived at the conclusion that it's wrong out of absolutely nowhere.Vandalvideo

Wow, how very elitist of you. So if their ideas don't fit yours they don't matter?

You know what, I don't even want to continue discussing with you; you obviously base your beliefs on what is and isn't legal and have no idea what you're talking about in regards to logic and reason, then you pull this crap.

1. Much better. Now how does religion not fit that?Theokhoth

2. Galileo's theories were first accepted. He and the pope were FRIENDS. The Pope actually PULLED STRINGS for Galileo and his theories. Things were fine. Then Galileo began to trty to re-write the Bible as per Augustine's belief that the Bible must be reinterpreted when opposing evidence discounts an accepted interpretation, and as Galileo was not a Church authority, he stepped out of line and was tried for heresy. And you know what? The Church was right. Afterward, his theories were rejected because to accept them is to accept the man behind them, and to do that would be impossible for the Church. It's mere politics from there on.

3. No, biologically, they are human. there is absolutely no way around that. Law is not the judge of logic and reason, and law is not the judge of morality.

Yes, based on what is believed to be right. "Prosperity" is subjected to belief. "The state of nature" and whether or not it shpould be "avoided" is subject to belief. All laws are legalised beliefs. Theokhoth

The same people that believe in a strong military and goign off to fight wars and protect teh democracy! What they think is very irrelevant. Even if, even if, their ideas mattered, abortion is legal for verry different reasons that alot of people care to know. Half the people against abortion don't know that the case was decided as a penumbra of individual rights and privacy. It wasn't a question of when life begins, if its alright to 'kill' a fetus, or anything along those lines. It was a question of GET THE CRAP AWAY FROM MY BODY!Vandalvideo

It absolutely was a question of when life begins. If you check its specifics, Roe v. Wade said that abortion was only allowable for any reason up until the fetus is viable. Once the fetus is viable, abortion may be restricted under that ruling. If it was purely a question about privacy, that wouldn't be the case, and abortions could be performed for any reason at any period of the pregnancy.

Regardless, the question of whether or not abortion is the killing of an innocent human being is not the question at hand here. The question is whether or not it makes sense to tell people, who believe that abortion is the killing of an innocent human being, that they ought not to hold that view because they shouldn't let their beliefs affect anything. I still maintain that the answer to that question is no, because at the end of the day, as long as they think it's the killing of an innocent human being, there really is nothing else that matters.

It absolutely was a question of when life begins. If you check its specifics, Roe v. Wade said that abortion was only allowable for any reason up until the fetus is viable. If it was purely a question about privacy, that wouldn't be the case.Regardless, the question of whether or not abortion is the killing of an innocent human being is not the question at hand here. The question is whether or not it makes sense to tell people, who believe that abortion is the killing of an innocent human being, that they ought not to hold that view because they shouldn't let their beliefs affect anything. I still maintain that the answer to that question is no, because at the end of the day, as long as they think it's the killing of an innocent human being, there really is nothing else that matters.GabuEx

Actually, as a law student, I spent the entire term reading about these cases. Roe v. Wade was not a matter of when life began. The term limits were established in Casey v. PP. Roe V. Wade was strictly about the right to privacy. That is what the entire holding is based off of. If you knew a THING about law, yuo'd know everything was obiter dictum, and didn't matter at all. Roe v. Wade was strictly a matter of the penumbra of privacy. Here is a ltitle wisdom from a law student; If someone came and questioned when life began, Roe v. Wade would be overturned. The sad thing is, the people against abortion don't know a thing about the law and don't realize this.Vandalvideo

Then why was it allowable to restrict pregnancy after the fetus became viable?

...And this still is a complete diversion off of what the real question was.

I'm fine with religion.

Then why was it allowable to restrict pregnancy after the fetus became viable?GabuEx

"Why do all you people hate religions??"

This is why:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]I don't have my law book right under my feet right now because it is Christmas break so I can't give you the exact passage, but the justices laid out some very explicit exceptions to their ruling. We have, in our nation, a system of weighted rights. No single right in our constitution is equally viable. As a penumbra, or a shadow of the law, privacy is something that is easier suspended. There are three methods of judicial scrutiny for overturning a right in question, and privacy doesn't even meet reasonable relation. Roe V. Wade did not allow the wholesale restriction after a fetus became viable. It was a matter of health, clear concious, aaaaaaaaand..... aaaagh i can't remember the final one.

How do those not relate to whether or not the fetus is a human life?

Believe in what you want to believe. As long as you don't try to force it on others, either directly or indirectly, then its ok.Bourbons3

Are you refering to jesus camp?

How do those not relate to whether or not the fetus is a human life?GabuEx

"Why do all you people hate religions??"

This is why:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M

PunishedOne

I don't quite understand how the size of the Earth in relation to the rest of the universe is appropriate justification for hating religions.

It wasn't Roe v. Wade that established whether or not a fetus was human life. That waaaas Louis Code Ann Arts 25 iiiiiin.....1920 something or before that even.Vandalvideo

That doesn't really answer the question. What changes between before the fetus is viable and after the fetus is viable? That's the question that I'm asking.

That doesn't really answer the question. What changes between before the fetus is viable and after the fetus is viable? That's the question that I'm asking.GabuEx

They want special treatment. This thread is a prime example.

I don't hate religion but I hate some things about some religions like having women be considered lower on the totem pole than men. And that would be Christianity I'm referring to.gunswordfist

Because I spend my day walking up to women around my place and smacking them on the behind, and I knock the book out of the hands of girls trying to read because, by golly, reading is a man of God's work.:|

I don't hate religion but I hate some things about some religions like having women be considered lower on the totem pole than men. And that would be Christianity I'm referring to.gunswordfist

I'm tolerant of people with of all religions. I dont like how Jehova's Witnesses keep coming to our house and trying to convert us, my mom keeps bringing up the fact that we're reform Jews but they keep trying to argue with us. That is intolerance.

I like the way the Catholic Church has been slowly reforming in recent years, however I dont like when the Catholics at my school deny the Crusades, or hate gays just cause theyre gay Thats not to say all of them are like that though.

It becomes a 'culpable personage able to perform all the functions and engagements of a society' for the protections that society affords. Its a very matter of fact definition. Vandalvideo

And... how is that not basically the same thing as saying that it has become a human life?

And... how is that not basically the same thing as saying that it has become a human life?GabuEx

I always hear so many people here say rude things about Christians or Catholics.
Alright first of all, I am a catholic, so are my parents. We never have tried to convert anyone.
We never act like we are better then anyone, we never tell others they are going to hell if they swear or something.

So will atheists hate me just because I am a catholic??

I have a friend who is an atheist and he called me a retard because I am catholic.
So I am retarded because I am a catholic??

Should I be an atheist just because everyone tells me to be one??

joshrocks2245

I just don't enjoy when they push their beliefs systems onto others. Most common, it's the evangelizing folk that perform these unsavory deeds.

However, one of my largest fears is being stuck in a country where religious beliefs and law have a hand in ruling the people. If Canada somehow was led by a political party that forced Biblical/Sharia law onto the people, and for some reason I couldn't leave the country, I'd probably either get put to death for something I am or something I do, or I'd end up getting myself killed from attacking the government in protest.

A secular government is the only form of government I can trust, because they're the only ones openminded enough to accomodate me.

[QUOTE="gunswordfist"]

Because I spend my day walking up to women around my place and smacking them on the behind, and I knock the book out of the hands of girls trying to read because, by golly, reading is a man of God's work.:|

[QUOTE="gunswordfist"]I don't hate religion but I hate some things about some religions like having women be considered lower on the totem pole than men. And that would be Christianity I'm referring to.Vandalvideo

[QUOTE="gunswordfist"] I live their and its the opposite of what you said. lolVandalvideo

A couple of months back hybrid stem cell research was nearly banned in the UK because the Catholic Church demanded Catholic MPs vote against it, regardless of it's potential medical benefits without the need for human stem cells. Luckily they didn't manage to get it banned. But this is one example of why I dislike religion, it is constantly getting in the way of progress in the name of dogma, regardless of the damage it may cause.

This and many other attacks on people and their rights has justified a dislike of religion during my life, religion needs to learn to keep to itself and stop poking their nose in other peoples business. Religion should be a private matter kept in peoples hearts, their homes and their church. Not influencing government policy to favour an outdated brand of morality that still thinks homosexuals are a threat to humanity.