Not All Muslims Are Terrorists

That is irrelevant.....the fact is that opposition to abortion can be and is in many cases based on morality alone....not any religious belief. Case Closed

 

The majority of Americans oppose abortion for reasons of morality....not religion...>>>>>http://townhall.com/tipsheet/elisabethmeinecke/2011/07/03/majority_of_americans_still_oppose_abortion_on_moral_grounds

 

Abortion is the ending of pregnancy before birth and is morally wrong. An abortion results in the death of an embryo or a fetus. Abortion destroys the lives of helpless, innocent children and illegal in many countries. By aborting these unborn infants, humans are hurting themselves; they are not allowing themselves to meet these new identities and unique personalities. Abortion is very simply wrong. Everyone is raised knowing the difference between right and wrong. Murder is wrong so why isn't abortion? People argue that it is not murder since the fetus being destroyed is living, breathing and moving. Why is it that if an infant is destroyed a month before the birth, there is no problem, but if killed a month after birth, this is inhumane murder? The main purpose abortions are immoral is how they are so viciously done.


Everyday, innocent, harmless fetuses that could soon be laughing children are being brutally destroyed. One form of abortion is to cut the fetus into pieces with serrated forceps before being removed, piece by piece from the uterus by suction with a vacuum aspirator. Another form consists of bringing the fetus feet first into the birth canal, puncturing its skull with a sharp instrument and sucking out the brain tissue. The body parts, such as the head, are given letters, rather than refer to the parts as what they are. In my opinion this is for the doctors who cannot face the reality of what they are doing. The remains of the fetus or embryo, as the case may be, are put into everyday, plastic buckets and then sent to a dumpster where these precious bones and limbs are disposed. However, how and when an abortion takes place are matters of little importance to pro- abortionists and other defenders.

 

Then you should never have an abortion... and must maintain strict control over your wives, daughters, mother and sisters.

 

And the pro-life or anti-abortion movement is usually a religious one. Not believing in the bible doesn't cause you to act in accordance to what the bible says. But, if, if, if you believe in the bible, then you will believe in what it says and act accordingly. BELIEFS cause you to act. A lack of belief will never cause you to act, since you have no reason to act.

http://www.priestsforlife.org/brochures/thebible.html
By: Fr. Frank A. Pavone
The Bible clearly teaches that abortion is wrong. This teaching comes across in many ways and for many reasons. Some people point out that the word "abortion" is not in the Bible, and that is true. Nevertheless, the teaching about abortion is there. This is the case with many teachings. The word "Trinity" is not in the Bible, but the teaching about the Trinity is there. In any case, a person who wants to deny the teaching about abortion would deny it even if the word were there.

If a person was in Friar Pavone's congregation, would he get the idea that abortion is wrong or that its legal and correct? Hmmmmmmmm

So I was right, no matter if you can admit it or not.

 

Says who??? Your god? Taking a life can be justified. So, not all "takings of life" are immoral.

If someone walks into my place of business waving and pointing a gun, I have the full legal right to use that same amount of force against him to protect my property. I would be fully justified in taking this person's life.

So since "taking a life" can be justified, you can't group all "takings of life" as being unjustified. You must be able to take a nuanced position so that you become more logical. If you excuse my reasons for killing an intruder, but don't excuse the reasons for killing an embryo..................then your logic falls apart an is inconsistent.

So allowing abortion(not in all cases) is the right thing to do. Allowing people to make decisions for themselves instead of forcing them to have the child is the right thing to do. If you don't allow them to make this decision, then you are ultimately making the decision for them and requiring them to follow YOUR beliefs. This is wrong.

And besides, think about it. If a woman is raped and doesn't want the child................then forcing her to have this unwanted child possibly makes the child a ward of the state and now the tax payers must pay for gov't aid for the child until he's 18. Why not let her make that decision? Why should she follow YOUR beliefs, but not be able to follow her own???

Why does your religion get to dictate what decision this women makes, but yet she doesn't get to dictate what YOU do??? Why do YOU get to control her actions, but she doesn't get to control yours?

To make it fair should the women get to tell you what to do???? If your wife gets pregnant and wants to have the baby, should an atheist woman get legislation passed that makes you follow OUR beliefs??? If you say no, then Ahh haaa, there is no reason for the women to follow YOUR beliefs instead of her own.

 

And since religious people THINK they get their morals from a god...............its quite easy to see the people that are morally opposed to abortion. RELIGIONS!

BTW, you don't get your morals from a god. If I can learn not to steal from someone because I don't like to be stolen from..............then it doesn't take a god to know that stealing is wrong. I don't believe it is right for someone to take from me; therefore I can assume that its not right to take from someone else. And I don't need a god to tell me this.

So do you know that stealing is wrong just because someone told you that its wrong...................or do you know its wrong because you don't want to be stolen from? Why does it take a god for you to know something that you could have learned on your own?

 

To be honest and accurate with oneself and others when discussing terrorism, a narrow definition of terrorism needs to be defined.
It certainly doesnt include individual acts of murder and then blamed as terrorism on the group that the murderer happens to belong to.

 

Wrong.
Please cite a church or a phrase uttered by a Christian preacher that allows murdering abortion doctors.
Not to mention, oh, how many times has that happened?

Many people have many distorted religous views, that doesnt mean its a Christian view, or teaching or supported by a Christian church or the Christian community in any significant numbers.

SO please, if you are going to make slandersou claims, at least be upright enough to give sources instead of acting even more immoral than the people you are slandering.

CITE sources, significant groups, churches, or preachers, or teachings in the NT that support murdering abortion doctors.

Now I know you are going to gobbedly gook your way around it, and like a coward would, you will not address it straight on.
Provide sources.

 

a few? hahahhaha

OK, sources please. Please show some NT quotes that support violence in mass.

 

You have already proved yourself wrong.

By the way, why do you subscribe to dictatorships around the world?

 

We never said we dont worship the same God as other Christians.

One simply cannot show the deaf, dumb and blind anything. Take your meds dude, what childhood event traumatized you so much?

You cant be more rudimentary and yet you still dont get it.

They use a different book with a different author.

You consider a Mustang and a Camaro to be the same car? Is there any help available for you? We could start a fund for ya

 

Dont need control over any of them. Why do you guys always resort to lies and emotionally laden attacks?

 

Is this thread still going?

I'd have thought someone would have performed a mercy killing on it, by now...

 

Christian theology prounounces murder is immoaral. YOU believe murder is immoral, hence you are a Christian.

Non action can create situation or results.
But, just because one deoesnt believe in the Bible, doesnt mean they dont believe in anything. Some believe in biology, hence oppose abortion.

Does he call for mudering anyone? NOPE, you are wrong again.

hahahhahah, HAHHAHAHAH, BWHAHAHHAHAHAHAH

Please dont break your arm patting yourself on the back. I dont think you will find anyone else supporting you in this particular topic. Just as megadeath couldnt get anyone to support his bizarre notion, that was soundly defeated, of why abortion is moral.

 

Plato demonstrated the logical independence of God and morality over 2,000 years ago in the Euthyphro,

 

You are attempting to divert...no one said anything about self defense or that killing another human is always wrong.

 

Originally Posted by Junior_Beauchamp View Post
Ok bubba, do this.

Define what the Koran and muslims says about their god.

Then define what the Bible and Christians say about the Eternal Almighty God of the Bible and Christian faith.

Then we'll compare the two to see if they are the same.

I don't have to prove anything. YOU are the one making the assertion, without any EVIDENCE whatsoever.

It is up to YOU to prove your assertion, otherwise you are pissing on your feet.

 

Well, liberals, islamofacists and their shills and apologists tend to make me think of approving of retroactive abortion in their cases.

 

I could be convinced to be in favor of retroactive abortion for abortionists, promoters and defenders of abortion.

 

And people who determine what is morally right or wrong according to their own standard get their morals from their god, themselves. And such people who are their own god choose evils like the murder of innocent unborn babies.

 

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/AmericanAttacks.htm

 

WHERE DO MORALS COME FROM


how the brain wires itself up during development, how the end result can vary in different people and what happens when it goes wrong



do morals come from?
Posted by Kevin Mitchell

Review of “Braintrust. What Neuroscience Tells Us about Morality”, by Patricia S. Churchland

The question of “where morals come from” has exercised philosophers, theologians and many others for millennia. It has lately, like many other questions previously addressed only through armchair rumination, become addressable empirically, through the combined approaches of modern neuroscience, genetics, psychology, anthropology and many other disciplines. From these approaches a naturalistic framework is emerging to explain the biological origins of moral behaviour. From this perspective, morality is neither objective nor transcendent – it is the pragmatic and culture-dependent expression of a set of neural systems that have evolved to allow our navigation of complex human social systems.



“Braintrust”, by Patricia S. Churchland, surveys the findings from a range of disciplines to illustrate this framework. The main thesis of the book is grounded in the approach of evolutionary psychology but goes far beyond the just-so stories of which that field is often accused by offering not just a plausible biological mechanism to explain the foundations of moral behaviour, but one with strong empirical support.

The thrust of her thesis is as follows:

Moral behaviour arose in humans as an extension of the biological systems involved in recognition and care of mates and offspring. These systems are evolutionarily ancient, encoded in our genome and hard-wired into our brains. In humans, the circuits and processes that encode the urge to care for close relatives can be co-opted and extended to induce an urge to care for others in an extended social group. These systems are coupled with the ability of humans to predict future consequences of our actions and make choices to maximise not just short-term but also long-term gain. Moral decision-making is thus informed by the biology of social attachments but is governed by the principles of decision-making more generally. These entail not so much looking for the right choice but for the optimal choice, based on satisfying a wide range of relevant constraints, and assigning different priorities to them.

This does not imply that morals are innate. It implies that the capacity for moral reasoning and the predisposition to moral behaviour are innate. Just as language has to be learned, so do the codes of moral behaviour, and, also like language, moral codes are culture-specific, but constrained by some general underlying principles. We may, as a species, come pre-wired with certain biological imperatives and systems for incorporating them into decisions in social situations, but we are also pre-wired to learn and incorporate the particular contingencies that pertain to each of us in our individual environments, including social and cultural norms.

This framework raises an important question, however – if morals are not objective or transcendent, then why does it feel like they are? This is after all, the basis for all this debate – we seem to implicitly feel things as being right or wrong, rather than just intellectually being aware that they conform to or violate social norms. The answer is that the systems of moral reasoning and conscience tap into, or more accurately emerge from ancient neural systems grounded in emotion, in particular in attaching emotional value or valence to different stimuli, including the imagined consequences of possible actions.

This is, in a way, the same as asking why does pain feel bad? Couldn’t it work simply by alerting the brain that something harmful is happening to the body, which should therefore be avoided? A rational person could then take an action to avoid the painful stimulus or situation. Well, first, that does not sound like a very robust system – what if the person ignored that information? It would be far more adaptive to encourage or enforce the avoidance of the painful stimulus by encoding it as a strong urge, forcing immediate and automatic attention to a stimulus that should not be ignored and that should be given high priority when considering the next action. Even better would be to use the emotional response to also tag the memory of that situation as something that should be avoided in the future. Natural selection would favour genetic variants that increased this type of response and select against those that decoupled painful stimuli from the emotional valence we normally associate with them (they feel bad!).

In any case, this question is approached from the wrong end, as if humans were designed out of thin air and the system could ever have been purely rational. We evolved from other animals without reason (or with varying degrees of problem-solving faculties). For these animals to survive, neural systems are adapted to encode urges and beliefs in such a way as to optimally control behaviour. Attaching varying levels of emotional valence to different types of stimuli offers a means to prioritise certain factors in making complex decisions (i.e., those factors most likely to affect the survival of the organism or the dissemination of its genes).

For humans, these important factors include our current and future place in the social network and the success of our social group. In the circumstances under which modern humans evolved, and still to a large extent today, our very survival and certainly our prosperity depend crucially on how we interact and on the social structures that have evolved from these interactions. We can’t rely on tooth and claw for survival – we rely on each other. Thus, the reason moral choices are tagged with strong emotional valence is because they evolved from systems designed for optimal control of behaviour. Or, despite this being a somewhat circular argument, the reason they feel right or wrong is because it is adaptive to have them feel right or wrong.

Churchland fleshes out this framework with a detailed look at the biological systems involved in social attachments, decision-making, executive control, mind-reading (discerning the beliefs and intentions of others), empathy, trust and other faculties. There are certain notable omissions here: the rich literature on psychopaths, who may be thought of as innately deficient in moral reasoning, receives surprisingly little attention, especially given the high heritability of this trait. As an illustration that the faculty of moral reasoning relies on in-built brain circuitry, this would seem to merit more discussion. The chapter on Genes, Brains and Behavior rightly emphasises the complexity of the genetic networks involved in establishing brain systems, especially those responsible for such a high-level faculty as moral reasoning. The conclusion that this system cannot be perturbed by single mutations is erroneous, however. Asking what does it take, genetically speaking, to build the system is a different question from what does it take to break it. Some consideration of how moral reasoning emerges over time in children would also have been interesting.

Nevertheless, the book does an excellent job of synthesising diverse findings into a readily understandable and thoroughly convincing naturalistic framework under which moral behaviour can be approached from an empirical standpoint. While the details of many of these areas remain sketchy, and our ignorance still vastly outweighs our knowledge, the overall framework seems quite robust. Indeed, it articulates what is likely a fairly standard view among neuroscientists who work in or who have considered the evidence from this field. However, one can presume that jobbing neuroscientists are not the main intended target audience and that both the details of the work in this field and its broad conclusions are neither widely known nor held.

The idea that right and wrong - or good and evil - exist in some abstract sense, independent from humans who only somehow come to perceive them, is a powerful and stubborn illusion. Indeed, for many inclined to spiritual or religious beliefs, it is one area where science has not until recently encroached on theological ground. While the Creator has been made redundant by the evidence for evolution by natural selection and the immaterial soul similarly superfluous by the evidence that human consciousness emerges from the activity of the physical brain, morality has remained apparently impervious to the scientific approach. Churchland focuses her last chapter on the idea that morals are absolute and delivered by Divinity, demonstrating firstly the contradictions in such an idea and, with the evidence for a biological basis of morality provided in the rest of the book, arguing convincingly that there is no need of that hypothesis.

 

lol, what a load of crap, all people who dont believe in god (and/or i guess all that believe in god but get their values from common sense, parenthood and whatever and not from the bible(believe me, this is the majority of people who believe in god)), they all have evil values, and only those who get their values from a book written 2000 years ago have "good" values??? is that what u r saying????...

...and just from a logic kind of view, how can you murder something that isnt born?

and please, dont call them values or morals from god, these values u cherish are all established by men; and even if u disaggree and believe god actually had influence in the writing of the bible or whatever, dont use it as an argument, its rediculous

 

Another failed attempt. Thanks for playing!