Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567891011 LastLast
Results 53 to 65 of 138
  1. #53
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Eastern PA
    Posts
    68,944
    Quote Originally Posted by Marc O'Brien View Post
    Sorry, but it follows on, logically, from your statement. If you disagree with the point I make then you must also retract your statement.
    No Marc, I must not have to do anything you come up with so that you can justify your beliefs, or actually, your disbeliefs. I realize that the only way you can "win", in your mind, is to make up your own rules. That is just not how intelligent conversation is able to thrive though Marc.
    Government is a disease...
    ...masquerading as its own cure…
    Ecclesiastes 10:2 NIV


  2. #54
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Eastern PA
    Posts
    68,944
    Quote Originally Posted by Marc O'Brien View Post
    I am providing a rational discussion, just to an irrational subject.

    You cannot prove it to be wrong that we are spiritual beings in a temporary human existance. It is just very unlikely that we are. There is certainly absolutely no evidence that we are "spiritual beings" whatever that is meant to mean ayway.

    There is no superior or inferior here. Just a balancing of what is likely over what is less likely.
    Ah, I see. The subject of spirituallity is irrational....to you, so you have concluded that since you cannot comprehend spirituality, then it is unlikely to exist.

    What about to the billions who do not feel that the subject of spirituallity is irrational? You say there is no superior or inferior here, yet you are discounting the majority in lieu of your not being able to understand something you cannot measure by physical means. Does that not logically conclude that you feel that those who disbelieve what they cannot comprehend are superiour over those who believe in what they cannot physically show proof of?
    Government is a disease...
    ...masquerading as its own cure…
    Ecclesiastes 10:2 NIV


  3. #55
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Eastern PA
    Posts
    68,944
    Quote Originally Posted by lanceonthejob View Post
    "rational discussion with people of faith"
    Is that a circular argument, or an oxymoron?

    Be careful, Marc - someone will end up taking you to a back-room, shortly.
    The falcon has landed.
    I must agree that many of faith do become irrational in discussions of faith. I figure that is most likely due to the frustration of not being able to get across to someone who is blinded by the realm of the physical world that there is much more to our existance then the limits of what we can see, taste, touch, hear and smell.

    And yes, too often these conversations wind up being circular arguments because both sides are working from incompatible existances that cannot be meshed together in order to form a common coherency. Since the closest thing we can relate to a spiritual existance is emotion, those attempting to describe the spirituallity of our nature usually wind up simply becoming over emotional.

    I'm not sure what kind of people of faith you have been exposed to, but I don't get the back room or the falcon references. Could it be that you have been traumatized by falcon worshippers using back rooms for feeding cages?
    Government is a disease...
    ...masquerading as its own cure…
    Ecclesiastes 10:2 NIV


  4. #56
    "....much more to our existance then the limits of what we can see, taste, touch, hear and smell"

    R U sure?
    What if you're wrong, and this is merely it.
    No mansion on a cloud. No red dude with horns. Nothing else.
    Just a planet filled with self-proclaimed sinners?

  5. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by RoBoTeq View Post
    No Marc, I must not have to do anything you come up with so that you can justify your beliefs, or actually, your disbeliefs. I realize that the only way you can "win", in your mind, is to make up your own rules. That is just not how intelligent conversation is able to thrive though Marc.
    Okay, let me give you the benifit of the doubt. Have a bash paraphrasing your statement regarding surgery. Tell me in different words or with greater elaborations what it is your were trying to say.

  6. #58
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Eastern PA
    Posts
    68,944
    Quote Originally Posted by lanceonthejob View Post
    "....much more to our existance then the limits of what we can see, taste, touch, hear and smell"

    R U sure?
    What if you're wrong, and this is merely it.
    No mansion on a cloud. No red dude with horns. Nothing else.
    Just a planet filled with self-proclaimed sinners?
    Well, I don't believe in anything of the physical realm for our existance after our mortal demise. No mansions, not even clouds. There is no need for them. These things are creations for the physical world and not relevant for the spiritual world. In a sense, a physical sense, there may be "nothing else". Maybe the spiritual world is only thought. We do not know these things and that may be part of the grand plan for our existance as mortals in a physical realm.

    If I am wrong, so what? Even if I am wrong, my beliefs have given me guidance in my mortal life to be a better person. Those who do not believe can also be good mortals, that's not being disputed. But! Suppose those who neglect their spiritual nature are wrong. Why chance an eternal existance without the love of what we refer to as God? Every culture has a belief system that points to relatively the same thing; there is a spiritual existance after our mortal deaths. So why would we not want to strive for the best existance there is after we exit this long strange journey called mortal life?
    Government is a disease...
    ...masquerading as its own cure…
    Ecclesiastes 10:2 NIV


  7. #59
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Eastern PA
    Posts
    68,944
    Quote Originally Posted by Marc O'Brien View Post
    Okay, let me give you the benifit of the doubt. Have a bash paraphrasing your statement regarding surgery. Tell me in different words or with greater elaborations what it is your were trying to say.
    Hmmm, your a little tougher to get through to then I had hoped. Too much injesting the fruit of the tree of knowledge, eh?

    OK, can we agree that abortions can for the most part be avoided simply by women not getting pregnant when they don't want to? Can we agree that if a woman does get pregnant, she can avoid abortion by carrying to full term and giving birth? Now, can we agree that an abortion is, in most cases, an unnecessary operation?
    Government is a disease...
    ...masquerading as its own cure…
    Ecclesiastes 10:2 NIV


  8. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by RoBoTeq View Post
    Hmmm, your a little tougher to get through to then I had hoped. Too much injesting the fruit of the tree of knowledge, eh?

    OK, can we agree that abortions can for the most part be avoided simply by women not getting pregnant when they don't want to? Can we agree that if a woman does get pregnant, she can avoid abortion by carrying to full term and giving birth? Now, can we agree that an abortion is, in most cases, an unnecessary operation?
    Indeed, it is true that a woman not pregnant may opt to not abort without consequence since forgoing the option has precisely the same outcome as taking the option.

    Indeed, a pregnant woman can increase the likelyhood of carrying to full term by opting not to abort.

    But then you change the topic to something entirely different. The third statement is disconnected from the previous two. How might the third statement be related to the first two?

  9. #61
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Eastern PA
    Posts
    68,944
    Quote Originally Posted by Marc O'Brien View Post
    Indeed, it is true that a woman not pregnant may opt to not abort without consequence since forgoing the option has precisely the same outcome as taking the option.

    Indeed, a pregnant woman can increase the likelyhood of carrying to full term by opting not to abort.

    But then you change the topic to something entirely different. The third statement is disconnected from the previous two. How might the third statement be related to the first two?
    Rather then continue to redefine your terms Marc, what say you just answer the question?
    Government is a disease...
    ...masquerading as its own cure…
    Ecclesiastes 10:2 NIV


  10. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by RoBoTeq View Post
    Rather then continue to redefine your terms Marc, what say you just answer the question?
    What is the question? There is no question.

    If you want to know why woman abort or why people get divorced or why woman sometimes kill their husbands go and ask them.

    Now, what precisely are you asking me? It is not clear that you are even asking a ligitimate question.

    A bird can sit on a branch right?
    A bird can avoid flying if it wishes too, right?
    So why can't a tree just have leaves?

    Answer me that.

  11. #63
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Eastern PA
    Posts
    68,944
    C'mon Marc, I'll give you that you are an intelligent person, so let's not start pretending we are not so bright.

    Based on the agreement that an abortion is an operation to terminate a pregnacy, that most pregnancies can be avoided in the first place and that even those that were not prevented can avoid terminition by going full term to delivery....here comes the question, again, Marc; can we agree that an abortion is, in most cases, an unnecessary operation?
    Government is a disease...
    ...masquerading as its own cure…
    Ecclesiastes 10:2 NIV


  12. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by RoBoTeq View Post
    C'mon Marc, I'll give you that you are an intelligent person, so let's not start pretending we are not so bright.

    Based on the agreement that an abortion is an operation to terminate a pregnacy, that most pregnancies can be avoided in the first place and that even those that were not prevented can avoid terminition by going full term to delivery....here comes the question, again, Marc; can we agree that an abortion is, in most cases, an unnecessary operation?
    Robo, I promise, I am trying my damnest!! Have you considered yet that I might actually be too stupid for all this?

    Okay, back to the matter. What you are asking me is a little more clearer. I think what is not clear is only your thinking. Let me explain, very briefly...

    The answer to your questions has to be a resounding NO!

    That means I cannot agree with you when you make the statement "can we agree that an abortion is, in most cases, an unnecessary operation?"

    Why can I not agree with you? Because the statement is a conclusion but it has no supporting premise.

    You see the two leading statements, which you seem to think are supporting premiss's or presuppositions, are in fact not related to the conclusion.

    The conclusion you would however be able to draw would be "we must then agree that unwanted pregnancies, in most cases, are an unnecessary situation."

    If you want to conclude that instead abortion is an unnecessary operation then you would have to present a set of related suppositions that allow us to arrive at that different so far unsupported conclusion.

    Now, to date, people have failed to do this. That is why abortion remains an option.

    Thanks to the spirit of justice human kind has evolved to maintain.

  13. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by RoBoTeq View Post
    Even if I am wrong, my beliefs have given me guidance in my mortal life to be a better person.

    Me and mine too

Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567891011 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event