Search results

Okay, so with a little time on my hands, I'll come back to this one. It gets things a little right and a lot wrong. One thing it gets sort of right is the concept that "the consensus of the majority of the society" defines morality - which is right if extremely over-simplified because it seems...

This garbage is so full of strawmen it should fear a lit match.

How is man forcing morality on other any different tHan God forcing morality on others?

Yes. But you're not really doing a good job of explaining a) why I'm wrong or b) why you're right.

Adultery in a modern definition is a married person having sex with another person who is not the spouse. That's pretty much the common legal definition too, paraphrased. Neither masturbating nor watching inappropriate content fit that definition.

Plus, you find the attitude of "have sex without consequences I can just have an abortion" to be shallow and self centered. So what? Even if I agreed with you, that would be no reason to criminalize abortion

No, you failed to pay any attention to the argument. You're arguing that a right to life trumps all other rights and I'm saying you're wrong. Even if I were to agree that a fetus has the exact same right to life as you and me and anyone rlse, that right to life fails to trump the mother's...

Tough. You make a claim, you provide the evidence. Thems the rules. If they're such good points, then surely providing evidence e to support them is little problem or effort. Especially for someone bragging that

So you get called out for failing to provide a shred of evidence for your claims, and your response is a childish tantrum rant that's just as baseless as everything else you've posted.

In other words, something is good because God says so, and something is evil because God says so. That right?

That's nonsense. BY what standard do you judge that the universe is big? What does big even mean if there is no standard for what is considered to be big?

Filing under "things that never happened."

Of course, neither of these has to do with the actual law of the United States.

Murder is a legal term, so anything that is going to be defined as murder has to be defined within law. Murder is literally "unlawful killing," and as there are all kinds of lawful killings, anything currently lawful would have to be decided as unlawful by a change in law.

No. Intent is not necessary at all. Absurd. We are all glad that you will never be in any position to enforce your ludicrous delusions on the public in general.

Sorry, but a fetus lacks bodily autonomy. An embryo even more so. An actual baby that has been born may have some small degree of bodily autonomy if only because it can demonstrably survive outside the womb.

Science doesn't dictate morality. So your question is utter nonsense.

Whether or not a fetus is alive or when it becomes "alive" during pregnancy is irrelevant. For the sake of argument I could even grant that life begins at conception and that unborn life has the exact same right to life as any and every other person.... and that still would not be reason to...

Except science has already contradicted the Bible. Numerous times. And now youre saying that even if science continues to contradict thw Bible and demonstrate that the Bible is wrong, you will continue to believe the Bible and ignore the science. Why?

Based on your OP, it appears that the "reason you're not an atheist" boils down to "I don't understand science and don't want to, so to explain all this stuff I don't understand I need God." Which hardly explains why you're not an atheist, but does explain why you'd accept any easy...