because its against the law to have slaves, no one accepts slavery. We would have to devolve for this to occur, as a society at large we have concluded it is immoral. Morality is decided by humans, just like every other construct.
Point missed by a country mile. At one point (in the USA) it was LEGAL to own slaves (chattel). In many countries, IT STILL IS LEGAL. Does that mean that the countries in which slavery is still legal are acting "morally" or not? After all, they used their "logic" and "reason" to conclude that chattel slavery was good for their society.
So if humans decide in a manner that you don't like, you STILL (per your wacky atheistic standard) have no room to complain, as they are merely exercising that "fluid" morality stuff.
what do you mean source? so it has to have an outside source then? where is your evidence of this. the more atheistic the country the less crime. Prison populations have less atheists per percentile then the religious, want more? Why cant morality be fluid and evolving, i have yet to see why this isn't the case.
PLEASE!! That prison population mess is as flimsy as soggy tissue. Those prisoners, more often than not, cite their parents' religious denomination (despite likely not having been to church or actively involved in religious activity IN YEARS).
Once again, if morality is "fluid", why are you blubbering when it flows in a way that you don't particularly like?
what the fuck is with the worshipping, are you a puppet that needs somethign to worship? all it shows is that man can make his own moral conclusions without the bible, that no external source is needed. If i disagree with the morality in the bible my criterion is not from the bible
Yet, when someone else draws his own moral conclusions, you get all bent out of shape and start wailing bleating like a wounded sheep!! If you want to make your own moral conclusions, don't cry when someone else does the same, with the results being adverse to YOU.
NO YOU SICK BASTARD. god ordered the kids to be killed, he went out of his way to ensure the mass murder of kids and infants. We try to avoid this at all costs, however, casualties will occur but they are to be minimized. In fact some of the extremist groups would gather with children in battle as the states etc.. would not kill the children, essentially fucking up the operations. ITS NOT SEMANTICS PSYCHO, one ordered the death of innocent kids the other are trying to eliminate adults and avoid kids. Again if a general now a days said after we bomb them go in a slit all the kids thoats and drown the babies he would face a penalty of death for numerous reasons. Get the point? dehumanizing an unborn baby? dude you have to have a basis for your argument. Where does the human start. I mean it cant live outside the womb at 7 months for the most part. I has no neurological development in the early stages, when is it a human, when it is outside the womb functioning like a human. How about when i jerk off is that abortion, since i have just wasted semen which could potentially be a child? Seriously what are the criteria for human? otherwise you are just blowing smoke and rambling as usual
More semantics. Bombs or swords, those kids are JUST AS DEAD!! And your neurological development argument it patently false. But, that seems to be your cup of tea. As long as you THINK unborn babies aren't really babies, hacking them up for convenience's sake doesn't seem to be a problem.
As for your other comments, I have no desire to know about what you do with your hands, besides typing on this forum.
A baby can't live outside the womb for seven months? Are you sniffing paint thinner today? We've seen preemie babies less than 7 months old, that have been KEPT ALIVE and have gone on to be regularly functioning people. A friend of my wife is unfortunately struggling financially, trying to pay medical bills for her PREMATURE BABY (who's now just over a year old). She gave birth to him, at the six-month mark.
OK, read above for the kid example yet again, i wont continue that futile argument if you miss the point again. I agree with hitler andstalin and mao's logic, what does that have to do with anything? they are deviants, social misshaps, exactly what we would expect from a moral code without god, not what we would expect if god entrenched a moral code in us. Why do you fail so much.
If there is no god, are you saying that you would see it fine to rape babies and kill others? please answer.
Exactly what makes them "deviants"? The Germans and Russians thought they were just ducky. Once again, all Adolf and Joe were doing was exercising that good ol' "fluid" morality, which you love so much. To be a "deviant", you must drift from a certain moral standard. What, do tell, is this standard from which those two strayed?
As for your other silly question, first, there is a God. So, your trap question holds no water. Second, perhaps, the folks in NAMBLA would be better suited to answer that.
Since there is a God, and He says rape and murder is a no-no, I'll go by His standard and say that, NO, I don't think raping babies is fine. In case you missed it, rape was a CAPITAL OFFENSE in the Old Testament (as was murder).
