Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Don't need a god to have morals and ethics. Secular humanism does just fine absent God while remaining very moral and ethical.
Without a point of reference who's to say what is "moral" or "ethical?" Under a system of humanism anything goes. What's right for you isn't necessarily right for me so why should YOU determine (or a group of "you"s) get to determine what I should consider moral or ethical? What do you do when one group of Secular Humanist totally disagree with another group of Humanists? Who's way is the right way?
Euthanasia isn't about you ending your own life.I love Euthanasia.
it has been very succesfull in the Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland.
And should I ever get a glioblastrom I would insist on having the option of ending my life.
Don't need a god to have morals and ethics. Secular humanism does just fine absent God while remaining very moral and ethical.
Without a point of reference who's to say what is "moral" or "ethical?" Under a system of humanism anything goes. What's right for you isn't necessarily right for me so why should YOU determine (or a group of "you"s) get to determine what I should consider moral or ethical? What do you do when one group of Secular Humanist totally disagree with another group of Humanists? Who's way is the right way?
If I wanna get to any point on Earth, which way should I go? Straight line towards myd estination right? What if I enjoy the journey as much as the destination and choose to go 180 degrees in the other direction? Wont I still get there? Which way is the right way?
Sometimes there's more than 1 right way.
Don't need a god to have morals and ethics. Secular humanism does just fine absent God while remaining very moral and ethical.
Without a point of reference who's to say what is "moral" or "ethical?" Under a system of humanism anything goes. What's right for you isn't necessarily right for me so why should YOU determine (or a group of "you"s) get to determine what I should consider moral or ethical? What do you do when one group of Secular Humanist totally disagree with another group of Humanists? Who's way is the right way?
Nice to see you again, Sandy
Your response....I don't believe that he is bright enough to understand the concept.
- If there's no God - making ourselves the source of ethics for everybody, or declaring that nobody can be the source of ethics for anybody, and therefore morality is, again, purely subjective.
- Reason supports a lot of things, as for example, a very liberal position on abortion. If there is no God, "Love your neighbor as yourself" is just a good idea. That's why it is written, incidentally, in Leviticus, "Love your neighbor as yourself, I am God." I, God, tell you to be decent to other people. Dennis Prager
No....you don't understand the idea at all.
Progressives and big government give bureaucrats and technocrats control over the lives of others.
And rather than consider opposing views.....they do what their power allows them to do.
Kill.
And hide behind words like 'euthanasia.'
One brand of Liberal government, communism, slaughtered over 100 million human beings in the last century.
"Nowak's film exposes the systematic practice of euthanasia - so-called "assisted death" - on disabled babies and children that took place during the Second World War. While there were undoubtedly many physicians and nurses involved in such crimes throughout the Third Reich,A Perfectly Normal Doctor focuses on Nazi doctor and psychologist Heinrich Gross, who was at one time in charge of an Austrian hospital where 800 children were killed.
Everyday language, even if informed by terms borrowed from the social sciences and psychology, tends to fall short when describing horrors perpetrated by people in positions of responsibility who are entrusted with caring for others, not harming them
Dr. Heinrich Gross A perfectly psychopathic doctor -- Puppet Masters -- Sott.net
The documentary, Ein ganz normaler Arzt('A perfectly normal doctor', is available on this site: Dr. Heinrich Gross A perfectly psychopathic doctor -- Puppet Masters -- Sott.net
Don't need a god to have morals and ethics. Secular humanism does just fine absent God while remaining very moral and ethical.
Without a point of reference who's to say what is "moral" or "ethical?" Under a system of humanism anything goes. What's right for you isn't necessarily right for me so why should YOU determine (or a group of "you"s) get to determine what I should consider moral or ethical? What do you do when one group of Secular Humanist totally disagree with another group of Humanists? Who's way is the right way?
Don't need a god to have morals and ethics. Secular humanism does just fine absent God while remaining very moral and ethical.
Without a point of reference who's to say what is "moral" or "ethical?" Under a system of humanism anything goes. What's right for you isn't necessarily right for me so why should YOU determine (or a group of "you"s) get to determine what I should consider moral or ethical? What do you do when one group of Secular Humanist totally disagree with another group of Humanists? Who's way is the right way?
If I wanna get to any point on Earth, which way should I go? Straight line towards myd estination right? What if I enjoy the journey as much as the destination and choose to go 180 degrees in the other direction? Wont I still get there? Which way is the right way?
Sometimes there's more than 1 right way.
And when those two "right ways" collide? Then what? In a true "secular" evolutionary system only the strong survive. I believe atheistic evolutionists call it "survival of the fittest." In that system the strong should have the "moral right" to squash the competition in any manner he or she sees fit. So from a strong person's "ethical" point of view it should be perfectly natural, fitting, and acceptable to destroy anyone who stands in his way. Why is that a wrong conclusion to reach? (Minus God).
Euthanasia - Wikipedia the free encyclopediaEuthanasia isn't about you ending your own life.I love Euthanasia.
it has been very succesfull in the Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland.
And should I ever get a glioblastrom I would insist on having the option of ending my life.
It's about ending someone else's.
Don't need a god to have morals and ethics. Secular humanism does just fine absent God while remaining very moral and ethical.
Without a point of reference who's to say what is "moral" or "ethical?" Under a system of humanism anything goes. What's right for you isn't necessarily right for me so why should YOU determine (or a group of "you"s) get to determine what I should consider moral or ethical? What do you do when one group of Secular Humanist totally disagree with another group of Humanists? Who's way is the right way?
Hi DriftingSand and Delta4Embassy
How about Consensus as the qualifier?
Regardless of people's systems of values or principles,
as long as we AGREE on a course of action or policy as fitting our standards, does it matter if we explain or justify
them differently?
Why not take each point, policy or issue one by one,
and just work it out until we AGREE what is most effective, accurate, sustainable and workable.
We don't have to agree why it is, because that's personal and different for each of us.
We'd never get anywhere if we had to agree on all the background.
But what about specific steps or solutions. Wouldn't consensus make sure all standards are met?
Consent of the Governed? Educated choice?
can we agree on that and agree to resolve all objections until a consensual solutions is formed?
Don't need a god to have morals and ethics. Secular humanism does just fine absent God while remaining very moral and ethical.
Without a point of reference who's to say what is "moral" or "ethical?" Under a system of humanism anything goes. What's right for you isn't necessarily right for me so why should YOU determine (or a group of "you"s) get to determine what I should consider moral or ethical? What do you do when one group of Secular Humanist totally disagree with another group of Humanists? Who's way is the right way?
If I wanna get to any point on Earth, which way should I go? Straight line towards myd estination right? What if I enjoy the journey as much as the destination and choose to go 180 degrees in the other direction? Wont I still get there? Which way is the right way?
Sometimes there's more than 1 right way.
And when those two "right ways" collide? Then what? In a true "secular" evolutionary system only the strong survive. I believe atheistic evolutionists call it "survival of the fittest." In that system the strong should have the "moral right" to squash the competition in any manner he or she sees fit. So from a strong person's "ethical" point of view it should be perfectly natural, fitting, and acceptable to destroy anyone who stands in his way. Why is that a wrong conclusion to reach? (Minus God).
Delta4 thinks society in BladeRunner is the epitome of a perfect civilization.
What more needs to be said? He lives in an alternate reality, and apparently hasn't the ability to discern plot and theme in literature and film.
Euthanasia - Wikipedia the free encyclopediaEuthanasia isn't about you ending your own life.I love Euthanasia.
it has been very succesfull in the Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland.
And should I ever get a glioblastrom I would insist on having the option of ending my life.
It's about ending someone else's.
Ever hear of the Nazis?
They had consensus.
Wise up.
Don't need a god to have morals and ethics. Secular humanism does just fine absent God while remaining very moral and ethical.
Without a point of reference who's to say what is "moral" or "ethical?" Under a system of humanism anything goes. What's right for you isn't necessarily right for me so why should YOU determine (or a group of "you"s) get to determine what I should consider moral or ethical? What do you do when one group of Secular Humanist totally disagree with another group of Humanists? Who's way is the right way?
If I wanna get to any point on Earth, which way should I go? Straight line towards myd estination right? What if I enjoy the journey as much as the destination and choose to go 180 degrees in the other direction? Wont I still get there? Which way is the right way?
Sometimes there's more than 1 right way.
And when those two "right ways" collide? Then what? In a true "secular" evolutionary system only the strong survive. I believe atheistic evolutionists call it "survival of the fittest." In that system the strong should have the "moral right" to squash the competition in any manner he or she sees fit. So from a strong person's "ethical" point of view it should be perfectly natural, fitting, and acceptable to destroy anyone who stands in his way. Why is that a wrong conclusion to reach? (Minus God).
Delta4 thinks society in BladeRunner is the epitome of a perfect civilization.
What more needs to be said? He lives in an alternate reality, and apparently hasn't the ability to discern plot and theme in literature and film.
Sometimes a removed viewpoint helps to see things from an objective angle.
in the end what matters is that we end up at a constructive conclusion.
as long as Delta4Embassy finishes the process and reaches an agreement with everyone else,
i think this way of thinking is good for questioning and bringing up points from other angles we might miss!
you do this too, koshergrl, other people may not like your approach
but it is necessary to see things from all angles and yours is just as necessary to the whole
or we would miss the big picture if we left you out, or Delta or me, or anyone here who sees things we miss.
Whether it be genocide, gulags, abortions, death panels, inseparable from Leftist doctrine...communism, Liberalism, whatever....all represent how insignificant human life is to Leftist worldviews.
They laughed when the Right pointed out that ObamaCare included rationing and Death Panels...but last week the architect of ObamaCare, Dr.Zeke Emanuel came out an said that at 75, time to die.
" If Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel doesn’t die by age 75, should he get the Death Panel?"
Ezekiel Emanuel Obamacare people should die at age 75
And the facilitation for that view is that none of Leftist iterations view religion as important, or even necessary.
1. Even in the 19th century, as religious conviction waned, the warnings were there.
Ivan Karamazov, in “The Brothers Karamazov,” exclaimed ‘if God does not exist, then everything is permitted.’
2. "There is no God: This concept is an essential element of Marxism.
As Lenin stated: "Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism."
If God exists and is in supreme command of the universe, He possesses discretionary power, and His actions cannot always be calculated accurately in advance. The whole edifice of Marxism collapses.
When Marx and the Communists deny the existence of God, they simultaneously deny the authority of the Ten Commandments, the existence of absolute standards of right and wrong, of good and evil; and man is left on the playing fields of the universe without a referee, without a book of rules. The winning side in any conflict can decide on what rules of conduct to apply. Morality is the creation of the victor."
The Schwarz Report Essays
a. As one of his friends later recalled, "Vladimir Ilych Ulyanov (Lenin) had the courage to come out and say openly that famine would have numerous positive results...Famine, he explained....would bring about the next stage more rapidly, and usher in socialism, the stage that necessarily followed capitalism. Famine would also destroy faith, not only in the tsar, but in God, too."
"The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression," by Jean-Louis Panné, Andrzej Paczkowski, Karel Bartosek and Jean-Louis Margolin , p.123-124.
3. And just one more example of that view is the murder endorsed by Liberal governments, Euthanasia.
Philosopher Helga Kuhse: "'Euthanasia' is a compound of two Greek words - eu and thanatos meaning, literally, 'a good death'. Today, 'euthanasia' is generally understood to mean the bringing about of a good death - 'mercy killing,' where one person, A, ends the life of another person, B, for the sake of B."
Euthanasia Fact Sheet The World Federation of Right to Die Societies
What if they don't ask B's permission? Wouldn't that make it murder?
4. In 1984, Holland legalized euthanasia, the right of Dutch doctors to kill their elderly patients. Would they do so based on their whim?
a. “The Dutch survey, reviewed in the Journal of Medical Ethics, looked at the figures for 1995 and found that as well as 3,600 authorized cases there were 900 others in which doctors had acted without explicit consent…. they thought they were acting in the patient's best interests.”
http://www.euthanasia.com/holland99.html
b. Euthanasia, as Dr. Peggy Norris observed with some asperity, "cannot be controlled." If this is so, why is Harris so sure that stem-cell research can be controlled? And if it cannot be controlled, just what is irrational about religious objections to social policies that when they reach the bottom of the slippery slope are bound to embody something Dutch, degraded, and disgusting? How many scientific atheists, I wonder, propose to spend their old age in Holland?"
David Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion."
what is all this talk about Youth in asia?
Ever hear of the Nazis?
They had consensus.
Wise up.
WTFFFF???
Do you think the Jews in the camps CONSENTED to that treatment?
let me repeat
WTFFFFFFFFFF???
That's why the forces had to use FORCE
because what they were doing was COERCION not CONSENSUS
You argue that Obama's idea of consensus is coercion too!
That is NOT consensus! You know this! WTFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF.....
And likewise others can't see from yours or mine either!Trust me, I have no interest in seeing anything through Delta's eyes.
Euthanasia - Wikipedia the free encyclopediaEuthanasia isn't about you ending your own life.I love Euthanasia.
it has been very succesfull in the Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland.
And should I ever get a glioblastrom I would insist on having the option of ending my life.
It's about ending someone else's.
Good grief you're stupid.
"Is physician-assisted suicide the same as euthanasia?
No. Physician-assisted suicide refers to the physician providing the means for death, most often with a presciption. The patient, not the physician, will ultimately administer the lethal medication. Euthanasia generally means that the physician would act directly, for instance by giving a lethal injection, to end the patient's life. Some other practices that should be distinguished from PAS are:
You're welcome, retard. I will stand by for you to spout more idiocy about a topic you know nothing about.
- Terminal sedation: This refers to the practice of sedating a terminally ill competent patient to the point of unconsciousness, then allowing the patient to die of her disease, starvation, or dehydration.
- Withholding/withdrawing life-sustaining treatments : When a competent patient makes an informed decision to refuse life-sustaining treatment, there is virtual unanimity in state law and in the medical profession that this wish should be respected.
- Pain medication that may hasten death: Often a terminally ill, suffering patient may require dosages of pain medication that impair respiration or have other effects that may hasten death. It is generally held by most professional societies, and supported in court decisions, that this is justifiable so long as the primary intent is to relieve suffering."
Is physician-assisted suicide the same as euthanasia The World Federation of Right to Die Societies
Don't need a god to have morals and ethics. Secular humanism does just fine absent God while remaining very moral and ethical.
Nonsense.
As far as euthanasia goes, you're all living in the past.Ever hear of the Nazis?
They had consensus.
Wise up.
WTFFFF???
Do you think the Jews in the camps CONSENTED to that treatment?
let me repeat
WTFFFFFFFFFF???
That's why the forces had to use FORCE
because what they were doing was COERCION not CONSENSUS
You argue that Obama's idea of consensus is coercion too!
That is NOT consensus! You know this! WTFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF.....
The people who lived in the towns next to the concentration camps were fine with it.This is why they were forced to march through when the camps were liberated. The consensus of the German people was that the concentration camps were okay.
