Search results

Ah Hans Teeuwen. Brilliant in Dutch and very intelligent as well.

You can only assume there is a God, if you assume that he's a giant asshole. I mean: 1) He's still mad because of that damn apple. 2) He constantly wants to test us and he'll do everything in his power to make life more difficult. 3) If your life sucked and you weren't happy about it sucking...

And he didn't pick a good article anyway.

That author provides a very weak argument. It contradicts itself by the way.

Remember this is the guy who says there is actual reliable historical evidence which shows that the miracles performed by Jesus Christ were indeed fact.

That is actually very true. You used all the wrong words and you completely fucked up the beginning of your post, but it's true. If there is an objective moral standard, the existence of God is very likely. But there's no objective moral standard.

Says who? Damn, I really hoped it wasn't necessary, but here we go.

The real problem is that there are various situations that have, at the very least, two morally sound options and there is no way to say which is better. So even if JR's theory would be right, which it clearly isn't, it would be useless. Religion really mutilates people, it's awful to see.

Bingo. This JR guy is so retarded it's not even funny anymore.

I don't know why you posted that link, but that guy provides you a pretty poor argument. He does however give a working definition of objective when talking about morality: Morality is objective in the sense that it holds or not regardless of human opinion. But how the fuck would morality...

He refuses to listen to that idea.

Are you honestly saying that's not what they do? My oh my. The country violates the legal laws and violates the moral laws created by the UN. It does not violate an objective moral truth as no such thing exists.

First things first: look up what the UN is. You'll see that there are Asian countries in the UN. Secondly: the UN's moral standard is better because the UN says it's better. That's it. No God, no objective morality. Tough, huh. Look up objective and understand it this time.

Because they say it is. And the UN is a pretty democratic organisation, which involves almost the entire world, so your example is pretty poor to begin with.

This is insane. After days and days of explaining it to him, the man still has no idea what objective means.

Those aren't the three possibilities FFS. You're just hopeless. Why the fuck would you not look up what objective means? The UN IMPOSE their moral standard.

The pain is not unimaginable. No, it doesn't.

Meh..I don't like this personal evolution of mine. Ever since I started studying Law I see legal problems everywhere. And what's worse: I see legal answers.

Not in this case. If you want to sue the parents, you'll have to prove that they made a mistake. Which is impossible.

True. But my ethical standpoint is the same as the legal one. As long as the medical questions remain unanswered, I simply can't give a complete and correct answer. I think all surgeries must be avoided when possible, but on the other hand this is such a minor one that if done right there is...