Are Christians tolerant?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Calling a one celled organism a "human being" is dishonest. If the Mars rover discovered one celled organisms we wouldn't pretend it had discovered "human beings".

Life is life. What makes a human being any different from a one celled organism. Is not the one celled organism alive? Besides, I wasn't comparing the one celled organism to a human being, merely a human embryo. Is a human embryo alive or not?

Originally posted by no1marauder
First post top of page:

Because we are hardwired to believe it is wrong for evolutionary survival reasons.

You already read it and responded to it.

Sorry, that's not valid. Perhaps it works for you, but it does not work for me. Please don't push your religious views on me.

I need a reason that I can agree is absolutely true. Your religious beliefs don't count.

Originally posted by Eladar
Sorry, that's not valid. Perhaps it works for you, but it does not work for me. Please don't push your religious views on me.

I need a reason that I can agree is absolutely true. Your religious beliefs don't count.

LMAO! "Religious"?

Your extreme beliefs esp. in a anthropomorphic Big Daddy and in human baseness and evil make it impossible for you to accept the reality of our nature. I am not under such crippling presuppositions.

Originally posted by dryhump
Life is life. What makes a human being any different from a one celled organism. Is not the one celled organism alive? Besides, I wasn't comparing the one celled organism to a human being, merely a human embryo. Is a human embryo alive or not?

The germs that cause bad breath are alive but we don't consider people who use Listerine murderers.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The germs that cause bad breath are alive but we don't consider people who use Listerine murderers.

Why not, aren't they alive? What makes human life special? Why place a higher value on human life than other forms of life?

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
That's where I disagree.

Do you really think that murder was considered OK before religion? I doubt it.

Prohibitions on murder aren't based on religion - they are simply justified by religion.

Today people share morals but the religious of us simply use their books and their god as a simplistic justification for it.

Murder prohibitions may be something that predates religion. I am not motivated to argue who got it first. Other rules may have religious origins, and others secular.

People share some morals, and reject others. It is convenient for those with religions to hammer others with the proscriptions of their book. It is convenient for those who want to do something not allowed by the "book" to be critical of it, even though many non religious people come to the same rules by other means.

Originally posted by dryhump
I'm sorry, I'll need you to spell it out. What is the difference between a pig and a human being? Is a pig not alive? What makes a human being's life more important than a pig's life? Why is it okay to kill a pig and not a human being? If you want to worry about the bible you can substitute chicken here, although the sausage was delicious.

Laws are a s ...[text shortened]... tory we have been depriving other humans of life specifically to improve society's growth.

I'm not going to describe why a pig is different to you. If you want to figure that out then the next time you have a sausage then convince yourself that it was made of your best friend's heart and then wonder why you feel differently.

When I was talking about killing another human being I was talking about murder.

We are tribal creatures and historically we haven't merely seen all other humans as being in our tribe. Our tribal nature is why we have such a strong xenophobic instinct and why it has been considered beneficial in some cases to murder other tribes.

Please give me an example of a society murdering innocent healthy members of the society in order to improve that society's growth.

Originally posted by dryhump
Why not, aren't they alive? What makes human life special? Why place a higher value on human life than other forms of life?

Because its more important to the survival of our species to do so.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
I'm not going to describe why a pig is different to you. If you want to figure that out then the next time you have a sausage then convince yourself that it was made of your best friend's heart and then wonder why you feel differently.

When I was talking about killing another human being I was talking about murder.

We are tribal creatures and hist ...[text shortened]... murdering innocent healthy members of the society in order to improve that society's growth.

Have you never heard of human sacrifices? The Aztecs were particularly prolific. These were done to improve society's growth (at least according to their beliefs). What makes human life more valuable than animal life? Surely that's a simple enough question.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
I'm not going to describe why a pig is different to you. If you want to figure that out then the next time you have a sausage then convince yourself that it was made of your best friend's heart and then wonder why you feel differently.

When I was talking about killing another human being I was talking about murder.

We are tribal creatures and hist ...[text shortened]... murdering innocent healthy members of the society in order to improve that society's growth.

Before we were in tribes we were in small bands of generally less than 10 individuals. There is little evidence of much struggle between bands and significant evidence of cooperation, trade and intermarriage between them. The last is especially important because of the almost universal incest taboo and that that taboo was kept even in prehistoric times is strongly supported by biological and genetic evidence (besides the taboo being present in our closest primate cousins).

Originally posted by dryhump
I guess the Aztecs missed electronics class.

The Mexicans knew human sacrifice was wrong. Quetzalcoatl told them. That why Montezuma was scared of him.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Because its more important to the survival of our species to do so.

Now that we have a breeding population, can we expect the evolutionator to reverse our feelings on the sanctity of human life as we reach unsustainable population levels?

Do you, no1marauder, value a human life over that of an animal? Why or why not?

Originally posted by dryhump
Have you never heard of human sacrifices? The Aztecs were particularly prolific. These were done to improve society's growth (at least according to their beliefs). What makes human life more valuable than animal life? Surely that's a simple enough question.

The Mexicans sacrificed people for the same reason Romans did - to terrorize people so they would pay tribute.

Originally posted by dryhump
Now that we have a breeding population, can we expect the evolutionator to reverse our feelings on the sanctity of human life as we reach unsustainable population levels?

Do you, no1marauder, value a human life over that of an animal? Why or why not?

Changes in our brains don't take place in such short time periods, so the answer is no.

I already answered the question. Because I am a member of the species homo sapiens, I naturally value human life over animal life. We make such moral judgments instinctively and then generally try to rationalize them.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
The Mexicans sacrificed people for the same reason Romans did - to terrorize people so they would pay tribute.

If you say so, I didn't think the issue was settled. I thought there were many scholars who believed the Aztecs sacrificed people because the universe demanded blood.