I never said all zeal was religious, you said that.
"in danger of Hell fire for advocating murderous abortion... that damns you to Hell fire for committing murderous abortion."
I don't know, Chippo, seems pretty religiously zealous to me (please note that you have to repeat it twice in the same paragraph--now that's zeal), Hellfire is not a scientific term.
So are you now arguing from a secular humanistic perspective?
References to God are not necessarily religious? Oh yeah, that's got to be one of the better contradictions you've ever posted. Good one, Chippo.
And who says that the discussion of souls in relationship to abortion rules out an inclusion of before/after life? I didn't rule it out, did you? Why? Is this part of your new secular humanist perspective?
Got a link, or did you make this up? No group can make decisions "once and for all" when it comes to religion, because what happens when we have new revelations like the Mormons got?
I didn't make that argument. Are you writing my arguments for me now? You remind me of the two-headed man who debated free-silver and refuted himself.
More religious terms, Chippo, and this doesn't jibe well with your new secular humanist image.
Whoa, a whole bunch of religious people will take issue with that one.
We're not discussing atheist or theist, we're discussing human or animal vis a vis the incorporation of a soul.
Not if those rights are given on the basis of being sacred because of a God-given soul.
Ultimately, I think it is. Science certainly doesn't grant rights and civilization is based on some sort of morality--if not religious, then where do your morals come from?
Exactly, and why do people acknowledge their existence for every person? Most people will tell you that it arises from a morality based in religious belief. Where do yours come from?
No? What about the people at GITMO, they've not been given the same rights you have, nor have gay and trans people. All over the world people debate who gets which rights and who doesn't deserve them. Pay attention, these are serious debates and they are important, your rights could be lost too if George Bush decides that YOU are a terrorist.
Where have you been for the last 10,000 years, enormous battles have been fought over who gets what rights and there is no consensus yet that is universally applied. And it's all based on somebody's morality--you for instance have objected to gay people on moral grounds.
Prove it, so far all you've done is bleat like a sheep. Why not ask Dr. Who if the existence of a soul is relevant.
