24 of 29
24
A Word to Mr. Harris and those who hold similar views:
Posted: 02 August 2007 08:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 346 ]  
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  626
Joined  2006-08-01

[quote author=“Storm”][quote author=“unsmoked”]
common sense, and the empowerment of women in third world countries, as someone else has been posting elsewhere on the forum.

smile This would be adding options(Career, education, independence) instead of limiting options (One-child-per-family) To me that sound like a much better idea, than to hunt down women carrying their second child.

Not only that but if you look at the countries that have educated women with careers, the first child comes much later on avarage, families are smaller and women are not dependent on the men.
Countries that have tried to put a limit on family growth have failed, leaving unproportionally large amounts of men, since when given the option of only one child, most will choose to have boys.

We all need to get away from the thought that we should have the right to control what the women can and can’t do with their bodies. Instead focus should be placed on adding options so the women can decide for themselves.

Here, saved you the time to look for that post I mentioned. Also I added an edit to your post about 9000 abandoned kids.
You see I’m for adding options as a form of child control, but am against adding limits as the solution. I may express myself badly, but that’s my main point.
Oh, and for the record, even I find this a bit… excessive .  :D

 Signature 

“If your original Hebrew disagrees with my original King James—- your original Hebrew is wrong.”—FSTDT

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 August 2007 11:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 347 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  112
Joined  2007-07-16

[quote author=“JETurnbull”]
Where do people like you get off assuming that having children is a basic human right?

It’s a basic compulsion, an instinct, if you will. The drive to reproduce, present in all species, coupled with the intellectual and emotional desire to nurture, is very strong. We make rights of our strong desires. We extend these rights to other species as we see fit, based on whether we like them or not (kitty nice, virus bad!).

Not trying to defend or justify anything, only trying to understand the mechanics.

 Signature 

Music by me: http://www.myspace.com/gwoodbonobos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 August 2007 05:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 348 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27

[quote author=“g.wood”][quote author=“JETurnbull”]
Where do people like you get off assuming that having children is a basic human right?

It’s a basic compulsion, an instinct, if you will. The drive to reproduce, present in all species, coupled with the intellectual and emotional desire to nurture, is very strong. We make rights of our strong desires. We extend these rights to other species as we see fit, based on whether we like them or not (kitty nice, virus bad!).

Not trying to defend or justify anything, only trying to understand the mechanics.

The mechanism of human reproduction is well-understood. The processes of metabolism (and hence, starvation) are also well-understood. The germ theory of disease is well-developed, as are approaches to controlling disease. The consequences of storms, earthquakes, and strong volcanic eruptions for large population concentrations are observables.

The economics of food production and distribution, and of public health are much more poorly understood, and so people try to find their wiggle room there. Some people who are atheistic in all other respects have a deep belief in human resourcefulness and innate benevolence. I myself do not. And I have an inclination to so get in everyone’s face about it. At least, everyone who goes around, like, “La la la! I can’t hear you!”

 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 August 2007 06:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 349 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1814
Joined  2006-11-10
[quote author=“Salt Creek”] Some people who are atheistic in all other respects have a deep belief in human resourcefulness and innate benevolence. I myself do not. And I have an inclination to so get in everyone’s face about it. At least, everyone who goes around, like, “La la la! I can’t hear you!”


That reminds me of the Dutch poet Willem Kloos who wrote:

“Ik ben een God in ‘t diepst van mijn gedachten,
En zit in ‘t binnenst van mijn ziel ten troon”

Translated to the best of my abilities it reads:

” I am a God in the deepest of my thoughts
and sit on my throne in the middle of my soul “


This sentiment seems hardwired in most of us, religious or not.
The problem is that a cockroach, given vocal cords, would probably proclaim exactly the same.

 Signature 

“You know I’m born to lose, and gambling is for fools.
But that’s the way I like it baby, I don’t want to live forever.”

From the autobiography of A.A.Mills, ‘The passage of time, according to an estranged, casual tyrant.’

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 August 2007 06:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 350 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  192
Joined  2007-05-28

[quote author=“Calamus2k”][quote author=“M is for Malapert”][quote author=“sambarge”]
I’m almost a gay man myself.  Well, I’m a straight woman but that’s pretty close to being a gay man, in a lot of ways.

Hah!  Seriously, that’s funny.

Actually, it’s not that funny… But it’s pretty ignorant, if you ask me. I know this forum isn’t about that and I apologize for going off theme, but I really couldn’t help myself when I saw that remark.

Really?  How so?  Being ignorant wasn’t my intention.  I think in the context that I posted that (in response to VicM’s claim that we were all engaging in homosexuality) it was just an off-hand comment.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 August 2007 06:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 351 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  172
Joined  2007-07-17

g.wood

In one of your earlier posts, you stated that evolution is a fact. It is not. There is no evidence for evolution. And those Christians who are back-peddling on this issue are weak in their belief in the word of God. God created all things as they presently are. In six literal days. Just as the Bible records it.

The branch of “science” that deals with these questions is not real science at all. It is pseudo-science, nothing more.

Men are men, apes are apes, fish are fish, birds are birds, dogs are dogs, cats are cats, etc. What this “science” heavily relies on speculating. Nothing in this arena can be duplicated in a science laboratory and observed, which is what real science is about. These “scientists” find a couple of bones, and what do they do, in the figment of their imagination, create a whole new belief system, designed to deny the existence of God, to give credence to that belief system. That is what is happening. And all of you people who have bought the lie, are it’s sheep.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 August 2007 06:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 352 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  172
Joined  2007-07-17

And contrary to Mr. Harris’ claim that there is abundant unintelligent design, nature reveals very much intelligent design. The very complex order of things makes this very clear. Everything has design (that Mr. Harris doesn’t understand the design of certain creatures, does not negate the fact of intelligent design.)

Unless, of course, one has made up his/her mind that there is no God. In which case, an alternative has to be found. Enter, evolution.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 August 2007 07:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 353 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  172
Joined  2007-07-17

By the way, due to a busy schedule, I will only be able to post for a couple of hours on Fridays and sometimes Saturdays. I’m not ignoring any of your posts. Just want to make that clear.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 August 2007 07:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 354 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  192
Joined  2007-07-26

[quote author=“VicM”]g.wood

In one of your earlier posts, you stated that evolution is a fact. It is not. There is no evidence for evolution. And those Christians who are back-peddling on this issue are weak in their belief in the word of God. God created all things as they presently are. In six literal days. Just as the Bible records it.

The branch of “science” that deals with these questions is not real science at all. It is pseudo-science, nothing more.

Men are men, apes are apes, fish are fish, birds are birds, dogs are dogs, cats are cats, etc. What this “science” heavily relies on speculating. Nothing in this arena can be duplicated in a science laboratory and observed, which is what real science is about. These “scientists” find a couple of bones, and what do they do, in the figment of their imagination, create a whole new belief system, designed to deny the existence of God, to give credence to that belief system. That is what is happening. And all of you people who have bought the lie, are it’s sheep.

Wow, where do we even begin?

First of all there is PLENTY of evidence for evolution.

There will never be enough evidence to prove the EXACT path evolution took, but there is enough evidence out there to give us a rough idea of how it works

The fact that all life on this planet uses the DNA is evidence of evolution. The physical similiarity between primates and humans is evidence of evolution.

Of course the evolution of man will never be able to be recreated in the lab…the mechanics of evolution takes MILLIONS of years…and requires an entire planet to take place on.

But being able to recreate something in a lab is NOT what “real science is all about”

REAL science is the method of coming up with a theory to explain a natural phenomenom, and then devoloping a way to test that theory.

We cannot recreate the interior of a star in a lab…but that doesn’t stop us from coming up with a theory of what is going on…and then testing that theory. THAT is “real science”

Evolution was not devolped to “deny the existence of God”...it was developed to explain what we observed in nature.

(That the theory of evolution contradicted what the Bible says about the origin of life was just a benny!  LOL )

 Signature 

“Whatever you do, don’t read the bible for a moral code: it advocates prejudice, cruelty, superstition, and murder. Read it because we need more atheists, and nothing will get you there faster than reading the damn bible.” - Penn Jillette

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 August 2007 08:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 355 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2136
Joined  2006-02-20

At this moment, bacteria are evolving that can resist antibiotics - in the lab and out of the lab.  In Australia rabbits are evolving that can resist the current methods being used to exterminate them. 

If VicM had been alive when Magellan made his voyage, he would still have denied that the earth was round.  Vic fell asleep under the tree of fundamentalis bigotry.  Its sap ran into his ear, fossilizing his brain.  Science that a 2nd grader can understand is beyond the reach of fundamentalists.

 Signature 

“The simple fables of the religious of the world have come to seem like tales told to children.”  - Nobel Prize recipient - Francis Crick

“It is time we recognized the boundless narcissism and self-deceit of the saved.” - Sam Harris

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 August 2007 09:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 356 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  765
Joined  2006-08-16

[quote author=“VicM”]And contrary to Mr. Harris’ claim that there is abundant unintelligent design, nature reveals very much intelligent design. The very complex order of things makes this very clear. Everything has design (that Mr. Harris doesn’t understand the design of certain creatures, does not negate the fact of intelligent design.)

Unless, of course, one has made up his/her mind that there is no God. In which case, an alternative has to be found. Enter, evolution.

Complex order does not prove intelligent design. Take a look at fractals , simple equations which yield complex, ordered images.

 Signature 

“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” - Voltaire

“Rational arguments do not work on religious people, otherwise there would be no religious people.”—Dr. House

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 August 2007 09:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 357 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2927
Joined  2006-12-17

[quote author=“Rasmussen”]Here’s the best argument I’ve seen for proving that belief in the God of the Bible is irrational.  Written by one of the wisest guys here.  He may be the only one with a self-authored tag line.

Ted Shepherd wrote:

An Omniscient and Omnipotent one cannot know first hand the fear of death, the joy of learning, the agony of despair, or the courage of facing risk. Hence Christianity’s God is logically impossible. Belief in such a God is irrational.

So simple, so concise, so right.  I’ve committed it to memory and have adopted it as my ‘statement of reason.’  Puts the old ‘statement of faith’ to shame.

My interpretation of it gives me that if God is all-knowing and all-powerful, he could, at best, only play pretend when it came to fear, pain and suffering.  Even if he was interested in sampling what some of his children feel on a daily basis, to extremes in war-torn countries or at the hands of pedophiles, he could never know and understand the depth of their pain because as soon as he’d had enough, he could easily turn off the pain and get back to his blissfulness. 

I suppose Christians could argue that he sent Jesus to live a ‘real’ life to get to know us humans and understand real pain and suffering (nails through the hands and feet is quite painful after all), but even Jesus, since he was risen from the dead, is just his most elaborate game of pretend.  If God really is all-knowing, he knew he was going to save Jesus and that his son wasn’t in any real danger after all.  And if he is all-powerful and super hero like, he didn’t need an ounce of courage to intervene, roll the stone away and bring his son back to everlasting life.

So since God, even through his best attempt at trying to understand the human condition, couldn’t have succeeded at experiencing the depths of pain and despair we feel, or the tremendous courage we need to see ourselves and our loved ones through our moments of crises, that leaves at least two things that he doesn’t know.  We humans, therefore, know more than God, and therefore again, he can’t exist.

Thanks for the words, Ted.

Unfortunately, Ted’s argument fails—the appeal to logic is the problem.  At best, it counts against only very trivial conceptions of God.  One form of response could come out of considering animal suffering, for animals that are not self-conscious.  We humans have an ego-identity that suffers, but that also acts as a buffer against suffering (at the very least, it can tell itself that it is suffering for some cause or other and so mute it a bit).  Animals without self-consciousness don’t have that.  When they are in pain, there is simply the presence of pain.  An omniscient God would know that pain (as well as all human pain in its full intensity) as an immediate present experience.  There is no question of “well, I’ve had enough of this, time to turn it off and go back to bliss.”  The entire argument that Ted gives, and as you interpret it, revolves around a false understanding of what omniscience means.  The medieval scholastics worked this out in detail in what they called sciencia dei (the knowledge of God): everything in full intensity, all at once, all the past, all the possible futures, without mediation.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 August 2007 10:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 358 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27

[quote author=“burt”]The medieval scholastics worked this out in detail in what they called sciencia dei (the knowledge of God): everything in full intensity, all at once, all the past, all the possible futures, without mediation.

oooh. yeah. they totally worked it out. fer shur. they had proofs.

As if all that is actually supposed to mean something. Besides a pipe dream, that is.

At best, it counts against only very trivial conceptions of God.

The only kind there is. Otherwise, we would have some evidence.

Other, that is, than someone’s narcissistic rantings.

 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 August 2007 10:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 359 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  112
Joined  2007-07-16

[quote author=“VicM”]g.wood

In one of your earlier posts…

Vic, there’s no room for discussion if you’re just going regurgitate that tired old hard-line dogma. I thought earlier that there might be some chance of an intelligent exchange with you, but I was wrong. So, no reply to what you said.

 Signature 

Music by me: http://www.myspace.com/gwoodbonobos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 August 2007 10:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 360 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  112
Joined  2007-07-16

[quote author=“Salt Creek”][quote author=“g.wood”][quote author=“JETurnbull”]
Where do people like you get off assuming that having children is a basic human right?

It’s a basic compulsion, an instinct, if you will. The drive to reproduce, present in all species, coupled with the intellectual and emotional desire to nurture, is very strong. We make rights of our strong desires. We extend these rights to other species as we see fit, based on whether we like them or not (kitty nice, virus bad!).

Not trying to defend or justify anything, only trying to understand the mechanics.

The mechanism of human reproduction is well-understood. The processes of metabolism (and hence, starvation) are also well-understood. The germ theory of disease is well-developed, as are approaches to controlling disease. The consequences of storms, earthquakes, and strong volcanic eruptions for large population concentrations are observables.

The economics of food production and distribution, and of public health are much more poorly understood, and so people try to find their wiggle room there. Some people who are atheistic in all other respects have a deep belief in human resourcefulness and innate benevolence. I myself do not. And I have an inclination to so get in everyone’s face about it. At least, everyone who goes around, like, “La la la! I can’t hear you!”

Not quite sure what your point is in relation to what I said. I was just trying to reason out “Where do people like you get off assuming that having children is a basic human right?” Maybe I shouldn’t have, since you weren’t talking to me in the first place.

 Signature 

Music by me: http://www.myspace.com/gwoodbonobos

Profile
 
 
   
24 of 29
24
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed