Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Sep 19, 2006, at 9:48 AM, Julia Thompson wrote: Charlie Bell wrote: On 08/09/2006, at 7:16 AM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: Probably you haven't asked the right person. I base my ethical decisions on my ability to empathize. If I know a given action would cause me misery, I know that it's an action I shouldn't perpetrate upon another. ...unless you've asked first. While do unto others is a reasonable first approximation, it can also be arrogance to assume that what we want is what others want. But it's a starting point. On that note, I recommend http://www.autismstreet.org/weblog/?p=17 Important excerpt: The Platinum Rule is: Do unto others as they would have you do unto them. Does that also apply to mega-hot schoolteachers in their 20s and their fourteen-year-old students? Just tossing in a monkey-wrench. ;) I think anything illegal is probably a bad idea, if for no other reason than you might get caught and what will happen as a result probably isn't something YOU want to have done unto you. :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 11:48 AM Tuesday 9/19/2006, Julia Thompson wrote: Charlie Bell wrote: On 08/09/2006, at 7:16 AM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: Probably you haven't asked the right person. I base my ethical decisions on my ability to empathize. If I know a given action would cause me misery, I know that it's an action I shouldn't perpetrate upon another. ...unless you've asked first. While do unto others is a reasonable first approximation, it can also be arrogance to assume that what we want is what others want. But it's a starting point. On that note, I recommend http://www.autismstreet.org/weblog/?p=17 Important excerpt: The Platinum Rule is: Do unto others as they would have you do unto them. Essentially, treat people how THEY want to be treated, and expect others to treat you how YOU want to be treated. The single most important aspect of expecting this from others is communicating how you expect to be treated. Yep, communicate your expectations; anything from how or how not to act, what you will or will not put up with, to what you want or don’t want. You might be surprised, many people are often relieved (even if it is a little unnerving or the circumstances upsetting) to understand what’s actually expected of them Isn't GO AWAY!! sufficient? How about DROP DEAD!? it makes things easier for both of you in the long run. Brief And To The Point Maru That's somewhat rude, and if you're going to have an ongoing relationship with someone (for example, your parents-in-law), you have to work a little harder at it. :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
Ritu wrote: Julia wrote: D. I Own more translations of the Bible than there are regulars on this list. Query: Can you list the translations you own? I'm just curious. A no answer will be accepted graciously. I was saving up qone uestion for you: How many translations would Fool need to own for his statement to be factually accurate? And 'tis okay if you don't want to/can't answer that, and I can be mailed off-list as well. :) Ritu GCU Curious Meself By regulars, I think he means people who post frequently. How frequently is frequent enough, I don't know. So I don't know how many he means. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
On 9/24/06, Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: By regulars, I think he means people who post frequently. How frequently is frequent enough, I don't know. So I don't know how many he means. Julia Well, we can find out simply by asking each poster whether they get enough roughage in their daily diet. ~maru the least intrusive methods are best... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
On Sep 19, 2006, at 9:48 AM, Julia Thompson wrote: Charlie Bell wrote: On 08/09/2006, at 7:16 AM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: Probably you haven't asked the right person. I base my ethical decisions on my ability to empathize. If I know a given action would cause me misery, I know that it's an action I shouldn't perpetrate upon another. ...unless you've asked first. While do unto others is a reasonable first approximation, it can also be arrogance to assume that what we want is what others want. But it's a starting point. On that note, I recommend http://www.autismstreet.org/weblog/?p=17 Important excerpt: The Platinum Rule is: Do unto others as they would have you do unto them. Does that also apply to mega-hot schoolteachers in their 20s and their fourteen-year-old students? Just tossing in a monkey-wrench. ;) -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
Charlie Bell wrote: On 08/09/2006, at 7:16 AM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: Probably you haven't asked the right person. I base my ethical decisions on my ability to empathize. If I know a given action would cause me misery, I know that it's an action I shouldn't perpetrate upon another. ...unless you've asked first. While do unto others is a reasonable first approximation, it can also be arrogance to assume that what we want is what others want. But it's a starting point. On that note, I recommend http://www.autismstreet.org/weblog/?p=17 Important excerpt: The Platinum Rule is: Do unto others as they would have you do unto them. Essentially, treat people how THEY want to be treated, and expect others to treat you how YOU want to be treated. The single most important aspect of expecting this from others is communicating how you expect to be treated. Yep, communicate your expectations; anything from how or how not to act, what you will or will not put up with, to what you want or don’t want. You might be surprised, many people are often relieved (even if it is a little unnerving or the circumstances upsetting) to understand what’s actually expected of them – it makes things easier for both of you in the long run. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
The Fool wrote: From: John W Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] I confess that I do not know as much about atheism as an atheist does, or a least not as much that is correct. But neither do atheists know as much about religion as religious people do, at least not as much that is correct. Some things you cannot understand correctly from the outside looking in. In all advanced fields of learning including both science and religion, most of the knowledge can be learned only after learning the prerequisites. Without those prerequisites, a student must remain ignorant. I know some science, but not much beyond the level of my mathematics which only goes as far as high school algebra, geometry and trigonometry. However, I know the scriptures rather well compared with most. And one thing I can state with dead certainty: The scriptures cannot be correctly understood unless you believe them. Therefore, statements made about religion (scriptures) by atheists are almost always made from a position of bustling ignorance. A. I know more about 'scripture' than you do. Much more. B. I've read the bible, more times than you will for the entire rest of life. C. I've read more about the bible than you ever will. D. I Own more translations of the Bible than there are regulars on this list. Query: Can you list the translations you own? I'm just curious. A no answer will be accepted graciously. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: The Morality of Killing Babies
Julia wrote: D. I Own more translations of the Bible than there are regulars on this list. Query: Can you list the translations you own? I'm just curious. A no answer will be accepted graciously. I was saving up qone uestion for you: How many translations would Fool need to own for his statement to be factually accurate? And 'tis okay if you don't want to/can't answer that, and I can be mailed off-list as well. :) Ritu GCU Curious Meself ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: The Morality of Killing Babies
I said: I was saving up qone uestion for you: That was 'one question' btw... :) Ritu GCU Off to Bed ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
At 11:50 AM Tuesday 9/19/2006, Julia Thompson wrote: The Fool wrote: From: John W Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] I confess that I do not know as much about atheism as an atheist does, or a least not as much that is correct. But neither do atheists know as much about religion as religious people do, at least not as much that is correct. Some things you cannot understand correctly from the outside looking in. In all advanced fields of learning including both science and religion, most of the knowledge can be learned only after learning the prerequisites. Without those prerequisites, a student must remain ignorant. I know some science, but not much beyond the level of my mathematics which only goes as far as high school algebra, geometry and trigonometry. However, I know the scriptures rather well compared with most. And one thing I can state with dead certainty: The scriptures cannot be correctly understood unless you believe them. Therefore, statements made about religion (scriptures) by atheists are almost always made from a position of bustling ignorance. A. I know more about 'scripture' than you do. Much more. B. I've read the bible, more times than you will for the entire rest of life. C. I've read more about the bible than you ever will. D. I Own more translations of the Bible than there are regulars on this list. Query: Can you list the translations you own? I'm just curious. A no answer will be accepted graciously. I just asked for the number, not necessarily a list, and have been waiting ever since for a response . . . FWIW, I have some programs which make a dozen or more different translations available on this machine w/o going on-line, and there are various sites which make more abailable on-line. (I haven't checked recently to see if any new ones are available.) As well as hard copies of several translations around here somewhere. Sorry, I don't have a complete list . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
At 11:48 AM Tuesday 9/19/2006, Julia Thompson wrote: Charlie Bell wrote: On 08/09/2006, at 7:16 AM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: Probably you haven't asked the right person. I base my ethical decisions on my ability to empathize. If I know a given action would cause me misery, I know that it's an action I shouldn't perpetrate upon another. ...unless you've asked first. While do unto others is a reasonable first approximation, it can also be arrogance to assume that what we want is what others want. But it's a starting point. On that note, I recommend http://www.autismstreet.org/weblog/?p=17 Important excerpt: The Platinum Rule is: Do unto others as they would have you do unto them. Essentially, treat people how THEY want to be treated, and expect others to treat you how YOU want to be treated. The single most important aspect of expecting this from others is communicating how you expect to be treated. Yep, communicate your expectations; anything from how or how not to act, what you will or will not put up with, to what you want or dont want. You might be surprised, many people are often relieved (even if it is a little unnerving or the circumstances upsetting) to understand whats actually expected of them Isn't GO AWAY!! sufficient? How about DROP DEAD!? it makes things easier for both of you in the long run. Brief And To The Point Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/18/06, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's not the language of triage, Nick. That's the language of an abortion is just as good as any other choice. Ever had to make a real triage decision? A life-and-death one? John, there are *no* good choices in a triage decision. That's what make it triage. Which is precisely my point.Thanks, Nick. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
On 9/19/06, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Which is precisely my point.Thanks, Nick. But... oh, never mind. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
William T Goodall wrote: On 6 Sep 2006, at 8:33PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: But it requires too much thinking to conclude that - and atheists are no smarter than fundamentalist theists, and will be satisfied with short-range egoistical goals. Short-term egoistical goals for theists mean do good or God will punish you. Short-term egoistical goals for atheists lead to mass murder. The atheists eat less babies than the theists though due to having a rationally designed, probably vegetarian, diet. I've met a number of meat-eating atheists. Then again, I live in Texas Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/15/06, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not anybody that I know of. At best, it is a triage decision. Wow. Finally a view that really gets to the heart of it. Thanks, Nick. I may use that in the future. Too bad its not true. Consider the website of this abortion provider - other than a token sentence about choices, I don't see the words triage anywhere here: So what? The following, from that site, is certainly the language of triage: Your decision has to be made free of coercion, and you have to be well-informed about all the alternatives. Every woman with an unplanned pregnancy faces different and sometimes conflicting emotions: feelings such as insecurity, desperation, anxiety, depression, shame or guilt may compete with happiness. Our counselling service will help you cope with these feelings now and in the future, providing information about all your options and supporting you in making your personal choice. That's not the language of triage, Nick. That's the language of an abortion is just as good as any other choice. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
On 9/18/06, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's not the language of triage, Nick. That's the language of an abortion is just as good as any other choice. Ever had to make a real triage decision? A life-and-death one? John, there are *no* good choices in a triage decision. That's what make it triage. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], John W Redelfs jredelfs@ wrote: People extol the virtues of abortion Not *all* people, Maru. Not anybody that I know of. At best, it is a triage decision. Wow. Finally a view that really gets to the heart of it. Thanks, Nick. I may use that in the future. Too bad its not true. Consider the website of this abortion provider - other than a token sentence about choices, I don't see the words triage anywhere here: http://www.womenonwaves.org/article-1020.273-en.html http://www.womenonwaves.org/article-1020.273-en.html Heck, they even provide their own ultrasound pictures of the unborn child! JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
On 15/09/2006, at 3:29 PM, jdiebremse wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], John W Redelfs jredelfs@ wrote: People extol the virtues of abortion Not *all* people, Maru. Not anybody that I know of. At best, it is a triage decision. Wow. Finally a view that really gets to the heart of it. Thanks, Nick. I may use that in the future. Too bad its not true. It's true for many. Consider the website of this abortion provider - other than a token sentence about choices, I don't see the words triage anywhere here: So what if they don't use the actual word? That doesn't mean that's not what it is to some people and under many circumstances (and I'm guessing that a lot of people wouldn't know what it means anyway...). http://www.womenonwaves.org/article-1020.273-en.html http://www.womenonwaves.org/article-1020.273-en.html Heck, they even provide their own ultrasound pictures of the unborn child! That's potentially tasteless, yes. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
On 9/15/06, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not anybody that I know of. At best, it is a triage decision. Wow. Finally a view that really gets to the heart of it. Thanks, Nick. I may use that in the future. Too bad its not true. Consider the website of this abortion provider - other than a token sentence about choices, I don't see the words triage anywhere here: So what? The following, from that site, is certainly the language of triage: Your decision has to be made free of coercion, and you have to be well-informed about all the alternatives. Every woman with an unplanned pregnancy faces different and sometimes conflicting emotions: feelings such as insecurity, desperation, anxiety, depression, shame or guilt may compete with happiness. Our counselling service will help you cope with these feelings now and in the future, providing information about all your options and supporting you in making your personal choice. You talk as if there are people who are filled with glee at the opportunity to have or perform abortions. I've never met or heard from a single one and I'd suspect serious mental illness if I did. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
On 9/12/06, Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: JohnR said: I may be wrong, because I do not have a lot of confidence in history, but it is my understanding that the One Hundred Years War that took place in Europe following the Protestant Reformation had a huge impact on the population of Europe for many decades. The Hundred Years War lasted from 1337 to 1453. The Reformation was started by Luther in 1517. Were you thinking of the Thirty Years War? Obviously I don't know what I was thinking. I took European history in 1970, and I have obviously forgotten a lot and gotten much of what I do remember confused. I just seem to remember some series of wars practically depopulating Europe at some time or other. I also read once that at one period in French history dueling with swords became so widespread that it almost eliminated the aristocracy. But that is probably baloney that I picked up somewhere and got wrong too. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], John W Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: People extol the virtues of abortion Not *all* people, Maru. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
On 9/14/06, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], John W Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: People extol the virtues of abortion Not *all* people, Maru. Not anybody that I know of. At best, it is a triage decision. At worst, it is murder. Virtue doesn't appear anywhere in that spectrum. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
On 14/09/2006, at 8:59 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: On 9/14/06, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], John W Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: People extol the virtues of abortion Not *all* people, Maru. Not anybody that I know of. At best, it is a triage decision. Wow. Finally a view that really gets to the heart of it. Thanks, Nick. I may use that in the future. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Matt Grimaldi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jim Sharkey wrote: ] The Fool wrote: ] E. You know nothing. You are a Fvcking idiot and a troll. ] Maybe I missed a memo, but I thought we didn't do this kind of ] shit around here. IAAMOAC, and all that. ] ] Are we suspending the guidelines when our dedicated atheists ] and devout theists get into the ring to slug it out now? If we ] are, I can bring popcorn if someone else will bring the beers! As a list, we have not dropped our guidelines The Fool has definitely over-reacted. On the other hand, William *has* been trolling pretty heavily, and the strategy known as hoping it will stop on its own is not faring very well at this point. Should we as a list be consideing counteractive measures? Sadly, this list very rarely seems to do anything other than hope it will stop on its own. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
On 9/7/06, The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: John W Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] I confess that I do not know as much about atheism as an atheist does, or a least not as much that is correct. But neither do atheists know as much about religion as religious people do, at least not as much that is correct. Some things you cannot understand correctly from the outside looking in. In all advanced fields of learning including both science and religion, most of the knowledge can be learned only after learning the prerequisites. Without those prerequisites, a student must remain ignorant. I know some science, but not much beyond the level of my mathematics which only goes as far as high school algebra, geometry and trigonometry. However, I know the scriptures rather well compared with most. And one thing I can state with dead certainty: The scriptures cannot be correctly understood unless you believe them. Therefore, statements made about religion (scriptures) by atheists are almost always made from a position of bustling ignorance. A. I know more about 'scripture' than you do. Much more. B. I've read the bible, more times than you will for the entire rest of life. C. I've read more about the bible than you ever will. D. I Own more translations of the Bible than there are regulars on this list. E. You know nothing. You are a Fvcking idiot and a troll. It is not hard for me to see why you use the handle that you do in email. Think about what you have just written. How could you be sure you know more about scripture than I do when you do not know how much I know? How could you know you have read the Bible more times than I have when you do not know how many times I have read it? Ditto to your assertion labeled C above. As for your assertion labeled D, does owning many translations necessarily mean that you understand any of them? It seems to me that a person might become confused if he owned too many translations, especially if he had no criteria for knowing which of the translations were any good. Have you ever considered that all of the translations might be bad? If that were so, just how much would your knowledge of the Bible be worth then? Is every one you disagree with a lowbrow explitive deleted idiot and a troll? Or just me? You strike me as a person who thinks himself much smarter than he really is and much better educated than is the actual case. Your opinions might be a bit more convincing if they were expressed with a little more humility. As my Uncle Bob used to say, It isn't what you don't know that hurts you. It's what you know that's not so. Lots of people know a great deal more than I do. I'm sure that you do. I do not know very much. Hardly anything. But I suspect that a great deal of what you know is false, perhaps all of it or nearly all of it. If that is the case, then your lofty education really isn't much of an education at all. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
On 9/7/06, Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So you want your brothers and sisters to die in large numbers through famine, pestilence and war? Or have you just failed to write clearly enough to convey what you really mean? I would rather my brothers and sisters, the whole human race, would stop killing each other unnecessarily. But if we are all just organisms, nothing more, then why would abortion and birth control be any better for controlling population than war, pestilence and famine? If we are in effect nothing more than so many bacteria in a petrie dish called Earth, what possible difference could it make which method is used for controlling the growth of the culture? In fact, when you consider how much disgusting and unnecessary slaughter, poverty and starvation there is. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to throw the petrie dish into an autoclave and have done with the bacterial culture within it. Nothing at all is better than what has been going on. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
On 9/8/06, Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John W Redelfs wrote: So what? In the USA people need to eat less anyway. And globally, there needs to be a reduction in population that could most easily be effected by widespread starvation. People extol the virtues of abortion and birth control, but doesn't starvation, disease and war control over population just as well? No. Starvation and War have, historically, made no impact on the growth of population - probably they even had the opposite effect. And disease should be quite devastating - like AIDS in Africa - to have a significant effect. Well, when you consider that mankind has been around during historical times for over 6,000 years, and when you consider that accurate census data has only been available for a little of a hundred years, and when you consider that such data has been available only in those parts of the world where there are accurate censuses taken, I find it hard to take your above assertion seriously. How could you or anyone possibly know? I may be wrong, because I do not have a lot of confidence in history, but it is my understanding that the One Hundred Years War that took place in Europe following the Protestant Reformation had a huge impact on the population of Europe for many decades. Historical records seem to indicate that the Black Death of the 14th Century had an enormous impact. Some reputable paleoanthropologists who have made a life's study of prehistoric America now believe that when Europeans made first contact with the natives of America, that smallpox preceded them everywhere they went and was responsible for the relative emptiness of the Americas which actually had a much larger population than has been previously thought. But you may be right. I just have no confidence that you are. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
Hundred Years War predates the Prodestant Reformation by nearly 75 years... Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Trumpeter's Marder I auf GW 38(h) Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. -Original Message- From: John W Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 04:07:33 To:Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: The Morality of Killing Babies On 9/8/06, Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John W Redelfs wrote: So what? In the USA people need to eat less anyway. And globally, there needs to be a reduction in population that could most easily be effected by widespread starvation. People extol the virtues of abortion and birth control, but doesn't starvation, disease and war control over population just as well? No. Starvation and War have, historically, made no impact on the growth of population - probably they even had the opposite effect. And disease should be quite devastating - like AIDS in Africa - to have a significant effect. Well, when you consider that mankind has been around during historical times for over 6,000 years, and when you consider that accurate census data has only been available for a little of a hundred years, and when you consider that such data has been available only in those parts of the world where there are accurate censuses taken, I find it hard to take your above assertion seriously. How could you or anyone possibly know? I may be wrong, because I do not have a lot of confidence in history, but it is my understanding that the One Hundred Years War that took place in Europe following the Protestant Reformation had a huge impact on the population of Europe for many decades. Historical records seem to indicate that the Black Death of the 14th Century had an enormous impact. Some reputable paleoanthropologists who have made a life's study of prehistoric America now believe that when Europeans made first contact with the natives of America, that smallpox preceded them everywhere they went and was responsible for the relative emptiness of the Americas which actually had a much larger population than has been previously thought. But you may be right. I just have no confidence that you are. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
John W Redelfs wrote: Starvation and War have, historically, made no impact on the growth of population - probably they even had the opposite effect. And disease should be quite devastating - like AIDS in Africa - to have a significant effect. Well, when you consider that mankind has been around during historical times for over 6,000 years, and when you consider that accurate census data has only been available for a little of a hundred years, and when you consider that such data has been available only in those parts of the world where there are accurate censuses taken, I find it hard to take your above assertion seriously. How could you or anyone possibly know? Archeological data, taxation data, etc. *** Of course *** there are errors, but you can't expect human sciences to be error-free when even exact sciences are filled with measurement errors. I may be wrong, because I do not have a lot of confidence in history, I can see that. but it is my understanding that the One Hundred Years War that took place in Europe following the Protestant Reformation had a huge impact on the population of Europe for many decades. _The_ One Hundred Years War happened much earlier, between the Crusades and the Renaisance. Those wars that followed the Protestant Reformation were not collectively named, except for the 30 Years War in (now) Germany. Historical records seem to indicate that the Black Death of the 14th Century had an enormous impact. Yes, it had. But for only a short period. If you plot population data of Europe over the years, you will see a drop caused by War and Pestilence. But if you erase those years and try to fit a projecting line, it's as if those years were normal. The meaning of this is clear: as soon as the cause for the drop vanishes, population repleshes with a vengeance, resuming its growth _as if there were no Wars or Pestilence_. Some reputable paleoanthropologists who have made a life's study of prehistoric America now believe that when Europeans made first contact with the natives of America, that smallpox preceded them everywhere they went and was responsible for the relative emptiness of the Americas which actually had a much larger population than has been previously thought. But you may be right. I just have no confidence that you are. I may be wrong - that's how science works, and we aren't exactly scientists [we have no data!]. But look at the Americas: even if this effect in the Native Population is real [I think so, but let's be skeptic], it was only a short-time effect, and, when Europeans came, they filled all the niches emptied by Natives with a corresponding explosion. Maybe in 30 or 50 years, after AIDS eliminates most Africans, Africa will be occupied by 1 billion chinese and 1 billion indians. But I'm almost sure that the population of Africa will not keep going down for a long time. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
Damon Agretto wrote: Hundred Years War predates the Prodestant Reformation by nearly 75 years... I've heard some people mention those Religious Wars as The Second Hundred Years Wars, and the sequence of France-England Wars that began in c.1700 and ended in 1815 as The Third Hundred Years Wars. Of course, if we want to be accurate _and_ optimistic, we should call all the european wars from the Peloponesian War to the Fall of Berlin's Wall as The Two and a Half Thousand Years War. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
JohnR said: I may be wrong, because I do not have a lot of confidence in history, but it is my understanding that the One Hundred Years War that took place in Europe following the Protestant Reformation had a huge impact on the population of Europe for many decades. The Hundred Years War lasted from 1337 to 1453. The Reformation was started by Luther in 1517. Were you thinking of the Thirty Years War? Rich GCU Hundred, Thirty, Whatever ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
I have my links at home, but IIRC Europe was able to match the pre-plague population within appprox. 150 years. So yes, population rebounded pretty fast... Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Trumpeter's Marder I auf GW 38(h) Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. -Original Message- From: Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 14:54:38 To:Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: The Morality of Killing Babies John W Redelfs wrote: Starvation and War have, historically, made no impact on the growth of population - probably they even had the opposite effect. And disease should be quite devastating - like AIDS in Africa - to have a significant effect. Well, when you consider that mankind has been around during historical times for over 6,000 years, and when you consider that accurate census data has only been available for a little of a hundred years, and when you consider that such data has been available only in those parts of the world where there are accurate censuses taken, I find it hard to take your above assertion seriously. How could you or anyone possibly know? Archeological data, taxation data, etc. *** Of course *** there are errors, but you can't expect human sciences to be error-free when even exact sciences are filled with measurement errors. I may be wrong, because I do not have a lot of confidence in history, I can see that. but it is my understanding that the One Hundred Years War that took place in Europe following the Protestant Reformation had a huge impact on the population of Europe for many decades. _The_ One Hundred Years War happened much earlier, between the Crusades and the Renaisance. Those wars that followed the Protestant Reformation were not collectively named, except for the 30 Years War in (now) Germany. Historical records seem to indicate that the Black Death of the 14th Century had an enormous impact. Yes, it had. But for only a short period. If you plot population data of Europe over the years, you will see a drop caused by War and Pestilence. But if you erase those years and try to fit a projecting line, it's as if those years were normal. The meaning of this is clear: as soon as the cause for the drop vanishes, population repleshes with a vengeance, resuming its growth _as if there were no Wars or Pestilence_. Some reputable paleoanthropologists who have made a life's study of prehistoric America now believe that when Europeans made first contact with the natives of America, that smallpox preceded them everywhere they went and was responsible for the relative emptiness of the Americas which actually had a much larger population than has been previously thought. But you may be right. I just have no confidence that you are. I may be wrong - that's how science works, and we aren't exactly scientists [we have no data!]. But look at the Americas: even if this effect in the Native Population is real [I think so, but let's be skeptic], it was only a short-time effect, and, when Europeans came, they filled all the niches emptied by Natives with a corresponding explosion. Maybe in 30 or 50 years, after AIDS eliminates most Africans, Africa will be occupied by 1 billion chinese and 1 billion indians. But I'm almost sure that the population of Africa will not keep going down for a long time. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
Well, to be frank, I've never heard these terms. And while I have no problems overturning sacred cows (- dislike the nebulous term The Rennaisance and reject the terms Dark Ages), I don't think the Wars of Religion, nor the Napoleonic wars to be sufficiently related to be lumped together... Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Trumpeter's Marder I auf GW 38(h) Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. -Original Message- From: Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 15:04:04 To:Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: The Morality of Killing Babies Damon Agretto wrote: Hundred Years War predates the Prodestant Reformation by nearly 75 years... I've heard some people mention those Religious Wars as The Second Hundred Years Wars, and the sequence of France-England Wars that began in c.1700 and ended in 1815 as The Third Hundred Years Wars. Of course, if we want to be accurate _and_ optimistic, we should call all the european wars from the Peloponesian War to the Fall of Berlin's Wall as The Two and a Half Thousand Years War. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: The Morality of Killing Babies
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Baker Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 4:21 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: The Morality of Killing Babies Dan said: Actually, it is possible, with a simple assumption, to do more than that. Again, I fully admit that there is no proof, but I think that...if the transcendental is partially and imperfectly discerned by humans, then one can reach some general conclusions about our best bets at approaching the truth when it comes to ethics. I'll stop here to see if you think that is a presupposition that is worth exploring further. I'm always interested to hear what you have to say on such things, even though I'm fairly sceptical about the possibility of discerning anything transcendental. Rich I'm writing a short note just to let you know that I'm working on this. But, I'm happy to say I'm now very busy at work...and have only written about a page so far. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
On 9/7/06, The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: E. You know nothing. You are a Fvcking idiot and a troll. And you have made an unambiguously personal attack there... which is contrary to our community's guidelines. I'm inclined to be less tolerant of personal attacks by people who participate via an obvious pseudonym, since that is also contrary to our guidelines. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
On 9/8/06, Jim Sharkey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are we suspending the guidelines when our dedicated atheists and devout theists get into the ring to slug it out now? If we are, I can bring popcorn if someone else will bring the beers! We had a serious shortage of list managers starting Friday morning... I'm trying to catch up now. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
At 12:52 PM Monday 9/11/2006, Nick Arnett wrote: On 9/7/06, The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: E. You know nothing. You are a Fvcking idiot and a troll. And you have made an unambiguously personal attack there... which is contrary to our community's guidelines. I'm inclined to be less tolerant of personal attacks by people who participate via an obvious pseudonym, since that is also contrary to our guidelines. Nick FWIW, I am still hoping that The Fool will respond to my request for specific quantified answers to points A through D, viz., At 01:55 AM Friday 9/8/2006, The Fool wrote: [...] A. I know more about 'scripture' than you do. Much more. Perhaps hard to briefly quantify, but perhaps you can try. B. I've read the bible, more times than you will for the entire rest of life. Approximately how many times? 5? 10? 13? 20? 25? . . . ?? C. I've read more about the bible than you ever will. Approximately how much would that be? D. I Own more translations of the Bible than there are regulars on this list. Approximately how many? 5? 10? 13? 20? 25? . . . ?? (Though one might note that there is a possible difference between own and have read . . . ) -- Ronn! :P Not Being A Smart-Aleck This Time. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
On 8 Sep 2006 at 0:55, The Fool wrote: A. I know more about 'scripture' than you do. Much more. Yes, well done, you can misreprisent unrelated quotes from it very well. Seen it. And? Unless there's something you'd like to tell us about yourself. *grins* AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
In a message dated 9/6/2006 7:58:49 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Upon what do atheists base their morality? I've never been able to understand this. If selection of the species is determined by survival of the fittest, isn't might the ultimate good, biologically speaking? The strong are just doing nature a favor by rubbing out the weak, preferably before they have a chance to reproduce. Following this line of reasoning, would not killing babies be one of the moral things a person could do? That way only the babies of the strongest parents would be able to survive, and that would improve the bloodline, isn't that so? I am late to this discussion - Have been in Salzburg all week - but the notion that atheist are by definition immoral or that only with religion can there be a reason for living and a reason to be good is simply not true. We are social animals; like all social animals we succeed (produce more offspring or more correctly more grand children) by being successful in our social interaction. We act morally and fairly because this the best way to achieve success. We engage in complex games of tit for tat (you do well by me; I will do well by you; you cheat and I will not interact with you in the future). In order to do this we have developed exquisite tools for detecting cheaters and liars. We have built in tools for deciding what is fair and what is not. There is a huge amount of research (in particular in game theory) that confirms that morality is inborn. We experience fairness as pleasure, lying as pain. All theoretical issues aside - in a practical real world sense the question is are atheists any more likely to be immoral and evil than religious people? I think not. I am a moral person and yet I do not believe in god. I am not a doctrinaire atheist in the sense of thinking religious people are crazy stupid or evil. I just don't believe in god. I can't see how one can reconcile an all powerful entity that is good and yet would allow such pain and suffering in the world . I know the god works in mysterious ways' argument but if we are not allowed to blame god for evil because we cannot know his ways how can we credit him with good? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
In a message dated 9/6/2006 9:32:07 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Or: how does God Himself decide what is good and evil? Isn't He, at least, basically in the same position as us atheists? One of trickiest issues for the notion of god is whether god knows there is good or evil. If there is good and evil that god judges then there is something outside of god that constrains god's behavior and therefore god is not the ultimate thing in the universe. If on the other hand god just does what god does than there is no good or evil and there is no basis for morality. (argument curtsey of Spinoza). ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
At 04:28 PM Friday 9/8/2006, Matt Grimaldi wrote: I'll stop by Joe's Artificial Organ and Taco Stand on the way. I think I've eaten there. Or at least somewhere that got their food from there . . . Barf Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
At 01:55 AM Friday 9/8/2006, The Fool wrote: A. I know more about 'scripture' than you do. Much more. B. I've read the bible, more times than you will for the entire rest of life. C. I've read more about the bible than you ever will. D. I Own more translations of the Bible than there are regulars on this list. Would you care to quantify your answers? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
Matt Grimaldi wrote: As a list, we have not dropped our guidelines The Fool has definitely over-reacted. On the other hand, William *has* been trolling pretty heavily, and the strategy known as hoping it will stop on its own is not faring very well at this point. Just to clear this up, the Fool was referring to Brother John in his original post. Jim Clarification Maru ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
JohnR said: So what? In the USA people need to eat less anyway. And globally, there needs to be a reduction in population that could most easily be effected by widespread starvation. People extol the virtues of abortion and birth control, but doesn't starvation, disease and war control over population just as well? I fail to see the advantages of birth control and abortion. That is, I would if I did not believe that every human being on this earth is a child of the same Heavenly Father and hence truly brothers and sisters. So you want your brothers and sisters to die in large numbers through famine, pestilence and war? Or have you just failed to write clearly enough to convey what you really mean? Rich VFP Nice Family! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
On 08/09/2006, at 7:16 AM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: Probably you haven't asked the right person. I base my ethical decisions on my ability to empathize. If I know a given action would cause me misery, I know that it's an action I shouldn't perpetrate upon another. ...unless you've asked first. While do unto others is a reasonable first approximation, it can also be arrogance to assume that what we want is what others want. But it's a starting point. Hopefully this clarifies things. If selection of the species is determined by survival of the fittest, isn't might the ultimate good, biologically speaking? This is where we're getting into convolutions. You seem to have the impression that survival fitness is equal to battle/struggle/ fighting, but that's a very narrowly-applicable view. Fitness has more to do with propagation than it does with a battle to survive; a celibate organism will not pass on its genes regardless of how successful it is in a field of combat. *Any* field of combat, including not drowning in a pool of water or surviving a drought or being fortunate enough not to live on the side of an active volcano. There's a tremendous amount of contingency brought about by environmental and population factors that profoundly affects probability of yielding offspring. The nature red in tooth and claw idea is a vast -- and largely inaccurate -- oversimplification. Certainly is. Anyone who says it, just as anyone who dismisses selection as random, needs to go learn what evolution is and how the processes that drive evolution are thought to work. Following this line of reasoning, would not killing babies be one of the moral things a person could do? That way only the babies of the strongest parents would be able to survive, and that would improve the bloodline, isn't that so? In some species this appears to happen, at least to some extent. When a lion takes over a pride, for instance, it kills the cubs that were spawned by its predecessor. This forces the females into heat, which allows the lion to mate with them and ensure his own genes' supremacy in the pride. Better example - cuckoo chicks which eliminate the eggs of the host species, or sand tiger shark pups which eat each other in the womb, until only one is left in each horn of the uterus. (I see The Fool mentioned this as well!) Of course, there are other species which show strong in-group altruism; for instance, you won't find that behavior in chimpanzee society except in cases of extreme aberration (turns out chimps can suffer from some of the same mental sicknesses that we can). We're much more genetically aligned with chimps than lions, so from even a strictly biological viewpoint it shouldn't be too surprising that we don't put much effort into killing off the weak within our own groups. We do find evidence of sneaky infidelity in chimps. Us apes seem to be a lot similar than many would like to think. So to answer your subject: By knowing how I would feel were an infant child of mine killed, I know that it would be grossly unethical (or wrong) of me to kill someone else's child. Could play the fun with grey areas game here, but I agree with you mostly so I think I'll leave it there. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
On 08/09/2006, at 7:54 AM, John W Redelfs wrote: I confess that I do not know as much about atheism as an atheist does, or a least not as much that is correct. Yes, that's clear. But neither do atheists know as much about religion as religious people do, at least not as much that is correct. No. Wrong. You assumed that all atheists were always atheists just there. I'm not. Was a practising and fully believing Christian, raised C of E, attending evangelical churches, Christian summer camps, ran Bible study groups at school and uni. Maybe *many* atheists don't know much about religion, but many do too. Of course, you can dismiss me by saying something like well, you stopped believing, so you must have not understood or truly believed, but that's both arrogant and disingenuous. The scriptures cannot be correctly understood unless you believe them. Utter rot, sorry. Therefore, statements made about religion (scriptures) by atheists are almost always made from a position of bustling ignorance. And that doesn't follow from your last assertion anyway, even if your last assertion were true. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: The Morality of Killing Babies
John W Redelfs wrote: I confess that I do not know as much about atheism as an atheist does, or a least not as much that is correct. But neither do atheists know as much about religion as religious people do, at least not as much that is correct. Some things you cannot understand correctly from the outside looking in. As charlie pointed out, a lot of atheists weren't always outsiders looking in. They were insiders looking around, and many of them are probably better at the details of the scri[pture and its practices than uncritical believers. I know one of my uncles definitely falls into this category. And one thing I can state with dead certainty: The scriptures cannot be correctly understood unless you believe them. That's not necessarily true. Belief is not a prerequisite for understanding words on a paper. While the scriptures cannot be accepted without belief, understanding them is a simpler task. And all the latter requires are tools of basic comprehension, further study, and reasearch. This drive for understanding might be fuelled by belief, but it might as easily be fuelled by doubt. Or simple curiousity. Belief doesn't have much of a role in understanding scriptures, but if we had enough information, I would not be surprised to find that belief might have actually hindered such understanding over the centuries rather than helped it along. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: The Morality of Killing Babies
Ritu said: That's not necessarily true. Belief is not a prerequisite for understanding words on a paper. While the scriptures cannot be accepted without belief, understanding them is a simpler task. And all the latter requires are tools of basic comprehension, further study, and reasearch. This drive for understanding might be fuelled by belief, but it might as easily be fuelled by doubt. Or simple curiousity. Belief doesn't have much of a role in understanding scriptures, but if we had enough information, I would not be surprised to find that belief might have actually hindered such understanding over the centuries rather than helped it along. I think JohnR's argument is that belief breathes the fire into the words and unless you believe you don't experience that fire and so don't truly understand. But I think there is no fire, just the power of wishful thinking to make people feel intense things. Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
John W Redelfs wrote: So what? In the USA people need to eat less anyway. And globally, there needs to be a reduction in population that could most easily be effected by widespread starvation. People extol the virtues of abortion and birth control, but doesn't starvation, disease and war control over population just as well? No. Starvation and War have, historically, made no impact on the growth of population - probably they even had the opposite effect. And disease should be quite devastating - like AIDS in Africa - to have a significant effect. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: The Morality of Killing Babies
Rich said: I think JohnR's argument is that belief breathes the fire into the words and unless you believe you don't experience that fire and so don't truly understand. But aren't the words, or the ideas behind them, supposed to breathe the fire? I can go as far as a suspension of disbelief, but to hold that belief is prerequisite for the fire...well, that just points to sloppy writing, or sloppy expression of an idea. But I think there is no fire, just the power of wishful thinking to make people feel intense things. And good writing,let's not forget the good writing... Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
The Fool wrote: E. You know nothing. You are a Fvcking idiot and a troll. Maybe I missed a memo, but I thought we didn't do this kind of shit around here. IAAMOAC, and all that. Are we suspending the guidelines when our dedicated atheists and devout theists get into the ring to slug it out now? If we are, I can bring popcorn if someone else will bring the beers! Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
On 08/09/2006, at 3:14 PM, Jim Sharkey wrote: The Fool wrote: E. You know nothing. You are a Fvcking idiot and a troll. Maybe I missed a memo, but I thought we didn't do this kind of shit around here. IAAMOAC, and all that. Are we suspending the guidelines when our dedicated atheists and devout theists get into the ring to slug it out now? I hope not. I'll call an idea idiotic but I'm not gonna call a fellow Listee an idiot. If we are, I can bring popcorn if someone else will bring the beers! Bloody cold medication says don't drink. So I stopped taking it - there's no way I'm not drinking at my own party tonight... :D Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: The Morality of Killing Babies
Charlie said: Bloody cold medication says don't drink. So I stopped taking it - there's no way I'm not drinking at my own party tonight... :D *g* Well, from extensive experience, I can tell you that you will be just fine tonight, but will feel like dying tomorrow morning. :) Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
Jim Sharkey wrote: E. You know nothing. You are a Fvcking idiot and a troll. Maybe I missed a memo, but I thought we didn't do this kind of shit around here. IAAMOAC, and all that. Are we suspending the guidelines when our dedicated atheists and devout theists get into the ring to slug it out now? If we are, I can bring popcorn if someone else will bring the beers! And who's bringing the fried babies, and who's bringing the living sacrificial victms whose heart we will extract and eat? Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: The Morality of Killing Babies
Alberto wrote And who's bringing the fried babies, and who's bringing the living sacrificial victms whose heart we will extract and eat? Alberto, If you don't want to host the party, just say so. We'll just find another venue. There's no need to rustle up a gruesome menu Ritu GCU Really, No Hard Feelings ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
On 8 Sep 2006, at 1:33PM, Ritu wrote: Charlie said: Bloody cold medication says don't drink. So I stopped taking it - there's no way I'm not drinking at my own party tonight... :D *g* Well, from extensive experience, I can tell you that you will be just fine tonight, but will feel like dying tomorrow morning. :) I've always found plenty of strong drink is a great cold cure. Or takes one's mind off it at any rate :- Diuretic Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Due to a typographical error the entire arctic deployment had been issued Turkish pastries as headwear. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
Charlie Bell wrote: Bloody cold medication says don't drink. So I stopped taking it - there's no way I'm not drinking at my own party tonight... :D Well, that's one way to handle it, I suppose. :) Of course, you're going to be sorry tomorrow, but as long as you accept that going in... Jim Raise a glass in toast Maru ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
Alberto Monteiro wrote: Jim Sharkey wrote: Are we suspending the guidelines when our dedicated atheists and devout theists get into the ring to slug it out now? If we are, I can bring popcorn if someone else will bring the beers! And who's bringing the fried babies, and who's bringing the living sacrificial victms whose heart we will extract and eat? I think a game of rock, paper, scissors should be used to decide who gets the infanticide and who gets the ritual murder. It;s the only fair way. Jim Good old rock; nothin' beats rock Maru ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
On 08/09/2006, at 5:15 PM, Jim Sharkey wrote: Charlie Bell wrote: Bloody cold medication says don't drink. So I stopped taking it - there's no way I'm not drinking at my own party tonight... :D Well, that's one way to handle it, I suppose. :) Of course, you're going to be sorry tomorrow, but as long as you accept that going in... Yep. There are always Consequences. Jim Raise a glass in toast Maru Cheers!!! *clink* Charlie Wedding Reception 2.0 Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
Hi! Hello, HELLO... earth calling ethereal c On Sep 7, 2006, at 10:00 PM, John W Redelfs wrote: On 9/7/06, Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And there in fact is a rational argument in favour of vegetarianism, because a given area of land can feed more vegetarians than meat eaters essentially because of thermodynamics. More solar energy gets into plants used as human food than into plant-eating animals used as human food. So what? In the USA people need to eat less anyway. And globally, there needs to be a reduction in population that could most easily be effected by widespread starvation. People extol the virtues of abortion and birth control, but doesn't starvation, disease and war control over population just as well? I fail to see the advantages of birth control and abortion. That is, I would if I did not believe that every human being on this earth is a child of the same Heavenly Father and hence truly brothers and sisters. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** What an amazingly callous thing for a proponent of sartorial living. That you can equate the death of a newly gelling organiform - not even a fetus - with a child suffering war and disease is amazing. On a simple neuron-count alone wouldn't the grown and raised child have a lot more pain to feel than the empty vessel just starting in a womb? What is this, if God won't smite them, I will?!? Such family values! Can you please rethink and restate this? - Jonathan - ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
Warren,
Brilliant rebuttal. Your examples and premise work for me!
{no further comment below}
-Jonathan-
On Sep 7, 2006, at 9:16 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
There's a bit of convolution here; before a meaningful discussion can
happen in some areas I think some of it has to be untangled.
On Sep 6, 2006, at 4:58 AM, John W Redelfs wrote:
My atheist father used to tell me that might makes right is a bad
philosophy? Why?
Succinctly, if it were a valid philosophy, there would have been
nothing wrong, ethically or morally, had the Nazis won WWII. Whether
one is an atheist, agnostic or theist, I think we can agree that
might makes right is not de facto true.
Unless there is a God who is against it, why would that
philosophy be any better or worse than any other?
Why would any philosophy that creates suffering be worse than a
philosophy that reduces it, whether there is a god or not? Put another
way, do we (does anyone) need a deity to tell us that beating a child
is reprehensible?
Upon what do atheists base
their morality? I've never been able to understand this.
Probably you haven't asked the right person. I base my ethical
decisions on my ability to empathize. If I know a given action would
cause me misery, I know that it's an action I shouldn't perpetrate
upon another. (I believe there's a Christian analogue to this
referring to auriferous yardsticks or some such.)
Hopefully this clarifies things.
If selection of
the species is determined by survival of the fittest, isn't might
the
ultimate good, biologically speaking?
This is where we're getting into convolutions. You seem to have the
impression that survival fitness is equal to battle/struggle/fighting,
but that's a very narrowly-applicable view. Fitness has more to do
with propagation than it does with a battle to survive; a celibate
organism will not pass on its genes regardless of how successful it is
in a field of combat. *Any* field of combat, including not drowning in
a pool of water or surviving a drought or being fortunate enough not
to live on the side of an active volcano.
There's a tremendous amount of contingency brought about by
environmental and population factors that profoundly affects
probability of yielding offspring. The nature red in tooth and claw
idea is a vast -- and largely inaccurate -- oversimplification.
The strong are just doing nature a
favor by rubbing out the weak, preferably before they have a chance to
reproduce.
You're again seeing things narrowly. Is the bird flu virus stronger
than the birds it's killing? On one level, you could argue the answer
is yes; however, birds that survive the virus are actually doing the
reverse of your conclusion (being weak, therefore rubbed out) and are
in fact having the tables turned -- it's the virus that gets
eliminated, not the bird. (I know this isn't wholly accurate, but I
couldn't think of a bacterial analogue off the top of my head.)
Following this line of reasoning, would not killing babies be
one of the moral things a person could do? That way only the
babies of
the strongest parents would be able to survive, and that would
improve the
bloodline, isn't that so?
In some species this appears to happen, at least to some extent. When
a lion takes over a pride, for instance, it kills the cubs that were
spawned by its predecessor. This forces the females into heat, which
allows the lion to mate with them and ensure his own genes' supremacy
in the pride.
(I see The Fool mentioned this as well!)
Of course, there are other species which show strong in-group
altruism; for instance, you won't find that behavior in chimpanzee
society except in cases of extreme aberration (turns out chimps can
suffer from some of the same mental sicknesses that we can). We're
much more genetically aligned with chimps than lions, so from even a
strictly biological viewpoint it shouldn't be too surprising that we
don't put much effort into killing off the weak within our own groups.
Of course, *outside* our groups, anything goes, and has for a long,
long time indeed:
8 O daughter Babylon, you devastator!
Happy shall they be who pay you back
what you have done to us!
9 Happy shall they be who take your little ones
and dash them against the rock!
(Psalms 137:8-9)
Thus we can find support for virtually every conceivable atrocity,
even in Holy Writ, provided that atrocity is committed against those
who are not part of our group.
Put another way, there's no rational way to argue that religion or
faith in a deity automatically places one in a position to know what
is moral or not relative to someone who does not believe in a deity.
Might does not make right; a holy book doesn't either; and neither
does eschewing scripture.
What makes right is understanding:
1. Right is a very plastic term that is subject to interpretation on
the individual, family, group and societal/national level;
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
Jim Sharkey wrote: ] The Fool wrote: ] E. You know nothing. You are a Fvcking idiot and a troll. ] Maybe I missed a memo, but I thought we didn't do this kind of ] shit around here. IAAMOAC, and all that. ] ] Are we suspending the guidelines when our dedicated atheists ] and devout theists get into the ring to slug it out now? If we ] are, I can bring popcorn if someone else will bring the beers! As a list, we have not dropped our guidelines The Fool has definitely over-reacted. On the other hand, William *has* been trolling pretty heavily, and the strategy known as hoping it will stop on its own is not faring very well at this point. Should we as a list be consideing counteractive measures? -- Matt ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
I'll stop by Joe's Artificial Organ and Taco Stand on the way. - Original Message From: Ritu [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Friday, September 8, 2006 5:51:01 AM Subject: RE: The Morality of Killing Babies Alberto wrote And who's bringing the fried babies, and who's bringing the living sacrificial victms whose heart we will extract and eat? Alberto, If you don't want to host the party, just say so. We'll just find another venue. There's no need to rustle up a gruesome menu Ritu GCU Really, No Hard Feelings ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
On 8 Sep 2006, at 10:25PM, Matt Grimaldi wrote: As a list, we have not dropped our guidelines The Fool has definitely over-reacted. On the other hand, William *has* been trolling pretty heavily, and the strategy known as hoping it will stop on its own is not faring very well at this point. Should we as a list be consideing counteractive measures? If I'm a troll so are several other frequent contributors to this list.[1] Banning certain controversial topics would be one way to go but if people avoid ad hominem attacks and keep threads on topic with title changes if the topic mutates then just not reading what you don't want to read is rather simple. I don't Maru [1] Abortion anyone? Evil Clinton/Bush US politics? -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ How long a minute is depends on which side of the bathroom door you're on. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: The Morality of Killing Babies
Rich wrote: My atheist father used to tell me that might makes right is a bad philosophy? Why? Isn't might makes right basically the religious position? Uh, no. At least not in the religion I was born into. We do have a saying which translates into 'Truth always wins' but that is never a guarantee. Most of the mythology is filled with demi-gods whining about how they have been defeated by the demons. And their constant refrain during these situations is 'X isn't right but he is mightier than us, and if you don't help us now, then it will be a case of might being right, and that wouldn't be good...so ,y'know, could you kindly use *your* might to put things to right...?' There is, as far as I can make out, the usual collection of 'right actions/values' and anyone who goes against them, be it the gods and demigods themselves, is 'wrong', no matter how mighty they may be. Or: how does God Himself decide what is good and evil? Isn't He, at least, basically in the same position as us atheists? Gods tend to be monitors in this respect - they have a set of rules to follow and enforce. The rules weren't devised by them but their help is needed to ensure that those inclined towards bullying don't get away with it. Since, direct divine intervention hardly occurs, there are a lot of tales and sayings praising the importance of a strong will, and self-reliance, and keeping faith in gods while one battles against evil. :) Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: The Morality of Killing Babies
William T Goodall asked: Richard Baker wrote: If not, then I fail to see how the religious and atheist positions differ. Or: how does God Himself decide what is good and evil? Isn't He, at least, basically in the same position as us atheists? I guess so, unless he himself has a God as I believe. And does God's God have a God too? And if so does he have a God? And does God's God's God's God have a God? Well yes. Gods have gods, who again have gods, and then they all worship each other when the mood strikes them, and help each other when the mood strikes them...In the end, and maybe even in the beginning, there is the Param Brahm though, and nobody knows anything much about *that*. I believe reams upon reams were once written to speculate on the PB, and the best answer/explanation was considered to be 'That art thou'. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
William T Goodall wrote: On 6 Sep 2006, at 4:13PM, Brother John wrote: Richard Baker wrote: If not, then I fail to see how the religious and atheist positions differ. Or: how does God Himself decide what is good and evil? Isn't He, at least, basically in the same position as us atheists? I guess so, unless he himself has a God as I believe. And does God's God have a God too? And if so does he have a God? And does God's God's God's God have a God? Absolutely, and it goes on forever. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
Alberto Monteiro wrote: I think you should be careful to define _what_ are the goals, so that you can define what is good and what is evil. If the goal is the long-range survival of intelligence and diversity, or even of diversity of intelligence, then killing weak babies is evil. But it requires too much thinking to conclude that - and atheists are no smarter than fundamentalist theists, and will be satisfied with short-range egoistical goals. Short-term egoistical goals for theists mean do good or God will punish you. Short-term egoistical goals for atheists lead to mass murder. In the absence of God or gods, why would one goal be preferable to any other? I might have one goal. You might have another. If they are contradictory, then the strongest man's goal is the right one. Or in other words, the concept of right and wrong in regards to goals become moot. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
William T Goodall wrote: The atheists eat less babies than the theists though due to having a rationally designed, probably vegetarian, diet. There is nothing rational about a vegetarian diet. Vegetarianism is just a form of holier-than-thou for atheists. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
On 07/09/2006, at 6:58 PM, Brother John wrote: William T Goodall wrote: The atheists eat less babies than the theists though due to having a rationally designed, probably vegetarian, diet. There is nothing rational about a vegetarian diet. Vegetarianism is just a form of holier-than-thou for atheists. Rich, atheist and vegetarian. Me, atheist and omnivorous. Doesn't matter a damn to me what you eat. What does matter is that it's clear from your posts that you don't understand atheism, as you're repeating old and wrong canards about ethics and morality. Atheists have one thing in common, and one only - that they do not believe in gods. Beyond that, they're as diverse as any other random group of people. Charlie Moral Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
On 7 Sep 2006, at 4:56PM, Brother John wrote: In the absence of God or gods, why would one goal be preferable to any other? I might have one goal. You might have another. If they are contradictory, then the strongest man's goal is the right one. Or in other words, the concept of right and wrong in regards to goals become moot. In the presence of God or gods, why would one goal be preferable to any other? I might have one goal. You might have another... -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ A bad thing done for a good cause is still a bad thing. It's why so few people slap their political opponents. That, and because slapping looks so silly. - Randy Cohen. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
JohnR said: There is nothing rational about a vegetarian diet. Vegetarianism is just a form of holier-than-thou for atheists. Yeah? Well, I'm vegetarian for aesthetic reasons and I really don't much care who else is or isn't vegetarian as long as they don't try to make me eat meat. And there in fact is a rational argument in favour of vegetarianism, because a given area of land can feed more vegetarians than meat eaters essentially because of thermodynamics. More solar energy gets into plants used as human food than into plant-eating animals used as human food. Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
Charlie said: Rich, atheist and vegetarian. Me, atheist and omnivorous. Doesn't matter a damn to me what you eat. You overlook the obvious fact that I am holier than you are. Rich GCU Saintly ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
On 7 Sep 2006, at 5:06PM, Charlie Bell wrote: On 07/09/2006, at 6:58 PM, Brother John wrote: William T Goodall wrote: The atheists eat less babies than the theists though due to having a rationally designed, probably vegetarian, diet. There is nothing rational about a vegetarian diet. Vegetarianism is just a form of holier-than-thou for atheists. Rich, atheist and vegetarian. Me, atheist and omnivorous. Doesn't matter a damn to me what you eat. I don't think it's right to eat things that demonstrate a certain level of intelligence or empathy such as dolphins, parrots or dogs for example. But it would be OK to eat Republicans or Fundamentalists as long as they were properly cooked. Just kidding, they probably taste awful Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ The Macintosh uses an experimental pointing device called a 'mouse.' There is no evidence that people want to use these things. -John C. Dvorak, SF Examiner, Feb. 1984. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
On 07/09/2006, at 8:29 PM, William T Goodall wrote: On 7 Sep 2006, at 5:06PM, Charlie Bell wrote: On 07/09/2006, at 6:58 PM, Brother John wrote: William T Goodall wrote: The atheists eat less babies than the theists though due to having a rationally designed, probably vegetarian, diet. There is nothing rational about a vegetarian diet. Vegetarianism is just a form of holier-than-thou for atheists. Rich, atheist and vegetarian. Me, atheist and omnivorous. Doesn't matter a damn to me what you eat. I don't think it's right to eat things that demonstrate a certain level of intelligence or empathy such as dolphins, parrots or dogs for example. Yeah, in general. Although I eat pork, and they're smart. What a hypocrite I am... But it would be OK to eat Republicans or Fundamentalists as long as they were properly cooked. Or embryos. But not foetuses past the 16th week. Arse, mixed my threads again... ;) Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: The Morality of Killing Babies
Brother John wrote: There is nothing rational about a vegetarian diet. I once recall reading something about how the vegetarian proteins are easier for humans to assimilate as compared to the proteins found in meat. Does anyone else have ay recollection of something like this? Vegetarianism is just a form of holier-than-thou for atheists. Hah! A reasonable proportion of vegetarians in India are vegetarians because of their religious beliefs. Buddhists, Jains, and a lot of Hindus, fr'ex. Some others are vegetarians because of health reasons, others because of aesthetic reasons. While I have met many believers who eat or don't eat meat because of their religious beliefs, I am yet to come across anyone who refuses to eat meat because they have no religious beliefs. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
There's a bit of convolution here; before a meaningful discussion can happen in some areas I think some of it has to be untangled. On Sep 6, 2006, at 4:58 AM, John W Redelfs wrote: My atheist father used to tell me that might makes right is a bad philosophy? Why? Succinctly, if it were a valid philosophy, there would have been nothing wrong, ethically or morally, had the Nazis won WWII. Whether one is an atheist, agnostic or theist, I think we can agree that might makes right is not de facto true. Unless there is a God who is against it, why would that philosophy be any better or worse than any other? Why would any philosophy that creates suffering be worse than a philosophy that reduces it, whether there is a god or not? Put another way, do we (does anyone) need a deity to tell us that beating a child is reprehensible? Upon what do atheists base their morality? I've never been able to understand this. Probably you haven't asked the right person. I base my ethical decisions on my ability to empathize. If I know a given action would cause me misery, I know that it's an action I shouldn't perpetrate upon another. (I believe there's a Christian analogue to this referring to auriferous yardsticks or some such.) Hopefully this clarifies things. If selection of the species is determined by survival of the fittest, isn't might the ultimate good, biologically speaking? This is where we're getting into convolutions. You seem to have the impression that survival fitness is equal to battle/struggle/fighting, but that's a very narrowly-applicable view. Fitness has more to do with propagation than it does with a battle to survive; a celibate organism will not pass on its genes regardless of how successful it is in a field of combat. *Any* field of combat, including not drowning in a pool of water or surviving a drought or being fortunate enough not to live on the side of an active volcano. There's a tremendous amount of contingency brought about by environmental and population factors that profoundly affects probability of yielding offspring. The nature red in tooth and claw idea is a vast -- and largely inaccurate -- oversimplification. The strong are just doing nature a favor by rubbing out the weak, preferably before they have a chance to reproduce. You're again seeing things narrowly. Is the bird flu virus stronger than the birds it's killing? On one level, you could argue the answer is yes; however, birds that survive the virus are actually doing the reverse of your conclusion (being weak, therefore rubbed out) and are in fact having the tables turned -- it's the virus that gets eliminated, not the bird. (I know this isn't wholly accurate, but I couldn't think of a bacterial analogue off the top of my head.) Following this line of reasoning, would not killing babies be one of the moral things a person could do? That way only the babies of the strongest parents would be able to survive, and that would improve the bloodline, isn't that so? In some species this appears to happen, at least to some extent. When a lion takes over a pride, for instance, it kills the cubs that were spawned by its predecessor. This forces the females into heat, which allows the lion to mate with them and ensure his own genes' supremacy in the pride. (I see The Fool mentioned this as well!) Of course, there are other species which show strong in-group altruism; for instance, you won't find that behavior in chimpanzee society except in cases of extreme aberration (turns out chimps can suffer from some of the same mental sicknesses that we can). We're much more genetically aligned with chimps than lions, so from even a strictly biological viewpoint it shouldn't be too surprising that we don't put much effort into killing off the weak within our own groups. Of course, *outside* our groups, anything goes, and has for a long, long time indeed: 8 O daughter Babylon, you devastator! Happy shall they be who pay you back what you have done to us! 9 Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock! (Psalms 137:8-9) Thus we can find support for virtually every conceivable atrocity, even in Holy Writ, provided that atrocity is committed against those who are not part of our group. Put another way, there's no rational way to argue that religion or faith in a deity automatically places one in a position to know what is moral or not relative to someone who does not believe in a deity. Might does not make right; a holy book doesn't either; and neither does eschewing scripture. What makes right is understanding: 1. Right is a very plastic term that is subject to interpretation on the individual, family, group and societal/national level; as well as on the biologically-expedient level; thus a phrase such as might makes right is effectively worthless as an argument to begin with; and 2. All actions
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
On 9/7/06, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 07/09/2006, at 6:58 PM, Brother John wrote: William T Goodall wrote: The atheists eat less babies than the theists though due to having a rationally designed, probably vegetarian, diet. There is nothing rational about a vegetarian diet. Vegetarianism is just a form of holier-than-thou for atheists. Rich, atheist and vegetarian. Me, atheist and omnivorous. Doesn't matter a damn to me what you eat. What does matter is that it's clear from your posts that you don't understand atheism, as you're repeating old and wrong canards about ethics and morality. Atheists have one thing in common, and one only - that they do not believe in gods. Beyond that, they're as diverse as any other random group of people. I confess that I do not know as much about atheism as an atheist does, or a least not as much that is correct. But neither do atheists know as much about religion as religious people do, at least not as much that is correct. Some things you cannot understand correctly from the outside looking in. In all advanced fields of learning including both science and religion, most of the knowledge can be learned only after learning the prerequisites. Without those prerequisites, a student must remain ignorant. I know some science, but not much beyond the level of my mathematics which only goes as far as high school algebra, geometry and trigonometry. However, I know the scriptures rather well compared with most. And one thing I can state with dead certainty: The scriptures cannot be correctly understood unless you believe them. Therefore, statements made about religion (scriptures) by atheists are almost always made from a position of bustling ignorance. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
On 9/7/06, Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And there in fact is a rational argument in favour of vegetarianism, because a given area of land can feed more vegetarians than meat eaters essentially because of thermodynamics. More solar energy gets into plants used as human food than into plant-eating animals used as human food. So what? In the USA people need to eat less anyway. And globally, there needs to be a reduction in population that could most easily be effected by widespread starvation. People extol the virtues of abortion and birth control, but doesn't starvation, disease and war control over population just as well? I fail to see the advantages of birth control and abortion. That is, I would if I did not believe that every human being on this earth is a child of the same Heavenly Father and hence truly brothers and sisters. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
From: John W Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] I confess that I do not know as much about atheism as an atheist does, or a least not as much that is correct. But neither do atheists know as much about religion as religious people do, at least not as much that is correct. Some things you cannot understand correctly from the outside looking in. In all advanced fields of learning including both science and religion, most of the knowledge can be learned only after learning the prerequisites. Without those prerequisites, a student must remain ignorant. I know some science, but not much beyond the level of my mathematics which only goes as far as high school algebra, geometry and trigonometry. However, I know the scriptures rather well compared with most. And one thing I can state with dead certainty: The scriptures cannot be correctly understood unless you believe them. Therefore, statements made about religion (scriptures) by atheists are almost always made from a position of bustling ignorance. A. I know more about 'scripture' than you do. Much more. B. I've read the bible, more times than you will for the entire rest of life. C. I've read more about the bible than you ever will. D. I Own more translations of the Bible than there are regulars on this list. E. You know nothing. You are a Fvcking idiot and a troll. - The so-called religious organizations which now lead the war against the teaching of evolution are nothing more, at bottom, than conspiracies of the inferior man against his betters. They mirror very accurately his congenital hatred of knowledge, his bitter enmity to the man who knows more than he does, and so gets more out of life . . . Such organizations, of course, must have leaders; there must be men in them whose ignorance and imbecility are measurably less abject than the ignorance and imbecility of the average. These super-Chandala often attain to a considerable power, especially in democratic states. Their followers trust them and look up to them; sometimes, when the pack is on the loose, it is necessary to conciliate them. But their puissance cannot conceal their incurable inferiority. They belong to the mob as surely as their dupes, and the thing that animates them is precisely the mob's hatred of superiority. Whatever lies above the level of their comprehension is of the devil. --H.L. Menken ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
The Morality of Killing Babies
My atheist father used to tell me that might makes right is a bad philosophy? Why? Unless there is a God who is against it, why would that philosophy be any better or worse than any other? Upon what do atheists base their morality? I've never been able to understand this. If selection of the species is determined by survival of the fittest, isn't might the ultimate good, biologically speaking? The strong are just doing nature a favor by rubbing out the weak, preferably before they have a chance to reproduce. Following this line of reasoning, would not killing babies be one of the moral things a person could do? That way only the babies of the strongest parents would be able to survive, and that would improve the bloodline, isn't that so? John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
On 6 Sep 2006, at 12:58PM, John W Redelfs wrote: My atheist father used to tell me that might makes right is a bad philosophy? Why? Unless there is a God who is against it, why would that philosophy be any better or worse than any other? Upon what do atheists base their morality? I've never been able to understand this. If selection of the species is determined by survival of the fittest, isn't might the ultimate good, biologically speaking? The strong are just doing nature a favor by rubbing out the weak, preferably before they have a chance to reproduce. Following this line of reasoning, would not killing babies be one of the moral things a person could do? That way only the babies of the strongest parents would be able to survive, and that would improve the bloodline, isn't that so? That's just the naturalistic fallacy isn't it? Not very interesting. Bored Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ The three chief virtues of a programmer are: Laziness, Impatience and Hubris - Larry Wall ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
JohnR said: My atheist father used to tell me that might makes right is a bad philosophy? Why? Isn't might makes right basically the religious position? I believe in an all-powerful God. That God says these things are good and those are evil, therefore I believe these are good and those are evil. (And if one happens to live in one of those unfortunate societies whose gods rule that human sacrifice or whatever is good and necessary, well that's just too bad for you.) If not, then I fail to see how the religious and atheist positions differ. Or: how does God Himself decide what is good and evil? Isn't He, at least, basically in the same position as us atheists? Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
On 6 Sep 2006, at 2:31PM, Richard Baker wrote: Or: how does God Himself decide what is good and evil? Isn't He, at least, basically in the same position as us atheists? I think I have an advantage in not being imaginary. Real Me Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: The Morality of Killing Babies
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Baker Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 8:32 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: The Morality of Killing Babies My atheist father used to tell me that might makes right is a bad philosophy? Why? Isn't might makes right basically the religious position? I believe in an all-powerful God. That God says these things are good and those are evil, therefore I believe these are good and those are evil. No, that's not the position. OK, it might actually be the practical position for some people, but it is real bad theology and has not been proposed in any serious work in Christianity that I'm aware of. I think the most critical question involved is the understanding of the transcendental: Truths that are true, whether or not they are believed by humans, or even whether they are perceived by humans; Reality that exists apart from our perception. In this framework, God is associated with the basis of reality and truth. One way to look at it is to think of God as truth, righteousness, and love that possesses self awareness. Human words tend to picture God as a really really powerful being that is otherwise much like us. In particular, SciFi can often picture God as really a mundane being with tremendous power. But, the Christian concept of God transcends this. Thus, we see Jesus' command to his disciples boil down to love one another. We see Jesus saying I am the Way the Truth and the Light. The concept of God is not an uberhuman, but something that transcends all descriptionsthat we can only get a glance of. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: The Morality of Killing Babies
DanM said: I think the most critical question involved is the understanding of the transcendental: Truths that are true, whether or not they are believed by humans, or even whether they are perceived by humans; Reality that exists apart from our perception. But that seems like an especially useless position. If we're discussing which things are good and which are evil then believing that there are transcendental truths doesn't help at all if different people have different positions on what those truths actually are. So far as I can tell you're reduced either to an argument from authority (whether that of a priesthood, a holy book, one or more historical figures, or the general sentiments of society) or an argument from what makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. At best, I suppose, you can argue that some of those priesthoods, holy books, historical figures or warm and fuzzy feelings are divinely inspired rather than ultimately reducing just to opinion, but once again we can argue endlessly about exactly which of those things are touched by the ineffable mystery of the transcendental. Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
Richard Baker wrote: If not, then I fail to see how the religious and atheist positions differ. Or: how does God Himself decide what is good and evil? Isn't He, at least, basically in the same position as us atheists? I guess so, unless he himself has a God as I believe. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
On 6 Sep 2006, at 4:13PM, Brother John wrote: Richard Baker wrote: If not, then I fail to see how the religious and atheist positions differ. Or: how does God Himself decide what is good and evil? Isn't He, at least, basically in the same position as us atheists? I guess so, unless he himself has a God as I believe. And does God's God have a God too? And if so does he have a God? And does God's God's God's God have a God? Russian Doll Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ The surprising thing about the Cargo Cult Windows PC is that it works as well as a real one. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
William T Goodall wrote: And does God's God have a God too? And if so does he have a God? And does God's God's God's God have a God? GEB flashback Not necessarily what I needed today, but it's not entirely bad. Might even be calming, which I *could* use today. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: The Morality of Killing Babies
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Baker Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 9:53 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: RE: The Morality of Killing Babies DanM said: I think the most critical question involved is the understanding of the transcendental: Truths that are true, whether or not they are believed by humans, or even whether they are perceived by humans; Reality that exists apart from our perception. But that seems like an especially useless position. If we're discussing which things are good and which are evil then believing that there are transcendental truths doesn't help at all if different people have different positions on what those truths actually are. Well, it certainly doesn't reduce ethics to something that is empirically verifiable, but I think that possibility just isn't there. I think Kant gave a good summation of the fundamental limits of pure reason in the introduction to his critique. Add this to our agreed upon conclusions on the nature and limitations of science and you will get what I consider an important part of the human condition: there is no empirical basis for ethics: ethics are faith basedno matter what that faith is in (one's own ability, a priori principles, religious dogma, the teachings of a master, etc). So far as I can tell you're reduced either to an argument from authority (whether that of a priesthood, a holy book, one or more historical figures, or the general sentiments of society) or an argument from what makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. At best, I suppose, you can argue that some of those priesthoods, holy books, historical figures or warm and fuzzy feelings are divinely inspired rather than ultimately reducing just to opinion, but once again we can argue endlessly about exactly which of those things are touched by the ineffable mystery of the transcendental. Actually, it is possible, with a simple assumption, to do more than that. Again, I fully admit that there is no proof, but I think that...if the transcendental is partially and imperfectly discerned by humans, then one can reach some general conclusions about our best bets at approaching the truth when it comes to ethics. I'll stop here to see if you think that is a presupposition that is worth exploring further. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
John W Redelfs wrote: My atheist father used to tell me that might makes right is a bad philosophy? Why? Unless there is a God who is against it, why would that philosophy be any better or worse than any other? Upon what do atheists base their morality? I've never been able to understand this. If selection of the species is determined by survival of the fittest, isn't might the ultimate good, biologically speaking? The strong are just doing nature a favor by rubbing out the weak, preferably before they have a chance to reproduce. Following this line of reasoning, would not killing babies be one of the moral things a person could do? That way only the babies of the strongest parents would be able to survive, and that would improve the bloodline, isn't that so? I think you should be careful to define _what_ are the goals, so that you can define what is good and what is evil. If the goal is the long-range survival of intelligence and diversity, or even of diversity of intelligence, then killing weak babies is evil. But it requires too much thinking to conclude that - and atheists are no smarter than fundamentalist theists, and will be satisfied with short-range egoistical goals. Short-term egoistical goals for theists mean do good or God will punish you. Short-term egoistical goals for atheists lead to mass murder. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
On 6 Sep 2006, at 8:18PM, Dan Minette wrote: Actually, it is possible, with a simple assumption, to do more than that. Again, I fully admit that there is no proof, but I think that...if the transcendental is partially and imperfectly discerned by humans, then one can reach some general conclusions about our best bets at approaching the truth when it comes to ethics. I'll stop here to see if you think that is a presupposition that is worth exploring further. No. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
On 6 Sep 2006, at 8:33PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: But it requires too much thinking to conclude that - and atheists are no smarter than fundamentalist theists, and will be satisfied with short-range egoistical goals. Short-term egoistical goals for theists mean do good or God will punish you. Short-term egoistical goals for atheists lead to mass murder. The atheists eat less babies than the theists though due to having a rationally designed, probably vegetarian, diet. Baby munching God lovers Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ The three chief virtues of a programmer are: Laziness, Impatience and Hubris - Larry Wall ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
On 6 Sep 2006 at 6:31, Richard Baker wrote: Isn't might makes right basically the religious position? I believe Nope. At least, not for Jews. in an all-powerful God. That God says these things are good and those are evil, therefore I believe these are good and those are evil. (And Again, Jews believe there are universal standards for good and for righteousness (and that the most certainly don't need to be a Jew to be righteous) - and further, the Bible states that the Law of the Land is the Law. Or: how does God Himself decide what is good and evil? Isn't He, at least, basically in the same position as us atheists? No. You're commiting the basic theological falicy (again, in Jewish terms) of thinking of G-d as a Human. To eff the ineffible. Which is understandable (especially since Christians HAVE adopted a Human aspect to their G-d) but from our POV the question is meaningless in context. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
On 6 Sep 2006 at 14:43, William T Goodall wrote: On 6 Sep 2006, at 2:31PM, Richard Baker wrote: Or: how does God Himself decide what is good and evil? Isn't He, at least, basically in the same position as us atheists? I think I have an advantage in not being imaginary. Uh-huh. So what do you follow, the laws of the land? Oops, you know where THOSE are descended from, right... (especially the concept of Courts, for example..) Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
Andrew said: Again, Jews believe there are universal standards for good and for righteousness (and that the most certainly don't need to be a Jew to be righteous) - and further, the Bible states that the Law of the Land is the Law. So is that an argument from the authority of the Bible, an argument from the authority of the people who wrote Bible, an argument from the authority of the traditions of the ancient Jewish people or something else? No. You're commiting the basic theological falicy (again, in Jewish terms) of thinking of G-d as a Human. To eff the ineffible. Which is understandable (especially since Christians HAVE adopted a Human aspect to their G-d) but from our POV the question is meaningless in context. Well, that sounds awfully like you're saying that these things are true because an all-powerful and ineffable God said so but that we shouldn't really look too closely into such matters. Which, to me (although presumably not to others), sounds awfully like an argument from the authority of one's imaginary friend. Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
Dan said: Actually, it is possible, with a simple assumption, to do more than that. Again, I fully admit that there is no proof, but I think that...if the transcendental is partially and imperfectly discerned by humans, then one can reach some general conclusions about our best bets at approaching the truth when it comes to ethics. I'll stop here to see if you think that is a presupposition that is worth exploring further. I'm always interested to hear what you have to say on such things, even though I'm fairly sceptical about the possibility of discerning anything transcendental. Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
On 06/09/2006, at 10:33 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Short-term egoistical goals for theists mean do good or God will punish you. Short-term egoistical goals for atheists lead to mass murder. Hope that's satire. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
From: John W Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] My atheist father used to tell me that might makes right is a bad philosophy? Why? Unless there is a God who is against it, why would that philosophy be any better or worse than any other? Upon what do atheists base their morality? I've never been able to understand this. If selection of the species is determined by survival of the fittest, isn't might the ultimate good, biologically speaking? The strong are just doing nature a favor by rubbing out the weak, preferably before they have a chance to reproduce. Following this line of reasoning, would not killing babies be one of the moral things a person could do? That way only the babies of the strongest parents would be able to survive, and that would improve the bloodline, isn't that so? Look at people who tend to do those things today. Here's a hint: they mostly live in asia, tend to be extremely poor, and aren't particularly non-religious. Also look at the mid-east where certain religious factions take exquisite delight in blowing up busses filled with school children. However, in the modern west, doing such things tends to have a negative selective advantage. Male Lions, when they take over a pride, first kill every single Lion-cub from the previous alpha male. - If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and the smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in 43 had come immediately after the German Firm stickers on the windows of non-Jewish shops in 33. But of course this isn't the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D. --They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45 --by Milton Mayer ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
On 6 Sep 2006 at 22:10, Richard Baker wrote: Andrew said: Again, Jews believe there are universal standards for good and for righteousness (and that the most certainly don't need to be a Jew to be righteous) - and further, the Bible states that the Law of the Land is the Law. So is that an argument from the authority of the Bible, an argument from the authority of the people who wrote Bible, an argument from the authority of the traditions of the ancient Jewish people or something else? The exact Hebrew phrase; Dina de-malchuta dina, is a paraphrase of several passages from the Bible by Samuel (3rd century Babylonia). It is accepted by basically every Jewish Rabbi outside the (tiny) Reconstructionism movement. It's also probably not a blanket cover and is linked to a whole host of other statements, but for Western counties you can assume that there are very few, if any, conflicts. I'd also note that that line is also inappropriately quoted quite frequently by the American burocracy... No. You're commiting the basic theological falicy (again, in Jewish terms) of thinking of G-d as a Human. To eff the ineffible. Which is understandable (especially since Christians HAVE adopted a Human aspect to their G-d) but from our POV the question is meaningless in context. Well, that sounds awfully like you're saying that these things are true because an all-powerful and ineffable God said so but that we shouldn't really look too closely into such matters. Which, to me (although presumably not to others), sounds awfully like an argument from the authority of one's imaginary friend. Nope. There is a clear answer - to try to attribute Human restrictions to G-d is to limit what he can do. Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
