Re: Manners (was Re: Religious freedom)
On Sep 6, 2006, at 7:47 PM, jdiebremse wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's nice that this topic has attracted some interest and that people are giving some thought to the sickening poisonous evil filth of religion and the ghastly damage it causes individuals and society. However a number of people (you know who you are and I won't embarrass you by quoting you) have veered from the polite and civilised example I set when discussing this pernicious vileness and written some things that are simply gratuitously insulting or ad hominem attacks. Wow. I do have to admire your chutzpah.. I think this is my favorite one-line Brin-L Message of 2006. Dave ___ 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
Week 1 NFL Picks
O.k. time for another season Week 1 Miami at Pittsburgh - Big Ben may be out, but the Steelers are still defending champs, and Miami is living on a reputation of beating a lot of bad teams at the end of last season. Pick: STEELERS Baltimore at Tampa Bay - Its always tough to win in the heat and humidity of Florida in September. McNair will make the Ravens better, but maybe not this week. Pick: BUCS New Orleans at Cleveland - The Saints don't appear to have much in the way of defense. Pick: BROWNS Atlanta at Carolina - Everyone has the Panthers as their darling this season, and the Panthers will be good, but this season will start off with an upset. Pick: FALCONS Detroit at Seattle - The defending NFC Champs pick up where they left off. Pick: SEAHAWKS Philadelphia at Houston - Does anyone think that *Wali Lundy* can make the Texans forget Reggie Bush? Pick: EAGLES NY Jets at Tennessee - The Titans may well start Kerry Collins in this one, whom they only picked up weeks ago. At least the Jets have kept their team together. Pick: JETS (UPSET SPECIAL - such as it may be this week) Cincinnati at Kansas City - Easily the game of the week. Herman Edwards is going to turn the Chiefs around, but Carson Palmer Co. are a tough draw for Week 1. Pick: BENGALS Denver at St. Louis - I can't say that I have anything pithy to remark about this game. Pick: BRONCOS, just because Buffalo at New England - Even with all the turmoil surrounding the Pats, the Bills are too young and green to pull this one out.I'm just hoping that they don't get embarrassed (and I do think Jauron will keep that from happening.) Pick: PATRIOTS Dallas at Jacksonville - Terrell Owens and Drew Bledsoe haven't self-destructed... yet. Pick: COWBOYS Chicago at Green Bay - Brett Favre may really regret coming back. Pick: BEARS San Francisco at Arizona - Grand opening of the Desert Dome. Pick: CARDINALS Indy at New York Giants - Eli is no Peyton. Pick: COLTS Minnesota at Washington - We're about to see if the preseason really doesn't matter, as no team looked worse in August than Washington. I'm inclined to agree.. Pick: REDSKINS San Diego at Oakland - Art Shell is going to need some time to turn this thing around. Pick: CHARGERS ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: To the Back of the Bus!
Wow, you were using the propel cans? A compressor will work much better...you don't have to pry it up when it freezes to the table... Damon, fun with physics... 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: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 21:23:22 To:Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: To the Back of the Bus! At 09:17 PM Tuesday 9/5/2006, Julia Thompson wrote: Dave Land wrote: On Sep 1, 2006, at 10:08 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Aug 26, 2006, at 11:54 PM, Dave Land wrote: Apparently, after screening and re-screening that couple of milliseconds of Janet Jackson's nipple at the 2004 Superbowl for hours on end, the geeks at the FCC have lost all sense of proportion. I know the feeling. Nipples -- especially if decorated with metallic stars -- apparently have that kind of power... If you're going to decorate nipples, body-paint is much better. Makeup-quality airbrush body paint is kick-ass, in fact. And you can get it in metallic colors, so you could have a metallic star, but it wouldn't be so insanely painful-looking. (You just have to watch out, the metallic paints clog the airbrush quicker than anything else.) I wonder how much practice I would need to gain adequate proficiency using my airbrush while standing in front of the full-length mirror in the bathroom? (At least I finally got an air compressor, so I don't have to use can after can of propellant stuff and get a nasty letter from Algore . . . .) -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: To the Back of the Bus!
At 09:07 AM Thursday 9/7/2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wow, you were using the propel cans? A compressor will work much better...you don't have to pry it up when it freezes to the table... Damon, fun with physics... When starting out and not doing a whole lot with it, $10 for a can every now and then seemed better than $??? for a compressor, and I waited until I found one which was somewhat reasonably priced . . . Some Who Have Attended My Lectures Might Opine That All I Needed To Do Is To Stick The Input End Of The Hose In My Mouth Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ 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
It takes a village to poison a child's mind
This is why the Democrats will always lose: we lack the will to feed poisonous lies to children to achieve our ends. Begin forwarded message: From: Media Matters for America [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: September 7, 2006 10:02:21 AM PDT Subject: ABC, Scholastic injecting conservative misinformation into the classroom Discussion guide suggests Iraq had WMD; miniseries blames Clinton for 9-11 In conjunction with the September 10 premiere of its flawed, partisan miniseriesThe Path to 9/11, ABC has teamed up with Scholastic Inc. to urge 100,000 high school teachers nationwide and their students to watch the controversial miniseries and then use Scholastic's discussion guide in class. A Media Matters for America review of the ABC/Scholastic material has found it to be rife with conservative misinformation. The ABC/Scholastic material is deeply flawed because, in addition to omitting key information, it promotes conservative talking points: - It tells students that the United States went to war in Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction -- but fails to note that, in fact, Iraq did not have WMD. Nor does it note the increasing evidence that the Bush administration knew this all along and manipulated intelligence in order to make a dishonest case for war. - It falsely suggests a tie between Iraq and the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. - It gives unjustifiably upbeat accounts of reportedly dire conditions on the ground in both Iraq and Afghanistan. - It suggests that military responses to Osama bin Laden by the Clinton administration could have hinder[ed] the U.S. stance on the war on terror. - It asks students to debate whether the media hinder our national security. The miniseries itself is also reportedly deeply flawed, with initial reviews and fact-checks showing that it twists and invents facts and storylines to create a false picture of the Clinton administration's role in failing to prevent the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks while largely ignoring Bush administration failures. News reports even indicate that an FBI agent who was a consultant to the film quit during production because he thought they were making things up. For ABC and Scholastic to promote this egregious conservative misinformation to high school students around the anniversary of the 9-11 terror attacks is irresponsible and morally repugnant. Click here to contact Scholastic and urge them to correct the conservative misinformation in their materials. High school students shouldn't be required by their teachers to listen to conservative lies. (http://mediamatters.org/rd?src=action200609070001http:// scholastic.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/scholastic.cfg/php/enduser/ask.php) Please also click here to urge ABC to hold off airing the miniseries until its flaws have been fixed. (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) Resources: ABC and Scholastic release skewed Path to 9/11 Discussion Guide for teachers to assign to students (http://mediamatters.org/items/ 200609060008?src=action200609070001) ___ 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
Keep Propaganda Off The Airwaves
Hi, The ABC television network -- a cog in the Walt Disney empire -- unleashed a promotional blitz in the last week for a new docudrama called The Path to 9/11. ABC has thrown its corporate might behind the two-night production, and bills it as a public service: a TV event, to quote the ABC tagline, based on the 9/11 Commission Report. That's false. The Path to 9/11 is actually a bald-faced attempt to slander Democrats and revise history right before Americans vote in a major election. The miniseries, which was put together by right-wing conservative writers, relies on the old GOP playbook of using terrorism to scare Americans. The Path to 9/11 mocks the truth and dishonors the memory of 9/11 victims to serve a cheap, callous political agenda. It irresponsibly misrepresents the facts and completely distorts the truth. Join me in telling Walt Disney CEO Robert Iger to keep this propaganda off the air. http://www.democrats.org/page/petition/pathto911/fthtfa Thanks! ___ 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: unholy OS wars
Hullo,
So many missives to catch up on. I've been busy.
As an artist hovering around the computer industry since High School I
find it amazing that AndrewC initially claims to be a non-expert, yet
sells computers he regularly builds. Andrew, you undercut yourself on
the credibility factor with a statement like that while admitting this
an ongoing business... I don't know too many in this area of commerce
who are not labeled technical by the majority of people and certainly
not ANY providers who survive long w/o leaning towards the technical -
how else does one troubleshoot? I do not understand what is gained
from such a pre-loaded frame on the conversation. That you bluster
with rudeness and intended insults reveals an arrogance I find
irresistible - where's my pile of throwing rocks and favorite sling?
As someone who took up the daunting challenge of hand soldering a Timex
Sinclair 1000, circa 1982, I allowed myself a wry grin and followed
this thread belatedly, with interest. I'll hold back my razor sharp
tongue and be positive in the face of gross ignorance and in the
interest of propelling the conversation forward.
Yes, if you're a blithering retard, as apparently you are. There are
no other words for it.
Let's see, on one hand you're comparing the length a machine can run
without breaking down, which is based largely on build quality.
Moreover, that mac largely is a sealed box, and you can't upgrade
parts, etc.
On the other hand, you're comparing the time a computer can be
connected to the internet, entire unprotected, before it picks up
nastyware. Which a variety of free firewalls and virus scanners
protect against.
Blithering. Retard.
It's not even elephant vs mouse. It's a piece of paper vs the
transdimensional ghost who inhabits your frontal lobes.
My initial emotions fade into bemused humor and assume you simply had
too much caffeine - or too many pints - at the time this was written
since your tone has moderated over time. Others have rebutted this
enough in detail, so I'll try keeping mine somewhere around the 50,000
ft altitude.
I am a confirmed Mac-centric developer who is ambidextrous enough to
know appreciate the differences. Been there, done both. For reasons
of aesthetics {from OS architecture to casing product design} I've been
much more interested in the Apple-thang than anything else I've come
across from the very beginning. The Mac literally drew me away from a
career in architecture. Technically, the Mac has always been ahead of
most competitors {'cept for CPU wars of late} and one reason they could
get away with a closed box - it was always the market model and price
that irked so many, myself included. For instance, do you really care
if your iPod Nano isn't expandable {yet}? Damn things even look a tad
like the original Mac profile {and I think they missed an intro PR
opportunity by not building on that Susan Kare iconography}.
Products overseas were routinely 2x what they are here in America -
this has more to do with where the goods originated and the early days
of the industry than now where manufacturing development is dispersed
wider and larger. Things are much better now and this is reflected in
how much cheaper even Macs have become around the world. I never
agreed with the initial $2400 retail price point Apple staked out for
the first few years they shipped Macs and as time has shown, a lower
price spreads the goodness much farther than something only the Be$t
of Us can afford - especially when the product is superior. Ask your
mother writing letters, sister ripping CD's, or cousin working at the
car repair what machine perks their interest and more often than not
they point at a Mac {OK, an iPod with Mac dangling behind} and there is
no doubt your grandfather will get more done with a Macintosh unless
your camped out at his house to nurse him through Bill's glitchware.
Gates lacks panache and real vision and only his immense wealth {buying
time and space to refine} raised the Windows UI to a notable level of
mimicry and smoothed over its ad-hoc internal architecture - and we
still see that legacy dragging it down the security bung-hole. Face
it: Gates has always been looking over his shoulder and paying off
spies to find out what Apple is cooking up. I'd call him more clever
{conniving} than smart {brilliant}: remember their workgroup chant,
Windows isn't done until Lotus won't run? I'll grant Bill certain
redeeming features now that he's giving away vast sums to real-world
causes, it's just too bad he had to chew up so many people under cruel
degrading work environments and BORG-like/pedophile-style raids on
small companies to become such a wealthy respected elder gentlemen.
In reality you, Andrew, are heir to the mainframe and mini support
class of technicians who migrated out of the air conditioned
institutional monsters that required heavy technical support to a
Re: Manners (was Re: Religious freedom)
On 7 Sep 2006, at 3:47AM, jdiebremse wrote: Wow. I do have to admire your chutzpah.. That's cute from the guy whose favourite topic reduces to accusing everyone who uses contraception of being a mass-murderer. Goose Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ It is our belief, however, that serious professional users will run out of things they can do with UNIX. - Ken Olsen, President of DEC, 1984. ___ 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
