151. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #182103 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 19, 2008 at 8:17 am

ASMarques

gain a little more understanding of the truly abysmal impact of totalitarian semantics on the human psyche.

You anti-semantic bastard.

152. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182102 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 19, 2008 at 8:15 am

Also I hope Mitchell would disagree with another statement by PETA.

The Holocaust on your plate.
Comparison of the Nazi holocaust to livestock farms.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ijLulwUTY

153. Mayor challenges pope during Genoa visit

Comment #182097 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 19, 2008 at 8:10 am

Abortion isn't a binary issue. Nobody is for or against abortion. People are for it within limits and against it (usually) within limits.

154. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182087 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 19, 2008 at 7:55 am

Mitchell
I assume you are ignoring me which is a shame.

155. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182080 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 19, 2008 at 7:45 am

THE POINTS I HAVE MADE COLLECTED INTO ONE POST SO MITCHELL DOESN'T HAVE TO SEARCH BACK THROUGH THEM.

These concur a lot with what you have said Clydey

• The fact that I believe there is no objective morality makes me immune to appeal? I don't think so as I think you can still take me to task on inconsistencies. You could definitely convince me I am not dogmatic, quite the contrary I believe I have explicitly stated my pragmatism.

• There is, and you would agree I assume, a difference between killing an ant and a human, between eating lettuce and eating chimpanzee. What makes these things different? It's the capability for the respective organisms to suffer. I think this is almost axiomatic.

• We are animals we are apes. We are unique in that we have complex language and abstraction, the largest brains on the planet (relatively) and are capable of "feeling" abstract emotions such as exploitation. I do not doubt that there is distress for the cows involved, but exploitation no, and that shouldn't be bandied about although you didn't say the cows felt exploited only that we are exploiting them.

• In a perfect world there would be no disease, we would be able to fully simulate the human body on computers and perform medical tests and trials etc "virtually" without any unnecessary suffering. We do not live in a perfect world and for that reason our ideals collide with reality and we have to make decisions.

• First you have to establish that all animals are capable of suffering equally or do you dismiss that comparative suffering should be a consideration. Because the differences are arbitrary in that they are not ordained, as any atheist would agree, does not mean they are not significant. They should not be dismissed otherwise you should give freedom of speech rights to ants. Now why is that stupid? You seem to be asking people to apply the logic to its conclusion and not merely ignore the issue. If you agree ants don't need freedom of speech you are admitting the arbitrary differences are significant. That the arbitrary differences need to be taken into consideration.

• answered by the fact that the calculus is suffering as compared to benefit. That does not mean that if we rounded up a bunch of humans did tests on them the benefits would outweigh the suffering because this comes into conflict with freedom and the golden rule etc. The examples you cite have no benefit cause suffering and are therefore wrong.

• I have made the decision (based on the available evidence, not a dogmatic decision) that the distress to the cows for the harvesting of eggs (which is minimal) becomes insignificant compared with the benefits of the usage of those eggs. Just as does farming cows for meat (ethically).

If you could only answer one point lets make it the real world example that this article discusses.

I have made the decision (based on the available evidence, not a dogmatic decision) that the distress to the cows for the harvesting of eggs (which is minimal) becomes insignificant compared with the benefits of the usage of those eggs.

156. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182070 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 19, 2008 at 7:30 am

Clydey
Would you agree with my analysis in comment #59. I only ask because we seem to be saying substantially the same thing and it seems unfair for Mitchell to have to address us separately.

157. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182063 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 19, 2008 at 7:14 am

I find it rather cute that you can dismiss the controversy on whether viruses are alive so easily because you think it helps your point. Demonstrate an emotion that humans have that no other animal has please. Though that wouldn't matter even if it were true, as then psychopathes and sociopathes, as well as other developmentally disabled individuals would also be denied rights and freedoms.

Again, and for the last time. You would be okay with killing unconscious people? Or doing similar experiments on unconscious people? You are entirely biased by an unjustified assumption that humans are metaphysically and fundementally different than other animals, it is this very assumption that I challenge. Understand?

That whole liturgy can be answered by the fact that the calculus is suffering as compared to benefit. That does not mean that if we rounded up a bunch of humans did tests on them the benefits would outweigh the suffering because this comes into conflict with freedom and the golden rule etc. The examples you cite have no benefit cause suffering and are therefore wrong.

Comment #55 deals with the points you've raised I believe, as does this one. I hope I have satisfied your requirement and look forward to your response.

158. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182058 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 19, 2008 at 7:03 am

Then you are immune to appeal.

Sorry I just noticed your edit. It used to say irreproachable, which meant I couldn't understand your point.

The fact that I believe there is no objective morality makes me immune to appeal? I don't think so as I think you can still take me to task on inconsistencies. You could definitely convince me I am not dogmatic, quite the contrary I believe I have explicitly stated my pragmatism.

All life is not equal. My moral considerations are built on the desires of the agents involved. The realisation of the universal evaluation of all higher animals, that to survive and survive well. Also, on whether or not they can suffer, and realise their suffering. Drawing lines are intelligence is of course not possible, some animals overlap some humans, and it would result in the absurdity of some humans having more rights and freedoms than others based on intelligence. All the evidence suggests that all the other higher animals can suffer to the same degree humans can, some perhaps more so. Then again not all humans have the same threshold for pain, drawing a line here would result in another absurdity.

I think you will find that you draw your moral considerations on similar ground. It is up to you to demonstrate a fundemental difference between humans and other higher mammals, and show why a racist isn't just as justified in drawing the line on his moral considerations at race as you do species without objective cause.

Race is arbitrary, I'd go as far as to say a meaningless distinction, with barely any basis in reality. I could concoct a thought experiment in the abstract where the idea of sub-division of the human species into races would be justified but I would be ignoring the real world.

There are differences. No ones saying you can put an animal on the scales and get his suffering index. But we have to make decisions. I have made the decision (based on the available evidence, not a dogmatic decision) that the distress to the cows for the harvesting of eggs (which is minimal) becomes insignificant compared with the benefits of the usage of those eggs. Just as does farming cows for meat (ethically).

159. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182047 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 19, 2008 at 6:44 am

What you are not understanding, and completely fail to address is that there is no fundamental difference between humans and other animals. So the questions you asked you should easily be able to answer yourself by asking yourself if you would find that acceptable for human beings.

non sequitur. Your missing a few steps. First you have to establish that all animals are capable of suffering equally or do you dismiss that comparative suffering should be a consideration. Because the differences are arbitrary in that they are not ordained, as any atheist would agree, does not mean they are not significant. They should not be dismissed otherwise you should give freedom of speech rights to ants. Now why is that stupid? You seem to be asking people to apply the logic to its conclusion and not merely ignore the issue. If you agree ants don't need freedom of speech you are admitting the arbitrary differences are significant. That the arbitrary differences need to be taken into consideration.

160. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182040 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 19, 2008 at 6:37 am

In a way I admire your dedication to logic.

He dismisses the hypothesis that comparative suffering should be a consideration. I think I am just as concerned about animal suffering as Mitchell (that's why I buy meat from "ethical" farms, I accomplish more than a moral vegetarian). I however consider comparative suffering seriously. Taking eggs from cows that will potentially make millions of peoples lives better is just not a consideration. If the cows had to be mutilated, tortured I would consider long and hard, they however don't. I would barely ever condone testing on "higher animals" as Mitchell says. But I wouldn't be dogmatic about it.

161. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182035 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 19, 2008 at 6:27 am

You do realise that without that all of your moral considerations are entirely arbitrary, right?

Yes

That doesn't bother you.

No otherwise I would be a moral nihilist.

Then you are irreproachable.

I don't see how this makes me irreproachable.

You seem to have avoided the point. We can have an abstract discussion where we can cling to our ideals. However there is a real world to consider.

162. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182027 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 19, 2008 at 6:13 am

So I'm too assume that you are okay with the forceful testing on humans and harvesting of organs then?

No.

All of the conclusions I have made follow logically from the realisation that there is no metaphysical or fundemental difference between humans and other animals. Only arbitrary differences. Most of the people on this site don't object to this fact, they merely are unwilling to take it to it's logical conclusion.

You can dress up the fact were all animals however you want it doesn't get rid of the fact that there is a difference in the suffering of chickens (obliquely relevant considering were talking about eggs. Attempt at a joke) and chimpanzees. So your premise has the logical conclusion that we are all related, not that we should all have equal consideration.

Really? I have to admit that I am surprized. I saw a study a few months ago, I think it was posted on this site that asked the question of how people draw moral considerations, and the graph was almost linear moving to "ideals" the more religious and conversative you got, and "consideration of suffering and well being" the more liberal and irreligious you got.

I can see how that would be true. I hold as close as I can to ideals such as equality, freedom etc but with respect to the real world.

You do realise that without that all of your moral considerations are entirely arbitrary, right? That doesn't bother you. If not that I am incapable of convincing you that raping children is wrong unless you already hold that opinion.

Yes that is elementary. It doesn't bother me else I would be a nihilist.

163. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #182020 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 19, 2008 at 6:00 am

Since you refuse, time and again, to answer these points, it has become obvious that you suffer from delusions, one of which is an insane belief in the worst and nastiest ideologies of all time. You are wearing blinders. Socialism, to ensure its existence, must crush personal liberty and ambition. That is why every instantiation of socialism does precisely that.

Libertarian socialism in a word is democratisation.
1) How are resources allocated?
2) How are people prevented from starting private sytems of finance.
3) How do you prevent capitalists from coming to power?
4) How do you prevent abuses of minority groups and parties?

These are the problems with democracy. You do things like have a constitution. I think you agree there needs to be a mixture of "socialising" to use the pundits favourite phrase for things that are essentials, basic human rights like healthcare, clean water etc. We also need to allow the promotion of innovation. Now I'm open to this being facilitated with profit incentives, I don't know the answer to that one.

164. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182016 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 19, 2008 at 5:48 am

What does "fully conscious" mean exactly?

Fully concious was lazy use of language. I think it's fairly obvious that humans are capable of suffering more than ants. There is, and you would agree I assume, a difference between killing an ant and a human, between eating lettuce and eating chimpanzee. What makes these things different? It's the capability for the respective organisms to suffer. I think this is almost axiomatic.

It seems the religious are not the only ones that hold to metaphysical differences between human and "animals"

We are animals we are apes. We are unique in that we have complex language and abstraction, the largest brains on the planet (relatively) and are capable of "feeling" abstract emotions such as exploitation. I do not doubt that there is distress for the cows involved, but exploitation no, and that shouldn't be bandied about although you didn't say the cows felt exploited only that we are exploiting them.

In a perfect world there would be no disease, we would be able to fully simulate the human body on computers and perform medical tests and trials etc "virtually" without any unnecessary suffering. We do not live in a perfect world and for that reason our ideals collide with reality and we have to make decisions.

That harvesting a few humans here and there for organs would also be beneficial to the whole?

Suffering covers that attempt.

I assume your a vegetarian, and a "moral vegetarian". Now I think "moral vegetarians" have got it wrong. One argument for vegetarianism is that the animals reared for consumption are treated appalling and only in regard to cheap food (on which I agree). However, if these millions of "moral vegetarians" paid for meat reared in a considerate manner, where the animals were given stress free lives etc, the suffering of animals would decrease unimaginably because money talks. Moral vegetarianism actually perpetuates animal suffering.

What do you base your moral considerations on exactly?

I start with ideals and when I have to I consider carefully where reality interacts with these ideals and I make decisions.

165. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #181961 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 18, 2008 at 11:57 pm

Where do you think those animal eggs are coming from?

It shows my "desensitisation" as this didn't register as being exploitative. I drink cow's milk and eat beef I see this as no worse, and potentially providing unquantifiable benefits to fully conscious human beings, that are infinitely more capable of suffering. This consideration didn't enter into my moral calculus.

166. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #181888 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 18, 2008 at 3:34 pm

I am however fully against the exploitation of non-consenting non-human animal subjects. Of course in any and all cases, not just this one.

I may have missed something and I apologise if I have, but where are non-human animal subjects being used raised in this article?

MPs have a free vote over the next two days on three controversial proposals: hybrid embryos; allowing the creation of 'saviour sibling' children, who could donate tissue to help older siblings with serious genetic disorders; and ending requirements for IVF clinics to consider the child's need for a father before treating single or lesbian women.

167. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #181880 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 18, 2008 at 2:55 pm

...allowing the creation of 'saviour sibling' children, who could donate tissue to help older siblings with serious genetic disorders; and ending requirements for IVF clinics to consider the child's need for a father before treating single or lesbian women.

Good riddance to the father clause although I still wonder about the social stigma that will be attached to such children.
The Saviour Sibling notion is again one that is troubling, but only because of the possible psychological effects on the child. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis is an important option for people however, so seeing as this is freely allowed I don't have any problem with the selection of 'saviour siblings' other than the possible psychological effects on the child. The argument against this notion is incredibly strong however, that saviour siblings will be merely saviour siblings and not wanted children. It's a hard question.

Three Catholic cabinet ministers - Ruth Kelly, Des Browne and Paul Murphy - are wrestling with their consciences, while at least another three have signalled they may vote to lower the upper time limit for so-called 'social abortions' from 24 weeks of pregnancy.

Pro-life MPs want the limit cut to 22 or 20 weeks. Most of the cabinet will join Brown in defending 24 weeks but Andy Burnham, the Culture Secretary and a Catholic, was said to be considering the issue over the weekend while chief whip Geoff Hoon will wait to listen to the debate. Shaun Woodward, Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, where abortion is still illegal, was silent.

Abortion is legal until 24 weeks on 'social' grounds, such as risk to the mother's mental welfare, and beyond this limit in cases with a serious risk of severe foetal disability. But late abortions authorised for relatively minor problems, such as a cleft palate or club foot, have fuelled controversy. Backbench rebellions are also likely over the requirement for a father in IVF treatment. However, Brown argues that people should be 'able to approach IVF clinics without fear of discrimination on the grounds of their sexual orientation'.

The 20 week scan is an important one where severe abnormalities are revealed so I think the limit should stay as it is.

However if I were a politician I would vote in favour of the bill as I think these decisions are for the individuals involved and not to be legislated against.

168. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #181832 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 18, 2008 at 10:48 am

I just lost a rather long response to you and lost it because of the time-out mechanism on this site.

Multitudes of posts have been lost this way. Will there ever be a change?

169. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #181818 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 18, 2008 at 10:00 am

I think it's ridiculous for you to assert that I, or the story's author, believe everyone {"anyone") needs to be personally affected by something to hold a forthright opinion. You must be misreading my sentiment wholesale.

Well sorry for misrepresenting you, but it seems you are implying that the majority of people need such a connection with an issue otherwise there wouldn't be a problem. This seems to be true (evidently) and it's a disheartening fact.

170. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #181808 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 18, 2008 at 9:40 am

ThoughtsonCommonToad: please let me know how I've unfairly misrepresented the article's statement on Brown's motivation.

You haven't as the article quotes unverifiable hearsay

...said by friends to be deeply personal, because his younger son, Fraser, has cystic fibrosis, a condition that could one day benefit from embryo research.

but to say that is the only reason he or by extension anyone could be behind a cause (by being directly affected) is insulting.

171. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #181797 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 18, 2008 at 9:27 am

Gordon Brown urges more research on stem cells because of his child's needs

I think that's unfair but I get the point.

172. Pop Goes Christianity

Comment #181795 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 18, 2008 at 9:25 am

BigJohn

What is a coopter? I can't find it in any dictionary.

I read it as co-opters which still isn't really a word but makes sense considering what co-opt means.

173. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #181793 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 18, 2008 at 9:19 am

Brown supports scientists who want to create hybrid embryos in which the nuclei of human cells are inserted into animal eggs and allowed to grow for a few days. Then each embryo's immature stem cells - containing DNA that is 99 per cent human - can be harvested and used to create brain, skin, heart and other tissue for treating crippling diseases.

How could someone condemn this. It is unbelievable.

The Roman Catholic church has taken the first step towards what could be a historic shift away from its total ban on the use of condoms.

Pope Benedict XVI's "health minister" is understood to be urging him to accept that in restricted circumstances - specifically the prevention of Aids - barrier contraception is the lesser of two evils.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/nov/23/catholicism.topstories3

Could a statement like that even be entertained by someone who doesn't believe in bullshit? The Catholic Church's activities are far more destructive than Islamic terror and yet they seem to get a easy ride.

174. Surviving an unholy school war

Comment #181762 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 18, 2008 at 7:16 am

This is not hypocritical. This is education straight out of the Bible.

175. God and Science Collide in Nation's Capital

Comment #181759 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 18, 2008 at 7:09 am

In other words, he suggests that we can get around the divide between science and God if we come up with a new concept for God that focuses on the wonders of nature , among other things.

This new concept is a global cultural imperative, Kauffman writes, if we are to overcome fundamentalist fears and reunite reason with humanity and the mysteries of life.

Hardly a new concept for God but I would bet the way most poeple feel about Nature, it's so beautiful as to deserve such a grand title, god seems too dirty a word for it however.

'deeply religious non-believers' like Einstein

Belief in god is obsolete. A deeply religious non-believer is the perfect replacement, a progression.

176. Face to faith

Comment #181754 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 18, 2008 at 6:52 am

huzonfurst
Thanks for the proofreading.

Excuse me, Common Toad, but the majority of people do *not* know the difference between amoral and immoral - what ivory tower have you been living in?

We're not going to settle this, but Atheism is amoral, pure and simple. It's the description of atheism in that atheism is a void, it prescribes nor requires anything more than you don't believe in a supernatural intervening god.

Common Toad, what is "patronizing" about expressing an opinion which my experience tells me is accurate?

When you put it like that nothing, it was a combination of your chastising of Henri for a statement that is irrefutably correct and your post-hoc justification that you did this because some poor unfortunate member of the, it would seem staggeringly ignorant if what you say is true (I think you can tell I don't believe this), unenlightened majority may confuse this with being immoral.

This exchange serves no value and I'm sorry I shouldn't have started this. The patronising point is important however, it is the reason for the all too common action of taking offence on a persons behalf and a stifling of criticism.

177. Face to faith

Comment #181592 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 17, 2008 at 3:32 pm

DavidJGrossman

Really? Can you explain why you think this is true?

Bergson regurgitates Nietzsche

178. Face to faith

Comment #181565 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 17, 2008 at 1:40 pm

huzonfurst

I know what 'amoral' means, but I also know that probably a majority of people, especially religious people, equate it with 'immoral' - and I suspect that Henri is (consciously or not) exploiting this confusion.

Sounds like you're the ass. How patronising. Would it not have been easier to just admit that you had a minor lapse and misunderstood amoral to be immoral rather than concoct a post-hoc justification that is patently ridiculous.

EDIT:The majority of people know the difference between immoral and amoral, as it is elementary. I'm still trying to register the arrogance of the claim that you need to stop the poor unfortunate majority who cannot understand what amoral is. Just shows post-hoc justifications and rationalisations (most commonly manifest in religious scientists like Ken Miller, Jane Goodall and Francis Collins) drive people to the most uncomfortable, seemingly unsustainable, contortions.

EDITED DUE TO CLARIFICATION

179. Richard Dawkins Interview on TVOntario

Comment #181018 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 16, 2008 at 9:52 am

Would the world be better without Religion?
Define Religion
OED:
religion

• noun
1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
2 a particular system of faith and worship.
3 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.

Without 1 and 2 yes. Without 3 no.

At the end the woman says: "Self-transcendance"

Hitchens: "I do like his point that if you want to see something that's marvelous and awe inspiring, take a look through the Hubble telescope, once you have, you can't really be impressed by the 'burning bush'."

180. 'Framing Science' and The Dawkins Effect

Comment #180496 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 15, 2008 at 5:40 am

I think that framing is pandering, and soon we'll end up like that movie "Idiocracy" where all is superficiality, and ideologies and facts are both reduced to mere catch-phrases.

In what way is that not a perfect description of the state of affairs at present?

181. Vatican: It's OK to believe in aliens

Comment #180495 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 15, 2008 at 5:32 am

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/7401704.stm

West Midlands Police and the Crown Prosecution Service have apologised for accusing the makers of a Channel 4 documentary of distortion.

The apology and the promise of £100,000 were made at the High Court on Thursday.

It follows comments made about a Dispatches programme, Undercover Mosque, which tackled claims of Islamic extremism in the West Midlands.

The police statement said the force was wrong to make the allegations.

A press release issued by the police and the CPS in August 2007 claimed the Dispatches programme, broadcast in January of that year, misrepresented the views of Muslim preachers and clerics with misleading editing.

One preacher was shown saying a homosexual should be thrown off a mountain, another that women were born deficient.

Police also reported Channel 4 to television watchdog Ofcom for "heavily editing" the words of Islamic imams.

But in November, Ofcom rejected the police and CPS claims, and Channel 4 said it was going to sue the CPS and police for libel.

182. Richard Dawkins discusses Einstein's new letters

Comment #180144 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 14, 2008 at 9:14 am

Bonzai
These extremely intelligent people almost always use the argument from awe. This is not only insulting to someone who also experiences profound awe but doesn't have the audacity or unbelievable arrogance to suggest the universe was created so I could experience it, but it must also be ultimately dishonest. You have to ignore the reams and reams of cruelty, God-made ineptitude and wanton disregard for humanity and all other species, and the huge incomprehensible magnitude of the universe. The argument from awe is specious and ridiculously selective; As I have said before and will continue to say ultimately dishonest.

I usually cite in support of this an article by Jane Goodall , which I will quote again, because it still astounds me.

When I was a child, born into a Christian family, I accepted the reality of an unseen God without question. And now that I have lived almost three quarters of a century I still believe in a great spiritual power. I have described elsewhere the experience I had when I first visited Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. When, as I gazed at the great rose window, glowing in the morning sun, the air was suddenly filled with the glorious sound of an organ playing Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D Minor. It filled me with joy, brought tears to my eyes. How could I believe that blind chance had led to that moment in time "the cathedral, the collective faith of those who had prayed and worshiped within, the genius of Bach, the emergence of a conscious mind that could, as mine did then, question the purpose of life on Earth. Was all the wonder and beauty simply the result of purposeless gyrations of bits of cosmic dust at the beginning of time? If not, then there must be some extra-cosmic power, the creator of the big bang. A purpose in the universe. Perhaps, one day, that purpose will be revealed.

"How could I believe that blind chance had led to that moment in time". The whole universe was created so she could have that "moment". If that is not up for the most arrogant statement possible by a human being, then I don't know what is.

183. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #179510 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 13, 2008 at 10:55 am

Office Space

Love that film

184. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #179463 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 13, 2008 at 9:37 am

Sickofgod
Sadaam Hussein? Saudi Arabia etc ...

185. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #179115 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 12, 2008 at 4:18 pm

Quine
Thanks that did cheer me up.

186. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #179108 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 12, 2008 at 3:47 pm

ThoughtsonCommonToad, why is it such a hard decision? Why is it hard to decide to do the right thing?

Begging the question

i think I'll take your lead and get the answer from the Bible. Let's just have a flick through here.
In the Beginning ...
Eve, and all women after her, with the pains of childbirth and subjection to men ...
Incest ...
Lot gives his daughters over to be raped ...
Lot shags his daughters and they have his children ...
God threatens Genocide (he loves doing that but actually carrying them out whoa thats good killing)...

WHOA this is just getting dirty now, polgmamy incest, murder everywhere im going to skip a bit

Ah here we are

And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. -- Leviticus 27:6

So what a baby has to be one month old to count hang on that can't be right

Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD. -- Numbers 3:15-16

There it is again.

Because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. -- 2 Samuel 12:14
God kills newborns, nice!

Wow I missed something buried in all the incest and murder and torture

Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. -- Genesis 38:24


There are many more but I'm getting bored and quite sick. God really is a nasty prick.

187. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #179059 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 12, 2008 at 1:12 pm

Will parents also be getting into trouble for teaching their kids about the sanctity and intrinsic dignity of all human life from conception?

Can you please read your Bible. Are you even a Christian? I am starting to wonder.

188. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #179056 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 12, 2008 at 1:10 pm

the wanton slaughter of millions of unborn children, even right up to birth, for no other reason than that the woman's right not to have the child outweighs the child's right to be born.

One of the hardest moral decisions out there. However everyone agrees people should be allowed to scratch there nose, and that infanticide is wrong. We know the answer lies somewhere in between. The question is not answered by Christianity.

Lets look at the bible for the answer.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/abortion.html

Oh shit!

189. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #179020 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 12, 2008 at 12:00 pm

Artful_Dodger

But do you really believe that parents who sincerely transmit their faith in God to their kids, striving to embody and exemplify God's love and goodness towards them and towards other people (friends, guests in their home etc.) are guilty of indoctrination and mental torture? Naturally we hope that our children will embrace our beliefs. But (in my experience) there is not and cannot be any kind of manipulation or emotional pressure. I'm not denying that it happens in some cases, but it contradicts the whole thrust of Scripture, which is respectful of the will of every human being to orient his or her life towards God or away from Him. When we choose the latter we are choosing our own destiny. God does not force a relationship with Him on anyone, either in this life or beyond.

I like your God he sounds nice. Can you just do one thing for me? Can you re-read the bible and try to say that again with a straight face.

Thanks

190. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178977 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 12, 2008 at 10:31 am

MPhil
What do you think about Plato's world of ideal forms. I think we both agree about Beauty and Morality but what about Mathematical?

191. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #178970 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 12, 2008 at 10:25 am

It has to be what else could it be?

192. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #178966 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 12, 2008 at 10:20 am

Speaking of the end times I came across this today
http://the-end.com/2008GodsFinalWitness/

2008 - God's Final Witness

From now until the latter part of 2008, many prophecies are going to begin to be fulfilled, especially the Seven Thunders of the Book of Revelation, which the apostle John saw but was restricted from recording. Those thunders are revealed in this book, as well as detailed accounts of the final three and one-half years of man's self-rule on earth, which are recorded in the account of the Seventh Seal of Revelation.

Some of these prophecies concern the demise of the United States over the next year, which will be followed by man's final world war. This last war will be the result of clashing religions and the governments they sway. Billions will die! This time will far exceed even the very worst times in all human history.

As these events unfold, the world will increasingly become aware of the authenticity of the words in this book and realize that Ronald Weinland has been sent by God as His end-time prophet.

This book is primarily directed to the people of the three major religions of the world (Islam, Judaism and Christianity), whose roots are in the God of Abraham. Ronald Weinland has been sent to all three.

193. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178963 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 12, 2008 at 10:16 am

scooternyc
How do you then explain Terri's Law and Jeb Bush. Is that not an infringement on those rights? Genuine question.

194. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178889 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 12, 2008 at 7:48 am

http://the-end.com/2008GodsFinalWitness/

2008 - God's Final Witness

From now until the latter part of 2008, many prophecies are going to begin to be fulfilled, especially the Seven Thunders of the Book of Revelation, which the apostle John saw but was restricted from recording. Those thunders are revealed in this book, as well as detailed accounts of the final three and one-half years of man's self-rule on earth, which are recorded in the account of the Seventh Seal of Revelation.

Some of these prophecies concern the demise of the United States over the next year, which will be followed by man's final world war. This last war will be the result of clashing religions and the governments they sway. Billions will die! This time will far exceed even the very worst times in all human history.

As these events unfold, the world will increasingly become aware of the authenticity of the words in this book and realize that Ronald Weinland has been sent by God as His end-time prophet.

This book is primarily directed to the people of the three major religions of the world (Islam, Judaism and Christianity), whose roots are in the God of Abraham. Ronald Weinland has been sent to all three.

195. Discussion on PZ Myers being expelled from Expelled

Comment #178859 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 12, 2008 at 6:56 am

Any idea when the full discussion will be up

Thanks

EDIT: just spotted the comment from Josh. A month or two dated 25th March.

196. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177536 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 9, 2008 at 8:58 am

If anyone is interested

I've uploaded Richard Dawkin's interview followed by the Cardinals interview at this link.

http://www.uploading.com/files/GCGDCZXI/dawkinsinterviewtodayshowradio4.mp3.html

Richard was brilliant, he showed up Humphrey's hyprocrisy.

I've also sent this to design@richarddawkins.net so hopefully it will be up on here aswell.

197. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177531 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 9, 2008 at 8:49 am

I've uploaded Richard Dawkin's Radio 4 interview followed by the Cardinals interview at this link.

http://www.uploading.com/files/GCGDCZXI/dawkinsinterviewtodayshowradio4.mp3.html

Richard was brilliant, he showed up Humphrey's hyprocrisy.

198. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #176586 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 7, 2008 at 4:20 pm

ligfietser
Here's the link translated. It seems intelligible.

http://www.google.com/translate?u=http://www.volkskrant.nl/multimedia/article518532.ece/Moslimomroep_overweegt_uitzenden_film_Wilders&hl=en&ie=UTF8&sl=nl&tl=en

199. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #176579 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 7, 2008 at 4:03 pm

Sorry to stir the pot again but Christopher Hitchens researched a couple of common accusations against Chomsky in this article

The gravamen of the bill against Noam Chomsky is this. That, first, he did euphemize and minimize the horrors of the Khmer Rouge. That, second, he did "endorse" or otherwise recommend a pamphlet or paper that sought to prove the Nazi Holocaust a fiction. That, third, he is an enemy of the Jewish state and a friend to footpads and terrorists of every stripe.

Here is a couple of relevant quotes about the Faurisson Affair:

In the early stages of this process, Chomsky received a request, from his friend Serge Thion, that he add his name to a petition upholding Faurisson's right to free expression. This, on standard First Amendment grounds and in company with many others, he did. The resulting uproar, in which he was accused of defending Faurisson's theses, led to another request from Thion. Would Chomsky write a statement asserting the right to free speech even in the case of the most loathsome extremist? To this he also assented, pointing out that it was precisely such cases that tested the adherence of a society to such principles and adding in a covering letter that Thion could make what use of it he wished. At this stage, only the conservative Alfred Grosser among French intellectuals had been prepared to say that Faurisson's suspension by the University of Lyons set a bad example of academic courage and independence. Chomsky's pedantic recitation of Voltairean principles would probably have aroused no comment at all had Thion not taker rather promiscuous advantage of the permission to use it as he wished. Without notification to Chomsky, he added the little essay as an avis to Faurisson's pretrial Memiore en defense.

...
Chomsky can be faulted here on three grounds only. First, for giving a power of attorney to Serge Thion, who seems rather a protean and quicksilvery fellow. Second, for once unguardedly describing Faurisson as "a sort of relatively apolitical liberal." Admittedly, this came in the context of an assertion that Faurisson's opinions were a closed book to him; still, all the more reason not to speculate. The whole point is that Faurisson's opinions are not the point. Third, for attempting at the last minute, when he discovered too late that he was being bound into the same volume as a work he had not read, to have his commentary excised. He writes of this that "in the climate of hysteria among Paris intellectuals it would be impossible to distinguish defense of the man's right to express his views from endorsement of these views." Maybe. But Voltairean precepts involve precisely the running of that risk.

And if I could add: Thanks for your kind words Al I have a lot of respect for you and your opinions.

Has Chomsky been wrong, of course, and his constant twisting of anything into a chance to retell a tail of American Imperial barbarism becomes nauseating. I find I have to put his books down and read something else for a while.

200. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #176471 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 7, 2008 at 12:16 pm

Holocaust denial anti-semitism

Sorry to butt in but it is obviously not automatically anti-semitism to deny the Holocaust, that's surely easy to see. Chomsky's own example is a bit stupid, he says something like if you told a child, or someone ignorant of the holocaust, what happened and he denied it, saying humans are not capable of such depravity, he wouldn't be anti-semitic. There are however many other plausible denials that wouldn't be anti-semitic in nature.