Guest Jason Posted May 22, 2007 Posted May 22, 2007 In article <uOt4i.29706$Um6.2660@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>, bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <jF84i.21438$YL5.20251@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, > > bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> In article <f2ql5q$g6n$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > >>> <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Jason wrote: > >>>>> In article <f2qamc$6p7$01$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > >>>>> <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Jason wrote: > >>>>>>> In article <g7f0531edtq40qv6a9qfclae18o6kj07hr@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >>>>>>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On 20 May 2007 01:13:48 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >>>>>>>> Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in > >>>>>>>> <1179648828.383854.130670@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>: > >>>>>>>> ... > >>>>>>>>>> Here's something else that could happen: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> An alien civilization could invade the Earth and enslave people to > >>>>> work in > >>>>>>>>>> mines. I watched a stupid-ass movie and that was the plot. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> A mutant form of turtles could become ninjas, purchase headbands > >>>>> and start > >>>>>>>>>> talking in the 90's lingo. They could monopolize the world's > >>> supplies of > >>>>>>>>>> anchovies. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> A boy band could start a following of teenage girls, move to a South > >>>>>>>>>> American country and create an entire civilization of Paris Hilton > >>>>>>> look-alikes. > >>>>>>>>>> All of these as likely as the scenarios you mention, but of > > course, the > >>>>>>>>>> people who are telling you what you think will never admit that. > >>>>>>>>> In all fairness, here's another unlikely scenario. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Islamic fundamentalist terrorists from a "friendly" country like Saudi > >>>>>>>>> Arabia could highjack multiple airplanes in the United States using > >>>>>>>>> box cutters and force the planes to crash into major US landmarks. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Couldn't happen? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Note that if within the next 12 years we could successfully get the > >>>>>>>>> whole world to be atheist then there would no longer be any reason for > >>>>>>>>> people to kill each other. > >>>>>>>> Well said. > >>>>>>> Was Hitler an atheist? > >>>>>> Evidence points to that he was catholic. Also some quotes point to the > >>>>>> fact that he at least knew how religion can be used to control the > > masses. > >>>>>> Was Joseph Stalin a atheist? Stalin killed > >>>>>>> thousands of people in the Soviet Union. > >>>>>> Likely. But he did not kill because he was atheist. He was a > >>>>>> fundamentalist. THAT was the problem. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> What about Alexander the Great? > >>>>>>> Alexander is said to have wept because there wre no countries left to > >>>>>>> conquer. > >>>>>> No idea. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The question is not if an atheist or a theist kill for other reasons. > >>>>>> Fundamentalistic communism, or national sozialism or other not religion > >>>>>> related ideologies. > >>>>>> The question is what wars are fought and what atrocities are done in the > >>>>>> name of religion. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> See, the problem with Hitler and Stalin is not one of religion. They > >>>>>> both were fundamentalists. Whether or not they were atheist or hinduist > >>>>>> or christian does not matter. The driving force behind the things they > >>>>>> did was not religion or the lack of it. It was the fundamentalist part. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So there is no question that atheists as well as christians can be > >>>>>> fundamentalist idiots. > >>>>>> The question is, how many atrocities could have been avoided if there > >>>>>> was no religion. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Terrorism is not necessarily driven by religion. But it can be. And > >>>>>> quite often, that is the driving force behind it. > >>>>>> That does not mean that without religion there will be no more > >>>>>> terrorism. But the religiously driven part (which I think is one of the > >>>>>> mayor forces behind it) would be nonexistent. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Tokay > >>>>> I understand your point. The question is, how many atrocities could have > >>>>> been avoided if there were no atheists such as Stalin? > >>>> I explained that Stalin was a menace NOT because he was atheist. But > >>>> because he was a fundamentalist. > >>>> > >>>>> Would you agree that a fundamentalist atheist is just as likely to start a > >>>>> war as a fundamentalist theist? > >>>> In theory, yes. As of now, atheist are quite unlikely to commit crimes > >>>> because they are atheists. They might commit ones because of other > >>>> ideas. Atheism is not a religion, there is no book, there are no rules > >>>> you have to follow to be an atheist. There are no "infidels", there is > >>>> no "holy land". > >>>> > >>>> So, a "fundamentalistic atheist" might see theists as deluded, but as > >>>> long as they don't try to impose that on me or my kind, they can do > >>>> whatever they like and be deluded in the way they like. > >>>> > >>>> Since "atheism" is not a religion, it is unlikely to produce suicide > >>>> bombers. > >>>> > >>>> Tokay > >>> Excellent post. I have a different point of view. I have lived in > >>> California during the past 30 year and there are lots of atheists in > >>> California. I spent the first 26 years in Virginia and almost everyone in > >>> my hometown were Christians. Most of the people in my hometown in Virgina > >>> obeyed the laws. The crime rate was very low in my hometown in Virginia. > >>> They even printed the names of all of the people that were arrested in the > >>> local newspaper. It was mostly tickets for speeding or car accidents. I > >>> live in a small town in California. The types of crimes are VERY > >>> different. There is a gang of teenagers in a nearby town--we never had any > >>> gangs in my hometown in Virginia. It's my guess that most of the gang > >>> members are atheists. There have been at least 10 murders since I have > >>> lived here. In my hometown in Virginia there were only two murders. There > >>> have been lots of arrests related to illegal drugs in my town in > >>> California. It's my opinion--and I can not prove it--that atheists are > >>> more likely to commit crimes than Christians that take their religion very > >>> seriously. Feel free to disagree with me. > >> You moved from a small town with a homogeneous population and not much > >> migration to the most heterogeneous state in the union, where all ethnic > >> groups live side by side. There will be differences. Everyone was the > >> whitebread same where you came from, but everyone is different where you > >> are. I live in San Francisco and raised two children here. I know about > >> the differences and the ethnic issues. Religion has nothing to do with > >> it. You have an unreasonable bias against atheists. If you are going to > >> live in a pluralistic state you had better get rid of any biases you have. > > > > I have learned to do it. I rarely ever discussed my opinions while I was > > still working. I retired last year. I took some classes at a the state > > university and kept my opinions to myself. Some of my professors were > > atheists. I respected most of them except for one lady professor that > > humiliated Christians in her class. > > Such people do not merit respect unless there is a compelling reason. > It sounds doubtful in this case. > > I respect atheists as long as they are > > respectful to me. > > Agreed. > > Most atheists that I have met were wonderful people. > > Believe it or not, almost everyone has biases--they just don't discuss > > them except with their closest friends. For example, you probably know > > people in San Francisco that have a bias against homosexuals but they > > would never state that bias with anyone except their closest friends. > > It's probably out there, but I have never observed it in my circle of > friends and acquaintances. > > > > > Would you agree that most everyone has biases? Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 22, 2007 Posted May 22, 2007 Al Klein wrote: > On Sun, 20 May 2007 22:05:25 +0200, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> (Not born yet.... So rather theoretical. If you are interested, so far >> they say august) > > Congratulations and best wishes. And tell your wife that she has my > sympathy - 9 months pregnant in the hottest part of the year. Yes. Well. It is not that easy. But that is another story. Tokay -- Quotation: The act of repeating erroneously the words of another. Ambrose Bierce Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 22, 2007 Posted May 22, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1179713104.454891.140750@u36g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On May 21, 2:52 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> In article <f2q0k1$non$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: >>>> Jason wrote: >>>>> In article <9tgv43dg835v3hk04uat7ib10fe8hf3...@4ax.com>, Al Klein >>>>> <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 19 May 2007 17:06:38 -0700, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>>> Many rich people have given up on public >>>>>>> schools and send their children to expensive college prep > private schools. >>>>>> Which teach them how to get into prestigious colleges and >>>>>> universities. We're still falling behind the rest of the first world >>>>>> in education, more every year. What do you expect from a school >>>>>> system that thinks it's right to teach that evolution is just the idea >>>>>> of some dead guy and some invisible supercreature created the universe >>>>>> so that mankind could run everything? >>>>>> Our "graduates" are laughed at in really advanced nations. >>>>> Yet those nations send their smartest children to American Universities. >>>> Two points. >>>> We were talking "general education" and that is NOT university. >>> Excellent point. I agree that "general education" is a failure but our >>> universites are producing some excellent graduates--esp. in the fields of >>> engineering, math, computers and science. >>> >>> >>> >>>> I would go to great lengths to avoid sending my kid to the US. That has >>>> in fact nothing to do with the universities. They actually are quite >>>> good. Another story. Has something to do with politics. >>>>> Many of them major in engineering. I agree that we are falling > behind. One >>>>> of the reasons is because our high school teachers have to teach courses >>>>> like sex education; >>>> IBTD. Very important subject. Weeeell. Actually it's the parents job. >>>> But to make sure the kids know this stuff, school should teach it. >>> The problem is that the teachers are spending so much time teaching >>> courses like that instead of teaching really important courses like >>> chemistry and algebra >> or biology (including the theory of evolution). >> >> Martin > > Yes--except for private Christian schools--they teach evolution and > creation science. > > Oh, you can do that. But first you have to explain what "science" is. Then you can show them the evidence for "creation science". And if you taught them what "science" is and did that well, they will instantly see that the course about "science" for "creation" will be an extremely short one. Tokay -- Quotation: The act of repeating erroneously the words of another. Ambrose Bierce Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 22, 2007 Posted May 22, 2007 Al Klein wrote: > On Sun, 20 May 2007 19:24:56 +0200, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Agreed. But what is the solution? Around here I think it works ok. > > The last time I was there, in 1978, the kids in their mid to late > teens (high school, in the US) seemed to be pretty well educated. At > least, those I spoke with could carry on a pretty intelligent > conversation. And that was in a little back-woods village > (Unterkochen - in Schwaben, I believe). Even the 6-year-old son of a > colleague sounded well-educated for his age. That is the beauty of the system here I think. A few years back only two of the "Bundesl Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 22, 2007 Posted May 22, 2007 Al Klein wrote: > On Sun, 20 May 2007 13:44:13 +0930, Michael Gray > <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, 19 May 2007 23:46:24 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> >> wrote: >> - Refer: <g2hv43pqscndm0g5408e32dj77cuqdktla@4ax.com> >>> On Sun, 20 May 2007 09:38:29 +0930, Michael Gray >>> <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, 19 May 2007 17:06:31 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> >>>> wrote: >>>> And homonyms? I doubt that many know what the word means - if >>>> Them's those nasty men with lipstick, aren't they? >>> That's probably as far as some kids in "Christian" schools get. If it >>> starts with h, o, m and o, it must be a bad thing. >> In the case of homo sapiens, it is a bad thing for the rest of the >> life on the planet. >> (Apart from rats, and cockroaches of course) > > Fleas, human lice, bedbugs, malaria ... Hm. A little tangent maybe. I remember that a few years back they talked about how long plastics would stay around until they decompose. IIRC, they lately found a bacterium that ate plastic. (Not quite sure about the facts, though. What kind of plastic and where that was....) So these bacteria profit from humans also. They would not have been there in the first place. Sound pretty much like evolution to me.... ;-) Tokay -- Quotation: The act of repeating erroneously the words of another. Ambrose Bierce Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 22, 2007 Posted May 22, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f2ql5q$g6n$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <f2qamc$6p7$01$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris >>> <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>>> In article <g7f0531edtq40qv6a9qfclae18o6kj07hr@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >>>>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 20 May 2007 01:13:48 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >>>>>> Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in >>>>>> <1179648828.383854.130670@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>: >>>>>> ... >>>>>>>> Here's something else that could happen: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> An alien civilization could invade the Earth and enslave people to >>> work in >>>>>>>> mines. I watched a stupid-ass movie and that was the plot. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A mutant form of turtles could become ninjas, purchase headbands >>> and start >>>>>>>> talking in the 90's lingo. They could monopolize the world's > supplies of >>>>>>>> anchovies. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A boy band could start a following of teenage girls, move to a South >>>>>>>> American country and create an entire civilization of Paris Hilton >>>>> look-alikes. >>>>>>>> All of these as likely as the scenarios you mention, but of course, the >>>>>>>> people who are telling you what you think will never admit that. >>>>>>> In all fairness, here's another unlikely scenario. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Islamic fundamentalist terrorists from a "friendly" country like Saudi >>>>>>> Arabia could highjack multiple airplanes in the United States using >>>>>>> box cutters and force the planes to crash into major US landmarks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Couldn't happen? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Note that if within the next 12 years we could successfully get the >>>>>>> whole world to be atheist then there would no longer be any reason for >>>>>>> people to kill each other. >>>>>> Well said. >>>>> Was Hitler an atheist? >>>> Evidence points to that he was catholic. Also some quotes point to the >>>> fact that he at least knew how religion can be used to control the masses. >>>> >>>> Was Joseph Stalin a atheist? Stalin killed >>>>> thousands of people in the Soviet Union. >>>> Likely. But he did not kill because he was atheist. He was a >>>> fundamentalist. THAT was the problem. >>>> >>>> What about Alexander the Great? >>>>> Alexander is said to have wept because there wre no countries left to >>>>> conquer. >>>> No idea. >>>> >>>> The question is not if an atheist or a theist kill for other reasons. >>>> Fundamentalistic communism, or national sozialism or other not religion >>>> related ideologies. >>>> The question is what wars are fought and what atrocities are done in the >>>> name of religion. >>>> >>>> See, the problem with Hitler and Stalin is not one of religion. They >>>> both were fundamentalists. Whether or not they were atheist or hinduist >>>> or christian does not matter. The driving force behind the things they >>>> did was not religion or the lack of it. It was the fundamentalist part. >>>> >>>> So there is no question that atheists as well as christians can be >>>> fundamentalist idiots. >>>> The question is, how many atrocities could have been avoided if there >>>> was no religion. >>>> >>>> Terrorism is not necessarily driven by religion. But it can be. And >>>> quite often, that is the driving force behind it. >>>> That does not mean that without religion there will be no more >>>> terrorism. But the religiously driven part (which I think is one of the >>>> mayor forces behind it) would be nonexistent. >>>> >>>> >>>> Tokay >>> I understand your point. The question is, how many atrocities could have >>> been avoided if there were no atheists such as Stalin? >> I explained that Stalin was a menace NOT because he was atheist. But >> because he was a fundamentalist. >> >>> Would you agree that a fundamentalist atheist is just as likely to start a >>> war as a fundamentalist theist? >> In theory, yes. As of now, atheist are quite unlikely to commit crimes >> because they are atheists. They might commit ones because of other >> ideas. Atheism is not a religion, there is no book, there are no rules >> you have to follow to be an atheist. There are no "infidels", there is >> no "holy land". >> >> So, a "fundamentalistic atheist" might see theists as deluded, but as >> long as they don't try to impose that on me or my kind, they can do >> whatever they like and be deluded in the way they like. >> >> Since "atheism" is not a religion, it is unlikely to produce suicide >> bombers. >> >> Tokay > > Excellent post. I have a different point of view. I have lived in > California during the past 30 year and there are lots of atheists in > California. I spent the first 26 years in Virginia and almost everyone in > my hometown were Christians. Most of the people in my hometown in Virgina > obeyed the laws. The crime rate was very low in my hometown in Virginia. > They even printed the names of all of the people that were arrested in the > local newspaper. It was mostly tickets for speeding or car accidents. I > live in a small town in California. The types of crimes are VERY > different. There is a gang of teenagers in a nearby town--we never had any > gangs in my hometown in Virginia. It's my guess that most of the gang > members are atheists. There have been at least 10 murders since I have > lived here. In my hometown in Virginia there were only two murders. There > have been lots of arrests related to illegal drugs in my town in > California. It's my opinion--and I can not prove it--that atheists are > more likely to commit crimes than Christians that take their religion very > seriously. Feel free to disagree with me. > Jason > > There are a lot of questions involved and I am no expert on any of them. You state correctly that what you experienced is more like a feeling. And opinion. That does not make it false or without merit. Far from it. There might also be a lot of sociological issues involved, like the size of the town, what it's main resource is and so on. Also time is an issue. This does not mean that I disagree with you on terms of opinion. But I think that to state that as a fact (you did not do that), you'd have to produce more data. Well, you did not say that. But the data should be obtainable. Maybe not easy, but a full blown sociological study could show your "hypothesis" to be false. Or fail to falsify it. (By the way, apart from other discussions we had here, "Atheists are more likely to commit crimes than Christians that take their religion very seriously." is a valid hypothesis. That does not mean it is true or false, it just means it is a hypothesis you can work with and try to disprove it.) Not my field of expertise, however. But my guess is that there are studies done along those line. I just googled. Not to answer anything, but to see if there were any studies. It appears that Japan is one of the most atheistic nations in the G8. And they also have the lowest murder rate. As compared to the US as one of the most religious nations having a very high murder rate. This is in no way conclusive because Japan and the USA differ in so many aspects that a statistical correlation in no way proves any cause and effect. If I can find the time I will look and see if I can find some more. Tokay -- Quotation: The act of repeating erroneously the words of another. Ambrose Bierce Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 22, 2007 Posted May 22, 2007 On May 22, 1:09 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1179799538.944944.219...@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On May 22, 2:59 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > I honestly don't understand why anyone would want to join a gang--atheist > > > or Christian. It's probably for companionship or protection. > > > Which is the same reason so many people around the world join their > > local religious group. > Another reason: Because God wants us to go to church. There is a scripture > that says: "Forsake not yourselves from assembling together" Ignoring for a moment the fact that God doesn't exist, couldn't this just as easily be interpretted as God wanting people to join gangs? Martin Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted May 22, 2007 Posted May 22, 2007 On Tue, 22 May 2007 10:38:03 +0200, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: - Refer: <f2uag3$pdd$03$2@news.t-online.com> >Al Klein wrote: >> On Sun, 20 May 2007 13:44:13 +0930, Michael Gray >> <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 19 May 2007 23:46:24 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> >>> wrote: >>> - Refer: <g2hv43pqscndm0g5408e32dj77cuqdktla@4ax.com> >>>> On Sun, 20 May 2007 09:38:29 +0930, Michael Gray >>>> <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sat, 19 May 2007 17:06:31 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> And homonyms? I doubt that many know what the word means - if >>>>> Them's those nasty men with lipstick, aren't they? >>>> That's probably as far as some kids in "Christian" schools get. If it >>>> starts with h, o, m and o, it must be a bad thing. >>> In the case of homo sapiens, it is a bad thing for the rest of the >>> life on the planet. >>> (Apart from rats, and cockroaches of course) >> >> Fleas, human lice, bedbugs, malaria ... > >Hm. A little tangent maybe. I remember that a few years back they talked >about how long plastics would stay around until they decompose. > >IIRC, they lately found a bacterium that ate plastic. If they infect 747s, which is bound to happen, watch out if you are either an air-traveller, or an insurer. >(Not quite sure about the facts, though. What kind of plastic and where >that was....) > >So these bacteria profit from humans also. They would not have been >there in the first place. Sound pretty much like evolution to me.... > > >;-) > >Tokay -- Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 22, 2007 Posted May 22, 2007 On May 22, 1:30 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1179804699.590658.141...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On May 22, 7:50 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1179786323.865613.26...@z24g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > On 22 Maj, 01:06, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > In article <1179782961.266861.268...@r3g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > > On 21 Maj, 19:42, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > > In article <kn18i4-ooe....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > > > > > > > <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > [snips] > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 20 May 2007 23:07:37 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> > Unborn babies have no legal rights. > > > > > > > > > >> Non-existent things rarely do. > > > > > > > > > > You see the fetus as NON-EXISTENT. > > > > > > > > > Obviously I don't. You know this. Try again. > > > > > > > > > > disagreement. I see the fetus as EXISTENT. > > > > > > > > > Now there's a stunning ability to grasp the obvious. > > > > > > > > > > fetus can clearly be seen on a 3D color ultrasound. The > > > California Su= > > > > > > preme > > > > > > > > > Court even stated in at least one court decision that a fetus > > > and the > > > > > > > > > mother were equal. > > > > > > > > > They did? Funny, you haven't shown that. You've shown a sound > > > bite th= > > > > > > at > > > > > > > > says that under unknown conditions, with unknown limits and > unknown > > > > > > > > applicability, a killing involving both a pregnant woman and her > > > fetus = > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > be considered two murders. This is not quite the same as "a > > > fetus and = > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > mother are equal". Try again. > > > > > > > > A man murdered a pregnant woman. He was convicted to murdering two > > > people. > > > > > > > He murdered the mother and her unborn baby. I believe that the > typical > > > > > > > person would conclude that the California Supreme Court Judges > > > treated the > > > > > > > mother and her unborn baby exactly the same. > > > > > > > What the "typical person" may or may not conclude does not determine > > > > > > what the law is. > > > > > > In this case, do you believe the mother and her unborn baby was treated > > > > > differently or the same? I believe they were treated the same since the > > > > > man was found guilty of two murders. If he had only been found guilty of > > > > > one murder, they would have been treated differently. > > > > > What you believe or what you "guess" is not relevant. What does the > > > > law say? > > > > You failed to answer my question. As far as the court decision is > > > concerned, was the mother and her fetus treated the same? > > > He asked you what the law says. The law in California redefines > > murder as the killing of a human being OR a fetus but wilfull abortion > > is excluded from the law. Thus, women and fetuses are not treated the > > same under California law. That is your answer. > > Under that law, would a man be charged with murder if he stabbed a > pregnant woman--the fetus dies but the woman lives? Yes. I posted the text of the law earlier in this thread. It explicitly excludes "abortions performed with the mother's consent". Martin Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 22, 2007 Posted May 22, 2007 Michael Gray wrote: > On Tue, 22 May 2007 10:38:03 +0200, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > - Refer: <f2uag3$pdd$03$2@news.t-online.com> >> Al Klein wrote: >>> On Sun, 20 May 2007 13:44:13 +0930, Michael Gray >>> <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, 19 May 2007 23:46:24 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> >>>> wrote: >>>> - Refer: <g2hv43pqscndm0g5408e32dj77cuqdktla@4ax.com> >>>>> On Sun, 20 May 2007 09:38:29 +0930, Michael Gray >>>>> <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, 19 May 2007 17:06:31 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> And homonyms? I doubt that many know what the word means - if >>>>>> Them's those nasty men with lipstick, aren't they? >>>>> That's probably as far as some kids in "Christian" schools get. If it >>>>> starts with h, o, m and o, it must be a bad thing. >>>> In the case of homo sapiens, it is a bad thing for the rest of the >>>> life on the planet. >>>> (Apart from rats, and cockroaches of course) >>> Fleas, human lice, bedbugs, malaria ... >> Hm. A little tangent maybe. I remember that a few years back they talked >> about how long plastics would stay around until they decompose. >> >> IIRC, they lately found a bacterium that ate plastic. > > If they infect 747s, which is bound to happen, watch out if you are > either an air-traveller, or an insurer. Exactly. I hadn't thought of that. So this is again the "evolutionary arms race". We probably would have to use antibiotics to "heal" the 747.... The bacteria then could become immune.... "Running to stand still" Tokay -- Quotation: The act of repeating erroneously the words of another. Ambrose Bierce Quote
Guest Martin Posted May 22, 2007 Posted May 22, 2007 On May 22, 1:40 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1179804129.753391.216...@36g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On May 22, 7:02 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1179782094.943998.202...@x18g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > As many have pointed out you have no evidence that planned parenthood > > > > tries to talk anybody into having abortions. Yet you continue to lie > > > > about them. Why do you do that? > > > > Do they tell women that are seeking abortions that they should not have > > > abortions but instead should have their babies and put them up for > > > adoption? > > > > It's my understanding that abortions are one of the services available at > > > Planned Parenthood Office. Of course, some Planned Parenthood Offices > > > refer patients for abortions. > > > If you knew that hundreds of thousands of women died every year > > worldwide giving birth, would you still pressure a woman into having a > > baby she didn't want? > I would never tell a woman what to do unless she asked me for my opinion. > In that case, I would advise her to have the baby and put it up for > adoption. If she wanted to have an abortion, I would refer her to the > Planned Parenthood office. Wouldn't you at least want to know why she wanted an abortion? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted May 22, 2007 Posted May 22, 2007 On May 22, 12:54 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote: > On 21 May 2007 20:33:50 -0700, Martin <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > - Refer: <1179804830.804769.229...@r3g2000prh.googlegroups.com> > >On May 22, 6:53 am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Mon, 21 May 2007 11:49:05 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-2105071149050...@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> ... > > >> >Martin, > >> >No--that happened to another person. That was the teacher that divided the > >> >class into 5 small groups. We done the lifeboat scenario. Each group had > >> >to decide which person to cast overboard. Of course, she wanted each group > >> >to conclude that the elderly sick man would be cast overboard so that > >> >there would be more water for everyone else on the lifeboat to share. A > >> >group of mostly Christians decided to NOT cast anyone overboard since we > >> >viewed it as murder. She humiliated us and told us that the logical thing > >> >to do was to murder that old man. Of course, she did not use the term > >> >"murder". I lost my respect for her on that day. One young Christian man > >> >dropped out of the class because of that professor. As I stated, the other > >> >atheist professors treated the Christians in their classes the same way > >> >that they treated the non-Christians. In fact, I respected all of > >> >them--except for that lady that humiliated us. > >> >Jason > > >> So, in your mind everyone should be 'murdered' because you are incapable > >> of deciding who is least valuable when one has to go overboard and you > >> are unwilling to go over voluntarily. It's your selfishness that causes > >> all to die. > > >It's not a real life scenario. In real life, the greater good is > >served from cooperation rather than competition. > > In fact, it is not that clear cut. > A mix of 95% co-operators, and 5% cut-throat psychopaths is an > evolutionarily stable mix. Okay. Let's hope we're never lost in a boat with a member of the other 5%. Martin Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted May 22, 2007 Posted May 22, 2007 On Tue, 22 May 2007 12:04:33 +0200, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: - Refer: <f2ufi9$4vo$03$1@news.t-online.com> >Michael Gray wrote: >> On Tue, 22 May 2007 10:38:03 +0200, Tokay Pino Gris >> <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: >> - Refer: <f2uag3$pdd$03$2@news.t-online.com> >>> Al Klein wrote: >>>> On Sun, 20 May 2007 13:44:13 +0930, Michael Gray >>>> <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sat, 19 May 2007 23:46:24 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> - Refer: <g2hv43pqscndm0g5408e32dj77cuqdktla@4ax.com> >>>>>> On Sun, 20 May 2007 09:38:29 +0930, Michael Gray >>>>>> <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, 19 May 2007 17:06:31 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> And homonyms? I doubt that many know what the word means - if >>>>>>> Them's those nasty men with lipstick, aren't they? >>>>>> That's probably as far as some kids in "Christian" schools get. If it >>>>>> starts with h, o, m and o, it must be a bad thing. >>>>> In the case of homo sapiens, it is a bad thing for the rest of the >>>>> life on the planet. >>>>> (Apart from rats, and cockroaches of course) >>>> Fleas, human lice, bedbugs, malaria ... >>> Hm. A little tangent maybe. I remember that a few years back they talked >>> about how long plastics would stay around until they decompose. >>> >>> IIRC, they lately found a bacterium that ate plastic. >> >> If they infect 747s, which is bound to happen, watch out if you are >> either an air-traveller, or an insurer. > >Exactly. I hadn't thought of that. It occurred to me whilst a university student in the '70s. >So this is again the "evolutionary arms race". We probably would have to >use antibiotics to "heal" the 747.... The bacteria then could become >immune.... > >"Running to stand still" Anti-fly-otics, eh? -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted May 22, 2007 Posted May 22, 2007 On 22 May 2007 03:14:40 -0700, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: - Refer: <1179828880.844909.197790@u36g2000prd.googlegroups.com> >On May 22, 12:54 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote: >> On 21 May 2007 20:33:50 -0700, Martin <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> >> wrote: >> - Refer: <1179804830.804769.229...@r3g2000prh.googlegroups.com> > >> >On May 22, 6:53 am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> On Mon, 21 May 2007 11:49:05 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> <Jason-2105071149050...@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> ... >> >> >> >Martin, >> >> >No--that happened to another person. That was the teacher that divided the >> >> >class into 5 small groups. We done the lifeboat scenario. Each group had >> >> >to decide which person to cast overboard. Of course, she wanted each group >> >> >to conclude that the elderly sick man would be cast overboard so that >> >> >there would be more water for everyone else on the lifeboat to share. A >> >> >group of mostly Christians decided to NOT cast anyone overboard since we >> >> >viewed it as murder. She humiliated us and told us that the logical thing >> >> >to do was to murder that old man. Of course, she did not use the term >> >> >"murder". I lost my respect for her on that day. One young Christian man >> >> >dropped out of the class because of that professor. As I stated, the other >> >> >atheist professors treated the Christians in their classes the same way >> >> >that they treated the non-Christians. In fact, I respected all of >> >> >them--except for that lady that humiliated us. >> >> >Jason >> >> >> So, in your mind everyone should be 'murdered' because you are incapable >> >> of deciding who is least valuable when one has to go overboard and you >> >> are unwilling to go over voluntarily. It's your selfishness that causes >> >> all to die. >> >> >It's not a real life scenario. In real life, the greater good is >> >served from cooperation rather than competition. >> >> In fact, it is not that clear cut. >> A mix of 95% co-operators, and 5% cut-throat psychopaths is an >> evolutionarily stable mix. > >Okay. Let's hope we're never lost in a boat with a member of the >other 5%. If you live in the U.S., too late: you are lost in a boat with a preponderance of psychopaths as coxswains. -- Quote
Guest Fred Stone Posted May 22, 2007 Posted May 22, 2007 Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1179711821.821571.302230@r3g2000prh.googlegroups.com: > On May 21, 12:12 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> The president of Iran is a nut. > > as is the President of the US. > Uhh, no, they're nuts in very different ways. -- Fred Stone aa# 1369 "The simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies." -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted May 22, 2007 Posted May 22, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in snip > They can if they set their minds to it and want to rehabilitate. Prisons > have all sorts of programs for those inmates. Group counseling works > great. Is this the voice of experience talking? Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 22, 2007 Posted May 22, 2007 In article <f2uba4$rmj$03$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f2ql5q$g6n$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> In article <f2qamc$6p7$01$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > >>> <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Jason wrote: > >>>>> In article <g7f0531edtq40qv6a9qfclae18o6kj07hr@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >>>>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On 20 May 2007 01:13:48 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >>>>>> Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in > >>>>>> <1179648828.383854.130670@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>: > >>>>>> ... > >>>>>>>> Here's something else that could happen: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> An alien civilization could invade the Earth and enslave people to > >>> work in > >>>>>>>> mines. I watched a stupid-ass movie and that was the plot. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> A mutant form of turtles could become ninjas, purchase headbands > >>> and start > >>>>>>>> talking in the 90's lingo. They could monopolize the world's > > supplies of > >>>>>>>> anchovies. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> A boy band could start a following of teenage girls, move to a South > >>>>>>>> American country and create an entire civilization of Paris Hilton > >>>>> look-alikes. > >>>>>>>> All of these as likely as the scenarios you mention, but of course, the > >>>>>>>> people who are telling you what you think will never admit that. > >>>>>>> In all fairness, here's another unlikely scenario. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Islamic fundamentalist terrorists from a "friendly" country like Saudi > >>>>>>> Arabia could highjack multiple airplanes in the United States using > >>>>>>> box cutters and force the planes to crash into major US landmarks. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Couldn't happen? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Note that if within the next 12 years we could successfully get the > >>>>>>> whole world to be atheist then there would no longer be any reason for > >>>>>>> people to kill each other. > >>>>>> Well said. > >>>>> Was Hitler an atheist? > >>>> Evidence points to that he was catholic. Also some quotes point to the > >>>> fact that he at least knew how religion can be used to control the masses. > >>>> > >>>> Was Joseph Stalin a atheist? Stalin killed > >>>>> thousands of people in the Soviet Union. > >>>> Likely. But he did not kill because he was atheist. He was a > >>>> fundamentalist. THAT was the problem. > >>>> > >>>> What about Alexander the Great? > >>>>> Alexander is said to have wept because there wre no countries left to > >>>>> conquer. > >>>> No idea. > >>>> > >>>> The question is not if an atheist or a theist kill for other reasons. > >>>> Fundamentalistic communism, or national sozialism or other not religion > >>>> related ideologies. > >>>> The question is what wars are fought and what atrocities are done in the > >>>> name of religion. > >>>> > >>>> See, the problem with Hitler and Stalin is not one of religion. They > >>>> both were fundamentalists. Whether or not they were atheist or hinduist > >>>> or christian does not matter. The driving force behind the things they > >>>> did was not religion or the lack of it. It was the fundamentalist part. > >>>> > >>>> So there is no question that atheists as well as christians can be > >>>> fundamentalist idiots. > >>>> The question is, how many atrocities could have been avoided if there > >>>> was no religion. > >>>> > >>>> Terrorism is not necessarily driven by religion. But it can be. And > >>>> quite often, that is the driving force behind it. > >>>> That does not mean that without religion there will be no more > >>>> terrorism. But the religiously driven part (which I think is one of the > >>>> mayor forces behind it) would be nonexistent. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Tokay > >>> I understand your point. The question is, how many atrocities could have > >>> been avoided if there were no atheists such as Stalin? > >> I explained that Stalin was a menace NOT because he was atheist. But > >> because he was a fundamentalist. > >> > >>> Would you agree that a fundamentalist atheist is just as likely to start a > >>> war as a fundamentalist theist? > >> In theory, yes. As of now, atheist are quite unlikely to commit crimes > >> because they are atheists. They might commit ones because of other > >> ideas. Atheism is not a religion, there is no book, there are no rules > >> you have to follow to be an atheist. There are no "infidels", there is > >> no "holy land". > >> > >> So, a "fundamentalistic atheist" might see theists as deluded, but as > >> long as they don't try to impose that on me or my kind, they can do > >> whatever they like and be deluded in the way they like. > >> > >> Since "atheism" is not a religion, it is unlikely to produce suicide > >> bombers. > >> > >> Tokay > > > > Excellent post. I have a different point of view. I have lived in > > California during the past 30 year and there are lots of atheists in > > California. I spent the first 26 years in Virginia and almost everyone in > > my hometown were Christians. Most of the people in my hometown in Virgina > > obeyed the laws. The crime rate was very low in my hometown in Virginia. > > They even printed the names of all of the people that were arrested in the > > local newspaper. It was mostly tickets for speeding or car accidents. I > > live in a small town in California. The types of crimes are VERY > > different. There is a gang of teenagers in a nearby town--we never had any > > gangs in my hometown in Virginia. It's my guess that most of the gang > > members are atheists. There have been at least 10 murders since I have > > lived here. In my hometown in Virginia there were only two murders. There > > have been lots of arrests related to illegal drugs in my town in > > California. It's my opinion--and I can not prove it--that atheists are > > more likely to commit crimes than Christians that take their religion very > > seriously. Feel free to disagree with me. > > Jason > > > > > > There are a lot of questions involved and I am no expert on any of them. > > You state correctly that what you experienced is more like a feeling. > And opinion. That does not make it false or without merit. Far from it. > > There might also be a lot of sociological issues involved, like the size > of the town, what it's main resource is and so on. Also time is an issue. > > This does not mean that I disagree with you on terms of opinion. > > But I think that to state that as a fact (you did not do that), you'd > have to produce more data. > > Well, you did not say that. But the data should be obtainable. Maybe not > easy, but a full blown sociological study could show your "hypothesis" > to be false. Or fail to falsify it. > > (By the way, apart from other discussions we had here, "Atheists are > more likely to commit crimes than Christians that take their religion > very seriously." is a valid hypothesis. That does not mean it is true or > false, it just means it is a hypothesis you can work with and try to > disprove it.) > > Not my field of expertise, however. But my guess is that there are > studies done along those line. > > I just googled. Not to answer anything, but to see if there were any > studies. It appears that Japan is one of the most atheistic nations in > the G8. And they also have the lowest murder rate. As compared to the US > as one of the most religious nations having a very high murder rate. > > This is in no way conclusive because Japan and the USA differ in so many > aspects that a statistical correlation in no way proves any cause and > effect. > > If I can find the time I will look and see if I can find some more. > > > Tokay Tokay, I agree with most of your points. Other people have pointed out to me that Christians are just as likely to commit crimes as atheists. I thought about it and concluded that person is correct. The reason is that lots of Christians do not take their religions seriously and as a result do not always obey the laws. They even end up in prison if they commit felonies. Do you agree that the primary reason the crime rate was lower in a small town in the mountains of Virginia was because everyone in that small town knew each other and as a result people did not want to becomes the victims of shame and redicule if they ended up in jail or prison? In the small town that I live in California, most people do not know each other. If someone ends of in jail or prison, it would be unlikely that I even knew that person. That would not have happened in my hometown in Virginia. When someone ended up in jail or prison, it is likely that I would have known his name. Another poster pointed out to me that it's even worse in large cities like San Francisco. In large cities, it's possible to live your entire lives without knowing the names of the people that live on another block. The crime rate and gang problems in large cities is a major problem. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 22, 2007 Posted May 22, 2007 In article <1179827952.214196.88250@r3g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 22, 1:30 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1179804699.590658.141...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 22, 7:50 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > In article <1179786323.865613.26...@z24g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > On 22 Maj, 01:06, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > In article <1179782961.266861.268...@r3g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > > > On 21 Maj, 19:42, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > > > In article <kn18i4-ooe....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > > > > > > > > > <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > [snips] > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 20 May 2007 23:07:37 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Unborn babies have no legal rights. > > > > > > > > > > > >> Non-existent things rarely do. > > > > > > > > > > > > You see the fetus as NON-EXISTENT. > > > > > > > > > > > Obviously I don't. You know this. Try again. > > > > > > > > > > > > disagreement. I see the fetus as EXISTENT. > > > > > > > > > > > Now there's a stunning ability to grasp the obvious. > > > > > > > > > > > > fetus can clearly be seen on a 3D color ultrasound. The > > > > California Su= > > > > > > > preme > > > > > > > > > > Court even stated in at least one court decision that a fetus > > > > and the > > > > > > > > > > mother were equal. > > > > > > > > > > > They did? Funny, you haven't shown that. You've shown a sound > > > > bite th= > > > > > > > at > > > > > > > > > says that under unknown conditions, with unknown limits and > > unknown > > > > > > > > > applicability, a killing involving both a pregnant woman and her > > > > fetus = > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > be considered two murders. This is not quite the same as "a > > > > fetus and = > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > mother are equal". Try again. > > > > > > > > > > A man murdered a pregnant woman. He was convicted to murdering two > > > > people. > > > > > > > > He murdered the mother and her unborn baby. I believe that the > > typical > > > > > > > > person would conclude that the California Supreme Court Judges > > > > treated the > > > > > > > > mother and her unborn baby exactly the same. > > > > > > > > > What the "typical person" may or may not conclude does not determine > > > > > > > what the law is. > > > > > > > > In this case, do you believe the mother and her unborn baby was treated > > > > > > differently or the same? I believe they were treated the same since the > > > > > > man was found guilty of two murders. If he had only been found guilty of > > > > > > one murder, they would have been treated differently. > > > > > > > What you believe or what you "guess" is not relevant. What does the > > > > > law say? > > > > > > You failed to answer my question. As far as the court decision is > > > > concerned, was the mother and her fetus treated the same? > > > > > He asked you what the law says. The law in California redefines > > > murder as the killing of a human being OR a fetus but wilfull abortion > > > is excluded from the law. Thus, women and fetuses are not treated the > > > same under California law. That is your answer. > > > > Under that law, would a man be charged with murder if he stabbed a > > pregnant woman--the fetus dies but the woman lives? > > Yes. I posted the text of the law earlier in this thread. It > explicitly excludes "abortions performed with the mother's consent". > > Martin That makes sense. At least in some cases, fetuses have legal rights. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 22, 2007 Posted May 22, 2007 In article <1179828768.013890.56060@y2g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On May 22, 1:40 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1179804129.753391.216...@36g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On May 22, 7:02 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > In article <1179782094.943998.202...@x18g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > > > As many have pointed out you have no evidence that planned parenthood > > > > > tries to talk anybody into having abortions. Yet you continue to lie > > > > > about them. Why do you do that? > > > > > > Do they tell women that are seeking abortions that they should not have > > > > abortions but instead should have their babies and put them up for > > > > adoption? > > > > > > It's my understanding that abortions are one of the services available at > > > > Planned Parenthood Office. Of course, some Planned Parenthood Offices > > > > refer patients for abortions. > > > > > If you knew that hundreds of thousands of women died every year > > > worldwide giving birth, would you still pressure a woman into having a > > > baby she didn't want? > > > I would never tell a woman what to do unless she asked me for my opinion. > > In that case, I would advise her to have the baby and put it up for > > adoption. If she wanted to have an abortion, I would refer her to the > > Planned Parenthood office. > > Wouldn't you at least want to know why she wanted an abortion? > > Martin I would ask her lots of questions and that would be one of them. I actually know a lady that volunteers in a pro-life counseling center. They ask lots of questions like that to the pregant women that visit the counseling center. Any pregnant woman that visits the counseling center gets a free 3d color ultrasound of their babies. All of the counselors are women which is a great idea. jason Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 22, 2007 Posted May 22, 2007 On Mon, 21 May 2007 19:51:10 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2105071951110001@66-52-22-36.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <9hc453l58d41jdmnb8mn7n2a4kubsvma3e@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Mon, 21 May 2007 11:22:13 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-2105071122130001@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <1179751827.179910.125980@z24g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, >> >gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: .... >> >Thou shall not kill >> >> Does not apply. >> >> Why were there different laws in the Old Testament for behavior that >> caused the death of a fetus? > >I only read one scripture about that subject. The man that caused the >woman to lose her baby was taken to court and had to pay a fine. Fairly strong evidence that it was not considered murder. Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted May 22, 2007 Posted May 22, 2007 On Tue, 22 May 2007 13:13:29 -0400, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: - Refer: <5bgml9F2shg6iU1@mid.individual.net> > >"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in > >snip >> They can if they set their minds to it and want to rehabilitate. Prisons >> have all sorts of programs for those inmates. Group counseling works >> great. > >Is this the voice of experience talking? He said 'prison', not 'the ward for the criminally insane', with which, (if there is any justice in this world), Jason should be intimately familiar. -- Quote
Guest Fred Stone Posted May 22, 2007 Posted May 22, 2007 Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1179557065.234911.197640@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: > On May 19, 3:49 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> That is true. In the real world, people can answer questions with a >> question. Even schools have changed. I found out that they are now >> showing Al Gore's movie in grade schools. One of those students came >> home from school and was crying. She said that the planet would be >> destroyed by the time she was an adult and was worried that she would >> not be able to have a normal life. This real world is a crazy world. >> We were worried about Russia firing nuclear missiles at America when >> I was a child. > > I was in grade school thirty years ago and we were taught back then to > care about the environment. Obviously your generation wasn't. > I was in high school thirty years ago, and I was taught about the scientific method. Obviously your generation wasn't. -- Fred Stone aa# 1369 "The simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies." -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted May 22, 2007 Posted May 22, 2007 [snips] On Mon, 21 May 2007 21:31:29 -0700, Jason wrote: > There is at least one other scripture that you are ignoring. I could not > find it but it says something like this: "God knew him while he was still > in his mother's womb". That scripture indicates that the soul and spirit > are placed in a baby prior to birth. And if someone attacked the mother and caused her to abort, he'd be fined. Not killed, which was the penalty for murder. Yes, and? > Some Bible scholars believe it > happens during conception If so, then God Himself has no particular concerns over the issue of soul and spirit, as he tells us the penalty is a simple fine. Not killing, unless the mother dies - i.e. unless a murder is committed. > Related to the other issue--God wrote the 10 commandments and one of the > commandents states "Thou should not kill". Yes, indeed. If you kill the mother, you get killed - the punishment for a murderer. If you cause her to abort, you pay a fine. God Himself obviously doesn't regard fetuses as having the same status as the mother. > more important than the scripture that you mentioned. Related to that > scripture: I don't believe the man intended to cause the woman to lose > her child. It was an accident. Doesn't really matter, though. It says, quite clearly, that if she dies, so does the person causing the harm, but if her fetus dies, well, pay a fine and have a nice day. Intentional or not, fact is God Himself puts the mother and the fetus on very different grounding: if she dies, you're treated as a murderer; if the fetus dies, no big deal, just a question of payment for damaged property. How wonderful it must be to tell God you're better than he is and he should shape up and get some real morals. -- How did life start besides the common atheist belief that shit happens? - Bill Wolff Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted May 22, 2007 Posted May 22, 2007 On Mon, 21 May 2007 19:26:40 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >I just hope the Mullahs that are controlling the Iranian president are >able to keep him from firing a nuke tipped missle at Israel. If they're not, Israel is more than capable. Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted May 22, 2007 Posted May 22, 2007 On Mon, 21 May 2007 19:33:37 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >I don't know about all Christian schools but know about one of the local >Christian schools. They teach Creation science and the basics of Evolution >theory. Which one? There are quite a few. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.