Guest Al Klein Posted May 22, 2007 Posted May 22, 2007 On 21 May 2007 20:36:57 -0700, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: >Actually, a lot of Mid-East intel comes from ex-patriots from Mid-East >countries. Unfortunately, such intel tends to be 1) out of date and >2) biased against the regime in question. Colin Powell admitted this >before he resigned. That's the problem with our government - they consider rumor, innuendo and outdated stories "intel". It's more "lack of intel". Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted May 22, 2007 Posted May 22, 2007 On Tue, 22 May 2007 10:31:59 +0200, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: >One might argue that the >lack of "home schooling" is bad, but I think it is a good idea. Schooling done properly is a good idea. Schooling done poorly is a bad idea. Where it's done is mostly unimportant (except that isolated children tend to become asocial). Unfortunately for some in this country, almost all home schooling is done very poorly, since the parents aren't well-educated enough to do the job properly. Quote
Guest Al Klein 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: >So these bacteria profit from humans also. They would not have been >there in the first place. Sound pretty much like evolution to me.... About a year ago (maybe a bit less), someone posted a link to a story about a bacterium that HAD evolved to eat a new kind of plastic. And how many bacterial species can now thrive on penicillin, which used to be a pretty broad-spectrum antibiotic? Those who say evolution doesn't occur are trying to hold back the sunrise. Quote
Guest Al Klein 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: >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.... Antibiotics work pretty well, as long as you don't stop using them until ALL the bacteria are dead. If you leave even the last few individual bacteria alive, you now have a resistant strain. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 On Tue, 22 May 2007 17:38:06 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2205071738060001@66-52-22-99.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <a8n6539jvtk3f7d6jseri2bsjg01ps1t57@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> 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. > >I have never stated in any post that doctors that do abortions should be >charged with murder or that woman that have had abortions should be >charged with murder. > You were the one who called it murder. I'm glad that you have backed off that false claim. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 [snips] On Mon, 21 May 2007 19:47:01 -0700, Jason wrote: > You would risk your life to prevent an execution I've faced at the very least significant risk of serious personal harm for much lesser reasons. > but have no problem > when an abortion doctor is aborting a 7 month old baby. That sort of > thinking is hard for me to understand. Yes, well, you might want to stop and think about that. You call yourself "pro-life", but when push comes to shove, it's not you who stands up, in harm's way, to defend the rights of others when there's nothing to gain but lots to lose, doing it simply because, by your own personal code, it is the right thing to do. I know where I stand and why - and I stand by it. What do you do, apart from getting your group together to harass and torment scared, confused women and girls who pose you no threat? -- There may be a problem, though. The lobsters used to live some 3000 miles away and at higher latitute. Goddess only knows what they think of living in California. - David Rice Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 In article <a8n6539jvtk3f7d6jseri2bsjg01ps1t57@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > 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. I have never stated in any post that doctors that do abortions should be charged with murder or that woman that have had abortions should be charged with murder. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 On Tue, 22 May 2007 14:28:43 +0930, Michael Gray wrote: > On Mon, 21 May 2007 19:41:36 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > - Refer: > <Jason-2105071941360001@66-52-22-36.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> > > : > >>I would appreciate it if you would stop making use of the N word in your posts. > > The "N" word? > "Normal"? > "Nice"? > "Neutral"? > "Noble"? > > All words that you despise out of pure envy. > I think it's kinda cute, though. I slam his hypocrisy down his throat, and he has to go run hide, pretending it's because I "used the N-word". Yes, I did, in a culturally-correct context; it was the _applicable_ term, based on the mentality involved, for the times, in the conditions being described. I said the man was a coward; he's just demonstrated it perfectly. -- Is it true that 25% of your gender is gay? - George Boyles Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 In article <02aci4-79r.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [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. I interpret the scripture different than you interpret it. The law is about unintentionly causing a woman to lose her baby. The law is NOT about someone that stabs a pregnant woman with a sword in an effort to intentionly murder the fetus. The best example I can think of is a person that is driving down the road and accidently runs over a man that is riding a bicycle. The driver would not be charged with first degree murder. Let's say that same man intentional runs over a man that he knew was having an affair with his wife. In that case, he would be charged with first degree murder. Related to abortion: The doctor is intentionly causing fetuses to lose their lives. That, in my opinion, is a violation of one of the commandments. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 On May 22, 2:01 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > I used the term WE to refer to all members of all pro-life organizations > and those people that support their cause. One national ministry > established a home for un-wed mothers. After those mothers had their > babies, they were placed for adoption. I donated enough money to provide > total care for one of those pregnant mothers. I felt great knowing that I > saved the life of at least one baby. That ministry has saved the lives of > thousands of babies over the years. I like the bumper sticker that says, > Adoption--Not Abortion. I too once gave money to a pro-life organisation but I now realize that, as somebody who can never get pregnant myself, I should try harder to understand the plight of those who face unwanted pregnancy as respect their choice. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 On May 22, 2:06 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > I advise you and everyone else not to reply to posts from > people that have mental problems or use derogatory language. Derogatory language is one thing but mental problems should just be treated with care. God delusions, for example, have been treated and overcome in the past. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 On May 22, 2:36 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > Would you agree that most everyone has biases? Biases can be set aside and even overcome. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 On May 22, 2:32 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1179805812.679780.44...@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Planned parenthood does arrange for adoptions. It's one of the > > services that they already provide. Of course, the woman has to be > > willing to carry the baby to term for this to happen. > > Women are selling their eggs on the internet for lots of money. In this > case, they would be selling their fetuses--possibly on the web. Young > women would benefit (from the huge sums of money)--the woman that receives > the baby would benefit--the unborn baby would benefit since it would not > be aborted--lawyers would benefit. It's a win-win-win-win situation. The technology does not exist to implant a fetus in another woman. An embryo, yes, but a fetus, no. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 On May 22, 4:51 pm, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > 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. It could be, for example, that because people in japan have less privacy that they are convinced that they could never get away with murder. In any case, here's a study you might be interested in. http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html "A few hundred years ago rates of homicide were astronomical in Christian Europe and the American colonies (Beeghley; R. Lane). In all secular developed democracies a centuries long-term trend has seen homicide rates drop to historical lows (Figure 2). The especially low rates in the more Catholic European states are statistical noise due to yearly fluctuations incidental to this sample, and are not consistently present in other similar tabulations (Barcley and Tavares). Despite a significant decline from a recent peak in the 1980s (Rosenfeld), the U.S. is the only prosperous democracy that retains high homicide rates, making it a strong outlier in this regard (Beeghley; Doyle, 2000). Similarly, theistic Portugal also has rates of homicides well above the secular developed democracy norm. Mass student murders in schools are rare, and have subsided somewhat since the 1990s, but the U.S. has experienced many more (National School Safety Center) than all the secular developed democracies combined. Other prosperous democracies do not significantly exceed the U.S. in rates of nonviolent and in non-lethal violent crime (Beeghley; Farrington and Langan; Neapoletan), and are often lower in this regard. The United States exhibits typical rates of youth suicide (WHO), which show little if any correlation with theistic factors in the prosperous democracies (Figure 3). The positive correlation between pro-theistic factors and juvenile mortality is remarkable, especially regarding absolute belief, and even prayer (Figure 4). Life spans tend to decrease as rates of religiosity rise (Figure 5), especially as a function of absolute belief. Denmark is the only exception. Unlike questionable small-scale epidemiological studies by Harris et al. and Koenig and Larson, higher rates of religious affiliation, attendance, and prayer do not result in lower juvenile- adult mortality rates on a cross-national basis.<6> "Although the late twentieth century STD epidemic has been curtailed in all prosperous democracies (Aral and Holmes; Panchaud et al.), rates of adolescent gonorrhea infection remain six to three hundred times higher in the U.S. than in less theistic, pro-evolution secular developed democracies (Figure 6). At all ages levels are higher in the U.S., albeit by less dramatic amounts. The U.S. also suffers from uniquely high adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates, which are starting to rise again as the microbe's resistance increases (Figure 7). The two main curable STDs have been nearly eliminated in strongly secular Scandinavia. Increasing adolescent abortion rates show positive correlation with increasing belief and worship of a creator, and negative correlation with increasing non-theism and acceptance of evolution; again rates are uniquely high in the U.S. (Figure 8). Claims that secular cultures aggravate abortion rates (John Paul II) are therefore contradicted by the quantitative data. Early adolescent pregnancy and birth have dropped in the developed democracies (Abma et al.; Singh and Darroch), but rates are two to dozens of times higher in the U.S. where the decline has been more modest (Figure 9). Broad correlations between decreasing theism and increasing pregnancy and birth are present, with Austria and especially Ireland being partial exceptions. Darroch et al. found that age of first intercourse, number of sexual partners and similar issues among teens do not exhibit wide disparity or a consistent pattern among the prosperous democracies they sampled, including the U.S. A detailed comparison of sexual practices in France and the U.S. observed little difference except that the French tend - contrary to common impression - to be somewhat more conservative (Gagnon et al.)." Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 In article <steci4-79r.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [snips] > > On Mon, 21 May 2007 19:47:01 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > You would risk your life to prevent an execution > > I've faced at the very least significant risk of serious personal harm for > much lesser reasons. > > > but have no problem > > when an abortion doctor is aborting a 7 month old baby. That sort of > > thinking is hard for me to understand. > > Yes, well, you might want to stop and think about that. You call > yourself "pro-life", but when push comes to shove, it's not you who > stands up, in harm's way, to defend the rights of others when there's > nothing to gain but lots to lose, doing it simply because, by your own > personal code, it is the right thing to do. > > I know where I stand and why - and I stand by it. What do you do, apart > from getting your group together to harass and torment scared, confused > women and girls who pose you no threat? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I comply with the law. Even if the law permitted me to shoot an abortion doctor that was performing an abortion, I would not do it. The Bible says that we should not kill. The best way to influence public policy are by peaceful protests. Another way is to have pregnancy counseling centers in every city and as many towns as possible. At many of those pro-life counseling centers, pregnant women can receive 3D color ultrasounds of their unborn babies. Some national ministries have established homes for unwed mothers so that pregnant women can have their babies and put them up for adoption. I donated enough money to care for one of those pregnant un-wed mothers. When she had her baby, it was placed for adoption. In other words, I prevented at least one baby from being aborted. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 In article <1179881977.374267.89980@u36g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 22, 2:01 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > I used the term WE to refer to all members of all pro-life organizations > > and those people that support their cause. One national ministry > > established a home for un-wed mothers. After those mothers had their > > babies, they were placed for adoption. I donated enough money to provide > > total care for one of those pregnant mothers. I felt great knowing that I > > saved the life of at least one baby. That ministry has saved the lives of > > thousands of babies over the years. I like the bumper sticker that says, > > Adoption--Not Abortion. > > I too once gave money to a pro-life organisation but I now realize > that, as somebody who can never get pregnant myself, I should try > harder to understand the plight of those who face unwanted pregnancy > as respect their choice. > > Martin Martin, That's great news that you gave money to a pro-life organization. Several weeks ago, I read a column about the morning after pill. I hope that in the years to come, that the morning after pill will mean that the vast majority of women that have unwanted babies will never have to have a clinical abortion. Do you agree with me? Jason Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 [snips] On Mon, 21 May 2007 20:51:56 -0700, Martin wrote: > I'm sorry, did you have something you wanted to say to me? Just that it would be nice if you would ever get around to making your point. However, since you apparently aren't capable of that, there's no point wasting time on you. Hmm. Plonked once. Multiple idents? Oh, great, not another nym-shifting scumbag, too, are you? Oh well. Another pointless waste of time winds up in the bit bucket. -- Drink till she's cute. Stop before you get married. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 In article <1179882392.751178.200490@t20g2000pra.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 22, 2:32 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1179805812.679780.44...@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > Planned parenthood does arrange for adoptions. It's one of the > > > services that they already provide. Of course, the woman has to be > > > willing to carry the baby to term for this to happen. > > > > Women are selling their eggs on the internet for lots of money. In this > > case, they would be selling their fetuses--possibly on the web. Young > > women would benefit (from the huge sums of money)--the woman that receives > > the baby would benefit--the unborn baby would benefit since it would not > > be aborted--lawyers would benefit. It's a win-win-win-win situation. > > The technology does not exist to implant a fetus in another woman. An > embryo, yes, but a fetus, no. > > Martin Martin, Perhaps they will be able to do it in the future. Jason Quote
Deathbringer Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 In article <1179882392.751178.200490@t20g2000pra.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 22, 2:32 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1179805812.679780.44...@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > Planned parenthood does arrange for adoptions. It's one of the > > > services that they already provide. Of course, the woman has to be > > > willing to carry the baby to term for this to happen. > > > > Women are selling their eggs on the internet for lots of money. In this > > case, they would be selling their fetuses--possibly on the web. Young > > women would benefit (from the huge sums of money)--the woman that receives > > the baby would benefit--the unborn baby would benefit since it would not > > be aborted--lawyers would benefit. It's a win-win-win-win situation. > > The technology does not exist to implant a fetus in another woman. An > embryo, yes, but a fetus, no. > > Martin Martin, Perhaps they will be able to do it in the future. Jason That's not how it works. Technology can't fix everything. You still need lots of people willing to be on the receiving end of the fetus transplant. A few, maybe, but not as many as there are unwanted pregnancies. Not that technology can't help; hand these poor people condoms and birth control pills and the problem would be solved. The real problem is that technology can't fix the fact that birth control is a heavy evolutionary (I mean evolution of cultures and genes, as it applies to both) incentive to not use birth control. Curing stupidity is the only real fix... Quote
Guest Martin Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 On May 23, 2:57 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <f2uba4$rmj$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > > > > > > > <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <f2ql5q$g6n$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > > <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > > >>> In article <f2qamc$6p7$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > >>> <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > > >>>> Jason wrote: > > >>>>> In article <g7f0531edtq40qv6a9qfclae18o6kj0...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > >>>>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >>>>>> On 20 May 2007 01:13:48 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > > >>>>>> Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote in > > >>>>>> <1179648828.383854.130...@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. Then explain to us why there are fewer crimes commited in atheistic countries. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 On May 23, 3:18 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1179828768.013890.56...@y2g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmar...@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? > > 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. Would you agree that it is wrong for _anybody_ to pressure a woman to make a decision that is ultimately hers to make? We should just give women the facts and let them make up their own minds. In fact, this is why people should have sex education in school so that they can have the facts and perhaps avoid getting pregnant in the first place. Martin Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 [snips] On Tue, 22 May 2007 17:49:22 -0700, Jason wrote: > I interpret the scripture different than you interpret it. Of course you do; otherwise you couldn't justify denying God's own views on the matter. > The law is > about unintentionly causing a woman to lose her baby. The law is NOT > about someone that stabs a pregnant woman with a sword in an effort to > intentionly murder the fetus. I'm sorry, could you point to the clause where it says "by accident"? It doesn't seem to include any such words when I read it. It does , however, say "strive" - to work at something, the end result being her losing her "fruit". Hmm.. work at it. Losing her fruit. Gee, what does that sound like? > The best example I can think of is a > person that is driving down the road and accidently runs over a man that > is riding a bicycle. Yes, it's entirely possible it covers the accidental case as well. Except... where, then, does the "striving" come in? > Related to abortion: The doctor is intentionly causing fetuses to lose > their lives. That, in my opinion, is a violation of one of the > commandments. Except that the passage discussed here also very clearly indicates someone working to provide an abortion. If you screw up and kill the mother, you die - consider it malpractice. If you don't, but you get caught, pay a fine; likely to the husband for damaging his property; it was, after all, a rather patriarchal society in which women and kids were regarded more as a man's property than people in their own right. -- HolySmoke: Failure to yield to idiots on the Information Superhighway. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 On May 22, 2:06 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1179805428.807778.130...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On May 22, 10:41 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > I would appreciate it if you would stop making use of the N word in > your posts. > > > Thanks for warning the rest of us not to bother reading his posts. > > Not that I hadn't figured this out already myself. > > You are welcome--I advise you and everyone else not to reply to posts from > people that have mental problems or use derogatory language. Derogatory language is one thing but mental problems should just be treated with care. God delusions, for example, have been treated and overcome in the past. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 On May 23, 10:25 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1179881977.374267.89...@u36g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On May 22, 2:01 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > I used the term WE to refer to all members of all pro-life organizations > > > and those people that support their cause. One national ministry > > > established a home for un-wed mothers. After those mothers had their > > > babies, they were placed for adoption. I donated enough money to provide > > > total care for one of those pregnant mothers. I felt great knowing that I > > > saved the life of at least one baby. That ministry has saved the lives of > > > thousands of babies over the years. I like the bumper sticker that says, > > > Adoption--Not Abortion. > > > I too once gave money to a pro-life organisation but I now realize > > that, as somebody who can never get pregnant myself, I should try > > harder to understand the plight of those who face unwanted pregnancy > > as respect their choice. > That's great news that you gave money to a pro-life organization. It was a long time ago and I regret more and more with every post you make. Despite your protests to the contrary, it is quite clear that you (and by extension they) want nothing less than to take away a woman's right to do as she wishes with her own body. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 On May 23, 11:29 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1179882392.751178.200...@t20g2000pra.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On May 22, 2:32 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1179805812.679780.44...@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Planned parenthood does arrange for adoptions. It's one of the > > > > services that they already provide. Of course, the woman has to be > > > > willing to carry the baby to term for this to happen. > > > > Women are selling their eggs on the internet for lots of money. In this > > > case, they would be selling their fetuses--possibly on the web. Young > > > women would benefit (from the huge sums of money)--the woman that receives > > > the baby would benefit--the unborn baby would benefit since it would not > > > be aborted--lawyers would benefit. It's a win-win-win-win situation. > > > The technology does not exist to implant a fetus in another woman. An > > embryo, yes, but a fetus, no. > Perhaps they will be able to do it in the future. A fetus would die soon after being removed so you would have to build more advanced incubators first. Then you would have to find a way to implant the fetus inside of a woman. It could be done with embryos (and is being done with embryos: it's called invitro fertilization) but it would be impossible with fetuses: they simply wouldn't attach themselves to the new host. Human fetuses don't work that way. (There was a Deep Space Nine episode in which this procedure di take place [the baby was "beamed in"] but that was just dumb and they only did it because an actress had gotten pregnant in real life.) Martin 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.