Guest cactus Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <KLt4i.29705$Um6.7721@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>, > bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <oy84i.21436$YL5.12746@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, >>> bm1@nonespam.com 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? >>>>> Would you agree that a fundamentalist atheist is just as likely to start a >>>>> war as a fundamentalist theist? >>>>> >>>> No, a fundamentalist theist is more likely to start wars because he or >>>> she would be more inclined to do it in the name of whatever deities they >>>> happened to worship. >>> >>> I hate to state it but based upon my understanding of history--you are >>> correct. The next war will probably be started by a religious nutcase--the >>> president of Iran. He actully stated, "Israel must be wiped off the map of >>> the world." Once he fires a nuclear tipped missle at Israel--we will have >>> to retaliate--probably with our own Nukes. >>> >>> >> I am not sure that we would be obligated to strike at Iran for doing >> that. I would hope that the world would do it anyway. > > Israel is an ally of the US. > > True, but I don't know whether that requires the US to retaliate on its behalf. Quote
Guest cactus Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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? > > Sure, but I think that in such a cosmopolitan city such as San Francisco it's harder to find because the people who are uncomfortable with diversity move away. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 In article <1179892444.944254.284530@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > 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 Martin, I can't explain it. I don't know much about the laws in other countries. I know that some countries allow people to use hard drugs. Prostitution is also legal in some foreign countries. We now have lots of gangs in large cities and that could increase our crime rates since gang members commit lots of crime. There are lots of gun crimes in America and guns are not legal to own in many foreign countries so they probably don't have very many gun related crimes in foreign countries. Would you agree that the crime rate in America in the year 2000 was much higher than it was in 1900? If so, I believe the reason is because more Christians took their religion seriously in 1900 than they did in the year 2000. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 In article <1179892717.453513.314470@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > 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 Martin, I agree that it is wrong for anybody to pressure a woman to make a decision that is ultimately hers to make. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 In article <1179894444.415420.258250@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > 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 That makes sense. I failed to consider all of these issues. jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 In article <33rci4-ooe.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [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. We differ in regard to how we intrepret the scripture. I continue to believe that if a man purposely kills a fetus--that it falls under the commandment. If a man unintentionly kills a fetus--it falls under the scripture that you mentioned. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 In article <1179894141.929917.171350@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > 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 Martin, Don't be concerned. I live in California. This is a liberal state and pro-lifers get out-voted in every election. Even the Republicans in California are advocates of pro-choice since they know that they would lose if they were pro-choice. You have nothing to fear from me. Some of the poles indicate that about half the people in America are pro-life. I wonder how many people in America agree that abortions should only occur in the first trimester unless the mother's life was in danger? My guess: About 60 percent or higher--What's your guess? Jason Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 [snips] On Tue, 22 May 2007 19:09:46 -0700, Jason wrote: >> 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. Gods, you are such a fucking coward. No balls at all. Man up and stand up for what you believe, stop hiding behind Mommy's skirt. -- 'Christian', as presently, commonly used, is a meaningless label. - John Prewett Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 On May 23, 1:31 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1179892444.944254.284...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On May 23, 2:57 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > 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. > I can't explain it. I don't know much about the laws in other countries. I > know that some countries allow people to use hard drugs. Prostitution is > also legal in some foreign countries. We now have lots of gangs in large > cities and that could increase our crime rates since gang members commit > lots of crime. There are lots of gun crimes in America and guns are not > legal to own in many foreign countries so they probably don't have very > many gun related crimes in foreign countries. Would you agree that the > crime rate in America in the year 2000 was much higher than it was in > 1900? If so, I believe the reason is because more Christians took their > religion seriously in 1900 than they did in the year 2000. No, I wouldn't agree with that. The crime rate in the US has been dropping for almost two decades now. The total number have crimes may have increased but the number of crimes committed per capita is almost half what it was in 1991. As the crime rate was much higher in the 70s, 80s and 90s, it would appear as though your generation commited more crimes than mine. Again, how do you explain this? Martin Quote
Guest Mike Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 Al Klein wrote: > Remember also - there are a few billion kids who aren't sent to > universities in the US I think you added a few extra 0's there Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 On Wed, 23 May 2007 08:28:52 -0400, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >Al Klein wrote: >> Remember also - there are a few billion kids who aren't sent to >> universities in the US > >I think you added a few extra 0's there I just opened the first loop on the 'm' and closed the second one. Quote
Guest Mike Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 Jason wrote: > Both the Repulicans and the Democrats are to blame for the open border we > have with Mexico. The Democrats want their votes How many immigrants (that have not yet become citizens) do you know of that can legally vote? As far as I know, there are none. And having an open border (where people can easily cross over) or a closed one (where no-one can cross without showing about 20 forms of ID, etc.) doesn't make much, if any, difference in the number of people becoming citizens. But then again, that's par for the course for you to pull something out of your ass and just wing it out there as being true. and the rich Republicans > that own factories want the cheap labor. The Republicans in both houses of > Congress know that those rich Repubicans will stop sending them campaign > contributions if they close the border. > > Quote
Guest Mike Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1179894444.415420.258250@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: >> 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 > > That makes sense. I failed to consider all of these issues. > jason That's the whole problem; you seem to always fail to consider all the issues. Quote
Guest Mike Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 Martin Phipps wrote: > No, I wouldn't agree with that. The crime rate in the US has been > dropping for almost two decades now. The total number have crimes may > have increased but the number of crimes committed per capita is almost > half what it was in 1991. As the crime rate was much higher in the > 70s, 80s and 90s, it would appear as though your generation commited > more crimes than mine. Again, how do you explain this? His generation "didn't take their religion seriously." (I think I'm gonna puke if I see that phrase one more time<sigh>) Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 Al Klein wrote: > 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. Agreed and conceded. If home schooling is done properly, it is a good thing. But who decides "properly"? If the home-teaching parents know the most important thing (in this case, when they know they don't know something), it could work out. My cousin is doing that right now. Not of choice (Working in a country with no schools at hand for the purpose). Last time I spoke to her, she did not seem to like it much. But I know her and she will do the best she can. Actually I am certain she is. I have met her two rascals. Tokay -- Quotation: The act of repeating erroneously the words of another. Ambrose Bierce Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 Al Klein wrote: > 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. Well. Yes. And no. Yes, that is how it is supposed to work. The "ideal" so to speak. And No, it does not quite work that way. The problem is that you can't kill every last bacterium in the human body (of that particular strain that is causing the disease). Also one of the main problem is that you get resistant strains from bacteria you never wanted to attack in the first place. Staphylococcus aureus might be the most common example for this. It is everywhere. You might want to attack Meningokokkus or some other in itself pathological germ, but as a side effect, Staph aureus is influenced as well. And since you apply the antibiotic for the time it takes to eradicate Meningokokkus, there are still some Staph. aureus alive. And resistant. Staph by itself is pretty harmless. Even a resistant strain won't do you or me any harm, since an intanct immun system is fully capable of dealing with it. The problem starts when you have a resistant strain (one you probably produced curing an infection from another gram-positive bacterium) in a person with a deficient immun system. Conceded. The full fledged "smarties-tactic" that took place with penicillin was a pretty bad idea. But you would have gotten resistant strains anyhow. Just maybe not that fast. Another point that might be of interest. If Staph aureus (a strain of it) becomes resistant to the last antibiotic that science and pharmacology could produce, it might again react to penicillin (evolution at work.... since penicillin is no longer everywhere, a penicillin resistance is no longer such a big advantage). Also a funny side note. There are some diseases that are caused by germ, and if this germ gets resistant to penicillin, it looses its pathogenity as well... So you can treat this illness (have to look it up. Was something common. Tonsilitis, maybe. "Stippchenangina" I think it was) ALWAYS with penicillin. Tokay -- Quotation: The act of repeating erroneously the words of another. Ambrose Bierce Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message snip > 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? If some woman has an unwanted baby, why would she want an abortion? -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Mike Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 Al Klein wrote: > On Wed, 23 May 2007 08:28:52 -0400, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> > wrote: > >> Al Klein wrote: >>> Remember also - there are a few billion kids who aren't sent to >>> universities in the US >> I think you added a few extra 0's there > > I just opened the first loop on the 'm' and closed the second one. And then turned the m sideways Quote
Guest Mike Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <s1r9i4-ooe.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [snips] >> >> On Mon, 21 May 2007 12:29:16 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >>> We >> "We" who? Pro-lifers? Let's assume this is correct for the nonce and >> continue... >> >>> are trying to give unwanted unborn babies the right to life. In my >>> opinion, that is just as important as any other issue and even more >>> important than protecting the rights of trees or protecting the lives of >>> test animals. >> Marvelous. However, you demonstrate that even the name is a fraud, >> then, as you are not "pro-life", but "anti-abortion". If you were >> actually pro-life - even if that just means human life - you'd be trying >> to stop army recruiters and other such people as well. Are you? When was >> the last time you stood out on the front lines, not at some clinic where >> the worst you might encounter is a few terrified teens, but in a situation >> where you, yourself, were in actual harm's way? >> >>> Most pro-life protestors follow the laws in terms of where >>> they carry their signs. We do that for a reason: We are trying to change >>> to get people to join our cause. >> There is nothing illegal in staging a protest in front of a recruitment >> office, as long as you're not trespassing, is there? >> >> Of course, "following the law" is itself something of a cop-out. If them >> damn uppity ******s "followed the law", we'd likely still have slavery; it >> was their courage - the courage of their convictions - to stand up against >> unjust laws, to demand their rights in the face of personal harm, which in >> large part caused the changes that gave them the rights they should have >> had. >> >> Are there any executions in the country? I'm sure you - actually having >> the courage of your convictions - will, of course, break in if need be and >> do whatever is necessary to prevent them, right? After all, they are >> taking lives, and you're pro-life; if you are honest in your convictions >> you know the laws allowing the executions are wrong, and what's a little >> jail time if you can actually prevent a killing - if you can actually do >> something which requires some guts, some balls, rather than just heckling >> terrified women who pose little threat? >> >> >> Yes, yes, I know, it is a scary prospect. You could be arrested, or >> hurt... possibly even killed. Still, that is the price one pays for >> actually having convictions - facing the heat when standing up for them. >> Anything else is not having convictions, it is simply cowardice. >> >>> We know that if we harrassed people >>> going into abortion clinics that it would hurt our cause and people >>> would not want to join our cause. In this case, peaceful protests are >>> very effective. >> Very safe, you mean. No real risk of getting beat up or shot or arrested. >> Yeah, way to go, tormenting women who are already scared and worried, >> takes a real man to pull that one off, doesn't it? > > I would appreciate it if you would stop making use of the N word in your posts. "nothing"? "not"? "need"? "necessary"? "no"? Oh, you mean where he used "******s" in a sarcastic way to illustrate a point and show how the bigoted people felt at the time who were against the freedom of all men? Quote
Guest Mike Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: > [snips] > > On Tue, 22 May 2007 19:09:46 -0700, Jason wrote: > >>> 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. > > Gods, you are such a fucking coward. No balls at all. > > Man up and stand up for what you believe, stop hiding behind Mommy's skirt. He even got bored and left 30 minutes into a clinic-protest/picketing session. Talk about a man of conviction. Quote
Guest Mike Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f2n19h$fe6$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Charles & Mambo Duckman wrote: >>> Jason wrote: >>> >>>> My sister told me that my >>>> parents did not want to have any more children when she became pregnant >>>> with me. >>> ?????????????? >> Yeah, that would explain a lot about Jason. >> >> But upon reading the rest of that paragraph, I think he meant "My sister >> told me that my parents did not want to have any more children when MY >> MOM became pregnant with me." > > Yes--that is true. Thanks for editing for me. I once read an article that > listed the names of very famous people. They have something in common. If > they had been conceived after abortion became legal--they probably would > have been aborted. Oh, you mean Hitler, Genghis Khan, Saddam Hussein, Ferdinand Marcos, Muammer Qaddafi, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong II? THOSE famous people? Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 In article <285di4-ooe.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [snips] > > On Tue, 22 May 2007 19:09:46 -0700, Jason wrote: > > >> 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. > > Gods, you are such a fucking coward. No balls at all. > > Man up and stand up for what you believe, stop hiding behind Mommy's skirt. What actions should pro-life protesters take to stop abortions? Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 In article <5bj7n7F2tfcnoU2@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > > snip > > 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? > > If some woman has an unwanted baby, why would she want an abortion? I believe that a fetus is an unborn baby. Perhaps I should have used the term fetus or "unborn baby" instead of "baby". Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 In article <1179916950.157502.274910@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 23, 1:31 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1179892444.944254.284...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 23, 2:57 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > I can't explain it. I don't know much about the laws in other countries. I > > know that some countries allow people to use hard drugs. Prostitution is > > also legal in some foreign countries. We now have lots of gangs in large > > cities and that could increase our crime rates since gang members commit > > lots of crime. There are lots of gun crimes in America and guns are not > > legal to own in many foreign countries so they probably don't have very > > many gun related crimes in foreign countries. Would you agree that the > > crime rate in America in the year 2000 was much higher than it was in > > 1900? If so, I believe the reason is because more Christians took their > > religion seriously in 1900 than they did in the year 2000. > > No, I wouldn't agree with that. The crime rate in the US has been > dropping for almost two decades now. The total number have crimes may > have increased but the number of crimes committed per capita is almost > half what it was in 1991. As the crime rate was much higher in the > 70s, 80s and 90s, it would appear as though your generation commited > more crimes than mine. Again, how do you explain this? > > Martin Martin, I can't explain it. Would you agree that the crime rate in 2000 is far higher than it was in the year 1800? I think that it is and the reason is because the vast majority of the people in America that lived in 1800 were Christians that took their religion seriously. I have no facts to back up my opinion re: to this issue. How would I go about finding the murder rate in 1800. Jason Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 [snips] On Tue, 22 May 2007 23:28:25 -0700, Jason wrote: > We differ in regard to how we intrepret the scripture. I continue to > believe that if a man purposely kills a fetus--that it falls under the > commandment. If a man unintentionly kills a fetus--it falls under the > scripture that you mentioned. You continue to believe it, yet you can't give an explanation for the passage. Of course, the passage itself shows that while "Thou shalt not kill" is a general principle, it is not applicable to fetuses - according to God Himself. You, of course, persist in trying to tell God that He is wrong. Isn't that generally considered hubris? -- 'How many vertebrae do you have? Oh? You've never seen them? Then you don't have any, you spineless piece of shit.' - J.J. Hitt 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.