SickofLies

Joined

• started 77 topics
• posted 971 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by SickofLies

• 
  67

  Advocating Destruction of Religion Hate Speech?

  by writetoknow in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  introduction.

  in 1942, the supreme court sustained the conviction of a jehovah's witness who addressed a police officer as a "god dammed racketeer" and "a damned facist" (chaplinksy v. new hampshire).

  the court's opinion in the case stated that there was a category of face-to-face epithets, or "fighting words," that was wholly outside of the protection of the first amendment: those words "which by their very utterance inflict injury" and which "are no essential part of any exposition of ideas.".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  SickofLies

  For the millionth time, disrespecting a person's beliefs is NOT the same as disrespecting the person. Why can't you understand that?

  In writetoknow's defense I think either english is a second language to him or he is simply very young.
• 
  13

  Michigan Snow

  by BlackSwan of Memphis in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .

  .

  and i said it wouldn't snow....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  SickofLies

  Ya I'm pretty much snowed in right now. It's gonna be hell trying to get to work tomorrow.
• 
  8

  The Ethics of Eugenics

  by SickofLies in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  genetic technology has advanced to an unbelievable stage.

  what used to be science fiction is now quickly on its way to becoming science fact.

  there are fertility clinics that can now diagnose whether your child-to-be has any genetic disorders, allowing you to decide whether or not to abort ahead of time.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  SickofLies

  Can anyone see The Nightlords from Trinity Blood coming down the pike? Or a Khan Noonien Singh?

  Khhhhaaaannnn!!
• 
  67

  Advocating Destruction of Religion Hate Speech?

  by writetoknow in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  introduction.

  in 1942, the supreme court sustained the conviction of a jehovah's witness who addressed a police officer as a "god dammed racketeer" and "a damned facist" (chaplinksy v. new hampshire).

  the court's opinion in the case stated that there was a category of face-to-face epithets, or "fighting words," that was wholly outside of the protection of the first amendment: those words "which by their very utterance inflict injury" and which "are no essential part of any exposition of ideas.".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  SickofLies

  Years ago there was a concentrated effort by scientists to expose astrology, psychics and other mystic idea's that the public was being suckered in by. People were losing thousands of dollars to psychic hotlines and becoming addicted to talking to someone who claimed to know the status of their dead loved ones.

  No one back then had a big fit over their efforts to dispel these myths by saying that exposing psychics is hate speech.

  I find it an interesting tactic by the religious fundies to make themselves into the victim here when religion has always been the oppressor throughout history. I think what these religious nut jobs fundies are really afraid of is people learning the truth.

  If all of the sudden you found yourself living in a world where you were the only one believing in some kind of divinely inspired plan you would suddenly find it very hard to be taken seriously by anyone, people would laugh at you behind your back, society would reject you because you would seem insane. People would probably try to encourage you to get counselling and try to come to grips with reality.

  Indeed, I understand why the religious are so afraid of this new movement, all of the sudden they must be feeling very lonely.
• 
  8

  The Ethics of Eugenics

  by SickofLies in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  genetic technology has advanced to an unbelievable stage.

  what used to be science fiction is now quickly on its way to becoming science fact.

  there are fertility clinics that can now diagnose whether your child-to-be has any genetic disorders, allowing you to decide whether or not to abort ahead of time.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  SickofLies

  Genetic technology has advanced to an unbelievable stage. What used to be science fiction is now quickly on its way to becoming science fact.
  
  There are fertility clinics that can now diagnose whether your child-to-be has any genetic disorders, allowing you to decide whether or not to abort ahead of time. In addition, you may now CHOOSE whether you want a boy or a girl, no more guessing.
  
  Not too soon, we'll be able to directly manipulate DNA into doing whatever we please.
  
  This is great for those who need it, Down Syndrome children can then be cured instantly. If Huntington's runs in the family, there's no more 50 year wait. You can not only detect it, you can prevent it.
  
  The issue goes on however...after therapeutic usage.
  
  Eugenics: Improving mankind
  
  Now that human DNA has been fully mapped it will not be long before we can isolate gene's for intelligence, strength and quite likely longevity.

  In fact a quick scan of medical literature and science journals shows that there has already been major progress in these areas.

  What happens when we have acquired the technology to make modifications with ease to our own genome? I have little doubt that there will be a lot people who will be willing to do almost anything to get a hold of this technology. If the war on drugs has taught us anything its that we cannot control something once its out in the public.

  How do you feel we as a society should handle this technology once it becomes available?

  I believe a fair way to do it would be to make these 'upgrades' free and publicly available once they are possible that way its not just the rich who will have control of this technology.
  
  And make no mistake, this technology is coming if we like it or not. If we shun this technology that means that only the super rich will be able to pay scientists to do this for them privately and that will create a class of 'super-humans'.
  
  Shunning technology has never worked, we must embrace it and use it for the betterment of the species as a whole.

  So JWD, tell me you opinion on this issue.
• 
  59

  NON-THEISTIC belief systems REQUIRE LOTS of FAITH (e.g. people from FISH)

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i once saw dawkins refer to his views as a "belief system".

  indeed, persons who subscribe to a non-theistic belief system* have been generally forced to hold to the following beliefs:.

  that life came from non-life.. that people came from fish (fish are in mans actual ancestry in evolutionary phylogenetic trees).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  SickofLies

  No I didn't.

  Yes you did.

  The title of this thread (e.g. people from fish) is the science of evolution. You used this example again in your first post.
• 
  59

  NON-THEISTIC belief systems REQUIRE LOTS of FAITH (e.g. people from FISH)

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i once saw dawkins refer to his views as a "belief system".

  indeed, persons who subscribe to a non-theistic belief system* have been generally forced to hold to the following beliefs:.

  that life came from non-life.. that people came from fish (fish are in mans actual ancestry in evolutionary phylogenetic trees).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  SickofLies

  I would also like to politely say that this thread was not intended to be about atheism (as defined by some of its proponets as a mere "lack of belief in a god"), but instead about non-theistic belief systems. If you are a person who merely calims to have a "lack of faith in a god" and claims no worldview belief system at all, then you do not have a "non-theistsic belief system"

  You defined a non-theistic belief system as belief in science in your first post.

  Belief in science is a rational based belief that is based on evidence.

  Belief in a deity is a non-rational based belief that is based on human tradition.

  Edit: It is possible to have both a 'non-theistic' belief system and a theistic belief system at the same time.
• 
  21

  "If evolution is true, what's to keep us from behaving like animals?"

  by Awakened07 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  are we "just babies"?

  are we "just animals"?.

  yes - animals do not and cannot appreciate art, music, poetry, history, beauty etc.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  SickofLies

  If the God of the Bible created us in his image, what's to keep us from behaving like bloodthirsty, genocidal maniacs?

  Here here
• 
  59

  NON-THEISTIC belief systems REQUIRE LOTS of FAITH (e.g. people from FISH)

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i once saw dawkins refer to his views as a "belief system".

  indeed, persons who subscribe to a non-theistic belief system* have been generally forced to hold to the following beliefs:.

  that life came from non-life.. that people came from fish (fish are in mans actual ancestry in evolutionary phylogenetic trees).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  SickofLies

  I guess you aren't sure if the sun will rise tomorow or if gravity will work?

  This is a very different kind of faith than what religious people have. To have faith in something that is easily provable is completely rational, to have faith in something which is impossible to prove is not rational.

  Most atheists, agnostics, humanists or whatever would argue for the need to put faith in only rational things.

  A better argument to be had would not be over what is faith, but what is rational.

  Example: Is it rational to believe what you are taught in science class knowing that in 100 years different things will be taught?

  Answer: Yes, in 100 years there will very likely be many new discoveries, all of which will be made based on the building blocks that are being taught in schools today. People today are only able to make discoveries by standing on the shoulders of giants. While new discoveries will be made, the previous discoveries will not be invalided. For example, Einstein’s theory of general relativity improved upon Newton’s theory of gravity, however, if you take physics in high school today you will learn about Newton’s theory of gravity and not Einstein’s, why? Because for 90% of cases it still works perfectly and there is no need to use Einstein’s more complicated improved version.

  The reason I can say with a great degree of certainty that even though there will be many new discoveries they will not completely invalidate the science being taught today is that everything that is being taught today in science can be verified by experimentation. The only way we could ever change any of the major founding principles of modern science would be to find experimental evidence that cannot be explained by one of today's theoretical models. In that case we made need to make a new theory to account for that experiment or perhaps modify an existing theory to account for some kind of extreme circumstance that we had not thought of before.

  So, in summary, to reject modern science based on the idea that it will be different in 100 years is completely irrational. It is not based on evidence or proper understanding of how science works.

  Now, let me turn he tables around on the theists for a minute.

  Is there any rational basis for believing in god?
• 
  13

  What motivates a person to start a religion?

  by serendipity in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  does anyone know of books, magazine articles, etc that explore the motivating factors in the origins of religion?

  i'm especially interested in religions started by a single person.

  of course, your personal opinions are welcomed.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  SickofLies

  Avishai already beat me to it.

  Money, power, women (as far as I know there has never been a religion started by a female).