Hey look, another person who's too lazy to read a damn textbook!
eric356
JoinedPosts by eric356
-
172
The impossible delusion of evolution
by brotherdan inhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1icjkwzeee.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azmgkrkj5la.
-
-
-
53
2011 Yearbook - "Tracing All Things with Accuracy"
by pirata in2011 yearbook - "tracing all things with accuracy", p.9-13.
jesus said that the faithful slave would be discreet in giving the domestics "their food at the proper time.
" christ thus indicated that those who dispense this "food" would be conscientious, prudent, and discerning in providing spiritual food for the household of faith.-matt.
-
-
eric356
This whole excerpt is pure gold. Being that I've personally gone through each reference in both the "Was Life Created?" and "The Origin of Life: Five Questions Worth Asking" and seen all the BS the WT pulls, I know they are just purposely lying, not being incompetent.
"Although the source for this statement was a reputable science magazine..." You mean one of those magazines that talks about evolution and the Big Bang and human civilization 15,000 years ago and dinosaurs eating meat? One of those magazines?
"Our researchers also had to find the formula and the information needed to calculate for themselves what impact a jumbo jet may have on a spiderweb the size of a football field. Many hours of research and meticulous calculations eventually confirmed the accuracy of this astounding piece of information." Put simply, it took a bunch of WT "researchers" hours to do a problem that could be used as an example in a sophmore dynamics class.
"Reportedly, a visiting atheist asked: "Who made it?" When Newton answered, "Nobody!" the atheist replied, "You must think I am a fool!" Newton is then said to have told the atheist that his puny imitation of the much grander solar system proves there there has to be a designer or a maker. As appealing as this account may be, historical sources, as well as Newton scholards and biographers, cannot provide evidence that this conversation really occurred. Interestingly, the earliest reference to this incident appeared in the early 1800's using, not Newton's name, but the name of German scholar Athanasius Kircher." Wow, religious people using apocryphal stories to smear atheists? Who would have thunk it! Soon you're going to tell me that the story about Einstein arguing with his biology professor about evolution was just made up by some idiot on the internet!
-
104
Help me make sence of William Lane Craigs nonsense
by bohm intoday i tried to read a transcript of a debate william lane craig had a few years back.
this particular argument which i have heard him give many times stumbled me for all the wrong reasons.
the argument is as this: (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-smith_harvard02.html).
-
-
eric356
simon, I think there is a fairly decent probability that you are correct, for certain definitions of objective. I don't think it's very plausible that "moral absolutes" are just floating out there in nature like Platonic forms or something. To me, objective morality only makes sense as the best set of rules for a particular species of social animals. If humans were different, and (somehow) enjoyed being hurt, raped, lied to, or enslaved, then the "objective" morality would be different.
-
104
Help me make sence of William Lane Craigs nonsense
by bohm intoday i tried to read a transcript of a debate william lane craig had a few years back.
this particular argument which i have heard him give many times stumbled me for all the wrong reasons.
the argument is as this: (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-smith_harvard02.html).
-
-
eric356
All of this "God is truthfulness" and "God defines (insert quality)" just sounds like total nonsense to me. How is god an abstract quality? Last time I heard the average theist talk about it, god is some sort of all-supreme, disembodied superbeing. What does "God is love" or "God is truthfullness" actually mean? It just seems like a way of avoiding the unsavory implications of divine command theory. Saying that moral absolutes are just "God's nature" just pushes the problem back one step. Why is God's nature a particular way? Could it have been different? Is his nature the result of some logical rule? Can he decide his nature? (Lots of God's free will, eternal, omnipotent incoherence problems with this type of theism.) All of this is hand-waving.
Extra credit: Does god need to exist for mathematical statements true? Just as you claim that there needs to be a divine lawgiver for morality to exists, does there have to be a cosmic mathematician for 1+1=2?
"In the meantime, you can live off our (unexplainable to you) morality until you manage to figure out something better"
Who, exactly is the "our" in this sentence? Are you part of a group of roving moral philosophers? Surely you can't be talking about some mythical "Judeo-Christian ethic" which has, in reality, been shaped by many forces in society and definitely improved (according to most people) over time.
-
104
Help me make sence of William Lane Craigs nonsense
by bohm intoday i tried to read a transcript of a debate william lane craig had a few years back.
this particular argument which i have heard him give many times stumbled me for all the wrong reasons.
the argument is as this: (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-smith_harvard02.html).
-
-
eric356
I have no idea. He's a huge tool. This is revealed by the Craig / Robert M. Price debate in which Price calls Craig on all of his BS.
-
104
Help me make sence of William Lane Craigs nonsense
by bohm intoday i tried to read a transcript of a debate william lane craig had a few years back.
this particular argument which i have heard him give many times stumbled me for all the wrong reasons.
the argument is as this: (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-smith_harvard02.html).
-
-
eric356
I think I can clarify some of the misconceptions here.
Premise 1 of the argument is deeply flawed. The main issue is the definition of 'objective'. Usually, objective means that something is independent of a mind. Things that are dependent on a mind (preferences, beliefs, etc) are subjective. So, if Craig is claiming that morality is objective, then he's saying that it isn't dependent on any minds. However, he establishes God (who is supposed to be a disembodied mind) as the necessary foundation for morality. (Divine command ethics) If God's mind is what anchors morality, then morality is subjective.
However, we can redefine objective to be more useful. Objective could mean verifiable by all people, a fact about the world, and not dependent on a particular mind. So, it is objectively true that a chunk of rock is denser than a chunk of cotton candy. Now, only in a world with at least one mind do any of these words have any meaning, but given some minds, all will agree with the conclusion. This makes the conclusion objective. A mind could not rationally disagree that the rock is less dense than the cotton candy.
With this definition in hand, it may be quite plausible that an objective morality exists apart from a god. It could also be possible that this morality exists, and a god exists. In that case, god is just another mind verifying that morality is objective. One could go about thinking of "objective" morality as the most rational actions that a group of agents would take. As an analogy, there may be a "best" way to play chess. If winning is the goal, it is possible (with a huge amount of computing time) to mathematically evaluate the space of all possible moves and determine which is best. The same could be said for objective an morality. We could evaluate all the possible actions that a society of people could take, and figure out the best method. It could be possible that there are multiple, equally effective methods. (This is basically the Sam Harris idea.)
I also noticed that people were confusing "objective" morality with prudential concerns or motivations for moral actions or duties. Basically, the argument is something like, "If there's no God, why not do anything that you can get away with?" This is a confusion of terms. Morality can be objective, and totally apparent to a person. However, if they disregard the objective moral rule, then they can act immorally. Just because morality doesn't provide some prudential motivation, doesn't mean it's not objective. In fact, I would argue that "moral" systems that are reliant on prudential motivators (carrots and sticks) aren't really moral systems. If someone says "You should help others, or I'll shoot you in the face" and you decide that it makes sense to help others, this wasn't a moral decision. It was a prudent, objective decision, but not a moral one. This is where the Kantian idea that morality has to be self imposed comes from. For this reason, people who are sociopaths, lacking all empathy, can't understand intuitive moral decision-making. They can only understand the prudential facts of a situation.
Premise 2 is also really bad. It amounts to, "Don't you just really FEEL that morality is objective and true?" This is an appeal to emotion, with no backup argumentation. It is an open question in moral philosophy if morality exists at all (error theory), or if moral feelings can be true or false at all (noncognitivism).
Finally, when Craig talks about evolution not being an explanation for morality, he's not talking about the actual behavior. He doesn't mean (entirely) that he thinks that altruism couldn't have evolved. He's saying that if it evolved, why is it moral? If humans evolved in a different manner, would different things then be moral? That's his point. Evolution can explain the behavior, but it doesn't provide a proscriptive basis for saying that something is moral. To argue the contrary would be the genetic fallacy.
-
24
Study Reports That Circumcision Helps Stop Wart Virus
by Scott77 inhi fellow guys, its high time to go for the surgeon's knife.
(reuters) - researchers have documented yet another health benefit for circumcision, which can protect men against the aids virus, saying it can protect their wives and girlfriends from a virus that causes cervical cancer.. wives and girlfriends of circumcised men had a 28 percent lower rate of infection over two years with the human papilloma virus or hpv, which causes warts and cervical cancer, they reported in the lancet medical journal on thursday.. "our findings indicate that male circumcision should now be accepted as an efficacious intervention for reducing the prevalence and incidence of hpv infections in female partners.
however, protection is only partial; the promotion of safe sex practices is also important," dr. maria wawer and colleagues at johns hopkins university in baltimore wrote.. wawer's team piggybacked the hpv study onto a larger study that has shown circumcised men are less likely to be infected with the human immunodeficiency virus that causes aids.. "we enrolled hiv-negative men and their female partners between 2003 and 2006, in rakai, uganda," they wrote in their report in the lancet medical journal.. they were able to get details on hpv infections for nearly 1,000 of the women, all identified by men as long-term sex partners such as wives.
-
-
eric356
As an atheist, I don't really find it relevant whether a religious character was circumcised or not. Even if I was a believer, how is that relevant unless one is Jewish or Muslim?
In regards to the reduced infection transmission rates, some context is needed. Research seems to indicate that there is a statistically significant difference in the transmission of certain STDs among intact vs. circumcised males. (There are certain criticisms of the methodologies, but let's ignore that) It is important to note that this is a relative difference. As Broken Promises said, being circumcised is not a 100% protection, not even close. It is "safer" RELATIVE to the control, not absolutely "safe". One must also understand the situation in Africa to appreciate why some medical researchers and organizations advocate and fund mass circumcisions in the region. Disease is rampant, and condom use is often attacked by groups such as the Catholic church and other right-wing religious groups. Circumcision is fairly cheap, and the RELATIVE difference in infection rates can be significant when millions of people are concerned. When you're at the end of your public health rope, even modest gains are valuable.
That said, there is a cultural undercurrent to these recommendations. As I said, female "circumcision" has the same reduced STD transmission effects as the male version. However, I've never seen a Western medical group or researcher advocate mass female circumcision. Why not? Because it's not culturally acceptable in the West, whereas male circumcision is. The Gates Foundation et al faces no blowback by funding this research, whereas if they were calling for female circumcision there would be a huge outcry in the West (but not in certain Islamic or African circles). So really, if these large scale public health affects are somehow important to you as an individual, then why the discrepancy?
Living a first world country with access to sanitation, condoms, vaccines, and regular checkups there is no reason to alter your own or anyone else's genitals. Any tiny advantages immediately raise the question: if you or your child was female, would you even be asking the question?
According to research there is no appreciable difference in sexual performance between intact and circumcised males. I would imagine the the variation from individual to individual is greater than the difference between the two groups. Those who claim one or the other is vastly superior to the other are usually fetishists.
-
24
Study Reports That Circumcision Helps Stop Wart Virus
by Scott77 inhi fellow guys, its high time to go for the surgeon's knife.
(reuters) - researchers have documented yet another health benefit for circumcision, which can protect men against the aids virus, saying it can protect their wives and girlfriends from a virus that causes cervical cancer.. wives and girlfriends of circumcised men had a 28 percent lower rate of infection over two years with the human papilloma virus or hpv, which causes warts and cervical cancer, they reported in the lancet medical journal on thursday.. "our findings indicate that male circumcision should now be accepted as an efficacious intervention for reducing the prevalence and incidence of hpv infections in female partners.
however, protection is only partial; the promotion of safe sex practices is also important," dr. maria wawer and colleagues at johns hopkins university in baltimore wrote.. wawer's team piggybacked the hpv study onto a larger study that has shown circumcised men are less likely to be infected with the human immunodeficiency virus that causes aids.. "we enrolled hiv-negative men and their female partners between 2003 and 2006, in rakai, uganda," they wrote in their report in the lancet medical journal.. they were able to get details on hpv infections for nearly 1,000 of the women, all identified by men as long-term sex partners such as wives.
-
-
eric356
So, unless you are too poor to pay for condoms (and in a gambling mood), have a medical issue, or have a mutilation fetish, going under the knife sounds like a crappy option. But hey, it's your body. Just try to leave others out of your personal decision making.
-
24
Study Reports That Circumcision Helps Stop Wart Virus
by Scott77 inhi fellow guys, its high time to go for the surgeon's knife.
(reuters) - researchers have documented yet another health benefit for circumcision, which can protect men against the aids virus, saying it can protect their wives and girlfriends from a virus that causes cervical cancer.. wives and girlfriends of circumcised men had a 28 percent lower rate of infection over two years with the human papilloma virus or hpv, which causes warts and cervical cancer, they reported in the lancet medical journal on thursday.. "our findings indicate that male circumcision should now be accepted as an efficacious intervention for reducing the prevalence and incidence of hpv infections in female partners.
however, protection is only partial; the promotion of safe sex practices is also important," dr. maria wawer and colleagues at johns hopkins university in baltimore wrote.. wawer's team piggybacked the hpv study onto a larger study that has shown circumcised men are less likely to be infected with the human immunodeficiency virus that causes aids.. "we enrolled hiv-negative men and their female partners between 2003 and 2006, in rakai, uganda," they wrote in their report in the lancet medical journal.. they were able to get details on hpv infections for nearly 1,000 of the women, all identified by men as long-term sex partners such as wives.
-
-
eric356
Do you live in or plan on moving to sub-Saharan Africa?
-
24
Study Reports That Circumcision Helps Stop Wart Virus
by Scott77 inhi fellow guys, its high time to go for the surgeon's knife.
(reuters) - researchers have documented yet another health benefit for circumcision, which can protect men against the aids virus, saying it can protect their wives and girlfriends from a virus that causes cervical cancer.. wives and girlfriends of circumcised men had a 28 percent lower rate of infection over two years with the human papilloma virus or hpv, which causes warts and cervical cancer, they reported in the lancet medical journal on thursday.. "our findings indicate that male circumcision should now be accepted as an efficacious intervention for reducing the prevalence and incidence of hpv infections in female partners.
however, protection is only partial; the promotion of safe sex practices is also important," dr. maria wawer and colleagues at johns hopkins university in baltimore wrote.. wawer's team piggybacked the hpv study onto a larger study that has shown circumcised men are less likely to be infected with the human immunodeficiency virus that causes aids.. "we enrolled hiv-negative men and their female partners between 2003 and 2006, in rakai, uganda," they wrote in their report in the lancet medical journal.. they were able to get details on hpv infections for nearly 1,000 of the women, all identified by men as long-term sex partners such as wives.
-
-
eric356
I'll take showers and condoms, thank you very much.
I'll also take a vaccine over surgical intervention.
Also, it's kind of weird to take results from a third world country and apply them to developed countries.
Muslim countries probably do have lower HIV rates, but congratulating circumcision for that fact is fraught with confounding variables. Most of Europe has negligible circumcision rates with lower HIV infection rates than the US. Over course, people use condoms much more often there. (Thanks Religious Right of America!)
People who trumpet these studies always confuse me. You do know that there is research that shows that female genital cutting has analogous benefits to circumcision, right? You might as well ask the ladies: "Time to take a bit off the top of your labia. Why not?"