Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 61 to 75 of 75
  1. #61  
    Originally posted by ****-richardson

    Fact is, the components that make that computer you seem to enjoy using is made for pennies by people that will never enjoy the luxuries you are. That is one example of how you are directly taking advantage of other people. We can delve deeper and look at the clothes you wear, the utilities you use, etc. The fact that you find it slightly disgusting when someone else takes advantage of other people to live life the way they want while doing the exact same thing is hypocritical.
    Sorry, but your analogy does not work.

    Of course people who are not paid a salary comparable to our standards have been working on a lot of stuff I use. But these people do get a salary for what they do, and no one put a gun at their head so that they would start making the jeans I wear. I am not saying the salary they get is fair by definition, to the contrary, but again, that is not the point:

    Parents who do not vaccinate their kids take an unfair advantage: they enjoy protection because most others are reasonable and vaccinate their kids. They let others take the small risk associated with vaccines, but don't give *anything* (not even a small salary which is not comparable to our standards) in return. Your analogy would be correct if I would steal my computer from someone or have slaves make my jeans.

    What I found unpleasant in BobbyMike's statment was how he stressed the the good health of his kids, a health which would have been challenged repeatedly and severely by e.g. smallpox, polio, bacterial meningitis, to name only a few, without others vaccinating. It was like saying "Who needs scientic crap like vaccination anyway - look at my kids, they are the proof vaccination is not necessary".
  2. #62  
    Originally posted by ****-richardson

    The scientific method is not infallible. You seem to be claiming that it is. That designation is reserved for the Pope. Just ask him.
    What I really like about the scientific method is that it is open to change, if new findings contradict what one has thought to be correct before.


    I have no problems with the theory of evolution. I find it much more plausible than the theory of creationism.
    Calling creationism a theory seems a bit unfair to me since it takes quite a lot of confirming evidence for an idea or hypothesis to be promoted to "theory", evidence that is completely lacking in the case of creationism

    Personally, I find the story of creation interesting if interpreted as the Dawning of Human Consciousness.
    I find another part of the Bible extremely interesting: The expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden. In paradise, Adam and Eve had a nice life, they did not have to work hard and could walk around however naked they wanted, etc. Then, after Adam had eaten from the forbidden tree of knowledge, God said to him:
    "Cursed is the ground because of you;
    through painful toil you will eat of it
    all the days of your life.
    It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
    and you will eat the plants of the field.
    By the sweat of your brow
    you will eat your food
    until you return to the ground,
    since from it you were taken;
    for dust you are
    and to dust you will return."

    This fits perfectly to what we know about the development of mankind: Man started as a hunter-gatherer. When we look at the remaining societies of hunter-gatherers we still have on this planet, we see that their live is actually quite good: e.g. they get their work done in quite a short time, and have plenty of time to sit and talk, they live from meat to a large extent, so they have little problems with malnutrition, etc. - pretty much Garden of Eden. BTW also the need for vaccination was much lower then because the very low population density prevented epidemics to a large extent. The drawback is that the carrying capacity is low, birth control has to be strikt, the population cannot grow.

    Compare this to agriculture, which was developed a few thousand years B.C. out of the hunter-gatherer societies: you can produce much more food per square mile of your territory in most ecosystems, but hey, plowing is a tough job without a tractor and weeding is hell without Roundup from Monsanto. Paradise lost, and pretty much how God described it to be for Adam, after he had eaten from the tree of knowledge....

    Why didn't we all stay hunter-gatherers, wouldn't it be cool and much less complicated? Unfortunately, getting back there would involve getting rid of most of the people on this planet, which would not be a nice process either. And since by now we do have tractors and Roundup and medicine (at least some of us in some parts of the world), life is not so bad after all (at least for those who can afford tractors and Roundup and medicine).
  3. #63  
    Originally posted by Toby
    Pish-tosh. A God that can't reliably come through for his believers can't be trusted to come through for much of anything else.
    Whatever will we do?
    I never said experimentation was necessarily proof, but rather that it was a more reliable predictor than anecdote.
    Predictor, yes. Proof, no.

    Thank you.
    Neither of your proofs hold up to logic, though. Pray to Joe Pesci for guidance....Well, we can obviously dismiss the scientific method then. We'll just rely on superstition and tribal elders.
    Damnit, just when I think you've got it...

    Let me know how that straw man holds up.
    Last edited by dick-richardson; 09/13/2003 at 11:04 PM.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  4. #64  
    Originally posted by clulup
    Sorry, but your analogy does not work.
    Indeed it does, but let me preface this by saying I sincerely doubt we're going to see eye-to-eye on this.

    Of course people who are not paid a salary comparable to our standards have been working on a lot of stuff I use. But these people do get a salary for what they do, and no one put a gun at their head so that they would start making the jeans I wear. I am not saying the salary they get is fair by definition, to the contrary, but again, that is not the point:
    That's very much the point. No one put a gun to your head to vaccinate your kids. You chose to have them vaccinated. Good choice, so did I. BobbyMike chooses not to. He benefits from the decisions of others and feels proud. I felt proud when I built my computer.

    Parents who do not vaccinate their kids take an unfair advantage: they enjoy protection because most others are reasonable and vaccinate their kids. They let others take the small risk associated with vaccines, but don't give *anything* (not even a small salary which is not comparable to our standards) in return. Your analogy would be correct if I would steal my computer from someone or have slaves make my jeans.
    So, taking advantage of someone somehow becomes less offensive if you give something in return? Can someone go ahead and tell the Native Americans to shut the hell up, then? And the jeans etc. are just one example. Do you enjoy eating at McDonald's? How about driving your car?

    What I found unpleasant in BobbyMike's statment was how he stressed the the good health of his kids, a health which would have been challenged repeatedly and severely by e.g. smallpox, polio, bacterial meningitis, to name only a few, without others vaccinating. It was like saying "Who needs scientic crap like vaccination anyway - look at my kids, they are the proof vaccination is not necessary".
    BobbyMike pays his taxes, does he not. Yet, aside from the beauracracy needed to manage that money, he probably draws very little of it back. He doesn't appear to be on welfare (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, BobbyMike); the gov't isn't paying for his kids to get medical treatment from smallpox because of the regulations that are put into effect and being enforced by his tax dollar to ensure that the kids who are taking their children to public school are vaccinated.
    Last edited by dick-richardson; 09/13/2003 at 11:00 PM.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  5. #65  
    Originally posted by clulup
    Calling creationism a theory seems a bit unfair to me since it takes quite a lot of confirming evidence for an idea or hypothesis to be promoted to "theory", evidence that is completely lacking in the case of creationism
    Forgive me for using conventional idioms, then.


    ...(at least for those who can afford tractors and Roundup and medicine).
    Odd, that.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  6. #66  
    Originally posted by ****-richardson
    Whatever will we do?
    Told ya. Pray to Joe Pesci for guidance.
    Predictor, yes. Proof, no.

    Thank you.
    I'd say "you're welcome", but I don't think it appropriate. Rather like one of those third-worlders thanking me for their employment since I buy their products.
    Damnit, just when I think you've got it...
    What exactly are you offering as more conclusive than the scientific method. If you've got something more concrete, I'm listening.
    Let me know how that straw man holds up.
    Bah...if it were really a straw man, it was down already. You should know that.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  7. #67  
    Originally posted by ****-richardson
    [...] I felt proud when I built my computer. [...]
    Why? In context of the discussion, I don't see anything to be proud of. Quite the contrary. You're even more guilty of the crime you're accusing others of since you did only the least risky and easiest part of the job. "Pride goeth before the fall."
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  8. #68  
    Originally posted by Toby
    I'd say "you're welcome", but I don't think it appropriate. Rather like one of those third-worlders thanking me for their employment since I buy their products.
    Then thank you for the opportunity to better myself.
    What exactly are you offering as more conclusive than the scientific method. If you've got something more concrete, I'm listening.
    My only point is that the scientific method is fallible.
    Bah...if it were really a straw man, it was down already. You should know that.
    Poor *******. Didn't stand a chance.
    Why? In context of the discussion, I don't see anything to be proud of. Quite the contrary. You're even more guilty of the crime you're accusing others of since you did only the least risky and easiest part of the job. "Pride goeth before the fall."
    That's where I was trying to take the conversation. I may be guilty, but I'm not getting disgusted when others do likewise. That's the only thing I took exception to.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  9. #69  
    Has anyone seen any reference to athiests as "Brights" other than BobbyMikes' original article?
  10. #70  
    Originally posted by K. Cannon
    Has anyone seen any reference to athiests as "Brights" other than BobbyMikes' original article?
    Nope.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  11. #71  
    Originally posted by K. Cannon
    Has anyone seen any reference to athiests as "Brights" other than BobbyMikes' original article?
    The combination of "Brights" and "humanist" in Google resulted in this: www.the-brights.net

    Dawkins does not seem to be completely alone after all.
    Last edited by clulup; 09/15/2003 at 12:47 PM.
  12. #72  
    Originally posted by clulup
    The combination of "Brights" and "humanist" in Google resulted in this: www.the-brights.net

    Dawkins does not seem to be completely alone after all.
    Interesting that their web page is hosted by humanists.net
  13. #73  
    Originally posted by K. Cannon
    Interesting that their web page is hosted by humanists.net
    What, you expected catholic.net?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  14. #74  
    Originally posted by Toby
    What, you expected catholic.net?
    Hee. Yeah, something like that...
  15. #75  
    Originally posted by ****-richardson
    My only point is that the scientific method is fallible.
    so is religion... religion even more so IMHO since it is not flexible..
    As said before, science learns from mistakes, while religion goes out of its way to protect the holy word even if there is no or even contradicting evidence..

    Fact of the matter is we will probably never know if there is a god..
    wouldnt be fun either if we knew..

    I live my life as I think is right, if there happens to be a god I'm sure he'll see I'm a good person even though I dont follow a religion...

    As religions go, I find budism to have the best attitude, a lot of their sayings make a lot of sense to me.. don't believe in the whole 'god' or 'gods' thing though...

    Also ironically a lot of religions are very simular, but the small differences are enough to kill each other for, while in most religions killing is a sin... this fact alone makes me start to doubt religion.. if there was a god and one of his rules is 'thou shall not kill' and then people start killing in the name of god, that would pi$$ anybody off, imagine you are allmighty... I doubt it that a god would let that happen.. and if you use the argument that god is forgiving and hence not doing anything about it, then why bother living by his rules at all?
    Religion has way too many contraditions for me..
    Science is far from perfect and they've had it wrong a lot of times, but it makes more sense to me and at least they are open for discussion and admitting if something was wrong..
    How many times did science adjusted their views after new evidence? and how many times has the pope done a mea culpa?
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Posting Permissions