@hpqp
Sadly, I think you're spot-on about the other failing of the firearm analogy; some people are just itching for an opportunity to shoot someone. And yes, some of those people will try to raise children in their image.

In my view, my answer to "The Big Question" is "Only before implantation, if at all. Because I know that a child is demonstrably human well prior to delivery, and tracing back I cannot rationally distinguish a point where the line is crossed after implantation. I would rather err on the side of caution when human life is involved." In light of this, it should be obvious why I am opposed to even early abortion. I'm curious about your almost offhand dismissal of adoption as a non-solution and "worse". It sounds like this is a topic you have discussed previously at length. To me, even a grievously flawed system of adoption is preferable to abortion.
I do think you raise a potent point with respect to sex through coercion as distinguished from rape.
Even so, I do not see carrying and delivering a child to be "punishment". It is a substantial burden, to be sure, but in my perspective the alternative is abhorrent to the point as to be unacceptable.

I think analogies in general fail when discussing abortion because it is such a unique situation.
Note: In discussing your analogies, I'm going to use the term "kill" with respect to abortion. Going back to "the Big Question", whether or not this is an accurate term is probably going to depend on your perspective relative to the wad of cells we term a fetus. (Which I see you're searching for.)
The helmet analogy fails because efforts to save the life of the helmet-shunner do not necessarily harm someone else as directly as in abortion. You can find harm, sure: saving feckless may divert resources from saving the life of burning-nun-bus-rescue-hero, but you aren't necessarily killing someone else to save him.
Same for the STDs. Treating an STD kills bacteria, or uses up anti-viral medication, but there's no direct harm to another individual in the process. For me, living with the consequences of getting an STD means living with one of the incurable ones or living with a curable one until it gets managed, and dealing with the social stigma of informing other partners of your status.

I disagree with the assessment that the procedure is "punishment enough", primarily because I don't think that punishment is due. Again, it's not a woman's "fault" that she's pregnant, and sex is not some grievous crime to be prosecuted. Sex is a wonderful experience that can be a carnal pleasure, an act of intimacy, or both, but one that carries consequences. The initiation of a new human life is a possible outcome. (Yes, the procedure is unpleasant, often painful, and some women will experience regret or other emotional disturbances afterwards, but those are, again, possible consequences of a choice.)

I agree wholeheartedly that more education is essential. Increased access to contraceptives (and hopefully more effective contraceptives) will (almost) certainly lessen the incidence of unwanted pregnancies. I appreciate that "don't have sex if you can't accept being pregnant" is not a magical incantation that makes people not have sex, but it has to be a part of it, because no method of contraception is 100% effective, even if used correctly.

I look forward to your followup on the "ball of cells" issue.

>> ^Stormsinger:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^Stormsinger:
Looks remarkably closely related to a homemade zipline. You know, like the one that snapped and infected that poor girl with flesh-eating bacteria?
I think I'll pass...rusty metal and standing water just isn't a good combination.

We used to not care about that kinda stuff. But then again my dads friend drowned while swimming in the old quarry...so who knows who's right?

I know...my friends and I didn't either. And there aren't as many of us as there used to be. In several cases, there's a direct causal relationship in that statement, too. It's only taken us 40-50 years to realize that we are indeed mortal.


I think it's sad...I recently bought a motorcycle and upon doing my homework I discovered that most fatalities now occur because of chest and spine trauma, not head trauma because of helmets. So I asked for my birthday to get a vest full of pads over the chest and stomach and a large back plate like a turtle shell. I bought this old motorcycle because I remember my dads old motorcycle, which I rode around with him at the age of 4 with no helmet at all. It's crazy to think about.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Stormsinger:
Looks remarkably closely related to a homemade zipline. You know, like the one that snapped and infected that poor girl with flesh-eating bacteria?
I think I'll pass...rusty metal and standing water just isn't a good combination.

We used to not care about that kinda stuff. But then again my dads friend drowned while swimming in the old quarry...so who knows who's right?


I know...my friends and I didn't either. And there aren't as many of us as there used to be. In several cases, there's a direct causal relationship in that statement, too. It's only taken us 40-50 years to realize that we are indeed mortal.

>> ^Stormsinger:

Looks remarkably closely related to a homemade zipline. You know, like the one that snapped and infected that poor girl with flesh-eating bacteria?
I think I'll pass...rusty metal and standing water just isn't a good combination.


We used to not care about that kinda stuff. But then again my dads friend drowned while swimming in the old quarry...so who knows who's right?

Looks remarkably closely related to a homemade zipline. You know, like the one that snapped and infected that poor girl with flesh-eating bacteria?

I think I'll pass...rusty metal and standing water just isn't a good combination.

To the creationist who spent a lot of time writing up his beliefs. Yes, it does take a "leap of faith" to accept current scientific theory.

I appreciate that you can admit it. After investigating the issue, I decided the leap was too great if it was between that and Gods word. I'm sure that seems funny to you, but have you considered the philosophical implications? If you are already committed to naturalistic materialism, like most atheists, of course you are going to believe there *has* to be a materialist explanation, therefore the circumstantial evidence I cited is going to look a lot more persausive than it actually is. You might even admit that it is not proof of anything, but surely it is pointing in the right direction. You can see the issue a lot more objectively if you are not automatically committed to materialist explanations.

However, science never claims to be 100% correct unlike the teachings of most religious fundamentalists. Most time in science is proving current theories wrong, and adapting our scientific model to fit new theories. That is the strength of science. So if you can't accept the current theory, great! Come up with some other PROOF for our existence instead of buying into a cult that has no proof.

What you're doing here is creating a false dichotomy between science and religion. I don't have to choose one or the other. Science has nothing to say on the question on whether God exists. It may conflict with the bible on certain issues, but as I wrote above, I didn't change my mind because of what the bible said as true. I directly said I was willing to modify my understanding of biblical truth if scientific theories conflicted with it. The actual reason I changed my mind was because of a lack of evidence.

As far as whether there is evidence for Christianity, there is quite a bit. Some of the most compelling, I think, is fulfilled prophecy. However, God gives revelation to those who are seeking Him. Only God can reveal Himself to you.

They have assumptions based on a 2000 year old fairy tale, and the feeling "in their heart" that is it true. For me I need more repeatable/accurate proof than that to accept a theory.

I don't expect you to believe in God without any proof beyond personal testimony. As I said, God reveals Himself to those who diligently seek Him.

Sure, in all of recorded history, we look at C12 decay rates and they have been accurate, but instead of coming up with repeatable proof on why C12 isn't accurate, let's just instead assume that they are completely wrong. Looking at just the proof human fossils, the theory of evolution writes a more clear picture to me of the origin of our species than the origin of our species as described in a book. Supposedly, this book is somehow considered divine knowledge by some. Even though, it was written long before we had any understanding of virii, bacteria, or the microbiological world. Doesn't sound very divine or all knowing to me. It was the best explanation that a primitive people had to explain and live in the world around them. Which modern science and culture should be long past.

It's interesting then that the Israelites completely ignored the science of their time and were inspired to invent hand washing and quarantine procedures which, when followed, kept people from getting sick. It was almost as if an all-knowing God knew about germs and gave His people understanding which helped them avoid infection. These things were "discovered" by science thousands of years later. Had people been following Gods rules of sanitation that entire time, millions of lives would have been saved. Far from primitive, they were ahead of their time by millenia.

If it is the bible we're talking about, if you live in today's government, you already accept certain elements as out-dated and irrelevant. Unless you still stone people for adultery, worshipers of other religions, or disobeying their parents. Or if you think that the animal should be stoned in a bestiality case. Or you think that someone looking at a woman menstruating will cause your eyes to bleed. I've hope you've "grown up" from those archaic beliefs. Why is species origin any different?

Have you ever read the bible? Do you understand the differences between the Old and New covenants?

What I normally tell creationists and other anti-science viewpoints, is that if you don't believe in science, don't believe in medical science either. Stay in a church praying to your creator when you get sick or need modern medicine to improve your chances of survival. I'm sure your creator will save you...

As I said, I believe in science. What I don't believe in is the theory of deep time, or evolution by universal common descent.

>> ^Ferazel

Hopefully, it far less than a couple centuries before the view of creationists are a significant minority viewpoint in our culture as it is holding back our future as Mr. Nye said.

To the creationist who spent a lot of time writing up his beliefs. Yes, it does take a "leap of faith" to accept current scientific theory. However, science never claims to be 100% correct unlike the teachings of most religious fundamentalists. Most time in science is proving current theories wrong, and adapting our scientific model to fit new theories. That is the strength of science. So if you can't accept the current theory, great! Come up with some other PROOF for our existence instead of buying into a cult that has no proof. They have assumptions based on a 2000 year old fairy tale, and the feeling "in their heart" that is it true. For me I need more repeatable/accurate proof than that to accept a theory. Sure, in all of recorded history, we look at C12 decay rates and they have been accurate, but instead of coming up with repeatable proof on why C12 isn't accurate, let's just instead assume that they are completely wrong. Looking at just the proof human fossils, the theory of evolution writes a more clear picture to me of the origin of our species than the origin of our species as described in a book. Supposedly, this book is somehow considered divine knowledge by some. Even though, it was written long before we had any understanding of virii, bacteria, or the microbiological world. Doesn't sound very divine or all knowing to me. It was the best explanation that a primitive people had to explain and live in the world around them. Which modern science and culture should be long past.

If it is the bible we're talking about, if you live in today's government, you already accept certain elements as out-dated and irrelevant. Unless you still stone people for adultery, worshipers of other religions, or disobeying their parents. Or if you think that the animal should be stoned in a bestiality case. Or you think that someone looking at a woman menstruating will cause your eyes to bleed. I've hope you've "grown up" from those archaic beliefs. Why is species origin any different?

What I normally tell creationists and other anti-science viewpoints, is that if you don't believe in science, don't believe in medical science either. Stay in a church praying to your creator when you get sick or need modern medicine to improve your chances of survival. I'm sure your creator will save you...

@renatojj So you are saying you cant be threatened economically? Off course you can be. Damage can be economical or mental too. There is no reason to exclude those. Far from it, you can argue these are in the end physical too.
Force is not required to be physical in this process.
What you need is leverage, ie something that the other needs. If you are the giver of a job that that other person needs and it is difficult for him to find it elsewhere, you are in a position of power without any other need of force. If you own a well in a desert you are the most powerful man without any force. And you can coerce people to do your bidding for them to receive water. No force required, just threat.

On right to have a job. The thousands of philosophers, lawyers, human rights activists, politicians, etc that worked on the UDHR just believe that without the job, people will starve, ie will die, ie will get a right offended. Hence, they need a job. And thats is were coercion comes in. The NEED (not the right) to have a job to survive (or at least live on a "decent" level in your society) Coercion isnt about having or not having a job. Its about the threat of not getting it / losing it and accepting things you would otherwise not. Discussing whether or not someone is suitable for a job is besides the point, as we are all unsuitable for the job we have in some form or other. So unskilled, incompetent, dispensable, these are all point of view based. In a world of geniuses you and me would be unsuitable for anything. But are we really? Off course not, just like every tree, flower, bacteria and animal has a role, so does every person.

On coercion: by a child's psychological manipulation? For sure. (Check with any parent and they will readily agree ) What about a person you're in love with? Yes off course. What about a guy who is more qualified for a job than you are, is he coercing you out of that position? No. He nor you has the job to give. The coercion comes when your boss says to work 12 hours a day and get paid for 8 because someone else might be better and he might give that person the job.

On justifying anything government does: you make assumptions I dont follow. Punish coercion -> using force -> more social injustice.
If it is coercion and we define coercion is something bad, isnt it justified to do something against it? You can do something against it with or without force, but even if it is done with force (meaning someone somewhere gets his freedoms lessened) again, isnt that justified to stop him or her being able to coerce someone as that is bad? Its like saying government cant stop someone from shooting someone because that would lessen the freedom of the shooter. I would define social injustice not as the max rights of that individual but of the max rights of the whole population. So not "using force" would lead to social injustice.

On laziness: You are right. If you are not careful, setting up rules that protect the weak can make them complacent. Its a balancing act. If you set no rules, ie free market, you open them up to abuse. If you set too many rules, they can become less eager to be the best they can be. BTW I dont call that lazy. There is a larger argument to make here, about the goals of capitalism (More and more efficiency, ever growing and ever improving) or about more soft lifestyles that would not be as efficient but might in the end bring more happiness. A topic for another time.

On the UDHR: I guess we want to achieve the same, we just disagree on the way to get there. I structurally dont believe free markets will get us there, as in every real case free markets have proven to be unreliable because people will abuse their powers and create too much inequality. There are so many examples (LIBOR, the entire financial derivatives markets, basically all unregulated markets) that I can ask this:
can you give me 1 example of a market that is run truly free that worked for a longer period of time?

Wound tight: Living vicariously and obsessively through their daughter.....Look like perfectionist wackos filled with more neurosis than a ship's bilge is full of bacteria. I would use this footage to teach a psych 101 class.

Poor girl.

Yeah...the day we get a virus, bacteria, or straight up parasitic organism that can tell our brains to do certain things--I'm quiting the human species (I might be overstating it, but I certainly will become very paranoid concerning certain conditions, if you understand me), assuming it looks like this is going to be able to be spread via a fairly hardy species of: younameit. Zombies are one thing, but seriously I REALLY, REALLY, do not want these type of attacks to EVER reach us. Could you even imagine?

On the other side of things, I wonder if that is considered as the best dump evAr.(?) Second, it seems like it just a GREAT species as it seemingly has atleast two worms from the onset of infection (although it looked to me as though there was atleast one more still to come). I mean can the Praying Mantis even survive this event? Is it now the Prayed Upon Mantis instead?

All of the fungi, insects, and other species that use mind or nuerochemicals on their prey and then FORCE their prey to do any sort of commands to do miscellaneous things (like this one, get to water the natural home for that creature). It's literally amazing and terrifying at the same time. My scientific side is extremely engrossed by this and I'm literally in wonder at the amazing biochemistry at play--needed to do this hijack of the mind and to literally reboot it with a new program that told a FOREIGN BODY, something with literally no connection to the predator, it took control and got that body to go to a body of water so that the "litter" could hatch in their primal environment--a TRUE wonder of evolution, even though it is used in such a terrible way, it may have huge things in store for us research wise.

I'm waiting for the day that one of these little bastards makes a little leap and crosses-over and affects humans. Could you even begin to imagine the panic? I imagine that whatever it is would be much like smallpox and shortly after a few infections it would be eliminated from the face of the planet.

I swear, a couple points there, it was focused on the bacteria in the cracks of their countertop.

They aren't "banned" in Canada but most grocery stores have instituted a new policy that seems to be working in most cases.

First the bags have been switched from the cheep nylon bags to a stronger plastic bag.
At the beginning of your purchase you are asked how many bags you would like to purchase (10¢ bag).

Most people now bring their own cloth bags just to avoid the extra charges.
Also, as you enter the checkout-line in the impulse buying section, there are cloth bags at $1-2 each

Those that do purchase the (plastic) bags, now have a stronger plastic bag that can be reused next time they come and will be good for several uses.

One drawback for cloth bags is when you are buying meat. Sometimes meat such as raw pork and chicken has "drippings" in the package which drip into the bag and then through to your car. Not only is it messy but unsanitary as you get bacteria everywhere which can be dangerous. (always keep some plastic bags handy or buy some to keep - just in case)


Edit: WalMart is still using the cheap Nylon Bags (Which ad up if you buy groceries from them.) They use a lot of bags (only a few items per bag) because they are so short and not very strong. We can easily come home with 15-20 bags on a $70 grocery trip. Excessive in my opinion.

and remember $70 doesn't buy you many groceries.

Everyone's an atheist, if they're not a theist. One is active one is passive. This is what NDT hints at with his "why does this word exist". Recently Atheist has become a label for the more active, atheist "preachers" if you will, but that's a re-definition of the word. The conflation of meanings into that one word is confusing, and seems to get even NDT on thin ice.

Agnostic is not what he says it is. It is only "I don't know, I make no claim either way". Not a middle ground as so many people seem to think it is. Everyone is agnostic, unless they're will fully ignorant. Not everyone has made up their mind on theism, but I will make this bold claim, everyone lives as if one or the other, whether they consciously thoughtfully make the choice or not, I've not devoted much thought to the existence of a Loch Ness Monster, and I don't have to because it has never influenced my being in the world. I have made up my mind on bacteria, and I thin they're real, and I live as if they are real (wash hands etc). I have not really given much thought to UFOs, as in aliens in planes, but I'm assuming they don't exist and I live as if they don't exist.

When you talk about such an important claim as a god, a being that influences EVERYTHING, you do take it into account in your daily life, because if you don't you would, if you were wrong, already be condemned, so you live as if it doesn't exist (unless you actively live as if it does).

@GeeSussFreeK Entomology is the study of insects, I think you're looking for Epistomology.

In any case, whenever someone goes "I don't care" or "I don't want to spend/waste my time contemplating that" I count that as a win for secularism.

It doesn't follow, though. The evidence that proves micro-evolution does not prove universal common descent. The evidence for micro-evolution would be evidence for macro-evolution if it could also prove UCD. It is one thing to say species change, or even that they can change into other species. It is quite a different thing to say that all species evolved from a common ancestor. That goes far beyond what you can prove scientifically.

This also is not about drawing an imaginary line about how much change can occur; it has to do with the amount of information in the genome. For bacteria to man evolution, a significant amount of information has to be added to the genome. The information in the bacteria genome, no matter how you shuffle it around, will never produce anything more significantly complex than itself. So then the question is, how does this information get added to the genome? Many people at this point will say "mutations!", but the problem with that is, we have never seen a mutation give rise to an increase in functional complexity. If they do, they are so compartively rare as to completely invalidate evolution as a theory. There simply wouldn't be enough time to account for the millions of changes required.


As the main mechanism for adding information into the genome, you would think that there would be clear evidence to support its actually happening..but you would be wrong:



So these are a few reasons why I do not buy into the evolutionary paradigm. The way it is presented to the public is as a proven fact, but when you start analysing the data and not just listening to the conclusions, you find a giant mess with no clear answers. You also find a chorus of true believers who just know its true and interpret all of the data through the conclusion. They see everything through those glasses and thus that is the way everything looks to them.
In reply to this comment by GenjiKilpatrick:
How do you reconcile accepting the science that substantiates micro-evolution.. but disregarding the SAME SCIENCE that substantiates macro-evolution.

It's sorta like if I said: "I accept the evidence for the divinity of Jesus. But I refuse to accept that Yahweh exists"

If it follows that: Divinty of Jesus = Divinity of Yahweh.

Then it must follow that: Evidence of Micro-evolution = Evidence of Macro-evolution.

How do you reconcile this without talking in circles?

If being total assholes bestowed the most successful reproductive fitness... wait, if?

I present to you, humanity. At least until the bacteria and insects lose their morals.