Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Julia Thompson]

Warren Ockrassa wrote:

On Sep 19, 2006, at 9:48 AM, Julia Thompson wrote:


Charlie Bell wrote:

On 08/09/2006, at 7:16 AM, Warren Ockrassa wrote:


Probably you haven't asked the right person. I base my ethical 
decisions on my ability to empathize. If I know a given action would 
cause me misery, I know that it's an action I shouldn't perpetrate 
upon another.
...unless you've asked first. While "do unto others" is a reasonable 
first approximation, it can also be arrogance to assume that what we 
want is what others want. But it's a starting point.


On that note, I recommend
http://www.autismstreet.org/weblog/?p=17

Important excerpt:

The Platinum Rule is: Do unto others as they would have you do unto them.


Does that also apply to mega-hot schoolteachers in their 20s and their 
fourteen-year-old students?


Just tossing in a monkey-wrench. ;)


I think anything illegal is probably a bad idea, if for no other reason 
than you might get caught and what will happen as a result probably 
isn't something YOU want to have done unto you.  :)


Julia

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[maru dubshinki]

On 9/24/06, Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


By "regulars", I think he means people who post frequently.

How frequently is frequent enough, I don't know.

So I don't know how many he means.

Julia


Well, we can find out simply by asking each poster whether they get
enough roughage in their daily diet.

~maru
the least intrusive methods are best...
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Julia Thompson]

Ritu wrote:

Julia wrote:

D. I Own more translations of the Bible than there are regulars on 
this list.
Query:  Can you list the translations you own?  I'm just curious.  A 
"no" answer will be accepted graciously.


I was saving up qone uestion for you:

How many translations would Fool need to own for his statement to be
factually accurate? 


And 'tis okay if you don't want to/can't answer that, and I can be
mailed off-list as well. :)

Ritu
GCU Curious Meself


By "regulars", I think he means people who post frequently.

How frequently is frequent enough, I don't know.

So I don't know how many he means.

Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Julia Thompson]

Ronn!Blankenship wrote:

At 11:48 AM Tuesday 9/19/2006, Julia Thompson wrote:

Charlie Bell wrote:

On 08/09/2006, at 7:16 AM, Warren Ockrassa wrote:



Probably you haven't asked the right person. I base my ethical 
decisions on my ability to empathize. If I know a given action would 
cause me misery, I know that it's an action I shouldn't perpetrate 
upon another.
...unless you've asked first. While "do unto others" is a reasonable 
first approximation, it can also be arrogance to assume that what we 
want is what others want. But it's a starting point.


On that note, I recommend
http://www.autismstreet.org/weblog/?p=17

Important excerpt:

The Platinum Rule is: Do unto others as they would have you do unto them.

Essentially, treat people how THEY want to be treated, and expect 
others to treat you how YOU want to be treated. The single most 
important aspect of expecting this from others is communicating how 
you expect to be treated. Yep, communicate your expectations; anything 
from how or how not to act, what you will or will not put up with, to 
what you want or don’t want. You might be surprised, many people are 
often relieved (even if it is a little unnerving or the circumstances 
upsetting) to understand what’s actually expected of them




Isn't "GO AWAY!!" sufficient?  How about "DROP DEAD!"?




 ­ it makes things easier for both of you in the long run.



Brief And To The Point Maru


That's somewhat rude, and if you're going to have an ongoing 
relationship with someone (for example, your parents-in-law), you have 
to work a little harder at it.  :)


Julia

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Sep 19, 2006, at 9:48 AM, Julia Thompson wrote:


Charlie Bell wrote:

On 08/09/2006, at 7:16 AM, Warren Ockrassa wrote:


Probably you haven't asked the right person. I base my ethical 
decisions on my ability to empathize. If I know a given action would 
cause me misery, I know that it's an action I shouldn't perpetrate 
upon another.
...unless you've asked first. While "do unto others" is a reasonable 
first approximation, it can also be arrogance to assume that what we 
want is what others want. But it's a starting point.


On that note, I recommend
http://www.autismstreet.org/weblog/?p=17

Important excerpt:

The Platinum Rule is: Do unto others as they would have you do unto 
them.


Does that also apply to mega-hot schoolteachers in their 20s and their 
fourteen-year-old students?


Just tossing in a monkey-wrench. ;)

--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Nick Arnett]

On 9/19/06, jdiebremse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Which is precisely my point.Thanks, Nick.


But... oh, never mind.

Nick

--
Nick Arnett
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Messages: 408-904-7198
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 9/18/06, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > That's not the language of triage, Nick. That's the language of an
> > abortion is just as good as any other choice.
>
> Ever had to make a real triage decision? A life-and-death one?
>
> John, there are *no* "good" choices in a triage decision. That's what
> make it triage.


Which is precisely my point.Thanks, Nick.

JDG




___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 11:48 AM Tuesday 9/19/2006, Julia Thompson wrote:

Charlie Bell wrote:

On 08/09/2006, at 7:16 AM, Warren Ockrassa wrote:



Probably you haven't asked the right person. I 
base my ethical decisions on my ability to 
empathize. If I know a given action would 
cause me misery, I know that it's an action I 
shouldn't perpetrate upon another.
...unless you've asked first. While "do unto 
others" is a reasonable first approximation, it 
can also be arrogance to assume that what we 
want is what others want. But it's a starting point.


On that note, I recommend
http://www.autismstreet.org/weblog/?p=17

Important excerpt:

The Platinum Rule is: Do unto others as they would have you do unto them.

Essentially, treat people how THEY want to be 
treated, and expect others to treat you how YOU 
want to be treated. The single most important 
aspect of expecting this from others is 
communicating how you expect to be treated. Yep, 
communicate your expectations; anything from how 
or how not to act, what you will or will not put 
up with, to what you want or don’t want. You 
might be surprised, many people are often 
relieved (even if it is a little unnerving or 
the circumstances upsetting) to understand what’s actually expected of them




Isn't "GO AWAY!!" sufficient?  How about "DROP DEAD!"?




 ­ it makes things easier for both of you in the long run.



Brief And To The Point Maru


-- Ronn!  :)



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 11:50 AM Tuesday 9/19/2006, Julia Thompson wrote:

The Fool wrote:

From: John W Redelfs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>




I confess that I do not know as much about atheism as an atheist does, or a
least not as much that is correct.  But neither do atheists know as much
about religion as religious people do, at least not as much that is
correct.  Some things you cannot understand correctly from the outside
looking in.  In all advanced fields of learning including both science and
religion, most of the knowledge can be learned only after learning the
prerequisites.  Without those prerequisites, a student must remain
ignorant.  I know some science, but not much beyond the level of my
mathematics which only goes as far as high school algebra, geometry and
trigonometry.  However, I know the scriptures rather well compared with
most.  And one thing I can state with dead certainty:  The scriptures

cannot

be correctly understood unless you believe them.  Therefore, statements

made

about religion (scriptures) by atheists are almost always made from a
position of bustling ignorance.

A. I know more about 'scripture' than you do.  Much more.
B. I've read the bible, more times than you will for the entire rest of life.
C. I've read more about the bible than you ever will.
D. I Own more translations of the Bible than there are regulars on this list.
Query:  Can you list the translations you own?  I'm just curious.  A 
"no" answer will be accepted graciously.



I just asked for the number, not necessarily a list, and have been 
waiting ever since for a response . . .


FWIW, I have some programs which make a dozen or more different 
translations available on this machine w/o going on-line, and there 
are various sites which make more abailable on-line.  (I haven't 
checked recently to see if any new ones are available.)   As well as 
hard copies of several translations around here somewhere.  Sorry, I 
don't have a complete list . . .



-- Ronn!  :)



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Ritu]

I said:

> I was saving up qone uestion for you:

That was 'one question' btw... :)

Ritu
GCU Off to Bed

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Ritu]

Julia wrote:

> > D. I Own more translations of the Bible than there are regulars on 
> > this list.
>
> Query:  Can you list the translations you own?  I'm just curious.  A 
> "no" answer will be accepted graciously.

I was saving up qone uestion for you:

How many translations would Fool need to own for his statement to be
factually accurate? 

And 'tis okay if you don't want to/can't answer that, and I can be
mailed off-list as well. :)

Ritu
GCU Curious Meself


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Julia Thompson]

The Fool wrote:

From: John W Redelfs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>





I confess that I do not know as much about atheism as an atheist does, or a
least not as much that is correct.  But neither do atheists know as much
about religion as religious people do, at least not as much that is
correct.  Some things you cannot understand correctly from the outside
looking in.  In all advanced fields of learning including both science and
religion, most of the knowledge can be learned only after learning the
prerequisites.  Without those prerequisites, a student must remain
ignorant.  I know some science, but not much beyond the level of my
mathematics which only goes as far as high school algebra, geometry and
trigonometry.  However, I know the scriptures rather well compared with
most.  And one thing I can state with dead certainty:  The scriptures

cannot

be correctly understood unless you believe them.  Therefore, statements

made

about religion (scriptures) by atheists are almost always made from a
position of bustling ignorance.


A. I know more about 'scripture' than you do.  Much more.

B. I've read the bible, more times than you will for the entire rest of life.

C. I've read more about the bible than you ever will.

D. I Own more translations of the Bible than there are regulars on this list.
Query:  Can you list the translations you own?  I'm just curious.  A 
"no" answer will be accepted graciously.


Julia





___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Julia Thompson]

Charlie Bell wrote:


On 08/09/2006, at 7:16 AM, Warren Ockrassa wrote:



Probably you haven't asked the right person. I base my ethical 
decisions on my ability to empathize. If I know a given action would 
cause me misery, I know that it's an action I shouldn't perpetrate 
upon another.


...unless you've asked first. While "do unto others" is a reasonable 
first approximation, it can also be arrogance to assume that what we 
want is what others want. But it's a starting point.


On that note, I recommend
http://www.autismstreet.org/weblog/?p=17

Important excerpt:

The Platinum Rule is: Do unto others as they would have you do unto them.

Essentially, treat people how THEY want to be treated, and expect others 
to treat you how YOU want to be treated. The single most important 
aspect of expecting this from others is communicating how you expect to 
be treated. Yep, communicate your expectations; anything from how or how 
not to act, what you will or will not put up with, to what you want or 
don’t want. You might be surprised, many people are often relieved (even 
if it is a little unnerving or the circumstances upsetting) to 
understand what’s actually expected of them – it makes things easier for 
both of you in the long run.


Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Nick Arnett]

On 9/18/06, jdiebremse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


That's not the language of triage, Nick.   That's the language of an
abortion is just as good as any other choice.


Ever had to make a real triage decision?  A life-and-death one?

John, there are *no* "good" choices in a triage decision.  That's what
make it triage.

Nick

--
Nick Arnett
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Messages: 408-904-7198
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 9/15/06, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > Not anybody that I know of. At best, it is a triage decision.
> > >
> > > Wow. Finally a view that really gets to the heart of it. Thanks,
Nick.
> > >
> > > I may use that in the future.
> >
> >
> > Too bad its not true.
> >
> > Consider the website of this abortion provider - other than a token
> > sentence about "choices", I don't see the words "triage" anywhere
here:
>
> So what? The following, from that site, is certainly the language of
triage:
>
> "Your decision has to be made free of coercion, and you have to be
> well-informed about all the alternatives. Every woman with an
> unplanned pregnancy faces different and sometimes conflicting
> emotions: feelings such as insecurity, desperation, anxiety,
> depression, shame or guilt may compete with happiness. Our counselling
> service will help you cope with these feelings now and in the future,
> providing information about all your options and supporting you in
> making your personal choice."


That's not the language of triage, Nick.   That's the language of an
abortion is just as good as any other choice.

JDG





___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Julia Thompson]

William T Goodall wrote:


On 6 Sep 2006, at 8:33PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:


But it requires too much thinking to conclude that - and atheists
are no smarter than fundamentalist theists, and will be satisfied
with short-range egoistical goals. Short-term egoistical goals
for theists mean "do good or God will punish you". Short-term
egoistical goals for atheists lead to mass murder.


The atheists eat less babies than the theists though due to having a 
rationally designed, probably vegetarian, diet.


I've met a number of meat-eating atheists.  Then again, I live in Texas

Julia

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Nick Arnett]

On 9/15/06, jdiebremse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> > Not anybody that I know of. At best, it is a triage decision.
>
> Wow. Finally a view that really gets to the heart of it. Thanks, Nick.
>
> I may use that in the future.


Too bad its not true.

Consider the website of this abortion provider - other than a token
sentence about "choices", I don't see the words "triage" anywhere here:


So what?  The following, from that site, is certainly the language of triage:

"Your decision has to be made free of coercion, and you have to be
well-informed about all the alternatives. Every woman with an
unplanned pregnancy faces different and sometimes conflicting
emotions: feelings such as insecurity, desperation, anxiety,
depression, shame or guilt may compete with happiness. Our counselling
service will help you cope with these feelings now and in the future,
providing information about all your options and supporting you in
making your personal choice."

You talk as if there are people who are filled with glee at the
opportunity to have or perform abortions.  I've never met or heard
from a single one and I'd suspect serious mental illness if I did.

Nick

--
Nick Arnett
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Messages: 408-904-7198
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Charlie Bell]

On 15/09/2006, at 3:29 PM, jdiebremse wrote:




--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "John W Redelfs" jredelfs@ wrote:

People extol the virtues of abortion


Not *all* people, Maru.


Not anybody that I know of. At best, it is a triage decision.


Wow. Finally a view that really gets to the heart of it. Thanks,  
Nick.


I may use that in the future.



Too bad its not true.


It's true for many.


Consider the website of this abortion provider - other than a token
sentence about "choices", I don't see the words "triage" anywhere  
here:


So what if they don't use the actual word? That doesn't mean that's  
not what it is to some people and under many circumstances (and I'm  
guessing that a lot of people wouldn't know what it means anyway...).


  http://www.womenonwaves.org/article-1020.273-en.html


Heck, they even provide their own ultrasound pictures of the unborn
child!


That's potentially tasteless, yes.

Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "John W Redelfs" jredelfs@ wrote:
> >> > People extol the virtues of abortion
> >>
> >> Not *all* people, Maru.
> >
> > Not anybody that I know of. At best, it is a triage decision.
>
> Wow. Finally a view that really gets to the heart of it. Thanks, Nick.
>
> I may use that in the future.


Too bad its not true.

Consider the website of this abortion provider - other than a token
sentence about "choices", I don't see the words "triage" anywhere here:

  http://www.womenonwaves.org/article-1020.273-en.html


Heck, they even provide their own ultrasound pictures of the unborn
child!

JDG

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Matt Grimaldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Jim Sharkey wrote:
>
> ] The Fool wrote:
> ] >E. You know nothing. You are a Fvcking idiot and a troll.
>
> ] Maybe I missed a memo, but I thought we didn't do this kind of
> ] shit around here. IAAMOAC, and all that.
> ]
> ] Are we suspending the guidelines when our dedicated atheists
> ] and devout theists get into the ring to slug it out now? If we
> ] are, I can bring popcorn if someone else will bring the beers!
>
> As a list, we have not dropped our guidelines The Fool has
> definitely over-reacted. On the other hand, William *has*
> been trolling pretty heavily, and the strategy known as
> "hoping it will stop on its own" is not faring very well
> at this point. Should we as a list be consideing counteractive
> measures?


Sadly, this list very rarely seems to do anything other than "hope it
will stop on its own."

JDG





___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Charlie Bell]

On 14/09/2006, at 8:59 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:


On 9/14/06, jdiebremse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "John W Redelfs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> People extol the virtues of abortion

Not *all* people, Maru.


Not anybody that I know of.  At best, it is a triage decision.


Wow. Finally a view that really gets to the heart of it. Thanks, Nick.

I may use that in the future.

Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Nick Arnett]

On 9/14/06, jdiebremse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "John W Redelfs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> People extol the virtues of abortion

Not *all* people, Maru.


Not anybody that I know of.  At best, it is a triage decision.  At
worst, it is murder.  Virtue doesn't appear anywhere in that spectrum.

Nick

--
Nick Arnett
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Messages: 408-904-7198
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "John W Redelfs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> People extol the virtues of abortion

Not *all* people, Maru.

JDG





___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[John W Redelfs]

On 9/12/06, Richard Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


JohnR said:

> I may be wrong, because I do not have a lot of confidence in
> history, but it is my
> understanding that the One Hundred Years War that took place in Europe
> following the Protestant Reformation had a huge impact on the
> population of
> Europe for many decades.

The Hundred Years War lasted from 1337 to 1453. The Reformation was
started by Luther in 1517. Were you thinking of the Thirty Years War?



Obviously I don't know what I was thinking.  I took European history in
1970, and I have obviously forgotten a lot and gotten much of what I do
remember confused.  I just seem to remember some series of wars practically
depopulating Europe at some time or other.  I also read once that at one
period in French history dueling with swords became so widespread that it
almost eliminated the aristocracy.  But that is probably baloney that I
picked up somewhere and got wrong too.

John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Do you play World of Warcraft?  Let me know.  Maybe
we can play together.
***
All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Dan Minette]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Richard Baker
> Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 4:21 PM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
> 
> Dan said:
> 
> > Actually, it is possible, with a simple assumption, to do more than
> > that.
> > Again, I fully admit that there is no proof, but I think that...if the
> > transcendental is partially and imperfectly discerned by humans,
> > then one
> > can reach some general conclusions about our best bets at
> > approaching the
> > truth when it comes to ethics.  I'll stop here to see if you think
> > that is a
> > presupposition that is worth exploring further.
> 
> I'm always interested to hear what you have to say on such things,
> even though I'm fairly sceptical about the possibility of discerning
> anything transcendental.
> 
> Rich

I'm writing a short note just to let you know that I'm working on this.
But, I'm happy to say I'm now very busy at work...and have only written
about a page so far.

Dan M. 


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[dcaa]

Well, to be frank, I've never heard these terms. And while I have no problems 
overturning sacred cows (- dislike the nebulous term "The Rennaisance" and 
reject the terms "Dark Ages"), I don't think the Wars of Religion, nor the 
Napoleonic wars to be sufficiently related to be lumped together...

Damon.

Damon Agretto
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum."
http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html
Now Building: Trumpeter's Marder I auf GW 38(h)
Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld.

Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld.  

-Original Message-
From: "Alberto Monteiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 15:04:04 
To:Killer Bs Discussion 
Subject: Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

Damon Agretto wrote:
>
> Hundred Years War predates the Prodestant Reformation by nearly 75 
> years...
>
I've heard some people mention those Religious Wars as "The Second
Hundred Years Wars", and the sequence of France-England Wars
that began in c.1700 and ended in 1815 as "The Third Hundred
Years Wars".

Of course, if we want to be accurate _and_ optimistic, we should 
call all the european wars from the Peloponesian War to the Fall
of Berlin's Wall as "The Two and a Half Thousand Years War".

Alberto Monteiro

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[dcaa]

I have my links at home, but IIRC Europe was able to match the pre-plague 
population within appprox. 150 years. So yes, population rebounded pretty 
fast...

Damon.

Damon Agretto
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum."
http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html
Now Building: Trumpeter's Marder I auf GW 38(h)
Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld.

Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld.  

-Original Message-
From: "Alberto Monteiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 14:54:38 
To:Killer Bs Discussion 
Subject: Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

John W Redelfs wrote:
>
>> Starvation and War have, historically, made no impact on the
>> growth of population - probably they even had the opposite effect.
>> And disease should be quite devastating - like AIDS in Africa -
>> to have a significant effect.
> 
> Well, when you consider that mankind has been around during 
> historical times for over 6,000 years, and when you consider that 
> accurate census data has only been available for a little of a 
> hundred years, and when you consider that such data has been 
> available only in those parts of the world where there are accurate 
> censuses taken, I find it hard to take your above assertion 
> seriously.  How could you or anyone possibly know? 
>
Archeological data, taxation data, etc. *** Of course *** there
are errors, but you can't expect human sciences to be error-free
when even exact sciences are filled with measurement errors.

> I may be wrong,
>  because I do not have a lot of confidence in history, 
>
I can see that.

> but it is my 
> understanding that the One Hundred Years War that took place in 
> Europe following the Protestant Reformation had a huge impact on the 
> population of Europe for many decades.  
>
_The_ One Hundred Years War happened much earlier, between the
Crusades and the Renaisance. Those wars that followed the
Protestant Reformation were not collectively named, except for the
30 Years War in (now) Germany.

> Historical records seem to 
> indicate that the Black Death of the 14th Century had an enormous 
> impact.
>
Yes, it had. But for only a short period. If you plot population
data of Europe over the years, you will see a drop caused
by War and Pestilence. But if you "erase" those years and try
to fit a projecting line, it's as if those years were "normal".

The meaning of this is clear: as soon as the cause for the drop
vanishes, population repleshes with a vengeance, resuming its
growth _as if there were no Wars or Pestilence_.

> Some reputable paleoanthropologists who have made a life's 
> study of prehistoric America now believe that when Europeans made 
> first contact with the natives of America, that smallpox preceded 
> them everywhere they went and was responsible for the relative 
> emptiness of the Americas which actually had a much larger 
> population than has been previously thought.  But you may be right.  
> I just have no confidence that you are.
>
I may be wrong - that's how science works, and we aren't exactly
scientists [we have no data!].

But look at the Americas: even if this effect in the Native Population
is real [I think so, but let's be skeptic], it was only a short-time
effect, and, when Europeans came, they filled all the niches emptied
by Natives with a corresponding explosion.

Maybe in 30 or 50 years, after AIDS eliminates most Africans, Africa
will be occupied by 1 billion chinese and 1 billion indians. But I'm
almost sure that the population of Africa will not keep going down
for a long time.

Alberto Monteiro

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Richard Baker]

JohnR said:

I may be wrong, because I do not have a lot of confidence in  
history, but it is my

understanding that the One Hundred Years War that took place in Europe
following the Protestant Reformation had a huge impact on the  
population of

Europe for many decades.


The Hundred Years War lasted from 1337 to 1453. The Reformation was  
started by Luther in 1517. Were you thinking of the Thirty Years War?


Rich
GCU Hundred, Thirty, Whatever

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Alberto Monteiro]

Damon Agretto wrote:
>
> Hundred Years War predates the Prodestant Reformation by nearly 75 
> years...
>
I've heard some people mention those Religious Wars as "The Second
Hundred Years Wars", and the sequence of France-England Wars
that began in c.1700 and ended in 1815 as "The Third Hundred
Years Wars".

Of course, if we want to be accurate _and_ optimistic, we should 
call all the european wars from the Peloponesian War to the Fall
of Berlin's Wall as "The Two and a Half Thousand Years War".

Alberto Monteiro

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Alberto Monteiro]

John W Redelfs wrote:
>
>> Starvation and War have, historically, made no impact on the
>> growth of population - probably they even had the opposite effect.
>> And disease should be quite devastating - like AIDS in Africa -
>> to have a significant effect.
> 
> Well, when you consider that mankind has been around during 
> historical times for over 6,000 years, and when you consider that 
> accurate census data has only been available for a little of a 
> hundred years, and when you consider that such data has been 
> available only in those parts of the world where there are accurate 
> censuses taken, I find it hard to take your above assertion 
> seriously.  How could you or anyone possibly know? 
>
Archeological data, taxation data, etc. *** Of course *** there
are errors, but you can't expect human sciences to be error-free
when even exact sciences are filled with measurement errors.

> I may be wrong,
>  because I do not have a lot of confidence in history, 
>
I can see that.

> but it is my 
> understanding that the One Hundred Years War that took place in 
> Europe following the Protestant Reformation had a huge impact on the 
> population of Europe for many decades.  
>
_The_ One Hundred Years War happened much earlier, between the
Crusades and the Renaisance. Those wars that followed the
Protestant Reformation were not collectively named, except for the
30 Years War in (now) Germany.

> Historical records seem to 
> indicate that the Black Death of the 14th Century had an enormous 
> impact.
>
Yes, it had. But for only a short period. If you plot population
data of Europe over the years, you will see a drop caused
by War and Pestilence. But if you "erase" those years and try
to fit a projecting line, it's as if those years were "normal".

The meaning of this is clear: as soon as the cause for the drop
vanishes, population repleshes with a vengeance, resuming its
growth _as if there were no Wars or Pestilence_.

> Some reputable paleoanthropologists who have made a life's 
> study of prehistoric America now believe that when Europeans made 
> first contact with the natives of America, that smallpox preceded 
> them everywhere they went and was responsible for the relative 
> emptiness of the Americas which actually had a much larger 
> population than has been previously thought.  But you may be right.  
> I just have no confidence that you are.
>
I may be wrong - that's how science works, and we aren't exactly
scientists [we have no data!].

But look at the Americas: even if this effect in the Native Population
is real [I think so, but let's be skeptic], it was only a short-time
effect, and, when Europeans came, they filled all the niches emptied
by Natives with a corresponding explosion.

Maybe in 30 or 50 years, after AIDS eliminates most Africans, Africa
will be occupied by 1 billion chinese and 1 billion indians. But I'm
almost sure that the population of Africa will not keep going down
for a long time.

Alberto Monteiro

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[dcaa]

Hundred Years War predates the Prodestant Reformation by nearly 75 years...

Damon Agretto
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum."
http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html
Now Building: Trumpeter's Marder I auf GW 38(h)
Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld.

Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld.  

-Original Message-
From: "John W Redelfs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 04:07:33 
To:"Killer Bs Discussion" 
Subject: Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

On 9/8/06, Alberto Monteiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> John W Redelfs wrote:
> >
> > So what?  In the USA people need to eat less anyway.  And globally,
> there
> > needs to be a reduction in population that could most easily be
> > effected by widespread starvation.  People extol the virtues of
> > abortion and birth control, but doesn't starvation, disease and war
> > control over population just as well?
> >
> No.
>
> Starvation and War have, historically, made no impact on the
> growth of population - probably they even had the opposite effect.
> And disease should be quite devastating - like AIDS in Africa -
> to have a significant effect.


Well, when you consider that mankind has been around during historical times
for over 6,000 years, and when you consider that accurate census data has
only been available for a little of a hundred years, and when you consider
that such data has been available only in those parts of the world where
there are accurate censuses taken, I find it hard to take your above
assertion seriously.  How could you or anyone possibly know?  I may be
wrong, because I do not have a lot of confidence in history, but it is my
understanding that the One Hundred Years War that took place in Europe
following the Protestant Reformation had a huge impact on the population of
Europe for many decades.  Historical records seem to indicate that the Black
Death of the 14th Century had an enormous impact.  Some reputable
paleoanthropologists who have made a life's study of prehistoric America now
believe that when Europeans made first contact with the natives of America,
that smallpox preceded them everywhere they went and was responsible for the
relative emptiness of the Americas which actually had a much larger
population than has been previously thought.  But you may be right.  I just
have no confidence that you are.

John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Do you play World of Warcraft?  Let me know.  Maybe
we can play together.
***
All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[John W Redelfs]

On 9/8/06, Alberto Monteiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



John W Redelfs wrote:
>
> So what?  In the USA people need to eat less anyway.  And globally,
there
> needs to be a reduction in population that could most easily be
> effected by widespread starvation.  People extol the virtues of
> abortion and birth control, but doesn't starvation, disease and war
> control over population just as well?
>
No.

Starvation and War have, historically, made no impact on the
growth of population - probably they even had the opposite effect.
And disease should be quite devastating - like AIDS in Africa -
to have a significant effect.



Well, when you consider that mankind has been around during historical times
for over 6,000 years, and when you consider that accurate census data has
only been available for a little of a hundred years, and when you consider
that such data has been available only in those parts of the world where
there are accurate censuses taken, I find it hard to take your above
assertion seriously.  How could you or anyone possibly know?  I may be
wrong, because I do not have a lot of confidence in history, but it is my
understanding that the One Hundred Years War that took place in Europe
following the Protestant Reformation had a huge impact on the population of
Europe for many decades.  Historical records seem to indicate that the Black
Death of the 14th Century had an enormous impact.  Some reputable
paleoanthropologists who have made a life's study of prehistoric America now
believe that when Europeans made first contact with the natives of America,
that smallpox preceded them everywhere they went and was responsible for the
relative emptiness of the Americas which actually had a much larger
population than has been previously thought.  But you may be right.  I just
have no confidence that you are.

John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Do you play World of Warcraft?  Let me know.  Maybe
we can play together.
***
All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[John W Redelfs]

On 9/7/06, Richard Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



So you want your brothers and sisters to die in large numbers through
famine, pestilence and war? Or have you just failed to write clearly
enough to convey what you really mean?



I would rather my brothers and sisters, the whole human race, would stop
killing each other unnecessarily.  But if we are all just organisms, nothing
more, then why would abortion and birth control be any better for
controlling population than war, pestilence and famine?  If we are in effect
nothing more than so many bacteria in a petrie dish called Earth, what
possible difference could it make which method is used for "controlling" the
growth of the culture?  In fact, when you consider how much disgusting and
unnecessary slaughter, poverty and starvation there is.  Perhaps the best
thing to do would be to throw the petrie dish into an autoclave and have
done with the bacterial culture within it.  Nothing at all is better than
what has been going on.

John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Do you play World of Warcraft?  Let me know.  Maybe
we can play together.
***
All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[John W Redelfs]

On 9/7/06, The Fool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


> From: John W Redelfs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I confess that I do not know as much about atheism as an atheist does,
or a
> least not as much that is correct.  But neither do atheists know as much
> about religion as religious people do, at least not as much that is
> correct.  Some things you cannot understand correctly from the outside
> looking in.  In all advanced fields of learning including both science
and
> religion, most of the knowledge can be learned only after learning the
> prerequisites.  Without those prerequisites, a student must remain
> ignorant.  I know some science, but not much beyond the level of my
> mathematics which only goes as far as high school algebra, geometry and
> trigonometry.  However, I know the scriptures rather well compared with
> most.  And one thing I can state with dead certainty:  The scriptures
> cannot be correctly understood unless you believe them.  Therefore,
statements
> made about religion (scriptures) by atheists are almost always made from
a
> position of bustling ignorance.

A. I know more about 'scripture' than you do.  Much more.

B. I've read the bible, more times than you will for the entire rest of
life.

C. I've read more about the bible than you ever will.

D. I Own more translations of the Bible than there are regulars on this
list.

E. You know nothing.  You are a Fvcking idiot and a troll.



It is not hard for me to see why you use the "handle" that you do in email.
Think about  what you have just written.  How could you be sure you know
more about scripture than I do when you do not know how much I know?  How
could you know you have read the Bible more times than I have when you do
not know how many times I have read it?  Ditto to your assertion labeled "C"
above.  As for your assertion labeled "D," does owning many translations
necessarily mean that you understand any of them?  It seems to me that a
person might become confused if he owned too many translations, especially
if he had no criteria for knowing which of the translations were any good.
Have you ever considered that all of the translations might be bad?  If that
were so, just how much would your knowledge of the Bible be worth then?

Is every one you disagree with a  idiot and a
troll?  Or just me?  You strike me as a person who thinks himself much
smarter than he really is and much better educated than is the actual case.
Your opinions might be a bit more convincing if they were expressed with a
little more humility.  As my Uncle Bob used to say, "It isn't what you don't
know that hurts you.  It's what you know that's not so."

Lots of people know a great deal more than I do.  I'm sure that you do.  I
do not know very much.  Hardly anything.  But I suspect that a great deal of
what you know is false, perhaps all of it or nearly all of it.  If that is
the case, then your lofty education really isn't much of an education at
all.

John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Do you play World of Warcraft?  Let me know.  Maybe
we can play together.
***
All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 12:52 PM Monday 9/11/2006, Nick Arnett wrote:

On 9/7/06, The Fool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


E. You know nothing.  You are a Fvcking idiot and a troll.


And you have made an unambiguously personal attack there... which is
contrary to our community's guidelines.

I'm inclined to be less tolerant of personal attacks by people who
participate via an obvious pseudonym, since that is also contrary to
our guidelines.

Nick




FWIW, I am still hoping that "The Fool" will respond to my request 
for specific quantified answers to points A through D, viz.,



At 01:55 AM Friday 9/8/2006, The Fool wrote:


[...]

A. I know more about 'scripture' than you do.  Much more.



Perhaps hard to briefly quantify, but perhaps you can try.



B. I've read the bible, more times than you will for the entire rest of life.



Approximately how many times? 5? 10? 13? 20? 25? . . . ??



C. I've read more about the bible than you ever will.



Approximately how much would that be?



D. I Own more translations of the Bible than there are regulars on this list.



Approximately how many? 5? 10? 13? 20? 25? . . . ??  (Though one 
might note that there is a possible difference between "own" and 
"have read" . . . )



-- Ronn!  :P

Not Being A Smart-Aleck This Time.



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Nick Arnett]

On 9/8/06, Jim Sharkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Are we suspending the guidelines when our dedicated atheists and devout theists 
get into the ring to slug it out now?  If we are, I can bring popcorn if 
someone else will bring the beers!


We had a serious shortage of list managers starting Friday morning...
I'm trying to catch up now.

Nick

--
Nick Arnett
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Messages: 408-904-7198
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Nick Arnett]

On 9/7/06, The Fool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


E. You know nothing.  You are a Fvcking idiot and a troll.


And you have made an unambiguously personal attack there... which is
contrary to our community's guidelines.

I'm inclined to be less tolerant of personal attacks by people who
participate via an obvious pseudonym, since that is also contrary to
our guidelines.

Nick

--
Nick Arnett
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Messages: 408-904-7198
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Bemmzim]

 
In a message dated 9/6/2006 9:32:07 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Or: how  does God Himself decide what is good and evil? Isn't He, at
least,  basically in the same position as us atheists?




One of trickiest issues for the notion of god is whether god knows there is  
good or evil. If there is good and evil that god judges then there is 
something  outside of god that constrains god's behavior and therefore god is 
not the  
ultimate thing in the universe. If on the other hand god just does what god 
does  than there is no good or evil and there is no basis for morality. 
(argument  curtsey of Spinoza). 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Bemmzim]

 
In a message dated 9/6/2006 7:58:49 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Upon  what do atheists base
their morality?  I've never been able to  understand this.  If selection of
the species is determined by  survival of the fittest, isn't "might" the
ultimate good, biologically  speaking?  The strong are just doing nature a
favor by rubbing out the  weak, preferably before they have a chance to
reproduce.  Following  this line of reasoning, would not killing babies be
one of the "moral"  things a person could do?  That way only the babies of
the strongest  parents would be able to survive, and that would improve the
bloodline,  isn't that so?




I am late to this discussion - Have been in Salzburg all week - but the  
notion that atheist are by definition immoral or that only with religion can  
there be a reason for living and a reason to be good is simply not true. We are 
 
social animals; like all social animals we succeed (produce more offspring or  
more correctly more grand children) by being successful in our social  
interaction. We act morally and fairly because this the best way to achieve  
success. 
We engage in complex games of tit for tat (you do well by me; I will do  well 
by you; you cheat and I will not interact with you in the future). In order  
to do this we have developed exquisite tools for detecting cheaters and liars. 
 We have built in tools for deciding what is fair and what is not. There is a 
 huge amount of research (in particular in game theory) that confirms that  
morality is inborn. We experience fairness as pleasure, lying as pain. 
 
All theoretical issues aside - in a practical real world sense the question  
is are atheists any more likely to be immoral and evil than  religious people? 
I think not. I am a moral person and yet I  do not  believe in god. I am not 
a doctrinaire atheist in the sense of thinking  religious people are crazy 
stupid or evil. I just don't believe in  god. I can't see how one can reconcile 
an all powerful entity that is  good and yet would allow such pain and 
suffering in the world . I know  the "god works in mysterious ways' argument 
but if we 
are not allowed to blame  god for evil because we cannot know his ways how 
can we credit him with good? 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Andrew Crystall]

On 8 Sep 2006 at 0:55, The Fool wrote:

> A. I know more about 'scripture' than you do.  Much more.

Yes, well done, you can misreprisent unrelated quotes from it very 
well. Seen it. And?

Unless there's something you'd like to tell us about yourself.

*grins*

AndrewC


Dawn Falcon

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Jim Sharkey]

Matt Grimaldi wrote:
>As a list, we have not dropped our guidelines  The Fool has
>definitely over-reacted.  On the other hand, William *has* been 
>trolling pretty heavily, and the strategy known as "hoping it will 
>stop on its own" is not faring very well at this point.

Just to clear this up, the Fool was referring to Brother John in his 
original post.

Jim
Clarification Maru

___
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 01:55 AM Friday 9/8/2006, The Fool wrote:


A. I know more about 'scripture' than you do.  Much more.

B. I've read the bible, more times than you will for the entire rest of life.

C. I've read more about the bible than you ever will.

D. I Own more translations of the Bible than there are regulars on this list.



Would you care to quantify your answers?


-- Ronn!  :)



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 04:28 PM Friday 9/8/2006, Matt Grimaldi wrote:

I'll stop by Joe's Artificial Organ and Taco Stand on the way.



I think I've eaten there.  Or at least somewhere that got their food 
from there . . .



Barf Maru


-- Ronn!  :)



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[William T Goodall]

On 8 Sep 2006, at 10:25PM, Matt Grimaldi wrote:



As a list, we have not dropped our guidelines  The Fool has
definitely over-reacted.  On the other hand, William *has*
been trolling pretty heavily, and the strategy known as
"hoping it will stop on its own" is not faring very well
at this point.  Should we as a list be consideing counteractive
measures?


If I'm a troll so are several other frequent contributors to this  
list.[1] Banning  certain controversial topics would be one way to go  
but if people avoid ad hominem attacks and keep threads on topic with  
title changes if the topic mutates then just not reading what you  
don't want to read is rather simple.


I don't Maru

[1] Abortion anyone? Evil Clinton/Bush US politics?
--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/

How long a minute is depends on which side of the bathroom door  
you're on.



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Matt Grimaldi]

I'll stop by Joe's Artificial Organ and Taco Stand on the way.

- Original Message 
From: Ritu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion 
Sent: Friday, September 8, 2006 5:51:01 AM
Subject: RE: The Morality of Killing Babies

Alberto wrote

> And who's bringing the fried babies, and who's bringing the 
> living sacrificial victms whose heart we will extract and eat?

Alberto,

If you don't want to host the party, just say so. We'll just find
another venue. There's no need to rustle up a gruesome menu

Ritu
GCU Really, No Hard Feelings

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l




___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Matt Grimaldi]

Jim Sharkey wrote:

] The Fool wrote:
] >E. You know nothing.  You are a Fvcking idiot and a troll.

] Maybe I missed a memo, but I thought we didn't do this kind of
] shit around here.  IAAMOAC, and all that.
]
] Are we suspending the guidelines when our dedicated atheists
] and devout theists get into the ring to slug it out now?  If we
] are, I can bring popcorn if someone else will bring the beers!

As a list, we have not dropped our guidelines  The Fool has
definitely over-reacted.  On the other hand, William *has*
been trolling pretty heavily, and the strategy known as 
"hoping it will stop on its own" is not faring very well
at this point.  Should we as a list be consideing counteractive
measures?


-- Matt





___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Gibson Jonathan]

Warren,
Brilliant rebuttal.  Your examples and premise work for me!
{no further comment below}

-Jonathan-


On Sep 7, 2006, at 9:16 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote:

There's a bit of convolution here; before a meaningful discussion can 
happen in some areas I think some of it has to be untangled.


On Sep 6, 2006, at 4:58 AM, John W Redelfs wrote:


My atheist father used to tell me that "might makes right" is a bad
philosophy?  Why?


Succinctly, if it were a valid philosophy, there would have been 
nothing wrong, ethically or morally, had the Nazis won WWII. Whether 
one is an  atheist, agnostic or theist, I think we can agree that 
"might makes right" is not de facto true.



Unless there is a God who is against it, why would that
philosophy be any better or worse than any other?


Why would any philosophy that creates suffering be worse than a 
philosophy that reduces it, whether there is a god or not? Put another 
way, do we (does anyone) need a deity to tell us that beating a child 
is reprehensible?



Upon what do atheists base
their morality?  I've never been able to understand this.


Probably you haven't asked the right person. I base my ethical 
decisions on my ability to empathize. If I know a given action would 
cause me misery, I know that it's an action I shouldn't perpetrate 
upon another. (I believe there's a Christian analogue to this 
referring to auriferous yardsticks or some such.)


Hopefully this clarifies things.


If selection of
the species is determined by survival of the fittest, isn't "might" 
the

ultimate good, biologically speaking?


This is where we're getting into convolutions. You seem to have the 
impression that survival fitness is equal to battle/struggle/fighting, 
but that's a very narrowly-applicable view. Fitness has more to do 
with propagation than it does with a battle to survive; a celibate 
organism will not pass on its genes regardless of how successful it is 
in a field of combat. *Any* field of combat, including not drowning in 
a pool of water or surviving a drought or being fortunate enough not 
to live on the side of an active volcano.


There's a tremendous amount of contingency brought about by 
environmental and population factors that profoundly affects 
probability of yielding offspring. The "nature red in tooth and claw" 
idea is a vast -- and largely inaccurate -- oversimplification.



The strong are just doing nature a
favor by rubbing out the weak, preferably before they have a chance to
reproduce.


You're again seeing things narrowly. Is the bird flu virus "stronger" 
than the birds it's killing? On one level, you could argue the answer 
is yes; however, birds that survive the virus are actually doing the 
reverse of your conclusion (being weak, therefore rubbed out) and are 
in fact having the tables turned -- it's the virus that gets 
eliminated, not the bird. (I know this isn't wholly accurate, but I 
couldn't think of a bacterial analogue off the top of my head.)



Following this line of reasoning, would not killing babies be
one of the "moral" things a person could do?  That way only the 
babies of
the strongest parents would be able to survive, and that would 
improve the

bloodline, isn't that so?


In some species this appears to happen, at least to some extent. When 
a lion takes over a pride, for instance, it kills the cubs that were 
spawned by its predecessor. This forces the females into heat, which 
allows the lion to mate with them and ensure his own genes' supremacy 
in the pride.


(I see The Fool mentioned this as well!)

Of course, there are other species which show strong in-group 
altruism; for instance, you won't find that behavior in chimpanzee 
society except in cases of extreme aberration (turns out chimps can 
suffer from some of the same mental sicknesses that we can). We're 
much more genetically aligned with chimps than lions, so from even a 
strictly biological viewpoint it shouldn't be too surprising that we 
don't put much effort into killing off the weak within our own groups.


Of course, *outside* our groups, anything goes, and has for a long, 
long time indeed:


 8  O daughter Babylon, you devastator!
 Happy shall they be who pay you back
 what you have done to us!
 9  Happy shall they be who take your little ones
 and dash them against the rock!

(Psalms 137:8-9)

Thus we can find support for virtually every conceivable atrocity, 
even in Holy Writ, provided that atrocity is committed against those 
who are not part of our group.


Put another way, there's no rational way to argue that religion or 
faith in a deity automatically places one in a position to "know" what 
is moral or not relative to someone who does not believe in a deity. 
Might does not make right; a holy book doesn't either; and neither 
does eschewing scripture.


What makes right is understanding:

1. "Right" is a very plastic term that is subject to interpretation on 
the individual, family, group and societal/na

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Gibson Jonathan]

Hi!
Hello, HELLO... earth calling ethereal c

On Sep 7, 2006, at 10:00 PM, John W Redelfs wrote:


On 9/7/06, Richard Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



And there in fact is a rational argument in favour of vegetarianism,
because a given area of land can feed more vegetarians than meat
eaters essentially because of thermodynamics. More solar energy gets
into plants used as human food than into plant-eating animals used as
human food.



So what?  In the USA people need to eat less anyway.  And globally, 
there
needs to be a reduction in population that could most easily be 
effected by

widespread starvation.  People extol the virtues of abortion and birth
control, but doesn't starvation, disease and war control over 
population
just as well?  I fail to see the advantages of birth control and 
abortion.
That is, I would if I did not believe that every human being on this 
earth
is a child of the same Heavenly Father and hence truly brothers and 
sisters.


John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***


What an amazingly callous thing for a proponent of sartorial living.
That you can equate the death of a newly gelling organiform - not even 
a fetus - with a child suffering war and disease is amazing.  On a 
simple neuron-count alone wouldn't the grown and raised child have a 
lot more pain to feel than the empty vessel just starting in a womb?  
What is this, if God won't smite them, I will?!?


Such family values!

Can you please rethink and restate this?

- Jonathan -

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Charlie Bell]

On 08/09/2006, at 5:15 PM, Jim Sharkey wrote:



Charlie Bell wrote:
Bloody cold medication says "don't drink". So I stopped taking it  
-  >there's no way I'm not drinking at my own party tonight... :D


Well, that's one way to handle it, I suppose.  :)  Of course,  
you're going to be sorry tomorrow, but as long as you accept that  
going in...


Yep. There are always Consequences.



Jim
Raise a glass in toast Maru


Cheers!!! *clink*

Charlie
Wedding Reception 2.0 Maru
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Jim Sharkey]

Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Jim Sharkey wrote:
>> Are we suspending the guidelines when our dedicated atheists and >>devout 
>> theists get into the ring to slug it out now?  If we are, I >>can bring 
>> popcorn if someone else will bring the beers!
>
>And who's bringing the fried babies, and who's bringing the
>living sacrificial victms whose heart we will extract and eat?

I think a game of rock, paper, scissors should be used to decide who gets the 
infanticide and who gets the ritual murder.  It;s the only fair way.

Jim
Good old rock; nothin' beats rock Maru


___
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Jim Sharkey]

Charlie Bell wrote:
>Bloody cold medication says "don't drink". So I stopped taking it -  >there's 
>no way I'm not drinking at my own party tonight... :D

Well, that's one way to handle it, I suppose.  :)  Of course, you're going to 
be sorry tomorrow, but as long as you accept that going in...

Jim
Raise a glass in toast Maru

___
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[William T Goodall]

On 8 Sep 2006, at 1:33PM, Ritu wrote:



Charlie said:


Bloody cold medication says "don't drink". So I stopped taking it -
there's no way I'm not drinking at my own party tonight... :D


*g*

Well, from extensive experience, I can tell you that you will be just
fine tonight, but will feel like dying tomorrow morning. :)


I've always found plenty of strong drink is a great cold cure. Or  
takes one's mind off it at any rate :->


Diuretic Maru
--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/

Due to a typographical error the entire arctic deployment had been  
issued Turkish pastries as headwear.



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Ritu]

Alberto wrote

> And who's bringing the fried babies, and who's bringing the 
> living sacrificial victms whose heart we will extract and eat?

Alberto,

If you don't want to host the party, just say so. We'll just find
another venue. There's no need to rustle up a gruesome menu

Ritu
GCU Really, No Hard Feelings

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Alberto Monteiro]

Jim Sharkey wrote:
>
>> E. You know nothing.  You are a Fvcking idiot and a troll.
> 
> Maybe I missed a memo, but I thought we didn't do this kind of shit 
> around here.  IAAMOAC, and all that.
> 
> Are we suspending the guidelines when our dedicated atheists and 
> devout theists get into the ring to slug it out now?  If we are, I 
> can bring popcorn if someone else will bring the beers!
>
And who's bringing the fried babies, and who's bringing the
living sacrificial victms whose heart we will extract and eat?

Alberto Monteiro

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Ritu]

Charlie said:

> Bloody cold medication says "don't drink". So I stopped taking it -  
> there's no way I'm not drinking at my own party tonight... :D

*g*

Well, from extensive experience, I can tell you that you will be just
fine tonight, but will feel like dying tomorrow morning. :)

Ritu

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Charlie Bell]

On 08/09/2006, at 3:14 PM, Jim Sharkey wrote:



The Fool wrote:

E. You know nothing.  You are a Fvcking idiot and a troll.


Maybe I missed a memo, but I thought we didn't do this kind of shit  
around here.  IAAMOAC, and all that.


Are we suspending the guidelines when our dedicated atheists and  
devout theists get into the ring to slug it out now?


I hope not.

I'll call an idea idiotic but I'm not gonna call a fellow Listee an  
idiot.



If we are, I can bring popcorn if someone else will bring the beers!


Bloody cold medication says "don't drink". So I stopped taking it -  
there's no way I'm not drinking at my own party tonight... :D


Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Jim Sharkey]

The Fool wrote:
>E. You know nothing.  You are a Fvcking idiot and a troll.

Maybe I missed a memo, but I thought we didn't do this kind of shit around 
here.  IAAMOAC, and all that.

Are we suspending the guidelines when our dedicated atheists and devout theists 
get into the ring to slug it out now?  If we are, I can bring popcorn if 
someone else will bring the beers!

Jim

___
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Ritu]

Rich said:

> I think JohnR's argument is that belief breathes the "fire" 
> into the words and unless you believe you don't experience 
> that fire and so don't truly understand.

But aren't the words, or the ideas behind them, supposed to breathe the
fire? I can go as far as a suspension of disbelief, but to hold that
belief is prerequisite for the fire...well, that just points to sloppy
writing, or sloppy expression of an idea.

> But I think there is no fire, just the power of wishful 
> thinking to make people feel intense things.

And good writing,let's not forget the good writing...

Ritu


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Alberto Monteiro]

John W Redelfs wrote:
> 
> So what?  In the USA people need to eat less anyway.  And globally, there
> needs to be a reduction in population that could most easily be 
> effected by widespread starvation.  People extol the virtues of 
> abortion and birth control, but doesn't starvation, disease and war 
> control over population just as well?
>
No.

Starvation and War have, historically, made no impact on the
growth of population - probably they even had the opposite effect.
And disease should be quite devastating - like AIDS in Africa -
to have a significant effect.

Alberto Monteiro

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Richard Baker]

Ritu said:

> That's not necessarily true. Belief is not a prerequisite for
> understanding words on a paper. While the scriptures cannot be accepted
> without belief, understanding them is a simpler task. And all the latter
> requires are tools of basic comprehension, further study, and reasearch.
> This drive for understanding might be fuelled by belief, but it might as
> easily be fuelled by doubt. Or simple curiousity. Belief doesn't have
> much of a role in understanding scriptures, but if we had enough
> information, I would not be surprised to find that belief might have
> actually hindered such understanding over the centuries rather than
> helped it along.

I think JohnR's argument is that belief breathes the "fire" into the
words and unless you believe you don't experience that fire and so don't
truly understand.

But I think there is no fire, just the power of wishful thinking to make
people feel intense things.

Rich
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Ritu]

John W Redelfs wrote:

> I confess that I do not know as much about atheism as an 
> atheist does, or a least not as much that is correct.  But 
> neither do atheists know as much about religion as religious 
> people do, at least not as much that is correct.  Some things 
> you cannot understand correctly from the outside looking in.  

As charlie pointed out, a lot of atheists weren't always outsiders
looking in. They were insiders looking around, and many of them are
probably better at the details of the scri[pture and its practices than
uncritical believers.

I know one of my uncles definitely falls into this category.

> And one thing I can state with dead certainty:  The 
> scriptures cannot be correctly understood unless you believe 
> them.  

That's not necessarily true. Belief is not a prerequisite for
understanding words on a paper. While the scriptures cannot be accepted
without belief, understanding them is a simpler task. And all the latter
requires are tools of basic comprehension, further study, and reasearch.
This drive for understanding might be fuelled by belief, but it might as
easily be fuelled by doubt. Or simple curiousity. Belief doesn't have
much of a role in understanding scriptures, but if we had enough
information, I would not be surprised to find that belief might have
actually hindered such understanding over the centuries rather than
helped it along.

Ritu

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Charlie Bell]

On 08/09/2006, at 7:54 AM, John W Redelfs wrote:



I confess that I do not know as much about atheism as an atheist  
does, or a

least not as much that is correct.


Yes, that's clear.


But neither do atheists know as much
about religion as religious people do, at least not as much that is
correct.


No. Wrong. You assumed that all atheists were always atheists just  
there. I'm not. Was a practising and fully believing Christian,  
raised C of E, attending evangelical churches, Christian summer  
camps, ran Bible study groups at school and uni.


Maybe *many* atheists don't know much about religion, but many do too.

Of course, you can dismiss me by saying something like "well, you  
stopped believing, so you must have not understood or truly  
believed", but that's both arrogant and disingenuous.



  The scriptures cannot
be correctly understood unless you believe them.


Utter rot, sorry.


Therefore, statements made
about religion (scriptures) by atheists are almost always made from a
position of bustling ignorance.


And that doesn't follow from your last assertion anyway, even if your  
last assertion were true.


Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Charlie Bell]

On 08/09/2006, at 7:16 AM, Warren Ockrassa wrote:



Probably you haven't asked the right person. I base my ethical  
decisions on my ability to empathize. If I know a given action  
would cause me misery, I know that it's an action I shouldn't  
perpetrate upon another.


...unless you've asked first. While "do unto others" is a reasonable  
first approximation, it can also be arrogance to assume that what we  
want is what others want. But it's a starting point.


Hopefully this clarifies things.


If selection of
the species is determined by survival of the fittest, isn't  
"might" the

ultimate good, biologically speaking?


This is where we're getting into convolutions. You seem to have the  
impression that survival fitness is equal to battle/struggle/ 
fighting, but that's a very narrowly-applicable view. Fitness has  
more to do with propagation than it does with a battle to survive;  
a celibate organism will not pass on its genes regardless of how  
successful it is in a field of combat. *Any* field of combat,  
including not drowning in a pool of water or surviving a drought or  
being fortunate enough not to live on the side of an active volcano.


There's a tremendous amount of contingency brought about by  
environmental and population factors that profoundly affects  
probability of yielding offspring. The "nature red in tooth and  
claw" idea is a vast -- and largely inaccurate -- oversimplification.


Certainly is. Anyone who says it, just as anyone who dismisses  
selection as "random", needs to go learn what evolution is and how  
the processes that drive evolution are thought to work.

Following this line of reasoning, would not killing babies be
one of the "moral" things a person could do?  That way only the  
babies of
the strongest parents would be able to survive, and that would  
improve the

bloodline, isn't that so?


In some species this appears to happen, at least to some extent.  
When a lion takes over a pride, for instance, it kills the cubs  
that were spawned by its predecessor. This forces the females into  
heat, which allows the lion to mate with them and ensure his own  
genes' supremacy in the pride.


Better example - cuckoo chicks which eliminate the eggs of the host  
species, or sand tiger shark pups which eat each other in the womb,  
until only one is left in each horn of the uterus.




(I see The Fool mentioned this as well!)

Of course, there are other species which show strong in-group  
altruism; for instance, you won't find that behavior in chimpanzee  
society except in cases of extreme aberration (turns out chimps can  
suffer from some of the same mental sicknesses that we can). We're  
much more genetically aligned with chimps than lions, so from even  
a strictly biological viewpoint it shouldn't be too surprising that  
we don't put much effort into killing off the weak within our own  
groups.


We do find evidence of sneaky infidelity in chimps. Us apes seem to  
be a lot similar than many would like to think.


So to answer your subject: By knowing how I would feel were an  
infant child of mine killed, I know that it would be grossly  
unethical (or "wrong") of me to kill someone else's child.


Could play the "fun with grey areas game" here, but I agree with you  
mostly so I think I'll leave it there.


Charlie

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Richard Baker]

JohnR said:

So what?  In the USA people need to eat less anyway.  And globally,  
there
needs to be a reduction in population that could most easily be  
effected by

widespread starvation.  People extol the virtues of abortion and birth
control, but doesn't starvation, disease and war control over  
population
just as well?  I fail to see the advantages of birth control and  
abortion.
That is, I would if I did not believe that every human being on  
this earth
is a child of the same Heavenly Father and hence truly brothers and  
sisters.


So you want your brothers and sisters to die in large numbers through  
famine, pestilence and war? Or have you just failed to write clearly  
enough to convey what you really mean?


Rich
VFP Nice Family!

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[The Fool]

> From: John W Redelfs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 

> 
> 
> I confess that I do not know as much about atheism as an atheist does, or a
> least not as much that is correct.  But neither do atheists know as much
> about religion as religious people do, at least not as much that is
> correct.  Some things you cannot understand correctly from the outside
> looking in.  In all advanced fields of learning including both science and
> religion, most of the knowledge can be learned only after learning the
> prerequisites.  Without those prerequisites, a student must remain
> ignorant.  I know some science, but not much beyond the level of my
> mathematics which only goes as far as high school algebra, geometry and
> trigonometry.  However, I know the scriptures rather well compared with
> most.  And one thing I can state with dead certainty:  The scriptures
cannot
> be correctly understood unless you believe them.  Therefore, statements
made
> about religion (scriptures) by atheists are almost always made from a
> position of bustling ignorance.

A. I know more about 'scripture' than you do.  Much more.

B. I've read the bible, more times than you will for the entire rest of life.

C. I've read more about the bible than you ever will.

D. I Own more translations of the Bible than there are regulars on this list.

E. You know nothing.  You are a Fvcking idiot and a troll.

-
"The so-called religious organizations which now lead the war against the
teaching of evolution are nothing more, at bottom, than conspiracies of the
inferior man against his betters. They mirror very accurately his congenital
hatred of knowledge, his bitter enmity to the man who knows more than he
does, and so gets more out of life . . .
Such organizations, of course, must have leaders; there must be men in them
whose ignorance and imbecility are measurably less abject than the ignorance
and imbecility of the average. These super-Chandala often attain to a
considerable power, especially in democratic states. Their followers trust
them and look up to them; sometimes, when the pack is on the loose, it is
necessary to conciliate them. But their puissance cannot conceal their
incurable inferiority. They belong to the mob as surely as their dupes, and
the thing that animates them is precisely the mob's hatred of superiority.
Whatever lies above the level of their comprehension is of the devil."
--H.L. Menken
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[John W Redelfs]

On 9/7/06, Richard Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



And there in fact is a rational argument in favour of vegetarianism,
because a given area of land can feed more vegetarians than meat
eaters essentially because of thermodynamics. More solar energy gets
into plants used as human food than into plant-eating animals used as
human food.



So what?  In the USA people need to eat less anyway.  And globally, there
needs to be a reduction in population that could most easily be effected by
widespread starvation.  People extol the virtues of abortion and birth
control, but doesn't starvation, disease and war control over population
just as well?  I fail to see the advantages of birth control and abortion.
That is, I would if I did not believe that every human being on this earth
is a child of the same Heavenly Father and hence truly brothers and sisters.

John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Do you play World of Warcraft?  Let me know.  Maybe
we can play together.
***
All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[John W Redelfs]

On 9/7/06, Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



On 07/09/2006, at 6:58 PM, Brother John wrote:

> William T Goodall wrote:
>> The atheists eat less babies than the theists though due to having
>> a rationally designed, probably vegetarian, diet.
> There is nothing rational about a vegetarian diet. Vegetarianism is
> just a form of holier-than-thou for atheists.

Rich, atheist and vegetarian.

Me, atheist and omnivorous.

Doesn't matter a damn to me what you eat.

What does matter is that it's clear from your posts that you don't
understand atheism, as you're repeating old and wrong canards about
ethics and morality. Atheists have one thing in common, and one only
- that they do not believe in gods. Beyond that, they're as diverse
as any other random group of people.



I confess that I do not know as much about atheism as an atheist does, or a
least not as much that is correct.  But neither do atheists know as much
about religion as religious people do, at least not as much that is
correct.  Some things you cannot understand correctly from the outside
looking in.  In all advanced fields of learning including both science and
religion, most of the knowledge can be learned only after learning the
prerequisites.  Without those prerequisites, a student must remain
ignorant.  I know some science, but not much beyond the level of my
mathematics which only goes as far as high school algebra, geometry and
trigonometry.  However, I know the scriptures rather well compared with
most.  And one thing I can state with dead certainty:  The scriptures cannot
be correctly understood unless you believe them.  Therefore, statements made
about religion (scriptures) by atheists are almost always made from a
position of bustling ignorance.

John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Do you play World of Warcraft?  Let me know.  Maybe
we can play together.
***
All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Warren Ockrassa]

There's a bit of convolution here; before a meaningful discussion can 
happen in some areas I think some of it has to be untangled.


On Sep 6, 2006, at 4:58 AM, John W Redelfs wrote:


My atheist father used to tell me that "might makes right" is a bad
philosophy?  Why?


Succinctly, if it were a valid philosophy, there would have been 
nothing wrong, ethically or morally, had the Nazis won WWII. Whether 
one is an  atheist, agnostic or theist, I think we can agree that 
"might makes right" is not de facto true.



Unless there is a God who is against it, why would that
philosophy be any better or worse than any other?


Why would any philosophy that creates suffering be worse than a 
philosophy that reduces it, whether there is a god or not? Put another 
way, do we (does anyone) need a deity to tell us that beating a child 
is reprehensible?



Upon what do atheists base
their morality?  I've never been able to understand this.


Probably you haven't asked the right person. I base my ethical 
decisions on my ability to empathize. If I know a given action would 
cause me misery, I know that it's an action I shouldn't perpetrate upon 
another. (I believe there's a Christian analogue to this referring to 
auriferous yardsticks or some such.)


Hopefully this clarifies things.


If selection of
the species is determined by survival of the fittest, isn't "might" the
ultimate good, biologically speaking?


This is where we're getting into convolutions. You seem to have the 
impression that survival fitness is equal to battle/struggle/fighting, 
but that's a very narrowly-applicable view. Fitness has more to do with 
propagation than it does with a battle to survive; a celibate organism 
will not pass on its genes regardless of how successful it is in a 
field of combat. *Any* field of combat, including not drowning in a 
pool of water or surviving a drought or being fortunate enough not to 
live on the side of an active volcano.


There's a tremendous amount of contingency brought about by 
environmental and population factors that profoundly affects 
probability of yielding offspring. The "nature red in tooth and claw" 
idea is a vast -- and largely inaccurate -- oversimplification.



The strong are just doing nature a
favor by rubbing out the weak, preferably before they have a chance to
reproduce.


You're again seeing things narrowly. Is the bird flu virus "stronger" 
than the birds it's killing? On one level, you could argue the answer 
is yes; however, birds that survive the virus are actually doing the 
reverse of your conclusion (being weak, therefore rubbed out) and are 
in fact having the tables turned -- it's the virus that gets 
eliminated, not the bird. (I know this isn't wholly accurate, but I 
couldn't think of a bacterial analogue off the top of my head.)



Following this line of reasoning, would not killing babies be
one of the "moral" things a person could do?  That way only the babies 
of
the strongest parents would be able to survive, and that would improve 
the

bloodline, isn't that so?


In some species this appears to happen, at least to some extent. When a 
lion takes over a pride, for instance, it kills the cubs that were 
spawned by its predecessor. This forces the females into heat, which 
allows the lion to mate with them and ensure his own genes' supremacy 
in the pride.


(I see The Fool mentioned this as well!)

Of course, there are other species which show strong in-group altruism; 
for instance, you won't find that behavior in chimpanzee society except 
in cases of extreme aberration (turns out chimps can suffer from some 
of the same mental sicknesses that we can). We're much more genetically 
aligned with chimps than lions, so from even a strictly biological 
viewpoint it shouldn't be too surprising that we don't put much effort 
into killing off the weak within our own groups.


Of course, *outside* our groups, anything goes, and has for a long, 
long time indeed:


 8  O daughter Babylon, you devastator!
 Happy shall they be who pay you back
 what you have done to us!
 9  Happy shall they be who take your little ones
 and dash them against the rock!

(Psalms 137:8-9)

Thus we can find support for virtually every conceivable atrocity, even 
in Holy Writ, provided that atrocity is committed against those who are 
not part of our group.


Put another way, there's no rational way to argue that religion or 
faith in a deity automatically places one in a position to "know" what 
is moral or not relative to someone who does not believe in a deity. 
Might does not make right; a holy book doesn't either; and neither does 
eschewing scripture.


What makes right is understanding:

1. "Right" is a very plastic term that is subject to interpretation on 
the individual, family, group and societal/national level; as well as 
on the biologically-expedient level; thus a phrase such as "might makes 
right" is effectively worthless as an argument to begin with; and

RE: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Ritu]

Brother John wrote:

> There is nothing rational about a vegetarian diet. 

I once recall reading something about how the vegetarian proteins are
easier for humans to assimilate as compared to the proteins found in
meat. Does anyone else have ay recollection of something like this?

> Vegetarianism is just 
> a form of holier-than-thou for atheists.

Hah!

A reasonable proportion of vegetarians in India are vegetarians because
of their religious beliefs. Buddhists, Jains, and a lot of Hindus,
fr'ex. Some others are vegetarians because of health reasons, others
because of aesthetic reasons. 

While I have met many believers who eat or don't eat meat because of
their religious beliefs, I am yet to come across anyone who refuses to
eat meat because they have no religious beliefs. 

Ritu


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Charlie Bell]

On 07/09/2006, at 8:29 PM, William T Goodall wrote:



On 7 Sep 2006, at 5:06PM, Charlie Bell wrote:



On 07/09/2006, at 6:58 PM, Brother John wrote:


William T Goodall wrote:
The atheists eat less babies than the theists though due to  
having a rationally designed, probably vegetarian, diet.
There is nothing rational about a vegetarian diet. Vegetarianism  
is just a form of holier-than-thou for atheists.


Rich, atheist and vegetarian.

Me, atheist and omnivorous.

Doesn't matter a damn to me what you eat.


I don't think it's right to eat things that demonstrate a certain  
level of intelligence or empathy such as dolphins, parrots or dogs  
for example.


Yeah, in general. Although I eat pork, and they're smart. What a  
hypocrite I am...


But it would be OK to eat Republicans or Fundamentalists as long as  
they were properly cooked.


Or embryos. But not foetuses past the 16th week.

Arse, mixed my threads again... ;)

Charlie

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[William T Goodall]

On 7 Sep 2006, at 5:06PM, Charlie Bell wrote:



On 07/09/2006, at 6:58 PM, Brother John wrote:


William T Goodall wrote:
The atheists eat less babies than the theists though due to  
having a rationally designed, probably vegetarian, diet.
There is nothing rational about a vegetarian diet. Vegetarianism  
is just a form of holier-than-thou for atheists.


Rich, atheist and vegetarian.

Me, atheist and omnivorous.

Doesn't matter a damn to me what you eat.


I don't think it's right to eat things that demonstrate a certain  
level of intelligence or empathy such as dolphins, parrots or dogs  
for example. But it would be OK to eat Republicans or Fundamentalists  
as long as they were properly cooked.

















Just kidding, they probably taste awful Maru

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/

"The Macintosh uses an experimental pointing device called a 'mouse.'  
There is no evidence that people want to use these things."

-John C. Dvorak, SF Examiner, Feb. 1984.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Richard Baker]

Charlie said:


Rich, atheist and vegetarian.

Me, atheist and omnivorous.

Doesn't matter a damn to me what you eat.


You overlook the obvious fact that I am holier than you are.

Rich
GCU Saintly

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Richard Baker]

JohnR said:

There is nothing rational about a vegetarian diet. Vegetarianism is  
just a form of holier-than-thou for atheists.


Yeah? Well, I'm vegetarian for aesthetic reasons and I really don't  
much care who else is or isn't vegetarian as long as they don't try  
to make me eat meat.


And there in fact is a rational argument in favour of vegetarianism,  
because a given area of land can feed more vegetarians than meat  
eaters essentially because of thermodynamics. More solar energy gets  
into plants used as human food than into plant-eating animals used as  
human food.


Rich

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[William T Goodall]

On 7 Sep 2006, at 4:56PM, Brother John wrote:

In the absence of God or gods, why would one goal be preferable to  
any other? I might have one goal.  You might have another.  If they  
are contradictory, then the strongest man's goal is the right one.   
Or in other words, the concept of right and wrong in regards to  
goals become moot.


In the presence of God or gods, why would one goal be preferable to  
any other? I might have one goal.  You might have another...


--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/

"A bad thing done for a good cause is still a bad thing. It's why so  
few people slap their political opponents. That, and because slapping  
looks so silly." - Randy Cohen.



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Charlie Bell]

On 07/09/2006, at 6:58 PM, Brother John wrote:


William T Goodall wrote:
The atheists eat less babies than the theists though due to having  
a rationally designed, probably vegetarian, diet.
There is nothing rational about a vegetarian diet. Vegetarianism is  
just a form of holier-than-thou for atheists.


Rich, atheist and vegetarian.

Me, atheist and omnivorous.

Doesn't matter a damn to me what you eat.

What does matter is that it's clear from your posts that you don't  
understand atheism, as you're repeating old and wrong canards about  
ethics and morality. Atheists have one thing in common, and one only  
- that they do not believe in gods. Beyond that, they're as diverse  
as any other random group of people.


Charlie
Moral Maru
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Brother John]

William T Goodall wrote:
The atheists eat less babies than the theists though due to having a 
rationally designed, probably vegetarian, diet.
There is nothing rational about a vegetarian diet. Vegetarianism is just 
a form of holier-than-thou for atheists.


John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Do you play World of Warcraft?  Let me know.  Maybe
we can play together.
***
All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Brother John]

Alberto Monteiro wrote:

I think you should be careful to define _what_ are the goals,
so that you can define what is "good" and what is "evil". If the
goal is the long-range survival of intelligence and diversity,
or even of diversity of intelligence, then killing weak babies
is "evil".

But it requires too much thinking to conclude that - and atheists
are no smarter than fundamentalist theists, and will be satisfied
with short-range egoistical goals. Short-term egoistical goals
for theists mean "do good or God will punish you". Short-term
egoistical goals for atheists lead to mass murder.
  
In the absence of God or gods, why would one goal be preferable to any 
other? I might have one goal.  You might have another.  If they are 
contradictory, then the strongest man's goal is the right one.  Or in 
other words, the concept of right and wrong in regards to goals become moot.


John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Do you play World of Warcraft?  Let me know.  Maybe
we can play together.
***
All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Brother John]

William T Goodall wrote:


On 6 Sep 2006, at 4:13PM, Brother John wrote:


Richard Baker wrote:
If not, then I fail to see how the religious and atheist positions 
differ.

Or: how does God Himself decide what is good and evil? Isn't He, at
least, basically in the same position as us atheists?


I guess so, unless he himself has a God as I believe.


And does God's God have a God too? And if so does he have a God? And 
does God's God's God's God have a God?

Absolutely, and it goes on forever.

John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Do you play World of Warcraft?  Let me know.  Maybe
we can play together.
***
All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Ritu]

William T Goodall asked:

> > Richard Baker wrote:
> >> If not, then I fail to see how the religious and atheist positions
> >> differ.
> >> Or: how does God Himself decide what is good and evil? Isn't He, at
> >> least, basically in the same position as us atheists?
> >>
> > I guess so, unless he himself has a God as I believe.
> 
> And does God's God have a God too? And if so does he have a God? And  
> does God's God's God's God have a God?

Well yes. Gods have gods, who again have gods, and then they all worship
each other when the mood strikes them, and help each other when the mood
strikes them...In the end, and maybe even in the beginning, there is the
Param Brahm though, and nobody knows anything much about *that*. I
believe reams upon reams were once written to speculate on the PB, and
the best answer/explanation was considered to be 'That art thou'.

Ritu

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Ritu]

Rich wrote:

> > My atheist father used to tell me that "might makes right" is a bad 
> > philosophy?  Why?
> 
> Isn't "might makes right" basically the religious position? 

Uh, no. At least not in the religion I was born into. We do have a
saying which translates into 'Truth always wins' but that is never a
guarantee. Most of the mythology is filled with demi-gods whining about
how they have been defeated by the demons. And their constant refrain
during these situations is 'X isn't right but he is mightier than us,
and if you don't help us now, then it will be a case of might being
right, and that wouldn't be good...so ,y'know, could you kindly use
*your* might to put things to right...?'

There is, as far as I can make out, the usual collection of 'right
actions/values' and anyone who goes against them, be it the gods and
demigods themselves, is 'wrong', no matter how mighty they may be.

> Or: how does God Himself decide what is good and evil? Isn't 
> He, at least, basically in the same position as us atheists?

Gods tend to be monitors in this respect - they have a set of rules to
follow and enforce. The rules weren't devised by them but their help is
needed to ensure that those inclined towards bullying don't get away
with it. Since, direct divine intervention hardly occurs, there are a
lot of tales and sayings praising the importance of a strong will, and
self-reliance, and keeping faith in gods while one battles against evil.
:)

Ritu

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Charlie Bell]

On 06/09/2006, at 11:31 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote:



No. You're commiting the basic theological falicy (again, in Jewish
terms) of thinking of G-d as a Human. To eff the ineffible. Which is
understandable (especially since Christians HAVE adopted a Human
aspect to their G-d) but from our POV the question is meaningless in
context.


Yeah - as far as I see, modern moderate Judaism is basically humanism  
with a lot of ancient traditions built-in, sewn up in a cultural  
identity.


Probably why I get on better with Jews than I do with most Xians.

Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[The Fool]

> From: Andrew Crystall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> On 6 Sep 2006 at 14:43, William T Goodall wrote:
> 
> > 
> > On 6 Sep 2006, at 2:31PM, Richard Baker wrote:
> > 
> > >
> > > Or: how does God Himself decide what is good and evil? Isn't He, at
> > > least, basically in the same position as us atheists?
> > >
> > 
> > I think I have an advantage in not being imaginary.
> 
> Uh-huh. So what do you follow, the laws of the land? Oops, you know 
> where THOSE are descended from, right... 

The babalonians and the pre-christ romans.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Andrew Crystall]

On 6 Sep 2006 at 22:10, Richard Baker wrote:

> Andrew said:
> 
> > Again, Jews believe there are universal standards for good and for
> > righteousness (and that the most certainly don't need to be a Jew to
> > be righteous) - and further, the Bible states that the Law of the
> > Land is the Law.
> 
> So is that an argument from the authority of the Bible, an argument  
> from the authority of the people who wrote Bible, an argument from  
> the authority of the traditions of the ancient Jewish people or  
> something else?

The exact Hebrew phrase; "Dina de-malchuta dina,"  is a paraphrase of 
several passages from the Bible by Samuel (3rd century Babylonia). It 
is accepted by basically every Jewish Rabbi outside the (tiny) 
Reconstructionism movement.

It's also probably not a blanket cover and is linked to a whole host 
of other statements, but for Western counties you can assume that 
there are very few, if any, conflicts.

I'd also note that that line is also inappropriately quoted quite 
frequently by the American burocracy...

> > No. You're commiting the basic theological falicy (again, in Jewish
> > terms) of thinking of G-d as a Human. To eff the ineffible. Which is
> > understandable (especially since Christians HAVE adopted a Human
> > aspect to their G-d) but from our POV the question is meaningless in
> > context.
> 
> Well, that sounds awfully like you're saying that these things are  
> true because an all-powerful and ineffable God said so but that we  
> shouldn't really look too closely into such matters. Which, to me  
> (although presumably not to others), sounds awfully like an argument  
> from the authority of one's imaginary friend.

Nope. There is a clear answer - to try to attribute Human 
restrictions to G-d is to limit what he can do.
Dawn Falcon

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[The Fool]

> From: John W Redelfs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> 
> My atheist father used to tell me that "might makes right" is a bad
> philosophy?  Why?  Unless there is a God who is against it, why would that
> philosophy be any better or worse than any other? Upon what do atheists
base
> their morality?  I've never been able to understand this.  If selection of
> the species is determined by survival of the fittest, isn't "might" the
> ultimate good, biologically speaking?  The strong are just doing nature a
> favor by rubbing out the weak, preferably before they have a chance to
> reproduce.  Following this line of reasoning, would not killing babies be
> one of the "moral" things a person could do?  That way only the babies of
> the strongest parents would be able to survive, and that would improve the
> bloodline, isn't that so?

Look at people who tend to do those things today.  Here's a hint: they mostly
live in asia, tend to be extremely poor, and aren't particularly
non-religious.

Also look at the mid-east where certain religious factions take exquisite
delight in blowing up busses filled with school children.

However, in the modern west, doing such things tends to have a negative
selective advantage.

Male Lions, when they take over a pride, first kill every single Lion-cub
from the previous alpha male.

-
"If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the
first and the smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently
shocked – if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in "43" had come
immediately after the "German Firm" stickers on the windows of non-Jewish
shops in "33". But of course this isn't the way it happens. In between come
all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them
preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than
Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C?
And so on to Step D."
--They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45
--by Milton Mayer
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Charlie Bell]

On 06/09/2006, at 10:33 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:

 Short-term egoistical goals
for theists mean "do good or God will punish you". Short-term
egoistical goals for atheists lead to mass murder.


Hope that's satire.

Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Richard Baker]

Dan said:

Actually, it is possible, with a simple assumption, to do more than  
that.

Again, I fully admit that there is no proof, but I think that...if the
transcendental is partially and imperfectly discerned by humans,  
then one
can reach some general conclusions about our best bets at  
approaching the
truth when it comes to ethics.  I'll stop here to see if you think  
that is a

presupposition that is worth exploring further.


I'm always interested to hear what you have to say on such things,  
even though I'm fairly sceptical about the possibility of discerning  
anything transcendental.


Rich

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Richard Baker]

Andrew said:


Again, Jews believe there are universal standards for good and for
righteousness (and that the most certainly don't need to be a Jew to
be righteous) - and further, the Bible states that the Law of the
Land is the Law.


So is that an argument from the authority of the Bible, an argument  
from the authority of the people who wrote Bible, an argument from  
the authority of the traditions of the ancient Jewish people or  
something else?



No. You're commiting the basic theological falicy (again, in Jewish
terms) of thinking of G-d as a Human. To eff the ineffible. Which is
understandable (especially since Christians HAVE adopted a Human
aspect to their G-d) but from our POV the question is meaningless in
context.


Well, that sounds awfully like you're saying that these things are  
true because an all-powerful and ineffable God said so but that we  
shouldn't really look too closely into such matters. Which, to me  
(although presumably not to others), sounds awfully like an argument  
from the authority of one's imaginary friend.


Rich

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Andrew Crystall]

On 6 Sep 2006 at 14:43, William T Goodall wrote:

> 
> On 6 Sep 2006, at 2:31PM, Richard Baker wrote:
> 
> >
> > Or: how does God Himself decide what is good and evil? Isn't He, at
> > least, basically in the same position as us atheists?
> >
> 
> I think I have an advantage in not being imaginary.

Uh-huh. So what do you follow, the laws of the land? Oops, you know 
where THOSE are descended from, right... (especially the concept of 
Courts, for example..)
Dawn Falcon

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Andrew Crystall]

On 6 Sep 2006 at 6:31, Richard Baker wrote:

> Isn't "might makes right" basically the religious position? "I > believe

Nope. At least, not for Jews.

> in an all-powerful God. That God says these things are good and  >those are 
> evil, therefore I believe these are good and those are >evil." (And

Again, Jews believe there are universal standards for good and for 
righteousness (and that the most certainly don't need to be a Jew to 
be righteous) - and further, the Bible states that the Law of the 
Land is the Law.

> Or: how does God Himself decide what is good and evil? Isn't He, at
> least, basically in the same position as us atheists?

No. You're commiting the basic theological falicy (again, in Jewish 
terms) of thinking of G-d as a Human. To eff the ineffible. Which is 
understandable (especially since Christians HAVE adopted a Human 
aspect to their G-d) but from our POV the question is meaningless in 
context.

AndrewC

Dawn Falcon

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[William T Goodall]

On 6 Sep 2006, at 8:33PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:


But it requires too much thinking to conclude that - and atheists
are no smarter than fundamentalist theists, and will be satisfied
with short-range egoistical goals. Short-term egoistical goals
for theists mean "do good or God will punish you". Short-term
egoistical goals for atheists lead to mass murder.


The atheists eat less babies than the theists though due to having a  
rationally designed, probably vegetarian, diet.


Baby munching God lovers Maru
--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/

"The three chief virtues of a programmer are: Laziness, Impatience  
and Hubris" - Larry Wall



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[William T Goodall]

On 6 Sep 2006, at 8:18PM, Dan Minette wrote:



Actually, it is possible, with a simple assumption, to do more than  
that.

Again, I fully admit that there is no proof, but I think that...if the
transcendental is partially and imperfectly discerned by humans,  
then one
can reach some general conclusions about our best bets at  
approaching the
truth when it comes to ethics.  I'll stop here to see if you think  
that is a

presupposition that is worth exploring further.


No.

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/

Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are  
the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons.



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Alberto Monteiro]

John W Redelfs wrote:
>
> My atheist father used to tell me that "might makes right" is a bad
> philosophy?  Why?  Unless there is a God who is against it, why 
> would that philosophy be any better or worse than any other? Upon 
> what do atheists base their morality?  I've never been able to 
> understand this.  If selection of the species is determined by 
> survival of the fittest, isn't "might" the ultimate good,
>  biologically speaking?  The strong are just doing nature a favor by 
> rubbing out the weak, preferably before they have a chance to 
> reproduce.  Following this line of reasoning, would not killing 
> babies be one of the "moral" things a person could do?  That way 
> only the babies of the strongest parents would be able to survive, 
> and that would improve the bloodline, isn't that so?
>
I think you should be careful to define _what_ are the goals,
so that you can define what is "good" and what is "evil". If the
goal is the long-range survival of intelligence and diversity,
or even of diversity of intelligence, then killing weak babies
is "evil".

But it requires too much thinking to conclude that - and atheists
are no smarter than fundamentalist theists, and will be satisfied
with short-range egoistical goals. Short-term egoistical goals
for theists mean "do good or God will punish you". Short-term
egoistical goals for atheists lead to mass murder.

Alberto Monteiro

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Dan Minette]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Richard Baker
> Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 9:53 AM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: RE: The Morality of Killing Babies
> 
> DanM said:
> 
> > I think the most critical question involved is the understanding of the
> > transcendental:  Truths that are true, whether or not they are believed
> > by humans, or even whether they are perceived by humans; Reality that
> > exists apart from our perception.
> 
> But that seems like an especially useless position. If we're discussing
> which things are good and which are evil then believing that there are
> transcendental truths doesn't help at all if different people have
> different positions on what those truths actually are. 

Well, it certainly doesn't reduce ethics to something that is empirically
verifiable, but I think that possibility just isn't there.  I think Kant
gave a good summation of the fundamental limits of pure reason in the
introduction to his critique.  Add this to our agreed upon conclusions on
the nature and limitations of science and you will get what I consider an
important part of the human condition: there is no empirical basis for
ethics: ethics are faith basedno matter what that faith is in (one's own
ability, a priori principles, religious dogma, the teachings of a master,
etc).



 
>So far as I can
> tell you're reduced either to an argument from authority (whether that
> of a priesthood, a holy book, one or more historical figures, or the
> "general sentiments of society") or an argument from what makes you feel
> all warm and fuzzy inside. At best, I suppose, you can argue that some
> of those priesthoods, holy books, historical figures or warm and fuzzy
> feelings are divinely inspired rather than ultimately reducing just to
> opinion, but once again we can argue endlessly about exactly which of
> those things are touched by the ineffable mystery of the transcendental.

Actually, it is possible, with a simple assumption, to do more than that.
Again, I fully admit that there is no proof, but I think that...if the
transcendental is partially and imperfectly discerned by humans, then one
can reach some general conclusions about our best bets at approaching the
truth when it comes to ethics.  I'll stop here to see if you think that is a
presupposition that is worth exploring further.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Julia Thompson]

William T Goodall wrote:

And does God's God have a God too? And if so does he have a God? And 
does God's God's God's God have a God?


GEB flashback

Not necessarily what I needed today, but it's not entirely bad.  Might 
even be calming, which I *could* use today.


Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[William T Goodall]

On 6 Sep 2006, at 4:13PM, Brother John wrote:


Richard Baker wrote:
If not, then I fail to see how the religious and atheist positions  
differ.

Or: how does God Himself decide what is good and evil? Isn't He, at
least, basically in the same position as us atheists?


I guess so, unless he himself has a God as I believe.


And does God's God have a God too? And if so does he have a God? And  
does God's God's God's God have a God?


Russian Doll Maru
--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/

The surprising thing about the Cargo Cult Windows PC is that it works  
as well as a real one.



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Brother John]

Richard Baker wrote:
If not, then I fail to see how the religious and atheist positions differ. 


Or: how does God Himself decide what is good and evil? Isn't He, at
least, basically in the same position as us atheists?
  
I guess so, unless he himself has a God as I believe. 


John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Do you play World of Warcraft?  Let me know.  Maybe
we can play together.
***
All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Richard Baker]

DanM said:

> I think the most critical question involved is the understanding of the
> transcendental:  Truths that are true, whether or not they are believed
> by humans, or even whether they are perceived by humans; Reality that
> exists apart from our perception.

But that seems like an especially useless position. If we're discussing
which things are good and which are evil then believing that there are
transcendental truths doesn't help at all if different people have
different positions on what those truths actually are. So far as I can
tell you're reduced either to an argument from authority (whether that
of a priesthood, a holy book, one or more historical figures, or the
"general sentiments of society") or an argument from what makes you feel
all warm and fuzzy inside. At best, I suppose, you can argue that some
of those priesthoods, holy books, historical figures or warm and fuzzy
feelings are divinely inspired rather than ultimately reducing just to
opinion, but once again we can argue endlessly about exactly which of
those things are touched by the ineffable mystery of the transcendental.

Rich
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Dan Minette]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Richard Baker
> Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 8:32 AM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
> 
> > My atheist father used to tell me that "might makes right" is a bad
> > philosophy?  Why?
> 
> Isn't "might makes right" basically the religious position? "I believe
> in an all-powerful God. That God says these things are good and those
> are evil, therefore I believe these are good and those are evil." 

No, that's not the position.  OK, it might actually be the practical
position for some people, but it is real bad theology and has not been
proposed in any serious work in Christianity that I'm aware of.

I think the most critical question involved is the understanding of the
transcendental:  Truths that are true, whether or not they are believed by
humans, or even whether they are perceived by humans; Reality that exists
apart from our perception.

In this framework, God is associated with the basis of reality and truth.
One way to look at it is to think of God as truth, righteousness, and love
that possesses self awareness.

Human words tend to picture God as a really really powerful being that is
otherwise much like us.  In particular, SciFi can often picture God as
really a mundane being with tremendous power.  

But, the Christian concept of God transcends this.  Thus, we see Jesus'
command to his disciples boil down to "love one another."  We see Jesus
saying "I am the Way the Truth and the Light."  The concept of God is not an
uberhuman, but something that transcends all descriptionsthat we can
only get a glance of.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[William T Goodall]

On 6 Sep 2006, at 2:31PM, Richard Baker wrote:



Or: how does God Himself decide what is good and evil? Isn't He, at
least, basically in the same position as us atheists?



I think I have an advantage in not being imaginary.

Real Me Maru
--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/

Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not
tried it.
-- Donald E. Knuth


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[Richard Baker]

JohnR said:

> My atheist father used to tell me that "might makes right" is a bad
> philosophy?  Why?

Isn't "might makes right" basically the religious position? "I believe
in an all-powerful God. That God says these things are good and those
are evil, therefore I believe these are good and those are evil." (And
if one happens to live in one of those unfortunate societies whose gods
rule that human sacrifice or whatever is good and necessary, well that's
just too bad for you.)

If not, then I fail to see how the religious and atheist positions differ. 

Or: how does God Himself decide what is good and evil? Isn't He, at
least, basically in the same position as us atheists?

Rich
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l