Since its larger, it uses more fuel, and hence, not that environmentally friendly
Not necessarily true. The 747-400 burns 20% more fuel per seat than the A380; and The 747-8I burns 12% more than the A380. The A380 is much more efficient and quieter. It was also made to more rigorous safety and environmental standards.
Of course you have no reason to believe otherwise, it's an unfalsifiable proposition! 'I believe there is a flying turtle outside the universe and see no reason to make me believe otherwise'.
The question is what reasons do you have to believe it in the first place? That's how the burden of proof works, and that's what people ask when they actually care whether or not their beliefs are true.
Adultery does not include rape, Especially not rape between a married couple.
Again for the 10th commandment, it does not forbid a husband from raping his wife, only another person's wife. It also doesn't forbid a man raping an unmarried woman (or man).
The Bible definitely condones rape:
==========
So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.
The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives. But there were not enough women for all of them. The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel. So the Israelite leaders asked, "How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead? There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever. But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God's curse."
Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'" So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes.
- (Judges 21:10-24 NLT)
=
They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.
Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.
- (Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)
=
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
- (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
=
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
- (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)
=
If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.
- (Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)
=
Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.'
Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord." Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die."
- (2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB)
=
"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion."
- (Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB)
=
They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera's spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil.
- (Judges 5:30 NAB)
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.
- (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
=
Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city.
- (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)
==========
Oh, and before someone replies saying "This is in the old testament", the same god that condones rape is the same god you worship (If you're Christian). It doesn't matter if he said these things a long time ago. Surely an omnipotent, omniscient god would know what's right and what's wrong, regardless of the time period. He wouldn't need the enlightened thinking of 21st century men.
Some people actually take the bible for what it says, including what it says about rape. Just look at Joseph Kony or Rick Santorum, as well as other Christian extremists.
The Bible even says that there was 500 witnesses that saw Jesus after He rose from the grave. Also the disciples and people who saw Him were eyewitnesses that saw Jesus.
How come NONE of these supposed 500 witnesses wrote about the event?
The disciples were eyewitnesses, but they didn't write the bible.
Please, do some research into the authorship of the bible - none of the authors (except perhaps Paul) ever knew Jesus - most weren't even alive when Christ was alive.
Scientific theories should be taught in the science classroom.
I suppose you would want Alchemy taught in Chemistry class? Should Astrology be taught too? In a Medical course, should homeopathy be taught?
All positions aren't equally valid and there simply isn't enough time to teach every single crackpot position that exists. That's why the one that has the most evidence supporting it is chosen.
God is my very best Friend. I can trust Him. I love Him. He is the reason that is continue to live on this earth. I will not turn my back on Him.
Now can you imagine, just for a moment, how much better this world would be if people like you had that kind of attitude towards other people?
How arrogant is this view, that the creator of the Universe, the designer of DNA, the engineer of galaxies, the master of maths and physics, should want to be your best friend. We are insignificant specks of dust in the vastness of this universe. Now imagine, rather than pretending that we are loved by the designer of the universe, that we acknowledge that we are small, and this universe can be dark and lonely and unpleasant, and work to make it a better place - by loving each other, not some imaginary friend.
Can you prove Allah as described by the Qur'an is not the true god? Can you prove I'm not a flying centaur that breathes fire? Therefore It's reasonable to assume that I am. Well, not quite...
Even though the burdern of proof is on you, your beliefs have still been proven wrong by Reventon; in the same way that a square circle cannot exist, an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god (Such as the Judeo-Christian god) can not exist.
It's possible, but we probably won't do a good job of it looking at how we're fucking this planet up. Simply going to the next planet isn't going to rid our careless and irreverent attitude towards our environment.
Our planet is one of a kind, it's the only planet we know that harbours life, and look how much we're doing to maintain and protect it...
Apart from causing damage to your bits, not really...
The questioner doesn't specify that the problems have to be medical, so I suppose if you are masturbating non-stop it will probably cause issues for your social life. Also, putting your hands in your pants in public isn't a good idea, some people may think you're a bit strange.
Don't ask us, ask the man himself; Read Mein Kampf.
The question isn't relevant anyway, his Christianity wasn't what caused him to hold the views he had. Although, the Christian environment, including the Christian population and the Catholic Church at the time did play a big role in perpetuating anti-semitic views and rarely spoke against him.
Call me crazy, but I don't think anyone has special rights over another human being just because they share 50% of their DNA. Motherhood is more than simply being the biologically related, it's about loving and nurturing a child, with all the benefits and responsibilities that it entails.
No, the argument could simply be extended to: Could a god(s) create a world without evil and with freewill? If yes, then he is not omnibenevolent, if no, then he is not omnipotent.
Omnipotence in itself is a contradiction; Could a god(s) create a rock so heavy that even he could not lift it?
The "Free will" that is presented in the bible is not free at all, it can be summarised as, 'You must use your free will the way I want you to or else I will torture you for eternity'.
I think it just looks better with out
If you are a man who would prefer it cut off then you should be allowed to have the procedure. But there is no right for anyone to non-consensually remove healthy and functioning tissue of a baby simply because they personally happen to think it looks better without.
I mean... why wait to get the disease? Just prevent it before.
That's like saying that babies should have their esophaguses cut in order to avoid the incredibly slim chance that they develop esophageal cancer later in their life.
Furthermore, there is no disease caused by having a foreskin, and there is no strong link between having a foreskin and an increased chance in getting STDs.
EDIT: Derped, meant to be disputed.
The costs you mention aren't anywhere near making the nation "bankrupt". Take for instance a switch from battery to free-range eggs. This would significantly decrease the harm suffered by millions of chickens and only cost the average citizen about $0.74 extra in eggs per month. This is based on data produced by a pro-battery (pro-factory farming) report.
If We, as a society, can send men to the Moon, we can feed our citizens and avoid torturing millions of animals. We as a nation have the capacity to address animal cruelty, environmental, and economical issues when it comes to food production.
Animals aren't machines. Our aim should not be to only make them more efficient and more profitable regardless of the non-monetary costs.
(Source: http://www.unitedegg.
Ah, God makes no mistakes.
So when a child is born in a remote part of the world, who God knows will surely die in horribly agony after just a few short years, that's not a mistake? God willed it to be? To think that God makes no mistakes you either have to be blind to all suffering in the world, or accept that God is an incredibly capricious, often malevolent being. To say that he makes no mistakes is to say that he wills everything to be so - everything is going according to his plan. Genocide, torture, rape, the lot of it - All his plan going perfectly fine. Oh, and if it wasn't, he could always fix it, he is omnipotent after all. But no, he sits back and he watches, arms folded. What a sick, twisted mother fucker. I don't understand how anyone could worship such a cruel being.
Just wondering what these "laws of nature" are that say homosexuality is wrong? If you think homosexuality is wrong, then please, justify that position without turning to a 2000 year old book. The question is not what one or two Palestinians once thought about homosexuality.
Homosexuality is natural as it occurs in nature. However, this doesn't make it right or wrong. The real question here is how do you define "wrong"? Does it violate others' human rights? Does it cause nonconsensual harm to anyone? What negative consequences exist (other than pissing off someone's imaginary friend) ?
Oh dear. It's really saddens me that so many people still think this whole magnificent universe was made just for them and there little clan of ignorant believers. Have fun with your childish fairytales, but please don't push your view on me or anyone else, and please don't let your nonsense dogma get in the way of real scientific advances that actually improve humanity.
Just go back to throwing rocks at each other, leave the rest of us alone.
" They go to heaven because they didn't know anything about God or Satan so God takes care of the children in Heaven."
Then stop telling us about God, and we'd all go to heaven. By your logic you're sending people to hell by telling them about God...
There is evidence for a soul.
They could not possibly "see" what happened if there brain was non-functional. Small remnants of twisted memories or last moments of vision can be convoluted by our brain, especially in circumstances of high brain activity and chemical release (in the brain). Basically, these "experiences" are imagined ones.
There is no way to objectively prove a soul exists. Many people claim that they've met/spoke with Allah, and some say the same about Yahweh. That does not count as evidence for each God, especially since both gods' existence is mutually exclusive.
You need to find better "evidence" for a soul than one or two people having a post-concious hypnotic episode.
Yes, it boils down to etymology. Why is this important? Because it changes the meaning of the word, significantly. I do call myself agnostic. I don't think humans can know whether or not there is a god or gods. However, because I do not strictly believe in one, I am not a theist, ergo I am an atheist.
As has been stated many times before, the word 'atheist' shouldn't exist as a title, it's like 'non- stamp collector'.
Before you radically generalise what atheists believe, look at the word actually means. Theist meaning believer in god, 'a' prefix meaning not. I can't stress enough the simplicity of the word.
if you have faith in god you can not worry as much as how we got here because we can simply say he created us....
People who thought like this is the reason we had the Dark Ages. It's a cop out to the millions of people who have contributed to human knowledge and understanding of the world just to say "Well fuck your science, magic did it". I'd rather an explanation, thanks. What you're basically saying is "If you're religious you don't need to worry about fancy pants explanations and logic". Well, good luck convincing anyone.
"come on we come from MATTER thats just dumb"
We are made from matter. Scientists know in very specific detail how matter rearranged itself to form us. Are you seriously saying that matter rearranging itself due to genetic variation/natural selection into differently arranged bits of matter is 'dumb', whereas believing a bearded wizard in the sky thought it all into existence as a perfectly legitimate theory? Seriously? Are you a troll?
but are evil self's want to think we are so smart so we make up are own answers that sound like i could happen that way
Scientists like most people recognise that they don't know anything. This is one of the core reasons why people choose to do science - To understand more about the world, to gain information and knowledge. This is a much better idea than saying "Fuck we're dumb, I guess god just did it all... Yeh let's teach that in school".
sorry atheists out there but your not as smart as god, get over it.
Yes, God is so smart that he decided he would create faulty humans then command them to fix themselves and start worshipping him. Then he decided to send his son to a desert in bronze age palestine where most people couldn't read or write. Yeh, that'll get the message across! Bloody genius.
Atheism doesn't mean "believing there isn't a god"
Atheism means "not believing in god"
Theism meaning belief in god, and the a prefix meaning not. This is not a difficult concept.
There could be invisible pink unicorns wearing top hats living at the edge of (or just beyond) the universe that secretly watch over us and are actually everywhere and actually came to Earth in human form (As Billy Mays). Many books were then written about Billy Mays and the invisible pink unicorns. Oh, the unicorns also created the universe. And they want you to mutilate your genitals and not make sculptures of any unicorns.
Hell, this could be the case, However there is no evidence for such. If I believe there are no such unicorns, is that really equivalent (in terms of faith) to saying I believe there is? The burden of proof is still on theists to prove that their god exists. Until that time, I shall not believe that there is a god. I call myself an atheist, meaning a person who does not believe there is a god.
In reality, "Muslim terrorists" are probably about as quick to commit suicide as any other terrorist.
Although, I guess religious terrorists who believe they are committing the will of God and think they will live in eternal paradise after they die will probably value life on Earth a little less.
The Qur'an says not to kill people, but it also commands the killing of people.
The Bible says not to kill people, but it also commands the killing of people.
Both books contradict themselves.
Again, the 'real islam' is still the no true scotsman fallacy. Any one person can claim that their interpretation of the Qur'an is correct, and that all others' interpretations are wrong. Both the Qur'an and the Bible can be interpreted to mean pretty much anything you want - But the point still remains that both books condone physical punishment and killing, and the Qur'an condones violent jihad.
Islam should not be judged on what some extremists do. Nor should any other religion. However, we still need to ask how they came to their interpretation. We still need to judge Islam on the Qur'an, and Christianity on the Bible.
The 'real' islam is indeed as you put it respecting people. It's a bit of a shame that in the same response you also called me a disgusting person, (proving that the real Islam is contradiction) but that's okay. Let's both stray away from ad hominem attacks.
I don't assume what Islam is about, but I have read the Qur'an, so what makes my interpretations less valid than yours? I accept I still know very little about Islam, but it's hard to look past the blatant words of the Qur'an - and to take direct meaning from them. You can dress the words up all you want, just as many Christians do the bible, but they both still say some pretty awful things and condone some pretty awful behaviour (and even command it). Especially for one religion where "God is love" and the other a "Religion of peace".
While i will concide that religious fanaticism greatly increases the willingness (and thus frequency) to kill oneself in angry, i think desperation is also a primary cause.
You see desparation is the fuel of religion, and the more extreme the religious views the better.
I totally agree with your statement. The thing is though, religion often fuels desparity. We are constantly being told be religious institutions that we're fighting a war of ideas; portraits are being painted of a society where we need to fight against ideas we don't like, and fight to bring forth ideas we support. Non-issues are being depicted as something we should despair over, causing fear in the minds of many people.
And whats your opinion of Chrsitianity?
I was brought up a Christian and know that parts of the bible are as bad or worse than parts of the Qur'an. Sure, it has some good bits in it, so does the Qur'an, but that doesn't give you the ability to overlook the bad bits, especially if you consider any one text to be infallible.
What if we put on "In no god we trust" instead?
Would that be acceptable under the First Amendment? Why not?
.
.
.
^ The answer to that question is why the phrase "In god we trust" should not be endorsed by the US Government. It's really rather simple.
oh yeah? following one book is better than following a million!
I follow what is true. The entirety of truth is not found in one book.
So do you ignore what is in the Qur'an? Under Sharia law what is the penalty for apostacy?
You don't respect my religion because I don't have one. And I have no obligation to respect your religion. You have no right not to be offended or your beliefs disrespected. I think Islam and the Qur'an disgusting and I find its teachings immoral - it discriminates against women, homosexuals and non-muslims. It is an anachronism and has no place in a modern, tolerant society.
What other than a calling from god would cause sane people to kill themselves and others in acts of terrorism?
Current videogame characters can't feel pain.
However, we could be part of a videogame, or at least a simulated reality.
If computers develop to the extent that entire universes can be simulated, then it is very likely we are living in a simulated universe rather than the one actual universe.
But then again, what is "reality", which universe is the "real" one?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Keep god/religion out of government.
Qur'an 2:191 (English Translation)
"And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers."
I'd really hate to be forced to follow Islam and be placed under such unfair restrictions made by an illiterate prophet under penalty of death: (Qur'an 4:89 : "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they). But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (from what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks.")
but those terrorists who say that they are muslims are not muslims
This is the No True Scotsman fallacy. Any religious person can claim that an extremist is not a true follower of their religion. It is meaningless. If they call themselves muslim and shout "الله_أكبر" as they fly a plane into a building then they are as much a muslim as you are.
You know what would be great? If people weren't forced to live their lives by one book.
The government should not control peoples lives.
People should be allowed to put whatever substance they want in their mouths. The governments role is to educate people about the risks, leaving them the freedom to choose whether or not to take such substances. If people want to smoke, let them smoke. If people want to take drugs, let them do so. Banning cigarettes will only make them more popular. Educating people about the harmful effects of smoking will make them less popular.
OK yes you sound smart but i can always say what made that? over and over again till you have no idea what to say.
Saying that at some point "God did it" doesn't solve the problem. It's equivalent to giving up. Science doesn't currently know all the answers to the universe (neither does the bible), but that doesn't mean you can say 'therefore god did it', and pretend it is an intellectual argument. Is this statement valid: "Science doesn't know X, therefore the Flying Spaghetti Monster caused X. "?
if you believe we come from matter or a big bang kinda the same thing, that means you don't believe in love its just chemical reactions
Love is just chemical and physical reactions, regardless of whether you accept the big bang or believe in some creation myth. This universe is physical, everything within it is also physical.
matter is your Creator and God is mine i rather go with God over matter.
Matter and energy are the only things that can exist in this universe. God is not matter or energy, ergo God does not exist in this universe and cannot interact with it. We cannot communicate or interact with anything outside this universe, and if there is anything outside the universe, whether it be god or a teapot, is completely irrelevant.
Gaining knowledge is the incentive, you should be lucky you get the opportunity to be taught by educational professionals for free (Talking about public schools). If you don't want to learn, then don't go to school, but good luck with the rest of your life.
Schooling is a massive advantage, don't take it for granted - millions of children all over the world don't get the opportunity to receive an education.
Do you have any evidence for this? Can you provide an explanation as to how you actually transport to heaven or hell? Is it just your soul? Can you define soul? Do you have any evidence that a soul exists? How does a soul move from one place to another?
At the end of the day, when you're dead, you're dead. You can't think or feel - You do not have consciousness. There is no reason to suggest that somehow you magically appear at a mysterious location on the basis of whether or not you believed in one specific interpretation of one god.
Even if there was a heaven and hell, entry should be granted on the basis of your contribution to society and the works you have done, not on which god you did or did not believe in. The Christian heaven and hell is disgusting; theoretically a serial killer or serial rapist could get into heaven, simply because he believes in god. On the other hand, a child who is born in a remote region of Africa who dies a few days afterwards is destined to go to hell and burn for eternity, simply because he/she never heard about your specific God. Hitler could go to eternal paradise, but Gandhi must burn for eternity; why? Such a belief is ridiculous. Any God that commands this is demonstrably cruel and hateful.
At the end of the day, no one knows what happens to people after they die, and no one can know. It doesn't help to speculate about heaven and hell, using it as a tool to scare children and adults into believing a religion and following religious dogma.
Yet another Call of Duty game with very little new substance. A new campaign and a few maps and you've got a game that obsequious fanboys can't resist paying $80 for, simply because it's made by a popular franchise. The story is weak and there is very little improvement from MW2. IMHO, Call of Duty has been going downhill since CoD5 and it will continue to do so. It's lost its appeal and has become purely profit motivated, with no real care for the quality of the game.
Battlefield 3 > CoD8 (Hopefully the last).
Haters gonna hate.
Just because a desert bandit called Abraham or Muhamad had a sexual circumcision fetish why should millions of people have to go through this disgusting ritual? Almost all circumcisions are on babies and children, not on grown adults. They do not decide, they do not choose, someone chooses for them. Should we allow fundamentalist muslims to cut off the clitoris of their female children? If someone wants to mutilate their own bodies in this way then fine, but people should not have the right to do so onto innocent children who have no say in the matter.
Disadvantages of circumcision:
(From http://www.circinfo.com/
a. Unnecessary Operation.
If performed in the absence of essential indications, or as a routine procedure, it may be an unnecessary operation. Some men who were circumcised in infancy feel that they have been mutilated and deprived of an important structure without their consent and they are just as obsessional about this as those who clamour to be circumcised. On the other hand feelings of regret or resentment are not engendered in men who are coerced into having the operation when it is not essential (e.g. going to sea or request of fiancée) and they are just as pleased as those who are done for say phimosis.
b. Theoretical Risks.
As with any other operation there are theoretical risks of bleeding, infection, surgical error and death under the anaesthetic. Out-of-date statistics and 'horror' stories from the past are still quoted even though modern infant circumcision with a 'Plastibell' under 'Ketalar' anaesthesia is devoid of these complications. Adults and adolescents can be circumcised using only local anaesthesia so as to again eliminate the risks.
c. Psychological Harm.
It has been suggested that the operation may cause psychological harm if it is performed at an unsuitable age. It may well be that separation from parents and not the operation is the factor because I have never been able to find any evidence of psychological trauma. Also if circumcision is not explained the child may be disturbed to find he is different from his brothers and friends. Life may also be made miserable by remarks from his uncircumcised school-fellows in the showers about the shorn state of his organ. Conversely in a society where infant circumcision is the rule it is the uncircumcised scholar who is made to feel inferior by his class-mates.
d. Meatitis.
If an uncircumcised infant gets a nappy (diaper) rash his foreskin becomes inflamed but his glans is protected. In the circumcised infant if the glans becomes involved, a sore (meatitis) develops at the opening of the water pipe (meatus) and passing water is painful. The meatus soon heals, occasionally there is slight scarring and very rarely the opening may have to be stretched. Napkin rash is caused by urine in sodden napkins decomposing and releasing ammonia so the condition can be prevented by proper hygiene. Modern high-absorbancy disposable nappies also make the risk negligible. The risk of meatitis, which is the most common complication of circumcision in infancy, is advanced as the main argument against routine circumcision but little mention is made of the fact that balanitis in the uncircumcised male later in life is the most common cause of meatal scarring. Severe inflammation of the foreskin due to nappy rash can result in phimosis or balanitis and thus in any case lead to a need for circumcision.
e. Loss of Sensitivity.
A number of men complain that a loss of sensitivity or dryness of the glans following circumcision has spoiled their sex lives. At the other extreme are those who seek the operation to achieve these changes in the glans to enhance their sex lives. These complaints are similar to the mutilation obsession because men with naturally short foreskins are not troubled by having the glans exposed.
You asked a rather loaded question.
If one says no then they are saying evolution isn't true.
If one says yes then they are saying atheists are apes.
According to evolution, atheists are not apes and humans are not apes. Apes and humans share a common ancestor.
Sir, you have clearly not read the Holy Scriptures of The Flying Spaghetti Monster.
As it says In The Beginning, Verse 27:
"So The Flying Spaghetti Monster created man in his own image, in the image of The Flying Spaghetti Monster he created him; angel-hair and macaroni he created them."
All men are made in the image of The FSM, even if they are not believers in the truth of The FSM's existence.
It's amazing that idiots actually voted up your pathetic dribble. All the evidence points to an Earth that is 4.5 billion years old, not 6000. All the evidence points to a slow evolution of life via natural selection. Next time you get sick and require antibiotics (that are developed on the premise that evolution is correct), rather than take them, why don't you pray to your god instead and see what happens?
Baboons are not apes, make up your mind.
Atheism != Evolution.
Atheism does not state that people are apes, nor does evolution. According to evolution via natural selection, humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor.
Also, atheists are not a different species, they are a group of rational people. You mad bro?
...Gas would have continued moving outward that its same speed as there would be no way to change the trajectory gasses and particles to cause them to clump together to form atoms.
Have you heard of gravity?
By the laws of physics, the BB should have created equal amounts of positive matter and negative matter, yet there are only small amounts of negative matter in the known universe.
What are you trying to prove, that the laws of physics are wrong?
Gasses - Gasses do not clump together, not even on earth, they actually push apart. So how in the BB and stellar evolutionary theory would they clump together to form atoms? Think about fog, fog is a gas, have you ever witnessed or heard of fog clumping together? No, it dissipates, pushes apart. This is a physical law.
Yes, certain gases dissipate at certain temperatures and pressures, the reverse is also true. What about in an environment with very low pressure and a temp of near 0K?
Have you really never heard of gravity or the nuclear forces?
Your argument was pretty pathetic, especially considering you did not once mention evolution via natural selection (As implied).
The great thing about the internet is the large number of sources of information. You can easily cross-check information on various independent websites increasing the likelihood it is correct. The same cannot be said for what one student hears from one teacher.
No one is saying the internet is definitely better than traditional education, and that people should turn to the internet as their one source of information. At the end of the day, however, the accumulated information of billions of people far outweighs that of one teacher. Because there are so many independent sources of information on the internet, it is far easier to determine what information is credibly and what isn't. In a classroom you can't check information in this way, you just have to listen to what one person tells you.
No price can be put on a human life. The main reason for the ridiculously higher amount of people in American jails is the war on drugs. Most people in prison in America are there because of minor possession offences. If you want to cut down expenses, stop the ridiculous war on drugs - stop incarcerating people for such minor offences.
"“An eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind" - M. K. Gandhi.
There is no need for the death penalty. All it proves is that governments and judicial systems will stoop to the same low level as the criminals they are punishing. These criminals need to be isolated to protect society, this is why prisons exist. There is simply no need to kill them. Revenge against a human life does not accomplish anything, it is not justice.
Ask any climate scientist - They will tell you that the change in climate we have been experiencing recently is largely due to man-made CO2 and greenhouse gas production.
Natural processes are VERY well understood but they do not explain the recent warming the planet has been experiencing.
By allowing the government to kill criminals it proves that the government and the rest of society can stoop to the same low level as the criminals themselves. It proves that we are not better than them, that we are shallow and frivolously vengeful.
Everyone knows the Earth goes through natural cycles of warming and cooling, the most profound of these are the Milankovitch cycles. The peak of these cycles occurs ever 41,000 years.
We're far from the next peak, it's still about 30,000 years away, yet we are experiencing unusual warming. Solar activity and other factors have remained constant, the only major difference is anthropogenic CO2. Any warming that we create is amplified by natural cycles which warm the planet further.
No one is disputing that natural cycles exist and have an effect, but they are very well understood and we know they aren't responsible for the recent warming we are observing.
Mao gave the working classes their freedom and independence back; he split the land up equally amongst them and in doing so, removed harassment by landlords.
Communisms goes against basic human-nature.
How does communism go against basic human nature? What's so wrong about treating all people as equal? What's so wrong about providing everyone a job? What's so wrong about an internally stable Economic system?
...and practice of Communism is a retard regardless of there IQ...
Well actually, mental retardation is determined by IQ.
I do not believe that you can weigh the quality of life by simple numbers. But the fact is that there are 11 people who you assume are of equal value and equal worth to society. If there was a difference in the men's value then that could obviously change who you choose to die.
If all men are equal (and presumably of equal value) then why do you prefer 10 die rather than just 1?
You are in a position where if you act you save 10 people's lives and 1 dies.
If you don't act then you save 1 person's life and 10 die.
The question revolves around the lesser of two evils. Of course both are horrible outcomes, but which one is less so? Please argue how you think 9 people dying is better than 1.
Your analogy is flawed. In the original scenario you are the one who has two options:
You kill the one man.
You don't kill the one man and let 10 die. We don't have any explanation as to why they are being killed, we are told they are innocent. If you don't act then you are letting 10 people die. You can easily act and save their lives. It is murder if you let them die. You have a duty of care over them.
This is your choice and you are the one who is killing the people. You are directly responsible for their deaths. With your analogy you are not responsible for the death of the 10 men, but neither are you for the death of 1.
The problem is, what gives you the right to determine who lives and who dies? That power should not belong to anyone in the modern world.
The point of this scenarios is that it is up to you who lives and who dies.
Also, killing that one man is murder. That is an inescapable truth.
Letting 10 people die when you have the power to save them is also murder. Both are wrong, it becomes a question of which is the lesser evil? Which is less wrong? At the end of the day, there are only two outcomes. (Presuming suicide is not an option.)
9 People die
1 Person dies.
All are innocent. Would you rather 9 innocent lives die or just 1?
The vast majority of studies show a large range of influences that can affect a persons sexuality. No single factor can be cited as the sole cause for sexual orientation.
However, studies such as Twin Studies show that genetic factors are most likely to be the predominant cause.
(List: http://www.tim-taylor.com/papers/
---------------------------------------
The largest twin study was the Bailey & Pillard study which found a 52% concordance of homosexuality between monozygotic (Identical) twins.
(When an identical twin is homosexual, 52% of the time the other twin is also homosexual.)
Similar studies also found that between dizygotic twins (twins that share ~50% genetic information) the 52% figure drops
(22% in the Bailey & Pillard study), but is still about double the normal occurrence.
The important thing that these studies show is that there is a significant link between genetics and sexual orientation. The more genetically similar two people are, the more likely they share the same sexual orientation.
If homosexuality was caused by environmental factors then there shouldn't be any difference between homosexuality between monozygotic and dizygotic twins - Yet there is a difference of 30%.
You are saying that you are not responsible for the death of the 10 men, but you are for the 1. I think that you are responsible for the death of the 10 men if you stand idly by, letting them die. You kill them out of neglect.
Imagine a different scenario; 10 Men are going to be killed unless you can press one button to save them.
If you stand there and don't press the button then you are a criminal for you can do something to save those people. You have a duty to rescue/duty of care over them. If you press the button then you are responsible for saving their lives.
The original scenario just changes this button to the death of 1. Another way to think about it is this: If you kill the 1 in order to save the 10, you are directly responsible for the survival of the 10 men. They will no doubt thank you for saving them. If you are responsible for their life then you are also responsible for their lack of life.
It's a selfish detachment to claim that you aren't responsible for the deaths of the other 10.
Also, if one average person might have an positive impact of unknown intensity on society somehow, then how about 10?
Sorry for bringing logic to this debate.
I agree with you that it is impossible to know how the individuals involved in the scenario will directly/indirectly help/harm society. You go on to talk about the benefits that one person can bring... "the possibility that some average person triggered an incredible idea in the mind of a genius"
If one person could be a genius, then what about 10?
You cannot know the value of each person to society, like you have stated. I therefore think that it is a matter of simple arithmetic.
In this scenario we cannot know who is of more/less value so we assume they are all equal.
The vast majority of studies show a large range of influences that can affect a persons sexuality. No single factor can be cited as the sole cause for sexual orientation.
However, studies such as Twin Studies show that genetic factors are most likely to be the predominant cause.
(List: http://www.tim-taylor.com/papers/
---------------------------------------
The largest twin study was the Bailey & Pillard study which found a 52% concordance of homosexuality between monozygotic (Identical) twins.
(When an identical twin is homosexual, 52% of the time the other twin is also homosexual.)
Similar studies also found that between dizygotic twins (twins that share ~50% genetic information) the 52% figure drops
(22% in the Bailey & Pillard study), but is still about double the normal occurrence.
The important thing that these studies show is that there is a significant link between genetics and sexual orientation.
The more genetically similar two people are, the more likely they share the same sexual orientation.
The very fact that infinity exists allows us to have whole numbers.
---------------------------------------
1 is short for
1.
(followed by an infinite amount of 0's)
We just denote it as "1", it is still infinitely long.
---------------------------------------
Just as 0.99 is short for
0.9900000000000000000000000000....
(followed by an infinite amount of 0's)
We just denote it as "0.99".
---------------------------------------
It seems that the only real argument against gay marriage is because the bible says it is wrong. That is your personal belief and your personal opinion, don't force it on to others. The bible says homosexuality is a sin and you extend this to say that gay marriage should not be allowed. Fine, don't get married to someone of the same gender as you.
No one's forcing you to marry someone of the same gender. If your personal belief system tells you that it is wrong then fine, don't have same-sex partners. That doesn't mean you need to go around inflicting your dogma onto the general population.
Now, you cannot possibly say that it is immoral and then quote the bible. Blind obedience to ancient texts is about as far away from morality as you can get. The bible isn't a moral code just because it holds conservative view points.
---------------------------------------
If the bible really was a source of infallible morals, then it should be perfectly moral to:
Sell one's daughters as sex slaves (Exodus 21:7-11)
Kill adulterers (Leviticus 20:10)
Kill blasphemers (Leviticus 24:10-16)
Rape women (Isaiah 13:15-18)
Kill women, babies and children (Isaiah 14:21), (Hosea 9:11-16), (Ezekiel 9:5-7), (Exodus 12:29-30), (Isaiah 13:15-18).
---------------------------------------
Morality should be something which can be discussed with reason, logic and evidence. There is no logical reason why homosexuality is wrong. By denying homosexuals the right to marry you are creating a second class of people; you are discriminating against them by saying that they are not worthy of long-term, legally recognised relationships, yet heterosexuals are.
Evolution is the best scientific explanation that we have for long and short term change in a population of organisms. It describes a physical process that explains how species change over time.
It should be taught in science because it is a theory based on empirical evidence which can be tested and justified - It is also accepted in the wider scientific community.
It may not be a complete explanation, but it's a heck of a lot better than a non-explanation such as "god did it". Such "explanations" do not explain; they provide no mechanism, no process that explains the diversity of species that we have today.
