| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
09 Mar 2005 04:12:13 PM |
| Object: |
Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
between humans and animals.
If you were in Germany
a) in the 1890s, and
b) in the 1930s,
would you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
c) Today, in 2005, do you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
And on what basis?
Do you support or oppose the right of medical personnel to
perform for the sake of convenience:
abortion/ fetuscide/ killing of pre-born human life?
partial-birth abortions?
infanticide?
involuntary euthanasia?
mass killings of middle-aged individuals?
Weikart, Richard. 2004. _From Darwin to Hitler:
Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany_
(USA: Palgrave Macmillan), 312pp. About Weikart's
book:
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407030531.19253d93%40posting.google.com
On 76:
Haeckel and many other German Darwinists fought
incessantly against all dualistic views of humans, which
endued human life with much greater value than
animals. For Haeckel and most German Darwinists,
humans were not much different from animals, and they
often criticized Christians and other dualists for insisting
on significant qualitative distinctions between humans
and animals.^13
On 90:
Haeckel regularly marshaled Darwinian arguments in
support of inegalitarianism. In _The Natural History of
Creation_ (1868) he explained that
_between the most highly developed animal soul and the
least developed human soul there exists only a small
quantitative, but no qualitative difference_, and that this
difference is much less, than the difference between the
lowest and the highest human souls, or as the difference
between the highest and lowest animal souls.^3
Dawkins, Richard. 2003. _A Devil's Chaplain: Reflections
on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love_ (USA: Houghton Mifflin
Company), 263pp. A paragraph on 26:
I have argued that the discontinuous gap between
humans and 'apes' that we erect in our minds is
regrettable. I have also argued that, in any case, the
present position of the hallowed gap is arbitrary, the
result of evolutionary accident. If the contingencies of
survival and extinction had been different, the gap
would be in a different place. Ethical principles that are
based upon accidental caprice should not be respected as
if cast in stone.
Williams, George C. 1997. _The Pony Fish's Glow: And
Other Clues to Plan and Purpose in Nature_ (USA:
BasicBooks), 184pp. On 155-6:
Our experience of human life histories today, with the
great majority of our babies surviving to adulthood, is
grossly abnormal.
.... The infanticide I mentioned is not a social pathology
found only in abnormal circumstances. It is prevalent
today in diverse human cultures, including some that we
might not think of as primitive; it is widespread in a large
proportion of the animal kingdom; and it is entirely to
be expected from what we know of evolution. These
assertions are abundantly documented in the technical
literature of anthropology and biology, and infanticide is
just one small detail of a monstrous picture. Mountains
of data on parasitism and predation (including
cannibalism) in nature could be amassed to document
the enormity of the pain and mayhem that arise from
adaptations produced by natural selection.
.... This [just-described explanation] is why infanticide
is adaptive for the male [monkey].
A paragraph on 160:
The only realistic view is that a human life arises
gradually. A child’s acquisition of speech, and use of it
to convey ideas to others, is perhaps the most obvious
indication of this process. This gradualism is not much
help in making personal decisions or devising public
policy. We want clear and simple rules as guides for
human behavior and the recognition of who should be
accorded human rights. The recognition of full
humanity in a full-term newborn would be one such
simple rule. I am not inclined to argue that it is the best
possible, but it makes more sense than any recognition
of fetal rights. All the usual arguments for rights before
birth are based either on an untenable biological
definition of humanity or on fetal behavioral
attainments. The observable capabilities of a human
fetus can all be matched in other mammals at
comparable stages of development.
1995 Dennett: "Darwinian thinking helps us see why the
traditional hope of solving these problems (finding a moral
algorithm) is forlorn"
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0408021033.78218bde%40posting.google.com
Taking a firm, godless stand for death
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0410291758.3dfffe4b%40posting.google.com
Convert to secular humanism to enjoy guiltless sexual
activity of many varieties.
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0409241109.17e2611d%40posting.google.com
Secular humanism has everything to do with abortion and
euthanasia.
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0408161826.47fa8898%40posting.google.com
Haeckel's influence on many Germans as with Goldschmidt,
in 1983 Bruce Alberts; Haeckel's fraudulent embryo
depictions; 1956 Goldschmidt
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-38m3vrF5o7bk2U1%40individual.net
2004 Richard Weikart: "physicians... were committed to a racist
eugenics ideology that the Nazis favored"
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407120310.7d3f3929%40posting.google.com
Haeckel on murdering the disabled
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407271740.7ae3b80b%40posting.google.com
.
|
|
| User: "skyeyes" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
11 Mar 2005 04:07:36 PM |
|
|
Jez wrote:
Feel free to explain the difference between humans and animals.
Animals are not dumb enough to sit in front of a T.V. 8 hours a day ?
I dunno. My big male cat *loves* to watch TV. He even sits staring at
it when it's not on.
Years ago I had a cat who knew how to turn the TV on - using the
zapper, no less - and did so frequently in the middle of the night.
Then she would sit in the recline and just veg out and watch the boob
tube.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
11 Mar 2005 04:18:18 PM |
|
|
On 11 Mar 2005 14:07:36 -0800, "skyeyes" <skyeyes@dakotacom.net>
wrote:
Jez wrote:
Feel free to explain the difference between humans and animals.
Animals are not dumb enough to sit in front of a T.V. 8 hours a day ?
I dunno. My big male cat *loves* to watch TV. He even sits staring at
it when it's not on.
Years ago I had a cat who knew how to turn the TV on - using the
zapper, no less - and did so frequently in the middle of the night.
Then she would sit in the recline and just veg out and watch the boob
tube.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
When I was a kid, we had a waist-level combination door-knocker and
letterbox flap.
Our cat learned to raise the knocker and let it drop, to get let in.
.
|
|
|
| User: "skyeyes" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
11 Mar 2005 04:29:53 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
Our cat learned to raise the knocker and let it drop, to get let in.
Aren't they amazing little fuzzballs? I find them easier to train than
dogs, although most folks disagree with me on that.
'Course, that's not counting the one of mine who's on Paxil. <G> Yes,
it's true: I have a cat on antidepressants.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
.
|
|
|
| User: "Danny Kodicek" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
11 Mar 2005 04:57:40 PM |
|
|
"skyeyes" <skyeyes@dakotacom.net> wrote in message
news:1110580193.181640.41060@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
Our cat learned to raise the knocker and let it drop, to get let in.
Aren't they amazing little fuzzballs? I find them easier to train than
dogs, although most folks disagree with me on that.
'Course, that's not counting the one of mine who's on Paxil. <G> Yes,
it's true: I have a cat on antidepressants.
Well, let's face it, it's a tough life.
By the way - my cat learned the same trick with the doorknocker - scared the
hell out of my grandmother one night when she came to stay. She was
convinced it was burglars - although she refused to comment on why burglars
would knock on the door.
Danny
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
11 Mar 2005 05:15:41 PM |
|
|
skyeyes wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
Our cat learned to raise the knocker and let it drop, to get let in.
Aren't they amazing little fuzzballs? I find them easier to train
than
dogs, although most folks disagree with me on that.
'Course, that's not counting the one of mine who's on Paxil. <G>
Yes,
it's true: I have a cat on antidepressants.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
I think cat is smarter than dog just because it is harder to teach them
to do stupid things. The dog will bring the same stick several times.
The cat quickly learns just those activities what she finds useful.
I have never seen any cat in the circus. They are too unpredictable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "skyeyes" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
11 Mar 2005 05:31:47 PM |
|
|
wrote:
I think cat is smarter than dog just because it is harder to teach
them to do stupid things. The dog will bring the same stick severa
times. The cat quickly learns just those activities what she finds
useful.
Cats and dogs have vastly different psychologies. Dogs get off on
pleasing the "alpha" pack member, i.e., the human. Cats recognize no
"alpha" animal, and therefore couldn't care less if a human is pleased.
I have never seen any cat in the circus. They are too unpredictable.
Does that count big cats, lions, tigers, that sort of thing? Because
they're all over the circuses I've been to. Their degree of
trainability is no different from that of the common house cat.
At any rate, I've seen dozens of performing house cats, and they
perform quite predictably. You just have to find a treat they really,
REALLY like - then they'll perform all day. =-)
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Siobhan Burke" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
15 Mar 2005 05:19:04 AM |
|
|
In article <m56431t4csbmnv6dlk23s1nl611vfne21j@4ax.com>,
calee@optonline.net says...
On 11 Mar 2005 14:07:36 -0800, "skyeyes" <skyeyes@dakotacom.net>
wrote:
Jez wrote:
Feel free to explain the difference between humans and animals.
Animals are not dumb enough to sit in front of a T.V. 8 hours a day ?
I dunno. My big male cat *loves* to watch TV. He even sits staring at
it when it's not on.
Years ago I had a cat who knew how to turn the TV on - using the
zapper, no less - and did so frequently in the middle of the night.
Then she would sit in the recline and just veg out and watch the boob
tube.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
When I was a kid, we had a waist-level combination door-knocker and
letterbox flap.
Our cat learned to raise the knocker and let it drop, to get let in.
One of my cats learned to open the door between the garage and
the kitchen by turning the knob and then leaning on it when he
felt the "give" as the bolt drew back. He never managed any
other of the doorknobs in the house, but he was hell on that
one. The other cat was crazy about Dorothy Lamour. Whenever
she was on the TV he make a beeline for the set, then just sit
there, reaching up to pat her face whenever there was a close
up. Not even an occasional static shock deterred him.
--
Siobhan - a.a. #2201
siobhan.burke@CARRIERatt.net
Drop CARRIER to email
"But as a general rule, when things look bad there's always some
***** who can make them worse." -- Terry Pratchett
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
12 Mar 2005 07:39:06 AM |
|
|
skyeyes wrote:
Jez wrote:
Feel free to explain the difference between humans and animals.
Animals are not dumb enough to sit in front of a T.V. 8 hours a day ?
I dunno. My big male cat *loves* to watch TV. He even sits staring at
it when it's not on.
Hmmm, through the years I've had a number of dogs, and cats, (Stuck with
2 cats at the moment.),and
not one of them ever showed any interest in TV at all !!
Guess I just had some boring pets eh.
Years ago I had a cat who knew how to turn the TV on - using the
zapper, no less - and did so frequently in the middle of the night.
Then she would sit in the recline and just veg out and watch the boob
tube.
Hehe......clever little creature !!
--
Jez
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
NFS Underground2, Americas Army And MOH-PA
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
10 Mar 2005 11:20:02 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
between humans and animals.
If you were in Germany
a) in the 1890s, and
b) in the 1930s,
would you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
c) Today, in 2005, do you sup port or oppose Haeckel's view?
And on what basis?
Do you support or oppose the right of medical personnel to
perform for the sake of convenience:
abortion/ fetuscide/ killing of pre-born human life?
Ford dishonestly attempts to load the question, just as he
dishonestly quotes out of context: without conscience or
a care. Here is how you ask a question honestly and
without loading. Do you approve of this, Ford?:
So the assembly sent twelve thousand fighting men with
instructions to go to Jabesh Gilead and put to the sword
those living there, including the women and children. "This
is what you are to do," they said. "Kill every male and every
woman who is not a virgin." They found among the people
living in Jabesh Gilead four hundred young women who had
never slept with a man, and they took them to the camp at
Shiloh in Canaan. -- Judges 21:10-12
partial-birth abortions?
No such thing.
infanticide?
No. How about you? Do you approve of:
Their bows will strike down the young men; they will have no
mercy on infants nor will they look with compassion on children.
-- Isaiah 13:18
involuntary euthanasia?
mass killings of middle-aged individuals?
No. How about you? Do you approve of:
"'Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity
or compassion. Slaughter old men, young men and maidens,
women and children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark.
Begin at my sanctuary.' So they began with the elders who were
in front of the temple." -- Ezekiel 9:5-6
How about it Ford? Do you approve of:
The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they
have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword;
their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant
women ripped open." -- Hosea 13:16
Tell us what the pre-born human life did to rebel against "God" Ford.
No, I don't suspect you will be answering these questions any time
soon.
Weikart, Richard. 2004. _From Darwin to Hitler:
Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany_
(USA: Palgrave Macmillan), 312pp. About Weikart's
book:
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407030531.19253d93%40posting.google.com
On 76:
Haeckel and many other German Darwinists fought
incessantly against all dualistic views of humans, which
endued human life with much greater value than
animals. For Haeckel and most German Darwinists,
humans were not much different from animals,
David Ford is the guy who consciously and intentionally takes
passages out of context to alter the meaning of the text in his
obsessive, one-track hatred of science in general and evolution in
particular. It doesn't matter to him that he has persuaded no one
to his POV. And I'm guessing that someday he will have occasion
to look back on his massive archive of hate and dishonesty and be
appalled, disgusted and ashamed. If he is lucky
Here, he quotes creationist Weikart, playing the Hitler card, from
his book. The amusing blurb for it states:
From Darwin to Hitler" is a compelling and painstakingly researched
work of intellectual history, inwhich Weikart explains the
revolutionary
impact Darwinism had on ethics and morality. He demonstrates that
many leading Darwinian biologists and social thinkers in Germany
believed that Darwinism overturned traditional Judeo-Christian and
Enlightenment ethics, especially those pertaining to the sacredness of
human life. Many of these thinkers supported moral relativism ...
Notice the implication that traditional "Judeo-Christian
ethics" is other than "Moral relativism." If Ford was honest
and had the courage to address my questions to him regards
the previous Bible passages I quoted, he wwould defend the
cold blooded slaughter outlined therein as being perfectly moral
because "God" was behind it. You see, to those with radical
situational ethics like Ford, it is not the _act_ of murder,
genocide, rape, or his chronic dishonesty, that is intrinsically
evil, immoral or wrong. How could they be when such things
are ordered by his god? No, such things are subjectively moral
or immoral depending on "God's" wishes (as interpreted by Ford)
at any given moment.
I and humanists in general find this extreme moral relativity
depraved and repellent. To us, murder, genocide, etc is immmoral
period. It would not matter to us if there was a god and he said it
was ok or not. People like Ford find this attitude quaint and
arrogant: who are we to question the "sublime" morality of "God"
-commanded genocide let alone refuse to participate in it if God
wants it?
Of course, people like Ford are not oblivious to how this makes
them appear. Ford and his cronies are very reluctant to admit to
their approval of killing infants, woman and children because
some members of their group "rebelled" against "God." But make
no mistake, they do indeed suscribe to such putrid ethics--while
smuggly lying about non-believers, accusing them of what they
know they are really guilty of believing. For instance, you will
never see Ford condemn those actions described in the passages I quote.
Ford isn't ashamed by this. At most he will be embarrassed
by my exposure of his radical situational ethics. Ethics? Did
I say "ethics"? I should amend that. I can honestly say that
I can't complain about Ford's ethics--he doesn't have any.
e
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
20 Mar 2005 07:40:31 PM |
|
|
wrote:
david ford wrote:
In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
between humans and animals.
If you were in Germany
a) in the 1890s, and
b) in the 1930s,
would you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
c) Today, in 2005, do you sup port or oppose Haeckel's view?
And on what basis?
Do you support or oppose the right of medical personnel to
perform for the sake of convenience:
abortion/ fetuscide/ killing of pre-born human life?
Ford dishonestly attempts to load the question, just as he
dishonestly quotes out of context: without conscience or
a care. Here is how you ask a question honestly and
without loading. Do you approve of this, Ford?:
So the assembly sent twelve thousand fighting men with
instructions to go to Jabesh Gilead and put to the sword
those living there, including the women and children. "This
is what you are to do," they said. "Kill every male and every
woman who is not a virgin." They found among the people
living in Jabesh Gilead four hundred young women who had
never slept with a man, and they took them to the camp at
Shiloh in Canaan. -- Judges 21:10-12
Could you provide more details about the circumstances?
Was an absence of virginity associated with the possession of say
syphilis, or some other sexually-transmitted disease/s?
partial-birth abortions?
No such thing.
Are you OK with the use of the abortion procedure known as 'dilation and
extraction'?
infanticide?
No.
Your response is ambiguous. Are you OK with infanticide?
How about you? Do you approve of:
Their bows will strike down the young men; they will have no
mercy on infants nor will they look with compassion on children.
-- Isaiah 13:18
Details about the circumstances? For example, who is "they"?
involuntary euthanasia?
mass killings of middle-aged individuals?
No.
Your response is ambiguous.
Are you OK with involuntary euthanasia?
Are you OK with mass killings of middle-aged individuals?
How about you? Do you approve of:
"'Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity
or compassion. Slaughter old men, young men and maidens,
women and children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark.
Begin at my sanctuary.' So they began with the elders who were
in front of the temple." -- Ezekiel 9:5-6
How about it Ford? Do you approve of:
The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they
have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword;
their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant
women ripped open." -- Hosea 13:16
Tell us what the pre-born human life did to rebel against "God" Ford.
23. I would think nothing. Did the pregnant women do anything, or
carry one or more potentially-catastrophic diseases? If "yes," what did
they do or carry?
No, I don't suspect you will be answering these questions any time
soon.
Weikart, Richard. 2004. _From Darwin to Hitler:
Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany_
(USA: Palgrave Macmillan), 312pp. About Weikart's
book:
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407030531.19253d93%40posting.google.com
On 76:
Haeckel and many other German Darwinists fought
incessantly against all dualistic views of humans, which
endued human life with much greater value than
animals. For Haeckel and most German Darwinists,
humans were not much different from animals,
David Ford is the guy who consciously and intentionally takes
passages out of context to alter the meaning of the text
Examples? Did I do so here?:
[Wolfe in _The New Republic_]"She [O'Hair] was dictatorial,
irresponsible, racist, overbearing, corrupt, anti-Semitic, homophobic,
anti-Catholic, and at times criminal. .... this crudely embarrassing
atheist [i.e. O'Hair]"
[O'Hair to her father]"the Jews in big business are running this country
into the ground."
[O'Hair to her son William, after slapping him hard in the face]"Listen,
kid, the United States of America is nothing more than a fascist slave
labor camp run by a handful of Jew bankers in New York City."
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-39rvm4F63q0jrU1%40individual.net
[Gofreemind]"For newer atheists, Madalyn was anything but heroic. Her
rude, obnoxious public displays were an embarrassment."
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0503090734.55fbdce3%40posting.google.com
in his
obsessive, one-track hatred of science in general and evolution in
particular.
Meaning of "evolution"?
Meaning of "evolution" and "species"?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-386md9F5lsv5cU1%40individual.net
It doesn't matter to him that he has persuaded no one
to his POV. And I'm guessing that someday he will have occasion
to look back on his massive archive of hate and dishonesty and be
appalled, disgusted and ashamed. If he is lucky
Here, he quotes creationist Weikart, playing the Hitler card, from
his book. The amusing blurb for it states:
From Darwin to Hitler" is a compelling and painstakingly researched
work of intellectual history, inwhich Weikart explains the
revolutionary
impact Darwinism had on ethics and morality. He demonstrates that
many leading Darwinian biologists and social thinkers in Germany
believed that Darwinism overturned traditional Judeo-Christian and
Enlightenment ethics, especially those pertaining to the sacredness of
human life. Many of these thinkers supported moral relativism ...
Notice the implication that traditional "Judeo-Christian
ethics" is other than "Moral relativism." If Ford was honest
and had the courage to address my questions to him regards
the previous Bible passages I quoted, he wwould defend the
cold blooded slaughter outlined therein as being perfectly moral
because "God" was behind it. You see, to those with radical
situational ethics like Ford, it is not the _act_ of murder,
genocide, rape, or his chronic dishonesty, that is intrinsically
evil, immoral or wrong. How could they be when such things
are ordered by his god? No, such things are subjectively moral
or immoral depending on "God's" wishes (as interpreted by Ford)
at any given moment.
I and humanists in general find this extreme moral relativity
depraved and repellent. To us, murder, genocide, etc is immmoral
period.
In your view, did the atheist Stalin ever engage in "immoral" actions?
In your view, is killing pre-born human life:
"immoral"?
"murder"?
Do you think withholding food and water from Terri Schindler Schiavo
resulting in her death from starvation is:
"immoral"?
"murder"?
It would not matter to us if there was a god and he said it
was ok or not. People like Ford find this attitude quaint and
arrogant: who are we to question the "sublime" morality of "God"
-commanded genocide let alone refuse to participate in it if God
wants it?
Of course, people like Ford are not oblivious to how this makes
them appear. Ford and his cronies are very reluctant to admit to
their approval of killing infants, woman and children because
some members of their group "rebelled" against "God." But make
no mistake, they do indeed suscribe to such putrid ethics--while
smuggly lying about non-believers, accusing them of what they
know they are really guilty of believing. For instance, you will
never see Ford condemn those actions described in the passages I quote.
Ford isn't ashamed by this. At most he will be embarrassed
by my exposure of his radical situational ethics. Ethics? Did
I say "ethics"? I should amend that. I can honestly say that
I can't complain about Ford's ethics--he doesn't have any.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Danny Kodicek" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
21 Mar 2005 03:20:12 AM |
|
|
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-3a6n09F5su9mfU1@individual.net...
jfacts@earthlink.net wrote:
Ford dishonestly attempts to load the question, just as he
dishonestly quotes out of context: without conscience or
a care. Here is how you ask a question honestly and
without loading. Do you approve of this, Ford?:
So the assembly sent twelve thousand fighting men with
instructions to go to Jabesh Gilead and put to the sword
those living there, including the women and children. "This
is what you are to do," they said. "Kill every male and every
woman who is not a virgin." They found among the people
living in Jabesh Gilead four hundred young women who had
never slept with a man, and they took them to the camp at
Shiloh in Canaan. -- Judges 21:10-12
Could you provide more details about the circumstances?
Was an absence of virginity associated with the possession of say
syphilis, or some other sexually-transmitted disease/s?
Er - are you saying that if this was the case, it would be okay to slaughter
them?
How about it Ford? Do you approve of:
The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they
have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword;
their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant
women ripped open." -- Hosea 13:16
Tell us what the pre-born human life did to rebel against "God" Ford.
23. I would think nothing. Did the pregnant women do anything, or
carry one or more potentially-catastrophic diseases? If "yes," what did
they do or carry?
So is 'partial birth abortion' justified if the pregnant woman has 'done
something' or carries 'one or more potentially catastrophic diseases'?
Danny
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
21 Mar 2005 11:31:41 AM |
|
|
Danny Kodicek wrote:
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-3a6n09F5su9mfU1@individual.net...
jfacts@earthlink.net wrote:
Ford dishonestly attempts to load the question, just as he
dishonestly quotes out of context: without conscience or
a care. Here is how you ask a question honestly and
without loading. Do you approve of this, Ford?:
So the assembly sent twelve thousand fighting men with
instructions to go to Jabesh Gilead and put to the sword
those living there, including the women and children. "This
is what you are to do," they said. "Kill every male and every
woman who is not a virgin." They found among the people
living in Jabesh Gilead four hundred young women who had
never slept with a man, and they took them to the camp at
Shiloh in Canaan. -- Judges 21:10-12
Could you provide more details about the circumstances?
Was an absence of virginity associated with the possession of say
syphilis, or some other sexually-transmitted disease/s?
Er - are you saying that if this was the case,
it would be okay to slaughter them?
At the moment I'm not saying anything, but rather am inquiring for more
information about the situation.
How about it Ford? Do you approve of:
The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they
have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword;
their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant
women ripped open." -- Hosea 13:16
Tell us what the pre-born human life did to rebel against "God"
Ford.
23. I would think nothing. Did the pregnant women do anything, or
carry one or more potentially-catastrophic diseases? If "yes,"
what did
they do or carry?
So is 'partial birth abortion' justified if the pregnant woman has 'done
something' or carries 'one or more potentially catastrophic diseases'?
This might answer your questions:
I think execution by the state of a man or woman is justified if the man
or woman has committed premeditated murder. In such a circumstance,
execution of a pregnant woman should wait until after she has given
birth to her child-- the child isn't guilty of anything and is innocent,
and it would be unjust to the pre-born child to execute a woman while
she is pregnant with child.
Abortion is justified if continuation of the pregnancy likely will do
grave physical harm to the mother.
As a practical matter, if an army wipes out a particular town of people
using fuel air explosives because the town's population has contracted a
highly-contagious airborne hemorrhagic fever virus, it might not be
practical to preserve the lives of uninfected pre-born humans prior to
implementing total destruction of the town. [This scenario is inspired
by the movie that was loosely based upon Richard Preston's nonfiction
_The Hot Zone_ (USA: Anchor Books Doubleday), 422pp.]
As a practical matter, if every adult in a town 3000 years ago has
committed heinous acts and is to be executed, it might not be practical
to execute every adult while preserving the pre-born human life present
in that town. Perhaps the nerve required to carry out such a mass
execution would be lost if pregnant women were permitted to give birth
before their planned execution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Danny Kodicek" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
21 Mar 2005 02:38:25 PM |
|
|
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-3a8enjF65smnrU2@individual.net...
Danny Kodicek wrote:
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-3a6n09F5su9mfU1@individual.net...
jfacts@earthlink.net wrote:
Ford dishonestly attempts to load the question, just as he
dishonestly quotes out of context: without conscience or
a care. Here is how you ask a question honestly and
without loading. Do you approve of this, Ford?:
So the assembly sent twelve thousand fighting men with
instructions to go to Jabesh Gilead and put to the sword
those living there, including the women and children. "This
is what you are to do," they said. "Kill every male and every
woman who is not a virgin." They found among the people
living in Jabesh Gilead four hundred young women who had
never slept with a man, and they took them to the camp at
Shiloh in Canaan. -- Judges 21:10-12
Could you provide more details about the circumstances?
Was an absence of virginity associated with the possession of say
syphilis, or some other sexually-transmitted disease/s?
Er - are you saying that if this was the case,
it would be okay to slaughter them?
At the moment I'm not saying anything, but rather am inquiring for more
information about the situation.
Well, given that it's a biblical quotation, you can answer that as well as
anyone else can (by the way, you have some nerve asking for more context to
others' quotes). And I can't quite see how *any* context could put this act
in any better light.
How about it Ford? Do you approve of:
The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they
have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword;
their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant
women ripped open." -- Hosea 13:16
Tell us what the pre-born human life did to rebel against "God"
Ford.
23. I would think nothing. Did the pregnant women do anything, or
carry one or more potentially-catastrophic diseases? If "yes,"
what did
they do or carry?
So is 'partial birth abortion' justified if the pregnant woman has
'done
something' or carries 'one or more potentially catastrophic diseases'?
This might answer your questions:
And now follows that rare thing, an actual statement of belief by Mr Ford.
Pause and savour it, everyone. Now I can see why he reveals his own
principles so rarely.
I think execution by the state of a man or woman is justified if the man
or woman has committed premeditated murder. In such a circumstance,
execution of a pregnant woman should wait until after she has given
birth to her child-- the child isn't guilty of anything and is innocent,
and it would be unjust to the pre-born child to execute a woman while
she is pregnant with child.
A fair enough point, and one which I believe most states that practise
capital punishment follow.
Abortion is justified if continuation of the pregnancy likely will do
grave physical harm to the mother.
Glad you approve
As a practical matter, if an army wipes out a particular town of people
using fuel air explosives because the town's population has contracted a
highly-contagious airborne hemorrhagic fever virus, it might not be
practical to preserve the lives of uninfected pre-born humans prior to
implementing total destruction of the town. [This scenario is inspired
by the movie that was loosely based upon Richard Preston's nonfiction
_The Hot Zone_ (USA: Anchor Books Doubleday), 422pp.]
You have a problem with the word 'foetus', I think? Well, your concern for
the poor pre-borns in the plague-town is touching, but frankly that's the
least of the moral issues here, I think.
As a practical matter, if every adult in a town 3000 years ago has
committed heinous acts and is to be executed, it might not be practical
to execute every adult while preserving the pre-born human life present
in that town. Perhaps the nerve required to carry out such a mass
execution would be lost if pregnant women were permitted to give birth
before their planned execution.
So you're saying that for the crime of worshipping another god, it's all
right for an entire town to be slaughtered, including the children (forget
pre-born here!)? Sure, the chapter in question refers to human sacrifice,
but are you saying that in the entire town, *every adult* (and the children
too, presumably) should die for that crime? Your government is responsible
for killing innocents - does that mean that your family should be killed?
Nice moral code you've got there, David. Glad to see that Christian
compassion's working well for you. I'll stick to my atheistic humanism,
thanks all the same.
Incidentally, I'm always intrigued by the fact that fundamentalist
Christians are so fond of the Old Testament, when Jesus quite clearly said
that he was there to overturn the old way of thinking. I remember the calls
for 'an eye for an eye' after 9/11, which was something Jesus *specifically*
overturned (Matthew 5). These people claim to follow Jesus, but they'd
really prefer it if he'd left the old laws alone.
Danny
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
22 Mar 2005 01:48:17 PM |
|
|
Danny Kodicek wrote:
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-3a8enjF65smnrU2@individual.net...
Danny Kodicek wrote:
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-3a6n09F5su9mfU1@individual.net...
jfacts@earthlink.net wrote:
Ford dishonestly attempts to load the question, just as he
dishonestly quotes out of context: without conscience or
a care. Here is how you ask a question honestly and
without loading. Do you approve of this, Ford?:
So the assembly sent twelve thousand fighting men with
instructions to go to Jabesh Gilead and put to the sword
those living there, including the women and children. "This
is what you are to do," they said. "Kill every male and every
woman who is not a virgin." They found among the people
living in Jabesh Gilead four hundred young women who had
never slept with a man, and they took them to the camp at
Shiloh in Canaan. -- Judges 21:10-12
Just because an event or an act is recorded in the New Testament or Old
Testament, that doesn't mean God is said to have approved or condoned
that act. The above quote doesn't mention or allude to God. Perhaps
the act was entirely human-initiated, perhaps as an act of revenge. I
can't tell from the short quotation.
Below:
Hsu abstract; destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah
Could you provide more details about the circumstances?
Was an absence of virginity associated with the possession of say
syphilis, or some other sexually-transmitted disease/s?
Er - are you saying that if this was the case,
it would be okay to slaughter them?
At the moment I'm not saying anything, but rather am inquiring for more
information about the situation.
Well, given that it's a biblical quotation, you can answer that as
well as
anyone else can
1. I concede that I could easily look up the relevant passages, or
paste the relevant passages using text off the Web.
(by the way, you have some nerve asking for more context to
others' quotes).
2. It's unusual for me to even see "others' quotes."
I have a lot of nerve in asking a lot of my questions, and in pointing
out that the Darwinian emperor has no clothes.
Hsu, Kenneth J. 1986. "Darwin's three mistakes" _Geology_ 14:532-4.
Hsu was with the Geological Institute, ETH, Zurich, Switzerland. The
abstract:
Darwin's three mistakes were that (1) he dismissed mass
extinctions as artifacts of an imperfect geological record;
(2) he assumed that species diversity, like individuals of a
given species, tends to increase exponentially with time;
and (3) he considered biotic interactions the major cause
of species extinction. Those mistakes led to the theory
propounded in his book _On the Origin of Species by
Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of
Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life_ (Darwin, 1859),
which has been adopted by many as the scientific basis of
their social philosophies.
The article's last two sentences state, "We have had enough of the
Darwinian fallacy. It is about time that we cry: 'The emperor has no
clothes.'" The emperor has no clothes.
more Hsu
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3a18k3F66sgjpU1%40individual.net
Are any of these quotes out-of-context, in your view?:
[Wolfe in _The New Republic_]"She [O'Hair] was dictatorial,
irresponsible, racist, overbearing, corrupt, anti-Semitic, homophobic,
anti-Catholic, and at times criminal. .... this crudely embarrassing
atheist [i.e. O'Hair]"
[O'Hair to her father]"the Jews in big business are running this country
into the ground."
[O'Hair to her son William, after slapping him hard in the face]"Listen,
kid, the United States of America is nothing more than a fascist slave
labor camp run by a handful of Jew bankers in New York City."
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-39rvm4F63q0jrU1%40individual.net
[Gofreemind]"For newer atheists, Madalyn was anything but heroic. Her
rude, obnoxious public displays were an embarrassment."
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0503090734.55fbdce3%40posting.google.com
And I can't quite see how *any* context could put this act
in any better light.
3. Perhaps your imagination could use a workout. I suggest formulating
4 just-so stories to account for the act of infanticide by some human
males, and cannibalism among some humans. That ought to do the trick.
Williams in
Darwinists downgrading the value of human life
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-399aluF5uql89U1%40individual.net
How about it Ford? Do you approve of:
The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they
have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword;
their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant
women ripped open." -- Hosea 13:16
Tell us what the pre-born human life did to rebel against "God"
Ford.
23. I would think nothing. Did the pregnant women do
anything, or
carry one or more potentially-catastrophic
diseases? If "yes," what did
they do or carry?
So is 'partial birth abortion' justified if the pregnant woman has
'done something' or carries 'one or more
potentially catastrophic diseases'?
This might answer your questions:
And now follows that rare thing, an actual statement of belief by Mr
Ford.
Pause and savour it, everyone.
4. It's very tasty.
Now I can see why he reveals his own
principles so rarely.
I think execution by the state of a man or woman is justified if
the man
or woman has committed premeditated murder. In such a circumstance,
execution of a pregnant woman should wait until after she has given
birth to her child-- the child isn't guilty of anything and is
innocent,
and it would be unjust to the pre-born child to execute a woman while
she is pregnant with child.
A fair enough point, and one which I believe most states that practise
capital punishment follow.
Abortion is justified if continuation of the pregnancy likely will do
grave physical harm to the mother.
Glad you approve
As a practical matter, if an army wipes out a particular town of people
using fuel air explosives because the town's population has
contracted a
highly-contagious airborne hemorrhagic fever virus, it might not be
practical to preserve the lives of uninfected pre-born humans prior to
implementing total destruction of the town. [This scenario is inspired
by the movie that was loosely based upon Richard Preston's nonfiction
_The Hot Zone_ (USA: Anchor Books Doubleday), 422pp.]
You have a problem with the word 'foetus', I think?
5. No. I understand what you mean by "fetus," and understand what's
meant by "fetuscide."
Taking a firm, godless stand for death
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0410291758.3dfffe4b%40posting.google.com
Well, your concern for
the poor pre-borns in the plague-town is touching, but frankly that's the
least of the moral issues here, I think.
As a practical matter, if every adult in a town 3000 years ago has
committed heinous acts and is to be executed, it might not be practical
to execute every adult while preserving the pre-born human life present
in that town. Perhaps the nerve required to carry out such a mass
execution would be lost if pregnant women were permitted to give birth
before their planned execution.
So you're saying that for the crime of worshipping another god, it's all
right for an entire town to be slaughtered, including the children
(forget
pre-born here!)?
6. How do you know that "the crime of worshipping another god" is all
that's involved-- are there any other alleged misdeeds involved, and if
so, what? What was involved in this worshiping? How
historically-accurate and complete is the account you're looking at?
Also, perhaps the quotation is a threat, and that threat did not end up
being carried out because the society that was threatened heeded the
threat and repented. I can't tell what happened from the snippet of a
quotation that was presented.
Sure, the chapter in question refers to human sacrifice,
but are you saying that in the entire town, *every adult* (and the
children
too, presumably) should die for that crime?
7. What does the chapter say about "human sacrifice"? Perhaps every
adult in Samaria participated in or supported "human sacrifice."
Perhaps "human sacrifice" was a rite of passage everybody did in order
to become considered as an adult.
Your government is responsible
for killing innocents - does that mean that your family should be killed?
8. In your scenario, is my family:
involved in "killing innocents"?
supportive of the government's killing of innocents?
Nice moral code you've got there, David. Glad to see that Christian
compassion's working well for you.
9. What do you think my "moral code" holds? Perhaps your remarks flow
from an erroneous conception.
I'll stick to my atheistic humanism,
thanks all the same.
10. What does your "atheistic humanism" say about:
abortion?
infanticide?
euthanasia?
the removal of food and water from Terri Schindler Schiavo, resulting in
her death via starvation?
In pre-Holocaust 20th century Germany, abortion was promoted as being a
tool in the service of eugenics. The majority of the prominent
advocates of abortion were fervent Darwinist adherents of materialism,
and they viewed the use of abortion as a method of helping 'evolution'
advance and improving humanity.
Ref:
Weikart, Richard. 2004. _From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics,
Eugenics, and Racism in Germany_ (USA: Palgrave Macmillan), 312pp., 157.
About Weikart's book:
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407030531.19253d93%40posting.google.com
Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1%40individual.net
Incidentally, I'm always intrigued by the fact that fundamentalist
Christians are so fond of the Old Testament, when Jesus quite clearly
said
that he was there to overturn the old way of thinking. I remember the
calls
for 'an eye for an eye' after 9/11, which was something Jesus
*specifically*
overturned (Matthew 5). These people claim to follow Jesus, but they'd
really prefer it if he'd left the old laws alone.
11. What does "atheistic humanism" say is the appropriate response to
the terrorist attacks of 9/11?
In the Old Testament, God is said to have destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.
Do you think God shouldn't have destroyed the towns?
Do you think God did an 'evil' thing in destroying the towns?
Do you think the people killed in the towns were 'evil'?
////////////////////////////////////////////////////
From
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%2018;&version=65;
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=19&version=65
Genesis 18 (The Message)
17 Then GOD said, "Shall I keep back from Abraham what I'm about to do?
18 Abraham is going to become a large and strong nation; all the nations
of the world are going to find themselves blessed through him.
19 Yes, I've settled on him as the one to train his children and future
family to observe GOD's way of life, live kindly and generously and
fairly, so that GOD can complete in Abraham what he promised him."
20 GOD continued, "The cries of the victims in Sodom and Gomorrah are
deafening; the sin of those cities is immense.
21 I'm going down to see for myself, see if what they're doing is as bad
as it sounds. Then I'll know."
22 The men set out for Sodom, but Abraham stood in GOD's path, blocking
his way.
23 Abraham confronted him, "Are you serious? Are you planning on getting
rid of the good people right along with the bad?
24 What if there are fifty decent people left in the city; will you lump
the good with the bad and get rid of the lot?
25 Wouldn't you spare the city for the sake of those fifty innocents? I
can't believe you'd do that, kill off the good and the bad alike as if
there were no difference between them. Doesn't the Judge of all the
Earth judge with justice?"
26 GOD said, "If I find fifty decent people in the city of Sodom, I'll
spare the place just for them."
27 Abraham came back, "Do I, a mere mortal made from a handful of dirt,
dare open my mouth again to my Master?
28 What if the fifty fall short by five--would you destroy the city
because of those missing five?"
He said, "I won't destroy it if there are forty-five."
29 Abraham spoke up again, "What if you only find forty?"
"Neither will I destroy it if for forty."
30 He said, "Master, don't be irritated with me, but what if only thirty
are found?"
"No, I won't do it if I find thirty."
31 He pushed on, "I know I'm trying your patience, Master, but how about
for twenty?"
"I won't destroy it for twenty."
32 He wouldn't quit, "Don't get angry, Master--this is the last time.
What if you only come up with ten?"
"For the sake of only ten, I won't destroy the city."
33 When GOD finished talking with Abraham, he left. And Abraham went home.
Genesis 19
1 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening. Lot was sitting at
the city gate. He saw them and got up to welcome them, bowing before them
2 and said, "Please, my friends, come to my house and stay the night.
Wash up. You can rise early and be on your way refreshed."
They said, "No, we'll sleep in the street."
3 But he insisted, wouldn't take no for an answer; and they relented and
went home with him. Lot fixed a hot meal for them and they ate.
4 Before they went to bed men from all over the city of Sodom, young and
old, descended on the house from all sides and boxed them in.
5 They yelled to Lot, "Where are the men who are staying with you for
the night? Bring them out so we can have our sport with them!"
6 Lot went out, barring the door behind him,
7 and said, "Brothers, please, don't be vile!
8 Look, I have two daughters, virgins; let me bring them out; you can
take your pleasure with them, but don't touch these men--they're my
guests."
9 They said, "Get lost! You drop in from nowhere and now you're going
to tell us how to run our lives. We'll treat you worse than them!" And
they charged past Lot to break down the door.
10 But the two men reached out and pulled Lot inside the house, locking
the door.
11 Then they struck blind the men who were trying to break down the
door, both leaders and followers, leaving them groping in the dark.
12 The two men said to Lot, "Do you have any other family here? Sons,
daughters--anybody in the city? Get them out of here, and now!
13 We're going to destroy this place. The outcries of victims here to
GOD are deafening; we've been sent to blast this place into oblivion."
14 Lot went out and warned the fiancés of his daughters, "Evacuate this
place; GOD is about to destroy this city!" But his daughters' would-be
husbands treated it as a joke.
15 At break of day, the angels pushed Lot to get going, "Hurry. Get
your wife and two daughters out of here before it's too late and you're
caught in the punishment of the city."
16 Lot was dragging his feet. The men grabbed Lot's arm, and the arms
of his wife and daughters-- GOD was so merciful to them!-- and dragged
them to safety outside the city.
17 When they had them outside, Lot was told, "Now run for your life!
Don't look back! Don't stop anywhere on the plain--run for the hills or
you'll be swept away."
18 But Lot protested, "No, masters, you can't mean it!
19 I know that you've taken a liking to me and have done me an immense
favor in saving my life, but I can't run for the mountains--who knows
what terrible thing might happen to me in the mountains and leave me for
dead.
20 Look over there--that town is close enough to get to. It's a small
town, hardly anything to it. Let me escape there and save my life--it's
a mere wide place in the road."
21 He said to him, "All right. If you insist. I'll let you have your
way. And I won't stamp out the town you've spotted.
22 But hurry up. Run for it! I can't do anything until you get there."
That's why the town was called Zoar, that is, Smalltown.
23 The sun was high in the sky when Lot arrived at Zoar.
24 Then GOD rained brimstone and fire down on Sodom and Gomorrah--a
river of lava from GOD out of the sky!--
25 and destroyed these cities and the entire plain and everyone who
lived in the cities and everything that grew from the ground.
26 But Lot's wife looked back and turned into a pillar of salt.
27 Abraham got up early the next morning and went to the place he had so
recently stood with GOD.
28 He looked out over Sodom and Gomorrah, surveying the whole plain.
All he could see was smoke belching from the Earth, like smoke from a
furnace.
29 And that's the story: When God destroyed the Cities of the Plain, he
was mindful of Abraham and first got Lot out of there before he blasted
those cities off the face of the Earth.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Danny Kodicek" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
22 Mar 2005 02:42:29 PM |
|
|
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-3abb3mF6af898U1@individual.net...
Danny Kodicek wrote:
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-3a8enjF65smnrU2@individual.net...
Danny Kodicek wrote:
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-3a6n09F5su9mfU1@individual.net...
jfacts@earthlink.net wrote:
Ford dishonestly attempts to load the question, just as he
dishonestly quotes out of context: without conscience or
a care. Here is how you ask a question honestly and
without loading. Do you approve of this, Ford?:
So the assembly sent twelve thousand fighting men with
instructions to go to Jabesh Gilead and put to the sword
those living there, including the women and children. "This
is what you are to do," they said. "Kill every male and
every
woman who is not a virgin." They found among the people
living in Jabesh Gilead four hundred young women who had
never slept with a man, and they took them to the camp at
Shiloh in Canaan. -- Judges 21:10-12
Just because an event or an act is recorded in the New Testament or Old
Testament, that doesn't mean God is said to have approved or condoned
that act. The above quote doesn't mention or allude to God.
Don't you think this kind of response is rather foolish? It's not like it
isn't easy for anyone to check the context of the quote and see. The act was
committed by the Israelites to punish the Jabesh Gilead folk for not turning
up to a gathering: 'they had taken a solemn oath that anyone who failed to
assemble before the LORD at Mizpah should certainly be put to death'.
Conveniently, this also served to provide wives for the Benjaminites, who
the Israelites wouldn't marry their daughters to. And all this was in
response to a prayer (and sacrifice) to God.
Perhaps
the act was entirely human-initiated, perhaps as an act of revenge. I
can't tell from the short quotation.
Your aversion to looking at the context of quotes serves just as well in
defence as in offence, I see.
And I can't quite see how *any* context could put this act
in any better light.
3. Perhaps your imagination could use a workout. I suggest formulating
4 just-so stories to account for the act of infanticide by some human
males, and cannibalism among some humans. That ought to do the trick.
Are you talking about evolutionary psychology here? Then as with most
critics, you're missing the point. I certainly think it's true that human
males can commit infanticide, and that there are good Darwinian reasons why
this should be so (as it is in most species). That says nothing about
whether it's morally right or wrong.
So you're saying that for the crime of worshipping another god, it's
all
right for an entire town to be slaughtered, including the children
(forget
pre-born here!)?
6. How do you know that "the crime of worshipping another god" is all
that's involved-- are there any other alleged misdeeds involved, and if
so, what? What was involved in this worshiping? How
historically-accurate and complete is the account you're looking at?
It's a Biblical account, and as such it's all we've got. I'm not even
claiming it's true, just commenting on the text.
Also, perhaps the quotation is a threat, and that threat did not end up
being carried out because the society that was threatened heeded the
threat and repented. I can't tell what happened from the snippet of a
quotation that was presented.
Then look it up like I did. You expect other people to read your link-filled
posts and you're too lazy to look up a Bible quote when you've been given
chapter and verse? Don't make me laugh. Here, I'll even give you the URL:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hosea%2013;&version=31;
Sure, the chapter in question refers to human sacrifice,
but are you saying that in the entire town, *every adult* (and the
children
too, presumably) should die for that crime?
7. What does the chapter say about "human sacrifice"? Perhaps every
adult in Samaria participated in or supported "human sacrifice."
Perhaps "human sacrifice" was a rite of passage everybody did in order
to become considered as an adult.
That's called a 'social norm'. I personally happen to think capital
punishment is murder, but I don't think an executioner is a murderer,
they're fulfilling a socially sanctioned role. It would be wrong to 'punish'
an executioner. (incidentally, this principle has a lot of grey area -
consider the question of torture. Is there any human society where torture
is socially sanctioned in the same way as execution? If there were, would it
be right to punish the torturers? It's a slippery slope towards 'just
following orders' that I'm not sure how to avoid. Sorry, just thinking as I
type, it's not something I've ever thought about explicitly before)
Your government is responsible
for killing innocents - does that mean that your family should be
killed?
8. In your scenario, is my family:
involved in "killing innocents"?
supportive of the government's killing of innocents?
The latter. I'm talking about social norms again. If the society as a whole
condones an act, then the society as a whole has to take responsibility for
it. As I say: it would be wrong to punish an executioner in the United
States for 'murder': if a murder has been committed, the executioner was the
instrument of the murder, not its instigator.
Nice moral code you've got there, David. Glad to see that Christian
compassion's working well for you.
9. What do you think my "moral code" holds? Perhaps your remarks flow
from an erroneous conception.
I go by what I read.
I'll stick to my atheistic humanism,
thanks all the same.
10. What does your "atheistic humanism" say about:
abortion?
Nothing
infanticide?
Nothing
euthanasia?
Nothing
My atheistic humanism doesn't say anything about any of these things. I have
to work out my views for myself. For what it's worth, I see plenty of grey
areas here: for the first, I think Clinton summed it up well: safe, legal
and rare. Not something to be celebrated, but not something to be vilified
either. An unfortunate event which is the business of the parties involved
to work out for themselves - and don't think for one second that any woman
has gone through an abortion without thinking (and feeling) hard about the
moral implications. For the second, duh. (and no, I don't think there's a
sharp dividing line between the two: fortunately I don't feel any need to
divide the world into absolutes of good and evil). And for the third, I see
no difference between voluntary (informed) euthanasia and suicide and I
can't see what the fuss is about.
the removal of food and water from Terri Schindler Schiavo, resulting in
her death via starvation?
This is a US case and I haven't followed it closely, but from what I've seen
here, it sounds like the term 'death' is slightly overstretching the case
when she's hardly 'alive' right now.
Incidentally, I'm always intrigued by the fact that fundamentalist
Christians are so fond of the Old Testament, when Jesus quite clearly
said
that he was there to overturn the old way of thinking. I remember the
calls
for 'an eye for an eye' after 9/11, which was something Jesus
*specifically*
overturned (Matthew 5). These people claim to follow Jesus, but they'd
really prefer it if he'd left the old laws alone.
11. What does "atheistic humanism" say is the appropriate response to
the terrorist attacks of 9/11?
See above.
My opinion: diplomacy is good; catching the culprits is good; invading a
country with no known connections to the attacks in pursuit of a plan
formulated years previously is unwise. But what do I know. I do know that
revenge is not a Christian virtue.
In the Old Testament, God is said to have destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.
Do you think God shouldn't have destroyed the towns?
Do you think God did an 'evil' thing in destroying the towns?
Do you think the people killed in the towns were 'evil'?
I don't use the word or have any interest in it. And yes, if God is
omnipotent, I can't see why he had to destroy them. Killing them when he had
another option (an an all-powerful deity always has another option), was
morally wrong by my standards. But then I think capital punishment is
morally wrong too - see, social norms again.
A nice quote from a bad fantasy novel (from memory - it may be a word
different here or there):
Do not kill where maiming is enough
Do not maim where wounding is enough
Do not wound where hurting is enough
Do not hurt where holding it enough
The greatest warrior is one who does not have to kill.
Now there's true Christian morality.
Danny
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
23 Mar 2005 06:31:42 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
jfacts@earthlink.net wrote:
david ford wrote:
In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
between humans and animals.
If you were in Germany
a) in the 1890s, and
b) in the 1930s,
would you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
c) Today, in 2005, do you sup port or oppose Haeckel's view?
And on what basis?
Do you support or oppose the right of medical personnel to
perform for the sake of convenience:
abortion/ fetuscide/ killing of pre-born human life?
Ford dishonestly attempts to load the question, just as he
dishonestly quotes out of context: without conscience or
a care. Here is how you ask a question honestly and
without loading. Do you approve of this, Ford?:
So the assembly sent twelve thousand fighting men with
instructions to go to Jabesh Gilead and put to the sword
those living there, including the women and children. "This
is what you are to do," they said. "Kill every male and every
woman who is not a virgin." They found among the people
living in Jabesh Gilead four hundred young women who had
never slept with a man, and they took them to the camp at
Shiloh in Canaan. -- Judges 21:10-12
Could you provide more details about the circumstances?
Was an absence of virginity associated with the possession of say
syphilis, or some other sexually-transmitted disease/s?
Unlike your buzz-word laden hypothetical, the "details,"
such as they are, are available to anyone who owns a
Bible and cares to find out. But I think you've confirmed
my point: That killing women and children and the rape
of virgins is casually acceptable to you. That you seek
mitigating circumstances for such grossly barbaric behavior
in order to rationalize it simply identifies your "ethics" as
the extreme situational kind.
Thus it is an understatement to point out that you lack
the moral authority to pass judgment on anyone elses
morals, especially humanist morals.
partial-birth abortions?
No such thing.
Are you OK with the use of the abortion procedure known as 'dilation
and
extraction'?
Could you provide ANY details about the circumstances?
That you fail to do so here where the circumstances are all
important, while asking for them where no moral
justification could exist (raping virgins, & the cold blooded
slaughter of women, children, & infants) is just another
example of your radically inconsistent and extreme situational
"ethics."
infanticide?
No.
Your response is ambiguous. Are you OK with infanticide?
"No" is ambiguous? I suggest that if it seems so to you,
re-examine your own "ethics."
How about you? Do you approve of:
Their bows will strike down the young men; they will have no
mercy on infants nor will they look with compassion on children.
-- Isaiah 13:18
Details about the circumstances? For example, who is "they"?
The implication being that it is acceptable to you under the
"right" circumstances. You just don't want to say so. To my
humanist mind there are no such circumstances
involuntary euthanasia?
mass killings of middle-aged individuals?
No.
Your response is ambiguous.
Are you OK with involuntary euthanasia?
Are you OK with mass killings of middle-aged individuals?
Again I am amazed that you would find the word "no"
ambiguous. Perhaps at this point I shouldn't be.
How about you? Do you approve of:
"'Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity
or compassion. Slaughter old men, young men and maidens,
women and children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark.
Begin at my sanctuary.' So they began with the elders who were
in front of the temple." -- Ezekiel 9:5-6
How about it Ford? Do you approve of:
The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they
have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword;
their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant
women ripped open." -- Hosea 13:16
Tell us what the pre-born human life did to rebel against "God"
Ford.
23. I would think nothing. Did the pregnant women do anything, or
carry one or more potentially-catastrophic diseases? If "yes," what
did
they do or carry?
Please. The rationale is in the context. It is the consequence
of "rebelling" against their god. That you think there could
be a rationalization for this speaks volumes.
No, I don't suspect you will be answering these questions any time
soon.
A very accurate prediction as it turns out, wasn't it? Now
how did I know this, Ford?
Weikart, Richard. 2004. _From Darwin to Hitler:
Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany_
(USA: Palgrave Macmillan), 312pp. About Weikart's
book:
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407030531.19253d93%40posting.google.com
On 76:
Haeckel and many other German Darwinists fought
incessantly against all dualistic views of humans, which
endued human life with much greater value than
animals. For Haeckel and most German Darwinists,
humans were not much different from animals,
David Ford is the guy who consciously and intentionally takes
passages out of context to alter the meaning of the text
Examples?
I've offered examples previously. Make it worth my while
to do it again: deny that you have done this.
Did I do so here?:
I don't know. But offering hand-picked examples where you
have not is hardly evidence that you haven't done it before.
[Wolfe in _The New Republic_]"S he [O'Hair] was dictatorial,
irresponsible, racist, overbearing, corrupt, anti-Semitic,
homophobic,
anti-Catholic, and at times criminal. .... this crudely
embarrassing
atheist [i.e. O'Hair]"
[O'Hair to her father]"the Jews in big business ar e running this
country
into the ground."
[O'Hair to her son William, after slapping him hard in the
face]"Listen,
kid, the United States of America is nothing more than a fascist
slave
labor camp run by a handful of Jew bankers in New York City."
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-39rvm4F63q0jrU1%40individual.net
[Gofreemind]"For newer atheists, Madalyn was anything but heroic.
Her
rude, obnoxious public displays were an embarrassment."
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0503090734.55fbdce3%40posting.google.com
Ford attempts guilt by association. If Ohair was a bad person
then all atheists must be, you see. Precisely the kind of dishonest
tactic one would expect from someone with radical situational
"ethics."
in his
obsessive, one-track hatred of science in general and evolution in
particular.
Meaning of "evolution"?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
Meaning of "evolution" and "species"?
http://group
s.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-386md9F5lsv5cU1%40individual.net
It doesn't matter to him that he has persuaded no one
to his POV. And I'm guessing that someday he will have occasion
to look back on his massive archive of hate and dishonesty and be
appalled, disgusted and ashamed. If he is lucky
Here, he quotes creationist Weikart, playing the Hitler card,
from
his book. The amusing blurb for it states:
From Darwin to Hitler" is a compelling and painstakingly
researched
work of intellectual history, inwhich Weikart explains the
revolutionary
impact Darwinism had on ethics and morality. He demonstrates that
many leading Darwinian biologists and social thinkers in Germany
believed that Darwinism overturned traditional Judeo-Christian and
Enlightenment ethics, especially those pertaining to the
sacredness of
human life. Many of these thinkers supported moral relativism ...
Notice the implication that tr aditional "Judeo-Christian
ethics" is other than "Moral relativism." If Ford was honest
and had the courage to address my questions to him regards
the previous Bible passages I quoted,
Which, as predicted, he clearly lacks.
he would defend the
cold blooded slaughter out lined therein as being perfectly moral
because "God" was behind it. You see, to those with radical
situational ethics like Ford, it is not the _act_ of murder,
genocide, rape, or his chronic dishonesty, that is intrinsically
evil, immoral or wrong. How could they be when such things
are ordered by his god? No, such things are subjectively moral
or immoral depending on "God's" wishes (as interpreted by Ford)
at any given moment.
I and humanists in general find this extreme moral relativity
depraved and repellent. To us, murder, genocide, etc is immmoral
period.
In your view, did the atheist Stalin ever engage in "immoral"
actions?
If you can't deduce the answer from my above, and since you
find ambiguity in answers like "yes" or "no" your question
must be assumed to be an evasion of my point about your
extreme moral relativity.
In your view, is killing pre-born human life:
"immoral"?
"murder"?
My above also applies here and below. Since you refuse to
accept clear cut answers attempting to give you one is
pointless.
Do you think withholding food and water from Terri Schindler Schiavo
resulting in her death from starvation is:
"immoral"?
"murder"?
It would not matter to us if there was a god and he said it
was ok or not. Peopl e like Ford find this attitude quaint and
arrogant: who are we to question the "sublime" morality of "God"
-commanded genocide let alone refuse to participate in it if God
wants it?
Of course, people like Ford are not oblivious to how this makes
them appear. Ford and his cronies are very reluctant to admit to
their approval of killing infants, woman and children because
some members of their group "rebelled" against "God." But make
no mistake, they do indeed suscribe to such putrid ethics--while
smuggly lying about non-believers, accusing them of what they
know they are really guilty of believing. For instance, you will
never see Ford condemn those actions described in the passages I
quote.
Ford isn't ashamed by this. At most he will be embarrassed
by my exposure of his radical situational ethics. Ethics? Did
I say "ethics"? I should amend that. I can honestly say that
I can't complain about Ford's ethics--he doesn't have any.
QED
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Evolutionists downgrading the value of human life |
23 Mar 2005 06:33:03 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
jfacts@earthlink.net wrote:
david ford wrote:
In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
between humans and animals.
If you were in Germany
a) in the 1890s, and
b) in the 1930s,
would you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
c) Today, in 2005, do you sup port or oppose Haeckel's view?
And on what basis?
Do you support or oppose the right of medical personnel to
perform for the sake of convenience:
abortion/ fetuscide/ killing of pre-born human life?
Ford dishonestly attempts to load the question, just as he
dishonestly quotes out of context: without conscience or
a care. Here is how you ask a question honestly and
without loading. Do you approve of this, Ford?:
So the assembly sent twelve thousand fighting men with
instructions to go to Jabesh Gilead and put to the sword
those living there, including the women and children. "This
is what you are to do," they said. "Kill every male and every
woman who is not a virgin." They found among the people
living in Jabesh Gilead four hundred young women who had
never slept with a man, and they took them to the camp at
Shiloh in Canaan. -- Judges 21:10-12
Could you provide more details about the circumstances?
Was an absence of virginity associated with the possession of say
syphilis, or some other sexually-transmitted disease/s?
Unlike your buzz-word laden hypothetical, the "details,"
such as they are, are available to anyone who owns a
Bible and cares to find out. But I think you've confirmed
my point: That killing women and children and the rape
of virgins is casually acceptable to you. That you seek
mitigating circumstances for such grossly barbaric behavior
in order to rationalize it simply identifies your "ethics" as
the extreme situational kind.
Thus it is an understatement to point out that you lack
the moral authority to pass judgment on anyone elses
morals, especially humanist morals.
partial-birth abortions?
No such thing.
Are you OK with the use of the abortion procedure known as 'dilation
and
extraction'?
Could you provide ANY details about the circumstances?
That you fail to do so here where the circumstances are all
important, while asking for them where no moral
justification could exist (raping virgins, & the cold blooded
slaughter of women, children, & infants) is just another
example of your radically inconsistent and extreme situational
"ethics."
infanticide?
No.
Your response is ambiguous. Are you OK with infanticide?
"No" is ambiguous? I suggest that if it seems so to you,
re-examine your own "ethics."
How about you? Do you approve of:
Their bows will strike down the young men; they will have no
mercy on infants nor will they look with compassion on children.
-- Isaiah 13:18
Details about the circumstances? For example, who is "they"?
The implication being that it is acceptable to you under the
"right" circumstances. You just don't want to say so. To my
humanist mind there are no such circumstances
involuntary euthanasia?
mass killings of middle-aged individuals?
No.
Your response is ambiguous.
Are you OK with involuntary euthanasia?
Are you OK with mass killings of middle-aged individuals?
Again I am amazed that you would find the word "no"
ambiguous. Perhaps at this point I shouldn't be.
How about you? Do you approve of:
"'Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity
or compassion. Slaughter old men, young men and maidens,
women and children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark.
Begin at my sanctuary.' So they began with the elders who were
in front of the temple." -- Ezekiel 9:5-6
How about it Ford? Do you approve of:
The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they
have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword;
their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant
women ripped open." -- Hosea 13:16
Tell us what the pre-born human life did to rebel against "God"
Ford.
23. I would think nothing. Did the pregnant women do anything, or
carry one or more potentially-catastrophic diseases? If "yes," what
did
they do or carry?
Please. The rationale is in the context. It is the consequence
of "rebelling" against their god. That you think there could
be a rationalization for this speaks volumes.
No, I don't suspect you will be answering these questions any time
soon.
A very accurate prediction as it turns out, wasn't it? Now
how did I know this, Ford?
Weikart, Richard. 2004. _From Darwin to Hitler:
Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany_
(USA: Palgrave Macmillan), 312pp. About Weikart's
book:
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407030531.19253d93%40posting.google.com
On 76:
Haeckel and many other German Darwinists fought
incessantly against all dualistic views of humans, which
endued human life with much greater value than
animals. For Haeckel and most German Darwinists,
humans were not much different from animals,
David Ford is the guy who consciously and intentionally takes
passages out of context to alter the meaning of the text
Examples?
I've offered examples previously. Make it worth my while
to do it again: deny that you have done this.
Did I do so here?:
I don't know. But offering hand-picked examples where you
have not is hardly evidence that you haven't done it before.
[Wolfe in _The New Republic_]"S he [O'Hair] was dictatorial,
irresponsible, racist, overbearing, corrupt, anti-Semitic,
homophobic,
anti-Catholic, and at times criminal. .... this crudely
embarrassing
atheist [i.e. O'Hair]"
[O'Hair to her father]"the Jews in big business ar e running this
country
into the ground."
[O'Hair to her son William, after slapping him hard in the
face]"Listen,
kid, the United States of America is nothing more than a fascist
slave
labor camp run by a handful of Jew bankers in New York City."
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-39rvm4F63q0jrU1%40individual.net
[Gofreemind]"For newer atheists, Madalyn was anything but heroic.
Her
rude, obnoxious public displays were an embarrassment."
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0503090734.55fbdce3%40posting.google.com
Ford attempts guilt by association. If Ohair was a bad person
then all atheists must be, you see. Precisely the kind of dishonest
tactic one would expect from someone with radical situational
"ethics."
in his
obsessive, one-track hatred of science in general and evolution in
particular.
Meaning of "evolution"?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
Meaning of "evolution" and "species"?
http://group
s.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-386md9F5lsv5cU1%40individual.net
It doesn't matter to him that he has persuaded no one
to his POV. And I'm guessing that someday he will have occasion
to look back on his massive archive of hate and dishonesty and be
appalled, disgusted and ashamed. If he is lucky
Here, he quotes creationist Weikart, playing the Hitler card,
from
his book. The amusing blurb for it states:
From Darwin to Hitler" is a compelling and painstakingly
researched
work of intellectual history, inwhich Weikart explains the
revolutionary
impact Darwinism had on ethics and morality. He demonstrates that
many leading Darwinian biologists and social thinkers in Germany
believed that Darwinism overturned traditional Judeo-Christian and
Enlightenment ethics, especially those pertaining to the
sacredness of
human life. Many of these thinkers supported moral relativism ...
Notice the implication that tr aditional "Judeo-Christian
ethics" is other than "Moral relativism." If Ford was honest
and had the courage to address my questions to him regards
the previous Bible passages I quoted,
Which, as predicted, he clearly lacks.
he would defend the
cold blooded slaughter out lined therein as being perfectly moral
because "God" was behind it. You see, to those with radical
situational ethics like Ford, it is not the _act_ of murder,
genocide, rape, or his chronic dishonesty, that is intrinsically
evil, immoral or wrong. How could they be when such things
are ordered by his god? No, such things are subjectively moral
or immoral depending on "God's" wishes (as interpreted by Ford)
at any given moment.
I and humanists in general find this extreme moral relativity
depraved and repellent. To us, murder, genocide, etc is immmoral
period.
In your view, did the atheist Stalin ever engage in "immoral"
actions?
If you can't deduce the answer from my above, and since you
find ambiguity in answers like "yes" or "no" your question
must be assumed to be an evasion of my point about your
extreme moral relativity.
In your view, is killing pre-born human life:
"immoral"?
"murder"?
My above also applies here and below. Since you refuse to
accept clear cut answers attempting to give you one is
pointless.
Do you think withholding food and water from Terri Schindler Schiavo
resulting in her death from starvation is:
"immoral"?
"murder"?
It would not matter to us if there was a god and he said it
was ok or not. Peopl e like Ford find this attitude quaint and
arrogant: who are we to question the "sublime" morality of "God"
-commanded genocide let alone refuse to participate in it if God
wants it?
Of course, people like Ford are not oblivious to how this makes
them appear. Ford and his cronies are very reluctant to admit to
their approval of killing infants | | | |
