No challenge in religion

[blackize]

[ QUOTE ]
Because most of us feel compassion for retarded people and not for cattle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this just because they look human? If they are completely incapable of doing for themselves then all they have in common with a human is their looks.

[blackize]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not so much that we are slapping evolution in the face, but rather that we value all human lives, regardless of their contribution to our species.

[/ QUOTE ]

Valuing human lives is slapping evolution in the face. It implies that our lives are more valuable than any other creature. Evolution dictates that the strong and those best able to adapt to change survive. By allowing the weak to survive we are diverting resources away from the strong and thus decreasing their chance of survival.

[ QUOTE ]
If we were to hold some mass genocide of mentally and physically challenged people, then it would raise a series of questions. First of all, where would we stop? At an IQ of 70? 80? Why not just take out the bottom half every 100 years?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I wouldn't advocate that we ever do this, but clearly IQ isn't the deciding factor. I have met many people with very low IQs who are capable of functioning in society, and many others who are not.

[ QUOTE ]
It would bring up another issue. Why stop at those lacking of intelligence? Personally, I'd rather take out the a-holes before the stupid. And then where do we draw the line? People who talk in movie theaters? Bad drivers? Bad beat storytellers?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just ridiculous. It doesn't follow any sort of logic and is just your opinion. People you find annoying are probably still adding much more to society than those who are just a burden.

[ QUOTE ]
The fact remains that like it or not, all people, regardless of all of their faults, have a right to pursue a rich and happy life, and are not obligated in any way to give back to the species.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with this statement is that the people that I am talking about are not pursuing anything. They are having to be taken care of by volunteers, family, and the government.

Stephen Hawking is not mentally handicapped. I am speaking of those handicapped to the point that they can't function to take care of themselves.

While I have learned a lot from working with Special Olympics and have benefitted from it, I still believe that we as a society would be better off without those who cannot care for themselves.

Your thoughts on evolving spiritually are ridiculous. Unless you believe that we will become one with God or something along those lines this is impossible. And even if that is what you are talking about it is completely absurd and there is no evidence to even support that possibility.

[ QUOTE ]
Spending a lot of money on those who will not be able to enjoy life in the same ways or for the same duration as us is not a waste. The quality of a life is not measured by how long it lasted, but rather if we connected with and appreciated the individual for the brief time that they were here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Diverting resources to the weakest in a species invariably detracts from those available to the strong. While it may not be a "waste" it is certainly not good for the species as a whole.

[RJT]

blackize,

[ QUOTE ]
Valuing human lives is slapping evolution in the face. It implies that our lives are more valuable than any other creature. Evolution dictates that the strong and those best able to adapt to change survive. By allowing the weak to survive we are diverting resources away from the strong and thus decreasing their chance of survival.

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
Diverting resources to the weakest in a species invariably detracts from those available to the strong. While it may not be a "waste" it is certainly not good for the species as a whole.

[/ QUOTE ]

So evolution is (like what some consider) God?

RJT

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
blackize,

[ QUOTE ]
Valuing human lives is slapping evolution in the face. It implies that our lives are more valuable than any other creature. Evolution dictates that the strong and those best able to adapt to change survive. By allowing the weak to survive we are diverting resources away from the strong and thus decreasing their chance of survival.

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
Diverting resources to the weakest in a species invariably detracts from those available to the strong. While it may not be a "waste" it is certainly not good for the species as a whole.

[/ QUOTE ]

So evolution is (like what some consider) God?

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]
RJT, I have to join you in your despair at some athiest. Evolution has no face and if it did then there's no reason at all why we shouldn't give it a good slap.

Evolution more or less means we are but hosts for our genes. **** em I say.

chez

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
RJT, I have to join you in your despair at some athiest. Evolution has no face and if it did then there's no reason at all why we shouldn't give it a good slap.

Evolution more or less means we are but hosts for our genes. **** em I say.

[/ QUOTE ]


chez

And if blackize is indeed correct then as we used to say at university: **** if they (our genes) can’t take a joke.

RJT

p.s. I am happy to see that Soren (his vocabulary - despair) is sinking into your subconscious.
Btw, I just picked up Barry Greenstein’s book and was immediately impressed when I saw that he quotes Kierkegaard as the first words of chapter one. I hope I don’t assume too much when I say that I don’t think David will mind that I just added Barry to David on my list of those who I enjoy listening to their thoughts.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
RJT, I have to join you in your despair at some athiest. Evolution has no face and if it did then there's no reason at all why we shouldn't give it a good slap.

Evolution more or less means we are but hosts for our genes. **** em I say.

[/ QUOTE ]


chez

And if blackize is indeed correct then as we used to say at university: **** if they (our genes) can’t take a joke.

RJT

p.s. I am happy to see that Soren (his vocabulary - despair) is sinking into your subconscious.
Btw, I just picked up Barry Greenstein’s book and was immediately impressed when I saw that he quotes Kierkegaard as the first words of chapter one. I hope I don’t assume too much when I say that I don’t think David will mind that I just added Barry to David on my list of those who I enjoy listening to their thoughts.

[/ QUOTE ]
I looking forward to angst. I'm assuming that is coming up, its the only thing I know of KS.

So far I like 'fear and trembling' thought I think a better title for me would be 'kicking and screaming'

Barry seems top-notch.

chez

[NobodysFreak]

I have to agree with the OPs original statement. I like the idea of this forum, but its mainly just a pissing contest between believers and non-believers. More to the point, it's mainly just a christianity versus atheism pissing contest.

What I don't understand is why the people who claim to dislike religion only choose christianity as their target. Perhaps its a function of living in the Wester world, but there are organized religions out there committing far more horrendous acts in the name of God.

Personally, I don't care much for organized religion in any form. Note that I have said nothing about the existence of God. Just religion. For those like myself who dislike the idea of organized religion, I think this forum might benefit from a more broad discussion on the topic. While I'm primarily accustomed to christianity as being the primary religion around me, I know there are those in this forum who have studied other relgions more in depth. I think we could all benefit from more discussion on them.

[ QUOTE ]
same guy that thinks killing an infant up to ten days old is OK.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you back this statement up with evidence?

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
same guy that thinks killing an infant up to ten days old is OK.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you back this statement up with evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]


Google Peter Singer. I do appreciate his honesty in admitting that if we as a society permit abortion than we should permit infanticide as well.

Hiya bigdaddydvo,

[ QUOTE ]

Yep, same guy that thinks killing an infant up to ten days old is OK. Yet he is a tenured professor at Princeton and chairs their ethics dept. What a sickening disgrace...

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess not as bad as the dude that condemns an entire species for the mistake of one couple. Or the one that promises torture of hell eternally for a simple mistake. I am talking abot the absolute love dude, by the way, as he is often characterised.

When will you guys at least admit the you hold totally contradictory beliefs. I won't hold it against you, won't ask you to change them, or not comply with them. I am only pre-empting what seems to be the norm, when you suddenly want everyone else to behave based on the same idiocy.

I use "idiocy" here not in a mocking way, by the way. First of there is nothing to mock. It does not exist. Secondly on another thread someone said that "intelligence is the ability to hold contracdictory thought simultaneously". I am not sure if that's intelligence but I am certain that the ability to hold two opposing thought simultaneously and NOT knowing to be doing so, can be characterised a lot more strongly and negatively than mere idiocy suggests.