john5746

supernatural = magic, but it isn't always imagination. Sometimes the observer just isn't aware that there is a logical explanation. Like crop circles in the past.

I guess I really can't disagree with this point, but how much should we fight - even when the patient wants it? As mentioned before, resources are not unlimited and this includes medical staff. Does that busy nurse make a few less rounds to certain patients or hurry a little more with them? I wonder sometimes if we hide behind our wall of wishful thinking to avoid making the hard decisions - just assume everyone can be milked until the last breath with no ill effects on the other patients. That being said, maybe it is best to leave it up to the decisions of the staff, to let the invisible hand of time constraints determine the outcome.

Anybody from Germany or know if Germans honor their soldiers in some way? I know the Yasukuni Shrine in Japan always causes a stir for Koreans and Chinese, but they commemorate more than the common foot soldier there. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Yes, celebrate is a bad word. Maybe commemorate and all involved should be remembered.

I think our physical bodies are replaced on the cellular level every 7 years? I see no real difference in this scenario. I would do it, but probably regret it.

Confederate History Exchange I think the link provides an interesting point of discussion in regards to cultural heritage. I find myself agreeing with both the reader and editor, except the part regarding Nazi Germany. I actually think the comparison of German soldiers to Confederate soldiers is valid, different times and different goals, but they both fought on losing sides both morally and in history. My question is more general than the civil war, since most cultures can find instances where they fought on the wrong side. Can we celebrate our ancestors without celebrating the cause that they fought for? Should we?

I would say Dave would be a god, but not the God. Being a god is just about power, which Dave would certainly have over our universe. But my concept of God in addition to being all powerful was not created and cannot be destroyed. God exists without regard to time, i.e. does not change. If we are in a simulation, then our universe wasn't created by God, but the "real" one may have been.

I agree with Skeptic that we should consider using Nukes if a weapon comparable in destruction is used. This hopefully will discourage countries from developing these types of weapons. I'm not sure we really need to state it explicitly. We could just say if a country uses WMD, they will be destroyed with no mercy, no concern for civilians. If it can be done without nukes, then so be it. The problem then becomes if a terrorist group uses a weapon. Do we destroy the country it came from? What if they stole it from us?

It's obviously not wrong BIOLOGICALLY, otherwise it wouldn't have been pleasureable. Twisting your knee the other way is wrong, and your body lets you know by making it hurt. Eating too much is bad for you, and your body lets you know by feeling heavy and sick. Eating sugary foods is good for you (in moderation) and your body lets you know by producing pleasure in the brain. Having sex is good for you (in moderation) and your body lets you know by producing pleasure in the brain. How is it consistent to say that any position, timing or 'purpose' is bad? LOL, I'm really screwing up with my posts. I was being sarcastic in regards to a position, etc. Back to my original point, I am thinking that those who found sex with their parents and siblings to be less desirable probably created more fit offspring. Could this be one thing that is underneath the sex is "dirty" meme? It would start with sex is not good with parents or offspring and since we can experience these feelings when we watch, then just watching the act of those family members becomes disgusting. This impulse then is eventually extended culturally to everyone except your spouse and finally the divine standard becomes no sex at all, at least in some cultures. Or maybe its just the male wanting a virgin, so he is sure the offspring is his. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Better than a poll of catholic priests.

1. How happy are you? 1 to 100 90.25 2. Gender M 3. What is your attitude towards alternative religion? Comical 4. The Bible is a very poor account of history Agree 5. I regularly attend church Disagree (Do not answer red questions) 6. At my church, we sing, dance, or do activities that brings us closer together If I went to church, I would like some entertainment 7. God, Allah, or any spiritual entity does not exist Agree 8. The world would be a better place if religion had never existed Disagree 9. I have never had a spiritual experience Depends on how you define spiritual. I don't think I have had any supernatural experiences, but I have had some experiences during meditation that some might say are spiritual. 10. My parents were not religious Disagree 11. I believe everyone should have freedom of religion Agree, which requires freedom from religion 12. I believe children should have the opportunity to experience all religions, and make the choice for themselves, even at the risk of them accepting a religion that I believe is wrong, thereby condemning them to an eternity of punishment, a low-quality reincarnation, etc. Agree - opportunity, but not required 13. “In God we Trust” should be removed from all U.S. currency Agree 14. The Pledge of Allegiance should not include “Under God” Agree 15. If I commit a crime, God will punish me for it Disagree 16. If I do not go to church, God will punish me for it Disagree 17. God Created the Universe Disagree 18. I know many of the people who go to my church personally I know many people who attend a church. 19. Gays should have equal rights (Marriage, property, etc.) Equal rights, benefits, privileges, et 20. There is nothing going on in my life that might significantly alter my happiness Disagree 21. Please rank your happiness on the scale 90.0

Reading again, I was very obtuse. I was trying to get at where the sex act as "dirty" might come from. Social cohesion is apparent, but I also think there might be genetic components as well. We need to do it only with the wife in a certain position only to have children. Anything else is just wrong.

fast during a different week.

I would argue that biological agents seek pleasure and avoid pain in general, so part of my purpose is to enjoy life. Of course discipline is needed to avoid constantly seeking instant gratification. Delaying pleasure can lead to even greater pleasures down the road - for example sex. A slow hand can result in a more intense climax. As with all morality, it is subjective with different individual limits within boundaries suggested by society. People have different tolerances for pleasure seeking, so if you love living life on the edge, don't marry someone who wants to stay in and read all day. Masturbation is probably the single best thing I could suggest to anyone. With a partner it is even better. Suggesting the eating of salad to be immoral would make more sense. I would argue it is the moral thing to do - like exercise or reading. Of course, to each his own. If you think masturbation is immoral, OK. If you think your opinion is superior to mine because of some mythology and you want it crammed into children's minds, I really don't like that at all. If you want to pass laws based on it, well I invite you to a quail hunt.... But seriously, what idiot would pass laws against sex between consenting adults? True, some people can drink a glass or two of wine everyday with no problems. Some cannot or don't like it. Limits are needed, but each individual has their own healthy limits. I don't agree with that, maybe its just semantics. Constantly seeking instant gratification can be a problem, but I want to have physical and emotional pleasure in my life and hope the same for everyone. One can get into a rut and simply keep looking into the future and never really live, never really enjoy the present. This is just as sad as being in a stupor, maybe more so, IMO I think this probably stems from the natural inclination not to mate with your family members, especially parents. It could all be social, but I think there is a natural component. Then you have sexually repressed monks and nuns trying to convince themselves and society that going without is the gold standard.

I think this thread shows why the morality of abortion isn't as heated an argument as legality. I may think wearing bathing suits in public is immoral. Who cares? Only when I try to apply my morality onto everyone else, that's when I need to provide some good reasons.

I agree with iNow in general that supported opinions have more weight. As others have said, I don't think it needs to be explicitly stated as such. One could ask for evidence or ask for a rebuke of evidence provided. The last think I would like to see is a link war. In my experience, iNow provides a great example in regards to providing evidence and support for claims.

I like the idea of 2 year high school, then let people move toward community college, apprenticeship, college or work. This would allow greater degrees of freedom for each student while allowing high schools to concentrate on a core.

Nah, we would still have to control this and make sure some people get a bunch, while others have to work for a share of one. Can't stand everyone getting a need for nothing, its just wrong.

I don't understand this. Anything goes?

I don't know, there is something to be said for morale. Science can help us understand the nature/nurture reasons for great mothers, but it doesn't give you the uplifting experience of a mother's love or poetry about it. We are not Vulcans and I don't want to be. I don't think you need to lie to answer the question in different ways, but I think they both have their place and time.

I would also go for #2, since this would improve the chances of humans inhabiting another planet, increasing the chances of our species survival, assuming that is a good thing. I would try to disable time travel if it were an option, since we would probably kill ourselves, assuming that is a bad thing. As for option #1, what's the point to living if you can't eat a cow?

I would restart our calender in 2012, call everything prior to be Pre Mayan Prophecy and everything after to be..... we'll think about that if we get there.

Going with the tool analogy, I would compare religion to a pet rock and science to a tool maker. As science makes more and better tools, the usage of the pet rock should be more evident. Don't try to use it as a hammer or a saw or a telescope. Just leave it on the shelf and maybe touch it once in awhile to get a warm fuzzy feeling. And please don't go knocking on people's doors in the morning and hit them with it. Edit: And if you get a warm fuzzy from that telescope, you have issues!

Science shouldn't be hampered by religion - I agree. That doesn't mean religion shouldn't be trampled upon by science.

Not necessarily. I may think it is immoral to eat meat, but no need to make it illegal. If you want to make it a crime, yes it can get complicated. But, one could consider it immoral and simply not want it to be encouraged by the government or with their tax dollars. It is somewhat of a language game. Life does begin at conception, but it is different than life at birth or life of an elderly person. To equate them is to almost render them meaningless. Another example is love. I love my neighbor, I love my enemy, I love my brother, I love sinners, I love my wife. These are very different emotions, yet language treats them the same. If used too often in this way, love becomes meaningless, IMO. In the same way, if we say fertilized eggs in a dish is the same as a bus load of kids then we "dumb down" the importance of those kids, IMO.

Most people are a mixture of both. I am agnostic in regards to abstract god concepts, but become more atheistic as the ideas become more specific. Is the universe intelligent? "I don't know" fits OK for me. Does Zeus control lightning? "I don't know" doesn't work well in this case.

I tend to agree with sentience as a factor in this discussion. Legally, the woman's right to her body overrides the concern for the baby and the father, IMO. But morally, as the sentience of the baby increases and the emotional investment of the participants increases(including the mother), the harm done by this action also increases. So, in general I would say it is immoral to abort on a whim in the third trimester, but it should still be legal. I actually have a much greater problem with bringing a life to term while taking harmful drugs or possessing the knowledge that the baby will have severe deformities.