zapatos

That's because someone who posts an opinion that matches mine must clearly be of superior intelligence and deserving of positive rep!

This says that conjugal infidelity is easier, not that it is an encouragement. I'm not sure that is the same thing. When Eisenhower put in the interstate highway system was he making it easy for me to get to California, or was he encouraging me to go? This says the church is accused of telling people condoms do not protect against HIV. Once again, I'm not sure that is the same as condoms "increasing the risk of disease". I didn't see the pope mentioned at all. In the previous post you didn't say a family would have less money while raising the children, you said the population would be poorer. Presumably people grow up and go to work and then there is more income. If everyone gets a job when they grow up, then having more children has no impact on the wealth of the population. And thanks for pointing out that 1/3 is larger than 1/5, but what I asked for was a study pointing out that larger family sizes causes poorer populations. So your proof of argument is that it is obvious to you. Good job! And I don't know what this proves except that it is not obvious to me, but: Birth rate in Niger: 51.6 births/1000 population Birth rate in Spain: 9.72 births/1000 population http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?c=sp&v=25 % Catholic in Niger: 0.1% % Catholic in Spain: 94% http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_by_country

Yes, but I find many inaccurate statements by atheists that put theism in a bad light, when coming up with an accurate statement is 20 seconds away on Google. It seems as if the rigor is not as important when criticizing religion as it is when supporting science. It certainly does. So do you think it was the atheist's fault? Did the theist ignore reasonable arguments? Was he right or wrong? (my bold) Exactly my point. It seems like it takes a lot more evidence to convince a theist of something if a theory contradicts their worldview, than if it doesn't. Shouldn't the same standard hold for all science?

I wouldn't be at all surprised. But let's take evolution as an example. There was a lively thread going tonight where a theist (he didn't bring up his belief in God until he symbolically gave us the finger while signing off for the night) appeared to ignore or make fun of what I felt were reasonable arguments for evolution. It appeared to me that he was doing this because it was at odds with the bible. I don't see that kind of behavior for topics like plate tectonics or medicine. That type of behavior is why it appears to me that theists feel under attack by science.

I guess to a theist it seems as if science has been after them for centuries. Earth is no longer the center of the universe. Earth is no longer 6000 years old. Evolution. Big Bang. etc. etc.

I was watching a thread in the Religion forum which touched on this and thought I'd start a new thread on the topic. Do theists and atheists fight fair with each other? (I use the terms theist and atheist loosely.) When I first started visiting the Science forums it seemed as if the theists often played loose with the scientific facts when it came to religion. I attributed this to the fact that it's hard to find a lot of science backing God, the bible, etc. And the atheists would be very precise and supply volumes of empirical evidence supporting their positions. Then I started to notice that in the Religion forum, it seemed as if some of the atheists who were so particular about their facts in the Science forums, didn't find the need to be so precise in the Religion forum. So do atheists and theists fight fair with each other? Does it just seem as if they don't because people are simply more comfortable arguing from their own area of expertise? Is there a natural animosity between the two that makes it hard to understand the other's point of view? Is it just not possible to find common ground? What do you think?

Are you having fun with this? Did you make a bet about how many times you can get someone to take the bait?

Have you ever observed the passage of millions of years? I'll give you £20 for a photo or video footage.

I've always thought of humans as just another animal, albeit the one with the most advanced brain and living in a way completely alien to other species on earth. But using your scenario there are other animals that have the most advanced (whatever) and are living in a way completely alien to other species on earth. So it seems they too could be considered "more than just animals". I just don't see being at the top of a particular food/ability/complexity chain as giving some sort of exalted status.

So it's possible to interpret someone's dream and have a pretty good idea of the types of things (not specifics I assume) that are going on in their life at that time?

From your link: "At this point in the discussion, Stuart Kauffman shared a poignant story that supports much of what Schlitz is trying to demonstrate in her research. Kauffman related that several years ago while living in Philadelphia, he had a striking image of his own daughter walking down the middle of a road and being struck by a car that crushed her. It was a stunning image that stopped him in his tracks and made him very concerned for his daughter. About a month later around the time of Halloween, his daughter died in a way that was strikingly similar to the image that he had seen. To this day, Kauffman is not sure how to explain this shocking experience. Was it clairvoyant or telepathic? He is not sure. But what Kauffman did offer is that time might have some kind of structure that we have not even begun to understand. Kauffman’s story seemed to open up the floor to some wilder explorations. Jenny Wade speculated openly and intuitively that if the quantum realm reveals non-local phenomenon, then perhaps our brains are capable of being quantum processors. We are capable of picking up a small piece of quantum information and then turning that into an image, just as Kauffman had seen the image of his daughter even though it had not happened yet." Sounds like time travel.

It still doesn't sound to me like sugar is unhealthy. I know sugar can result in unhealthy spikes in diabetics, but I'd say it is being diabetic that is the problem, not the sugar. (Similar to exercise being unhealthy is some with heart disease.) I can also feel sick if I eat plums too quickly. From what I can find online I'd say the jury is out when it comes to increased blood sugar levels increasing the odds of getting diabetes. And I'd say not brushing your teeth is the unhealthy practice, not the eating of sugar, although I'm not sure about this one. Couldn't most things be considered potentially unhealthy? Sounds like we should all be dead by now. And look how bad exercise is... CHICAGO, IL – Scientists at Loyola University have proved what many of us have suspected all along – exercise is bad for your health. Dr. Harold Crampe of Loyola University and his colleagues spent six months studying the effects of exercise, comparing a group of men aged 20 to 50 who walked or ran at least 3 times a week with a control group of men in the same age range who spent the same time on the couch, watching TV. Dr. Crampe says they were surprised by their findings. "You have a 4000% higher risk of being hit by a car or other motor vehicle, if you're out running," he says, "and some of the other risks are even higher." Runners and walkers were nearly 3 times more likely to be attacked by dogs, 5 times more likely to sprain or break a limb, and nearly 50 times more likely to be struck by lightning. "You're even 12 times as likely to be mugged," says Dr. Crampe. http://buffetoblog.wordpress.com/2006/03/30/exercise-is-bad-for-you-new-study-shows/ Examining 2,000 runners after completion of the Los Angeles marathon demonstrated that immune systems may be suppressed enough to significantly increase our chances of contracting infections and developing illnesses. The study found that 13% of the runners who participated in the marathon developed an illness in the following week. The combination of increased volume and intensity of the exercise left an significant impact on the participants and as a result, many of them contracted infections as a consequence of impaired immune function. http://www.science20.com/erin039s_spin/too_much_exercise_bad_you Other studies have shown an increased risk of arthritis in middle-aged female ex-athletes, and another reported that long-term weight-bearing sports activities like jogging, squash, hockey, badminton and aerobics are linked to arthritis. Two other Swedish studies have shown that high participation in all kinds of sports increases the risk of arthritis of the hip in both sexes. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/could-exercise-be-bad-for-you-634211.html Despite its benefits, exercise can produce harmful free radicals and a new study is set to find out just how bad it is for you and what can be done to minimise the damage. http://machineslikeus.com/news/exercise-may-be-bad-you Ok

Ok, I guess I was reading into the statement the implication that it was unhealthy, as opposed to just not being of any benefit.

I assume you are implying that we are more than "just animals". Is that correct? If so can you expand a bit and tell me what you mean by this? Thanks.

In what way is it not healthy?

I don't find that organizing people into structured education where people of varied backgrounds are all sharing the common goal of higher education, is all that different than organizing people into structured work where people of varied backgrounds are all sharing the common goal of marketing a product. In both cases you have people of varied backgrounds and intelligence, organized under an umbrella organization, and further broken down into specialties and sub-specialties based on thing such as abilities and interests. You also find sponsored social events in both types of institutions. The two seem very similar to me except maybe at the level of complexity.

I've always felt that the transitions from elementary school, to high school, to college, to the start of your career were big steps, but ones that the previous step had prepared you for. By going away to college you get to learn in an environment where you are competing with your equals. While more experienced adults may be good for you I don't really believe that most of your co-workers are going to be thinking of what is best for you. People tend to interact most with peers, and if I'm a relatively immature 18 year old, I don't know that those older and more experienced adults will really be looking out for me. If I move from high school to college to work, I think I'll be better prepared on the job than if I move from high school to work, while pursuing my education independently. It's not that it can't be done; it's done all the time. I just feel the extra step for traditional education makes for smoother transitions. As far as limiting the broadending of their horizons, I'd agree to a point. College will certainly broaden your horizons to some extent, but it only delays, not eliminates, the bigger step you're talking about.

I completely agree with the benefits you describe. The examples you give however sound to me like they would be more applicable to someone who is more mature than your typical 18 year old, which is what I was suggesting when I described them as someone going to college right out of high school. By going away to college as an 18 year old, you are often experiencing your first independence (without really losing the support your parents provide), and learning to pay bills, manage your time by yourself, and be responsible for all the many things that will turn you into a mature adult. And you get to do it with a whole group of people your age who are sharing those same experiences with you. Oh, and you get an academic education too. I think someone with more life skills and maturity would be more capable of, and benefit the most from, being able to separate their education from their life experiences as you described.

A lot also depends on the type of student. I believe almost any student going to college right out of high school would be better off moving away from home to attend a traditional school. Much of what you learn does not come from the courses you take.

(My bold) False. "Those who attack the Church for its use of indulgences rely upon—and take advantage of—the ignorance of both Catholics and non-Catholics. The Church has always taught that indulgences do not apply to sins not yet committed. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes, "[An indulgence] is not a permission to commit sin, nor a pardon of future sin; neither could be granted by any power." " http://www.catholic.com/library/Myths_About_Indulgences.asp

Can you please give examples and sources? I don't ever seem to recall hearing that the Catholic church said contraception encourages sex outside of marriage, that it encourages infidelity, or that it increases the risk of diseases. I'm also curious about studies that have shown larger family sizes causing poorer populations, and in which countries the church has lied about contraception with the result being much larger family sizes. And of course I'd like to know where it has been shown that "less stigma" with contraception causes smaller family sizes.

I'm a rookie on these topics so please excuse me if I am out of place here, but as Spyman pointed out in another thread: "Yes, it is normally considered that the expansion of space only happens on very very large scales. But, as I have tried to explain, on smaller scales, things like galaxies, solar systems, molecules and atoms are bound systems, they are held together by forces much stronger than the expansion. The force from Dark energy is not able to continue to expand them, instead bound systems only expands until they reach a slightly larger size where the forces that holds them together counter and stop the expansion. So bound systems don't continue to expand but they are a tiny bit larger due to Dark energy, this tiny bit is so teeny-weeny that it is not measureable and esteemed unimportant. The reasoning is not my personal idea, it's a valid scientific conclusion and even mentioned on Wikipedia:" "A cosmological constant has the effect of a repulsive force between objects which is proportional (not inversely proportional) to distance. Unlike inertia it actively "pulls" on objects which have clumped together under the influence of gravity, and even on individual atoms. However this does not cause the objects to grow steadily or to disintegrate; unless they are very weakly bound, they will simply settle into an equilibrium state which is slightly (undetectably) larger than it would otherwise have been." http://en.wikipedia....ansion_of_space

No one has presented any reason for the Prohibition of birth control inside of marriage that makes any sense at all to you. But you were presented with the reason that the church gives, and it does makes sense to many. And realistically, is any explanation for prohibiting birth control inside of marriage going to make sense to you?

Moon, we already discussed in this thread why birth control inside marriage is wrong in the Catholic church. And if you are not Catholic, then this doesn't apply to you. I don't understand why it bothers you if others choose to join this group and live by its rules (or even ignore its rules). I don't like the rule of having to wear a helmet, but since I am not on a football team it really doesn't apply to me. And when you eliminate the days taken by menstruation and ovulation you should still have more than "only a few days a month at most" to have sex.

Ok, I'm confused. I thought you were saying that living in high density Mumbai is pleasant (or at least acceptable) and the people living there must be happy, otherwise they would move. Did I misunderstand you? Because what you are conveying in this post is that the tourists are having a grand time, travelling around the city, eating in nice restaurants, doing some sightseeing. I assume they went home to something other than a tin roof four feet over a dirt floor. In your first link, picture #14, you have a nice picture of a slum in Mumbai. And according to your statistics nearly 6 million people live like that, almost half the population of the city. Also according to you, this is likely a step up for them from what they experienced in rural areas. From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharavi (I edited out some references and other non-critical information - my bolding) "Dharavi is a slum and administrative ward, over parts of Sion, Bandra, Kurla and Kalina suburbs of Mumbai, India. It is sandwiched between Mahim in the west and Sion in the east, and spread over an area of 175 hectares, or 0.67 square miles. In 1986, the population was estimated at 530,225, but modern Dharavi has a population of between 600,000 and over 1 million people, Dharavi is one of the largest slums in Asia." "Dharavi has severe problems with public health, due to the scarcity of toilet facilities, compounded by the flooding during the monsoon season. As of November 2006 there was only one toilet per 1,440 residents in Dharavi. Mahim Creek, a local river, is widely used by local residents for urination and defecation, leading to the spread of contagious disease. The area also suffers from problems with inadequate water supply." And ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_India "The World Bank estimates that 456 million Indians (41.6% of the total Indian population) now live under the global poverty line of US$ 1.25 per day (PPP)." "Despite significant economic progress, one quarter of the nation's population earns less than the government-specified poverty threshold of 12 rupees per day (approximately US$ 0.25). As per the 2001 census, 35.5% of Indian households availed of banking services, 35.1% owned a radio or transistor, 31.6% a television, 9.1% a phone, 43.7% a bicycle, 11.7% a scooter, motorcycle or a moped, and 2.5% a car, jeep or van; 34.5% of the households had none of these assets." As far as moving if you are not happy there, you are probably not going to move far if you are making $0.25 per day.