401. Sam's Flea!

Comment #32808 by SRWB on April 18, 2007 at 9:55 am

Objective morality - how about using the basic guideline that you should not do harm to others (physically, mentally or emotionally). That, of course, is where subjective morality falls apart.

402. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32560 by SRWB on April 17, 2007 at 11:55 am

The major issue here is that, religious rights are often permitted to trump other rights, i.e., human and legal, such as security of the person, etc. Unfortunately, many governments are loath to intercede on behalf of individuals because of misplaced respect and consideration for ancient and bizarre religious ideas that are not compatible with modern life. As I said earlier, there is no rationale for this procedure other than where it is medically necessary.

403. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32508 by SRWB on April 17, 2007 at 7:54 am

This thread reminds me of a similar debate which took place where I live about a year or two ago, wherein the local prominent rabbi essentially suggested that the Jewish practice of circumcision was part of the sacred bond that Jews have with God (or words to that effect). What he didn't address, of course, is the fact that if God really wanted males to be without foreskins, he would have created them that way in the first place!

The whole idea is wrong, purely for reasons of appeasing some non-existent deity. It should never be entertained unless there is a bonafide medical reason for taking such a drastic step.

404. Answers To the Atheists

Comment #30296 by SRWB on April 7, 2007 at 12:51 pm

While I would agree with you, cheshirecat, that all of your "quotes" are not entirely accurate or true, the fact is that most of those so-called dogmas are only individual opinions, unlike the dogmas of established religions. That's the major difference. Faith may not be "intellectually lazy" as there sure has been a lot of time and ink spent on recording it, but it is arguably intellectually fruitless.

405. Militant atheists: too clever for their own good

Comment #30285 by SRWB on April 7, 2007 at 11:59 am

This issue should not be about arrogance or being more intelligent than believers. After all, consideration of the issue based on logic and reasoning is not arrogance (it might be more intelligent, but only in so far that all things must be decided based on evidence). For that reason we should always strive to attack the ideas of believers vice the believers themselves (as tempting as that sometimes is!).

406. Militant atheists: too clever for their own good

Comment #30179 by SRWB on April 7, 2007 at 6:50 am

After reading this article, I was left with the impression that it was somewhat of an attempt to play devil's advocate. Moore is probably hedging his bets that there is a God (after all he did say he voted against the motion twice) but he also basically concedes that Dawkins et al had the more convincing arguments. He just can't bring himself to come down firmly on the side of the logical position.

407. Creationism debate continues to evolve

Comment #29700 by SRWB on April 4, 2007 at 8:22 am

My first post after visiting the site for some time now.

As a follow on to dirtpiggy's post (#29607), I have often wondered why God stopped "creating" humans from dust after the supposed first effort some few thousand years ago. The more troubling question for theists should be why humans, and other animals, procreate through sexual reproduction. If God created the original creatures on earth why did he stop there? Why haven't all subsequent living things been created directly by God, instead of through this very labor and time intensive method of sexual reproduction? Why the need for middle-men and women? Think of the benefits intrinsic to such a method if God immediately replaced deceased life forms with fresh, fully-grown beings ready to worship and do his bidding. Of course that's not really how it works. Absurd isn't it?