Muamba

[toonarmy108 0]

got to be a KSA spoof account.

Uhhhhh no dude i dont know what that is i am a normal person from California

[Monkeys Fist 38682]

I always thought gays were weirdos, until i learned in my psychology class that they have a gene defect and that is why they act like, their hypothalamus changes before or shortly after they are born and becomes like the opposite sex. Scientifically speaking its called a gene defect because the animal or human with it does not reproduce thus not spreading its genes which by science's view is a defect. So please don't take offense and i hope this information will help you become more sympathetic and tolerant of gays. Education is the most important thing in this world i feel, other then love of course:)

Maybe with the combined power of science and god we can cure these defective bummers ,eh?

[toonarmy108 0]

I always thought gays were weirdos, until i learned in my psychology class that they have a gene defect and that is why they act like, their hypothalamus changes before or shortly after they are born and becomes like the opposite sex. Scientifically speaking its called a gene defect because the animal or human with it does not reproduce thus not spreading its genes which by science's view is a defect. So please don't take offense and i hope this information will help you become more sympathetic and tolerant of gays. Education is the most important thing in this world i feel, other then love of course:)

Maybe with the combined power of science and god we can cure these defective bummers ,eh?

Id leave that up to future society and scientists.

[Monkeys Fist 38682]

Unspecified deity wept.

[Gejon 2]

Religion has always baffled me.

[Ally 0]

Whats going on in this thread then?

[Monkeys Fist 38682]

1. Patrice Muamba's recovery- meh, he's alreet man!

2. God vs Science- Atheists should thank God for the science which disproves him.

3. Gays are gay because their brains are broken.

[Davey Dave 0]

4. Sky fairies are stupid. Stop believing in them.

 

5. Atheists need to stop being dicks.

[RobH 0]

Unspecified deity wept.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

SJ, care to mention some examples of historical inaccuracies from 'God is Not Great'? I'd be interested to hear some. I've been reading through a history of the Holocaust for a while now, and knowing some of Hitchen's readings of history, they seem to conflict with what I've been reading. For instance, Hitchens was sympathetic to the idea that Hitler was syphilitic, and believed that his behaviour from 1942 to his death was much easier to understand if you took this view. I don't go for that one.

 

Nick Clegg actually worked as a fact checker for Hitchens when he was a young man (it might have been at the Nation, could be wrong), so it's hard to believe anything could have slipped by nitpicking Nick.

Edited March 23, 2012 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[luckyluke 1]

Back to the main topic. This poses an interesting question to the current resuscitation guidelines. When I worked in A&E cardiac arrests usually got 20-30minutes CPR and 3 shocks before being called as a death, give or take.

 

Here we have a bloke whose heart has stopped for 78minutes and has been given 12 separate shocks and it looks like he is going to make a very good recovery with minimal to no brain damage

 

Don't recall length of resuscitation being in the guidelines, it's down to clinical judgement. Unless you get to look at the rhythm strip for Muamba you're not going to know exactly what happened from his doctors' explanations in lay terms. It was 78 minutes before he had a sustained output; he may well have been in and out of shockable rhythms, PEA, aystole, in between periods of having an output. If someone's asystolic for half an hour that's a different story.

 

It will have been cooling that's made the difference neurologically.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

The cardiologist did an interview with the Beeb, he explains his thoughts on what may have given Muamba a better chance of recovery than someone in different circumstances. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17460781 It's on there if you scroll down.

[toonotl 2406]

Great point Chez, people should get educated about religion before they go criticizing it. I always thought gays were weirdos, until i learned in my psychology class that they have a gene defect and that is why they act like, their hypothalamus changes before or shortly after they are born and becomes like the opposite sex. Scientifically speaking its called a gene defect because the animal or human with it does not reproduce thus not spreading its genes which by science's view is a defect. So please don't take offense and i hope this information will help you become more sympathetic and tolerant of gays. Education is the most important thing in this world i feel, other then love of course:)

 

Wow. What an idiot.

[toonotl 2406]

4. Sky fairies are stupid. Stop believing in them.

 

5. Atheists need to stop being dicks.

 

6. Two heretics are the best examples of science progressing through the religious.

[toonarmy108 0]

Great point Chez, people should get educated about religion before they go criticizing it. I always thought gays were weirdos, until i learned in my psychology class that they have a gene defect and that is why they act like, their hypothalamus changes before or shortly after they are born and becomes like the opposite sex. Scientifically speaking its called a gene defect because the animal or human with it does not reproduce thus not spreading its genes which by science's view is a defect. So please don't take offense and i hope this information will help you become more sympathetic and tolerant of gays. Education is the most important thing in this world i feel, other then love of course:)

 

Wow. What an idiot.

Just something i learned in college mate, no need to call me an idiot. Its all facts, its science mate if cant believe it then you are a hypocrite, and also you need to grow up.

[toonotl 2406]

[SloopJohn 0]

SJ, The science and religion point is ridiculous, being religious in the 15th to 19th centuries was a bit like being 'non-racist' today I.e. it was socially unacceptable to be an atheist and in some cases punishable by death. Linking scientific achievement in this period to religiousness is like linking scientific achievement today to being non-racist. It's a prevalent belief and is associated with the individual's holding these beliefs also contributing great scientific advancement. Your argument is one of loose association.

 

It maybe an argument, at times, of loose association (particuarly, I admit, with Newton) but it is also based on these scientists own writings and known outlooks on life. Kepler, for instance, was only interested in studying the physical make up of the universe because he wanted to explore how God had reflected the harmonic perfection of the Trinity in his creation. So whether Christianity was the prevalent belief or not, it clearly had a profound effect on Kepler's rabid desire to study, one cannot dismiss that as 'loose association'. The same could be argued for Jean Buridan, Nicholas Oresme, Nicholas of Cusa, John Philoponus, Thomas Bradwardine, Robert Grosseteste and St. Albert the Great etc, all of whom, in one way or another, are considered geniuses in their respective fields of research and were directly inspired by their faiths. This is not to mention notable Muslim scholars such as Ibn al'Haytham or Ibn Rushid.

 

You don't go and study science today because you believe in racial equality (well you might!) but clearly people did go and study science because of their faiths, and certainly, they still do.

 

As for the fallacy that humanity has not advanced or is no less violent, this is nonsense from many perspectives. Starting with violence and deaths from wars, the number of people killed in battle per 100,000 population is now 3/10 per 100,000. The earliest estimates in history put this at 500 per 100,000. Murder rates in Europe were 100 per 100,000 in the 14th and 15th centuries, they are now at 1 per 100,000. Some estimate that there are 1.2 million deaths in the old testament, the stories of torture in the medieval period etc all show a world that is becoming was very inhumane. That is all changing with more countries being democracies, less dictators, less violent oppression. The 20th century shows the most startling data, studies by the UN show remarkable decreases in violent deaths (although an increase in the number of wars). Look up Pinker, Mack etc for sources on data relating to a less violent earth.

 

I'm not sure how you can argue that world has become less violent in the 20th Century but there have been more wars - was that an ironic statement? Do you honestly believe that the death of a human being in a war doesn't count as a violent death instigated by a society? Nowadays if a few people agree and a few buttons are pushed we can effectively be wiped off the face of the earth as an entire race...now if you ask me...going from a state where we couldn't all die instantly (or very slowly) at human hands to where we can is regression. In fact we teeter on the cusp of instant regression at every moment and only thanks to humanity and science.

 

On your Old Testament argument, Stalin and Lenin combined lead their people to grand total of 60 million deaths over a 30 year period - that's 40 times your New Testament estimate over a period which I estimate at being roughly around 1/75 of the time span covered by the New Testament or in other terms, that's roughly 665 deaths a year in the OT versus 39,000 odd a week under the Soviet regime. That is assuming of course, you believe the Old Testament to be solely and primarily a historically account of the 2255 years (estimated) leading up to the death of Jacob and decide to ignore contextualising the narrative within the barbaric moral context of its time. When tribes of the Old Testament committed atrocious acts of murder, mass killings or the alike (such as the Babylonian invasion of Jerusalem in BC586), they were viewed as justified by contemporaries on the basis of the moral code of that time (the same can be said for any immorality partaken in the Greek history). Therefore, how was one meant to judge their moral actions against a code of morality that had yet to come into being? And honestly, do you believe the story of Joseph is to be interpreted literally? - in other words, that it's morals lie in the literal action of the narrative? - indeed, as I noted earlier, it was rare in the Christian scholastic tradition to interpret the Bible literally and a historical / literal interpretation is a relatively new cultural phenomena, lead mainly by the good ol' US of A's hasty reaction to 19th century positivism.

 

Back to the Soviet Regime, it is also worth noting that Stalin and Lenin were very much supported by the West; the British public lovingly referred to Stalin as 'Uncle Joe' whilst George Bernard Shaw, amongst other heavyweight British cultural figures such as Belloc, hailed the Soviet Union as a progressive regime. However, as Heller and Nekrich note, it was common knowledge in the 1930s that Stalin was effectively exterminating the agricultural population of Russia. So why didn't the West ever challenge Stalin? Self interest? To uncomfortable to admit that a progressive society was having to make 'necessary' sacrifices as to advance? Whichever way you look at it, a secular West doesn't come off very well as the supreme moral force, particularly as we spent two or three years avoiding war with a country that was clearly the personification of evil. Indeed at this very moment, we all come home from work every night and watch as atrocities unfold in Homs on the news. We then turn off the TV, say 'oh dear - how awful?', cook up a microwave curry, watch the football and go to bed. Not exactly what I would call a pro-active moral reaction to a current atrocity.

 

How can one argue for a progressive, less violent, more moral 20th Century, when Gil Eliot estimates, in his book 'The Twentieth Century Book of the Dead', that over 150 million people died at the hands of another human between 1900-1972 and that statistic doesn't even cover nearly 1/3 of the 20th Century! There are an estimated 20-27 million slaves in the world at this very moment, more than any other time in recorded history...again...a sign of progressive, pro-active, society?

 

However the real question is...does religion provide a powerful reason for immoral action? It is impossible to deny but religion also provides profound reason for extreme pacifism, for mercy, for seeking peace. Basically what I'm saying is, religion and irreligion are cultural variables, but, as witnessed in the 20th Century, human evil (almost always committed in the name of good) is a worrying constant.

 

To that perspective, we can add that humanity is advancing at an even greater rate today in the 21st century, just as religion is fading into obscurity, medicine, politics, economics and international law are being applied with increasing humanity. The best correlation statistic for all this? Human IQ. The best thing you can give anyone is an education, not a religion.

 

Although all education by its very nature coercive, I agree with you that the best thing you can give someone is an education and then, of their own free will (!), let them decide whether they want to follow a religion or not.

Edited March 24, 2012 by SloopJohn

[SloopJohn 0]

SJ, care to mention some examples of historical inaccuracies from 'God is Not Great'? I'd be interested to hear some. I've been reading through a history of the Holocaust for a while now, and knowing some of Hitchen's readings of history, they seem to conflict with what I've been reading. For instance, Hitchens was sympathetic to the idea that Hitler was syphilitic, and believed that his behaviour from 1942 to his death was much easier to understand if you took this view. I don't go for that one.

 

Nick Clegg actually worked as a fact checker for Hitchens when he was a young man (it might have been at the Nation, could be wrong), so it's hard to believe anything could have slipped by nitpicking Nick.

 

I'll reply to you tomorrow Kev, I have to get up in 2 and a half hours for work

[ChezGiven 0]

SJ I recommend you have a look at Steven Pinker's - The better Angels of our nature: Why violence has declined.

 

Not without it's critics but an interesting collection of violent statistics, whether you believe it represents evidence of human development or not.

 

 

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

Why didn't the west challenge Stalin? The question is too wide to be answered, you'd have to narrow it down and answer it country by country. WW2 was a tainted victory for the UK because we needed Stalin to take Hitler out. In the aftermath of that conflict criticism of Stalin was frowned upon, for that reason. The most important factor is that Stalin would have fucking killed us, we didn't have the resources to mount an offensive against Russia at that time.

Interestingly, there was a certain English writer who published two very famous novels, one of which was overtly critical of Stalin, and another a horrific portrait of life under a dictatorship in the Stalin mould. He struggled to get the books published for various reasons (paper shortages in the aftermath of WW2, censorship), but publish them he did, and they went on to be very successful. The success of this material will have contributed in part to an intellectual climate whereby it was more acceptable to criticise Stalin, and would have led some readers to question the morals of such a figure. This is the value of free literature.

 

Now, had Ayatollah Khomeany been in charge of the UK at the time, a dying George Orwell would have come to his office with the manuscript of 1984 and offered it to be published, to which he would have responded:

 

"What is this?"

"I have finished my masterpiece in the throes of death. Please Ayatollah, I humbly ask if you will publish my book."

"But we already have book, it is called the QUUU'RRANN, and it is very nice."

"Yes, but this book is also very nice, if not as nice as the holy Quu'rrann."

"Hmmmm... I tell you what. I will publish something. FATWA FOR GEORGE ORWELL."

"But... this will be one of the most celebrated books of the 20th century, your greatness."

"Wahhhh, wahhhhhh, like I give a damn: FATWA. Also, before I forget. FATWA FOR EDDIE MURPHY. I just saw the Adventure of Pluto Nash, what an unbelievable piece of crap that was. By the beard of Allah, he raise my expectation so high with Nutty Professor, now this? This man must die."

 

 

It is worth remembering that relious powers love to ban literature, and that is fucking appalling.

Edited March 24, 2012 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[Renton 17723]

Why didn't the west challenge Stalin? The question is too wide to be answered, you'd have to narrow it down and answer it country by country. WW2 was a tainted victory for the UK because we needed Stalin to take Hitler out. In the aftermath of that conflict criticism of Stalin was frowned upon, for that reason. The most important factor is that Stalin would have fucking killed us, we didn't have the resources to mount an offensive against Russia at that time.

Interestingly, there was a certain English writer who published two very famous novels, one of which was overtly critical of Stalin, and another a horrific portrait of life under a dictatorship in the Stalin mould. He struggled to get the books published for various reasons (paper shortages in the aftermath of WW2, censorship), but publish them he did, and they went on to be very successful. The success of this material will have contributed in part to an intellectual climate whereby it was more acceptable to criticise Stalin, and would have led some readers to question the morals of such a figure. This is the value of free literature.

 

Now, had Ayatollah Khomeany been in charge of the UK at the time, a dying George Orwell would have come to his office with the manuscript of 1984 and offered it to be published, to which he would have responded:

 

"What is this?"

"I have finished my masterpiece in the throes of death. Please Ayatollah, I humbly ask if you will publish my book."

"But we already have book, it is called the QUUU'RRANN, and it is very nice."

"Yes, but this book is also very nice, if not as nice as the holy Quu'rrann."

"Hmmmm... I tell you what. I will publish something. FATWA FOR GEORGE ORWELL."

"But... this will be one of the most celebrated books of the 20th century, your greatness."

"Wahhhh, wahhhhhh, like I give a damn: FATWA. Also, before I forget. FATWA FOR EDDIE MURPHY. I just saw the Adventure of Pluto Nash, what an unbelievable piece of crap that was. By the beard of Allah, he raise my expectation so high with Nutty Professor, now this? This man must die."

 

 

It is worth remembering that relious powers love to ban literature, and that is fucking appalling.

 

 

SJ, you seem to have a skill in making yourself sound superficially erudite without saying much of significance at all. I struggle to understand what your point or position is. Is this the type of thing you do when reading a philosophy or history of philosophy degree? Perhaps you might like to clarify, do you believe in God, and if so is this specifically Jehovah? If not, are you merely making a speculative argument that religion (despite popular and overwhelming evidence to the contrary, however you try and appease it) is the driver behind scientific enlightenment?

Edited March 24, 2012 by Renton

[SloopJohn 0]

Why didn't the west challenge Stalin? The question is too wide to be answered, you'd have to narrow it down and answer it country by country. WW2 was a tainted victory for the UK because we needed Stalin to take Hitler out. In the aftermath of that conflict criticism of Stalin was frowned upon, for that reason. The most important factor is that Stalin would have fucking killed us, we didn't have the resources to mount an offensive against Russia at that time.

Interestingly, there was a certain English writer who published two very famous novels, one of which was overtly critical of Stalin, and another a horrific portrait of life under a dictatorship in the Stalin mould. He struggled to get the books published for various reasons (paper shortages in the aftermath of WW2, censorship), but publish them he did, and they went on to be very successful. The success of this material will have contributed in part to an intellectual climate whereby it was more acceptable to criticise Stalin, and would have led some readers to question the morals of such a figure. This is the value of free literature.

 

Now, had Ayatollah Khomeany been in charge of the UK at the time, a dying George Orwell would have come to his office with the manuscript of 1984 and offered it to be published, to which he would have responded:

 

"What is this?"

"I have finished my masterpiece in the throes of death. Please Ayatollah, I humbly ask if you will publish my book."

"But we already have book, it is called the QUUU'RRANN, and it is very nice."

"Yes, but this book is also very nice, if not as nice as the holy Quu'rrann."

"Hmmmm... I tell you what. I will publish something. FATWA FOR GEORGE ORWELL."

"But... this will be one of the most celebrated books of the 20th century, your greatness."

"Wahhhh, wahhhhhh, like I give a damn: FATWA. Also, before I forget. FATWA FOR EDDIE MURPHY. I just saw the Adventure of Pluto Nash, what an unbelievable piece of crap that was. By the beard of Allah, he raise my expectation so high with Nutty Professor, now this? This man must die."

 

 

It is worth remembering that relious powers love to ban literature, and that is fucking appalling.

 

So do democratically elected governments and that is also fucking appalling. You make a good point about the Soviet Union though although whether Stalin's armies were anywhere near full strength in the early 1930s is open for debate.

[SloopJohn 0]

SJ, you seem to have a skill in making yourself sound superficially erudite without saying much of significance at all. I struggle to understand what your point or position is.

 

from previous posts:

 

There is this myth in modern culture, propagated by historians such as Draper and Freeman, that once upon a time there was a flowering of Hellenistic culture; a culture that cherished reason, lauded clear thinking, pursued science and high philosophy. Then, as if out of nowhere, the dark shadow of an ignorant Christendom descended upon these poor souls, trapping them in a cage of irrational metaphysical dogma that stalled the progress of Hellenistic culture and extinguished the raging conflagration of pagan thought. 500 years passed, and thanks to Islam, Christianity, and more specifically, Copernicus, discovered heliocentrism, as if by magic, and reason began its indisputable, triumphant march through the murky mists of faith, leading us towards the bright lights of modernity which we have arrived at today.

 

This is of course, a total myth and goes against all historical evidence of the last two thousand years...

 

Throughout this debate I have always defended my historical position with evidence - I don't see how this is defending a 'lie' because at no moment have I been defending Christianity as philosophical system nor have I been defending it's historical origins in the life and death of Jesus Christ. I've simply defended what is believed by myself, and many other secular academics, to be true.

[SloopJohn 0]

and again:

 

Is this the type of thing you do when reading a philosophy or history of philosophy degree?

 

Seeing as my argument has been largely historical I don't see how you could've inferred I did a philosophy or a history of philosophy degree. Unless, of course, you didn't read my posts.

 

Perhaps you might like to clarify, do you believe in God, and if so is this specifically Jehovah?

 

I don't believe there is a God. I'm just not arrogant enough to presume that my position is totally right.

[SloopJohn 0]

If not, are you merely making a speculative argument that religion (despite popular and overwhelming evidence to the contrary, however you try and appease it) is the driver behind scientific enlightenment?

 

Can you qualify what you mean by scientific enlightenment?

 

My argument is not that Christendom has always been in the right and a steady force for progress through out its history, one would have to be insane to defend such a position. But I am arguing that it also was not always against science (or reason or whatever), and indeed, most of the roots of the empirical sciences can be attributed to the works of Christians and Muslims - either in their preservation of key scientific texts from antiquity or their own research which, commonly, was directly fueled by their faith.

 

It is not as simple as saying "science is progressive and religion is regressive" because history shows this is simply not the case, sometimes indeed, it is the exact opposite, as I noted (again, in a previous post) regarding the astrology of John Philoponus - and this is a widely accepted position within secular, historical scholarship.