tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post1873568605719947858..comments2024-03-16T05:00:38.826-04:00Comments on Egnorance: Vox Day on "The Problem of Evil".mregnorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-21313261091453527022011-09-14T22:43:51.049-04:002011-09-14T22:43:51.049-04:00Sigh, Michael,
Logic isn't your strong point....Sigh, Michael,<br /><br />Logic isn't your strong point.<br /><br />You previously insisted that correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation.<br /><br />You now state that DDT is a 'pesticide that had decisive results in eliminating malaria'. No, it didn't, it only controlled it to some extent, we've still got it. Countries such as Sri Lanka discontinued their vector control programs in the '60s because they thought they had got rid of malaria. They were wrong.<br /><br />You claim that there are 30 million excess deaths due to malaria. Actually, any death due to malaria is excess because we know in detail how to control it, the main way being removing the mosquito breeding areas away from human habitations. Insecticides and antimalarials, particularly if halfhearted, invite resistance in the mosquitoes and the parasite.<br /><br />Environmentalists hated DDT. They might have had a role to play in the subsequent malarial deaths (I dispute that it was a significant one). I think that the main factor was countries' and communities' failure to control the mosquito breeding sites, the way western countries managed to eliminate malaria ( and with the added bonus of eliminating such diseases as yellow fever, for which there is no effective treatment).<br /><br />Your comment about polio and smallpox immunization is hilarious. There are plenty of people in all countries of the world currently objecting to immunization for bogus reasons, often with a religious undertone. Admittedly, that hasn't always been like that. The Boston preacher Cotton Mather was a keen proponent of variolation during a smallpox epidemic, since the 2% mortality rate from variolation was significantly better that the 30% death rate from naturally contracted smallpox.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-47866616099115918552011-09-14T18:17:42.564-04:002011-09-14T18:17:42.564-04:00@bach:
bottomline: environmentalists waged war ag...@bach:<br /><br />bottomline: environmentalists waged war against a pesticide that had decisive results in eliminating malaria. <br /><br />30 million excess deaths. <br /><br />Luckly we didn't have any theories that the polio vaccine or the smallpox vaccine made birds' eggs too thin...Mike Egnornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-61021283242460021842011-09-14T18:12:09.130-04:002011-09-14T18:12:09.130-04:00Michael,
As I've said before, you're very...Michael,<br /><br />As I've said before, you're very good at making unsupported statements that don't address my comments.<br /><br />Why did WHO stop recommending DDT as vector control 30 years ago? Was it because the mosquitoes were resistant? Was it because the people objected to it being sprayed on their internal walls so they went and scrubbed it off, so it was ineffective for that reason?<br /><br />You and I both know that malaria is spread by mosquitoes, but it's not obvious, and it took modern western medicine centuries to discover this. A relatively less educated person in a third world country is much more likely to ascribe an attack of malaria to heavy exertion the day before than a mosquito bite the week before.<br /><br />Mosquitoes and malaria evolve (OK adapt if you prefer). They gain and lose resistance to DDT and chloroquine respectively. Times change. What works then doesn't work now. Third world countries such as Sri Lanka stopped using DDT as a vector control in the '60s because it worked too well and largely eliminated malaria, BEFORE the 'EVIL' western environmentalists managed to get DDT banned for domestic use in America. You're making the ludicrous suggestion that third world countries are more susceptible to western environmental pressure, than the more environmentally aware west.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-15224884625561811052011-09-14T06:22:58.933-04:002011-09-14T06:22:58.933-04:00@bach:
["30 years later"]
You mean 30 ...@bach:<br /><br />["30 years later"]<br /><br />You mean 30 million lives later. <br /><br />Oops. <br /><br />Being an environmentalist means never having to say you're sorry.mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-1607338385611168622011-09-13T20:24:03.005-04:002011-09-13T20:24:03.005-04:00Michael,
From the article, WHO stopped recommend...Michael,<br /><br />From the article, WHO stopped recommending DDT as vector control with spraying of internal walls in houses in the '80s, stated as being due to safety concerns, but that's a long time after Rachel Carson's 'Silent Spring' and also a long time after America banned its use too.<br /><br />Ascertaining the reasons for ceasing the recommendation for the use of DDT at the time are difficult, let alone 30 years later. Was spraying with DDT still effective then, or did DDT resistance in mosquitoes reduce its efficiency? Did WHO decide that the risks outweighed the benefits then?<br /><br />As a surgeon, you're making risk/benefit analyses all the time.<br /><br />30 years later, the situation has changed. Chloroquine resistance in malaria is a big problem in many countries, due to substandard treatment of many fevers in endemic areas presumed to be due to malaria with inadequate doses. Mosquitoes have had 30 years to lose whatever DDT resistance they had. <br /><br />Environmentalists now support the use of DDT in vector control as not having any adverse environmental effect. The risk benefit analysis has swung to positive. Times change. We get new data. Decisions made 30 years ago need to be revised. If you were in practice 30 years ago, or are in practice 30 years from now, you certainly won't be doing exactly the same procedures then as now. You would have more information to do your job better. why do you think that committees are wiser than you?bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-91853779816190145902011-09-13T19:43:50.083-04:002011-09-13T19:43:50.083-04:00@bach:
"15 September 2006 – Nearly 30 years ...@bach:<br /><br />"15 September 2006 – Nearly 30 years after safety concerns led to the phasing out of indoor spraying with DDT and other insecticides to control malaria, the United Nations health agency said today it will start promoting this method again to fight the global scourge that kills more than one million people every year, including around 3,000 children everyday." (http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=19855&Cr=malaria&Cr1)<br /><br />If DDT use was no longer necessary or effective, why did the UN reverse policy? Why did it admit that it was 'phased out for safety concerns'?<br /><br />The banning of DDT was an atrocity, and 30 million people paid for it with their lives. Greens' response: 'who gives a shit'mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-86144918775141756512011-09-13T18:55:19.453-04:002011-09-13T18:55:19.453-04:00Michael,
You're very good at dismissing my co...Michael,<br /><br />You're very good at dismissing my comments with bald unsupported statements.<br /><br />Regarding Rachen Carson and her supposed complicity in 30 million malaria deaths, due to pressure from the Greens calling for the banning of DDT.<br /><br />You're arguably wrong. 'Silent Spring' was published in 1962. DDT was banned in America for domestic use in 1972. It's been banned for agricultural use in most countries, but is still available for vector control of malaria carrying mosquitos.<br /><br />Countries such as Sri Lanka discontinued their mosquito control programs in the '60s because they were too successful. Malaria virtually disappeared. They were ceased because the population didn't like their houses being sprayed with DDT and they were expensive, not because Western 'Greenies' pressured them to do so (it took 10 years for it to be banned in America, remember).<br /><br />In the meantime unrestricted use of DDT in agriculture went on, so drifting of DDT to mosquito breeding areas led to DDT resistance in the mosquitos.<br /><br />And then when malaria made its comeback, vector control with DDT was ineffective.<br /><br />Western countries managed largely to control malaria by draining swamps and eliminating the breeding areas for the malaria carrying mosquitos. Not all species of mosquitos in an area are equal in their ability to transmit malaria, and in many cases human activities have provided the perfect environment for the dangerous mosquitos, for example by bringing irrigation channels close to homes, building dams near habitation, buying 4-wheel vehicles causing ruts in dirt roads forming puddles and breeding sites for mosquitos.<br /><br />Control of malaria is highly complex and individualized for the area. DDT is still used as vector control in 12 countries, but there are other more effective agents.<br /><br />Rachel Carson excluded vector control in a ban of DDT in 'Silent Spring'.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-25661146006388994712011-09-13T17:53:20.001-04:002011-09-13T17:53:20.001-04:00@bach:
(continued)
[A previous Australian govern...@bach:<br /><br />(continued)<br /><br />[A previous Australian government commissioned a report looking at how Australia could build nuclear power plants without public subsidies (Australia has a lot of advantages, we've got a lot of uranium, we've got a geologically stable largely empty continent suitable for storing the nuclear wastes). The conclusion was that a $50 per tonne carbon tax would be necessary, and it was quickly shelved.]<br /><br />When it makes economic sense to go nuclear, the private sector will go nuclear. Get the government, including batshit greens, off the private sector's backs. <br /><br />[The current government is proposing a limited $23 a tonne carbon tax, most of which is to be returned to the taxpayers, in the intention of making alternative energy sources such as wind and solar more competitive.]<br /><br />Wind and solar are boondoggles. <br /><br />[It's not a case of standing aside and letting the markets develop nuclear and alternative power sources. They're expensive and won't happen in a market system until oil and gas are also expensive. They need encouragement.]<br /><br />Welcome to economic reality. Get the greens/regulations off people's backs. <br /><br />[Market forces aren't perfect. The market gave the world Viagra. The market hasn't given the world a malaria vaccine.]<br /><br />The market was very effective at making DDT, which nearly eliminated malaria. Then Rachel Carson wrote a meretricious book, green assholes started screaming, DDT was banned, and malaria returned. 30 million unnecessary deaths. Thanks, greens.<br /><br />[I still dispute the idea that the crimes of communism are the crimes of atheism in the same way that I don't regard the crimes committed by the Christian Kaiser Wilhelm II in starting WWI are the crimes of Christianity. Crimes due to politics are to be slated back to the political system that caused them.]<br /><br />The connections are complex, no doubt. But you need to explain why it is that the only explicitly atheist theory of government ever to rise to state power was the most horrendous form of government in human history.<br /><br />Perhaps there were reasons totally unconnected to atheism. You haven't made the case, because atheists flee from the question. I have no respect for that. <br /><br />I will do all I can to prevent atheists from ever again achieving political power.mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-56018025689318071572011-09-13T17:52:29.080-04:002011-09-13T17:52:29.080-04:00@bach:
[From the global financial crisis, the one...@bach:<br /><br />[From the global financial crisis, the one thing we've learnt is that the markets require strong regulatory control to make certain that they don't do it again.]<br /><br />A substantial part of the crisis was caused by regulatory control. American federal mandates for loosening of mortgage standards was the proximate cause of the subprime mortgage crisis. Politicians and political appointees had their hands in the till. Regulators were in bed with regulatees, literally (Barney Frank was sleeping with a senior Fannie Mae official for ten years). The top administrators at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were rigging the books to get huge bonuses, all the time assuring the public that all was well.<br /><br />Regulation is a political process, and has great risks, as well as some benefits. We need a few regulations, strictly enforced, by honest people. Good luck with that.<br /><br />[The only way that market forces will be able to cope with the inevitable shortage of oil and gas as the finite reserves run down and ones that remain being in less accessible locations is to rise their price.]<br /><br />What government programs allowed us to make the transition from wood to coal to oil to nuclear? You seem to think that all of these issues just appeared. Free markets have been by far the most effective mechanisms for dealing with these issues. Do you really think that politicians and bureaucrats are the solution, rather than a major part of the problem?<br /><br />[This will reduce their use and in the long term Increase research in and development of alternatives.]<br /><br />The market will do that. It has for centuries. <br /><br />[But in the meantime, costs of transport and food will increase. It's been said that the recent Egyptian revolution was incited by the spike in wheat prices due to the poor Russian crop.]<br /><br />Lots of reasons for the Egyptian revolution. The Irag war, rise of militant Islam, etc. A significant cause of the rise in food prices has been the American ethanol subsidies, which has diverted 39% of US field corn to ethanol. Thanks, greens. <br /><br />[Waiting for market forces to kick in might be risking a lot of social damage and discord.]<br /><br />Socialism has been the driver of conflict in the 20th century. Spare me the market shit. <br /><br />(continued)mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-39445688464370106812011-09-13T17:16:44.898-04:002011-09-13T17:16:44.898-04:00Gary,
A serial killer, or a rapist, or a child mo...Gary,<br /><br />A serial killer, or a rapist, or a child molester, isn't 'people', plural. And for each of these miscreants being made happier, there's others being made unhappier, so the sum of 'happiness' is strongly negative.<br /><br />Giving a definition of 'good' is difficult. I, at least, have tried. How about you doing so too?<br /><br />Michael,<br /><br />From the global financial crisis, the one thing we've learnt is that the markets require strong regulatory control to make certain that they don't do it again.<br /><br />The only way that market forces will be able to cope with the inevitable shortage of oil and gas as the finite reserves run down and ones that remain being in less accessible locations is to rise their price.<br /><br />This will reduce their use and in the long term Increase research in and development of alternatives.<br /><br />But in the meantime, costs of transport and food will increase. It's been said that the recent Egyptian revolution was incited by the spike in wheat prices due to the poor Russian crop.<br /><br />Waiting for market forces to kick in might be risking a lot of social damage and discord.<br /><br />A previous Australian government commissioned a report looking at how Australia could build nuclear power plants without public subsidies (Australia has a lot of advantages, we've got a lot of uranium, we've got a geologically stable largely empty continent suitable for storing the nuclear wastes). The conclusion was that a $50 per tonne carbon tax would be necessary, and it was quickly shelved.<br /><br />The current government is proposing a limited $23 a tonne carbon tax, most of which is to be returned to the taxpayers, in the intention of making alternative energy sources such as wind and solar more competitive.<br /><br />It's not a case of standing aside and letting the markets develop nuclear and alternative power sources. They're expensive and won't happen in a market system until oil and gas are also expensive. They need encouragement.<br /><br />Market forces aren't perfect. The market gave the world Viagra. The market hasn't given the world a malaria vaccine.<br /><br />I still dispute the idea that the crimes of communism are the crimes of atheism in the same way that I don't regard the crimes committed by the Christian Kaiser Wilhelm II in starting WWI are the crimes of Christianity. Crimes due to politics are to be slated back to the political system that caused them.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-34253523993469144042011-09-13T14:42:06.422-04:002011-09-13T14:42:06.422-04:00bachfiend ...
"I gave you my definition of ...bachfiend ... <br /><br /><i>"I gave you my definition of 'good', it's what makes people happier."</i><br /><br />Really? So what makes serial killers, rapists and child molesters happy is fine by you. <br />I see. <br /><br /><i>"The religious definition of 'good' is that which makes a mythical god happier, or at least the self-appointed interpreters of their version of a god happier."</i><br /><br />Wrong. Totally wrong. You must stay up late nights imagining all this codswallop.<br /><br />Your <b>religion</b> of atheism sucks.<br /><br />I will say though, thanks for proving this statement: "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'; they are corrupt, they have done abominable deeds...", true.Gary H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-66515818278136258952011-09-13T08:03:42.953-04:002011-09-13T08:03:42.953-04:00@bachfiend:
[Right. The markets will solve the pr...@bachfiend:<br /><br />[Right. The markets will solve the problems of future supplies of food, water and energy. The same markets that gave us the global financial crisis.]<br /><br />Markets aren't perfect, but they outperform centralized command economies in almost every way. <br /><br />[I'm not certain where you get your figure of 100 million victims of communism (and they were victims of communism, not atheism).]<br /><br />The Black Book of Communism, considered the definitive work on the subject, estimates 100 million. Some people estimate a bit higher.<br /><br />Communism is not atheism, it's true. But it is (aside from the French Revolution) the only political form at the nation level that atheism has taken. <br /><br />One of the things that makes me have disdain for atheists is the ubiquitous unwillingness of atheists to ask why it is that the only ruling ideology in history that was based on atheism (which Communism-- dialectical materialism-- certainly is) turned out to be so horrible. It's a certain lack of integrity and introspection that I find very unappealing.mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-47338937946363602582011-09-12T23:51:20.185-04:002011-09-12T23:51:20.185-04:00Gary,
I gave you my definition of 'good',...Gary,<br /><br />I gave you my definition of 'good', it's what makes people happier. So absolute good is what makes everyone happier, without exception.<br /><br />The religious definition of 'good' is that which makes a mythical god happier, or at least the self-appointed interpreters of their version of a god happier.<br /><br />Michael,<br /><br />Right. The markets will solve the problems of future supplies of food, water and energy. The same markets that gave us the global financial crisis.<br /><br />Agreed, many of the predictions of the Club of Rome turned out to be wrong. For example, it was predicted that colour TVs wouldn't be a mass item of consumption because vivid reds were only possible with the rare earth element europium, of which there was known to be reserves sufficient for just 200,000 sets.<br /><br />The Club of Rome didn't take into account human ingenuity and the ability to find substitutes and alternate technology.<br /><br />The trouble is that there are no substitutes for food, water and energy. You can replace one food for another, meat with soy beans for example, but you can't replace food with the bible. And modern agriculture requires cheap abundant energy to make the fertilisers that allow the high productivity. Once energy is no longer cheap or abundant, then the markets will intervene, making food no longer cheap or even affordable.<br /><br />And no, I didn't confuse cause and effect. I clearly wrote that as countries become wealthier, women choose to have fewer children, so prosperity leads to reduced population growth. Bur having high population growth makes it difficult or even impossible for a poor country to increase prosperity.<br /><br />Agreed, I wouldn't want my money going to Robert Mugabe. I would prefer it to go to a well managed and well supervised NGO (I sponsor a child in Tanzania through World Vision, an atheist donating to a Christian body, go figure).<br /><br />You're confusing socialism with communism. Most people actually live in socialist communities because there are community standards that most people follow voluntarily. I envisage that community standards need to change. Conspicuous consumption needs to go. Having the newest, largest, most expensive 4-wheel drive vehicle parked in the driveway needs to be regarded as being socially undesirable rather than admired.<br /><br />Agreed. Nuclear power should be an option. Clinton/Gore axing the fast breeder reactor in 1994 was a monumental error.<br /><br />I'm not certain where you get your figure of 100 million victims of communism (and they were victims of communism, not atheism). I count 40 million from Mao's famine, 30 million from Stalin's famine, 1 million from Pol Pot, so that comes to roughly 71 million. Where do you get the other 29 million?bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-39603655886639164162011-09-12T22:49:52.925-04:002011-09-12T22:49:52.925-04:00@oleg:
I have no problem with 'freedom of rel...@oleg:<br /><br />I have no problem with 'freedom of religion', if that makes atheists more comfortable. <br /><br />I point out that freedom of religion is primarily restricted to Christian cultures, or to cultures strongly influenced and molded by Christian culture (much of modern Japan is an outgrowth of American occupation and MacArthur's enlightened rule.)mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-47896224873857421012011-09-12T22:22:19.935-04:002011-09-12T22:22:19.935-04:00Egnor: 1) Economic freedom
2) Political freedom
3)...Egnor: <i>1) Economic freedom<br />2) Political freedom<br />3) Christianity</i> <br /><br />That third item seems pretty arbitrary. I'd replace it with freedom of religion. That would make sense. Look at Japan. I has few Christians, but it is hardly a hellhole.oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-60769509863549926052011-09-12T22:09:52.888-04:002011-09-12T22:09:52.888-04:00@bachfiend:
Three things consistently characteriz...@bachfiend:<br /><br />Three things consistently characterize flourishing societies:<br /><br />1) Economic freedom<br />2) Political freedom<br />3) Christianity<br /><br />If a society has all three, it is almost certainly flourishing. If it has none, it is almost certainly a hellhole. <br /><br />[I think any plans should include:<br /><br />Conserving the fossil fuels we have by developing alternate energy sources such as solar and wind.]<br /><br />The market will allocate energy resources much better than any self-appointed elite. Socialism sucks, if you haven't noticed. And nuclear is a great energy resource-- who was it who has stopped nuclear development at very turn (hint: lefty greens).<br /><br /><br />[Oil and natural gas are too valuable just to be burned. Even without global warming, this is important enough on its own.]<br /><br />Let the markets do it. They're a lot smarter than you. And get out of the way of nuclear. <br /><br />[We have to address the disparity in living standards between rich and poor countries.]<br /><br />Do everything you can to help poor countries become economically free, politically free, and Christian. <br /><br />[Experience shows that as people become richer and more educated, their fertility decreases, as people decide to reduce the number of children they have.]<br /><br />Yep. Economic liberty, political liberty, Christianity. <br /><br />[The amount of income a person needs for happiness isn't actually very high, one estimate I've read is around $15,000 pa, and increasies over this don't actually add to happiness, just allowing one to buy goods you don't need to impress people you don't actually care about.]<br /><br />Socialism is the worst economic system. It has an extraordinarily high rate of association with all manner of human catastrophe, especially famine (Holodomor, Great Leap Forward, Killing Fields, etc)<br /><br />[We need to make family planning freely available worldwide to all who want to make use of it (this doesn't necessarily include elective abortions, which effective contraception would avoid).]<br /><br />Family planning is a consequence of prosperity, not its cause. People in poor countries need free markets, ballots, and bibles. Not condoms. <br /><br /><br /><br />[A poor country increasing its population at 2 or 3% per year has to increase its economy by the same amount just to stand still.]<br /><br />You've got cause and effect mixed up. Prosperity drives population control, not the other way around. <br /><br />[Most of the population increase to 9 billion by 2050 is already locked in, because of the age distribution of the world's population. The world's population is mostly young, who haven't had any children, so if each female has just 2 children (replacement only), the population must increase before it stabilizes. And if women are encouraged to have more than 2 or prevented from taking measures to avoid having more than 2 children, then the world's population won't stabilize until after some disaster intervenes.]<br /><br />Your ideology (atheism and population control) has been probably the most prolific killer in human history. 100 million dead by communism, hundreds of millions aborted, sterilized, infanticided, and deprived of family. Ideas, not people, are the real threat. <br /><br />[Most of the world's population increase is going to occur in the poor countries, where life will become even more miserable than it already is.]<br /><br />Cause and effect, bach. Markets, ballots, bibles. Then population will slow.<br /><br />[So the only solution I can see is that the rich countries are going to have to sacrifice some of our living standards to improve the living standards in the poorer countries.]<br /><br />Right. The world's problems will be solved by giving self-appointed elites power to micromanage life throughout the world. Let's start with sending money to Zimbabwe. Mugabe will be sooo grateful .<br /><br />[We can't raise their living standards without this, because we reached 100% usage of the Earth's resources back in the '80s.]<br /><br />We could use the elite's ideas for fertilizer.mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-31559082182124311632011-09-12T21:29:31.396-04:002011-09-12T21:29:31.396-04:00bachfiend
You're not paying attention. Not at...bachfiend<br /><br />You're not paying attention. Not at all.<br />You don't even have definition for "good"!<br /><br />You want an example of an absolutely good action or thing?<br />You want some sort of, "helping a blind person cross the street is absolutely good", type of answer?<br /><br />Then you're just missing the whole point!<br /><br />You cannot be good without God because good <b>does not exist without God</b>.<br />There is no such thing as good or evil without God.<br /><br />Your idols all know this. Are you too adamantly, willfully blind to accept it?<br /><br />Once again, your high priests know this because they've used the following logic: <br />If there are indeed no real foundations for ethics (no God) and ethics is just another genetic accident, an illusion of electrochemical movement in brain meat, then there is no such thing as good or evil.<br /><br />Until you get this, you'll remain lost and terribly confused -without ever knowing it- like all atheists.Gary H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-70303068651387862972011-09-12T21:02:26.886-04:002011-09-12T21:02:26.886-04:00@bachfiend:
[I think your optimistic view of the ...@bachfiend:<br /><br />[I think your optimistic view of the food supply is misplaced...We have to make plans to avoid disaster.]<br /><br />I'd grant you a bit more credibility if you'd explain why every overpopulation/doomsday prediction for the past 200 years has been wrong. <br /><br />Start with Ehrlich's Population Bomb- about the disappearance of England by 2000, mass starvation in the US (40 million if I remember right) by 1980.<br /><br />It's like Bernie Madoff trying to interest me in a new investment opportunity. <br /><br />I just don't trust these scenarios, because they've all been lies for 200 years.Mike Egnornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-79357577157435924542011-09-12T17:42:31.117-04:002011-09-12T17:42:31.117-04:00Gary,
OK, my definition of 'absolute good'...Gary,<br /><br />OK, my definition of 'absolute good' would be something that makes everyone happier, without exception. Now provide me with an example of something that is an absolute good.<br /><br />Please, don't quote scripture. I'm not impressed by it.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-91270109340846457872011-09-12T17:34:18.366-04:002011-09-12T17:34:18.366-04:00Michael,
I think your optimistic view of the food...Michael,<br /><br />I think your optimistic view of the food supply is misplaced. We have managed to avoid serious food shortages through massive usage of artificial fertilizers (derived from finite reserves of fossil fuels) and water pumped from aquifers (also finite, taking thousands of years to replenish and the level dropping seriously where overexploited as in the American Midwest and Northern China for example).<br /><br />But on a finite world, eventually limits must be reached. You can't farm more than 100% of the arable land, you can't use more than 100% of the available water, you can't turn more than 100% of the oil and natural gas into fertilizers, you can't use more than 100% of the oceanic fish stocks for food.<br /><br />Perhaps technology might rescue us. Perhaps we might engineer algae to grow in photosynthetic tanks to produce abundant nutritious food which might actually even taste good ... <br /><br />Adding 2 billion to the present population is going to make the present situation even worse. We've got problems enough as it is, with degradation of farm land, depletion of aquifers, depletion of oceanic fisheries, oil and natural gas becoming more expensive as the more accessible reserves are used and we have to move to less accessible reserves.<br /><br />We have to make plans to avoid disaster. <br /><br />I think any plans should include:<br /><br />Conserving the fossil fuels we have by developing alternate energy sources such as solar and wind. Oil and natural gas are too valuable just to be burned. Even without global warming, this is important enough on its own.<br /><br />We have to address the disparity in living standards between rich and poor countries. Experience shows that as people become richer and more educated, their fertility decreases, as people decide to reduce the number of children they have. The amount of income a person needs for happiness isn't actually very high, one estimate I've read is around $15,000 pa, and increasies over this don't actually add to happiness, just allowing one to buy goods you don't need to impress people you don't actually care about.<br /><br />We need to make family planning freely available worldwide to all who want to make use of it (this doesn't necessarily include elective abortions, which effective contraception would avoid).<br /><br /><br />Rich countries currently have no population increase (Australia is an exception, because we have a large migrant intake of supposedly scarce skilled workers, 'imported' at the insistence of Big Business who don't want to have to train workers and want to depress wages, so we're looking at a population of around 36 million by 2050, far above the carrying capacity of the land, with its frequent droughts) and poor countries have a high population increase.<br /><br />A poor country increasing its population at 2 or 3% per year has to increase its economy by the same amount just to stand still.<br /><br />Most of the population increase to 9 billion by 2050 is already locked in, because of the age distribution of the world's population. The world's population is mostly young, who haven't had any children, so if each female has just 2 children (replacement only), the population must increase before it stabilizes. And if women are encouraged to have more than 2 or prevented from taking measures to avoid having more than 2 children, then the world's population won't stabilize until after some disaster intervenes.<br /><br />Most of the world's population increase is going to occur in the poor countries, where life will become even more miserable than it already is.<br /><br />So the only solution I can see is that the rich countries are going to have to sacrifice some of our living standards to improve the living standards in the poorer countries. We can't raise their living standards without this, because we reached 100% usage of the Earth's resources back in the '80s.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-58728820996475241272011-09-12T16:58:43.651-04:002011-09-12T16:58:43.651-04:00What would you say to the Nazi officer, in your wo...<i>What would you say to the Nazi officer, in your world view?</i><br /><br />You do realize that the Nazi regime asserted that they had objective morality on their side, don't you? How do you know they were not right?<br /><br />"Objective" morality doesn't seem so attractive once you start examining all of the groups that have claimed to have it on their side.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-5473379769787451952011-09-12T16:55:07.714-04:002011-09-12T16:55:07.714-04:00bachfiend ...
"How about giving just one ex...bachfiend ... <br /><br /><i>"How about giving just one example of absolute good?"</i><br /><br />Sad response.<br /><br />Did you actually read & understand anything I wrote? <br />Or, are you planning an escape tactic to get out of having to admit you're wrong?<br /><br />Only God, the one necessary existence, the one absolute existence, can be <i>absolutely </i>good.<br /><br />You still haven't even defined good. Your biggest error. Nor indeed can you without it becoming meaningless. <br /><br />There is no such thing under atheism.<br />Hopefully someday you'll get this one fact.<br /><br /><i>"And a ruler asked him, Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life? <br /><br />And Jesus said to him, <b>Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.</b> <br /><br />You know the commandments: 'Do not commit adultery, Do not murder, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother.'<br /><br />And he said, All these I have kept from my youth. <br /><br />When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." <br /><br />But when he heard these things, he became very sad, for he was extremely rich."</i><br /><br />God always puts his finger directly on your precise root sin, as he did with this ruler, i.e. selfishness in its most virulent form - in this mans case - love of riches above all else.<br /><br />Are you going to answer the questions I asked? Or will you skirt around them in the typical atheist evasive maneuvers?<br /><br />What would you say to the Nazi officer, in your world view?Gary H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-19491494826547417732011-09-12T16:40:18.661-04:002011-09-12T16:40:18.661-04:00Gary,
Two comments, and you haven't defined &...Gary,<br /><br />Two comments, and you haven't defined 'absolute good', when you criticized my statement that there's no absolute good, so there's no absolute evil. How about giving just one example of absolute good?bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-6537422570295753362011-09-12T16:23:17.214-04:002011-09-12T16:23:17.214-04:00bachfiend
Suppose you're a Jew in Germany, c...bachfiend <br /><br />Suppose you're a Jew in Germany, circa 1939. You've been arrested and slated for execution merely for being a Jew.<br /><br />What reason, in relativist atheism, could you give the officer holding the gun to your head, to not kill you? <br /><br />You have no reason. <br /><br />Will you say its just wrong? <br />He will say, no, its in fact right and good because his society deemed it so.<br /><br />Will you say his society is wrong? <br />Based on what exactly? What ultimate rule? Your own moral standards? His are merely different. You have no ultimate rule.<br /><br />Without a universal, overarching moral law, nor your standards nor his are either true, good, right or wrong at all. <br /><br />Its opinion vs opinion and nothing more.<br /><br />Thus you actually have no basis at all for getting this Nazi SS not to kill you.<br /><br />Think about that.Gary H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-36439429929859141572011-09-12T16:16:34.327-04:002011-09-12T16:16:34.327-04:00bachfiend said...
" OK, give me one example ...bachfiend said...<br /><br /><i>" OK, give me one example of something that is absolutely 100% good, and either I'll find something even trivial in it that's bad ... or it will have nothing in it to prove the existence of a deity."</i><br /><br />I appreciate the question, but the question itself shows me that you don't understand what good is.<br /><br />What is moral good, really? How is it defined?<br />The dictionary will give around 28 different defs!<br /><br />Indeed, atheists can't logically have a viable definition of the word that isn't entirely relativist and thus meaningless in the end.<br /><br />Under atheism, where there is no moral absolute, nothing is truly good or evil at all. Dawkins et al. state this in no uncertain terms because they at least have taken their atheism to its logical conclusions.<br /><br />Something you've never really done. Something most atheists never do!<br /><br />In atheism, all being subjective, without the overarching authority of a absolute legislator, morals may change at a whim.<br />The whim of whoever happens to hold power and money. As we see today.<br /><br />Until you understand and acknowledge this one point we'll get nowhere.<br /><br />Reverse your question. <br />Something 100% evil with no good at all intermingled. <br /><br />How about child rape? <br /><br />100's of other things could be mentioned. <br /><br />Under atheist logic, even child rape may be called good. <br /><br />Indeed, I debated a youtuber atheist boldly proclaiming that morality is an illusion and that good and evil do not exist at all.<br /><br />When I mentioned child rape he just as boldly proclaimed that it's only wrong if the society says it is, but in reality it isn't wrong.<br /><br />He was just taking his no God and thus no absolutes position to it's logical conclusions.<br />Moreover, if there be no God and thus no absolute moral law overarching all moral agents, he is right.<br /><br />The true moral law is immutable and eternal. Nothing can ever change it as long as mankind remains mankind.<br /><br />Yet, once a society eliminates God and the true moral law deemed as being from him, independent of what any one person thinks, binding upon all, you open the door to anything all being called "good". <br />Including child rape, murder, incest, etc. etc.<br /><br />Since secular humanism has taken over the public school system, the judicial system and governments. <br /><br />Thus the public has been indoctrinated into relativism, so the down-slide from high moral standards just 50 years or so ago, to baseness, perversions of every kind and moral insanity has been incredibly rapid.<br /><br />CS Lewis once again, "The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other. But the standard that measures two things is something different from either. You are, in fact, comparing them both with some Real Morality, admitting that there is such a thing as a real Right, independent of what people think, and that some people's ideas get nearer to that real Right than others. <br /><br />Or put it this way. If your moral ideas can be truer, and those of the Nazis less true, there must be something - some Real Morality - for them to be true about."<br /><br />See?Gary H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.com