This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Comments by jon_the_d

Go to: Organ Donor Badge

jon_the_d's Avatar Jump to comment 5 by jon_the_d

I was thinking of something similar recently. I think a medical bracelet is a good idea as that is somethign they'll check for anyway.

If you did want a badge you can have some made, zazzle.com and other sites provide badge making service on top of t-shirts, hoodies, mugs etc. All you do is provide the image you want on the badge (or whatever).

good idea, spread the message and make people think about it. Perhaps carry a few of the donor leaflets just in case anyone asks you about it. give them the card and registration info there and then!!

Mon, 27 Feb 2012 02:26:34 UTC | #922306

Go to: Is Britain a Christian country?

jon_the_d's Avatar Jump to comment 99 by jon_the_d

You have to be careful there ^,

Many UK Christians will consider themselves christian cos they believe in god, and heaven, WILL go to church to get married and for their funeral, and will use Jesus as an example to try to follow in terms of kindness and morals.

This makes them Christian. You'd be wrong to argue otherwise.

Prof. Dawkins well understands this, and as you can see was trying to point out that the survey was not trying to say anything about people "not being proper Christians" but was instead simply trying to find out what they did believe, how they expressed their faith (if at all), how big a part of their lives it was, and their attitudes to various social issues.

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 08:18:18 UTC | #920278

Go to: Is Britain a Christian country?

jon_the_d's Avatar Jump to comment 85 by jon_the_d

I can't help feeling that the secular argument needs to choose which points to emphasize better.

If we're trying to win over a lot of the 'fuzzy' christians, to let them see that actually they share our secular values (and maybe aren't really christians at all), we need to highlight the more important issues that may resonate with them.

Many people have seemed to be a bit stumped trying to understand the point of this poll, Richard has explained it many times, by saying it's to stop broad figures being used to support much more narrowly supported views.

the fuzzies need to be given some clear examples that they can easily identify with and know which side they're on. The Bishops in the house of lords I feel might be a bit of a "meh, so what?" kind of point, if they even know about the house of lords in the first place.

Where as if you talk about gay rights, gay adoption, gay marriage, abortion, contraception, tax breaks for married couples, school admissions to 1/3 of our state funded schools placing non-church attenders at the bottom of the pile, then I think you will strike a note with many of the normal average people out there, including ones who nominally call themselves christian.

It also forces the opponents (Christine for example) to either support you in your liberal stance on abortion or gay marriage, or come out against it and make themselves look bad in the eyes of the majority of the fussy christians they are trying to speak for. win win.

I'd stick to these kinds of moral, emotionally charged issues to get our point across, not so much the more dreary bishops in house of lords kind of point.

Mon, 20 Feb 2012 18:56:51 UTC | #920077

Go to: Naturally offensive

jon_the_d's Avatar Jump to comment 26 by jon_the_d

saying "other" religions may just be the nurse's own assumptions showing through, perhaps she's one of those who talk about Britain being a "Christian country".

alternatively, the nurse could have been meaning that whilst, obviously, the mother's own religion permitted breastfeeding in public other religions may not.

In both cases the word "other" makes sense.

Tue, 08 Nov 2011 19:38:49 UTC | #888736

Go to: Naturally offensive

jon_the_d's Avatar Jump to comment 16 by jon_the_d

injured man being rushed to theatre in agony: "Jesus Christ! Please! Something for the pain! Oh God! Oh God! Oh God!"

concerned nurse: "Sir, I'm going to have to ask you not to blaspheme in case you offend someone."

I can see it happening...

Mon, 07 Nov 2011 23:56:58 UTC | #888427

Go to: Can religion tell us more than science?

jon_the_d's Avatar Jump to comment 18 by jon_the_d

perhaps he should have been paying more attention to the "dull debate". what a load of drivel, none of it new.

pathetic.

Mon, 19 Sep 2011 12:02:34 UTC | #872553

Go to: Indoctrination of children - how to escape?

jon_the_d's Avatar Jump to comment 90 by jon_the_d

@Amphiprion,

Your husband already has children from a previous marriage, so he may be fine having a childless marriage with you. But what about you? I don't know how old you are, but even though you don't want children now, you may well want some in the future. And it seems to me that it would be unconscionable for you to have children with this man in that country. Actually it seems unconscionable even just with 'this man'. If he is going to insist that they are raised as muslims with a muslim education and everything that entails.

It also seems convenient for him, that he is already living in a muslim paradise surrounded by his friends and family and his children. He already has everything he could want. He could probably live the rest of his life this way and die happy. But what about you? You are surely not in a situation where you would be content to live out the remaining decades of your life with no change? No kids? ever? are you sure? And what about your own family? How long have you already lived so far away from them? Is it not going to be galling as you age and you see him playing happily with his children, and watch as they grow up and get married, and he greets his first grandchildren into the world, and you stand by as a spectator, deprived of this yourself?

I know I don't know you, I'm just trying to make you think, and to think long term. But I'd also state that you don't know you. You're not sure if you will want kids one day, but you've gone down a path that closes that option to you (unless you decide that you'll be happy having your kids raised muslim in this muslim country). You never know, you might be more eager to have kids if you were in a situation less hostile to your wishes and desires.

A lot depends on how young you are. I still think an extended break back home to your own family and country is a good idea. I also think you should speak to your parents or siblings about this situation, to see what support and advice they offer.

I believe though, that even for those people who don't know it yet, children are an absolute joy and add so much to your life, I can't imagine living a life without them. Just ask anyone who has kids. Ask your husband.

I urge you to really think about the future, and I mean all the way til you're old and grey, and whether you'd want children of your own or not. Perhaps you can stay where you are until you decide one way or the other, but don't let staying put stagnate your thought processes. Time is precious, and regret is a terrible thing.

Mon, 29 Aug 2011 09:39:08 UTC | #865126

Go to: Indoctrination of children - how to escape?

jon_the_d's Avatar Jump to comment 62 by jon_the_d

Hi Amphiprion,

I've read through all the comments and all your replies, and I'm so sorry to hear of your situation.

I also want to add, that from what you said about your husband suggesting you read the whole koran and then judge, and now that he's said there is only one acceptable way for children to be raised, it seems he has just been hoping that you would eventually come over to islam. And if you don't, tough, you won't have a choice. I highly doubt he'd move to another country, especially having children from his previous marriage there, and all his other friends and family in your beautiful muslim island paradise.

Which means your choice is pretty simple:

1) Leave the country and start anew.

2) Give up on your own desires: The desire to have kids, or if not, then the desire to raise them as you would like, and the desire for your kids to be able to be free in their lives and in their minds.

It seems like you and your husband were not as compatible as you thought, and while he might make an excellent partner, he is not somebody suitable to be a father to your children.

I would suggest you have to leave, and start a new life. I hope you have the strength and conviction to do that. Maybe go on a long holiday back home to think about it? Spend a few months away from him and back with your own family in your own country and really see if you could do it.

I hope you can.

Best of luck.

(p.s, I knew which country you're in straight away!! :P)

Sun, 28 Aug 2011 08:42:30 UTC | #864846

Go to: Death penalty or no death penalty?

jon_the_d's Avatar Jump to comment 131 by jon_the_d

If you talk about a convicted person, how can it not be torture for them to know that they are going to be executed against their own will?

Sorry, but this argument also applies to ANY form of punishment, including imprisonment. "How can it not be torture to know they've lost their freedom and won't be free to live with their family for 20/30 years." And everything is done against their own will once a criminal is convicted.

Because the society has to implement the high standard it propagates amongst its individuals.

You mean like how individuals aren't allowed to imprison people for years against their will but society is? oh wait...

Killing a convicted criminal as opposed to detaining them in prison does not seem to have any considerable advantage in view of protecting the public.

Hmm...prisoners never escape? Released offenders never reoffend? Not planning on releasing them? What's the point in that? Punishment? Revenge?

But it has a huge disadvantage regarding the ethical issue I just mentioned.

The ethical issue you just mentioned that somehow applies to sanctioned execution but not decades of imprisonment? And either risks the innocent public on their release, or subjects the criminal to a life of punishment with no other aim? and you think you get to claim the ethical high ground?

is outweighed many times by the possibility of another person having been wrongly accused, convicted, executed.

Yet you don't apply the same logic when it comes to releasing convicted rapists/murderers back into the general public. Or are you planning on locking them up for life?

Perhaps once you clarify your status on imprisonment without parole or not I can say better, but at the moment it seems it is you who is punishing them more than I, so accusing me of merely wanting revenge seems absurd. If I wanted them to suffer for revenge then I'd join your side of the argument.

Sun, 03 Jul 2011 04:49:03 UTC | #845666

Go to: Death penalty or no death penalty?

jon_the_d's Avatar Jump to comment 128 by jon_the_d

I just saw on Amnesty International's website that they are against the death penalty because it is a violation of two basic human rights: Right to Life, and Right to not be tortured, cruel and unusual, etc..

Do people here agree with this reasoning?

Apart from the fact that being executed does not necessarily need to be torture or cruel and unusual, do you believe that someone who may have taken the lives of hundreds of others, should have their own right to life protected? If so for what purpose?

I'd suggest that their rights in general should be forfeit.

Sat, 02 Jul 2011 23:15:07 UTC | #845641

Go to: Death penalty or no death penalty?

jon_the_d's Avatar Jump to comment 106 by jon_the_d

@ besleybean

so you don't want to protect society by simply eliminating the threat, you want to punish the criminal for the rest of their life as well? or are you suggesting we put them somewhere nice and comfortable where they can live out the rest of their life happily with their family and friends so that we are not just punishing them vindictively for the rest of their life with no other goal? hows that gonna work? or are you in it for the punishment. as well as the protection?

Mon, 27 Jun 2011 22:08:37 UTC | #843581

Go to: Death penalty or no death penalty?

jon_the_d's Avatar Jump to comment 85 by jon_the_d

Can I ask then what reasons people have for arguing against the death penalty where the crime is truly abhorrent and guilt is 100% certain. for example:

A man goes into a shopping mall with an automatic weapon and starts shooting. He seems to target women and children especially, and leaves scores dead and many more maimed and wounded. He was brought down by an armed response but not killed.

He was arrested in the act and does not deny or make excuses, instead he is proud of what he has done.

There is no chance of a false conviction, his guilt is undeniable.

Why should we expend any efforts or resources to try to 'fix' him. He is but one man. we can do without him. and the way he is at the moment, he is no use to society at all. His continued existence, especially if he manages to enjoy himself, gloating and reliving his moments of glory, will only further torment the bereaved and the survivors.

So what reasons do you have to keep him alive at our expense, and the torment of the victims?

Mon, 27 Jun 2011 10:36:21 UTC | #843349

Go to: Death penalty or no death penalty?

jon_the_d's Avatar Jump to comment 67 by jon_the_d

@bendigeidfran

good point, although the period of knowing you are going to be killed would class as punishment, and depending on the mode of execution, the being killed part too could easily be a punishment. But yes, once they are dead, the punishment has finished.

@ discussion...

I'm an atheist but I AM in favour of the death penalty, for certain crimes. A lot of people talk about punishment and revenge here, and dismiss them as worthless concepts, in favour of more enlightened approaches such as rehabilitation.

What of the victims? What of their families? what of their parents and children? Their lives will be ruined.

Not all victims die don't forget. Some are left mutilated and disabled, condemned to lives of pain, discomfort and dependence. paralyzed after a failed murder attempt. blinded or brain damaged after a vicious battering. See their whole family butchered and supposed to keep on living?

Why would a society WANT to rehabilitate the criminals behind such horrible crimes? The amount of time, effort, money it would take to possibly rehabilitate someone would not be worth what little could be expected in return. Society can do without them. We don't need them. We don't need to try to rehabilitate them. How does it affect the victims or their families to know that the person who so sadistically and maliciously ruined their lives is being given a second chance, that in 10 or 15 years, the grinning youth will be free to enjoy his life, when their dead daughter might now be graduating with her whole life ahead of her. My sense of justice and fairness can't accept this. Even if they show remorse, or repentence, or sincerely want to do good deeds for the rest of their lives. tough. they don;t deserve the satisfaction, or any moment of happiness that they may experience in their lives when they have stolen someone else's and ruined dozens more. They have blown their chance to live in our society. they have blown their shot at life. They deserve none of their own.

At this point, life imprisonment with no chance of freedom becomes purely punishment, at our expense. So i am against life imprisonment without parole. I'm not in it for the punishment. I'm in it simply to deny them the happiness they have denied others. Allowing them any sort of happiness or normal life and family seems to me a massive insult and affront to those whose lives were taken or ruined by their callous acts.

And seeing as the victims could have been any one of us or our loved ones, the criminal's happiness should be an affront to all of us. Society should be outraged at the idea.

caveat 1: current forensics and justice systems may not be 100% infallible, so I have reservations. But surely we have to place faith in our systems, strive to improve them, and provide enough appeals etc. to allow innocence to be proven. But where guilt is admitted, or undeniable, due to overwhelming witnesses and evidence (arrested in the act with dozens of witnesses for example), I see no reason why the death penalty should be witheld.

I see no reason to expend any effort or resource on someone who has cost us far more than they are ever likely to repay, and even if they might, it would be stained with blood and I wouldn't want to accept it anyway. I want nothing from them, I want nothing for them. I want to deny them the pleasures they have so cruelly denied others.

caveat 2: The criminal may have their own family and children who will be unfairly punished by the execution, or even the incarceration, or any kind of suffering the criminal suffers. This throws into disarray my whole concept of justice. Even short prison sentences cause massive suffering to innocent children who want their daddy back. why should they suffer?

I cannot reconcile my desire to deny the criminal happiness with my desire to cause no suffering to any innocents who may be affected. This is a problem that transcends the death penalty question, and I don't know how to answer it.

So, I'm an atheist, and I believe certain crimes should mean the forfeiting of one's life, but if that causes suffering to innocents, I have a problem.

But like I said, the same goes for all possible sentences.

Sun, 26 Jun 2011 23:48:53 UTC | #843177

Go to: Down with Secularism!

jon_the_d's Avatar Jump to comment 6 by jon_the_d

I am convinced. Down with secularism, up with Rationalism!

It's gonna be a hard sell to the general public though. especially the religious.

Also, while it doesn't protect religious beliefs, it does not have the effect of separating religion from politics and law either.

I think you might need an addendum.

Sun, 19 Jun 2011 05:19:46 UTC | #640269

Go to: Sex selection and the shortage of women: is science to blame?

jon_the_d's Avatar Jump to comment 30 by jon_the_d

Can anyone somehow confirm that Buddhism is the most popular religion in Lianyungang or Jiangsu Province? If not Buddhism, then what else?

Confucianism. more than buddhism definitely, but more than that just good old fashioned marriage customs:

son marries - gain a daughter daughter marries - lose a daughter.

The girl joins the man's family. So boys are preferable. Not to mention family name and assets.

Also, just wanted to make sure you all know that in China it is illegal to reveal the sex of a baby to the parents. If people still find out it will be by bribing the doctor.

from Wikipedia - Abortion in China:

In 2005 the government began an Action Plan consisting of ten policies with the aim of normalising the sex ratio of newborns by 2010.[11] Under this plan sex-selective abortion was outlawed as was prenatal sex diagnosis and harsher punishments were implemented for violating both. Other policies include controlling the marketing of ultrasonic B machines and improving the systems used by medical and Family Planning organisations to report on births, abortions and pregnancies.[11]

Despite this, sex-selective abortion continues to be practiced, as it is not easily regulated by governments and because son-preference persists.[9][12] Moreover, in many cases the couple can pay, or will try to pay, to be told the sex of their child while having an ultrasound.

Sun, 19 Jun 2011 02:43:39 UTC | #640243

Go to: "Offense" Could Be Too Sectarian For Scotland

jon_the_d's Avatar Jump to comment 4 by jon_the_d

^ yeah, or merge them into a new club called Glasgow Group Hug.

or perhaps slightly more maturely, Glasgow United.

Sat, 18 Jun 2011 18:40:10 UTC | #640088

Go to: Michele Bachmann on intelligent design

jon_the_d's Avatar Jump to comment 9 by jon_the_d

Comment 6 by Quine :

Bachmann is part of a rather disturbing movement in the USA that glorifies ignorance, primarily in an attempt to defend religion from attack by reality.

perfectly put.

Sat, 18 Jun 2011 05:46:43 UTC | #639872

Go to: Memory Implant Gives Rats Sharper Recollection

jon_the_d's Avatar Jump to comment 20 by jon_the_d

I've been expecting these sorts of developments. it's only a matter of time before we're all upgradeable... can't wait!

All the complaints about animal testing are naive. Unless you're living like a vegan buddhist amish nomad, you'll be contributing to a great deal of animal deaths, and the destruction of their habitats just by being alive and consuming.

Also, any moral obligation you may feel towards animals is most likely a mis-firing of the traits that evolved to help humans work as a social species. more important is the well being of our species. That involves advancement of knowledge and scientific understanding, particularly concerning our own physiology and well being. Sure we need to be responsible for our home too (Earth), and biodiversity is to be protected. specially breeding and 'using' some specially bred rats that would not have existed otherwise is not going to do anything to affect that.

If you want to champion 'saving the animals', focus on endangered species, human over-population, pollution, loss of habitats, and the frighteningly fast reduction in biodiversity. lab-rats should be the least of your concerns, and you should in fact be proud and grateful for the scientific progress which has been made.

I strongly advocate living as a responsible species, looking after nature, but you have to put things in perspective, and get your priorities right.

Go Science!

Sat, 18 Jun 2011 02:15:20 UTC | #639827

Go to: Apistevist, noun: One Who Lacks Faith

jon_the_d's Avatar Jump to comment 26 by jon_the_d

I've been browsing trying to find (or make) words which might fit what you're after, (although I was convinced that english would already have one).

After reading a lot about areas of philosophy and epistemology, i settled on the terms and concepts that I think might be suitable for the kind of discussions you want to have.

We're basically contrasting the concept of "knowledge" based on faith (i.e. belief) with knowledge based on reason and evidence.

Fideism (from latin fides for faith) means placing faith as the cornerstone of knowledge, disregarding reason and evidence.

This is contrasted with...

Rationalism

So, I agree with alaskansee that describing yourself as a rationalist gets the point across in the same way that saying you were an apistevist does, whilst not defining yourself by what you're not. The word is also fairly self explanatory and should be able to be understood immediately by any of the fideists you may end up discussing this with.

I also want to add, Critical Rationalism seems to be an epistemological philosophy which sounds worthy of attention. It seems to describe most of our attitudes towards science and truth, i.e. that we come up with theories which describe and explain the world, and test them for falsifiability (the 'Critical' part). The currently preferred theory may not be a perfect description of reality and truth, but as new evidence comes to light, and theories amended or replaced, we get closer and closer to the 'truth'. It's basically a process of elimination, coupled with refining and improving based on new information.

I'll read more but I think I'm inclined to describe myself as a critical rationalist.

It was developed by Karl Popper, who also seems worthy of some time, and he himself likened critical rationalism's method to that of darwinian evolution and natural selection, and the idea of the survival of the 'fittest' but applied to science, which made it particularly interesting to me.

Fri, 17 Jun 2011 00:56:22 UTC | #639441

Go to: Apistevist, noun: One Who Lacks Faith

jon_the_d's Avatar Jump to comment 20 by jon_the_d

I don't know much about greek, but from what you;ve said in the OP, I think 'anti' would be more fitting. i.e. antipistevist. being 'against' having faith, not just lacking it.

still not sure any word with piss/pissed in the pronunciation is a great idea though...

is there not already a word in our language that has the meaning you're looking for?

Thu, 16 Jun 2011 19:49:20 UTC | #639369

Go to: The Atheist Rapture

jon_the_d's Avatar Jump to comment 5 by jon_the_d

Belief or disbelief when confronted with the facts may not be a choice. But many religious people CHOOSE to NOT look at the facts. Or choose not to give them any credit at all and just dismiss them out of hand.

In this sense, Atheist Eggbert saying "choose atheism" makes sense (kinda).

challenging your beliefs or not is a choice.

-

also some people do actually choose what to believe by what suits them and what sounds nice. so yeah, while many rational people believe what the evidence indicates to be true, with no choice in the matter, there are many irrational people out there who do actually choose their beliefs. If we make atheism more appealing, we might just win over a large segment of society!

Wed, 25 May 2011 17:24:00 UTC | #630835

Go to: Religious discrimination?

jon_the_d's Avatar Jump to comment 38 by jon_the_d

I worry that we let our biases get in the way of our better judgement and are not open to all the evidence.

I worry that when we use the evidence to guide our actions it is perceived as simple bias.

If statistics prove that a certain type of crime is mostly committed by a certain type of person, then basing our strategies around that evidence should not be interpreted as bias, just logical. Probabilities and statistics should be used to aid police investigations. If that means many more muslims get investigated than christians for links to al qaeda, that should be completely unremarkable.

Further, in a country where over 90% of the muslim population are asian, there should not be any gasps when it turns out that most of those interrogated for links to al qaeda or islamist terrorism were asian.

It's just pure logic. Bias doesn't even enter into it.

I feel that those who immediately see racism or bias merely lack a decent grasp of statistics or probability or logic.

Tue, 24 May 2011 17:06:53 UTC | #630331

Go to: Why God cannot be an alien

jon_the_d's Avatar Jump to comment 3 by jon_the_d

precisely!

no evidence => there's no reason to believe they exist.

same as russell's teapot, fairies, or the monster about to get you from behind. no need to try to reason anything if there's no reason to even think they exist.

Wed, 18 May 2011 01:59:04 UTC | #627749

Go to: Why God cannot be an alien

jon_the_d's Avatar Jump to comment 1 by jon_the_d

There may have been many other Class 2 and Class 1 civilizations out there, which were wiped out by the first civilization to make it to Class 3, for reasons of supremacy or conquest or dominion. Leaving only Class 0 civilizations like us who pose no threat but make for good entertainment or scientific studies.

Or perhaps they got pissed with everyone refusing to follow their religion.

Or they imposed technologies which act as signal jammers or cloaking thingies which block any unlicensed interstellar communication and effectively isolate all the different civilizations that are out there.

Who knows.

The first part of your argument is just hypothesizing and assumptions which can easily be out-assumpted or out-hypothesized.

Stick to the one and only argument you need...

Evidence.

Tue, 17 May 2011 23:51:54 UTC | #627716

Go to: Draw Mohammad Day 2... NEEDS YOU!

jon_the_d's Avatar Jump to comment 17 by jon_the_d

The problem still remains a big one though, so long as major tv stations and newspapers are imposing self censorship, a self imposed islamic blasphemy law.

Sure, thousands of netizens may draw and post pictures, but until the tv stations join in, and stand up for freedom and not succumbing to intimidation, we've still got a long way to go.

We should all be campaigning to get Comedy Central to rebroadcast THAT episode of southpark in its uncensored, original form.

We need the big boys to stand beside us to really get the message across.

Tue, 17 May 2011 20:58:46 UTC | #627642

Go to: Entropy, complexity, and a science-based solution to the free will problem

jon_the_d's Avatar Jump to comment 13 by jon_the_d

I don't see anywhere in there where you prove that an individual has actual freedom over the choice they make. Sure they have freedom of action, but which action they end up choosing based on the conditions at that time is not proven to be non-deterministic. i.e. you have not proven free will, only freedom of action. which we all already know.

your probabilistic comment that whatever can happen will happen is also very worrying.

Sun, 08 May 2011 07:31:55 UTC | #624438

Go to: Support Christian missions in Africa? No, but . . .

jon_the_d's Avatar Jump to comment 13 by jon_the_d

If empowerment of women is what you're after, then islam is not the way.

Much better hope of progress with christianity, even if it is starting very low down.

Sat, 07 May 2011 13:35:57 UTC | #624155

Go to: Support Christian missions in Africa? No, but . . .

jon_the_d's Avatar Jump to comment 3 by jon_the_d

The chinese are most likely perfectly happy to stay OUT of local affairs. They just treat it as business, so I don't see them exerting any sort of cultural influence whatsoever.

So, I'm convinced the question is purely Christianity vs Islam. No other alternative.

Although they are both undesirable, islam is by its nature and core beliefs so rigid, and so strict, and so impossible to break free of, and impossible to modernize and make tolerant of other religions and lifestyles, that any african nation that succumbs to a muslim majority and a muslim government, will most likely be stuck that way for centuries, excepting any major global wars or revelations, and the people in those nations will be slaves to its will.

Christianity on the otherhand, already has many more tolerant and modern branches, and even catholicism stands more chance of modernising than islam does. And there's no threats of death and mutilation for leaving the religion or sinning, besides the hatred of homosexuals that seems to be prevalent. And belief in witchcraft in some areas. Although maybe that will subside as Christianity proper actually becomes more dominant, and not blended with local supernatural beliefs.

Basically, I definitely see islam as a rut that they won't be able to get out of, and will be incredibly harsh on any who don't want to follow islamic ways. Christianity, definitely the lesser of two evils in this case, is at least likely to be more tolerant of others, and has nothing preventing it from modernizing, or individuals shrugging off their beliefs.

If it is a 'war' for control of africa, between these two religions, I definitely want christianity to claim as much territory as possible, and I would condone supporting the christian missions competing against islam to achieve this.

For me, christianity in africa would be infintely preferable to islam, for the people of those nations, and for the world as a whole.

Sat, 07 May 2011 11:09:49 UTC | #624127

Go to: Morality as self-division

jon_the_d's Avatar Jump to comment 61 by jon_the_d

S cat and David2,

it occurs to me that you may be arguing different things.

S cat seems to be arguing against the statement "all acts are totally selfish"

meanwhile...

David2 seems to be arguing that "No act is completely selfless".

These are obviously not the same thing, and so it seems you may need to clarify what you are actually arguing about.

Sun, 01 May 2011 03:56:52 UTC | #621384

Go to: Morality as self-division

jon_the_d's Avatar Jump to comment 53 by jon_the_d

If Mark Twain is in some way definitive, why not just delete this thread and leave a link to the essay?

It's not my thread, and these days we have google.

also, there may be more to be discussed on this than simply people coming up with examples of selfless acts.

Sat, 30 Apr 2011 15:05:47 UTC | #621078