The fact is, neither book was written by any god. They were written by people, because god in every way, shape and form is a man made construct.

dommeus

R'Amen to that!

Here's how it works. Just say what your favourite book is at the moment and give a brief description of what the book is about.

Then the person below you recommends a book they think you will like, based on your favourite, with a brief description of what the book is about.

My Recommendation to the above poster: N/A // Brief description

My favourite book: The Night Watch // The book is set in the streets of Moscow. Its about people 'others' who have supernatural powers. There are two groups the light and dark. The two groups have signed a treaty meaning a balance of good and evil must be kept. The light can not do good deeds for the dark will be allowed to perform an equally bad deed to balance things out.

MySpace has half the users of Facebook, as people switched from MS to FB, simply because its better and has a cleaner layout and is more user friendly. Not because of some racial divide. The things some people waste their time on =/

I would probably use it to go and visit the great people in history, Einstein, Churchill and the like.

Too bad time travel is impossible. Say you want to go back to the year 1800. You didn't exist in 1800, so you can't go back to the year 1800.

Then there is the good old grandfather paradox. What if you went back in time and killed your grandfather?

It has to do with a lot of things. For one, helping out society - we would not have hospitals without empathy. Or medications. We would not have computers, comfortable living areas, phones, TVs - because no one gives a damn to improve other people's lives. If you want to improve the life of others, there has to be a sense of compassion otherwise there is no motivation. GavinB84

[QUOTE="icy06"]We as humans function as a whole, because we understand that it is better to our survival this way, its better than functioning alone. This is why the strong help the weak.GavinB84

The strong help the weak out of their own hearts. That is compassion. If it were entirely survival of the fittest, then they would only be concerned about themselves and let the weak fend for themselves. The strong would be together, unaccepting of the weak becasue it will weaken them. There really is no "evolutionary" benefit for things such as helping the mentally retarded, or anything that comforts people who are about to die.

But we do it because it is the right thing to do, and this, in the end, is what makes as better than non-human species. Arguably, this is what makes us human in the first place.

Yes, we have empathy, but only because it was evolutionary beneficial to have this emotion. Ironically you think that humans are superior to other species due to the fact humans have empathy.

"However, Darwin felt that "social instincts" such as "sympathy" and "moral sentiments" also evolved through natural selection, and that these resulted in the strengthening of societies in which they occurred, so much so that he wrote about it in Descent of Man: "The following proposition seems to me in a high degree probable- namely, that any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts, the parental and filial affections being here included, would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well, or nearly as well developed, as in man. For, firstly, the social instincts lead an animal to take pleasure in the society of its fellows, to feel a certain amount of sympathy with them, and to perform various services for them."" -Wikipedia

[QUOTE="icy06"]So no, it does not mean killing old people or terminally ill at all.GavinB84

Sure it does. There is no "darwinian benefit" to help the terminally ill, according to your logic.

[QUOTE="icy06"]As for the whole extermination of genetically inferior people thing. So you are saying that because I take a darwanistic view of nature I support the murder of genetically inferior people? Wow, just wow.GavinB84

No, I am suggesting your logic dictates that. But considering you said you were playing the devil's advocate, then you would have realised that did not imply anything. Opps, you weren't, were you?

If you apply this darwanistic logic of nature to humanity, you are saying that we should eat our own young tooGavinB84

Am I? Nope, don't think so. Also... LOL.

and not help those who cannot contribute to make us stronger because they are incapacitated. You can't pick and choose what suits your argument, you have to take the whole approach, or not at all. All you are showing me is that your argument is flimsy, inconsistent and illogical.GavinB84

[QUOTE="icy06"]Evolution keeps the strongest genes with most benefit to the species and discards the weaker ones. This all happens every time we reproduce. No extermination needed I'm sure you'll be glad to hear.GavinB84

Discarding the weaker ones would be exactly that. Not helping them out, leaving them to their own devices. Do you even understand anything about genetics? There WILL be mutations, and disorderly genes passed down from generation to generation. What happens if you reproduce a baby with Down's Syndrome? By your logic, you should not give that child a fruitful life, let alone a life, because he/she is not "fit" because he/she does not "strengthen" humanity.

You have just one small, itsy, bitsy detail wrong. Humans do not actively go around, trying to remove 'bad genes', by not helping people with genetic disorders. It is nature that removes the bad genes through a magical process known as natural selection. Repeat after me, NATURE, ok?

Anyway, this has all strayed from the original point, just thought I would point out these inaccuracies.

So are you telling me that you can get a bird from the pet store, and mutilate it in front of the staff, and you can't get in trouble for it? I call BS on that. If what you're saying is true, then it says a lot about your laws. GavinB84

No, birds aren't covered under the Humane Slaughter Act in the USA (I don't live in the USA, although I'm sure other countries have similar laws). Meaning that preferance is given to certain animals over others, how do you decide the criteria for this?

There is no special evolutionary benefit, other than that you have the quality of empathy in the first place - that alone does have benefit because without it, we would still be back in the stone ages. To turn that point around on you, there is no evolutionary benefit to torture things and make them suffer either. There is also no "darwinian benefit" to preserving the life of the old, or the terminally ill, etc. Your survival of the fittest crap would also imply that you accept the extermination of "genetically inferior" people, like people with Down's Syndrome, who are no more "intelligent" or "useful" than some animals "lower on the food chain" than us.GavinB84

Without empathy we would be back in the stone age? What does empathy have to do with anything at all? No, there is no benefit in making them suffer, but there is a benefit in killing them eg, food, materials, etc.

We as humans function as a whole, because we understand that it is better to our survival this way, its better than functioning alone. This is why the strong help the weak. When the strong themselves become weak, the next generation is there to look after them. So no, it does not mean killing old people or terminally ill at all. As for the whole extermination of genetically inferior people thing. So you are saying that because I take a darwanistic view of nature I support the murder of genetically inferior people? Wow, just wow. Evolution keeps the strongest genes with most benefit to the species and discards the weaker ones. This all happens every time we reproduce. No extermination needed I'm sure you'll be glad to hear.

Are you repenting here? Because I thought you said you didn't give a damn whether the mouse suffers or not. Now from this, it seems that you do. So you were either lying from the onset or have backpeddled faster than Charlie Chaplin on a monocycle.

GavinB84

No. I do not care about the mouse, no. Its a pest, people deal with it by setting traps. There is a difference between dealing with pests and harming random animals just because you feel like it. So do I have a problem with people killing mice because they are pests? No. Do I have a problem with people with people harming animals just for kicks (ie dog fighting)? Definitely.

I'm sure rodents everywere will be thanking you for embarking on your crusade to allowing them to die humanely. Who knows you may even be revered as a hero amongst the rodent world by now!

Anyhow, I think you need to get down from your high horse and stop shovelling your personal morality down other peoples throats.

..

GavinB84

Yes, I am fully aware of the definition of humane.

Killed instantly? Not quite, they are stunned first, then have their throats cut. If its halal the stunning is simply left out of the equation. But, I'm just being pedantic now aren't I? Also, birds aren't covered under the law in the US. So, its ok for some animals to be treated humanely (whatever your definition of that might be), but not others?

Your basic argument is this 'making animals suffer is bad because humans know better and I think its wrong'. What is the darwinian benefit of showing compassion to other species or treating them humanely, especially if we are at the top of the food chain?

Anyway, I'm just playing devils advocate here. I do not support or condone animal cruelty in any way (in fact I like animals, I have 2 dogs and a rabbit). I guess I am just questioning the philosophical / moral logic behind the view that cruelty to animals is wrong.

Edit: Oh and personally I would have just killed the mouse before disposing of it, or used a trap that kills the mouse there and then.

There are enough people who die from drinking at 21. I'm assuming it would double it it were legal at 18.Razor-Lazor

I hope this is sarcasm...

No. Farm animals are covered by law, they are supposed to be slaughtered humanely. I do not eat halal, but for you to say no one kicks a fuss is wrong.

And there is a big difference humanely slaughtering a cow for food vs intentionally torturing a mouse to death for no reason.

GavinB84

That depends on your definition of 'humane' I suppose doesn't it? It still suffers when it is killed. You say that you are not putting animals on an equal footing yet you want to treat them HUMANely.

Do you think a mouse would care if it saw a human suffering? Does a lion or a bear care about your suffering when it is mauling you to death?

Let me ask you. Why do you think animals have the right to be treated in a humane way?

[QUOTE="icy06"]

I hate the way americans call football, soccer.

grenadexjumpr

Americans hate the way you care about it so much. Does it bother you THAT much? How many Americans do you personally HEAR say it everyday?

No it doesn't bother me THAT much. When referring to the European sport, why not call it by the European name. You don't see people from the UK calling American Football, Rugby (the equivalent here), do you?