“What does it mean to be human?” is one of the fundamental questions we all ask. Every once in a while something happens to remind us that those influenced by Darwinism usually only answer the question with “not much”. As a case in point, just today it’s being reported that the father of a son born with two rare diseases was trying to raise money for medical expenses. He had put up signs at a local mall to raise awareness and funds.
“KC Ahlers said he posted six signs around the Franklin Park Mall in Toledo, Ohio to spread awareness about an upcoming fundraiser for his 4-month-old son, RJ. The father told WTVG on Friday that he discovered three additional signs posted next to his that read: “Stop asking for money. Let the baby die. It’s called Darwinism. Happy Holidays.”
And there you have it. “Only the fit survive, and your diseased child isn’t fit to survive, so just let him die!” Only a true Darwinist would say that.
Whoever posted that sign is contemptible and quite possibly a troll. It certainly doesn’t reflect what Darwin thought.
— Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man (1871)
“The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. ”
Only a Darwinist Cult Zealot like Sev would present such gobbledygook. What utter flipping nonsense.
Andrew
That sort of commentary happens when you strip the power from someone and you make everything seem meaningless
The baby has no meaning just let it die if you do so than the rare disease that it has will also die with it
That’s what fills the vacuum when humans become nothing more than to meet robots powered Thermal chemical reactions, And programmed by genes
Seversky’s Doesn’t do much to help that either, It reduces sympathy As an incidental instinct acquired as part of social and stings through natural selection
That affectively rendering sympathy meaningless like everything else
Now I would like also point out in the quote HOW Absolutely certain he is about the origin of sympathy and what became of it.
There’s absolutely no way at that time he could’ve known that, it was a complete conjecture, a straight story. As with most Darwinian storytelling is just a task of connecting the dots from survival to the end result, you don’t need science for that
seversky:
So trolls post facts? Interesting…
Seversky tells himself another evidence-free Darwinian ‘just-so story’ because even he can’t handle the barbarity inherent within his own Darwinian worldview:
At least Dawkins had enough integrity to honesty admit that the Darwinian worldview entails, “at bottom,,,, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
That Atheism entails a very low view humanity, one does not have to go very far to find examples.
In 1995 Stephen Hawking stated that “The human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet, orbiting around a very average star in the outer suburb of one among a hundred billion galaxies. We are so insignificant that I can’t believe the whole universe exists for our benefit.,,,”
In 2002 John Gray, an English political philosopher, stated that “human life has no more meaning than that of slime mould.”
Voltaire claimed that men were , “insects devouring one another on a little atom of mud.”
As should be glaringly obvious by now, the atheist’s worldview is about as hopeless and depressing of a worldview as a person can possibly have.
Why an atheist would willingly choose the hopeless nihilism of his Darwinian worldview over Christianity I have no idea. Especially since Darwinian evolution does not even qualify as a science in the first place:
And especially since there is now abundant scientific evidence, (from both quantum mechanics and general relativity, which are, by far, our two most powerful theories in science), that human life is not nearly as insignificant in this universe as the atheist has falsely imagined it to be:
Quote, Verse and Video:
“Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature.”
At the urging of hard Darwinian reasoning their sympathy was checked to the deterioration in the noblest part of our nature.
As reprehensible as this is, blaming it on Darwinists or atheists makes as much sense as blaming the protest signs used by the Westboro Baptist church on the Christian religion.
Correct reapers plague
It is only reprehensible in an Intelligently Designed world.
ET
Whereas you are reprehensible in both a Darwinian world and a designed world. I guess that means that you win.
R.P.
ET
To wit:
Morally noble altruistic behavior of any type, (for instance calling the sign that said “Let the baby die” reprehensible), is simply completely antithetical to Darwin’s ‘survival of the fittest’, i.e. red in tooth and claw, theory. As Darwin himself stated;
In fact, Darwin himself offered this following ‘anti-altruism’ standard as a falsification criteria for his theory, “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species”… and even stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.”
And yet, directly contrary to Darwin’s claim that “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species” or it would annihilate his theory, it is now known that ” “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as the modern versions of it.”
Moreover, the falsification of this ‘survival of the fittest’, i.e. ‘selfish’, thinking occurs at the molecular level too.
Dawkins’ ‘selfish gene’ concept is more of less directly based on Darwin’s own ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking about competition. Yet genes are now found to be anything but selfish. Instead of being ‘selfish’, genes are now found to be existing in a holistic web of mutual interdependence and cooperation (the antithesis of selfishness).
Such ‘holistic cooperation’ is, needless to say, the exact polar opposite of being ‘selfish’ as Dawkins had envisioned. (And should, if Darwinism were a normal science instead of being basically a religion for atheists, count as another direct falsification of the theory).
In fact on top of genes being in a holistic web of mutual cooperation, the genetic responses of humans are also designed in a very sophisticated way so as to differentiate between hedonic (selfish) and ‘noble’ (altruistic) moral happiness:
Moreover on top of all that, if anything ever went against Darwin’s claim that “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species”, it is the notion that a single cell can somehow became tens of trillions of cells that cooperate “exclusively for the good of other cells” in a single organism for the singular purpose of keeping that single organism alive.
To claim that one cell transforming into the tens of trillions cells, (of extremely cooperative, even altruistic, cells that make up our ONE human body), is anything less than a miracle is either sheer arrogance or profound and willful ignorance (most likely both).
In fact Darwin stated that “every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers;”
The logic of natural selection is nicely and simply illustrated on the following graph:
Thus, if evolution by natural selection were actually the truth about how all life came to be on Earth then the only life that should be around should be extremely small single celled organisms with the highest replication rate, and with the most ‘mutational firepower’, since only they, (since they greatly outclass multi-cellular organism in terms of ‘reproductive success’ and ‘mutational firepower’), would be fittest to survive in the dog eat dog world where blind pitiless evolution ruled and only the fittest are allowed to survive. The logic of this is nicely summed up here in this following Richard Dawkins’ video:
Yet, contrary to this central ‘survival of the fittest’ assumption of Darwinian evolution, instead of eating us, time after time we find micro-organisms helping each other, and us, in ways that have nothing to with their own ‘survival of the fittest’’ concerns.
The following researchers said they were ‘banging our heads against the wall’ by the contradictory findings to Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking that they had found:
And again, directly contrary to the central ‘survival of the fittest’ assumption of Darwinian evolution, we find that bacteria, instead of eating us, are also directly helping us in essential ways that have nothing to do with their own survival of the fittest concerns:
Moreover, it is now known that “Microbial life can easily live without us; we, however, cannot survive without the global catalysis and environmental transformations it provides.”
None of this pervasive altruistic behavior within bacteria makes any sense on Darwinian evolution and in fact directly contradicts the ‘predictions’ inherent in ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking.
Again, if Darwinian evolution were a normal science instead of basically being a religion for atheists, this should count as yet another powerful falsification of their theory:
Verse:
BA77
;
That’s nice. Except that Darwin wasn’t the one who coined “survival of the fittest” or “red in tooth and claw”. When someone starts a thousand word tome with two easily proven falsehoods, it saves me the effort to read the rest. Thank you for your consideration.
Reapers:
It makes me glad that a known reprehensible, quote-mining coward thinks so.
So what? He definitely adopted both of them in an attempt to further his narrative.
ET
Were you bullied as a child or are you just naturally a sociopath? You, obviously, are not worth talking to. I assume this happens to you often.
R.P. reading comprehension not your strong suit eh?
Please note the period after the “red in tooth and claw, theory.” statement.
Then note the blockquoted quote of Charles Darwin after the “As Darwin himself stated” statement that I made (without a period)
Do you find “let the strongest live and the weakest die” to be morally reprehensible? Especially in regards to humans, i.e. eugenics?
Reapers:
And that is why you are a quote-mining coward and reprehensible fool? Really? But your projection is duly noted.
Well not if you are just going to be a quote-mining coward who doesn’t have anything to say.
As often as there are quote-mining cowards polluting this blog, anyway.
bornagain77- Reaper is just another creeper and quote-mining troll. It has no intention to read what Darwin said and make the obvious connections.
But please, keep exposing it as a reprehensible troll.
BA77
Reading comprehension implies that I actually read all of your comments. I, like most people, can’t be bothered reading past your first couple sentences. Maybe if those first couple sentences said anything interesting…
Reaper admits to willful ignorance. Typical, but still pathetic.
ET
If willful ignorance means not listening to the court jester, I plead guilty.
So Darwin’s a court jester? Darwin is the one you are not reading/ listening to.
Reapers Plague
November 19, 2019 at 3:26 pm
As reprehensible as this is, blaming it on Darwinists or atheists makes as much sense as blaming the protest signs used by the Westboro Baptist church on the Christian religion.
I kind of want to put aN end to this, The “up here’s the reason why we were attacking RP? He simply saying that the behavior was entirely inappropriate but blaming Darwinists or atheist is just as bad as blaming Christians for stupid things posted by the Westborough church
This is a very true statement and there’s no reason to attack him on this or to get nasty with him what did I miss something
UGG my phone’s acting funky
Here’s a better statement
There’s no reason to attack him on this and it’s looking like this thread is devolving quickly into a fight for nothing
I don’t agree with some of the reaper’s responses either, But this kind of escalated pretty quickly for an no reason
Well AaronS1978, while I agree with the overall sentiment that “blaming it on Darwinists or atheists makes as much sense as blaming the protest signs used by the Westboro Baptist church on the Christian religion”, it is also important to note that Darwinists have to ‘borrow’ morality from Christianity in order to condemn the act as being reprehensible in the first place.
That is to say, while the Westboro Baptist church was/is acting contrary to the morality inherent within Christianity, (and everybody, including atheists, seems to intuitively knows that they are acting contrary to the morality of Christ), the person who posted the sign that said “Stop asking for money. Let the baby die. It’s called Darwinism. Happy Holidays.” was acting perfectly consistently within the amorality inherent within Darwinism. Darwinian atheists simply have no moral basis within their materialistic worldview to condemn the act as being ‘reprehensible’.
As Sedgwick told Darwin
AronS1977@23, Thank you.
Maybe the posters are not really Darwinists. If so is there anything inherently wrong with what they posted? Not from a moral subjectivist POV. There is nothing inherently wrong or reprehensible from a subjectivist POV. Which is why I find subjectivism to be reprehensible.
AaronS1978:
The “reprehensible” signs stem from what Darwin said. Period. End of story.
ET
By that argument, a sign held by a Westboro Baptist church parishioner that says “GOD HATES FAGS” stems from what God said.
John_a_designer@ 27
So what if there is nothing “inherently wrong” with what the poster said? What matters is what we think. I, as one of those subjectivists, think it is reprehensible and I suspect that the vast majority of other subjectivists would agree. So why would we need validation from some third-party, extraterrestrial moral umpire? Aren’t you able to make that judgment for yourself?
Bornagain77@ 25
The Westboro Baptist Church seem to be convinced they are truly Christian and can quote chapter and verse from the Bible to support their position. They would probably regard you as some sort of insufficiently devout,”snowflake” Christian. How do we decide between you?
And, once again, the theory of evolution describes “survival of the fittest” as a process observed in nature. It does not prescribe it as a guiding principle for human societies. In fact, it makes no moral recommendations at all, something of which the author of those reprehensible sentiments on the poster was apparently unaware, which makes one wonder how much of a “Darwinist” he or she actually is.
“What matters is what we think”
Sev,
You could think anything. You could think one thing one minute and the opposite the next. That’s the point. It’s all the same, according to your position. The only question is why you cling to this stupidity?
Andrew
Seversky,
Your position is self-refuting. Epistemologically or morally I am not obligated to accept your subjective opinions. So your argument fails on both epistemological and moral grounds. Moral arguments without moral obligation are pointless.
I can dumb it down even further…
There’s nothing inherently wrong with what the poster said.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with blaming Darwinists for what the poster said.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with calling people names on the internet.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with getting mad about people calling each other names on the internet.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with getting glad when other people call each other names on the internet.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with genocide.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with thousands of abortions a day.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with commenting on the internet that aborting a thousand children in a day is inherently wrong.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with people saying something is inherently wrong or not saying something is inherently wrong.
There’s nothing inherently wrong, period.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with me then concluding I’m inherently right.
Excuse me, I have to go to the bathroom now.
Andrew
Subjectivism and trying to use objective science to support it has lead to the nonsense that is going on in universities right now about identity and transgenderism
By saying that something isn’t objectively wrong is open the door for people to define whatever they want to be objectively wrong or objectively right because in the end it’s all subjective and I would say that it’s really not working out too well
Reaper:
Except it doesn’t.
What Darwin said:
The sign:
Show us the same for God and “fags”.
seversky:
I doubt that.
Except it is only a process dreamed of by Darwin and his followers.
Umm, societies are part of nature. And according to you and yours they were produced by nature.
According to the literature he is as much a Darwinist as Darwin himself:
ET
Leviticus 20:13
See, not one word about hating “fags”. Thank you.
ET
Because killing someone is what you do if you love them.
“Because killing someone is what you do if you love them.”
Verses:
God more than did His part in demonstrating His great love for us.
What the sinner who lost all control of his destructive sin, (and has been redeemed by Christ), readily understands, but the sinner, who does not think he is really a sinner (if he even admits that there is even such a thing as sin), but who is under the delusion that he is somehow controlling his sin, does not readily understand, is that Jesus Christ had the full power and authority of heaven to relieve Himself of the horrid torment of the cross but instead chose, because of His great love for us, to endure it, in its entirety, willingly, so that he might completely overcome temptation, sin, hell and death, and all their horrors, on our behalf, (since we were and are completely incapable of doing so), so that we may be set free from our sin, even from death, and reunited with Him forever and ever in heaven. Love is the only proper response on our part.
BA77
By instructing us to kill homosexuals? Or women who aren’t virgins on their wedding night (with no comment about the husband’s virginity?). Sorry. How do you or anyone justify these reprehensible instructions? Jesus never said anything about homosexuals other than ‘the old laws stand’. And the old laws said that they should be killed. Do you stand by these laws?
Not to be nitpicky with inconsistent argumentation but perhaps, before you try to sit in moral judgement of almighty God Himself, it might behoove you to find an objective moral basis that does not necessarily include God as its basis? ,
BA77
Are you suggesting that I can’t pass judgement on someone who believes that homosexuals should be killed in a horrific fashion? Sorry, but any being who would do that, whether human, dog or the almighty God, is one sick being and one that I refuse to take seriously. Of course, that is just my opinion. If you choose to worship such a being, that is your choice. But just remember, it is a conscious choice.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-bible-on-homosexual-behavior
If this is at all helpful for those on this discussion
There’s plenty more, but it is too much for me to put in this post
The readers digest version is the act is condemned and the act is condemned for multiple reasons one being natural law
In Leviticus it is the act that rewards you the punishment
Being homosexual in in itself does not reward you the punishment nor did Jesus speak of it
Christians do not hate homosexuals and again to emphasize reapers point saying one group that hates homosexuals and calls itself Christians should not be generalized for all the other groups
It is understood that Darwinism leads to flawed assumptions about existence, that does not however entail that everybody falls under the same category
I do however agree with that if an Almighty supreme being judges something to be bad that we really don’t have much that we can say about it, for is was that being that created all the rules of reality including our judgments
But that’s how I see about it
Asauber@ 32
Yes, within the limits of our knowledge and imagination, we can think anything if we choose and that capacity is the basis of some of our greatest works of art, literature and music. I would like, therefore, to live as long as I can in order to enjoy the one life I appear to have in this physical universe. However, if I imagine that I can jump off a tall building and fly like a bird by wildly flapping my arms or I can pet a hungry tiger as if it were a domestic cat there is good reason to think that is unlikely to happen. If this universe exists then not all thoughts have the same consequences.
John_a_designer@ 33
Do you regard moral obligation as mandatory or voluntary? If you regard it as mandatory, in other words imposed by force without regard to your views or any need for justification then moral argument is indeed pointless. We would have no free will in the matter. If you hold, as I do, that any moral obligation worth a damn is that which is voluntarily acknowledged by those who agree to be bound by it then there is a great deal to argue about.
Reaper:
You definitely don’t have to hate someone in order to kill them. The best a Westboro Baptist church parishioner can say based on the Bible is:
“God detests same-sex sex”
Asauber@ 34
By George, he’s got it!
What purpose does “inherently” serve in this context?
Reaper:
It all depends on the context. But we all know that context isn’t important to you.
R. P. asks
I am not ‘suggesting’ anything. I am clearly telling you as directly as I can that it is impossible for you, as a Darwinian atheist, to pass a meaningful moral judgement on anything. Without God there simply is no objective morality, PERIOD! i.e. morality is non existent, PERIOD!
You must, at least, embrace some form of mono-Theism in order to have a coherent moral basis in order to try to argue against Christianity in the first place. Good luck finding one. IMHO, the other mono-theistic faiths of the world fall way short of Christianity as to being a coherent worldview.
AronS1978
I think we all understand that.
No, but the act does. And there is nowhere in the Bible, old or New Testament, that the punishment is stayed. The closest is Jesus’ reaction to the adulteress when people wanted to stone her. But that was specific to adultery. Maybe he intended to extend this to all transgressions, but he did not make this clear.
I agree. I have many close friends who are Christian and they would never think of acting like this. In fact, many have even attended SSM services and honestly wished the couples well.
I would disagree with the “flawed assumptions” but I agree that jumping to the conclusion that all Darwinists, atheist, materialist, or subjectivist can be categorized as being the same is as flawed as assuming that all who consider themselves Christians can be categorized as all having the same views.
This is where we disagree. If there is an almighty supreme being responsible for our existence, then he gave us free will and the ability to think and reason. If he didn’t want us to question things, he wouldn’t have given us these abilities. A good analogy would be the relationship between us and our children. We do everything possible to instill our values in them but we would be disappointed if they didn’t grow up to think for themselves and, on occasion, question our teachings.
AaronS1978@ 35
To me, as a self-described Millian libertarian, censorship and repression are equally abhorrent whether coming from the left or right of the political spectrum and some of what is happening in the universities is certainly troubling.
That is certainly the standard objection to subjectivism.
My answer is that, functionally, moral codes regulate the way people behave towards one another in society. If you lived alone on a desert island prohibitions against murder or theft of property would be irrelevant since there would be no one to kill and you would effectively own all that was there.
Most people, however, would prefer not to be killed and to have their personal property respected, for example. Both empathy for the sufferings of others and simple practicality lead to a position where, in order to have one’s own needs and interests respected, one agrees to respect those of others. Intersubjective agreement is a sufficient basis for morality. Nothing is gained by designating morality as objective except, perhaps, to claim unwarranted authority for one’s preferred morality. I note that Christians tend to believe that Christian morality is objective but not that of Islam or Hinduism or native American beliefs, for example.
ET
Please provide me a context under which two consenting males having anal sex justifies being stoned to death. This should be interesting.
RP
Obviously there is no sane person who could provide a context under which this would be justified. But I think that it can be argued that Jesus’ “let he is without sin cast the first stone” admonition can be construed as extending to most other sins.
This is where we disagree. If there is an almighty supreme being responsible for our existence, then he gave us free will and the ability to think and reason. If he didn’t want us to question things, he wouldn’t have given us these abilities. A good analogy would be the relationship between us and our children. We do everything possible to instill our values in them but we would be disappointed if they didn’t grow up to think for themselves and, on occasion, question our teachings.
I’m actually kind of happy with this response because I was thinking of this when I was writing my first post
And it led me to a question of whether or not that almighty supreme being would see whether or not it subjects would follow orders regardless or make the right decision
Personally and I think we both would agree on this is that supreme being would expect both from us the ability to follow orders but the exercise judgment
ET
Says those who have no rational response.
AronS1978
First, I would like to thank you for engaging in a discussion with someone you disagree with without making it personal. That, unfortunately, is a rare trait on the blogosphere.
With regard to your last statement, my only response is that I would think that a truly benevolent supreme being would prefer that we use our judgement rather than have to impose orders.
Seversky
At risk of sounding like an idiot, I say this I believe that there is an objective moral reality in our universe based off of cause and effect, it is built into our very physics, so much so that even bacterial life will work together to survive
If a person living on an island by themselves didn’t have to kill anybody, killing would still be wrong, it is just that there are no people around him to kill. It is understandable that killing people is now a irrelevant and by that the moral code would be as well, but this is only because there’s no one around, there’s no cause, there no effect, particularly when it involves other people
Now that’s if I’m understanding you correctly
Now if the person by themselves on the island decided to start killing everything because he could then eventually he would end up dead as he would either starve to death or eventually be killed by one of the things that he was just killing for the sake of it
It is inherently wrong to needlessly destroy, and eventually there will be ramifications for those actions
Something being objective can still be adaptive, moral objective law can still be adaptive based on the situation
We have to exercise our judgment to determine that
Subjectivism and objectivism when it comes to morality play off of one another they both have to exist it’s really the only way I can work. It’s why I believe in free will and that’s why I also believe in determinism you honestly can’t have one without the other
Reapers:
First off with God the death is not a final ending. Perhaps it, the order to kill, was just a way to physically reset the soul, which was placed in a defective body.
So with that in mind, the context would be in the time it was written to rid your population of sexual deviants intent on committing perverse, immoral and unnatural acts. There isn’t any “being fruitful and multiplying” with same sex partners. So they weren’t even fulfilling that purpose so they need a reset.
If same-sex is the OK then why not same-family? Why an age limit? Why a species limit? How could they stop it back then? I doubt societies would have flourished if it was just a free-for-all.
All that said, if someone knew the consequences, did it and got caught, then that is on them. They get a double Darwin award because they weren’t going to reproduce anyway.
Reapers:
And that is how it was until we proved that our judgement left a lot to be desired.
Ed George:
Says those who are so dense they are a walking black hole.
ET
So, killing homosexuals is a mercy killing? You are one sick f&$@.
Reaper:
Clearly you have reading comprehension issues, along with an inability to think.
ET
Clearly you would be welcome amongst the bigoted homophobes of the Westboro Baptist church. My only regret is that it took me this long to realize that interacting with you only gave much needed oxygen to a reprehensible hatred.
Reaper- Clearly you are just an angry, hateful and willfully ignorant troll. Good luck with that.
But I am glad I could help your reprehensible hatred get its much needed oxygen.
Reapers Plague, since it would defeat his atheistic worldview, never honestly admitted that he has no objective moral basis in which to sit in moral judgement of Almighty God Himself. (which I pointed out to him in post 43.
But anyways, supposing that Reapers Plague honestly admitted that Theism must necessarily be true in order to provide himself a coherent moral basis, would his criticism of Christianity, which he made in post 42, then be relevant and/or valid? i.e.
It is very interesting to note that the religious leaders of Jesus’ day tried to trap Jesus with the exact same type of argument that R.P. is currently trying to use, i.e. “the old laws said that they should be killed. Do you stand by these laws?”:
Might I also point out that Jesus himself paid penalty of death on her behalf?
“What purpose does “inherently” serve in this context?”
Sev,
Why are you asking me this question? There’s nothing inherently wrong with what I posted. I don’t understand what your objection could be.
Andrew
“What purpose does “inherently” serve in this context?”
Sev,
I’m evolved. There’s is no “purpose.” You evidently have some learning to do.
Andrew
“Stop asking for money. Let the baby die. It’s called Darwinism. Happy Holidays.”
Sounds like a Republican explaining why they oppose Medicare for all.
Aside from the fact that medicare for all would greatly diminish the quality of health care in this country, and besides bankrupting the country, I find it rather ironic that a democrat, whose party supported slavery, opposed civil rights, and currently supports unrestricted abortion, would have the audacity to pretend that Democrats are the more compassionate party. The fact of the matter is that Democrats use fake compassion to try to further their socialistic goals. Goals which, if actually realized, would greatly increase the misery index of the entire country. And that certainly is NOT being compassionate.
BA77
Really? What is your evidence? Canada has universal health care. Their infant mortality is lower. Their life expectancy is higher. Nobody loses their homes due to hospital bills. US debt to GDP is 76.4% as compared to 34% for Canada. And here is a little factoid that I am sure will drive you crazy, Canadians don’t have to pay for abortions or sex reassignment surgery.
BA77, please name a single industrialized nation that doesn’t have Medicare for all.
I’ll start you off: The United States of America.
How’s it feel to be running dead last?
Funny how reality always contradicts what atheists believe or want to believe.
BA77
Funny how Canada still has lower infant mortality, higher life expectancy, lower mortality rates due to heart and stroke, lower rates of medical errors, lower rate of bankruptcy due to medical expenses, much lower per capita spent on medical costs.
RP@75, I am Canadian and our health care system isn’t as ideal as you imply. Our emergency treatments and quality of the doctors and nurses is second to none. But wait times for non-emergency procedures and tests can be extensive. For example, you can wait up to a year for hip replacement surgery. This being said, the amount of misinformation about our system spewed in the US is huge. We are not told what doctors we can see. We can get second opinions. People are not dying in the emergency rooms. In short, you would be hard pressed to find a Canadian who would exchange the Canadian system for the US one.
BA77:
Your article complains that Canadians wait too long to get some medical procedures. Here’s what AARP says about that:
“In 1966, Canada implemented a single-payer health care system, which is also known as Medicare. Since then, as a country, Canadians have made a conscious decision to hold down costs. One of the ways they do that is by limiting supply, mostly for elective things, which can create wait times. Their outcomes are otherwise comparable to ours.
Please understand, the wait times could be overcome. Canadians could spend more. They don’t want to. We can choose to dislike wait times in principle, but they are a byproduct of Canada’s choice to be fiscally conservative.”
https://www.aarp.org/politics-society/government-elections/info-03-2012/myths-canada-health-care.html
You want shorter wait times? Then spend the money.
Here’s some interesting charts on how much the top nations spend on health care at https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries/#item-average-wealthy-countries-spend-half-much-per-person-health-u-s-spends
In 2017, the United States’s non-system spent $10,244 per person on health care. Canada spent $4826.
England was at the bottom, spending only $4276.
Your article describes the result:
“Today, British hospitals are so overcrowded that doctors regularly treat patients in hallways. The agency recently canceled tens of thousands of surgeries, including urgent cancer procedures, because of severe resource shortages. And this winter, nearly 17,000 patients waited in the backs of their ambulances — many for an hour or more — before hospital staff could clear space for them in the emergency room. “
It’s not that the US isn’t paying for good health care, we’re just not getting it.
P.S. I’m concentrating on dollars and cents here because I realize asking, “What Would Jesus Do?”, might be a little embarrassing under these circumstances.
Bornagain77@ 74
Really? In the US …
In the UK, nobody – but nobody – is forced into bankruptcy due to unforeseen medical expenses.
The shortage of resources in the UK’s National Health Service is due to chronic underfunding by governments from both left and right.
Yes, the quality of healthcare in the US is excellent for those that can afford it. Unfortunately, one of the reasons for the excellence of that care is that upwards of 40 million people in the richest country in the world are priced right out of the system.
And even for patients who can afford it, patients still get screwed over by an utterly outrageous lack of transparency over pricing:
Finally, as a Christian, do you think Jesus would approve of a private healthcare system such as that in the US which excludes the poorest and most vulnerable? Did Jesus charge anything for the treatments He provided?
Since the atheistic trolls on UD are seemingly SO concerned with improving healthcare for people with a one size fits all health plan, might I suggest that they start in their own backyard and that they themselves become Christian and that they actively encourage everyone else to become Christian?
Christianity, and the acceptance thereof, is the greatest contributing factor in improving ones overall mental and physical well being
In making this point clear, it is first important to note that the atheistic worldview, (besides denying that you exist as a real person),
,,,the atheistic worldview, (besides denying that you exist as a real person), also denies that there is any real meaning, beauty, and/or purpose for life.
Needless to say, a worldview that is devoid of any real meaning, beauty or purpose, for life is a severely impoverished, even a severely depressing, worldview for anyone to have to hold. Indeed, such an impoverished view of life goes a very long way towards explaining exactly why Christians report being much happier than atheists are,
and also explains why Christians have significantly fewer suicide attempts than atheists do,
and also explains why Christians report having greater life satisfaction than atheists do,
and also explains why Christians have less mental and physical health issues than atheists do,
and also explains why Christians live significantly longer than atheists do.
Thus if the atheistic trolls on UD were really as concerned for healthcare as they want to pretend to be, then the number one thing that they themselves can do right now to greatly improve their own, as well as others, health, (both mental and physical health), is to personally embrace and publicly promote Christianity.
Something tells me that even their own health and well being is just a bridge too far for them to ever cross to personally embrace Christianity.
Which is a sad, yet realistic, testament to their irrational hatred of God. i.e. They hate God so much that they end up basically hating the well being of their very own lives.
If the USA is going to have universal health care and it increases our taxes, then the gov’t would need to heavily regulate junk food, fast food and outlaw cigarettes. Most of our health problems are our own fault. So if we cannot control ourselves the gov’t needs to do it for us.
Like the Evolutionist and The Climate Changer, the Statist operates assuming the conclusion. In this case, The State is the Answer.
Generally, there’s no point in trying to have a rational discussion with any of them.
Andrew
Since the subject of medical care has come up, it might interest the Darwinian atheists to know that Darwinian evolution has been useless, even harmful, to medical practice in particular and the development of medicine in general.
For instance, (ignoring the horror of eugenics), the false Darwinian assumption of vestigial organs has led to much medical malpractice in the past:
And as Dr. Michael Egnor explains, “Evolutionary explanations by themselves are worthless to medicine”, and “doctors and medical researchers pay no attention to Darwinian speculations in their work, and their work has been astonishingly successful.”
As to the development of medicine in general, The late Philip S. Skell states that ““Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming’s discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.”
Even Jerry Coyne admits that Darwinian evolution has been useless for the development of medicines, among other things:
In fact, all of science can get along quite well without Darwinian speculations,
Moreover, testing medicines on animals is largely a huge failure precisely because of the false evolutionary assumption of common ancestry:
Whereas on the hand, assuming Intelligent Design holds great promise for medical breakthroughs. For instance,
In fact, the multiple drug strategy that has been so effective in bringing HIV under control uses much the same strategy of being beyond the ‘edge of evolution’ that Dr. Behe has elucidated:
Thus again, Darwinian evolution has been useless, even harmful, to medical practice in particular and the development of medicine in general. Whereas assuming Intelligent Design holds great promise for both.
In fact, assuming Intelligent Design lay at the founding of modern medicine. Hospitals themselves grew out of medieval Christianity with its emphasis of caring for the sick and the poor. As the following article states, “The roots of Western medicine, we learn, can be found in the transformative effects of Judeo-Christian traditions.”
Supplemental notes:
Do you even read messages replying to you? Or do you just grab something off your disk drive of crank literature and quote-mines of scientific papers? In fact, do you even read the messages you cut and paste? I like to follow down your links and see where you went off the rails.
Take this, for example: “I have been looking for spontaneous generation for twenty years without discovering it. No, I do not judge it impossible. But what allows you to make it the origin of life? You place matter before life and you decide that matter has existed for all eternity. How do you know that the incessant progress of science will not compel scientists to consider that life has existed during eternity, and not matter? You pass from matter to life because your intelligence of today cannot conceive things otherwise. How do you know that in ten thousand years, one will not consider it more likely that matter has emerged from life?”
The Earth started out molten. I think they knew this in Louis Pasteur’s day and you know it today. I doubt very much if they will have discovered molten life in ten thousand years.
But forget that, I’d just like to know why you think it’s so cool to spend twice as much per capita as every other country on health and not even cover forty million Americans. Do you honestly think that’s good for the country? Or do you just think it’s cool to spend $300.00 for an insulin pen that goes for $30.00 in Canada? Do you perhaps own stock in a drug company?
Too much sugar, junk food and over-packaging isn’t good for the country. When it comes to health and healthcare we are our own worst enemies. Being reactionary with universal healthcare is a stupid way to go about it. In an otherwise healthy society/ population, those insulin pens would go for $30.00 max- probably less.
Why do liberals not want to face the real issues with our healthcare?
MatSprit
Is this a trick question?
And, in most instances, obtain poorer outcomes.
When I was 17 I had surgery for scoliosis and spent three months in hospital. The only cost to my lower middle class parents was the cost of the rental TV in my hospital room. When I was 22 I had a collapsed lung and required surgery to patch it and a week in hospital. My only cost was my parking bill. After my three kids were born I had a vasectomy. At no cost. A few years ago I had triple bypass surgery. Again, at no cost to me. In all cases my treatment was rapid, performed by very skilled doctors, and my recoveries were quick and uneventful. Several years ago my wife had breast cancer. She had a double mastectomy and underwent chemotherapy and radiation treatments.
And next year we will be retiring comfortably because our savings weren’t drawn down by paying off medical debt. And, as is almost inevitable, we will both have to avail ourselves of the health care system in the coming years. But the one thing we won’t have to worry about is going bankrupt because of medical bills. Thank God that I live in Canada.
MatSpirit asks me “do you even read the messages you cut and paste? I like to follow down your links and see where you went off the rails.”, and then he quotes part of my quote from Louis Pasteur,
Then MatSpirit states this non sequitur, “The Earth started out molten. I think they knew this in Louis Pasteur’s day and you know it today. I doubt very much if they will have discovered molten life in ten thousand years.”
OK MatSpirit, did YOU even read what you yourself quoted? Louis Pasteur did not claim that life came from “molten life”, he claimed that “You place matter before life and you decide that matter has existed for all eternity.,,, How do you know that in ten thousand years, one will not consider it more likely that matter has emerged from life?”. And indeed today, not even close to ten thousand years hence, we find abundant evidence that matter has not existed for all eternity, (you know the whole Big Bang thing?), where space-time, matter-energy, themselves were created? Not to mention the falsification of realism in quantum mechanics that proves that consciousness must precede material reality.
Thus Louis Pasteur was very much correct in his intuition. Matter, according to our best evidence from both cosmology and quantum mechanics, certainly has NOT existed for all eternity and life itself, (i.e. God), not matter, is what has existed through all eternity.
Then after that huge blunder on MatSpirit’s part, he goes on to ask, “But forget that, I’d just like to know why you think it’s so cool to spend twice as much per capita as every other country on health and not even cover forty million Americans. Do you honestly think that’s good for the country? Or do you just think it’s cool to spend $300.00 for an insulin pen that goes for $30.00 in Canada? Do you perhaps own stock in a drug company?”
Yet IF MatSpirit would have actually read my post in 79, in the concluding remark from an expert on the subject, after extensive analysis, he would have found this sentence by the expert,
Reapers Plague at 87, So what? I can claim many of the exact same things that you claim about not having to foot enormous medical bills because of emergency procedures, from the fact that I have been covered by private insurance, not government run healthcare, from childhood until now, practically my whole life. So that specific criticism against private healthcare is irrelevant. Sure there are problems with private run healthcare, but they are not nearly as bad as the problems inherent in government run healthcare, as was outlined in post 79: Again, to repeat the concluding remark of the article, “Together, we can bring down costs and extend coverage to millions more Americans. But one-size-fits-all Medicare for all is the wrong way forward.”
Of related note to improving mental and physical health, I note that the atheistic trolls on UD did not even attempt to address the fact, outlined in post 80, that believing in God is the single most important thing a person can personally do to increase their life expectancy:
Thus if the atheistic trolls on UD were really as concerned for healthcare as they want to pretend to be, then the number one thing that they themselves can do right now to greatly improve their own, as well as others, health, (both mental and physical health), is to personally embrace and publicly promote Christianity.
LoL! Canadians have what they do thanks to the USA.
Canadians are a proud lot though, so perhaps an animation or two to get the point across
BA77
So you are willing to bankrupt the millions of people who aren’t covered by private healthcare? That’s not very Christian of you. Besides, you ignore the fact that Canada still has private health coverage.
ET
Things like insulin, the pacemaker, open heart surgery, the discovery of T-cell receptors for cancer immunology, the discovery of transplantable stem cells, developing the HAART treatment to prevent HIV from progressing to AIDS, infant meningitis vaccine, identification of cystic fibrosis gene, use of aspirin for stroke prevention, discovery of heparin for blood clots, adding vitamin D to milk to prevent rickets, discovery of first cancer antigen, creation of the cobalt-60 bomb for radiation therapy, first combined vaccine for diphtheria pertussis and tetanus, Ebola vaccine, etc?
BA77@81, yet your president keeps saying that Canada has a trade surplus with the US. Are you calling Trump a liar?
Reapers Plague has a reading comprehension issue. To repeat, the solution to the problems within private healthcare are not found within government run healthcare:
Again the concluding remark
Reapers Plague also tries to divert attention away from the fact that Canada is very much dependent on America for its prosperity, (and thus is very much dependent on America for, basically, subsidizing its government run healthcare). Thus to repeat the animations for the proud but dependent Canadian, i.e. Reapers Plague:
And please note that Reapers Plague, again, still refused to address the fact that people who believe in God live significantly longer than atheists do.
That little factoid in and of itself kind of demolishes his entire atheistic worldview. But no matter, I’m sure that R.P. believes that government can fix that little problem too if only you give government enough of your money,
Of related note:
BA77
I think you have a problem with economics. How does Canada spending more on US goods than US does on Canadian goods constitute a subsidy? We are talking about goods that are being bought from private companies. Private companies don’t subsidize their clients.
On a similar note, why is Trump pushing to allow Americans to buy cheaper foreign drugs (much of them from Canada). We don’t subsidize our drug companies.
Read the article for comprehension R.P.
Canada would basically be a third world country without the US for a trading partner,
As well read these following articles for comprehension. Pronounce each word slowly if it helps:
BA77 @ 88
“Then MatSpirit states this non sequitur, “The Earth started out molten. I think they knew this in Louis Pasteur’s day and you know it today. I doubt very much if they will have discovered molten life in ten thousand years.”
OK MatSpirit, did YOU even read what you yourself quoted?”
Yes. Louis Pasteur claims that maybe life made matter. Yet we know today that all the matter on earth started out molten and no form of life we’ve ever found can live in lava. Lava is material, so material existed before any life existed on earth. Pasteur got that wrong, but you quoted him anyway because he agrees with you. As far as I can tell, that’s your sole criterion for quoting.
“Then after that huge blunder on MatSpirit’s part, he goes on to ask, “But forget that, I’d just like to know why you think it’s so cool to spend twice as much per capita as every other country on health and not even cover forty million Americans. Do you honestly think that’s good for the country? Or do you just think it’s cool to spend $300.00 for an insulin pen that goes for $30.00 in Canada? Do you perhaps own stock in a drug company?”
Yet IF MatSpirit would have actually read my post in 79, in the concluding remark from an expert on the subject, after extensive analysis, he would have found this sentence by the expert,
“Together, we can bring down costs and extend coverage to millions more Americans. But one-size-fits-all Medicare for all is the wrong way forward.”
https://americashealthcarefuture.org/five-facts-about-medicare-for-all/”
Yes, we can bring down cost and cover millions more, but we’ve got FORTY MILLION more to cover.
You never answered my questions: Do you think spending twice as much per capita as other countries and leaving 40 million Americans in the lurch is good for the country? Do you think it’s cool to spend $300 taxpayer dollars on a $30.00 insulin pen?
Another question: “One-size-fits-all Medicare” means you get sick, you go to the doctor and Medicare pays. I’ve been living with that for seven years. People in all the industrialized countries live quite well with that. Why is it supposed to be the wrong way forward?
All: Remember Part D Medicare? It’s the part that pays for drugs. It was passed in the Bush administration.
Remember that funny little part that Bush stuck in there, the part that forbids Medicare to negotiate drug prices? That’s why medicare pays $300.00 for a $30.00 insulin pen. That’s why medicare pays top dollar for ALL drugs.
Canada’s Medicare negotiates prices and pays much less. Other countries negotiate prices and pay much less. Your hospital negotiates prices and pays much less than you do. Only Medicare and people without health insurance pay full prices for drugs. Except that without health care, most people don’t have the $300.00 to spare, so they go without and eventually die.
BA, I was surprised to read you’ve had health care all or most of your life. I used to read your descriptions on this blog of how you lived before you became a Christian and frankly, I had pictured you as a down and outer. Now I find out you’ve had enough money for health insurance most of your life.
Who paid for your health insurance when you were a baby? Did you get it through work as an adult? If you had a good enough job to pay health insurance, then I wonder if you might have been exaggerating your secular faults, as so many do after conversion.
Also, you’ve brought up going to church as a prophylactic. That works with all religions, including Buddism, which is Atheist. It also works with marriage, bowling leagues, golf, softball and hundreds of other activities. Anything that gets you out of the house and interacting with other people extends your lifetime. If nothing else, when you have a heart attack, somebody is there to call the ambulance.
A lot of activities that stop you from going to church also kill you early. Anybody living on the streets during a northern winter isn’t going to church for instance, but they’re only one really cold night away from death and getting worn down by sleeping on the streets every day.
I’d like to see a really good study on what extends and shortens life in the real world, but it’s so hard to measure. I notice that the study you recommend above looked at obituaries to see if they mention religion. If they did, then you’re counted as a church goer. Wow! I used to have neighbors who fought every day. The husband was absolutely worthless. I once saw him sober. His wife earned all the money in the family. Neither ever went to church that I know of, but when he died, (at a rather advanced age) his obituary made him out to be a model Christian and possible candidate for sainthood. He would have shown up in the Christian column in your source.
BA77 @ 91
Canada’s population is 38 million – about the size of California. Whatever are you getting on about who would win a trade war?
MatSpirit, Uh, please read for comprehension. When Louis Pasteur, a Christian mind you, states “that life has existed during eternity”, he is making reference to God as the source for all life, certainly not ‘molten life’ as you falsely imagine in your fevered materialistic imagination.
Here is a verse to help you understand what Christians actually believe about life existing for all eternity
Particularly note Verse 4 if you will MatSpirit, “In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.”
Then Matspirit, after revealing his complete ignorance about what Christians actually believe about ‘life existing for eternity’, goes on about healthcare.
Yet, he did not refute my points, but he just kind of pushed the deck chairs around a little without really addressing the meat of my points,, so I will simply relist my points:
Canada would basically be a third world country without the US for a trading partner,
Europeans and Canadians both take massive advantage of Americans with unfair drug pricing and Trump, as is characteristic of him in establishing fair trade deals, is working in a bipartisan manner to close the loophole(s) that allows the Europeans and Canadians to cheat Americans in drug pricing.
and again, “one-size-fits-all Medicare for all is the wrong way forward.”
MatSpirit also derided going to church as improving longevity, but the facts are what they are no matter how he tries to avoid it.
BA77 @ 101: “MatSpirit, Uh, please read for comprehension.”
I did and I suggest you do the same, although I don’t think you’re really capable of that, at least for anything that threatens your religion. Here’s what you’ve posted at least twice in this thread:
“I have been looking for spontaneous generation for twenty years without discovering it. >>No, I do not judge it impossible.<>You place matter before life and you decide that matter has existed for all eternity.< life relationship has only gotten stronger while you have presented precisely zip to say it was life first. LIVING ORGANISMS ARE MADE OF MATTER. There’s no magic involved.
BA77: “MatSpirit also derided going to church as improving longevity, but the facts are what they are no matter how he tries to avoid it.”
I also posted some of the reasons why going to church (or [gasp] temple or {gasp gasp} Mosque) or any other activity gets you out of the house and embedded in the society around you, but of course that probably didn’t make it pass your Christian colored filter.
MatSpirit claims that “You place matter before life and you decide that matter has existed for all eternity.<,,, you have presented precisely zip to say it was life first."
Actually, that claim is false, and proves that MatSpirit is NOT reading for comprehension. in post 88 I specifically referenced the Big Bang and the falsification of realism,
MatSpirit then claims that
" LIVING ORGANISMS ARE MADE OF MATTER. There’s no magic involved."
Yet, as has been repeatedly pointed out to MatSpirit and other atheistic materialists, living organism are not made of ONLY matter. Besides matter and energy, life is also made of information, and information ONLY comes from a mind.
Then MatSpirit once again moved the deck chairs around with the whole ‘significantly improved longevity correlated with going to church’ thing. Apparently he wants to claim that the increase in longevity is due solely to socialization. MatSpirit should have taken care to read my links more closely for comprehension. He would have saved embarrassing himself once again:
MatSpirit:
LIVING ORGANISMS ARE MADE OF MORE THAN MATTER. Design is not magic, dippy-do.