What Does It Mean To Be Human? Don’t Ask A Darwinist

_{Donald McLaughlin

November 19, 2019

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

“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.

Comments

BA77
Funny how reality always contradicts what atheists believe or want to believe.
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.Reapers Plague_{November 21, 2019
November
11
Nov
21
21
2019
09:02 PM
9
09
02
PM
PDT}

Canadians Are One In A Million -- While Waiting For Medical Treatment,,, Canada's single-payer healthcare system forced over 1 million patients to wait for necessary medical treatments last year. That's an all-time record. Those long wait times were more than just a nuisance; they cost patients $1.9 billion in lost wages, according to a new report by the Fraser Institute, a Vancouver-based think-tank. Lengthy treatment delays are the norm in Canada and other single-payer nations, which ration care to keep costs down. Yet more and more Democratic leaders are pushing for a single-payer system -- and more and more voters are clamoring for one.... By his own admission, Sen. Sanders' "Medicare for All" bill is modeled on Canada's healthcare system. On a fact-finding trip to Canada last fall, Sanders praised the country for "guaranteeing health care to all people," noting that "there is so much to be learned" from the Canadian system. The only thing Canadian patients are "guaranteed" is a spot on a waitlist. As the Fraser report notes, in 2017, more than 173,000 patients waited for an ophthalmology procedure. Another 91,000 lined up for some form of general surgery, while more than 40,000 waited for a urology procedure. All told, nearly 3% of Canada's population was waiting for some kind of medical care at the end of last year. Those delays were excruciatingly long. After receiving a referral from a general practitioner, the typical patient waited more than 21 weeks to receive treatment from a specialist. That was the longest average waiting period on record -- and more than double the median wait in 1993. Rural patients faced even longer delays. For instance, the average Canadian in need of orthopedic surgery waited almost 24 weeks for treatment -- but the typical patient in rural Nova Scotia waited nearly 39 weeks for the same procedure. One Ontario woman, Judy Congdon, learned that she needed a hip replacement in 2016, according to the Toronto Sun. Doctors initially scheduled the procedure for September 2017 -- almost a year later. The surgery never happened on schedule. The hospital ran over budget, forcing physicians to postpone the operation for another year. In the United States, suffering for a year or more before receiving a joint replacement is unheard of. In Canada, it's normal. Canadians lose a lot of money waiting for their "free" socialized medicine. On average, patients forfeit over $1,800 in lost wages. And that's only counting the working hours they miss due to pain and immobility. The Fraser Institute researchers also calculated the value of all the waking hours that patients lost because they couldn't fully function. The toll was staggering -- almost $5,600 per patient, totaling $5.8 billion nationally. And those calculations ignore the value of uncompensated care provided by family members, who often take time off work or quit their jobs to help ill loved ones. Canada isn't an anomaly. Every nation that offers government-funded, universal coverage features long wait times. When the government makes health care "free," consumers' demand for medical services surges. Patients have no incentive to limit their doctor visits or choose more cost-efficient providers. To prevent expenses from ballooning, the government sets strict budget caps that only enable hospitals to hire a limited number of staff and purchase a meager amount of equipment. Demand inevitably outstrips supply. Shortages result. Just look at the United Kingdom's government enterprise, the National Health Service, which turns 70 this July. 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. Most Americans would look at these conditions in horror. Yet Sen. Sanders and his fellow travelers continue to treat the healthcare systems in Canada and the UK as paragons to which America should aspire. Sen. Sanders's "Medicare for All" proposal would effectively ban private insurance and force all Americans into a single, government-funded healthcare plan. According to Sen. Sanders, this new insurance scheme would cover everything from regular check-ups to prescription drugs and specialty care, no referral needed -- all at no charge to patients. Americans shouldn't fall for these rosy promises. As Canadians know all too well, when the government foots the bill for healthcare, patients are the ones who pay the biggest price. https://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2018/06/11/canadians-are-one-in-a-million-while-waiting-for-medical-treatment/#7445b9633e7d
Funny how reality always contradicts what atheists believe or want to believe.bornagain77_{November 21, 2019
November
11
Nov
21
21
2019
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT}

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?MatSpirit_{November 21, 2019
November
11
Nov
21
21
2019
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PDT}

BA77
Aside from the fact that medicare for all would greatly diminish the quality of health care in this country, and besides bankrupting the country,
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.Reapers Plague_{November 21, 2019
November
11
Nov
21
21
2019
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT}

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.
Socialism Fails Every Time https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmDBTHxYZ7Q Socialism Fails Every Time - 2019 The best outcome is a reversion to capitalism. The worst? Hundreds of millions dead. https://www.wsj.com/articles/socialism-fails-every-time-11554851786 Denmark to American leftists: We’re not socialist BY REV. BEN JOHNSON • JANUARY 17, 2019 https://acton.org/publications/transatlantic/2019/01/17/denmark-american-leftists-were-not-socialist
bornagain77_{November 21, 2019
November
11
Nov
21
21
2019
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT}

“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.MatSpirit_{November 21, 2019
November
11
Nov
21
21
2019
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT}

“What purpose does “inherently” serve in this context?” Sev, I'm evolved. There's is no "purpose." You evidently have some learning to do. Andrewasauber_{November 21, 2019
November
11
Nov
21
21
2019
04:21 AM
4
04
21
AM
PDT}

"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. Andrewasauber_{November 21, 2019
November
11
Nov
21
21
2019
04:20 AM
4
04
20
AM
PDT}

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.
BA77: it might behoove you to find an objective moral basis that does not necessarily include God as its basis? , The Moral Argument https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vU The non-Christian, then, in Van Til’s famous illustration, is like a child sitting on her father’s lap, slapping his face. She could not slap him unless he supported her. Similarly, the non-Christian cannot carry out his rebellion against God unless God makes that rebellion possible. Contradicting God assumes an intelligible (and moral) universe and therefore a theistic one. https://frame-poythress.org/transcendental-arguments/
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.
R.P.: "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?"
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?":
John 8 1 but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
Might I also point out that Jesus himself paid penalty of death on her behalf?
Woman Caught in Adultery - clip from "The Passion" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3ykt6pyLJ4 Understanding Why Jesus Wrote in the Sand https://youtu.be/tmWrS86zs4Y?t=315
bornagain77_{November 21, 2019
November
11
Nov
21
21
2019
03:20 AM
3
03
20
AM
PDT}

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.ET_{November 20, 2019
November
11
Nov
20
20
2019
07:54 PM
7
07
54
PM
PDT}

ET
Clearly you have reading comprehension issues and an inability to think
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.Reapers Plague_{November 20, 2019
November
11
Nov
20
20
2019
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT}

Reaper:
So, killing homosexuals is a mercy killing?
Clearly you have reading comprehension issues, along with an inability to think.ET_{November 20, 2019
November
11
Nov
20
20
2019
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT}

ET
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.
So, killing homosexuals is a mercy killing? You are one sick f&$@.Reapers Plague_{November 20, 2019
November
11
Nov
20
20
2019
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PDT}

Ed George:
Says those who have no rational response.
Says those who are so dense they are a walking black hole.ET_{November 20, 2019
November
11
Nov
20
20
2019
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PDT}

Reapers:
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.
And that is how it was until we proved that our judgement left a lot to be desired.ET_{November 20, 2019
November
11
Nov
20
20
2019
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT}

Reapers:
Please provide me a context under which two consenting males having anal sex justifies being stoned to death.
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.ET_{November 20, 2019
November
11
Nov
20
20
2019
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PDT}

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 otherAaronS1978_{November 20, 2019
November
11
Nov
20
20
2019
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT}

AronS1978
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
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.Reapers Plague_{November 20, 2019
November
11
Nov
20
20
2019
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT}

ET
It all depends on the context.
Says those who have no rational response.Ed George_{November 20, 2019
November
11
Nov
20
20
2019
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PDT}

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 judgmentAaronS1978_{November 20, 2019
November
11
Nov
20
20
2019
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT}

RP
Please provide me a context under which two consenting males having anal sex justifies being stoned to death.
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.Ed George_{November 20, 2019
November
11
Nov
20
20
2019
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT}

ET
It all depends on the context.
Please provide me a context under which two consenting males having anal sex justifies being stoned to death. This should be interesting.Reapers Plague_{November 20, 2019
November
11
Nov
20
20
2019
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT}

AaronS1978@ 35
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
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.
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
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.Seversky_{November 20, 2019
November
11
Nov
20
20
2019
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT}

AronS1978
In Leviticus it is the act that rewards you the punishment
I think we all understand that.
Being homosexual in in itself does not reward you the punishment nor did Jesus speak of it
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.
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
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.
It is understood that Darwinism leads to flawed assumptions about existence, that does not however entail that everybody falls under the same category
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.
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
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.Reapers Plague_{November 20, 2019
November
11
Nov
20
20
2019
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT}

R. P. asks
Are you suggesting that I can’t pass judgement on someone who believes that homosexuals should be killed in a horrific fashion?
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.bornagain77_{November 20, 2019
November
11
Nov
20
20
2019
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PDT}

Reaper:
Are you suggesting that I can’t pass judgement on someone who believes that homosexuals should be killed in a horrific fashion?
It all depends on the context. But we all know that context isn't important to you.ET_{November 20, 2019
November
11
Nov
20
20
2019
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT}

Asauber@ 34
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. […]
By George, he's got it! What purpose does "inherently" serve in this context?Seversky_{November 20, 2019
November
11
Nov
20
20
2019
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT}

Reaper:
Because killing someone is what you do if you love them.
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"ET_{November 20, 2019
November
11
Nov
20
20
2019
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT}

John_a_designer@ 33
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.
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.Seversky_{November 20, 2019
November
11
Nov
20
20
2019
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT}

Asauber@ 32
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?
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.Seversky_{November 20, 2019
November
11
Nov
20
20
2019
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply