Bikerman

Well, personally I like a bit of strife - that is, to me, what being human is all about. I don't want ultimate peace - I'd get bored. I like unanswered questions because they give my life meaning. Ultimate peace sounds too much like 'RIP' to me....

But I thought we were talking about Buddhism ? Sorry, I don't know why I thought that (well, I do, because Buddhism has a similar basic structure, but I realise that you never referred to Buddhism....my bad)

That just says the same - REPORTS have increased. It also confirms what I said last - that Japan is a special case.The way you tackle the problem depends on the actual problem. If child abuse really WAS increasing then that would mean that existing measures have been ineffective and would require a complete rethink. If, on the other hand, child abuse is markedly DECREASING then the conclusions one draws would be different - one might look to do MORE of what is currrently being done.That is why it is crucially important NOT to misrepresent the facts and why I will not debate the issue based on such misrepresentation.If you want to discuss the particular problems of Japan then fine, but you should have made that clear.

Yes, the simple fact is that most religions were founded a long time ago and are based on systems of thought that we now consider immoral, sexist, racist etc. I don't know of any mainstream religion that has, at core, the notion that women are equal - or even autonomous beings in their own right.I know that Muslims sometimes like to claim that Islam teaches this, but that is rather a sick joke to anyone who has actually read the quran or observed the goings-on in a Sharia state,

No, you need to read it again."This sharp increase is most probably due to more victims coming forward.."What the Japan artcle shows is an increase in reporting. not an increase in the offence itself. Besides which I was under the impression that you were talking about the US not Japan. Japan is a special case because of the rather particular social structure based which mitigates against public discussion of such matters.The Indian article (pdf) is concerned with a particular issue - sex tourism - and again I fail to see the relevance to the US or other western developed countries.I repeat, I'm not going to spend time seriously discussing an issue which is framed in misleading terms because it only adds to misinformation. I can well imagine meeting someone at a conference and having them say - 'hey, you were in a debate which said that child-abuse was on the increase weren't you? Why did you spread such misinformation? It only makes our job harder'.

Err...just what do you think those links show? Two are about child abuse in India and the other in Japan. They say nothing about INCREASES in child abuse - probably for the very good reason that it HASN'T increased. Plucking links out of the air and making patronising comments about 'understanding' doesn't make your comments true.For your information I am trained in spotting and dealing with Child abuse as well as safeguarding and councelling, but as I said previously I am not going to seriously debate the issue when the whole basis of your assertion is untrue - because that would simply perpetuate the myth that you seem anxious to spread. Adding misinformation to a subject does nothing to address the subject and simply makes it worse.

You go from one extreme to the other. I didn't say I crave everything and anything. I didn't actually say I crave anything at all. I simply pointed out that building a belief system which aims to annihilate craving seems an odd thing to do and doesn't address more important issues such as what life is actually about. Framing it in terms of a negative - avoiding something - doesn't tell us much.

You keep saying that the cases 'of occurance' have gone up. THEY HAVE NOT. They have gone down very significantly. Repeating an untruth does not make it true. The same goes for 'the approach has been far more violent' - NO IT HASN'T. Violence in ALL forms has decreased significantly over the last few decades. I am quite willing to debate causes and possible strategies, but not based on incorrect assumptions and untrue statements about the background.

It is terrible logic. Drawing general conclusions from anecdotal evidence is ALWAYS bad logic. I didn't 'curse' anything or anyone. I simply pointed-out that reporting of child-abuse is much greater now than at any time in history - which is undeniable. The effect is to make some people believe that it is a growing problem. The same is seen with other violent crime. People are convinced that violent crime is increasing when the truth is the opposite - even in the US, the most violent country in the developed world. The coarse scale of this graph makes it difficult to see, but the homicide rate has dropped about 40% in the last 15 years. Exactly the same thing has happened with child abuse - only much MORE so. Child abuse wasn't even discussed when I was younger, let alone reported in the media. In the US it is only 30 years since the law was changed to make reporting of child-abuse mandatory for professionals such as teachers and health workers. Before then child-abuse cases were simply ignored in the main. The 'ealier structure of the family' that you seem to think was 'not that bad' was responsible for uncounted cases of child-abuse. Where do you want to start? Victorian times. Close family structure with divorce extremely rare. Child abuse was routine and societally sanctioned. Children worked, and frequently died, in factories and on the land. Sexual abuse was routine and although there are no statistics we know, from contemporary writings, that it was on a much larger scale than today. Pre-war? As in the Victorian time, children were seen as small adults and treated as such. Child sexual abuse wasn't even a crime, and physical abuse was routine. I can't be bothered trawling for US stats but I see no reason to believe they are radically different in trend to UK stats - which show a steady DECLINE in all forms of child abuse over the last 30 years. The best metric is probably the child-protection register, which lists children thought to be at risk in the home - often because of previous abuse. The summary stats for the decade 1991-2001 can be seen on my website at the link below and they show what I would expect - a fairly steep DECLINE. This trend has continued since, though I cannot make the more current stats available yet as I haven't finished processing them. http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ The only stats I have handy for the US show a similar decrease - over 9% down from 2001-2009. So far from increasing it is actually decreasing very markedly. Or perhaps it is that I check my facts before making spurious and emotionally laden claims based on nothing more than anecdote. You say you were a teacher? Didn't you teach your students to check facts before drawing conclusions? I hope so.

In a previous thread I have argued that most Christians are immoral. I would like to develop this now and argue that the entire basis of the religion is itself immoral and wicked. Before I start it is important to realise that I am talking about Christianity as in 'following Jesus'. I take a Christian to be someone who tries to live their life according to the teachings of the character from the New Testament - Jesus of Nazareth. It is also important to realise that I am not 'having a dig' at individual Christians. Fortunately, I think, most self-professed Christians actually don't follow the teachings of the bible character. So, let me start by trying to establish what I believe jesus teaches. I am NOT going to include the usual versions of the universal ethic (do unto others.....love thy neighbour....etc) because that particular ethic far pre-dates Christianity and is common to most religions before and since. There is nothing specifically Christian about the notion of treating others as you would like to be treated. So what messages can we say are particularly Christian? I want to concentrate on four. 1. Jesus/God is the only one who can forgive sin. 2. A true follower should cast aside worldly considerations and follow Jesus. 3. Turn the other cheek to enemies/transgressors. 4. Thinking bad things is as bad as doing them (thought crime). The biblical support for these is beyond dispute, and I leave it as an exercise for the reader to find the particular references. So let's consider these individually. 1. I find the notion that anyone has the power to forgive a sin committed against me immoral. The notion that someone can injure me and then receive pardon, regardless of my wishes, is repugnant. To those who say that secular courts do the same thing, you are quite wrong. Secular courts act on behalf of society and do not forgive anything. A not guilty verdict is not forgiveness, and a person who serves a sentence in prison is not 'forgiven' for the original offence. 2. Jesus says repeatedly that a true believer should walk away from worldly responsibilities - such as family - and follow him. This is deeply immoral. All of us have people who are, to some greater or lesser extent, dependant on us. The idea that we should simply walk away and not worry about their well-being is obnoxious, yet this is the message that Jesus repeatedly preaches. 3. Forgiving enemies might seem like a noble and worthy goal but it is not. If someone strikes me, and I simply turn the other cheek, then how are they to learn that their behaviour is unacceptible? What is to stop them hitting someone else - especially since their experience teaches them that such behaviour carries no sanction? I am perfectly willing to forgive someone who has done me wrong, but I would first wish to see some evidence that they are genuinely sorry for the wrong. 4. The most repulsive part of the Christian doctrine is the notion of thought crime. God, we are told, is like the ultimate dictator. Not only does he see what you do, he sees what you think, and what you think will be counted as evidence on the day of judgement. Even the God of the Old testament, Yaweh - selfish, sadistic, genocidal maniac that he is - does not condemn people for their thoughts, only their actions. It is the supposedly new improved, user-friendly version - Jesus - that introduces this repellant notion. Thus we read in Matthew: You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment… You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. The notion that people's thoughts are equal to their actions is profoundly and deeply immoral. One of the things that separates us from other animals is our ability to NOT act on our instincts and impulses. Thus I may look at a pretty girl and think 'cor....I'd like to.....' (I leave the rest for the reader to imagine - and I promise that I won't convict you of sexual thought crime). To say that this is on a par with actually raping the woman is actually evil. It denies my humanity on a basic level. It also means that, having thought something bad, I may as well go right ahead and actually do it - since there is no difference as far as God sees it. So, in summary, I believe that Christianity, at the very core of the belief system, is immoral and wicked, and I am deeply thankful that most Christians are content to ignore much of the immoral twaddle that the character in the New testament insists upon.

Most of us are simply trying to make sense of this life, into which we are thrust without invitation and which we have to try our best to deal with. Some believe that we can best proceed by learning lessons from others who have gone before. I count myself in that category. Some take it further and believe that we should model our lives on a particular role-model. Christians would, I believe it is fair to say, be in that category.Now, when I try to learn lessons from others, the first obvious thing to do is learn about them - what did they actually say and do. If I want to learn from Kant and the categorical imperative then I need to understand what he was actually saying - otherwise I am simply projecting my own views onto a label and calling it Kant, which is fundamentally dishonest in the same way that constructing a straw-man argument is dishonest.Now, let's apply that simple standard to Christians. Do they make it a priority to learn about Jesus before adopting him as a role model?Well, the only source of information we have is the New Testament. Anyone claiming to be a Christian must surely, therefore, be familiar with this set of documents as a minimum. But is this what we observe? I would say no. Most Christians I debate are woefully ignorant of scripture. Their notion of Jesus is almost entirely fantasy, or 'received wisdom'. You can test this assertion. Ask a Christian to repeat a few things which Jesus actually said. Most will struggle to misquote a few of the more well known phrases. Then ask them what the basic message of Jesus was. You will normally get trite answers like - love thy neighbour. Ask them where this is said and I can guarantee that most of them will have no clue - they know the phrase because they have seen it repeated on the media and in church. They are prepared to believe that Jesus said it, but they are too lazy to actually find out if he actually did, and in what context. The same applies to the list of platitudes that normally pour out of apologist mouths.In truth the average Christian hasn't got a clue about Jesus. They are intellectually lazy, ignorant bigots, who profess belief in something they don't understand and, worse, are not prepared to put the effort into understanding. I have nothing but contempt for this. They are quite happy to support the bigotry found in the bible without actually reading it. Thus Christians often say that homosexuality is a sin, but ask them which part of the bible this comes from and you will be met with either blank looks or, at best, they will name the book of the old Testament. Now ask them what else, from that book, is to be considered immoral. Be prepared for a long wait because they will not know - I absolutely guarantee it. Why am I sure? Because the list of things in Deuteronomy and Leviticus that are considered 'wrong' is massive and largely ridiculous, and nobody could possibly live according to the prescriptions of these books - and I must emphasise that I mean that quite literally, they would not be able to live.But I hear people saying - why single Christians out - surely most people just struggle through life without knowing what they believe chapter and verse. Ask a supporter of evolution what Darwin actually said and they will not know. This is true, but there is a difference. Firstly, evolution (to take a specific example) does not tell you how to behave. More importantly, it does not tell you to condemn others who do not behave the same. Secondly, evolution is testable - like any scientific theory it must be capable of being proved wrong. There are, in short, good reasons to believe it is true, without appealing to faith.So, it is my contention that most Christians - particularly the evangelical variety - are fundamentally immoral. They accept a dogma on faith, discard elements of that dogma they find inconvenient, adapt the actual dogma so that it is nothing more than a reflection of their own prejudices and desires, and then judge others on the basis of this un-testable self-serving bollox.They do not deserve respect - in fact they do not even deserve benign tolerance. They deserve contempt, or at best pity.PS - I have been pulled-up on my use of 'most'. Why, the questioner asked, do you say 'most' Christians? Surely ALL Christians are equally culpable? Well, yes, in actuality that is probably true. I left room, however, for the Christian who knows the bible and genuinely tries to live his life in the way that the biblical Jesus taught. Such a person would not be a hypocrite in my evaluation. They would, however, be a dangerous sociopath who, I sincerely hope, would already be in prison for the rest of their life.If you don't understand why I say this then you haven't read the bible properly.As it happens I also believe that Christianity - as laid-out by Jesus in the New Testament - is a fundamentally immoral philosophy, but that is a different debate.

Backward time travel in the same spacetime ivolves paradoxes with no resolution.The normal example is that of killing your own grandfather. You go back in time and kill your grandfather. But then you could not have been born, and could not have killed your grandfather....paradox.For this reason (and others) most physicists think backward time travel is either impossible or would put you in another universe - a copy of this one.

Are you serious....I hope not.'The man has the right to beat HIS woman'......jeeez what is this, the dark ages?

Well, I would suggest arranging a meeting somewhere neutral rather than a 'date'. Suggest a meet-up for a pizza or a coffee somewhere convenient.She may just want to be friends or she may be open to a relationship - you are not going to find out by second-guessing yourself.

Well, the Sumerians had Ninurta (Godess) and the Seven headed serpent. The babylonians had Tiamat the sea serpent and the Egyptians had Nehebkau the twin-headed serpent.

Why did you take her reply of 'next week' negatively? Maybe she meant 'next week'.

There are sound scientific reasons for thinking that life will be something like us. The main one is that carbon seems to be the best choice for the long-chain molecules that seem to be essential for life. Whilst it is certainly true that we haven't discovered even a good fraction of the life here on Earth, what remains true is that it is all based on the DNA molecule and a strong induction is still valid - that life arose only once here on Earth.Even the extremeophile life on Earth is based on that DNA molecule

If your aim in life is to do away with craving, then why live? Why not just die and cease craving entirely?As Albert Camus said - the first question of philosophy is..why not suicide? I see nothing in the above to address, let alone answer that question.

I find the notion that someone else can forgive sins done to me to be deeply immoral.If you accept an omnipotent creator then you have some serious questions to answer about suffering. A look over the history of mankind - say the last 100,000 years - indicates to me that if there is any omnipotent being out there, it has a warped sense of morality that I want no part of.

No, sorry, that simply won't do. This is just anecdote - you have seen more reports therefore there are more actual instances. Bad logic. You have seen more reports because it ISN'T swept under the carpet as it was not too long ago. You have seen more reports because there is more reporting, with 24 hour news and a media hungry for stories.No doubt there are still a lot of unreported cases but there always were. You have no basis for your basic assertion that there has been a large increase in child molestation, and without that the rest is just appeal to emotion.

Wow - their PR department were in overdrive. 'Holy Grail' eh? LOL...I hope they are at least blushing.Fact is we don't have a hell of a lot on Gliese system - any of it (there are 5 bodies I think, from memory, 3 stars and 2 planets). Gcb and Gcc are, I seem to remember, around 6 and 3.5 earth masses respectively and they are likely in the 'liquid water' zone, but that's about it.It is true that being only about 20 light years distant is a stroke of luck.If there IS intelligent life then we might get an invite over - should arrive in 2033 I think.... I might live that long......

Israel decided, n the 60s, to play the long game and just wait the palestinians out. Moshe Dayan actually said it clearly and unambiguously: “They will live like dogs. And those who will leave, will leave. We’ll see where this ends up.” The US has backed this policy for decades, bankrolled the state, ensured critical UN resolutions are blocked or, when needed, vetoed, helped Israel with the nukes it has, helped block any real proposals for two states and helped media-wash events to present ridiculous plans that could never work (like the previous one in which israel has control over pretty much all the water) as 'reasonable options'. The problem for Israel is that they didn't go away and don't look like doing so anytime soon. Meanwhile settlers on the illegally occupied territories grow more militant and the problem for the government is that they daren't clear serious amounts of land, as they must legally - political suicide. They have played a long dishonerable and criminal game, aided and abetted by the US, and now they are stuck in a mess of their own making.

Hold on a moment.You are making some alarming assertions here. Can I see some evidence please for this massive increase. What are you basing that statement on?Can I see some evidence that child-molestation is common, whilst we are at it. Maybe I have a particularly sheltered life, but as a teacher/lecturer I've seen no such increase. I see cases, of course, but rarely and the number has never significantly increased.Please provide some proper data to back up these alarming assertions.

Nah...I checked it out and ran it through a spectrum analyser and notch-filter setup. The vocal frequencies from the conversation cut straight through really crucial areas (between about 250 Hz and 2.8 KHz. If you reduce the conversation you take a lot of the track with it and the end result is piss-poor.

An ability to evolve will inevitably produce what evolution always produces - new species. If you allow that all evolved versions of Hinduism are also Hinduism them I am forced to ask why you use the label Hinduism - what uniquely identifies a belief as Hindi and not some other type?