Atheistic morality

[BigBallinStalin]

My position: God is everything, and what holds everything together.

If God is everything, and since "atheistic morality" is part of everything, then you partly hate God.

Why do you partly hate God?

[shickingbrits]

Everything exists within the abyss. Atheism fills the abyss with all the meanings it wants. They are still built on nothing and will come to nothing.

[BigBallinStalin]

Everything exists within the abyss. Atheism fills the abyss with all the meanings it wants. They are still built on nothing and will come to nothing.

Since God is everything, and since atheism is built on nothing, then God is also nothing. Why do you deny the existence of God?

[shickingbrits]

Does nothing exist within the abyss? If nothing exist, then you don't exist, so there is no need to trouble yourself with it.

If something exists, and that something is God, then why do you deny you exist?

[BigBallinStalin]

Keep up the illogical work, shickbricks.

[degaston]

I thought I'd seen this conversation somewhere before...

First 'chatbot' conversation ends in argument

[shickingbrits]

If God is defined as everything that exists, and you are something which exists, God is you too.

If I define God as everything which exists, and you say that nothing exists (if God is everything that exists, then for God not to exist, nothing exists) then you are denying yourself a position to say that. Something which does not exist cannot say it does not exist.

[degaston]

[shickingbrits]

Very true, trying to engage something which only understands reality in an abstract game is a losing proposition.

[BigBallinStalin]

Very true,

[shickingbrits]

You're just mad that I was against your foreign harem.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

How about we don't simplify it. Fluoride has no proven dental uses. It has proven dangers. It is proven to weaken the immune, block the thyroid receptors and attack the organs, while simultaneously lowering the IQ and altering the state of the person ingesting it.

So let's not change it to "It guarantees perfect health and immunity from disease for 90% of the population, but the remaining 10% will die immediately."

You said that you are looking for real world dilemmas and invent one that requires a natural disaster, lack of aid, two amazingly comatose victims and a flooding hospital. Here is one that exists. So please refer to it as it is not as you'd like it to be.

Fluoride most definitely has uses, and that's just plain chemistry behind it. The action of fluoride in demineralization/remineralization of the teeth clearly shows that the fluoride which replaces the OH groups in the calcium phosphate minerals (iirc) lowers the solubility constant by many orders of magnitude.

So then it becomes an issue of cost vs. benefit. There are clear rules on how much fluoride is allowed. Your original post sourcing the "study" which showed the lowering of IQ I think failed to address why the vague definitions of groups with low fluoride fared better than groups with high fluoride. Were these the only differences in variables between the two populations? I doubt it, since it was a meta study (which admitted many of the studies were incomplete) of many, many different population groups.

-TG

[BigBallinStalin]

[shickingbrits]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2001050/

"In 1999, the Department of Health in England commissioned the centre for reviews and dissemination at the University of York to systematically review the evidence on the effects of water fluoridation on dental health and to look for evidence of harm.9 The review was developed with input from an advisory committee, which included members who supported and opposed fluoridation, or who had no strong views on the matter. Exceptional steps were taken to avoid bias and ensure transparency throughout.

Given the certainty with which water fluoridation has been promoted and opposed, and the large number (around 3200) of research papers identified,9 the reviewers were surprised by the poor quality of the evidence and the uncertainty surrounding the beneficial and adverse effects of fluoridation."

From another site:

After reviewing 27 of the human IQ studies, a team of Harvard scientists concluded that fluoride’s effect on the young brain should now be a “high research priority.” (Choi, et al 2012). Other reviewers have reached similar conclusions, including the prestigious National Research Council (NRC), and scientists in the Neurotoxicology Division of the Environmental Protection Agency (Mundy, et al).

Indeed, the two studies that controlled for the largest number of factors (Rocha Amador 2007; Xiang 2003a,b) reported some of the largest associations between fluoride and IQ to date.

Second, the association between fluoride and reduced IQ in children is predicted by, and entirely consistent with, a large body of other evidence. Other human studies, for example, have found associations between fluoride and neurobehavior in ways consistent with fluoride being a neurotoxin. In addition, animal studies have repeatedly found that fluoride impairs the learning and memory capacity of rats under carefully controlled laboratory conditions. An even larger body of animal research has found that fluoride can directly damage the brain, a finding that has been confirmed in studies of aborted human fetuses from high-fluoride areas.

So it would seem that at the time of the review, no good evidence was found either way, but since, only negative evidence has been found.

[Phatscotty]

'Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air. Consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith.' - Hitler

Discuss.

I've been trying to pay attention here but I just don't have the time anymore. Great OP tho! I don't know what you are like; a smart AOG? a nice Nietze? a Phatscotty with a sense of humor? Though I feel like I already had this discussion 3 years ago. I made a thread something like 'how do Athiests know that killing is wrong?' I got a lot of 'we just know's and all that, and I opined their morality, at least on the one topic of 'thou shall not murder' their morality is owed to the 10 Commandments. And then it turned into correlating taking God and the 10 Commandments out of school with the reason why there are so many kid's shooting up schools and I argued 'thou shall not murder' should be taught in schools and that even just hearing that a lot as a child goes a long way.

Anyways, just wanted to give you props Mrswdk

[Dukasaur]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2001050/

"In 1999, the Department of Health in England commissioned the centre for reviews and dissemination at the University of York to systematically review the evidence on the effects of water fluoridation on dental health and to look for evidence of harm.9 The review was developed with input from an advisory committee, which included members who supported and opposed fluoridation, or who had no strong views on the matter. Exceptional steps were taken to avoid bias and ensure transparency throughout.

Given the certainty with which water fluoridation has been promoted and opposed, and the large number (around 3200) of research papers identified,9 the reviewers were surprised by the poor quality of the evidence and the uncertainty surrounding the beneficial and adverse effects of fluoridation."

From your own link:

The review estimated the prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth) and fluorosis of aesthetic concern at around 48% and 12.5% when the fluoride concentration was 1.0 part per million,9 although the quality of the studies was low. The evidence was of insufficient quality to allow confident statements about other potential harms (such as cancer and bone fracture). The amount and quality of the available data on side effects were insufficient to rule out all but the biggest effects.

Small relative increases in risk are difficult to estimate reliably by epidemiological studies, even though lifetime exposure of the whole population may have large population effects. For example, an ecological study from Taiwan found a high incidence of bladder cancer in women in areas where natural fluoride content in water is high. The authors attributed the finding to chance because multiple comparisons were made.11 Testing the hypothesis that drinking fluoridated water increases the risk of bladder cancer would need to take account of errors in estimating total fluoride exposures; potential lack of variation in exposure; the probable long latency between exposure and outcome; the presence of strong confounders such as smoking and occupational exposures; and changes in diagnostic classification of bladder tumours. Therefore, a modest association between fluoridation and bladder cancer would be difficult to detect, both in communities and in individuals. This is of concern because a modest (for example, 20%) increase in risk of bladder cancer would mean about 2000 extra new cases a year if the entire UK population was exposed.

The methodological challenges of detecting harms of long term exposure to fluoridation are further illustrated by a case-control study on hip fracture in England.12 It reported “no increase” in risk associated with average lifetime exposure of ≥0.9 part per million fluoride in drinking water. Although exemplary in many other aspects, the study had less than 70% power to identify an odds ratio of 1.5 associated with exposure. If the odds ratio was only 1.2—which would mean more than 10 000 excess hip fractures a year in England if the population was so exposed—the study would have a less than one in five chance of detecting it.

Thus, evidence on the potential benefits and harms of adding fluoride to water is relatively poor. This is reflected in the recommendations of the Medical Research Council (MRC)13 and the Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline14 on preventing and managing dental decay in preschool children (box 3). We know of no subsequent evidence that reduces the uncertainty.

In other words, not statistically significant. In other words, much ado about nothing.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm still wondering how allegedly "free markets" caused the seemingly nonexistent fluoride crisis. Aren't water standards under the purview of some government bureaucracy--be it national, State, or municipality?

And if "teh wealthy" wanted to lower IQs or whatever to make people easier to control, aren't there more efficient means? E.g. supporting government schooling? But then, how do they get the optimal number of stupid people? It's not like their businesses can run with 100% stupid people.

And as more people become dumber, more become less productive, thus have lower incomes--which is bad for business since they cannot buy as much. Why would businesses turn down greater profits? (How could they even collude successfully in the first place to implement a nationwide scheme? Collusion is suppose to increase profits for the few companies--not decrease them...).

Then, how does one relate the 'teh wealthy control us' argument with other factors which contribute to similar outcomes--e.g. broad support of more government schooling, quality and price controls on water, etc. by voters, politicians, bureaucrats, and even non-corporate lobbying groups?

Which is more likely: (1) They're all 'in on it' and somehow only shickingbrits and a few others have access to the Ultimate Truth of the matter, or (2) shickbricks and the few are wrong?

[shickingbrits]

So happy you based this on the poor quality research available during the writing of the paper rather than subsequent studies.

[shickingbrits]

BBS

Information is a product of the free market. They use a "know better" approach. If you don't know better, then you deserve to be stupid.

I would add that education is used to create a stupid unquestioning population.

You can say that about individual policies, that I and the few are wrong. Unfortunately, such policies are repeated with a common theme, they strengthen the gov and their friends and weaken the population. The preponderance of evidence disqualifies the conclusion that self-interest is in societies benefit.

[BigBallinStalin]

BBS

Information is a product of the free market. They use a "know better" approach. If you don't know better, then you deserve to be stupid.

I would add that education is used to create a stupid unquestioning population.

You can say that about individual policies, that I and the few are wrong. Unfortunately, such policies are repeated with a common theme, they strengthen the gov and their friends and weaken the population. The preponderance of evidence disqualifies the conclusion that self-interest is in societies benefit.

You shouldn't talk so harshly about yourself, sabobricks.

[shickingbrits]

Do you drink tap water?

We could do a survey. I think the results would be rather self-evident.

Thorium is a good example. Classified as a waste byproduct of rare earths mining, it is used as an example of the destruction caused by mining. Nuclear engineers hear nothing of it in school. We hear that solar panels, windmills and hybrid cars require rare earths and they are insufficient to meet the markets demand and therefore not a readable solution. And they only mention thorium in a negative context. India has been engaged in thorium research for a brief period and yet are building a plant. We are taught about the non-solutions and the actual solutions aren't mentioned.

Regardless of anything else, being a hazardous waste byproduct should alert people to the potential dangers of putting fluoride in drinking water. And yet, where one useful waste byproduct is ignored, another is put in the water.

There are many such examples. The climate scientists say we need to get away from carbon emissions, and yet not only offer no solutions, but dismiss possible ones. The energy sector says that all energy is based on limited and quickly vanishing resources and yet they won't mention thorium. Nuclear activist campaign against the dangers of uranium and won't mention thorium. The defense sector worries each time a developing nation tries to build a reactor, and yet they won't thorium.

The elephant is in the room.

There are a wide variety of examples that can be used and no doubt if you are interested, I will bring them up. But the idea is quite simple in the end. They don't intend to solve a problem. They build a service around it, create a dependency and further alienate the populace from independence.

If the US had spread thorium energy to the Middle East, to Africa, Asia, the world would be a much different place. But being the leader of the free, and not free, world, the US had and has no intention of having it be a different place.

When the populace can fend for themselves, the gov is done. They work towards their self-interest, which directly conflicts with this. Very few people share this interest and so it's easy to determine who is involved.

I'm sure you are a very good source yourself on such examples, why not give it a go.

[AndyDufresne]

Do you drink tap water?

We could do a survey. I think the results would be rather self-evident.

Here is a picture of shick getting water from his source.




--Andy

[BigBallinStalin]

Do you drink tap water?

We could do a survey. I think the results would be rather self-evident.

Thorium is a good example. Classified as a waste byproduct of rare earths mining, it is used as an example of the destruction caused by mining. Nuclear engineers hear nothing of it in school. We hear that solar panels, windmills and hybrid cars require rare earths and they are insufficient to meet the markets demand and therefore not a readable solution. And they only mention thorium in a negative context. India has been engaged in thorium research for a brief period and yet are building a plant. We are taught about the non-solutions and the actual solutions aren't mentioned.

Regardless of anything else, being a hazardous waste byproduct should alert people to the potential dangers of putting fluoride in drinking water. And yet, where one useful waste byproduct is ignored, another is put in the water.

There are many such examples. The climate scientists say we need to get away from carbon emissions, and yet not only offer no solutions, but dismiss possible ones. The energy sector says that all energy is based on limited and quickly vanishing resources and yet they won't mention thorium. Nuclear activist campaign against the dangers of uranium and won't mention thorium. The defense sector worries each time a developing nation tries to build a reactor, and yet they won't thorium.

The elephant is in the room.

There are a wide variety of examples that can be used and no doubt if you are interested, I will bring them up. But the idea is quite simple in the end. They don't intend to solve a problem. They build a service around it, create a dependency and further alienate the populace from independence.

If the US had spread thorium energy to the Middle East, to Africa, Asia, the world would be a much different place. But being the leader of the free, and not free, world, the US had and has no intention of having it be a different place.

When the populace can fend for themselves, the gov is done. They work towards their self-interest, which directly conflicts with this. Very few people share this interest and so it's easy to determine who is involved.

I'm sure you are a very good source yourself on such examples, why not give it a go.

I'm still wondering how allegedly "free markets" caused the seemingly nonexistent fluoride crisis. Aren't water standards under the purview of some government bureaucracy--be it national, State, or municipality?

And if "teh wealthy" wanted to lower IQs or whatever to make people easier to control, aren't there more efficient means? E.g. supporting government schooling? But then, how do they get the optimal number of stupid people? It's not like their businesses can run with 100% stupid people.

And as more people become dumber, more become less productive, thus have lower incomes--which is bad for business since they cannot buy as much. Why would businesses turn down greater profits? (How could they even collude successfully in the first place to implement a nationwide scheme? Collusion is suppose to increase profits for the few companies--not decrease them...).

Then, how does one relate the 'teh wealthy control us' argument with other factors which contribute to similar outcomes--e.g. broad support of more government schooling, quality and price controls on water, etc. by voters, politicians, bureaucrats, and even non-corporate lobbying groups?

Which is more likely: (1) They're all 'in on it' and somehow only shickingbrits and a few others have access to the Ultimate Truth of the matter, or (2) shickbricks and the few are wrong?

[BoganGod]

To quote a rather blue funny man from the UK. If there is a God, why did he make me an atheist?
God exists
God created all else that exists(including the devil, if you want to make the lame argument that the devil/sin warped God's creation, didn't God know that was going to happen?)
God is perfect
God doesn't make mistakes
God made me an atheist because he already had a full quota of sycophants?
Possibly God couldn't find reliable help to transcribe his will....
Maybe God really meant to mention homosexuality more than shellfish, and he erred in his choice of scribes......

If God hates fags as some christian bigots would suggest. God hates himself, with man being made in his image.

Linear logic when applied to any religion throws up more contradictions than a catholic priest offering pre marital counselling.......


Shittingbrits instead of indulging in your normal faeces throwing and "I know you are, you said you are, but what am I?" empty headed muttering. How about trying to explain why we have to live in a less than perfect world, if that world was created by a perfect creator.

[tzor]

I'm still wondering how allegedly "free markets" caused the seemingly nonexistent fluoride crisis.

Most people confuse "crony capitalism" with the free market.

They also think that fascism was a "right wing" ideology.

It can be rather funny at times.