|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 4, 2018 13:40:31 GMT
A topic with quite much discussion lately here is circumcision, especially a law in Iceland that might forbid it until a much later age. Of course atheists here have been their usual "human rights" indignant over the matter and readily applaud Iceland, which is mostly atheist. A special thread was started to note that no one is forced to be circumcised as a joke because "everyone knows" circumcision is not a choice made by most people who get one (at least apparently not at the time). Indeed parents make all medical decisions for their dependent children as well as all other decisions on diet, wardrobe, and absolutely everything else. I have long noted that atheists are not better scientists, and not only that but very seriously less intelligent than many (perhaps not all) people with faith in a god. I haven't been a big fan of science on Wikipedia (Atheists typically are.), but this is just too much ... Foreskin Restoration
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 4, 2018 16:05:31 GMT
This thread of yours is rather like the slightly comical procedure described in the link - a tortured attempt at self restoration. (The big difference, of course, is that the condition the subjects are trying to restore wasn't self-inflicted.)
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 4, 2018 16:09:14 GMT
This thread of yours is rather like the slightly comical procedure described in the link - a tortured attempt at self restoration. (The big difference, of course, is that the condition the subjects are trying to restore wasn't self-inflicted.) PKB
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Mar 4, 2018 18:12:36 GMT
I had some skin removed from the inside of my thigh and grafted onto where my foreskin was supposed to be.
I still feel like something is missing.. so I'm going to have some skin from my abdomen removed and grafted onto the inside of my thigh.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2018 18:47:03 GMT
Gee, Arlon trying to divert attention from his latest debate failures. What a shocker.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Mar 4, 2018 19:26:45 GMT
"Just the place for a Snark!" the Bellman cried, As he landed his crew with care; Supporting each man on the top of the tide By a finger entwined in his hair.
"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice: That alone should encourage the crew. Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true."
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 4, 2018 20:48:51 GMT
A topic with quite much discussion lately here is circumcision, especially a law in Iceland that might forbid it until a much later age. Of course atheists here have been their usual "human rights" indignant over the matter and readily applaud Iceland, which is mostly atheist. A special thread was started to note that no one is forced to be circumcised as a joke because "everyone knows" circumcision is not a choice made by most people who get one (at least apparently not at the time). Indeed parents make all medical decisions for their dependent children as well as all other decisions on diet, wardrobe, and absolutely everything else. I have long noted that atheists are not better scientists, and not only that but very seriously less intelligent than many (perhaps not all) people with faith in a god. I haven't been a big fan of science on Wikipedia (Atheists typically are.), but this is just too much ... Foreskin RestorationArlon, I really think it is time you fought Wikipedia and won! Your talents are wasted on dictionaries!
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 4, 2018 23:47:54 GMT
A topic with quite much discussion lately here is circumcision, especially a law in Iceland that might forbid it until a much later age. Of course atheists here have been their usual "human rights" indignant over the matter and readily applaud Iceland, which is mostly atheist. A special thread was started to note that no one is forced to be circumcised as a joke because "everyone knows" circumcision is not a choice made by most people who get one (at least apparently not at the time). Indeed parents make all medical decisions for their dependent children as well as all other decisions on diet, wardrobe, and absolutely everything else. I have long noted that atheists are not better scientists, and not only that but very seriously less intelligent than many (perhaps not all) people with faith in a god. I haven't been a big fan of science on Wikipedia (Atheists typically are.), but this is just too much ... Foreskin RestorationArlon, I really think it is time you fought Wikipedia and won! Your talents are wasted on dictionaries! I actually donate to Wikipedia. I mean money. It's not much, but if all the people who think it's worth more than I do donated the same amount, Wikipedia would have more money than they would know how to spend it. My main complaint with Wikipedia is that they usually get what, where, when and who right, but usually get why wrong when they attempt it, which thankfully is not very often.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 5, 2018 1:04:48 GMT
Arlon, I really think it is time you fought Wikipedia and won! Your talents are wasted on dictionaries! I actually donate to Wikipedia. I mean money. It's not much, but if all the people who think it's worth more than I do donated the same amount, Wikipedia would have more money than they would know how to spend it. My main complaint with Wikipedia is that they usually get what, where, when and who right, but usually get why wrong when they attempt it, which thankfully is not very often. That's great and laudable, however, don't you want truth and especially scientific truth promulgated there?
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 5, 2018 8:41:47 GMT
I have long noted that atheists are not better scientists, and not only that but very seriously less intelligent than many (perhaps not all) people with faith in a god. You have long noticed things that fit your ideology regardless of whether they're true.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 5, 2018 10:54:56 GMT
I have long noted that atheists are not better scientists, and not only that but very seriously less intelligent than many (perhaps not all) people with faith in a god. You have long noticed things that fit your ideology regardless of whether they're true. Which ideology is that?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 5, 2018 11:11:25 GMT
I actually donate to Wikipedia. I mean money. It's not much, but if all the people who think it's worth more than I do donated the same amount, Wikipedia would have more money than they would know how to spend it. My main complaint with Wikipedia is that they usually get what, where, when and who right, but usually get why wrong when they attempt it, which thankfully is not very often. That's great and laudable, however, don't you want truth and especially scientific truth promulgated there? Like all good amateur journalists Wikipedia avoids commenting on the "why" part of the story. That is left to expert testimony if necessary and available. They don't have their own experts and aren't likely to get any. That can mean including some of the wrong "whats" too. When Examiner.com first started, many experts in law, politics, economics, higher levels of journalism, and other highly professional people wrote columns for them, but they were not appreciated by the audience. Their arguments were not appreciated by the audience. The audience for the internet in general only hears what it wants to hear and what fits its preconceived notions. Only very recently is it becoming obvious even to that audience that their plan isn't working.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 5, 2018 11:58:40 GMT
You have long noticed things that fit your ideology regardless of whether they're true. Which ideology is that? Whatever you want to call everything you believe.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 5, 2018 12:37:17 GMT
Whatever you want to call everything you believe. I got the impression you know what to call it. It's a bit funny you don't. "Arlonology" isn't in the dictionary. Yet. When it is it will be the same as truthology.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 5, 2018 13:10:24 GMT
Whatever you want to call everything you believe. I got the impression you know what to call it. It's a bit funny you don't. "Arlonology" isn't in the dictionary. Yet. When it is it will be the same as truthology. I don't want to know what to call everything you believe. Whenever it finds its way into the dictionary it will have a photo of one of those propeller-hat kids.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Mar 5, 2018 20:20:23 GMT
I actually donate to Wikipedia. I mean money. It's not much, but if all the people who think it's worth more than I do donated the same amount, Wikipedia would have more money than they would know how to spend it. My main complaint with Wikipedia is that they usually get what, where, when and who right, but usually get why wrong when they attempt it, which thankfully is not very often. I just looked for answers to two random "Why" questions in Wikipedia. They got both answers right. Why is the sky blue? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky#During_the_dayWhy does the Federal Republic of Germany exist? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Germany_(1945%E2%80%9390)#West_Germany_(Federal_Republic_of_Germany)For a third question, why does water boil at 100°C, I didn't find the answer right away. But the article is quite long; I'm pretty confident they post the reasons. More importantly: They didn't post wrong reasons. So it appears that the statement that Wikipedia "gets why wrong when they attempt it" has very little basis in reality. I am not surprised.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 5, 2018 22:43:37 GMT
I actually donate to Wikipedia. I mean money. It's not much, but if all the people who think it's worth more than I do donated the same amount, Wikipedia would have more money than they would know how to spend it. My main complaint with Wikipedia is that they usually get what, where, when and who right, but usually get why wrong when they attempt it, which thankfully is not very often. I just looked for answers to two random "Why" questions in Wikipedia. They got both answers right. Why is the sky blue? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky#During_the_dayWhy does the Federal Republic of Germany exist? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Germany_(1945%E2%80%9390)#West_Germany_(Federal_Republic_of_Germany)For a third question, why does water boil at 100°C, I didn't find the answer right away. But the article is quite long; I'm pretty confident they post the reasons. More importantly: They didn't post wrong reasons. So it appears that the statement that Wikipedia "gets why wrong when they attempt it" has very little basis in reality. I am not surprised. What I mean is things like why did the Pope think the Crusades should be fought? And why did Donald Trump win the election to president? Concerning why the sky is blue, that is a matter of physics. Yes everyone who knows physics knows that nature follows the laws of physics. No one knows why though. Concerning the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany, that page is a history of what happened. It does not explain why WWII started or Germany lost. It does not explain why capitalist United States and communist Soviet Union were able to ally themselves against Germany. So yet again people think I'm wrong because I know things that are way over their heads.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 6, 2018 11:49:24 GMT
Are you now seeking approval, because you are not so sure about your intelligence yourself? I'm seeking approval, but not here . I have no doubts about my stance on any issue.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 6, 2018 12:25:25 GMT
atheists here have been their usual "human rights" indignant over the matter and readily applaud Iceland, which is mostly atheist. A lack of belief in the deliberate supernatural is not contingent on a belief in human rights. Arlon appears to be mixing up atheists with humanists. Contrary views are, as always with Arlon's musings, quickly found: "Hardly any of the several-hundred Nobel Prize winning scientists have been Christians. Only 3.3% of the Members of the Royal Society in the UK and 7% the National Academy of Sciences in the USA, believe in a personal God. The more senior and learnéd the scientist, the less likely they are to believe in God. The children of highly religious parents suffer diminished IQs - averaging 7 to 10 points lower compared to their non-religious counterparts in similar socio-economic groups. As you would expect from these results, multiple studies have also shown that IQ is opposed to the strength of religious belief. 39 studies since 1927 (out of 43) have found that the more educated a person is, and the higher one's intelligence, the less likely someone is to hold religious beliefs - "religion declines in proportion to the rise in education and personal income". This correlation isn't new and was also observed in ancient Greece by Polybius (200-118BCE).." www.humanreligions.info/intelligence.html "A meta-analysis [has] found a negative correlation between intelligence quotient (IQ) and religiosity for western societies" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence . There is also a strong correlation between educational achievement and a slackening off of traditional religion, especially among scientists and researchers working in those fields most contradictory of creationist and fundamentalist thought. But we have been through all this already here, several times.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 6, 2018 12:47:13 GMT
atheists here have been their usual "human rights" indignant over the matter and readily applaud Iceland, which is mostly atheist. A lack of belief in the deliberate supernatural is not contingent on a belief in human rights. Arlon appears to be mixing up atheists with humanists. Contrary views are, as always with Arlon's musings, quickly found: "Hardly any of the several-hundred Nobel Prize winning scientists have been Christians. Only 3.3% of the Members of the Royal Society in the UK and 7% the National Academy of Sciences in the USA, believe in a personal God. The more senior and learnéd the scientist, the less likely they are to believe in God. The children of highly religious parents suffer diminished IQs - averaging 7 to 10 points lower compared to their non-religious counterparts in similar socio-economic groups. As you would expect from these results, multiple studies have also shown that IQ is opposed to the strength of religious belief. 39 studies since 1927 (out of 43) have found that the more educated a person is, and the higher one's intelligence, the less likely someone is to hold religious beliefs - "religion declines in proportion to the rise in education and personal income". This correlation isn't new and was also observed in ancient Greece by Polybius (200-118BCE).." www.humanreligions.info/intelligence.html "A meta-analysis [has] found a negative correlation between intelligence quotient (IQ) and religiosity for western societies" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence . There is also a strong correlation between educational achievement and a slackening off of traditional religion, especially among scientists and researchers working in those fields most contradictory of creationist and fundamentalist thought. But we have been through all this already here, several times. Contrary views are, as always with anyone's musings, quickly found. Pardon me for not counting the Royal Society of the UK lately having any accomplishments to show. Nor do I count members of the National Academy of Sciences having accomplished anything except perhaps spending more on their education than it's worth and not necessarily even having any jobs. Although "Christians" might have higher divorce rates than atheists, no other religious group does. Although "Christians" might have lower incomes than atheists, no other religious group does. The pattern is no mystery. Christians are the "religious" group with the most in common with atheists. It is very obvious then from all the data that atheists and Christians who are no different from atheists are less intelligent, earn less money and have less secure marriages. Unlike you, I thoroughly understand that if lumberjacks gave the tests, lumberjacks would score higher on them. Even factoring that in there is no case for atheism having intelligent adherents. Atheist "scientists" are just military grunts who expect their views to be accepted on their authority and expect to take charge of more than they should.
|
|