Simple question?

Thread Rating:

October 28th, 2016 at 9:05:42 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 301
Posts: 10008
Quote: FrGamble
What risks are involved?


Post-op usual: gangrene, infection, bleeding, etc. Then you have accidents during the ritual mutilation, which can end in things from loss of the glans to loss of the whole limb.

This isn't like inoculation, or correcting a life-threatening heart defect, or even removing inflamed tonsils (and studies there show little benefit as well). This is a barbaric practice left over from a time rife with superstition.

About the only decent suggestion, beyond banning such things until the age of consent, is reducing them to a pinprick. That's near zero risk and has about the same benefit.
If Trump where half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as smart as he really is.
October 28th, 2016 at 9:22:32 AM permalink
Dalex64
Member since: Mar 8, 2014
Threads: 2
Posts: 1526
Quote: FrGamble
And from this point we can use logic to show that the universe has a cause.



Why do you think that logic needs to be tested to be true? Why do you trust the philosophical idea that testing and observation is the only way to discover truth, when that itself is untestable? Is a mathematical equation any less true before you test it or observe how it works out?



In fact we know it was proved to be true if you went just by the observations. The logic behind geocentrism was just the scaffolding that held the argument together based on ancient observations and tests. Once those observations and tests were discovered to be wrong they were taken down and the same scaffold was used to build the theory of heliocentrism.



What do you have against ideas? They are the most powerful force in the universe.



You can break the physical laws of the universe but we cannot break the laws of logic and reason.


We can't have a discussion while you continue to use logical fallacies in your arguments. Please read rationalwiki for details, I am tired of trying to explain them to you.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan
October 28th, 2016 at 12:33:11 PM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 105
Posts: 10181
Quote: Dalex64
We can't have a discussion while you continue to use logical fallacies in your arguments.


That's all the god religions have, they
lean on them like an old man using
a walker to keep him upright. FrG
will always go back to that well, he
has not other place to go. This
conversation will end like they all do.
FrG will be frustrated that he couldn't
convince anyone to take his fallacies
seriously, and the atheists will be
shaking their heads thinking, when
will they ever learn.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
October 28th, 2016 at 1:09:03 PM permalink
rxwine
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 111
Posts: 4445
Quote: Nareed
Post-op usual: gangrene, infection, bleeding, etc. Then you have accidents during the ritual mutilation, which can end in things from loss of the glans to loss of the whole limb.un

This isn't like inoculation, or correcting a life-threatening heart defect, or even removing inflamed tonsils (and studies there show little benefit as well). This is a barbaric practice left over from a time rife with superstition.

About the only decent suggestion, beyond banning such things until the age of consent, is reducing them to a pinprick. That's near zero risk and has about the same benefit.


I have mixed feelings on this.

Because I feel like parents can even make a purely cosmetic decision that is more risky than foreskin removal.

Let's say the kid has a structural defect on the face that causes zero physical problems, but makes the kid look really odd. Do we really have to wait until age of consent all through grade school. It probably is going to affect his or her social interactions. It can be easier to operate on an infant. They don't remember it. They will heal as fast as they ever will. You're not going to be interrupting schooling or something else later.

I believe foreskin removal done in proper conditions is extremely low risk. (not talking of female circumcision)
No one has ever proven I am not God.
October 28th, 2016 at 2:19:30 PM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 301
Posts: 10008
Quote: rxwine
Let's say the kid has a structural defect on the face that causes zero physical problems, but makes the kid look really odd. Do we really have to wait until age of consent all through grade school.


It depends on what kind of defect and how much of an impact it can have socially.

I word this very carefully, because social impact is often used as an excuse to mutilate intersex babies, much to their detriment.


Quote:
I believe foreskin removal done in proper conditions is extremely low risk. (not talking of female circumcision)


It is. but a room full of people at a house by someone not necessarily trained as a physician, is hardly what I'd consider proper conditions.
If Trump where half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as smart as he really is.
April 4th, 2017 at 10:31:12 PM permalink
rxwine
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 111
Posts: 4445
If one is communicating with God, why can't you just get your orders direct?

Does God not have the power to make himself totally clear even to humans?

Why would you need a governing body to clear things up. Why a pope for clarity?

Why wouldn't you all have the same views after communicating with God?

In conclusion, is there anything at all to indicate god exists or communicates?

---------

Even a 7 year old kid would see though this charade, at least until you confused him enough, because kids usually see an obvious problem. They aren't yet brainwashed to believe that an adult wouldn't actually believe and teach screwed up nonsense. (well at least 7 year olds who haven't already had a few years of indoctrination)
No one has ever proven I am not God.
April 4th, 2017 at 10:41:44 PM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 105
Posts: 10181
Quote: rxwine

In conclusion, is there anything at all to indicate god exists or communicates?
)


Anything provable or believable? No.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
April 5th, 2017 at 8:17:08 AM permalink
FrGamble
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 44
Posts: 4849
Quote: rxwine
If one is communicating with God, why can't you just get your orders direct?

Does God not have the power to make himself totally clear even to humans?

Why would you need a governing body to clear things up. Why a pope for clarity?


This question in some ways answers the first two. God does communicate clearly to us through a governing body He Himself established, namely the Church.

Quote:
Why wouldn't you all have the same views after communicating with God?


Because of sin.

Quote:
In conclusion, is there anything at all to indicate god exists or communicates?


Yes!

---------

Quote:
Even a 7 year old kid would see though this charade, at least until you confused him enough, because kids usually see an obvious problem. They aren't yet brainwashed to believe that an adult wouldn't actually believe and teach screwed up nonsense. (well at least 7 year olds who haven't already had a few years of indoctrination)


A 7 year old can see that you don't have a good argument. A 7 year old also knows very clearly that we often disobey our parents and cause problems, likewise they know we disobey God as well and cause the confusion and problems you mention.
April 5th, 2017 at 10:19:43 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 301
Posts: 10008
Quote: rxwine
If one is communicating with God, why can't you just get your orders direct?


Because a god speaking to you would be like you talking to an ant. You need special ants attuned to you. And then you need to get a part of you to be an ant and your son, to go down to the anthill and talk to the other ants.

The comparison breaks down, though, because you didn't create ants (neither did I, come to think of it). So you need an analogy where if you were the god you'd be "talking" to a computer, for example.

Oh, but then you do have various means for telling the computer exactly what you want...
If Trump where half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as smart as he really is.
April 5th, 2017 at 12:45:46 PM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 105
Posts: 10181
Quote: FrGamble
God does communicate clearly to us through a governing body He Himself established, namely the Church..


What a scenario. Men establish a church,
state that god communicates with them
thru it, and people go along. No proof,
no evidence, the church makes huge
mistakes that cost millions their lives,
yet people continue to believe a god
is running it. Reality trumps fiction again.
If you made this up and put it in a
story, people would say it was crazy.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.