Antares

So I take a bucket of water and pour that water into a hole in the ground. It slops about for a good while, but eventually, given enough time, it settles down to form a perfectly flat surface. Then the true religious person comes along and says "Look how perfectly flat that surface is! That can't possibly have come about randomly, or by chance!"

You are absolutely right! We already have procrastinated too long, and I, for one, am convinced that global catastrophe is now unstoppable. On a cosmic scale, the little blip of the human species will get what it deserves. The really sad part is that there will be immense suffering by beings that have contributed nothing to the problem: humans yet to be born, along with the countless other animals that we don't have adequate compassion for.

Depends on what you think of as the West. Croatia may be in eastern Europe, but its culture is more western than eastern. Yet there is currently a movement here for intentional rapid population growth. (As usual in this benighted part of the world, there is a racial agenda: the additional population that's desired should consist only of Croats. Syrian refugees, for example, are not welcome.) The imbeciles in Parliament (yes, the same idiots who honoured Praljak) even proposed offering Croatian women a lump sum of money for each child they produced. Again, Croatia's standard of life may be very low by European standards, but I doubt it could be described as low by global standards. Yet there is currently a movement here...[see above]. As it happens, Croatia is one of the staunchest Catholic countries on the continent, and there is certainly a link here between religion and willingness to overpopulate.

"How Do We Deal With Overpopulation, While Respecting Human Rights?" How important is it to respect human rights? The human overpopulation of the planet adversely affects billions of sentient creatures, most of which aren't human. Perhaps it's time to start sacrificing human rights for the sake of other animals.

No part of the world that can support life is empty. The life that it supports may not be human, but that doesn't mean we can ignore it.

Are you seriously proposing that we dismiss an idea because it's difficult to imagine? And where could this creator possibly come from? And what's wrong with theories? In the realm of science, they're the best things we can have.

So you seem to be saying that other versions are less authentic. I can see how that would be of concern to the faithful, but not how it's relevant to people who are looking for good material for discussion (and don't care where it comes from). Personally, I wouldn't consider a computer analysis more reliable than that of an intelligent human reader. But it's a mistake to think that shortness of word or phrase is what matters most. There are serious difficulties of understanding (seen in the two quotes of yours that I re-quoted) that have nothing to do with choice of vocabulary or length of phrase. But this opens up a whole area of discussion that doesn't belong in this forum. Let me sum up by saying that, however comfortable you might feel with 400-year-old language, I think you'd communicate more effectively with me (and other non-believers) if you avoided it in that communication. The use of obscure language by religious believers gives me an uncomfortable suspicion that they profit in some way from not making their ideas clear.

Really? You know all the world's atheists that well? Wouldn't you like to qualify these statements at least a little?

Where is your evidence (or, failing that, some argument) for this claim? I am not aware of any evidence that complexity and intricacy cannot be created by accident. If you have some, please supply it. Again, a claim that's unsupported by argument or evidence. And it's hopeless as an explanation, since it only 'explains' one piece of complexity by invoking another one (the designer) that is, presumably, at least as complex as the piece it designed.

Why are you using archaic language in a 21st-century forum? Do you want to hinder our understanding?

I don't think there's a hard-and-fast distinction between democracy and dictatorship. After all, democracy could be described as dictatorship by the majority. (To those whose views are ignored, what difference does it make that their dictators are numerous?) It's also worth bearing in mind that the majority of people are either of below-average intelligence or of below-average knowledge (of whatever is relevant to making political decisions) or both. Therefore, democracy could be seen as the dictatorship of the stupid-or-ignorant. On a personal note, I've seen no practical difference in my own life between democracy and dictatorship, since no-one I've ever voted for has taken office. (In other words, I've always been in the minority.) So I would probably have been better off living under a benign dictatorship.

In her topic "What is your reason to live?", Altai posted this photo: For those who aren't aware, this shows a Croatian general named Praljak in the act of suicide (by poison) in the courtroom at The Hague. He'd just been sentenced for committing war crimes during the warfare in the Balkans associated with the secession of Croatia from the Jugoslav federation in the early/mid-1990s. The case of General Praljak connects in an interesting way with another of Altai's topics, "We all are racists", which can be seen through some observations on the reaction of many people in Croatia to his sentencing and death. I moved to Croatia in 2000 in full innocence, not knowing what to expect, and without prejudice against the state or its people. What I've discovered since then appals me: this country is politically and culturally backward to a degree that I would never have expected in the Europe of the third millennium. Even so, the Praljak case has surprised me. The single most shocking event in my 17 years of residence here is this: immediately after his suicide, the Croatian Parliament observed a minute's silence in Praljak's honour. When I learned this, I wondered whether every Croatian suicide was given this honour. Certainly not. So did you have to be a war criminal to qualify for it? Absurd, of course -- and yet he did qualify. Why? Clearly, his conviction for war crimes didn't disqualify him. This is an indication of the arrogance of people in this part of the world. To the proud Croat, the judgements of the court in The Hague are only worth respecting if they are not seen as anti-Croat. The court is not seen as an authority fit to bring independent judgements that might surprise Croatian expectations. If those judgements conform to Croatian hopes, they are welcomed with approval; if they are disappointing, they are dismissed as the biased machinations of the anti-Croat wider world. When it comes to Croatian issues, people who aren't themselves Croats are given no credit for having anything to say that's worth hearing. So, by the conservative majority in this country, Praljak isn't even seen as a war criminal, despite the telling evidence of his conviction. Not only was he a Croat, but a Croat who led an army of Croats in the conflict that established the homeland of the Croat. That's why, until a few days ago, there was a makeshift shrine to him on Zagreb's main square, with candles burning before a photo of the man with the legend "Junak" ("Hero") above it. And this was enough to persuade the vast majority of Croatian MPs to conveniently forget their religion for a minute. Croatia has a staunchly Catholic culture, so those MPs would normally give overwhelming support for the idea that suicide is a sin against God. But the sinister local notion of 'nationality' puts even God in his place. When English-speakers talk of nationality, they usually mean the same thing as citizenship: that is, which country issues your passport. But, where Serbo-Croat is spoken, there is a world of difference between "nacionalnost" or "narodnost" (which I'll refer to from now on as "ethnicity") and "državljanstvo" (or "citizenship", in the above sense of which country you 'belong' to). In the Balkans, Croats belong to one 'narod', Serbs belong to another, and Muslims (believe it or not!) belong to a third. These are the three main ethnicities (narodi) of the Serbo-Croatian area: that is, Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia and Bosna & Hercegovina. Obviously, religion plays a part in distinguishing one from the others. But what is the difference between a Croat and a Serb? Croats and Serbs themselves like to mention religion, language and domicile in this respect. The typical Croat is Catholic, speaks the Croatian dialect and lives in Croatia or Hercegovina; the typical Serb is Orthodox, speaks Serbian and lives in Serbia or Bosna. But there are plenty of exceptions to these three criteria. The only criterion that survives closer inspection is parentage. You can only be a Croat if one (or both) of your parents is a Croat; you can only be a Serb if one (or both) of your parents is a Serb. (I've lived here for 17 years, but it makes not a ha'porth of difference: I'll never be accepted as a Croat.) So this is where the issue of racism comes in. Praljak, despite being a suicide and a war criminal, was officially honoured by the government of this country because he had the right genes, and he fought against people who had the wrong ones.

I'm creating a new topic in response to this post: "In honour of Praljak". See you there...

To me, this seems a reasonable claim. Our genes drive us in this direction, so we can hardly be held responsible for it. What we are responsible for is our efforts to overcome our nature in areas such as this. We humans are morally obliged to use our brains to override our genes: for example, to decide not to act as racists. Too many humans fail to achieve this.