- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by galveston75Why are you making the same argument over and over again despite that argument being
http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm
Perhaps many of you have never seen a list like this and the scope of the numbers tha thave died just in the 20th century.
Go slow and be patient as it is many pages long.
So we have progressed in the last 100 years? I don't think so.......
rebutted without ever addressing the rebuttal?
Yes we have seen the friking statistics.
Yes that's a lot of dead people.
However as that website says "...That means that the 203 million multicides I've counted in
the 20th Century would account for 3.7% of all deaths, or 1 out of every 27..."
Which is an awful lot lower proportionately than in the past when the number of people who
died from such things was much higher as a proportion of society and thus any individuals
chance of becoming one of those statistics was much higher.
You are still making the argument that a society where you have a 50% chance of being murdered,
killed in wars, or die in a plague or famine, in any given year is BETTER than a society where you have
a 5% chance of the same IF the society with the 50% death rate is smaller and thus has on overall
lower death rate.
Which is insane.
In the above scenario the society with the 5% death rate is TEN TIMES safer to live in.
The fact that if the society is more than ten times the size of the 50% death rate society it will have a higher
overall death rate doesn't change the fact that it is still TEN TIMES safer.
If I go up to London tomorrow and wander around the city doing my shopping I am vastly less likely to get
mugged/robbed while doing so, and vastly less likely to get killed while doing so, than I would be were I to
try to do the same in Victorian London [say 1850]. (or any earlier period of history)
My expected lifespan (along with everyone else's on the planet) is longer now than at any point in the past
due mainly to the improvements in medicine and the fact that I am much less likely to get murdered or killed
in war than in the past.
Life is generally better now than in the past.
It's better because more knowledge and better technology have allowed us to make it so.
It's not perfect by any means, which is why we are continuing to make improvements and research better technology
and medicine. (as well as social and political efforts).
Now you can mindlessly quote statistics about how many people have died until you are blue in the face.
But that argument that basically everyone bar you and robbie have made and accept obliterates your present argument.
And simply repeating your argument will not change that.
IF you want to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you that you are right then you MUST address the
counter arguments to your position.
You need to come up with a convincing argument for why we should view a society that is safer but big is worse than
a society that is dangerous but small.
You have to explain why making society safer and increasing lifespan and health is a bad thing (or at least not a good thing)
Until you do that you are not listening to anything but your own voice.
We HAVE seen the statistics.
That's WHY we think the world is better now than it used to be.
Simply posting more statistics doesn't do anything but reinforce OUR arguments.
Originally posted by googlefudgeYou see the stats but yet you don't get it. How on earth are these stats saying anything else then what they say? If they are useless then why do they exist?
Why are you making the same argument over and over again despite that argument being
rebutted without ever addressing the rebuttal?
Yes we have seen the friking statistics.
Yes that's a lot of dead people.
However as that website says "...That means that the 203 million multicides I've counted in
the 20th Century would account for 3.7% of ...[text shortened]... e.
Simply posting more statistics doesn't do anything but reinforce OUR arguments.
And no I seriously doubt you would be safer today in your walk in jolly old England.
In fact go to Mexico City and take that little walk, or along the border with Texas. I seriously doubt we'd ever hear from you again.
Good luck.....
As is clearly said in the Bible that "most" would not see the signs. There ya go.....
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by galveston75It's wishful thinking by iron age peasants.
And the promise by God of no one eventually ever dying again is what? Bad? Wrong? Something you don't want to happen?
Which is it?
Why can't you understand that until you demonstrate to us that your particular god actually
exists any talk about 'promises' that your god has made are meaningless.
You are arguing with people who are either members of a different religion or are atheists
and one way or another WE DON'T BELIEVE WHAT YOU DO.
If you want to convince us that your point of view is correct then you need to make arguments
that are NOT dependent on our accepting what you believe to be true.
You are essentially trying to convince us that you are right and using you being right as a premise
in the argument.
It's circular reasoning.
Also you are being very disingenuous because as I have said before in your hoped for scenario where
Jebus comes back WE all get killed by being thrown into a lake of fire while you suck up to god by telling
him how awesome he is for killing us all. (in fact your belief seems to include god bringing back to life
everyone who had previously died just so he can kill almost all of them for not believing in him)
Originally posted by galveston75Grampy Bobby would call googlefudge one of those "Dyed in the Wool Atheists" and they have no spiritual eyes to see any signs of anything spiritual. They can not see that the rebirth of Israel as a Nation in a day is a Biblical prophecy fulfilled. The fact that Israel's national language is Hebrew, the original language of the Holy Bible, and that they are making plans to rebuild the Temple has no significance to the spiritually blind. Let them remain blind. VoidSpirit and googlefudge are at least two of those that can not be reasoned with because they can only understand material things. We have presented the information and now we must let the Holy Spirit do the rest.
You see the stats but yet you don't get it. How on earth are these stats saying anything else then what they say? If they are useless then why do they exist?
And no I seriously doubt you would be safer today in your walk in jolly old England.
In fact go to Mexico City and take that little walk, or along the border with Texas. I seriously doubt we'd e ...[text shortened]... ..
As is clearly said in the Bible that "most" would not see the signs. There ya go.....
HalleluYah !!! Holy! Holy! Holy! Prase the Lord! Glory be to God!
Presiding Justice Francis T. Murphy of the Appellate Division says that modern man “does not know the ultimate meaning of his life and doubts that life has any meaning. Whatever his moral pretensions may be, he has in fact driven God out of his life, out of his office, out of his home. He therefore lacks a moral center.”
From the sports world, Howard Cosell voiced the same opinion when discussing the problem of drug abuse by athletes. He said: “There is no definable moral center in America anymore . . . and that is a problem for the entire culture.”
“It is impossible,” says syndicated columnist Georgie Anne Geyer, “to have a moral community or nation without faith in God, because everything rapidly comes down to ‘me,’ and ‘me’ alone is meaningless. . . . When ‘me’ becomes the measure of all things—at the expense of God, of church, of family and of the accepted norms of civil and civic human behavior—we are in trouble.”
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said that if asked to identify in a few words the principal trait of the 20th century, he would say: “Men have forgotten God.” He continued: “The entire twentieth century is being sucked into the vortex of atheism and self-destruction. . . . All attempts to find a way out of the plight of today’s world are fruitless unless we redirect our consciousness, in repentance, to the Creator of all: without this, no exit will be illumined, and we shall seek it in vain.”
The world's great civilizations have progressed through
this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from
spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty;
from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness;
from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to
apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependence back
again into bondage."
Alexander Tyler (ca.1770)
Originally posted by galveston75Such is the world and all of its civilizations that have existed before. Rome... Egypt... ect
The world's great civilizations have progressed through
this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from
spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty;
from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness;
from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to
apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependence back
again into bondage."
Alexander Tyler (ca.1770)
Manny
Nobody knows the abortion figures for then, but it was certainly more dangerous. It also seems likely that more people had or professed a' belief' in whatever they were told to believe - or faced the consequences. Life of course is certainly better now, in terms of health, personal safety, and self determination. And as religion dies, morality between ordinary people improves. The world is still sick. It has a cold in place of the plague! (of priests)