I believe myself to be a victim of nonconsensual experimentation. Unfortunately this has not been exposed yet. The monsters behind my protocol let me have just enough evidence to start of lifetime of wading through a justice system that is against me. The fact that they left some evidence indicates that there is an interest in how evidence is collected and presented. The fact I’ve witnessed crimes with decoying also indicates that this is part of the experiment.

I have “communications interferences.” So I post, but I know that it’s not going to get anywhere. The best a victim can do is to RUN to the nearest (or farthest) country that has strong laws against involuntary human experimentation and in favor of human subjects. My personal locus of control remains intact. My locus of control for having any impact on closing off the federal loopholes that *still* exist and allow for extremely vile and disgusting experimentation is *zero*

I suggest to any apologist that they consider for a moment that victims are chosen for their vulnerability and that they are intentionally made vulnerable for experiments to continue. I despise the apologists as much as I despise the experimenters and those in government who are aware of what went on/what’s going on and have made a choice to do nothing about it.

For the people who really care – look the reason why stronger federal laws protecting human subjects can’t get passed Congress after Congress. Then help me find the country where my small child and I would live the most peacefully.

Many think that if all religions were outlawed, our world would be a better place. I tend to think that anarchy would prevail, not utopia. Give two babies one toy and see how they play together. Or read flaming posts. We are wired towards selfishness, not selflessness. Mankind is not naturally good.”[/quote]

I definitely disagree with your bleak outlook on mankind. Yes mankind’s first instinct is self preservation, but we all (Or at least a large percentage of us) have been wired to feel empathy for our fellow man. As to your prison comment; yes, religion is great on a PERSONAL level, but some people can’t seem to keep it a personal thing. I think the reason christianity can save people like that is because is because these people weren’t taught a moral code to begin with, and I think it’s a shame that they need a religion to develop one, because really, most people don’t. I heard about a study done once (I heard this from my dad but I can’t remember where he heard it, so don’t quote me on this because my facts could be mixed up) by some of the major world charities and they found aetheists to be the most general donors. (I’m not an aetheist myself, I believe there is a greater power, God, whatever you want to call it, I just haven’t bought into any religion.)

Ultimately, people are able to convince themselves and be convinced that something is right and wrong. No action is inherintly either, it is only after a person has weighed it in does it inherit one of these properties. So to say that God deems something right or wrong is illogical in my beliefs. A God I believe in has no breakable laws. If a law is breakable then I always see it as a law of man, not a law of God. E=mc2 is more a law of God than anything talking about love, forgiveness, or punishment. [/quote]
If God was a being that was created by your whim, then your statement could have some bearing on reality. He is not defined by your whim. Also, Moral laws are not broken….they’re trespassed. The purpose of this life isn’t to be controlled and forced to follow all of God’s laws…its the opposite. Its to show free agency. Every man is agent unto himself to choose whether to do good or to do evil. In the end, trespassing Gods laws leads to a permanent consequence…that’s pretty darn unbreakable. You are free to do as you choose (agency) but not free to choose the consequence (accountability).

E=mc2 is not a law of God nor of Man. Its an equation that attempts to reflect observed behavior. It will remain a “scientific” law in science textbooks until our observations show that it needs to be updated. Thus, the scientific “LAW” is not only breakable…it was flawed in the first place.

[quote]
What can you say about morality that hasnt been argued over already? Right and wrong are really perspective based. Groups of people may not always weight the same facts the same way. So a moral code is bound to be broken. [/quote]
Right and Wrong are universal constants. What changes is the individuals understanding of what is right and wrong…and just because some ninny misunderstands what right and wrong is, doesn’t mean it changes what actually IS right and IS wrong. If object X = certain mass it is always that mass…..on earth it will weigh so much and on the moon it will weigh a different amount…yet it has the same mass. So it is with right and wrong. Whats right is always right and what is wrong is always wrong. People THINK that the weight of a choice makes a difference.

[quote]So relating back to what I already said, moral codes aren’t the work of God because they can be broken. Besides, what kind’ve God has breakable laws? A not very powerful one I think. Makes God more like the government…”[/quote]

This last bit is the best load of Tripe. The laws are working perfectly. LOL. Go break a moral law all you want. You have your agency. When the eternity of being held accountable for breaking those laws keeps rolling by for…say…and eternity, you will not doubt the power or truth of his moral laws.

ABOUT the article. Its DI for sure! Cannot believe that people would treat any other individual this way. Even a religious Zealot with misplaced ideals should at least believe in repentance and forgiveness, redemption and the like. Some people come into contact with STD through NO fault of their own. The cure {treatment} should have been offered or at least advised that it was there.

The lesson that we should take away is this, Never, ever trust any physician or physician’s organisation to deal with issues of ethics, freedom (of the patient) or right to full participation in all aspect of medical care.

The disease lies dormant, infecting partners many years between each other. That does not in itself equal promiscuity. Doesn’t matter anyway..no innocent kid deserves crap like this.

ref.felix, you disgust me with holding up verses from the bible in an unthinking, cold manner.

What kind of person holds up a point so contrary to “good” just to support his opinion?

Ultimately, people are able to convince themselves and be convinced that something is right and wrong. No action is inherintly either, it is only after a person has weighed it in does it inherit one of these properties. So to say that God deems something right or wrong is illogical in my beliefs. A God I believe in has no breakable laws. If a law is breakable then I always see it as a law of man, not a law of God. E=mc2 is more a law of God than anything talking about love, forgiveness, or punishment.

What can you say about morality that hasnt been argued over already? Right and wrong are really perspective based. Groups of people may not always weight the same facts the same way. So a moral code is bound to be broken. So relating back to what I already said, moral codes aren’t the work of God because they can be broken. Besides, what kind’ve God has breakable laws? A not very powerful one I think. Makes God more like the government. Which would give me free reign to dump on it for things being crappy *thumbs up*.

An example of an order is “pick up the paper laying around here,” while an ethical guideline is more like “it is good to clean up garbage lying around.” The first is a command specific to one case or one person/group, while the latter is a general recommendation for reasons of morality.

wh44 said: “A more concrete example: When my daughter was little, I told her never to play with ‘wall electricity’, but I do that a fair amount myself – I’m a trained electrical engineer. It’s a matter of level of knowledge.”

That is a safety precaution, not an ethical guideline. It’s not a matter of morality, it’s a matter of safety.

wh44 said: “I don’t think it is too far a stretch to say God knows precisely how people tick on the inside, and what is good and bad for us in the long run.”

I certainly disagree, since it begs the questions of God’s existence and (if He exists) His omniscience. Those are some mighty big assumptions to make, if you ask me. As a computer programmer I can tell you that even when you wrote all the code yourself that you can’t always predict how it will behave.

wh44 said: “I do not claim any of this privilege for myself or any person – it is God, and God alone, who cannot be held to the human standard.”

Which, IMHO, is an easy excuse to avoid trying to explain the apparently contradictory and sometimes outright evil appearance of some of the actions people often attribute to God. “There might be a valid explanation we don’t know about,” is a poor excuse to claim with certainty that there is always a valid explanation.

wh44 said: “Wow! I’ve never heard of Sufi being referred to as apologetics before.”

Well, you still haven’t because that’s not what I said. I said, “tales of the inscrutability of God’s will” are apologetics, and Sufism encompasses far more than that.

wh44 said: “It’s obvious you’ve never read a Sufi tale – I recommend you go find one and fill in the gap in your experience. I think you’d enjoy it. :-)”

It’s obvious that you assume too much. I read some Sufi stuff during my “fascination with cults” phase in college. You read my response wrong, I simply say that it’s apologetics to start with a forgone conclusion of what happened and then try to twist the facts so that they could fit. Using fictional and cherry picked examples to support such an argument is also a form of apologetics.

The belief that God exists and is good is not fact, it’s dogma. I prefer evidence over blind faith, especially when there is so much evidence to the contrary that people have to make lame excuses for that evidence.

wh44 said: “I admit, that some strict believers consider it to be a commandment.”

And all the rest don’t know how to read, since it is clearly called a commandment in the Bible.

wh44 said: “For all practical purposes in this day and age it is not a law at all.”

You’re the one who called it a “law,” not me. You’re arguing with yourself.

wh44 said: “And yes, it *still* comes from “Love your neighbor”, though it may be difficult to recognize at two or three degrees of separation.”

OK, I’m baffled. How on Earth does “Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk” come from “Love your neighbor”?

wh44 said: “Most people do not have a better replacement regarding morality […].”

Actually, they do. You don’t see people going out and stoning people anymore, do you? No, because people realize that it is immoral, despite the fact that the Bible says that it is an appropriate punishment for many, many things. It’s contrary to “God’s word,” so where do you think that morality comes from?

wh44 said: “Aside from that, a ~2000 year old dictionary can be incredibly valuable when trying to understand older cultures and history. That doesn’t mean you always take it literally though. :-)”

Agreed, using it to help understand the past is fine, but my point is that it’s a bad idea to use it in the modern world as though it were still completely relevant and accurate. If I wanted to find the definition of the word “computer” in that ~2000 year old dictionary the word would not have the same meaning today or might not have even been part of the language then. It’s a out-of-date guide for farmers and shepherds written by priests, all of which are few and far between in this modern world of ours.

Bolens said: “Everyone is born an athiest.”

orc_jr responded:”not that anyone is likely to read this, nor does it particularly matter, but i do like to nitpick. technically people are not born atheist because to call yourself atheist means that you believe there is no god. a newborn has no concept of a god, therefore cannot choose to believe or disbelieve.”

I’m afraid I’m going to have to nitpick your nitpicking. “Atheism” may mean you believe there is no god, but far more commonly it means you have no belief that gods exist. As a newborn has no concept of god, he/she cannot have a belief in gods, therefore is an “implicit atheist,” someone who is without a knowledge of gods, therefore without a belief gods exist. Anyone who is without a belief in deities is some sort of atheist, therefore it does not require any conscious decision to reject gods in order to fit the definition of “atheist.” See:

Wikipedia: Atheism – Definitions and distinctions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Definitions_and_distinctions

not that anyone is likely to read this, nor does it particularly matter, but i do like to nitpick. technically people are not born atheist because to call yourself atheist means that you believe there is no god. a newborn has no concept of a god, therefore cannot choose to believe or disbelieve.