MJ, your church tries to force women to have children that they don’t want and often can’t provide for. The net result is huge suffering, dying women, starving babies. My philosophy is that we need less suffering, not more. If only women who wanted children had them, the world would indeed be a better place, with a lot less suffering. Most people agree with my philosophy, except for a small % of religious fanatics. Your church, because it tries to use force of various means, has to bear responsibility for that suffering, when it could be avoided.

Yup atheism has its problems, that’s why agnostics and skeptics
make more sense.

Socrates was a philosopher with a very active mind and life. No need for religion or to follow dogma to achieve that.

A strong faith does not always lead to happiness. Plenty of miserable religious people are around, many have killed themselves in the name of religion. Many people lead fulfilling lives, interested in all sorts of things. Those lives are not empty
at all, they might just seem empty to those who need religion as a crux to cope with life. That’s why it exists after all, to help people deal with anxiety. We are not all such anxious beings to need that drug. Te needs her violin string, I don’t. Look around
you, if people have a purpose in their lives, they are generally happy. They can be all sorts of purposes, dealing with all sorts of things.

Women need not die from abortions, if they are performed in a
safe, hygienic environment, by skilled operators. In Australia
it’s a safe operation for instance. Your church is preventing women in many countries around the globe, having the benefit of that same safe environment, so has to carry the moral responsibility for their deaths. Without the interference of your church, those women would not be dying.

Details about Mother Theresa and what others claim about her are in Wikipedia for all to read. Read them for yourself.

Thank you for your kind remarks on my Christian values, Yabby…I can’t claim your credentials on ‘spin’…lol, after you casually drop occupations of ‘long-story’-conquests-etc, you ‘mention’ your ‘hobby’ - ‘neuroscience’…in the WA bush…yeeesss Yabby, you leaped-tall-buildings last week too, what’s next week?

It’s not surprising you’d object to the use of your own words to discredit your argument…but your attempts to flagellate and convolute your own argument to ‘spin’ it into bile to tip on the Catholic Church must be close to certifiable by now.

Fred Hollows saw nothing in common with your stance on anything Yabby…read his motto again…it sums him up well. He liked to get things done - didn’t stand around ranting about the Catholic Church or anyone else, unless they were a bureaucrat who stood in the way of him helping the people you argue should be killed…I can picture him meeting you…rofl : )))

‘a huge difference between caring about people…and going off on ideological rants’ … like yours Yabby? I’ve seen NO EVIDENCE of you ‘caring’ about anyone... Unless you’re counting the ‘standing up for little-people’…by killing them by the tens of millions…again, with friends like you Yabby, one would need NO ENEMIES!

‘You’re in fact seen as’ … an ‘extremist, representing a fanatical but insignificant % of the population.’ … ‘most… disagree with you.’ Yes it’s you…YABBY!

BTW…‘No-one’s as obsessed with contraception as you are Yabby…nor as out of touch with reality…as a direct result of your abortion propaganda and that of your doctors-of-death…billions of babies and millions of their mothers have died around the world…and continue to do so.’

‘charities should be accountable for donated funds’…’ there are claims that substantial amounts were diverted to causes other then helping the poor.’

Wouldn’t it be a novelty if just once you had something positive to offer about someone who got off their butt and did something for someone else…no proof, no effort from you to help others Yabby, but open your mouth and spill out all that bile. You discredit yourself rather than the objects of your vitriol.

(tbc...)

(Cont...)

If Mother Teresa was the thief you claim Yabby…why would she live amongst the poorest of the poor, caring for them with the compassion of a saint? There are descriptions for those who stoop so low…but I’m sure you’ve been described as all of them before. You’re a sad case…

‘Clearly you delude yourself’…

Yes Yabby, you do…and it’s not just the neuroscience in the back shed in Wiluna that tipped us off…you haven’t offered differences from one post to the next. You should get out more. I daren’t ask if you’re doing any neurological experiments in ‘country WA”.

You can sniff sweaty t-shirts or any other used garments, Yabby…I prefer to launder them and wear clean garments instead…my preferred option.

I can imagine there’d be ‘chemistry’ in those clothes after a week…more than I’m interested in, thanks anyway. (:0

There’s a big difference between sniffing smelly garments and ‘choosing’ the-man-of-your-dreams…I guess it would sort out which men you wouldn’t touch without a bar of kerosene soap too, huh, Yabby? : ))

I’m happy to leave your mating rituals to you and suggest it may take a while to catch on in the real world, Yabby….hopefully :(

‘Women need not die from abortions, if they are performed in a
safe, hygienic environment, by skilled operators. In Australia
it’s a safe operation for instance.’

Yabby, your ability to delude yourself while adopting the usual ‘spin’ cannot be backed by evidence…ALL medical procedures have consequences and risks.

…and the obvious…around half the babies being killed are female…they WILL die, along with their male counterparts, no matter how sterile the environment or the determination of the ‘operators’ who are highly paid for their grizzly work.

Mjpb you sound like the sort of man who’d make the BEST type of husband and father – taking responsibility for his own life and supporting the best interests of those he loves…you’re to be admired and I’m certain have the respect of those who know and deal with you.

Te shows the same characteristics…

Congratulations to both of you! :)

ROFL Meg, whilst you have absolutely no talent in the areas of philososphy, economics, neuroscience or human behaviour, an expert in spin you are!

You distorted what I wrote on hiv transmission, aids in Uganda, your knowledge of my love life, etc. etc, then added your invented answers to your spin.

Its ok Meg, I know that the philosophical concepts are beyond
you, so you have no option to save face, but to try to rubbish my
character. It won’t work sorry :) In religion, you wear your heart on your sleeve like you do in economics. The whole world is wrong, they just don’t understand, the big parties are all wrong, everyone is wrong except Meg, the Pope and Mother Teresa :)

Hitchens wrote a whole book on Mother Teresa, I have yet to see anyone prove him wrong. He saw her as I do, as a fanatic. But google for the info if you like, there are plenty of references on the net. Even one from ABC TV. Pass comment when you are actually informed about his claims.
Mother Teresa thought that it was ok that the poor should suffer. When she got sick, she got the best treatment in the
West, not in one those Indian clinics where the poor were suffering.

http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/stories/s266592.htm

The great thing about neuroscience Meg, is that we learn about the sub conscious areas of the brain, things we aren’t even aware of. New Scientist has a long article on why you perhaps chose your partner by his sweaty smell but were not
even aware of it :) Here is another short reference, but you would have to buy NS to read that article.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/6/l_016_08.html

Abortions performed as in Australia, are about 8-10 times safer then having a baby Meg. Religious dogma is preventing women in other parts of the world from receiving similar treatment and saving their lives. But then as suffering being
ok is also part of Catholic dogma, well so they should suffer it seems. Even your Mother Teresa agreed with that.

Meg,

Thanks for the thumbs up.

Yabby,

“ If only women who wanted children had them, the world would indeed be a better place, with a lot less suffering.”

A more equitable distribution of resources would achieve the same result without all the babies being killed.

“ Most people agree with my philosophy, except for a small % of religious fanatics.”

I don’t know the stats on abortion versus no abortion preferences but most people aren’t as extreme as you.

“Your church, because it tries to use force of various means, has to bear responsibility for that suffering, when it could be avoided.”

If I am to ignore the word “force” which is misleading and take it in the context of the statement at the beginning of your post you are entitled to that opinion but that isn’t the bizarre conclusion that you stated and that I found offensive in earlier posts.

”Yup atheism has its problems, that’s why agnostics and skeptics
make more sense.”

Skeptic sounds broad and you obviously have a particular profile in mind. What do you consider the main differences between skeptics and atheists?

”Socrates was a philosopher with a very active mind and life. No need for religion or to follow dogma to achieve that.”

I only know of his beliefs, teaching, and termination through Plato’s writings. Do you distinguish a belief in God from religion?

” That’s why it exists after all, to help people deal with anxiety.”

Anxiety has nothing to do with it. It is a way of meeting a need for love and fulfilment.

” Without the interference of your church, those women would not be dying. “

It is one thing to string a long bow but that is too lateral to work and very offensive to Catholics. They are dying because they think it is okay to have an abortion.

Meg:”Unless you’re counting the ‘standing up for little-people’…by killing them by the tens of millions…again, with friends like you Yabby, one would need NO ENEMIES!”

This was hard to overlook.

Yabby,

”The whole world is wrong, ... everyone is wrong except Meg, the Pope and Mother Teresa :)”

Even the Dutch who you say have no Catholic influence agree.

”Hitchens wrote a whole book on Mother Teresa”

Mother Teresa has deceased. She can’t sue him for slander. He can write whatever he likes to profit from her fame.

” Here is another short reference, but you would have to buy NS to read that article.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/6/l_016_08.html”

A sample size of 49 women who volunteered to smell T-shirts isn't compelling. Assuming the comments about “mate choice” in the article are in the study and the article is otherwise accurate then any conclusion in the study that it demonstrates mate choice is incorrect. It only demonstrated that the women preferred a particular smell not that women choose partners by smell.

Don’t worry even qualified researchers make this type of mistake. In Australia a study looked at driving speed and car crashes. At blackspots researchers found an average speed of about 60km/h and an increased risk driving above that average speed by 5km/h or more. As the speed limit was 60km/h the researcher assumed/concluded that going 5km/h above the speed limit must be dangerous. It took peer review to point out that the finding about average speed cannot be translated to the speed limit as typically average speeds on 60km/h roads are well above 60km/h. Accordingly, even accepting the study findings implicitly, on a road where the average speed is eg. 67km/h there would be no demonstrated increase in crash risk under 72km/h. Peer review pointed out this obvious mistake but the original study including the faulty conclusion was published and widely publicised.

In case you are not clear on my point…if I was single and showed a series of photographs of women I might prefer a particular look. However dealing with the preferred person for 5 minutes and discovering that they were a heroin addict would rule out any possibility of a relationship. Preferences could be demonstrated on a number of characteristics. The important thing would be priorities.