In God We Must

[Malthus]

Interesting.

Not sure what that implication of that kind of research is when discussing adoption though, since the big factor mentioned was being with "biological parents".

Fair enough.  I'm not certain how not being biologically related to the kids would affect matters, but there is probably more specific studies out there that address the question - I'm simply too lazy to look.

Well apparently it does, because the conclusion you quoted says that two biological parents are better than one biological parent and a step parent.

Again, as I said to BB (is there an echo?  ), a more specific study would be preferable. I just grabbed the first at hand to show that two parents are preferable to one, which was the point at issue. 

However, other studies show that - for example - adoption by two gay parents is prferable to single parent adoption:

Anti-gay marriage activists have argued vigorously that children need a mother and father. Now a new research study shows that kids do need two parents — but that gender doesn't matter.

The research, which also speaks to the issue of gay adoption, is summarized in the lead article of the new Journal of Marriage and Family. Scholars, at USC and New York University, looked at a range of existing studies, including research on gay and lesbian parents, finding that it's ideal if a child is raised by two parents who are "responsible, committed, stable," but that the gender doesn't cause radical differences.

[Emphasis added]

What say you to that?

http://io9.com/5458304/research-shows-two-gay-parents-are-better-than-a-single-straight-one

[The Minsky Moment]

Why, may I ask?  The New Atheist movement is not interested in proving or disproving the existence of God.  They are confident in their answer.  Their arguments aren't really concerned about the existence of God, but that the belief in religion is actively harmful to society.  That Religion is destructive 'Mind-virus', that must be stamped out.

That makes the body count argument even more of a weak response.  It's at the "I'm rubber, you glue" level in that context.

[crazy canuck]

Why, may I ask?  The New Atheist movement is not interested in proving or disproving the existence of God.  They are confident in their answer.  Their arguments aren't really concerned about the existence of God, but that the belief in religion is actively harmful to society.  That Religion is destructive 'Mind-virus', that must be stamped out.

No, Dawkins is pretty active in arguing that the Christian God does not exist and that it is foolish to believe in creationism - he wrote a whole book on that topic alone.  He also goes on to say that Christian theology is flawed in a number of ways.

Which one is that?

http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/B004AYCWY4/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1328741725&sr=1-5

Lots of people are athiests, but few go so far as rant about 'viruses of the mind' and the like.  It's this type of antipathy that has raised eyebrows.  I don't know how much theology Dawkins actually knows about.  In fact he doesn't seem to care, when pointed out he doesn't know a great deal of theology he mere said 'would you need to read learned volumes on Leprechology before disbelieving in leprechauns?'

But that is his whole point.  You dont need to know the answer to the old age question of how many angels can dance on the head of the pin to make a good case that there is no God.  He is not in the same business and Ehrman (who has become an agnostic for purely theological reasons). 

[Malthus]

That makes the body count argument even more of a weak response.  It's at the "I'm rubber, you glue" level in that context.

I agree it's a silly debate - for one, things like religion are really no different from any other badge of identity people fight about. Atheists are just as likely to be motivated by nationality or ideology to fight other people as religious folks. Pacifism is a fringe ideology among religious people and atheists alike.

[Razgovory]

I didn't read that one.  I just read that last one he wrote.  His statement is absurd.  He merely assumes something is ridiculous, without bothering to actually look into it, and then criticizes from ignorance.  It's like those people who assume Evolution is wrong and then go on about the lack of transitional fossils.

[Razgovory]

Why, may I ask?  The New Atheist movement is not interested in proving or disproving the existence of God.  They are confident in their answer.  Their arguments aren't really concerned about the existence of God, but that the belief in religion is actively harmful to society.  That Religion is destructive 'Mind-virus', that must be stamped out.

That makes the body count argument even more of a weak response.  It's at the "I'm rubber, you glue" level in that context.

Ah, so what would you suggest as the silver bullet argument then?

[Martinus]

Orphans should be trained as soldiers, and used as cannon fodder.

In fact all children should be neither heard nor seen nor encountered until the age of 15 as they should be kept away in government-run camps.

[Razgovory]

Also CC you put to much stock in Erhleman.  Translations problems have been know for quite a while.  It's nothing knew and it's not as bad as he makes it out to be.

[Ed Anger]

Orphans should be trained as soldiers, and used as cannon fodder.

In fact all children should be neither heard nor seen nor encountered until the age of 15 as they should be kept away in government-run camps.

Okay Perez.

[Martinus]

Don't call me that. He used to be edgy but mellowed out.   

[crazy canuck]

Also CC you put to much stock in Erhleman.  Translations problems have been know for quite a while.  It's nothing knew and it's not as bad as he makes it out to be.

He did not make his decision based on the translation problems.  He was a devout born again christian when he wrote his books about that.  His change of opinion came when he could not find a satisfactory reason for why bad things happen to good people if God is all loving and all powerful.

If you read his stuff from about "God's Problem" and on you will see the shift in his thinking.

[Habbaku]

Okay Perez.

  He even looks Polish.

[fhdz]

I didn't read that one.  I just read that last one he wrote.  His statement is absurd.

He merely assumes something is ridiculous, without bothering to actually look into it, and then criticizes from ignorance.

[Martinus]

Raz wins the internet. 

[fhdz]

It's the best thing I have read all day.

I am not sure if that is commentary on a) how unintentionally funny it is, b) how little I have read today that has been funny, or c) a combination of a) and b).