Proof that God does not exist

Discussion in 'Philosophy & Religion' started by BigSmoke, Dec 3, 2007.

  1. hiake

    hiake Vardøgr of da E.Twin

    I believe those class is only worth it if you are lucky enough to get a good tutorial group, I hate quiet tutorial in philosophy and sociology classes...

    I thought most philosophy branches are quite adorable as long as you don't have to study and explain the evolution of certain philosopher's philosophy/rhetorics...

    @apollon> There's no such thing as "class" in philosophy, just an illogical/badly-articulated one and its counterpart, logical with perfect rhetorics and articulations
     
  2. lee-lee

    lee-lee Well-Known Member

    1,384
    86
    0
    hmmmm....i make them worthwhile. make lemonade out of lemons right? all u need is one other person in that class that has the same passion for debates as u do or just dual it one on one with the TA. i agree that a good tutorial group is awesome though. however, i once had a girl in my tutorial that i came to conclusion have had many concussions and just like to hear her own voice cause everything and anything that came out of her mouth made absolutely NO sense. and yes, i understand it's philosophy so sometimes stuff is impossible to figure out some stuff but this girl was just an idiot...i swear, it would be like her raising her hand in the middle of a discussion about something and saying "door". the TA once was like "okaaaaaayyyy" followed by a look of 'u incompetent moron' after she said whatever it was that she wanted to say. every time her hand went up, u can actually hear a groan from the rest of the class.
     
  3. hiake

    hiake Vardøgr of da E.Twin

    I am extremely talented at provoking people (as seen in various PA threads), so tutorials are fun... I don't like tutorials where they "discuss" or "retell" the history of a certain philosopher though :( Those are boring and I believe I can learn the same (if not better, more detailed version) from a single volume.

    I also enjoy smaller, discussion-based tutorials... If the tutorial is too big then you don't get to talk as much, given that I like to talk so much, it's torture... It's a wonder to me, to this day, that I am not in some school debate team or something :p
     
  4. p3ps1c0la

    p3ps1c0la Well-Known Member

    648
    68
    0
    Natural selection. Whatever works stays and is passed on regardless of how it came to be.

    Higher metabolism or genetic body type maybe. Maybe some infants survival mechanism is strongers than others. The more an infant cries for food the more food it gets which in turn means it's healthier and stronger.

    The person could be subjected to judgement, sure, but I wouldn't call the person evil. It's not good but it's definitely not evil especially if the person truely believes that climate change isn't happening. I wouldn't even label him as a bad person. The word "ignorant" seems more suitable in this case.
     
  5. hiake

    hiake Vardøgr of da E.Twin

    LOL, see how I can be on the other side of the fence too...

    Hmmmm, but then does that mean the trait which DIDN'T stay was not part of "nature"? In fact, given natural selection, wouldn't it be an artificial "nature" because it was modified (from the myriad of ancestral behaviours and whatnot?)

    Really? Healthy babies do not necessarily cry more or even get fed more... That correlation is a spurious one because the baby can be just crying and want to be held... I have saw cases where the baby was just fed and changed (and every last thing done), and it still cries down the house for no apparent reason... I can only say a baby which cry more would have a better lung capacity, but little else.

    So instead of judging this hypothetical, climate-change-does-not-exist person according to the meter stick of good and evil/bad, we create a whole new category called "ignorant" which is a realm of its own... Which didn't answer the question at all. Does this so-called "uninformed" (not EXACTLY uninformed because he was informed, just that he doesn't believe in it) choice or attitude lie outside the realm of good and evil?

    In which case, no wonder people can get away with murder (or practically anything) when they are "mentally unstable" or "insane"... Uninformed choices <_<
     
  6. p3ps1c0la

    p3ps1c0la Well-Known Member

    648
    68
    0
    If you want to view the natural world and the way it works as a machine then sure, natural selection could be considered artificial and is just a part of this machine which is nature and all of its gears (species) that help strengthen itself. I guess then that this machine would be considered AI (artificial intelligence) and is self evolving.

    You're right, there are other reasons for an infant to cry but I was focussing on a specific reason which is to be fed. I knew it was going to head in this direction. When a infant cries what's the mothers usual reaction? To check if the child is ok, if it's hungry, or just wants attention for safety. All a part of the mechanism. Of course as a baby grows and matures it's able to decide that it wants its mother or father and so on but what I'm focussing on is the ealier stages before the cognitive abilities develope and all of an infants actions are from the survival mechanism. Purely instinctual.

    Your questions were answered.
    Answer was: Yes. I label this person as ignorant and didn't condemn him for his contributions. And the opposite of ignorant is informed.

    Answer was: The person could be subjected to judgement, sure, but I wouldn't call the person evil.

    The reason I didn't judge this person as either good or evil is because they are the extremes and I don't think this person fits into either. Just because you gave me two choices doesn't mean I either have to use good for a person thats actions wern't good or evil which the person wasn't being at all. He's guilty not of being good, evil, or anywhere in between, just ignorant. That's my judgement.

    No no, you didn't say anything about him being informed. You said, "Does that mean that if one doesn't believe in climate change (trust me, it is not a rarity to NOT believe in climate change), one can contribute to climate change without being "judged"?" My answer was based on your hypothetical situation word for word which led me to my answer.
     
  7. hiake

    hiake Vardøgr of da E.Twin

    Given natural selection (that's the premise here), wouldn't all behaviours, current or "eliminated" in previous selections, is part of "nature" at one point in time? In which case, just because a behaviour was unusual, meaning, not similar to others, it can still be part of "nature" because it was innate in at least ONE person (who is engaging in that particular behaviour).

    But the question is, what is this mysterious mechanism? Studies have been done on how infants who were not held as soon as they cry are going to be less egocentric and have a higher EQ (which to a certain extent measures the ability to emphasize), going back to infancy, this particular finding hints that those crying (meaning seeking attention for all sorts of reason) contributes to little but egocentrism... So if selfishness is evil, babies with such trait = evil?

    And no, I do not think that "because they have no way of discerning the impact of their action (for the others) or they cannot do anything else" an adequate explanation... Partially because their need for attention is incessant (and likely to be promptly satisfied), making the two arguments irrelevant.

    As I have stated before, babies may not be able to articulate themselves as we do, but they are not unintelligent (able to discern good vs. evil, beauty, happiness and sadness), so what gives them the free pass to put OTHER's emotion in utter disregard?

    So I guess sometimes it pays to be ignorant... -unsure

    That is just evading the question of good and evil... -unsure But okay... That's your way of judging the situation.

    "Believe" implies something you have heard of, wouldn't it? You wouldn't say "I don't believe in [something I haven't heard of]" because normal people would respond "I don't know what [something I haven't heard of] is"... And yes, there are those who read about climate change, know about the possibilities, and still claim it's a scam or overblown issue... I think that's more than what "ignorant" can cover... But that's MY judgment -sweat
     
  8. p3ps1c0la

    p3ps1c0la Well-Known Member

    648
    68
    0
    @hiake

    Yes.

    Yes, of course they were a part of nature. As I've said, natural selection. The strongest and
    fittest survive to pass on his/her/its genetic traits. And whether or not a trait is unusual or
    not it doesn't matter. What matters is the benefit of that trait.

    My guess is that it may have something to do with the Newton's Law of Attraction and
    Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.

    Repercussions. In this sense everything is connected one way or another.

    Crying contributes alot especially before the cognitive abilities develope. It contributes to an
    infants survival and depending on how much one values life that percentage of contribution
    varies. I still say it contributes alot. And when I say contribute to survival I don't just think of
    human infants. I think of newborns of all species that are dependent from birth.

    No, I don't think so. As I said earlier and I'll quote myself, "the idea of good and evil apply to
    conscious decisions we make and actions we take as individuals with the ability to fully
    understand the reasons, consequences, and repercussion of our actions." So with that in
    mind do I think that a baby is mentally capable of meeting those requirements? No.

    Wow, sounds like no mercy at all. I definitely try to live my life without excuses aswell and I
    expect the same but I definitely believe that there are circumstances that warrant exception,
    obviously.

    Because they don't possess the cognitive abilities I've listed above. When you smile at a
    newborn, for example, the infant doesn't understand the expression. But gradually as the
    infant sees a smile and the smile or facial expression is quickly followed by a gentle rocking
    motion or soothing and caring voice or whatever else the infant is going to understand that
    a smile is a good thing that's followed by comfort or any other positive feeling.

    We're the product of the cumulation of experiences we've had in our life.

    It seems so, yes.

    No it isn't. That's how I honestly feel.

    Well, if seeing doesn't always lead to believing then hearing may not either. =p

    Har har =] You should've been more specific in terms of the circumstances involving his
    disbelief of climate change. You left the hypothetical situation rather vague so I assumed his
    disbelief was pure and genuine cause you gave me no reason to think otherwise which is
    why I didn't label him as evil or bad. The reason why I didn't label him as good is because he
    unknowingly but still contributed which again isn't good. And that's because of his
    ignorance.
     
  9. wwwwhhhhhhaaaaaattttttttt

    the post i made earlier on religion and stuff wasnt saved after the server update......

    i dont want to rewrite it..... :(
     
  10. KaY_xD

    KaY_xD 但願人長久,千里共嬋娟

    doesn't really matter to me........i dont get comfort from religion (i used to), all i care is right now, if it fails, it fails.
    Those are just points if you believe it or not,
    if u don't, then don't
    who cares.
    how troublesome for people keep debating it over over over again.
    so stupid.
     
  11. khaotic

    khaotic Fobulous

    People debate over this because it's an important issue to them. People can't stand aside and just be told that what they believe in is false, or if the course of their life after death and so on is determined by a single being. Think of it this way. You have a number of courses in High School you've taken because you believe they are necessary for your university program. Then you find out after you've finished school that you were wrong and you can't get into uni. You're life is shattered. Same thing applies here. People have believed for all their lives that there is a God out there that is watching over them. Yet you try to tell them in this one instance that they were wrong. Of course they wouldn't be able to accept it.

    Stupid debates are things like "Omg Edison is such a bitch. He ruined my perfect idol's image."
     
  12. and in addition to what khaotic said, people debate on this topic because they find it interesting.

    it is nice to be able to explain to others what they know about a certain topic. it is interesting to read good arguments pro and con for a certain topic.

    you can say these type of debates appeal to certain people, because its basically food for thought, and increases general knowledge.

    thats basically why i debate. i want to expand my horizons.
     
  13. hiake

    hiake Vardøgr of da E.Twin

    It's a matter of principle and, as dann says, a medium to expand one's vision and horizon. What do you know but what you already do? Learning from others from debate put a lot new information on the table for one to make an informed judgment (whether one view is "superior" than another or whatnot).

    It's not any more or less stupid (as a topic of debate). It's not the topic which makes the debate, but what the participants made out of the debate which makes it meaningful. The process of debate pushes the envelope of articulation of incoherent thoughts. If you can't see meaning in this particular debate, it just means that this one isn't for you, nothing else.

    That's a debate? More like a "be all end all" thing... And a frustrated, inarticulate exclamation. -lol

    @p3ps1c0la: I remember replying to your post before the upgrade, I'll try and rewrite my thought (which, frankly, eludes me for the most part :()

    Just a thought, given that there are species which do NOT care for their young, is human's "natural" instinct of caring for our young a product of social structure or vice versa? That is, did we built this so-called "caring instinct" because our social structure calls for our living under the same roof (or at least in close proximity) with the young? Or did we build our social structure according to this "need"?

    Why not? Babies are able to decipher good and evil, emotion, beauty and possibly much more. Why is there the assumption that babies cannot make "conscious decisions"? In fact, even in adults, reason for a certain action/decision can be elusive at times (while one would still act upon this misty "reason"), does that mean said adult, in said situation (where he/she may not know the reason for a certain action/decision), will be exempted from judgment in terms of good and evil?

    So are you implying that there is no innate knowledge in human being? The so-called "instincts"? I believe this previous response implies that our knowledge of the world (and the way in which it is deciphered) are learned via socialization... I don't know, that sounded fishy to me.

    Fine fine. I guess I should let this slide, but what is "conscious"? Does pursuing another guy's girlfriend (aka taken), knowing full well that the guy will suffer a break up, constitute evil? Or is that good because it is what one's heart tells one to (follow your love or whatever cheesy/mushy thing you can come up with, insert here :p)
     
  14. frostshards

    frostshards Well-Known Member

    328
    53
    0
    I havent been to this thread in ages. but i noticed this comment of yours and i find this topic quite interesting. I dono if i posted this before or if someone else has but The question i want you all to ponder is: Love: is it really that special, or is it just a natural instinct to maximize one's genetic potential?

    I am a big fan of evolutionary theory(i think that was what it was called ) and i believe that our general purpose in life is reproduction and continuing the existence of our species. Love is just a natural instinct that promotes this behaviour. As for the species of animals that do not care for their young, I think this theory still holds true.
    Have you ever noticed that we tend to associate the word love with mainly mammals that care about their young? When have you ever heard someone say " OMG those snakes are in love or that male turtle is infatuated with that female". I believe that the reason these animals do not seem to have love for each other is because they do not need to stay together to raise their babies. These types of animals produce so many eggs that the chances that some of them will survive is very high. Also, these animals also have the ability to survive by themselves. I believe that the reason that we(humans) and other mammals love one another is because a) we produce relatively few offspring and b) these babies are helpless on their own

    ok i dont know if what ijust typed made sense cuz i didnt have time to read it over and edit my points, but hpefully u got my point. Id like to see some of your inputs on this question.
     
  15. i highly doubt our social structure is built according to the natural instinct. granted, our social structure may be highly influenced by this natural instinct, but it cannot be the optimal reason of the development of our social structure.

    yes, there MAY BE species who do not care for their young (see my response to frostshards below), but that the way they were biologically programmed (by who? who knows). but the point here is, while there are species who do not care for their young ones, there are others who do. take for example a herd of elephants. i cant say their social structure is anything similar to ours, yet, they still have this instinct to defend and care for their young ones, just like us. that shows that natural instinct cannot be the reason our social structure was built upon.

    we cant know for certain that babies know how to decipher good and evil, emotion etc, although i am not dismissing the possibility that they can. but the term in question here is "decision". decisions are made when one has enough evidence to show that a certain choice is the correct one to take. but evidence requires information and knowledge. although we cant know for sure a baby is or is not conscious of its surroundings, we can know for sure that it does not have the information and knowledge necessary to decide for its own, compared to the level of knowledge of an adult. and i refer to "adult" as the average adult, not those who are at a disadvantage such as mentally unstable persons. due to that, i submit that, since a baby does not have the level of information and knowledge as an average adult, it cannot undergo any kind of decision making.

    in fact, you make perfect sense, as this concept of love in covered in first year sociology.

    we will never know if a sea turtle will feel any love for its offspring as they are vulnerable to predators when they run for the sea. but we cannot deny that there is a possibility they perhaps do, but cannot do anything for them.

    sticking with the sea turtle analogy, say the mommy turtle does feel love for her hundreds of offspring. in accordance with love, she will most like stay back and protect her young ones. even if she does stay back when her young ones make their way to the sea, what can she possibly do against much faster predators? nothing. she is a turtle after all.

    take an alligator for example. it leaves its offspring after the egg hatches. we cant say the mommy alligator doesnt care for the young one, maybe she is forced to do so, so that the young one can grow up and become stronger.

    as for those who eat their young ones, well, thats a different story.

    the point im trying to make here is, we cant say one doesnt "care" for its young one just because it left the young one to fend for itself. in the turtle case, perhaps it is futile for the turtle to do anything, so she doesnt bother trying. as for the alligator case, perhaps the mother wants the young one to live on its own, to toughen up on its own. as for those who eat their young ones, perhaps they were biologically programmed to do so.

    as for humans, we are a weak species. it is impossible for us to live on our own after birth like alligators. we dont give birth to hundreds of offspring, hoping that one can make it alive like sea turtles. we need to be taken care of after birth. perhaps, that is why we have our mothers caring for us the way they do. perhaps, that is their biological programming. ill have to say, it is not just humans alone, but this situation happens to all mammals.
     
  16. p3ps1c0la

    p3ps1c0la Well-Known Member

    648
    68
    0
    @hiake

    I'd say some of our social structure was built according to this "need". Although the reverberation and repercussions of our accommodations to our childrens dependancy may echo further than some may think. Society revolves around human beings so it's only natural that certain aspects of society was built around babies and driven by this caring instinct.

    As for the caring instinct itself and how it came to be?... How did anything come into existence? Chemical reaction, biological reaction, or both. Feelings, as you most likely already know is caused by a chemical reaction. Why was this caring instinct passed on? Why are any innate traits passed on? Because they're beneficial in some way.

    The difference is in the mental ability or mental state of an individual. A baby can make consious decisions, yes. But a baby doesn't have the complex cognitive abilities that'll allow it to understand very much of its actions and the consequences or factors involved in those actions.

    When you were a baby or even a toddler did you know what good, bad or consequences meant? I didn't.

    Of course there's innate knowledge in humans. But knowledge of the world isn't innate. Knowledge in this context needs to be aquired. A babies cry is innate. Flinching at an oncoming object is innate. Our ability to understand a joke is aquired. Our ability to understand a facial expression is aquired.

    I'd say that's pretty bad, yeh. But is it evil? I don't think so unless the guy that caused the break up did it to intentionally hurt another. And um,.. the heart wants what it wants and junk?
     
  17. just so it doesnt seem like a gangbang on hiake, im gonna debate against pepsi here.

    now one thing ill have to disagree upon is the idea of society only revolving around humans. the term society doesnt revolve on humans alone, but with other animal species as well. granted its not society as we know it to be, but it is a society nonetheless. take a look at a group of lions, lionesses and cubs. the male lion is considered the head of the group, although it does nothing but eat and sleep. the lionesses are the workers who bring the food, and take care of the cubs. that can be interpreted as a society right there; a society were there is a head role, worker roles, and child roles.

    the same could be said with a bee colony, or an ant colony. their society consists of a queen, whos role is to lay eggs, workers, who take care for the food supply and take care of offspring, also, they even have soldier bees and ants to defend against enemies. that could also be considered a society.

    so my point being, the term society doesnt revolve around humans alone, but in the animal kingdom as well.

    another aspect id like to touch is that our social structure isnt build according to this need, but is greatly influenced by this need. the social structure we have isnt using this need as the main purpose of the way it has developed to be.

    now we cant really know what goes on in an infant's head, so we cant really know if it can make conscious decisions.. and plus, making conscious decisions does require the complex cognitive abilities which will allow it to understand things. that is what conscious is all about. now if a baby doesnt have that complex cognitive ability, how can it make conscious decisions?

    well, bad is antonymous to good, and so is evil. if both are antonymous to good, therefore both must be the same. therefore bad = evil.
     
  18. hiake

    hiake Vardøgr of da E.Twin

    It makes sense, no worries :)

    I do think that love is but a "feeling" for optimal mating (and in turn reproduction and so on). Yet this question is somewhat impossible to measure: BECAUSE humans feel love (supposedly anyways), we go and measure our brain waves and whatnot to PROVE that it's a biological thing. Do we ever try and see if a snake or an elephant or even a dolphin would feel similar "love" instincts? As far as I know (which isn't a lot, by the way, feel free to send along articles where such issue is addressed), I have seen NONE.

    But "programmed" isn't good enough a reason for behaviour. As far as I can see in Western society, it is not exactly "nature" which makes a parent care for the young, but social pressure which come along when parent DO NOT care for the young. If it is a natural instinct, we wouldn't be needing such social control would we? Just a thought.

    It has been SHOWN by studies that babies can differentiate between helper and bystanders. And by the way, latest study shows that children as young as 4 knows (consciously) that flattery (aka white lies) get them what they wants. This can be said as a learned behaviour, yet similarly, can't it be described as learned practice where the behaviour is ingrained biologically? I am straying off-topic real quick here.

    Hmmm, but now you are just hiding behind "biological program". I would say it's just the result of natural selection, that in fact, a long long time ago, species are randomly selected for their behaviour (just a fancy way to say, some species do this, others do that), then when confronted with predation and limited food sources, species with less fitting combination of behaviour dies off (goes extinct) and leave us with strange "patchy" behavioural niches occupied by species.

    If you consider a previous era, humans are as "productive" as sea turtle given the (usually) single offspring they produce in a 10-months span... Humans used to follow the rules of nature much more closely than it does now (low birth, low mortality with long life span) If you look at it this way, then human is the most alien species on the entire planet Earth.

    As I have replied to dann's post, I don't particularly think that human has the instinct to care, at least not contemporary human beings (not sure about Neanderthals)... We have social control where parents who give up their young (liken to "leaving their child to die") would be chastised for their irresponsibility. If "caring for the young" is an instinct, such social control would not have existed. It is of course possible that the instinct is receding due to inapplicable circumstances (alternative source of care besides biological parents, fostering systems etc)

    I wasn't sure if I remember anything from my babyhood/childhood besides the fact that I kicked a swan, in fact, a pair of swans, in their face. And yes, it's conscious and it's an instinctive reaction. Can't say I was actually evil, but that's quite another story to tell.

    I start to think that I should address your post and dann's at once, but decide against it.

    Anyways, so I just read, not a week ago, that children as young as 4 knows to lie in order to obtain what they want (i.e.: a cookie), of course, that particular process may not have harmed anyone, yet the choice strike certain similarities to an evil act (given the incentive, in this case a cookie, is great enough to commit a supposed "wrong" act)

    But that means "evil" is subjective, because the same act, the guy pursuing a "taken" girl (or a girl pursuing a "taken" guy, whatever), can be defined as "good" (follow one's heart, seeks one's happiness and whatnot) or evil (breaks another person's heart). Are you implying that if the MAIN goal of pursuing the "taken" guy/girl is to seek one's happiness (but not hurting the OTHER girl/guy), then it is okay and overlook the fact that someone IS (or going to be) hurt in the process?

    Nah, I like it when there are more lively debates, just that RL is VERY occupying lately.

    However, the central question kind of remains: how did the social structure (of a bee colony, an ant colony, or a human society) come to be?

    Hugely influenced pretty much sums it up.

    Now we are just putting the infant's head into this black box called "untapped consciousness" and let it rest?

    Not necessarily... Right != Left; Right != Wrong; then Left = Wrong? It's a matter of how you define a word... Another example: Dark != Light; Dark != Bright; yet Light != Bright...
     
  19. but in order to have social pressure, there must be a trigger that states that malicious actions are bad. a society cant just say: "oh this is bad, so we will deem it bad according to the society". the understanding that bad actions are bad must be generated from somewhere, and the only answer left, is that it is instinct. the instincts of the average people in the society will be considered the norm, thus, social pressure is based upon the norm of the instincts of the average person in a society.

    now there are those who do not care for the young, they are those whose instincts are just not according to the norm of the society's.

    i dont doubt that that is true fact, but i thought as in babies we were within the age range of 0-3. if the facts say that children from age for onwards can think consciously, then so be it.

    lol why are you saying im hiding behind biological programming? i dont hide. i am just stating teachings from university lectures. and we both know that university profs are way smarter than us both.

    on a side note, if i was someone else, i might have found that first line a bit offensive.. ill just let it pass :)

    nonetheless, can you tell me if during those previous eras, parents let children live on their own after birth? do they just go and say "hey son, go fetch food on your own k?"

    i would say that due to the fact that medical advancements was poor back then, they had to keep the birth rate up to keep up with the population growth. baby death rates was sky rocketing back then. but as much as they give birth back then, they still take care of their young ones just like today. the only difference is the condition that they, and we live in, and by that i mean less babies die, so less births required.

    well i have nothing to say about that lol

    i would side with you on that one..

    thats a question id like to see your answers for :)

    now dont blame me if i hide behind my profs on this one, but, it may be due to biological programming =)

    uhhhh what? lol mind rephrasing that?

    well youre putting two irrelevant subjects together.. cant work that way.. o_O

    right and left are directions, and right and wrong are ethics.... directions != ethics....

    dark != light, where dark is the state of light non existence, and light is the state of the existence of light

    dark != bright, where dark is the state of dimmed lighting (but WITH lighting nonetheless), and bright is the state of higher light intensity...

    the two darks are not the same, as dark in accordance with light is the non existence of light, and dark in accordance with bright is the state where light is lowly dimmed..

    youre just playing with words here. and according to Max Muller, the disease is the language, as everything is personified and given a vocabulary, where there are not enough words to describe everything.

    as for my example of good, bad, and evil

    good and bad refers to ethics just like right and wrong
    but good and evil can also be right and wrong too:

    example: demons are evil. they cause harm to someone, which is bad.
     
  20. hiake

    hiake Vardøgr of da E.Twin

    Death is a taboo'd subject, and children are sacred? Put the two together and you get "letting children die is not acceptable"? I don't know, I was totally unable to stomach the whole "child sacralization" shite... That transition is too big a leap of faith to follow.

    As a result, the society deem such individual patho (sick or whatnot, at the very least, wrong)...

    But then the researchers are just pushing the boundary of knowledge here, it's entirely possible that babies (below 3) are not tested because it's going to be an exploded hell to deal with the ethics committee? I don't know, in time we may see more evidence on that...

    I do apologize if I have offended... But there's a limit to which a person can know, no matter the occupation or training... Of course, a university professor should know more in their own discipline than a regular folk, but said professor doesn't necessarily know how to put together a computer, how to play certain instrument, or any number of things... :p Just playing on words here, but yeh.

    LOL, they don't as a practice doesn't mean none of them did... Just that birth and death records are so messed up we cannot accurately account for them...

    We just give it a name "unconsciousness" and call it a day, implying not searching further for answers... Certain people, even in the scientific community, do have the tendency to do that.

    LOL Just playing on the semantics there, hoping nobody would notice, but if evil and bad are THAT similar, why is there 2 words for their distinct meaning?