The jails and prisons are full of people who believe in "sky daddies" not the non-religious. Indeed, the non-religious category is the third largest category of "belief" (or "lack" thereof), yet it is well-under represented in prisons. Religious nutters are overly represented. Religion is a failed experiment.
No - the truth is the same irrespective of peoples' belief. Then why isn't "religion" genetic? Why does my twin brother believe earnestly in the Catholic faith and yet I am an atheist? How am I and my brother from different races? LOL! Science is merely a method - not an answer. Interesting. And your proof is...??? No - according to scientific THEORY the earth was flat. And theories are there to be scrutinised and rejected when new information comes along, as it did with the "flat earth" theory. This should be heralded as a triumph of the scientific method - not the failure that you are painting it. Again - that was his theory - and it was proven false through observation. Furthermore - Newton could quite happily have told him that he was talking out of his arse, merely by looking at the methematics. So your entire rebuttal of science is one man's erroneous claim? Or outdated theories? Each time you raise such a theory that has been falsified through the scientific method you are hoisting its banner further into the air for all to see how well it works. So please continue. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Logical fallacy - Strawman. It is also a Logical fallacy of false conclusion. YOU claimed that we see science as a God - but we did not. So to shoot it down, as you are doing, is a STRAWMAN. Further, your examples that you believe discredit science actually do the opposite, so your conclusion (that science is erroneous) is logically inconsistent with the arguments you make. "God" is certainly a word. In the English dictionary it comes somewhere after the acronym G.O.C. and somewhere before the word "Gode". As for the "Word is God" - are you referring to the Bible? The one that has been translated countless times, added to, edited and altered to suit the translators' whims and alterior motives?
I thought this was funny. How many declared Christians do we have in the US? How many missionaries do we have serving in the Third World? I think there is a bit of a mismatch there. I wonder if anyone ever gathered any data on the proportion of atheists and Christians, etc in the Peace Corps. I can't agree with you. For several reasons. Firstly, I know you were probably speaking metaphorically, but calling it an experiment sounds as if it was a deliberate decision to 'try it out'. And that sort of smacks of intelligence, and intelligent design, and evolution having a direction, none of which I am comfortable with. Secondly, you cannot say it has failed without showing that humanity is worse of with it, than without it. I doubt you can do this, and before you ask, I can't prove the reverse either, nor am I trying to. Thirdly, there is a spiritual side to all of us. If you have children, as an example, you are probably aware of that. This spiritual aspect is as much a part of us as our cold intellect, or our instinctive drives. It is most easily expressed through religion.
There was a news report about christians refusing to give aid to tsunami victims unless they converted. Perhaps that's where you read it? Nasty fuckers.
You are right in each of your criticisms, of course. Obviously religion isn't an "experiment" because it implies an "experimenter" -either human or divine- so I was, indeed, using the phrase as a metaphorical device comparing to other social "experiments" that humanity has been said to engage in: capitalism; communism; socialism, etc. And, of course, it would be difficult to demonstrate that humanity would be better or worse without its development. We can, however, examine religiosity in human cultures and measure their successes or failures based on the levels of involvement religion has had on societies, and various texts have been written on this topic since the 19th century through today. In societies where religion has the most influence on government, for instance, there is increased oppression (16th century CE Europe; 21s century CE Saudi Arabia; etc.). In nations with low religious influences on government and therefore less pressure on society, the national success rates are correlated to higher rates. Scandinavian nations are good examples, as is the U.S. to a certain degree. But even I would argue that it was probably necessary for humanity to be "infected" with the mind virus of belief (may I use another metaphor?) at pivotal moments in our history when agriculture and complexity were emerging. A belief that natural forces should be associated with anthropomorphic deities and animated, as with thunder storms; a belief that there are deities that create life - were probably very instrumental in motivating early man to domesticate the natural world. \ The best evidence available in the archaeological record shows that the earliest civilizations had religious beliefs that held all things to be sacred. That's a huge contrast to today's religions that hold a very world-rejecting point of view. To early man (and even contemporary aboriginals), all is sacred and it is this life that matters. To the "modern" religious believer, this world is largely rejected and "salvation" becomes of paramount importance so that one may pass on to believed "afterlife." It is this world-rejection that I believe creates the "evils" of the world. In the backs of the minds of all christians is this notion that there is an "end of days" which will negate the need for a sustained planet; conservation of energy; a need for scientific progress; a need for world peace; etc. These are the "Left Behind" nutters that don't see any reason to worry about preserving or conserving what we have or learing to tolerate others in the world that don't think the way they do (even if they're next-door neighbors). It all doesn't matter because the "rapture" is coming. Consequently, this world-rejecting point of view becomes one of the least spiritually involved positions a person can take. If you steal, cheat, lie, fuck your parishoner's kid, it all won't matter as long as you repent and come clean before judgement day and accept your imaginary friend as real. This is probably why the non-religious are under-represented in prisons and the devoutly religious are over-represented. I have the numbers somewhere and will dig them up, but prisoners are surveyed during intake of their religious beliefs (prisons have to ensure reasonable efforts are made to cater to them and need the info), so it isn't a version of the flawed "no atheist in a foxhole" hypothesis. Only a very small percentage of inmates surveyed reported to be non-religious. An even smaller number were agnostic/atheist. Finally, spirituality need not involve religious superstition. I can appreciate the setting sun as much (I say more!) as any theist. I find great comfort in being alone on a hiking trail or kayak. I have tremendous respect for aboriginals who view the world as sacred and can appreciate their belief that the star in our sky is animated with a deity -after all, its warmth and presence are easily felt and noticed.
The majority of the people in the world are "religious nutters." You imply that if we got rid of religion then we'd have less people in prison. I don't think so. If those people practised the religion they say they believe in, then they wouldn't be in prison. The bible says: Don't steal, don't kill, don't commit perjury, don't covet what yor neighbor has. It also says the body is a temple -- don't pollute it with drugs and substance abuse, Don't be a prostitute, and don't kidnap other people or abuse them, don't abandon children, and take care of the old and helpless. If everyone followed the moral code found in the bible, would we even need prisons at all?
The difference is spiritual today, I wont avocate the "catholic" faith......Religious organizations are manmade, and not of God. However there are many sincere people trapped in those systems - deceived by them......Cain was religious but had no revelation from God. But lets take your situation, even if the catholic faith was the "one true faith" .....which it is not. The "twins" are found throughout history together. It is in the spiritual realm where they are different today, but look at history..... Cain and Abel, Moses and Balaam, Jesus and Judas, down to the true church and the false vine. The wheat and the tares....intertwined, and growing together. Jesus said "let them alone", the Word of God will separate them. In (or below actually) the Smithonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology....that is one place to look. They buried and filed away two hundred years of bones and artifacts not belonging to the "Indians' or "Native Americans", but a race of giants on the North American continent....... They didn't fit into the "darwin" peg-holes, so they threw them out. Convenient for them, but not for you......if it's the truth your after.
We all know what your mythology "says." Next to none of the its believers actually follow what the myths preach. I agree, that if they did adhere to the teachings of the alleged christ, the world would be a great place. It would likewise be a good place if everyone lived their lives like Superman of D.C. Comics, Matt Dillon from Gunsmoke, and Ishmael of Moby Dick. I've lived among Native Americans and participated in their customs. They don't reject the world the way your cult does, they embrace it. From the tribe I worked with, crime was almost non-existent. Doors remained unlocked in their communities. Children need not fear playing outside. In the neighboring community of non-Natives that was about the same size, crime was considerably higher. A correlation that implies no causation to be sure, but noticable nontheless. One is a world-embracing society; the other is a world-rejecting society. And we're all aware of the fallacious argument that "people who commit crimes aren't true Christians" as well. It doesn't wash. People are what they believe. They believe there is a Christ, they're christian. The shear number of Christian criminals implies that christianity is a failed cult. Even the "Faith-Based Initiatives" that our so-called President called for are failures. The only time their metrics are positive is when they refuse to service non-christians, and even then they fail more than they succeed. Secular organizations have far better success rates. Christianity is a failed superstition.
You're nothing more than a goddamned liar. You deceived us all with that "sermon" you plagerized and now you making up shit about giants again. Either show the evidence or continue to live up to my assertion of 'goddamned liar.' Prove me wrong with verifiable evidence and I'll publically apologize for calling you a 'goddamned liar.'
Via the enlightenment? Dumbass people still believe that if the church had full power we would be better off, are you serious? You can't posibly be this idiotic! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I admit it's not perfect, long way from it, but you can't blame wars on secularists or enlightenment, wars mostly were and are of a religious nature, difference of oppinions and greed. Not because of secularist idealogies. Though it has been used kind of, Nazism used the state as it's benevolent omnipotent, thus basically replacing one kind of mysticism with another. What I can see man, is your overparanoid!. I mean really dood. Many lives have been saved because of Enlightentment, new drugs prolonging life, new ways to feed the masses, things are moving just fine, as long as one of these "FIWTHUTA" (fucking idiots with their head up their ass) Religious nut cases who "unfortunately" hold the world's power, don't deside to throw the big one!. Again! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! So calm down, take a chill pill ese! Godless
Most christians I know practice the moral code. My wife and I do -- we didn't go premarital on sex. I know a lot more christians than you probably do -- how did you come to the conclusion that almost all christians are fakes? Some christians fail, but they should be forgiven instead of condescended against. They must not be serious then. Saying they are christian and living like one are not the same thing. They gave us no written instructions. Many Indians are christians as well -- I almost married one of them. You'll have to clarify on "rejecting the world" because I think there could be semantical confusion. In a small mountain town in the appalachians where I lived, it was the same way. My mother didn't even bother locking the door when she left the house. Rejecting in what way. Surely you aren't talking about christian missionaries that risk their lives to help other people. I have a step-brother who is a christian missionary in China. I also hear that the african american population is over-represented in the prison system -- would you call them a failed race too? They've never needed the president's blessing before. I've given my hard earned money to help feed starving kids in Haiti, and to help teenage mothers have a child instead of aborting it. I know some would-be parents that would love to adopt a baby if they could find one. Isn't that better than the alternative? So all christian missionaries including my step-brother in communist china are failing to succeed -- at what? Could you be specific? They also have higher overhead. Take United Way for example. Isn't theirs about 30%? Many of them get paid to do what they do -- and companies are virtually blackmailed into participation. Failed in what way? Failed for you? How do you determine something is failed? There are still plenty of people that go to church and read a bible, even 2000 years after christ, or do you believe that Jesus never existed too?
Woody: That's an interesting attitude you have to academia. I'm guessing you don't know any academics personally, and probably have spent little if any time studying at tertiary level. Because of that, you share a quite common set of misconceptions. I strongly suspect that most academics and graduate students are not secular humanists, but have the usual variety of religious beliefs. Snobbish mannerisms are, of course, personally developed, or not. If you really think all academics are snobs, then I think it is probably because you feel intimidated by their greater level of education compared to your own, and not for any other reason. This old myth is still quite common. In fact, the "real world" relies on academia for much of its progress. That applies in science and technology areas, as well as in law and public policy, social sciences and so on. Far from being locked in ivory towers, academics are consistently consulted by politicians, policy makers, the media and all kinds of other people for their specialist knowledge and expertise. The idea that academia is not part of "the real world", as much as any other profession, is a complete myth. All theories, if they are to be of any use, must be based on facts about the "real world". Academics pay takes, vote, bring up children, work, rest and play, the same as everybody else. They are in constant contact with "the real world"; after all, they live in it. The "misfits" label is just a derisive label aimed at belittling those who you probably worry are superior to you in many respects. Most academics I know are better informed and engaged with the important issues in the "real world" than most other people I know. While the rabble are happy to sit down to watch the latest season of Big Brother, or to read the gossip columns, academics are probably catching up on world events or thinking about deeper social issues. Are you aware of the meaning of the word "liberal"? On the contrary, they are often among the foremost advocates for helping people who are disadvantaged in one way or another. Has she given up on counselling, now that she is a Christian?
Yes woody. I worked in biomedical research for years helping to develop a new type of ventilator for premature infants so that I coud ultimately use it as a weapon against humanity. BTW - Fuck you. Because missionaries are self-serving zealots who have only one goal on their mind - conversion. Wake up Woody. You are seeming more like a total asshole with every post.
I assume you got paid to do it, or was it done purely out of the goodness of your heart? At least you didn't design a brain-sucker for partial birth abortions. How do you feel about aborting infants? Do you suppose they are premature infants as well, or just blobs of tissue? Do you have more conscience than your average secular humanist? How many of them do you know personally. I personally know six different missionaries that know me as well. One is an african bush pilot, one is a Wycliffe translator in africa, another is serving in Liberia west africa, and another is serving in africa, then my step-brother in law is serving in China, and another friend of mine is serving in Russia. I assure you they aren't doing it for the money because there isn't much, in most cases there isn't any air conditioning either, or any of the western comforts. Yes they are trying to convert the populace to christianity, and they have been quite successful at it. Considering what some of those people were before conversion (cannibals, witch doctors, head hunters) I think you would agree it's probably a good thing. I promise as christians that we wont' boil you in a pot of stew, use your genetals for magic potions, or make a cupie doll out of your head.
Boo hoo. I really feel for your self-important friends trying to convert the heathens from one stupid superstition to another. Yes I got paid for my work quite well thank you. However, your missionary fanatic friends get paid too. If it weren't for the fact that they thought they were getting into god's good graces by figuratively sucking his holy dick, they'd be selling snake oil in Botswanaland. As for the live infants I helped save with my secular money grubbing work, I think they are human beings. Within the first month of pregnancy, they're blobs of tissue, just like you were. And I only wish you could live to see the day when there are so many humans on the planet, due to your "go forth and multiply" philosophy, that they die-off like wild deer do when there are too few predators and too few resources to go around. When there are so many humans, due to the lack of a sensible abortion policy, that the last food resource goes to you, woody, and you know that you are eating the last bit of bread on the planet. Sleep tight, fanatic.
I first noticed it in Chapel Hill when I was getting my undergraduate accounting degree in my early 20's. The liberal arts teachers hated business majors and graded us accordingly. I remember taking a geography course called "Food and Man." Our professor wanted to know our majors from day 1. Then he went on a tyrade about how grocery stores are ripping everyone off, or as one of my classmates said "itz a whip-off man!" When I explained the grocery store margins are among the lowest for any business, I was branded a capitalist pig by my liberal arts commie classmates. Alas, the A&P in Chapel Hill went out of business that semester. I asked my professor why a grocery store would go out of business that's making so much money according to him? It didn't win me any points and I made a C in the course "the liberal arts equivalent of an F in any other curriculum." I had another accounting major point out to me -- they're hiding here because they can't cut it in the real world. Most of them are socialists. Then while in engineering college many years later, I learned the same thing again. There were some good teachers that made it in the real world and came back to teach us their lessons -- for which I am very thankful. Then there were those that never spent anytime outside of academia. It was easy to tell who was who from the quality of instruction. The real worlders taught you what you could use, the academians taught in many case, a lot of useless crap. I can think of my intermediate fluid mechanics teacher as an example in the mechanical engineering curriculum -- we studied air foil theory because she did her doctorate thesis on this at George Washington University. If I was an aerospace engineer then fine, but I would have much preferred fluid system piping over that. Compressible fluid flow by her was ok, but boundary layer theory was another waste of time. In the engineering graduate curriculums they are almost all asians or indians -- yes you are right on the technical side. It's the cynicism that I'm speaking of. My entire family is well educated and I don't feel intimidated by them. Both grandfathers were doctors, three uncles were doctors, an uncle and brother are dentists, and another brother a lawyer. No I don't feel intimidated. I guess that depends on where you go to college. It's reality at Chapel Hill. I'm sorry but I humbly disagree on this point. Academia is not preparing students to survive in the real world. They are at least ten years behind the real world in the United States academia. Many of the the diplomas aren't worth much. They are out of touch. Their salaries are paid by the folks that work in the real world. Without taxpayers, they'd be in pretty bad shape. They don't live in the real world -- they live off of taxes. When they pay taxes they pay back part of what they got from tax payers. I wouldn't label all academians misfits, and some of my friends work in the academic community. Teachers are needed as well as doctors, lawyers, and dentists -- but they won't help us pay-off our balance of trade deficit. yes, it has many meanings. The ones I think of are in the political circles. Like Edward Kennedy? How much of his own personal money does he give to help the disadvantaged? No she has not given up counseling. It was her and another woman. The other woman was a christian, and my sister was the secular alternative. She was and is as fine a person as you would ever want to meet. She wasn't doing anything wrong as a "humanist." The things she wasn't doing right -- that's what got through to her -- and lead her to Christ.
Is anyone else out there helping those people - digging wells, bringing medicine? Maybe you'll understand when the younger generation wants to exterminate you in a rest home as a useless liability through euthenasia -- another practical solution for resource allocation. Your time is coming too, dude, and your "life administrators" could be the ones that got away from your abortion mill. I'm not worried about it. Most americans could afford to miss quite a few meals. About One out of every three americans is obese.
Could you please google on secular/humanitarian charitable organizations and tell me what you find woodster? If I end up in a rest home - let them kill me. I have no intention of withering in a rest home. [/QUOTE] There I will agree with you. We are a nation of mass over-consumers. But note that this is only because of our circumstances, not any inherent nature as "Americans". Any other nation with the same level of prosperity could easily show the same behavior. BTW, About one out of every one christian is obtuse. (you walked straight into that one).
here are some amusing phrases "fine, I evolved, you didn't." "People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at, shouldn't have such funny beliefs" "The good news: god is not real. The bad news: humans have to take responsibility for their own actions" "The hard work of one, does more than the prayers of millions" And finally, here is my question. Do any of you christians recognise that the bible forbids the wearing of garments of wool and linen blends? Leviticus 19:19
SkinWalker, thanks for your full response. I see that you're distinguishing between religion and spirituality. That's quite proper: I guess those distinctions are less clear/important for me. I can express my spiritual side, in part, by participating in religious cermonies and practices whose literal meaning are unimportant to me. Singing a familiar hymn in a magnificent cathedral evokes that sense of spirituality, yet I do not necessarily believe the words of the hymn, or the dogma of the religion. I guess I'm saying religion can be a useful focus for our spiritual side - just don't take the dogma too seriously. Woody, you do seem to have some serious issues of contempt for anyone who doesn't think as you do. Don't you feel that might be self destructive? And I really think you are quite misunderstanding the efforts made in the Third World by secular powers. A case in point would be the Asian tsunami. Its true that the US government and the general population gave generously, and we were probably the first on the scene with massive logistic support. However, I think if you check the records you will find on a per capita basis our buddies across the water, in England, gave considerably more. And they are a pretty secular society, compared with the US.
