Study reveals 'secret ingredient' in religion that makes people happier

Dec 07, 2010

While the positive correlation between religiosity and life satisfaction has long been known, a new study in the December issue of the American Sociological Review reveals religion's "secret ingredient" that makes people happier.

"Our study offers compelling evidence that it is the social aspects of religion rather than theology or spirituality that leads to life satisfaction," said Chaeyoon Lim, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who led the study. "In particular, we find that friendships built in religious congregations are the secret ingredient in religion that makes people happier."

In their study, "Religion, Social Networks, and ," Lim and co-author Robert D. Putnam, the Malkin Professor of Public Policy at Harvard University, use data from the Faith Matters Study, a panel survey of a representative sample of U.S. adults in 2006 and 2007. The panel survey was discussed in detail in the recently published book American Grace by Putnam and David E. Campbell.

According to the study, 33 percent of people who attend every week and have three to five close friends in their congregation report that they are "extremely satisfied" with their lives. "Extremely satisfied" is defined as a 10 on a scale ranging from 1 to 10.

In comparison, only 19 percent of people who attend religious services weekly, but who have no close friends in their congregation report that they are extremely satisfied. On the other hand, 23 percent of people who attend religious services only several times a year, but who have three to five close friends in their congregation are extremely satisfied with their lives. Finally, 19 percent of people who never attend religious services, and therefore have no friends from congregation, say they are extremely satisfied with their lives.

"To me, the evidence substantiates that it is not really going to church and listening to sermons or praying that makes people happier, but making church-based friends and building intimate social networks there," Lim said.

According to Lim, people like to feel that they belong. "One of the important functions of religion is to give people a sense of belonging to a moral community based on religious faith," he said. "This community, however, could be abstract and remote unless one has an intimate circle of friends who share a similar identity. The friends in one's congregation thus make the religious community real and tangible, and strengthen one's sense of belonging to the community."

The study's findings are applicable to the three main Christian traditions (Mainline Protestant, Evangelical Protestant, and Catholic). "We also find similar patterns among Jews and Mormons, even with a much smaller sample size," said Lim, who noted that there were not enough Muslims or Buddhists in the data set to test the model for those groups.

Explore further: Research geared to keep women from fleeing IT profession

Related Stories

Prevalence of religious congregations affects mortality rates

Jul 03, 2008

LSU associate professor of sociology Troy C. Blanchard recently found that a community's religious environment – that is, the type of religious congregations within a locale – affects mortality rates, often in a positive ...

Go to church and breathe easier

Nov 29, 2006

Going to church might help you breathe easier. A new study by Temple University's Joanna Maselko, Sc.D., found that religious activity may protect and maintain pulmonary health in the elderly.

Recommended for you

Orphaned children can do just as well in institutions

5 hours ago

The removal of institutions or group homes will not lead to better child well-being and could even worsen outcomes for some orphaned and separated children, according to new findings from a three-year study across five low- ...

User comments : 152

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

kevinrtrs
1.5 / 5 (32) Dec 07, 2010
It is certainly true that having close friends in your place of worship can give you an extremely satisfying life.
It is certainly also much more the case that in Christianity that unless you have a close personal relationship with the central figure in the bible, namely the Lord and God Jesus[Yeshua] - the Christ [Messiah] that your so-called happiness will be of a temporary nature. Sooner or later the bubble will burst, in spite of your having close personal relationships in church. Only through knowing Christ can you have the peace that is beyond understanding, even through the most trying and lonely times. Ultimate contentment comes from knowing the Saviour, Jesus, the Messiah, not through those close friendships. Jesus came that we might have life, and have it more abundantly. That abundance is partly visible by the close relationships one builds as a result of knowing Him.
jmcanoy1860
4.6 / 5 (23) Dec 07, 2010
So if you have friends you are happier (usually). Wonderful. Well worth the research time and effort to find that one out.

As for kevin, you have no evidence to support your claim. A baseless assertion that "true happiness comes from knowing something" such as a deity is both dis-empowering and extremely condescending. By implication only"real" "christians" would be truly happy and everyone else would be much less so.
_ilbud
4.3 / 5 (20) Dec 07, 2010
If you're prepared to pretend you believe in fairy tales and hang around with a bunch of like mindless people sure you'll be "happy". Then you leave kindergarden and move on with your life. Unless you can't handle it and then the unquestioning opiate of religion is there for those who don't think and are happy with any answer, even lies.
jeebus
4.4 / 5 (21) Dec 07, 2010
Kevin has drank the kool-aid. Kevin, learn some hebrew/aramaic/greek and read the texts in their original language, maybe also learn a little biblical history so you can become intimately familiar with the scriptural changes as well as the political motivations of the roman empire when they decided to burn all competing beliefs about jesus and propose he was a man-god at the council of nicea. I understand your myths give your life meaning but spare us your concretized version you've been swilling since infancy. Signed- A Heterodox Theologian
dogbert
2.8 / 5 (10) Dec 07, 2010
'According to Lim, people like to feel that they belong. "One of the important functions of religion is to give people a sense of belonging to a moral community based on religious faith," he said.'

Lim apparently believes he knows the "functions of religion". He concludes what he states he already knew. Not a scientific study.

Friendship does tend toward more happiness. It takes no research and little wit see that.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.4 / 5 (15) Dec 07, 2010
It is certainly also much more the case that in Christianity that unless you have a close personal relationship with the central figure in the bible, namely the Lord and God Jesus[Yeshua] - the Christ [Messiah] that your so-called happiness will be of a temporary nature.
Advocating imaginary friends again?
Ultimate contentment comes from knowing the Saviour, Jesus, the Messiah, not through those close friendships.
If he existed, Yeshua, which was probably a mistranscription of Yehosua or Joshua, he would be dead for thousands of years. You couldn't "know him" because we're both human, and that means you don't have special powers that I don't have, and I can't commune with the dead.
LariAnn
3.6 / 5 (8) Dec 07, 2010
Wow, maybe Lim and Putnam live a really sheltered life, but to me, social friendships as a component of happiness is no secret at all. Of course, the flip side is that social friendships can be a component of unhappiness as well, when unfulfilled expectations develop. IMO, the real secret of religion is that none of the stories were ever intended to be taken literally, but as symbolic of the individual's inner search for meaning. These symbols or archetypes have surfaced time and time again in religions over historical time, but their true meaning is the real "secret".
Modernmystic
1.8 / 5 (10) Dec 07, 2010
BZZZT...go fish.

I get a lot of satisfaction out of my religion and I stay as far away from church as possible...
Kingsix
2.8 / 5 (4) Dec 07, 2010
Everyone knows that people who have more good relationships with others are happier, and a religious center offers one more place for those relationships to form. Good relationships are pretty much always built on commonality. Not much of a scientific study.
On the faith note, those who attempt to use science to disprove any faith are just wasting their time.
A scientist who will not stretch their mind to anything beyond the measurable has no hope of ever seeing the other side of the story. The same is true for someone with faith who refuses to look at science with an open mind. While a supreme being doesn't have to operate within the physical rules we are bound by, it doesn't mean that it wouldn't choose to.

Only those who are willing to look at both sides, who are ready to accept the possibility that they may not be able to prove everything and that there may be more to this life than particles and energy have a hope of finding the real truth, which ever side it may lay upon.
Jimee
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 07, 2010
Surrendering your responsibility to god must help people feel happy, happy, happy. When I think about the easter bunny I get all warm and squishy inside.
thales
5 / 5 (6) Dec 07, 2010
I'm always happier as I leave church than I was going in.
panorama
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 07, 2010
BZZZT...go fish.

I get a lot of satisfaction out of my religion and I stay as far away from church as possible...

I agree. That's why I started my own church. Besides me there is only one other member...and they have been lapse since they joined. I'm still happy.
Scientifica
1.8 / 5 (4) Dec 07, 2010
So does Islam make you happier...when you blow yourself and others to smithereens for the sake of allah?
panorama
3.8 / 5 (4) Dec 07, 2010
So does Islam make you happier...when you blow yourself and others to smithereens for the sake of allah?

Yes?
jjoensuu
1 / 5 (1) Dec 07, 2010
By implication only"real" "christians" would be truly happy and everyone else would be much less so.


I guess this would require a second study...with questions such as:
A. do you perceive yourself as having a relationship with []
B. do you have any friends in the congregation of []
C. rate your happiness on the scale of 1-10
D. etc
otto1932
1.7 / 5 (27) Dec 07, 2010
So does Islam make you happier...when you blow yourself and others to smithereens for the sake of allah?
Yeah, religions not only give you lots of friends to love but lots of enemies to hate (but with a loving heart?).

Ready-made enemies reinforce the feeling of tribal kinship, which most people probably desire... the 'us vs them' environment of chronic intertribal conflict and intratribal cooperation that humans evolved in the context of.

Todays religions give you this and ask in return only that you act as a group against these enemies at the proper time and in the proper manner. This can include trying to make more babies than they do:

"Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD:
and the fruit of the womb is his reward.
As arrows are in the hand of a warrior;
so are children of the youth.
Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them:
they shall not be ashamed,
but they shall meet the enemies in the gate."
http://en.wikiped...iverfull
otto1932
1.2 / 5 (23) Dec 07, 2010
You couldn't "know him" because we're both human, and that means you don't have special powers that I don't have, and I can't commune with the dead.
Keven does exhibit considerable powers of self-delusion, although there is nothing particularly special about that.
dirk_bruere
4.7 / 5 (3) Dec 07, 2010
There is one other factor - the idea that there's "something" taking care of the Big Stuff that normal people feel powerless to affect. One less worry about the world.
ekim
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 07, 2010
There is one other factor - the idea that there's "something" taking care of the Big Stuff that normal people feel powerless to affect. One less worry about the world.

Most religions also have the opposite of this "something" trying to destroy it all. One more worry.
However it is curious that many atheists have faith in linear time ,knowing that there is no proof it actually exists. Just as people once believed in an earth centered universe our assumptions on the nature of time could be flawed.
kevinrtrs
1.2 / 5 (15) Dec 08, 2010
Ever wonder why evolutionists have this ardent, fervent search for extra-terrestrial life?
Deep-down, they are actually looking for some greater technological society that can rescue them from the mess the world is in currently. Maybe even provide a way to have everlasting life.
OK, you can flame me on that totally absurd generalisation now.
Skultch
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 08, 2010
they are actually looking for some greater technological society that can rescue them from the mess the world is in currently. Maybe even provide a way to have everlasting life.
OK, you can flame me on that totally absurd generalisation now.


Absurd and contradictory, but that should be expected from a bible believer. We need a rescue from this mess of a world, but also want everlasting life?

And why the "evolutionist" generalization? What does that have to do with ETs? You really need to get off your high creationist horse and at least TRY to see things objectively.
MS4260
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 08, 2010
@kevinrtrs:

Without the RuachHaKodesh the natural mind cannot know the Eternal One; Of his own, the natural cannot attain the spark of faith necessary to humble himself and call out to the One who can transform him so that he may receive the Ruach. How is the paradox resolved? When the Ruach at last falls on him...
frajo
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 08, 2010
I'm always happier as I leave church than I was going in.
There's no difference between before and after for me when it's a huge old cathedral with elaborate beautiful windows and they are playing something by Giovanni Gabrieli for two orchestras positioned in choir lofts facing each other.
You can't have this experience with any home stereo setup.Wiki:
Gabrieli pioneered the use of carefully specified groups of instruments and singers, with precise directions for instrumentation, and in more than two groups. The acoustics were and are such in the church that instruments, correctly positioned, could be heard with perfect clarity at distant points.
Anyone musical should have this incomparable experience once in his life.
Kingsix
5 / 5 (7) Dec 08, 2010
A bit late,
Take a seriously critical look at your personal thinking on this subject, and answer this question with a rating of 5 stars for yes and 1 star for no.

Have you ever or are willing to put aside your preconceived ideas and take a serious scientific look at sciences argument and an equally serious look at faith from faiths standpoint which is not scientific but based on the immeasurable.
auburn_leaves
2.5 / 5 (4) Dec 08, 2010
I think the more important question is: Aside from church, where does one go to create new relationships... if one is not a true believer in the that faith, but wants the 'secret ingredient?' I participate in the god delusion and the play the big church game so that I can have access to the 'secret ingredient,' i.e. friends. However, I donate time in lieu of money (activities allows for more interpersonal interaction) and try to break through the 'church-talk' BS to talk about actual common interests. Getting people out of church talk mode is the hardest part! :D.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 08, 2010
Ever wonder why evolutionists have this ardent, fervent search for extra-terrestrial life?
Deep-down, they are actually looking for some greater technological society that can rescue them from the mess the world is in currently. Maybe even provide a way to have everlasting life.
OK, you can flame me on that totally absurd generalisation now.
No, we just want someone other than you to talk to.

The search for extraterrestrial life is the search for knowledge and new thinking that we may never see here, especially when the majority spend their time placating imaginary beings from deranged and delusional mythos.

The "secret ingredient" to religion is belonging to a group. We're social creatures, we evolved that way, we all want to belong. This is probably a good part of why when the religious hear that someone is an atheist they want that person removed or brought into the fold. Otherwise that person represents a different group and may steal members, or *gasp* reject faith.
otto1932
1.5 / 5 (28) Dec 08, 2010
Deep-down, they are actually looking for some greater technological society that can rescue them from the mess the world is in currently.
-And what has caused this mess? Class?

'Why its all the various religions fighting over everything because they think only they have the god-given right to inhabit the earth. And they all keep trying to be the ones to fill it up first by having too many babies. Right miss brodie?'

'Youre absolutely correct. And what is the only solution to this god-awful mess?'

'To rid the earth of all religion once and for all, so that nobody will have anything to fight about ever again.'

'Wonderful! You all get 5 stars for that!'

'Yyyyaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy!!!!!'

'And why dont kevin and other superstitionists recognize this?'

'Because they are all hopelessly self-deluded, probably due to defects in their brains!'

'Right again! Ice cream for everybody!'

'Yyyyyyaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyy!!!!!!'

Kingsix
3.1 / 5 (7) Dec 08, 2010
Sorry Otto, but people who think that Religion is the cause for all problems in the world are fooling themselves, even worse than non believers think those with any faith are fooling themselves.

Try Greed, cultural differences, language differences. I would chalk up 80% of the worlds violence to the simple fact that people don't like change and like people that are most similar to themselves.
And of religious violence, just think of how much religious based violence has been against religious people by secular people, its a lot.
Sure religion has caused violence, but not as much as some people believe. More often religion is touted as a reason for those in power to satisfy a bigger cause of violence, greed.
The crusades = greed, Mongol Invasions=greed I don't need to keep going.
otto1932
1.3 / 5 (25) Dec 08, 2010
Sorry Otto...Try Greed, cultural differences, language differences. The crusades = greed, Mongol Invasions=greed I don't need to keep going.
Whatever the motivation, it always works better with religion as the vehicle.

Youre relatively new here. Religion is a hot topic on physorg with the antis racking up significant victories in implicating religion in all sorts of world-class ills.

The crusades- religion was the vehicle and the inspiration. It enabled invaders to slaughter orthodox, cathar, and moslem alike with glee. Read about the knights of st John. Their zeal was solely in the defense of their god.

Religions tap into the tribal instinct and allow Leaders to tailor the def of enemy to suit specific needs and campaigns. While they still serve this purpose well in many parts of the world, there are now much better ways of motivating people. Their use is over, they are dangerous, time for them to end. At the very least it will end reproductive warfare.
BIGJon
1 / 5 (9) Dec 09, 2010
If you people are so happy not believing in Jesus then why all the animosity towards those of us that do? Charles Darwin started the theory of evolution based on flawed data.Did any of you realize he became a christian later in life and admited he was wrong? If you so called genuses check the bible you will see all of the prophecies relating to Jesus were fullfilled.He didn't just die and cease to exist.I urge any of you to look up word of God ministries online or tv and learn the truth.I would like to see everyone who does not know Christ to listen to pastor Mcminnis and learn how you can truly become whole.
frajo
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 09, 2010
Sorry Otto, but people who think that Religion is the cause for all problems in the world are fooling themselves, even worse than non believers think those with any faith are fooling themselves.
Yes.
Try Greed, cultural differences, language differences.
All of them are secondary phenomena.
I would chalk up 80% of the worlds violence to the simple fact that people don't like change and like people that are most similar to themselves.
People at the top don't like change. The lowlings really would like certain changes.
You like your kind if it is good for you. You hate them if they force you to find your peace elsewhere.
Sure religion has caused violence, but not as much as some people believe. More often religion is touted as a reason for those in power to satisfy a bigger cause of violence, greed.
The crusades = greed, Mongol Invasions=greed I don't need to keep going.
Greed arises from hierarchies. The top needs to keep its base quiet.
frajo
4 / 5 (7) Dec 09, 2010
If you people are so happy not believing in Jesus
There are necessities of reason. But happy reasoning does not necessarily imply overall happiness.
then why all the animosity towards those of us that do?
People tend to be different. There are quite unreasonable non-believers as well as there are quite reasonable believers. And vice-versa.
Charles Darwin started the theory of evolution based on flawed data.Did any of you realize he became a christian later in life and admited he was wrong?
History marches on. Famous humans are mere mile-stones to remember the path.
If famous people are important for you look up what Wikipedia tells about Theodosius Dobzhansky - evolutionary scientist and believer.
KwasniczJ
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 09, 2010
Some sectarian members of this forum (yyz, frajo, Skeptic_Heretic and others) are forming voting mafia here - so that their pseudoskeptical stance is enforced with the fellow feeling, too.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.6 / 5 (11) Dec 09, 2010
And of religious violence, just think of how much religious based violence has been against religious people by secular people, its a lot.
No where near as much as the religious visit upon each other and the non-religious.
If you people are so happy not believing in Jesus then why all the animosity towards those of us that do?
We have no animosity towards you. We think your beliefs are ignorant. We also don't think you should enjoy a place of priviledge above us because of your will to ignore reality.
Charles Darwin started the theory of evolution based on flawed data.
No, incomplete data, which has since been greatly expanded.
Did any of you realize he became a christian later in life and admited he was wrong?
No, no he didn't. You're making shit up, this would be why we show you some personal animosity, because you're lying.
If you so called genuses check the bible you will see all of the prophecies relating to Jesus were fullfilled.
Promethius mythos.
otto1932
2.1 / 5 (29) Dec 09, 2010
I urge any of you to look up word of God ministries online or tv and learn the truth.I would like to see everyone who does not know Christ to listen to pastor Mcminnis and learn how you can truly become whole.
Ah, the crux of the problem.
No, no he didn't. You're making shit up, this would be why we show you some personal animosity, because you're lying.
I think jon is just happily parroting the lies he's heard on his tv show. Jon, stick around here long enough and you will begin to get an idea of just how much nonsense is contained in your tv shows. And your holy book.
otto1932
1 / 5 (26) Dec 09, 2010
People tend to be different. There are quite unreasonable non-believers as well as there are quite reasonable believers. And vice-versa.
So what? Being reasonable about certain issues does not make peoples unreasonable superstitions any more valid, although it can give them legitimacy that they don't deserve. Reasonable people should discard their unreasonable beliefs, as their selective insanity casts doubt on their ability to reason at all.
Theodosius Dobzhansky - evolutionary scientist and believer.
So what? Intelligent productive successful people can have insane personal lives. Your exemplifying guy may convince some that it's ok to practice religion- and it is not. Basilicas should all be converted into music halls.
otto1932
1 / 5 (24) Dec 09, 2010
Yes.
Why is Frajo trying so desperately to justify religionism? Are you yourself addicted too Frajo? Faith in the efficacy of reality is much more fulfilling than faith in delusion any day. Why don't you preach that?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (12) Dec 09, 2010
Yes.
Why is Frajo trying so desperately to justify religionism?
Frajo isn't justifying religion. He's justifying choice, which I think you're a proponent of. The piece to be decried, and spat upon is abject faith in nonsense. When you reject reality to embrace dogma, that is deplorable.

After all, "God is unquestionable" is the exact same social defect as "The Leader is unquestionable". Everyone should be questionable, especially those in power, and those with absolute power.
frajo
4.6 / 5 (11) Dec 09, 2010
Your exemplifying guy may convince some that it's ok to practice religion- and it is not.
The example of Theodosius Dobzhansky may help believers to find their peace with evolution.

While your preaching shows aspects of a wannabe-tyrant I'm proposing peaceful co-existence. I'm happy without needing to convert people who are thinking differently.

Why is Frajo trying so desperately to justify religionism?
This is what psychologists call projecting.
Otto1932 shows elements of fear and despair and is pressured to deliver non-falsifiable statements about some "inevitability" in order to justify his promoting a "holy" cruisade against the undifferentiated set of all believers.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (6) Dec 09, 2010
FYI: BIGJon, and marjon are one in the same.

Very little imagination. Not even a new tactic.

How sad.
sonofdoc
5 / 5 (2) Dec 09, 2010
So you believe in God and you feel the need to let the rest of us know how we are fools. Then there are those who believe in Mother Earth and think the rest of us are fools. So by sheer numbers, we are all fools. Some are just happier than others. Keep smiling!
otto1932
1 / 5 (25) Dec 09, 2010
While your preaching shows aspects of a wannabe-tyrant I'm proposing peaceful co-existence.
No youre not...
People at the top don't like change. The lowlings really would like certain changes...Greed arises from hierarchies. The top needs to keep its base quiet.
-Youre preaching mistrust from a paranoid perspective. Note the implication, that 'all' people at the top dont like change, etc.
I'm happy without needing to convert people who are thinking differently.
Well, I and many others think differently, certainly more benevolent than censor nazis like yourself, and you would shout us down and gang-rate us rather than let us have our say?

Youre the one with the extremist, anarchist position that 'all' people at the top cant be trusted because they are 'all' greedy and malevolent. Why dont you censor yourself?
otto1932
1 / 5 (25) Dec 09, 2010
Otto1932 shows elements of fear and despair
You wish. I take comfort and pleasure in the knowledge that the Real Leaders in this world are benevolent, and that they know what Theyre doing.
and is pressured
By who- the Chinese??
to deliver non-falsifiable statements about some "inevitability"
A marjonist statement. I will keep posting this until you actually read it, or just to keep discrediting you:

"Theories of history or politics that allegedly predict future events have a logical form that renders them neither falsifiable nor verifiable. They claim that for every historically significant event, there exists an historical or economic law that determines the way in which events proceeded. Failure to identify the law does not mean that it does not exist, yet an event that satisfies the law does not prove the general case."
http://en.wikiped...iability
otto1932
1 / 5 (26) Dec 09, 2010
The example of Theodosius Dobzhansky may help believers to find their peace with evolution.
How so? By deciding evolution exists because god intended it to? That if evolution is a work of god then heaven and hell must also exist??

People do not need palliatives with their reality. They dont need religion for anything, least of all to make it easier to accept whats real.
Otto1932 shows elements of fear and despair
Frajo shows elements of fear and dispair in paranoid delusions of malevolent, greedy, sadistic world leaders who would disparage her beloved Chinese; and those who provide those wonderful cathedrals which are at least good for listening to classical tinklemusic in.

All you need is a nice cave and some of this:
http://www.youtub...8M6q6v84

-Embrace the darkness-
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (4) Dec 09, 2010
Is it that hard to migrate to China? If she doesn't already live there why not move there?

Sure you might have your google a little "broken" and have the state police monitor your physorg activity, but the commies are really cute fuzzy misunderstood bunnies...really they are...
otto1932
1 / 5 (26) Dec 09, 2010
Well, I and many others think differently, certainly more benevolent than censor nazis like yourself, and you would shout us down and gang-rate us rather than let us have our say?
Like frajos little attack Pudel thrashymushnuts for instance- Note that I didnt post anything differing substantially from what hes expressed in the past, and he still 1/5s me, probably just because hes got a head on... watch him try to philosophize some lame justification...
Thrasymachus
Dec 09, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
otto1932
1 / 5 (26) Dec 09, 2010
I'm 1/5ing you, otto, because you're going off the rails on your rants again...It also amuses me that your paranoia is so severe that you think frajo and I are somehow coordinated in our disagreement with your style.
Well, if you were specific as to what I said and where I said it, instead of calling me names and 1/5ing all my posts in a thread for only saying what you yourself have said before (only in better form), then maybe youd have some chance of making a point.

But youre not, and you dont. Which makes me suspect youre only posturing for your buddies, who have the bad taste to reward your nonsense.
I like how you react to someone rating your comments in a way you dislike by engaging in retaliatory ratings on comments in completely different articles and on completely different topics.
Only equally as distasteful as downrating me for legitimate comments, only because theyre against fellow arschkriekers.

You got something to criticize then do so or FOAD.
otto1932
Dec 09, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Dec 09, 2010
Is it that hard to migrate to China? If she doesn't already live there why not move there?

Sure you might have your google a little "broken" and have the state police monitor your physorg activity, but the commies are really cute fuzzy misunderstood bunnies...really they are...

China is a country that has always had a rather communal culture. They absorb ideas much faster than many other cultures as well. There's an old saying that any invader to China is like the flooding of the Yangtze into the sea. Over time the water receeds and the sea remains the same.

When introduced to capitalism they absorbed the tenets of it. When introduced to industry, they absorbed it. They'll one day be very much like us, but only if we actually talk to them, rather than treating them like hostile invaders.
ArcainOne
5 / 5 (5) Dec 09, 2010
Well, I and many others think differently, certainly more benevolent than censor nazis like yourself


Again you said yourself oppression was okay. And who is calling who a nazi now?

Youre the one with the extremist, anarchist position that 'all' people at the top cant be trusted because they are 'all' greedy and malevolent.


Its the way of the world, those on top want to stay there, those on bottom want to be those on top. Now who is living in a fantasy world.
ArcainOne
5 / 5 (5) Dec 09, 2010
I take comfort and pleasure in the knowledge that the Real Leaders in this world are benevolent


What about the pope? How about Obama? Haliburton? The Illuminati? Free Masons? Knights Templar? The Five Jew Bankers? Santa Clause? The Invisible genetic manipulators of the human race? What leaders would you actually be talking about?

Feels good man.


Child...

Like frajos little attack Pudel thrashymushnuts for instance


and for the love of sanity its Poodle NOT Pudel! Use a bloody spell checker, Windows has it built in, OR USE GOOGLE.
otto1932
Dec 09, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
otto1932
1 / 5 (24) Dec 09, 2010
Er I meant 'Twit'.
otto1932
1.2 / 5 (25) Dec 09, 2010
What leaders would you actually be talking about?
Doesn't matter who They are. It only matters what They do and why. Only kleiner Scheissmacher Pudel would want to waste all their time trying to find out who they are rather than appreciate what They do.

For instance, we're heading toward another war. We can begin to string a series of events together which leads back through the islamist takeover of Iran, the partitioning Of the middle east after ww1, and the Balfour declaration. Not to mention creating Pakistan and giving them nukes. Heck, it leads back to original Zionist efforts to make Israel a nationalist entity in the 1800s. Way back. This ones gonna be BIG.
ArcainOne
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 09, 2010
You apparently barely speak english.

Doesn't matter who They are. It only matters what They do and why. Only kleiner Scheissmacher Pudel would want to waste all their time trying to find out who they are rather than appreciate what They do.


It sounds like faith to me. The Sheep has revealed himself.
frajo
3 / 5 (6) Dec 10, 2010
Like frajos little attack Pudel thrashymushnuts for instance


and for the love of sanity its Poodle NOT Pudel! Use a bloody spell checker, Windows has it built in, OR USE GOOGLE.
Otto1932 has - for reasons unknown to me - a love for the German language. Unfortunately, the German language doesn't have a love for otto1932. Thus he writes the German word "Pudel" instead of the English "poodle". Or the pseudo-German "Scheissmacher" which doesn't exist in German usage. With his predilection for fecal expressions I'm glad he doesn't know more languages.
frajo
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 10, 2010
Sure you might have your google a little "broken" and have the state police monitor your physorg activity
You forgot that internet censoring works only for a subset of users. Those who don't know the difference between 213.251.145.96 and a DNS record. Those who never heard of SSH or VPN or any operating system besides windows, linux, and mac OS X.
frajo
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 10, 2010
Your dead heroes all had their roots firmly planted in religionist soil.
Never heard of Jean-Paul Sartre?
We know better now.
Who is "we"?
Philosophy is dead.
Philosophy today is the extension of physics and mathematics: Does empty space exist?
People at the top don't like change. The lowlings really would like certain changes...Greed arises from hierarchies. The top needs to keep its base quiet.
-Youre preaching mistrust from a paranoid perspective. Note the implication, that 'all' people at the top dont like change, etc.
Youre the one with the extremist, anarchist position that 'all' people at the top cant be trusted because they are 'all' greedy and malevolent.
Your logic processor is severely flawed. "People at the top don't like..." does _not_ imply "all people at the top don't like...". It is short for "there are people at the top who don't like ..." and allows for percentages between "greater than zero" and 100.
otto1932
1 / 5 (22) Dec 10, 2010
Philosophy today is the extension of physics and mathematics: Does empty space exist?
And yet people who actually know physics and maths disagree with you:
http://www.people...ew-book/

-They know that your question is not a philo one, despite efforts by philos to commandeer it. Only scientists can ever hope to answer it, using scientific methods and not word calculations.
otto1932
1 / 5 (23) Dec 10, 2010
Your logic processor is severely flawed. "People at the top don't like..." does _not_ imply "all people at the top don't like...". It is short for "there are people at the top who don't like ..." and allows for percentages between "greater than zero" and 100.
And your word calculating skills are deficient. Your implication was clearly the 'all' modifier. One would have used the modifier 'many' 'most' or 'some' or 'various' etc., if that's what one had meant.

Your paranoid mistrust of leaders which you have expressed in the past makes this clear. 'All aggressors are guilty' expresses similar cognition. And your attempts to obscure it posto-facto is disingenuous. Sorry- try again.
otto1932
1 / 5 (24) Dec 10, 2010
Never heard of Jean-Paul Sartre?
the philo Pudel never mentioned him? He gushes only of Kant and Hume and their ilk.
otto1932
1 / 5 (22) Dec 10, 2010
Never heard of Jean-Paul Sartre?
the philo Pudel never mentioned him? He gushes only of Kant and Hume and their ilk.
HEY SH
What issue do you have with this comment? Sartre was an existentialist and Marxist which your buddy thrashy is definitely not. Something else you don't like about it?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (5) Dec 10, 2010
HEY SH
What issue do you have with this comment? Sartre was an existentialist and Marxist which your buddy thrashy is definitely not. Something else you don't like about it?
I dislike the fact that you're attempting to ascribe a stance to someone when no argument has been made by trying to utilize a common viewpoint.

It's the same sort of crap that marjon and freebigot use when talking to anyone they disagree with.

You're becomming religious again. As I said above, "The Great Creator" isn't far off from "The Great Leader" in terms of the depth of mental gymnastics and logical failure.
otto1932
1 / 5 (22) Dec 10, 2010
I dislike the fact that you're attempting to ascribe a stance to someone when no argument has been made by trying to utilize a common viewpoint.
Let me see if I understand this... By stance I assume you are talking about my assumption that thrashimachus doesn't ascribe to Marxism or existentialism? If I'm in error then why not just correct me?
It's the same sort of crap that marjon and freebigot use when talking to anyone they disagree with.
Now here you seem like you're assigning me to the 'them' trashpile for misrepresentation, is that right? Frajo made a statement about Sartre, I countered by saying I didn't think TH ever referenced Sartre. I worded my response with the same decorum that TH often addresses me.
otto1932
1 / 5 (23) Dec 10, 2010
Your 2nd paragraph seems unrelated:
You're becomming religious again. As I said above, "The Great Creator" isn't far off from "The Great Leader" in terms of the depth of mental gymnastics and logical failure.
You forgot to include IMHO. In your opinion of the moment, you choose to dismiss all the conclusions I reach instead of criticizing the facts I present in support of them, as you do religionists or marjon. I suppose it's easier to do character assassination than honest review.

There is plenty of difference between Providence and constructive diplomacy, as I have often pointed out. People Plan; sometimes they plan gods, and sometimes they plan wars for their mutual benefit.
otto1932
1 / 5 (23) Dec 10, 2010
I will continue to post alternate explanations for current and past events where appropriate, as do TH with his bankrupt philo stuff and Frajo with her pacifist anarchist lunacy. And I will continue to criticize as I see fit. and I don't much care what the Pudel mafia has to say about it.

I suggest in the interest of fairness that you criticize your team members from time to time where appropriate, and that your criticism reflects the relative merits of the contents of the post and not the popularity of the poster. There is plenty of room here for speculation of all sorts, as well as the constructive criticism of it, which I'm sure you can agree with.
bfast
1 / 5 (2) Dec 10, 2010
Here's a puzzle. Some churches have moved in the direction of "social gospel". Most specifically, they have moved the church towards being a social club, and away from being a religious institution. Some denominations are even willing to abandon the concept of God altogether. If the social aspect of a religious community is of paramount importance, these churches should be blossoming. They are not! The one church of this ilk in our town has so few numbers that it has been discussing shutting down. The serous Christian churches, on the other hand are doing just fine. Hmmm.
soulman
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 10, 2010
Some denominations are even willing to abandon the concept of God altogether. If the social aspect of a religious community is of paramount importance, these churches should be blossoming. They are not!

This is ridiculous. How can you have a church when the concept of god is removed? How is it still a church? No wonder it isn't 'blossoming'.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (4) Dec 11, 2010
BIGJon said
Charles Darwin started the theory of evolution based on flawed data.
Since he didn't it is kind of hard to realize it.
Did any of you realize he became a christian later in life and admited he was wrong?
I do realize that people repeat that lie. It IS a lie. He STARTED as a divinity student. He later became an Atheist. He stayed that way. ONE women lied that he repented on his death bed. She wasn't there. She just lied.
If you so called genuses check the bible you will see all of the prophecies relating to Jesus were fullfilled
Let us know when he is comes back. THAT prophecy has been false for a LONG time.
I urge any of you to look up word of God
Which always turns out to be the word of fallible men CLAIMING they know the word of Jehovah.
.I would like to see everyone who does not know Christ to listen to pastor Mcminnis and learn how you can truly become whole.
I would like a piece of cake. At least that would be real.

Ethelred
nada
5 / 5 (3) Dec 11, 2010
1) Scientifically, your brain NEVER touches the external world - it fabricates what you IMAGE to be real by interpreting electro-chemical signals.

2) Our best interpretation of the world is that we live on an insignificate piece of dust in an expanse to large to comprehend.

Now continue arguing like idiots about what's real and what's not.

nada
not rated yet Dec 11, 2010
1) Scientifically, your brain NEVER touches the external world - it fabricates what you IMAGE to be real by interpreting electro-chemical signals.

2) Our best interpretation of the world is that we live on an insignificate piece of dust in an expanse to large to comprehend.

Husky
5 / 5 (1) Dec 11, 2010
can i be member of the voting maffia ??? I want to have that reason and purpose of being, that warm fuzzy community feeling of sharing values and koolaid and belonging to something, like the religious people...
Husky
not rated yet Dec 11, 2010
since i am on a quest for ratings, i might as well trie the cough medicine too!
Mesafina
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 11, 2010
Otto, I 5 rate you when you say something useful and intelligent. You did that several times in this thread, so I 5 rated you several times. I 1 rate you when you vomit bullsh!t. You did several times, so I 1 rated you several times.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (3) Dec 11, 2010
bfast:

I don't attend "church" any more. No christian should, IMO.

The organized churches that exist today (whether catholic or protestant,) bear absolutely no resemblance to anything you see in the Bible. For the most part, they are corporate entities owned and operated by business men with little interest in anything other than making the false pastor and two or three of his buddies rich.

Moreover, I agree with Soulman's comment. If a group doesn't even believe in God, and specifically doesn't believe that Jesus is the incarnate, only begotten Son of God, then they are not a "church" (See 1 Jn. 4:1-3). They are a kiwanis club copycat. In fact, as the text bears out, they are actually worshipping anti-christ.

Now you see why I am a Christian, but do not go to church any more. They aren't churches. They are literally almost all false, counterfeit organizations.
Mesafina
5 / 5 (4) Dec 11, 2010
QC, for someone who is smart enough to play starcraft competitively (as you claim to be), how could you be so easily duped by the obvious falsehoods of religion?
Quantum_Conundrum
2.5 / 5 (2) Dec 11, 2010
Mesafina:

I realize nobody is going to believe this anyway, but I mention it from time to time in situations like this, because I guess if I didn't I wouldn't be honest or thorough.

I have eye-witnessed a real, indisputable synoptic gospel style miracle healing whereby I watched a person's leg grow out by several inches in response to prayer, and no, it wasn't a hoax.

This isn't the only reason I believe, but one reason I know that God is real.

you're going to want a video camera and two or three repeats with independent atheistic witnesses, and etc, and I can give you none of that, so there.

I don't claim to be anything special, and I got no clue why God doesn't do stuff like that all the time for everyone. It DOESN'T make sense, and I'm not going to try to do the "religious" thing and make some excuse for God. If he has a reason, or non-reason, It's his business and maybe he'll tell people one day, maybe not.
soulman
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 11, 2010
I have eye-witnessed a real, indisputable synoptic gospel style miracle healing whereby I watched a person's leg grow out by several inches in response to prayer, and no, it wasn't a hoax.

How do you mean, grow out? Out of what? What were the circumstances of this 'miracle'? Who was present? How was it presented? And why do you equate this event with proof of god?
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (2) Dec 11, 2010
How do you mean, grow out? Out of what? What were the circumstances of this 'miracle'? Who was present? How was it presented? And why do you equate this event with proof of god?


As in one leg was absolutely, irrefutably shorter than the other by several inches. They prayed and it GREW.

This was not some gimmick.

soulman
4.1 / 5 (14) Dec 11, 2010
As in one leg was absolutely, irrefutably shorter than the other by several inches. They prayed and it GREW.

This was not some gimmick.

I assure you, it was, and you were duped. I can do the same trick if I'm wearing pants.

If that's all it takes for people to believe in god, then it's little wonder that there are so many of them around.

Why not do it in front of James Randi and collect a million?
Code_Warrior
1 / 5 (1) Dec 12, 2010
Can someone show me the scientific evidence that rules out the existence of God?
Thrasymachus
2.5 / 5 (13) Dec 12, 2010
Can someone show me the scientific evidence that rules out the existence of God?

Which one? And while you're trying to decide which superstition you'd like disproven, I'd also like you to provide me with the evidence that rules out the existence of leprechauns, unicorns, Zeus, and underpants gnomes.
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (9) Dec 12, 2010
Can someone show me the scientific evidence that rules out the existence of God?
Which god?

A sufficiently nebulously defined god no. Even some defined gods are non falsifiable.

However Jehovah, as described in Genesis, is definitely nonexistent as the specific flooded the world to cover the highest mountain and kill all that crawled or breathed that was not on an impossibly large wooden ark. The total lack of any substantiating evidence that should be there is ample evidence of that version of Jehovah's nonexistence.

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (5) Dec 12, 2010
Can someone show me the scientific evidence that rules out the existence of God?

Self contradition would invalid existence scientifically.

So how would an omnipotent god go about proving his existence through creating a rock so large he couldn't lift it? An omnipotent god cannot exist as he either cannot pick up the rock, or he can't create one too heavy to lift.
As in one leg was absolutely, irrefutably shorter than the other by several inches. They prayed and it GREW.

This was not some gimmick.
No, it was a very particular gimmick. Similar to the old detachable thumb routine. So you're either lying, or you're a rube. Take your pick.
Ethelred
3.8 / 5 (4) Dec 12, 2010
the existence of leprechauns, unicorns, Zeus, and underpants gnomes.
A Grandaunt of mine was supposed to have set out milk for the Little People. I am certain she would have stopped doing so if the milk had not been drunk. Thus we have ample evidence that not only are there Little People but they also, like so many Big Irish, came across the waters to the United States.

Unicorns are evil inhabitants of the covers of some fantasy novels. All of which should be eradicated. I promise that, if it should ever be in my power, Unicorns will not exist.

Zeus was a bad tempered son of an even worse tempered father. Pray that he no longer exists. But only if you are SURE that his father is gone.

I have lots of underpants and have not purchased any in many a year. Thus I do refute existence of underpants gnomes. Shoe elves are whole other story.

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Dec 12, 2010
Zeus was a bad tempered son of an even worse tempered father. Pray that he no longer exists. But only if you are SURE that his father is
It's funny that this comes up. The whole Jesus story is a simple modification of the mythos of Greece and Rome.

The son Promethus, who betrays his father Zeus by giving knowledge to man is similar to Eve, in her theft of knowledge and passing it to Adam, Jesus, for he was a divine son, and crucified (chained to a rock) as his punishment, but also redeemed man through his punishment from his wrathful father.

Then you have the intermixing of Mithra from Persia, who raised Asar from the dead, healed the sick, and was crucified then raised from the dead 3 days later.

And of course Horus, who did the same.

Funny how religion is shaped by civilization, as well as the opposite.
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 12, 2010
The whole Jesus story is a simple modification of the mythos of Greece and Rome.
There might be some borrowing however:
The son Promethus, who betrays his father Zeus
Prometheus was a Titan not the son of a god.

http://en.wikiped...ometheus

Zeus betrayed HIS father Kronos with the help of PROMETHEUS.

Guess what Kronos did. YES he betrayed HIS father Uranus. You can see where Zeus's behavior came from.

And yes I had to look it up because this stuff gets rather confusing and the the Greek stuff I have read lately is the Percy Jackson series.
Then you have the intermixing of Mithra from Persia,
Now that seems more like an strong influence but since there really isn't much on Mithra it is hard to be sure which was influencing which.
And of course Horus, who did the same.
That one seems more probable but I am no Biblical scholar. I was thinking the Gospel of John came out of Egypt but after looking Anatolia seems more likely.

Ethelred
Code_Warrior
1 / 5 (3) Dec 12, 2010
My question did not specify any particular God or any particular set of abilities. However, since the typical belief is that God is omnipotent, I understand the confusion.

I rephrase my question in terms of a creator rather than in terms of an omnipotent God. My belief is in a creator that I call God and I don't believe that creator is omnipotent. At a minimum God cannot predict the future, because the ability to do so implies the existence of an underlying predictable mechanism that operates the universe. Such a mechanism would make us all nothing more than cogs in the machine with the illusion of free will. However, the best scientific evidence we have shows the underlying mechanism to be random in nature and only predicatable in the sense that we can determine the odds of a set of possible outcomes.

However, I cannot rule out a creator based on that evidence, I can only rule out an omnipotent being.

What evidence rules out the existence of a creator?
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (6) Dec 12, 2010
I assure you, it was, and you were duped. I can do the same trick if I'm wearing pants.

If that's all it takes for people to believe in god, then it's little wonder that there are so many of them around.

Why not do it in front of James Randi and collect a million?


I assure you it wasn't a trick.

I actually watched the leg, from knee to ankle, GROW.

Which is what you can't comprehend.

Moreover, I thought I told you, idiot, that this wasn't by any means the only reason I know God is real. But apparantly you're the one too stupid to bother reading something and understanding it in the first place.
MorituriMax
1 / 5 (1) Dec 12, 2010
Wow, they actually quantified it as friendship. I would have guessed gullibility myself.
MorituriMax
4 / 5 (4) Dec 12, 2010
Quantum Conundrum,
I assure you it wasn't a trick.

I actually watched the leg, from knee to ankle, GROW.

.. you can't comprehend.

.. the only reason I know God is real. But apparantly you're the one too stupid to bother reading something and understanding it in the first place.


1. You assume it has something to do with God? Why God?

2. Evidence isn't you watching.

3. How about duplicating this in an MRI Machine?

4. Nobody else had a video cameras handy?"

5. Since this group can create matter from nothing, have you taken quadriplegic veterans to them to make them new legs and/or arms? Have you had this miracle group cure other ailments since they can make matter from nothing and also ensure the matter is not rejected by the person being cured? Surely this isn't beyond them?

6. For (5) if you didn't cure other people, why not? Last time I checked, prayer takes no more energy than breathing so it should be within their means.
Mesafina
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 12, 2010
I am sorry QC but you will understand I can't take your word for it. It's not that I don't trust you, it's that it's heresay and contradicts everything I have ever observed about the world. Since it's your word against the entire body of verifiable knowledge, your word loses.

You of course are free to believe whatever you like. You at least don't seem to shove your beliefs down other's throats and that makes you a better Christian then most.
4570
2.8 / 5 (4) Dec 12, 2010
The need for religious belief systems is symptomatic of a psychosis that is widespread in the human species. This psychosis results in otherwise normal, healthy, even intelligent people having a 'split brain' if you will that enables them to leave rationality and logic aside completely when the needs of the psychosis are present. The needs of the psychosis manifest themselves in the guise of:
1) need for a 'purpose' in life
2) severe over reaction to anything that could pose even the minutest threat to the required belief system
3) the ability to switch rationality and intelligence on and off immediately when required by the belief system and/or psychosis
4) an extreme closeminded condition with regard to any aspect of the belief system

The mind of the psychotic is a very foreign thing for the mind of the healthy to comprehend. No natural laws, rationality, logic, or reason hold sway. Trying to reason with a person in this condition is much like arguing with a drunk.
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (4) Dec 12, 2010
At a minimum God cannot predict the future, because the ability to do so implies the existence of an underlying predictable mechanism that operates the universe.
I had a discussion about free with with a physicist who disagrees with that. His idea of a god is one that is outside of our spacetime and is therefor able to see all of spacetime as a whole.

What evidence rules out the existence of a creator?
Since you don't give ANY specifics and omniscience really isn't a problem despite what you wrote, omnipotence is another issue, there is no way falsify it.

Neither is there any way to falsify the Invisible Giant Orbiting Aardvark. If you can't detect any sign of it then why believe it? If the odds are 99.999, five nines, against then why believe? Besides YOU do believe in a Christian god so there ARE some specifications that can be applied. You simply are evading giving YOUR specs, maybe even to yourself, so as to avoid falsification.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.5 / 5 (4) Dec 12, 2010
The mind of the psychotic is a very foreign thing for the mind of the healthy to comprehend.
I can see why YOU will never be able to reason with ANY religious person. I can manage it. Its rare but I have done it. Which is not to say I changed anyone's mind, at least in the short term, but I certainly have had reasonable discussions with some of the religious.

We do seem to have a strange shortage of those here. A slight majority of posters are Atheist or Agnostic and many of the religious came here to deny reality.

I would welcome you here but you seem to have a poor attitude in regards to discussing things with the religious so, based on that rather narrow mined post, I have to expect only trolling.

I look for reasoned discussions. Change if you want to reason with people.

Ethelred
Code_Warrior
2.4 / 5 (5) Dec 12, 2010
@Ethelred
It seems to me that the only conclusion that a truly objective analysis can reveal is that no conclusion regarding a creator can be made. However, the commentary against the idea of a creator is made with such disdain that it leaves me with the impression that those commentors have reached a conclusion that a creator does not exist. If that is truly their conclusion, then how can they claim to be objective when they have reached a conclusion not supported by evidence? On the other hand, if they have reached no conclusion, then why argue so vigorously against a creator's existence?

I am not objective and I don't claim to be. I struggle with my Christian beliefs and have already reduced the Bible to a moral guide that works for me. However, I am equally uneasy with the laws of physics that make nonsensical predictions such as time travel into the past. Thus, I take the good from each thing, reject the nonsense, and try to formulate something useful for me.
soulman
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 12, 2010
On the other hand, if they have reached no conclusion, then why argue so vigorously against a creator's existence?

If a conclusion cannot ever be reached, ie, it's not falsifiable, then why would a rational person pander to those who promote make-believe fantasies?
soulman
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 12, 2010
I actually watched the leg, from knee to ankle, GROW. Which is what you can't comprehend.

That's right, because it isn't possible. Even if a leg could be made to grow through some medical intervention, it would likely take weeks or months to do so.

Leg lengthening is in fact a real medical procedure, but it requires that the leg bone(s) be broken with metal spikes drilled into the bones which are slowly pulled apart each day so that new bone growth can occur at the brake, thus lengthening the leg.

However, it certainly cannot happen instantly before your eyes.

Moreover, I thought I told you, idiot, that this wasn't by any means the only reason I know God is real.

What else you got?
But apparantly you're the one too stupid to bother reading something and understanding it in the first place.

It's because what I read made no sense, that I attempted to explore the matter further by asking for more specific details, which you have still failed to provide.
Thrasymachus
2 / 5 (12) Dec 12, 2010
If you can't prove or disprove the notion of a creator, then it's because such ideas can have no practical effect on any decision anybody has to make about how to design an experiment, build a bridge, interpret data, etc. That's the reason the notion of a creator god is held with such disdain on a science site. It has the same effect of asking how leprechauns effect gold price stability, how the diameter of a unicorn's horn determines the bonding energies of hydrogen to oxygen in a water molecule, and how underpants gnomes are the source of Van Der Wall's forces. In other words, it's fiction.
Code_Warrior
2.2 / 5 (6) Dec 12, 2010
If a conclusion cannot ever be reached, ie, it's not falsifiable, then why would a rational person pander to those who promote make-believe fantasies?

On the other hand, why would a rational person expect to change the mind of someone they percieve to be irrational, especially if the rational person cannot supply evidence in support of their viewpoint?

Claiming to be objective and then taking a position that is unprovable is a contradiction that reduces credibility. It is hard for me to imagine the upside to that. An insult hardly seems worth the price if it comes at the expense of credibility, especially when there are insults that can be made that do not require the price of credibility.
Code_Warrior
1 / 5 (2) Dec 12, 2010
If you can't prove or disprove the notion of a creator, then it's because such ideas can have no practical effect on any decision anybody has to make about how to design an experiment, build a bridge, interpret data, etc. That's the reason the notion of a creator god is held with such disdain on a science site. It has the same effect of asking how leprechauns effect gold price stability, how the diameter of a unicorn's horn determines the bonding energies of hydrogen to oxygen in a water molecule, and how underpants gnomes are the source of Van Der Wall's forces. In other words, it's fiction.

Precisely, so why carry on an extended debate? What is the upside?
Ethelred
not rated yet Dec 12, 2010
1/2
It seems to me that the only conclusion that a truly objective analysis can reveal is that no conclusion regarding a creator can be made
Depending on the definition of the creator, yes.
However, the commentary against the idea of a creator is made with such disdain
On a science site it irrelevant to science UNLESS you show something that would require a god.
conclusion that a creator does not exist.
If there is no way to test why should anyone believe or disbelieve that there is a creator. That is the position of Agnostics. Atheists are either railing at their idea of a god OR they are going on odds as in if the Universe requires a creator the creator does also.
On the other hand, if they have reached no conclusion, then why argue so vigorously against a creator's existence?
Because it isn't science and this a science site. Then there are the social issues but I think Dawkins overstates them a bit.

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Dec 13, 2010
2/2
I am not objective and I don't claim to be.
I noticed the first part. I wasn't sure if you knew.
Bible to a moral guide that works for me.
Which I find odd since the Bible has much that is imoral. It is one of the reasons that C. S. Lewis called himself an Atheist. He wasn't. He was pissed off.
However, I am equally uneasy with the laws of physics that make nonsensical predictions such as time travel into the past.
They can also be looked at with time as an illusion. I just added Back to the Future 3 to my movie database. Funny how the program keeps rejecting it. Try again this time as III instead of 3.
Thus, I take the good from each thing, reject the nonsense,
Go one more step. The Bible is demonstably the word of men in the form of legends, myth and some rather oddly slanted history. Why go with it at all? Deism makes sense if you must have a creator. Not sure why it went out of style.

Ethelred
soulman
3.8 / 5 (10) Dec 13, 2010
On the other hand, why would a rational person expect to change the mind of someone they percieve to be irrational, especially if the rational person cannot supply evidence in support of their viewpoint?

The rational position is the null position, not make up anything you like. The rational person need only point out flaws in reasoning and it's up to the other party to take heed or not. Furthermore, as this is a public forum, there is a wider audience to consider which may benefit indirectly.

Claiming to be objective and then taking a position that is unprovable is a contradiction that reduces credibility.

Again, I have not adopted any unprovable position. I've simply said that if there is no evidence for a proposition and/or it is unfalsifiable, then there is no reason to support such a belief system.

It is hard for me to imagine the upside to that.

The upside is to support critical thinking, which is in very short supply.
Code_Warrior
1 / 5 (1) Dec 13, 2010
@Soulman
If all you do is point out flaws in reasoning, then you are not the subject of my posts. My subject is those who claim objectivity and then take an unprovable position.

The wider audience is precisely the reason that I am making these points. Why would any objective person sacrifice credibility with the wider audience by taking an unprovable position? Again, what is the upside to that?
Thrasymachus
2.2 / 5 (13) Dec 13, 2010
What position do you think the people here are taking that is so objectionable? We're not taking the position that your creator god is false, so much as that it's a silly, childish, distracting and insulting fairy tale that has no place in serious discourse and investigation about what's going on in the world and why. That's why I mention leprechauns, unicorns and underpants gnomes, to underline the identity your creator god has with those ideas. The upside to taking this position and treating this idea like the silly, childish, distracting and insulting idea it is, is so we might not have to deal with so many of them in the future.
Code_Warrior
1 / 5 (1) Dec 13, 2010
On a science site it irrelevant to science UNLESS you show something that would require a god.

If there is no way to test why should anyone believe or disbelieve that there is a creator.
So why would an objective person take either position in a scientific debate?
On the other hand, if they have reached no conclusion, then why argue so vigorously against a creator's existence?
Because it isn't science and this a science site
Is arguing an unprovable position science?
Which I find odd since the Bible has much that is imoral....

Go one more step. The Bible is demonstably the word of men in the form of legends, myth and some rather oddly slanted history. Why go with it at all?
Of course the Bible was written by men, but that does not mean I can't learn anything from it. Moral lessons can be learned from good and bad. I don't agree with everything in the Bible or in the laws of physics. However, I can find enough value to use them both.
soulman
3.2 / 5 (9) Dec 13, 2010
I don't agree with everything in the Bible or in the laws of physics.

You don't agree with the laws of physics? Perhaps you'd like to reformulate them, or have you already?
Code_Warrior
1 / 5 (1) Dec 13, 2010
What position do you think the people here are taking that is so objectionable? We're not taking the position that your creator god is false, so much as that it's a silly, childish, distracting and insulting fairy tale that has no place in serious discourse and investigation about what's going on in the world and why. That's why I mention leprechauns, unicorns and underpants gnomes, to underline the identity your creator god has with those ideas. The upside to taking this position and treating this idea like the silly, childish, distracting and insulting idea it is, is so we might not have to deal with so many of them in the future.

If you accept BB theory all the way to the singularity then you are forced to deal with the moment of birth. Do you believe that the universe was born from an eternal metaverse consisting of membranes, or whatever, that has always existed, or do you believe that the universe was created as a result of a random fluctuation of nothing?
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (2) Dec 13, 2010
Because it isn't science and this a science site

Is arguing an unprovable position science?
I am not the one that starts those. Nor am I trying to drispove that which can not be disproved. What I am trying to point out there is that when doing science the idea is find out how things work. Saying god did it simply isn't science AND thinking that way gets in the way of finding things out.

"How old is the world"
'God did it so don't bother looking'

This is what Dr. Behe is doing with his claims of irreducible complexity. Dr. Dembski is even worse as he claims mathematical proof yet his claim of ex post facto specifications are denied by all others in the field AND he is still pretending that he proved something when he has NEVER tested anything that is real with his dubious methods.

This sort of bogus science tends to make reasoning people act unreasonable. It takes effort to remain calm and deal with things in a rational manner.

Ethelred
Code_Warrior
1 / 5 (2) Dec 13, 2010
I don't agree with everything in the Bible or in the laws of physics.

You don't agree with the laws of physics? Perhaps you'd like to reformulate them, or have you already?

Is that really your conclusion? A statement made to indicate disagreement with some aspects is taken to mean disagreement with everyting. Did you also conclude from my statement that I disagree with everything in the Bible? Your post is utterly devoid of reason.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 13, 2010
Of course the Bible was written by men, but that does not mean I can't learn anything from it
Like slavery is OK for instance. See you aren't leaning morals from it since you are picking and choosing. Thus the morals are NOT coming from the Bible.
Moral lessons can be learned from good and bad. I don't agree with everything in the Bible or in the laws of physics.
Ohhh that was not well said as you can already see from other replies.

If you are picking a choosing from the Bible then you don't really believe in it. As for the laws of physics they don't care if you believe. Things still have inertia and M still equals C squared. Physical laws are not optional. Morals are.
If you accept BB theory all the way to the singularity then you are forced to deal with the moment of birth
Not really. I am not ever going to know all the answers. I would like to but what I want and what I get are different things.

All that I think is provisional.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (3) Dec 13, 2010
Do you believe that the universe was born from an eternal metaverse consisting of membranes, or whatever, that has always existed, or do you believe that the universe was created as a result of a random fluctuation of nothing?
Yes. Or something else. Anything at that level is NOT belief. They are possibilities, ideas, concepts, things that seem unlikely but possible and on and on.

Living with ambiguity is part of being a reasoning person.

However now that you mention it

I think the Universe exists because it can. That is, the Universe must be mathematically and logically valid. There should be many such universes if I am right on this. For instance gravity has negative energy and may actually balance the energy of all the matter in the universe. If so, then the Universe does not violate laws against the creation of energy. The evidence that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating is a problem for this idea as the Universe should be flat if it is correct.

Ethelred
Code_Warrior
1 / 5 (1) Dec 13, 2010
@Ethelred,
I agree with the point of view that science is about finding out how things work and that belief in God is irrelevant to that goal.

I find you to be reasonable and able to defend your position. I don't care too much for the picking apart of sentences, but that is your style and I will get used to it. Overall, I can respect your viewpoint and I know that you have reached your conclusions based on your own critical thinking.

However, the vast majority of the world believes in a creator and I object to those who think they are stupid for believing so. Some of the most intelligent people I have ever met are people of faith.

Time to sign off for today. See you around the site.
soulman
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 13, 2010
Is that really your conclusion?

Yes, because it is what you wrote. It shows muddled thinking.

A statement made to indicate disagreement with some aspects is taken to mean disagreement with everyting.

How can you possibly disagree with some aspects of the laws of physics? That makes even less sense than cherry-picking bits out of the bible.

Did you also conclude from my statement that I disagree with everything in the Bible?

Irrelevant - who cares what you agree or disagree with from the bible. That's totally subjective, but the laws of physics are not. That you're even trying to defend your earlier comments diminishes your credibility.

Your post is utterly devoid of reason.

Please re-read your own post before jumping to false conclusions.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Dec 13, 2010
Precisely, so why carry on an extended debate? What is the upside?
So when people like QC state that they watched a man's leg grow several inches at a mega-church revival we can expose how utterly ridiculous the claim is. Without debate there is no understanding of opposing viewpoints. Without that understanding no one can ever see eye to eye and tradegy continues. It's time for more debate on these topics, not less.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Dec 13, 2010
Is it that hard to migrate to China? If she doesn't already live there why not move there?

Sure you might have your google a little "broken" and have the state police monitor your physorg activity, but the commies are really cute fuzzy misunderstood bunnies...really they are...

China is a country that has always had a rather communal culture. They absorb ideas much faster than many other cultures as well. There's an old saying that any invader to China is like the flooding of the Yangtze into the sea. Over time the water receeds and the sea remains the same.

When introduced to capitalism they absorbed the tenets of it. When introduced to industry, they absorbed it. They'll one day be very much like us, but only if we actually talk to them, rather than treating them like hostile invaders.


Yeah it's all our fault they blow people's brains out routinely for heinous reasons. Like I said cute fluffy misunderstood bunnies....
Code_Warrior
1 / 5 (1) Dec 13, 2010
So when people like QC state that they watched a man's leg grow several inches at a mega-church revival we can expose how utterly ridiculous the claim is. Without debate there is no understanding of opposing viewpoints. Without that understanding no one can ever see eye to eye and tradegy continues. It's time for more debate on these topics, not less.

I have no issue with refuting specific claims. My issue is with those who claim objectivity based on evidence and then argue for position that is unsupported by it. I base this on thier disdain for a religious view. They claim that it is the failure to reason that is the source of thier disdain, but that implies they have disdain for the vast majority of the people on earth, so I don't buy it. I suspect the source of thier disdain is the frustration they feel from having a cherished belief that they cannot support with evidence and cannot express without losing their objectivity.
Healer
1 / 5 (5) Dec 13, 2010
Call me whatever, but even the brightest of physicists will tell you that every one of its modern inventions are just manipulations of natural forces (which they have no explanation for). ie what is electricity or magnetism. what is gravity? Then we have the pyramids, are you scientific egotist satisfied that they were built by stone dragging slaves in twenty years. If you put one 2.5 ton block into place one every hour (2.3 million to 4.3 million blocks) it takes from 262 years to 490 years to finish just the outside of the Giza pyramid. At the least, we could postulate we are not the first inhabitants. Somebody left an awful big 'miracle' right in the middle of the planet. (If you want to still crush the time line, then the pyramid was done at the rate of one block every 3.5 to 8 seconds). All this back patting and congratulating and we still don't know.
Code_Warrior
2 / 5 (4) Dec 13, 2010
Yes, because it is what you wrote. It shows muddled thinking.
All it shows is a poor choice of words in a character limited post.
How can you possibly disagree with some aspects of the laws of physics? That makes even less sense than cherry-picking bits out of the bible.
I disagree that time travel into the past is possible, should I dispose of general relativity, or should I cherry pick what works? I disagree with the use of renormalization as part of a theoretical framework, should I throw out QED or accept renormalization as a practical tool? Your blind obedience to the laws physics betrays your lack of objectivity. At least I am willing to accept those predictions that make physical sense and reject those that don't. You seem to think the laws of physics are perfect as is.
That you're even trying to defend your earlier comments diminishes your credibility.
Your belief that defending my position reduces my credibility diminshes yours.
thales
2.7 / 5 (3) Dec 13, 2010
I for one would like to throw in my support for the approach Ethelred is taking. The acerbic character attacks on the religious are less than helpful. When Code_Warrior says

However, the vast majority of the world believes in a creator and I object to those who think they are stupid for believing so. Some of the most intelligent people I have ever met are people of faith.


I have to agree. James Randi has said - I can't find the quote - that being fooled doesn't mean you're stupid. I'd wager that most athiests/ agnostics/ignostics on this site were believers at one time. Empathy and dialogue go a long way.
ArcainOne
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 13, 2010
Code_Warrior your failure is not in your logic but in the phrase you used. The Laws of physics are just that, laws. These laws have been proven and proven and their results are solid and unchanging.

I am equally uneasy with the laws of physics that make nonsensical predictions such as time travel into the past


You are referring to theories. Time travel is a theory and I've heard support for both possible and impossible all boiling down to how you look at the theory. If there is a law of physics that supports the theory of time travel then the law is proven and the theory is... well not.
ArcainOne
1 / 5 (2) Dec 13, 2010
In the end we have no evidence to support the existence of "god" nor do we have evidence to support the non-existence of "god". Only evidence that disproves various religions ideas on the various behaviors of god(s) and what their belief systems say and how their belief systems work. If god is real I ask you to prove it, if god is not real I ask you to prove it. If we become tenacious in our ideas of god (for or against) then we have become religious.
Thrasymachus
1.9 / 5 (12) Dec 13, 2010
There's no shame in being fooled until after you've been exposed to the trick. And that's all the idea of a creator god is, a trick of semantics. The idea itself has no practical meaning, and once that truth has been exposed, continuing to assert the meaningfulness of that concept is to continue to be fooled. Rather like the Nigerian money scam. If you don't know anything about the scam, there's no shame in being caught by it. Once you have been caught by it, you should be ashamed if you get caught by that same or any similar scam again.
SoulmanOtto
1.5 / 5 (24) Dec 13, 2010
I have to agree. James Randi has said - I can't find the quote - that being fooled doesn't mean you're stupid. I'd wager that most athiests/ agnostics/ignostics on this site were believers at one time. Empathy and dialogue go a long way.
Indeed, but being able to fool convincingly can require intelligence and education. Religionist academics can be very skilled and capable deceivers with many letters after their names.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Dec 13, 2010
Yeah it's all our fault they blow people's brains out routinely for heinous reasons. Like I said cute fluffy misunderstood bunnies....
Are you saying the you didn't benefit, or you don't agree with the tactics of the chinese republic?

You've certainly benefitted, as to whether you agree, that is up for debate.
soulman
3 / 5 (8) Dec 13, 2010
All it shows is a poor choice of words

You admit this now, and yet you go on to say:

I disagree that time travel into the past is possible, should I dispose of general relativity, or should I cherry pick what works?

Another poor choice of words? I doubt it as it's semantically incorrect. Time travel is not a law (as far as anyone knows), but an adjunct of various theoretical frameworks.

I disagree with the use of renormalization as part of a theoretical framework, should I throw out QED or accept renormalization as a practical tool?

Again, renormalization isn't a law or even a theory, it's simply a tool.

Your blind obedience to the laws physics betrays your lack of objectivity.

And your statements betray your level of understanding between physical laws, theories and mathematical tools and procedures.
BIGJon
1.3 / 5 (8) Dec 14, 2010
Aha, just as i thought. You are cowards to take my challenge. It is not my tv show. Do your homework,Word of God ministries will never ask for your money on a tv show. The reason? When you are truly in God's will he provides. We don't need your money but we would like you to understand there is a loving God who created this earth and wants to show you his love. Religion is a man based misunderstanding like trying to do good to get to heaven. No one can enter the kingdom but through Jesus Christ. He is a well documented person not an imaginary friend. Wake up because this world is becoming more evil every day and soon it will be too late. You can read about the end of the world in Gods manifested word the bible. If the mayans knew so much why aren't they still around? Real christians wan't to help others and love their neighbors like God loves us. Religion distorts all the truths you can read about for yourselves. Watch pastor James Mcminnis on word of god ministries one time and see.
ArcainOne
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 14, 2010
You are cowards to take my challenge. It is not my tv show.


nope just have better things to do than waist my time watching someone preach about something they know nothing about.

We don't need your money but we would like you to understand there is a loving God who created this earth and wants to show you his love.


Right which is why the Catholic church is the biggest land owner in Europe.

Religion is a man based misunderstanding like trying to do good to get to heaven. No one can enter the kingdom but through Jesus Christ.


Because god loves us all right? Unless your Jewish, Muslem or any other religion right?
ArcainOne
4 / 5 (8) Dec 14, 2010
Wake up because this world is becoming more evil every day and soon it will be too late.


you mean more evil than when the Vikins would throw infants into the air and impale them on their swords? More evil than when the Catholic church would torture people until they confessed to things they didn't do? More evil than HITLER!

If the mayans knew so much why aren't they still around?


Thats a good question... too bad Spanish conquistadors burned all the books because they thought they where unholy. I'm sure one of those probably mentioned something...

Real christians wan't to help others and love their neighbors like God loves us.


As long as those others they are christians...
thales
not rated yet Dec 14, 2010
BIGJon. It's James McMenis, not McMinnis. Sounds like just another bible thumping fundie to me.

http://wogm.org/#...-beliefs
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Dec 14, 2010
I'm willing to bet, that I as an atheist could found an online Christian church and start soliciting donations.

I bet it wouldn't take me more than a month to start raking in more than a grand a week.

Anyone wanna take the bet? Any donations would be sent to an actual charity, not godthink.
thales
5 / 5 (1) Dec 14, 2010
I'm willing to bet, that I as an atheist could found an online Christian church and start soliciting donations.

I bet it wouldn't take me more than a month to start raking in more than a grand a week.

Anyone wanna take the bet? Any donations would be sent to an actual charity, not godthink.


Haha, you should donate to the FFRF!
ArcainOne
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 14, 2010
I have to add this in...

No one can enter the kingdom but through Jesus Christ. He is a well documented person not an imaginary friend.


Just like King Author, Robin Hood, and Merlin. All well documented. However Robin Hood is the one I'd like to point out the most as theories range from being an actual person to being someone the bards made up. I contest the idea that Jesus was a 100% a real person as it is a FACT that MANY stories in the bible have been added over time and NOT from gospels. He could have been the consolidation of multiple people from multiple stories made into a single person as it is suggested Robin Hood maybe. Go build your time machine and get back to me when you have documented it yourself.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Dec 14, 2010
No one can enter the kingdom but through Jesus Christ.
And you believe this, WHY?

He is a well documented person not an imaginary friend.
Not all that well documented. Just one book and few other papers that the believer don't believe in. Nothing from the Romans that didn't come later from Christians. And one line in Josephus and even that is from a man that was born after Jesus died so nothing from contemperaries.

Since he IS dead any friendship is inherently imagninary.

You can read about the end of the world in Gods manifested word the bible.
Thats false. Its the word of men and the prophecy was that the Second Coming would occur in the lifetime of the people listening to him. So what happened? Nothing.

Ethelred
Code_Warrior
2 / 5 (4) Dec 14, 2010
Code_Warrior your failure is not in your logic but in the phrase you used. The Laws of physics are just that, laws. These laws have been proven and proven and their results are solid and unchanging.


@ArcainOne
Thank you for pointing out my error. You are absolutely correct.

I am not trying to help zealots, nor am I an evangelist trying to win converts. Many people of faith are genuinely interested in science and read this site to learn what's new. Some of those people want to accept the laws of physics or other scientific theories, but do not want to lose the joy they get from their faith. They see physics as killing God, so they resist. I see a way for them to have have thier cake and eat it too by thinking of the laws of physics and other scientific theories as models that can peacefully coexist with their faith rather than replacing it.

In my view, the more people who support physics, the better off physics will be.
Code_Warrior
1 / 5 (1) Dec 15, 2010
Another poor choice of words? I doubt it as it's semantically incorrect. Time travel is not a law (as far as anyone knows), but an adjunct of various theoretical frameworks.
You are correct. I was fooled by the unparallelled success of general relativity to the point that I elevated it to the status of law. Is that unreasonable?
I disagree with the use of renormalization as part of a theoretical framework, should I throw out QED or accept renormalization as a practical tool?
Again, renormalization isn't a law or even a theory, it's simply a tool.

I think my statement said it was PART of a theoretical framework. I also think I said that I accepted it as a pratical tool... But it does sound better when you say it is not a theory but simply a tool.

However, QED is the first Quantum Field Theory, and renormalization is a key component of its framework. A QFT's acceptability is linked to its ability to be renormalized. In fact, QFTs don't work without it.
Code_Warrior
1 / 5 (1) Dec 15, 2010
In the end we have no evidence to support the existence of "god" nor do we have evidence to support the non-existence of "god". Only evidence that disproves various religions ideas on the various behaviors of god(s) and what their belief systems say and how their belief systems work. If god is real I ask you to prove it, if god is not real I ask you to prove it. If we become tenacious in our ideas of god (for or against) then we have become religious.


Exactly.
SoulmanOtto
1.6 / 5 (25) Dec 15, 2010
I'm willing to bet, that I as an atheist could found an online Christian church and start soliciting donations.
"Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wanted to make a million dollars, the best way to do it would be start his own religion." -L Ron Hubbard
Code_Warrior your failure is not in your logic but in the phrase you used. The Laws of physics are just that, laws. These laws have been proven and proven and their results are solid and unchanging.
The only things that can be proven are wholly mathematical theorems.
BIGJon
1 / 5 (3) Dec 15, 2010
I am Jon and no one else. Whoops, i spelled Mc Minnis not McMenis. My bad, anyway if you had enough courage in your self important misguided lives with your pseudo intellectual psycho babble you might listen and learn. The bible is the manifested word of God. You can doubt it but before long you will be proven wrong. Are you willing to risk eternity suffering because you are too proud to really find out the secret of true happiness ? I don't want anyone to find out the hard way when the answers are so easy to find. I know beyond a doubt when i die i will be in heaven and that gives me peace. I wasn't afraid to die when serving in Iraq because i had that peace. If you choose not to seek God first i feel sorry for you all. There is one way only to heaven through Jesus Christ. Some people are so delusional they ignore whats in front of them. Look at our world. I served in the 82nd airborne and never saw an explosion create anything. That seems ridiculous to me. My dad's not an amoeba.
BIGJon
1 / 5 (4) Dec 15, 2010
If we are evolved from animals where are fossil records of in between species ? The earth is not billions of years old. Carbon dating is a joke like man made global warming. If man causes global warming then did chain smoking cavemen cause an ice age that killed the dinosaurs? Some people are always going to be blindly believing myths perpetuated by lying so called scientists trying to make a name for themselves. I guess that's why the bible says don't cast pearls before swine. Alot of you smell alot like bacon.
soulman
3.4 / 5 (10) Dec 15, 2010
Idiot!
BIGJon
1 / 5 (4) Dec 15, 2010
Do any of you see the moral decline of the united states goes hand in hand with taking God out of everything? There have been other nations before us which have already gone the same direction ours is and it ends in failure. Hitler was elected by a democratic society and Germany gave up little freedoms here and there and we know how that went. Our elected officials are turning our free society into a communist one where animals have more rights than people. Values have been turned upside down.We are headed towards a global government and when that happens you doubters will believe.When the trumpet sounds and millions of people are instantly caught up and you can't find the crazy christians who tried to bring you to church. Newsflash, it isn't alien abductions or mayan prophecies. It is God's word yet again being fullfilled in prophecy. Remember when you take a mark on your forehead or wrist like a barcode scanner in order to purchase anything. Jon tried to tell me but i didn't listen.
BIGJon
1 / 5 (5) Dec 15, 2010
Hey soulman, care to get in a ring, put on gloves and call me names as i throw left and right hooks into your ribs before belly to back suplexing you into the ground and slapping on a rear naked choke? I don't take well to insults and i would gladly fight you and three friends of your choosing to raise money for charity. I turn the other cheek while throwing spinning backfists. Be nice,always be nice. I haven't attacked you. When you burn, think of me.
thales
5 / 5 (2) Dec 15, 2010
Hey soulman, care to get in a ring, put on gloves and call me names as i throw left and right hooks into your ribs before belly to back suplexing you into the ground and slapping on a rear naked choke? I don't take well to insults and i would gladly fight you and three friends of your choosing to raise money for charity. I turn the other cheek while throwing spinning backfists. Be nice,always be nice. I haven't attacked you. When you burn, think of me.


Sounds like a Poe, but I can assure you I personally know people like this. Although the professional wrestling fantasy angle is new to me.

Jon, it's hard to know where to start with you. When you say
Are you willing to risk eternity suffering because you are too proud to really find out the secret of true happiness ?
I could just as well ask you the same question. You know, because Allah will send you to hell for not believing. Or are you too proud to really find out the secret of true happiness?
Ethelred
4 / 5 (3) Dec 16, 2010
1/3
My bad, anyway if you had enough courage in your self important misguided lives with your pseudo intellectual psycho babble you might listen and learn.
How about you try leaning. I learn things every day.
The bible is the manifested word of God.
And you believe that why? Just repeating the same unsupported claim is not going to impress any but people that already believe. If you can't or won't answer than I have no reason believe a word you say. Why should I take YOUR WORD that the Bible is the word of Jehovah? It can't even get the first two chapters to agree on the order of Creation.
Are you willing to risk eternity suffering
What risk? Is that all you can do. Make threats based on claims of ignorant men?
I don't want anyone to find out the hard way when the answers are so easy to find.
Fine so answer. I already asked why you believe and you found it to hard to even acknowledge the question.

More
Ethelred
4.5 / 5 (4) Dec 16, 2010
2/3
I know beyond a doubt when i die i will be in heaven and that gives me peace
In ignorance there is bliss.
If you choose not to seek God first i feel sorry for you all
Which god? Why should I believe there is a god to seek?
There is one way only to heaven through Jesus Christ
And I should believe that because you claim the Bible is the word of Jehovah and because Jesus is alleged in that book to have claimed that? This is like saying that your we should believe that your girlfriend is a virgin because you have a book that you say is from is from Jehovah that says virgins never lie and your girlfriend told you she was a virgin.
Some people are so delusional they ignore whats in front of them.
Totally agree. Some people believe that a book written long ago by ignorant men is which MANY contradictions and errors is the word of an all powerful god that murders innocents. The Bible DOES have Jehovah murdering innocents.

More
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (3) Dec 16, 2010
3/3
Look at our world.
I have. It looks very old. Its a place where evolution is real. It is NOT a place that had the highest mountain covered by water a mere 4400 years ago.
I served in the 82nd airborne and never saw an explosion create anything.
So you are clearly a VERY bad observer. Explosions tends to create holes.
That seems ridiculous to me.
I agree. Get your eyes checked. The damage created by explosions tends to be extensive.
My dad's not an amoeba.
No one claimed he was. He is a primate. Unless your an alien.

Are you planing to answer ANY questions this time around? Or is spreading ignorance all you can do?

Ignoring valid question is one reason some thought you are Marjon.

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Dec 16, 2010
1/4
If we are evolved from animals where are fossil records of in between species
In some sense ALL fossils are of in between species. In another NO species is an in between species. However that are fossils that fit the scientific concept of being a transition from one species to another. Vastly more than the none you think.
The earth is not billions of years old.
Many lines of evidence show it to be so.
Carbon dating is a joke like man made global warming.
Creationist tell that lie because C14 dating shows the world is older than Creationists think. C14 dating is a well understood technique using well understood science and it has been calibrated against trees and a lake in Japan. Tree back to 8000 years and the lake to over 30,000. It works.
If man causes global warming then did chain smoking cavemen cause an ice age that killed the dinosaurs?
My you are aggressively ignorant. Dinosaurs died out 65 MegaYears ago. Sorry but One Million Years BC is fictional.

More
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (3) Dec 16, 2010
2/4
Some people are always going to be blindly believing myths perpetuated by lying
Yes there are a lot Mormons in the world. Pretty sure Muhamed was lying as well.
so called scientists trying to make a name for themselves
Sometimes a scientist tells a lie. Other scientists find them out. That is how science works. As opposed to religious lies where believers will do anything to avoid noticing failed prophecy.
I guess that's why the bible says don't cast pearls before swine
It says a lot things that are silly like that.
Alot of you smell alot like bacon.
I like bacon. It tastes good. Most pigs are less ignorant than you.
Do any of you see the moral decline of the united states goes hand in hand with taking God out of everything?
No. I see it coming from Christians politicians that keep getting arrested.

More
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (3) Dec 16, 2010
3/4
There have been other nations before us which have already gone the same direction ours is
As opposed to the Romans that went Christian and then went out of existence.
Hitler was elected by a democratic society
He was also a Christian.
Our elected officials are turning our free society into a communist one where animals have more rights than people.
I see. You have politcal fantasies as well as religious ones.
Values have been turned upside down.
Good. Now people can be treated as equals.
.We are headed towards a global government
Good, that would mean the end of war.
When the trumpet sounds and millions of people are instantly caught up and you can't find the crazy christians
That was supposed to have happened in 2000, and in 1000 and within the lifetime of people listening to Jesus. Three times failed. You seem to be like that vile pair that wrote the Left Behind series. Talk about poor morals.

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (4) Dec 16, 2010
4/4
It is God's word yet again being fullfilled
Is that like the prophecy that Cain would wander the world and then even before the next chapter he founded a city, married and had children that were recorded for many generations. That kind of failed prophecy?
Remember when you take a mark on your forehead or wrist like a barcode scanner in order to purchase anything
And I tell people that about the Grocery store spy cards and they don't believe ME. Those cards fit that idea PERFECTLY. Do YOU have one?
Jon tried to tell me but i didn't listen
And bill and marjon and all those people that said the world would end in 2000.
I don't take well to insults
Then why do YOU insult people? You have an insult in EVERY post. Not just insulting our inteligence either.
I haven't attacked you
Bull.
When you burn, think of me
That is sick. You are sad person. You actually seem to enjoy contemplating people being tortured for not believing the unbelievable.

Ethelred
Code_Warrior
3 / 5 (6) Dec 16, 2010
Hey soulman, care to get in a ring, put on gloves and call me names as i throw left and right hooks into your ribs before belly to back suplexing you into the ground and slapping on a rear naked choke? I don't take well to insults and i would gladly fight you and three friends of your choosing to raise money for charity. I turn the other cheek while throwing spinning backfists. Be nice,always be nice. I haven't attacked you. When you burn, think of me.

I have objected to the treatment of religious people on this site as stupid. Then you come along and threaten physical violence because you were insulted. As if that was not enough, you compound the problem by mocking the idea of turning the other cheek while telling everyone else to be nice.

Personally, the contrast in your behaviors is evidence that you are not what you claim to be. I further suspect that you are merely posing as a zealot.
Skultch
4 / 5 (4) Dec 16, 2010
Darn! I missed another religion debate before it devolved into insult banter. Oh well, I guess I'll give my perspective on the survey.

As an atheist who has been to church only a handful of times, but who's entire family is either Catholic or Evangelical, I can say that this survey makes sense to me. People are happy when surrounded by the like minded achieving a common goal.

I saw this all to clearly in the military. Good leaders/motivators convinced their group to work towards goals. Every time a group had low morale, it was because of a lack of this basic need, among other things.

As an atheist, I am sometimes dismayed when I contemplate my lack of in-person community on this subject. This is probably partly why I like physorg. IMO, this is the 81% at the end of the article.

IMO, religion doesn't make people happy, community does. Religion confuses people about reality. The confused can still be happy.