Divine intervention? New research looks at beliefs about God's influence in everyday life

Mar 09, 2010

Most Americans believe God is concerned with their personal well-being and is directly involved in their personal affairs, according to new research out of the University of Toronto.

Using data from two recent national surveys of Americans, UofT Sociology Professor Scott Schieman examined peoples' beliefs about God's involvement and influence in everyday life. His research discovers new patterns about these beliefs and the ways they differ across education and income levels.

Schieman's study, published in the March issue of the journal Sociology of Religion, also highlights the following findings:

Overall, most people believe that God is highly influential in the events and outcomes in their lives. Specifically:

  • 82 per cent say they depend on God for help and guidance in making decisions;
  • 71 per cent believe that when good or bad things happen, these occurrences are simply part of God's plan for them;
  • 61 per cent believe that God has determined the direction and course of their lives;
  • 32 per cent agree with the statement: "There is no sense in planning a lot because ultimately my fate is in God's hands."
  • Overall, people who have more education and higher income are less likely to report beliefs in divine intervention.
  • However, among the well-educated and higher earners, those who are more involved in share similar levels of beliefs about divine intervention as their less-educated and less financially well-off peers.
According to Schieman: "Many of us might assume that people of higher social class standing tend to reject beliefs about divine intervention. However, my findings indicate that while this is true among those less committed to religious life, it is not the case for people who are more committed to religious participation and rituals."

He adds: "This study extends into the ways that people of different social strata think about God's influence in everyday life. Given the frequency of God talk in American culture, especially in some areas of political discourse, this is an increasingly important area for researchers to document, describe, and interpret."

Explore further: When identity marketing backfires: Consumers don't like to be told what they like

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Survey finds many doctors religious

Jun 23, 2005

A University of Chicago survey suggests 76 percent of physicians believe in God and 59 percent believe in some sort of afterlife.

Religious beliefs focus too much on self

Jan 17, 2008

Moving away from traditional religious beliefs to trendy, self-focused religions and spirituality is not making young adults happier, according to new research.

Recommended for you

Online reviews: When do negative opinions boost sales?

12 hours ago

When purchasing items online, reading customer reviews is a convenient way to get a real-world account of other people's opinions of the product. According to a new study in the Journal of Consumer Research, negative review ...

User comments : 315

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

croghan27
3 / 5 (2) Mar 10, 2010
"82 per cent say they depend on God for help and guidance in making decisions; "

I think this one should be looked at more closely ... who are they surveying? What kind of national survey was this - designed by Benny Hinn?

Methinks the results are awfully unique.
trailrunner1983
4.7 / 5 (3) Mar 10, 2010
This is hard to believe. I can't believe the superstition is still this strong with most people. Have we really advanced at all?
croghan27
not rated yet Mar 10, 2010
trailrun .... of course we have ... without bother to google I have no fear in saying that is a very 'liberal' interpretation of a survey.

I doubt that many people believe in a Supreme Being let alone look to it for guidance.
marjon
1 / 5 (4) Mar 10, 2010
Now we will have another opportunity for the 'educated elite' to tell a significant majority of people how stupid they are.
Every day the Democrats in the USA have been telling their voters how stupid they are. Is it any wonder their poll numbers are in the single digits?
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Mar 10, 2010
Maybe this how they believe God influences their lives:
"The bishops then detail how the classical virtues of prudence, justice, courage, and temperance have real and practical consequences for economic and social life. That’s an important argument which many on the British left and right presently seem incapable of articulating. It also makes a welcome contrast to those – including some Catholics – who invariably reduce morality to whatever happens to be the latest fashionable lefty cause."
http://www.acton....hops.php
JayK
3 / 5 (2) Mar 11, 2010
Interesting that the results of this study are so different from the one Wikipedia has used:
http://en.wikiped...n_adults
which originates with the ARIS self-identification survey:
http://b27.cc.tri...2008.pdf
5.7% difference isn't explainable at that high of a percentage (82%).

Still pretty frightening results. Looks like there is a lot more work to do than just proving religionists wrong.
marjon
1 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2010
Looks like there is a lot more work to do than just proving religionists wrong.

Never happen.
Faith is belief without proof.
You already know that as you believe in AGW.
Such attitudes are just plain insulting and reek of arrogant intolerance.
It is readily apparent those who think themselves intelligent are seldom wise.
otto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 11, 2010
Most Americans believe God is concerned with their personal well-being and is directly involved in their personal affairs
Already I got trollschmutz on my shoes-
If this study is in fact untainted, unbiased, and not in fact veiled doctrine, then it probably owes it's results to the fact that most Americans are unwilling to give up their chance at eternal life in paradise no matter how silly it sounds or unreasonable it is. Therefore we have discovered that Americans are agnostic, not religious because most Americans do accept the fact that many accepted religions can only mean that god probably doesn't exist, or that his judgment of you has little to do with where you spend your weekends or how you cut your hair.

otto1923
5 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2010
A Danish friend once told me he thought god was a ridiculous idea but in the same breath he said he believed in souls and the afterlife. I tactfully pointed out the logical error of his beliefs, which he obviously hadn't thought through. Once the concept of escape from death is planted, it is so compelling that it is very hard to dislodge.

Trouble is, give Americans a good scare and they quickly pile back into their churches and demand that villains be caught, tried, and deported. Which is how things were designed to work.
JayK
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2010
AGW has statistical and analytical proof, Marjon. I've shown you that in how many threads that you've run away from? Your religion has what proof of viability? Nothing, nada, you have no proof that it is the right religion (as if there was one), nor that anything it says is anything other than pure bunk.

If you look at the trends, christianity is slowly fading away in America. Go ahead, take a look. Look at the emptying pews, the shrinking amounts in the tin begging cup they pass around. Look at the statistics, marjon, and tell me that evangelistic views aren't on the way out, and then tell me that is anything but good for humanity.
croghan27
5 / 5 (3) Mar 11, 2010
I would not care to say bad things about "UofT Sociology Professor Scott Schieman" - he seems to be an honest and dedicated worker.

He also has just been made the editor of a Journal of religious Sociology.

The back up to his survey I found was: "U of T Sociology professor Scott Schieman interviewed 1,800 Americans in a groundbreaking survey that examined the link between levels of religious beliefs and sense of personal control over events and outcomes in everyday life."

http://www.christ...pid=6276

But there we no details on the survey. It was not published in the professional journal. I do not believe the Christainity.ca site is peer reviewed save by the committed.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Mar 11, 2010
Your religion has what proof of viability?

The proof of viability is apparent in the number of people who believe.
More evidence of viability appears when one compares places where a large percentage have faith in God and those who do not. TX and UT come to mind. I note the economic problems are not affecting them as much as those liberal atheist states.
marjon
1 / 5 (4) Mar 11, 2010
Look at the statistics, marjon, and tell me that evangelistic views aren't on the way out, and then tell me that is anything but good for humanity.

What's good? More abortions. More drug addictions. More government dependence.
Students who graduate high school that can't read or write or do arithmetic.
Religion teaches restraint, delayed gratification, responsibility, respect.
Show me how the USA is better now than even 50 years ago.
croghan27
3 / 5 (2) Mar 11, 2010

Students who graduate high school that can't read or write or do arithmetic.
Religion teaches restraint, delayed gratification, responsibility, respect.
Show me how the USA is better now than even 50 years ago.


majon - what you say is all true to a certain extent right now - but who is to say it is not true of half a century ago. At least the percentage of those going to HS is wayyyyy up from them - even if it is not effective for some.

You usually have better points to make than that! A grumble of: "When I was young we had to walk to school every morning and it was up hill (both ways)." is less than your style. As for religion teaching restraint: spell: T-o-r-q-u-e-m-a-d-a. Then google religious schools in Ireland, Canada and now Germany.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2010
majon - what you say is all true to a certain extent right now - but who is to say it is not true of half a century ago. At least the percentage of those going to HS is wayyyyy up from them - even if it is not effective for some.

I think the percentage going to HS today is lower than in the 60s. Some schools have 50%+ dropout rates.
Students who graduate from schools operated by religious groups have much better performance. One significant reason is discipline.
otto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2010
A lot of american metaphysical optimism can be attributed to the Disney poison, unleashed in earnest after ww2, which gave animal characters human personas and encouraged people to wish upon a star rather than beg from god. This was part of the weaning process; the replacement of religious fantasy which had sustained pioneering expansion with something more consumer-oriented. Metaphysics was still the realm for blurring the distinction between what people need and what they might want. Consumerism drives innovation and many new technologies lay waiting to be developed, a process best driven by enhanced throughput and competition- buy, use, discard, improve. Love of god could not provide the impetus for this essential process at this point in the development of our civilization; only love of Mickey toys and maseratis could do that. So one heretofore useful fantasy began to be supplanted by a more appropriate one. Oh god won't ya buy me a Mercedes Benz. And Farah Fawcett.
marjon
1 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2010
Look at the trends:
"Over the course of the 20th century, millions of Africans transferred their allegiance from traditional primal faiths to one of the two great world religions, Christianity or Islam—but they demonstrated an overwhelming preference for the former. Around 40 percent of Africa’s population became Christian, compared to just 10 percent who chose Islam. "
http://amconmag.c...1/00022/
JayK
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2010
To marjon, "Leave It To Beaver" is a documentary of the average household of the 1950's, full of fun and hijinks. Ignorance of the reality of the time must be bliss, though. Heroin, cocaine and other drugs were already available. Lynchings were still a real fear in the south and the schools were still not completely desegregated. Women were still treated more as possessions rather than with any equality. The Vatican was actively shuffling priests around for maximum alter-boy effectiveness.

But lets talk about Africa. Right now the church is actively sanctioning killing homosexuals and anyone associated with them. Thats just progress, right there.
marjon
1 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2010
To marjon, "Leave It To Beaver" is a documentary of the average household of the 1950's, full of fun and hijinks. Ignorance of the reality of the time must be bliss, though. Heroin, cocaine and other drugs were already available. Lynchings were still a real fear in the south and the schools were still not completely desegregated. Women were still treated more as possessions rather than with any equality. The Vatican was actively shuffling priests around for maximum alter-boy effectiveness.

But lets talk about Africa. Right now the church is actively sanctioning killing homosexuals and anyone associated with them. Thats just progress, right there.

Do you have the courage to attack Islam regarding homosexuality? Many Christians and Christian religions accept homosexuality. Islam does not and imposes the death penalty. Of course they need 3 or 4 witnesses to convict.
So please, have the courage of your convictions and attack Islam. They don't turn the other cheek.
JayK
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2010
I'm not arguing with a Muslim and I don't have to deal with their stupidity on a daily basis. They're just as pig ignorant as people like yourself, marjon, but they're at least a little more honest and forthright about it. Maybe you should try that honesty thing, it might add to the minuscule credibility you have.
marjon
1 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2010
I'm not arguing with a Muslim and I don't have to deal with their stupidity on a daily basis. They're just as pig ignorant as people like yourself, marjon, but they're at least a little more honest and forthright about it. Maybe you should try that honesty thing, it might add to the minuscule credibility you have.

Now we know how courageously you hold your convictions.
JayK
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2010
Surprisingly I've never found gross ignorance funny. I have a higher standard of expectation of my fellow man, I guess.
marjon
1 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2010
don't scare away Marjon....he's good for a laugh

It is amusing how atheists attempt to use science to attack people's faith. Faith is a belief without proof. If people hold beliefs that do not require proof, why would atheists expect such beliefs to change with what they consider to be proof?
Atheists might have more success with their science if the science could answer the questions most people have, such as "Why?".
I also note that these atheists attack Christianity most viciously but are afraid to do the same for Islam. It couldn't have anything to do with Christians turning the other cheek while Islam would condemn them to death? Such courage!
Javinator
4 / 5 (1) Mar 12, 2010
I'm not an atheist.

That being said, your arguements are usually quite logically flawed which is the main reason you get people so fired up. You often take single examples of things that have happened in the past and apply them to all situations in the present and future (for example that everyone that disagrees with what you say is an abortion supporting atheist liberal). I can tell you I often disagree with what you write and I am none of those things.

Please stop generalizing because it makes you look ridiculous and, whenever you actually do have a good argument (yes, sometimes there are actually some good points in there) it gets lost in the way you present it.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2010
I'm not an atheist.

That being said, your arguements are usually quite logically flawed which is the main reason you get people so fired up. You often take single examples of things that have happened in the past and apply them to all situations in the present and future (for example that everyone that disagrees with what you say is an abortion supporting atheist liberal). I can tell you I often disagree with what you write and I am none of those things.

Please stop generalizing because it makes you look ridiculous and, whenever you actually do have a good argument (yes, sometimes there are actually some good points in there) it gets lost in the way you present it.

Do you attack religion in general and Christianity in particular?
Agnostics don't usually attack faith as they are honest and say they don't know.
I not just singling out atheists on the board but those evangelical atheists like Dawkins.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2010
"82 per cent say they depend on God for help and guidance in making decisions; "

I think this one should be looked at more closely ... who are they surveying? What kind of national survey was this - designed by Benny Hinn?

Methinks the results are awfully unique.

Unique to the United States, last bastion of Christianity. Even Italy doesn't have the penetration of believers in dogma that the US does.
I also note that these atheists attack Christianity most viciously but are afraid to do the same for Islam. It couldn't have anything to do with Christians turning the other cheek while Islam would condemn them to death?

Your education in Islam and Christianity is appallingly incorrect. Especially that statistical masturbation you put up about Africa.

You do realize that the majority of Northern Africa is already muslim, don't you? Or that the Christian missionaries sent to southern africa took such great control through the explotation of apartheid?
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Mar 12, 2010
Re-reading the comments above it's interesting to note Dunning-Krueger in full effect.

Those who are at the higher end of the curve are surprised that so many people believe something so foolish while those in the bottom of the curve think the survey is dead on the money.

Let that be of note to all you "heathens".

Now we'll see how many people actually understand my comment (JayK excluded).
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2010
Christianity is growing quite rapidly in Africa. The Anglicans and Lutherans have experienced tremendous growth.
It is the African Anglican bishops that are very opposed to homosexual marriage and may have separated from the main branch.
Non-Catholic Christian churches are spreading rapidly in the Philippines.
Ever wonder that western Europe is dying because they lost their faith. The people that have the most babies will 'win'. And they are not the a-religious Europeans.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2010
Re-reading the comments above it's interesting to note Dunning-Krueger in full effect.

Those who are at the higher end of the curve are surprised that so many people believe something so foolish while those in the bottom of the curve think the survey is dead on the money.

Let that be of note to all you "heathens".

Now we'll see how many people actually understand my comment (JayK excluded).

Does that make you feel more superior?
Javinator
5 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2010
I don't 'attack' anything. I know plenty of atheists who don't as well.

Don't take the words of the loudest, most outspoken against you and translate it to "all atheists being arrogant baby killers that think they know everything".

Of course, there are plenty of people on the other side of the arguement that go more than a little over the top as well with their extremism as well.

The golden rule is universal. It's not religious at all.
mjc
3 / 5 (1) Mar 12, 2010
JayK...OK - it was my feeble attempt at a joke...I generally agree with you...but, dude, you gotta lighten up a little bit
javinator...nicely stated
Javinator
5 / 5 (1) Mar 12, 2010
The people that have the most babies will 'win'.


Natural selection.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 12, 2010
Re-reading the comments above it's interesting to note Dunning-Krueger in full effect.

Those who are at the higher end of the curve are surprised that so many people believe something so foolish while those in the bottom of the curve think the survey is dead on the money.

Let that be of note to all you "heathens".

Now we'll see how many people actually understand my comment (JayK excluded).

"Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall."http://kingjbible...s/16.htm
Dunning-Krueger effect was well known quite some time ago.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2010
Does that make you feel more superior?

Certainly makes me feel superior compared to someone touting
Christianity is growing quite rapidly in Africa...Ever wonder that western Europe is dying because they lost their faith. The people that have the most babies will 'win'.

Seriously, you're stating that the promotion of an ignorance based ideology is advancing in the third world and will overtake the developed world.

The reason why Christianity isn't in vogue in developed nations is because we don't think "God" hurls lightning down on us from on high.

Crazy bible stories only make sense to people who haven't been exposed to the logic and reasoning involved in science. Your arguments prove the very point that you refuse to acknowledge.

Perhaps Revelations was written to inform Christians of the end of Christianity, not the end of the world.

And Marjon, I don't attack religion, I attack ignorance. Islam included.
JayK
3 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2010
@mjc: Perhaps you are correct and I take this a little too seriously. I really do find ignorance to be distressing as I just find it so difficult to understand or be empathetic towards individuals that just aren't capable of maintaining a high level of interaction.

I'd like to see PhysOrg become a site for peers, not trolls like marjon. If you can't even read the article PhysOrg presents,which usually aren't very well written, then it would be preferable that you not waste people's time with inane blatherings that produce nothing but misinformation.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2010


And Marjon, I don't attack religion, I attack ignorance. Islam included.


There are some very intelligent individuals who have chosen to believe. You many call them ignorant, but they they examined your arguments and found them wanting.
People like CS Lewis come to mind and there are of course many others including physicists, engineers and many others more intelligent than you or I.
I suggest it is arrogance that prevents you from accepting that intelligent people do have faith in God.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2010
There are some very intelligent individuals who have chosen to believe.
None of which are contemporary.
You many call them ignorant, but they they examined your arguments and found them wanting.

I wouldn't say ignorant but perhaps afraid of the repercussions. You know, because Christians are so tolerant.

People like CS Lewis come to mind and there are of course many others including physicists, engineers and many others more intelligent than you or I.
Even those amongst us who are divine in their brilliance may be ignorant in that which is considered divine.

I suggest it is arrogance that prevents you from accepting that intelligent people do have faith in God.

I think you need to pick your audience.

Marjon, I know that nothing I can say will shake your faith, but if you want to bring him up here, on a science forum, and assert that he is real, then make sure your logic isn't completely full of horse shit, like your free will argument.
otto1923
5 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2010
They're just as pig ignorant as people like yourself, marjon, but they're at least a little more honest and forthright about it. Maybe you should try that honesty thing,
Trolls act ignorant (and slothful in every sense of the word) because it elicits a response. Insults are like candy to them. They are attention gluttons with big sweat stains on their couches.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2010
@mjc: Perhaps you are correct and I take this a little too seriously. I really do find ignorance to be distressing as I just find it so difficult to understand or be empathetic towards individuals that just aren't capable of maintaining a high level of interaction.

I'd like to see PhysOrg become a site for peers, not trolls like marjon. If you can't even read the article PhysOrg presents,which usually aren't very well written, then it would be preferable that you not waste people's time with inane blatherings that produce nothing but misinformation.

Advocating censorship because you can't defend your arguments?
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2010
There are some very intelligent individuals who have chosen to believe.
None of which are contemporary.

How ignorant!
http://news.googl...9,389572
otto1923
5 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2010
Trolls will fatten this thread like they did the last one by quoting whole posts and posting idiot comments, making it impossible for pda users to participate, because they dont give a shit about anyone but themselves and their insatiable appetite for acknowledgment. They only seek to annoy and inflame because it gets them the most mileage for the buck. They have no strong opinions only a sick desire to get noticed. Not xian, not conservative, only empty and begging to be fed.
mjc
5 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2010
This is no longer a polite debate. It's reduced to insults and name calling. A wise man once told me -"never get in a pissing match with a skunk". JayK...most people can see the logic behind your remarks - Marjon never will
Marjon...expressing a different opinion is not an ATTACK on your faith. And for me, I'm a Guy that needs proof. Have a good day everybody!
.
otto1923
5 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2010
Perhaps Revelations was written to inform Christians of the end of Christianity, not the end of the world.
As well as Isaiah for jews. Thats what I was thinking... any well-Designed Institution would have incorporated into its structure the seeds of its own dissolution. We've seen how easily archeology debunks the nonsense in the bible; its writers must have known that, sooner or later, the proof or lack of thereof would be uncovered in the desert. And we've seen what celibasy has done to attract individuals which have caused the church severe damage; at the proper time. The congenital conflict between sunni and shia was built into the fabric of islam from the start.

Those who wrote the book could certainly forsee the future if They were instrumental in predetermining it.
otto1923
5 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2010
This is no longer a polite debate.
Trolls insult us all with their methods of participation and lack of consideration. Some of us with a little more experience choose to respond in kind by pointing these facts out to the rest.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2010
There are some very intelligent individuals who have chosen to believe.
None of which are contemporary.

How ignorant!
http://news.googl...9,389572

Because Reverend Father Uncle Ruckus Graham can be taken at his word when it comes to divinity and the belief within.

He doesn't name a single person and you ASSUME that he isn't completely full of lies and fallacy.

Mr. Graham is a known anti-semite, and typically takes 100% of his non-profit organization's coffers as a paycheck.

He's certainly a stately resource to use when calling out devout Christians. Your argument is laughable and your sources even more humorous. If it wasn't so entertaining to see what you'll say next I'd stop replying.

Some of us with a little more experience choose to respond in kind by pointing these facts out.

Yes we do.
otto1923
not rated yet Mar 12, 2010
Yes we do.
And we also choose not to engage with trolls because engaging is what they want dont we?
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Mar 12, 2010
Yes we do.
And we also choose not to engage with trolls because engaging is what they want dont we?

I know I shouldn't. It's just so tempting on occasion.
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Mar 12, 2010
Trolls may have a lifetime of experience in getting under peoples skin. Sick doesnt necessarily mean not clever. Be like father karras in 'The Exorcist' -wipe the pea soup off your glasses and get on with it-
croghan27
1 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2010
don't scare away Marjon....he's good for a laugh


Easy now - while I probably disagree with HER more than I agree, Marjon is an intelligent poster here (if the right wing can be said to have intelligence) and I have found her to be a constant supporter of science and the scientific method.

Given the nature of where we are that is always welcome.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2010
Marjon, I know that nothing I can say will shake your faith, but if you want to bring him up here, on a science forum, and assert that he is real, then make sure your logic isn't completely full of horse shit, like your free will argument.

By publishing such articles, Physorg INVITES such comments.
My question is still out there. How can science be used to disprove faith? Faith is belief without proof, therefore, by definition, proof is immaterial to those with faith.
Javinator
5 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2010
Faith is belief without proof, therefore, by definition, proof is immaterial to those with faith.


That's not exactly right... faith is belief in the absence of proof. Faith is not belief in the face of it.
croghan27
1 / 5 (1) Mar 12, 2010

My question is still out there. How can science be used to disprove faith? Faith is belief without proof, therefore, by definition, proof is immaterial to those with faith.


I use a signature in a website/blog I go to ... a quote you may find useful:

"We do not need science to validate our spiritual beliefs, as we would never use faith to validate our scientific data." - Brandeis sociologist Wendy Cadge,

DAMNIT - we seem to agree ....
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2010
This is no longer a polite debate. It's reduced to insults and name calling. A wise man once told me -"never get in a pissing match with a skunk". JayK...most people can see the logic behind your remarks - Marjon never will
Marjon...expressing a different opinion is not an ATTACK on your faith. And for me, I'm a Guy that needs proof. Have a good day everybody!
.

Many here are expressing their opinion that those who have faith in God are ignorant and stupid. What a great way to persuade others they are wrong!
Unfortunately, I observe this too often among 'rational' scientists. I am really surprised how emotional they get.
marjon
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2010
There are some very intelligent individuals who have chosen to believe. None of which are contemporary.



Read this:http://www.amazon...27406883
marjon
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2010
Faith is belief without proof, therefore, by definition, proof is immaterial to those with faith.


That's not exactly right... faith is belief in the absence of proof. Faith is not belief in the face of it.

A 'real' scientist must not have faith, in anything, as he must always have proof to support his knowledge.
How limiting!
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2010

By publishing such articles, Physorg INVITES such comments.
No, the TOS clearly states it is against pseudoscience and junk science.
My question is still out there. How can science be used to disprove faith? Faith is belief without proof, therefore, by definition, proof is immaterial to those with faith.

Science isn't used to disprove faith. Evidence is. The evidence, regardless of what science say, is contrary to Christian metaphysical beliefs. As another said, you believe in spite of the evidence otherwise. It has nothing to do with science of proof.

Read this:http://www.amazon...27406883

Writing a physics review book does not make one a scientist, it makes one a writer, however, if you had actually read that book, you'd realize that there is nothing in regards to faith within it's pages. It's a discussion of quantum entropy. "Demon" does not denote Christian faith.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2010
How about winning a Nobel prize?

"William Phillips' life changed in more than one way after the impromptu press conference for his 1997 Nobel Prize in physics.
"I said something like, 'There are many people I want to thank, and I'd also like to thank God for giving us such a wonderful and interesting universe to explore," the Gaithersburg resident said in an interview."
"Being an ordinary scientist and an ordinary Christian seems perfectly natural to me," he told the gathering of several hundred at the Havard Memorial Church. "For others, however, it appears strange, even astonishing, that someone could be serious about science and about faith."
http://www.deepsc...hy/faith and science.html
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2010

Read this:http://www.amazon...27406883

Writing a physics review book does not make one a scientist, it makes one a writer, however, if you had actually read that book, you'd realize that there is nothing in regards to faith within it's pages. It's a discussion of quantum entropy. "Demon" does not denote Christian faith.

You did not read it. How do you make a intelligent comment about a book you did not read?
Javinator
5 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2010
Faith is belief without proof, therefore, by definition, proof is immaterial to those with faith.


That's not exactly right... faith is belief in the absence of proof. Faith is not belief in the face of it.

A 'real' scientist must not have faith, in anything, as he must always have proof to support his knowledge.
How limiting!


Well that's not what I said at all, but sure.

Scientists must always have faith. Faith/belief in a theory leads to experiments. Experiments give evidence. With enough evidence you get proof. Proof is what leads to knowledge.

Proof doesn't "support" knowledge, it grants it. "Knowledge" without proof isn't knowledge at all.

I'm also not saying there's "proof" that there is or isn't a God, I'm merely challenging your definitions of faith, proof, and knowledge.
otto1923
3 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2010
don't scare away Marjon....he's good for a laugh


Easy now - while I probably disagree with HER more than I agree, Marjon is an intelligent poster here (if the right wing can be said to have intelligence) and I have found her to be a constant supporter of science and the scientific method.

Given the nature of where we are that is always welcome.
You haven't been paying attention or you're not too bright yourself, or you're a relative. We'll just keep pointing out the obvious in an entertaining fashion.
croghan27
1 / 5 (1) Mar 12, 2010


Well that's not what I said at all, but sure.



J. Alfred Javinator????

Eaten any peaches lately? Disturbed any universes?
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2010
[q}Proof doesn't "support" knowledge, it grants it. "Knowledge" without proof isn't knowledge at all.
Do you know you love someone? What is the proof?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Mar 13, 2010

You did not read it. How do you make a intelligent comment about a book you did not read?

Actually it's on my bookshelf as I type this.

Those who are interested in the sciences do read and keep science books. Much like those interested in religion keep and read religious books, or book rather in the case of Chrtistianity.

That whole little Christianity speech probably isn't legit, and your link is "File not found"

Buy the book, give ti a read and then you can tell me whether he's faithful or not. FYI: I've commonly used the term "God's Universe" when describing creation. It was no more religious when I used it than when the above author used it.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 13, 2010


If you had read it, you find you assertion that no contemporary scientists have faith in God is false. Just as the Nobel physicists so stated.

"Their arrival, at a time when both Jane and I were trying to establish ourselves in new jobs, required a delicate balancing of work, home, and church life. Somehow, our faith and our youthful energy got us through that period."
http://nobelprize...bio.html
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 13, 2010
don't scare away Marjon....he's good for a laugh


Easy now - while I probably disagree with HER more than I agree, Marjon is an intelligent poster here (if the right wing can be said to have intelligence) and I have found her to be a constant supporter of science and the scientific method.

Given the nature of where we are that is always welcome.
You haven't been paying attention or you're not too bright yourself, or you're a relative. We'll just keep pointing out the obvious in an entertaining fashion.

Please keep up the insults. I am maintaining a database correlating pettiness with pseudo-intelligence.
physorg discussion boards are a rich source of data.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 13, 2010
Link for William Philipps:
http://74.125.113...irefox-a
It is interesting how it seems to be physicists who have a greater belief in God and faith than the biologist (this was noted in Scully's book, too). I am not surprised as physicists are closest to the study of reality than the biologists.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 13, 2010
Link for William Philipps:
http://74.125.113...hy/faith and science.html+washington+times+faith+phillips+nobel+deep+science&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
It is interesting how it seems to be physicists who have a greater belief in God and faith than the biologist (this was noted in Scully's book, too). I am not surprised as physicists are closest to the study of reality than the biologists.

Something was lost during submission. I will add it to the next post.
marjon
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 13, 2010
""Science does use faith. It's used so much we don't even think about it. We have faith that the laws of science are constant, the universe is reliable and that tomorrow is going to be the same as today," he said."
""Science is an effort to understand how the universe works, while religion is an effort to understand the meaning and purpose behind the universe," Townes said."
"The basic idea of Crick's hypothesis is that the human mind is only neurons and there is no personal life before conception or after death.

"You, your joys, sorrows and ambitions are in fact no more than nerve cells," Crick said."
http://www.thebat....1213591
This dichotomy of views between biologists and physicists is also noted in Scully's book.
"
croghan27
1 / 5 (1) Mar 13, 2010


Easy now - while I probably disagree with HER more than I agree, Marjon is an intelligent poster here (if the right wing can be said to have intelligence) and I have found her to be a constant supporter of science and the scientific method.

Given the nature of where we are that is always welcome.
You haven't been paying attention or you're not too bright yourself, or you're a relative. We'll just keep pointing out the obvious in an entertaining fashion.

Please keep up the insults. I am maintaining a database correlating pettiness with pseudo-intelligence.
physorg discussion boards are a rich source of data.


Hey - I thought I was saying a good thing about you .. .GEEZE - (okay, I am weak and could not help the 'right wing intelligence' quip - but it is certainly less incendiary that your: "pettiness with pseudo-intelligence." line.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 13, 2010


Easy now - while I probably disagree with HER more than I agree, Marjon is an intelligent poster here (if the right wing can be said to have intelligence) and I have found her to be a constant supporter of science and the scientific method.

Given the nature of where we are that is always welcome.
You haven't been paying attention or you're not too bright yourself, or you're a relative. We'll just keep pointing out the obvious in an entertaining fashion.

Please keep up the insults. I am maintaining a database correlating pettiness with pseudo-intelligence.
physorg discussion boards are a rich source of data.


Hey - I thought I was saying a good thing about you .. .GEEZE - (okay, I am weak and could not help the 'right wing intelligence' quip - but it is certainly less incendiary that your: "pettiness with pseudo-intelligence." line.

If you haven't been insulting, no worries.
epicureous
3 / 5 (2) Mar 13, 2010
Scientist believe they are correct -may I ask about what? The religious believe they are correct -again about what? I think what everyone in this debate forgets is the fact that NEITHER are correct, but ALSO neither are wrong. I implore you to spend some time and try to tear-down the walls of your 'ego' and realize that:

'All one understands is the possibility of this reality, and NOT the totality of this reality'
otto1923
1 / 5 (2) Mar 13, 2010


Easy now - while I probably disagree with HER more than I agree, Marjon is an intelligent poster here (if the right wing can be said to have intelligence) and I have found her to be a constant supporter of science and the scientific method.

Given the nature of where we are that is always welcome.
You haven't been paying attention or you're not too bright yourself, or you're a relative. We'll just keep pointing out the obvious in an entertaining fashion.

Please keep up the insults. I am maintaining a database correlating pettiness with pseudo-intelligence.
physorg discussion boards are a rich source of data.


Hey - I thought I was saying a good thing about you .. .GEEZE - (okay, I am weak and could not help the 'right wing intelligence' quip - but it is certainly less incendiary that your: "pettiness with pseudo-intelligence." line.

If you haven't been insulting, no worries.
worries?
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 13, 2010
I think what everyone in this debate forgets is the fact that NEITHER are correct, but ALSO neither are wrong. I implore you to spend some time and try to tear-down the walls of your 'ego' and realize that:

'All one understands is the possibility of this reality, and NOT the totality of this reality'

That is my objective.
croghan27
2 / 5 (2) Mar 13, 2010
"If you haven't been insulting, no worries" (marjon)

or "Worried?" (otto1923)

That was part of my response to someone's (mjc) suggestion that she "should not be scared away" - I had hoped to squelch that suggestion before it took traction. That it came from someone who frequently disagrees with her only gave it more credibility.

If there was a snide remark in there it was toward the oxymoron of 'right wing intelligence'.

I enjoy her posts - even as I find most of the somewhat beyond the pale of logic. But then I find criticizing religion because it is not scientific sustainable is a task worthy of a college freshman or an over-reaching high school senior.

As well - it shows a lack of knowledge to ignore the contributions to science of both the Quakers and Catholics. Their religious devotion is not in question, nor is their science.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 13, 2010
As well - it shows a lack of knowledge to ignore the contributions to science of both the Quakers and Catholics. Their religious devotion is not in question, nor is their science.

This is impossible for some to believe in spite of the evidence before their eyes. These same people attack people of faith for their beliefs. What hypocrites!
epicureous
4 / 5 (1) Mar 13, 2010

'All one understands is the possibility of this reality, and NOT the totality of this reality'

That is my objective.


That should be everyones objective. Most people look for totality in the details. The religious will tell you that a 2x4 is 2 inches by 4 inches because they have faith in what is written. The scientist will try and tell you that it is 1.5 inches by 3.5 inches because they seek the truth with a measuring tape. I tell you the truth ~both are wrong! No matter what measuring device is used or how many times one might measure the object both will always be wrong. That is until both realize that 2X4's don't actually exist.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (1) Mar 13, 2010
Lots of Christians sinning today. You can't use electricity on the Sabbath.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 13, 2010
Lots of Christians sinning today. You can't use electricity on the Sabbath.

Who says Christians can't use electricity on the sabbath?
marjon
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 13, 2010
Today is Saturday where I am. That is not the traditional sabbath day for Christians.
Caliban
3 / 5 (2) Mar 13, 2010
IMHO, religion is for those weak, frightened individuals who are unable or unwilling to recognise that the universe is a place that doesn't acknowledge us- or our putative "significance"- in any way, shape or form, and doesn't give a Tinker's damn what our thoughts are concerning it, or our place in it.
Science, on the other hand, allows us to understand the universe in an empirical, quantitive way, and thus provides the tools with which to make and keep a place for ourselves in it.
Once you come to the rational understanding of your own fear, the conclusion is obvious: your actual freedom, and freedom of action in the universe demands that you work in cooperation with others to achieve the common good. This is the essence of the Golden Rule, and is sufficient, and supercedes ALL religions.
Religion is for the weak, the fearful, the ignorant and for those who choose to justify and rationalize their selfishness.

Embrace your Freedom and reject quaint, divisive superstition
croghan27
not rated yet Mar 13, 2010

snip
Religion is for the weak, the fearful, the ignorant and for those who choose to justify and rationalize their selfishness.

Embrace your Freedom and reject quaint, divisive superstition[

Not sure what you have come off your island to say here, Caliban.

I would not call anyone martyred for their beliefs, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist Hebrew or otherwise 'weak'. Mistaken may fit ... but the prime characteristic of these people is the STRENGTH of their belief.
croghan27
not rated yet Mar 13, 2010
Sorry - there is something wrong with my posting capabilities.

(Moderator ---- HELP!)
epicureous
1 / 5 (1) Mar 13, 2010
Science, on the other hand, allows us to understand the universe in an empirical, quantitive way, and thus provides the tools with which to make and keep a place for ourselves in it....

....Religion is for the weak, the fearful, the ignorant and for those who choose to justify and rationalize their selfishness.


Those who think science will give them answers are weak, fearful, ignorant, and irrational. Those that think religion will give them the answers are just as weak, fearful, ignorant, and irrational. Your arrogance Caliban will be the assurance that you will never find true peace. I feel sorry for you.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 13, 2010
work in cooperation with others to achieve the common good. This is the essence of the Golden Rule, and is sufficient, and supercedes ALL religions.

This IS the goal of most religions.
How is ONE common good determined among 6 billion plus individuals?

Religion is for the weak, the fearful, the ignorant and for those who choose to justify and rationalize their selfishness.

Embrace your Freedom and reject quaint, divisive superstition

How do 6 billion individuals embrace their freedom and not work in their self-interest?
Sounds like you are saying the only way to be 'free' is to be part of some collective. Very newspeak.
Caliban
3 / 5 (2) Mar 13, 2010
@croghan27,
That's part of my point. You could be martyred for your(just as strong)belief in the principle of the Golden Rule. However, in that case, you would think that everyone would react with: "why'd you kill him? He was just trying to help"- which would more likely serve to bring people together in the face of such injustice- as opposed to saying: "That damned Heretic/Infidel/Jew/Muslim, et c. -deserved to be stoned!"
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 13, 2010
@croghan27,
That's part of my point. You could be martyred for your(just as strong)belief in the principle of the Golden Rule. However, in that case, you would think that everyone would react with: "why'd you kill him? He was just trying to help"- which would more likely serve to bring people together- as opposed to saying: "That damned heretic/infidel/Jew/muslim deserved to be stoned!"

That is exactly what Jesus did.
croghan27
5 / 5 (2) Mar 13, 2010

That is exactly what Jesus did.


Now if we could get more Christians to behave as Christ did - the world would be a better, or at least more peaceful, place.

Unfortunately the quip that there is nothing "so bad that it cannot be made worse with the introduction of religion" is all too apt.
Caliban
3 / 5 (2) Mar 13, 2010
So the book says, marjon- but I will point out that anyone could have done the same, and subscription to religion is not NECESSARY OR ESSENTIAL to do so.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 13, 2010
So the book says, marjon- but I will point out that anyone could have done the same, and subscription to religion is not NECESSARY OR ESSENTIAL to do so.

Many others did do the same. Many of them are called saints in the Catholic Church.
It seems you want the philosophy without any human organization to support it.
You just said you wanted people to get together for the common good. That IS what most churches try to do today. But any group of people united for a cause can easily go astray because not everyone in the group believes in the same objectives or methodology.
Caliban
3 / 5 (2) Mar 13, 2010
Hence my assertion that religion is not necessary for an individual to do what is in accordance with the Golden Rule- religions, by their very nature introduce an additional layer of divisiveness, as evidenced, prima facie, in their multiplicity.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 13, 2010
Hence my assertion that religion is not necessary for an individual to do what is in accordance with the Golden Rule- religions, by their very nature introduce an additional layer of divisiveness, as evidenced, prima facie, in their multiplicity.

How do you suggest we work together for the common good if we don't somehow create an organization for such a purpose?
croghan27
5 / 5 (1) Mar 13, 2010

Many others did do the same. Many of them are called saints in the Catholic Church.



Eh? (as in) HUH?

Bit of a non sequitor there .....

Can you explain? Is this part of some doctrine you espouse?
Caliban
1 / 5 (1) Mar 13, 2010
Boy Scouts have been doing just that for quite some time now. With less predation upon their constituents, too.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 13, 2010
Boy Scouts have been doing just that for quite some time now. With less predation upon their constituents, too.

Ever been in the Boy Scouts? They run around selling popcorn, demand their members wear uniforms and earn merit badges. They don't allow homosexuals or women.
The Boy Scouts also promote faith in God.
Caliban
1 / 5 (1) Mar 13, 2010
No- just the Cubs-but then all that religion stuff got in the way. But you get my point- plenty of civic, cultural, political, professional, social, arts, science, et c. organizations around to promote the advancement of humankind individually and collectively.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 13, 2010
No- just the Cubs-but then all that religion stuff got in the way. But you get my point- plenty of civic, cultural, political, professional, social, arts, science, et c. organizations around to promote the advancement of humankind individually and collectively.

I have great respect for the Boy Scouts. Boy Scout troops need sponsors. The majority of sponsors are churches. The LDS Church, Mormons, are great supporters of the Boy Scouts.
So people of faith join together into churches, and collectively decide the basis of their beliefs and how to promote and support those beliefs. Some may call this religion. But you are opposed to this? That contradicts what you said earlier.
No, I do not get your point.
Caliban
3 / 5 (2) Mar 13, 2010

So people of faith join together into churches, and collectively decide the basis of their beliefs and how to promote and support those beliefs. Some may call this religion. But you are opposed to this? That contradicts what you said earlier.
No, I do not get your point.

No surprise there.
People of faithalso band together to decide upon common goals- including the Inquisition, the Crusades, expunging the Cathars, to declare Jihad agaist Jews and Christians, et c.
As I said- religion is neither necessary nor prerequisite for action in accordance with the Golden Rule.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 13, 2010
People of faithalso band together to decide upon common goals- including the Inquisition, the Crusades, expunging the Cathars, to declare Jihad agaist Jews and Christians, et c.

I suspect that it was a very small number of people who decided such actions. Today, most Muslims are sincerely opposed to murder, but have no power to stop it except to pray. If they take vocal action, they will become targets. That is their dilema.
People of faith DID come together to end slavery in Britain and supported the end of slavery in the USA. People of faith come together everyday to encourage women not to kill their babies.
As I said- religion is neither necessary nor prerequisite for action in accordance with the Golden Rule.

Maybe it is not necessary, but what has taken its place and done a better job than the Salvation Army, Catholic charities and hundreds of other faith based organizations?
Caliban
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 13, 2010
Ever heard of UNICEF? The Red Cross? The American Cancer Society? The ACLU? The Peace Corps? The PTA?

Again- religion is neither necessary nor prerequisite for action in accordance with the Golden Rule.
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Mar 13, 2010
plenty of civic, cultural, political, professional, social, arts, science, et c. organizations around to promote the advancement of humankind individually and collectively
Plus they don't require you to worship holy vapors, ply you with lies like eternal life, or teach your kids that evolution isn't real because god didn't put it in the bible.

Did you know that some islamists will not use a toilet because the Quran says one must squat to do their business? Depending on the imam that is. This could mean that god did not anticipate the the invention of the toilet and thus is not all-seeing like the eye of Horus. Or perhaps the reference was lost in redaction. So anyway if you go into a public stall and see stuff on the seat (or on the floor) you'll know a religionist who believes in his holy books verbatim was there.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 13, 2010
Ever heard of UNICEF? The Red Cross? The American Cancer Society? The ACLU? The Peace Corps? The PTA?

Again- religion is neither necessary nor prerequisite for action in accordance with the Golden Rule.

I would exclude UNICEF and Peace Corps because they are government agencies.
If you really care about the golden rule, why would you dis faith based groups?
And I would say the source of the cross in the Red Cross is Christian.
croghan27
not rated yet Mar 13, 2010
While surfing a bit earlier I came upon this video about how big is the non-religious population of America. (Not my country - but for purposes of this discussion I will post it.)

http://www.youtub...=related

I hope it connects properly. It (partially) agrees with the initial statement that began this whole thread - that better than 80% of the population (the sociologist making that claim is not American) refer to some deity before making decisions.

It says that better than 80% BELIEVE - if you believe they why would not look to some God for direction???
Caliban
3 / 5 (2) Mar 14, 2010

And I would say the source of the cross in the Red Cross is Christian.

The Red Cross doesn't profess any religious affiliation, and you would need to find a citation to prove christian derivation for their symbol. It is a very recognizable symbol, simply put.

And how does a Government organization differ from any other organization or collective of people working to achhieve a common goal?

And just how did I "dis" faith-based groups? I said that religion is neither necessary nor prerequisite for acting in accordance with the Golden Rule.

I also said that religion adds another layer of diviseness between the individual or group and their acting in accord with the Golden Rule.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 14, 2010
Auto: Muslims are required to wash before praying 5 times a day. They are supposed to wash their hands, mouth, butt, feet, etc. I suspect this helps to minimize the spread of disease. That is what the government tells us to do to stop the spread of the flu. Muslims have been doing this for centuries.
As for squatting, many cultures do this, including Japanese. I think this is a more healthy way to defecate.
The west should adopt the toilet habits of some other cultures.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 14, 2010
Red Cross doesn't profess any religious affiliation,

Their cross is the Christian cross, like it or not.
The Muslim equivalent is the Red Crescent.
Caliban
1 / 5 (1) Mar 14, 2010
Red Cross doesn't profess any religious affiliation,

Their cross is the Christian cross, like it or not.
The Muslim equivalent is the Red Crescent.


Bring on that citation, then.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 14, 2010
"John Winthrop,
A Modell of Christian Charity
(1630) "

http://history.ha...mod.html

Where were the non-religious charities in 1630?
Caliban
1 / 5 (1) Mar 14, 2010
John Winthrop has exactly zero to do with the International Red Cross humanitarian organization, Marjon.
Mesafina
5 / 5 (1) Mar 14, 2010
As I mentioned in this article: http://www.physor...19.html, I think Marjon has demonstrated well the reasons why religion is actually a harmful concept in culture in the modern world. It served it's purposes in the past of providing some reasons for people to organize and work together, however there is nothing good that exists that only religion can give us, any social or societal benefits it confers can be conferred just as well by people who do it for it's benefits, not because god told them to. Case in point: the bible tells us not to steal, and served well in dissuading that behavior, but we accomplish the same thing today through understanding that stealing destabilizes our social interactions and we police against it.
Mesafina
5 / 5 (1) Mar 14, 2010
You mentioned several times Marjon that faith is believing in something without proof. That means you are choosing arbitrarily to believe something that you just made-up, or are believing something that someone else told you and choosing to take them at their word and never question it. The first one is just delusional and akin to hallucination, the second is absolute unquestioning acceptance of authority. Teaching children ideas that they cant prove means that they will have to accept them either on delusion or through absolute acceptance of your authority. So you are training them to subject themselves to despotism. That is in my opinion child abuse. Therefor in my opinion, teaching religion (or any harmful lies) to children is child-abuse and should be taken very seriously.
Mesafina
5 / 5 (1) Mar 14, 2010
I simply wish there was still some frontier that intelligent secular, scientifically minded individuals could go to in order to establish our own nation, free from religion, where education and knowledge is paramount and the pursuit of development and technology. A place where anyone would be free to live so long as they could make their own way, value logical reasoning, and reject superstitions on the basis of their irrelevance to understanding the world around us. Maybe when we start colonizing space such places may come to be eventually!
RudeRedDog
not rated yet Mar 14, 2010
Red Cross doesn't profess any religious affiliation,

Their cross is the Christian cross, like it or not.
The Muslim equivalent is the Red Crescent.


Bring on that citation, then.


Hopefully, the links I am providing can bring a little to this specific point. I do this only because I have worked for the American Red Cross in my home town and a great friend of mine works there.

Through looking at these articles I think (note I said think not KNOW) that the Red Cross is 'based' on a Christian symbol - the cross.

You may well disagree and I will have no hard feelings if you do.

The links should help a bit. (both are needed to get the full impact of the 'source of the Red Cross emblem' and that it was a cross to indicate 'protector of Christianity'.)

http://www.icrc.o...-history

http://flagspot.n...tml#hist

Hope this is informational learning.

Have a good day all.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 14, 2010
I simply wish there was still some frontier that intelligent secular, scientifically minded individuals could go to in order to establish our own nation, free from religion, where education and knowledge is paramount and the pursuit of development and technology. A place where anyone would be free to live so long as they could make their own way, value logical reasoning, and reject superstitions on the basis of their irrelevance to understanding the world around us. Maybe when we start colonizing space such places may come to be eventually!


The US constitution states the government cannot establish a religion NOR can it prohibit its free exercise.
You want a government that bans religious practice?
Many communist government have tried that.
How do such restrictions square with human rights?
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 14, 2010
John Winthrop has exactly zero to do with the International Red Cross humanitarian organization, Marjon.

Never said he did. Just pointing out people of faith were promoting and practicing charity long before the Red Cross.
As for the Red Cross having a religious base:
"Dunant was born in Geneva, Switzerland as the first son of businessman Jean-Jacques Dunant and his wife Antoinette Dunant-Colladon. His family was very devoutly Calvinist " http://en.wikiped...y_Dunant
His book inspired the creation of the Red Cross.
Why didn't some atheist beat Dunant to the the creation of such an organization?
croghan27
not rated yet Mar 14, 2010

You want a government that bans religious practice?
Many communist government have tried that.
How do such restrictions square with human rights?


I need some documentation for that one. Certainly communist governments are officially atheist but the USSR had active churches all during its' existence, as did (does) China.

It may be that cynically they see a method to garner support for their endeavours - but is that any different than the 'established' Church of England? You can turn on a TV and see some preacher announcing that America is almost a function of God.

The purpose is the same, the process changes.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Mar 14, 2010
Lots of Christians sinning today. You can't use electricity on the Sabbath.

Who says Christians can't use electricity on the sabbath?

You Christians have to obey the word of God, don't you? You're doing work on the holy day of rest. You're to be stoned to death out front of the village.

And FYI: the box cross is pagan and has been around longer than Christianity. The obtuse cross is your symbol.

otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Mar 14, 2010
the box cross is pagan
Yeah xians appropriated most aspects of their religion from pagans to make it easier to assimilate (conquer) them: the ankh/cross, the virgin mother, the herculean man/god, the many holidays superceded by phoney birthdays and resurrections. Rome built their religion like xians built their churches- atop the ruins of earlier iterations.

marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 14, 2010
"The antireligious politics followed by socialist Albania after 1944, which culminated in 1967 with
the abolishment of religion and the destruction of many cult places,"
http://docs.googl...HOGv-zww
"China went even further, experimenting with a ban on all religions for over a decade. Despite their best efforts, religion survived. " http://jcs.oxford...csp042v1
otto1923
3 / 5 (2) Mar 14, 2010
I simply wish there was still some frontier that intelligent secular, scientifically minded individuals could go to in order to establish our own nation, free from religion
We don't need to go anywhere. As the troll pointed out this country and to a larger extent current western culture was established as a function of reason and not by the authority of and god. The fact that all religions are tolerated equally in the US, I believe is to demonstrate the lack of authority any of them can have over govt based on reason. Many religions existing in proximity demonstrates that none of them makes any sense. Our culture was established to destroy the poisonous effects of religions. Give it time, in a gen or 2 it will be another curious hobby like bridge or collecting Barbie dolls. Sorry that's all I could think of. Like astrology? Golf?
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 14, 2010

You Christians have to obey the word of God, don't you? You're doing work on the holy day of rest. You're to be stoned to death out front of the village.

You tell me. You claim to be the expert even after I pointed out your errors.

And FYI: the box cross is pagan and has been around longer than Christianity. The obtuse cross is your symbol.

The Swiss cross has a Christian origin.

Of course the Christians adopted a pagan symbols. The cross adopted was a symbol of Roman punishment and degradation.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 14, 2010
I simply wish there was still some frontier that intelligent secular, scientifically minded individuals could go to in order to establish our own nation, free from religion
We don't need to go anywhere. As the troll pointed out this country and to a larger extent current western culture was established as a function of reason and not by the authority of and god. The fact that all religions are tolerated equally in the US, I believe is to demonstrate the lack of authority any of them can have over govt based on reason. Many religions existing in proximity demonstrates that none of them makes any sense. Our culture was established to destroy the poisonous effects of religions. Give it time, in a gen or 2 it will be another curious hobby like bridge or collecting Barbie dolls. Sorry that's all I could think of. Like astrology? Golf?

Faith is doing just fine in the USA in spite of statist government attacks.
otto1923
not rated yet Mar 14, 2010
I simply wish there was still some frontier that intelligent secular, scientifically minded individuals could go to in order to establish our own nation, free from religion
We don't need to go anywhere. As the troll pointed out this country and to a larger extent current western culture was established as a function of reason and not by the authority of and god. The fact that all religions are tolerated equally in the US, I believe is to demonstrate the lack of authority any of them can have over govt based on reason. Many religions existing in proximity demonstrates that none of them makes any sense. Our culture was established to destroy the poisonous effects of religions. Give it time, in a gen or 2 it will be another curious hobby like bridge or collecting Barbie dolls. Sorry that's all I could think of. Like astrology? Golf?

Faith is doing just fine in the USA in spite of statist government attacks.

Statist?
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 14, 2010
What is wrong with Christianity adapting to the local culture?
That doesn't sound like a intolerant religion forcing itself upon others.
A Christian theme is 'they will know us by our love'.
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Mar 14, 2010
His book inspired the creation of the Red Cross.
Why didn't some atheist beat Dunant to the the creation of such an organization?
Perhaps because atheists were vilified back then and a professed atheist couldn't have established anything?
I suspect that it was a very small number of people who decided such actions. Today, most Muslims are sincerely opposed to murder, but have no power to stop it except to pray.
As there is good to be found in every evil, I suppose marjons participation here has some benefit. Reasonable people will read her posts and wonder "Is this the typical religionist spokesperson? Do they all actually think as poorly as this? Is this what happens when you accept religionist concepts?" And religionists themselves might ask "Do I actually sound that silly?" It is easier to demonstrate the absurdity of religious beliefs than it is to try wresting them from the grasp of desperate people. Just keep on exposing yourself marjon.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Mar 14, 2010

You Christians have to obey the word of God, don't you? You're doing work on the holy day of rest. You're to be stoned to death out front of the village.

You tell me. You claim to be the expert even after I pointed out your errors.
You've done no such thing. Where are my errors in having you adhere to your own faith?

The Swiss cross has a Christian origin.
The cross on the swiss flag has papl origins but the box cross itself was usurped by Christianity. Catholicism adopted the crucifixion cross, not christianity as the box cross was the symbol until the Papal order consuming the Roman cross.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 14, 2010
You've done no such thing. Where are my errors in having you adhere to your own faith?

Well for starters, you claimed Saturday is the sabbath and that Christians can't use electricity on the sabbath.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 14, 2010
Perhaps because atheists were vilified back then and a professed atheist couldn't have established anything?

Excuses, excuses.
What atheists were doing in the mid 1800s were promoting their vision of Utopia, Marxism.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 14, 2010
Was the Inquisition a grass roots religious movement? How about the Crusades?
Abolishing slavery was a grass roots religious movement just as Christianity was a grass roots religious movement.
Luther and Calvin were grass roots leaders who reformed the religious power of the day.
Just as tea party members are leading a grass roots movement to return the government of the USA to its Constitution.
Deviation from principles and standards don't invalidate such principles and standards. It does test the quality of such principles and standards. So far, deviations from the Ten Commandments and the Golden rule lead to undesirable consequences.
croghan27
not rated yet Mar 14, 2010
"The antireligious politics followed by socialist Albania after 1944, which culminated in 1967 with
the abolishment of religion and the destruction of many cult places,"
http://docs.googl...HOGv-zww


Nah - Albania is not now and never has been a hot bed of anything ... even Communism, the USSR in its' hayday kept its' hands off Albania. To use that as an example of any multitude of communist nations that ban religion is swinging and missing the ball.

As for China during the Cultural Revolution - that is an example of very little - they banned hats and styles of coats ... and have since admitted that "OOPs it was all a mistake; an excess."

Try again.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 14, 2010
I need some documentation for that one. Certainly communist governments are officially atheist but the USSR had active churches all during its' existence, as did (does) China.

I provided documentation that atheist communists passed laws to ban religion. Such laws were not successful.
Socialism/communism continues to be attempted around the world in spite of its record of failure.
People on this board have advocated of a ban on religion.
Canadians can go to jail for practicing Christianity.
The facts that such attempts fail don't stop those 'rational intellectuals' from trying.
http://www.wnd.co...d=108830
croghan27
not rated yet Mar 14, 2010


Canadians can go to jail for practicing Christianity.


Not sure what that link has to do with Canadians being gaoled for practising any kind of Christianity.

As for Mark Steyn - he is an out and out racist who delights in suggesting the people be discriminated against for racial and religious reasons. (If they are Muslim). That is what the Human Rights Commission was after him about.

Where was the gaol involved?
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 14, 2010
As for Mark Steyn - he is an out and out racist who delights in suggesting the people be discriminated against for racial and religious reasons.

How typical. Accuse those you disagree with with racism. Reminds me of religious zealots who used to accuse those that didn't believe the same as they with heresy.
"He also takes a stand against the erosion of free speech in Canada, Britain and elsewhere, and the advance of a creeping totalitarian "multiculturalism";"
http://www.steyns...t65.html
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 14, 2010
"If you’ve been following recent developments in the Netherlands, you’ll know that Geert Wilders, a Dutch Member of Parliament, is to be put on trial for offending Muslims. “Look at what you’re doing,” the sardonic Brit Pat Condell pointed out. “You’re prosecuting a man who is under 24-hour protection from attack by violent Muslims. Yet he’s the criminal for expressing an opinion.” "
" while Europe has a high degree of tolerance for intolerant imams, it won’t tolerate anyone pointing out that intolerance. "
". But, if you’re the average post-Christian Eurosecularist, what’s the big deal? Who wants to be the last guy sitting in the office sharpening his pencil during morning prayers? "
http://www.steyno.../34/110/
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 14, 2010
"It has ruled that an individual can be convicted for racism, even when it's totally unconscious... The decision makes for scary reading, because it says someone can be found guilty just for making someone else feel bad...

According to the tribunal, “unconscious” discrimination is no different from “conscious” discrimination. And the onus is on the accused to prove he's innocent... As Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair has pointed out, the tribunal has set a standard nobody, however fair-minded, can meet. "
http://www.steyno.../2298/9/
Fast and loose with 'racism' in Canada.
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Mar 14, 2010
Perhaps because atheists were vilified back then and a professed atheist couldn't have established anything?

Excuses, excuses.
What atheists were doing in the mid 1800s were promoting their vision of Utopia, Marxism.
So youre saying these were grass roots movements?
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Mar 14, 2010
Auto: Muslims are required to wash before praying 5 times a day. They are supposed to wash their hands, mouth, butt, feet, etc. I suspect this helps to minimize the spread of disease. That is what the government tells us to do to stop the spread of the flu. Muslims have been doing this for centuries.
As for squatting, many cultures do this, including Japanese. I think this is a more healthy way to defecate.
The west should adopt the toilet habits of some other cultures.
ok heres something: Because of your preoccupation with bodily functions I think you totally missed my point here. I was using this example to point out that a literalist interpretation of holy books often causes bizarre behaviors as religionists try to please their gods. You took it as an opportunity to declare that muslims know how to defecate better than we do? And if they do then why isnt this preferable behavior written into the bible? Acts perhaps?
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Mar 14, 2010

Excuses, excuses.
What atheists were doing in the mid 1800s were promoting their vision of Utopia, Marxism.

Perhaps a small subset of say, a thousand people. The other few million atheists were quietly practicing science.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 14, 2010
Because of your preoccupation with bodily functions I think you totally missed my point here.

MY preoccupation? YOU brought it up.

Keeping clean is bizarre?
YOU complained about their toilet habits dictated by their religion and I point out their religion dictates those bizarre habits to promote health. Just like our modern governments today.
Jews did it too:
"there are many Jewish rituals that require washing for "spiritual" reasons: e.g. immersion in the Mikveh, and washing hands before prayer, before eating bread, and when getting up in the morning."
http://www.aish.c...111.html
All before Lister's science.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 14, 2010

Excuses, excuses.
What atheists were doing in the mid 1800s were promoting their vision of Utopia, Marxism.

Perhaps a small subset of say, a thousand people. The other few million atheists were quietly practicing science.

Evidence? That is what science is all about, data to support your hypothesis. Show me.
Caliban
3 / 5 (2) Mar 14, 2010
Apparently, margin thinks that proselytizing here, in this forum, will be rewarded with a heavenward journey and everlasting bliss in the seet bye-n-bye.
Why are we not surprised that this is margin's preferred path one to our father's many mansions, as opposed to getting off it's arse, and actually risking it to ACTUAL martyrdom out there in the savage hinterlands? I would think that Beatification would be the only goal lofty enough in purpose for one possessed of such towering gifts as you, margin!
Why don't you do something we can all truly appreciate, and turn our tapwarter into a nice Cabernet for the rest of your Sabbath?
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 14, 2010
Apparently, margin thinks that proselytizing here, in this forum, will be rewarded with a heavenward journey and everlasting bliss in the seet bye-n-bye.
Why are we not surprised that this is margin's preferred path one to our father's many mansions, as opposed to getting off it's arse, and actually risking it to ACTUAL martyrdom out there in the savage hinterlands? I would think that Beatification would be the only goal lofty enough in purpose for one possessed of such towering gifts as you, margin!
Why don't you do something we can all truly appreciate, and turn our tapwarter into a nice Cabernet for the rest of your Sabbath?

Thanks. More data points for the pettiness of pseudo-intellectuals.
croghan27
5 / 5 (1) Mar 14, 2010
"Fast and loose with 'racism' in Canada."

You have that a tad backward there, marjon. Here is an article from a fellow journalist about how Mr. Steyn. he speaks to how he specializes in fear invoking stories such as Obama is a communist or Canadian Medicare has 'death panels".

This from Paul Wells on Steyn's terror of the march of European fascism: http://www2.macle...fascism/

Yes, he does mention your good friend Geert (I hate Muslims) Wilders.
Caliban
1 / 5 (2) Mar 14, 2010
Apparently, margin thinks that proselytizing here, in this forum, will be rewarded with a heavenward journey and everlasting bliss in the seet bye-n-bye.
Why are we not surprised that this is margin's preferred path one to our father's many mansions, as opposed to getting off it's arse, and actually risking it to ACTUAL martyrdom out there in the savage hinterlands? I would think that Beatification would be the only goal lofty enough in purpose for one possessed of such towering gifts as you, margin!
Why don't you do something we can all truly appreciate, and turn our tapwarter into a nice Cabernet for the rest of your Sabbath?

Thanks. More data points for the pettiness of pseudo-intellectuals.


Happy to be of Service, margin.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 14, 2010
Apparently, margin thinks that proselytizing here, in this forum, will be rewarded with a heavenward journey and everlasting bliss in the seet bye-n-bye.
Why are we not surprised that this is margin's preferred path one to our father's many mansions, as opposed to getting off it's arse, and actually risking it to ACTUAL martyrdom out there in the savage hinterlands? I would think that Beatification would be the only goal lofty enough in purpose for one possessed of such towering gifts as you, margin!
Why don't you do something we can all truly appreciate, and turn our tapwarter into a nice Cabernet for the rest of your Sabbath?

Thanks. More data points for the pettiness of pseudo-intellectuals.


Happy to be of Service, margin.

How rational and scientific of you!
Caliban
1 / 5 (1) Mar 14, 2010
Apparently, margin thinks that proselytizing here, in this forum, will be rewarded with a heavenward journey and everlasting bliss in the seet bye-n-bye.
Why are we not surprised that this is margin's preferred path one to our father's many mansions, as opposed to getting off it's arse, and actually risking it to ACTUAL martyrdom out there in the savage hinterlands? I would think that Beatification would be the only goal lofty enough in purpose for one possessed of such towering gifts as you, margin!
Why don't you do something we can all truly appreciate, and turn our tapwarter into a nice Cabernet for the rest of your Sabbath?

Thanks. More data points for the pettiness of pseudo-intellectuals.


Happy to be of Service, margin.

How rational and scientific of you!


Ditto.
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Mar 14, 2010
Apparently, margin thinks that proselytizing here, in this forum, will be rewarded with a heavenward journey and everlasting bliss in the seet bye-n-bye.
Why are we not surprised that this is margin's preferred path one to our father's many mansions, as opposed to getting off it's arse, and actually risking it to ACTUAL martyrdom out there in the savage hinterlands? I would think that Beatification would be the only goal lofty enough in purpose for one possessed of such towering gifts as you, margin!
Why don't you do something we can all truly appreciate, and turn our tapwarter into a nice Cabernet for the rest of your Sabbath?

Thanks. More data points for the pettiness of pseudo-intellectuals.


Happy to be of Service, margin.

How rational and scientific of you!


Ditto.

Bwahaahaahaaaah!
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Mar 14, 2010
Because of your preoccupation with bodily functions I think you totally missed my point here.

MY preoccupation? YOU brought it up.

Keeping clean is bizarre?
YOU complained about their toilet habits dictated by their religion and I point out their religion dictates those bizarre habits to promote health. Just like our modern governments today.
Jews did it too:
"there are many Jewish rituals that require washing for "spiritual" reasons: e.g. immersion in the Mikveh, and washing hands before prayer, before eating bread, and when getting up in the morning."
http://www.aish.c...111.html
All before Lister's science.
Yeah but they shit on the floor sometimes. I think I mentioned it. I stepped in it once, right next to the toilet, tracked it all around the Wawa. Honest.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Mar 14, 2010
Evidence? That is what science is all about, data to support your hypothesis. Show me.

Sure, Marxists numbered in the thousands. Books say so, that isn't good enough for you to have faith in?
croghan27
not rated yet Mar 14, 2010
Before I unsubscribe from this thread does anyone have anything more to say about the article that brought us here?

FWIW I still doubt the polling figures that Professor Schieman uses: a vague belief in some kind of ultimate beings doth not make for possibilities of submitting to him/her (it?) questions of life changing importance.
croghan27
not rated yet Mar 14, 2010
otto1923
not rated yet Mar 14, 2010
Hey I got one
http://www.youtub...be_gdata
black metal >:-]
note the title-
Caliban
1 / 5 (1) Mar 14, 2010
Especially like the electric levitating skull logo, otto!
Gotta say, though- as black metal goes- I prefered the Gaahl(did I spell that right?)-Did you see that interview that vbs tv did?
Song title/sentiment noted. Crackin' me up!
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 14, 2010
Apparently, margin thinks that proselytizing here, in this forum, will be rewarded with a heavenward journey and everlasting bliss in the seet bye-n-bye.

This is proselytizing? I seem to be the only tolerant person here who has some respect for people's faith. Self proclaimed 'elite intellectuals' can only ridicule. Maybe this is why science has so little respect today.
Caliban
1 / 5 (1) Mar 14, 2010
[q
This is proselytizing? I seem to be the only tolerant person here who has some respect for people's faith. Self proclaimed 'elite intellectuals' can only ridicule. Maybe this is why science has so little respect today.

By my count, margin, that's three direct, deliberate insults levelled at me specifically, and indirectly at any other posters here that might share my views.

Tolerant, indeed.
Yes
4 / 5 (1) Mar 14, 2010
A 'real' scientist must not have faith, in anything, as he must always have proof to support his knowledge.
How limiting!

Note that when faithgroups do (objective) research they always seem to be able to proof that faith has influence.
Also note that when secular people repeat the test, they find that faith has no influence.
That is because the secular (objective) scientists have faith that it should not have influence, and their faith is stronger than the faith of the people they are testing.
Therefore the faith of the secular objective scientist interfere with the test as much as the faith of the faithgroup scientist.
How to test faith issues?
The test should be done by an objective robot computer that was programmed and the scientist who programmed the robot must be deceased. The robot must do the test in secret at an unknown moment, without knowledge of anybody that the test is performed.
Then the test was objectively done. .....uhh... maybe
marjon
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 15, 2010

This is proselytizing? I seem to be the only tolerant person here who has some respect for people's faith. Self proclaimed 'elite intellectuals' can only ridicule. Maybe this is why science has so little respect today.


By my count, margin, that's three direct, deliberate insults levelled at me specifically, and indirectly at any other posters here that might share my views.

Tolerant, indeed.

Still did not answer the question.

Rational, intelligent people claim to be tolerant, but I have not observed such tolerance. So are they rational and intelligent when they practice such intolerance toward my opinions?
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Mar 15, 2010
Still did not answer the question.

Rational, intelligent people claim to be tolerant, but I have not observed such tolerance. So are they rational and intelligent when they practice such intolerance toward my opinions?

Like most other rational people we don't hand over whatever Christianity requests.

You request tolerance, we request intellectual honesty. When you hold up your end of the bargain, we'll fulfill ours.
marjon
2 / 5 (4) Mar 15, 2010

Like most other rational people we don't hand over whatever Christianity requests.

You request tolerance, we request intellectual honesty. When you hold up your end of the bargain, we'll fulfill ours.

Personally I don't really care how tolerant you are. All the emotional responses support my theory regarding the intolerance and arrogance of 'intellectuals'.
People ARE honest about their faith.
Is that what gets your knickers in a knot? People have the capacity for faith and they function quite well and are happy in their faith in spite of attempts by "intellectual's" science to prove them wrong?
I have said it many times, science is not the tool to analyze faith.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Mar 15, 2010
Like most other rational people we don't hand over whatever Christianity requests.

What does Christianity request of you? Only faith.
Have no faith? That's your problem, your choice.
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Mar 15, 2010
How to test faith issues?
How many times do godders need to see the answer before it registers? If your faith is based on lies then at least it has to be redirected toward something truthful. Belief in moses has to be discarded if the evidence conclusively says he didnt exist. If the bible says to have faith in what moses said, and it has been proven that moses as described there didnt exist, then the bible is wrong and must be denied. No one part of it can be considered valid if it is declared the basis of faith but is proven to contain lies. If the bible says that the 10 commandments were issued to moses by god and moses didnt in fact exist, then they came from somewhere else and they are suspect. It doesnt matter if they 'seem' right or if they make sense- they need to be discarded.

This predicament is not the fault of science but of the people who constructed this nonsense knowing that it was based on fairy tales and would some day be disproven.
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Mar 15, 2010
Faith based on lies is not the same as faith based on unsubstantiated information. The exodus didnt happen- that is a fact. You cant say something is good or does good if the basis for its existance can be denied. It needs to be replaced with something REAL which can provide the same services.

And I will restate the obvious: if your faith requires you to believe in lies then it is evil in every sense of the word, and should be expunged.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 15, 2010
"Jericho was once thought to be a ‘Bible problem’ because of the seeming disagreement between archaeology and the Bible. When the archaeology is correctly interpreted, however, just the opposite is the case. The archaeological evidence supports the historical accuracy of the biblical account in every detail. Every aspect of the story that could possibly be verified by the findings of archaeology is, in fact, verified."
http://www.answer...o.asp#f3
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 15, 2010
"The radiocarbon date seems to validate Garstang's earlier claim that the city was destroyed around 1400 BC. Whether of not Joshua actually destroyed it will probably remain a mystery. All we know for sure is that the new work contributed by Wood neither confirms nor denies the possibility."
http://www.mnsu.e...cho.html
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Mar 15, 2010
"The radiocarbon date seems to validate Garstang's earlier claim that the city was destroyed around 1400 BC. Whether of not Joshua actually destroyed it will probably remain a mystery. All we know for sure is that the new work contributed by Wood neither confirms nor denies the possibility."
http://www.mnsu.e...cho.html

-Its not a mystery because the exodus didnt occur and therefore there was no murderous rampage through the Levant by hebrews. Your article is only conjecture and baseless as there is a great deal more info to prove conclusively that the exodus DIDNT OCCUR.
Whether of not Joshua actually destroyed it
Youll note the lie of omission: ...Joshua (if he in fact existed which he did not)...
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Mar 15, 2010
"The answer, he concluded, is very disturbing: many scientists do not want to acknowledge anything that may even suggest the existence of God. The big-bang theory, by positing a beginning of the universe, suggests a creator and therefore annoys many astronomers. This anti-religious bias is hardly confined to astronomers. It pervades academia, home to nearly all archaeologists (The Jewish Journal, April 20, 2001, emphasis added)."
http://www.biblea...rsy.aspx
marjon
2 / 5 (4) Mar 15, 2010
"Although almost 200 years old, a statement by 19th-century writer H.L. Hastings regarding skeptics’ attacks on the Bible holds true:
For 1800 years, skeptics have been refuting and overthrowing this book, and yet it stands today as a solid rock...The skeptics, with all their assaults, make about as much impression on this book as a man with a hammer would on the Pyramids of Egypt. When a French monarch proposed persecuting Christians, an elderly advisor told him, “Sir, the Church of God is an anvil that has worn out many hammers.” So the hammers of the skeptics have been pecking away at this book for ages, but the hammers are worn out, and the anvil still endures. If this book had not been the book of God, men would have destroyed it long ago. Emperors and popes, kings and priests, princes and rulers have all tried their hand at it; they have all died and yet this book lives on."
http://www.biblea...rsy.aspx
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Mar 15, 2010
Any person is a liar if he is aware of the proof of no exodus and still claims the bible is valid. If he or she refuses to look at and accept the truth, as do you, And continues to espouse faith that it is true, both of you are liars. Do you understand?
Yes
not rated yet Mar 15, 2010
Maybe the old testament is a prophecy?:)
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Mar 15, 2010
Any person is a liar if he is aware of the proof of no exodus and still claims the bible is valid. If he or she refuses to look at and accept the truth, as do you, And continues to espouse faith that it is true, both of you are liars. Do you understand?

Who is lying? Eyewitness accounts of the Exodus have been documented and passed on for generations.
Not long ago dinosaurs were cold blooded and had no feathers.
It is amazing what people can find when they look around and keep an open mind. Science used to be like that.
Yes
5 / 5 (1) Mar 15, 2010
Babylon is science, and the king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar....... is..... Medicine.
Hold on to your seats here comes the flood that was predicted 4K years ago.
Well ehh hundreds of sects predicted the end of the world before me. We all know the fate of their faith.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Mar 15, 2010
Who is lying? Eyewitness accounts of the Exodus have been documented and passed on for generations.

Get 15 people in a room and play telephone with a story that long. I'm sure you'll find a quite different result from what the truth is over 5 minutes let alone 20 centuries.
otto1923
5 / 5 (2) Mar 15, 2010
Who is lying? Eyewitness accounts of the Exodus have been documented and passed on for generations.
No they haven't. The people who started those myths were liars. The proof is what archeologists have found on the desert: no exodus. No million Hebrews ever lived in goshen, or left there en masse, or traveled throughout Egypt-occupied Sinai, or waged extermination on the canaanites or anyone else. This is what is written in your book and it is a lie. Therefore your book is bogus and your faith invalidated.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Mar 15, 2010
Who is lying? Eyewitness accounts of the Exodus have been documented and passed on for generations.

Get 15 people in a room and play telephone with a story that long. I'm sure you'll find a quite different result from what the truth is over 5 minutes let alone 20 centuries.

As stated earlier, Troy was considered fiction, until found.
Archeology supports Bible accounts in Jericho.
"New Pyramid Found in Egypt: 4,300-Year-Old Queen's Tomb" "The researchers were somewhat surprised to find a pyramid at the Teti site, since they thought the area had been thoroughly searched." http://news.natio...ypt.html
You will never find anything if you don't look for it.
otto1923
3 / 5 (2) Mar 15, 2010
Archeology has proven that the exodus is a lie. They have looked and what should be there is not there. You've seen this evidence as presented by scientists or have chosen not to see it; either way you still profess that it is true when it is not, and therefore you are a liar.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Mar 15, 2010
your faith invalidated.

Still don't understand faith do you?
Caliban
1.7 / 5 (3) Mar 15, 2010
There is another Anvil ot there, bigger and older than your Church, marjon. It is called ignorance and superstition. Many hammers have been worn out in an attempt to destroy it. And yet it still remains. It is so, in large part, because the weak, lazy and fearful turn to religion because they lack the backbone to face the Truth, and/or because they desire justification for their selfish actions.
Religion attempts to answer the unknown by calling it god, when the unknown is just that- unknown.
Understand, accept, learn, and move on.
JayK
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 15, 2010
Otto, you're arguing with what has to be one of the finest trolls on the internet tubes. I think that last comment by marjon gave it away, though.
otto1923
3 / 5 (2) Mar 15, 2010
Otto, you're arguing with what has to be one of the finest trolls on the internet tubes. I think that last comment by marjon gave it away, though.
Oh I wouldn't use the word fine. Sad maybe. I think a large part of the explanation can be found here:
http://www.physor...822.html
Understand faith? Sure I do. Faith in the face of contrary evidence is pathology. This faith as an institution is cruel deception. When this deception is used to take advantage of people or for instance to establish states like Israel or to justify jihad, it is criminal and should be outlawed.
otto1923
3 / 5 (2) Mar 15, 2010
And Outlawed they will be, by bits and pieces, as more truth is made known and their impact on the world is understood. The only way they can survive is by destroying the truth which they have done in the past; but then they are left to fight each other and ruin is the result. End religion, end the lies, end the destruction.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 15, 2010
There is another Anvil ot there, bigger and older than your Church, marjon. It is called ignorance and superstition. Many hammers have been worn out in an attempt to destroy it. And yet it still remains. It is so, in large part, because the weak, lazy and fearful turn to religion because they lack the backbone to face the Truth, and/or because they desire justification for their selfish actions.
Religion attempts to answer the unknown by calling it god, when the unknown is just that- unknown.
Understand, accept, learn, and move on.

No one has answered this: What is 'the Truth'?
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Mar 15, 2010
Otto, you're arguing with what has to be one of the finest trolls on the internet tubes. I think that last comment by marjon gave it away, though.

You don't understand faith either?
"A person consists of his faith. Whatever is his faith, even so is he.
Indian Proverb
"
"All that I have seen teaches me to trust the Creator for all I have not seen.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
"
"As the essence of courage is to stake one's life on a possibility, so the essence of faith is to believe that the possibility exists.
William Salter"
"Faith certainly tells us what the senses do not, but not the contrary of what they see; it is above, not against them.
Blaise Pascal"
"Faith embraces many truths which seem to contradict each other.
Blaise Pascal
"
"Faith is an oasis in the heart which will never be reached by the caravan of thinking.
Kahlil Gibran
"
"Faith is much better than belief. Belief is when someone else does the thinking.
R. Buckminster Fuller"
Caliban
1 / 5 (1) Mar 15, 2010
There is another Anvil ot there, bigger and older than your Church, marjon. It is called ignorance and superstition. Many hammers have been worn out in an attempt to destroy it. And yet it still remains. It is so, in large part, because the weak, lazy and fearful turn to religion because they lack the backbone to face the Truth, and/or because they desire justification for their selfish actions.
Religion attempts to answer the unknown by calling it god, when the unknown is just that- unknown.
Understand, accept, learn, and move on.

No one has answered this: What is 'the Truth'?


Try checking a little earlier in the thread-ABOUT WHERE YOU CHIMED IN on my posts. There is the "TRUTH". Let it sink in. And then you can go right back to your utterly predictable blather, deluding yourself that you are "right" and "justified" by virtue of your religiosity, and that that is somehow a substitute for acting in accord with the Golden Rule.
Yes
1 / 5 (1) Mar 15, 2010
Divine intervention must be very constant.
'cause d(divine intervention)/dt = 0. ie not measurable. We measure something by looking at how it changes. We would not be looking at the temperature of water or anything if the temperature of anything never changed.
So divine intervention it can be there or maybe it is not. And if it there and if it is constant, then we will never know, unless it changes or disappears.
Yes
not rated yet Mar 15, 2010
The truth is that what remains because it is useful.
Nobody would use the fact that our planet is flat while we took a picture and saw it was a globe.
So a flat planet is obsolete. And we discard the obsolete.
We hold on to what we think is the truth, until a new truth proofs our old truth false, and from then on we will hold fast to the new truth, this will repeat until the real truth has been found or will never be found.
For now the truth is what we believe is the truth.
Jimee
5 / 5 (1) Mar 15, 2010
Perhaps Schieman's polling sample was taken from the enrollment at a religious school, or at church? It would be sad if that great a portion of citizens really felt so inept about their lives that they had to outsource their judgment to such an uncommunicative entity. So it goes.
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Mar 15, 2010
Divine intervention must be very constant.
'cause d(divine intervention)/dt = 0. ie not measurable. We measure something by looking at how it changes. We would not be looking at the temperature of water or anything if the temperature of anything never changed.
So divine intervention it can be there or maybe it is not. And if it there and if it is constant, then we will never know, unless it changes or disappears.
So... did Moses exist or not? If he didn't then the entire bible and all the religions dependent upon it are invalid. This includes all descriptions and iterations of 'divine intervention' as related within these religions.
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Mar 15, 2010
Faith in something which has been proven to be false is not faith it is delusion. You can't have faith that truth can be derived from some falsehood at a later date. You are lying to yourself.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 15, 2010
Try checking a little earlier in the thread-ABOUT WHERE YOU CHIMED IN on my posts. There is the "TRUTH". Let it sink in. And then you can go right back to your utterly predictable blather, deluding yourself that you are "right" and "justified" by virtue of your religiosity, and that that is somehow a substitute for acting in accord with the Golden Rule.

Where is your "TRUTH"? What is it again?
Caliban
1 / 5 (1) Mar 15, 2010
Try checking a little earlier in the thread-ABOUT WHERE YOU CHIMED IN on my posts. There is the "TRUTH". Let it sink in. And then you can go right back to your utterly predictable blather, deluding yourself that you are "right" and "justified" by virtue of your religiosity, and that that is somehow a substitute for acting in accord with the Golden Rule.

Where is your "TRUTH"? What is it again?


We are born, someone like you wastes our time with a bunch of self-serving fiction, and then we die.

TRUTH

Yes
5 / 5 (2) Mar 15, 2010
We are born, , and then we die.

There is the truth.
otto1923
4 / 5 (2) Mar 15, 2010
Truth is, the Moses of the bible never existed and so didn't receive 10 commandments from god, didn't write the first 5 books in the bible, didn't deliver 2M people from slavery, etc. Joshua didn't exist so the Israelites never waged their genocidal war in the levant. That is the truth. God wouldn't let that mess all happen and then clean it all up so we couldn't prove anything now would he? That would make god a liar too.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Mar 17, 2010
My truth is simple.

Pirahna are killing machines. They've been known to eat in roving packs of deadly teeth.

Christians demand that all morality comes from God's word, but what of the pirahna? In the midst of a feeding frenzy, they don't kill each other. If they don't have a supernatural being giving them direction, how do they know not to kill each other?

It's simply genetic hardwiring, just like the concept of God. A delusion born of fear of the unknown and a need to create artificial attachment to prevent self extinction. Why not just accept things without the dogma?
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2010
Truth is, the Moses of the bible never existed and so didn't receive 10 commandments from god, didn't write the first 5 books in the bible, didn't deliver 2M people from slavery, etc. Joshua didn't exist so the Israelites never waged their genocidal war in the levant. That is the truth. God wouldn't let that mess all happen and then clean it all up so we couldn't prove anything now would he? That would make god a liar too.

You just said you can't prove Moses did not exist. How scientific is that?
Yes, God would clean it up. Why? Because the common theme throughout the Bible is faith.
Faith is more important to God than proving He exists to you.
JayK
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 17, 2010
Self-fulfilling prophecy is self-fulling, duh! The bible says you can't question the bible, so the bible is infallible, duh! You can't know God's mind, so he doesn't have to prove he exists, wham bam yeah! In your face, libs.

Also, angels and women getting it on to create dinosaurs. It is more likely than you might like to like.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2010
My truth is simple.

Pirahna are killing machines. They've been known to eat in roving packs of deadly teeth.

Christians demand that all morality comes from God's word, but what of the pirahna? In the midst of a feeding frenzy, they don't kill each other. If they don't have a supernatural being giving them direction, how do they know not to kill each other?

It's simply genetic hardwiring, just like the concept of God. A delusion born of fear of the unknown and a need to create artificial attachment to prevent self extinction. Why not just accept things without the dogma?

I didn't ask for your 'Truth'.
JayK
3 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2010
Yeah! Can you prove a teapot isn't orbiting Jupiter? How deep is that, man? And I didn't ask about just any teapot, I'm talking fine china, the kind that resonates with a true E and none of that cheap malachite infused stuff, only the real kind.

So who decides if there is a fine china teapot orbiting Jupiter that rings with a true E, and don't answer, because I've got yer answer right here!
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2010
Yeah! Can you prove a teapot isn't orbiting Jupiter? How deep is that, man? And I didn't ask about just any teapot, I'm talking fine china, the kind that resonates with a true E and none of that cheap malachite infused stuff, only the real kind.

So who decides if there is a fine china teapot orbiting Jupiter that rings with a true E, and don't answer, because I've got yer answer right here!

Quantum mechanically, it is not impossible.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2010
My truth is simple.

Pirahna are killing machines. They've been known to eat in roving packs of deadly teeth.

Christians demand that all morality comes from God's word, but what of the pirahna? In the midst of a feeding frenzy, they don't kill each other. If they don't have a supernatural being giving them direction, how do they know not to kill each other?

It's simply genetic hardwiring, just like the concept of God. A delusion born of fear of the unknown and a need to create artificial attachment to prevent self extinction. Why not just accept things without the dogma?

That is a nice heuristic based upon your current state of knowledge.
Obviously then there is no one TRUTH so there can BE no ONE truth. Like beauty, truth is in the eye of the beholder.
If 'truth' is not the same for everyone, the word deletes itself and must not exist.
JayK
3 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2010
So therefore "Truth" and truthiness are useless measures of anything, and pointless to discuss on a scientific website, except by christianist's when they need an excuse to make something up, or to avoid ever apologizing for being wrong. Handy thing, that "Truth". You can use it to deny anything that makes you remotely uncomfortable, like facts, data and rainbows when they crawl up your leg.

Take your truthiness somewhere else, marjon.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 17, 2010
So therefore "Truth" and truthiness are useless measures of anything, and pointless to discuss on a scientific website, except by christianist's when they need an excuse to make something up, or to avoid ever apologizing for being wrong. Handy thing, that "Truth". You can use it to deny anything that makes you remotely uncomfortable, like facts, data and rainbows when they crawl up your leg.

Take your truthiness somewhere else, marjon.


Heuristic: Truth

To what theory of 'truth' do you subscribe: correspondence, coherence, pragmatic, existence, performance, nihilistic, 'no truth', 'long run', biological, ' your own' ? (p.154,155;Discussion of the Method, Koen)
Yes
not rated yet Mar 17, 2010
I will try to explain, to pirañas it is difficult to explain but here I go.
First off, if you do not perceive spirituality, then you do not believe it is there, because you don't "see" it.
If you would perceive spirituality, and you would tell it to somebody who does not perceive it, then there are two possibilities.
1. You perceive spirituality and somebody else does not, or does not recognize it.
2. You are sheer crazy and hallucinating.

Just for now suppose that 1 is the truth. In that case the person that does not perceive spirituality can do two things. Note that he perceives nothing and the only reference is his self.
1- This person rejects the others perception.
2- This person accepts that the other might be perceiving something.

In the first case he says to himself: This man should not be perceiving what I don't. So this man is different. He is crazy.
In the second case he must admit that he is lacking something.
Yes
not rated yet Mar 17, 2010
And what you guys call proof is that result that the group who accepts the proof can collectively agree that it was sensed with their senses.

And spirituality is one of those things that most groups cannot agree on.

And I think that this is hard, because the group who cannot perceive spirituality calls the other group liars or crazy.

So indeed it is a good thing to stop arguing here calling each other a liar and say yes no yes no yes no.

otto1923
not rated yet Mar 18, 2010
Truth is, the Moses of the bible never existed and so didn't receive 10 commandments from god, didn't write the first 5 books in the bible, didn't deliver 2M people from slavery, etc. Joshua didn't exist so the Israelites never waged their genocidal war in the levant. That is the truth. God wouldn't let that mess all happen and then clean it all up so we couldn't prove anything now would he? That would make god a liar too.

You just said you can't prove Moses did not exist. How scientific is that?
Yes, God would clean it up. Why? Because the common theme throughout the Bible is faith.
Faith is more important to God than proving He exists to you.
No, an honest, straightforward god would not cover up the events in the bible and then leave as evidence only tales in one book. A selfish, petty, lying, cheating god would do that; a god a lot like that described in the OT. Your god wants you to have faith in lies?
otto1923
not rated yet Mar 18, 2010
@yes
Another space cadet who thinks poetry makes sense, that saying something poetically somehow gives it more meaning.
So indeed it is a good thing to stop arguing here calling each other a liar and say yes no yes no yes no.
god and Jesus both called others many names in your book. The exodus didn't happen. Anyone claiming that it did, either now or in the bible, is either deluded or lying. The kjv admits they got the Red Sea/Sea of Reeds mixed up- they should be able to retract this lie in light of hard evidence. If Moses didn't receive those commandments from god, where did they come from? Hammurabi?

But it pretty much negates the whole bible. The other prophets quote Moses, Jesus quotes Moses and the prophets, if they knew god personally then they should have known better- unless god lied to them too?
otto1923
not rated yet Mar 18, 2010
@yes
First off, if you do not perceive spirituality, then you do not believe it is there, because you don't "see" it.
Its simpler than that: Xian spirituality is wholly derived from the way it is explained in the bible. Modern discoveries have proven that the bible is full of stories which never happened, told by people who never existed. Therefore, spirituality as described in the bible is fake, faux, bogus, a sham.
otto1923
not rated yet Mar 18, 2010
The real marjoe:
http://www.youtub...be_gdata
This guy is being honest with you. Can you tell the difference?
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 18, 2010
Truth is, the Moses of the bible never existed and so didn't receive 10 commandments from god, didn't write the first 5 books in the bible, didn't deliver 2M people from slavery, etc. Joshua didn't exist so the Israelites never waged their genocidal war in the levant. That is the truth. God wouldn't let that mess all happen and then clean it all up so we couldn't prove anything now would he? That would make god a liar too.

You just said you can't prove Moses did not exist. How scientific is that?
Yes, God would clean it up. Why? Because the common theme throughout the Bible is faith.
Faith is more important to God than proving He exists to you.
No, an honest, straightforward god would not cover up the events in the bible and then leave as evidence only tales in one book. A selfish, petty, lying, cheating god would do that; a god a lot like that described in the OT. Your god wants you to have faith in lies?

As I said, you don't understand faith.
marjon
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2010
If you want to understand faith, read the book of Job.
The essence is to persevere in spite of all odds because you can never KNOW the future.
Seems like a sound survival strategy.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Mar 18, 2010
Yes: I found the concept behind Sagen's movie, Contact, interesting.
She KNEW she was transported away from earth but could not prove it.
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Mar 18, 2010
Your faith is destructive, malignant. Like any drug it might feel good, but it disrupts science, corrupts growing minds, costs innocent people their money, and fuels no end of conflict and war. A rational society bans debilitating drugs; time for a united world to end this scourge of divisive superstition. It's already begun. With each generation fewer and fewer people will be born with those defects which cause you to crave fantasy. Fewer will be exposed to it's addictive effects as they grow up. More and more will come to understand that it is based on lies and so reject it also.

Nothing is eternal in your world but death and the god who promises to save you from it. His biggest lie- there is some miraculous part of you which might just escape death. God and death eternal- are you sure it's not just death that you hope to appease by worshipping it? Your symbol is not the arising god but the dying god of guilt.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 18, 2010
Your faith is destructive, malignant. Like any drug it might feel good, but it disrupts science, corrupts growing minds, costs innocent people their money, and fuels no end of conflict and war. A rational society bans debilitating drugs; time for a united world to end this scourge of divisive superstition. It's already begun. With each generation fewer and fewer people will be born with those defects which cause you to crave fantasy. Fewer will be exposed to it's addictive effects as they grow up. More and more will come to understand that it is based on lies and so reject it also.


I don't want to ban drugs. Use drugs all you want, but you will be held accountable for your actions, not me. It is call individual personal responsibility.
BTW, you are partly correct. Fewer Europeans are being born, but Africans are growing and becoming Christians as are Muslims around the world.
The people dying are atheist Europeans. Ever hear of the Shakers?
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 18, 2010
"From religion comes hope for the future and a sense of societal obligation (i.e., a non-hedonistic worldview). No faith, no hope. No hope for the future, no sense of obligation - hence, no children."
"The dignity of the individual was first proclaimed at Sinai. The Torah sets forth individual rights and responsibilities. Democracy got a huge impetus from the Protestant Reformation.
From the French Revolution to the blood-drenched isms of the 20th. century, more people were killed in the name of reason - liberty, equality and fraternity, or "scientific" socialism, or "scientific" theories of race - than in all of the religious wars spanning the course of history combined.The idea that atheists can stop the Islamic advance could only make sense to a modern European.
You can't beat something with nothing. Atheism isn't a values system, but the negation of a values"
http://www.freere...05/posts
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 18, 2010
"Michel Onfray, the archbishop of atheism, spoke at the 500-seat Alexis de Tocqueville auditorium."
"De Tocqueville was a French aristocrat whose family was guillotined during the Reign of Terror. The non-hedonistic philosopher is best known for his seminal work "Democracy In America," based on his travels here in the early 19th. century."
"Though an agnostic, de Tocqueville was discerning."
"I sought for the key to the greatness and genius of America in harbors...; in her fertile fields and boundless forests; in her rich mines and vast world commerce, in her public school system and institutions of learning. I sought for it in her democratic Congress and matchless Constitution."
"Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power.""
"That's what Europe has lost. That's why Europe, as we know it, could disappear in this century. Hedonistic philosophies don't fill empty cradles."
source above
otto1923
4.5 / 5 (2) Mar 18, 2010
"The dignity of the individual was first proclaimed at Sinai. The Torah sets forth individual rights and responsibilities.
Sinai doesnt exist and the torah was written by moses who didnt exist, so it came from somewhere else, written by deceivers who had to hide behind phoney characters and stories to make you believe.
more people were killed in the name of reason - liberty, equality and fraternity, or "scientific" socialism, or "scientific" theories of race - than in all of the religious wars spanning the course of history combined.
Now, we've effectively discounted this in previous threads and proven that religion and god are the main killers in conflict. So youre reposting it like none of that happened makes you, uh, dishonest as in, lying? We know it but youre hoping someone new might not?
otto1923
4.5 / 5 (2) Mar 18, 2010
"That's what Europe has lost. That's why Europe, as we know it, could disappear in this century. Hedonistic philosophies don't fill empty cradles."
So youre saying the only reason people have children is because theyre religious??

Another big lie- your religions tell people that god will provide for however many offspring they can produce, in return for adherence and devotion. As other religions were also designed to function this way as a source of agression and conquest, this formula only causes overpopulation, conflict, and ecological disaster. This formula was once useful in outgrowing the enemy but it is now obsolete. Europeans do not need to become more prolific; religionists need to stop overpopulating and live within their means. ANYONE who thinks about this with a clear head can see that it is true.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Mar 18, 2010
Europeans do not need to become more prolific; religionists need to stop overpopulating and live within their means. ANYONE who thinks about this with a clear head can see that it is true.

Face it. Atheists are dying. Whining won't change that.
Survival of the fittest. That's what you support, no?
What irony!
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Mar 18, 2010
Your religions are ruining the world. Does that sound like survival to you?

"For god so loveth THE WORLD, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should believeth in just about anything they were told, up to and including eternal life... which is both the one thing people would do anything to obtain, and the one thing which the priests would never have to deliver on. Because who would ever know one way or another.
"And so the priests could tell the people to suffer and sacrifice and die in His name, which they obediently did in very orderly and beneficial ways, and the world was saved hallelejah amen(hotep)."
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 18, 2010
Your religions are ruining the world. Does that sound like survival to you?

So you keep saying.
That's not my 'truth'. The only way you can stop it is with violence. Are you prepared for that?
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Mar 18, 2010
Your religions make violence inevitable. They require it. Look what they're duping throughout the middle east. Xian-Zion-Islam all the same thing. All need violence to justify their goodness in the face of the enemys onslaughts. These religions were concocted to Organize violence. To make it manageable. Utile. A constructive force. That day is long since past and they are indeed a doomsday weapon. They will destroy this earth- are you prepared for that? (of course you're Xian you long for death and resurrection so you can live forever in your saviors loving arms). How selfish! Never much liked it here anyway, did you?
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Mar 18, 2010
 21 Surely God will crush the heads of his enemies,
       the hairy crowns of those who go on in their sins.

 22 The Lord says, "I will bring them from Bashan;
       I will bring them from the depths of the sea,

 23 that you may plunge your feet in the blood of your foes,
       while the tongues of your dogs have their share."
-Spend much time in Psalms? Full of retribution-
Yes
1 / 5 (1) Mar 18, 2010
What are heads related to crowns. You don't know.
This is spiritual. God says something and you think something else.
Of course you deny that.
What is the sea. You don't know that. God created the sea and when he said that in genesis you interpreted something else and decided that this is that big amount of salt water surrounding dry land.
What is blood? You read this and say, well that is that red stuff that flows through your veins. Miss.
God uses all these comparisons to worldly things to explain spiritual things.
Once you understand they call you crazy.:)
But I don't care. I just tell you this, because if you study this, you will find that there is a logic.

And after a long time, this strange logic maybe useful, for now it is worth 1/5. :)
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 18, 2010
Your religions make violence inevitable.
That will be your excuse?
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Mar 18, 2010
God uses all these comparisons to worldly things to explain spiritual things.
Once you understand they call you crazy.:)
But I don't care. I just tell you this, because if you study this, you will find that there is a logic.
So you're not a literalist like many xians. Which leaves you free to interpret scripture in your own unique, poetic, way. I say that, any way you may wish to interpret it, this passage is god punishing people for being your enemies. The bible is full of 'just wait- you'll get yours' -hopefully sooner rather than later. Another lame promise by a non-existant superhero.
Marjoe- religions cause fights. They're the agressive ones. 'Warfare of the cradle' is what Teddy Roosevelt called it. Look at Kashmir. Fundamentalists seek to steal yet more land by becoming the majority there. If nuclear war erupts it will be religions fault; a grossly overcrowded Pakistan bows to Muslim demands to take more 'lebensraum' from Hindu heathens.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2010
Face it. Atheists are dying. Whining won't change that.
Survival of the fittest. That's what you support, no?
What irony!
Atheism isn't genetic, you twit. Atheism is the natural and inevitable product of natural curiosity and critical thought, absent active brainwashing from cradle to grave.

Thought is evolving alongside with human knowledge, and you can't kill that, nor can you shove it under the carpet. The truth will out, and it will continue to out. It is the truth that sets us free.

Truth killed Communism, it has discredited economic neo-liberalism, and truth is killing religion in Europe.

It is no longer a capital offense, in the West, to call BS on religion. You can't murder and burn people for it any longer. You can't ostracize or exile or enslave people for it. Those days are gone, and they're not coming back.

All religions world-wide are on a slow death march to nowhere, even as this lingering death will take centuries. Nothing lasts forever.
Yes
1 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2010
So you're not a literalist like many xians. Which leaves you free to interpret scripture in your own unique, poetic, way. I say that, any way you may wish to interpret it, this passage is god punishing people for being your enemies.

If my unique way of interpretation leads to results, like resurrection or cures than it makes sense to you, even only when I am able to explain to you that the results were coming from my way of explaining these words.
Even Jesus said:
27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Yes
1 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2010
You see, Jesus knew about science. He stressed the word one. One is always maybe coincidence.
We want repeatability.
What if God would rise 10 persons from the dead.
otto1923
1 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2010
I tell you, godders have to be the most egomaniacal people on earth. They believe an omniscient god created the universe based on a divine set of universal laws, but that he would alter those laws for them, just because they asked him to. They believe god wrote a perfect book, but few can agree on exactly how to interpret it. Some little demagogue gets a new slant and decides to found a new sect because he alone has correctly fathomed the most direct route into gods heart. None of them questions why a perfect book might be open to so many different interpretations (I know- sinners can't read very well) -but god should have known that when he wrote it yes?

@yes- Doesnt it bother you just a little that your version of spirituality differs from so many others? What if you and your buddies are wrong? You might burn-
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (2) Mar 19, 2010
@Yes,

If it's miracles you're after, I suggest you switch over into Hinduism. The number of miracles performed by Indian gurus every day vastly exceeds the number attributed to Christian saints and prophets in all of recorded history.

And if you want divine intervention on demand, perhaps Wicca or Santaria will be a better fit: more rituals and magic than you can shake a severed chicken's head at...

Seriously pal, you need to broaden your horizons. This single-minded laser focus on Christianity almost makes you sound like a brainwashed sock puppet...

Maybe you ought to take a leaf from Buddha's page, realize that everything's an illusion, and just wash your hands of the whole mess. What could be more poetic?
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Mar 19, 2010
Atheism isn't genetic, you twit. Atheism is the natural and inevitable product of natural curiosity and critical thought, absent active brainwashing from cradle to grave.
Atheists are having fewer babies than Muslims, Mormons and Catholics. Don't count too heavily on converting these people or their children to your belief.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2010
Marjon, perhaps you don't understand where we are comming from.

Religion was necessary in the past to help bring more people into civilization. Now that the vast majority of people are born into civilization, religion is not necessary. The organism that is society evolves. Now religion has become a vestigal appendage. Sure it still has some use, but it typically becomes infected and causes problems. No one is saying that spirituality is a bad thing, but an unchanging dogma that seeks to slow technological progress is attempting to kill the organism of society. By refusing to walk on land life could have quite possibly been extinguished millions of years ago. Luckily our ancestors crawled out of the swamp. Can you help us do the same as a society, or do you doom us to extinction?
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2010
Whoa, I'm saying spirituality is a bad thing. What good is it? It is a layer of useless emotion over reality. It attributes meaning to a peculiar human feeling and projects it onto an otherwise neutral reality. Just because something makes us feel good doesn't mean it's more significant than it should be. Sounds like another drug to me, a craving to self-medicate, a defect. People who crave this will fall for grand edifices and lofty sermons created by charlitans. This is more of that 'superstimulus' as mentioned in the other article.

Spirituality seeks and applies meaning where there is none. It is the source of the evil we call religion.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2010
Whoa, I'm saying spirituality is a bad thing. What good is it? It is a layer of useless emotion over reality. It attributes meaning to a peculiar human feeling and projects it onto an otherwise neutral reality. Just because something makes us feel good doesn't mean it's more significant than it should be. Sounds like another drug to me, a craving to self-medicate, a defect. People who crave this will fall for grand edifices and lofty sermons created by charlitans. This is more of that 'superstimulus' as mentioned in the other article.

Spirituality seeks and applies meaning where there is none. It is the source of the evil we call religion.

"What's love but a second hand emotion?"
Of what use are any emotions that make people feel?
How about scientists who crave attention from their peers or Auto who keeps criticizing but responding to those he calls 'trolls'. What craving does that satisfy?
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Mar 19, 2010
Marjon, perhaps you don't understand where we are comming from.

Religion was necessary in the past to help bring more people into civilization. Now that the vast majority of people are born into civilization, religion is not necessary. The organism that is society evolves. Now religion has become a vestigal appendage. Sure it still has some use, but it typically becomes infected and causes problems. No one is saying that spirituality is a bad thing, but an unchanging dogma that seeks to slow technological progress is attempting to kill the organism of society. By refusing to walk on land life could have quite possibly been extinguished millions of years ago. Luckily our ancestors crawled out of the swamp. Can you help us do the same as a society, or do you doom us to extinction?

Civilization is damned thin. The millions murdered in the 20th century by atheist governments should tell you that. Or the millions of babies killed every year by their mothers. What civilization?
otto1923
not rated yet Mar 19, 2010
Of what use are any emotions that make people feel?
Some are motivation, some inform, some are useless and dangerous vestiges and expression of defects
How about scientists who crave attention from their peers
Hopefully for most it does not affect their work
or Auto who keeps criticizing but responding to those he calls 'trolls'. What craving does that satisfy?
(Troll thinks 'auto' is clever) Only my desire to share my theories of world domination and to right a few grievous wrongs along the way. Ad hominem will not save your soul which does not exist- only a desire to discover what is real and what is not. And a concerted effort to get yourself in good physical condition- personal neglect being the source of much subconscious angst, bizarre emotion, and affected behavior. Our guilt over the decrepit state of our bodies and the relative defenselessness this puts us in, may cause us to seek a god who can forgive us and save us from ourselves.
Yes
1 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2010
"What's love but a second hand emotion?"
Of what use are any emotions that make people feel?
How about scientists who crave attention from their peers or Auto who keeps criticizing but responding to those he calls 'trolls'. What craving does that satisfy?

Job style:)
We need another 40 chapters still in this thread to match the size of this book.
otto1923
not rated yet Mar 19, 2010
Civilization is damned thin. The millions murdered in the 20th century by atheist governments should tell you that. Or the millions of babies killed every year by their mothers. What civilization?
How much of this was caused by religion-mandated reproduction over and above our natural pleistocene repro rates? All throughout eurasia, obsolete religionist-based cultures with replacement rates based on ancient attrition, entered a modern industrial world free of natural checks and balances. Civilization was swamped. Radical ideologies which offered to feed the hungry arose (were concocted) and others sought to defend themselves from them.

Again, at the core are those religionist cultures which promise that god will provide for the pious so they do not have to be responsible for their own futures. These cultures could not and would not adapt to greater survival rates and longer lifespans; war and revolution were the result.
otto1923
3 / 5 (2) Mar 19, 2010
Civilization is damned thin. The millions murdered in the 20th century by atheist governments should tell you that. Or the millions of babies killed every year by their mothers. What civilization?
1 BILLION abortions since ww2, not to mention all those not conceived due to worldwide family planning efforts. Where would all those people and their decendents be living? What would they be eating? Who would they be fighting in those areas now peaceful as a result of those programs? And what are conditions like at present in regions whose peoples do not ascribe to these programs? What motivates these peoples to reject these programs, if not the dictates of their obsolete religionist cultures??
Yes
5 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2010
Seriously pal, you need to broaden your horizons. This single-minded laser focus on Christianity almost makes you sound like a brainwashed sock puppet...

Not almost. In the light of what you know and think.
I totally sound like a brainwashed sock puppet... Totally.
I know. So how can I bear this? :)

Because I know what I do and why I do it. I know what I think and why I think this.

Despite many Christians, who have to bear with faith and belief, I have much faith, but do not belief nothing.

So I hear your hollow words in the light of what I know and I laugh my head off, and enjoy.
marjon
3 / 5 (2) Mar 19, 2010
Civilization is damned thin. The millions murdered in the 20th century by atheist governments should tell you that. Or the millions of babies killed every year by their mothers. What civilization?
How much of this was caused by religion-mandated reproduction over and above our natural pleistocene repro rates? All throughout eurasia, obsolete religionist-based cultures with replacement rates based on ancient attrition, entered a modern industrial world free of natural checks and balances. Civilization was swamped. Radical ideologies which offered to feed the hungry arose (were concocted) and others sought to defend themselves from them.


Hitler murdered Jews because he was short on food?
The only time food shortages occur are when governments interfere with markets.
PinkElephant
4.5 / 5 (2) Mar 19, 2010
Atheists are having fewer babies than Muslims, Mormons and Catholics. Don't count too heavily on converting these people or their children to your belief.
If it's breeding you're after, marjie, then I suggest you convert to Hinduism. Nobody, but NOBODY, can shake a sperm at the Hindus when it comes to excessive reproduction. They even invented the Kama Sutra.

As for "converting to my belief", that's rich, considering I don't have a belief. I'm in the default state of mind, with which we're all born with. Then some of us get their head filled with paleolithic garbage, while some of us get an education instead. I'm betting that going forward, more and more people will opt for education over garbage. After all, it has been the established historical pattern over the last several centuries.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2010
Atheists are having fewer babies than Muslims, Mormons and Catholics. Don't count too heavily on converting these people or their children to your belief.
If it's breeding you're after, marjie, then I suggest you convert to Hinduism. Nobody, but NOBODY, can shake a sperm at the Hindus when it comes to excessive reproduction. They even invented the Kama Sutra.

As for "converting to my belief", that's rich, considering I don't have a belief. I'm in the default state of mind, with which we're all born with. Then some of us get their head filled with paleolithic garbage, while some of us get an education instead. I'm betting that going forward, more and more people will opt for education over garbage. After all, it has been the established historical pattern over the last several centuries.

Atheism is a belief. You are not atheist?
You don't dispute the point that people of faith have more children than hedonistic atheists.
PinkElephant
not rated yet Mar 19, 2010
Atheism is a belief. You are not atheist?
Atheism is a LACK of belief. By definition. And yes, I'm an atheist.
You don't dispute the point that people of faith have more children than hedonistic atheists.
I can't speak for *hedonistic* atheists, as I'm not a member of that club, and not privy to their activities or statistics.

And I won't dispute the point that the poor and the ignorant have more children, which also happens to coincide with more superstition and more religion. But -- and I hate to break it to you -- unbridled reproduction is NOT a good thing.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2010
Atheism is a LACK of belief.

It is your heuristic.
I can't speak for *hedonistic* atheists,

How many children do you have? Or do you want to spend all your wealth on yourself?
And I won't dispute the point that the poor and the ignorant have more children,

Always with the insults.
unbridled reproduction is NOT a good thing.

More people, more genetic diversity, more ideas, more innovation, more opportunity, more....
Such a Luddite!
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2010
"The more people on earth, the greater the chance that one of them has an idea of how to improve alternative energies, or to mitigate the climate effects of carbon emissions. It takes only one person to have an idea that can benefit many.

Plus, the more people on earth, the larger are the markets for new innovations."
"Not surprisingly, research has shown that market size stimulates innovative activity, as in the case of pharmaceutical research that is especially intense for conditions that have more victims."
http://economix.b...ovation/
otto1923
not rated yet Mar 19, 2010
Hitler murdered Jews because he was short on food?
The only time food shortages occur are when governments interfere with markets.
And now for a little reflection on World Domination... The world wars were planned far in advance as the inevitable result of the Industrial Revolution and all the changes it would engender. As is typical, these wars provided immense opportunity for gains in knowledge, spread and consolidation of empire, and the disposal of obsolescent cultures.

These wars are primarily demographic in nature: that is, projections are made as to who could be expected to participate, who would die and who needed to die in order to meet postwar goals. Just as it is described in the OT; time and again those who are caused to stray are culled and the Remnants are allowed to go on.
PinkElephant
not rated yet Mar 19, 2010
And I won't dispute the point that the poor and the ignorant have more children

Always with the insults.
It's only an insult if it isn't true.
More people, more genetic diversity, more ideas, more innovation, more opportunity, more....
Well, that explains Bangladesh. And the entire Indian subcontinent, for that matter.

I've always wondered why they are the leaders of the world's innovation and opportunity, while U.S.A. remains a distant nobody, by comparison:

http://en.wikiped...sity.svg
otto1923
not rated yet Mar 19, 2010
WDcont:
Technologies had enabled nations and so-called 'empires' to be created, the latest and greatest (but by no means final) iterations of tribalism. Certain minorities could be expected not to participate in these nationalistic engagements and yet still needed to die to meet these preset goals. What to do?

A few ancient cultures had been growing, here and there, throughout Eurasia, free of recent religious pogrom. Gypsies, Jews, Armenians, Poles and others (including all chinese) were deemed enemies of the state so they too could be culled. And after all, per the Balfour agreement, could 6M more Ashkenazi have fit in Palestine?

Just to put this in perspective: 11M Germans, 20M Russ, 6M Jews during the war and how many millions after in gulags and work camps?

This is why the bad guys killed so many Jews and died taking the blame for it. Demographics.
PinkElephant
not rated yet Mar 19, 2010
@otto,

Ease up on that absinthe, or whatever it is. There's no dark cabal planning out the world's genocides. Healthy paranoia is one thing, but you're off the deep end.

The main reason 20th century saw such obscene death tolls, is that the world's population exploded. In terms of total numbers, the figures sound awful. However, as a percentage of surviving individuals, the death tolls probably weren't much worse than back in prehistory.

Of course, technology has also made us much more efficient at murdering each other, as well as covering large distances quickly. That, plus the good old invariant of dreck always floating to the top within human institutions and societies, explains everything well enough without needing to conjure up some sinister global society of evil geniuses.
otto1923
not rated yet Mar 19, 2010
Just because, dear sir, it is too horrible to contemplate does not make it impossible. And if the only alternative is TOTAL loss, TOTAL ruin, and the loss of hard-won knowledge, which are always the threat of unplanned war, then steps would be taken by Rational People to make sure that wars did not happen by themselves

Planned wars and the Empire which has resulted from them, as well as famine and plague, and economic collapse, are a few millenia old. It explains all of our history and all that we see today. Religionists would tell you that Evil creates wars. You might say that they are always tragic mistakes. I would say however that the human condition makes these things absolutely inevitable. We have been Shepherded, domesticated, for 1000s of years. War is an integral Part of this process.

'A Time for War and a Time for Peace' -ecc3. They decide when, where, who, and why.

-Hey, marjoe asked-
PinkElephant
not rated yet Mar 19, 2010
And if the only alternative is TOTAL loss, TOTAL ruin, and the loss of hard-won knowledge, which are always the threat of unplanned war...
But that's not the reason for most wars. Most wars are waged with conquest in mind. What's the point of conquering a country, if you intend to wipe out its population, infrastructure, and productivity in the process?

No. Save for the Vikings and similar itinerant raiders, any war that involved a state against another state, was always about takeover of wealth and projection of power. Thus, the goal was always to do only the minimal necessary damage to one's own future assimilated assets.
I would say however that the human condition makes war absolutely inevitable.
But I agree with this.
We have been Shepherded, domesticated, for 1000s of years.
This, however, is irrational.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2010
Well, that explains Bangladesh. And the entire Indian subcontinent, for that matter.

Yes, it explains how governments stifle such innovation.
Compare that with Hong Kong, Singapore and Japan. All with higher population densities, but with an entirely different culture.
otto1923
not rated yet Mar 19, 2010
But that's not the reason for most wars. Most wars are waged with conquest in mind.
yah I saw that on the history channel. We've been duped.
What's the point of conquering a country, if you intend to wipe out its population, infrastructure, and productivity in the process?
The thing is, the Main Thing, is that above a certain level there are no sides. There is only One Side. The world is far less chaotic than it appears.

Just a few examples: in ancient Greece the oracles at Delphi decided who would fight whom, who would ally with whom, and therefore who would win in conflicts among city-states. In Europe, all major dynastic leaders were related. All were direct decendents of Charlemagne. Borders were set, populations swapped, and wars waged in order to maintain overall stability. I've expounded at length on this in previous threads. The theory is sound and the logic inescapable (at least to me.) Hell, it explains these designer religions perfectly. Plan- its what we do
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2010
Yes, it explains how governments stifle such innovation.
Compare that with Hong Kong, Singapore and Japan. All with higher population densities, but with an entirely different culture.
Oh, so NOW culture is more important than population density? Hallelujah, U.S.A. can lead the world again!
PinkElephant
not rated yet Mar 19, 2010
@otto,
In Europe, all major dynastic leaders were related. All were direct decendents of Charlemagne.
So why would Elizabeth do that to her own first cousin? Related or not, backstabbing and intrigue have always run rampant among the powerful. They routinely murdered their own parents, siblings, and children. It's not part of some grand strategy: it's just the prosaic struggle for power among megalomaniac sociopaths.
Hell, it explains these designer religions perfectly.
Christianity was indeed designed by a deliberative body, but what other religions were designed? Judaism fermented organically within its historical (and religious) context over many centuries. Islam was written by just a single prolific poet. Buddhism doesn't even have intrinsic design (though its various branches do.) Of Hinduism, there are so many splinters that one has difficulty calling it a single religion. Shintoism: designed? Those are the big ones...
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2010
Hitler murdered Jews because he was short on food?
The only time food shortages occur are when governments interfere with markets.
And now for a little reflection on World Domination... The world wars were planned far in advance as the inevitable result of the Industrial Revolution and all the changes it would engender. As is typical, these wars provided immense opportunity for gains in knowledge, spread and consolidation of empire, and the disposal of obsolescent cultures.

These wars are primarily demographic in nature: that is, projections are made as to who could be expected to participate, who would die and who needed to die in order to meet postwar goals. Just as it is described in the OT; time and again those who are caused to stray are culled and the Remnants are allowed to go on.

Wow! That explains so much.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2010
Yes, it explains how governments stifle such innovation.
Compare that with Hong Kong, Singapore and Japan. All with higher population densities, but with an entirely different culture.
Oh, so NOW culture is more important than population density? Hallelujah, U.S.A. can lead the world again!

You asserted population was destroying the world. I pointed out that population is NOT the problem. Government is.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2010
You asserted population was destroying the world.
Quote me.
I pointed out that population is NOT the problem. Government is.
No, poverty is. Too much population + lack of education + out-of-control reproduction + subjugation of women + inadequate resources = perpetuation of poverty = perpetuation of all the addends in the above sum.
otto1923
not rated yet Mar 19, 2010
So why would Elizabeth do that to her own first cousin? Related or not, backstabbing and intrigue have always run rampant among the powerful. They routinely murdered their own parents, siblings, and children.
The true Players are committed, duty-bound. Many will have given their lives in service to the Cause. This has always been about saving the world- nothing less.
It's not part of some grand strategy: it's just the prosaic struggle for power among megalomaniac sociopaths
Again- We've been Duped. It's not important trying to figure out who these People are, whether they are in fact the leaders we know or they're working behind the scenes. It's the Results of major events which can inform us of Empire and the purpose of it. We can just imagine how things might have turned out differently- if German Jews hadn't been killed for instance, or if communism hadn't allowed for the 1 BILLION postwar abortions, the most significant result of those wars I argue.
otto1923
not rated yet Mar 19, 2010
Hitler murdered Jews because he was short on food?
The only time food shortages occur are when governments interfere with markets.
And now for a little reflection on World Domination... The world wars were planned far in advance as the inevitable result of the Industrial Revolution and all the changes it would engender. As is typical, these wars provided immense opportunity for gains in knowledge, spread and consolidation of empire, and the disposal of obsolescent cultures.

These wars are primarily demographic in nature: that is, projections are made as to who could be expected to participate, who would die and who needed to die in order to meet postwar goals. Just as it is described in the OT; time and again those who are caused to stray are culled and the Remnants are allowed to go on.

Wow! That explains so much.
Explain, queen of fat pointless posts?
PinkElephant
not rated yet Mar 19, 2010
This has always been about saving the world- nothing less.
Nah. It was always about fulfilling the dreams of the rich and powerful. Megalomaniacal royalty, and their ever-ravenous courtiers. Keep in mind, too, that until recently there was no practical long-distance transport or communication. The "world" these hegemons were consumed with, was just their own immediate backyard. And if they were ever trying to save anything at all, it most frequently was their own neck. Basically, you can't survive in a pit of vipers, without being one yourself.
if German Jews hadn't been killed for instance
What difference do 6 million make in a world populated by 2+ billion?
, or if communism hadn't allowed for the 1 BILLION postwar abortions
Yet the same Communists post-war were encouraging high birth rates, and even awarding state medals and money prizes to mothers with large broods, so as to replace the culled population.

And look at the world head count now... success?
otto1923
not rated yet Mar 19, 2010
Christianity was indeed designed by a deliberative body, but what other religions were designed? Judaism fermented organically within its historical (and religious) context over many centuries. Islam was written by just a single prolific poet.
Nonsense. You and I have no idea where these religions come from or who wrote them. We can only guage their effects on the most significant events of history, because those would have been the most difficult to tamper with. Could the disparate 'gentiles' of Europe been united (culturally) without xianism? Could jewish proselytism have been prevented from swamping Rome without it? Could the southern Mediterranean have been secured without Islam? These religions were designed to accomplish these things. The brilliant jewish monotheism was just the start- probably concocted by greek philosophers.
PinkElephant
not rated yet Mar 19, 2010
Could the disparate 'gentiles' of Europe been united (culturally) without xianism?
Who says they were EVER united? There are few places in the world (with exception of Africa), where ethnic hatreds and naked tribalism have been more persistent and vibrant both before and after Rome, than in the Old World.
Could jewish proselytism have been prevented from swamping Rome without it?
I already agreed that Christianity was indeed designed and instituted deliberately as a convenient and subservient state religion. That's well-documented. Of course, then the monster ate its own creator, mutated, and went on a global rampage, but that's another story.
Could the southern Mediterranean have been secured without Islam?
Secured by whom? For whom? How was North Africa "insecure" prior to Islam?
otto1923
not rated yet Mar 19, 2010
Nah. It was always about fulfilling the dreams of the rich and powerful. Megalomaniacal royalty, and their ever-ravenous courtiers.
Why should we expect leaders to be the lowest of the low, to not care what happens to their offspring? They're people just like us, motivated by their genes just like us. We want our offspring to survive- so do they. From our perspective we cannot decide what motivated these people just from what we are told.
What difference do 6 million make in a world populated by 2+ billion?
They wouldve altered the politics of Germany and made the establishment of a limited postwar Israel impossible. The war would have certainly turned out differently- labor strikes ala ww1, perhaps the Red Front would have succeeded. Their orthodox prewar culture was capable of explosive growth. It was destroyed.
PinkElephant
not rated yet Mar 19, 2010
The brilliant jewish monotheism was just the start- probably concocted by greek philosophers.
No doubt brilliant (for its time), but was it DESIGNED?

I think you're missing a vital aspect, otto: religions evolve, just like biological organisms. The more virulent and tenacious replace the weaker or less aggressive competitors. Parallel to the evolution of genes, we have an evolution of memes.

Just like no intelligent design is needed to explain the modern sophistication and ubiquity of life -- so no intelligent design is needed to explain the modern sophistication and ubiquity of the surviving religions.
PinkElephant
2 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2010
We want our offspring to survive- so do they.
With one important qualification: our offspring usually isn't apt to bump us off so as to gain our unique possessions and privileges. With royalty, things are different: the stakes are infinitely higher, and any little familial feud has the potential to end in treason. Monarchs are either paranoid and murderous, or naive and dead. There is no compromise, and no middle ground.
perhaps the Red Front would have succeeded.
But it did: beyond Stalin's wildest ambitions pre-war.
Their orthodox prewar culture was capable of explosive growth. It was destroyed.
Oh please. Are you forgetting the gypsies, the homosexuals, the communists, and all the rest who made up another 10+ million Holocaust victims, in addition to the Jews? Orthodox Judaism in the modern world is not virulent. On the contrary: it is reclusive, and exclusionary.
otto1923
not rated yet Mar 19, 2010
Who says they were EVER united? There are few places in the world (with exception of Africa), where ethnic hatreds and naked tribalism have been more persistent and vibrant both before and after Rome, than in the Old World.
You see war as a sign of chaos. I see Planned Wars as indications of Stability and Progress.

Leaders long ago began to identify with each other. They shared mutual problems. They concluded that the People were the enemy. They intermarried and began to assume their own tribal identity. They realized that in order to ensure stability and progress they could divide the people up and set them against one another. This is described in the Book of Enoch. They accepted the obvious, that war was inevitable.
PinkElephant
not rated yet Mar 19, 2010
This is described in the Book of Enoch. They accepted the obvious, that war was inevitable.
I think it's described far better in Machiavelli's "The Prince".
otto1923
not rated yet Mar 19, 2010
Orthodox Judaism in the modern world is not virulent. On the contrary: it is reclusive, and exclusionary
Hasidim have one of the highest repro rates in the western world. The Amish are higher still. The war was a demographic exercise. People were slated to die from almost every group. The religionist cultures which would have prevented postwar family planning and abortion programs were ENDED. Hence, today, in very simplistic terms, the worlds population is 20% smaller than it would have been, all things being equal (except they're not- nuclear holocaust would have ensued and civilization would have most likely collapsed). Germany stemmed the tide of communism in the west; of course it too was an Imperial construct, martial law, only temporary until the target cultures were destroyed.
otto1923
not rated yet Mar 19, 2010
This is described in the Book of Enoch. They accepted the obvious, that war was inevitable.
I think it's described far better in Machiavelli's "The Prince".
Indeed. They seem to love exposing themselves. I like Ecclesiastes. Solomon the most powerful king in the world is despondent. And then the heavenly chorus chimes in and tells him just how to save his kingdom for posterity. There is a (proper) time for everything, they say.
PinkElephant
not rated yet Mar 19, 2010
@otto,

So how do you square your "population control" thesis with the Catholic opposition to abortion, contraception, and family planning in general?

Isn't Cataholicism the pre-eminent designed religion? Why should it be in support of the population explosion, while the group ostensibly standing behind it is opposed?

The Amish and the Hasidim may be breeding fast, but they're still just a tiny drop in the bucket. The Catholic populations are much larger, and a couple of Catholics I personally know have 10 and 8 children, respectively -- and hoping for more.
otto1923
not rated yet Mar 19, 2010
So how do you square your "population control" thesis with the Catholic opposition to abortion, contraception, and family planning in general?
'There is a Time to embrace and a Time to refrain.' -ecc3 the church was good for growing populations- still is here and there- but now it's only broadcasting it's obsolescence. Italy has 0 growth for indigenes; Europe is encouraging emigration to rehomogenize people. The world has become a melting pot. They're asking if it's possible to fire a pope over this latest sex scandal. The ranks of fecund xianists are shrinking no matter what marjoe says. Per Hasidim and Amish- the propensity for growth can be astounding. Before the US got there, afghan pops were set to double in 15yrs. Amish is 16yrs. 60% of gazans are under 15 years old (from memory). Their religions DEMAND it. If they're designed you say, why are they still growing- Islam for instance? Wars are planned far in advance. Cultures, politics, economies are altered to enable them.
otto1923
not rated yet Mar 19, 2010
One more point and then Otto shuts up:
Could the southern Mediterranean have been secured without Islam?
Secured by whom? For whom? How was North Africa "insecure" prior to Islam?
the Americas invasion was planned centuries in advance. Islam was created to secure europes flank while euros prepared the greatest invasion in history. Islam secured the Mediterranean and prevented independent precolombian transatlantic trade from being established. The crusades were practice for this momentous invasion. What, you don't believe me??
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Mar 19, 2010
One more point and then Otto shuts up:

Promise?
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Mar 20, 2010
You first Pudel

In the Star Trek episode, I Mudd, Kirk and Mudd crash the android Norman. Kirk states everything Mudd says is a lie. Mudd then says, "I am lying". Crash.
Given your recent 'lie', nothing you have said or will say can be trusted to have any validity.
otto1923
not rated yet Mar 20, 2010
You first Pudel

In the Star Trek episode, I Mudd, Kirk and Mudd crash the android Norman. Kirk states everything Mudd says is a lie. Mudd then says, "I am lying". Crash.
Given your recent 'lie', nothing you have said or will say can be trusted to have any validity.
That only works for the bible which claims to be the perfect words of god. Therefore if you're able to disprove anything that's in it, then you can suspect anything of being human fabrication and deception. My ideas are based on reason and interpretation of facts. They are open to change and improvement.

Have you crashed yet? Have you had a logic epiphany?
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 20, 2010
My ideas are based on reason and interpretation of facts.

Including your fantasies about Planned Wars?
otto1923
not rated yet Mar 20, 2010
If you or anyone was familiar with reason they would at least consider the conclusion as reasonable. Wars are full of odd, unexplained events which nevertheless seem to guide them to appropriate conclusions. People used to call these fortunate mistakes 'Providence' or the hand of god favoring the good guys. It certainly makes more sense that humans would be acting to ensure favorable results as there is no god.

Quit asking me about it and we can go back to falsifying your lofty deities.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 20, 2010
they would at least consider the conclusion as reasonable

Why? Because you say so?

Quit asking me about it

Why? you can't justify your 'reason'?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Mar 21, 2010
You first Pudel

In the Star Trek episode, I Mudd, Kirk and Mudd crash the android Norman. Kirk states everything Mudd says is a lie. Mudd then says, "I am lying". Crash.
Given your recent 'lie', nothing you have said or will say can be trusted to have any validity.

Similar to the 4 conflicting stories contained in your gospels.
otto1923
not rated yet Mar 21, 2010
Similar to the phoney ending tacked onto Mark, now considered the earliest of the 4; someone didn't like the idea that the women would leave the tomb and not tell anyone what they saw, so they added mark16 9-20. Jesus visits them and reminds them to tell the world he flies again! The other gospels supposedly copy this edit as well as material from another book insufficiently fortified by god to have survived.
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Mar 21, 2010
Jesus the mouthpiece of god who can speak no falsehood tells them to say: "17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well." -Some things to try out at your next bible study marion.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 21, 2010
Similar to the phoney ending tacked onto Mark, now considered the earliest of the 4; someone didn't like the idea that the women would leave the tomb and not tell anyone what they saw, so they added mark16 9-20. Jesus visits them and reminds them to tell the world he flies again! The other gospels supposedly copy this edit as well as material from another book insufficiently fortified by god to have survived.

This from the person who believes WWII was planned centuries ago.
Where is that evidence again? Oh, YOU REASONED it.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 21, 2010
You first Pudel

In the Star Trek episode, I Mudd, Kirk and Mudd crash the android Norman. Kirk states everything Mudd says is a lie. Mudd then says, "I am lying". Crash.
Given your recent 'lie', nothing you have said or will say can be trusted to have any validity.

Similar to the 4 conflicting stories contained in your gospels.

Ask any cop who interviews witnesses who saw the exact same event occur. Seldom do any have the same story.
This puts into serious question the validity of ANY and ALL human observation.
Each individual has their own heuristic based observation.
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Mar 21, 2010
What you don't Believe? Read the niv note: they as much as admit it. The Bible of which nothing could be added to or taken away from, was nevertheless adulterated many times. Obviously. For the Greater Good.
Ask any cop
But the bible was written by the greatest Cop that ever was. Infallible like the pope. Xians dwell on every word, every phrase. Negate one and the whole thing is poop.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 21, 2010
I have heard scientist flatly deny cold fusion. Others promote AGW and must even lie to do so.

http://www.physor...829.html

People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
otto1923
not rated yet Mar 21, 2010
 13 Stop bringing meaningless offerings!
       Your incense is detestable to me.
       New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations—
       I cannot bear your evil assemblies.
Yes
not rated yet Mar 21, 2010
Jesus the mouthpiece of god who can speak no falsehood tells them to say: "17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well." -Some things to try out at your next bible study marion.


Of course it is the truth but look at this phrase.
And these signs will accompany those who believe:

The only problem is that there is nobody on this planet who believes.

With all the knowledge about science, and the decomposition processes that start right after death, how on earth can you believe in the resurrection after three days?

So yes we bring meaningless offerings and cannot do what Mark 16 claims
otto1923
not rated yet Mar 21, 2010
This from the person who believes WWII was planned centuries ago.
Where is that evidence again? Oh, YOU REASONED it.

 
       He will not judge by what he sees with his eyes,
       or decide by what he hears with his ears;

 4 but with righteousness he will judge the needy,
       with justice he will give decisions for the poor of the earth.
otto1923
not rated yet Mar 21, 2010
The only problem is that there is nobody on this planet who believes.
Including you Siddhartha? Or are you saying that you and other believers cannot have heaven on earth because it is polluted with skeptics and deniers? Must make you bitter- just a little bit? And so we discover another source of violence among sects who believe others are keeping them from holy union with their Creator. I say snakes can't tell the difference between believers and non-believers. 'Don't tread on me.'
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Mar 21, 2010

Ask any cop who interviews witnesses who saw the exact same event occur. Seldom do any have the same story.
This puts into serious question the validity of ANY and ALL human observation.
Each individual has their own heuristic based observation.

Having minor details differ is fully expected, however, having differences of 3 hours to 14 hours for Jesus to rise, considering this would be the first witnessed resurrection, is fairly significant. Having complete differences on how long it took him to die on the cross is very significant.

Especially for a group of 4 men who are allegedly sitting together witnessing the events occur in real time.

Yes, eye witness stories will differ, but not that drastically, and not amongst people with that consistent a background.

Your heresy continues.
Yes
not rated yet Mar 21, 2010
Or are you saying that you and other believers cannot have heaven on earth because it is polluted with skeptics and deniers?


I just say that the conclusion is logic.

Jesus puts a logic IF.

(IF you believe) THEN (this and that)

While I do not see this program running.

REPEAT
IF (you believe) THEN (you cure others)
UNTIL (you decide to stop) OR (you are tired) OR (whatever)

So while I do have faith in Jesus and that he was not a liar, I conclude that probably we are doing something wrong :) He knows something we still do not.
We do not meet the IF statement, and that was only that you need to be a believer.

Conclusion: We are not believers. Either both the one who cures and the curer, or only one of both.

Logic?
Yes
not rated yet Mar 21, 2010
So IF (somebody has a moment of faith) and (truly believes) THEN (there is a miraculous cure).

While the fact that somebody truly believes is the actual miracle:)

And it is not repeatable, or at least not so easy.
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Mar 21, 2010
Conclusion: We are not believers. Either both the one who cures and the curer, or only one of both.
And you are a believer. So let's see you stick your hand into a vipers den or eat a car. And if you can't it must be MY fault, yes no yes no yes??
Yes
1 / 5 (1) Mar 21, 2010
As I said in this thread before:
I am not a believer but I have faith.
Believe as said in Mark, goes beyond just think something is true. It is that you do not only think that it is true, but your whole mind just knows without doubt that this is true. Without having any proof.
If I were a believer, then I would be the most well known person in this world because I would be curing and occasionally... who knows... putting my hand in a viper pit.
And as you say: You don't know me, so I am not a believer.
In this world there is nobody who truly believes.

If any reason for doing this of course.
As I said: I do not believe anything.
Yes
not rated yet Mar 21, 2010
Thomas is after Jesus my favorite character in the new testament. And then follows Mary Magdalene.
Because of their honesty.
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Mar 21, 2010
Thomas is after Jesus my favorite character in the new testament. And then follows Mary Magdalene.
Because of their honesty.
Honesty. How about Little John or Friar Tuck? Both were as honest as the bible characters, and none of them existed as portrayed in the stories written about them. The difference is that the bible stories were written by deceivers who wanted you to believe they were real.
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Mar 21, 2010
In this world there is nobody who truly believes
What, not even Benny Hinn? He seems capable of knocking people over with good health:
http://www.youtub...be_gdata
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Mar 22, 2010
Believe as said in Mark, goes beyond just think something is true. It is that you do not only think that it is true, but your whole mind just knows without doubt that this is true. Without having any proof.

Many, on use of intoxicants, believe they can fly. Those who truly have faith in it are peeled off the pavement the following morning.

peteone1
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 10, 2010
It's funny, secular humanists pretending to be enlightened scientists often ridicule faith, yet they have an undying faith that things like their job, their safety driving places or flying places, and available groceries will be there waiting for them on a need-to-need basis. They even have the mountain-moving faith that nothingness can somehow create everything (the universe) with no Creator involved. Now I were to call anything "blind and irrational' faith, it would be that!
Caliban
5 / 5 (2) Apr 10, 2010
Simply impervious to any kind of rational, logical thought. According to your prime mover argument, the universe could not have arisen out of nothing, so therefore there just had to be a creator(and by definition, YOUR god, the ONLY god).

By the very same logic, therefore, you are bound to say that your god could not arise from nothing, and therefore had to be CREATED, as well. This is an infinite regression. It answers nothing, except your own inability to conceive of any alternative, and so you set yourself up as a little demi-god, by creating a creator, so that you don't have to acknowledge the fact that the universe is totally devoid of any sympathy or purpose for your weak, frail, ignorant, insignificant human self.

Get over it. If you choose to believe in a creator- go right ahead, but don't cite the universe as proof of it's existence, because the existence of a god is simply not testable by Mr. Popper's methodology.

Nice try at "THE LAST WORD".
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Apr 10, 2010
It is amusing how so many cite their faith in their god of science, Popper. He was not a scientist.
Caliban
5 / 5 (1) Apr 10, 2010
Another last word grab.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Apr 10, 2010
Another last word grab.

Is this how Popperarians defend their faith?
Caliban
not rated yet Apr 10, 2010
Another last word grab.

Is this how Popperarians defend their faith?


And this you consider legitimate debate?

Nah! I repeat: just another try to grab the last word.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Apr 11, 2010
Another last word grab.

Is this how Popperarians defend their faith?


And this you consider legitimate debate?

Nah! I repeat: just another try to grab the last word.

1. Popper was not a scientist.
2. Not all scientists agree with Popper's falsification standard.
PinkElephant
not rated yet Apr 11, 2010
@marjon,

Have you ever bothered to read the "Comments guidelines"? It does say, "please read" before you post...
Do not quote complete posts: Use only text that is directly related to your comment.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Apr 11, 2010
@marjon,

Have you ever bothered to read the "Comments guidelines"? It does say, "please read" before you post...
Do not quote complete posts: Use only text that is directly related to your comment.

The guidelines also say to stay on topic and be civil.
Caliban
5 / 5 (1) Apr 11, 2010

The guidelines also say to stay on topic and be civil.

How very, very, ironic.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Apr 11, 2010

The guidelines also say to stay on topic and be civil.


How very, very, ironic.

Yes, it is since you and others do not apply the same criteria to those who agree with you.
PinkElephant
not rated yet Apr 11, 2010
This, from someone who manages to reduce every thread on every article to a tirade about socialism. Maybe we ought to just start clicking "report abuse" on such 'contributions'...
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Apr 11, 2010
This, from someone who manages to reduce every thread on every article to a tirade about socialism. Maybe we ought to just start clicking "report abuse" on such 'contributions'...

Socialism has a demonstrated reputation for being anti-religious. Faith in God is a topic of this article.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (1) Apr 11, 2010
Divine intervention is a topic of this article, not faith itself. The Deists (which includes the majority of the most important U.S. founders) have faith in a "prime mover", while simultaneously disparaging and ridiculing the notion of divine intervention and personal relationship with Jesus. By your criteria, they're all anti-religious socialists...

In general, everything can be twisted and stretched to ultimately become a religious or political argument. You're very skilled at that. Doesn't mean it's an appropriate thing to do, or that it isn't borderline spam when considering the purpose and nature of this site.

Now, I dare you not to quote this entire post in reply.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Apr 11, 2010
Divine intervention is a topic of this article, not faith itself.

As so many keep asserting, the Divine, or God, has not been, and cannot be scientifically divined, faith is a topic of this article.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Apr 11, 2010
Regarding deists:
"A look at how the Supreme Court has reinterpreted the Constitution, diluting its Biblical foundations. "
http://www.amazon...25279579
Christian philosophy played a significant role in the founding of the USA.
PinkElephant
not rated yet Apr 12, 2010
Christian philosophy played a significant role in the founding of the USA.
Not as significant a role as Enlightenment philosophy. You really ought to look up Jefferson's version of the Bible...

As for divine intervention, that is indeed subject to scientific testing. Evidenced, for instance, by numerous studies of intercessory prayer.

Sure, I can't prove to you scientifically that I'm indeed a pink elephant; it's just something you'll have to take on faith. However, if I ever claim to manifest myself in a tangible manner, you'll have right then and there the means to either substantiate or debunk my claims.

More news stories

Online reviews: When do negative opinions boost sales?

When purchasing items online, reading customer reviews is a convenient way to get a real-world account of other people's opinions of the product. According to a new study in the Journal of Consumer Research, negative review ...

Low Vitamin D may not be a culprit in menopause symptoms

A new study from the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) shows no significant connection between vitamin D levels and menopause symptoms. The study was published online today in Menopause, the journal of The North American Menopa ...

Astronomers: 'Tilt-a-worlds' could harbor life

A fluctuating tilt in a planet's orbit does not preclude the possibility of life, according to new research by astronomers at the University of Washington, Utah's Weber State University and NASA. In fact, ...