PDA

View Full Version : Oklahoma creationists up to no good



Pages : [1] 2

jubei33
7th March 09, 02:34 AM
STATE OF OKLAHOMA HOUSE
RESOLUTION 1015

A Resolution opposing the invitation to Richard Dawkins to speak on campus; encouraging the University of Oklahoma to engage in a certain discussion of certain scientific theories; and directing distribution.

WHEREAS, the University of Oklahoma is a publicly funded institution which should be open to all ideas and should train students in all disciplines of study and research and to use independent thinking and free inquiry; and

WHEREAS, the University of Oklahoma has planned a year-long celebration of the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin and the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s theory of evolution, called the “Darwin 2009 Project”, which includes a series of lectures, public speakers, and a course on the history of evolution; and

WHEREAS, the University of Oklahoma, as a part of the Darwin 2009 Project, has invited as a public speaker on campus, Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, whose published opinions, as represented in his 2006 book “The God Delusion”, and public statements on the theory of evolution demonstrate an intolerance for cultural diversity and diversity of thinking and are views that are not shared and are not representative of the thinking of a majority of the citizens of Oklahoma; and

WHEREAS, the invitation for Richard Dawkins to speak on the campus of the University of Oklahoma on Friday, March 6, 2009, will only serve to present a biased philosophy on the theory of evolution to the exclusion of all other divergent considerations rather than teaching a scientific concept.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE 1ST SESSION OF THE 52ND OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE:

THAT the Oklahoma House of Representative strongly opposes the invitation to speak on the campus of the University of Oklahoma to Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, whose published statements on the theory of evolution and opinion about those who do not believe in the theory are contrary and offensive to the views and opinions of most citizens of Oklahoma.

This is mostly silly bull plop about giving creationist 'theories' equal play in the teaching of science. The fundies really have to go put on that dunce cap and sit in the corner. Every time we put them out, they bust back in with another desperate scream for attention. But no really isn't it time we start defining their 'theories' for their predictive qualities alone. At least, that's the way science is supposed to work.

Its probably a little late by now, actually, but he is set to speak this Friday night.

elipson
7th March 09, 05:05 AM
That's retarded. But no one should really be suprised. Dawkins doesn't just comment that he doesn't believe in God, he then goes further and actively insults anyone who does.

Cullion
7th March 09, 05:23 AM
Does the Oaklahoma house of representatives have the power to overrule the first ammendment based on something being offensive to a majority ?

I'm amazed they think they had such a power, surely it's not so?

EuropIan
7th March 09, 05:44 AM
"This is a CHRISTIAN nation"- rhetoric.

It has always failed, surely they are hoping it will stick in the right ears someday.

jubei33
7th March 09, 06:52 AM
Does the Oaklahoma house of representatives have the power to overrule the first ammendment based on something being offensive to a majority ?

I'm amazed they think they had such a power, surely it's not so?

no, but they could possibly stir up enough trouble to to get an injunction or some other method to block him from speaking. being that he's a busy person, Its just the odds that he won't reschedule and then they win a small victory for ignorance in their neck of the woods.

this is just a possiblity though, the days of scopes are over. the only reason I made note of it was that i thought it such an obvious attempt to garner attention, rather than an actual play.

HappyOldGuy
7th March 09, 12:22 PM
Does the Oaklahoma house of representatives have the power to overrule the first ammendment based on something being offensive to a majority ?

I'm amazed they think they had such a power, surely it's not so?

If you read the bill. It's a statement of opinion, it's not calling for action. If the school takes action based on it* then it becomes a first amendment issue.

*Which they probably won't.

Sun Wukong
7th March 09, 12:35 PM
it's shit like this that will doom the republican party.

elipson
7th March 09, 03:34 PM
You mean has doomed the republican party.

Craigypooh
7th March 09, 03:41 PM
LOL. I like the irony implicit in their two objections to Dawkins speaking: he holds a view different to the majority and doesn't respect diversity of thought.

Thinkchair
7th March 09, 03:48 PM
Does the Oaklahoma house of representatives have the power to overrule the first ammendment based on something being offensive to a majority ?

I'm amazed they think they had such a power, surely it's not so?

This looks like a public statement of displeasure, not like the reslution actually prohibits Dawkins from speaking. But if they had that kind of power, I am sure they would use it.

Thinkchair
7th March 09, 03:51 PM
"This is a CHRISTIAN nation"- rhetoric.

It has always failed, surely they are hoping it will stick in the right ears someday.

But the number of people who but into this rhetoric is alarming at times. To be fair, most Americans are Christian, but these people are fundamentalists the same as the Taliban in that they want Biblical Law to supersede secular law.

jubei33
7th March 09, 05:02 PM
Here are his comments on the subject. (the video is a crappy cell phone capture, but nonetheless able to hear his commentary.)

cTmYfFye7Hg

EuropIan
7th March 09, 05:12 PM
But the number of people who but into this rhetoric is alarming at times. To be fair, most Americans are Christian, but these people are fundamentalists the same as the Taliban in that they want Biblical Law to supersede secular law.
Yes they're (and by extension creationism) ironically hiding behind their 1st amendment rights thinking it will hide them from scientific scrutiny and peer review.

But allow me to use Morbo's succint observation as a metaphor in litterary context:

http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd80/AwXomeMan/morbo.jpg
"Windmills don't work that way!"

jubei33
7th March 09, 05:18 PM
"WHEREAS, the University of Oklahoma...should be open to all ideas...the Oklahoma House of Representative strongly opposes the invitation to speak on the campus of the University of Oklahoma to Richard Dawkins of Oxford University."

Being open to all ideas means being open to all ideas, not just the ones you happen to like. This isn't about openness to ideas. It's about controlling students' access to an alternative viewpoint, which is exactly the opposite of openness.

The same thing happened at the University of Nebraska a few months ago, when Bill Ayers was scheduled to speak and all the conservative parents went apeshit because their kids might get to listen to a viewpoint that they don't agree with; never mind that his speech was to be about academics, not politics.

If you want your school to be an indoctrination center for your own political, religious, or social views, fine; stop accepting public funds and advertise it as a conservative college, or what have you. But if my tax money is helping to pay for your programs, you must allow opposing views to be heard.

Somebody wrote this up also. To counter: I don't think we should apply relativism to science education. Creationism is based on faith, no matter what color you paint it with, thus it is better suited to by studied in religious education. Faith is not a scientifically provable concept. I cannot say a three fold purchase allows large weights to be easily moved via mechanical advantageand the relative ease is proportional to the amount of faith a given person has in the Lord.

As a student myself, I don't want to ever find in a textbook: since god created us perfectly there is no such thing as a genetic mutation; God created people with sickle cell anemia, because that's the way he wanted them, shorter life spans, various health problems and all.

HappyOldGuy
7th March 09, 05:20 PM
I hope we're all clear that nothing in this discussion changes the fact that Dawkins is a hypocritical douchebag.

But hypocritical douchebags get free speech too.

EuropIan
7th March 09, 05:25 PM
^that's how windmills do work

elipson
7th March 09, 06:47 PM
I love morbo.
ZQg8JKo_3ZQ

Virus
8th March 09, 05:29 AM
I hope we're all clear that nothing in this discussion changes the fact that Dawkins is a hypocritical douchebag.



And this is coming from a "pro religion atheist."

Shawarma
8th March 09, 05:45 AM
How does the hypocrisy of Dorkins manifest itself?

Virus
8th March 09, 08:41 AM
Yes, do tell about Dawkin's horrible dark secret.

Shawarma
8th March 09, 09:14 AM
Apart from being an effeminate cunt, that is.

JingMerchant!
8th March 09, 01:02 PM
I hope we're all clear that nothing in this discussion changes the fact that Dawkins is a hypocritical douchebag.

But hypocritical douchebags get free speech too.If you would be good enough to elaborate dude, I'm interested in your opinion.

Liffguard
8th March 09, 02:37 PM
Count me in as wanting some elaboration as to why Dawkins is a "hypocritical douchebag."

Sun Wukong
8th March 09, 02:43 PM
LOL. I like the irony implicit in their two objections to Dawkins speaking: he holds a view different to the majority and doesn't respect diversity of thought.


yes, indeed. the irony is astounding.

Robot Jesus
8th March 09, 03:16 PM
Count me in as wanting some elaboration as to why Dawkins is a "hypocritical douchebag."


agreed.

the god delusion isnt insulting, it just expouses an informed view of religion from the prespetive of an athist. To me it seemed more apologetic than spitefull.

elipson
8th March 09, 03:26 PM
To me it seemed more apologetic than spitefull.
I think we were reading two different books then. "Apologetic" is not the word I would use.

jubei33
8th March 09, 03:42 PM
ok guys, its time you learned the truth: he goes to church on Saturday, instead of Sunday. Better to just accept it and go to confession.

Robot Jesus
8th March 09, 04:02 PM
I think we were reading two different books then. "Apologetic" is not the word I would use.


"I'm sorry my friend, but I can never accept what you beleave as truth because of XYZ." was what I got out of it, but it has been a few years since i read it.

HappyOldGuy
8th March 09, 04:07 PM
The god delusion has been raped over it's multitude of factual and logical errors. Basically Dawkins blundered into this project with even a basic grasp of either the philosophical arguments about the existence of god, or the sociological/psychological/anthropological arguments for it's utllity. But when confronted by these huge holes in his theory, he puts his head in the sand like any flat earth creationist.

The book is nothing but a cheap polemic dripping with ad hominem and strawman attacks.

The reason he is a douchebag is that by making a religion of his atheism he blurs the legitimate line between the scientific and the ideological and gives ammunition to the ID folks.

elipson
8th March 09, 04:09 PM
I'm only half way through it but I haven't noticed any glaring philosophical holes. I don't plan on picking up the reading until at least April though. School.

Liffguard
8th March 09, 04:24 PM
The god delusion has been raped over it's multitude of factual and logical errors.

Do you have any links with more detail? I'm not trying to be confrontational, I'm genuinely curious.

Craigypooh
8th March 09, 04:46 PM
The god delusion has been raped over it's multitude of factual and logical errors.

I suspect it has fewer logical and factual errors than the Bible.

HappyOldGuy
8th March 09, 04:47 PM
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/pdfarticle.php?id=7803

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/3655792/I-don%27t-believe-in-Richard-Dawkins.html

http://solutions.synearth.net/2006/10/20

HappyOldGuy
8th March 09, 04:48 PM
I suspect it has fewer logical and factual errors than the Bible.
Yeah, but I'm sure we both agree that only an idiot takes the bible literally.

Craigypooh
8th March 09, 04:59 PM
Yeah, but I'm sure we both agree that only an idiot takes the bible literally.

Are you calling all Jehovah's Witnesses idiots?

HappyOldGuy
8th March 09, 05:08 PM
Are you calling all Jehovah's Witnesses idiots?

I'm okay with that, as long as we understand that everyone is an idiot sometimes.

Craigypooh
8th March 09, 05:29 PM
I'm okay with that, as long as we understand that everyone is an idiot sometimes.

But JWs believe the Bible to be the literal truth all the time!

elipson
8th March 09, 05:33 PM
Do what I do. Invite them in and offer them some literature in Athieism.

Aphid Jones
8th March 09, 05:52 PM
Do what I do. Invite them in and offer them some literature in Athieism.

After that, do they offer to help you spell it?

:)

elipson
8th March 09, 05:59 PM
I major in miracles, not spelling.

HappyOldGuy
8th March 09, 06:00 PM
Do what I do. Invite them in and offer them some literature in Satanism.

Better lulz.

Cullion
8th March 09, 06:04 PM
Tell them that you are an Ex-Jehova's witness. They are completely forbidden from speaking to you.

Craigypooh
8th March 09, 06:17 PM
Telling them you're Roman Catholic works well too. The JW's seem to think they're beyond redemption.

Virus
9th March 09, 06:42 AM
The reason he is a douchebag is that by making a religion of his atheism he blurs the legitimate line between the scientific and the ideological and gives ammunition to the ID folks.

Please explain how Dawkins has made his atheism a religion. Has he ever demanded that people accept what he says on faith?

HappyOldGuy
9th March 09, 10:41 AM
Please explain how Dawkins has made his atheism a religion. Has he ever demanded that people accept what he says on faith?
Well, he certainly hasn't provided facts.

And more to the point, whent he tiny few he did provide turned out to be false, he didn't change his theory.

rw4th
9th March 09, 01:45 PM
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/pdfarticle.php?id=7803

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/3655792/I-don%27t-believe-in-Richard-Dawkins.html

http://solutions.synearth.net/2006/10/20

I'm not sure I read the same articles as you, those were all pretty lame. The first one rehashes stuff about the origin of religion (calling atheism "unnatural"), and takes a lame jab at the religious vs. atheistic morality issue. The second one starts by comparing evolution and ID in terms or probabilities and goes downhill from there. After that I didn't bother with the third one.

Do you have anything better?

rw4th
9th March 09, 01:48 PM
Well, he certainly hasn't provided facts.

And more to the point, whent he tiny few he did provide turned out to be false, he didn't change his theory.

He provided ideas, not dogma. Was some of it wrong? Maybe, but that's the beauty of science: it's self correcting and open to change. Saying that something doesn't exists is not a theory, it's pointing out the lack of evidence and stating the obvious.

You argue like a theist.

HappyOldGuy
9th March 09, 01:54 PM
He provided ideas, not dogma. Was some of it wrong? Maybe, but that's the beauty of science: it's self correcting and open to change. Saying that something doesn't exists is not a theory, it's pointing out the lack of evidence and stating the obvious.

You argue like a theist.

So Dawkins presents a theory based on facts. has his facts thoroughly rebutted, doesn't change his theory, and I am the one arguing like a theist?

Yeah...

rw4th
9th March 09, 01:56 PM
So Dawkins presents a theory based on facts. has his facts thoroughly rebutted

I don't see that in anything that you've posted so far. So which theory should he change? The one that says there is no god?

I've read the book, the stuff he present is not offered at "truth:, it's presented as possible theories. In fact he mostly presents more then one, picks the one he prefers and expands on it.

HappyOldGuy
9th March 09, 01:58 PM
By the way, for the tl:dr crowd.

The grownup argument about whether religion is adaptive or not focuses on a balancing of positives and negatives. Dawkins tries to avoid that whole messy debate by claiming that there is a set of super evils only perpetrated in the name of religion. Since that is the basis of his argument, the fact that his super evils have been perpetrated specifically in the name of atheist ideology shreds his whole argument.

HappyOldGuy
9th March 09, 02:00 PM
I don't see that in anything that you've posted so far. So which theory should he change? The one that says there is no god?

I've read the book, the stuff he present is not offered at "truth:, it's presented as possible theories. In fact he mostly presents more then one, picks the one he prefers and expands on it.

Horse-water. Dawkins argument rests on defining a set of bad things that only religion does. All of his examples have also been done in the name of atheist ideologies. End of story.

rw4th
9th March 09, 02:03 PM
By the way, for the tl:dr crowd.

The grownup argument about whether religion is adaptive or not focuses on a balancing of positives and negatives. Dawkins tries to avoid that whole messy debate by claiming that there is a set of super evils only perpetrated in the name of religion. Since that is the basis of his argument, the fact that his super evils have been perpetrated specifically in the name of atheist ideology shreds his whole argument.

Dawkins says religion is a (major) source of "super evils". Get rid of religion and you get rid of a major source of those "super evils". More precisely thought he says that dogmatic belief is a source of "super-evils". Those evils which people seems to want to attribute the atheism as a rebuttal to this are themselves attributable to dogmatic beliefs.

rw4th
9th March 09, 02:11 PM
Here's an example of what I am talking about

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2588509.ece


Professor Dawkins, whose Out campaign urges closet Atheists to profess their unbelief and combat religious fundamentalism, acknowledged that not all religious people “are bad” or “dangerous”. But he warned that once “unstable” or “violent” people are granted a platform of faith, “terrible things follow”.


In an effort to silence his opponent, Professor Dawkins, who was he said “intensely frustrated” by the format of the evening, said Atheism did not motivate people to carry out terror. The men who “flew planes into various targets across America” on 9/11 were not “psychopaths” but “educated people who thought they were doing good” for their faith, he said.

And if you you do more research and listen to other lectures he's given you'll see that he while he likes to crap and religion, what he denounces is dogmatic belief.

HappyOldGuy
9th March 09, 02:14 PM
Dawkins says religion is a (major) source of "super evils". Get rid of religion and you get rid of a major source of those "super evils". More precisely thought he says that dogmatic belief is a source of "super-evils". Those evils which people seems to want to attribute the atheism as a rebuttal to this are themselves attributable to dogmatic beliefs.
No, he is incredibly imprecise about what constitutes "dogmatic belief." That is one of his basic problems.

He wants to play this whole guilt by association thing with religion and their fanatics, but when people point out the bad guys on "his" team, they don't have "teh real atheism."

It's crap.

rw4th
9th March 09, 02:41 PM
No, he is incredibly imprecise about what constitutes "dogmatic belief." That is one of his basic problems.

Generally he refers to "belief that is beyond criticism".


He wants to play this whole guilt by association thing with religion and their fanatics, but when people point out the bad guys on "his" team, they don't have "teh real atheism."

It's crap.

I'll agree he likes to point the finger at religion, but the whole "atheist do evil things to" argument makes sense only to people who like to define atheism itself as just another belief system.

Robot Jesus
9th March 09, 02:56 PM
Horse-water. Dawkins argument rests on defining a set of bad things that only religion does. All of his examples have also been done in the name of atheist ideologies. End of story.
If I remember correctly in the book he brings up the evils that religion do as a counter argument to “while the truth of religion has been shown to be unlikely would not atheism lead to great evils?”. And so he rebuts “great evils are committed by holy men as well as atheists only the holy men have an easier time justifying it”

He never argues that atheists do no evil, only that if religion is supposed to stop evil then it’s doing a piss poor job of it.

HappyOldGuy
9th March 09, 02:56 PM
I'll agree he likes to point the finger at religion, but the whole "atheist do evil things to" argument makes sense only to people who like to define atheism itself as just another belief system.

Which it is. If you claim that it has any inherent truth beyond what you can prove logically, that means you have made it a religion.

HappyOldGuy
9th March 09, 02:58 PM
If I remember correctly in the book he brings up the evils that religion do as a counter argument to “while the truth of religion has been shown to be unlikely would not atheism lead to great evils?”. And so he rebuts “great evils are committed by holy men as well as atheists only the holy men have an easier time justifying it”

He never argues that atheists do no evil, only that if religion is supposed to stop evil then it’s doing a piss poor job of it.

I don't know what book you read, but about 2/3 of the god delusion was devoted to the notion that religion was directly responsible for most of the worlds ills and that the world would be better off without it. If not, he probably should have skipped the whole "raising your child religious=child abuse" part.

rw4th
9th March 09, 03:13 PM
I don't know what book you read, but about 2/3 of the god delusion was devoted to the notion that religion was directly responsible for most of the worlds ills and that the world would be better off without it. If not, he probably should have skipped the whole "raising your child religious=child abuse" part.

I'm looking beyond the book here and looking at his lectures. You claimed his belief was dogmatic and didn't change and likened that to religion. I'm showing you that this is not true.

I starting to think you didn't actually read the book, at least didn't pay attention to what you were reading. His equating of the indoctrinating children into religious belief to child abuse is not simple about religion being evil.

rw4th
9th March 09, 03:18 PM
Which it is. If you claim that it has any inherent truth beyond what you can prove logically, that means you have made it a religion.

Nobody claims that atheism has any inherent truth, in fact atheist themselves tend to agree that there is no inherent truth. There is no dogmatic belief and nothing is beyond criticism.

Could you please provide a coherent argument as why it would be?

Cullion
9th March 09, 03:27 PM
Human logical reasoning is itself based on unprovable axioms accepted as self-evident truths. It is also mathematically demonstrable that any formal system of logic that a human can devise will either be inconsistent, incomplete or both.

HappyOldGuy
9th March 09, 03:29 PM
I'm looking beyond the book here and looking at his lectures. You claimed his belief was dogmatic and didn't change and likened that to religion. I'm showing you that this is not true.


No you aren't. You are claiming it by trying to read between the lines on disconnected public mutterings. His book sets out a logical argument which turns out to fail on the merits. When he puts together a new logical argument, I will happily address that argument on it's merits, but that latter 2/3 of "the God Delusion" fails to meet even the most basic burden. Period.

HappyOldGuy
9th March 09, 03:30 PM
Human logical reasoning is itself based on unprovable axioms accepted as self-evident truths. It is also mathematically demonstrable that any formal system of logic that a human can devise will either be inconsistent, incomplete or both.

I've given up on getting that point across. Hat's off if you manage.

Cullion
9th March 09, 03:31 PM
I'm not going to try and derive Goedels proof from first principles, I'm just going to ask that people read about it if they don't believe me.

Virus
9th March 09, 03:35 PM
HOG, If you think religion is so good for people then why not lead by example by embracing Islam.

Cullion
9th March 09, 03:37 PM
HOG, If you think religion is so good for people then why not lead by example by embracing Islam.

That's a pretty stupid post.

Virus
9th March 09, 03:49 PM
Don't you have your own, personal druid?

Cullion
9th March 09, 03:51 PM
Yes, but I only consult him for sexual advice, not concerning the spirit world.

jubei33
9th March 09, 04:13 PM
http://www.amazon.com/Godel-Escher-Bach-Eternal-Golden/dp/0465026567

this was a better book,imo.

elipson
9th March 09, 04:28 PM
Virus that was a pretty stupid post.

Disagreeing with Dawkins doesn't make someone religious. It just means they don't like him argument.

Shawarma
9th March 09, 04:33 PM
I like this.

Disagreeing with Dawkins = Religious fanatic.
Agreeing with Dawkins = LOL, HITLER!

HappyOldGuy
9th March 09, 04:34 PM
Agreeing with Dawkins = LOL, HITLER!

?

Shawarma
9th March 09, 05:16 PM
HITLER WAS AN ATHEIST HE HAD NO GOD THATS WHY HE WAS A MURDERER LOL

elipson
9th March 09, 05:21 PM
You know who else didn't believe in a "higher power"?

God.

HappyOldGuy
9th March 09, 05:26 PM
HITLER WAS AN ATHEIST HE HAD NO GOD THATS WHY HE WAS A MURDERER LOL

Can't Dawkins just be a douchebag who was 1/3 right and 2/3 wrong?

rw4th
9th March 09, 05:42 PM
Disagreeing with Dawkins doesn't make someone religious. It just means they don't like him argument.

Disagreeing with Dawkins is fine, I'm just looking for HOG to support his point that "The god delusion has been raped over it's multitude of factual and logical errors". He posted a few links to some poor articles and tried to use flawed reasoning to try and make the point that atheism is just another religion. So far he sounds like he's just copying the talking points of his favorite blogger(s).

rw4th
9th March 09, 05:43 PM
You know who else didn't believe in a "higher power"?

God.
You know who else rejected God?

Satan, that who.

Shawarma
9th March 09, 05:54 PM
Atheism the way Dawkins preaches it borders on religion, especially in the amount of hatred he has for anything not of The True Faith.

I find raging atheists to be nearly as tiresome as fundamentalists. Both seem to want to ram their beliefs down your throat.

HappyOldGuy
9th March 09, 05:57 PM
Disagreeing with Dawkins is fine, I'm just looking for HOG to support his point that "The god delusion has been raped over it's multitude of factual and logical errors". He posted a few links to some poor articles and tried to use flawed reasoning to try and make the point that atheism is just another religion. So far he sounds like he's just copying the talking points of his favorite blogger(s).


Yet under Stalin almost the entire Orthodox priesthood was exterminated simply for being priests, as were the clergy of
other religions and hundreds of thousands of Baptists. The claim that Stalin's atheism had nothing to do with his actions may
be the most disingenuous in the book, but it has competition from a later question, "Why would anyone go to war for the sake
of an absence of belief [atheism]?"--as if the armies of the French revolution had marched under icons of the Virgin, or as if a
common justification offered for China's invasion of Tibet had not been the awful priest-ridden backwardness of the Dalai
Lama's regime.

Evidence? As it happens, the definitive scientific study of suicide bombers, Dying to Win, has just been published by
Robert Pape, a Chicago professor who has a database containing every known suicide attack since 1980. This shows, as clearly
as evidence can, that religious zealotry is not on its own sufficient to produce suicide bombers; in fact, it's not even necessary:
the practice was widely used by Marxist guerrillas in Sri Lanka.

In the pre-scientific world, belief in supernatural deities often provided a rational means of understanding the unpredictability of the world. In a world in which science has shown itself to be spectacularly successful in understanding nature, religion necessarily means something different. Today people often embrace religion for reasons that, paradoxically, have little to do with God. Radical Islam, for instance, has increasingly found a hold in Muslim communities over the past 20 years, more for political than for religious reasons.

The most comprehensive study of al-Qa'eda supporters reveals that fewer than one in 10 have been to religious school. Whatever our views on God – and I am as obdurate an atheist as Dawkins – blaming it all on religion does little to illuminate the nature of contemporary sectarian conflict.

But eugenics is science as surely as totemism is religion. That either is in error is beside the point. Science quite appropriately acknowledges that error should be assumed, and at best it proceeds by a continuous process of criticism meant to isolate and identify error. So bad science is still science in more or less the same sense that bad religion is still religion.

Dawkins fails to note that the racial anti-Semitism that arose in Germany in the later nineteenth century had appeared to recede, until Hitler and others revived it. The article on anti- Semitism in the 11th Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, published in 1911. describes the movement as a German "craze" that had "shown little activity since 1893." According to the article, "While it remained a theory of nationality and a fad of the metaphysicians, it made considerable noise in the world without exercising much practical influence.

This was the crucial period of Reconstruction and of the ratification of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which established the full rights of citizenship to everyone born or naturalized in this country. Its passage was the work of emancipationists, and it was meant to create meaningful political equality for African Americans, among others. The vanguard in the period in which Huxley wrote were those Christian abolitionists whose intentions he dismissed as, of course, at odds with science.





I still can't teach you to read them.

Sun Wukong
9th March 09, 07:23 PM
i disagree sincerely with the above authors interpretation of the "invasion" of Tibet. Wherein, it wasn't an invasion since Tibet had indeed belonged to China for 500 years at the time and the fact that it was still largely under control of Qing warlords who had been installed under the defunct Qing Dynasty.

Having a huge portion of your land under the control of an opposing military force doesn't make much sense, not to mention the fact that the foreign governments were actively engaged in trying to start a civil war in the country side.

It wasn't atheism or tibetan budhism that had anything to do with the martial control of the country, it was simply a matter of protecting PRC sovereignty.

Sun Wukong
9th March 09, 07:26 PM
The same argument can be made for Stalin's removal of the Orthodox Church. He wanted them out of the way because they represented an exploitable potential opposing ideological rally point for possible future oppositions.

Jesus, people really need to read the Art of War a little bit. I know the book is archaic, but there are some very good understandings about the nature of conflict in it.

Cullion
9th March 09, 07:26 PM
Now that's stirring the punchbowl with your erect penis, SWK.

Sun Wukong
9th March 09, 07:30 PM
Stalin didn't just go after the Orthodox Church and for that matter, the PRC government under Mao weren't only interested in the Tibetans. They were actively centralizing power in their government and removing conflicting parties of interest.

What Hitler did, in comparison was similar, however he built his entire pathos around the idea that Germany was divine in nature. He practically built a religion within the Nazi party and used it to infect all of Germany.

Cullion
9th March 09, 07:39 PM
The SS were influenced by Himmler and others to conduct quasi-nordic pagan rituals as a replacement for 'enfeebling' and 'jewish inspired' Christianity. My personal guess is that Hitler didn't really believe any of it but thought it make a useful bit of patriotic pagentry that would be good for moral.

elipson
9th March 09, 07:52 PM
More Machiavelli than Sun Tzu, but now we are getting into trivial nuances of political thought.

Aphid Jones
9th March 09, 08:17 PM
Stalin didn't just go after the Orthodox Church and for that matter, the PRC government under Mao weren't only interested in the Tibetans. They were actively centralizing power in their government and removing conflicting parties of interest.

Stalin went after the church under the guise of Marxist atheist ideology.

Osama Bin Laden plotted 9/11 under the guise of Islamic Jihad.

Sun Wukong
9th March 09, 08:30 PM
Stalin wasn't killing his own allies under the guise of marxism though. he was killing them because they posed a threat to his power.

The difference with Bin Laden is that Osama probably really does believe in what he is doing for the reasons he claims.

Virus
9th March 09, 10:34 PM
I'm not calling HOG a religious fundamentalist becuase he disagrees with Dick Dawkins. I'm saying he belives religion is good for people becuase he has "pro-religion atheist" in his title.

I think there is a misunderstanding of what Dawkins argues. He says that it doesn't logically follow that someone would do bad things based on not believing in God. But believe in certian parts of the Bible or the Koran and bad things become "rational" if someone believes it. He gives examples of how Jewish children view massacres of rival tribes by Jews in the Old testament as justified when they would probably view it as a senseless massacre otherwise. Circumsision, in this day and age would be viewed as a pointless, cruel and invasive procedure if people didn't think yaweh had a dislike of foreskin.

The Bolsheviks might have been atheists but they worshipped the absolutist state, they worshipped ideology and they denied evolution. It's a faith-based secular system that contains dictatorship as a necesarry part of the dogma. Communist attrocities have more to do with that than with skepticism of Space Ghosts.

HappyOldGuy
9th March 09, 10:41 PM
I'm not calling HOG a religious fundamentalist becuase he disagrees with Dick Dawkins. I'm saying he belives religion is good for people becuase he has "pro-religion atheist" in his title.

I don't believe anything about religion. I know as scientific fact that religious people are happier and healthier.

rw4th
9th March 09, 11:07 PM
I don't believe anything about religion. I know as scientific fact that religious people are happier and healthier.

Seriously, now you're just trolling, posting stupid shit and trying to pick fights.

HappyOldGuy
9th March 09, 11:19 PM
Seriously, now you're just trolling, posting stupid shit and trying to pick fights.

Or possibly you just don't have the slightest idea (http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=aDrzkyYQjqMC&oi=fnd&pg=PA53&dq=%22McCullough%22+%22Religious+involvement+and+m ortality%22+&ots=ChhG1NW92b&sig=Zj-DeqR2CdtMHVT3JxCjAiPLVQg#PPA56,M1)what the facts are?

elipson
9th March 09, 11:22 PM
Even without clicking Hog's link, I think he is right about the religious person/happiness connection.

Ignorance is bliss.

HappyOldGuy
9th March 09, 11:27 PM
Ignorance is bliss.

Personally I think it has more to do with the kinds of social support that religious groups provide.

But I like your answer

Aphid Jones
9th March 09, 11:34 PM
The difference with Bin Laden is that Osama probably really does believe in what he is doing for the reasons he claims.
B.S.

elipson
10th March 09, 12:20 AM
In all honesty I think it has more to do with the belief in an afterlife and that people have some reassurance that their life has a "meaning" determined by god, even if they dont know what it is.

Also, they are told point black what it takes to be a good person, are socially over-pressured by the congregation into assuming the role of the good person, and then take joy in the knowledge that they are complying with what is required and expected to be a good person.

The rest of us have to determine what a "good" person is ourselves. Which personally I think makes it more meaningful, but that's me.

rw4th
10th March 09, 12:24 AM
Or possibly you just don't have the slightest idea (http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=aDrzkyYQjqMC&oi=fnd&pg=PA53&dq=%22McCullough%22+%22Religious+involvement+and+m ortality%22+&ots=ChhG1NW92b&sig=Zj-DeqR2CdtMHVT3JxCjAiPLVQg#PPA56,M1)what the facts are?

So from that one study you deduce that it's a fact that religious people are healthier? Seriously?

Here, it's my turn to post links:

http://www.gadling.com/2007/08/23/least-religious-countries/
http://books.google.ca/books?id=tAeFipOVx4MC&pg=PA61&lpg=PA61&dq=%22High+levels+of+organic+atheism+are+strongly+ correlated+with+high+levels+of+societal&source=bl&ots=KgscHepX3-&sig=CbdF7t_BIummrh84_eTxzDg8Y_M&hl=en&ei=S_W1Se2bNdC5twfuzuGnCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result



The survey concluded that "high levels of organic atheism are strongly correlated with high levels of societal health, such as low homicide rates, low poverty rates, low infant mortality rates, and low illiteracy rates, as well as high levels of educational attainment, per capita income, and gender equality. Most nations characterized by high degrees of individual and societal security have the highest rates of organic atheism, and conversely, nations characterized by low degrees of individual and societal security have the lowest rates of organic atheism.

HappyOldGuy
10th March 09, 12:34 AM
Yeah, a blog and an unsourced assertion in a polemic. Versus a book that cited over a dozen peer reviewed population studies.

Really, don't try. Quoting blogs=fail.

elipson
10th March 09, 12:40 AM
http://www.gadling.com/2007/08/23/least-religious-countries/

This article sucks. Perhaps because its too brief it forgets to cover some important topics.

It doesn't break down the populations of the actual countries to see if the 85% of persons in Sweden who are non-religious are happier and healthier than the 15% or Swedes who are religious.

All we can tell from that study is
a) sweden is highly athiest and
b) that sweden has all those good features in the article.

It does not show us that the persons outside the circle of atheism within sweden are worse off.

rw4th
10th March 09, 12:54 AM
Yeah, a blog and an unsourced assertion in a polemic. Versus a book that cited over a dozen peer reviewed population studies.

Really, don't try. Quoting blogs=fail.

Did you actually read the whole chapter in that book? The statistics are sourced. The study you posted shows statistical correlation, not causation and certainly not anything that can be construed as "fact". The statistics in what I posted contradict what you posted and hint that societies with higher degree of atheism are healthier then religious ones. Saying that people who are religious are healthier then those who aren't is "fact" is pure bullshit on your part.

I'm willing to grant that people's religious faiths help them keep their spirits up in the face of poor health, but religion is not the only way to achieve the same psychological effect.

Here's one on the power of prayer

http://www.ahjonline.com/article/PIIS0002870305006496/abstract


Intercessory prayer is widely believed to influence recovery from illness, but claims of benefits are not supported by well-controlled clinical trials. Prior studies have not addressed whether prayer itself or knowledge/certainty that prayer is being provided may influence outcome. We evaluated whether (1) receiving intercessory prayer or (2) being certain of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with uncomplicated recovery after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery.

rw4th
10th March 09, 01:01 AM
This article sucks. Perhaps because its too brief it forgets to cover some important topics.

It doesn't break down the populations of the actual countries to see if the 85% of persons in Sweden who are non-religious are happier and healthier than the 15% or Swedes who are religious.

All we can tell from that study is
a) sweden is highly athiest and
b) that sweden has all those good features in the article.

It does not show us that the persons outside the circle of atheism within sweden are worse off.

Follow the link to the book, you'll find references to the statistics it's based on. You're right in stating there are gaps, however if HOG's assertion that religious people are healthier was correct one would expect to see a trend indicating that more religious countries are healthier then less religious ones.

HappyOldGuy
10th March 09, 01:05 AM
Did you actually read the whole chapter in that book? The statistics are sourced. The study you posted shows statistical correlation, not causation and certainly not anything that can be construed as "fact". The statistics in what I posted contradict what you posted and hint that societies with higher degree of atheism are healthier then religious ones. Saying that people who are religious are healthier then those who aren't is "fact" is pure bullshit on your part.

I'm willing to grant that people's religious faiths help them keep their spirits up in the face of poor health, but religion is not the only way to achieve the same psychological effect.

Here's one on the power of prayer

http://www.ahjonline.com/article/PIIS0002870305006496/abstract
The chapter of the book book provided sources for it's numbers of believers. Not academic (the BBC really doesn't count) but good. However the section you quoted was an assertion. It had no supporting facts.

And I never said prayer worked. I said religious people are happier and healthier than non religious people. That is a simple statement of fact, proven time and again in study after study. It's not even controversial anywhere outside of internet atheist wienies who insist against all theory and evidence that the second most universal human custom is not adaptive.

Now the why, that is controversial. lots of theories. But you're not ready for that yet.

nihilist
10th March 09, 01:45 AM
Studies show that religious people tend to be stupider. Do any of your studies take that into account or merely point to religion as the cause of being happy?

Virus
10th March 09, 04:27 AM
There are quite a few studies indicating positive effects of religious belief. There are also some negative ones. Most of the ones I just eyeballed seemed to be positive.

elipson
10th March 09, 04:40 AM
Studies show that religious people tend to be stupider. Do any of your studies take that into account or merely point to religion as the cause of being happy?
I believe I pointed out that ignorance is bliss.

I also commented on several other facotrs of religious life which could likely be the cause of happier religious idiots.

Craigypooh
10th March 09, 07:09 AM
I said religious people are happier and healthier than non religious people.

This statement incredibly difficult to prove statistically, and there are conflicting views on this subject.

There are too many confounding factors which are far more important to health and happiness - eg wealth, diet, proximity to medical facilaties, smoking, drug use, alcohol use, age, sex etc. etc.

nihilist
10th March 09, 10:41 AM
I believe I pointed out that ignorance is bliss.

I also commented on several other facotrs of religious life which could likely be the cause of happier religious idiots.

The original quote is
"Where ignorance is bliss, 'Tis folly to be wise. "
Author: Thomas Gray
Source: On a Distant Prospect of Eton College (st. 10)

Since HOG is citing studies then studies must be used to dispute his claims.

Merely saying "Ignorance is bliss" will not motivate him to respond on the incompleteness of his assertions.

nihilist
10th March 09, 10:46 AM
There are quite a few studies indicating positive effects of religious belief. There are also some negative ones. Most of the ones I just eyeballed seemed to be positive.

Are there studies that show Downs syndrome people are happier?

Most of the ones I eyeballed seemed pretty positive.

Now if I were going to tell one of these guys that there was a man in the clouds who would help them tie their shoes how much thought would they put into validating my claim?

HappyOldGuy
10th March 09, 10:48 AM
This statement incredibly difficult to prove statistically, and there are conflicting views on this subject.


Not alot of dispute on the basic fact. There have just been too many studies, and even the ones with negative results often find weak correlation or correlation in an area they weren't studying directly.

There is lots of conflict on the degree, mechanism, etc.

And of course, none of this has anything to do with the existence of god, especially since which god people are worhsipping hasn't been a big part of the research.

nihilist
10th March 09, 10:59 AM
Stupid people have less to worry about. Of course they are going to be happier.

Virus
10th March 09, 11:07 AM
Maybe happy, positive people are attracted to space wizard.

nihilist
10th March 09, 11:15 AM
You're right. gullibility and ignorance have nothing to do with it.

Zendetta
10th March 09, 04:06 PM
Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, whose published statements on the theory of evolution and opinion about those who do not believe in the theory are contrary and offensive to the views and opinions of most citizens of Oklahoma.

Well, I for one am disgusted at the way that Midwesterners are appeasing radical fundamentalist Christianity.

But I am also really confused as to why the chorus of usual suspects isn't stepping forward to say that those Okies "don't have teh R34L Chistianity".

Craigypooh
10th March 09, 04:18 PM
Not alot of dispute on the basic fact. There have just been too many studies, and even the ones with negative results often find weak correlation or correlation in an area they weren't studying directly.

There is lots of conflict on the degree, mechanism, etc.

And of course, none of this has anything to do with the existence of god, especially since which god people are worhsipping hasn't been a big part of the research.

Here's some dispute on the basic fact:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/342/25/1913?ijkey=4e460ff5579ef3fa0a2d253a6d807cb34ad9273 9&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

HappyOldGuy
10th March 09, 04:33 PM
Here's some dispute on the basic fact:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/342/25/1913?ijkey=4e460ff5579ef3fa0a2d253a6d807cb34ad9273 9&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

Only if your reading comprehension and logic fails. Your own links says that there are convincing studies showing the basic fact. The point that your link (to an editorial opinion, not a peer reviewed research paper) is making is that it does not follow from the fact that religious people are healthier that doctors should prescribe medicine.

(here is link for people without access to pubmed)

http://courses.washington.edu/mhe518/Articles/soundingboard.pdf

Craigypooh
10th March 09, 04:39 PM
Only if your reading comprehension and logic fails. Your own links says that there are convincing studies showing the basic fact. The point that your link (to an editorial opinion, not a peer reviewed research paper) is making is that it does not follow from the fact that religious people are healthier that doctors should prescribe medicine.

(here is link for people without access to pubmed)

http://courses.washington.edu/mhe518/Articles/soundingboard.pdf (http://courses.washington.edu/mhe518/Articles/soundingboard.pdf)


Numerous authors12 (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/342/25/1913?ijkey=4e460ff5579ef3fa0a2d253a6d807cb34ad9273 9&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha#R12),13 (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/342/25/1913?ijkey=4e460ff5579ef3fa0a2d253a6d807cb34ad9273 9&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha#R13),14 (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/342/25/1913?ijkey=4e460ff5579ef3fa0a2d253a6d807cb34ad9273 9&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha#R14),15 (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/342/25/1913?ijkey=4e460ff5579ef3fa0a2d253a6d807cb34ad9273 9&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha#R15) assert that there is substantial empirical support for the idea that religious activities promote health. We believe the evidence is generally weak and unconvincing, since it is based on studies with serious methodologic flaws, conflicting findings, and data that lack clarity and specificity.

HappyOldGuy
10th March 09, 04:46 PM
Way to quote the fuck out of context dude.


Numerous authors12,13,14,15 assert that there is substantial empirical support for the idea that religious activities promote health. We believe the evidence is generally weak and unconvincing, since it is based on studies with
serious methodologic flaws, conflicting findings, and data that lack clarity and specificity.16 Two recently reported, well-conducted studies, however, have shown that attendance at religious services is associated with
reduced mortality.17,18

And we're done. You clearly don't know enough about the topic to be interesting to talk to about it, and that kind of cheap bullshit ups the bore factor past my tolerance level.

DAYoung
10th March 09, 04:54 PM
attendance at religious services is associated with
reduced mortality

Irony.

Craigypooh
10th March 09, 05:01 PM
Way to quote the fuck out of context dude.



And we're done. You clearly don't know enough about the topic to be interesting to talk to about it, and that kind of cheap bullshit ups the bore factor past my tolerance level.

Did you get bored before reaching the end of the paragraph?


16 (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/342/25/1913?ijkey=4e460ff5579ef3fa0a2d253a6d807cb34ad9273 9&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha#R16) Two recently reported, well-conducted studies, however, have shown that attendance at religious services is associated with reduced mortality.17 (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/342/25/1913?ijkey=4e460ff5579ef3fa0a2d253a6d807cb34ad9273 9&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha#R17),18 (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/342/25/1913?ijkey=4e460ff5579ef3fa0a2d253a6d807cb34ad9273 9&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha#R18) Yet, for several reasons, such epidemiologic studies do not provide justification for physicians to encourage patients to attend religious services or to engage in other religious activities

Unfortunately the problem with these studies is that those people who are very seriously ill are in hospital and therefore not attending church regularly. Those people attending church are therefore a "select" group.

The only conclusion we can draw is that those people well enough to go out regularly have lighter mortality.

The same results would be seen for people attending theatre productions on a regular basis.

HappyOldGuy
10th March 09, 05:10 PM
Sorry, I was giving you credit for using cheap debate tricks. It turns out you really are a moron. Here are the abstracts for the two studies in question, since you apparently can't manage hyperlinks.


OBJECTIVES: This study analyzed the prospective association between attending religious services and all-cause mortality to determine whether the association is explainable by 6 confounding factors: demographics, health status, physical functioning, health habits, social functioning and support, and psychological state. METHODS: The association between self-reported religious attendance and subsequent mortality over 5 years for 1931 older residents of Marin County, California, was examined by proportional hazards regression. Interaction terms of religion with social support were used to explore whether other forms of social support could substitute for religion and diminish its protective effect. RESULTS: Persons who attended religious services had lower mortality than those who did not (age- and sex-adjusted relative hazard [RH] = 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.52, 0.78). Multivariate adjustment reduced this relationship only slightly (RH = 0.76; 95% CI = 0.62, 0.94), primarily by including physical functioning and social support. Contrary to hypothesis, religious attendance tended to be slightly more protective for those with high social support. CONCLUSIONS: Lower mortality rates for those who attend religious services are only partly explained by the 6 possible confounders listed above. Psychodynamic and other explanations need further investigation.


We use recently released, nationally representative data from the National Health Interview Survey-Multiple Cause of Death linked file to model the association of religious attendance and sociodemographic, health, and behavioral correlates with overall and cause-specific mortality. Religious attendance is associated with U.S. adult mortality in a graded fashion: People who never attend exhibit 1.87 times the risk of death in the follow-up period compared with people who attend more than once a week. This translates into a seven-year difference in life expectancy at age 20 between those who never attend and those who attend more than once a week. Health selectivity is responsible for a portion of the religious attendance effect: People who do not attend church or religious services are also more likely to be unhealthy and, consequently, to die. However, religious attendance also works through increased social ties and behavioral factors to decrease the risks of death. And although the magnitude of the association between religious attendance and mortality varies by cause of death, the direction of the association is consistent across causes.

Now, is your reading comprehension poor enough that the bolded bits don't explain how wrong you are?

Cullion
10th March 09, 05:41 PM
As somebody with no formal study of biology beyond the age of 16, can somebody summarize the falsifiable predictions of evolutionary theory please ?

I understand their are different branches, tagging the predictions to a particular branch would be swell.

Craigypooh
10th March 09, 05:43 PM
HOG: You didn't address this point from the editorial I linked. It followed the sentence which you quoted out of context:


Yet, for several reasons, such epidemiologic studies do not provide justification for physicians to encourage patients to attend religious services or to engage in other religious activities

BTW you should calm down - its not good for your health to get so stressed.

HappyOldGuy
10th March 09, 05:52 PM
HOG: You didn't address this point from the editorial I linked. It followed the sentence which you quoted out of context:


I said that religious people were healthier. Your article agreed. If I had said therefore go to church, you would have a point. But I didn't, so you don't.

Other than the one on top of your head.

EuropIan
10th March 09, 06:07 PM
As somebody with no formal study of biology beyond the age of 16, can somebody summarize the falsifiable predictions of evolutionary theory please ?

I understand their are different branches, tagging the predictions to a particular branch would be swell.
The only example I can think off is how genetics confirmed an ape ancestor.


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7034/abs/nature03466.html

Craigypooh
10th March 09, 06:11 PM
I said that religious people were healthier. Your article agreed. If I had said therefore go to church, you would have a point. But I didn't, so you don't.

Other than the one on top of your head.

Not quite the article was very specific in that it said there was evidence that people who are healthy enough to go to church regularly are healthier - that's sub-group of religious people.

I quoted the authors view of those studies which attempt to make a more general link between religion and health.

If you'd said "People who are healthy enough to go to church on a regular basis experience lower mortality rates." You would have been correct.

Cullion - the two ways to falsify evolution I've seen quoted are:

finding a modern animal (eg a horse or rabbit) in the fossil record alongside dinosaurs
finding an animal which is made up of two or more unrelated animals (mermaid, griffin or centaur)

HappyOldGuy
10th March 09, 06:19 PM
Not quite the article was very specific in that it said there was evidence that people who are healthy enough to go to church regularly are healthier - that's sub-group of religious people.

Apparently you are too stupid to understand the bolded bits. Seek remedial reading assistance elsewhere.

Cullion, remembering that natural selection predates DNA, the existence and operation of DNA itself was an excellent opportunity to falsify darwin. Instead DNA proved that there was a mechnism for passing on inherited traits and a mechanism for mutations to change those traits and pass on the changes. Both of which were predicted by (and required for) darwinian evolution. Any future understandings of DNA or changes to our understanding of it's operations could falsify some aspect of our theories of evolution.

There is actually probably alot of room for that as we understand more about the rate and operation of mutations.

Craigypooh
10th March 09, 06:27 PM
Apparently you are too stupid to understand the bolded bits. Seek remedial reading assistance elsewhere.


Debating 101 - If all else fails scream you're stupid and run away?

HappyOldGuy
10th March 09, 06:31 PM
Apparently you are too stupid to understand the bolded bits. Seek remedial reading assistance elsewhere.

Debating 101 - If all else fails scream you're stupid and run away?
Both of the studies linked in your article as the exemplars adjusted for physical condition. I even went and bolded the parts of the abstract where they said so. So you are either stupid, or being intentionally obtuse. Both affect me about equally much (i.e., not at all) but assuming you are stupid is more fun to mock. So that's the option I'm chosing.

rw4th
10th March 09, 06:32 PM
Apparently you are too stupid to understand the bolded bits. Seek remedial reading assistance elsewhere.

Here's your bolded bit:


However, religious attendance also works through increased social ties and behavioral factors to decrease the risks of death. And although the magnitude of the association between religious attendance and mortality varies by cause of death, the direction of the association is consistent across causes.

It clearly refers to religious attendance. Your "fact" isn't and you're showing your ass.

HappyOldGuy
10th March 09, 06:39 PM
Here's your bolded bit:



It clearly refers to religious attendance. Your "fact" isn't and you're showing your ass.

Please explain oh expert on asses?

Quikfeet509
10th March 09, 06:41 PM
Please never cite studies that state "...people interviewed wanted more [blank]..." when it comes to medicine.

In addition to wanting doctors to prescribe faith, the majority of people surveyed tend to favor seeing a nurse practitioner versus a physician (despite the significant difference in training) because they "feel" that the NP listens more [read: takes longer to do a differential], would like to easier access to smoking sections at the hospital, and would like to make no lifestyle changes while having complete and free care at the expense of someone else.


Hospital administrations live and die by satisfaction surveys.


We would all probably be better off it is was more of the latter.

Craigypooh
10th March 09, 06:46 PM
Both of the studies linked in your article as the exemplars adjusted for physical condition. I even went and bolded the parts of the abstract where they said so.

Although the studies were still about going to church and not about "being a religious person".


... the strongest evidence of an effect of religion on health comes from studies of church attendance. There is no convincing evidence that other religious activities are associated with improved health. However valuable praying, reading the Bible, and watching religious television programs may be for a religious life, there is insufficient evidence linking these activities to health.

Cullion
10th March 09, 06:46 PM
I've seen simillar studies showing that owning a pet improves people's health by making them less stressed out.

I don't see why this claim would be controversial. It doesn't make the claims of a particular religion's holy book 'true', it would just show that the peace of mind and coping mechanism a lot of people find in religion helps them be less stressed out and thereby helps their physical health.

HoG's not religious, he's an atheist who doesn't believe in waving his cock in people's face with his degree certificate(s) wrapped around it if they take peace in something that he might know deep down is based on mythology.

I don't understand why people are jumping all over his shit about this.

Sun Wukong
10th March 09, 06:48 PM
B.S.

Well, I'd like to explore that just for the sake of personal interest. Honestly, I can't understand why some fool would do the things he has done in the way he's done them unless they were some kind of short sighted insane zealot.

If he did this for some kind of political gain, I can't see how he thought it would actually get him anywhere. Unless your argument is that he did this simply because he "hates america" on the basis that we are "global oppressors"; which of course, is entirely funny, given the way the Taliban ran Afghanistan.

Sun Wukong
10th March 09, 06:50 PM
Stupid people have less to worry about. Of course they are going to be happier.

Quoted for truth.

rw4th
10th March 09, 07:20 PM
I don't understand why people are jumping all over his shit about this.

He stated with complete certainty that it's a FACT that RELIGIOUS people are healthier and live longer. This statement was subsequently been proven false and we're all just waiting for him to be a man revise his statement.

He also blasphemed The Dawkins, and we just can't have that in civilized company.

HappyOldGuy
10th March 09, 07:49 PM
Although the studies were still about going to church and not about "being a religious person".
Okay this is a non moronic criticism. Still demonstrates a blatant ignorance of the subject matter, but ignorance is fixable.

See measuring "religiousity" is kinda tricky. In the US, something over 90% of the population actively believes in god, and something around 2% self identify as atheist. And the non believers tend to be young way out of all proportion. If you're looking at elderly populations (where you have to look for mortality statistics) your fraction of people who don't believe get's too small to be useful in any reasonable survey. Also, you aren't just interested in simple yes/no belief. Ideally if you are trying to do good correlations you want a gradation of belief that you can compare to. hence, frequency of church attendence. There are other measures you can use (questionaire based) but they are too clunky to use in a truly big study. So almost all large population studies use frequency of church attendence as the basic measure for religiousity. It's easy and it turns out to correlate well with those more exhaustive questionaires.

Also, even though your editorial poo poo'd the smaller studies for being small, the advantage of them is that they can use lots of other measures and go into more detail. And since they all corroborate the frequency of attendence results, they indicate that the measure works.

nihilist
10th March 09, 09:18 PM
Patients who were offered placebos fared better than those offered no medicine.

Please explain how belief in God differs from believing in a magic rock or sugar pill.

HappyOldGuy
10th March 09, 09:34 PM
Patients who were offered placebos fared better than those offered no medicine.

Please explain how belief in God differs from believing in a magic rock or sugar pill.

That's actually a little more metaphysical than most of my preferred notions. I usually jump right to the social support network type explanations. but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was part of the story.

Zendetta
10th March 09, 09:44 PM
If researchers could discover a physiological mechanism behind the placebo effect, and if could they could develop a drug that would consistently trigger it strongly, it would completely revolutionize medicine.

(perhaps this has already been done for metaphysics via LSD)

Now....


Well, I for one am disgusted at the way that Midwesterners are appeasing radical fundamentalist Christianity.

But I am also really confused as to why the chorus of usual suspects isn't stepping forward to say that those Okies "don't have teh R34L Chistianity".

.... I really need one of you punks who always apologizes for islamic fundamentalism to explain to me how the Christian Right's constant attempts to suppress teh science isn't "because of the religion".

Craigypooh
11th March 09, 04:18 AM
It's easy and it turns out to correlate well with those more exhaustive questionaires.

A is correlated to B and B is correlated to C does not necessarily mean A is correlated to C


Also, even though your editorial poo poo'd the smaller studies for being small

He said more than "you should ignore these studies coz they're small":


serious methodologic flaws, conflicting findings, and data that lack clarity and specificity

...and paper he co-authored on this subject was published in the Lancet the previous year. So you can drop the "its just an editorial" crap.


Sloan RP, Bagiella E, Powell T. Religion, spirituality, and medicine. Lancet 1999;353:664-667.

Sun Wukong
11th March 09, 06:34 AM
I've seen simillar studies showing that owning a pet improves people's health by making them less stressed out.

That's why having allergies sucks. I'm a stress magnet, love dogs, but can't be around them more than 10 minutes at a time without my nose and throat getting inflamed. Neighbor just got an awesome pit bull puppy. it's only a two months old and already likes to play fetch.

Virus
11th March 09, 07:19 AM
That's why having allergies sucks. I'm a stress magnet, love dogs, but can't be around them more than 10 minutes at a time without my nose and throat getting inflamed. Neighbor just got an awesome pit bull puppy. it's only a two months old and already likes to play fetch.

Your only alternative is to start believing in ghosts that love you. Concentrate on feeling the ghost love.

nihilist
11th March 09, 09:16 AM
There are more, serious problems with religion that are cause for concern.

The problems with religious leaders perpetuating ignorance is causing disease, death and hatred to be spread.

Any atheist who is "pro religion" obviously has little regard for humanity.

rw4th
11th March 09, 10:27 AM
See measuring "religiousity" is kinda tricky. In the US, something over 90% of the population actively believes in god, and something around 2% self identify as atheist. And the non believers tend to be young way out of all proportion. If you're looking at elderly populations (where you have to look for mortality statistics) your fraction of people who don't believe get's too small to be useful in any reasonable survey. Also, you aren't just interested in simple yes/no belief. Ideally if you are trying to do good correlations you want a gradation of belief that you can compare to. hence, frequency of church attendence. There are other measures you can use (questionaire based) but they are too clunky to use in a truly big study. So almost all large population studies use frequency of church attendence as the basic measure for religiousity. It's easy and it turns out to correlate well with those more exhaustive questionaires.

Your whole post makes sense, but it still means that all the study measured was the health of people who can physically still attend religious services. The methodology discards those who identify as religious but are too ill to actively participate which in my opinion makes the resulting claim of superior health flawed.

I suspect that if a similar study was done with people who regularly attend a secular gathering, the results would be much the same invalidating any claims that "religiosity" was responsible.

Virus
11th March 09, 10:48 AM
You know how after the UFC became popular all these aikido and wing chun guys started saying that "real" aikdo and wing chun always had grappling but suspiciously there's no mention of it before the UFC? Religion is the same thing. After ghey rights, the equality of women, the abolition of slavery are all taken for granted religious people jump on the bandwagon and say that "real" Christianity and Islam was always pro-gay rights and pro-feminist, even though historical evidence for this is non-existent.

So people are just going to say that perpetuating ignorance and causing disease, death and hatred is not the r34l religion. Which is great because there's no criticism of dogma that can't be brushed off with that. It's simple, watch:

"The Koran says that women are only worth half a man and many clerics endorse that view."

"No. That's not the real Islam."

"Oh, Ok."

That's how simple it is.

HappyOldGuy
11th March 09, 10:53 AM
...and paper he co-authored on this subject was published in the Lancet the previous year. So you can drop the "its just an editorial" crap.

On their "viewpoints" page, just like this one. And in it he discussed many well conducted studies but pointed to the lack of cohesion in their methods and findings as evidence that doctors should not prescribe medicine as treatment.

http://ienc.weblog.ub.rug.nl/wp-content/uploads/religionmedicine.pdf

Cullion
11th March 09, 02:17 PM
There are more, serious problems with religion that are cause for concern.

The problems with religious leaders perpetuating ignorance is causing disease, death and hatred to be spread.

Any atheist who is "pro religion" obviously has little regard for humanity.

I hope we're not going to have to re-heat the thread were it was clearly demonstrated that Catholic countries in Africa where abstinence is taught had lower HIV infection rates than protestant countries where contraception is taught instead.

Cullion
11th March 09, 02:18 PM
After ghey rights, the equality of women, the abolition of slavery are all taken for granted religious people jump on the bandwagon and say that "real" Christianity and Islam was always pro-gay rights and pro-feminist, even though historical evidence for this is non-existent.


Who? Are you talking about American 'liberal' episcopalians and uniterians ?

The Catholic church still thinks homosexuality is a sin, no ambiguity.

Cullion
11th March 09, 02:19 PM
Patients who were offered placebos fared better than those offered no medicine.

Please explain how belief in God differs from believing in a magic rock or sugar pill.

It doesn't. But nobody here's been trying to make the point that religion helps people be a bit healthier due to magic jesus rays, have they ?

WarPhalange
11th March 09, 02:21 PM
The Catholic church still thinks homosexuality is a sin, no ambiguity.

Most followers ignore that and say it's okay. Just like buying weed is illegal, but millions of people do it anyway.

Cullion
11th March 09, 02:26 PM
Most followers ignore that and say it's okay.

Most? Or most that you've met?


Just like buying weed is illegal, but millions of people do it anyway.

The difference is, you have more of an option about being a catholic in most industrial nations. If you really, truly, disagree with Catholic doctrine, there's almost no to stay a catholic for most people.

WarPhalange
11th March 09, 02:30 PM
Most? Or most that you've met?

I never hear about Catholic followers protesting homosexuality, I hear about the higher-ups issuing an order and everybody else going "Man... that sucks" as if they were employees in a shitty company.


The difference is, you have more of an option about being a catholic in most industrial nations. If you really, truly, disagree with Catholic doctrine, there's almost no to stay a catholic for most people.

What. I was meerly saying that people who agree with most of an idea will still claim to support it, just alter the details to suite their needs.

The Bible supports slavery, but there are plenty of black Christians, yes?

HappyOldGuy
11th March 09, 02:31 PM
You know how after the UFC became popular all these aikido and wing chun guys started saying that "real" aikdo and wing chun always had grappling but suspiciously there's no mention of it before the UFC? Religion is the same thing. After ghey rights, the equality of women, the abolition of slavery are all taken for granted religious people jump on the bandwagon and say that "real" Christianity and Islam was always pro-gay rights and pro-feminist, even though historical evidence for this is non-existent.


Were you just moronic enough to include abolition of slavery in your list? I mean I'll give you gay rights. And feminism is messy and complicated. But abolition...

Cullion
11th March 09, 02:38 PM
I never hear about Catholic followers protesting homosexuality, I hear about the higher-ups issuing an order and everybody else going "Man... that sucks" as if they were employees in a shitty company.

Who do you mean by 'everybody else' ?



What. I was meerly saying that people who agree with most of an idea will still claim to support it, just alter the details to suite their needs.

Yes, this is true. But you're forgetting that huge numbers of catholics don't live in industrialised liberal democracies. A faggot is still a faggot in areas of Africa and Latin america.


The Bible supports slavery, but there are plenty of black Christians, yes?

Pretty much everybody was a slave at some point in their ancestry, including the Jews. The bible largely contains rules about how slaves must be treated better than was the norm at the time, and under what conditions they must be released.

Virus
12th March 09, 01:59 AM
Were you just moronic enough to include abolition of slavery in your list? I mean I'll give you gay rights. And feminism is messy and complicated. But abolition...

Yes, the Abolitionists in the US were Christian but slavery was accepted as normal by Christian societies for centuries. This is my point, if th3 r34l Christianity was anti-slavery then there would always have been a mass-movement against the institution since the first century. Religion is no further ahead on social issues than anyone else.

nihilist
12th March 09, 02:11 AM
It doesn't. But nobody here's been trying to make the point that religion helps people be a bit healthier due to magic jesus rays, have they ?

God only knows what point he was trying to make.

nihilist
12th March 09, 02:24 AM
I hope we're not going to have to re-heat the thread were it was clearly demonstrated that Catholic countries in Africa where abstinence is taught had lower HIV infection rates than protestant countries where contraception is taught instead.

The fact that the Pope wants people to die of AIDS is merely one of myriad human rights abuses happily carried out for religion.

Lets talk about the treatment of women in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, etc.
Lets talk about the banning of books and education in general.
Let's discuss how if religious people had had their way medicine medicine and science would never have been permitted to be developed.

Lets talk about how good Christians committed genocide, rape, and gay bashing in the name of The Lord.

Let's talk about the rhetoric which spawns the bombing of clinics, murder attempts of doctors, propagation of children having children.

Let's talk about how truly fucking horrible Christian Contemporary music is.

It's an outrage I tell you.

lant3rn
12th March 09, 03:44 AM
The studies do show that religious people live longer. The ones with the best correlation i believe define religious as; attend service regularly. This doesn't mean religious belief causes you to live longer, and i didn't see HOG suggest this, so i'm going to just ask.

HOG, do you believe religious following causes a person to have a longer life span?

Craigypooh
12th March 09, 04:15 AM
The bible largely contains rules about how slaves must be treated better than was the norm at the time, and under what conditions they must be released.


(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

This appears to be more than just telling His people that if they must have slaves then they should treat them nicely.

HappyOldGuy
12th March 09, 10:42 AM
HOG, do you believe religious following causes a person to have a longer life span?

I'm not sure exactly what you are getting at, but yes. Not because of divine blessings or anything like that, but because religion keeps people active and involved in their community and keeps them from getting isolated, helps with depression that affects compliance with treatment, etc.

elipson
12th March 09, 11:47 AM
I'll give Virus points for the abolition point. It says in the bible that a Christian can own a Hebrew slave. He is right that they didn't give a shit until society gave a shit.

HappyOldGuy
12th March 09, 11:50 AM
I'll give Virus points for the abolition point. It says in the bible that a Christian can own a Hebrew slave. He is right that they didn't give a shit until society gave a shit.
Slavery was essentially a universal condition until the 18th century. The ending of slavery was entirely the result of christians motivated by their faith.

WarPhalange
12th March 09, 11:53 AM
And many people used Christianity as a justification for owning slaves. What's your point?

HappyOldGuy
12th March 09, 11:56 AM
And many people used Christianity as a justification for owning slaves. What's your point?
Slavery existed long before christianity. It didn't need christianity to exist.
It did need christianity to end.

(historically)

WarPhalange
12th March 09, 11:59 AM
No, historically people were for slavery for the very same reason, too. I contend that it would have ended sooner if people went by their "gut" and not by an old book. Christianity had been around for what, 1800 years by that time? What the fuck took it so long?

Craigypooh
12th March 09, 12:02 PM
Slavery existed long before christianity. It didn't need christianity to exist.
It did need christianity to end.

(historically)

How many years from the start of Chritianity did it take before they realised that slavery was bad?

Edit: Never mind PL got there first!

HappyOldGuy
12th March 09, 12:07 PM
How many years from the start of Chritianity did it take before they realised that slavery was bad?
Apparently you and poops both need a refresher on abolition. I'm not making value judgements here. I'm simply stating historical fact. The abolition movement was a christian movement, predominantly quakers.

Craigypooh
12th March 09, 12:09 PM
Apparently you and poops both need a refresher on abolition. I'm not making value judgements here. I'm simply stating historical fact. The abolition movement was a christian movement, predominantly quakers.

And I was just pointing out they worked really slowly.

WarPhalange
12th March 09, 12:11 PM
Apparently you need to clean your god damned eyes because we already wrote that Christianity had been around for 1800 years before this happened, and it was used as a justification for keeping slaves as well. At most you can say Quakers are t3h r34l Christians.

HappyOldGuy
12th March 09, 12:18 PM
Apparently you need to clean your god damned eyes because we already wrote that Christianity had been around for 1800 years before this happened, and it was used as a justification for keeping slaves as well. At most you can say Quakers are t3h r34l Christians.
and slavery had been around for thousands of years before that. And was "justified" by everyone from plato to jefferson.

Craigypooh
12th March 09, 12:28 PM
and slavery had been around for thousands of years before that. And was "justified" by everyone from plato to jefferson.

So what changed?

HappyOldGuy
12th March 09, 12:42 PM
So what changed?
well, we're drifting off into hypothetical land, but I think the protestant reformation was probably a huge influence. It put the focus back on the individual rather than the collective, and the groups who led the abolition charge were the ones who took that aspect the furthest.

Craigypooh
12th March 09, 12:57 PM
well, we're drifting off into hypothetical land, but I think the protestant reformation was probably a huge influence. It put the focus back on the individual rather than the collective, and the groups who led the abolition charge were the ones who took that aspect the furthest.

Still seems a long time before the end of slavery. I'm more inclined to believe it was the advances in science and understanding of the world that was happening during the 18th century. These I believe also began to change peoples moral outlook.

Zendetta
12th March 09, 01:52 PM
I think it is undeniable that certain aspects of Christianity have positively impacted the ethics of Western civilization. Same for Islam in the mid-east.

BUT things outlive their usefulness. I generally feel that humanity is outgrowing the need for organized religion and that it often acts as "regressive" influence.

HappyOldGuy
12th March 09, 01:59 PM
I think it is undeniable that certain aspects of Christianity have positively impacted the ethics of Western civilization. Same for Islam in the mid-east.

BUT things outlive their usefulness. I generally feel that humanity is outgrowing the need for organized religion and that it often acts as "regressive" influence.

I think that's a defensible position. I'm personally agnostic about it though. I want to see some of our secular institutions survive genuine existence threatening crises without turning to non religious alternatives that are even worse (i.e. totalitarian type stuff).

Aphid Jones
12th March 09, 02:17 PM
BUT things outlive their usefulness. I generally feel that humanity is outgrowing the need for organized religion and that it often acts as "regressive" influence.
What do you define as "organized religion"?

EuropIan
12th March 09, 02:19 PM
Perhaps institutionalized religion is a more fitting description?

Zendetta
12th March 09, 02:54 PM
What do you define as "organized religion"?

Scientology.

socratic
13th March 09, 06:10 PM
Disorganised atheists are arguably more free, at least in secular nations. They don't have to go to special places by virtue of commandment, give their money to certain people by virtue of religious thought, and generally avoid oppressive and backwards church society.

Cullion
14th March 09, 10:05 AM
Still seems a long time before the end of slavery. I'm more inclined to believe it was the advances in science and understanding of the world that was happening during the 18th century. These I believe also began to change peoples moral outlook.

The religious abolitionists HoG talks about may well seem like backwards rustics from the early 21st century, but they had a powerful sense of right and wrong.

Many of the rationalists of the time were busy cataloguing African skull dimensions and arguing 'scientifically' that Africans had inferior brains and weren't as highly evolved as Europeans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

Virus
15th March 09, 12:08 AM
The Church also stood in defense of slavery. The prolific pro-slavery advocate George Fitzhugh devoted a whole chapter in his book to biblical justifications. So which group of people had the r34l Christianity?

bob
15th March 09, 12:55 AM
I think it is undeniable that certain aspects of Christianity have positively impacted the ethics of Western civilization. Same for Islam in the mid-east.

BUT things outlive their usefulness. I generally feel that humanity is outgrowing the need for organized religion and that it often acts as "regressive" influence.

I wonder if religion is just a convenient vehicle or metaphor for people to adhere themselves to some unifying force greater than the individual. In the modern context that may manifest itself in environmental concerns (with Gaia replacing God so to speak), racial concerns (with faux Darwinistic racism or hippy one worldism at either end of the scale), or a desire to unlock the secrets of the greater Universe through science.

The beauty of religion is that at it's best it encompasses all these ideas in one convenient package, which perhaps explains the failure of other paradigms to completely supplant it despite the intellectual power some of them have.

DAYoung
15th March 09, 01:04 AM
Some people have an ineffable longing for something higher than themselves; something irreducible to physical forces or facts.

They don't necessarily want this longing - but they have it, and it brings out the best in them.

Some turn to Plato, others to Iris Murdoch, others to religion.

Perhaps Virus doesn't have this longing, so he doesn't quite get it - and won't ever get it.

C'est la vie.

For all those who do, religion makes sense of it, and combines it with certain moral values and virtues.

It's not perfect, but when it works it's a civilised, civilising phenomenon.

bob
15th March 09, 01:09 AM
Some people have an ineffable longing for something higher than themselves; something irreducible to physical forces or facts.



I think many people have the first part of this but not necessarily the second.

DAYoung
15th March 09, 01:15 AM
I think many people have the first part of this but not necessarily the second.

Yes, hence the 'some'.

Of course, it is complicated. Some do have an irreducible longing - but they settle for what they can logically or empirically confirm. (Theologians are good examples of this.)

WarPhalange
15th March 09, 01:15 AM
DAYoung, is six inches enough longing? Or should I maybe invest in some of those pills?

DAYoung
15th March 09, 02:04 AM
DAYoung, is six inches enough longing? Or should I maybe invest in some of those pills?

Those aren't the pills you need.

WarPhalange
15th March 09, 03:09 AM
Your mind tricks won't work on me, Jedi.

DAYoung
15th March 09, 03:17 AM
I said that just before you did, and waved my hand.

Virus
15th March 09, 04:01 AM
Some people have an ineffable longing for something higher than themselves; something irreducible to physical forces or facts.



If only religion could be reduced to this. The thing is religions go several steps beyond this and state unequivocally that their religion is true. To be a Muslim for instance, it's not enough to say "I'm just searching for something higher." you have to believe that god speaks to people, through angels, and writes books.

You have to believe that a particular book is the final word of god, which abrogates anything in the Judaic or Christian texts. That's a pretty big "t3h r34l" claim right there. Not content with this, the entire system of government, law, morality, who you can sleep with and how, what happens after you die and how to get into paradise, and who will be tortured forever in hell, is spelled out. And if you don't believe it, you go to hell. If you think Muhammed was just a crackpot that made it all up, you get tortured in hell for such a heinous sin.

It makes claims about its monotheistic competitors. It claims that Jesus isn't god's avatar and he didn't really die he just flew into heaven. Tell that to millions of people who believe their original sin has been cleansed by an avatar of god being killed on the cross. Both of them are historical claims which have no actual basis.

The claim that a particular religion is true is where all the fun-and-games start.

DAYoung
15th March 09, 04:33 AM
I agree.

nihilist
15th March 09, 08:15 AM
You are honorable men.

rw4th
15th March 09, 10:40 AM
Some people have an ineffable longing for something higher than themselves; something irreducible to physical forces or facts.

It's a need for spirituality and a lot of people have it. It's psychological and some scientist would even argue that it's a byproduct of natural selection. The problems start to happen when spirituality becomes religion and people let their abstract beliefs take precedence over observable reality. That's when you get counter-productive absurdities like creation science, faith healing, homeopathy and chi.

Cullion
15th March 09, 10:44 AM
It's not really about a conflict with 'science'. The scientific method can't tell you which is the ethically correct way to treat women, or homosexuals or people with different coloured skin.

Cullion
15th March 09, 10:59 AM
The problem with not having religion whilst still searching for spirituality is that you can end up like this.

Cam2kK7J_8k

HappyOldGuy
15th March 09, 11:43 AM
If only religion could be reduced to this. The thing is religions go several steps beyond this and state unequivocally that their religion is true. To be a Muslim for instance, it's not enough to say "I'm just searching for something higher." you have to believe that god speaks to people, through angels, and writes books.

Except of course for all the ones that don't.

Cullion
15th March 09, 11:44 AM
Don't start confusing the issue with facts, counter-revolutionary.

rw4th
15th March 09, 11:58 AM
Except of course for all the ones that don't.

They all have some variation of the theme that invovles beleiving in the physically absurd.

Cullion
15th March 09, 11:59 AM
No they don't.

rw4th
15th March 09, 12:01 PM
The problem with not having religion whilst still searching for spirituality is that you can end up like this.

Cam2kK7J_8k

Sadly he seems to have a better grasp of reality then most christian fundies.

HappyOldGuy
15th March 09, 12:01 PM
They all have some variation of the theme that invovles beleiving in the physically absurd.

Really. Based on your extensive study of which denominations?

rw4th
15th March 09, 12:05 PM
No they don't.

Then please edutcate me. I've yet to find one that doesn't involve some kind of belief in the supernatural.

HappyOldGuy
15th March 09, 12:06 PM
I mean I could post a list of the obvious suspects (Bahai, Quakers, Unitarians), but the truth is that it is possible to live with purely rationalist beliefs consistent with science in almost any major religion. That may not be the beliefs of the majority, but the major faiths are all much broader umbrellas than virus or any of our resident brights have any clue about.

rw4th
15th March 09, 12:12 PM
I mean I could post a list of the obvious suspects (Bahai, Quakers, Unitarians), but the truth is that it is possible to live with purely rationalist beliefs consistent with science in almost any major religion. That may not be the beliefs of the majority, but the major faiths are all much broader umbrellas than virus or any of our resident brights have any clue about.

Sure some christian denominations are less extreme then others and some religions are more rational then others but what I am saying is that they all ultimatly require you to beleive in things which are physically and scientifically absurd. If you know better, can you name one that doesn't?

Cullion
15th March 09, 12:13 PM
He just named several.

Quikfeet509
15th March 09, 12:17 PM
Okay, so if you don't believe that your holy book is the word of god, then why the hell do you worry what it says?

Cullion
15th March 09, 12:19 PM
What are the particular claims from each of the religions that HoG mentioned which jar against your understanding of science?

Virus
15th March 09, 12:28 PM
They claim a single god exists, created the universe by magic and that he talks to people.



.

HappyOldGuy
15th March 09, 12:30 PM
They claim a single god exists and that he talks to people.
Wrong. Also, how exactly would such beliefs contradict science.

Cullion
15th March 09, 12:35 PM
Virus isn't capable of understanding that reason is based on faith.

Virus
15th March 09, 12:39 PM
Wrong. Also, how exactly would such beliefs contradict science.

How exactly would the claim I talk to aliens contradict science?

Cullion
15th March 09, 12:40 PM
It wouldn't, until you made a falsifiable prediction which was then falsified.

nihilist
15th March 09, 01:03 PM
Virus isn't capable of understanding that reason is based on faith.

Yes, but to a greater extent than the alternative.

Cullion
15th March 09, 01:15 PM
what?

nihilist
15th March 09, 01:42 PM
Faith is not based on reason to the same extent that reason is based on faith.

Cullion
15th March 09, 01:44 PM
It couldn't be.

But logic, humanism, all these things rest on unprovable assumptions we just take to be self-evident.

EuropIan
15th March 09, 01:48 PM
be carefull, Cullion, you're heading into the dangers of deconstructionism aka reaver country.

nihilist
15th March 09, 01:54 PM
It couldn't be.

But logic, humanism, all these things rest on unprovable assumptions we just take to be self-evident.


That's only because you can't see the auras like we can.

Cullion
15th March 09, 02:19 PM
be carefull, Cullion, you're heading into the dangers of deconstructionism aka reaver country.

I'm just pointing out that everybody believes in things that are inconsistent or incomplete.

EuropIan
15th March 09, 02:53 PM
I'm just pointing out that everybody believes in things that are inconsistent or incomplete.
True, but it is also important to make the distinction that some things are less incomplete than others.


(like Reese said)

Cullion
15th March 09, 02:55 PM
But that's not really a good argument against religious views which don't make falsifiable predictions that have been proven false.

Craigypooh
15th March 09, 03:27 PM
The religious abolitionists HoG talks about may well seem like backwards rustics from the early 21st century, but they had a powerful sense of right and wrong.

Which they obviously didn't get from reading the Bible:

http://www.evilbible.com/Evil%20Bible%20Quotes.htm

So where did their powerful sense that slavery was wrong come from?

Cullion
15th March 09, 03:29 PM
Actually they did, they just read all of it and didn't interpret it in the way you want to.

I would've thought that was kind of obvious when you read what their own professed beliefs and motivations were.

Craigypooh
15th March 09, 03:43 PM
Actually they did, they just read all of it and didn't interpret it in the way you want to.

I would've thought that was kind of obvious when you read what their own professed beliefs and motivations were.

Buffet style Christianity! How did they decide which bits were teh r34l wordz of God and which bits had been written by Satan?

nihilist
15th March 09, 03:50 PM
Same way Jimmy Swaggart does.
Through divine drug and sex induced revelation.

Cullion
15th March 09, 03:53 PM
Buffet style Christianity! How did they decide which bits were teh r34l wordz of God and which bits had been written by Satan?

How do you decide what's right and wrong?

nihilist
15th March 09, 04:00 PM
magik 8ball

Craigypooh
15th March 09, 04:02 PM
How do you decide what's right and wrong?

Do you always answer a question with another question or just when you're losing an argument?

Cullion
15th March 09, 04:02 PM
Alright then Reese. At least you aren't picking and choosing and interpreting from an old book that you think might be symbolic, or superceded by later testaments.

Cullion
15th March 09, 04:04 PM
Do you always answer a question with another question or just when you're losing an argument?

I'm trying to be nice about it. Your disproof of the positive ethical influence of religion consists of 'OMG but if I take these passages and apply them literally then it would be bad, so religion can't have been what influenced those abolitionists', which is counter to their own testimony and a bit fucking stupid, basically.

So suck it.

nihilist
15th March 09, 04:04 PM
Do you always answer a question with another question or just when you're losing an argument?

He will answer in Greek.

jubei33
15th March 09, 04:15 PM
見知らぬ人を愛することはありませんでした
ルールを知っているので、あなたと私
完全な約束のことを思って何イム
他の男から入手

私はあなたに申し上げたいことはどのようイム感
お奨めを理解する

craig, this is your new mantra

Craigypooh
15th March 09, 04:28 PM
I'm trying to be nice about it. Your disproof of the positive ethical influence of religion consists of 'OMG but if I take these passages and apply them literally then it would be bad, so religion can't have been what influenced those abolitionists', which is counter to their own testimony and a bit fucking stupid, basically.

So suck it.

No, I'm saying the Bible can be used to justify slavery (and lots of other crappy stuff) and was for hundreds of years. Therefore something must have changed to make people change there minds.

What changed?

Robot Jesus
15th March 09, 04:35 PM
the thing the religious and the atheist man have in common is that they will usualy do whatever they want, just the religious man sometimes can blame god afterwards.

Cullion
15th March 09, 04:52 PM
No, I'm saying the Bible can be used to justify slavery (and lots of other crappy stuff) and was for hundreds of years. Therefore something must have changed to make people change there minds.

What changed?

You've got to remember that most people never owned slaves and didn't necessarily approve of it and that scientific rationalism was used to justify racism and slavery too.

The abolitionist's voice was heard by the more powerful once they had other reasons to consider ending slavery. The abolitionists were often simple, rustic people who's personal slant on their religion imbued them with a powerful sense of right and wrong, just as modern rationalists may be imbued with a powerful sense of right and wrong when it comes to women's rights, or gay rights, or freedom of speech to criticise religions.

They are both working with metaphysical systems that rest on faith.

Craigypooh
15th March 09, 05:13 PM
You've got to remember that most people never owned slaves and didn't necessarily approve of it and that scientific rationalism was used to justify racism and slavery too.

The abolitionist's voice was heard by the more powerful once they had other reasons to consider ending slavery. The abolitionists were often simple, rustic people who's personal slant on their religion imbued them with a powerful sense of right and wrong, just as modern rationalists may be imbued with a powerful sense of right and wrong when it comes to women's rights, or gay rights, or freedom of speech to criticise religions.

They are both working with metaphysical systems that rest on faith.

What do you mean by "other reasons"?

Scientific rationalism created new ways of thinking and of course people tried to use it to justify the status quo. They failed.

Cullion
15th March 09, 05:17 PM
What do you mean by "other reasons"?

Economic ones to do with the efficiency of slave labour.



Scientific rationalism created new ways of thinking and of course people tried to use it to justify the status quo. They failed.

Scientific rationalism pre-dated the end of slavery and public racism as official policy quite considerably.By centuries. Few people had raised scientific objections until the holocaust acted as a grim signpost to where 'rational' racism lead.

Look at anthropology texts from before WWII, you'll find plenty of scientific, rational discussion about african cranial capacities being smaller than European and Asian skulls etc..

It wasn't any form of scientific thought that ended slavery, or the idea that white people were inherently superior to black people.

Robot Jesus
15th March 09, 05:17 PM
You've got to remember that most people never owned slaves and didn't necessarily approve of it and that scientific rationalism was used to justify racism and slavery too.

The abolitionist's voice was heard by the more powerful once they had other reasons to consider ending slavery. The abolitionists were often simple, rustic people who's personal slant on their religion imbued them with a powerful sense of right and wrong, just as modern rationalists may be imbued with a powerful sense of right and wrong when it comes to women's rights, or gay rights, or freedom of speech to criticise religions.

They are both working with metaphysical systems that rest on faith.


also don't forget that slave labour is hard to compet with. the life a a non-slaveowning southerener sucked pritty bad.

Craigypooh
15th March 09, 05:24 PM
Economic ones to do with the efficiency of slave labour.

So are you saying slavery was removed by market forces?

nihilist
15th March 09, 05:24 PM
Economic ones to do with the efficiency of slave labour.

They call it "free market" now.

DAYoung
15th March 09, 05:26 PM
I mean I could post a list of the obvious suspects (Bahai, Quakers, Unitarians), but the truth is that it is possible to live with purely rationalist beliefs consistent with science in almost any major religion. That may not be the beliefs of the majority, but the major faiths are all much broader umbrellas than virus or any of our resident brights have any clue about.

I'm intrigued by the Unitarians. In Distraction, I wrote briefly about T.S. Eliot's faith - his turn from a generally dry, rationalist, worldly Unitarian background to Anglo-Catholicism. He was seeking mystery, tradition and ritual; the coherence and consolation of continuity.

(Of course he retained much of his Protestant upbringing: his intense work habits, fear of uselessness and idleness, relationship to money, and so on.)

Anyway: they're a fascinating lot. A good example of the range of religious practice and belief; the difficulty of reducing religion to one urge or ambition.

EuropIan
15th March 09, 05:28 PM
But that's not really a good argument against religious views which don't make falsifiable predictions that have been proven false.
"No need of that hypothesis"




見知らぬ人を愛することはありませんでした
ルールを知っているので、あなたと私
完全な約束のことを思って何イム
他の男から入手

私はあなたに申し上げたいことはどのようイム感
お奨めを理解する

I got most of that but what is イム? Emu? Emo? Imu?

stupid katakana words

jubei33
15th March 09, 09:01 PM
ルールを知っているので、あなたと私

this should be a...this was more in honor of a funny joke I once heard/read.

No need to take the time and really translate it. (Its supposed to I'm, by the way. The real funniez happen when you put it back in and retranslate)

By the way, I've been meaning to ask you, where did you learn your Japanese? Did you spend some time over here?

socratic
15th March 09, 09:24 PM
The problem with not having religion whilst still searching for spirituality is that you can end up like this.

Cam2kK7J_8k

I think you're trying to point out he's crazy, but he actually sounds pretty intelligent and self-effacing in that video. He says straight up Magic isn't real, he just likes messing with people's heads, and his whole 'Glycon' schtick is because he likes the look of the statue and likes being smug. For such a comic book writer like Alan Moore I'm not really surprised.


見知らぬ人を愛することはありませんでした
ルールを知っているので、あなたと私
完全な約束のことを思って何イム
他の男から入手

私はあなたに申し上げたいことはどのようイム感
お奨めを理解する

craig, this is your new mantra

Reading that makes me sad, reminding me just how bad my Japanese is.

What's mishirame? Hito is obvious. My kanji's attrocious, damn. The second line I had no problems with. Third I don't know the first four kanji (don't people use the kanji for koto anymore?) What's imu ?


ルールを知っているので、あなたと私

this should be a...this was more in honor of a funny joke I once heard/read.

No need to take the time and [I]really translate it. (Its supposed to I'm, by the way. The real funniez happen when you put it back in and retranslate)

"Because you and I know the rules"?

EuropIan
16th March 09, 01:07 AM
"Strangers to love we were not"


where did you learn your Japanese? Did you spend some time over here?

I'm an asian studies major. It has cured me of teh weaboo and left me with an insightful disdain and wonder

jubei33
16th March 09, 04:21 AM
"Strangers to love we were not"


I gotta say that is one of my favorite tanka.

EuropIan
16th March 09, 05:11 AM
seriously Cullion, you invoking Gödels theorem in questions of god makes me want to punch you in the soul.

nihilist
16th March 09, 08:27 AM
That wouldn't be nice because Cullion's soul has diabeetus.

Cullion
16th March 09, 02:05 PM
seriously Cullion, you invoking Gödels theorem in questions of god makes me want to punch you in the soul.

It does apply you know. Have you never considered it's implications for the whole concept of immutable physical law?

P.S. I was joking about Alan Moore. I think he's awesome. I grew up not far from where he lives.

Virus
17th March 09, 08:22 AM
the thing the religious and the atheist man have in common is that they will usualy do whatever they want, just the religious man sometimes can blame god afterwards.

Atheists aren't brought up in madrassas, taught to read a book that's claimed to be magic and taught that jihad and martyrdom is a duty.