Atheism Is A Recipe For Rapid Extinction
Sound of Trumpet
http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2006/10/religious-darwinism.html
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Religious Darwinism
The consensus of opinion among the latest crop of 'scientific' books
about religion (by Dawkins, Dennett and Wolpert. More are in the
pipeline) is that religion is a by-product of some useful evolutionary
adaptation. Recently, I argued that this seems unlikely. From an
evolutionary point of view, our religious behavior is distinctive
enough to be selected for and this can only happen if they give us a
reproductive advantage. So, do they? Empathically, yes!
It turns out that today, in Europe and America, religion gives its
adherents an enormous evolutionary advantage over non-believers. The
facts are laid out in this article from Prospect Magazine. It turns out
that religious people are 40% more fertile than their non-religious
countrymen. Non-believers don't even reproduce enough to maintain their
population. In other words, atheism is a recipe for rapid extinction.
The article also explained that you don't even have to go to church or
be a regular member of a congregation to outbreed non-believers. These
so-called "believing but not belonging" folk do not have as many
children as the devout, but rather more than out and out non-believers.
It seems to me that non-belief must be the "virus of the mind"
postulated by Dawkins, if anything is. Non-believers have to convert
believers to keep their numbers up because they don't have enough
children themselves. Once converted to non-belief, they die out in a
couple of generations unless they happen to turn religious again. The
article suggests that some sort of equalibrium will result where
religious people have the children and the non-religous convert enough
of them to maintain their population. It will be interesting to find
out. One thing seems to be certain. The high watermark of secularism in
Europe is already past. No wonder the new atheists are in such a panic.
Uncle Vic
(soundof...@myway.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
> It turns out
> that religious people are 40% more fertile than their non-religious
> countrymen.
Perhaps the non-religious are 40% more aware of the damage overpopulation
is doing to the earth.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Proud member of Earthquack's "Ghost fulla holes" convict page
Chris Johnson
Do they somehow think that this has any impact on the truth of their
claims?
Neil Kelsey
Uncle Vic wrote:
> Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Sound of Trumpet
> (soundof...@myway.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
>
> > It turns out
> > that religious people are 40% more fertile than their non-religious
> > countrymen.
>
> Perhaps the non-religious are 40% more aware of the damage overpopulation
> is doing to the earth.
No kidding. I like how you can be religious and be homosexual (NTTAWWT)
and still manage to have 5 children.
Stop The War
> No wonder the new atheists are in such a panic.
Now that you claim you are certain that Atheism is dying out, can
we expect you to stop ranting against it?
"There have been atheists and doubters of God since at least the time of the Ancients."
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/history/ancient.shtml>
Al Klein
wrote:
>Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Sound of Trumpet
>(soundof...@myway.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
>
>> It turns out
>> that religious people are 40% more fertile than their non-religious
>> countrymen.
>
>Perhaps the non-religious are 40% more aware of the damage overpopulation
>is doing to the earth.
Or perhaps the religious are just unaware - period.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
Secular Human
Why do Democrats have more kids than Republicans? Does this mean we are
more religious.
Roedy Green
<soundof...@myway.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone
who said :
“From a biological point of view, there are lots of different theories
about why we have this extraordinary predisposition to believe in
supernatural things. One suggestion is that the child mind is, for
very good Darwinian reasons, susceptible to infection the same way a
computer is. In order to be useful, a computer has to be programmable,
to obey whatever it's told to do. That automatically makes it
vulnerable to computer viruses, which are programs that say, ‘Spread
me, copy me, pass me on.’ Once a viral program gets started, there is
nothing to stop it.
Similarly, the child brain is preprogrammed by natural selection to
obey and believe what parents and other adults tell it. In general,
it's a good thing that child brains should be susceptible to being
taught what to do and what to believe by adults. But this necessarily
carries the down side that bad ideas, useless ideas, waste of time
ideas like rain dances and other religious customs, will also be
passed down the generations. The child brain is very susceptible to
this kind of infection. And it also spreads sideways by cross
infection when a charismatic preacher goes around infecting new minds
that were previously uninfected.”
~ Richard Dawkins, 2005-04-25, Salon
>It turns out that today, in Europe and America, religion gives its
>adherents an enormous evolutionary advantage over non-believers.
This is nonsense. Why?
1. Those who believe in life after death take more risks imagining it
does not matter if they die. Dead people don't breed or help raise
their kids. Soldiers are often infected with this delusion. Look at
the suicide bombers in Iraq wiping themselves out at a great clip.
2. Christians have a believe in imaginary seatbelts, that there is a
god who will protect them from their folly, and clean up their messes
and make sure they don't do anything really stupid. There is thus no
concern for global warming, protecting the environment or the end of
oil. Christians trust God will magically provide, though never before
has he violated the physical laws.
“We long to situate ourselves on a benevolent, warm, furry,
encompassing planet, created to provide our material needs, and
constructed for our dominion and delectation. Unfortunately, this
pipedream of succor from the realm of meaning (and therefore the
magisterium of religion), imposes definite and unrealistic demands
upon the factual construction of nature (under the magisterium of
science). But nature, who is as she is, and who existed in earthly
form for 4.5 billion years before we arrived to impose our
interpretations upon her, greets us with sublime indifference and no
preference for accommodating our yearnings.”
~ Steven J. Gould, Rocks Of Ages
3. Religions are yet another excuse for wars. Basically the Iraq war
is fueled in the ignorant by Christian fear and hatred of Islam.
“A delusion that encourages belief where there is no evidence is
asking for trouble. Disagreements between incompatible beliefs cannot
be settled by reasoned argument because reasoned argument is drummed
out of those trained in religion from the cradle. Instead,
disagreements are settled by other means which, in extreme cases,
inevitably become violent. Scientists disagree among themselves but
they never fight over their disagreements. They argue about evidence
or go out and seek new evidence. Much the same is true of
philosophers, historians and literary critics.”
~ Richard Dawkins, 2005-04-25, Salon
4. The rapture cult is extremely pernicious. It causes people to bring
about hideous prophesies including nuclear war on the wild hope it
will force an early return engagement of the Jesus show.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green, http://mindprod.com
More than anything else you want the end of the Republican reign of terror.
Buy a big chunk of it at http://www.democrats.org/
GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia
>
> http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2006/10/religious-darwinism.html
>
>
> Tuesday, October 31, 2006
>
> Religious Darwinism
>
You aren't realizing that the God of the bible is constantly evolving.
--
There are only two kinds of Republicans: Millionaires and fools.
Hagar
"GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia" <g...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dK34h.227676$FQ1.128152@attbi_s71...
> Sound of Trumpet wrote:
>
>>
>> http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2006/10/religious-darwinism.html
>>
>>
>> Tuesday, October 31, 2006
>>
>> Religious Darwinism
>>
> You aren't realizing that the God of the bible is constantly evolving.
You don't realize that the Gawd of the Babble is constantly WRONG !!!!
GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia
Being wrong is why entities evolve.
Therion Ware
Utopia <g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Sound of Trumpet wrote:
>
>>
>> http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2006/10/religious-darwinism.html
>>
>>
>> Tuesday, October 31, 2006
>>
>> Religious Darwinism
>>
>You aren't realizing that the God of the bible is constantly evolving.
Quite so. Which rather puts paid to the claim that God cannot be other
than what *s*he is.
--
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
attrib: Pauline Réage. Cine To DVD? http://www.video2cd.co.uk
firel...@hotmail.com
> Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Sound of Trumpet
> (soundof...@myway.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
>
> > It turns out
> > that religious people are 40% more fertile than their non-religious
> > countrymen.
>
> Perhaps the non-religious are 40% more aware of the damage overpopulation
> is doing to the earth.
Irrelevant to Sound of Strumpet's article. Whatever your
reason for not having as many children, the ones having
more children than you in your society are likely to have
more say a few generations down the road in the running
of your society than you do.
Fortunately, atheism/theism isn't genetic, so the skew
won't be complete.
--
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
Neil Kelsey
Since, as you say, neither atheism nor theism is genetic, but the
percentage of atheists keeps growing, atheists just might have some say
in a few generations, where they have almost none now.
Roedy Green
<see_w...@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted
someone who said :
>2. Christians have a believe in imaginary seatbelts, that there is a
>god who will protect them from their folly, and clean up their messes
>and make sure they don't do anything really stupid. There is thus no
>concern for global warming, protecting the environment or the end of
>oil. Christians trust God will magically provide, though never before
>has he violated the physical laws.
Christians believe God will pull them out of drug addiction or alcohol
addiction. All they have to do is ask. This is a delusion. That
leads to a cavalier attitude to getting addicted.
Christians have very little respect for the environment. They look on
it as a bauble given them by God to do with as they please. If they
break it, God will make them another. Similarly they treat all the
other animals on earth as existing only for the pleasure of humans.
They believe they have a duty to "subdue" the earth.
“A tree's a tree. How many more do you need to look at?”
~ Ronald Reagan
“I do not know how many future generations we can count of before the
Lord returns.”
~ Secretary of the Interior James Gaius Watt, 1981-02-05
“A left-wing cult dedicated to bringing down the type of government I
believe in.”
~ Secretary of the Interior James Gaius Watt describing
environmentalists
Al Klein
<see_w...@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote:
>Christians believe God will pull them out of drug addiction or alcohol
>addiction. All they have to do is ask. This is a delusion. That
>leads to a cavalier attitude to getting addicted.
But it's not totally useless. That belief does actually lead to some
people kicking the habit. When it gets tough they take it out on God,
but they stay off the junk and trust him to get them through it. In
that particular case, I'd say whatever works.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the
type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his
physical death is also beyond my comprehension,...; such notions are for the fears or
absurd egoism of feeble souls."
- Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/
Joseph Hertzlinger
<eel...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> Why do Democrats have more kids than Republicans? Does this mean we
> are more religious.
I think that's out of date.
Joseph Hertzlinger
wrote:
> Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Sound of Trumpet
> (soundof...@myway.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
>
>> It turns out
>> that religious people are 40% more fertile than their non-religious
>> countrymen.
>
> Perhaps the non-religious are 40% more aware of the damage overpopulation
> is doing to the earth.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/y2wl5j
The Dirt (as we call it on alt.destroy.the.earth) is a mere source of
raw materials for space habitats.
panam...@hotmail.com
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
snip
As opposed to uncontrolled breeding and overcrowding, which is a recipe
for slow starvation.
http://www.soylent-green.com/cat/sg-prop-md.jpg
http://www.overpopulation.org/
http://www.senescence.info/overpopulation.jpg
http://update.unu.edu/images/overpopulation.jpg
-Panama Floyd, Atl.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
EAC Martian Commander
Plonked by Kadaitcha Man Sept 06
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
firel...@hotmail.com
It's an uphill battle. It would be interesting to see percentages
on how many people raised theist become atheist vs. the opposite.
Azaliah
firel...@hotmail.com shouted thusly:
>> Since, as you say, neither atheism nor theism is genetic, but the
>> percentage of atheists keeps growing, atheists just might have some say
>> in a few generations, where they have almost none now.
>
>It's an uphill battle. It would be interesting to see percentages
>on how many people raised theist become atheist vs. the opposite.
I think you'd find that the percentage of atheists
becoming theists would be far higher. It's just
that when someone who claims they were a Christian
claims to have become an atheist, they are typically
filled with anger and shout loudly about it and
the other atheists try to make it a world wide,
prime time event. :)
--
Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved"
<((>< <((>< <((><
"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
- John 17:17
.
Neil Kelsey
Azaliah wrote:
> On 8 Nov 2006 06:15:54 -0800, while bungee jumping,
> firel...@hotmail.com shouted thusly:
>
>
> >> Since, as you say, neither atheism nor theism is genetic, but the
> >> percentage of atheists keeps growing, atheists just might have some say
> >> in a few generations, where they have almost none now.
> >
> >It's an uphill battle. It would be interesting to see percentages
> >on how many people raised theist become atheist vs. the opposite.
>
> I think you'd find that the percentage of atheists
> becoming theists would be far higher. It's just
> that when someone who claims they were a Christian
> claims to have become an atheist, they are typically
> filled with anger and shout loudly about it and
> the other atheists try to make it a world wide,
> prime time event. :)
I don't know what planet you live on. In my entire life I can count on
one hand the number of times I've seen atheists discussing their
atheism on national medium, and that's just in the past couple of
years. On the other hand, there are whole networks dedicated to
different religions, I can't turn on any electronic media without some
Christian bleating about good old god, last night I even saw a
Republican Senator thank god for allowing him to lose the election, for
which god got polite applause for about two minutes. I have never seen
an atheist score a touchdown and curse god for his non-existence.
You're a deluded liar.
Mike Painter
> On 8 Nov 2006 06:15:54 -0800, while bungee jumping,
> firel...@hotmail.com shouted thusly:
>
>
>>> Since, as you say, neither atheism nor theism is genetic, but the
>>> percentage of atheists keeps growing, atheists just might have some
>>> say in a few generations, where they have almost none now.
>>
>> It's an uphill battle. It would be interesting to see percentages
>> on how many people raised theist become atheist vs. the opposite.
>
be. This small county and two towns one county over had over 70% of the
people claim no religious affiliation in the 2000 census and "other" was a
choice.
World wide much of China and Russia are atheist.
We tend to see a lot of frogs around here and they make a lot of noise, but
their ponds are shrinking.
Azaliah
Kelsey" <neil_...@hotmail.com> shouted thusly:
>Azaliah wrote:
>
>> On 8 Nov 2006 06:15:54 -0800, while bungee jumping,
>> firel...@hotmail.com shouted thusly:
>>
>>
>> >> Since, as you say, neither atheism nor theism is genetic, but the
>> >> percentage of atheists keeps growing, atheists just might have some say
>> >> in a few generations, where they have almost none now.
>> >
>> >It's an uphill battle. It would be interesting to see percentages
>> >on how many people raised theist become atheist vs. the opposite.
>>
>> I think you'd find that the percentage of atheists
>> becoming theists would be far higher. It's just
>> that when someone who claims they were a Christian
>> claims to have become an atheist, they are typically
>> filled with anger and shout loudly about it and
>> the other atheists try to make it a world wide,
>> prime time event. :)
>
>I don't know what planet you live on. In my entire life I can count on
>one hand the number of times I've seen atheists discussing their
>atheism on national medium, and that's just in the past couple of
>years.
I guess you don't pay much attention.
>On the other hand, there are whole networks dedicated to
>different religions,
They pay for them. So can atheists pay for their own.
Don't blame Christians for atheist's lack of commitment.
Neil Kelsey
Azaliah wrote:
> On 8 Nov 2006 08:10:15 -0800, while bungee jumping, "Neil
> Kelsey" <neil_...@hotmail.com> shouted thusly:
>
>
> >Azaliah wrote:
> >
> >> On 8 Nov 2006 06:15:54 -0800, while bungee jumping,
> >> firel...@hotmail.com shouted thusly:
> >>
> >>
> >> >> Since, as you say, neither atheism nor theism is genetic, but the
> >> >> percentage of atheists keeps growing, atheists just might have some say
> >> >> in a few generations, where they have almost none now.
> >> >
> >> >It's an uphill battle. It would be interesting to see percentages
> >> >on how many people raised theist become atheist vs. the opposite.
> >>
> >> I think you'd find that the percentage of atheists
> >> becoming theists would be far higher. It's just
> >> that when someone who claims they were a Christian
> >> claims to have become an atheist, they are typically
> >> filled with anger and shout loudly about it and
> >> the other atheists try to make it a world wide,
> >> prime time event. :)
> >
> >I don't know what planet you live on. In my entire life I can count on
> >one hand the number of times I've seen atheists discussing their
> >atheism on national medium, and that's just in the past couple of
> >years.
>
> I guess you don't pay much attention.
I'm a media junkie. Please give me examples of what I've managed to
miss.
> >On the other hand, there are whole networks dedicated to
> >different religions,
>
> They pay for them. So can atheists pay for their own.
> Don't blame Christians for atheist's lack of commitment.
Doesn't that kind of make you a hypocrite? You were just complaining
that atheist shout loudly about their beliefs, and here you are
defending Christians for doing just that, and criticizing atheists for
not doing it. You're all over the map, aren't you?
Al Klein
wrote:
>>On the other hand, there are whole networks dedicated to
>>different religions,
>They pay for them. So can atheists pay for their own.
We do. Atheism is LACK of religion, not condemnation of religion.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"The doctrine that the earth is neither the center of the universe nor immovable, but
moves even with a daily rotation, is absurd, and both philosophically and theologically
false, and at the least an error of faith."
- Catholic Church's decision against Galileo Galilei
Azaliah
Kelsey" <neil_...@hotmail.com> shouted thusly:
>> >On the other hand, there are whole networks dedicated to
>> >different religions,
>>
>> They pay for them. So can atheists pay for their own.
>> Don't blame Christians for atheist's lack of commitment.
>
>Doesn't that kind of make you a hypocrite? You were just complaining
>that atheist shout loudly about their beliefs,
They do. And they try their best to use our tax dollars
to do it.
Joseph Hertzlinger
<panam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Sound of Trumpet wrote:
>
> snip
>
> As opposed to uncontrolled breeding and overcrowding, which is a recipe
> for slow starvation.
In view of the increasing availability of natural resources, the world
is less overcrowded than ever.
Neil Kelsey
Azaliah wrote:
> On 8 Nov 2006 11:13:12 -0800, while bungee jumping, "Neil
> Kelsey" <neil_...@hotmail.com> shouted thusly:
>
>
> >> >On the other hand, there are whole networks dedicated to
> >> >different religions,
> >>
> >> They pay for them. So can atheists pay for their own.
> >> Don't blame Christians for atheist's lack of commitment.
> >
> >Doesn't that kind of make you a hypocrite? You were just complaining
> >that atheist shout loudly about their beliefs,
>
> They do. And they try their best to use our tax dollars
> to do it.
When the churches start having to pay taxes like the rest of us
(atheists included), then your last statement won't seem quite as
hilariously stupid. Oh, by the way. Nice snipping and avoiding you just
did. I'm sure your male lover in the sky will be proud of you and give
you something extra special when you get there.
Azaliah
Kelsey" <neil_...@hotmail.com> shouted thusly:
>Azaliah wrote:
>
>> On 8 Nov 2006 11:13:12 -0800, while bungee jumping, "Neil
>> Kelsey" <neil_...@hotmail.com> shouted thusly:
>>
>>
>> >> >On the other hand, there are whole networks dedicated to
>> >> >different religions,
>> >>
>> >> They pay for them. So can atheists pay for their own.
>> >> Don't blame Christians for atheist's lack of commitment.
>> >
>> >Doesn't that kind of make you a hypocrite? You were just complaining
>> >that atheist shout loudly about their beliefs,
>>
>> They do. And they try their best to use our tax dollars
>> to do it.
>
>When the churches start having to pay taxes like the rest of us
>(atheists included), then your last statement won't seem quite as
>hilariously stupid.
Pointing your finger elsewhere, only shows us that
you confess to what I said happens.
As for the churches, if you don't like the way things are,
there are always other countries.
Your rhetoric of, "churches have no say, because they
pay no taxes", is what is "hilariously stupid". It is like
saying that all tax exempt organizations should be
completely silent on all matters regardless of the subject.
By saying this, you have just stated that even atheist
organizations that claim a tax exempt status must be
silent. Duh!
Furthermore, what you forget, is that the members of
both the church and the tax exempt organizations each
as individuals, pay their taxes. Yet you try to silence
people by which organization they belong to. That's
called "censorship" and it is exactly what atheists want
and they are liars and hypocrites when they say
otherwise, as they always prove in discussions
like this.
You also seek to erase the First Amendment, but only
for people who attend churches. Yet this country was
founded on the idea of freedom of religion and speech.
You are an anti-American hypocritical liar, nothing more
and I won't waste any more of my time with you.
Neil Kelsey
Azaliah wrote:
> On 9 Nov 2006 07:27:01 -0800, while bungee jumping, "Neil
> Kelsey" <neil_...@hotmail.com> shouted thusly:
>
>
> >Azaliah wrote:
> >
> >> On 8 Nov 2006 11:13:12 -0800, while bungee jumping, "Neil
> >> Kelsey" <neil_...@hotmail.com> shouted thusly:
> >>
> >>
> >> >> >On the other hand, there are whole networks dedicated to
> >> >> >different religions,
> >> >>
> >> >> They pay for them. So can atheists pay for their own.
> >> >> Don't blame Christians for atheist's lack of commitment.
> >> >
> >> >Doesn't that kind of make you a hypocrite? You were just complaining
> >> >that atheist shout loudly about their beliefs,
> >>
> >> They do. And they try their best to use our tax dollars
> >> to do it.
> >
> >When the churches start having to pay taxes like the rest of us
> >(atheists included), then your last statement won't seem quite as
> >hilariously stupid.
>
> Pointing your finger elsewhere, only shows us that
> you confess to what I said happens.
You said atheists try to spend your tax dollars, but you haven't said
where and when.
> As for the churches, if you don't like the way things are,
> there are always other countries.
Fine. Why don't YOU leave? I like the US. And freedom of speech is one
of your prized tenets, I thought.
> Your rhetoric of, "churches have no say, because they
> pay no taxes", is what is "hilariously stupid".
That's funny, that's not my rhetoric. Doesn't you male lover in the sky
think it's dishonest to put quotes around something and accuse someone
else of saying it? Show me where, exactly, I ever said "churches have
no say, because they pay no taxes." Come on. What's that? You can't?
Why not? I'll tell you why, I never said it because I don't even think
it. Idiot. I like your secular society that, among other things, allows
for freedom of religion. I think people should be allowed to be as
stupid as they want, as long as they aren't hurting others in the
process. Yeah, that means you too.
> It is like
> saying that all tax exempt organizations should be
> completely silent on all matters regardless of the subject.
Your dishonesty is compounding.
> By saying this, you have just stated that even atheist
> organizations that claim a tax exempt status must be
> silent. Duh!
Holy fuck. You keep doing it. Man, you're obtuse.
> Furthermore, what you forget, is that the members of
> both the church and the tax exempt organizations each
> as individuals, pay their taxes. Yet you try to silence
> people by which organization they belong to. That's
> called "censorship" and it is exactly what atheists want
> and they are liars and hypocrites when they say
> otherwise, as they always prove in discussions
> like this.
You are truly an idiot. That's not an ad hominem argument, by the way,
it's just an observation. The church can say whatever it was, my only
point was that YOU'RE a hypocrite for complaining that atheists bleat
loudly about atheism while we try to spend your tax dollars (but you
didn't show where we bleat loudly or how we spend your tax dollars),
yet the church beats it's chest inpublic all the time while remaining
tax free. I think the church has every right to say whatever it wants,
do you get that? But I also think people should be free to criticize
the church. If you want me to leave your country (too late for that,
you geocentric moron) then THAT'S censorship. And that makes you a liar
(we established that already with your fake quotes) and a hypocrite.
> You also seek to erase the First Amendment, but only
> for people who attend churches. Yet this country was
> founded on the idea of freedom of religion and speech.
I don't seek to erase the First Amendment and I think people should be
allowed to attend whatever church they want, does that clear your
strawman up for you? Probably not.
> You are an anti-American hypocritical liar, nothing more
> and I won't waste any more of my time with you.
After projecting all your "qualities" on to me you run away. Very
impressive. And by the way, I'm not American but I am one of the few
people I know that actually defends your country all the time, because
the majority of the people I talk to despise your country. I like it,
even though the price of freedom is to have to put up with strident
navel gazing lunatics like you.
Uncle Vic
> On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 00:12:11 GMT, Roedy Green
> <see_w...@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Christians believe God will pull them out of drug addiction or alcohol
>>addiction. All they have to do is ask. This is a delusion. That
>>leads to a cavalier attitude to getting addicted.
>
> But it's not totally useless. That belief does actually lead to some
> people kicking the habit. When it gets tough they take it out on God,
> but they stay off the junk and trust him to get them through it. In
> that particular case, I'd say whatever works.
Like a placebo. The more expensive the sugar pills, the greater good they
do.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Proud member of Earthquack's "Ghost fulla holes" convict page
Al Klein
wrote:
>Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Al Klein (ruk...@pern.invalid)
>made the light shine upon us with this:
>
>> On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 00:12:11 GMT, Roedy Green
>> <see_w...@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>Christians believe God will pull them out of drug addiction or alcohol
>>>addiction. All they have to do is ask. This is a delusion. That
>>>leads to a cavalier attitude to getting addicted.
>>
>> But it's not totally useless. That belief does actually lead to some
>> people kicking the habit. When it gets tough they take it out on God,
>> but they stay off the junk and trust him to get them through it. In
>> that particular case, I'd say whatever works.
>
>Like a placebo. The more expensive the sugar pills, the greater good they
>do.
This month's editorial in Analog. The only thing a placebo can't give
you is the willingness to take responsibility for your own actions.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Given that you exist and that you are aware of your situation and
surroundings, you will find yourself in a place which has conditions
exactly suitable to your being there. If the environment was
hostile or incompatible in some important way then you would not be
there in the first place. Therefore the suitability and seeming
perfection of your universe cannot be taken as evidence of anything
more than your existence in it."
- Edward Warren, "The naturalistic fallacy"
Uncle Vic
(ruk...@pern.invalid) made the light shine upon us with this:
> On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 05:01:17 GMT, Uncle Vic <add...@withheld.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Al Klein
>>(ruk...@pern.invalid) made the light shine upon us with this:
>>
>>> On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 00:12:11 GMT, Roedy Green
>>> <see_w...@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Christians believe God will pull them out of drug addiction or
>>>>alcohol addiction. All they have to do is ask. This is a
>>>>delusion. That leads to a cavalier attitude to getting addicted.
>>>
>>> But it's not totally useless. That belief does actually lead to
>>> some people kicking the habit. When it gets tough they take it out
>>> on God, but they stay off the junk and trust him to get them through
>>> it. In that particular case, I'd say whatever works.
>>
>>Like a placebo. The more expensive the sugar pills, the greater good
>>they do.
>
> This month's editorial in Analog. The only thing a placebo can't give
> you is the willingness to take responsibility for your own actions.
Not needed in a religious atmosphere, of course. All ya gotta do is go
to church and say a few "hail marys", eat the jesus crackers and drink
the jesus juice, and all responsibility is lifted from your tired,
burdened shoulders. Hallelujia.
Al Klein
wrote:
>Not needed in a religious atmosphere, of course. All ya gotta do is go
>to church and say a few "hail marys", eat the jesus crackers and drink
>the jesus juice, and all responsibility is lifted from your tired,
>burdened shoulders. Hallelujia.
What child wouldn't sign on the dotted line immediately?
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Given that you exist and that you are aware of your situation and
surroundings, you will find yourself in a place which has conditions
exactly suitable to your being there. If the environment was
hostile or incompatible in some important way then you would not be
there in the first place. Therefore the suitability and seeming
perfection of your universe cannot be taken as evidence of anything
more than your existence in it."
- Edward Warren, "The naturalistic fallacy"
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
This signature was made by SigChanger.