Can Western Civilisation Survive Without Religion?
Sound of Trumpet
Can Western civilisation survive without religion?
David Saks has worked for the South African Jewish Board of Deputies
(SAJBD) since April 1997, and is currently its associate director.
Over the years, he has written extensively on aspects of South African
history, Judaism and the Middle East for local and international
newspapers and journals.
David has an MA in history from Rhodes University. Prior to joining
the SAJBD, he was curator -- history at MuseumAfrica in Johannesburg.
He is editor of the journal Jewish Affairs, appears regularly on local
radio discussing Jewish and Middle East subjects and is a contributor
to various Jewish publications.
When the churches were the primary disseminators of anti-Jewish
sentiment, Jews presumably would have felt that the disappearance of
the Christian religion would be a good thing. It is therefore a
remarkable irony that today, many religiously observant Jews are
viewing the disintegration of traditional Christian society with
something approaching dismay. There are no absolute standards anymore
— everything is relative. One sees how badly more conservative writers
fail when they try to condemn the degeneracy they see around them
without having recourse to the absolute moral guidelines that
traditional Bible-based Christianity provided. Their efforts at the
end of the day are entirely subjective, easy targets for those who
have other opinions and whose same opinions, in the relativistic
universe we occupy, are adjudged to just as much validity.
I recently learned of an extraordinary diatribe launched against me by
Alamein Templeton, a presenter on Channel Islam International. The
following comes from a transcript of his show of 21 March, which
reads:
“So David Saks of the Jewish Voice [sic], if you are thinking about
this and you are listening to the show, just remember this wilful
infertility, as you call it, is your main problem. When you have got
genocide in the back of your head, these are the ways you start
looking at the world. You start measuring the way the Semites, the
Muslim Semites in Palestine, as you think that are breeding like rats
while there in your safe comfortable homesteads in Tel Aviv the people
who’re comfortably off, who see children as a cost factor, are
refusing to have children.”
It’s hard to know quite what to make of Mr Templeton. Frankly, on the
evidence of this bizarre taunt, he seems to be completely out of his
gourd. Nevertheless, he is on to something with his reference to
“wilful infertility”. Not Israel (where there is a large religiously
observant Jewish community with high birth rates) but virtually all
countries in nominally Christian Europe today are failing to reproduce
themselves. The same is true of a number of other major Anglo-Saxon
Christian majority countries.
It is particularly in Europe that birth rates have plummeted. The
total fertility rate is now less than two children per woman in every
member nation in the European Union. The former East Germany’s figures
are officially the world’s lowest, and countries like Spain, Italy,
Lithuania, Russia and Hungary are not far behind. France is just able
to maintain numerical stability, but without the 10% of its population
that is Muslim, it too would have negative population growth.
The institution of marriage is in crisis, with high divorce rates and
escalating numbers of people who do not choose to marry at all. A
growing proportion of married couples, moreover, are choosing not to
have children. Those that do, have them late and as often as not are
content with just one. All in all, it is assuming a form of mass
cultural suicide. Native Europeans are focused on getting whatever
they can out of the present while giving up on the future.
What helps a bit is immigration from non-Western societies, including,
of course, many Muslim ones. This last phenomenon is eliciting
increasingly panic-stricken, and occasionally xenophobic commentary in
many quarters. A peaceful counter-Crusade seems to be well underway,
with burgeoning Muslim numbers suggesting that the Islamisation of
Europe over the next half-century has become a real possibility.
The phenomenon of voluntary childlessness has taken place
simultaneously with the decline of religious belief. Nor is it at all
far-fetched to see the connection between the two. For the non-
believers, life is temporary and ultimately pointless. Why make so
many sacrifices in raising children when they, too, are part of the
same futile cosmic accident, destined to struggle, suffer and die like
everyone else to no lasting purpose?
Speaking personally, I am a strictly Orthodox Jew, but without these
strong religious convictions, I doubt that I would bother to raise a
family.
For those adhering to any of the three Abrahamitic faiths — Judaism,
Christianity, Islam — the attitude towards procreation is radically
different. To bring a new soul into existence is to become a partner
with the Almighty in furthering His Creation. It is an opportunity not
just to populate the physical world, but far more importantly, to
enable one’s children to enter the eternal World to Come through their
own efforts. Can there be a greater demonstration of loving kindness
than this? And it is being a giver, not a taker that is the key to
true happiness.
A symptom, and simultaneously a cause, of the malaise is surely the
pervasive scourge of pornography, whose dissemination has been so
dramatically facilitated by the Internet revolution. Pornography is
the ultimate debasement of the act of procreation. Indeed, the
creation of life is the last thing it encourages, rather using that
impulse to foster a culture of voyeurism and brutish gratification.
Without going into the loathsome details, the defining feature of the
kind of degraded acts most commonly depicted nowadays is that they
preclude even the possibility of creating life.
The manner in which women are brutally abused, albeit with an
appearance of willingness on their part, further underlines either the
staggering failure of the feminist revolution or even the poisoned
fruits of its unintended consequences. Was it not feminism, after all,
that discredited the traditional notion of women as mothers and
nurturers, the gentler sex that needed special consideration and
protection?
Today, a newer and even more hateful form of voyeurism is becoming
prevalent. Dubbed “torture porn”, it generates its thrills by showing
helpless people — invariably young, attractive women — being
systematically mutilated. There is evidently a market for those who
get their thrills in seeing women slowly hacked to pieces or having
acid poured on their faces. The main guilt might lie with those who
create and disseminate such wickedness, but those who patronise it are
also shamefully culpable. Western culture would seem to be having a
love affair with death.
True, pornography has always existed. The difference today is that it
is part of mainstream culture, thanks in no small part to the efforts
of civil libertarians who have elevated freedom of expression to the
status of a fundamental right, no matter what harm accrues to the
greater society.
Human beings are so much higher than the animal world, but no species
falls lower when it chooses to debase itself. Religiously observant
Jews, Muslims and Christians, are often scorned for ghettoising
themselves, yet given the culture of defilement that exists outside
their closed communities, can they really be blamed?
The official acceptance of homosexuality, to a degree not seen since
the Roman era, is another sign of the times. Whatever one’s
convictions on “gay rights” questions, it does not take a Mensa IQ to
realise that procreation is not going to result from such liaisons.
Underlying all this is a curious paradox. Those who criticise the
anything-goes culture that is producing such all-pervasive ugliness
and so disastrously undermining the foundations of our civilisation
also tend to be amongst the most outspoken critics of the perceived
Islamisation of that civilisation. In reality, traditional Islam
comprises a value system that fiercely and uncompromisingly upholds
the kind of ethics and standards that Christian societies once took
for granted.
Personally, I believe that Muslim communities within Western, post-
Christian societies are more threatened than threatening. There is a
stronger possibility that far from taking over those societies through
demographic growth, they will instead see future generations
progressively co-opted by them. The Internet and all the other
spectacular advances in information and communications technology can
now bring the festering sewers of a degenerating civilisation into the
heart of every home at the touch of a button.
Should it in fact withstand these pressures, Islam ironically may even
have the potential to rescue the decaying Western post-Christian
civilisation. Those radical imams who rail against the rottenness of
their host societies do have a point. The problem is, trying to
convince laissez-faire Westerners that they are wrong by blowing them
to fragments is hardly likely to endear them to their worldview.
Similarly, I suppose, the old National Party’s strict censorship
policy when it came to anything remotely pornographic would have
enjoyed more credibility if the ruling party hadn’t simultaneously
been promulgating racial laws that were palpably immoral.
DanielSan
> http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/davidsaks/2008/07/10/can-western-civilization-survive-without-religion
>
>
> Can Western civilisation survive without religion?
Nah. Religionists like yourself would go insane.
--
******************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*----------------------------------------------------*
* It has been said that Jesus died on a Friday and *
* was resurrected on a Sunday. It is not so much *
* that Jesus died for our sins, as he had a very *
* bad weekend for them. *
******************************************************
Smiler
> Sound of Trumpet wrote:
>> http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/davidsaks/2008/07/10/can-western-civilization-survive-without-religion
>>
>>
>> Can Western civilisation survive without religion?
>
> Nah. Religionists like yourself would go insane.
Would we notice any difference in them?
(Chung, puke, J, Wentzky, SoT himself)
Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
DanielSan
I think they'd go out and start killing people. After all, that's what
a lot of these people say humans would do because "there would be no
consequences."
johac
<8427a669-2cfe-4bbc...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Sound of Trumpet <soundof...@email.com> wrote:
> http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/davidsaks/2008/07/10/can-western-civilization-s
> urvive-without-religion
>
>
> Can Western civilisation survive without religion?
>
>
Sure. And life would be much more pleasant and peaceful
--
John #1782
Kenny McCormack
Sound of Trumpet <soundof...@email.com> wrote:
>David Saks has worked for the South African Jewish Board of Deputies
>(SAJBD) since April 1997, and is currently its associate director.
>Over the years, he has written extensively on aspects of South African
>history, Judaism and the Middle East for local and international
>newspapers and journals.
It's the latest innovation in religious propagandizing: Jews for Allan!
jemcd
<soundof...@email.com> wrote:
>Can Western civilisation survive without religion?
I think so, it looks like the less religious a western country is, the
better off it is.
But it would have to be a slow change, fading away.
Maybe the fundies that try to persist could go to therapy (like a
methodone clinic) where they are taken step by step through less
harmful delusions. Starting at jesus or allah and ending up with the
tooth fairy.
King of the R.O.U.S.'s
> Can Western civilisation survive without religion?
More to the point can it survive *WITH* religion?
~Inigo
Alex W.
"johac" <jhac...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-A55E2...@news.giganews.com...
I am not entirely certain of that.
Western civilisation has fairly comprehensively dismantled the ability of
religion to direct and dictate the affairs of our nations. Their fangs have
been drawn, and in a historical comparison our contemporary battles over
abortion or creationism are harmless parlour games. In that sense, life is
already more peaceful and pleasant.
While I certainly do not believe in any of their gods and am quite aware of
the atrocities and repression undertaken in their name and under their
leadership, I think it would be a mistake if we failed to recognise the
ability of religious institutions to motivate people in a positive manner
and to marshal considerable efforts in largely benevolent and positive ways.
They do provide social services (both formal and informal) on a massive
scale which can and does both complement the efforts of secular government
and fill the gaps where government does not reach. Without such a network
of support, would our lives really be more peaceful and pleasant?
John Locke
<soundof...@email.com> wrote:
>http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/davidsaks/2008/07/10/can-western-civilization-survive-without-religion
>
>
>Can Western civilisation survive without religion?
>
Yes. And Western civilization would imnprove. I suggest you take
a look at Denmark as a prime example.
___________________________________________________
"I don't think we're here for anything, we're
just products of evolution. You can say 'Gee,
your life must be pretty bleak if you don't think
there's a purpose' but I'm anticipating a good lunch."
-Dr. James Watson, American biologist, (Discoverer of DNA.)
johac
"Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> "johac" <jhac...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:jhachmann-A55E2...@news.giganews.com...
> > In article
> > <8427a669-2cfe-4bbc...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> > Sound of Trumpet <soundof...@email.com> wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/davidsaks/2008/07/10/can-western-civilizatio
> >> n-s
> >> urvive-without-religion
> >>
> >>
> >> Can Western civilisation survive without religion?
> >>
> >>
> > Sure. And life would be much more pleasant and peaceful
>
> I am not entirely certain of that.
>
> Western civilisation has fairly comprehensively dismantled the ability of
> religion to direct and dictate the affairs of our nations. Their fangs have
> been drawn, and in a historical comparison our contemporary battles over
> abortion or creationism are harmless parlour games. In that sense, life is
> already more peaceful and pleasant.
For now things are not so bad, but look at some of the writings and
listen to some of the preachings of the Dominionists, especially in the
USA. If they could, they would like to turn the country into a militant
theocracy. Based on history, we would be foolish to underestimate the
power of religion to do harm.
>
> While I certainly do not believe in any of their gods and am quite aware of
> the atrocities and repression undertaken in their name and under their
> leadership, I think it would be a mistake if we failed to recognise the
> ability of religious institutions to motivate people in a positive manner
> and to marshal considerable efforts in largely benevolent and positive ways.
> They do provide social services (both formal and informal) on a massive
> scale which can and does both complement the efforts of secular government
> and fill the gaps where government does not reach. Without such a network
> of support, would our lives really be more peaceful and pleasant?
They do some good things, but could not a secular organization do the
same?
--
John #1782
Robert
wrote:
With out religion to cause problems, there would not be any need for
the religious support for religious based problems. Prohibition is a
religious based law, that is at the root of most crimes. Any "crime"
that has no victim is religious based.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Prime Minister of the Kingdom of God
Ask your ugly Jewish female this question so we, the Christians,
cannot here it.
Robert
Much of the "good" that is done, is done by secular organizations,
religions tends to siphon off funds, to expand their powers. Much of
the harm done by religion, is from their hateful preaching against
people that refuse to submit to the "will of god" IOW their own
religious beliefs. Reality check, no man knows the will of God, or
even that such a God exist.
Prime Minister of the Kingdom of God
You are the proof that the Jews understand only one thing- the kosher
bullet.
Alex W.
IF they could.
I'm not sure it would be possible, if for no other reason that these
theocratic supremacists are very much in the minority even among Christians.
>>
>> While I certainly do not believe in any of their gods and am quite aware
>> of
>> the atrocities and repression undertaken in their name and under their
>> leadership, I think it would be a mistake if we failed to recognise the
>> ability of religious institutions to motivate people in a positive manner
>> and to marshal considerable efforts in largely benevolent and positive
>> ways.
>> They do provide social services (both formal and informal) on a massive
>> scale which can and does both complement the efforts of secular
>> government
>> and fill the gaps where government does not reach. Without such a
>> network
>> of support, would our lives really be more peaceful and pleasant?
>
> They do some good things, but could not a secular organization do the
> same?
In theory, yes -- and in practice, they already work in all the same fields.
Often, though, religious organisations seem to do it better. They have a
superior ability to motivate supporters and volunteers, to the point of
disregarding careers and personal safety.
On a practical level, religions currently provide a very wide range of
services which we'd have to organise ourselves and probably have to pay
rather more taxes to finance if religion were to vanish. Would that make
our lives more pleasant?
Mike Painter
<snip>
>
> On a practical level, religions currently provide a very wide range of
> services which we'd have to organise ourselves and probably have to
> pay rather more taxes to finance if religion were to vanish. Would
> that make our lives more pleasant?
What do they provide that are not done in the secualar service area?
As for cost, somebody pays for them and I'd raaher pay taxes then have them
tied to a need to pray for the service.
Nobody knows what percent of a dollar goes to helping people rather than
buying bibles and building bigge churches.
Smiler
------------------------------------------------------
inetnum: 92.40.0.0 - 92.40.255.255
netname: H3GUK
descr: Mobile Broadband Service
country: gb
admin-c: GJ1005-RIPE
tech-c: HURa1-RIPE
remarks: ** Please send all queries regarding spams or abuse
remarks: ** to ab...@three.co.uk
remarks: INFRA-AW
status: Assigned PA
mnt-by: H3GUK-MNT
mnt-domains: h3guk-mnt
source: RIPE # Filtered
role: H3G UK RIPE admin
address: Hutchison 3G UK Limited,
Star House,
20 Grenfell Road,
Maidenhead,
Berkshire
SL6 1EH
United Kingdom
admin-c: gj1005-ripe
tech-c: ey132-ripe
tech-c: zg283-ripe
tech-c: jk3535-ripe
tech-c: sb9397-ripe
tech-c: ea1299-ripe
abuse-mailbox: ab...@three.co.uk
nic-hdl: HURa1-RIPE
source: RIPE # Filtered
person: Garry Joyce
address: Hutchison 3G UK Limited
address: Star House
address: 20 Grenfell Road
address: Maidenhead
address: SL6 1EH
address: United Kingdom
phone: +44 1628 765000
nic-hdl: GJ1005-RIPE
source: RIPE # Filtered
% Information related to '92.40.0.0/15AS21327'
route: 92.40.0.0/15
descr: H3GUK Subscriber Block1
origin: AS21327
mnt-by: H3GUK-MNT
mnt-lower: H3GUK-MNT
source: RIPE # Filtered
-------------------------------------------------
Smiler
Or lining the pockets of the cult leaders.
Alex W.
"Robert" <rob...@netportusa.com> wrote in message
news:9vchg49rq51v0hpfm...@4ax.com...
Which leaves other issues and problems.
I am not necessarily arguing that religion is better suited, I am simply
pointing out that they do seem to have certain attributes which can be
positive and helpful. In my personal experience, there seems to be a
division among the faithful: while there are many who use their beliefs to
justify intolerance and strife, those who actually do charitable work apear
to be motivated by the more positive aspects such as charity and even love
of one's fellow man.
> Any "crime"
> that has no victim is religious based.
Even illegal substance use?
;-)
johac
Robert <rob...@netportusa.com> wrote:
So Marx was right. Religion is a drug. the more you take, the more you
need.
--
John #1782
johac
"Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
But they are doing their best to insinuate themselves in high places. If
you haven't yet, I would recommend reading "The Family" by Jeff Sharlet.
It describes how these creeps are trying to gain access to thlse in high
places.
>
>
> >>
> >> While I certainly do not believe in any of their gods and am quite aware
> >> of
> >> the atrocities and repression undertaken in their name and under their
> >> leadership, I think it would be a mistake if we failed to recognise the
> >> ability of religious institutions to motivate people in a positive manner
> >> and to marshal considerable efforts in largely benevolent and positive
> >> ways.
> >> They do provide social services (both formal and informal) on a massive
> >> scale which can and does both complement the efforts of secular
> >> government
> >> and fill the gaps where government does not reach. Without such a
> >> network
> >> of support, would our lives really be more peaceful and pleasant?
> >
> > They do some good things, but could not a secular organization do the
> > same?
>
> In theory, yes -- and in practice, they already work in all the same fields.
> Often, though, religious organisations seem to do it better. They have a
> superior ability to motivate supporters and volunteers, to the point of
> disregarding careers and personal safety.
I don't know. One reads about Red Cross workers, Care, or Doctors
Without Borders, or other secular organizations which are willing to go
anywhere, sometimes with great sacrifice to help others.
>
> On a practical level, religions currently provide a very wide range of
> services which we'd have to organise ourselves and probably have to pay
> rather more taxes to finance if religion were to vanish. Would that make
> our lives more pleasant?
Many secular organizations are charities funded or mostly funded by
voluntary donations.
--
John #1782
johac
Robert <rob...@netportusa.com> wrote:
Well, that's why I contribute to secular organizations.
--
John #1782
Mark K. Bilbo
8427a669-2cfe-4bbc...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com, Sound of
Trumpet <soundof...@email.com> wrote:
> http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/davidsaks/2008/07/10/can-western-
civilization-survive-without-religion
>
>
> Can Western civilisation survive without religion?
>
Already is.
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"How come God gets credit whenever something good happens? Where was he
when her heart stopped?"
- Dr. House
Robert
WTK over.
Robert
wrote:
The problems caused by religion, far out weigh the small amount of
good done. Eliminating the hatred spread by religion, by it's self
would make life more pleasant.
Robert
wrote:
Exactly so; The prohibition movement was lead and financed by
Christians. Every freedom at risk has Christians working to remove
that freedom. Christianity is the single most evil organization on
earth. Made even worse by the fact that most believe that their
beliefs are correct. And all religious people are bigots, that cannot
be wrong.
Don Martin
This cheers me up. He is such a stupid bigot, I assumed he was another American.
-
aa #2278 If you can't be a dirty old man, what is the point of being an old man?
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
Don Martin
But, but, but--those pockets are truly HUNGRY!
Smiler
Unfortunately, he's either British or a visitor here.
More likely, a visitor (from another planet).
Sly Taan Boodhika
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:14:17 -0700 (PDT), Sound of Trumpet
>
> >Can Western civilisation survive without religion?
>
> I think so, it looks like the less religious a western country is, the
> better off it is.
> But it would have to be a slow change, fading away.
> Maybe the fundies that try to persist could go to therapy (like a
> methodone clinic) where they are taken step by step through less
> harmful delusions. Starting at jesus or allah and ending up with the
> tooth fairy.
J.R. "Bob" Dobbs!!!
and then ME!!!!
johac
Don Martin <drdon...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 23:58:40 -0000, "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote:
>
> >Mike Painter wrote:
> >> Alex W. wrote:
> >> <snip>
> >>>
> >>> On a practical level, religions currently provide a very wide range
> >>> of services which we'd have to organise ourselves and probably have
> >>> to pay rather more taxes to finance if religion were to vanish. Would
> >>> that make our lives more pleasant?
> >>
> >> What do they provide that are not done in the secualar service area?
> >> As for cost, somebody pays for them and I'd raaher pay taxes then
> >> have them tied to a need to pray for the service.
> >>
> >> Nobody knows what percent of a dollar goes to helping people rather
> >> than buying bibles and building bigge churches.
> >
> >Or lining the pockets of the cult leaders.
>
> But, but, but--those pockets are truly HUNGRY!
And so deep they never get quite filled.
>
> -
> aa #2278 If you can't be a dirty old man, what is the point of being an old
> man?
> Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
> The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
--
John #1782
James A. Donald
wrote:
> The problems caused by religion, far out weigh the small amount of
> good done.
No doubt. But when people stop believing in Christianity, they are
apt to start believing in some replacement, which is usually even
sillier and more dangerous than Christianity.
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
chr...@hush.com
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 13:06:45 -0800, Robert <rob...@netportusa.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The problems caused by religion, far out weigh the small amount of
> > good done.
>
> No doubt. But when people stop believing in Christianity, they are
> apt to start believing in some replacement, which is usually even
> sillier and more dangerous than Christianity.
>
James A. Donald wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 13:06:45 -0800, Robert <rob...@netportusa.com>
> wrote:
> > The problems caused by religion, far out weigh the small amount of
> > good done.
>
> No doubt. But when people stop believing in Christianity, they are
> apt to start believing in some replacement, which is usually even
> sillier and more dangerous than Christianity.
>
>
In most of Europe majority of people stopped believing in Christianity
long ago. What do they believe in that is "sillier and more
dangerous"?
For example, Czech Republic and Estonia are the most atheist countries
in the world - where are the dangerous hordes of Czechs and
Estonians?
http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/02/15/czech-republic-most-atheist-country-in-europe.htm
http://atheism.about.com/b/2004/05/03/atheism-in-the-czech-republic-2.htm
http://cheekymax.wordpress.com/2007/03/09/the-most-atheistic-country-in-the-world/
Christopher A. Lee
>On Oct 31, 9:51 am, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 13:06:45 -0800, Robert <rob...@netportusa.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > The problems caused by religion, far out weigh the small amount of
>> > good done.
>>
>> No doubt. But when people stop believing in Christianity, they are
>> apt to start believing in some replacement, which is usually even
>> sillier and more dangerous than Christianity.
>>
>
>James A. Donald wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 13:06:45 -0800, Robert <rob...@netportusa.com>
>> wrote:
>> > The problems caused by religion, far out weigh the small amount of
>> > good done.
>>
>> No doubt. But when people stop believing in Christianity, they are
>> apt to start believing in some replacement, which is usually even
>> sillier and more dangerous than Christianity.
>>
>>
>
>In most of Europe majority of people stopped believing in Christianity
>long ago. What do they believe in that is "sillier and more
>dangerous"?
>
>For example, Czech Republic and Estonia are the most atheist countries
>in the world - where are the dangerous hordes of Czechs and
>Estonians?
It's a combination of bigotry and paranoia that seems to be uniquely
American apart from church leaders like the Pope and the Archbishop of
Canterbury making what are just plain nasty statements which would
inflame their followers if there were enough of them.
Mike Painter
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 13:06:45 -0800, Robert <rob...@netportusa.com>
> wrote:
>> The problems caused by religion, far out weigh the small amount of
>> good done.
>
> No doubt. But when people stop believing in Christianity, they are
> apt to start believing in some replacement, which is usually even
> sillier and more dangerous than Christianity.
I'd disagree with that based on where I live.
Chico - Paradise area Butte County, CA
Group 1990 2000 % change
Evangelical Protestants 19,185 19,616 +2.2
Mainline Prodestants 7,222 6,745 -7.1
Catholic 15,382 19,483 +26.7
Orthodox 0 200 +200.0
Other 7,880 7,993 +2.0
Unclaimed not asked 147,520 - more than 72%
Source: American Religious Data Archive
http://www.thearda.com
My county Glenn shows similar results. Big increase in Catholics and 55.7%
unclaimed.
I certainly see no odd ball beliefs springing up. The tendency seems to be
that they end up saying they believe in a god but not in any organized
religion. Pointing out that their concept of a god came from such a religion
does not sink in.
Smiler
> In article <urfkg4t82actaiei3...@4ax.com>,
> Don Martin <drdon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 23:58:40 -0000, "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Mike Painter wrote:
>>>> Alex W. wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>> On a practical level, religions currently provide a very wide
>>>>> range of services which we'd have to organise ourselves and
>>>>> probably have to pay rather more taxes to finance if religion
>>>>> were to vanish. Would that make our lives more pleasant?
>>>>
>>>> What do they provide that are not done in the secualar service
>>>> area? As for cost, somebody pays for them and I'd raaher pay taxes
>>>> then have them tied to a need to pray for the service.
>>>>
>>>> Nobody knows what percent of a dollar goes to helping people rather
>>>> than buying bibles and building bigge churches.
>>>
>>> Or lining the pockets of the cult leaders.
>>
>> But, but, but--those pockets are truly HUNGRY!
>
> And so deep they never get quite filled.
>>
The cult leaders have deep pockets and short arms.
Smiler
No sillier than christianity, but probably less dangerous, are the 'new age'
beliefs in homeopathy, reflexology, Chinese 'medicine', spiritualism,
astrology, numerology, feng shwey [1] (sp?), etc. They seem to be on the
increase here, in the absence of christianity.
[1] Feng = 'sense', shwey = 'more money than'.
johac
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 13:06:45 -0800, Robert <rob...@netportusa.com>
> wrote:
> > The problems caused by religion, far out weigh the small amount of
> > good done.
>
> No doubt. But when people stop believing in Christianity, they are
> apt to start believing in some replacement, which is usually even
> sillier and more dangerous than Christianity.
>
Not necessarily. Many primarily secular societies seem to do quite well.
--
John #1782
johac
"Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote:
Hey, they need their big mansions, fancy cars, private planes, etc. They
want their god to take care of the poor.
--
John #1782
James A. Donald
> > when people stop believing in Christianity, they are
> > apt to start believing in some replacement, which is
> > usually even sillier and more dangerous than
> > Christianity.
chr...@hush.com wrote:
> In most of Europe majority of people stopped believing
> in Christianity long ago. What do they believe in that
> is "sillier and more dangerous"?
Communism and environmentalism. In Christianity, god is
sacrificed to man, but in Environmentalism, man is
sacrificed to Gaia.
Environmentalism involves about million or so human
sacrifices a year, for example
<http://cei.org/gencon/019,03078.cfm> which makes the
Aztecs look like small beer. Communism sacrificed about
a hundred million, though they have scaled back a lot
lately.
> For example, Czech Republic and Estonia are the most
> atheist countries in the world - where are the
> dangerous hordes of Czechs and Estonians?
Estonia has 18% new agers, 33.3% believes in the
horoscope, 36.6% believe in the effectiveness of prayer,
14% believe in contact with spirits, 26% believe in
reincarnation, 8% in hinduism, and so on and so forth.
<http://www.religionstatistics.net/noreleng.htm>
Looks to me like Christianity in Estonia has been
replaced by a huge influx of crazy nonsense, and while
we are not seeing any dreadful bloodshed now, lots of
those beliefs, for example hinduism, have a lot of
potential for immense bloodshed and a bloody history.
James A. Donald
> > But when people stop believing in Christianity, they are
> > apt to start believing in some replacement, which is usually even
> > sillier and more dangerous than Christianity.
"Mike Painter"
> I'd disagree with that based on where I live.
> Chico - Paradise area Butte County, CA
> Group 1990 2000 % change
> Evangelical Protestants 19,185 19,616 +2.2
> Mainline Prodestants 7,222 6,745 -7.1
> Catholic 15,382 19,483 +26.7
> Orthodox 0 200 +200.0
> Other 7,880 7,993 +2.0
> Unclaimed not asked 147,520 - more than 72%
>
> Source: American Religious Data Archive
> http://www.thearda.com
>
> My county Glenn shows similar results. Big increase in Catholics and 55.7%
> unclaimed.
>
> I certainly see no odd ball beliefs springing up.
Your statistics are unbelievable: You don't list New Agers, UFO
believers, and people who commune with spirits, though there are
surely one hell of a lot more of them than Greek Orthodox.
A survey of university undergraduates in Australia
<http://www.springerlink.com/content/35377n4j5777j634/> indicates
majority acceptance of seances and UFOs (which UFOs bear a striking
resemblance to angels and spirits.)
<http://www.religionstatistics.net/statamer1.htm> tells us that 30% of
Americans believe in reincarnation, though only four percent are New
Agers, which is markedly lower than in less Christian countries such
as Estonia and Czech Republic.
In addition we are seeing 18% believing that global warming is
cataclysmic or on the way to imminently becoming cataclysmic, serious,
and extremely important, which is a branch of earth worship - and that
belief is pretty oddball, for during the period during which we have
been pouring huge amounts of CO2 into the air, temperatures have risen
0.13 degrees per decade, which is not very alarming at all - that is
to say the warming is not very alarming. The fact that large numbers
of people are very alarmed is very alarming.
We also see a cheerful willingness by supporters of various new
religions to embrace human sacrifice of various kinds, which strikes
me as fairly oddball
Markku Grönroos
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:9hpng4tg1eq4meoma...@4ax.com...
Shapescare
> Communism sacrificed about
> a hundred million, though they have scaled back a lot
> lately.
And a lot of them were sacrificed in the battle against Christian
invaders from Luther's Europe.
Markku Grönroos
"Shapescare" <farent...@gmail.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:6c950966-9ff8-4277...@s1g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
sp...@gnostheos.org
> On Oct 31, 9:51 am, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 13:06:45 -0800, Robert <rob...@netportusa.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > The problems caused by religion, far out weigh the small amount of
> > > good done.
>
> > No doubt. But when people stop believing in Christianity, they are
> > apt to start believing in some replacement, which is usually even
> > sillier and more dangerous than Christianity.
>
> James A. Donald wrote:
> > On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 13:06:45 -0800, Robert <rob...@netportusa.com>
> > wrote:
> > > The problems caused by religion, far out weigh the small amount of
> > > good done.
>
> > No doubt. But when people stop believing in Christianity, they are
> > apt to start believing in some replacement, which is usually even
> > sillier and more dangerous than Christianity.
>
> In most of Europe majority of people stopped believing in Christianity
> long ago. What do they believe in that is "sillier and more
> dangerous"?
>
> For example, Czech Republic and Estonia are the most atheist countries
> in the world - where are the dangerous hordes of Czechs and
> Estonians?
>
>
Well you might start beleiving in panspermia as atheist Francis Crick
did.
However atheist tend to couch their crazy beleifs in large scientific
sounding
words instead of saying I beleive LGM came to earth and placed a spore
in the ocean and billions of years later it became me. Besides what is
the
difference in LGM and God? Where did the LGM (little green man) come
from?
Since there is no evidence for evolution on earth it must be out in
space,
hence astrobiology. Everyone has beleifs which look silly from other
people's
point of view, so silly is not really subjective.
However communism which is an attempt at a society without religion is
a
drastic failure. See China
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989
So what silly religious beleif drove atheistic chinese leaders to
massacre
its people?
James 4:1-3
1What is the source of quarrels and conflicts among you? Is not the
source your pleasures that wage war in your members?
2You lust and do not have; so you commit murder. You are envious and
cannot obtain; so you fight and quarrel. You do not have because you
do not ask.
3You ask and do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, so
that you may spend it on your pleasures.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%204:1-3;&version=49;
The source of wars and conflict is people lusting after things, and
not
having them. People thinking of themselves first. If only people read
the BIble and practiced what it said, then wars would cease. Religion
is often an excuse for war, but not the cause of it. It is the lust in
men's hearts that cause war.
Markku Grönroos
Mike Painter
> James A. Donald wrote:
>>> But when people stop believing in Christianity, they are
>>> apt to start believing in some replacement, which is usually even
>>> sillier and more dangerous than Christianity.
>
> "Mike Painter"
>> I'd disagree with that based on where I live.
>> Chico - Paradise area Butte County, CA
>> Group 1990 2000 % change
>> Evangelical Protestants 19,185 19,616 +2.2
>> Mainline Prodestants 7,222 6,745 -7.1
>> Catholic 15,382 19,483 +26.7
>> Orthodox 0 200 +200.0
>> Other 7,880 7,993 +2.0
>> Unclaimed not asked 147,520 - more than 72%
>>
>> Source: American Religious Data Archive
>> http://www.thearda.com
>>
>> My county Glenn shows similar results. Big increase in Catholics and
>> 55.7% unclaimed.
>>
>> I certainly see no odd ball beliefs springing up.
>
> Your statistics are unbelievable: You don't list New Agers, UFO
> believers, and people who commune with spirits, though there are
> surely one hell of a lot more of them than Greek Orthodox.
The list of religions they could pick from is very long, however I've never
met any of the people you name or read anything that says what they believe
is part of a religious group.
>
> In addition we are seeing 18% believing that global warming is
> cataclysmic or on the way to imminently becoming cataclysmic, serious,
> and extremely important, which is a branch of earth worship - and that
> belief is pretty oddball, for during the period during which we have
> been pouring huge amounts of CO2 into the air, temperatures have risen
> 0.13 degrees per decade, which is not very alarming at all - that is
> to say the warming is not very alarming. The fact that large numbers
> of people are very alarmed is very alarming.
>
The evidence does not support your ideas. Your "only .13 degrees per decade"
appears to be like the man who "only" tipped the box a little bit at a time.
Then it fell over.
Warming aside, all the research on weather shows that it is chaotic and
history shows that it can change rapidly over a few years becasue of this.
James A. Donald
> > You don't list New Agers, UFO
> > believers, and people who commune with spirits, though there are
> > surely one hell of a lot more of them than Greek Orthodox.
"Mike Painter"
> The list of religions they could pick from is very long, however I've never
> met any of the people you name or read anything that says what they believe
> is part of a religious group.
They get together and hold rituals, tell each other stories that
reinforce each other's beliefs, have gurus and prophets. Is this not
religion?
Why are people who commune with nature spirits not a religious group,
while people who believe they hear the voice of the holy spirit are a
religious group?
Many of these alternative religions are highly organized and tightly
disciplined mass movements, for example the various Gaia worshippers,
such as deep ecology and catastrophic global warmists. The fact that
they decorate their discourse with meaningless and inappropriate
fragments of pseudo scientific jargon does not make them any the less
a religion.
Further, many of these new religions receive major, direct, and
organized state sponsorship
<http://www.newswithviews.com/Turtel/joel46.htm>, for example Kwanza,
a synthetic neopagan religion based on imagined African religions that
never existed, and Worship of the Great Earth Spirit, a similarly
synthetic neopagan religion based on imagined Native American
religions that never existed
> Your "only .13 degrees per decade"
> appears to be like the man who "only" tipped the box a little bit at a time.
0.13 degrees per decade is equivalent to moving one third of the way
from San Francisco to LA over a century. We are going to have to tip
the box one hell of a lot further than that before there is any
prospect of it falling over. The fact that these people believe in
apocalypse shows that they WANT to believe in apocalypse, which is
fundamentally religious.
> Warming aside, all the research on weather shows that it is chaotic and
> history shows that it can change rapidly over a few years becasue of this.
Can change chaotically hotter or colder, and on the bases of the last
few million years of history, colder is the way to bet. Similarly,
for the past ten years. For the past ten years it has been getting
colder, not warmer. If this is chaotic change, chances are that we
are in for a freeze. But either way, no apocalypse - at worst a
nuisance that is only apparent statistically.
James A. Donald
> > But when people stop believing in Christianity, they
> > are apt to start believing in some replacement,
> > which is usually even sillier and more dangerous
> > than Christianity.
johac
> Not necessarily. Many primarily secular societies seem
> to do quite well.
Depends on how you define "secular" - pseudo scientific
belief systems such as communism and deep ecology often
have their prayer meetings, holy books, and prophets.
And I don't think they "do quite well". The most
successful society is still that of America, which is
one of the most Christian.
Ray Fischer
>> > But when people stop believing in Christianity, they
>> > are apt to start believing in some replacement,
>> > which is usually even sillier and more dangerous
>> > than Christianity.
>
>johac
>> Not necessarily. Many primarily secular societies seem
>> to do quite well.
>
>Depends on how you define "secular" - pseudo scientific
>belief systems such as communism and deep ecology often
>have their prayer meetings, holy books, and prophets.
>
>And I don't think they "do quite well". The most
>successful society is still that of America, which is
>one of the most Christian.
"Most successful"? By what measure?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Michael Price
And that invasion was made possible by the unprincipled acts of
their leaders.
If Russia had been run by anyone with a lick of sense (which leaves
out the
communists) they would have suspected that Hitler wanted to overrun
the
east and enslave their people. Their first clue would have been that
Hitler
said he wanted to overrun the east and enslave their people. Note
that the
liberal democracies were first to oppose Hitler and if they had not
the USSR
would have been toast. If England had not taken it's promise to
Poland seriously
Hitler would have been able to invade the USSR with a free hand.
Considering how
close it came with a two front war a single front would have killed
them.
And most of the deaths from communism were not war deaths, they were
murders
of "counterrevolutionaries", which often means revolutionaries of a
slightly different
stripe.
Mike Painter
> James A. Donald wrote:
>>> You don't list New Agers, UFO
>>> believers, and people who commune with spirits, though there are
>>> surely one hell of a lot more of them than Greek Orthodox.
>
> "Mike Painter"
>> The list of religions they could pick from is very long, however
>> I've never met any of the people you name or read anything that says
>> what they believe is part of a religious group.
>
> They get together and hold rituals, tell each other stories that
> reinforce each other's beliefs, have gurus and prophets. Is this not
> religion?
Not by any definition I know of and they deny it.
>
> Why are people who commune with nature spirits not a religious group,
> while people who believe they hear the voice of the holy spirit are a
> religious group?
Why are people eho say they are fans of a football team fans of a football
team and those who say they are not, not.
They decide if it is a religion and they say it is not.
The Census people agree with them.
>
> Many of these alternative religions are highly organized and tightly
> disciplined mass movements, for example the various Gaia worshippers,
> such as deep ecology and catastrophic global warmists. The fact that
> they decorate their discourse with meaningless and inappropriate
> fragments of pseudo scientific jargon does not make them any the less
> a religion.
Then give a definition of religion that is accepted by the majority.
>
> Further, many of these new religions receive major, direct, and
> organized state sponsorship
> <http://www.newswithviews.com/Turtel/joel46.htm>, for example Kwanza,
> a synthetic neopagan religion based on imagined African religions that
> never existed, and Worship of the Great Earth Spirit, a similarly
> synthetic neopagan religion based on imagined Native American
> religions that never existed
>
>> Your "only .13 degrees per decade"
>> appears to be like the man who "only" tipped the box a little bit at
>> a time.
>
> 0.13 degrees per decade is equivalent to moving one third of the way
> from San Francisco to LA over a century. We are going to have to tip
> the box one hell of a lot further than that before there is any
> prospect of it falling over. The fact that these people believe in
> apocalypse shows that they WANT to believe in apocalypse, which is
> fundamentally religious.
Since you have no idea of where the center of mass of the box is you have no
way to know when the box will tilt 0.01 degree more then fall over.
James A. Donald
> > > > But when people stop believing in Christianity,
> > > > they are apt to start believing in some
> > > > replacement, which is usually even sillier and
> > > > more dangerous than Christianity.
johac
> > > Not necessarily. Many primarily secular societies
> > > seem to do quite well.
James A. Donald:
> > Depends on how you define "secular" - pseudo
> > scientific belief systems such as communism and deep
> > ecology often have their prayer meetings, holy
> > books, and prophets.
> >
> > And I don't think they "do quite well". The most
> > successful society is still that of America, which
> > is one of the most Christian.
Ray Fischer
> "Most successful"? By what measure?
Richer, more free, produces more culture, more science,
more high art, more popular culture, more good movies,
and so forth. Poor people in the US are a lot better
off than poor people in Europe. Racism in the US is
considerably less than racism in Europe. You don't see
many black professionals in most of Europe - consider,
for example, black people in Italy or Germany.
Smiler
In his mind, successful because they are still mostly Christian.
James A. Donald
> > > > You don't list New Agers, UFO believers, and
> > > > people who commune with spirits, though there
> > > > are surely one hell of a lot more of them than
> > > > Greek Orthodox.
"Mike Painter"
> >> The list of religions they could pick from is very
> >> long, however I've never met any of the people you
> >> name or read anything that says what they believe
> >> is part of a religious group.
James A. Donald:
> > They get together and hold rituals, tell each other
> > stories that reinforce each other's beliefs, have
> > gurus and prophets. Is this not religion?
"Mike Painter"
> Not by any definition I know of and they deny it.
"Cult" is just a disphemism for a religion, and
disbelievers call new age beliefs, spiritualism,
marxism, flying saucers, apocalyptic global warming,
wicca, deep ecology, scientology, and so on and so forth
"cults".
For some saucer examples see:
<http://www.google.com/search?q=saucer+cult>
James A. Donald:
> > The fact that these people believe in [global
> > warming] apocalypse shows that they WANT to believe
> > in apocalypse, which is fundamentally religious.
"Mike Painter"
> Since you have no idea of where the center of mass of
> the box is you have no way to know when the box will
> tilt 0.01 degree more then fall over.
We know that in the past few millenia it has been a lot
hotter than it is today, and a lot colder, that there
has been a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere, and a lot
less, and yet the box has not tipped over. You get hot
years and cold years, hot decades and cold decades, hot
centuries and cold centuries.
0.13 degrees per decade is nothing. In 1710 it rose a
degree a decade. The warmists are like some preacher
who announces that because there has been an earthquake
in Mongolia, Christ's return is imminent. I do not
doubt that there really has been an earthquake in
Mongolia, but when they swiftly deduce the apocalypse
from that, you know they have been listening too much to
the voices in their heads.
Ray Fischer
>> > > > But when people stop believing in Christianity,
>> > > > they are apt to start believing in some
>> > > > replacement, which is usually even sillier and
>> > > > more dangerous than Christianity.
>
>johac
>> > > Not necessarily. Many primarily secular societies
>> > > seem to do quite well.
>
>James A. Donald:
>> > Depends on how you define "secular" - pseudo
>> > scientific belief systems such as communism and deep
>> > ecology often have their prayer meetings, holy
>> > books, and prophets.
>> >
>> > And I don't think they "do quite well". The most
>> > successful society is still that of America, which
>> > is one of the most Christian.
>
>Ray Fischer
>> "Most successful"? By what measure?
>
>Richer,
Shrug. Some people, at any rate.
> more free,
Nope. For example, the US has the highest number of people in prison
of any country in the world.
> produces more culture,
Get real.
> more science,
Not so much, these days. After eight years of attacks on science the
rest of the world is catching up and even surpassing the US.
> more popular culture,
The world needs more "Cheaters".
> more good movies,
More bad movies.
>and so forth. Poor people in the US are a lot better
>off than poor people in Europe.
Nope. In Europe people don't have to worry about not being able to
afford basic medical care.
> Racism in the US is
>considerably less than racism in Europe.
You must be kidding.
> You don't see
>many black professionals in most of Europe - consider,
>for example, black people in Italy or Germany.
Or Spain or France?
All you have are uninformed prejudices.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
johac
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> James A. Donald:
> > > But when people stop believing in Christianity, they
> > > are apt to start believing in some replacement,
> > > which is usually even sillier and more dangerous
> > > than Christianity.
>
> johac
> > Not necessarily. Many primarily secular societies seem
> > to do quite well.
>
> Depends on how you define "secular" - pseudo scientific
> belief systems such as communism and deep ecology often
> have their prayer meetings, holy books, and prophets.
Some do some don't. Most Western democracies are secular. though some
more than others.
>
> And I don't think they "do quite well". The most
> successful society is still that of America, which is
> one of the most Christian.
How well the US is doing now is a matter of opinion. This country was
founded as a secular nation. Christianity, nor any other religion is
mentioned by name in our Constitution.
>
> --
> ----------------------
> We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
> of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
> right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
>
> http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
--
John #1782
Dan Clore
> How well the US is doing now is a matter of opinion. This country was
> founded as a secular nation. Christianity, nor any other religion is
> mentioned by name in our Constitution.
"As the Government of the United States of America is not,
in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in
itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or
tranquillity, of Mussulmen [Muslims]; and, as the said States
never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any
Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no
pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce
an interruption of the harmony existing between the two
countries."
-- "Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States
and the Bey and the Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary" (commonly
called the "Treaty of Tripoli"), negotiated under George
Washington, signed by President John Adams after the Senate
voted unanimously for ratification.
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://tinyurl.com/2gcoqt
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
Markku Grönroos
"Michael Price" <nini...@yahoo.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:461b939c-692e-4f4d...@s1g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Shapescare
> On Nov 1, 6:24 pm, Shapescare <farentilma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 1 Nov, 06:32, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>
> > > Communism sacrificed about
> > > a hundred million, though they have scaled back a lot
> > > lately.
>
> > And a lot of them were sacrificed in the battle against Christian
> > invaders from Luther's Europe.
>
> And that invasion was made possible by the unprincipled acts of
> their leaders.
> If Russia had been run by anyone with a lick of sense (which leaves
> out the
> communists) they would have suspected that Hitler wanted to overrun
> the
> east and enslave their people. Their first clue would have been that
> Hitler
> said he wanted to overrun the east and enslave their people. Note
> that the
> liberal democracies were first to oppose Hitler and if they had not
> the USSR
> would have been toast.
I definitely prefer liberal democracy to totalitarian communism.
But which religion is the lesser evil, Lutheranism or communism?
Markku Grönroos
"Shapescare" <farent...@gmail.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:93760bd3-bbee-4e03...@1g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Shapescare
> Well you might start beleiving in panspermia as atheist Francis Crick
> did.
> However atheist tend to couch their crazy beleifs in large scientific
> sounding
> words instead of saying I beleive LGM came to earth and placed a spore
> in the ocean and billions of years later it became me. Besides what is
> the
> difference in LGM and God? Where did the LGM (little green man) come
> from?
Why not go all the way and ask: Where do the gods come from?
> Since there is no evidence for evolution on earth it must be out in
> space,
> hence astrobiology. Everyone has beleifs which look silly from other
> people's
> point of view, so silly is not really subjective.
Wrong!
Many people, me included, say: "I don't know:"
> However communism which is an attempt at a society without religion is
> a
> drastic failure.
Communism IS religion. Communism changed the modern impersonal god
back into the original personal god of the OT.
See Chinahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989
> So what silly religious beleif drove atheistic chinese leaders to
> massacre
> its people?
>
> James 4:1-3
> 1What is the source of quarrels and conflicts among you? Is not the
> source your pleasures that wage war in your members?
>
> 2You lust and do not have; so you commit murder. You are envious and
> cannot obtain; so you fight and quarrel. You do not have because you
> do not ask.
>
> 3You ask and do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, so
> that you may spend it on your pleasures.http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%204:1-3;&version=49;
>
> The source of wars and conflict is people lusting after things, and
> not
> having them. People thinking of themselves first. If only people read
> the BIble and practiced what it said, then wars would cease. Religion
> is often an excuse for war, but not the cause of it. It is the lust in
> men's hearts that cause war.
Have you read Joshua?
Markku Grönroos
"Shapescare" <farent...@gmail.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:fbd63dc2-0bed-4717...@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Mordecai
Shapescare wrote:
> On 2 Nov, 01:56, Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 1, 6:24 pm, Shapescare <farentilma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 1 Nov, 06:32, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Communism sacrificed about
> > > > a hundred million, though they have scaled back a lot
> > > > lately.
> >
> > > And a lot of them were sacrificed in the battle against Christian
> > > invaders from Luther's Europe.
> >
> > And that invasion was made possible by the unprincipled acts of
> > their leaders.
> > If Russia had been run by anyone with a lick of sense (which leaves
> > out the
> > communists) they would have suspected that Hitler wanted to overrun
> > the
> > east and enslave their people. Their first clue would have been that
> > Hitler
> > said he wanted to overrun the east and enslave their people. Note
> > that the
> > liberal democracies were first to oppose Hitler and if they had not
> > the USSR
> > would have been toast.
>
> I definitely prefer liberal democracy to totalitarian communism.
> But which religion is the lesser evil, Lutheranism or communism?
I do not know the "real" difference between the democratic process of the
USSR as compared to the democratic process of the USA except one democracy
became totalitarian, and the other democracy did not.
Lots of democracies have become totalitarian - one way or another.
And percentage killed in democratic systems for "political purity" are all
over the place, the USSR is possibly not the worse in modern times.
But then, whilst i like democracy - it is not a cure all and does not
produce anything except a legal, periodic mechanism for change within the
system.
I like some change.
As for the conceptual ideas of lutheranism, or communism is the lesser evil,
I have no idea.
My guess would be communism.
--
Mordecai!
When words and actions disagree, believe actions.
When rhetoric and reality disagree, either rhetoric is wrong or reality is
wrong, and reality is Never wrong.
Colonel Sanders
> On Nov 1, 6:24 pm, Shapescare <farentilma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 1 Nov, 06:32, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>
> > > Communism sacrificed about
> > > a hundred million, though they have scaled back a lot
> > > lately.
>
> > And a lot of them were sacrificed in the battle against Christian
> > invaders from Luther's Europe.
>
> And that invasion was made possible by the unprincipled acts of
> their leaders.
> If Russia had been run by anyone with a lick of sense (which leaves
> out the
> communists) they would have suspected that Hitler wanted to overrun
> the
In a well sanitized public account about Rothschild's patriotism and
contribution
to British Intelligence, it was noted how excited Victor Rothschild
was with the
"Soviet Man being the Test Tube Man for the future."
Schmucks! How did they let that one slip through?!
> east and enslave their people. Their first clue would have been that
> Hitler
> said he wanted to overrun the east and enslave their people. Note
> that the
> liberal democracies were first to oppose Hitler and if they had not
> the USSR
> would have been toast.
Stalin was schooled in London, how to be a British puppet.
He purposefully remained inactive to the bemusement of
his his intelligence officers. Even when the Germans were
well in the USSR, he ignored calls for action.
The WW II was about eliminating Russia and Germany as
potential rivals to the Anglo-American Financial Empire.
Both Hitler and Stalin got directed from London and financed
by Wall street.
If England had not taken it's promise to
> Poland seriously
> Hitler would have been able to invade the USSR with a free hand.
He did. It was all well choreographed form London.
> Considering how
> close it came with a two front war a single front would have killed
> them.
Just imagine if Hitler, actually tried to fight England.
The Battle for Britain was a half-assed, piss-weak joke.
Mark Sebree
> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 18:51:34 +1000, James A. Donald
> <jam...@echeque.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
>
> <llhlg4tl5hiksvdj0afkc22cc3dbqdi...@4ax.com> wrote:
> >On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 13:06:45 -0800, Robert <rob...@netportusa.com>
> >wrote:
> >> The problems caused by religion, far out weigh the small amount of
> >> good done.
>
> >apt to start believing in some replacement, which is usually even
> >sillier and more dangerous than Christianity.
>
> dangerous than christianity.
>
How about Scientology, which was founded by the late, second rate SF
author L. Ron Hubbard? I would rate their belief system as sillier
than Christianity.
Mark Sebree
> --
> Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
>
> Every illegal alien is a criminal.
> No amnesty under any name or for any reason.
> Deportation upon identification, not work permit or citizenship.
>
> Support H.R. 1940: Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007
Mike Painter
> "Mike Painter"
>> Since you have no idea of where the center of mass of
>> the box is you have no way to know when the box will
>> tilt 0.01 degree more then fall over.
>
> We know that in the past few millenia it has been a lot
> hotter than it is today, and a lot colder, that there
> has been a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere, and a lot
> less, and yet the box has not tipped over. You get hot
> years and cold years, hot decades and cold decades, hot
> centuries and cold centuries.
You either choose to ignore or don't understand my analogy.
In any event the evidence does not support your beliefs.
>
Markku Grönroos
"Colonel Sanders" <thema...@unwired.com.au> kirjoitti
viestissä:b31d5893-f8d2-4b15...@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
Markku Grönroos
"Mordecai" <"mldavis(please dont spam)"@internode.on.net> kirjoitti
viestissä:490D69E9...@internode.on.net...
J. Anderson
"Shapescare" <farent...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fbd63dc2-0bed-4717...@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> On 1 Nov, 09:22, s...@gnostheos.org wrote:
>> Everyone has beleifs which look silly
>> from other people's point of view,
>> so silly is not really subjective.
> Wrong!
> Many people, me included, say: "I don't know:"
Other people say like me: "I don't care."
For even if I "knew", nothing would change.
> Have you read Joshua?
Have you met Miss Jones?
Markku Grönroos
"J. Anderson" <ander...@inbox.lv> kirjoitti
viestissä:MTkPk.87733$_03....@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
Shapescare
> "Shapescare" <farentilma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:fbd63dc2-0bed-4717...@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On 1 Nov, 09:22, s...@gnostheos.org wrote:
> >> Everyone has beleifs which look silly
> >> from other people's point of view,
> >> so silly is not really subjective.
> > Wrong!
> > Many people, me included, say: "I don't know:"
> Other people say like me: "I don't care."
> For even if I "knew", nothing would change.
That depends on your intellectual curiosity - or lack thereof.
> > Have you read Joshua?
>
> Have you met Miss Jones?
Yes, and I wouldn't like to be in her shoes.
http://www.selfridges.com/images/content/Events/Miss_Jones/Miss-Jones-Thumb.jpg
Have you met Joshua?
http://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/Pictures/Treasures%20of%20the%20Bible%20(Joshua%20and%20Judges)/images/scan0005.jpg
Markku Grönroos
"Shapescare" <farent...@gmail.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:660866cd-8605-41fc...@b31g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
J. Anderson
> On 2 Nov, 17:51, "J. Anderson" <anderso...@inbox.lv> wrote:
>> "Shapescare" <farentilma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:fbd63dc2-0bed-4717...@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On 1 Nov, 09:22, s...@gnostheos.org wrote:
>> >> Everyone has beleifs which look silly
>> >> from other people's point of view,
>> >> so silly is not really subjective.
>
>> > Wrong!
>> > Many people, me included, say: "I don't know:"
>> Other people say like me: "I don't care."
>> For even if I "knew", nothing would change.
> That depends on your intellectual curiosity - or lack thereof.
There's nothing intellectual in belief. On the contrary.
>> > Have you read Joshua?
>>
>> Have you met Miss Jones?
>
> Yes, and I wouldn't like to be in her shoes.
> http://www.selfridges.com/images/content/Events/Miss_Jones/Miss-Jones-Thumb.jpg
I was actually thinking of this Miss Jones:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cj2ksdV8a-8&feature=related
> Have you met Joshua?
> http://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/Pictures/Treasures%20of%20the%20Bible%20(Joshua%20and%20Judges)/images/scan0005.jpg
I prefer this Joshua:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMMw7GMT-zw&feature=related
Ray Fischer
>On Nov 2, 7:23 am, Attila <<procho...@here.now> wrote:
>> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 18:51:34 +1000, James A. Donald
>> <jam...@echeque.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
>>
>> <llhlg4tl5hiksvdj0afkc22cc3dbqdi...@4ax.com> wrote:
>> >On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 13:06:45 -0800, Robert <rob...@netportusa.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >> The problems caused by religion, far out weigh the small amount of
>> >> good done.
>>
>> >No doubt. But when people stop believing in Christianity, they are
>> >apt to start believing in some replacement, which is usually even
>> >sillier and more dangerous than Christianity.
>>
>> I am not sure it is possible for anything to be sillier and more
>> dangerous than christianity.
>
>How about Scientology, which was founded by the late, second rate SF
>author L. Ron Hubbard? I would rate their belief system as sillier
>than Christianity.
Although Mormonism comes a close second.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Markku Grönroos
"J. Anderson" <ander...@inbox.lv> kirjoitti
viestissä:r5mPk.87771$_03....@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
John Baker
<kur...@hassuserveri.fi> wrote:
Suppose you get back to us in a couple of years and we'll see if
you've managed.
Shapescare
> I prefer this Joshua:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMMw7GMT-zw&feature=related
Me to. Genocide is so much more pleasant when it's accompanied by
wonderful music.
James A. Donald
> > > > > > But when people stop believing in
> > > > > > Christianity, they are apt to start
> > > > > > believing in some replacement, which is
> > > > > > usually even sillier and more dangerous than
> > > > > > Christianity.
johac
> > > > > Not necessarily. Many primarily secular
> > > > > societies seem to do quite well.
James A. Donald:
> >> > Depends on how you define "secular" - pseudo
> >> > scientific belief systems such as communism and
> >> > deep ecology often have their prayer meetings,
> >> > holy books, and prophets.
> >> >
> >> > And I don't think they "do quite well". The most
> >> > successful society is still that of America,
> >> > which is one of the most Christian.
Ray Fischer:
> Nope. In Europe people don't have to worry about not
> being able to afford basic medical care.
If a poor person in the US has retinal detachment, he
will rush to a hospital, will immediately get the best
treatment in the world, and then be faced with an
astronomical bill, which he cannot possibly pay. But
if, however, a poor person in Europe has retinal
detachment, he will be told to wait for a week or so, or
a month or so, or will be put on a waiting list to get
on a waiting list, and will go blind, because retinal
detachment has to be treated within hours. He will,
however, have no bill, or a small bill he can reasonably
afford.
So our poor US person goes home from hospital to his air
conditioned home, his car, his microwave, and his big
tv, and worries if he will lose it all. The European
poor person however is entirely unworried about this,
partly because he has no bill, partly because he is now
blind, but mostly because he never had a microwave and a
big tv.
James A. Donald:
> > Racism in the US is considerably less than racism in
> > Europe. You don't see many black professionals in
> > most of Europe - consider, for example, black people
> > in Italy or Germany.
Ray Fischer:
> Or Spain or France?
Italy has lots of black people, yet they are all at the
bottom. If France does better, give me a French
Condoleeza Rice or a French Colin Powel. Spain is the
least racist, and even Spain is still worse than the US.
Mike Painter
Yes, but "She was just Miss Jones to me"
Ray Fischer
>> Nope. In Europe people don't have to worry about not
>> being able to afford basic medical care.
>
>If a poor person in the US has retinal detachment, he
>will rush to a hospital, will immediately get the best
>treatment in the world, and then be faced with an
>astronomical bill, which he cannot possibly pay.
LOL! People who are poor do NOT get the best treatment.
They get basic treatment. If that.
> But
>if, however, a poor person in Europe has retinal
>detachment, he will be told to wait for a week or so,
Now you're reduced to outright lying.
>James A. Donald:
>> > Racism in the US is considerably less than racism in
>> > Europe. You don't see many black professionals in
>> > most of Europe - consider, for example, black people
>> > in Italy or Germany.
>
>> Or Spain or France?
>
>Italy has lots of black people, yet they are all at the
>bottom.
But I've established that you're a liar so I don't believe that
you're telling the truth.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Michael Price
> On 2 Nov, 01:56, Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 1, 6:24 pm, Shapescare <farentilma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 1 Nov, 06:32, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Communism sacrificed about
> > > > a hundred million, though they have scaled back a lot
> > > > lately.
>
> > > And a lot of them were sacrificed in the battle against Christian
> > > invaders from Luther's Europe.
>
> > And that invasion was made possible by the unprincipled acts of
> > their leaders.
> > If Russia had been run by anyone with a lick of sense (which leaves
> > out the
> > communists) they would have suspected that Hitler wanted to overrun
> > the
> > east and enslave their people. Their first clue would have been that
> > Hitler
> > said he wanted to overrun the east and enslave their people. Note
> > that the
> > liberal democracies were first to oppose Hitler and if they had not
> > the USSR
> > would have been toast.
>
> I definitely prefer liberal democracy to totalitarian communism.
> But which religion is the lesser evil, Lutheranism or communism?
>
violent as communism. Agreed lutheran churches did give Nazism
a bit of a free ride, but they were neither it's cause nor the main
reason
for it's violence. Communism on the other hand killed millions
directly
and without the urging of other philosophies.
Michael Price
There is a chance,
although a small one, that on some issues policitians might act as if
your vote and
the votes of millions of people like you matter.
> Lots of democracies have become totalitarian - one way or another.
> And percentage killed in democratic systems for "political purity" are all
> over the place, the USSR is possibly not the worse in modern times.
>
No it's the worst, by at least a factor of two.
johac
Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> johac wrote:
>
> > How well the US is doing now is a matter of opinion. This country was
> > founded as a secular nation. Christianity, nor any other religion is
> > mentioned by name in our Constitution.
>
> "As the Government of the United States of America is not,
> in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in
> itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or
> tranquillity, of Mussulmen [Muslims]; and, as the said States
> never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any
> Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no
> pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce
> an interruption of the harmony existing between the two
> countries."
> -- "Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States
> and the Bey and the Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary" (commonly
> called the "Treaty of Tripoli"), negotiated under George
> Washington, signed by President John Adams after the Senate
> voted unanimously for ratification.
That should be case closed. I wish people would take the time to learn a
little more about the history of their country before they make such
statements as "The United States is a Christian nation."
--
John #1782
Dragonblaze
[snip]
> > Nope. In Europe people don't have to worry about not
> > being able to afford basic medical care.
>
> If a poor person in the US has retinal detachment, he
> will rush to a hospital, will immediately get the best
> treatment in the world, and then be faced with an
> astronomical bill, which he cannot possibly pay. But
> if, however, a poor person in Europe has retinal
> detachment, he will be told to wait for a week or so, or
> a month or so, or will be put on a waiting list to get
> on a waiting list, and will go blind, because retinal
> detachment has to be treated within hours. He will,
> however, have no bill, or a small bill he can reasonably
> afford.
Ever been to Europe? Ever spoken with a European person? Thought
not...
I live in the UK. If i should have a detached retina, I would be
admitted to the A&E, and given emergency treatment. I would also never
see a bill for it.
> So our poor US person goes home from hospital to his air
> conditioned home, his car, his microwave, and his big
> tv, and worries if he will lose it all. The European
> poor person however is entirely unworried about this,
> partly because he has no bill, partly because he is now
> blind, but mostly because he never had a microwave and a
> big tv.
Tss... You don't know anything about Europe. For one example, the
father of a friend of mine is on incapacity, and receives around £80 a
week in benefits as he cannot work. Not only does he have a decent
flat for a purely nominal rent - about £3 a week - but owns a
widescreen tv, microwave, DVD recorder and a home cinema system.
So how about learning a bit about the things you wish to blether about?
Markku Grönroos
"Shapescare" <farent...@gmail.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:06995dc9-d429-46f3...@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Markku Grönroos
"Michael Price" <nini...@yahoo.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:110b33a3-859d-4226...@p10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Markku Grönroos
"Michael Price" <nini...@yahoo.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:2d035dbf-494b-42be...@i18g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Markku Grönroos
"Mike Painter" <mddotp...@sbcglobal.net> kirjoitti
viestissä:BqpPk.5615$ZP4....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
James A. Donald
> > > being able to afford basic medical care.
James A. Donald
> > If a poor person in the US has retinal detachment, he
> > will rush to a hospital, will immediately get the best
> > treatment in the world, and then be faced with an
> > astronomical bill, which he cannot possibly pay. But
> > if, however, a poor person in Europe has retinal
> > detachment, he will be told to wait for a week or so, or
> > a month or so, or will be put on a waiting list to get
> > on a waiting list, and will go blind, because retinal
> > detachment has to be treated within hours. He will,
> > however, have no bill, or a small bill he can reasonably
> > afford.
Dragonblaze
> Ever been to Europe? Ever spoken with a European person? Thought
> not...
>
> I live in the UK. If i should have a detached retina, I would be
> admitted to the A&E, and given emergency treatment. I would also never
> see a bill for it.
Googling UK detached retina, the very first hit that came up was
<http://www.rnib.org.uk/messageboard/thread.php?threadID=5807&topicSort=desc>
That guy had to wait twelve days - and is now posting on a message
board for the blind.
James A. Donald
> > But when people stop believing in Christianity, they are
> > apt to start believing in some replacement, which is usually even
> > sillier and more dangerous than Christianity.
Attila
> I am not sure it is possible for anything to be sillier and more
> dangerous than christianity.
All those Christians flying planes into the two towers.
And those Christian mobs in the street chanting "Death to those who
insult Christianity"
Christianity is the most peaceable and other worldly of all religions,
and being other worldly, considerably less apt to create problems in
this world.
Davej
> http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/davidsaks/2008/07/10/can-western-civil...
>
> Can Western civilisation survive without religion?
> [...]
Probably not, because there are too many psychotic delusional morons
who feel that "magical thinking" is absolutely necessary in everyday
life. These people don't operate rationally. They will tell you that
if not for the grace of Jebus, or Allah, or the magic Kufu, they would
be afflicted by something like an obsessive-compulsive disorder and be
raping, murdering, drugging, and whoring. If you try to reason with
these people you will find that they really aren't rational. They
cannot be rational on certain subjects. It is impossible for them due
to some unexplainable mental defect.
Gwen
> http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/davidsaks/2008/07/10/can-western-civil...
>
> Can Western civilisation survive without religion?
Whatever happened to staying out of the personal matters of others?
RELIGION is a personal matter.
Gwen
> DanielSan wrote:
> > Sound of Trumpet wrote:
> >>http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/davidsaks/2008/07/10/can-western-civil...
>
> >> Can Western civilisation survive without religion?
>
>
> Would we notice any difference in them?
> (Chung, puke, J, Wentzky, SoT himself)
>
> Smiler,
> The godless one
> a.a.# 2279
They'd be louder and uglier.