OT: Donald Trump will not run for President
William Coleman
Huckabee. Now, both Trump and Huckabee have decided not to run.
Romney is looking very strong.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/donald-trump-drops-plans-to-run-for-white-house-2011-05-16
May 16, 2011, 1:01 p.m. EDT
Donald Trump drops plans to run for White House
By Jeffry Bartash
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) - Wealthy real-estate developer and TV-show
host Donald Trump said Monday that he's decided not to run for
president. Trump had explored the possibility of a presidential run
for several months. The 64-year-old New Yorker said in a press release
that "business is my greatest passion and I am not ready to leave the
private sector." Last month, Trump generated national controversy by
demanding that President Barack Obama produce his birth-certificate in
response to allegations that he was not a U.S. citizen. Obama soon
produced his certificate and Trump was heavily criticized for his
actions. His poll ratings soon fell. In his statement, Trump insisted
he would still have run a competitive race. "I maintain the strong
conviction that if I were to run, I would be able to win the primary
and ultimately, the general election," he said.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
phlash74
Utterly predictable. Had he run, he would have gotten trounced in the
primaries.
What's your opinion on Romney's chances in the general election should he
be nominated? I think if the economy is not doing very well, particularly
if the unemployment rate remains high, that he has an excellent chance of
defeating Obama. However, I think Romney's going to have difficulty in
the primaries just because of the social conservatives.
Michael
-----------------
"> phlash
On your circle jerk k00l kidz email list. Should be disqualified for
that, but I'll give him a pass because he is smart." - ramashiva,
8/22/2010
"Hitler has already been forgiven, but you have not." - Reptillian AKA
Igotskillz, 4/6/2011
_____________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
VegasJerry
How? He has not offered any idea to make it better or have it recover
faster.
Jerry (doing better) 'n Vegas
> However, I think Romney's going to have difficulty in
> the primaries just because of the social conservatives.
>
> Michael
>
> -----------------
> "> phlash
> On your circle jerk k00l kidz email list. Should be disqualified for
> that, but I'll give him a pass because he is smart." - ramashiva,
> 8/22/2010
>
> "Hitler has already been forgiven, but you have not." - Reptillian AKA
> Igotskillz, 4/6/2011
_______________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
susan
"William Coleman" wrote in message
news:ea2e28a5-4f40-42fe...@35g2000prp.googlegroups.com...
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/donald-trump-drops-plans-to-run-for-white-house-2011-05-16
By Jeffry Bartash
William Coleman (ramashiva)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This makes me sad - I was looking forward to an exciting, off the wall year
and a half of campaigning.
DDawgster
this announcement does not decrease his chances
"Besides that, this exercise is not about variance, it is about winrate".
JTS in the thread about magic powers
----
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
da pickle nospam
On May 16, 7:06 pm, "DDawgster" <a1e5...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> On May 16 2011 12:10 PM, William Coleman wrote:
>
> > Recent polls showed Trump in a three-way tie with Romney and
> > Huckabee. Now, both Trump and Huckabee have decided not to run.
> > Romney is looking very strong.
>
>
>
> > May 16, 2011, 1:01 p.m. EDT
> > Donald Trump drops plans to run for White House
>
> > By Jeffry Bartash
>
> > WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) - Wealthy real-estate developer and TV-show
> > host Donald Trump said Monday that he's decided not to run for
> > president. Trump had explored the possibility of a presidential run
> > for several months. The 64-year-old New Yorker said in a press release
> > that "business is my greatest passion and I am not ready to leave the
> > private sector." Last month, Trump generated national controversy by
> > demanding that President Barack Obama produce his birth-certificate in
> > response to allegations that he was not a U.S. citizen. Obama soon
> > produced his certificate and Trump was heavily criticized for his
> > actions. His poll ratings soon fell. In his statement, Trump insisted
> > he would still have run a competitive race. "I maintain the strong
> > conviction that if I were to run, I would be able to win the primary
> > and ultimately, the general election," he said.
>
> > William Coleman (ramashiva)
>
> this announcement does not decrease his chances
Yup.... still zero.......... but before the ‘birther’ nonsense there
were still some people who didn’t realize what a giant ass Trump is.
Now there’s no one. Well, almost no one. There’s still Travel and
Susan. LOL...................
Pepe Papon
wrote:
>> What's your opinion on Romney's chances in the general election should he
>> be nominated? I think if the economy is not doing very well, particularly
>> if the unemployment rate remains high, that he has an excellent chance of
>> defeating Obama.
>
>How? He has not offered any idea to make it better or have it recover
>faster.
Of course he has. More tax cuts for the rich. More deregulation.
More of the same.
Pepe Papon
<jcpi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> this announcement does not decrease his chances
>
>Yup.... still zero.......... but before the ‘birther’ nonsense there
>were still some people who didn’t realize what a giant ass Trump is.
>Now there’s no one. Well, almost no one.
Um, he was tied for first in the polls. There are lots and lots of
idiots out there.
Travel
windfall for Sarah.
Before the "Obama showing his birth certificate" event, when Trump was
getting the big numbers, it was due to "the tea party vote." He drew
from the social conservatives. Trump's numbers went up and Sarah's
went down: Trump's flash-in-the-pan rise was drawing from the social
conservative base.
As this poll shows, (it's the latest-dated on RealClearPolitics.com)
after Obama showed his birth certificate, and enough time passed to
show that Trump has faded because of it, Sarah's numbers went back
up.
The further development of Trump dropping out will help Sarah that
much more. Romney's weakness is the social conservative vote. The
majority of Trump's numbers go to the social conservative candidate,
(Sarah) not Romney.
With Huckabee out, who took the evangelical and southern protestant
vote away from Romney, anyway, wow, that puts Sarah in a great spot.
Romney isn't exactly huge in the south and Sarah's strongly pro life
and Christian.
We're talkin' Iowa caucus (without Huckabee) for Sarah (Sarah,
personally, put the governor of Iowa, Branstad, in office in the mid
term election) and South Carolina without Huckabee.
Figure it out.
The establishment Republican RINOs are going to push that phony
cocksucka Daniels, though. Sarah needs to define that left wing
collaborator right away (after they're both "in," of course), and
remind the Republican electorate that he's exactly the type they voted
against in the 2010 Republican primaries.
Tad Perry
news:ea2e28a5-4f40-42fe...@35g2000prp.googlegroups.com...
> Recent polls showed Trump in a three-way tie with Romney and
> Huckabee. Now, both Trump and Huckabee have decided not to run.
> Romney is looking very strong.
I totally detest this slick political fuck. I believe he's playing Mormon
purely for political convenience, He couldn't possibly be stupid enough to
actually believe what Mormons believe (if he is, he's unqualified for
president); otherwise, he's just pretending, which sets up a whole different
reason I can't stand this guy. Why does the Christian right even accept
Mormons as a viable Christian sect, anyway? Golden tablets assuring members
that polygamy is okay placed in the caves of Utah by Jesus himself? C'mon!
tvp
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Tad Perry" <tadp...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:iqtjf1$tdd$1...@dont-email.me...
He gives them too much money, and (At least in the early 90's) his sons only
dated Mormon girls.
My sister is a Mormon. I had a number of fights with her about extremist
religious types in political office, when he ran for Senate against Ted
Kennedy. One of her close friends was dating one of his sons at the time (Or
trying to, at any rate).
John the Savage
There is nothing "politically convenient" about being Mormon. I'm not
sure it will be readily accepted by the Christian right. It is one of
Romney's biggest problems, and it is also one of the biggest problems
for Jon Huntsman, who in my opinion is the other name floating around
right now which also might have a reasonable shot in the general election.
No surprise here about Trump though. I've contended this was a
publicity stunt from the beginning, and that he never had any serious
intention of running.
BillB
> I totally detest this slick political fuck. I believe he's playing Mormon
> purely for political convenience, He couldn't possibly be stupid enough to
> actually believe what Mormons believe (if he is, he's unqualified for
> president); otherwise, he's just pretending, which sets up a whole
> different reason I can't stand this guy. Why does the Christian right even
> accept Mormons as a viable Christian sect, anyway? Golden tablets assuring
> members that polygamy is okay placed in the caves of Utah by Jesus
> himself? C'mon!
All religions are equally ridiculous. It's more likely that Jesus put golden
tablets in a cave in Utah than he rose from the dead. In fact, if he rose
from the dead, there's really no reason to believe he couldn't have put
golden tablets in a cave in Utah. There's really no reason to believe he's
not currently living in a bungalow in the San Fernando Valley.
I really think most intelligent people only believe these myths on a very
superficial level. If people really believed there was an *eternal* heaven
awaiting them in a few decades if they'd only live in such a way to meet
with God's approval, we'd be living in a completely different world.
I find it ironic that you have to pretend to believe in religious myths to
qualify as POTUS, when it should be the opposite.
Mark Doubt
> "Tad Perry" <tadpe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
Great post Bill!! All folks who don't believe as you are "ridiculous"
and also through inference of your post, not intelligent!! Way to be
tolerant of anyone who thinks differently than you!! You are truly a
wonderful person.......
mo_charles
the most ridiculous religion ever invented is atheism, a faith for social
pariahs.
mo_charles
BillB
"Mark Doubt" <mark...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a7544228-48e8-41a1...@17g2000prr.googlegroups.com...
>Great post Bill!! All folks who don't believe as you are "ridiculous"
I believe I said the religions are ridiculous, not the people. Small point,
but facts do matter (to some anyway). Einstein said basically the same
thing. Was he a bad person too?
And I didn't say "all folks who don't believe as [me]." There are lots of
rational things I don't believe that other people do believe. For example, I
don't believe the Canucks will win the Stanley Cup. Many people believe they
will, but I don't regard those people as irrational. However, if someone
told me that they believed the Canucks will sweep the Stanley Cup series by
winning each game by a score of 20-0, yes I would regard that person as
irrational (although not quite as irrational as someone who believes 1 guy,
the Son of God, rose from the dead 2000 years ago)
>and also through inference of your post, not intelligent!!
Not really. There are many intelligent people who suffer from delusions and
other forms of mental illness. I just don't think most people really believe
what they say they believe,
because
1) they don't generally believe in other equally (or less) ridiculous myths,
other than those of their religion of choice (which in most cases,
coincidentally, just happens to be the dominant religion of the culture in
which they were raised) .
2) their behavior, overwhelmingly, is not consistent with those beliefs.
For example, if I thought God was eyeing me up to see if I had the moral
chops to spend an *eternity* in Heaven, I would be giving every extra penny
I had to save the lives of however many of the starving kids who will die
today, tomorrow, the next day, etc., as I could.
Would I buy a $300 golf club, or would I use that money to reduce human
suffering and save lives? I think we all know what Jesus would choose,
right? I think we all know what any sane, rational person would do if he
thought it could get him in The Big Guy's good books for an *eternal* seat
in paradise (rather than a few frustrating hours on the golf course).
> Way to be tolerant of anyone who thinks differently than you!! You are
> truly a
>wonderful person.......
I tolerate religious people. I also tolerate stupid people of all stripes. I
even tolerate morally bankrupt right-wingers. I wouldn't be here chatting
with y'all if I didn't, would I?
VegasJerry
How much more can a person do to prove how stupid they are than to state
an atheist is part of a religion. (And how obvious is it that he's simply
repeating the BS of another idiot?)
>
> mo_charles
ChrisRobin
> the most ridiculous religion ever invented is atheism, a faith for social
pariahs.
You are so right. Because as we know, the high priests of atheism dress up
in lavish costumes every Sunday to preside over centuries-old rituals
selling the totally plausible ideas of divine forgiveness and spiritual
absolution. LMAO. Salvation, baby!
When mindless obedience, moral hypocrisy, and general religious nutcasery
are the accepted norms, being a social pariah isn't nearly as awful as you
make it sound.
------
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
mo_charles
> > pariahs.
>
> You are so right. Because as we know, the high priests of atheism dress up
> in lavish costumes every Sunday to preside over centuries-old rituals
> selling the totally plausible ideas of divine forgiveness and spiritual
> absolution. LMAO. Salvation, baby!
>
> When mindless obedience, moral hypocrisy, and general religious nutcasery
> are the accepted norms, being a social pariah isn't nearly as awful as you
> make it sound.
religious views are socially/evolutionarily advantageous. or is their
prevalence random anomaly? why isn't the brilliance of atheism catching
on?
mo_charles
______________________________________________________________________
Clave
news:9rtaa8x...@recgroups.com...
<...>
> religious views are socially/evolutionarily advantageous. or is their
> prevalence random anomaly? why isn't the brilliance of atheism catching
> on?
It is.
The percentage of the population describing themselves as having "no
religion" increased from 1990 to 2008 in every single state, with Catholic
and other Christian religions showing significant declines overall.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-03-09-ARIS-faith-survey_N.htm
Jim
fffurken
> religious views are socially/evolutionarily advantageous. or is their
> prevalence random anomaly?
Did you mean, what YOU people call 'evolutionarily'?
phlash74
> > > the most ridiculous religion ever invented is atheism, a faith for social
> > > pariahs.
> >
> > You are so right. Because as we know, the high priests of atheism dress up
> > in lavish costumes every Sunday to preside over centuries-old rituals
> > selling the totally plausible ideas of divine forgiveness and spiritual
> > absolution. LMAO. Salvation, baby!
> >
> > When mindless obedience, moral hypocrisy, and general religious nutcasery
> > are the accepted norms, being a social pariah isn't nearly as awful as you
> > make it sound.
>
> religious views are socially/evolutionarily advantageous. or is their
> prevalence random anomaly? why isn't the brilliance of atheism catching
> on?
>
> mo_charles
I just KNOW I'm going to regret asking this, but here goes...
In what ways are religious views advantageous?
I almost hope you don't answer, because if you do, I run a nontrivial risk
of dying from laughter.
Michael
-----------------
"> phlash
On your circle jerk k00l kidz email list. Should be disqualified for
that, but I'll give him a pass because he is smart." - ramashiva,
8/22/2010
"Hitler has already been forgiven, but you have not." - Reptillian AKA
Igotskillz, 4/6/2011
------
mo_charles
> > prevalence random anomaly? why isn't the brilliance of atheism catching
> > on?
>
>
> In what ways are religious views advantageous?
>
> I almost hope you don't answer, because if you do, I run a nontrivial risk
> of dying from laughter.
i can least an enormous number of reasons religious views confer
advantages. that you need them explained is pitiful.
mo_charles
----
phlash74
> > > religious views are socially/evolutionarily advantageous. or is their
> > > prevalence random anomaly? why isn't the brilliance of atheism catching
> > > on?
> >
> > I just KNOW I'm going to regret asking this, but here goes...
> >
> > In what ways are religious views advantageous?
> >
> > I almost hope you don't answer, because if you do, I run a nontrivial risk
> > of dying from laughter.
>
> i can least an enormous number of reasons religious views confer
> advantages. that you need them explained is pitiful.
>
> mo_charles
Then take pity on me and least at list one reason.
Michael
-----------------
"> phlash
On your circle jerk k00l kidz email list. Should be disqualified for
that, but I'll give him a pass because he is smart." - ramashiva,
8/22/2010
"Hitler has already been forgiven, but you have not." - Reptillian AKA
Igotskillz, 4/6/2011
_____________________________________________________________________
ChrisRobin
> religious views are socially/evolutionarily advantageous. or is their
> prevalence random anomaly?
That's a logical non sequitur. You might as well attribute our
evolutionary success to the prevalence of boxer briefs or striped socks.
> why isn't the brilliance of atheism catching on?
Atheism doesn't have entrenched social institutions with throngs of
followers volunteering to prosthelytize for the faith, nor does it spend
massive amounts of money lobbying the government to promote its social
agenda.
We're taught from an early age to be obedient – to our parents, adults,
teachers, priests, government. In fact in many ways this conformity is
celebrated more than eminently more useful traits. It's how we're
programmed, and it makes people more apt to turn to religion. Atheism
doesn't offer this comfort.
People like easy answers.
--------
fffurken
> > i can least an enormous number of reasons religious views confer
> > advantages. that you need them explained is pitiful.
>
> > mo_charles
>
> Then take pity on me and least at list one reason.
Allow me to preempt, if I will.
One of Dawkins' more widely known espousals is that of the "selfish
gene".
John the Savage
What the fuck is going on in this thread now?!
The Selfish Gene provides an explanation of altruistic behavior in terms
of how it could evolve. It describes the fundamental unit of evolution
as the gene, not the individual, and invokes ideas like kin selection to
explain how evolution produces behaviors that are often detrimental to
the individual. What does that have to do with phlash's question?
Maybe something, but you would have to explain it.
Besides that, why does phlash think it is comical for religion to have
provided prehistoric man with some benefit? Of course it did, or it
wouldn't be here. Just some possible advantages are a beneficial social
structure, an improved sense of community, a motivation for war, a ward
sometimes even against illness (don't eat pork!). It's hard for *me* to
imagine how anyone could fail to imagine even one potential benefit of
religion for human populations.
susan
"phlash74"
My sisters mother-in-law walked to church everyday of her life till she
passed a couple years ago.
She loved it, and got great comfort from going there.
Clave
>> > religious views are socially/evolutionarily advantageous. or is their
>> > prevalence random anomaly? why isn't the brilliance of atheism
>> > catching
>> > on?
>>
>> I just KNOW I'm going to regret asking this, but here goes...
>>
>> In what ways are religious views advantageous?
>>
>> I almost hope you don't answer, because if you do, I run a nontrivial
>> risk
>> of dying from laughter.
>
> i can least an enormous number of reasons religious views confer
> advantages. that you need them explained is pitiful.
That you dodged the question is kinda pitiful too.
Jim
fffurken
> My sisters mother-in-law walked to church everyday of her life
Jesus, I betcha they were sick of her! Just kidding.
> till shepassed a couple years ago.
My condolences.
> She loved it, and got great comfort from going there.
Good for her.
mo_charles
> > >
> > > In what ways are religious views advantageous?
> > >
> > > I almost hope you don't answer, because if you do, I run a nontrivial
risk
> > > of dying from laughter.
> >
> > i can least an enormous number of reasons religious views confer
> > advantages. that you need them explained is pitiful.
>
see if you can figure one out.
mo_charles
-----
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
mo_charles
> > prevalence random anomaly?
>
> That's a logical non sequitur. You might as well attribute our
> evolutionary success to the prevalence of boxer briefs or striped socks.
religion codified modern morality. religious proselytizing implies
empathy and keeps us from killing strangers in the jungle. do you believe
we're wired to be nice to eachother? take a look at this G_dforsaken
place.
> > why isn't the brilliance of atheism catching on?
>
> Atheism doesn't have entrenched social institutions with throngs of
> followers volunteering to prosthelytize for the faith, nor does it spend
> massive amounts of money lobbying the government to promote its social
> agenda.
>
> We're taught from an early age to be obedient – to our parents, adults,
> teachers, priests, government. In fact in many ways this conformity is
> celebrated more than eminently more useful traits. It's how we're
> programmed, and it makes people more apt to turn to religion. Atheism
> doesn't offer this comfort.
>
> People like easy answers.
what's easy about arriving at answers that are so painfully, obviously
wrong? i don't know why atheism is so universally rejected. maybe it's
because it's empty and cold.
mo_charles
________________________________________________________________________
fffurken
> do you believe we're wired to be nice to eachother?
Yes. Take a look at Dawkins' the "Selfish Gene".
ChrisRobin
> > > religious views are socially/evolutionarily advantageous. or is their
> > > prevalence random anomaly?
> >
> > That's a logical non sequitur. You might as well attribute our
> > evolutionary success to the prevalence of boxer briefs or striped socks.
>
> religion codified modern morality. religious proselytizing implies
> empathy and keeps us from killing strangers in the jungle. do you believe
> we're wired to be nice to eachother? take a look at this G_dforsaken
> place.
IMO religion's always been about control/pacification, wherein the
"morality" associated with it is just a means to that end. I attribute our
collective ability to get along (to a greater or lesser degree) more to a
sort of meta game theory than religion. People cooperate because it makes
logical sense, not because of some damn religious dogma.
> > > why isn't the brilliance of atheism catching on?
> >
> > Atheism doesn't have entrenched social institutions with throngs of
> > followers volunteering to prosthelytize for the faith, nor does it spend
> > massive amounts of money lobbying the government to promote its social
> > agenda.
> >
> > We're taught from an early age to be obedient – to our parents, adults,
> > teachers, priests, government. In fact in many ways this conformity is
> > celebrated more than eminently more useful traits. It's how we're
> > programmed, and it makes people more apt to turn to religion. Atheism
> > doesn't offer this comfort.
> >
> > People like easy answers.
>
> what's easy about arriving at answers that are so painfully, obviously
> wrong? i don't know why atheism is so universally rejected. maybe it's
> because it's empty and cold.
Perhaps. It could certainly use better marketing. I'll get my team on it.
:)
________________________________________________________________________
bub
<a9d...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>People cooperate because it makes
>logical sense, not because of some damn religious dogma.
some people, especially the elderly who were raised in a different
type of culture, find peace and comfort in it, what possible
difference should it make to anyone else?
live and let live
Beldin the Sorcerer
>> > the most ridiculous religion ever invented is atheism, a faith for
>> > social
>> > pariahs.
>>
>> You are so right. Because as we know, the high priests of atheism dress
>> up
>> in lavish costumes every Sunday to preside over centuries-old rituals
>> selling the totally plausible ideas of divine forgiveness and spiritual
>> absolution. LMAO. Salvation, baby!
>>
>> When mindless obedience, moral hypocrisy, and general religious nutcasery
>> are the accepted norms, being a social pariah isn't nearly as awful as
>> you
>> make it sound.
>
> religious views are socially/evolutionarily advantageous. or is their
> prevalence random anomaly? why isn't the brilliance of atheism catching
> on?
It is.
It's slower to be reported.
Children in this country tend to at least give lip service to their parent;s
traditions.
I have friends, and some relatives, who are nominally Christian, who never
attend church.
I'm not, but I still celebrate the civil holiday of Christmas
My sister was slow to tell the grandparents when she became Mormon
Changing religion is often something not bragged about
ChrisRobin
> some people, especially the elderly who were raised in a different
> type of culture, find peace and comfort in it, what possible
> difference should it make to anyone else?
>
> live and let live
Maybe I wasn't clear, but I don't think you understand what I was trying
to say.
---
bub
<a9d...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>Maybe I wasn't clear, but I don't think you understand what I was trying
>to say.
>
i guess i misunderstood. i thought you were talking about
the lavish costumes every Sunday to preside over centuries-old
rituals selling the totally plausible ideas of divine forgiveness and
spiritual absolution and the general religious nutcasery and how you
might laugh your ass off at that even though other people may find
peace and comfort in something that really shouldn't bother you.
my mistake
Beldin the Sorcerer
"bub" <b...@plottus.com> wrote in message
news:ami6t6lcncsh3h7nc...@4ax.com...
How plausible is it, exactly, to believe in an interventionistic god that
still keeps his hands off this mess of a world?
Pepe Papon
>All religions are equally ridiculous. It's more likely that Jesus put golden
>tablets in a cave in Utah than he rose from the dead. In fact, if he rose
>from the dead, there's really no reason to believe he couldn't have put
>golden tablets in a cave in Utah. There's really no reason to believe he's
>not currently living in a bungalow in the San Fernando Valley.
It's actually a studio apartment. He was my neighbor when I lived in
Van Nuys.
Don't tell skillz.
susan
"ChrisRobin" wrote in message news:9egba8x...@recgroups.com...
>IMO religion's always been about control/pacification, wherein the
>"morality" associated with it is just a means to that end. I attribute our
>collective ability to get along (to a greater or lesser degree) more to a
>sort of meta game theory than religion. People cooperate because it makes
>logical sense, not because of some damn religious dogma.
What makes this so different that most aspects of our lives? Like our jobs
if we work for someone else, or our jobs if we are the empoyer.
Even going to the grocery store or the movies.
VegasJerry
> > > the most ridiculous religion ever invented is atheism, a faith for social
> > > pariahs.
> >
> > You are so right. Because as we know, the high priests of atheism dress up
> > in lavish costumes every Sunday to preside over centuries-old rituals
> > selling the totally plausible ideas of divine forgiveness and spiritual
> > absolution. LMAO. Salvation, baby!
> >
> > When mindless obedience, moral hypocrisy, and general religious nutcasery
> > are the accepted norms, being a social pariah isn't nearly as awful as you
> > make it sound.
>
> religious views are socially/evolutionarily advantageous. or is their
> prevalence random anomaly? why isn't the brilliance of atheism catching
> on?
It is. Go look at the numbers. Church attendance is down, and as people
become better educated, more and more reject the superstitions they were
taught.
Nothing supernatural has ever happened. Ever.
Jerry 'n Vegas
>
> mo_charles
VegasJerry
> On May 17 2011 1:35 PM, mo_charles wrote:
>
> > > > religious views are socially/evolutionarily advantageous. or is their
> > > > prevalence random anomaly? why isn't the brilliance of atheism
catching
> > > > on?
> > >
> > > I just KNOW I'm going to regret asking this, but here goes...
> > >
> > > In what ways are religious views advantageous?
> > >
> > > I almost hope you don't answer, because if you do, I run a nontrivial
risk
> > > of dying from laughter.
> >
> > i can least an enormous number of reasons religious views confer
> > advantages. that you need them explained is pitiful.
> >
> > mo_charles
>
>
> Then take pity on me and least at list one reason.
Not being sexually molested by a priest.
>
> Michael
>
> -----------------
> "> phlash
> On your circle jerk k00l kidz email list. Should be disqualified for
> that, but I'll give him a pass because he is smart." - ramashiva,
> 8/22/2010
>
> "Hitler has already been forgiven, but you have not." - Reptillian AKA
> Igotskillz, 4/6/2011
_______________________________________________________________________
VegasJerry
> > > religious views are socially/evolutionarily advantageous. or is their
> > > prevalence random anomaly?
> >
> > That's a logical non sequitur. You might as well attribute our
> > evolutionary success to the prevalence of boxer briefs or striped socks.
>
> religion codified modern morality.
"God wants me to be president." "God wants me to go to war."
--George Bush (whose best friend was the mythical Jesus Christ)
religious proselytizing implies
> empathy and keeps us from killing strangers in the jungle. do you believe
> we're wired to be nice to eachother? take a look at this G_dforsaken
> place.
>
> > > why isn't the brilliance of atheism catching on?
> >
> > Atheism doesn't have entrenched social institutions with throngs of
> > followers volunteering to prosthelytize for the faith, nor does it spend
> > massive amounts of money lobbying the government to promote its social
> > agenda.
> >
> > We're taught from an early age to be obedient – to our parents, adults,
> > teachers, priests, government. In fact in many ways this conformity is
> > celebrated more than eminently more useful traits. It's how we're
> > programmed, and it makes people more apt to turn to religion. Atheism
> > doesn't offer this comfort.
> >
> > People like easy answers.
>
> what's easy about arriving at answers that are so painfully, obviously
> wrong? i don't know why atheism is so universally rejected. maybe it's
> because it's empty and cold.
>
> mo_charles
-----
VegasJerry
It doesn't. It's when they try forcing thier religous beliefs on others.
>
> live and let live
-------
VegasJerry
> > > religious views are socially/evolutionarily advantageous. or is their
> > > prevalence random anomaly?
> >
> > That's a logical non sequitur. You might as well attribute our
> > evolutionary success to the prevalence of boxer briefs or striped socks.
>
> religion codified modern morality. religious proselytizing implies
> empathy and keeps us from killing strangers in the jungle. do you believe
> we're wired to be nice to eachother?
Hell yes. Are you saying that if there were no god to fear, you would go
next door and rape your neighbors wife? Would you rob the guy across the
street? Would you murder the guy next door? Is that what you're really
like without having a god to fear? Glad you don't live near me.
> take a look at this G_dforsaken
> place.
>
> > > why isn't the brilliance of atheism catching on?
> >
> > Atheism doesn't have entrenched social institutions with throngs of
> > followers volunteering to prosthelytize for the faith, nor does it spend
> > massive amounts of money lobbying the government to promote its social
> > agenda.
> >
> > We're taught from an early age to be obedient – to our parents, adults,
> > teachers, priests, government. In fact in many ways this conformity is
> > celebrated more than eminently more useful traits. It's how we're
> > programmed, and it makes people more apt to turn to religion. Atheism
> > doesn't offer this comfort.
> >
> > People like easy answers.
>
> what's easy about arriving at answers that are so painfully, obviously
> wrong? i don't know why atheism is so universally rejected.
It's not. You've been lied to.
> maybe it's
> because it's empty and cold.
>
> mo_charles
Ah! You require security. "Gee, I hope somebody is up there to take me
when I die!"
Jerry (LOL@Y) 'n Vegas
______________________________________________________________________
VegasJerry
> On Tue, 17 May 2011 19:56:28 -0700, "ChrisRobin"
> <a9d...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Maybe I wasn't clear, but I don't think you understand what I was trying
> >to say.
> >
>
> i guess i misunderstood. i thought you were talking about
> the lavish costumes every Sunday to preside over centuries-old
> rituals selling the totally plausible ideas of divine forgiveness and
> spiritual absolution
As in. "Go ahead and do whatever you want. All you have to do is come
here, put a few bucks in the plate, and we'll forgive you." (They're not
allowed to sell Purgatory time any longer. But it sure was profitable for
a while. Now they just have you confess. And if youre a kid, you get
buggered for forgiviness).
and the general religious nutcasery and how you
> might laugh your ass off at that even though other people may find
> peace and comfort in something that really shouldn't bother you.
>
> my mistake
------
phlash74
Wow, you really can't read, can you?
It's not the idea that religion may have provided benefit for
prehistoric man that I find comical. Nor the idea that millions of
people receive some benefit from religious beliefs today.
It's the idea that mo_ron could explain the social and evolutionary
advantages of religious views that I find absolutely hysterical. Note
that he didn't even attempt to when pressed. Definitely the better
way to go. After all, as the saying goes, better to remain silent and
be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Michael
ChrisRobin
Then maybe it would be helpful if you could respond to the correct post,
so it's clear what exactly you're replying to.
For the record, I have no problem with the vast majority religious
beliefs. People are free to believe in whatever ridiculousness gets them
through the day, it really makes no difference to me.
Clave
>
>> religious views are socially/evolutionarily advantageous. or is their
>> on?
>
> It is.
>
> The percentage of the population describing themselves as having "no
> religion" increased from 1990 to 2008 in every single state, with Catholic
> and other Christian religions showing significant declines overall.
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-03-09-ARIS-faith-survey_N.htm
No comment, mo?
Really?
John the Savage
Why should he comment? Your link does not support the idea that
"atheism is catching on." Atheism, according to modern surveys, is not
really increasing. Surveys are finding more and more people claiming
they do not associate with any major religion, but no big increases to
the number claiming they believe there is no god.
John the Savage
> On May 17, 2:09 pm, John the Savage<savage0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Besides that, why does phlash think it is comical for religion to have
>> provided prehistoric man with some benefit? Of course it did, or it
>> wouldn't be here. Just some possible advantages are a beneficial social
>> structure, an improved sense of community, a motivation for war, a ward
>> sometimes even against illness (don't eat pork!). It's hard for *me* to
>> imagine how anyone could fail to imagine even one potential benefit of
>> religion for human populations.
>
>
> Wow, you really can't read, can you?
Let's find out, shall we?
>
> It's not the idea that religion may have provided benefit for
> prehistoric man that I find comical. Nor the idea that millions of
> people receive some benefit from religious beliefs today.
>
> It's the idea that mo_ron could explain the social and evolutionary
> advantages of religious views that I find absolutely hysterical.
Oh, is it? Now, I may not be the world's greatest reader, but it seems
like a bit up in this thread you said the following to mo:
"
I just KNOW I'm going to regret asking this, but here goes...
In what ways are religious views advantageous?
I almost hope you don't answer, because if you do, I run a nontrivial
risk of dying from laughter.
"
-phlash
Now, if it is really just the "idea" of mo_ron being able to answer your
question that you find hysterical, then I guess you should be laughing
already. Instead, you suggested that you would only be laughing if he
did in fact provide an answer. It was mo's hypothetical answer that you
described as comical, not his supposed inability to produce an answer.
How's YOUR reading, phlash? Or do you rather have trouble writing what
you mean?
phlash74
Believe me, I am.
> Instead, you suggested that you would only be laughing if he
> did in fact provide an answer. It was mo's hypothetical answer that you
> described as comical, not his supposed inability to produce an answer.
> How's YOUR reading, phlash? Or do you rather have trouble writing what
> you mean?
No trouble at all. It's exactly MO's hypothetical answer that is
funny to me, in contrast with the answer of someone who had done
reading about and critical analysis of the subject. Notice I said "I
almost hope you don't answer", not "I hope no one answers". I asked
him the question because he made the statement. He had no answer for
me and pathetically dodged the question as I correctly assumed he
would.
By the way, I noticed you listed "motivation for war" among the
benefits religious views have brought to mankind. Really? Killing
other human beings for no reason other than them believing something
different about god(s) than you do? That's a benefit?
Michael
John the Savage
> By the way, I noticed you listed "motivation for war" among the
> benefits religious views have brought to mankind. Really? Killing
> other human beings for no reason other than them believing something
> different about god(s) than you do? That's a benefit?
Yes. There have always been territorial disputes, and some groups of
humans living all over the world in vastly different cultures. The
homogenization of culture globally is a recent invention. Mankind
evolved in a totally different environment, where other humans were
often the competition, and organizing effectively, and winning wars, and
defending your resources was essential.
Keep in mind, phlash, that the current cultural homogenization has also
led to an utterly unsustainable state of affairs, where the population
explodes exponentially and all available resources are consumed, while
dangerous and non-degradable waste accumulates all around us, and a huge
swath of life on Earth goes extinct. This ain't gonna work. What
worked (for longer, anyway) was apparently a lot of small, tribal
cultures that often fought each other. Religion would have been an
immense help in this circumstance.
To some degree it probably grows just from the natural human desire to
explain events. This is generally very helpful, as it allows us to
learn about how the world works and we are often able to use this
knowledge effectively. But it also sometimes leads us to be superstitious.
Clave
--
i'll leave to get the last post, mr pathetic
-- bub, in a rather lucid moment really
"John the Savage" <savag...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:DMednXtcVruftUjQ...@giganews.com...
The actual term was "NO RELIGION".
Jim
susan
"Clave" wrote in message news:ir3o7p$hs6$1...@dont-email.me...
well, I hate to attack the messenger and make up a position for you, but
are you saying that you have to have a RELIGION to believe there is a higher
power?
VegasJerry
In 1987, then vice president George H.W. Bush, seeking to become our
president, said at a press conference: "I don't know that atheists should
be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots." In
that presidential race, I recall a man saying he was voting for "the
American" (Bush) since the other candidate, Michael Dukakis, "is Greek or
something."
Jerry (American) 'n Vegas
________________________________________________________________________
Pepe Papon
<harry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > religious views are socially/evolutionarily advantageous. or is their
>> > prevalence random anomaly?
>>
>> That's a logical non sequitur. You might as well attribute our
>> evolutionary success to the prevalence of boxer briefs or striped socks.
>
>religion codified modern morality. religious proselytizing implies
>empathy and keeps us from killing strangers in the jungle. do you believe
>we're wired to be nice to eachother? take a look at this G_dforsaken
>place.
Of course, belief in God would have all those advantages whether or
not God actually exists.
>> > why isn't the brilliance of atheism catching on?
>>
>> Atheism doesn't have entrenched social institutions with throngs of
>> followers volunteering to prosthelytize for the faith, nor does it spend
>> massive amounts of money lobbying the government to promote its social
>> agenda.
>>
>> We're taught from an early age to be obedient – to our parents, adults,
>> teachers, priests, government. In fact in many ways this conformity is
>> celebrated more than eminently more useful traits. It's how we're
>> programmed, and it makes people more apt to turn to religion. Atheism
>> doesn't offer this comfort.
>>
>> People like easy answers.
>
>what's easy about arriving at answers that are so painfully, obviously
>wrong? i don't know why atheism is so universally rejected. maybe it's
>because it's empty and cold.
It may be so, but that in no way implies that it's false.
Pepe Papon
<cla...@the.monastery.com> wrote:
>>>> The percentage of the population describing themselves as having "no
>>>> religion" increased from 1990 to 2008 in every single state, with
>>>> Catholic
>>>> and other Christian religions showing significant declines overall.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-03-09-ARIS-faith-survey_N.htm
>>>
>>> No comment, mo?
>>>
>>> Really?
>>
>> Why should he comment? Your link does not support the idea that "atheism
>> is catching on." Atheism, according to modern surveys, is not really
>> increasing. Surveys are finding more and more people claiming they do not
>> associate with any major religion, but no big increases to the number
>> claiming they believe there is no god.
>
>The actual term was "NO RELIGION".
>
>Jim
"No religion" doesn't necessarily mean "atheist".
Pepe Papon
Do you have cites for any of these surveys?
Clave
news:lm5ht65f7o7op0ip7...@4ax.com...
*shrug*
Didn't say it did.
Atheist, agnostic, nonreligious -- rejecting that study because it doesn't
specifically call out atheism is just an excuse to ignore the obvious
trends.
And I've yet to see mo post anything at all supporting what he wants to
believe.
Jim
John the Savage
There is no reason to use anything but the survey that Clave cited
himself. If you search for the ARIS faith survey (Google is your
friend, Pepe), you'll find their website here:
http://www.americanreligionsurvey-aris.org/reports/highlights.html
And you can download a 26 page "full report" in PDF format. Therein,
you'll easily find in the figures that while the percentage of "nones"
has increased to 15%, the number of atheists has increased to 0.7%.
0.7% of Americans self-identify as atheists, according to Clave's
report. The one he cited as evidence that "atheism is catching on". If
you need more evidence, Pepe, you'll have to do the Google-ing yourself!
VegasJerry
Search "Increase in Atheism"
Jerry (increased Atheist) 'n Vegas
____________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
Pepe Papon
<savag...@gmail.com> wrote:
Not sure where that .7% number came from, because this is what I found
in that report:
"Based on their stated beliefs rather than
their religious identification in 2008,
70% of Americans believe in a personal
God, roughly 12% of Americans are
atheist (no God) or agnostic (unknowable
or unsure), and another 12% are deistic
(a higher power but no personal God)."
John the Savage
> On Sun, 22 May 2011 10:14:03 -0400, John the Savage
>>
>> himself. If you search for the ARIS faith survey (Google is your
>> friend, Pepe), you'll find their website here:
>>
>> http://www.americanreligionsurvey-aris.org/reports/highlights.html
>>
>> And you can download a 26 page "full report" in PDF format. Therein,
>> you'll easily find in the figures that while the percentage of "nones"
>> has increased to 15%, the number of atheists has increased to 0.7%.
>> 0.7% of Americans self-identify as atheists, according to Clave's
>> report. The one he cited as evidence that "atheism is catching on". If
>> you need more evidence, Pepe, you'll have to do the Google-ing yourself!
>
>
> Not sure where that .7% number came from, because this is what I found
> in that report:
>
> "Based on their stated beliefs rather than
> their religious identification in 2008,
> 70% of Americans believe in a personal
> God, roughly 12% of Americans are
> atheist (no God) or agnostic (unknowable
> or unsure), and another 12% are deistic
> (a higher power but no personal God)."
Holy fucking shit Pepe, you are hopeless. I told you exactly where the
figure comes from, and how to find it. Go to the link I posted,
download the "Full report" in PDF, and look at the figures/ tables.
Specifically, look at the one on page 7, or search the document for
"atheist". Alternately, do some searching on Google for increasing or
decreasing atheism, as Jerry suggested. You'll see that there is no
obvious, overwhelming trend of atheism catching on. As much as I'd love
to be your personal life coach, Pepe, you are just not paying me enough,
and you're going to have to do your own research from time to time. Or,
you could safely just take my word for it, since I'm probably the most
credible poster here, and I do not lie on RGP.
John the Savage
OK, so I'm not entirely clear on what they are listing on Page 7, as
that is by "self-identification". And then what you cited from the
highlights is a different question, but you also show agnostics and
atheists combined. So, sorry, because they do in fact ask the exact
question about God, and those results are on p.10:
Beliefs about God among U.S. Adult Population 2008
Regarding the existence of God, do you think . . . ?
There is no such thing 2.3%
There is no way to know 4.3%
I’m not sure 5.7%
There is a higher power but no personal God 12.1%
There is definitely a personal God 69.5%
Refused 6.1%
So there you have it, 2.3% say there is no such thing as God when asked
directly, athough only 0.7% identify as "atheist" when the question is
religious tradition. I do not see what this 2.3% figure was on their
previous surveys, so I can't tell you how much it has increased. The
previous surveys seem to report the other number (identify as atheist),
which is less than 1 million and about half a percent.
Anyway, that's enough I think. If you want more, like I said, you'll
have to do your own research!
John the Savage
>
> OK, so I'm not entirely clear on what they are listing on Page 7, as
> that is by "self-identification". And then what you cited from the
> highlights is a different question, but you also show agnostics and
> atheists combined. So, sorry, because they do in fact ask the exact
> question about God, and those results are on p.10:
Argh, it's on p.8, and it's Table 4. It is reported as a new question
for this year, so this survey will not be able to provide data on
increases in atheism unless you use the 0.7% number. But I still think
it is reasonable evidence that atheism is not "catching on", or becoming
popular in any way in America.
John Karl
Well, I'm certainly glad of that, as atheism as a belief system is
exactly as philosophically untenable as belief in a god, personal or
otherwise.
Pepe Papon
That's exactly what I did, you dumb fuck, so spare me the
condescending snark.
Travel
>
> - Show quoted text -
That dumb fuck, Poupon, getting an ass kicking from John The Savage.
Well, that's always fun.
Travel
Don't worry, Poupon will just try to "quip" his way away from the
facts, pretending they don't exist.
Pepe Papon
wrote:
Hi, Trav, good buddy! You have no idea how flattered I am to see how
much you care. Thanks for being such a warm and friendly guy. Your
good nature will surely pay you many dividends as you journey through
life.
Travel
Travel
Pepe Papon
wrote:
>On May 24, 4:54 am, Travel <nine...@webtv.net> wrote:
Travel
Pepe Papon
wrote:
>On May 25, 9:18 am, Travel <nine...@webtv.net> wrote: