Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply puritysourcelabs US-PHARMACIES
UGL OZ Raptor Labs UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAKUS-PHARMACIESRaptor Labs

Is Faith Good For Us?

javaguru

Banned
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=pzuckerman_26_5

Whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or Sikh, there is one common belief that all religious fundamentalists share: worship of God and obedience to his laws are essential for a peaceful, healthy society. From Orthodox rabbis in the occupied West Bank to Wahhabi sheiks in Saudi Arabia, from the pope in Vatican City to Mormons in Salt Lake City, the lament is the same: God and his will must be at the center of everyone's lives in order to ensure a moral, prosperous, safe, collective existence.

Furthermore, fundamentalists agree that, when large numbers of people in a society reject God or fail to make him the center of their lives, societal disintegration is sure to follow. Every societal ill-whether crime, poverty, poor public education, or AIDS-is thus blamed on a lack of piety. A most disconcerting example of this worldview was expressed in the immediate aftermath of September 11, 2001, when Jerry Falwell blamed the terrorists attacks on America's "throwing God out of the public square," further adding that "when a nation deserts God and expels God from the culture . . . the result is not good."

If this often-touted religious theory were correct-that a turning away from God is at the root of all societal ills-then we would expect to find the least religious nations on earth to be bastions of crime, poverty, and disease and the most religious nations to be models of societal health. A comparison of highly irreligious countries with highly religious countries, however, reveals a very different state of affairs. In reality, the most secular countries-those with the highest proportion of atheists and agnostics-are among the most stable, peaceful, free, wealthy, and healthy societies. And the most religious nations-wherein worship of God is in abundance-are among the most unstable, violent, oppressive, poor, and destitute.

One must always be careful, of course, to distinguish between totalitarian nations where atheism is forced upon an unwilling population (such as in North Korea, China, Vietnam, and the former Soviet states) and open, democratic nations where atheism is freely chosen by a well-educated population (as in Sweden, the Netherlands, or Japan). The former nations' nonreligion, which can be described as "coercive atheism," is plagued by all that comes with totalitarianism: corruption, economic stagnation, censorship, depression, and the like. However, nearly every nation with high levels of "organic atheism" is a veritable model of societal health.

The twenty-five nations characterized by organic atheism with the highest proportion of nonbelievers are listed in Table 1. When looking at standard measures of societal health, we find that they fare remarkably well; highly religious nations fare rather poorly. The 2004 United Nations' Human Development Report, which ranks 177 countries on a "Human Development Index," measures such indicators of societal health as life expectancy, adult literacy, per-capita income, educational attainment, and so on. According to this report, the five top nations were Norway, Sweden, Australia, Canada, and the Netherlands. All had notably high degrees of organic atheism. Furthermore, of the top twenty-five nations, all but Ireland and the United States were top-ranking nonbelieving nations with some of the highest percentages of organic atheism on earth. Conversely, the bottom fifty countries of the "Human Development Index" lacked statistically significant levels of organic atheism.

Irreligious countries had the lowest infant-mortality rate (number of deaths per 1,000 live births), and religious countries had the highest rates. According to the 2004 CIA World Factbook (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook), out of 225 nations, the twenty-five with the lowest infant-mortality rates had significantly high levels of organic atheism. Conversely, the seventy-five nations with the highest infant-mortality rates were all very religious and without statistically significant levels of organic atheism.

Concerning international poverty rates, the United Nations Report on the World Social Situation (2003) found that, of the forty poorest nations on earth (measured by the percentage of population that lives on less than one dollar a day), all but Vietnam were highly religious nations with statistically minimal or insignificant levels of atheism.

Regarding homicide rates, Oablo Fajnzylber et al., in a study reported in the Journal of Law and Economics (2002), looked at thirty-eight non-African nations and found that the ten with the highest homicide rates were highly religious, with minimal or statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism. Conversely, of the ten nations with the lowest homicide rates, all but Ireland were secular nations with high levels of atheism. James Fox and Jack Levin, in The Will to Kill, looked at thirty-seven non-African nations and found that, of the ten nations with the highest homicide rates, all but Estonia and Taiwan were highly religious, with statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism. Conversely, of the ten nations with the lowest homicide rates, all but Ireland and Kuwait were relatively secular nations, with high levels of organic atheism.

Concerning literacy rates, according to the United Nations Report on the World Social Situation (2003), of the thirty-five nations with the highest levels of youth-illiteracy rates (percentage of population ages fifteen to twenty-four who cannot read or write), all were highly religious, with statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism.

In regard to rates of AIDS and HIV infection, the most religious nations on earth-particularly those in Africa-fared the worst. (Botswana suffers from the highest rate of HIV infection in the world; see http://www.avert.org/aroundworld. htm.) Conversely, the highly irreligious nations of Western Europe, such as those of Scandinavia-where public sex education is supported and birth control is widely accessible-fared the best, experiencing among the lowest rates of AIDS and HIV infection in the world.

Concerning gender equality, nations marked by high degrees of organic atheism are among the most egalitarian in the world, while highly religious nations are among the most oppressive. According to the 2004 Human Development Report's "Gender Empowerment Measure," the ten nations with the highest degrees of gender equality were all strongly organic-atheistic nations with significantly high percentages of nonbelief. Conversely, the bottom ten were all highly religious nations without any statistically significant percentages of atheists. According to Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris's (2003) "Gender Equality Scale," of the ten nations most accepting of gender equality, all but the United States and Colombia were marked by high levels of organic atheism; of the ten least-accepting of gender equality, all were highly religious and had statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism. According to Inglehart et al. in Human Values and Social Change (2003), countries such as Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands, with the most female members of parliament, tended to be characterized by high degrees of organic atheism, and countries such as Pakistan, Nigeria, and Iran, with the fewest female members in parliament, tended to be highly religious.

The acceptance of gender equality among irreligious nations may be linked to the relative acceptance of homosexuality. Inglehart et al., in Human Beliefs and Values: A Cross-Cultural Sourcebook Based on the 1999-2002 Value Surveys (2004), found that, of the eighteen nations least likely to condemn homosexuality, all were highly ranked organic-atheistic nations. Conversely, of the eighteen nations most likely to condemn homosexuality, all but Hungary were highly religious, with statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism.

A country's suicide rate stands out as the one indicator of societal health in which religious nations fare much better than secular nations. According to the 2003 World Health Organization's report on international male suicide rates (http://www.who.int/en/), the nations with the lowest rates of suicide were all highly religious, characterized by extremely high levels of theism (usually of the Muslim and Catholic varieties). Of the ten nations with the highest male suicide rates, five were distinctly irreligious nations ranked among the top twenty-five nations listed earlier. These five are Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Russia, and Slovenia. It is interesting to note that of the nations currently experiencing the highest rates of suicide-including the five just mentioned-nearly all are former Soviet/communist-dominated societies. (The nations of Scandinavia, where organic atheism is strongest, do not have the highest suicide rates in the world, as is widely thought to be the case.)

In sum, countries with high rates of organic atheism are among the most societally healthy on earth, while societies with nonexistent rates of organic atheism are among the most destitute. The former nations have among the lowest homicide rates, infant mortality rates, poverty rates, and illiteracy rates and among the highest levels of wealth, life expectancy, educational attainment, and gender equality in the world. The sole indicator of societal health in which religious countries scored higher than irreligious countries is suicide.

Where does the United States fit in all this? Americans are very religious. Many studies have found that only between 3-7 percent of Americans do not believe in God. Rates of prayer, belief in the divinity of Jesus, belief in the divine origins of the Bible, and rates of church attendance are remarkably robust in the United States, making it the most religious of all Western industrialized nations, with the possible exception of Ireland. When it comes to societal health, the United States certainly fares far better than much of the rest of the world. According to the United Nations' 2004 "Human Development Index" discussed earlier, the United States ranked eighth. However, when we compare the United States to its peer nations-i.e., developed, industrialized, democratic nations such as Canada, Japan, and the nations of Europe-its standing in terms of societal health plummets. The United States has far higher homicide, poverty, obesity, and homelessness rates than any of its more secular peer nations. It is also the only Western industrialized democracy that is unwilling to provide universal health coverage to its citizens. The fact is that extremely secular nations such as Japan and Sweden are much safer, cleaner, healthier, better educated, and more humane when compared to the United States, despite the latter's exceptionally strong levels of theism.

The information presented in this discussion in no way proves that high levels of organic atheism cause societal health or that low levels of organic atheism cause societal ills such as poverty or illiteracy. The wealth, poverty, well-being, and suffering in various nations are caused by numerous political, historical, economic, and sociological factors that are far more determinant than people's personal belief systems. Rather, the conclusion to be drawn from the data provided above is simply that high levels of irreligion do not automatically result in a breakdown of civilization, a rise in immoral behavior, or in "sick societies." Quite the opposite seems to be the case. Furthermore, religion is clearly not the simple and single path to righteous societies that religious fundamentalists seem to think it is. This fact must be vigorously asserted in response to the proclamations of politically active theists. From small-town school boards to the floor of the Senate, conservative Christians are championing religion as the solution to America's societal problems. However, their pious "solution" is highly dubious and clearly not supported by the best available research of social science.

Belief in God may provide comfort to the individual believer, but, at the societal level, its results do not compare at all favorably with that of the more secular societies. When seeking a more civil, just, safe, humane, and healthy society, one is more likely to find it among those nations ranking low in religious faith-contrary to the preaching of religious folks.
 
lol, wow

do people actually enjoy reading this?

i think we should all take bits and pieces from the world's religions and combine them into a general rule of living

religion seems to take love out of our hearts as it's a means of division among earth's masses

abe lincoln said it best

"When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. That's my religion."
 
what do you know, yet another religious thread from Java :rolleyes:


it really is hilarious how you continue to talk about how much you hate religious extremists, yet on the other hand you can't stop trying to subliminally preach atheism all day
 
http://psi29a.newsvine.com/_news/20...kely-to-care-for-the-poor-than-religious-ones

Atheist doctors more likely to care for the poor than religious ones

Atheist doctors are likely to practice medicine among the underprivileged than religious physicians, even though most religions call on the faithful to serve the poor, according to the results of large cross-sectional survey of US medical practitioners published in Annals of Family Medicine.

Researchers from the University of Chicago and Yale New Haven Hospital report that 31 percent of physicians who were more religious—as measured by "intrinsic religiosity" as well as frequency of attendance at religious services—practiced among the underserved, compared to 35 percent of physicians who described their religion as atheist, agnostic or none.

"This came as both a surprise and a disappointment," study author Farr Curlin, MD, said. "The Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist scriptures all urge physicians to care for the poor, and the great majority of religious physicians describe their practice of medicine as a calling. Yet we found that religious physicians were not more likely to report practice among the underserved than their secular colleagues."
 
javaguru said:
It's the time of the year when you're supposed to think about Jesus.

I figured it was the time of year, but seriously...it's not like you're having to compete with religion and faith based threads here. Your anti-faith/religion threads are bumping threads about pot, sex in cars, randy moss, a bisexual chick, fighting, and illegal downloading - plus your own other threads.
 
nefertiti said:
I figured it was the time of year, but seriously...it's not like you're having to compete with religion and faith based threads here. Your anti-faith/religion threads are bumping threads about pot, sex in cars, randy moss, a bisexual chick, fighting, and illegal downloading - plus your own other threads.
Maybe I should post a few "would you hit it threads?" Bring the level of discourse back in line for C&C.
 
This weekend's NY Times Magazine tells about an early phone phreak named Joybubbles, who used an answering machine to create a sort of prototype podcast. He often ended them with a memorable line -- "Don't let God laugh alone."

We could do worse.
 
nefertiti said:
I figured it was the time of year, but seriously...it's not like you're having to compete with religion and faith based threads here. Your anti-faith/religion threads are bumping threads about pot, sex in cars, randy moss, a bisexual chick, fighting, and illegal downloading - plus your own other threads.


Java isn't trying to compete, Java is trying to teach humans logic and reason, on Elite Fitness people aren't old enough yet to have learned on their own if they have faith or not. Hopefully by Java's fulfillment of continuous youtube links and wiki copy/pastes he'll have completeled in changing peoples minds about their beliefs to atheism. Because that is what most people do online right? If someone tells you to change your beliefs or opinions, you usually get persuaded into doing so. I mean hell, the other day I changed my mind because another guy on the net copied someones blog of reasons on why pizza tastes bad, next day believe it or not, I didn't like pizza anymore
 
javaguru said:
Maybe I should post a few "would you hit it threads?" Bring the level of discourse back in line for C&C.

sweet. Thanks bro, this intellectual stuff is killin my holiday buzz.
 
javaguru said:
Maybe I should post a few "would you hit it threads?" Bring the level of discourse back in line for C&C.

There are plenty of things to talk about that can stimulate intelligent conversation that have nothing to do with religion. Your threads basically incite the same debates over and over and over again - they go nowhere, no one changes their mind, the same people get offended, the same people cheer you on.

edit: why do I suddenly have 2k more in karma? I've been playing around in the bookie forum, but the only recent bet that's been settled was the pats and I already got my karma for that.
 
nefertiti said:
There are plenty of things to talk about that can stimulate intelligent conversation that have nothing to do with religion. Your threads basically incite the same debates over and over and over again - they go nowhere, no one changes their mind, the same people get offended, the same people cheer you on.

hater! :p
 
javaguru said:
http://psi29a.newsvine.com/_news/20...kely-to-care-for-the-poor-than-religious-ones

Atheist doctors more likely to care for the poor than religious ones

Atheist doctors are likely to practice medicine among the underprivileged than religious physicians, even though most religions call on the faithful to serve the poor, according to the results of large cross-sectional survey of US medical practitioners published in Annals of Family Medicine.

Researchers from the University of Chicago and Yale New Haven Hospital report that 31 percent of physicians who were more religious—as measured by "intrinsic religiosity" as well as frequency of attendance at religious services—practiced among the underserved, compared to 35 percent of physicians who described their religion as atheist, agnostic or none.

"This came as both a surprise and a disappointment," study author Farr Curlin, MD, said. "The Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist scriptures all urge physicians to care for the poor, and the great majority of religious physicians describe their practice of medicine as a calling. Yet we found that religious physicians were not more likely to report practice among the underserved than their secular colleagues."


Shows you how pointless and hypocritical organized religion can be.
 
borris said:
Java isn't trying to compete, Java is trying to teach humans logic and reason, on Elite Fitness people aren't old enough yet to have learned on their own if they have faith or not. Hopefully by Java's fulfillment of continuous youtube links and wiki copy/pastes he'll have completeled in changing peoples minds about their beliefs to atheism. Because that is what most people do online right? If someone tells you to change your beliefs or opinions, you usually get persuaded into doing so. I mean hell, the other day I changed my mind because another guy on the net copied someones blog of reasons on why pizza tastes bad, next day believe it or not, I didn't like pizza anymore

Pretty much every bottled water brand tastes like plastic to me. Is this in my mind or does plastic-bottled water really suck cock?
 
hanselthecaretaker said:
Pretty much every bottled water brand tastes like plastic to me. Is this in my mind or does plastic-bottled water really suck cock?


*searches google*

*finds wiki links*

*goes to make post on EF to gather people to listen to me*

*tries hard to teach people not to drink bottled water*

*people don't listen*

*2days later repeat same exact thread reworded differently*

*still nobody listens*

*repeats process over and over*


Featured in: Nutrition & LifeChoose your water bottles very carefully in order to prevent chemicals in the plastic from leaching into your water.
Plastic water bottles are very convenient for carting water around when we are on the go, as they don't break if we drop them. However, it is worth paying attention to the type of plastic your water bottle is made of, to ensure that the chemicals in the plastic do not leach into the water. If you taste plastic, you are drinking it, so get yourself another bottle.

To be certain that you are choosing a bottle that does not leach, check the recycling symbol on your bottle. If it is a #2 HDPE (high density polyethylene), or a #4 LDPE (low density polyethylene), or a #5 PP (polypropylene), your bottle is fine. The type of plastic bottle in which water is usually sold is usually a #1, and is only recommended for one time use. Do not refill it. Better to use a reusable water bottle, and fill it with your own filtered water from home and keep these single-use bottles out of the landfill.

Unfortunately, those fabulous colourful hard plastic lexan bottles made with polycarbonate plastics and identified by the #7 recycling symbol, may leach BPA. Bisphenol A is a xenoestrogen, a known endocrine disruptor, meaning it disturbs the hormonal messaging in our bodies. Synthetic xenoestrogens are linked to breast cancer and uterine cancer in women, decreased testosterone levels in men, and are particularly devastating to babies and young children. BPA has even been linked to insulin resistance and Type 2 Diabetes. For more of the science on the effects of BPA on our endocrine system etc. see these studies: Environmental Health Perspectives Journal. Nalgene, the company that manufactures the lexan water bottles also makes #2 HDPE bottles in the same sizes and shapes, so we have a viable alternative. Order one at Nalgene.

Unfortunately, most plastic baby bottles and drinking cups are made with plastics containing Bisphenol A. In 2006 Europe banned all products made for children under age 3 containing BPA, and as of Dec. 2006 the city of San Franscisco followed suit. In March 2007 a billion-dollar class action suit was commenced against Gerber, Playtex, Evenflo, Avent, and Dr. Brown's in Los Angeles superior court for harm done to babies caused by drinking out of baby bottles and sippy cups containing BPA. So, to be certain that your baby is not exposed, use glass bottles.

Check the recycling numbers on all your plastic food containers as well, and gradually move to storing all food in glass or ceramic.

Store water in glass or brass if possible, and out of direct sunlight.

Chek, Paul; How to Eat, Move and Be Healthy! Chek Institute, San Diego, CA, 2004.

Alonso-Magdelena, Paloma; "The estrogenic effect of Bisphenol A disrupts pancreatic β-cell function in vivo and induces insulin resistance" Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 114, No. 1, Jan. 2006.
 
borris said:
*searches google*

*finds wiki links*

*goes to make post on EF to gather people to listen to me*

*tries hard to teach people not to drink bottled water*

*people don't listen*

*2days later repeat same exact thread reworded differently*

*still nobody listens*

*repeats process over and over*


Featured in: Nutrition & LifeChoose your water bottles very carefully in order to prevent chemicals in the plastic from leaching into your water.
Plastic water bottles are very convenient for carting water around when we are on the go, as they don't break if we drop them. However, it is worth paying attention to the type of plastic your water bottle is made of, to ensure that the chemicals in the plastic do not leach into the water. If you taste plastic, you are drinking it, so get yourself another bottle.

To be certain that you are choosing a bottle that does not leach, check the recycling symbol on your bottle. If it is a #2 HDPE (high density polyethylene), or a #4 LDPE (low density polyethylene), or a #5 PP (polypropylene), your bottle is fine. The type of plastic bottle in which water is usually sold is usually a #1, and is only recommended for one time use. Do not refill it. Better to use a reusable water bottle, and fill it with your own filtered water from home and keep these single-use bottles out of the landfill.

Unfortunately, those fabulous colourful hard plastic lexan bottles made with polycarbonate plastics and identified by the #7 recycling symbol, may leach BPA. Bisphenol A is a xenoestrogen, a known endocrine disruptor, meaning it disturbs the hormonal messaging in our bodies. Synthetic xenoestrogens are linked to breast cancer and uterine cancer in women, decreased testosterone levels in men, and are particularly devastating to babies and young children. BPA has even been linked to insulin resistance and Type 2 Diabetes. For more of the science on the effects of BPA on our endocrine system etc. see these studies: Environmental Health Perspectives Journal. Nalgene, the company that manufactures the lexan water bottles also makes #2 HDPE bottles in the same sizes and shapes, so we have a viable alternative. Order one at Nalgene.

Unfortunately, most plastic baby bottles and drinking cups are made with plastics containing Bisphenol A. In 2006 Europe banned all products made for children under age 3 containing BPA, and as of Dec. 2006 the city of San Franscisco followed suit. In March 2007 a billion-dollar class action suit was commenced against Gerber, Playtex, Evenflo, Avent, and Dr. Brown's in Los Angeles superior court for harm done to babies caused by drinking out of baby bottles and sippy cups containing BPA. So, to be certain that your baby is not exposed, use glass bottles.

Check the recycling numbers on all your plastic food containers as well, and gradually move to storing all food in glass or ceramic.

Store water in glass or brass if possible, and out of direct sunlight.

Chek, Paul; How to Eat, Move and Be Healthy! Chek Institute, San Diego, CA, 2004.

Alonso-Magdelena, Paloma; "The estrogenic effect of Bisphenol A disrupts pancreatic β-cell function in vivo and induces insulin resistance" Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 114, No. 1, Jan. 2006.


*It seems I might've actually learned something here*
 
borris said:
*searches google*

*finds wiki links*

*goes to make post on EF to gather people to listen to me*

*tries hard to teach people not to drink bottled water*

*people don't listen*

*2days later repeat same exact thread reworded differently*

*still nobody listens*

*repeats process over and over*


Featured in: Nutrition & LifeChoose your water bottles very carefully in order to prevent chemicals in the plastic from leaching into your water.
Plastic water bottles are very convenient for carting water around when we are on the go, as they don't break if we drop them. However, it is worth paying attention to the type of plastic your water bottle is made of, to ensure that the chemicals in the plastic do not leach into the water. If you taste plastic, you are drinking it, so get yourself another bottle.

To be certain that you are choosing a bottle that does not leach, check the recycling symbol on your bottle. If it is a #2 HDPE (high density polyethylene), or a #4 LDPE (low density polyethylene), or a #5 PP (polypropylene), your bottle is fine. The type of plastic bottle in which water is usually sold is usually a #1, and is only recommended for one time use. Do not refill it. Better to use a reusable water bottle, and fill it with your own filtered water from home and keep these single-use bottles out of the landfill.

Unfortunately, those fabulous colourful hard plastic lexan bottles made with polycarbonate plastics and identified by the #7 recycling symbol, may leach BPA. Bisphenol A is a xenoestrogen, a known endocrine disruptor, meaning it disturbs the hormonal messaging in our bodies. Synthetic xenoestrogens are linked to breast cancer and uterine cancer in women, decreased testosterone levels in men, and are particularly devastating to babies and young children. BPA has even been linked to insulin resistance and Type 2 Diabetes. For more of the science on the effects of BPA on our endocrine system etc. see these studies: Environmental Health Perspectives Journal. Nalgene, the company that manufactures the lexan water bottles also makes #2 HDPE bottles in the same sizes and shapes, so we have a viable alternative. Order one at Nalgene.

Unfortunately, most plastic baby bottles and drinking cups are made with plastics containing Bisphenol A. In 2006 Europe banned all products made for children under age 3 containing BPA, and as of Dec. 2006 the city of San Franscisco followed suit. In March 2007 a billion-dollar class action suit was commenced against Gerber, Playtex, Evenflo, Avent, and Dr. Brown's in Los Angeles superior court for harm done to babies caused by drinking out of baby bottles and sippy cups containing BPA. So, to be certain that your baby is not exposed, use glass bottles.

Check the recycling numbers on all your plastic food containers as well, and gradually move to storing all food in glass or ceramic.

Store water in glass or brass if possible, and out of direct sunlight.

Chek, Paul; How to Eat, Move and Be Healthy! Chek Institute, San Diego, CA, 2004.

Alonso-Magdelena, Paloma; "The estrogenic effect of Bisphenol A disrupts pancreatic β-cell function in vivo and induces insulin resistance" Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 114, No. 1, Jan. 2006.

dude! I'm sold. Those plastic fuckers!!!
 
hanselthecaretaker said:
Shows you how pointless and hypocritical organized religion can be.
Good people will do good things regardless of religion and often in spite of it.




As Richard Feynman said, "When you look at the universe and understand its laws, the theory that it is all arranged as a stage for God to watch man's struggle for good and evil seems inadequate."
 
nefertiti said:
Not at all. I like java. I dislike pointless repetition.
I don't agree that his threads on the same subject are pointless.

Advocating a certain point of view consistently is not pointless, it can over time sway people's opinions.



b0und (just saying)
 
b0und said:
I don't agree that his threads on the same subject are pointless.

Advocating a certain point of view consistently is not pointless, it can over time sway people's opinions.



b0und (just saying)

We'll have to agree to disagree.

This topic, this medium, the repetition acheives nothing. Also, big difference between being repetitive and being...hmm...consistent about a belief. When you push something too hard, too frequently, it's human nature to want to push yourself away from those ideas. The more I read his threads, the more I want to speak up for religion - which is ridiculous considering I'm sort of agnostic and haven't been to church in two years.
 
nefertiti said:
I figured it was the time of year, but seriously...it's not like you're having to compete with religion and faith based threads here. Your anti-faith/religion threads are bumping threads about pot, sex in cars, randy moss, a bisexual chick, fighting, and illegal downloading - plus your own other threads.

link to the bi-sexual chick thread please.
 
javaguru said:
Where does the United States fit in all this? Americans are very religious.

Actually, Americans are only nominally religious.

Belief in God may provide comfort to the individual believer, but, at the societal level, its results do not compare at all favorably with that of the more secular societies. When seeking a more civil, just, safe, humane, and healthy society, one is more likely to find it among those nations ranking low in religious faith-contrary to the preaching of religious folks.

One cannot base the health of the macro based on the micro. The two are only semi related. It has been shown that people who have faith in a higher power are more healthy and live longer than those who don't. This is a general truth, not a specific one. In other words, an individual atheist could live to be 100 years old and be in perfect health up until his dying day. But the aggregation of atheists vs. the aggregation of the faithful shows that the aggregate numbers are higher for the faithful.

That said, however, it would be an error to subsume that because X number of people within a society have faith and Y do not then there is a causal relationship to the aggregate health of society such that when X or Y move along an axis then the aggregate societal health, denoted by Z, moves to a degree in the direction of the sum between them.

I don't know if that's what you were asking, but there certainly is no mathematical formula that can tell us the aggregate health of a society based on how many members believe in God and how many do not.
 
b0und said:
I don't agree that his threads on the same subject are pointless.

Advocating a certain point of view consistently is not pointless, it can over time sway people's opinions.



b0und (just saying)
If someone truly believes their holy book is the word of God and the universe is less than 10k years old then I doubt there is anything that anyone can say or do that would convince them otherwise. At best you can put information out there and people will pay attention or they won't. I've gotten numerous positive PM's and karma messages in regard to these threads.

The religious right are always going on about how this would be a better country if everyone worshiped Jesus and the reason things are "falling apart" is the godlessness of the US.
 
b0und said:
I don't agree that his threads on the same subject are pointless.

Advocating a certain point of view consistently is not pointless, it can over time sway people's opinions.



b0und (just saying)


lol @ some strangers online posts swaying another persons faith and religion that they've had for years, that's is just flat out ridiculous

not just ridiculous, but more or less a sad motive in general to try and argue about religion with people... Honestly though, what is the purpose of arguing about someones faith? Does it change any outcomes? Does anyone benefit from debating if god is real or not? lol? Anyone that looks at it from the outside in at the people debating are cracking up because nothing changes in the end and the discussion just repeats itself later due to no factual conclusions

it's just too funny watching the same people repetitively bring up the same topics again and again just to squal up some attention
 
I didn't read all of the original post, but regarding faith - if it gets you thru the day, well then there you go......some people need something such as that to feel complete or simply to get thru the day....
 
jenscats5 said:
I didn't read all of the original post, but regarding faith - if it gets you thru the day, well then there you go......some people need something such as that to feel complete or simply to get thru the day....

babe.jpg
 
The one thing I have faith in: all atheists will be dead one day and they have absolutely no chance for existence in the afterlife.
 
nefertiti said:
There are plenty of things to talk about that can stimulate intelligent conversation that have nothing to do with religion. Your threads basically incite the same debates over and over and over again - they go nowhere, no one changes their mind, the same people get offended, the same people cheer you on.

edit: why do I suddenly have 2k more in karma? I've been playing around in the bookie forum, but the only recent bet that's been settled was the pats and I already got my karma for that.
And they immediately drop off the radar....post something controversial or sexual and you might get thread of the week. I don't care about of converting anyone....EF C&c is entertainment first...
 
swole said:
lol, wow

do people actually enjoy reading this?

i think we should all take bits and pieces from the world's religions and combine them into a general rule of living

religion seems to take love out of our hearts as it's a means of division among earth's masses

abe lincoln said it best

"When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. That's my religion."
agree with Abe Lincoln on that one!
 
javaguru said:
As Richard Feynman said, "When you look at the universe and understand its laws, the theory that it is all arranged as a stage for God to watch man's struggle for good and evil seems inadequate."

"I cannot define the real problem, therefore I suspect there's no real problem, but I'm not sure there's no real problem." :D



:cow:
 
Lestat said:
agree with Abe Lincoln on that one!
The religious love to put forth the myth that belief in God is required for a moral society. It was a pleasure for me to post a research article that showed the countries with the highest rates of "non-belief" had the highest standards of living.
 
I know this was started a while back but dayum java.

Why do you hate God soooooooo much? I mean really you are just as bad as the left and right wing extremeists.


Note to self keep any and all explosives away from java.
 
SugarTits said:
I know this was started a while back but dayum java.

Why do you hate God soooooooo much? I mean really you are just as bad as the left and right wing extremeists.


Note to self keep any and all explosives away from java.
You can't hate something that doesn't exist. You would be better served keeping those explosives away from the theists; They're the ones blowing shit up over an imaginary sky father that speaks through his living word. :)
 
Top Bottom