Kinikuman
Well-known Member
The good ole' fire and brimstone protestant Christianity of the lone star state seems very effective at either completely blinding folks or waking them up in a big way. It sure did for me. Wake me up, that is.
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Why there almost certainly is No God!!
- Thread starter Desibaba
- Start date
The good ole' fire and brimstone protestant Christianity of the lone star state seems very effective at either completely blinding folks or waking them up in a big way. It sure did for me. Wake me up, that is.
I wish the fire and brimstone would leave our government. Some people should take their bible and go home. There is a time for governing and there is a time for preaching, but the 2 don't seem to mix well.
"The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man." – Thomas Jefferson, 1800
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." – Thomas Jefferson, 1802
[Chopra Crap] An emerging view, alternate to Darwin's random mutations & natural selection is that consciousness may be the driver of complexity/evolution.
https://twitter.com/deepakchopra/status/524181065829609476
Why Does Deepak Chopra Hate Me?
http://ncse.com/blog/2015/04/why-does-deepak-chopra-hate-me-0016257
https://twitter.com/deepakchopra/status/524181065829609476
Why Does Deepak Chopra Hate Me?
http://ncse.com/blog/2015/04/why-does-deepak-chopra-hate-me-0016257
How to Persuade an Atheist to Become Christian
http://www.wikihow.com/Persuade-an-Atheist-to-Become-Christian
A persuasive discussion of Life in Christ is not presenting your personal religion. Christianity is not about your personal faith or private interpretation of the Gospel. Discussing your firmly decided faith in Christ can be interesting when two persons' ideals are as diametrically opposed as the atheist's (nonbeliever) and yours as a dedicated Christian. If you want to discuss your faith relationship with Christ with a nonbeliever, it's very important to plan how you would begin approaching the subject tactfully and talking about it in a personable way, not sparring or dueling, but communicating your personal experience and knowledge of life in Christ and your friends views on what you say... and responding pleasantly.
http://www.wikihow.com/Persuade-an-Atheist-to-Become-Christian
A persuasive discussion of Life in Christ is not presenting your personal religion. Christianity is not about your personal faith or private interpretation of the Gospel. Discussing your firmly decided faith in Christ can be interesting when two persons' ideals are as diametrically opposed as the atheist's (nonbeliever) and yours as a dedicated Christian. If you want to discuss your faith relationship with Christ with a nonbeliever, it's very important to plan how you would begin approaching the subject tactfully and talking about it in a personable way, not sparring or dueling, but communicating your personal experience and knowledge of life in Christ and your friends views on what you say... and responding pleasantly.
The One-Religious-World-View Public Policy of the Conservative Christians and the Way Out
https://verdict.justia.com/2015/04/...f-the-conservative-christians-and-the-way-out
From the beginning of the first Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), it was nearly impossible for most of us to predict what claim would land in our laps next, or what claims would dominate. Except for the conservative Christians, whose agenda keeps popping up through the policy and RFRA thicket.
When RFRA began its journey through our society in 1993, the conservative Christian agenda was so deeply buried that the “Coalition for the Free Exercise of Religion” included the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and People for the American Way. President Clinton proudly signed it.
To this day, conservative Christians like to describe the RFRAs as “bipartisan” as they point to Clinton’s and the ACLU’s support, because that gives them cover for their extreme conservative agendas. No more. The anti-progressive agendas slowly leaked out, and now all of those liberal groups have some explaining to do, but more importantly, battles to wage, and to their credit they have stepped up.
But the real folks at fault are the legislators who have been willing to accept faith and faith alone as a reason to pass laws.
The Recent Parade of Conservative Christian Agendas Transformed into Law
From the late 20th century to now, major public policy has been shaped to fit one religious world view, that of the conservative Christians. I am not a political scientist and so won’t venture to say why this is, other than to note that lobbying takes a lot of money.
They have heavily invested to make public policy reflect their beliefs in the following categories: reproductive health care, housing discrimination law, sexual orientation anti-discrimination law, same-sex marriage, and parental control over their children.
Reproductive health care. Since the Supreme Court recognized the right to reproductive privacy in Griswold v. Connecticut, there have been lobbyists operating to regulate and reduce the availability of contraception. After Roe v. Wade, there was a similar response, on steroids. Abortion has been regulated every which way to Sunday, including mandatory delays, “educational” materials to be shown by doctors, and exclusion of government welfare support for poor women. Who fought for these restrictions? Conservative Christians.
More recently, the federal government and some states have enacted so-called “conscience clauses,” which authorize health care professionals from pharmacists to emergency room doctors to refuse to provide prescriptions or other medical treatment if doing so conflicts with their religious faith, as Professor Leslie Griffin discusses here. They are worded broadly, but the goal was to reduce the availability of contraception, miscarriage medications, and abortifacients even in cases of rape or incest. Who demanded and succeeded in obtaining these laws? Conservative Christians.
Even though the vast majority of Americans approve and use contraception, the drive to reduce availability continues. Look at the anti-contraceptive agenda revealed when Hobby Lobby raised the RFRA sword to fight off the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate for its employees in arts and crafts stores in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. Again: conservative Christians at work.
Housing Discrimination. Behind the apparently ecumenical RFRA drive in the early 1990s, there was an intent to undermine housing discrimination based on familial or marital status (a fact unintentionally disclosed during the first unsuccessful drive to enact a California RFRA). There was significant success because marital status never became a category under the federal fair housing law, and it is only recognized in a handful of states. Who was against the fair housing laws (actually from the beginning)? Conservative Christians.
LGBT Discrimination. Once Massachusetts recognized a right to same-sex marriage, state constitutional amendments and laws to ban gay marriage appeared in state after state. There was serious determination: after California recognized same-sex marriage, a referendum was passed to invalidate it. Who again? Conservative Christians.
Then there were demands for LGBTQ anti-discrimination laws, and the backlash began. Some cities and states did, but far from all, and the federal government never has. When some Colorado cities extended such protection, a Colorado referendum prohibited such civil rights. Source: Conservative Christians.
The Supreme Court in Romer v. Evans invalidated the Colorado law, because it was nothing but animus. So now there was a “need” for laws that would permit believers to avoid those anti-discrimination laws. RFRA advocates started to argue that the RFRAs apply between private entities so that business owners could reject same-sex couples and the LGBTQ community as customers. Such bills were introduced in Arizona, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Indiana, as I discuss here and here. One more time: conservative Christians.
Some might believe that the Indiana RFRA was the Waterloo for the conservative Christian agenda. Not so fast.
Family values. What is left? Well, family values, and in particular, parental rights to control their children.
The original version of the Georgia RFRA introduced this year contained the following language:
Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to . . . Impair the fundamental right of every parent to control the care and custody of such parent’s minor children, including but not limited to control over education, discipline, religious and moral instruction, health, medical care, welfare, place of habitation, counseling, and psychological and emotional well-being of such minor children as provided for under the laws of this state and of the United States . . . .
This was an odd parental rights provision in that it was being carved out of the RFRA with its extraordinary protection for religiously motivated conduct. Yet, what was more remarkable is that this language appeared in a RFRA at all. While the Georgia RFRA went nowhere, this revealed that the RFRAs are becoming vehicles for explicit agendas, which were originally kept under the radar to get the first RFRA enacted.
Later in 2015, Idaho considered and enacted a stand-alone parental rights law that now co-exists with the state RFRA. It grants parents a “fundamental right” to control their children’s upbringing in all categories, whether or not the state or federal constitutions accord parents a “fundamental” right of control. Again, this is straight out of the conservative Christian playbook. No doubt, it will be pushed in state after state. By whom? Conservative Christians.
Why does this matter? Because children die in homes where the parents choose faith over medical care; herd immunity is on the wane with the failure to vaccinate arising from religious exceptions; children are given to men in religious polygamist communities; children in deeply religious schools are often shortchanged on educational content; and children are disproportionately sexually abused in the home as compared to any other venue. Children need rights and more protection, not religious parents who can hide behind a “fundamental right” and a RFRA to martyr their children.
The Way Out of a One-Religious-World-View Public Policy
While the RFRA movement started with a remarkable even if utterly misguided bipartisan coalition, it is increasingly clear that one religious cohort in the United States has stood to benefit, and that the RFRA push is really just an integral part of the larger goal of imposing one religious world view on national and state public policy. The result is that the claim to a generic religious liberty now rings hollow. More importantly, it is time for our elected representatives to be reminded that, under the Constitution, they are required to represent all Americans, regardless of faith or creed.
When a lobbyist demands a law simply due to faith, or God, or Jesus, that’s not enough. If you need proof, you might want to give Indiana’s Gov. Mike Pence a call, as he has some valuable recent experience with thoughtlessly backing a law with no other justification than faith. In lieu of a call, though, you could simply read the polls.
https://verdict.justia.com/2015/04/...f-the-conservative-christians-and-the-way-out
From the beginning of the first Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), it was nearly impossible for most of us to predict what claim would land in our laps next, or what claims would dominate. Except for the conservative Christians, whose agenda keeps popping up through the policy and RFRA thicket.
When RFRA began its journey through our society in 1993, the conservative Christian agenda was so deeply buried that the “Coalition for the Free Exercise of Religion” included the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and People for the American Way. President Clinton proudly signed it.
To this day, conservative Christians like to describe the RFRAs as “bipartisan” as they point to Clinton’s and the ACLU’s support, because that gives them cover for their extreme conservative agendas. No more. The anti-progressive agendas slowly leaked out, and now all of those liberal groups have some explaining to do, but more importantly, battles to wage, and to their credit they have stepped up.
But the real folks at fault are the legislators who have been willing to accept faith and faith alone as a reason to pass laws.
The Recent Parade of Conservative Christian Agendas Transformed into Law
From the late 20th century to now, major public policy has been shaped to fit one religious world view, that of the conservative Christians. I am not a political scientist and so won’t venture to say why this is, other than to note that lobbying takes a lot of money.
They have heavily invested to make public policy reflect their beliefs in the following categories: reproductive health care, housing discrimination law, sexual orientation anti-discrimination law, same-sex marriage, and parental control over their children.
Reproductive health care. Since the Supreme Court recognized the right to reproductive privacy in Griswold v. Connecticut, there have been lobbyists operating to regulate and reduce the availability of contraception. After Roe v. Wade, there was a similar response, on steroids. Abortion has been regulated every which way to Sunday, including mandatory delays, “educational” materials to be shown by doctors, and exclusion of government welfare support for poor women. Who fought for these restrictions? Conservative Christians.
More recently, the federal government and some states have enacted so-called “conscience clauses,” which authorize health care professionals from pharmacists to emergency room doctors to refuse to provide prescriptions or other medical treatment if doing so conflicts with their religious faith, as Professor Leslie Griffin discusses here. They are worded broadly, but the goal was to reduce the availability of contraception, miscarriage medications, and abortifacients even in cases of rape or incest. Who demanded and succeeded in obtaining these laws? Conservative Christians.
Even though the vast majority of Americans approve and use contraception, the drive to reduce availability continues. Look at the anti-contraceptive agenda revealed when Hobby Lobby raised the RFRA sword to fight off the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate for its employees in arts and crafts stores in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. Again: conservative Christians at work.
Housing Discrimination. Behind the apparently ecumenical RFRA drive in the early 1990s, there was an intent to undermine housing discrimination based on familial or marital status (a fact unintentionally disclosed during the first unsuccessful drive to enact a California RFRA). There was significant success because marital status never became a category under the federal fair housing law, and it is only recognized in a handful of states. Who was against the fair housing laws (actually from the beginning)? Conservative Christians.
LGBT Discrimination. Once Massachusetts recognized a right to same-sex marriage, state constitutional amendments and laws to ban gay marriage appeared in state after state. There was serious determination: after California recognized same-sex marriage, a referendum was passed to invalidate it. Who again? Conservative Christians.
Then there were demands for LGBTQ anti-discrimination laws, and the backlash began. Some cities and states did, but far from all, and the federal government never has. When some Colorado cities extended such protection, a Colorado referendum prohibited such civil rights. Source: Conservative Christians.
The Supreme Court in Romer v. Evans invalidated the Colorado law, because it was nothing but animus. So now there was a “need” for laws that would permit believers to avoid those anti-discrimination laws. RFRA advocates started to argue that the RFRAs apply between private entities so that business owners could reject same-sex couples and the LGBTQ community as customers. Such bills were introduced in Arizona, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Indiana, as I discuss here and here. One more time: conservative Christians.
Some might believe that the Indiana RFRA was the Waterloo for the conservative Christian agenda. Not so fast.
Family values. What is left? Well, family values, and in particular, parental rights to control their children.
The original version of the Georgia RFRA introduced this year contained the following language:
Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to . . . Impair the fundamental right of every parent to control the care and custody of such parent’s minor children, including but not limited to control over education, discipline, religious and moral instruction, health, medical care, welfare, place of habitation, counseling, and psychological and emotional well-being of such minor children as provided for under the laws of this state and of the United States . . . .
This was an odd parental rights provision in that it was being carved out of the RFRA with its extraordinary protection for religiously motivated conduct. Yet, what was more remarkable is that this language appeared in a RFRA at all. While the Georgia RFRA went nowhere, this revealed that the RFRAs are becoming vehicles for explicit agendas, which were originally kept under the radar to get the first RFRA enacted.
Later in 2015, Idaho considered and enacted a stand-alone parental rights law that now co-exists with the state RFRA. It grants parents a “fundamental right” to control their children’s upbringing in all categories, whether or not the state or federal constitutions accord parents a “fundamental” right of control. Again, this is straight out of the conservative Christian playbook. No doubt, it will be pushed in state after state. By whom? Conservative Christians.
Why does this matter? Because children die in homes where the parents choose faith over medical care; herd immunity is on the wane with the failure to vaccinate arising from religious exceptions; children are given to men in religious polygamist communities; children in deeply religious schools are often shortchanged on educational content; and children are disproportionately sexually abused in the home as compared to any other venue. Children need rights and more protection, not religious parents who can hide behind a “fundamental right” and a RFRA to martyr their children.
The Way Out of a One-Religious-World-View Public Policy
While the RFRA movement started with a remarkable even if utterly misguided bipartisan coalition, it is increasingly clear that one religious cohort in the United States has stood to benefit, and that the RFRA push is really just an integral part of the larger goal of imposing one religious world view on national and state public policy. The result is that the claim to a generic religious liberty now rings hollow. More importantly, it is time for our elected representatives to be reminded that, under the Constitution, they are required to represent all Americans, regardless of faith or creed.
When a lobbyist demands a law simply due to faith, or God, or Jesus, that’s not enough. If you need proof, you might want to give Indiana’s Gov. Mike Pence a call, as he has some valuable recent experience with thoughtlessly backing a law with no other justification than faith. In lieu of a call, though, you could simply read the polls.
Last edited:
Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to Civilization?
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell2.htm
My own view on religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race. I cannot, however, deny that it has made some contributions to civilization. It helped in early days to fix the calendar, and it caused Egyptian priests to chronicle eclipses with such care that in time they became able to predict them. These two services I am prepared to acknowledge, but I do not know of any others.
The word religion is used nowadays in a very loose sense. Some people, under the influence of extreme Protestantism, employ the word to denote any serious personal convictions as to morals or the nature of the universe. This use of the word is quite unhistorical. Religion is primarily a social phenomenon. Churches may owe their origin to teachers with strong individual convictions, but these teachers have seldom had much influence upon the churches that they have founded, whereas churches have had enormous influence upon the communities in which they flourished. To take the case that is of most interest to members of Western civilization: the teaching of Christ, as it appears in the Gospels, has had extraordinarily little to do with the ethics of Christians. The most important thing about Christianity, from a social and historical point of view, is not Christ but the church, and if we are to judge of Christianity as a social force we must not go to the Gospels for our material. Christ taught that you should give your goods to the poor, that you should not fight, that you should not go to church, and that you should not punish adultery. Neither Catholics nor Protestants have shown any strong desire to follow His teaching in any of these respects. Some of the Franciscans, it is true, attempted to teach the doctrine of apostolic poverty, but the Pope condemned them, and their doctrine was declared heretical. Or, again, consider such a text as "Judge not, that ye be not judged," and ask yourself what influence such a text has had upon the Inquisition and the Ku Klux Klan.
What is true of Christianity is equally true of Buddhism. The Buddha was amiable and enlightened; on his deathbed he laughed at his disciples for supposing that he was immortal. But the Buddhist priesthood -- as it exists, for example, in Tibet -- has been obscurantist, tyrannous, and cruel in the highest degree.
There is nothing accidental about this difference between a church and its founder. As soon as absolute truth is supposed to be contained in the sayings of a certain man, there is a body of experts to interpret his sayings, and these experts infallibly acquire power, since they hold the key to truth. Like any other privileged caste, they use their power for their own advantage. They are, however, in one respect worse than any other privileged caste, since it is their business to expound an unchanging truth, revealed once for all in utter perfection, so that they become necessarily opponents of all intellectual and moral progress. The church opposed Galileo and Darwin; in our own day it opposes Freud. In the days of its greatest power it went further in its opposition to the intellectual life. Pope Gregory the Great wrote to a certain bishop a letter beginning: "A report has reached us which we cannot mention without a blush, that thou expoundest grammar to certain friends." The bishop was compelled by pontifical authority to desist from this wicked labor, and Latinity did not recover until the Renaissance. It is not only intellectually but also morally that religion is pernicious. I mean by this that it teaches ethical codes which are not conducive to human happiness. When, a few years ago, a plebiscite was taken in Germany as to whether the deposed royal houses should still be allowed to enjoy their private property, the churches in Germany officially stated that it would be contrary to the teaching of Christianity to deprive them of it. The churches, as everyone knows, opposed the abolition of slavery as long as they dared, and with a few well-advertised exceptions they oppose at the present day every movement toward economic justice. The Pope has officially condemned Socialism.
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell2.htm
My own view on religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race. I cannot, however, deny that it has made some contributions to civilization. It helped in early days to fix the calendar, and it caused Egyptian priests to chronicle eclipses with such care that in time they became able to predict them. These two services I am prepared to acknowledge, but I do not know of any others.
The word religion is used nowadays in a very loose sense. Some people, under the influence of extreme Protestantism, employ the word to denote any serious personal convictions as to morals or the nature of the universe. This use of the word is quite unhistorical. Religion is primarily a social phenomenon. Churches may owe their origin to teachers with strong individual convictions, but these teachers have seldom had much influence upon the churches that they have founded, whereas churches have had enormous influence upon the communities in which they flourished. To take the case that is of most interest to members of Western civilization: the teaching of Christ, as it appears in the Gospels, has had extraordinarily little to do with the ethics of Christians. The most important thing about Christianity, from a social and historical point of view, is not Christ but the church, and if we are to judge of Christianity as a social force we must not go to the Gospels for our material. Christ taught that you should give your goods to the poor, that you should not fight, that you should not go to church, and that you should not punish adultery. Neither Catholics nor Protestants have shown any strong desire to follow His teaching in any of these respects. Some of the Franciscans, it is true, attempted to teach the doctrine of apostolic poverty, but the Pope condemned them, and their doctrine was declared heretical. Or, again, consider such a text as "Judge not, that ye be not judged," and ask yourself what influence such a text has had upon the Inquisition and the Ku Klux Klan.
What is true of Christianity is equally true of Buddhism. The Buddha was amiable and enlightened; on his deathbed he laughed at his disciples for supposing that he was immortal. But the Buddhist priesthood -- as it exists, for example, in Tibet -- has been obscurantist, tyrannous, and cruel in the highest degree.
There is nothing accidental about this difference between a church and its founder. As soon as absolute truth is supposed to be contained in the sayings of a certain man, there is a body of experts to interpret his sayings, and these experts infallibly acquire power, since they hold the key to truth. Like any other privileged caste, they use their power for their own advantage. They are, however, in one respect worse than any other privileged caste, since it is their business to expound an unchanging truth, revealed once for all in utter perfection, so that they become necessarily opponents of all intellectual and moral progress. The church opposed Galileo and Darwin; in our own day it opposes Freud. In the days of its greatest power it went further in its opposition to the intellectual life. Pope Gregory the Great wrote to a certain bishop a letter beginning: "A report has reached us which we cannot mention without a blush, that thou expoundest grammar to certain friends." The bishop was compelled by pontifical authority to desist from this wicked labor, and Latinity did not recover until the Renaissance. It is not only intellectually but also morally that religion is pernicious. I mean by this that it teaches ethical codes which are not conducive to human happiness. When, a few years ago, a plebiscite was taken in Germany as to whether the deposed royal houses should still be allowed to enjoy their private property, the churches in Germany officially stated that it would be contrary to the teaching of Christianity to deprive them of it. The churches, as everyone knows, opposed the abolition of slavery as long as they dared, and with a few well-advertised exceptions they oppose at the present day every movement toward economic justice. The Pope has officially condemned Socialism.
Why the Future of Religion Is Bleak
Religious institutions have survived by controlling what their adherents know, argues Tufts Prof. Daniel C. Dennett, but today that is next to impossible.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-the-future-of-religion-is-bleak-1430104785
Religion has been waning in influence for several centuries, especially in Europe and North America. There have been a few brief and local revivals, but in recent years the pace of decline has accelerated.
Today one of the largest categories of religious affiliation in the world—with more than a billion people—is no religion at all, the “Nones.” One out of six Americans is already a None; by 2050, the figure will be one out of four, according to a new Pew Research Center study. Churches are being closed by the hundreds, deconsecrated and rehabilitated as housing, offices, restaurants and the like, or just abandoned.
If this trend continues, religion largely will evaporate, at least in the West. Pockets of intense religious activity may continue, made up of people who will be more sharply differentiated from most of society in attitudes and customs, a likely source of growing tension and conflict.
Could anything turn this decline around? Yes, unfortunately. A global plague, a world war fought over water or oil, the collapse of the Internet (and thereby almost all electronic communication) or some as-yet unimagined catastrophe could throw the remaining population into misery and fear, the soil in which religion flourishes best.
With hardly any significant exceptions, religion recedes whenever human security and well-being rises, a fact that has recently been shown in numerous studies, but was suspected by John Calvin in the 16th century. He noted that the more prosperous and comfortable his Genevans became, the less dependent they were on church. Presumably, those who deplore the decline of religion in the world today would not welcome the sort of devastation and despair that could give religion its second wind.
There is no other plausible scenario that could halt the slide, for a fairly obvious reason: the recent rapid growth of mutual knowledge, thanks to the global spread of electronic and digital communication.
Any institution—just like a person or an organism—depends on a modicum of privacy in which to conduct its business and control its activities without too much interference and too many prying eyes. Religious institutions, since their founding millennia ago, have managed to keep secrets and to control what their flocks knew about the world, about other religions and about the inner workings of their own religion with relative ease. Today it is next to impossible.
What is particularly corrosive to religion isn’t just the newly available information that can be unearthed by the curious, but the ambient knowledge that is shared by the general populace.
Laughter is particularly subversive. A Mormon watching the episode of “South Park” that lampoons the Church of Latter-day Saints doesn’t just see some outsiders poking fun at her religion. She learns that vast numbers of people find her religion comical, preposterous, ludicrous, as confirmed by the writers’ decision to belittle it and the networks’ decision to broadcast it. This may heighten her loyalty, but it also may shake her confidence, and as soon as she even entertains the hypothesis that belief in God might be a life-enhancing illusion, not a rock-solid truth, she is on the slippery slope.
The late computer scientist John McCarthy, a founder of artificial intelligence, once said, “When I see a slippery slope, my instinct is to build a terrace.” That’s what theologians have been doing for hundreds of years, shoring up whatever they think they can salvage from the rain of information eroding their ancient peaks of doctrine. In some denominations the clergy are obliged to swear to uphold the “inerrant truth” of every sentence in the Bible, but this is becoming more of an embarrassment than a shield against doubt.
Hardly anybody today believes in—or would want to believe in—the wrathful, Old Testament Jehovah, for instance. A God who commands our love is a nasty piece of work by today’s perspectives, and has been replaced, over the centuries, by ever-less-anthropomorphic (but more “loving,” more “forgiving”) addressees of our prayers. (Isn’t it curious how the obsolete term “God-fearing” is still used in some quarters as a commendation?) God has no ears, but may “listen” to our prayers, and “works in mysterious ways,” which is a face-saving way of acknowledging that He doesn’t answer them at all.
Do you remember the impressive and rigorous Benson Study? It was conducted by a Harvard Medical School team that labored for years. It was finally published in 2006, and it concluded that intercessionary prayer for the recovery of heart-surgery patients not only didn’t work; in some conditions it showed a small but measurable increase in post-surgical complications.
This was dutifully reported by the media, and promptly forgotten by most. But if the study had found any positive result, you can be sure it would have been on the cover of all the newsmagazines and featured in television specials. This pro-religion bias in the media is crumbling, however, and once it dissolves, the exposure of all the antique falsehoods of religious doctrine will oblige the theologians to build yet another terrace, lower down the slope. They are running out of rocks.
Religious leaders of all faiths are struggling to find ways of keeping their institutions going, and one of the themes emerging from the surveys they conduct is that creed should be de-emphasized and loyalty and community should be fostered.
If we are lucky—if human health and security continue to rise and spread around the globe—churches might evolve into humanist communities and social clubs, dedicated to good works, with distinctive ceremonies and disappearing doctrine, except for a scattering of reclusive sects marked by something like institutional paranoia.
If we are unlucky and calamity strikes, our anxiety and misery will provide plenty of fuel for revivals and inventions of religions we have happily learned to live without.
Religious institutions have survived by controlling what their adherents know, argues Tufts Prof. Daniel C. Dennett, but today that is next to impossible.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-the-future-of-religion-is-bleak-1430104785
Religion has been waning in influence for several centuries, especially in Europe and North America. There have been a few brief and local revivals, but in recent years the pace of decline has accelerated.
Today one of the largest categories of religious affiliation in the world—with more than a billion people—is no religion at all, the “Nones.” One out of six Americans is already a None; by 2050, the figure will be one out of four, according to a new Pew Research Center study. Churches are being closed by the hundreds, deconsecrated and rehabilitated as housing, offices, restaurants and the like, or just abandoned.
If this trend continues, religion largely will evaporate, at least in the West. Pockets of intense religious activity may continue, made up of people who will be more sharply differentiated from most of society in attitudes and customs, a likely source of growing tension and conflict.
Could anything turn this decline around? Yes, unfortunately. A global plague, a world war fought over water or oil, the collapse of the Internet (and thereby almost all electronic communication) or some as-yet unimagined catastrophe could throw the remaining population into misery and fear, the soil in which religion flourishes best.
With hardly any significant exceptions, religion recedes whenever human security and well-being rises, a fact that has recently been shown in numerous studies, but was suspected by John Calvin in the 16th century. He noted that the more prosperous and comfortable his Genevans became, the less dependent they were on church. Presumably, those who deplore the decline of religion in the world today would not welcome the sort of devastation and despair that could give religion its second wind.
There is no other plausible scenario that could halt the slide, for a fairly obvious reason: the recent rapid growth of mutual knowledge, thanks to the global spread of electronic and digital communication.
Any institution—just like a person or an organism—depends on a modicum of privacy in which to conduct its business and control its activities without too much interference and too many prying eyes. Religious institutions, since their founding millennia ago, have managed to keep secrets and to control what their flocks knew about the world, about other religions and about the inner workings of their own religion with relative ease. Today it is next to impossible.
What is particularly corrosive to religion isn’t just the newly available information that can be unearthed by the curious, but the ambient knowledge that is shared by the general populace.
Laughter is particularly subversive. A Mormon watching the episode of “South Park” that lampoons the Church of Latter-day Saints doesn’t just see some outsiders poking fun at her religion. She learns that vast numbers of people find her religion comical, preposterous, ludicrous, as confirmed by the writers’ decision to belittle it and the networks’ decision to broadcast it. This may heighten her loyalty, but it also may shake her confidence, and as soon as she even entertains the hypothesis that belief in God might be a life-enhancing illusion, not a rock-solid truth, she is on the slippery slope.
The late computer scientist John McCarthy, a founder of artificial intelligence, once said, “When I see a slippery slope, my instinct is to build a terrace.” That’s what theologians have been doing for hundreds of years, shoring up whatever they think they can salvage from the rain of information eroding their ancient peaks of doctrine. In some denominations the clergy are obliged to swear to uphold the “inerrant truth” of every sentence in the Bible, but this is becoming more of an embarrassment than a shield against doubt.
Hardly anybody today believes in—or would want to believe in—the wrathful, Old Testament Jehovah, for instance. A God who commands our love is a nasty piece of work by today’s perspectives, and has been replaced, over the centuries, by ever-less-anthropomorphic (but more “loving,” more “forgiving”) addressees of our prayers. (Isn’t it curious how the obsolete term “God-fearing” is still used in some quarters as a commendation?) God has no ears, but may “listen” to our prayers, and “works in mysterious ways,” which is a face-saving way of acknowledging that He doesn’t answer them at all.
Do you remember the impressive and rigorous Benson Study? It was conducted by a Harvard Medical School team that labored for years. It was finally published in 2006, and it concluded that intercessionary prayer for the recovery of heart-surgery patients not only didn’t work; in some conditions it showed a small but measurable increase in post-surgical complications.
This was dutifully reported by the media, and promptly forgotten by most. But if the study had found any positive result, you can be sure it would have been on the cover of all the newsmagazines and featured in television specials. This pro-religion bias in the media is crumbling, however, and once it dissolves, the exposure of all the antique falsehoods of religious doctrine will oblige the theologians to build yet another terrace, lower down the slope. They are running out of rocks.
Religious leaders of all faiths are struggling to find ways of keeping their institutions going, and one of the themes emerging from the surveys they conduct is that creed should be de-emphasized and loyalty and community should be fostered.
If we are lucky—if human health and security continue to rise and spread around the globe—churches might evolve into humanist communities and social clubs, dedicated to good works, with distinctive ceremonies and disappearing doctrine, except for a scattering of reclusive sects marked by something like institutional paranoia.
If we are unlucky and calamity strikes, our anxiety and misery will provide plenty of fuel for revivals and inventions of religions we have happily learned to live without.
CdnGuy
New Member
I attended Catholic school grades 1-12. By no means am I some bible thumper or expert. But aren't we all going to Hell looking big and shredded for running gear half our lives???? Lol 
The Inedible Bulk
New Member
That's basically already happened in America. Can't even remember the last time I heard someone under 40 getting into a big doctrinal debate. Church is just a social/humanitarian thing now.
Yeah, there are still retards afoot, but most of the are over 60 and basically irrelevant outside of the voting booth.
Consciousness the director of evolution.??!? We are what WE THINK WE ARE. This is IF FACT NO DOUBT. Now you start talking about about a "collective consciousness" and we are talking some serious shit...
The future of MANKIND is BLEAK.!!!! Take a look around. Open your eyes folks... NoWhere to RUN NOW...
The real problem is that we were EVOLVED With Religion as a check point in Primary Operational Systems. I think of some folks that I regard as "cold hearted" or "Dark Souled". This is your future. Take your pick but there does not seem to be a middle ground as usual. Ignored and discounted / beloved & Stoned in the Streets./ Take your pick I am not really sure which one is a SUM TOTAL WORSE. This life seems to be all about NET SUFFRAGE... NET... is a RESULT of GROSS... Factors applied...
The real problem is that we were EVOLVED With Religion as a check point in Primary Operational Systems. I think of some folks that I regard as "cold hearted" or "Dark Souled". This is your future. Take your pick but there does not seem to be a middle ground as usual. Ignored and discounted / beloved & Stoned in the Streets./ Take your pick I am not really sure which one is a SUM TOTAL WORSE. This life seems to be all about NET SUFFRAGE... NET... is a RESULT of GROSS... Factors applied...
Oh, give me that old time religion
Give me that old time religion
Give me that old time religion
It's good enough for me.
Let us pray with Aphrodite,
Let us pray with Aphrodite,
She wears that see-through nightie,
And it's good enough for me.
We will pray with Zarathustra,
We'll pray just like we use ta,
I'm a Zarathustra booster,
And it's good enough for me.
We will pray with those Egyptians,
Build pyramids to put our crypts in,
Cover subways with inscriptions,
And it's good enough for me.
We will pray with those old druids,
They drink fermented fluids,
Waltzing naked though the woo-ids,
And it's good enough for me.
Hare Krishna, He must laugh on
To see me dressed in saffron
With my hair that's only half on
And it's good enough for me.
I will rise at early morning,
When my Lord gives me the warning,
That the solar age is dawning,
And that's good enough for me.
Madison bans discrimination against atheists, non-religious
http://news.yahoo.com/madison-bans-discrimination-against-atheists-non-religious-145605102.html
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — While conservatives in Indiana and Arkansas were explaining last month why their new religious objections laws weren't invitations to discriminate against gays, the leaders of Wisconsin's capital city were busy protecting the rights of another group: atheists.
In what is believed to be the first statute of its kind in the United States, Madison banned discrimination against the non-religious on April 1, giving them the same protections afforded to people based on their race, sexual orientation and religion, among other reasons.
http://news.yahoo.com/madison-bans-discrimination-against-atheists-non-religious-145605102.html
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — While conservatives in Indiana and Arkansas were explaining last month why their new religious objections laws weren't invitations to discriminate against gays, the leaders of Wisconsin's capital city were busy protecting the rights of another group: atheists.
In what is believed to be the first statute of its kind in the United States, Madison banned discrimination against the non-religious on April 1, giving them the same protections afforded to people based on their race, sexual orientation and religion, among other reasons.
Cook CL, Cohen F, Solomon S. What If They’re Right About the Afterlife? Evidence of the Role of Existential Threat on Anti-Atheist Prejudice. Social Psychological and Personality Science. http://spp.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/04/27/1948550615584200.abstract
Terror management theory posits that the uniquely human awareness of death gives rise to potentially paralyzing terror that is assuaged by embracing cultural worldviews that provide a sense that one is a valuable participant in a meaningful universe.
We propose that pervasive and pronounced anti-atheist prejudices stem, in part, from the existential threat posed by conflicting worldview beliefs. Two studies were conducted to establish that existential concerns contribute to anti-atheist sentiments.
Experiment 1 found that a subtle reminder of death increased disparagement, social distancing, and distrust of atheists.
Experiment 2 found that asking people to think about atheism increased the accessibility of implicit death thoughts.
These studies provide the first empirical link between existential concerns and anti-atheist prejudices.
Terror management theory posits that the uniquely human awareness of death gives rise to potentially paralyzing terror that is assuaged by embracing cultural worldviews that provide a sense that one is a valuable participant in a meaningful universe.
We propose that pervasive and pronounced anti-atheist prejudices stem, in part, from the existential threat posed by conflicting worldview beliefs. Two studies were conducted to establish that existential concerns contribute to anti-atheist sentiments.
Experiment 1 found that a subtle reminder of death increased disparagement, social distancing, and distrust of atheists.
Experiment 2 found that asking people to think about atheism increased the accessibility of implicit death thoughts.
These studies provide the first empirical link between existential concerns and anti-atheist prejudices.
Gets me thinking of a COUNTY FAIR SHOOTING GALLERY. And we are the targets...
WELCOME TO The 16 Bazillionth Intergalactic "Milky Way County Fair"...!
The adverts on the back side of the moon are updated daily...
Today's special is - MORONS - 3 FER 1.. Get yer red hot morons....!!!
LoL
WELCOME TO The 16 Bazillionth Intergalactic "Milky Way County Fair"...!
The adverts on the back side of the moon are updated daily...
Today's special is - MORONS - 3 FER 1.. Get yer red hot morons....!!!
LoL
The universe is unbelievably big – trillions of stars and even more planets. Soo… there just has to be life out there, right?
But where is it?
Why don’t we see any aliens?
Where are they?
And more importantly, what does this tell us about our own fate in this gigantic and scary universe? http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwaitbutwhy.com%2F2014%2F05%2Ffermi-paradox.html&h=OAQEgWkc8&enc=AZOmv8qqwhIanQb96vRZX-OdqjVTLEuRTlUltV33ndRa0FyvRpJ9EHOSYMCiH5_M73Li3HB9MPk62D17I7Y0Kpo8EJfHrjkEkZ21GPHRRwPqp65DF4lUrLQUbdy8JBHIt4yiqXtxdnZDyBneribN8AovuUM-xSvBJL-SDtU-VDN_KwtwJmyR3A9zT5JCfDlhdOukUBcgIy66GLPSMzfbFdbW&s=1 (http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi-paradox.html)
Last edited:
A DEER killed by a superior hunter never saw it coming.
The more intelligent the master, the less likely to climb in cage...
a billion stars the Milky Way galaxy. a billion galaxies in the universe..
im gonna go ahead and move to vote INFINITE.!
Just think about it. infinite crazies out there too... ohh, but lets throw our hands up and holler. and WHEN IS THE LAST TIME AN ANIMAL WALKED UP TO YOU AND SAID SHHOT ME..? LOL And WHAT have we evolved to again?!!!
if there is a God, that hadron collider will open up a black hole this summer and all problems SOLVED...!!!
The more intelligent the master, the less likely to climb in cage...
a billion stars the Milky Way galaxy. a billion galaxies in the universe..
im gonna go ahead and move to vote INFINITE.!
Just think about it. infinite crazies out there too... ohh, but lets throw our hands up and holler. and WHEN IS THE LAST TIME AN ANIMAL WALKED UP TO YOU AND SAID SHHOT ME..? LOL And WHAT have we evolved to again?!!!
if there is a God, that hadron collider will open up a black hole this summer and all problems SOLVED...!!!
Last edited:
The link was interesting but I found this article on Artificial Intelligence from the same site even more interesting:
http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-1.html
Similar threads
Sponsors
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
TrenboloneTax: Hybrid Cycling / Lifting Log aka Make Hulk Bike Fast- Latest: Trenbolonetax