Attacking "Why We Believe in Gods"

[ourlongroad]

So heres a great example of how social engineers develop and promote theories that attack our most basic foundations, foundations that the founders relied upon to build the American system.

Watch Andy Thomson at the American Atheist 2009 convention give a talk about evolution and neural development of cognitive structures for the belief in god(s), social structures, and authority.

Then ask yourself, why is research into our cognition around belief in God being funded? Who is funding it and why? What do they plan to do with the outcomes of this research (how will they apply it)?


YouTube - Why We Believe in Gods - Andy Thomson - American Atheists 09 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg)

[Kludge]

I think he was funded by Theocrats to turn people off to Atheism..

I made it to the six-minute mark.

[virgil47]

Funding is being promoted due to the progressives not being willing to share power with anyone or anything. They have realized that they cannot break the spirit of a people that believe in God. Therefore the must devise a way to cause the citizenry to doubt the existence of God. This tactic is a form of balkinization that has worked so well in other parts of the world. Andy Thomas is known on the world of progressives as a useful idiot and will be done away with as soon as the progressives are in total control. For any that doubt this will happen you have to look no further than the teachings of Mao to find proof.

[tpreitzel]

Unfortunately for this chap and atheists in general, I wonder why nearly 4 decades passed for me to fill in the blanks of my perception and be supernaturally healed one day after taking communion which I'd done many times previously. Maybe, the juice was spiked... ;) Yeah, it was spiked alright, but the agent wasn't from this conscious world. No, I didn't fill in the blanks, God did. Basically, the world is asking, "Will the real God please stand up?" He will. I'll guarantee it and chaps like this one will be left speechless with their mouth open. ;)

[ourlongroad]

Funding is being promoted due to the progressives not being willing to share power with anyone or anything. They have realized that they cannot break the spirit of a people that believe in God. Therefore the must devise a way to cause the citizenry to doubt the existence of God. This tactic is a form of balkinization that has worked so well in other parts of the world. Andy Thomas is known on the world of progressives as a useful idiot and will be done away with as soon as the progressives are in total control. For any that doubt this will happen you have to look no further than the teachings of Mao to find proof.
Wow, awesome and very perceptive reply! Thanks.

Lots of useful idiots out there in academia and think tanks who think they're really part of the inside cabal, but who will be dismissed as soon as their use-by-dates expire. As you acutely note, it's all happened before. Hitler's Brown Shirts suffered similar fates.

[t0rnado]

Scientists plan on taking the research and using it as evidence to show that people who have imaginary friends in the sky are mentally challenged.

[tpreitzel]

Scientists plan on taking the research and using it as evidence to show that people who have imaginary friends in the sky are mentally challenged.

If this chap's presentation of "evidence" is any indication, thankfully scientists won't succeed. "Something like natural selection is intuitively a little bit harder" ... well, so much for natural selection. :) Notice he can never arrive at the point to ask why children have "imaginary" friends in the first place, i.e. maybe these "imaginary" friends aren't so imaginary in the sense that we adults would perceive them due to linguistic conditioning. Furthermore, Christians do NOT * need to pray to God as the old testament indicates when God sought out certain people on His own initiative. It's a good idea, but certainly not required. I could continue refuting this drivel for some time which I lack ... ;)

* sign of faith just like talking to your kids or children talking to their "imaginary" friends... ;)

[OptionsTrader]

I'd prefer to attack the use of the word "chap."

[Natalie]

When people are less dependent on their families and churches, they are more dependent on big government. That's why atheism and communism go hand in hand.

[OptionsTrader]

I would argue that religion teaches people from an early age to believe false statements from authority figures without question. Therefore, religion prepares the mind for big government.

[idiom]

Watch Andy Thomson at the American Atheist 2009 convention give a talk about evolution and neural development of cognitive structures for the belief in god(s), social structures, and authority.

Then ask yourself, why is research into our cognition around belief in God being funded? Who is funding it and why? What do they plan to do with the outcomes of this research (how will they apply it)?

Well if the research generates truth that doesn't support the atheist assumptions then they will change their assumptions.

Are you worried that they might disprove God or something? Or that they might find a 'Christian Gene' or an 'Islamic Gene'?

Or do you perhaps fear all research into cognition full-stop?

[Uriel999]

So heres a great example of how social engineers develop and promote theories that attack our most basic foundations, foundations that the founders relied upon to build the American system.

STOP talking about the American System without knowing what the phrase means. You have absolutely no idea what the American System was and have proven that again .

Good lord, go to wikipedia and look up the term.

[Andrew-Austin]

When people are less dependent on their families and churches, they are more dependent on big government. That's why atheism and communism go hand in hand.

You have got to be kidding, lets try and be honest and stay away from such horrid generalizations.

Atheists are automatically less dependent on / more distanced from their families because???

[Bodhi]

I would argue that religion teaches people from an early age to believe false statements from authority figures without question. Therefore, religion prepares the mind for big government.

I concur. Religion makes for good sheeple. The last thing big government wants is a population full of free thinkers and individuals.

[Uriel999]

When people are less dependent on their families and churches, they are more dependent on big government. That's why atheism and communism go hand in hand.

Just because your an atheist does not mean you are not involved in with your family. Sure I feel a little awkward when they pray at the dinner table, but other than that my family ties are very tight knit. I am not dependent on the government for anything. I am also not dependent on churches. Atheism and communism do not go hand in hand.

In fact, one could throw the same baseless accusation against Christianity and communism go hand in hand because they establish the same thing; create a blindly subservient people who are enslaved philosophically, and theologically.

[Natalie]

Atheists are automatically less dependent on / more distanced from their families because???

I never said that atheists are not close to their families.

[Natalie]

Lenin said, "Atheism is a natural and inseperable part of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific socialism."

[OptionsTrader]

Lenin said, "Atheism is a natural and inseperable part of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific socialism."

A quote from someone else is not exactly a response to Uriel's questions about athiesm and dependence on family and/or government dependence.

[Cowlesy]

The only religion or non-religion I worry about is my own.

[virgil47]

Humanity has three and only three choices. One: humans are animals and as such can commit no wrongs. Two: humans are individual gods and therefore believe that some individuals have evolved more than others so choices must be made for them. Three: humans believe in a higher form of sentience and therefore are capable of humility. Animals are not capable of humility nor all all knowing beings (gods). Only those that are aware that they do not have the last word are capable of showing humility.

[idiom]

Humanity has three and only three choices. One: humans are animals and as such can commit no wrongs. Two: humans are individual gods and therefore believe that some individuals have evolved more than others so choices must be made for them. Three: humans believe in a higher form of sentience and therefore are capable of humility. Animals are not capable of humility nor all all knowing beings (gods). Only those that are aware that they do not have the last word are capable of showing humility.

Thats a false set of choices filled with non-sequiturs.

[Andrew-Austin]

Thats a false set of choices filled with non-sequiturs.


But its just oh so fun when you can make up the rules.


Lenin said, "Atheism is a natural and inseperable part of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific socialism."

Lenin was wrong about plenty of things now wasn't he? Marxism is rooted in mystic bullshit, a lot of people try and wrap their ideology with the credibility of science. We both know perfectly well there is nothing scientific about socialism, so why use such a bogus quote?

The only Marxist I have ever met and spoken with in person, happened to be a Christian.

[heavenlyboy34]

Lenin said, "Atheism is a natural and inseperable part of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific socialism."

And the official religion of the Roman Empire was a strain of Christianity. So? This thread reeks of collectivism, bigotry, and ignorance. :p

[Meatwasp]

The only religion or non-religion I worry about is my own.

Ditto Kiddo

[paulim]

Lenin said, "Atheism is a natural and inseperable part of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific socialism."

Believing in Lenin-quotes is a quite dangerous religion:rolleyes:
All these communist-mass-murderers were raised christian or jewish. And from these both creeds that teach subordination of life/beauty under a purpose its only a small step to change the purposes.
In comparison earlier tribal religions (and the pagans of today try to catch a glimpse of that) weren't able to commit such crimes, because for them every single being, human or nonhuman, deserved respect, was never only object to 'higher ends'.

[paulitics]

What about Mexico? In large, they are much more religious and family oriented than over here yet they are subservient to an authoritarian govt. Does the government use religion to teach them to be submissive?

Then of course there is the middle east..very religious, rigid, and under control of dictators that America, NATO, etc installed or are under our influence. We seem to have a hand in keeping Islamic fundamentalism strong there. Why would we want that? Sometimes, it seems that religion is just another tool that the elites use to control the masses.

[virgil47]

Perhaps one of these so called disbelievers would care to come up with some alternatives to what I posted. I really would enjoy seeing numbers 4, 5, 6, etc. Instead of saying my post is full of non-sequiturs perhaps you would be so kind as to provide the facts as you see them.

[James Madison]

I would argue that religion teaches people from an early age to believe false statements from authority figures without question. Therefore, religion prepares the mind for big government.

I wouldn't necessarily say that. If religion is allowed to prosper on its own, little ill will become of it, but when religion and government intertwine, disaster invariably follows. So, we have to ask ourselves is religion the problem or is it government? Clearly, athiest governments are just as capable (if not more so) as Christian governments of mass-murder. In fact, history proves that regardless of religious afflitiation, tyranical governments are the norm with free society being the exception. So, why do we bicker over mindless diatribes like this when the economy's imploding, $12.8 trillion has been stolen from the Treasury, and there's military patroling the streets? A lot of you guys on here are really smart, but I feel sorry for those of you people who buy into this balkanization.

[Andrew-Austin]

Perhaps one of these so called disbelievers would care to come up with some alternatives to what I posted. I really would enjoy seeing numbers 4, 5, 6, etc. Instead of saying my post is full of non-sequiturs perhaps you would be so kind as to provide the facts as you see them.

No thanks, it should be easily apparent to most people that those are not the only "choices". And its not worth the effort of getting in to a drawn out philosophic/semantics debate just to convert one believer.




I wouldn't necessarily say that. If religion is allowed to prosper on its own, little ill will become of it, but when religion and government intertwine, disaster invariably follows. So, we have to ask ourselves is religion the problem or is it government? Clearly, athiest governments are just as capable (if not more so) as Christian governments of mass-murder. In fact, history proves that regardless of religious afflitiation, tyranical governments are the norm with free society being the exception. So, why do we bicker over mindless diatribes like this when the economy's imploding, $12.8 trillion has been stolen from the Treasury, and there's military patroling the streets? A lot of you guys on here are really smart, but I feel sorry for those of you people who buy into this balkanization.

Good post, I agree with most of it. Tyranny can arise no matter how religious or atheist a populace is.

[paulim]

What about Mexico? In large, they are much more religious and family oriented than over here yet they are subservient to an authoritarian govt. Does the government use religion to teach them to be submissive?

Then of course there is the middle east..very religious, rigid, and under control of dictators that America, NATO, etc installed or are under our influence. We seem to have a hand in keeping Islamic fundamentalism strong there. Why would we want that? Sometimes, it seems that religion is just another tool that the elites use to control the masses.

Yes, yes and yes. Islam and Christianity, if you compare only what counts, there is no difference, they are both Judaism for Nonjews. I have to laugh hard every time a Christian complains about the dangers of Islam.
Frankly, the conflicts are important to let you forget that you're ruled by assholes.
But to say it again, not the religious feelings are bad, its the exploitation for a man-made purpose, and there are three religions in the world which are specialized on that.

[idiom]

I am not a 'disbeliever' (or at least I don't think I am) but I will bite:


Humanity has three and only three choices. One: humans are animals and as such can commit no wrongs. Two: humans are individual gods and therefore believe that some individuals have evolved more than others so choices must be made for them. Three: humans believe in a higher form of sentience and therefore are capable of humility. Animals are not capable of humility nor all all knowing beings (gods). Only those that are aware that they do not have the last word are capable of showing humility.

1. An animals inability to commit a wrong it tied to an externally devised set of morals that says they can't but allows humans to be moral. It then would follow if 1 is true that the above moral system is just wrong and that animals can in fact commit wrongs.

2. It does not follow that individual Gods are not equal. It is also pretty solid theology that God did intend humans to be individual 'gods'.
Also, "John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name", "Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.", "1 John 3:2
Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is."

3. God is Humble. Jesus is Humble. The Holy Spirit is Humble. They seem to manage it allright without having a higher form of sentience to look to.


The key is for a populace to believe lies about who they are. False theologies that say only priests can read Holy scripture, or that man is a lowly worm are just as effective at taming people as ideas about a geniocracy where the smart people rule all of us lowly sheep.

[ourlongroad]

While I certainly don't wish to dissuade any of the discussion in this thread, I'd like to draw attention on the questions posed in the OP, which I've quoted below. I respectfully request that posters try to address these questions.


So heres a great example of how social engineers develop and promote theories that attack our most basic foundations, foundations that the founders relied upon to build the American system.

Watch Andy Thomson at the American Atheist 2009 convention give a talk about evolution and neural development of cognitive structures for the belief in god(s), social structures, and authority.

Then ask yourself....


Why is research into our cognition around belief in God being funded?
Who is funding it?
What do they plan to do with the outcomes of this research (how will they apply it)?



P.S. When I use the term 'American system,' I'm referring to the general framework as delineated in the US Declaration of Independence.

[idiom]

While I certainly don't wish to dissuade any of the discussion in this thread, I'd like to draw attention on the questions posed in the OP, which I've quoted below. I respectfully request that posters try to address these questions.

I would direct your attention to post #11.

[Objectivist]

One of the ideals of Fascism is to remove religion from public policy. Hitler did!

Then I'm an Atheist.

[ourlongroad]

Well if the research generates truth that doesn't support the atheist assumptions then they will change their assumptions.

Are you worried that they might disprove God or something? Or that they might find a 'Christian Gene' or an 'Islamic Gene'?

Or do you perhaps fear all research into cognition full-stop?
So, if they aim to change the outcome of the research if it does not meet some predefined objectives, what do you think those predefined objectives are, who wants to use them, how to they want to use them, and why?

[Objectivist]

Well if the research generates truth that doesn't support the atheist assumptions then they will change their assumptions.

Are you worried that they might disprove God or something? Or that they might find a 'Christian Gene' or an 'Islamic Gene'?

Or do you perhaps fear all research into cognition full-stop?

"Disprove god"? It's not for me to prove a negative.

[ourlongroad]

One of the ideals of Fascism is to remove religion from public policy.
Why?

[Bodhi]

If religion is allowed to prosper on its own, little ill will become of it

I guess you are not a fan of history.

[Objectivist]

When people are less dependent on their families and churches, they are more dependent on big government. That's why atheism and communism go hand in hand.

That's an unfounded statement. Under communism you have no choice as to what you believe, they'd send you to Siberia if you showed any dissent.

Most every Atheist I know including myself don't care what you believe, it's your right. I do however question your thinking.

[idiom]

So, if they aim to change the outcome of the research if it does not meet some predefined objectives, what do you think those predefined objectives are, who wants to use them, how to they want to use them, and why?

Why change the outcomes? How would you change the outcomes? When someone else duplicated the experiments would they find the same changed outcomes?

Is all of science part of the Conspiracy?

[idiom]

"Disprove god"? It's not for me to prove a negative.

Didn't say it was. OurLongRoad seems to think the researchers in the OP will come up with some evidence that won't sit well with him.

[Objectivist]

Why?

Ask Hitler and Himmler, they used spirituality as in the Norse Gods to promote a superior 'race' of people. It made it easier for them to promote promiscuity as well. German women were pushed into having Hitler Wet Dream Babies to populate the country with the "superior' Aryan race. It's much more difficult for people to accept killing human beings when they are taught the teachings of JC. You could murder retards in the name of being superior to them and they being a burden on society as a whole. Retards present a negative in the blood lines and should be terminated, whereas a JC follower is taught to believe in the sanctity of life.

I'm just guessing but my Grandfather was Waffen SS.

[Bodhi]

Most every Atheist I know including myself don't care what you believe, it's your right. I do however question your thinking.

+1

[TurtleBurger]

Most every Atheist I know including myself don't care what you believe, it's your right. I do however question your thinking.

That's because in the United States (where I assume you live) atheists are a small minority. In countries where atheists take control of the government, they are less tolerant of other people's beliefs.

[Objectivist]

I'm not a fan of Bill Maher, but I watched his movie "Religulous" and it was hillarious. He was attacked for asking questions of religious people. I mean how hard is it to defend something you believe in if you truly believe? Or is it that they believe to go along with the crowd? I don't consider asking a question an attack, but if you do maybe you should rethink your position and find a better way to defend it.

Violence is an ignorant mans way of leveling the playing field.

[Objectivist]

That's because in the United States (where I assume you live) atheists are a small minority. In countries where atheists take control of the government, they are less tolerant of other people's beliefs.

Less tolerant than say those that follow Islam or Christianity?

[TurtleBurger]

Less tolerant than say those that follow Islam or Christianity?

Can you name a single atheist government that has allowed freedom of religion? I could name examples of Islamic and Christian governments that have.

[Objectivist]

It's their agenda outside of Atheism that drives them to control people, not that they don't believe in a mystical being. I don't remember Atheism being taught my mother in Nazi controlled Germany. They taught religion to students before that time so who is the oppressor?

[Objectivist]

Can you name a single atheist government that has allowed freedom of religion? I could name examples of Islamic and Christian governments that have.

Negative negative,,,, Name me one government that was ruled solely on Atheism and then we can start. Atheism is not a political ideal but religion is about as political as you can get, historically.

How about the United States of AMerica?

[Objectivist]

So forcing people to believe in mystical beings is reasonable in your mind and not telling people how to believe is not? OK, I see where you sit.

[ourlongroad]

Ask Hitler and Himmler, they used spirituality as in the Norse Gods to promote a superior 'race' of people. It made it easier for them to promote promiscuity as well. German women were pushed into having Hitler Wet Dream Babies to populate the country with the "superior' Aryan race. It's much more difficult for people to accept killing human beings when they are taught the teachings of JC. You could murder retards in the name of being superior to them and they being a burden on society as a whole. Retards present a negative in the blood lines and should be terminated, whereas a JC follower is taught to believe in the sanctity of life.

I'm just guessing but my Grandfather was Waffen SS.
Since having re-asked the questions posed in the OP (see post #32), this is the first response received in this thread that attempts to address the questions. Thank you.

I'm going to ask everyone again to please stay focused on the questions at hand, and to review Objectivist's answer above prior to responding. There is a lot of discussion here, but very little of it deals with the questions asked in the OP.

[Bodhi]

That's because in the United States (where I assume you live) atheists are a small minority. In countries where atheists take control of the government, they are less tolerant of other people's beliefs.

I was born and raised in the US and the so called "Christians" are just about the least tolerant people you could ever meet.

[virgil47]

I am not a 'disbeliever' (or at least I don't think I am) but I will bite:



1. An animals inability to commit a wrong it tied to an externally devised set of morals that says they can't but allows humans to be moral. It then would follow if 1 is true that the above moral system is just wrong and that animals can in fact commit wrongs.

This statement makes no sense. Animals do not have the concept of right or wrong. Animals do not have morality and therefore cannot commit wrongs.

2. It does not follow that individual Gods are not equal. It is also pretty solid theology that God did intend humans to be individual 'gods'.
Also, "John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name", "Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.", "1 John 3:2
Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is."

I believe that history will prove you wrong. There are many instances of major and minor gods in various religions.God created man in His image but not with His abilities. He did however intend for humanity to rule over the beasts of the field and use them as they saw fit. At the end times humanity is slated to undergo a change and become one with God.

3. God is Humble. Jesus is Humble. The Holy Spirit is Humble. They seem to manage it allright without having a higher form of sentience to look to.

I have not found God to be humble. All knowing, vengeful or forgiving but not humble. As for His son and the Holy Spirit they are humble as they recognize God as a higher power.

The key is for a populace to believe lies about who they are. False theologies that say only priests can read Holy scripture, or that man is a lowly worm are just as effective at taming people as ideas about a geniocracy where the smart people rule all of us lowly sheep.

I agree. A populace that is taught that they are the highest form of life will try to act as if they are gods. Upon discovering there are those that do not agree with them they will make an attempt to change laws so they can control and "help" those that are not as evolved as they. It is the most insidious form of elitism imaginable.

[ourlongroad]

Didn't say it was. OurLongRoad seems to think the researchers in the OP will come up with some evidence that won't sit well with him.
Please don't speak for me.

[Objectivist]

Getting religious folks to understand is difficult when they base their ideals on faith and not on sound reason. I'll point out both sides of the picture from what I've read or witnessed in history. In the case of LPDs our Liberal Progressive Democrats the removal of religion would allow the acceptance of a lower level of principals such as personal responsibility and work ethics that many religions promote. LPDs treat criminals like children that need a timeout. Where religious folk push for stiffer punishment instead of a session with a shrink.

Anyone want to make some comparisons.

I don't mind the rules set in the Bible but even the majority that 'believe' violate the very scripture they promote.

[idiom]

This statement makes no sense. Animals do not have the concept of right or wrong. Animals do not have morality and therefore cannot commit wrongs.

If Humans are animals, and humans know right from wrong, then animals can commit wrongs. You are proposing one set of definitions and invalidating them with another. This is illogical.


I believe that history will prove you wrong. There are many instances of major and minor gods in various religions.God created man in His image but not with His abilities. He did however intend for humanity to rule over the beasts of the field and use them as they saw fit. At the end times humanity is slated to undergo a change and become one with God.

Unfortunately the history you speak of is the Endtimes, and you will have to wait to be proved wrong. Your statement there is a little bit of God failing, a little bit of Dominionism and a twist of Nirvana at the end.


I have not found God to be humble. Then keep looking.


I agree. A populace that is taught that they are the highest form of life will try to act as if they are gods. Upon discovering there are those that do not agree with them they will make an attempt to change laws so they can control and "help" those that are not as evolved as they. It is the most insidious form of elitism imaginable.

Or they may change the laws to give freedom to others. You automatically assume the strong must oppress or control the weak. It doesn't require evolution.

You think animals need to be 'looked after' or controlled by humans. Is that because you think Humans are more highly evolved? Do you think God is more highly evolved than Jesus (weird Trinity theory by the way)?

[TurtleBurger]

Negative negative,,,, Name me one government that was ruled solely on Atheism and then we can start. Atheism is not a political ideal but religion is about as political as you can get, historically.




Whether a country is ruled SOLELY on atheism (whatever that means) or not isn't even relevant. My only point is, when the people constituting a government profess atheism, those people's tolerance goes out the window. There's nothing noble about being tolerant when you are a powerless minority.

[idiom]

Please don't speak for me.

I was paraphrasing what you already said to explain my statements. If you think I mis-stated your OP then feel free to correct me.

A more direct answer to the Op Follows:


why is research into our cognition around belief in God being funded?

Because understanding Who we are and how we function is interesting, helpful and instructed by Scripture.


Who is funding it and why?

Everyone who can afford to. Traditionally Monasteries but everybody is on the bandwagon now. Because they value the research.


What do they plan to do with the outcomes of this research


It depends on what they are. Thats why you do the research, because you don't know yet. Unless you believe the NWO already figured out the inner functions of the universe and the brain a long time ago...

[Objectivist]

Whether a country is ruled SOLELY on atheism (whatever that means) or not isn't even relevant. My only point is, when the people constituting a government profess atheism, those people's tolerance goes out the window. There's nothing noble about being tolerant when you are a powerless minority.

There's a difference in professing Atheism and imposing Atheism. Atheism is just a belief in the truth and there is nothing unreasonable about that.
A Man is strongest when he believes in himself and not mystical beings.

[TurtleBurger]

Name me one government that was ruled solely on Atheism

Albania.

[TurtleBurger]

There's a difference in professing Atheism and imposing Atheism. Atheism is just a belief in the truth and there is nothing unreasonable about that.

That difference only exists in places where atheism is a powerless minority. When atheism gains power, its adherents inevitably work to impose it on everyone. I have never heard of any exception to this rule.

[idiom]

There's a difference in professing Atheism and imposing Atheism. Atheism is just a belief in the truth and there is nothing unreasonable about that.

That's the most unbiased comment we have had all thread!

[Objectivist]

Turtle, why do you think the Founding Fathers didn't suggest the institution of the Church of the United States? They had a Church of England.

[TurtleBurger]

Turtle, why do you think the Founding Fathers didn't suggest the institution of the Church of the United States? They had a Church of England.

Because they believed in freedom of religion I guess. How does that relate to the previous topic?

[Objectivist]

That difference only exists in places where atheism is a powerless minority. When atheism gains power, its adherents inevitably work to impose it on everyone. I have never heard of any exception to this rule.

You are incorrectly trying to attach the belief of realistic thinking to the belief of a social restructuring such as Socialism and Communism. Atheism has nothing to do with either other than those pushing the two needed to negate religion to better push their immoral ideals. I'd argue that Communism and Socialism are a different type of religion, just without a Cross or Mogen David. As an Atheist I hold no belief above myself, communism and socialism hold the collective as the superior, see what I'm saying.

[ourlongroad]

I was paraphrasing what you already said to explain my statements. If you think I mis-stated your OP then feel free to correct me.
Look, simply don't speak for me. If you want clarification on something, ask, but don't represent what I say in some kind of restatement. This is a misquote, and I direct anyone who wants to know what I said back to the OP.


A more direct answer to the Op Follows:

Because understanding Who we are and how we function is interesting, helpful and instructed by Scripture.

Everyone who can afford to. Traditionally Monasteries but everybody is on the bandwagon now. Because they value the research.

It depends on what they are. Thats why you do the research, because you don't know yet. Unless you believe the NWO already figured out the inner functions of the universe and the brain a long time ago...
Do you know these answers to be true and accurate, or is this your hypothesis? If accurate, what can you use to backup your claims?

[Objectivist]

Because they believed in freedom of religion I guess. How does that relate to the previous topic?

You had asked for a country that was Atheist. Not officially recognizing religion is about as close as it comes.

Or is it your assumption that Atheism is about demonizing religion? Nothing could be further from the truth, I don't care what you believe, just don't impose it on me or anyone else. Atheism doesn't impose anything on you.

[TurtleBurger]

You are incorrectly trying to attach the belief of realistic thinking to the belief of a social restructuring such as Socialism and Communism. Atheism has nothing to do with either other than those pushing the two needed to negate religion to better push their immoral ideals. I'd argue that Communism and Socialism are a different type of religion, just without a Cross or Mogen David. As an Atheist I hold no belief above myself, communism and socialism hold the collective as the superior, see what I'm saying.

So you're arguing that tolerant atheists are always tolerant. I can't disagree with that, but it's not an incredibly useful statement.

[TurtleBurger]

You had asked for a country that was Atheist. Not officially recognizing religion is about as close as it comes.

Or is it your assumption that Atheism is about demonizing religion? Noting could be further from the truth, I don't care what you believe, just don't impose it on me or anyone else. Atheism doesn't impose anything on you.

I gave you an example: Albania. Albania made atheism the official state religion. And wouldn't you know it, freedom of religion was completely non-existent. Google "Albania atheism" if you want to read up on it.

[idiom]

Do you know these answers to be true and accurate, or is this your hypothesis? If accurate, what can you use to backup your claims?

Those are empathy and extrapolation. I know why I study cognition and why I will fund it. I can't even be really sure about that. An evil force may be tricking me into meditating on the Bible and studying creation.

Accurate answers cost more. You get the above for free.

[KoldKut]

...

[Objectivist]

If you get past the god aspect of religion and get to the man aspect of it, man needed a set of rules, the Bible sets a good number of rules as to what men believed. I'd argue who made these men moral angels that possessed the virtue to tell others what is right or wrong (if you believe in that). To conquer your opposition you sabotage their resources, you break down their ideals and leave them hopeless, then you present yourself as the New Messiah. It's happened throughout history and it's happening now. Haven't you heard that the Tea Parties have been marginalized by the rulers of this country?

The debate as to if there is or if there isn't a god is for another thread, but please feel free to PM me when you have evidence of the existence of any number of mystical beings.

[Objectivist]

I gave you an example: Albania. Albania made atheism the official state religion. And wouldn't you know it, freedom of religion was completely non-existent. Google "Albania atheism" if you want to read up on it.

There again Atheism is not a religion.

[Objectivist]

Bible thumper versus heathen unbelievers, round 2,109,546,194,684.

Thrilling thread right here.

:rolleyes:

How dare you refer to my position as "unbelievers" I believe in myself fully. Then I believe in most everything that is realistic.:D

[TurtleBurger]

Many philosophies, including religion, atheism, and communism, have network benefits: the more people subscribe to them, the more effective their principles become. The problem with atheism and communism is that they fail on the free market. Not enough people buy into them voluntarily. Therefore, for atheism and communism to succeed, they have to flout the free market and use force to evangelize people to their cause. This is why atheism and communism band together; they have a common competitor on the market that trounces them every time in religion. Unless they use force to crush religion, they both wallow in futility, lacking the appeal to attract a sufficient number of followers to put their visions into practice.

[Objectivist]

Many philosophies, including religion, atheism, and communism, have network benefits: the more people subscribe to them, the more effective their principles become. The problem with atheism and communism is that they fail on the free market. Not enough people buy into them voluntarily. Therefore, for atheism and communism to succeed, they have to flout the free market and use force to evangelize people to their cause. This is why atheism and communism band together; they have a common competitor on the market that trounces them every time in religion. Unless they use force to crush religion, they both wallow in futility, lacking the appeal to attract a sufficient number of followers to put their visions into practice.

I'm having serious doubts as to your understanding of what an Atheist is. Read my sig Ayn Rand. She was an Atheist.

[idiom]

Many philosophies, including religion, atheism, and communism, have network benefits: the more people subscribe to them, the more effective their principles become. The problem with atheism and communism is that they fail on the free market. Not enough people buy into them voluntarily. Therefore, for atheism and communism to succeed, they have to flout the free market and use force to evangelize people to their cause. This is why atheism and communism band together; they have a common competitor on the market that trounces them every time in religion. Unless they use force to crush religion, they both wallow in futility, lacking the appeal to attract a sufficient number of followers to put their visions into practice.

Is that why all the atheists are blowing buildings up and invading countries?

[haaaylee]

When people are less dependent on their families and churches, they are more dependent on big government. That's why atheism and communism go hand in hand.



im an atheist and i despise communism...
i questioned what i was told to be the truth as a child .. i didn't go along.

[tonesforjonesbones]

ourlongroad...your questions are pretty much being avoided...I wonder, could scientific reserach be manipulated in order to fulfill a particular agenda? tones

[BeFranklin]

im an atheist and i despise communism...
i questioned what i was told to be the truth as a child .. i didn't go along

Quote:
Originally Posted by Natalie
When people are less dependent on their families and churches, they are more dependent on big government. That's why atheism and communism go hand in hand.

im an atheist and i despise communism...
i questioned what i was told to be the truth as a child .. i didn't go along.
.

I'm seeing a lot of quotes about "individualism" from atheists, but no connection to how atheism helps build families or communities.

During the American Revolution, a lot of the militia was recruited at the local churches. It was the center of the community and it makes sense. There was a duty to protect your families and country.

One thing I see being harmed besides morality by attacking Christianity is to individualize people so effectively that the only way they can resist is to resist alone. A strong church helps build a strong community. Likewise, instead of charity, the danger is replacing it with government programs.

Thread on Revolution Era, the Church and the Black Milita (preachers)
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=175054

[virgil47]

Objectivist you dissemble. You are not so stupid as to truly believe atheism is not a religion. I'm sure you're familiar with Alice Bailey who really pushed atheism in the early 1900's. At least she was honest enough to call it humanism and recognize it was a religion. By the way Adolph Hitler was a great fan of Alice Baileys. Religion is a belief system and so is atheism.

[ourlongroad]

ourlongroad...your questions are pretty much being avoided...I wonder, could scientific reserach be manipulated in order to fulfill a particular agenda? tones
I'm going to throw that back at you, what do you think?

And, you you do think that they would manipulate the research to a given end, what end do you think that might be, and why would they do this (what do they hope to achieve)?

[haaaylee]

I'm seeing a lot of quotes about "individualism" from atheists, but no connection to how atheism helps build families or communities.

During the American Revolution, a lot of the militia was recruited at the local churches. It was the center of the community and it makes sense. There was a duty to protect your families and country.

One thing I see being harmed besides morality by attacking Christianity is to individualize people so effectively that the only way they can resist is to resist alone. A strong church helps build a strong community. Likewise, instead of charity, the danger is replacing it with government programs.

Thread on Revolution Era, the Church and the Black Milita (preachers)
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=175054


are you suggesting the only way to build a strong family or community that wants to protect each other is through a church? i think there are other ways my friend ....

being a strong individual does not mean you think less of other individuals . . .

charity can also be done without god.

[haaaylee]

Objectivist you dissemble. You are not so stupid as to truly believe atheism is not a religion. I'm sure you're familiar with Alice Bailey who really pushed atheism in the early 1900's. At least she was honest enough to call it humanism and recognize it was a religion. By the way Adolph Hitler was a great fan of Alice Baileys. Religion is a belief system and so is atheism.

atheism is defined as a lack of belief, actually.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Yes I believe scientific data could and has been manipulated for agendas...and I believe they are doing so by trying to say they have found a Christian"gene" ..how ridiculous or any OTHER religious gene.. and I believe they would absolutely use it against religious people...tones

[idiom]

I'm seeing a lot of quotes about "individualism" from atheists, but no connection to how atheism helps build families or communities.

During the American Revolution, a lot of the militia was recruited at the local churches. It was the center of the community and it makes sense. There was a duty to protect your families and country.

One thing I see being harmed besides morality by attacking Christianity is to individualize people so effectively that the only way they can resist is to resist alone. A strong church helps build a strong community. Likewise, instead of charity, the danger is replacing it with government programs.

Thread on Revolution Era, the Church and the Black Milita (preachers)
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=175054

Do you want to be able to freely choose your church as an individual, or would you prefer to be assigned one?

[James Madison]

I guess you are not a fan of history.

I know plenty of history. Consider the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. Up until that point, shamans and priests had run EVERY government, but around the 16th Century a dramatic shift from that paradigm took place. Notice that as religion became less centralized, society made tremendous steps forward but still retained its theistic background. Without religion, it's unlikely that the American Revolution would have ever occurred and free society with it would have been lost forever.

[James Madison]

atheism is defined as a lack of belief, actually.
Wasn't their a famous philosopher that said you can't define something by its opposite?

[idiom]

Wasn't their a famous philosopher that said you can't define something by its opposite?

Isn't there a whole jolly class of philosophers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Via_negativa)that say the opposite?

[BeFranklin]

Do you want to be able to freely choose your church as an individual, or would you prefer to be assigned one?

You non sequiturs are getting a bit annoying.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

[Dr.3D]

You non sequiturs are getting a bit annoying.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

I haven't, I don't have a wife.

[idiom]

You non sequiturs are getting a bit annoying.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Hey you were the one saying individualism is an attack on the Church. I don't think its is a threat to churches at all. A lack of personal identity it was allows one to be so easily swayed be the global 'community' instead of netwroking with the individuals around you.

And yes I stopped beating her. Mostly. Except when she tries to avoid going to Church.

[LibertyEagle]

While I certainly don't wish to dissuade any of the discussion in this thread, I'd like to draw attention on the questions posed in the OP, which I've quoted below. I respectfully request that posters try to address these questions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ourlongroad
So heres a great example of how social engineers develop and promote theories that attack our most basic foundations, foundations that the founders relied upon to build the American system.

Watch Andy Thomson at the American Atheist 2009 convention give a talk about evolution and neural development of cognitive structures for the belief in god(s), social structures, and authority.

Then ask yourself....

* Why is research into our cognition around belief in God being funded?
* Who is funding it?
* What do they plan to do with the outcomes of this research (how will they apply it)?

P.S. When I use the term 'American system,' I'm referring to the general framework as delineated in the US Declaration of Independence.

.....

[idiom]

The founders sought out freedom and had no fear of the truth.

Ask yourself, what predjudices does the OP bring that would cause him to think the only possibly reason to search for truth is to attack society through social engineering? What are they afraid we might find if we probe to deep?

[Dr.3D]

Perhaps they would apply the findings the same way they did the "Global Warming" data?
Look who funded that study.

[BeFranklin]

Hey you were the one saying individualism is an attack on the Church. I don't think its is a threat to churches at all. A lack of personal identity it was allows one to be so easily swayed be the global 'community' instead of netwroking with the individuals around you.

And yes I stopped beating her. Mostly. Except when she tries to avoid going to Church.

Thats my point. I didn't say that. Say what you want to say as a statement, instead of putting words in my mouth while asking a question which generally doesn't follow from anything that I said.

A church is a community of christians. From all I see, atheism as espoused on this thread is all about making "me a better me" (so claimed), but I have yet to see anything claiming atheism makes good families or communities.

If you destroy the family or the community, you won't have a good government. How does atheism work on the human relationship level?

[BeFranklin]

I haven't, I don't have a wife.

I'm not surprised! :p:D:)

[Dr.3D]

I'm not surprised! :p:D:)

LOL, neither did Saul/Paul. :D

[James Madison]

Isn't there a whole jolly class of philosophers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Via_negativa)that say the opposite?

It was Kant that said that. Anyways, I'm not exactly skilled on the negative philosophy debate, but defining something by what it's not doesn't seem to be sensable to rationalists and empiricists alike. Interesting that Christian philosophers would be the ones to advocate it.

[Objectivist]

I'm seeing a lot of quotes about "individualism" from atheists, but no connection to how atheism helps build families or communities.

During the American Revolution, a lot of the militia was recruited at the local churches. It was the center of the community and it makes sense. There was a duty to protect your families and country.

One thing I see being harmed besides morality by attacking Christianity is to individualize people so effectively that the only way they can resist is to resist alone. A strong church helps build a strong community. Likewise, instead of charity, the danger is replacing it with government programs.

Thread on Revolution Era, the Church and the Black Milita (preachers)
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=175054

That explains why we have a couple million christians locked up in prisons, thanks for that.

How weak is that argument, so you equate failed families to Atheism? lol

[Objectivist]

Objectivist you dissemble. You are not so stupid as to truly believe atheism is not a religion. I'm sure you're familiar with Alice Bailey who really pushed atheism in the early 1900's. At least she was honest enough to call it humanism and recognize it was a religion. By the way Adolph Hitler was a great fan of Alice Baileys. Religion is a belief system and so is atheism.

Atheism is a word made up by people that needed to compartmentalize those that didn't conform to their ideals, I use the word as a reference that you might understand. I don't practice a religion by believing in myself and I don't promote it, it is just what I am.

I will however question the beliefs of others as it seems others try to do with me. SO far Atheists are heathens, satanists, bad parents, etc.... All of which crack me up.

[LibertyEagle]

Guys, please stay on-topic.

[Objectivist]

So heres a great example of how social engineers develop and promote theories that attack our most basic foundations, foundations that the founders relied upon to build the American system.

Watch Andy Thomson at the American Atheist 2009 convention give a talk about evolution and neural development of cognitive structures for the belief in god(s), social structures, and authority.

Then ask yourself, why is research into our cognition around belief in God being funded? Who is funding it and why? What do they plan to do with the outcomes of this research (how will they apply it)?


YouTube - Why We Believe in Gods - Andy Thomson - American Atheists 09 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg)

You make a number of conclusions without supporting them. You are making an assumption that questioning the thinking of humans is an attack, it shouldn't be if you can support your position with logic and reason.

I'd ask the same questions of all humans no matter what their belief system drives them to believe, as humans are essentially pack animals and NEED the feeling of belonging with a group, any group. Then the majority of human beings are not the most intelligent of us.

Why would I care what group is funding research into the feelings of others? It's their insecurity that drives them to question the motives of others, I just recognize the motives of others, they don't concern me because I don't let them. I already have conclusions about most groups and their belief systems, when asked I'll share.

Then I don't participate in "groups" like the AMerican Atheists Group.

[ourlongroad]

Why is it so incredibly difficult for people here to pay respect the OP?

No one wants to dissuade anyone from having a conversation, but 90% of what's been discussed in this thread could have easily taken place in existing threads or in new ones.

If you don't wish to address the OP question, then don't. But please, if you're going to participate in this thread at least demonstrate an effort to stay within context.

[He Who Pawns]

Guys, please stay on-topic.

What topic? Someone posts a video and tries to bash rational thinkers? Wonderful topic. Shouldn't these posts by the religious loonies be moved to Hot Topics along with the 911 Truth nonsense and the bigfoot and moon hoax threads?

[LibertyEagle]

What topic? Someone posts a video and tries to bash rational thinkers? Wonderful topic. Shouldn't these posts by the religious loonies be moved to Hot Topics along with the 911 Truth nonsense and the bigfoot and moon hoax threads?

The OP posed these questions. If you don't wish to participate in this thread, then don't. But, if you do choose to participate, please do your best to stay on-topic.

Thanks.


While I certainly don't wish to dissuade any of the discussion in this thread, I'd like to draw attention on the questions posed in the OP, which I've quoted below. I respectfully request that posters try to address these questions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ourlongroad
So heres a great example of how social engineers develop and promote theories that attack our most basic foundations, foundations that the founders relied upon to build the American system.

Watch Andy Thomson at the American Atheist 2009 convention give a talk about evolution and neural development of cognitive structures for the belief in god(s), social structures, and authority.

Then ask yourself....

* Why is research into our cognition around belief in God being funded?
* Who is funding it?
* What do they plan to do with the outcomes of this research (how will they apply it)?

P.S. When I use the term 'American system,' I'm referring to the general framework as delineated in the US Declaration of Independence.

[Deborah K]

It's their agenda outside of Atheism that drives them to control people, not that they don't believe in a mystical being.

This same argument could be made regarding those that "follow Islam and Christianity".

[RevolutionSD]

When people are less dependent on their families and churches, they are more dependent on big government. That's why atheism and communism go hand in hand.

Nope.
Atheism/anarchism are the independence from gods & governments.
There is no old man up in the sky and there is no authority over yourself. We are all gods and none of us has the right to rule over others.

In communism, the government are the gods. Worship the state, not religion.

When you can get rid of both beliefs, you will have truly freed your mind.

[Deborah K]

What topic? Someone posts a video and tries to bash rational thinkers? Wonderful topic. Shouldn't these posts by the religious loonies be moved to Hot Topics along with the 911 Truth nonsense and the bigfoot and moon hoax threads?

This is ulitmately the goal, isn't it? Get anything of religious content moved to Hot Topics. All one need do is flame away at those who don't have your belief system and the deed is done. :rolleyes:

[tonesforjonesbones]

What's so bad about Hot Topics? All we have to do is keep bumping it up to new posts and that's where most people go anyway..so FAIL. tones

[Deborah K]

What's so bad about Hot Topics? All we have to do is keep bumping it up to new posts and that's where most people go anyway..so FAIL. tones


Except that you have to be a member to see it so it doesn't get the same exposure that it deserves to get.

[tonesforjonesbones]

oh darn..ok tones

[tonesforjonesbones]

Ok What IF..
What if this JUNK SCIENCE (remember global warming?) decides there is a "religion gene" and the communist/socialist/godless government decides that religious people are flawed ..because they have this "Gene" and they decide to either put religious people in FEMA camps or mental institutions or come up with a pill or vaccine to control it. This is not so far out of reach...remember eugenics??? That was REAL and it still is. I am personally sick of the useful idiots ..and to be frank..those will be the people that go down first. TONES

[Deborah K]

atheism is defined as a lack of belief, actually.

Actually, atheism is a belief, or firm conviction, that there is no God. Therefore Atheism is a belief system.

[James Madison]

Ok What IF..
What if this JUNK SCIENCE (remember global warming?) decides there is a "religion gene" and the communist/socialist/godless government decides that religious people are flawed ..because they have this "Gene" and they decide to either put religious people in FEMA camps or mental institutions or come up with a pill or vaccine to control it. This is not so far out of reach...remember eugenics??? That was REAL and it still is. I am personally sick of the useful idiots ..and to be frank..those will be the people that go down first. TONES

I don't know if you're being serious or not, but this is actually an interesting point.

[Deborah K]

Ok What IF..
What if this JUNK SCIENCE (remember global warming?) decides there is a "religion gene" and the communist/socialist/godless government decides that religious people are flawed .

Then, they'll have to accept the fact that our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, which means our whole system has been flawed from the beginning. They'll have to explain the comments our founders made after the ratification of our Constitution where many of them deferred the success of it to God. They'll then have to explain why our Constitution is the longest living one of its kind in existence.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Yes I am being serious. Look what they plan to do to humanity with this cap and trade / global warming/ kyoto crap junk science that most everyone knows is contrived to control people. How much loss of liberty will they justify through this? The communists/socialists/atheists want NO religion..because they want the state to be seen as religion...so doesn't it make sense to do something terrible to religious people? They have not been able to corral free will..but they can with a nice shot. tones

[tonesforjonesbones]

Well Deborah, the;y have re written history to claim they were "deists"...most people have bought into that...and the evidence is buried. I am reading Lincoln Unmasked...it is amazing how much has been fabricated by "court historians" about this man...quotes he never said, true history buried...they will do it with anything to get their evil way. Tones

[He Who Pawns]

This is ulitmately the goal, isn't it? Get anything of religious content moved to Hot Topics. All one need do is flame away at those who don't have your belief system and the deed is done. :rolleyes:

Well, we already move conspiracy theories, moon hoax posts, alien area 51 posts, "Bigfoot shot JFK posts," and all the other nonsense posts that are divisive and have no basis in reality to Hot Topics, so why should the religious nonsense be any different? What if people were posting here that Islam or Paganism were the "true way" for America, despite the fact that our Founders designed a system to be free of religious nonsense? Then I'm sure you would approve of it going to Hot Topics, where it belongs. Do you know that Thomas Jefferson thought the supernatural beliefs of Christianity were ludicrous and dangerous?

Religion = 911 Truth = Moon Hoax = Bigfoot = Unicorns = Speaking with the Dead = Astrology = Alien Abductions. It's all BS that deserves to be in Hot Topics.

[Deborah K]

Well Deborah, the;y have re written history to claim they were "deists"...most people have bought into that...and the evidence is buried. I am reading Lincoln Unmasked...it is amazing how much has been fabricated by "court historians" about this man...quotes he never said, true history buried...they will do it with anything to get their evil way. Tones

I know Tones, it's up to people like us to preserve the truth about our heritage. I posted this thread over a year ago addressing the issue of our founders and their religions: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=126770


Post 27 lists their religions.

To the OP: not trying to derail the thread, only trying to reinforce your points about the social engineering that's going on.

To the mods: I am hopeful that soon we will have religious/spiritual and philosophical sub-forums some day soon so that these very pertinent subjects can be discussed and debated without being relegated to, and diluted under other forum topics.

[Deborah K]

Well, we already move conspiracy theories, moon hoax posts, alien area 51 posts, "Bigfoot shot JFK posts," and all the other nonsense posts that are divisive and have no basis in reality to Hot Topics, so why should the religious nonsense be any different? What if people were posting here that Islam or Paganism were the "true way" for America, despite the fact that our Founders designed a system to be free of religious nonsense? Then I'm sure you would approve of it going to Hot Topics, where it belongs. Do you know that Thomas Jefferson thought the supernatural beliefs of Christianity were ludicrous and dangerous?

Religion = 911 Truth = Moon Hoax = Bigfoot = Unicorns = Speaking with the Dead = Astrology = Alien Abductions. It's all BS that deserves to be in Hot Topics.

You need a history lesson, BADLY!

[He Who Pawns]

You need a history lesson, BADLY!

No, I don't think it's me who needs to wake up to reality.

Deborah, you're not one of these religious believers are you?

[Deborah K]

No, I don't think it's me who needs to wake up to reality.

Deborah, you're not one of these religious believers are you?

Read my OP in this thread for the answer: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=126770

[He Who Pawns]

Read my OP in this thread for the answer: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=126770

Well we were also a slave nation for many of our early years. Does that make slavery right?

I don't deny that in the past many Americans were Christians. That's just a fact. But we also used to burn witches. It's time to move on to reality.

I hope you realize that it's the religious loonies in the GOP who have helped to destroy that party. This new freedom movement has no place for people who put their bizarre religions above the Constitution.

[Deborah K]

Well we were also a slave nation for many of our early years. Does that make slavery right?

I don't deny that in the past many Americans were Christians. That's just a fact. But we also used to burn witches. It's time to move on to reality.

I hope you realize that it's the religious loonies in the GOP who have helped to destroy that party. This new freedom movement has no place for people who put their bizarre religions above the Constitution.

You are doing exactly what you accuse Christians of doing. Can't you see that? And please, give me some examples of how so-called "religious loonies in the GOP" helped destroy the party.

[He Who Pawns]

And please, give me some examples of how so-called "religious loonies in the GOP" helped destroy the party.

http://i41.tinypic.com/21j5csn.jpg

http://i42.tinypic.com/29uzuqg.jpg

Do you need more examples?

[Deborah K]

[QUOTE=He Who Pawns;2108825
Do you need more examples?[/QUOTE]


Geezus. Can you give me legislative examples of how Christianity destroyed the GOP???? Pictures of Republican politicians ain't gonna cut it for me. Never mind. You won't be able to. But, if you can, maybe start another thread out of respect for the OP.

[LibertyEagle]

This thread is not the place to bash Christianity. If your desire is to do that, please start your own thread, or post in one of the many already existing on that topic.

Thanks.

[He Who Pawns]

Geezus. Can you give me legislative examples of how Christianity destroyed the GOP????

Legislative examples? The War on Drugs. The war in Iraq. W told us that "God" told him to invade Iraq. I guess God didn't mention the consequences.

It was the religious loonies who voted in George W, who singlehandily destroyed the GOP in eight years.

LE, if you're worried about the topic straying, why not split off the thread?

[tonesforjonesbones]

He who pawns...how does it feel to be a pawn of the socialist/communist/atheist agenda? They created YOU ya know? You've been socially engineered...tones

[tonesforjonesbones]

Deborah...we asked awhile back for a sub forum for Christianity/spirituality...I think this might help. But in reality, if the atheists don't want to talk about it all they have to do is skip the Christian threads...but the Christian threads always end up being the most popular for some odd reason..OH God is calling! tones

[He Who Pawns]

He who pawns...how does it feel to be a pawn of the socialist/communist/atheist agenda? They created YOU ya know? You've been socially engineered...tones

LMAO, I'm a socialist? I'm not the one calling for the federal government to control people's private lives. The far-right religious loonies want FEDERAL laws against abortion, which is clearly a State-level issue. If the loonies like Palin get their way, abortion will be illegal under federal law. And Palin even opposes abortion for victims of RAPE. So basically, Palin wants the federal government to enforce the right of rapists to violently choose the mother of their children. :mad:

It's also the religious loonies who are keeping the "war on drugs" going. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/gfx_RedWhiteBlue/icons/icon13.gif

[tonesforjonesbones]

I went back and read Deborah's post and many other that followed. I would say that the atheist indoctrination in government institutions has been very successful. How does it feel to be pawned? tones

[tonesforjonesbones]

Pawn...you have been pawned. BREAK away from the obvious indoctrination of the communists. tones

[He Who Pawns]

I went back and read Deborah's post and many other that followed. I would say that the atheist indoctrination in government institutions has been very successful. How does it feel to be pawned? tones

tones, how do you feel about the Federal government violently enforcing a rapist's right to violently choose the mother of his child? Answer the question.

[Kludge]

I was really pleased yesterday.

They did an encore presentation of Pitchmen from last Wednesday. I didn't even realize I missed it until Thursday and then... well -- it was too late, obviously.

[idiom]

Ok What IF..
What if this JUNK SCIENCE (remember global warming?) decides there is a "religion gene" and the communist/socialist/godless government decides that religious people are flawed ..because they have this "Gene" and they decide to either put religious people in FEMA camps or mental institutions or come up with a pill or vaccine to control it. This is not so far out of reach...remember eugenics??? That was REAL and it still is. I am personally sick of the useful idiots ..and to be frank..those will be the people that go down first. TONES

If someone can up with a one time vaccine that altered a gene and suddenly turned everyone into atheists, what would that say about your faith?

Are you seriously scared someone might discover your faith is a loose connection somewhere?

All science should be abandoned because people might misuse it? Which bit makes it Junk Science? The bit where you disagree with it or the bit where it makes you uncomfortable?

[Uriel999]

You need a history lesson, BADLY!

Perhaps it is you who need the history lesson. Pawns is correct, remember Jefferson made a version of the bible that takes out all the hocus pocus magic.

[Deborah K]

Perhaps it is you who need the history lesson. Pawns is correct, remember Jefferson made a version of the bible that takes out all the hocus pocus magic.

Wanna tell me what that has to do with ANYTHING??? You think Jefferson was the only founder or something? I guess YOU need a history lesson too.

[Deborah K]

Are you seriously scared someone might discover your faith is a loose connection somewhere?




Are you seriously scared to admit that the founding of this nation was on Christian principles? Because it was, and your comment seems to imply that the Founders must themselves have had a 'loose connection'.

[Uriel999]

Wanna tell me what that has to do with ANYTHING??? You think Jefferson was the only founder or something? I guess YOU need a history lesson too.

My major in college was history. ;) BTW it has everything to do with what you said to pawns because that was what he said. He mentioned how Jefferson thought all the bible magic that people believed was dangerous.

[haaaylee]

Actually, atheism is a belief, or firm conviction, that there is no God. Therefore Atheism is a belief system.


from wikipedia:
"Atheism is the position that deities do not exist,[1] or the rejection of theism.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3]"

i prefer to call myself an agnostic atheist since i have no more knowledge than anyone else on the existence of a god in the skies, but i'm almost 100% sure there isn't. . . since there is no evidence.

support for rational thinking is good, not bad.

[Objectivist]

from wikipedia:
"Atheism is the position that deities do not exist,[1] or the rejection of theism.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3]"

i prefer to call myself an agnostic atheist since i have no more knowledge than anyone else on the existence of a god in the skies, but i'm almost 100% sure there isn't. . . since there is no evidence.

support for rational thinking is good, not bad.

Not bad.

[Deborah K]

from wikipedia:
"Atheism is the position that deities do not exist,[1] or the rejection of theism.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3]"

i prefer to call myself an agnostic atheist since i have no more knowledge than anyone else on the existence of a god in the skies, but i'm almost 100% sure there isn't. . . since there is no evidence.

support for rational thinking is good, not bad.

Support for rational thinking is good when it doesn't condemn those who think differently.

Do you think there is a possibility of life on other planets?

[haaaylee]

Wanna tell me what that has to do with ANYTHING??? You think Jefferson was the only founder or something? I guess YOU need a history lesson too.

You all seem to be implying every founder was a Christian and therefore that is why this country is so great. FAIL. Let someone tell you that they didn't all think that way, and the country still turned out a great Constitution. They were not all on the same page in religion, but as humans with grand ideas they were. America is not a great country because of God. Even if some Founders were Christians. It is a great country because they were wise men.

Get over it.

[haaaylee]

Support for rational thinking is good when it doesn't condemn those who think differently.

Do you think there is a possibility of life on other planets?



I do actually, and i don't think a god put them there. I find it egotistical to think we are the only planet with life. Or, if god were to be real, that he only wanted Earth to have living beings.

Rational thinking is about living in reality. When you take a book for it's word without questioning how legit it is you are not living in reality. You have no evidence. You trust that to be the truth and live your life by it. Sounds a lot like depending on a Government to me. I don't think we're trying to condemn you, just have you open your minds . . maybe you're not right... and that is ok. It is quite freeing to be a truly sovereign individual ;)

[Deborah K]

My major in college was history. ;) BTW it has everything to do with what you said to pawns because that was what he said. He mentioned how Jefferson thought all the bible magic that people believed was dangerous.

Your History Major doesn't mean squat, I'm sorry to say, not since the radical left took over the major universities in this country. I mean no offense, I have a bachelor's degree in Behavioral Science with a minor in addictive disorders myself. I had to re-educate myself when it came to certain required college courses..

There is no denying that the founders were mostly Christian and were influenced by the Christian religion and that this nation was founded on Christian principles. Sorry. You won't be able to get around that fact no matter how hard you try. I will never understand why non-believers are sooooo threatened by that fact to go so far as to try and deny history. It goes to show the social engineering has worked.

[Deborah K]

I do actually, and i don't think a god put them there. I find it egotistical to think we are the only planet with life. Or, if god were to be real, that he only wanted Earth to have living beings.

Rational thinking is about living in reality. When you take a book for it's word without questioning how legit it is you are not living in reality. You have no evidence. You trust that to be the truth and live your life by it. Sounds a lot like depending on a Government to me. I don't think we're trying to condemn you, just have you open your minds . . maybe you're not right... and that is ok. It is quite freeing to be a truly sovereign individual ;)


Sounds very collectivist of you. What makes you think I take the bible literally? You would be wrong for thinking that.

I find it interesting that you believe there may be life on other planets even though you have no proof, yet you berate those who believe in a creator without any proof. Did it ever occur to you that perhaps our Creator is from another planet? Just a thought.....

[idiom]

Are you seriously scared to admit that the founding of this nation was on Christian principles? Because it was, and your comment seems to imply that the Founders must themselves have had a 'loose connection'.

They might have. I might have. That is the possibility presented by the OP.

If Religion turns out to be a genetic defect then a lot of things would change. Things people have a vested interest in.

I am a Christian. I don't think I am insane. However, I might be and I can't rule that out.

There fear of finding out I am wrong is not a good reason not to ask the question. I don't expect to find out I am wrong by any means.

It wouldn't hurt the blessed founders at all anyway.

[haaaylee]

Sounds very collectivist of you. What makes you think I take the bible literally? You would be wrong for thinking that.

I find it interesting that you believe there may be life on other planets even though you have no proof, yet you berate those who believe in a creator without any proof. Did it ever occur to you that perhaps our Creator is from another planet? Just a thought.....

I wasn't attempting to say you take the bible literally, just that there is a book and you believe the overall story it is telling you is true.

And as far as life on other planets, i said "think" not "know" - therefore the fact that i lack proof of that is irrelevant since i never claimed i know for a fact there is.

[Deborah K]

I wasn't attempting to say you take the bible literally, just that there is a book and you believe the overall story it is telling you is true.

And as far as life on other planets, i said "think" not "know" - therefore the fact that i lack proof of that is irrelevant since i never claimed i know for a fact there is.


You're wordsmithing. You come off like you are superior to believers in God, and yet you have stated that you believe (think) that there is life on other planets. It's a bit hypocritical.

As to the book that I supposedly 'believe the overall story it is telling me is true' - another false assumption on your part. I honestly believe that atheists, or in your case agnostic atheists, are hurting your case by all the stereotyping you do. You can't on the one hand, claim how glorious it is to be truly sovereign, and then on the other hand, be so incredibly critical of people who don't think like you do. If you truly want liberty for all, then you would live and let live.

[Deborah K]

They might have. I might have. That is the possibility presented by the OP.

If Religion turns out to be a genetic defect then a lot of things would change. Things people have a vested interest in.

I am a Christian. I don't think I am insane. However, I might be and I can't rule that out.

There fear of finding out I am wrong is not a good reason not to ask the question. I don't expect to find out I am wrong by any means.

It wouldn't hurt the blessed founders at all anyway.

I hope while you're searching for the truth, you keep your focus on who it is that funds these types of studies and what their underlying agenda is.

[idiom]

What was Gregor Johann Mendel's agenda when he discovered Genetics?

Did that change the nature of the discovery?

[Deborah K]

What was Gregor Johann Mendel's agenda when he discovered Genetics?

Did that change the nature of the discovery?

Not getting what that has to do with research on whether someone's belief system is a genetic aberration.

[idiom]

Not getting what that has to do with research on whether someone's belief system is a genetic aberration.

Well you seem to think facts are coloured by who discovers them. Your attitude is the same as those who ignore ideas simply becasue they were first articulated by a woman.

[Uriel999]

Your History Major doesn't mean squat, I'm sorry to say, not since the radical left took over the major universities in this country. I mean no offense, I have a bachelor's degree in Behavioral Science with a minor in addictive disorders myself. I had to re-educate myself when it came to certain required college courses..

There is no denying that the founders were mostly Christian and were influenced by the Christian religion and that this nation was founded on Christian principles. Sorry. You won't be able to get around that fact no matter how hard you try. I will never understand why non-believers are sooooo threatened by that fact to go so far as to try and deny history. It goes to show the social engineering has worked.

LOL, I went to university in Pensacola, Florida. Its quite a bit different at West Florida than I think you assume of the majority of colleges. Very conservative overall. Hell, my adviser referred to himself as an anti-federalist/Jacksonian Democrat. I only really had two really liberal professors and one was pretty moderate (he was actually against the bailouts), and the other was a professor in the religion department and he was just an old kook, but a great guy nonetheless. He was funny and didn't try to push his beliefs even when he mentioned them. He told people not to take what he said as fact and actually investigate and form your own opinions.

It is true that the founders were inspired by Christianity and most were Christians. It is also true deism was popular and founders practiced that as well. Remember, Enlightenment thought was also incredibly influential as a philosophy and mindset of the founding fathers.

However, who cares? The founding fathers were just educated men of their day who had read philosophy of the time. Most of what they thought came from Paine and Locke. Oh and they had brass balls to rebel. :D It is true that the Christian faith had influenced it. But again, so what? Just because it did at some time doesn't mean it's still necessary.

This debate really just comes down to Christians blaming the atheists for the decline of the American Empire. Kinda sounds eerily familiar to what the pagans once said about the Christians... :cool:

[Deborah K]

Well you seem to think facts are coloured by who discovers them. Your attitude is the same as those who ignore ideas simply becasue they were first articulated by a woman.

You're kind of twisting my assertions up into pretzels. What I stated was that certain studies are done with a hidden agenda - which is quite different than what you wrote in your first sentence. Secondly, as a woman whose been a recipient of the treatment you describe in your second sentence, I have to laugh that you would apply it to me.

[He Who Pawns]

Deborah K, can you provide one scrap -- one SHRED -- of valid evidence to confirm the existence of god or any of your supernatural Christian beliefs? Can you give us one single iota of valid evidence?

Those of us who believe that there MIGHT be life on other planets base our assumptions on the raw science and the raw numbers. There are hundreds of billions of stars in our galaxy, and hundreds of billions of other galaxies, so wouldn't it be a nearly impossible coincidence that life only exists here? It's a very arrogant thought, actually. But I don't think there are many people who will tell you that for sure there are other intelligent life forms out there, because we have no hard, valid evidence for it. The best we can say is that it's likely, based on what evidence we do have. That evidence might become even stronger once we learn more, through science, about the origins of life on Earth.

[haaaylee]

You're wordsmithing. You come off like you are superior to believers in God, and yet you have stated that you believe (think) that there is life on other planets. It's a bit hypocritical.

As to the book that I supposedly 'believe the overall story it is telling me is true' - another false assumption on your part. I honestly believe that atheists, or in your case agnostic atheists, are hurting your case by all the stereotyping you do. You can't on the one hand, claim how glorious it is to be truly sovereign, and then on the other hand, be so incredibly critical of people who don't think like you do. If you truly want liberty for all, then you would live and let live.


I enjoy that i live in facts and evidence. No, i do not think i am inferior to anyone. It is not hypocritical to think there may be life on other planets. There is life here and i still don't believe in god, why would i assume that if another planet had life there had to be a god doing it.. is that what you are trying to say is hypocritical ? I don't know how we got here. Neither do you.

I don't think i stereotyped you at all, religion comes off the bible- how is saying that you believe the bible to be true a stereotype?

You can live, and believe what ever you want - am i not allowed to have a discussion/argument just because i'm an atheist? I can't talk about and disagree with people over religion?

[Deborah K]

LOL, I went to university in Pensacola, Florida. Its quite a bit different at West Florida than I think you assume of the majority of colleges. Very conservative overall. Hell, my adviser referred to himself as an anti-federalist/Jacksonian Democrat. I only really had two really liberal professors and one was pretty moderate (he was actually against the bailouts), and the other was a professor in the religion department and he was just an old kook, but a great guy nonetheless. He was funny and didn't try to push his beliefs even when he mentioned them. He told people not to take what he said as fact and actually investigate and form your own opinions.



Ahhh....gotcha....then I stand corrected. You apparently weren't corrupted the way a lot of our students are in most Universities.



It is true that the founders were inspired by Christianity and most were Christians. It is also true deism was popular and founders practiced that as well. Remember, Enlightenment thought was also incredibly influential as a philosophy and mindset of the founding fathers.

However, who cares? The founding fathers were just educated men of their day who had read philosophy of the time. Most of what they thought came from Paine and Locke. Oh and they had brass balls to rebel. :D It is true that the Christian faith had influenced it. But again, so what? Just because it did at some time doesn't mean it's still necessary.

This debate really just comes down to Christians blaming the atheists for the decline of the American Empire. Kinda sounds eerily familiar to what the pagans once said about the Christians... :cool

My argument is against the Orwellian attempt to revise history on this matter. Too many atheist types are convinced that the founders were all atheists, or deists, etc. I also have a problem with people who claim to be sovereign individualists but who don't hesitate to condescend to others who don't think like they do. Calling them out becomes necessary.

And, I agree with your premise that some Christian types blame the atheists, although not for the decline in the American Empire, but for the decline in American morality. On the other hand, some Atheist types blame Christians for the American Empire (Imperialism).

So here we have it. People who claim to be liberty loving individuals BLAMING each other for the ills in our nation. Tptb must love this.

[Deborah K]

Deborah K, can you provide one scrap -- one SHRED -- of valid evidence to confirm the existence of god or any of your supernatural Christian beliefs? Can you give us one single iota of valid evidence?

Those of us who believe that there MIGHT be life on other planets base our assumptions on the raw science and the raw numbers. There are hundreds of billions of stars in our galaxy, and hundreds of billions of other galaxies, so wouldn't it be a nearly impossible coincidence that life only exists here? It's a very arrogant thought, actually. But I don't think there are many people who will tell you that for sure there are other intelligent life forms out there, because we have no hard, valid evidence for it. The best we can say is that it's likely, based on what evidence we do have. That evidence might become even stronger once we learn more, through science, about the origins of life on Earth.

Given that information, do you deny that we could have been created by someone on another planet?

[Uriel999]

Ahhh....gotcha....then I stand corrected. You apparently weren't corrupted the way a lot of our students are in most Universities.




My argument is against the Orwellian attempt to revise history on this matter. Too many atheist types are convinced that the founders were all atheists, or deists, etc. I also have a problem with people who claim to be sovereign individualists but who don't hesitate to condescend to others who don't think like they do. Calling them out becomes necessary.

And, I agree with your premise that some Christian types blame the atheists, although not for the decline in the American Empire, but for the decline in American morality. On the other hand, some Atheist types blame Christians for the American Empire (Imperialism).

So here we have it. People who claim to be liberty loving individuals BLAMING each other for the ills in our nation. Tptb must love this.

True dat.

[Deborah K]

I enjoy that i live in facts and evidence. No, i do not think i am inferior to anyone. It is not hypocritical to think there may be life on other planets. There is life here and i still don't believe in god, why would i assume that if another planet had life there had to be a god doing it.. is that what you are trying to say is hypocritical ?


No, the hypocrisy is in the fact that you don't have any evidence that there is life on other planets, yet you believe there is, or could be. And you criticize those who believe in God without evidence. You try and mince words to make it seem like it's okay for you to think what you think, but not okay for believers in God to think what they think. That is hypocritical to me.



I don't know how we got here. Neither do you.

The difference between us is that I have faith and belief in a Creator. This is the premise of a belief in God. Faith. Do I have my doubts at times? Of course, but my faith carries me through. It works for me. It keeps me from living a life filled with constant doubt. It is what I choose for myself. And you should know that I believe that God created evolution. I am not your typical 'Christian'. It will be very difficult to pigeon-hole me.



I don't think i stereotyped you at all, religion comes off the bible- how is saying that you believe the bible to be true a stereotype?

When you group me in with what you think about Christians in general - which is what you did - you are stereotyping.

I believe that the institution of religion has given a belief in God a bad name. Here is what I wrote in a thread about a year ago on the subject:

"While I believe there is a place in the world for religion, I also believe that way too many people see it as an end, rather than a means to an end. This undermines a person’s wisdom and sense of balance. Instead of viewing the church as a vehicle in which to teach people about the source of divine power and through which divine power can be channeled into man’s nature, people view the church as the power itself. And the church allows and even encourages this line of thinking. I believe this is extremely deceptive and destructive."


You can live, and believe what ever you want - am i not allowed to have a discussion/argument just because i'm an atheist? I can't talk about and disagree with people over religion

Disagreeing and condescension are not the same thing.

[He Who Pawns]

Given that information, do you deny that we could have been created by someone on another planet?

I don't deny it. I don't have evidence either way.

I see that you failed to address my request for ONE SHRED of evidence about your supernatural beliefs. I assume this means you cannot provide it?

[LibertyEagle]

You're kind of twisting my assertions up into pretzels. What I stated was that certain studies are done with a hidden agenda - which is quite different than what you wrote in your first sentence. Secondly, as a woman whose been a recipient of the treatment you describe in your second sentence, I have to laugh that you would apply it to me.

Kind of like what happened with the women's movement, the environmental movement, etc., eh? A lot of well-meaning people involved with these movements, but it was shown later that they were being funded and driven by others for entirely different purposes.

[Deborah K]

I don't deny it. I don't have evidence either way.

I see that you failed to address my request for ONE SHRED of evidence about your supernatural beliefs. I assume this means you cannot provide it?

This is a non-sequitur Pawn and you know it. Belief in God doesn't require evidence, it requires faith. You, as an atheist, view life with a scientific mind, I would guess, rather than a philosophical mind. Therefore, it's impossible for you to take anything on faith. Which is why you have no understanding of what it is to believe in God. And I'm okay with that. I have nothing at all against atheist types and I completely understand where you are coming from.

What you need to learn though, is that it needs to be okay for people to NOT think about everything the way you do. And given the fact that you are willing to believe that there may be life on other planets, you then must also be open to the idea that perhaps life on this planet was created and evolved from a Supreme Being who resides on one of these other planets. If you would even consider that possibility, then it would be in your best interest to lay off your Christian Brethren for believing the way they do. The reason I say it would be in your best interest is because it does us no good as liberty loving individualists to attack each other because we don't see eye to eye on everything. We are stronger when we work in favor of each other and not against each other.

Having stated all of this, I see nothing wrong with debating (not attacking) people who are exhibiting hypocritical views, or are condescending, or who don't do an adaquate job defending their Christian positions. I've been known to do it myself.

[virgil47]

Deborah K, He Who Pawns and Kaaalee both both have belief systems they simply don't wish to admit it. They both believe in the THEORY of evolution. Notice it is not called the fact of evolution and as they both firmly believe in it they both have belief systems that can not be proven. As for their belief that atheism is not a religion that is simply dissembling on their part. Of course it is possible that they are both young enough to not realize they have been co-opted by the humanist teachings they were subjected to in their youth.

[He Who Pawns]

Deborah K, if people want to worship bricks, I don't care. As long as they don't throw those bricks at me.

The trouble is, religious loonies like to try to use the power of government to impose their religious beliefs on others, through federal laws against drugs, prostitution, gambling, pornography, etc. And so those religious people must be opposed at all cost.

And in a larger sense, religious belief is dangerous because it teaches people to turn off their critical thinking abilities and to never question "higher authority." This is why highly religious societies are easily led into wars of aggression. The people have lost their ability to critically examine what their leaders are telling them. They don't understand the scientific method, logic or reason.

Do you understand my concerns about these issues?

[constituent]

Kind of like what happened with the women's movement, the environmental movement, etc., eh? A lot of well-meaning people involved with these movements, but it was shown later that they were being funded and driven by others for entirely different purposes.

yea... that sounds reeeeeeal familiar, in fact.

[diggronpaul]

Deborah K, He Who Pawns and Kaaalee both both have belief systems they simply don't wish to admit it. They both believe in the THEORY of evolution. Notice it is not called the fact of evolution and as they both firmly believe in it they both have belief systems that can not be proven. As for their belief that atheism is not a religion that is simply dissembling on their part. Of course it is possible that they are both young enough to not realize they have been co-opted by the humanist teachings they were subjected to in their youth.
You raise two excellent points.

First, evolution is a theory... it doesn't even make the grade of a "scientific theory"

Second, our education system and culture industry has been aggressively teaching humanism, and they've disguised the teachings so well that the pupils don't understand what it is they've been taught.


Kind of like what happened with the women's movement, the environmental movement, etc., eh? A lot of well-meaning people involved with these movements, but it was shown later that they were being funded and driven by others for entirely different purposes.

Another fantastic point! Thank you.

[idiom]

When did cognitive psychology become a Movement?

Did anyone else even watch the OP video all the way through?

Basically Psychology is going to start facing the same problems Biology and Geology do.

[diggronpaul]

When did cognitive psychology become a Movement?
It was started as a religion/movement... so, since its beginnings. Exactly why do you think it was created in the first place?

[Deborah K]

Deborah K, if people want to worship bricks, I don't care. As long as they don't throw those bricks at me.

The trouble is, religious loonies like to try to use the power of government to impose their religious beliefs on others, through federal laws against drugs, prostitution, gambling, pornography, etc. And so those religious people must be opposed at all cost.

And in a larger sense, religious belief is dangerous because it teaches people to turn off their critical thinking abilities and to never question "higher authority." This is why highly religious societies are easily led into wars of aggression. The people have lost their ability to critically examine what their leaders are telling them. They don't understand the scientific method, logic or reason.

Do you understand my concerns about these issues?

Yes, I understand it. And I think you have good cause in trying to help the religious who believe these things, to see it differently. Remember, our man Dr. Paul believes in God, so it is possible to believe in God and to also believe in liberty the way founders intended. Just please, don't automatically assume all believers are nut cases. You tend to do that and you go off on them before you find out. That's all I'm asking.

[Deborah K]

You raise two excellent points.

First, evolution is a theory... it doesn't even make the grade of a "scientific theory"

Second, our education system and culture industry has been aggressively teaching humanism, and they've disguised the teachings so well that the pupils don't understand what it is they've been taught.



Another fantastic point! Thank you.

All three of you made very good points.

[haaaylee]

No, the hypocrisy is in the fact that you don't have any evidence that there is life on other planets, yet you believe there is, or could be. And you criticize those who believe in God without evidence. You try and mince words to make it seem like it's okay for you to think what you think, but not okay for believers in God to think what they think. That is hypocritical to me.

Do i need evidence to think there may be life on other planets? There is life here, so why wouldn't there be elsewhere? That is a possibility, and i accept that. I never said i had evidence. It is "ok" for you to think whatever you want.


And to the person who grouped He Who Pawns and i together in regards to evolution- we never mentioned that word so don't assume that is our "religion"

[haaaylee]

Deborah K, He Who Pawns and Kaaalee both both have belief systems they simply don't wish to admit it. They both believe in the THEORY of evolution. Notice it is not called the fact of evolution and as they both firmly believe in it they both have belief systems that can not be proven. As for their belief that atheism is not a religion that is simply dissembling on their part. Of course it is possible that they are both young enough to not realize they have been co-opted by the humanist teachings they were subjected to in their youth.

Actually i was raised Catholic. I was surrounded by religion as a child and still rejected it, i've had a problem with it since before i even entered school.


Maybe it's a gene :rolleyes::p

[virgil47]

Actually i was raised Catholic. I was surrounded by religion as a child and still rejected it, i've had a problem with it since before i even entered school.


Maybe it's a gene :rolleyes::p

Maybe it is simply rebellion.

[BeFranklin]

That explains why we have a couple million christians locked up in prisons, thanks for that.

How weak is that argument, so you equate failed families to Atheism? lol

How weak an argument? It was a question. I'll ask again: The church has for a very long history proven
itself to be the center of strong communities and families. It is also reasonable for it to be so.

Will the atheists provide any examples at all that atheism provides for strong communities or strong families,
or even private charity as a replacement for government?

Seeing that you are an Ayn Rand lover, you'll going to have an especially hard time at this, since she linked
her atheism and "virtue of selfishness" together. Altruism was wrong in her opinion, private charity was
wrong, and her philosophy is weak on how families interact. I mean, geeze, she even drama-zises rape as
normal sex.

How does atheism, especially randian atheism, do anything other than individualize people to such a point
they can't fight back as a community?

In marxist countries, the same thing occurs. Atheism leads to elimination of normal human relations and state worship.

[haaaylee]

Maybe it is simply rebellion.

Trust me, it isn't. I don't not believe in God to get back at anyone. I'm a little bit more mature than that.

[He Who Pawns]

Atheists, in general, are more intelligent, more likely to hold an advanced college degree, and LESS likely to commit crimes or go to jail.

Conversely, religious people are less intelligent, less likely to hold an advanced college degree, and MORE likely commit crimes and go to jail than atheists.

I will choose the atheist morals over your phony Christian "morals" any day.

And lets not even mention the death and carnage and criminal savageness of certain Biblical passages.

[virgil47]

Atheists, in general, are more intelligent, more likely to hold an advanced college degree, and LESS likely to commit crimes or go to jail.

Conversely, religious people are less intelligent, less likely to hold an advanced college degree, and MORE likely commit crimes and go to jail than atheists.

I will choose the atheist morals over your phony Christian "morals" any day.

And lets not even mention the death and carnage and criminal savageness of certain Biblical passages.

Sweeping and false statements. As there are great deal more people of a religious bent I would expect that percentage wise there would be more criminals as there are many more people. You labor under the misconception that most if not all people who are religious are also saints. Unfortunately humans of all persuasions are susceptible to many failures.

As to your statements about intellect I would certainly like to see some empiric proof. The same applies to your statements concerning college education.

As for morals everyone and anyone that gives the origination of moral values any thought will conclude that they stem from the value system brought about by religion.

The biblical passages you refer to have meaning only to those that believe in religion. Why do you even mention these passages if you don't believe they ever occurred?

You appear to be confused about what it is that you actually believe. Perhaps your vehemence in opposition to religion is simply a manifestation of your own religious beliefs.

As it is time for me to go to work and I can not post to any web site from work I'll have to respond to any justification for your feelings that you may dream up this evening.

[pacelli]

Atheists, in general, are more intelligent, more likely to hold an advanced college degree, and LESS likely to commit crimes or go to jail.

Conversely, religious people are less intelligent, less likely to hold an advanced college degree, and MORE likely commit crimes and go to jail than atheists.


Please present valid evidence in the form of peer-reviewed psychological and/or sociological research to support your statements.

[He Who Pawns]

Please present valid evidence in the form of peer-reviewed psychological and/or sociological research to support your statements.

Are you disputing that what I have said is true? Would you care to wager some money on it, so it's worth my time to research and post the valid evidence? Say, a $25 gift certificate at Best Buy?

These are well-known and established facts. Here's another: well over 90% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences are non-believers. Higher intelligence correlates to less belief in supernatural religions. No legitimate person disputes this.

[pacelli]

Are you disputing that what I have said is true? Would you care to wager some money on it, so it's worth my time to research and post the valid evidence? Say, a $25 gift certificate at Best Buy?

These are well-known and established facts. Here's another: well over 90% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences are non-believers. Higher intelligence correlates to less belief in supernatural religions. No legitimate person disputes this.

I'm asking for your evidence that you have used to make your claims. I have not been exposed to the evidence; therefore, I am unable to agree or disagree. I don't work for you, and you don't work for me. I practice increase, not income.

[Deborah K]

Atheists, in general, are more intelligent, more likely to hold an advanced college degree, and LESS likely to commit crimes or go to jail.

Conversely, religious people are less intelligent, less likely to hold an advanced college degree, and MORE likely commit crimes and go to jail than atheists.

I will choose the atheist morals over your phony Christian "morals" any day.

And lets not even mention the death and carnage and criminal savageness of certain Biblical passages.

Statistics please? I get so tired of these random, "I'm better than you" claims! If and when you can produce evidence to back up your laughable claim, make sure it includes at least 5 decades of research otherwise I call bullshit.

[He Who Pawns]

I'm asking for your evidence that you have used to make your claims. I have not been exposed to the evidence; therefore, I am unable to agree or disagree. I don't work for you, and you don't work for me. I practice increase, not income.

Try google. These facts are very, very well known.

Atheists less likely to be in prison:

http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

Religious belief correlates to lower IQ:

http://w-uh.com/posts/031226a-religion_vs_IQ.html

That's just the beginning. Not only are atheists more likely to hold graduate degrees, and less likely to be in prison, they have higher levels of prosperity than those who are religious.

Nobody disputes these basic trends. They are well known and easy to understand. Even religious organizations acknowledge the disparity in IQ between believers and non-believers. They come up with all kinds of excuses, but they don't deny the dozens of studies and the mountains of valid evidence pointing to the correlation.

[He Who Pawns]

Statistics please? I get so tired of these random, "I'm better than you" claims! If and when you can produce evidence to back up your laughable claim, make sure it includes at least 5 decades of research otherwise I call bullshit.

These types of statistics are not meant to say "I'm better than you." They are meant to refute the spurious claims of religious people who claim that non-believers are "immoral" or have no reason to act morally. In fact, they are meant to refute the claims of the religious majority that they are morally superior!

[Rangeley]

Atheists, in general, are more intelligent, more likely to hold an advanced college degree, and LESS likely to commit crimes or go to jail.

Conversely, religious people are less intelligent, less likely to hold an advanced college degree, and MORE likely commit crimes and go to jail than atheists.

I will choose the atheist morals over your phony Christian "morals" any day.

And lets not even mention the death and carnage and criminal savageness of certain Biblical passages.
Does correlation imply causation?

[He Who Pawns]

Does correlation imply causation?

Did I say it did? I said there was a strong correlation. Read my words carefully.

[Rangeley]

African Americans tend to score lower, on average, on tests than whites. They make up a larger percentage of those in prison. They make up a larger percentage of deaths from burning buildings. Its a strong correlation, noone would dispute it. But there is no causation and therefore its meaningless in itself, and you have to look to other variables (neighborhoods, education, etc) which can explain these things. If you are just throwing statistics out there which show a correlation but claiming no causation, what is your point?

[Deborah K]

These types of statistics are not meant to say "I'm better than you." They are meant to refute the spurious claims of religious people who claim that non-believers are "immoral" or have no reason to act morally. In fact, they are meant to refute the claims of the religious majority that they are morally superior!


Where are they then? Are you clueless as to how to put forth an argument? If you're going to make such wild claims, it is incumbent upon you to provide facts to back them up. Again, you are clumping all believers up into a stereotype. We are individuals just like you and others with atheist beliefs. Try to knock off the double-standard. It's hard to take you seriously when you come from such a weak place.

[He Who Pawns]

African Americans tend to score lower, on average, on tests than whites. They make up a larger percentage of those in prison. They make up a larger percentage of deaths from burning buildings. Its a strong correlation, noone would dispute it. But there is no causation and therefore its meaningless in itself, and you have to look to other variables (neighborhoods, education, etc) which can explain these things. If you are just throwing statistics out there which show a correlation but claiming no causation, what is your point?

My point was that atheists tend be smarter, more prosperous, better educated, and less likely to be in prison. It's a very simple point.

It was in response to BeFranklin's direct question:


Will the atheists provide any examples at all that atheism provides for strong communities or strong families

So I provided examples. I think higher education, less crime and more productivity and prosperity are better for communities than supporting a bunch of stupid Christians in the slammer.

[Deborah K]

My point was that atheists tend be smarter, more prosperous, better educated, and less likely to be in prison. It's a very simple point.

It was in response to BeFranklin's direct question:



So I provided examples. I think higher education, less crime and more productivity and prosperity are better for communities than supporting a bunch of stupid Christians in the slammer.


Based on what? The two cheesy web sites you provided? Can we please have something scientific??? Like from a journal or something? NOT somebody's word for it?

[Rangeley]

My point was that atheists tend be smarter, more prosperous, better educated, and less likely to be in prison. It's a very simple point.

It was in response to BeFranklin's direct question:



So I provided examples. I think higher education, less crime and more productivity and prosperity are better for communities than supporting a bunch of stupid Christians in the slammer.
You provided examples of correlation, but none of causation, which was my point. If I asked a white supremacist for examples that white people are inherently better than others at making communities, they could list any of the examples I gave. But those are just examples of correlation, and explainable by other variables.

Are you claiming that I am less intelligent than you because you are an atheist? Are you claiming that if two people grew up under the exact same conditions, yet differed in religious belief, the religious one would still score lower? If you are claiming these things, mere correlation doesn't cut it.

[He Who Pawns]

Where are they then? Are you clueless as to how to put forth an argument?

Listen, sugar-muffin, it's not up to me to spend all day googling facts that are well known and are not in dispute. Do you want me to post video evidence of a bear shitting in the woods, as well?

If you want to have a formal debate with me, where each side takes the time to post valid, peer-reviewed evidence for our various claims, I will be more than happy to take you out back to the woodshed and spank your ass until it's cherry red. ;)

[Kraig]

Listen, sugar-muffin, it's not up to me to spend all day googling facts that are well known and are not in dispute. Do you want me to post video evidence of a bear shitting in the woods, as well?

If you want to have a formal debate with me, where each side takes the time to post valid, peer-reviewed evidence for our various claims, I will be more than happy to take you out back to the woodshed and spank your ass until it's cherry red. ;)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-less-likely-to-believe-in-God.html

[Deborah K]

Listen, sugar-muffin, it's not up to me to spend all day googling facts that are well known and are not in dispute. Do you want me to post video evidence of a bear shitting in the woods, as well?

If you want to have a formal debate with me, where each side takes the time to post valid, peer-reviewed evidence for our various claims, I will be more than happy to take you out back to the woodshed and spank your ass until it's cherry red. ;)

Sugar muffin? Well listen here Sweet cheeks, your facts OBVIOUSLY are in dispute when several people are asking you to back them up. As far as taking me out to the woodshed, you have your head so far up your ass on this issue you wouldn't be able to find my ass to spank it. Too bad you don't realize how off base you are. It's sad to see that the social engineering has taken a successful hold on you.

[He Who Pawns]

Sugar muffin? Well listen here Sweet cheeks, your facts OBVIOUSLY are in dispute when several people are asking you to back them up. As far as taking me out to the woodshed, you have your head so far up your ass on this issue you wouldn't be able to find my ass to spank it. Too bad you don't realize how off base you are. It's sad to see that the social engineering has taken a successful hold on you.

So I take it you're not interested in joining me out back at the woodshed? ;)

[LibertyEagle]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-less-likely-to-believe-in-God.html

Interesting. Lew Rockwell believes in God and so does Ron Paul. Perhaps you should send them emails and tell them that you think they're dumbasses. ;)

Deborah is right. You guys have bought the social engineering that has been hoisted on you since you were children. It takes intelligence to see through it. Hopefully, soon you'll be able to. Because I know you're a bright guy.

[Deborah K]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-less-likely-to-believe-in-God.html

This proves nothing. They did studies at Science academies. What the hell did you THINK the graduates would say??? And I bet everyone of them believe life exists elsewhere even though there is no empirical evidence. Yet people who belive in God without evidence are the idiots. What hypocrisy.

[Kraig]

Interesting. Lew Rockwell believes in God and so does Ron Paul. Perhaps you should send them emails and tell them that you think they're dumbasses. ;)

Deborah is right. You guys have bought the social engineering that has been hoisted on you since you were children. It takes intelligence to see through it. Hopefully, soon you'll be able to. Because I know you're a bright guy.

I don't understand why you are putting words in my mouth for posting a link.

[Deborah K]

So I take it you're not interested in joining me out back at the woodshed? ;)

I don't know, what do you look like. JUST KIDDING. I'M HAPPILY MARRIED!!!!

[He Who Pawns]

I don't know, what do you look like. JUST KIDDING. I'M HAPPILY MARRIED!!!!

damn! :D

anyway, i'm just having fun; i don't mean any offense. you know i've always got your back on immigration debates around here, sweet cheeks. ;)

[Rangeley]

Deborah K, if people want to worship bricks, I don't care. As long as they don't throw those bricks at me.

The trouble is, religious loonies like to try to use the power of government to impose their religious beliefs on others, through federal laws against drugs, prostitution, gambling, pornography, etc. And so those religious people must be opposed at all cost.

And in a larger sense, religious belief is dangerous because it teaches people to turn off their critical thinking abilities and to never question "higher authority." This is why highly religious societies are easily led into wars of aggression. The people have lost their ability to critically examine what their leaders are telling them. They don't understand the scientific method, logic or reason.

Do you understand my concerns about these issues?
Who do you mean by "religious loonies?"

Further, while I agree with you that it is a bad idea to abandon self judgement, its quite the leap to claim this inherently comes with religion. Could a religion come with the belief that leaders are endowed with some divine right or infallibility? Sure, but its, again, not inherent. And someone could believe their leaders are unquestionable even without religion.

[Kraig]

This proves nothing. They did studies at Science academies. What the hell did you THINK the graduates would say??? And I bet everyone of them believe life exists elsewhere even though there is no empirical evidence. Yet people who belive in God without evidence are the idiots. What hypocrisy.

Was just posting a link since He Who Pwns didn't want to. Of course you are right in that it proves nothing. Trying to think of a non offensive way of saying this but I do agree that non belief in god is the more rational approach. Not at all does this mean that people who believe in god are less intelligent than atheists, you can't really make a comparison like that because people can be experts in one thing and fools on another. Kinda like the thread about Einstein being a socialist, amazing physicist, pretty ignorant on politics. You just can't judge people across the board like that because of one belief they have. Overall I think as people become more intelligent I think they will reject religion more and more, but it is not a simple matter.

[LibertyEagle]

I don't understand why you are putting words in my mouth for posting a link.

Ok. Then perhaps you could explain what you meant by posting a link to a thread that is titled, "Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God' ".

:confused:

Are you saying that you do not believe that?

[Kraig]

Ok. Then perhaps you could explain what you meant by posting a link to a thread that is titled, "Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God' ".

:confused:

Are you saying that you do not believe that?

I tried to explain my take on it in the above post and I posted the link in response to He Who Pwns not wanting to google anything. Clearly I didn't say anything so it's no surprise you didn't know, but why not just ask? I would even enjoy your thoughts on what I said to Deb, this is a tricky topic but I think we can debate it without losing respect for each other.

[Deborah K]

Was just posting a link since He Who Pwns didn't want to. Of course you are right in that it proves nothing. Trying to think of a non offensive way of saying this but I do agree that non belief in god is the more rational approach. Not at all does this mean that people who believe in god are less intelligent than atheists, you can't really make a comparison like that because people can be experts in one thing and fools on another. Kinda like the thread about Einstein being a socialist, amazing physicist, pretty ignorant on politics. You just can't judge people across the board like that because of one belief they have. Overall I think as people become more intelligent I think they will reject religion more and more, but it is not a simple matter.

ahhh but religion is different than belief in God. Religion is a man-made institution, hence it is susceptible to corruption. And why does everyone side-step my very valid point about non-believers in God being so willing to believe in life on other planets with no evidence and yet condemn believers in God for having no evidence? Do you not see the hypocrisy in that?

[Deborah K]

damn! :D

anyway, i'm just having fun; i don't mean any offense. you know i've always got your back on immigration debates around here, sweet cheeks. ;)

Levity is always welcomed and appreciated. :D

[LibertyEagle]

I tried to explain my take on it in the above post and I posted the link in response to He Who Pwns not wanting to google anything. Clearly I didn't say anything so it's no surprise you didn't know, but why not just ask? I would even enjoy your thoughts on what I said to Deb, this is a tricky topic but I think we can debate it without losing respect for each other.

You're right, Kraig. I should have. I apologize.

[Kraig]

ahhh but religion is different than belief in God. Religion is a man-made institution, hence it is susceptible to corruption. And why does everyone side-step my very valid point about non-believers in God being so willing to believe in life on other planets with no evidence and yet condemn believers in God for having no evidence? Do you not see the hypocrisy in that?

On one hand there is some hypocrisy in that, but also not all atheists believe that. Another take on it is maybe people believe in what they feel is "likely". With as big as the universe is, it's not too much of a stretch to think there could be life like we see here somewhere else. We know it is possible at least here. God on the other hand we don't even have that to go on, so it is much more of a stretch. No evidence of him here or there.

If religion is a man made institution, isn't belief in god a man made idea?

[Kraig]

You're right, Kraig. I should have. I apologize.

No big deal I just happen to have huge respect for both Rockwell and Paul!

[Deborah K]

On one hand there is some hypocrisy in that, but also not all atheists believe that. Another take on it is maybe people believe in what they feel is "likely". With as big as the universe is, it's not too much of a stretch to think there could be life like we see here somewhere else. We know it is possible at least here. God on the other hand we don't even have that to go on, so it is much more of a stretch. No evidence of him here or there.

If religion is a man made institution, isn't belief in god a man made idea?

This is what I believe about the institution of religion:

While I believe there is a place in the world for religion, I also believe that way too many people see it as an end, rather than a means to an end. This undermines a person’s wisdom and sense of balance. Instead of viewing the church (religion) as a vehicle in which to teach people about the source of divine power and through which divine power can be channeled into man’s nature, people view the church as the power itself. And the church allows and even encourages this line of thinking. I believe this is extremely deceptive and destructive.

So no, I don't believe that the institution of religion is the same thing as a belief in God. Plenty of people, myself included, do not identify ourselves with any religious institution.

As to the belief that is it more likely there is life on other planets, than there is a God (Creator), the next logical question is: If there can be life on other planets, then is it possible a Supreme Being from another planet created life on this one? If you suppose that this is possible, then it becomes necessary to accept that a belief in God is not such a stretch after all.

[haaaylee]

This proves nothing. They did studies at Science academies. What the hell did you THINK the graduates would say??? And I bet everyone of them believe life exists elsewhere even though there is no empirical evidence. Yet people who belive in God without evidence are the idiots. What hypocrisy.



Stop claiming those that believe in life on other planets (or the possibility of) are hypocrites.

I believe humans exist on Earth, but still do not believe a God placed us here.

So why couldn't there be life on other planets? When most people say they believe that i'm sure they are smart enough to know they have no proof, they are really saying they believe it to be possible. As we exist here.

I don't find that hypocritical. To deny that possibility is to be very egotistical about our existence.

[LibertyEagle]

Stop claiming those that believe in life on other planets (or the possibility of) are hypocrites.

I believe humans exist on Earth, but still do not believe a God placed us here.

So why couldn't there be life on other planets? When most people say they believe that i'm sure they are smart enough to know they have no proof, they are really saying they believe it to be possible. As we exist here.

I don't find that hypocritical. To deny that possibility is to be very egotistical about our existence.

I believe she's saying that IF someone believes in life on other planets, of which there is no proof, then those same people are hypocritical, if they denounce those who believe in God, because they claim no proof exists.

[idiom]

Why even have an OP?

[Deborah K]

I believe she's saying that IF someone believes in life on other planets, of which there is no proof, then those same people are hypocritical, if they denounce those who believe in God, because they claim no proof exists.


I've tried explaining that to her a few times already, Liberty. For being an atheist of superior intelligence (according to Pawn) she sure seems to have a tough time understanding a simple concept. :rolleyes:

[diggronpaul]

Ok. Then perhaps you could explain what you meant by posting a link to a thread that is titled, "Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God' ".

:confused:

Are you saying that you do not believe that?
I think what the thread should say is that most "Educated" people less likely to believe in God, as we all know that the education system has been totally co-opted.

[haaaylee]

I've tried explaining that to her a few times already, Liberty. For being an atheist of superior intelligence (according to Pawn) she sure seems to have a tough time understanding a simple concept. :rolleyes:


If Pawn wants to say i'm (we) are of superior intelligence do not attempt to use that to insult me, as i did not say it.

You attacked me previously when i said i believe in the possibility of life on other planets, i tried to explain to you that you can believe that to be possible and still not believe in a god. Life exists here, and i don't believe god did it. I THINK life may be somewhere else and i still don't believe god did it. Because why would Earth be the only planet to have life?

Maybe you are trying to attack people who are saying they for sure believe in life on other planets but not a god, but you word it in a way that it is as if you are accusing us of that.

I don't know. That is why i am an agnostic... I don't waste my time trying to figure it out.

[Deborah K]

If Pawn wants to say i'm (we) are of superior intelligence do not attempt to use that to insult me, as i did not say it.

You attacked me previously when i said i believe in the possibility of life on other planets, i tried to explain to you that you can believe that to be possible and still not believe in a god. Life exists here, and i don't believe god did it. I THINK life may be somewhere else and i still don't believe god did it. Because why would Earth be the only planet to have life?

Maybe you are trying to attack people who are saying they for sure believe in life on other planets but not a god, but you word it in a way that it is as if you are accusing us of that.

I don't know. That is why i am an agnostic... I don't waste my time trying to figure it out.

Haaaylee, you first addressed me by attempting to tell me how great it is to be a sovereign individual, implying that because I believe in God somehow that means I couldn't possibly be one. Did it ever occur to you that I might find your assumption insulting? It's interesting to me how agnostic/atheist types on this forum can sure dish it out, but can't take it themselves.

I'm going to try this one more time.......this is NOT an attack.....this is an attempt to try and reach you using logic you agree with that will hopefully help you to understand why people can logically believe in God.

If you believe that life may possibly exist on other planets, without any empirical evidence, then is it possible that a Supreme Being from some other planet could have created life on this planet? Sit with that for a minute.

If you agree that the above is possible, then you must admit that believing in God without empirical evidence is not such a stretch.

This is where the hypocrisy comes in. Atheist/agnostic types CAN'T have it both ways. You can't, on the one hand, believe the above is possible, and then on the other hand, criticize, condescend to, or otherwise attack those who believe in God.

If you can't imagine how anyone could hold the view that you are attacking, then you probably just don't understand it yet. Hopefully my analogy will help you and others who flame away at believers in God how to understand our position a little better. And bear in mind, I see a clear distinction between belief in God and man-made religions. My problem is with people who attack belief in God.

[pacelli]

The statistics cited are based on "research" conducted with different intelligence tests in different countries, some of which are culturally inappropriate for use in those countries. Sample sizes varied, and in some cases no actual testing was done and IQ scores were PREDICTED based on available demographic data. These results were then used to predict a "national IQ".

Source: Lynn & Vanhannen (2006). "IQ and Global Inequality".

Read the book.

[pacelli]

http://pewglobal.org/reports/images/258-3.gif

US is a statistical outlier that is inconsistent with the initial theory. High in religiosity (compared to europe), highest in wealth (according to the pew people).