Religion channels overload

[Feanor]

And for all of that bloviating, you still haven't addressed my point -- i.e., painting the world in ridiculously broad brushes without any proof. In case you forgot, atheism is itself rooted in a leap of faith (i.e., you cannot prove a negative). For all of your protestations about how religious people perpetuate hatred and closed-mindedness, I don't see much difference in your mindset. I've know plenty of atheists and religious fundamentalists in my life, and I'm fine with both, so long as there's a basic respect for one another's beliefs. I don't sense any of that from you, only contempt and the very close-minded ignorance that you accuse others of.

Steve Jobs totally got it right when he pointed out that the fundamental sociopolitical challenge isn't left vs right, but constructive versus destructive. I would put the arguments that you're forwarding in this thread under the latter.

I rarely rush to RGA's defence. He is given to hyperbole at times, (not to mention verbosity), and that's off-putting to say the least.

Apologists for religion like to assert that atheism is faith-based just like religion, or further, that atheism is a religion. This is a very dismissive point of view and generally invalid, IMO.

In my experience most self-admitted atheists I know are rationalists and skeptics who hold atheism as an intellectual position. Basically, while God might exist, i.e. epstemologically the existence of God cannot be disproven, his/her/its existence is highly unlikely. That is, God's existence has never been proven nor is his/her/its existence required to explain observed phenomenon. In this respect see Occam's Razor.

What frustrates atheists is their observation of the world were religion is the cause or exacerbant of almost all of the world's problems. Further, again as an intellectual position, they see little hope for a world were people are ruled by irrationality, rejection of empirical evidence, and superstition. Some atheists are moved to protest these states of affairs in a manner which isn't always as polite and gentile as it might be.

By the way, I suspect the Steve Jobs was meaning "destructive" in the happy, capitalist sense of "creative destruction" à la Mitt Romney and Blair Capital. Science too is a process of "creative destruction" where theories and challenged and reformulated for the advancement of knowledge. This is the antithesis of religion that adherences traditional received dogmas. Some atheists are quiet and polite, others see themselves as "creative destroyers" of bigotry and superstition.

[markw]

I rarely rush to RGA's defence.

Except when it comes to trashing religion and the US.

What frustrates atheists is their observation of the world were religion is the cause or exacerbant of almost all of the world's problems.

That's like saying mothers milk is the basis for all addictions. One might want to extend your observation to iclude wealth and power there also. In fact, I'd rate them higher but I'll give you that some might use religion as a tool, much like some countries use force and genocide. Cambodia under Pol Pot, Russia, Myanmar, China, most of Africa, any Islamic country, and the list goes on..

[Woochifer]

I rarely rush to RGA's defence. He is given to hyperbole at times, (not to mention verbosity), and that's off-putting to say the least.

Hyperbole at times? C'mon. In this case, he's basically asserting:

- that persons of faith are stupid
- that even if they are somehow intelligent, they are still closed-minded
- that IQ tests "prove" this (not acknowledging the inherent cultural biases in IQ tests, and how they've historically been used to "prove" the intellectual inferiority of other groups, such as racial minorities)
- in his other thread, he says that they are hatemongers (not realizing the irony/hypocrisy of what underlies his own posts)
- that people smart enough to get into universities are liberal (which is actually false -- the ideological spectrum survey results will vary by generation; in the 1980s and 90s, the student population at U.S. universities was actually conservative -- were they stupid back then?)
- that someone who's smart enough to become a university professors is probably liberal (has he ever taken an econ or business class?)

Are you really justifying this level of stereotyping and just outright hatred of another group?

Apologists for religion like to assert that atheism is faith-based just like religion, or further, that atheism is a religion. This is a very dismissive point of view and generally invalid, IMO.

And here, you too are painting with a broadbrush and playing a guilt by association game. Where do I say that atheism is a religion, or even hint that any kind of organized belief system is built around it?

I'm simply saying that it's one thing to assert that there is no scientific evidence in the existence of a monotheistic god (belief in it requires faith), which is true. It's quite another to turn this lack of scientific evidence into an assertion that there is no God. That assertion has no basis in fact, because you cannot prove a negative. So, in my view, that means that the assertion of a negative require belief, or faith if you will, in the nonexistence of God. It's not a religion, it's simply believing in something that cannot be proven or disproven. How's this any different than how so many of the cable debates usually wind up -- i.e., objectivists will say that the absence of scientific evidence means that there are no differences between cables, and the subjectivists say that you cannot prove a negative.

In my experience most self-admitted atheists I know are rationalists and skeptics who hold atheism as an intellectual position. Basically, while God might exist, i.e. epstemologically the existence of God cannot be disproven, his/her/its existence is highly unlikely. That is, God's existence has never been proven nor is his/her/its existence required to explain observed phenomenon. In this respect see Occam's Razor.

And that's my experience as well, but when someone says that they believe or know that there's no God, that's a very different position from saying that the evidence in its existence is not there.

What frustrates atheists is their observation of the world were religion is the cause or exacerbant of almost all of the world's problems. Further, again as an intellectual position, they see little hope for a world were people are ruled by irrationality, rejection of empirical evidence, and superstition. Some atheists are moved to protest these states of affairs in a manner which isn't always as polite and gentile as it might be.

But, here you are painting with a broadbrush again. Are you really claiming that atheists aren't subject to irrationality, rejection of empirical evidence, and superstition? Just because someone's an atheist doesn't mean that they aren't human (are you saying that all atheists don't read horoscopes or lack any irrationality in all of their beliefs?). And here too, you are ascribing "almost all of the world's problems" as having a religious root -- I know you're not making the claim, but you certainly aren't disagreeing with it. Are you saying that inequitable distribution of wealth and resources is caused by religion, not something else such as godless capitalism?

By the way, I suspect the Steve Jobs was meaning "destructive" in the happy, capitalist sense of "creative destruction" à la Mitt Romney and Blair Capital. Science too is a process of "creative destruction" where theories and challenged and reformulated for the advancement of knowledge. This is the antithesis of religion that adherences traditional received dogmas. Some atheists are quiet and polite, others see themselves as "creative destroyers" of bigotry and superstition.

Nope, you're reading way too much into it. The context of this was a conversation Jobs had with Rupert Murdoch regarding Fox News Channel. Basically, Jobs was blasting FNC not so much for having a right-wing bias, but for having a destructive (rather than constructive) bias.

And that's what I see in this thread. RGA is claiming the high ground because his position is purportedly more intelligent. But, in my view, justifying destructive views on grounds of intellectual superiority is no different than a religious fundamentalist engaging in destructive discourse on grounds of moral superiority. Or in other words, it doesn't matter if you believe in God or not, you can still be an a-hole.

[Feanor]

Except when it comes to trashing religion and the US.

That's like saying mothers milk is the basis for all addictions. One might want to extend your observation to iclude wealth and power there also. In fact, I'd rate them higher but I'll give you that some might use religion as a tool, much like some countries use force and genocide. Cambodia under Pol Pot, Russia, Myanmar, China, most of Africa, any Islamic country, and the list goes on..

To condemn one evil is not to condone another.

[Feanor]

...
And that's what I see in this thread. RGA is claiming the high ground because his position is purportedly more intelligent. But, in my view, justifying destructive views on grounds of intellectual superiority is no different than a religious fundamentalist engaging in destructive discourse on grounds of moral superiority. Or in other words, it doesn't matter if you believe in God or not, you can still be an a-hole.

OK, fine, he's an a-hole. Perhaps I was less clear that I ought to have been. I'm not defending everything RGA said. I certainly don't agree that religionists are all stupid. The whole IQ argument is out of line and I don't agree with RGA where he is apparently saying that. Personally I have know some highly intelligent people of faith; most are estimable people in general apart from their self-delusion.

...
In case you forgot, atheism is itself rooted in a leap of faith (i.e., you cannot prove a negative). For all of your protestations about how religious people perpetuate hatred and closed-mindedness, I don't see much difference in your mindset. I've know plenty of atheists and religious fundamentalists in my life, and I'm fine with both, so long as there's a basic respect for one another's beliefs.
...

I defend RGA against the assertion that he is hypocritical because atheism is a faith like religious faiths hence that he is no better than the Evangelical Christian who condemns the Islamist (or vice versa). I've pointed out the atheism is NOT faith-based; it is a rational postulation based on fact and lack of fact. You can accept this or not.

You plead mutual tolerance; amongst religionists that would certainly be a good thing. Most atheists condemn religion because of it is all inherently closed-mined in nature. There is a categorical difference between preaching Superstition 'A' while damning Superstition 'B' versus condemning superstition in general. Admittedly some atheists do indeed lack respect for other's beliefs -- or more precisely, belief in general.

[markw]

To condemn one evil is not to condone another.

As you've just proven, one can say so little that they hav esaid absolutely nothing.

Now, I just can't resist...

I defend RGA against the assertion that he is hypocritical because atheism is a faith like religious faiths hence that he is no better than the Evangelical Christian who condemns the Islamist (or vice versa). I've pointed out the atheism is NOT faith-based; it is a rational postulation based on fact and lack of fact. You can accept this or not.

Yes, it is faith based. You place your faith in your inability to prove it exists. Those who believe it have all the proof they need. Many books have been written about spiritual encounters by many people dating back to several thousand years before Christ was born and continue on even today but, naturally, since they are written by people who believe in something you don't, you invalidate them. That's the definition of a self-fufilling phrophecy if I've ever seen one.

You plead mutual tolerance; amongst religionists that would certainly be a good thing.

And most do tolerate others. It's just that when one religion mandates the killing of all that don't believe what they do that problems arise. At this time, only one seems to fit that profile and the issues are less with the religion than the tactics used by some, not all, believers.

Most atheists condemn religion because of it is all inherently closed-mined in nature.

Actually, what this thread has shown is that most are of the live and let live persuasion are not out to force their opinion on others or belittle anyone, save for two. Guess who these would be?

There is a categorical difference between preaching Superstition 'A' while damning Superstition 'B' versus condemning superstition in general

Again, there are only two people here damning "superstition". Everyone else seems pretty cool about any differences we might have.

Admittedly some atheists do indeed lack respect for other's beliefs -- or more precisely, belief in general.

Yes. I'm addressing one now.

Your use of a bibical quote in your sig line is a perfect example of your smug contempt for believers.

Here's a cute little ditty I ran across. Hey, when the time comes, ya never know...

An atheist was walking through the woods one day in Alaska, admiring all that evolution had created. "What majestic trees! What a powerful river! What beautiful animals!" he said to himself. As he was walking alongside the river, he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him.

Turning to look, he saw a 13-foot Kodiak brown bear beginning to charge towards him. He ran as fast as he could down the path.

He looked over his shoulder and saw that the bear was rapidly closing on him. Somehow, he ran even faster, so scared that tears came to his eyes. He looked again & the bear was even closer. His heart pounding in his chest, he tried to run faster yet. But alas, he tripped and fell to the ground.

As he rolled over to pick himself up, the bear was right over him, reaching for him with it's left paw and raising its right paw to strike him....he yelled out, "OH MY GOD!"

Time stopped.......

The bear froze.......

The forest was silent............

Even the river stopped moving.

As a brilliant light shone upon the man, a thunderous voice came from all around,

GOD SPOKE:

"YOU DENY MY EXISTENCE FOR ALL THESE YEARS, YOU MOCK ME AND MY FOLLOWERS. YOU TEACH OTHERS THAT I DON'T EXIST AND EVEN CREDIT CREATION TO SOME COSMIC ACCIDENT. DO YOU EXPECT ME TO HELP YOU OUT OF THIS PREDICAMENT? "AM I TO COUNT YOU NOW AS A BELIEVER?"

Difficult as it was, the atheist looked directly into the light & said, "It would be hypocritical to ask to be a Christian after all these years, but perhaps you could make the bear a Christian?"

"VERY WELL," said GOD.

The light went out...

The river ran...

The sounds of the forest resumed..

And the bear dropped down on his knees, brought both paws together, bowed his head and spoke:

"Lord, thank you for this food which I am about to receive, Amen."

[Feanor]

...
And most {religionists} do tolerate others. It's just that when one religion mandates the killing of all that don't believe what they do that problems arise. At this time, only one seems to fit that profile and the issues are less with the religion than the tactics used by some, not all, believers.
...

This is a typical response to the negativity of religion -- "My religion (or my religious attitude) is OK, it's the other guy that's got it all wrong".

...
Yes. I'm addressing one now, {one who has contempt for belief}

Your use of a bibical quote in your sig line is a perfect example of your smug contempt for believers.
...

Not at all. I read the Book of Ecclesiastes recently, enjoyed it, and wished to pay tribute to some of the wisdom there ... or are you finding fault with Ecclesiastes yourself?

[markw]

This is a typical response to the negativity of religion -- "My religion (or my religious attitude) is OK, it's the other guy that's got it all wrong".

That's what you took away from what I said? I guess not wanting to die for someone else's beliefs is "a typical response to the negativity of religion"? I gusss I gave Canada's educational system too much credit. They failed you big time.

Not at all. I read the Book of Ecclesiastes recently, enjoyed it, and wished to pay tribute to some of the wisdom there ... or are you finding fault with Ecclesiastes yourself?

So, you admit that religion has some uses, but just not for you. Too bad you don't recognize the source of that wisdom. The author does. I still say you're smugly condescending and you think you're fooling people with this statement. I don't think they are as easily fooled as you do. Remember, they have been reading this whole thread and have seen you in action.

I find no fault with the book, just your conveniently picking and choosing what you want to believe and what you want to ridicule. I think that's called hypocrisy?

Ecclesiastes 12: 13 "Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter:
Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind."

[RGA]

Once one cut through all the bull**** you try to bury it under.

Post 6, in it's shortened essence, was that Americans fall back on religion because of their inferior intelligence, and you threw in IQ scores as added bluster.

When it was shown, in one short post, that canadians fare even lower in that area, you started spewing it like you overdosed on exlax. And, of course, your flying monkey just had to join into the fray.

And now you're tyring to confuse the issue by trying to change the subject. Oh so typical...

My comments on Americans falling back on religion though has nothing to do with Canada - You brought up Canada. I know my country has whack-jobs - we have a PM who believes the earth is 6 thousand years old - he put in another such moron believer to be the Nation's science minister. I don't see why you think I post as a competition - I didn't.

[RGA]

And for all of that bloviating, you still haven't addressed my point -- i.e., painting the world in ridiculously broad brushes without any proof. In case you forgot, atheism is itself rooted in a leap of faith (i.e., you cannot prove a negative). For all of your protestations about how religious people perpetuate hatred and closed-mindedness, I don't see much difference in your mindset. I've know plenty of atheists and religious fundamentalists in my life, and I'm fine with both, so long as there's a basic respect for one another's beliefs. I don't sense any of that from you, only contempt and the very close-minded ignorance that you accuse others of.

Steve Jobs totally got it right when he pointed out that the fundamental sociopolitical challenge isn't left vs right, but constructive versus destructive. I would put the arguments that you're forwarding in this thread under the latter.

If you think atheism is a faith you're out to lunch - read Richard Dawkins the God Delusion. At no time does he say "there is no God" because as he points out - he doesn't know - same with Bill Mahar same with me. Calling out the religions and not believing in the "possibility of God" are two different things. I am quite willing to accept the "possibility that there is a higher power in the universe" - now is a devoted Christian willing to accept the possibility that their faith is total bunk and there is no God?" Umm no - and that's the problem. Good people do good things, bad people do bad things - but for good people to do bad things - usually takes religion. They are so SURE they're 100% right based on ZERO evidence and mountains of evidence against that they will fly themselves into buildings to be closer to God or all the outer instances in history that faith creates. No one acts violently in the name of Atheism and all the so-called Atheists who have murdered (Stalin) acted out of religion in another form Communism, Fascism religions to political ideologies.

No problems with anyone wanting to believe in their tooth ferry by another name - I don't really care - I do care when they have their fingers on WMD's and it seems the country that has proven to have WMD's is the United States - not Iraq - and gee the worry over countries with Nukes - well let's see what was the country that actually dropped nukes on a civilian population - oh.... right.

[markw]

My comments on Americans falling back on religion though has nothing to do with Canada - You brought up Canada. I know my country has whack-jobs - we have a PM who believes the earth is 6 thousand years old - he put in another such moron believer to be the Nation's science minister. I don't see why you think I post as a competition - I didn't.

Tell that to your fellow countryman who cried like a little girlie that I was attacking canada. I just noted that you two travel in pairs when trolling for Americans and believers.

I even said in plain black and white that my issues were with you two *******s, not your country when he couldn't see the difference. It's almost as if he thinks that you and he can say whatever absurd bull**** you want and anything that's said in rebuttal you claim is an attack against canada. It's quite plain to see that that's not beneath either of you.

I does seem to be a trait that's unique to you two, thankfully for your fellow countrymen.

And, yeah. After my little link you spewed forth such an ocean of verbal diahhreah backpedaling that the toilet overflowed. ...and then yer little buddy just had to come to your defense and, as I noted, whenever there's trashing of Americia, Americans and/or religion, we can count on both of you making an apperance, and that you're both from Canada. Wanna deny that?.

And, yeah, we "dumb Americians" all know what you said. We aren't that stupid and all your verbose back-pedaling won't change it. You knew, and we knew, exactly what you were saying. You just didn't expect to be called on it.

[RGA]

Except when it comes to trashing religion and the US.

That's like saying mothers milk is the basis for all addictions. One might want to extend your observation to iclude wealth and power there also. In fact, I'd rate them higher but I'll give you that some might use religion as a tool, much like some countries use force and genocide. Cambodia under Pol Pot, Russia, Myanmar, China, most of Africa, any Islamic country, and the list goes on..

I agree that religion may be used as the tool - in truth it probably is - but the people in the U.S that typically vote Republican is out of that party trying to own Christianity - the votes therefore are coming largely from religious base.

I don't trash the U.S. I trash one party and the people who vote for that party for those religious based reasons - believing that George W Bush hears the voice of God and attacked IRAQ out of a religious sense of duty to God - when people hear voices we put them in an institution but in the States he becomes leader of the most powerful military on the planet. Do you see why that might irk and even worry people. Especially when tens of thousands of people die in a war whose leader wasn't responsible for 9/11 (granted responsible for other evil crap). Meanwhile Obama's watch they actually get the right guy - how long was that played in the news - 2 weeks?

Americans don't get bashed - American foreign policy deserves to get bashed - and LOTS and LOTS of Americans bash the same policy - I know because I met a whole bunch of U.S. Military where we went on weekly Hash House Harrier runs in South Korea.

Here is an American on Americans Bill Maher : most Americans are Dumb and Uneducated - And he is 110% right, as always - YouTube

Bill Maher - America IS a Stupid Country and now there's proof - YouTube

Oh an incidentally - you could do the same damn thing with Canadians and very likely get the same percentages - I know I have talked with plenty of students over the years. And iPhones and the like is another way to further dumb them down - like a pretty object to keep their attention away from what those in power are doing.

[markw]

Good people do good things, bad people do bad things - but for good people to do bad things - usually takes religion. They are so SURE they're 100% right based on ZERO evidence and mountains of evidence against that they will fly themselves into buildings to be closer to God or all the outer instances in history that faith creates. No one acts violently in the name of Atheism and all the so-called Atheists who have murdered (Stalin) acted out of religion in another form Communism, Fascism religions to political ideologies.

Rewriting history now? To claim Stalin was a religious person shows just how desperate you are to try to make a point. To say that communisim and fascism are religions and atheism isn't is just to precious. Don't tell me you actually believe this tripe.

Yeah, Stalin was an atheist. A murderous, genocidal atheist who tried to destroy all religions and make himself a "god" to the people by vicious means.. Live with it.

No problems with anyone wanting to believe in their tooth ferry by another name - I don't really care - I do care when they have their fingers on WMD's and it seems the country that has proven to have WMD's is the United States - not Iraq - and gee the worry over countries with Nukes - well let's see what was the country that actually dropped nukes on a civilian population - oh.... right.

Apparantly you would have had no problem with another 1.5 - 2 million allied forces dying trying to take Japan but, hey, it's not like you were personally affected so why not rag on it? Betcha if you were there you might think differenty. Or, better yet, I'll bet if your father was in the pacific theater at that time he might want to clarify a few things for you. Besides, what religion did this? Unlike the 9/11 bombers, I believe our armed forces were made up of people of all religions fightiing for several countries (including yours), not a religion, or did you miss that?

Or, was that another veiled dig at Americia, the country, which you'll later try to deny if confronted?

The fact that you teach children is frightening but considering you're teaching in the largest manufacturer of counterfeit goods, a country that has no respect for intellectual property, relies on child labor, is a brazen polluter, and plays unfairly in the international monetary market does not surprise me. From your pride in having an identity card there, you obviously share their values.

[Feanor]

If you think atheism is a faith you're out to lunch - read Richard Dawkins the God Delusion. At no time does he say "there is no God" because as he points out - he doesn't know - same with Bill Mahar same with me.
...

And same with me as already state in this thread a couple of times. For the sake of emphasis, atheism is NOT faith-based.

...
Calling out the religions and not believing in the "possibility of God" are two different things. I am quite willing to accept the "possibility that there is a higher power in the universe" - now is a devoted Christian willing to accept the possibility that their faith is total bunk and there is no God?" ....
...

In fairness, many Christians (and other religionists) have doubts but remain pious, i.e. attend church, support their religious congregations, etc..

[RGA]

Tell that to your fellow countryman who cried like a little girlie that I was attacking canada. I just noted that you two travel in pairs when trolling for Americans and believers.

I even said in plain black and white that my issues were with you two *******s, not your country when he couldn't see the difference. It's almost as if he thinks that you and he can say whatever absurd bull**** you want and anything that's said in rebuttal you claim is an attack against canada. It's quite plain to see that that's not beneath either of you.

I does seem to be a trait that's unique to you two, thankfully for your fellow countrymen.

And, yeah. After my little link you spewed forth such an ocean of verbal diahhreah backpedaling that the toilet overflowed. ...and then yer little buddy just had to come to your defense and, as I noted, whenever there's trashing of Americia, Americans and/or religion, we can count on both of you making an apperance, and that you're both from Canada. Wanna deny that?.

And, yeah, we "dumb Americians" all know what you said. We aren't that stupid and all your verbose back-pedaling won't change it. You knew, and we knew, exactly what you were saying. You just didn't expect to be called on it.

I like I how you lump us both together - I could give a rat's bottom what anyone thinks about Canada. I have lived - not just vacationed - but lived in Australia, Canada, the UK (Wales), South Korea, Mainland China, and now South Korea. And I have been to America so many times that added together would probably be close to a year.

Frankly Canada and the Unites States is so darn similar in so many darn ways that if it wasn't for the km sign on the highway you wouldn't know much difference. (except for the border crossing).

Not sure anyone is back peddling - IQ tests "had" problems which is why I extended the olive branch as it seemed people took offense. But on mathematics and logic and spatial awareness the test is very much a good one and social knowledge type questions which favored certain races have been fixed up or replaced with neutral questions.

The fact that the poodle is a violent crazed animal is one thing - when it's a Lion it's quite another. Canada can be as dumb as it wants and it really doesn't make any impact on the world - When America is dumb it matters - and being an American I think you should be able to figure this out since you've got all the weapons that can blow the planet up a 100 times over.

And that's why America always takes the most criticism - sure Canada is made up of dimwits - but a poodle flipping out - you laugh when the lion is staring you down then you crap the bed.

When Canada elects a crazy well big deal - if you do - it is a big deal - because people die - a lot - often - and in great numbers. Granted if they're not Christian they probably don't count as people right. I mean they're going to be with Satan anyway - so why not just speed the process up and get them to the decision maker early? And that's how some see it - and on the other side as well. But here's the problem - that "some" element is a big element - and if that "some" element winds up in office then it is has ramifications on everyone. With dimbulbs like Palin even being considered for office it scares the hell out of sane people.

China

The number one reason China has been a success well my Friend you should be looking AT YOUR BIG AMERICAN BUSINESSES. Yup they all fired you and moved to China to use slave labour and skirt taxes, pollutions - that's what corproations are - that's all they are - they ONLY care about making money at ANY COST. Or I should say at the lowest cost. You are the reason for China's success and blaming them for being slaves seems a little odd. You should all be boycotting Wal-Mart Nike, The Gap, and every other company that bailed.

The copiers - those companies copy because the 13 year old working 15 hours a day for NIKE doesn't make enough money to buy one of the pairs of shoes that North American kids get free from daddy every 3 months. So said Chinese kids buys the fake Nike which is rubbish construction but at least he's got shoes - the fat Nike exec and his $24 million a year income laughs all the way to the bank.

And gee teaching in China at a Canadian run school so that Chinese kids who graduate leave with a B.C. dogwood diploma so they can attend university in Canada or the States or the UK - how evil of those Chinese parents for wanting their kids to have the chance to get out of China and how evil of us teachers for wanting to give them that opportunity. Yes I am the problem.

Hong Kong is not really a part of China - Just as it wasn't really a part of England - it's its own thing - and copyright here is enforced. If you work in China - you have to have an Identity card.

The nuke issue is a fact - one country has used these bombs to attack a civilian population. And yet it is the U.S. in a panic over countries getting the weapons - but you wonder why people in those countries wonder why since again - only the states has ever actually used them. Why would they think that the U.S. wouldn't do it again? After all the last president was hearing voices (or so he claimed) and he was pretty quick with the trigger in IRAQ with fictitious proof - you wonder why the average person in these other countries might be more concerned about the US than Iran. People go by track records - and U.S. foreign policy is viewed (rightly or wrongly and a perhaps a little of both) as something to generate fear around the globe.

[ForeverAutumn]

I think that this discussion has gone far enough off-topic (not to mention the name calling) that it deserves to be Steel Caged.

[Feanor]

I think that this discussion has gone far enough off-topic (not to mention the name calling) that it deserves to be Steel Caged.

Good call.

[Hyfi]

Yeah, it certainly digressed from the original question of why is there so many religious stations on OTA TV?

[markw]

I like I how you lump us both together - I could give a rat's bottom what anyone thinks about Canada. I have lived - not just vacationed - but lived in Australia, Canada, the UK (Wales), South Korea, Mainland China, and now South Korea. And I have been to America so many times that added together would probably be close to a year.

Frankly Canada and the Unites States is so darn similar in so many darn ways that if it wasn't for the km sign on the highway you wouldn't know much difference. (except for the border crossing).

Not sure anyone is back peddling - IQ tests "had" problems which is why I extended the olive branch as it seemed people took offense. But on mathematics and logic and spatial awareness the test is very much a good one and social knowledge type questions which favored certain races have been fixed up or replaced with neutral questions.

The fact that the poodle is a violent crazed animal is one thing - when it's a Lion it's quite another. Canada can be as dumb as it wants and it really doesn't make any impact on the world - When America is dumb it matters - and being an American I think you should be able to figure this out since you've got all the weapons that can blow the planet up a 100 times over.

And that's why America always takes the most criticism - sure Canada is made up of dimwits - but a poodle flipping out - you laugh when the lion is staring you down then you crap the bed.

When Canada elects a crazy well big deal - if you do - it is a big deal - because people die - a lot - often - and in great numbers. Granted if they're not Christian they probably don't count as people right. I mean they're going to be with Satan anyway - so why not just speed the process up and get them to the decision maker early? And that's how some see it - and on the other side as well. But here's the problem - that "some" element is a big element - and if that "some" element winds up in office then it is has ramifications on everyone. With dimbulbs like Palin even being considered for office it scares the hell out of sane people.

China

The number one reason China has been a success well my Friend you should be looking AT YOUR BIG AMERICAN BUSINESSES. Yup they all fired you and moved to China to use slave labour and skirt taxes, pollutions - that's what corproations are - that's all they are - they ONLY care about making money at ANY COST. Or I should say at the lowest cost. You are the reason for China's success and blaming them for being slaves seems a little odd. You should all be boycotting Wal-Mart Nike, The Gap, and every other company that bailed.

The copiers - those companies copy because the 13 year old working 15 hours a day for NIKE doesn't make enough money to buy one of the pairs of shoes that North American kids get free from daddy every 3 months. So said Chinese kids buys the fake Nike which is rubbish construction but at least he's got shoes - the fat Nike exec and his $24 million a year income laughs all the way to the bank.

And gee teaching in China at a Canadian run school so that Chinese kids who graduate leave with a B.C. dogwood diploma so they can attend university in Canada or the States or the UK - how evil of those Chinese parents for wanting their kids to have the chance to get out of China and how evil of us teachers for wanting to give them that opportunity. Yes I am the problem.

Hong Kong is not really a part of China - Just as it wasn't really a part of England - it's its own thing - and copyright here is enforced. If you work in China - you have to have an Identity card.

The nuke issue is a fact - one country has used these bombs to attack a civilian population. And yet it is the U.S. in a panic over countries getting the weapons - but you wonder why people in those countries wonder why since again - only the states has ever actually used them. Why would they think that the U.S. wouldn't do it again? After all the last president was hearing voices (or so he claimed) and he was pretty quick with the trigger in IRAQ with fictitious proof - you wonder why the average person in these other countries might be more concerned about the US than Iran. People go by track records - and U.S. foreign policy is viewed (rightly or wrongly and a perhaps a little of both) as something to generate fear around the globe.

wow...simply wow. You just keep on making friends, don't you.

[Pat D]

50% of the US population have an IQ under 100 (probably more) and TV is their source of news and information. The more you can brainwash the not terribly bright the more votes you can get for the religious nutter parties - the more money the churches get and the bigger and bigger they become. TV is the best source to advertise to sheep.

This says it all about religion Why Atheists laugh at religion - YouTube

1:51 seconds for Evolution for dummies - dummies like Stephen Baldwin Born Again Christian Stephen Baldwin vs Atheist Richard Dawkins - YouTube

Then the Priest trying to answer how 6 billion people all spawned from Adam And Eve in 6000 years.

There are people in this world who have engineering degrees and have half decent mathematics background who buy into this horse crap. Priest can't answer how all humans came from Cain and Abel - YouTube

No, actually the young priest was gently indicating that the question has nothing to do with the meaning of the story. What did he say about the meaning of the story? Or did you miss that?

Here's another video from YouTube from an Anglican priest who thinks creationism is absurd.

A Priest mocks creationism - YouTube

[RGA]

I'm not sure I follow your point. The fact that there are some priests who come around to clear evidence that 2+2=4 the world is round and that evolution is a fact and the world is billions of years old is all well and good - but they still believe in the equivalent of the ghosts and goblins.

Yes some in the church will adapt their bible to current time - they will go with the literal translation UNTIL and ONLY until such time as it is deemed patently absurd and proven wrong - but anything that isn't - well they'll just follow the idiocy - like Gay people are CHOOSING to be gay. So let's tell them they're evil and will go to hell - but we and God still love you.

Cherry picking is cherry picking = the bits that are truly disgusting they toss out as a morality tale - but the nice bits they leave in.

Basically these geezers have a job (that likely pays them very well) and they can't do anything else. So they will continue to collect money and spread the word of idiocy to their followers.

Religions go kicking and screaming into positive change

Richard Dawkins - The Shifting Moral Zeitgeist - YouTube

Richard Dawkins - Religion vs Morality - YouTube



The entire premise of Theist religions is the following

1) God is PERFECT
2) God intelligently designed the universe

If God were perfect - everything He creates would be perfect - perfection can't make imperfection otherwise He would no longer be perfect.

Intelligent Design (2): The Human Eye - YouTube

The other argument they'll make is the series of how did we get here questions which culminates in "well something had to start everything - therefore God created the universe - to which I reply then how did God get there. - Oh wait God can just pop up out of thin air or "always be." Well if God could pop up out of nothing then so could we.


The Watchmaker And Other Creationist Arguments - YouTube

[Feanor]

I'm not sure I follow your point. The fact that there are some priests who come around to clear evidence that 2+2=4 the world is flat and that evolution is a fact and the world is billions of years old is all well and good - but they still believe in the equivalent of the ghosts and goblins.
...[/url]

I think that Pat D's point, at least in part, is that religious thought varies a great deal on the evolution and Bible (or Qur'anic) literalism in general.

Many religious people accept evolution. There is a range of opinion even on this subject. Some believe that God guided evolution and it wasn't just survival of the fittest; as a variation some feel the God only guided evolution of humanity. Others feel that God was passive with respect to evolution and that the mechanism for man's emergence is irrelevant.

A Presbyterian minister of my acquaintance, as one example, readily acknowledges evolution; furthermore he views much of the Bible as mythological or metaphorical. However, as I understand, he doesn't normally propound this ideas from the high pulpit, leaving it to the congregants to form their own opinion.

In fact the Literalism (associated with Fundamentalism) is a relatively minor issue within Christianity. Neither the Roman Catholic Church nor the great Protestant reformers, (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and others), were literalists. Fundamentalist literalism is mainly a phenomenon of the 20th century.

The bigger issue, I suggest, in Religion generally, (not just Christian), is what I call "outer" versus "inner" religion. The former being more concerned with formal theology and moral codification. The latter being more concerned with the inner, spiritual and mystic experience. Of these two orientations, the former tends to be the one most concerned with church organization and prerogatives

[RGA]

Feanor

That makes sense - still think it is a lot of after the fact bending the bible and theist religion to fit the science. Excuse making to allow their stone age "God" to fit with the modern world. But given the profit and power the churches generate I suppose they'd have to learn to be contortionists with their religious texts.

Frankly I honestly don't care what people believe - it's when they use words written in these silly little books to promote values on society that troubles me - Gays can't marry - women can't choose to have an abortion, fly planes into buildings because Ala wants you to - attack Iraq because God spoke to you the night before. Granted he may have just said that for popularity reasons but who knows?

As Dawkins has noted the improbability that we are all here is very high. But to compound that with a creator that is even more improbable is a poor answer to the first problem.

One way I suppose that could have a God AND for Him to have created us - is if God evolved in some sort of parallel universe quadrillions and quadrillions of years before our universe was created. Over those quadrillions of years some sort of amoeba became God.

Then he thought - hey now that I am at the Nth point of the evolutionary scale - the ultimate survivor of the fittest I am lonely so I will create my own parallel universe - which is Us. This could explain why He would bother watching over us - as a science experiment to see what happens next.

This might also pass the "made in his image" line since his image would be an evolutionary creature - just as we are instead of the literal - big guy with a white beard.

Frankly I should write a book and expand this stuff - worked for Elron Hubbard - I'd have to add in some bizzarro stuff and promise some virgins or something but their could be money in it.