Religion channels overload

[Hyfi]

Buying your way has been around for a long time. Setting up shop on local OTA sub channels is a lot cheaper than cable and will reach less educated audiences who will send them their money.

I get about as many as you get on my OTA and watch sometimes just for the comedy they provide.

[RGA]

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

[Smokey]

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.

I believe when it comes to religion, individual common sense is more of factor than level of IQ. Some of preachers on TV have PHD degree, but their view of Bible is still linger in dark ages.

I remember watching the movie Oh God! with George Burns as the God, and John Denver ask Burns (aka God) as to why there is so much misery in the world, and why you let it all happen. And the God said it is not me who let it all happen, it is the humans. He said humans have intelligence and common sense and it is up to you to help each other out, or you can choose to cut each other down.

If you look at books of world religion, they all basically say the same thing. It is when it get interpreted by humans that things go wary.

[RGA]

manlystanley

The problem with the brilliant kids is that Public education in Canada and I suspect it's just as bad if not worse in the States is they aren't designed for those top 2% kids.

In Canada provinces run the education system and they have X dollars to fund various things - there is ZERO funding for gifted children. Parents are completely on their own. Gifted is or should be classified as a Special Need because those brilliant kids are special and they require a different kind of program than the middle ground (try to catch most kids) program. The government here funds low functioning special needs students Autism, physical or violent needs kids. Indeed, the school I worked at in B.C. had a serious violent special needs students - they had to have two Special Ed workers follow him around all day - he never attended classes. But this is 2 $40,000 a year salaries to follow a kid who will never pass any subject and is possibly ultra dangerous - he stabbed a special Ed worker in elementary school.

Unfortunately, BC has a totally clueless right wing government that wants all schools to operate without losing money. So the schools of course have no chance to operate like that in the North Island - high heating bills, they generally have to pay a bit more to get teachers to work there and since funding is based on numbers of students when the High School has 450 students but the building still needs to be lit and heated there is far less money than a bigger district with 1800 students. So the school is paid to take in these kinds of violent students and they're kind of forced financially to take them in order to buy books or keep a decent computer lab.

The gifted kid is bored to tears - often become discipline problems because they're not challenged. Teachers in districts where most of the kids are weak tend to slightly lower the standards because if 4/5 of the class is failing it becomes a frustrating job very quickly. It's worse in the States as your job is on the line every year if the marks are low - but you can't learn the material for students - at the end of the day it's the teacher's job to teach it and the student's job to learn it.

Most kids can do well - it does come down to work ethic and several educational articles want wording changed when teacher's praise students (same for parents). Rather than saying "you scored 90% on that essay you must be so smart." it is better to say "Wow your "hard work" paid off look how well you did on your essay."

And getting that early is key because it is k-4 where most of the important stuff is taught - including work ethic. By grade 8 the weak students are giving up because their still at grade 2-3 English and math levels - they see Joe getting straight A's seemingly coming easy to him - well it does because he has all of the foundation skills. And this is why South Korean and Chinese kids are killing western kids on many of the foundational subjects.

Parents in South Korea make their kids work - and work hard. I taught 8-9 year old kids - grade 2. Typical week.

Go to Korean school from 8-2:30. Then come to English school from 3-6pm. Monday to Friday. 2-3 nights a week they would have piano or violin lessons and a private English tutor. They go to school every other Saturday from 8-1. Some would have Sunday school.

They had P.E. once a week with me for 1/2 hour that was the fun time.

But here's the thing - they didn't know any better - they were no missing anything - they were all bright happy and enjoyed coming to class. The sad part is they could write better than some of the grade 7 (13yr olds) in Canada and English is their first language. Depressing really.

[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