Religion channels overload

[Smokey]

I only get local channels (via antenna) and once a month, I usually do a channel scan on my TV to see if there are any new digital stations in my area. Last night I scanned, and there are two new channels in my area which bring total of channels recieved to 27.

But to my disappointment two new ones are religion channels which bring total local religion channels to 9. So out of 27 channels recieverd, 9 of them are religion themed including two that are in spanish. So I was thinking to myself as to why we need so many local religion channels?

And most of time, half of them running some type of program asking for money donation. And the new theme is that when you send in money, that will be your seed you planted (in your faith) that you can harvest later.

The notion is the money you send in, God will return it to you 10 fold later. Meanwhile the the viewer can do without the money they send in that they could have used to put food on table or buy shoes for their kids. Apparently if you don't send in money, God will not bless you or answer your prayers.

[JohnMichael]

Yes we need more distorted religion channels on TV. Now is when REM's "Losing My Religion" begins to play.

When I had faith or more accurately when I was a practicing catholic we were taught that our rewards will be in the next life and not in this one. Many protestant faiths teach that if you have faith you will be blessed with wealth and success. This is contrary to the life of Jesus. So whenever I hear about being rewarded ten times I instantly find it to be bull****.

All those channels spewing bull****.

[Smokey]

Many protestant faiths teach that if you have faith you will be blessed with wealth and success.

Or if you don't have faith, apparently you can buy it . Remember the "Sale of Indulgence" by the Pope anytime Vatican treasury got too low. Today, we're just seeing the updated version.

[JohnMichael]

Or if you don't have faith, apparently you can buy it . Remember the "Sale of Indulgence" by the Pope anytime Vatican treasury got too low. Today, we're just seeing the updated version.

Yes we used to buy time out of purgatory. No buying your way out of hell sadly. Purgatory was sort of the batters box to heaven. Time to remember past sins and suffer a little until you were fit for heaven. Of course while on the earth if you contributed to the church your time preparing for heaven would be shorter than someone who did not contribute. Of course any baby that was not baptised before death was also sent to purgatory. Sorry you stillborn you were not baptised so you stil carry original sin. Off to purgatory with you. Bullsh!t!

[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

[Woochifer]

I only get local channels (via antenna) and once a month, I usually do a channel scan on my TV to see if there are any new digital stations in my area. Last night I scanned, and there are two new channels in my area which bring total of channels recieved to 27.

But to my disappointment two new ones are religion channels which bring total local religion channels to 9. So out of 27 channels recieverd, 9 of them are religion themed including two that are in spanish. So I was thinking to myself as to why we need so many local religion channels?

And most of time, half of them running some type of program asking for money donation. And the new theme is that when you send in money, that will be your seed you planted (in your faith) that you can harvest later.

The notion is the money you send in, God will return it to you 10 fold later. Meanwhile the the viewer can do without the money they send in that they could have used to put food on table or buy shoes for their kids. Apparently if you don't send in money, God will not bless you or answer your prayers.

In a large urban area, you don't get that same ratio of religious programming for the simple reason that a large market size can support more OTA commercial programming. Religious programs are relatively cheap to produce, and the transmitters in smaller markets don't cost that much either. A commercial TV station that has to sell ad time and provide a full slate of TV shows and other programming costs much more to operate. A religious TV station just needs a board operator and a satellite dish. HSN used to simulcast on several OTA stations as well, until they moved everything to cable and online.

So, are you now gonna pony up and actually pay for your own cable service?

Yes we need more distorted religion channels on TV. Now is when REM's "Losing My Religion" begins to play.

When I had faith or more accurately when I was a practicing catholic we were taught that our rewards will be in the next life and not in this one. Many protestant faiths teach that if you have faith you will be blessed with wealth and success. This is contrary to the life of Jesus. So whenever I hear about being rewarded ten times I instantly find it to be bull****.

I would like to think that God's ways aren't that simplistic. Seems more a failing of human hubris to interpret a higher being's intent based on material wealth.

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

Considering your obvious contempt for people of faith, I find it rather amusing that your broad brushed stereotyping here is also based on nothing more than a factually deprived leap of faith.

[RGA]

It's not that difficult to make quality guess as to these numbers - based on election results most of the time, Fox News Ratings, percentages of religious people in America (incidentally it applies to Canada or anywhere so I should not exclude the nutter there).

Subtract the non religious who vote conservative for entirely non religious views ratings such as their fiscal policy (although that may not make them any smarter!)

Add back percentages of Universities that almost entirely are left wing institutions (and their graduates), subtract the people who say they're Christian but who list only because they were born into a Christian family and don't really follow the teaching (ditto all other religious in name only folks)

Add in that 100 is deemed the mean IQ level which means half would be above that number and half would be below that number and 50% is a pretty reasonable guess. Indeed if the mean is 100 it means that half the people would be below 100. And that's the number I presented. University enrollment and the fat they overwhelmingly lean to the left/liberal side of the spectrum would indicate that more people in the above 100 camp are both university graduates, and thus tend more to the left liberal ideologies as do most of the professors. Which therefore means that more of the people below 100 are not. This was certainly what I experienced at University - with rare exception did I meet ultra right wing fanatics - one very nice Mormon fellow - he was intelligent enough to get into University but he did poorly in the classes I had with him - History where he was scraping by with C's and he was kicked out of the teaching program.

Of course there are smart people who have faith but as Dawkins noted that it takes a lot of brain gym and a willingness to shut one side of your brain off that uses reason to say "the heck with it I'll believe in the giant tooth ferry/tea pot in the sky for no valid reason whatsoever because a very weak book, the bible, passes as truth.

The entire religion is based on copying previous whack-job religions and it doesn't even make sense historically.

The God Who Wasn't There - 2 - Jesus Timeline - YouTube

Just compare the Jesus myth to the Oedipus, Romulus, Theseus myth stories of the time. They all follow a general pattern and granted people are brainwashed by their parents as soon as they can understand English but at some point you learn Santa isn't real.

The God Who Wasn't There - 3 - Raglan Hero Pattern - YouTube

[markw]

See here/ A bit smug, aren't we?.

[Feanor]

See here/ A bit smug, aren't we?.

It's notable that the guy who provided the IQ by country list could even figure out how to format it to one line per country -- or provide a source for that supposed info.

[RGA]

Mark I don't know if your intent was to be funny but I found that hilarious you got us 98 to 97 and we're 23/24 in the world - LOL we suck.

But umm I am now living in Hong Kong and I have a Hong Kong Identity card - look where we finished - So THERE

To be serious though IQ is not quite what it's cracked up to being and it does tend to favor wrote memory and can be somewhat trained for. IQ tests tend to lean heavily on the logical mathematical and word knowledge relationships (vocab). In wrote memory countries like China kids memorize thousands of symbols - the symbol = a word. This memorization pattern makes it easier to remember mathematical formulas. Having taught grade 10 in China - the students were all very good in math. The retired Canadian Math teacher had the same group of students I taught - every student was getting an A in math after the first semester - In Canada in all his years of teaching that never happened. At best maybe 25%. But the end of the year the two students had a C+ or around 70% and the majority still had A's - some competed in the Waterloo math contest and finished in the top 5 (which include all students across Canada) and arguably they may have been able to win except there are word problems and without much English they could not understand the questions.

That said - they did poorly in Physical Education - same math teacher is also a P.E. teacher and has taken students overseas for volleyball championships. Coquitlam is a hot bed for Sports in British Columbia and maybe one of the very best in all of Canada producing the likes of Brett Lawrie, and Larry Walker and countless NHL players and swimmers, runners etc. None of those kids in China he would consider remotely athletic - one boy was decent at Basketball but that was it.

They don't have a lot of creativity or social awareness - to be fair though you might get shot if you're too creative or a "free thinker."

We've discussed the testing methodologies a lot in education and the popular approach is Gardner's Multiple intelligences Gardner's Multiple Intelligences

The only problem of course is that while we may accept the theory here the world is a giant business and the world doesn't value some of these intelligences as highly as others. One may only be strong at musical awareness or the visual arts which IQ tests don't value highly. And making a living in music is difficult. certainly talent isn't necessarily the thing that will make you financially successful. And one may be a terrific athlete but not quite good enough to make the jump to the big time. IQ tests don't value these "strengths."

Older IQ tests were meaningless - even racist with questions that were geared for people that came from a certain socioeconomic background and a certain literary background. The IQ tests of old would have questions referring to fairy tales or fables that you could only know if you grew up with parents who taught them to you. Thus it heavily skewed in favor ot the rich white family while all other groups did poorly because they had no reference or prior knowledge to be able to choose those A is to B as B is to C kind of questions.

It was a way to say that African Americans and First Nations people were not very intelligent and then to classify them as "lesser people" Numbers in all things are dangerous because if the test isn't valid then you can basically make all the claims you like - and gee you've got numbers on your side. This is always a problem when the people in charge don't know what they're talking about - in education it is almost never educators who are in charge of evaluating students but some dimwit in a totally different field ranting about standardized tests.

IQ also doesn't account for a person's "drive" or motivation. Further with Gardner a person may be very good on all of the multiple intelligences while a person with a higher IQ may be off the charts in mathematics and spatial awareness but could have two left feet, be completely tone deaf, throw like a 3 year old girl, can't draw anything except stick figures (guilty as charged) and be completely hopeless at inter and intrapersonal skills. They may have a 180IQ but they'll be yammering to themselves like the guy in a Beautiful Mind.

A great TV show for this is the Big Bang Theory - Sheldon is the off the charts IQ guy but in every other way is completely hopeless with social situations. Penny is obviously far superior on all of those social intelligences. As a result her character is the foil to the geniuses and arguably makes the show the continual award winner that it is. While Raj can't even speak to women unless he's drunk. So off the chart IQ but completely socially inept bordering on life crippling. So IQ is no longer really in favor.

The big bang theory - best conversation ever - YouTube

The Big Bang Theory - The Slippery Nipple - YouTube

[Worf101]

In getting back to the original premise of the discussion. Yeah... there's a LOT of OTA relgious channels out there. Some may be legit, and truly care about the suffering of "man" and his/her eventual salvation. Others are simply in it for the cash. Remember, as a "religious organization" they're tax exempt. They pay none. That's why every other store-front in the ghettor is some cheesey church... why? No taxes, cept for the rent, they get to keep it all.

Don't get me wrong I'm NOT anti-God, just anti-con job. Anti-Swaggert, anti-Falwell, anti-Rev. Ike, anti-Rev. Al, I dispise organized religion not God whoever he or she or it may be. As Laura Nyro once wrote...

"I was raised on the good book Jesus... till I read between the lines..."

Worf

[manlystanley]

To be serious though IQ is not quite what it's cracked up to being and it does tend to favor wrote memory and can be somewhat trained for.

I always enjoy reading your articles. I fully agree with all your points, that I understand, and accept the other ones that I don't personally know.

When my first three kids were growing up, all my friends were into raising 'brilliant kids". I remember one parent, after her son took an IQ test coming to us, in all sincerity, and explaining to us the burden that she felt to society. you see her son had an IQ in the top 2% in the world. This brilliant kid barely passed high school and flunked out of the first year of college. He is now pulling cable for a home security firm.

I always wanted "hard working children". I've stressed work ethic. Also, the number one thing, I think, that a person can do to ensure success is to become a world class communicator: both written and spoken. All five of my kids have (or are now doing) competitive speaking clubs. There is an old saying: a bad idea properly marketed is much more appealing then a great idea poorly marketed.

Best Regards,
Stan

[Woochifer]

It's not that difficult to make quality guess as to these numbers - based on election results most of the time, Fox News Ratings, percentages of religious people in America (incidentally it applies to Canada or anywhere so I should not exclude the nutter there).

Subtract the non religious who vote conservative for entirely non religious views ratings such as their fiscal policy (although that may not make them any smarter!)

Add back percentages of Universities that almost entirely are left wing institutions (and their graduates), subtract the people who say they're Christian but who list only because they were born into a Christian family and don't really follow the teaching (ditto all other religious in name only folks)

Add in that 100 is deemed the mean IQ level which means half would be above that number and half would be below that number and 50% is a pretty reasonable guess. Indeed if the mean is 100 it means that half the people would be below 100. And that's the number I presented. University enrollment and the fat they overwhelmingly lean to the left/liberal side of the spectrum would indicate that more people in the above 100 camp are both university graduates, and thus tend more to the left liberal ideologies as do most of the professors. Which therefore means that more of the people below 100 are not. This was certainly what I experienced at University - with rare exception did I meet ultra right wing fanatics - one very nice Mormon fellow - he was intelligent enough to get into University but he did poorly in the classes I had with him - History where he was scraping by with C's and he was kicked out of the teaching program.

Of course there are smart people who have faith but as Dawkins noted that it takes a lot of brain gym and a willingness to shut one side of your brain off that uses reason to say "the heck with it I'll believe in the giant tooth ferry/tea pot in the sky for no valid reason whatsoever because a very weak book, the bible, passes as truth.

The entire religion is based on copying previous whack-job religions and it doesn't even make sense historically.

The God Who Wasn't There - 2 - Jesus Timeline - YouTube

Just compare the Jesus myth to the Oedipus, Romulus, Theseus myth stories of the time. They all follow a general pattern and granted people are brainwashed by their parents as soon as they can understand English but at some point you learn Santa isn't real.

The God Who Wasn't There - 3 - Raglan Hero Pattern - YouTube

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.

[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.

[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]

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..