US Religious Landscape Survey - Page 2

ScratchMonkey · 02-26-2008, 08:57 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Bertrand Russell on agnosticism:

http://arts.cuhk.edu.hk/humftp/E-tex...l/agnostic.htm

I have to disagree with Russell on his overreaching categorization of Christian and atheist as gnostics. They are different axes of the graph. The theist/atheist axis measures whether you have faith or are a skeptic. The gnostic/agnostic axis measures whether you think the existence of gods is knowable.

I consider myself a skeptic and therefore atheist, but whether I'm an agnostic depends on how you define a particular "god". Some self-contradicting definitions may be trivially disprovable with logic alone, while others rely on unknowability and faith (the Babelfish argument, for example).

**Skylark** · 02-26-2008, 09:07 PM

Well, as to whether it is 'trivail' is up to discussion in some cases. Some people think it is very easy to disprove some religions, but most of the ones I have seen (EDIT not saying I've seen a huge number) involve some falicies on their logic. I'm not saying it is possible, just that the ones I have seen are over simplistic and rely on logic errors.

Yahoo has this question/answer place.
http://answers.yahoo.com/
I hang a lot in the homework area and the religion & spirituality area. I see some wackos on all sides there. It is always amazing how many people just don't realize that arguments like
a) Believe in Jesus or go to hell? why can't you see that?
b) Jesus is some fake guy based on Egyptian mythos, so stop being an idiot and become intelligent

will never convince anyone. I try to point out stupidity on both sides, and constantly get thumbs down for it! ROFL. I suppose I find entertainment in other people's stupidity. I remember one question was: State your religion. People would give thumbs down on answers like Christian, Wickan or whatever. Just a simple statement of their religion and people where thumb downing them. It isn't like they said: I'm a <whatever> and if you don't agree with me, you're a stupid beanhead!

I have no problem with either agnostics or aethests. I con understand why/how you don't believe. That causes me no problems. I also have no problem with someone believing in any other religion, as long as you are respectful of other people. This usually means that the extremists get the narrowed eyes from me. Anyone calling for the death of other people or saying God hates <group> with signs at funerals do not represent any God I know about. And any aetheist/agnostic that attacks religion with hate is not accomplishing anything either. Sure, say you don't believe (as many have done on TG) and discuss it. But some of the people's statements I've seen on yahoo (and even in real life) were nothing more than hate-mongering and/or ignorance.

ScratchMonkey · 02-26-2008, 09:38 PM

BTW, I post the definition of agnostic to insure that the word enhances communication, not obscures it. I've seen people describe themselves as agnostic to dodge the labeling of atheist, which often carries a connotation of bomb-throwing radical commie.

I instead use the term "skeptic" as a substitute for "atheist" because it means the same thing but lacks much of the cultural baggage. A skeptic/atheist doesn't believe in the absence of gods. He disbelieves the claims of gods.

"Atheist" also doesn't say which god is not believed. One of my favorite quotes:

Quote:

"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
...Stephen F Roberts

http://freelink.wildlink.com/quote_history.php

While hunting it down to copy/paste here, I ran into this blog entry criticizing it:

http://apologia.wordpress.com/2006/1...both-atheists/

For those who use the term agnostic, are you an agnostic theist, or an agnostic atheist?

ScratchMonkey · 02-26-2008, 10:17 PM

While chasing the above response, I found this interesting counter-response and its response:

http://itinerarium-mentis.blogspot.c...-response.html

Here's what I consider the meat of it:

Quote:

Nevertheless, the real 'meat' of the Quote is still faulty (but not as obviously). I can appreciate the point Stephen is trying to make, but I have to wonder if he is cognizant of the fact that the only people who will agree with him are those who already adhere to an epistemology similar to his. Unless I am mistaken, Stephen subscribes to a form of empiricism, i.e. the degree to which some proposition outside science can be given scientific support or can be reduced to science, to that degree the proposition becomes rationally acceptable. It is for this reason that theistic claims are said to shoulder an empirical burden of proof. (I invite Stephen to correct me if I am wrong.) From my understanding, that is why he rejects all possible gods, including the God of Christianity: because claims of their existence are bereft of empirical evidence to substantiate those claims.

So, apparently, I'm an empiricist. What are the alternatives?

**Skylark** · 02-26-2008, 10:36 PM

I LIKE that quote about disbelieving in one more god than I disbelieve in. Hey, I believe in my Christian(Catholic) religion, but I can understand why others don't. We have no PROOF of our faith. Nor does ANY religion. That is why they are called faiths, not uh.. proofs. (boy, that sounds weird.... I belong to the Christian proof.). I find it amusing when other Christians don't understand that fact. Some are so.. IT IS TRUE! IT IS A FACT! Then get mad when I as a fellow Christian say no, it is a belief. A faith. (I think they get even more mad than when a non-believer says it because I should KNOW it too).

Facts of my faith:
I believe in my faith
I wish that everyone else did, too. (Why, because I believe it to be true. I wouldn't want you to believe in something I thought was false).
I realize that others don't agree with my belief.
While I am disappointed, I can understand why.
My faith calls for me to explain and preach my beliefs, but not to do it in a hostile and unloving way. (do unto others as you would and all that).
Those that are trying to spread their faith through anger/hate/violence don't really know their own religion (or else belong to some really crazy one. cause I suppose their could be a faith that says 'kill em all' for real. It just isn't any that I really know about)

**sordavie** · 02-26-2008, 11:17 PM

Agnostics refrain from belief.
Atheists believe that there is no God.
Theists believe that there is a God.

Historically, the alternative to empiricism has been rationalism. Empiricism is the thesis, roughly, that all of our knowledge is gained through sense experience. Rationalism on the other hand is roughly the thesis that at least some of our knowledge is innate. For example, Descartes, a rationalist, believed that geometrical knowledge is innate--we're either just born with it or we're born with the rational faculties to figure it out without empirical observation. In other words, he believed that we know (or have the ability to figure out) that the internal angles of a triangle must equal 180o without looking at triangles and measuring them.

An empiricist on the other hand denies that we know any of this innately. An empiricist would argue that we have to observe things in order to know.

Atomic Dog · 02-26-2008, 11:46 PM

30 - Believer...influenced heavily by judeao-christian teachings, but not big on organized religion. I've studied most of the major world religions and a handful of minor religions. I like to think I'm well rounded and balanced in my beliefs. Extensive study has also kept me from "blind" faith so to speak.

I also believe in evolution, dinosaurs and gravity too!

**Ferris Bueller** · 02-27-2008, 12:31 AM

I see too many absolutely horrible things on a day to day basis to believe in the judeo-christian God, or any God that claims to be omnibenevolent. I refuse to believe that this "God" could have a plan for all of us. What about the three kids I saw a couple months ago who had been strangled repeatedly, abused, bound, and put in a chest freezer, killing one and putting the other two in comas? What kind of sick, twisted plan from a so-called "benevolent" God is that?

Maybe more along the lines of the Old Testament God, one who was petulent, demanded obedience and sacrifice from his fearful creations. That would make more sense.

Atomic Dog · 02-27-2008, 01:33 AM

I'm not sure about "God's plan." But something tells me, looking around at the awful things in life, some of that "plan" involves letting us choose our own paths in life. As a result, wicked people exist alongside the compassionate. The question is, what kind of loving God would not allow for personal freedom and choice?

I don't blame God for bad things...I blame humanity.

ScratchMonkey · 02-27-2008, 01:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sordavie

Atheists believe that there is no God.

Does that assertion derive from the popular conception of the term, like "hackers are criminals" and "assault weapons are any gun that looks military, regardless of function"? Or is that an accepted definition in academia? The definition I've always seen (as promoted by self-declared atheists) is absence of belief in gods, not presence of disbelief in gods.

(Which demonstrates why I use the term "skeptic". It eliminates the confusion.)

**sordavie** · 02-27-2008, 02:05 AM

That is the accepted definition in academia. It is also how the word has been used historically.

Those self-declared "atheists" would be agnostics.

There really is no confusion. Some people just don't know what the word means.

It's also standard in academia to make a distinction between narrow and broad theism, atheism, and agnosticism. Narrow theism is the belief that a personal God exists (like the Christian God). Broad theism is the belief that some higher power exists (not necessarily a being that you could have a personal relationship with. Narrow atheism is the belief that a personal God doesn't exist. And so on.

To be a narrow theist is to be a broad theist. To be a broad atheist is to be a narrow atheist. To be a broad agnostic is to be a narrow agnostic. But, to be a broad theist is not necessarily to be a narrow theist. To be a narrow atheist is not necessarily to be a broad atheist. And, to be a narrow agnostic is not necessarily to be a broad agnostic.

So, William Rowe, takes the positon of narrow atheism but broad agnosticism; in other words, he believes there is no personal God, and he has no belief about whether there is or isn't a higher power in general.

There's not much reason to get more fine grained than this, since if you believe that a particular God doesn't exist but that some other particular God does (for instance, suppose you believe that the Christian God exists but that Vishnu doesn't) then you can just say that. You'd still be a narrow theist.

Einstein is also taken to be a narrow atheist but broad theist. In other words, Einstein believed that there was a higher power, but that it's not a personal God which one could have a relationship with. This position is also called Deism.

The problem with just using the term "skeptic" is that it doesn't differentiate between the different nuances of agnosticism and atheism.

**luna** · 02-27-2008, 09:55 AM

Regarding classifying Agnostics vs. Atheists- Sordavie is absolutely right. Agnostics aren't willing to buy into any religion because they simply don't know if God exists or not, and don't care to make a judgment one way or the other. Agnostics are open to proof one way or the other. Absent that, they refrain from making a call. Atheists believe there is no God- it's not an absence of belief, it's a firm, committed belief to the lack of a god. Bertrand Russell is an excellent source for this classification, as he argues that Atheism is as much of a commitment to what they see as truth as any other religious affiliation's commitment to the existence of god.

29, Recovering Catholic (Atheist turned Agnostic now)

**Bamboo** · 02-28-2008, 01:24 AM

I was actually kind of scared to click on this thread, for fear of either someone trying to convert me or it being a huge flame war. Actually a decent conversation. Score 1 for TG.

I actually grew up Baptist, then between Kindergarten and 2nd grade went to Catholic Church and a private Catholic school, even going through 1st communion, then we switched to Methodist, and finally in 5th grade back to Baptist.
Dad was military, so we moved around a lot.

Now, nothing. In fact most of the time I see Jesus freaks on the news I just shake my head and change the channel. Luckly my wife fills the same way, and she grew up Catholic. We just believe in being good to your fellow man, and help people out when they need it. I actually do kind of believe in karma. If you are mean to people, they will be mean to you. You look the other way when someone needs help. Someone else will do the same to you when you need help.

Organized religion is most of the time a joke played on people buy the rest of the people in the audience that feels like they have to be there to look good to the community, and as soon as the 12:00 bell tolls, they are out the door and don't think about being good until next Sun.

Of course that is not the case for everyone, and it may be one of the few things that keeps society in check. It was best explain in a very mind opening lecture by one of my professors in college.
He pointed out there 3 ways to control a society.
1.Dictatorship-This is one of the most inefficient ways of controlling a population. It takes tons of resources to keep people in line and in fear of you.
2.Democracy- The people control themselves and makes the laws. This is less resource intensive, but still requires a lot of work on the society as a whole.
3.Religion- This is by FAR the easiest. Convince a society that if they don't do what you say the way you say do it, a big man up in the sky is going to shoot you with lightning bolts or send you to a place to burn in constant pain for eternity. You say jump, they say how high. They say donate 20% of your income to the church so they can live the good life, even though they live tax free, you say where do I sign. Look how easy it was to control all of Europe for the last couple of thousand years. You might think that a king controlled parts of it, but he did what his "advisory" told him, except for that King of England that wanted to bang more than one wife, so rewrote the Bible to fit.

Just my beliefs at the moment, and I don't mind letting people worship how they feel they have to, up until the point that it affects me.
Just because you think your god doesn't think it is right to let some crack head 13 year old have an abortion, fine, don't get one, and don't let your kid get one till they turn 18.
But don't sit on the corner of a busy intersection taunting people.
How many of those religious nuts have adopted a child of their own? You don't want that unwanted baby to be aborted, and would rather it be neglected and turn out to be a crackhead too and end up in jail by the time they get to high school. Why haven't you adopted any of those unwanted kids. Oh wait, you did? What do you mean you went to China last year to pick yours out. What is wrong with one of the thousands of unwanted kids here. (and I have talked to my wife about adoption, cause I don't want to help raise the population any more than I have to)
Until they do, so that 13 year old crack head doesn't have to have an abortion, don't open your mouth or bust out the signs.

And it is interesting how many of those same people worried about the life of a fetus are all about freedom to own arms. How can you be so concerned with life, but don't have much to say about the crackhead 13 year old's dad who shot a whole family while robbing their house for his own fix. It just doesn't make since. I would think you would have been more concerned about the life of that family than something that is only made up of a few cells. I actually have a bumperstick (on my bookshelf, not my car) that says "Guns don't kill people, religions do"

Notice I am not actually stating my own opinion on abortion or the right to own firearms, because it is no one but my family's business, and I don't want to try and bother you one way or another with my own belief. Keep your own to yourself, and off the 6:00 news.

/endRant/

Again, just my thoughts, and I won't bother you if you don't bother me.
I will say I think the church did more to deter the growth of science than anything else in human history, and am sure we would be so much more technologically advanced had they not put some of the greatest minds ever to death or crushed their studies and research. We could be living on other planets by now, or have already cured cancer.
I could go on, but it is past 1:00am here, and my writing isn't meant to offend anyone.
I really do apologize if it does.

A few good slogans from Cafepress.com

Kerostasis · 02-28-2008, 03:03 AM

Minor tidbit: For all that "everyone agrees" about the Christian church stunting the growth of science and technology, it was still predominantly Christian Europe that acheived the Industrial Revolution, and accelerated its technology so far beyond everyone else that we were able to basically conquer the entire world primarily based on our superior technology. Just something to think about...when was the last time we ran into a non-Christian culture with better technology than our own? My guess would be when we copied the Arabic number system back in like 900 AD.

Elwenil · 02-28-2008, 03:12 AM

Um, to me that is sort of apples and oranges. The industrial revolution didn't really have that much for the church to complain about. Evolution wasn't exactly a big player in industry. Now there is all the stem cell BS that churches oppose that could very well mean the cure to a lot of diseases. It's pure foolishness to not use the tools at our disposal regardless of what some think. If they don't like it, they should get the cure for whatever their disease is. Survival of the fittest, lol.

02-26-2008, 08:57 PM	#16 (permalink)
ScratchMonkey Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: San Pablo, California Posts: 3,367	Re: US Religious Landscape Survey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism Bertrand Russell on agnosticism: http://arts.cuhk.edu.hk/humftp/E-tex...l/agnostic.htm I have to disagree with Russell on his overreaching categorization of Christian and atheist as gnostics. They are different axes of the graph. The theist/atheist axis measures whether you have faith or are a skeptic. The gnostic/agnostic axis measures whether you think the existence of gods is knowable. I consider myself a skeptic and therefore atheist, but whether I'm an agnostic depends on how you define a particular "god". Some self-contradicting definitions may be trivially disprovable with logic alone, while others rely on unknowability and faith (the Babelfish argument, for example). __________________ Sig

02-26-2008, 09:07 PM	#17 (permalink)
Skylark Join Date: May 2003 Location: Kansas City area (U.S.A.) Age: 36 Posts: 538	Re: US Religious Landscape Survey Well, as to whether it is 'trivail' is up to discussion in some cases. Some people think it is very easy to disprove some religions, but most of the ones I have seen (EDIT not saying I've seen a huge number) involve some falicies on their logic. I'm not saying it is possible, just that the ones I have seen are over simplistic and rely on logic errors. Yahoo has this question/answer place. http://answers.yahoo.com/ I hang a lot in the homework area and the religion & spirituality area. I see some wackos on all sides there. It is always amazing how many people just don't realize that arguments like a) Believe in Jesus or go to hell? why can't you see that? b) Jesus is some fake guy based on Egyptian mythos, so stop being an idiot and become intelligent will never convince anyone. I try to point out stupidity on both sides, and constantly get thumbs down for it! ROFL. I suppose I find entertainment in other people's stupidity. I remember one question was: State your religion. People would give thumbs down on answers like Christian, Wickan or whatever. Just a simple statement of their religion and people where thumb downing them. It isn't like they said: I'm a <whatever> and if you don't agree with me, you're a stupid beanhead! I have no problem with either agnostics or aethests. I con understand why/how you don't believe. That causes me no problems. I also have no problem with someone believing in any other religion, as long as you are respectful of other people. This usually means that the extremists get the narrowed eyes from me. Anyone calling for the death of other people or saying God hates <group> with signs at funerals do not represent any God I know about. And any aetheist/agnostic that attacks religion with hate is not accomplishing anything either. Sure, say you don't believe (as many have done on TG) and discuss it. But some of the people's statements I've seen on yahoo (and even in real life) were nothing more than hate-mongering and/or ignorance. __________________ "I've TKed better men then you, and I wasn't even trying!" BF2142 toons SkylarkAssault Skylark28 (Support) Snipelark (Recon) Eng.Skylark (Engineer)

02-26-2008, 10:36 PM	#20 (permalink)
Skylark Join Date: May 2003 Location: Kansas City area (U.S.A.) Age: 36 Posts: 538	Re: US Religious Landscape Survey I LIKE that quote about disbelieving in one more god than I disbelieve in. Hey, I believe in my Christian(Catholic) religion, but I can understand why others don't. We have no PROOF of our faith. Nor does ANY religion. That is why they are called faiths, not uh.. proofs. (boy, that sounds weird.... I belong to the Christian proof.). I find it amusing when other Christians don't understand that fact. Some are so.. IT IS TRUE! IT IS A FACT! Then get mad when I as a fellow Christian say no, it is a belief. A faith. (I think they get even more mad than when a non-believer says it because I should KNOW it too). Facts of my faith: I believe in my faith I wish that everyone else did, too. (Why, because I believe it to be true. I wouldn't want you to believe in something I thought was false). I realize that others don't agree with my belief. While I am disappointed, I can understand why. My faith calls for me to explain and preach my beliefs, but not to do it in a hostile and unloving way. (do unto others as you would and all that). Those that are trying to spread their faith through anger/hate/violence don't really know their own religion (or else belong to some really crazy one. cause I suppose their could be a faith that says 'kill em all' for real. It just isn't any that I really know about) __________________ "I've TKed better men then you, and I wasn't even trying!" BF2142 toons SkylarkAssault Skylark28 (Support) Snipelark (Recon) Eng.Skylark (Engineer)

02-26-2008, 11:17 PM	#21 (permalink)
sordavie Join Date: Nov 2005 Age: 27 Posts: 1,722	Re: US Religious Landscape Survey Agnostics refrain from belief. Atheists believe that there is no God. Theists believe that there is a God. Historically, the alternative to empiricism has been rationalism. Empiricism is the thesis, roughly, that all of our knowledge is gained through sense experience. Rationalism on the other hand is roughly the thesis that at least some of our knowledge is innate. For example, Descartes, a rationalist, believed that geometrical knowledge is innate--we're either just born with it or we're born with the rational faculties to figure it out without empirical observation. In other words, he believed that we know (or have the ability to figure out) that the internal angles of a triangle must equal 180o without looking at triangles and measuring them. An empiricist on the other hand denies that we know any of this innately. An empiricist would argue that we have to observe things in order to know. __________________

02-26-2008, 11:46 PM	#22 (permalink)
Atomic Dog Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Michigan Age: 31 Posts: 3,852	Re: US Religious Landscape Survey 30 - Believer...influenced heavily by judeao-christian teachings, but not big on organized religion. I've studied most of the major world religions and a handful of minor religions. I like to think I'm well rounded and balanced in my beliefs. Extensive study has also kept me from "blind" faith so to speak. I also believe in evolution, dinosaurs and gravity too! __________________ \| ArmA SOPs \| PCS SOPs \| TG Primer \| 4th Wiki \| Ikariam Info: Mothership \| Parliament \| Chocolate City \| Saint George

02-27-2008, 12:31 AM	#23 (permalink)
Ferris Bueller Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Orlando, FL Age: 26 Posts: 4,249	Re: US Religious Landscape Survey I see too many absolutely horrible things on a day to day basis to believe in the judeo-christian God, or any God that claims to be omnibenevolent. I refuse to believe that this "God" could have a plan for all of us. What about the three kids I saw a couple months ago who had been strangled repeatedly, abused, bound, and put in a chest freezer, killing one and putting the other two in comas? What kind of sick, twisted plan from a so-called "benevolent" God is that? Maybe more along the lines of the Old Testament God, one who was petulent, demanded obedience and sacrifice from his fearful creations. That would make more sense. __________________ \|TG-6th\|Ferris Bueller Important TG Reading \| Support TG - Become a Supporting Member \| TacticalWiki - Your TG Guide Kicked/Banned? READ THIS FIRST! \| Complete list of TG Admins \| Think Someone Did A Good Job? Nominate Them For a Ribbon! Report Problem Players/Appeal Your Ban \| Learn TG - The TG Mentoring Program __________________ "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity." -Lazarus Long

02-27-2008, 01:33 AM	#24 (permalink)
Atomic Dog Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Michigan Age: 31 Posts: 3,852	Re: US Religious Landscape Survey I'm not sure about "God's plan." But something tells me, looking around at the awful things in life, some of that "plan" involves letting us choose our own paths in life. As a result, wicked people exist alongside the compassionate. The question is, what kind of loving God would not allow for personal freedom and choice? I don't blame God for bad things...I blame humanity. __________________ \| ArmA SOPs \| PCS SOPs \| TG Primer \| 4th Wiki \| Ikariam Info: Mothership \| Parliament \| Chocolate City \| Saint George

02-27-2008, 02:05 AM	#26 (permalink)
sordavie Join Date: Nov 2005 Age: 27 Posts: 1,722	Re: US Religious Landscape Survey That is the accepted definition in academia. It is also how the word has been used historically. Those self-declared "atheists" would be agnostics. There really is no confusion. Some people just don't know what the word means. It's also standard in academia to make a distinction between narrow and broad theism, atheism, and agnosticism. Narrow theism is the belief that a personal God exists (like the Christian God). Broad theism is the belief that some higher power exists (not necessarily a being that you could have a personal relationship with. Narrow atheism is the belief that a personal God doesn't exist. And so on. To be a narrow theist is to be a broad theist. To be a broad atheist is to be a narrow atheist. To be a broad agnostic is to be a narrow agnostic. But, to be a broad theist is not necessarily to be a narrow theist. To be a narrow atheist is not necessarily to be a broad atheist. And, to be a narrow agnostic is not necessarily to be a broad agnostic. So, William Rowe, takes the positon of narrow atheism but broad agnosticism; in other words, he believes there is no personal God, and he has no belief about whether there is or isn't a higher power in general. There's not much reason to get more fine grained than this, since if you believe that a particular God doesn't exist but that some other particular God does (for instance, suppose you believe that the Christian God exists but that Vishnu doesn't) then you can just say that. You'd still be a narrow theist. Einstein is also taken to be a narrow atheist but broad theist. In other words, Einstein believed that there was a higher power, but that it's not a personal God which one could have a relationship with. This position is also called Deism. The problem with just using the term "skeptic" is that it doesn't differentiate between the different nuances of agnosticism and atheism. __________________

02-27-2008, 09:55 AM	#27 (permalink)
luna Join Date: May 2003 Location: Rhode Island Age: 29 Posts: 4,104	Re: US Religious Landscape Survey Regarding classifying Agnostics vs. Atheists- Sordavie is absolutely right. Agnostics aren't willing to buy into any religion because they simply don't know if God exists or not, and don't care to make a judgment one way or the other. Agnostics are open to proof one way or the other. Absent that, they refrain from making a call. Atheists believe there is no God- it's not an absence of belief, it's a firm, committed belief to the lack of a god. Bertrand Russell is an excellent source for this classification, as he argues that Atheism is as much of a commitment to what they see as truth as any other religious affiliation's commitment to the existence of god. 29, Recovering Catholic (Atheist turned Agnostic now) __________________ Resurgent's New Motivational Motto: "Now train harder! Live inside your character! If it dies, YOU DIE! Focus!" Jesus had a soulstone.

02-28-2008, 01:24 AM	#28 (permalink)
Bamboo Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Inside the D.C. beltway Posts: 1,769	Re: US Religious Landscape Survey I was actually kind of scared to click on this thread, for fear of either someone trying to convert me or it being a huge flame war. Actually a decent conversation. Score 1 for TG. I actually grew up Baptist, then between Kindergarten and 2nd grade went to Catholic Church and a private Catholic school, even going through 1st communion, then we switched to Methodist, and finally in 5th grade back to Baptist. Dad was military, so we moved around a lot. Now, nothing. In fact most of the time I see Jesus freaks on the news I just shake my head and change the channel. Luckly my wife fills the same way, and she grew up Catholic. We just believe in being good to your fellow man, and help people out when they need it. I actually do kind of believe in karma. If you are mean to people, they will be mean to you. You look the other way when someone needs help. Someone else will do the same to you when you need help. Organized religion is most of the time a joke played on people buy the rest of the people in the audience that feels like they have to be there to look good to the community, and as soon as the 12:00 bell tolls, they are out the door and don't think about being good until next Sun. Of course that is not the case for everyone, and it may be one of the few things that keeps society in check. It was best explain in a very mind opening lecture by one of my professors in college. He pointed out there 3 ways to control a society. 1.Dictatorship-This is one of the most inefficient ways of controlling a population. It takes tons of resources to keep people in line and in fear of you. 2.Democracy- The people control themselves and makes the laws. This is less resource intensive, but still requires a lot of work on the society as a whole. 3.Religion- This is by FAR the easiest. Convince a society that if they don't do what you say the way you say do it, a big man up in the sky is going to shoot you with lightning bolts or send you to a place to burn in constant pain for eternity. You say jump, they say how high. They say donate 20% of your income to the church so they can live the good life, even though they live tax free, you say where do I sign. Look how easy it was to control all of Europe for the last couple of thousand years. You might think that a king controlled parts of it, but he did what his "advisory" told him, except for that King of England that wanted to bang more than one wife, so rewrote the Bible to fit. Just my beliefs at the moment, and I don't mind letting people worship how they feel they have to, up until the point that it affects me. Just because you think your god doesn't think it is right to let some crack head 13 year old have an abortion, fine, don't get one, and don't let your kid get one till they turn 18. But don't sit on the corner of a busy intersection taunting people. How many of those religious nuts have adopted a child of their own? You don't want that unwanted baby to be aborted, and would rather it be neglected and turn out to be a crackhead too and end up in jail by the time they get to high school. Why haven't you adopted any of those unwanted kids. Oh wait, you did? What do you mean you went to China last year to pick yours out. What is wrong with one of the thousands of unwanted kids here. (and I have talked to my wife about adoption, cause I don't want to help raise the population any more than I have to) Until they do, so that 13 year old crack head doesn't have to have an abortion, don't open your mouth or bust out the signs. And it is interesting how many of those same people worried about the life of a fetus are all about freedom to own arms. How can you be so concerned with life, but don't have much to say about the crackhead 13 year old's dad who shot a whole family while robbing their house for his own fix. It just doesn't make since. I would think you would have been more concerned about the life of that family than something that is only made up of a few cells. I actually have a bumperstick (on my bookshelf, not my car) that says "Guns don't kill people, religions do" Notice I am not actually stating my own opinion on abortion or the right to own firearms, because it is no one but my family's business, and I don't want to try and bother you one way or another with my own belief. Keep your own to yourself, and off the 6:00 news. /endRant/ Again, just my thoughts, and I won't bother you if you don't bother me. I will say I think the church did more to deter the growth of science than anything else in human history, and am sure we would be so much more technologically advanced had they not put some of the greatest minds ever to death or crushed their studies and research. We could be living on other planets by now, or have already cured cancer. I could go on, but it is past 1:00am here, and my writing isn't meant to offend anyone. I really do apologize if it does. A few good slogans from Cafepress.com __________________ LINKS 10th Tactical Guard Server Rules and SOP * Kicked? Banned? READ THIS FIRST!* Contact an Admin * Nominate your teammates for a ribbon Stoop and you'll be stepped on; stand tall and you'll be shot at. -Carlos A. Urbizo-

02-28-2008, 03:12 AM	#30 (permalink)
Elwenil Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Covington, VA USA Age: 34 Posts: 1,226	Re: US Religious Landscape Survey Um, to me that is sort of apples and oranges. The industrial revolution didn't really have that much for the church to complain about. Evolution wasn't exactly a big player in industry. Now there is all the stem cell BS that churches oppose that could very well mean the cure to a lot of diseases. It's pure foolishness to not use the tools at our disposal regardless of what some think. If they don't like it, they should get the cure for whatever their disease is. Survival of the fittest, lol. __________________ \|TG\|Elwenil A vote for Obama is change we can believe in? So was the last ice age, but that don't make it good.

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links