Something I just saw that amused me and deserves to be posted so I can find it again. These are the ways that religion is like masturbation:
Don't do it in public. It's annoying and embarrassing.
Don't force people to watch or join you.
Don't teach children how to do it especially if they are too young to understand what's going on.
Don't label other people's children according to the way their parents do it.
Don't change the law in order to enforce your favorite way of doing it.
And finally if you explain why you do it, please be honest. Say that you do it for personal relief and spare us pointless arguments about the laws of logic, objective morality or the bacterial flagellum.
26 comments:
Larian: "Don't do it in public. Its annoying and embarrassing."
Err... that should be it's, as in it is, not "its".
Oh, I almost forgot...
Larian: "Don't teach children how to do it especially if they are too young to understand whats going on."
That should be what's, as in what is, not "whats".
Err... I'll get my coat and see myself out...
Ahhhhhhhhh, the grammar police found me!!!!!!
Book 'im, Danno!
Don't teach children how to do it especially if they are too young to understand what's going on.
Don't label other people's children according to the way their parents do it.
I tend to believe the University of North Carolina (Chapel Hill) study of 2500 adolescents. See for yourself Link
Wow, you must be the most dour and humourless person in every room you enter...
And again, linking to a site like that? They are the WORST for cherry picking. If non-religious indoctrination leads to such horrible behaviour, why are atheists UNDER-represented in prison populations? You make it seem like religious societies have the lock on virtues, then why does the data indicate that the opposite is true? http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
Not to mention that the more religious, the lower the IQ tends to be. Not implying causation or anything (and your cherry picking self serving site has already rationalized it...), just saying. ;)
Atheists claim that atheists make up a smaller percent of prison populations that their theists counterparts. However, surveys indicate that those who profess no religion are four times more likely to be incarcerated than their Christian counterparts.
Stats were taken from UK-Welsh prison sytem who did a much better job at catagorizing the belief systems of prisoners than the US system. I'll give you the hard numbers tomorrow. This machine I'm on today is limited.
Where did you have to comb to find that? More cherry picking?
1997 Federal Bureau of Prisons from Denise Golumbaski, as formatted in Rice/Swift
Note that in this version, the names of a couple of religious groups remain non-standardized, and self-identified "Atheist" remains separate from "Unknown/None."
Response Number %
---------------------------- --------
Catholic 29267 39.164%
Protestant 26162 35.008%
Muslim 5435 7.273%
American Indian 2408 3.222%
Nation 1734 2.320%
Rasta 1485 1.987%
Jewish 1325 1.773%
Church of Christ 1303 1.744%
Pentecostal 1093 1.463%
Moorish 1066 1.426%
Buddhist 882 1.180%
Jehovah Witness 665 0.890%
Adventist 621 0.831%
Orthodox 375 0.502%
Mormon 298 0.399%
Scientology 190 0.254%
Atheist 156 0.209%
Hindu 119 0.159%
Santeria 117 0.157%
Sikh 14 0.019%
Bahai 9 0.012%
Krishna 7 0.009%
---------------------------- --------
Total Known Responses 74731 100.001% (rounding to 3 digits does this)
In the US, atheists make up about 3% of the population, so again...
And keep in mind, you can massage numbers when you get into the Don't Know/Don't Care category, so I am speaking of just strong atheists here.
And again, why are so many problems associated with strong religiosity? http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
pardon the delay, here is the info I was referencing.
The most easily identifiable factor separating Low Church atheists
from their High Church brethren is neither educational nor liturgical,
but eponymical. They simply don’t describe themselves as
atheists. Instead, they show up on various religious surveys as “no
religion” or occasionally “secular.”28 Their beliefs are distinctly recognizable
as atheistic, as they don’t believe in God, they don’t attend
religious services, they don’t believe in the supernatural, and they
don’t belong to religious organizations, but a failure to openly embrace
an atheist identity is not the only significant distinction of the
Low Church atheist.
I previously referenced the number of atheists being held by the
prison system of England and Wales, where it is customary to record
the religion of the prison population as part of the Inmate Information
System. In the year 2000, there were 38,531 Christians of
twenty-one different varieties imprisoned for their crimes, compared
to only 122 atheists and sixty-two agnostics. As Europe in general
and the United Kingdom in particular have become increasingly
post-Christian, this would appear to be a damning piece of evidence
proving the fundamentally criminal nature of theists while demonstrating
that atheists are indeed more moral despite their lack of a
sky god holding them to account.
However, there also happened to be another 20,639 prisoners,
31.6 percent of the total prison population, who possessed “no religion.”
And this was not simply a case of people falling through the
cracks or refusing to provide an answer; the Inmate Information System
is specific enough to distinguish between Druids, Scientologists,
and Zoroastrians as well as between the Celestial Church of God,
the Welsh Independent church, and the Non-Conformist church. It
also features separate categories for “other Christian religion,” “other
non-Christian religion,” and “not known.”
At only two-tenths of a percent of the prison population, High
Church atheists are, as previously suggested, extremely law-abiding.
But when one compares the 31.6 percent of imprisoned no-religionists
to the 15.1 percent of Britons who checked “none” or wrote in
Jedi Knight, agnostic, atheist, or heathen in the 2001 national survey,
it becomes clear that their Low Church counterparts are nearly four
times more likely to be convicted and jailed for committing a crime
than a Christian.
Day, Vox; The Irrational Atheist, pgs 19-20.
Notes by Day. "I am not describing those who call themselves agnostics here, as in most of the various surveys
and polls, they tend to either be lumped in with atheists or as part of a separate “don’t know” category"
"There are some silly bits of information floating around the Internet claiming to prove that Christians
are fifty times more likely to go to prison than atheists. Of course, by cherry-picking this data, one could claim that English and Welsh Christians are 315 times more likely to go to prison than atheists and be superficially correct. One would have to be an intellectually dishonest ass to so, though."
"3.84 times more likely, to be precise. Census, April 2001, Office for National Statistics. While
Christians account for 39.1 percent of the English and Welsh prison population, they make up 71.8
percent of the total population."
From the article you (Lunk) cited...
the data examined in this study demonstrates that only the more secular, pro-evolution democracies have, for the first time in history, come closest to achieving practical “cultures of life” that feature low rates of lethal crime, juvenile-adult mortality, sex related dysfunction, and even abortion. The least theistic secular developed democracies such as Japan, France, and Scandinavia have been most successful in these regards.
Until fairly recently on the historical timeline, Europe was referred to as "Christiandom", not "atheidom". Who put into place the systems of government, universities and other factors that determine the quality of life on that continent? Atheists?
Insofar as Japan is concerned, thier birth rate is about 1.26 which is very low and unsustainable. Link It also has the second highest suicide rate among the industrialized world, second only to Russia. Link
Hardly a godless utopia.
Also, I found this interesting. "The idea that religion is the enemy of science is a remarkably silly
one when examined in scientific terms. Consider that Christian nation
and the hostility to science that it supposedly harbors due to its
extraordinary religiosity. And yet the United States of America accounts
for more than one-third of the global scientific output despite
representing only 4.5 percent of the global population. The scientific
overperformance of religious America is a factor of 7.89, representing 28.7 percent more scientific output per capita than the most atheistic
nation in Europe, France. (The Irrational Atheist, pgs 58-59)
"It is France, not any of the Scandinavian countries, that reliably shows up in various polls as the
most atheistic country in the West, but there is good reason to be skeptical of the Harris poll numbers
because the numbers of non-believers reported in it are between three and ten times higher
than the number reported in other polls of the same countries. To give one example, the 64 percent
sum of reported atheists and agnostics is almost twice as high as the number of French respondents
answering that they did not believe in a god or life force in the Eurobarometer poll." (Ibid pg 21)
Again, you are citing from works by the only people who will support your belief. Like going to a Flat Earth web page to prove the earth is flat. I am familiar with the writer of your results, and he's a first class liar by omission and obfuscation.
To call someone atheist because they just don't care is not at all what an atheist is. Most rational atheists have made a conscious decision about the world about them, and rejected the hypothesis of deities. What you describe are at best weak agnostics.
Wow, imagine that, I even PREDICTED you'd abuse the numbers with the I don't know/care people... You theists are so dogmatic!
JD, here's something for you to chew on...
St. Augustine of Hippo:
It not infrequently happens that something about the Earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the Sun and Moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.
–- De Genesi ad literam 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408].
I am familiar with the writer of your results, and he's a first class liar by omission and obfuscation.
My goodness, I can't help but notice what "brass ones" you have today Lunk. Might you provide for me some EVIDENCE of said lying or else take back that statement?
What you describe are at best weak agnostics.
Uhh, no Lunk. Perhaps you meant to say weak atheists given that agnoticism was another catagory that they could hae opted for.
And you still havent responded to my post from 18:56 that shows the study you cited to be, at best, incomplete and at worst, severely biased-flawed.
Ivan, much the same subject came up in a philosophy club meetup I attended awhile back. It was generally agreed upon by everyone there thatthe Hebrew-Old Testament was better suited for poetic prose than as scientific language (which Greek of the NT is much better at).
It was generally agreed upon by everyone there that the Hebrew-Old Testament was better suited for poetic prose than as scientific language
Oh really? And you guys somehow have a secret decoder ring for the rest of the world to go on? Please pass it around for the rest of the world to use...
And I couldn't give a shit what you think JD, your arguments are based on the mental processes of a 2 year old toddler.
Japan's suicide rate is based off a different culture, but since that's not AmeriKan, it's automatically bad, and you'll glom on to something else instead. Really, it's like beating your head against a brick wall with you people. And again, you are quoting from a source that has much validity as the flat earth folks in supporting their views. Why not get out a little more?
And again, you are quoting from a source that has much validity as the flat earth folks in supporting their views.
Uhhh, Lunk, the Japanese suicide rate statistics that I cited were from no less than the BBC. Right-wing extremists if ever there were any.
As to your other statements, I'm sure you have examined the other arguements for the existance on God. Personally I like the teleological one. Did you ever examine it?
JD, I think that Larian was referring to the "Vox: The Irrational Atheist" blog as being the dodgy source.
Regarding the Japanese suicide rate article, that report is from USA Today, not the BBC, and it concludes at the bottom: [T]hose who commit suicide are often hardworking, serious people. Because they are diligent, their workload gets ever more demanding until they break down with health problems or depression.
"But the company is not always supportive, making people feel abandoned and like they're a worthless person," [Nishihara] said. "That's when people often think of death."
In Japan, when a man is seriously depressed, he typically: retires to his home; draws the curtains (drapes); puts on a kimono; takes down the samurai sword from the wall; kneels down on the floor; writes a suicide note; takes a stiff drink of saké, and then commits harakiri.
In Britain, when a man is seriously depressed, he typically: goes home; takes out his Webley Revolver from the cabinet; tells his family members, "I'm just going outside; I may be away some time"; retires to his garden shed; writes a suicide note, and then a single shot rings out from the shed.
In United States, when a man is seriously depressed, he typically: goes not to his home, but drives to the local gun store; selects and purchases an AKM (AK-47) semi-automatic assault rifle with several boxes of cartridges; fills in the required form and where it states, "Do you require this firearm for (a) Sport, (b) Home defense, or (c) Other", ticks the "Other" box; returns to his pick-up truck and, in there, opens the gun box on which there's a picture of the Texas School Book Depository building and, in small letters at the bottom right-hand corner, the words "Serving Suggestion"; finds inside the gun box an instruction booklet with the opening sentence, "Congratulations on your purchase of..."; drives to the local shopping mall or back to his workplace, and then opens fire on everyone there because "they are all part of the 'grand conspiracy'", before turning the gun on himself.
Japanese way is more honourable.
The teleological is just an extension of the anthropomorphic and god of the gaps argument. All of which are weak at best. If that is an argument you LIKE, I must question your grasp of logic. I can make an argument that you are worn on the wrist using that logic:
JD is like a watch in some ways. JD is ordered and complex. JD is made of an assortment of smaller parts. JD has moving parts. JD has parts that keep a rhythmic and consistent pace (certain biorhythms). However, I guess I don't have to point out it is a weak analogy, because there are many more dissimilarities. Let's suppose I make an argument like the one I'm about to that uses a similarly weak analogy as found in the design argument as a premise:
* JD Curtis is like a watch
* A watch can be worn on the wrist
* Therefore, JD Curtis can be worn on the wrist
Or is that too hard to follow?
Wow, you really need to get out more. These arguments are decades old, and have been trounced like the pathetic excuses they are.
Wow, it seems IVAN3MAN can understand the weak citing you are doing...
Oh, almost forgot to ridicule the phrase: "scientific language (which Greek of the NT is much better at)."
So, you're saying that mustard seeds are the smallest on earth? Oops!
Who was Jesus addressing when he referenced the "mustard seed"? Might they have been uneducated farmers? The mustard seed comparison was used to get a point across re: faith. It would have been deviating from the topic to give a lesson in horticulture and explain how the seeds of orchids in another part of the world that they probably never even heard of are smaller than the smallest of seeds that they worked with.
Matthew 13:31 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:
Matthew 13:32 Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.
Err... there are no trees in the mustard family, mustard seeds do not grow into trees large enough to support bird nests.
Like, err... double oops!
Looks like Jesus repeated the same blunder about mustard 'trees' twice...
Mark 4:30 And he said, Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God? or with what comparison shall we compare it?
Mark 4:31 It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth:
Mark 4:32 But when it is sown, it groweth up, and becometh greater than all herbs, and shooteth out great branches; so that the fowls of the air may lodge under the shadow of it.
Ivan....This took the herculean effort of typing the words [mustard tree photo pictures] into a common seach engine and simply looking at that which popped up
The mustard type shown above grew wild in fields around Galilee northwards towards Lebanon and to the west along the coastal plain of Israel. I observed this mustard plant in the southern Golan near Avne Eitan and measured its height to be 8'10". In my opinion there might have been taller mustard plants that I have not measured due to the fact I had spent little time in Israel or was unable to stop along a busy highway to measure a giant plant near Haipha. There were published accounts of mustard plants from 10-16 feet tall without photos. Most mustard family species in the northern regions of Europe and North America did not exceed 4 feet high, yet some southern species grew taller than eight feet in Israel and Egypt. Link with photos Ivan
JD, to paraphrase Crocodile Dundee: That ain't a tree; THIS is a tree.
A tree is a perennial woody plant. It is most often defined as a woody plant that has many secondary branches supported clear of the ground on a single main stem or trunk with clear apical dominance. A minimum height specification at maturity is cited by some authors, varying from 3 m to 6 m; some authors set a minimum of 10 cm trunk diameter (30 cm girth). Woody plants that do not meet these definitions by having multiple stems and/or small size, are called shrubs. [Emphasis mine.]
The "mustard tree photo" that you referred to is a Salvadora persica shrub ("Bring Me A Shrubbery!") of the family Salvadoraceae and was only recently added to the order Brassicales, of which the Mustard plant belongs to. There is a distinction between "family" and "order".
So, the two species of plants are about as related to each other as humans and lemurs are to each other -- both of which are from the order of primates.
As for the "Parable of the Mustard" link, those are just overgrown, spindly bushes which are certainly not 'trees' with "great branches; so that the fowls of the air may lodge under the shadow of it."
Post a Comment