Religion+Politics

[psyche101]

Personally i don't think god takes sides in wars and doesnt actually approve e of them as a way of resolving human conflicts. If we truly loved our fellow human beings as god asks us to do, we couldn't go to war with them. Humans do (even me) interpret god, either through doctrine ,or personal relationships.

I just do not see how, what I do see is relgion creating superiority complexes. But when you look at the violent verses in the Bible, God does not seem a very nice guy at all. The PC Brigade would rip him to shreds, and he would be charged with hate crimes.

I don't trust doctrine, as it is written by other humans and thus bares THEIR subjective interpretation of what god expects, just as my relationship if i preached it, would be subject to my personal interpretation of god. . I will the good and wise bits from any religion and laugh at the silly bits, and cry at the sad bits

. Because I have a personal relationship with god which needs no church or preacher or doctrinal teachings, I have less trouble resolving god's wishes and acting on them The god i know is a tremendously powerful god who works with me to improve me, to teach me and to protect me and to make me stronger and more powerful as a human being. He then expects me to do the work of helping and educating others .

I have found that by living with god, and as he expects of me, my life is better, richer, happier and more powerful than ANY human's can be without god's presence.

Whilst I cannot comment on your "relationship" due to my position, I find your personal faith preferable to organised relgion.

I know you don't believe in god and i can remember when i did not either It is hard sometimes to work with a being who is so unbelievable and alien. Luckily i had some experience with marriage to help me .

The flip side is I remember being religious. And so called experienced people who helped me see the light in turn made a mess of my life. Your wife does indeed sound like a wonderful woman, I personally could not spend commit myself to another with deep held beliefs. I would have to lie, and that seems to contradict the point of marriage.

[psyche101]

Here, maybe this youtube video would show you.

The ones I remember, is just simply saying stop believing in something that is not true.

I see. we do not seem to have them here, not that I have seen in any case.

I do not agree with that sort of promotion. To just not believe is as bad as believing, it is just someone telling you to do it, or run with that doubt, that doubt should be rationalised. I find religion to be adverse to my way of thinking due to the evidence, that discounts relgion, to me anyway, not just a notion. If this was to actually bring people in, there should be paths to the evidence, not just a slogan. Maybe that is just advertising, and maybe this is the best way to reach many people, it just seem incomplete to me.

Well, I think there are parts of the states that have what I think you would like to see. I think the section I live in tends to be that. My feeling on that of course.

Secular you mean? I have heard of the Bible Belts, which parts are driven toward a secular view?

I myself feel that maybe in a hundreds years would be the disappearance of those gods you talk about. I do think varying 'faiths' and personal spiritualism would be the big thing then, but that is me. *shrugs*

I do feel that the turnaround on Apartheid and the Gay community are shining examples as to how quickly things can change, I know hate groups still exist, but society as a whole abhors what it condoned when I was a teenager, our Gun Regulation was thought to be impossible and would take years, it took 3 months, and the removal of Biker gangs again was thought to be impossible, but took one month. The Church went from ID to supporting evolution which is something I thought would take more than a thousand years. But people re-wrote God's word to suit themselves.

All these changes tell me it is very possible. All people have to do is look at the Greek and Roman Gods to realise where relgion as a whole belongs, if one generation was to follow the evidence, and find out "the real explanation" of everything, which then puts God on the right playing ground, with the Easter Bunny and Santa as opposed to trying to pretend it has equal ability to science, I think we might make huge strides forward toward a better and more focused society.

[+Sherapy]

Personally i don't think god takes sides in wars and doesnt actually approve e of them as a way of resolving human conflicts. If we truly loved our fellow human beings as god asks us to do, we couldn't go to war with them. Humans do (even me) interpret god, either through doctrine ,or personal relationships.

I don't trust doctrine, as it is written by other humans and thus bares THEIR subjective interpretation of what god expects, just as my relationship if i preached it, would be subject to my personal interpretation of god. . I will the good and wise bits from any religion and laugh at the silly bits, and cry at the sad bits

. Because I have a personal relationship with god which needs no church or preacher or doctrinal teachings, I have less trouble resolving god's wishes and acting on them The god i know is a tremendously powerful god who works with me to improve me, to teach me and to protect me and to make me stronger and more powerful as a human being. He then expects me to do the work of helping and educating others .

I have found that by living with god, and as he expects of me, my life is better, richer, happier and more powerful than ANY human's can be without god's presence.

I know you don't believe in god and i can remember when i did not either It is hard sometimes to work with a being who is so unbelievable and alien. Luckily i had some experience with marriage to help me .

On helping others, namely gardening to share with your neighbours, lighten your footprint on the planet, sending your 10 dollars a month ( or whatever it is doesn't matter) to Somalia to give clean water seems to give you a sense of purpose and I am of the philosophy that it all adds up and that you care is a good thing.

On the "the educating others" part, now you might mean something different than what I am about to say, therefore, if I am off feel free to clarify, if not and you mean what I think you mean, your many posts of trying to forcefully impose what you have found that suits you on the rest of us concerns me, namely, insisting that your path is the only one that is viable, the only path to happiness etc,etc. . You can't decide for other adults period what is best for them based on your perception.

Now, to be fair your God seems to be a much needed friend and support for you. No one else on here is in need of the things you need.

My point is this unless someone asks you or indicates they are interested in your advice or education the only thing that comes of these attempts is they polarize you from the rest of us. What could be viable is why not work on getting along with us (like you have been) and whatever wisdoms if any that anyone wants to glean from your posts let them decide what is and isn't-- that is if it's anything at all.

On the marriage part, I think you are married to an incredible woman and I think you are genuinely happy.

Edited January 13, 2016 by Sherapy

[Mr Walker]

I just do not see how, what I do see is relgion creating superiority complexes. But when you look at the violent verses in the Bible, God does not seem a very nice guy at all. The PC Brigade would rip him to shreds, and he would be charged with hate crimes.

Whilst I cannot comment on your "relationship" due to my position, I find your personal faith preferable to organised relgion.

The flip side is I remember being religious. And so called experienced people who helped me see the light in turn made a mess of my life. Your wife does indeed sound like a wonderful woman, I personally could not spend commit myself to another with deep held beliefs. I would have to lie, and that seems to contradict the point of marriage.

Just want to comment on your last section I think you missed the humour In marriage i grew accustomed to living with and dealing with an alien and incomprehensible being who was all powerful but had my best wishes in her heart. This made it easier to comprehend the nature of god .

I respect your integrity. i took my marriage vows seriously as a moral and legal commitment, and next week will have honoured them for 40 years. But i was lucky. I was hit by the thunderbolt, and magicked by a fey princess who never grows older, or less beautiful, than the day we met. So it was easy for me. Also i was raised, in theory and practice, to honour the intuition of marriage and its importance, and the ideal and practical benefits of romantic and sexual union between a couple for life. My parents were married for 60 years, my wife's for over 70 until death took one of them All of the children from these families married for life and remained faithful (longest marriage again now approaching 60 years) except for one who was eventually divorced from a woman with real mental health issues, and even he stuck it out for over 30 years..

[Stubbly_Dooright]

I see. we do not seem to have them here, not that I have seen in any case.

I do not agree with that sort of promotion. To just not believe is as bad as believing, it is just someone telling you to do it, or run with that doubt, that doubt should be rationalised. I find religion to be adverse to my way of thinking due to the evidence, that discounts relgion, to me anyway, not just a notion. If this was to actually bring people in, there should be paths to the evidence, not just a slogan. Maybe that is just advertising, and maybe this is the best way to reach many people, it just seem incomplete to me.

Man, I knew I liked you for a reason.

I agree with you. I still feel, that the Atheist's billboards should be there, in response with the religious's billboards. If I remember correctly, the religious billboards have been around longer than the Atheist's ones.

But, I think you're right. As I have always been saying, one cannot just 'believe' or 'not believe' by someone else telling them. There has to be a personal reason and the 'evidence' or 'lack of evidence' that comes with that.

I didn't realize you felt that way. You have more of my respect for you.

Secular you mean? I have heard of the Bible Belts, which parts are driven toward a secular view?

My end, the north east pretty much. I think the west, California and such, Sheri and others can correct me though, since they live there and would know more than I.

I do have relatives who live in the south now, and it's not as seen, as it use to be, either. So, that is why I see things getting the way I see it now.

I do feel that the turnaround on Apartheid and the Gay community are shining examples as to how quickly things can change, I know hate groups still exist, but society as a whole abhors what it condoned when I was a teenager, our Gun Regulation was thought to be impossible and would take years, it took 3 months, and the removal of Biker gangs again was thought to be impossible, but took one month. The Church went from ID to supporting evolution which is something I thought would take more than a thousand years. But people re-wrote God's word to suit themselves.

All these changes tell me it is very possible. All people have to do is look at the Greek and Roman Gods to realise where relgion as a whole belongs, if one generation was to follow the evidence, and find out "the real explanation" of everything, which then puts God on the right playing ground, with the Easter Bunny and Santa as opposed to trying to pretend it has equal ability to science, I think we might make huge strides forward toward a better and more focused society.

I think so too, but it seems more frustratingly slow up here. I cannot believe by some of the actions and behaviors that have occurred after Sandy Hook. The line that divides different ideals of what should be done.

Anyways, I'm hoping it does get to the point that we are protected in the future.

On the "the educating others" part, now you might mean something different than what I am about to say, therefore, if I am off feel free to clarify, if not and you mean what I think you mean, your many posts of trying to forcefully impose what you have found that suits you on the rest of us concerns me, namely, insisting that your path is the only one that is viable, the only path to happiness etc,etc. . You can't decide for other adults period what is best for them based on your perception.

Now, to be fair your God seems to be a much needed friend and support for you. No one else on here is in need of the things you need.

My point is this unless someone asks you or indicates they are interested in your advice or education the only thing that comes of these attempts is they polarize you from the rest of us. What could be viable is why not work on getting along with us (like you have been) and whatever wisdoms if any that anyone wants to glean from your posts let them decide what is and isn't-- that is if it's anything at all.

happy.

I was hoping to find a youtube short, that comes from the Star Trek: DS9 episode, 'The Quickening' where Bashir is having a hard time trying to find a cure for a disease that seems uncurable at the moment, but Dax lectures him to the point of yelling, that it's admirable that he is frustrated in helping others, but he shouldn't have the arrogance to assume he is the only one that could find the cure. I thought, if that scene was caught on youtube, it would be a great way of driving the point.

My point is, what is good for the goose may not be good for the gander, and sometimes what helps one, will hurt another. Like someone finding out some medicines help them, but will kill others who are allergic, but that doesn't fathom with the first person.

I have experienced situations, some of these people pushing their thinking of what helped them on others who cannot fit into that, and in the end, it really hurt the others. That is not helping. That is definitely not helping.

Very good point, Sheri.

[GoldenWolf]

Arkansas, Article 19, Section 1:

No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.

Maryland, Article 37:

That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.

Mississippi, Article 14, Section 265:

No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.

North Carolina, Article 6, Section 8

The following persons shall be disqualified for office: Any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.

South Carolina, Article 17, Section 4:

No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.

Tennessee, Article 9, Section 2:

No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.

Texas, Article 1, Section 4:

No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

LINK

Bible belt states, all republican, highest dropout rates, highest crime rates of the states, and highest poverty rates.

Edited January 13, 2016 by Mystic Crusader

[Podo]

Bible belt states, all republican, highest dropout rates, highest crime rates of the states, and highest poverty rates.

It's almost as though right-wing religious nuts are violent, anti-intellectuals who have no problem using violence and ignoring sanity and logic to pursue their own goals.

[GoldenWolf]

It's almost as though right-wing religious nuts are violent, anti-intellectuals who have no problem using violence and ignoring sanity and logic to pursue their own goals.

What did you expect, they idolize and emulate a malignant narcissistic madman.

[psyche101]

Just want to comment on your last section I think you missed the humour In marriage i grew accustomed to living with and dealing with an alien and incomprehensible being who was all powerful but had my best wishes in her heart. This made it easier to comprehend the nature of god .

Yes, that one did go over my head, I have to admit, thanks for the clarification. And I understand, I fear my wife as many fear a vengeful God when she is in a bad mood.

I respect your integrity. i took my marriage vows seriously as a moral and legal commitment, and next week will have honoured them for 40 years. But i was lucky. I was hit by the thunderbolt, and magicked by a fey princess who never grows older, or less beautiful, than the day we met. So it was easy for me. Also i was raised, in theory and practice, to honour the intuition of marriage and its importance, and the ideal and practical benefits of romantic and sexual union between a couple for life. My parents were married for 60 years, my wife's for over 70 until death took one of them All of the children from these families married for life and remained faithful (longest marriage again now approaching 60 years) except for one who was eventually divorced from a woman with real mental health issues, and even he stuck it out for over 30 years..

Glad it worked out so well for you, sadly I see many of my workmates marriages fail, and not due to them at all. It's definitely a two way street but as males, we tend to get labelled as one way. That Mick fellow on the Harbour Bridge is a good example of the bias we men have to bear as a burden. Sad to say, and I would like to see these stereotypes mitigated to modern times as well.

[psyche101]

Man, I knew I liked you for a reason.

It's my looks isn't it, a burden I am learning to live with.

I agree with you. I still feel, that the Atheist's billboards should be there, in response with the religious's billboards. If I remember correctly, the religious billboards have been around longer than the Atheist's ones.

But, I think you're right. As I have always been saying, one cannot just 'believe' or 'not believe' by someone else telling them. There has to be a personal reason and the 'evidence' or 'lack of evidence' that comes with that.

I didn't realize you felt that way. You have more of my respect for you.

It also seems a fantastic waste. There are such good reasons to look at Atheism, "for the sake of it" being none of them. I suppose some people just want to be atheist for the same reasons that people want to be Satanists, it just seems pointless and silly. I think if one does not know either way, as we discussed in another post, one should just say "I don't know" Why we must find answers to everything is just a measure of ego I think.

My end, the north east pretty much. I think the west, California and such, Sheri and others can correct me though, since they live there and would know more than I.

I do have relatives who live in the south now, and it's not as seen, as it use to be, either. So, that is why I see things getting the way I see it now.

It is encouraging, I just hope there aren't a lost of fake atheists in there as well. All I ever used to hear about were Bible Belts, that we have areas that embrace reasoning and challenge questions is encouraging for us as a species.

I think so too, but it seems more frustratingly slow up here. I cannot believe by some of the actions and behaviors that have occurred after Sandy Hook. The line that divides different ideals of what should be done.

Anyways, I'm hoping it does get to the point that we are protected in the future.

Gosh that was awful, Sandy Hook I mean. I'd really love to hear about an end to Gun Massacre in the US, but sadly, it seems that there are too many people who prefer guns to a safer society, and take any data or resolution as an attack. I have to say, as with the US Vs UK currency I pointed out, the US seems to be rather resistant to change. I can understand why people feel that way, but I hope that examples from other places will eventually be seen as assistance and not an attack.

I reckon I would be happy to just see that ball rolling, it keeps hitting the gutter so far.

I was hoping to find a youtube short, that comes from the Star Trek: DS9 episode, 'The Quickening' where Bashir is having a hard time trying to find a cure for a disease that seems uncurable at the moment, but Dax lectures him to the point of yelling, that it's admirable that he is frustrated in helping others, but he shouldn't have the arrogance to assume he is the only one that could find the cure. I thought, if that scene was caught on youtube, it would be a great way of driving the point.

My point is, what is good for the goose may not be good for the gander, and sometimes what helps one, will hurt another. Like someone finding out some medicines help them, but will kill others who are allergic, but that doesn't fathom with the first person.

I have experienced situations, some of these people pushing their thinking of what helped them on others who cannot fit into that, and in the end, it really hurt the others. That is not helping. That is definitely not helping.

Very good point, Sheri.

Love Star Trek, I will have to start watching those series again, when on earth is a new series going to grace our screens! Voyager was so long ago, and then Enterprise was cut off half way through!! I never understood that. In all the series you can see the actors a bit uncomfortable in the first few seasons, then as they get to know each other, the episodes get better and better. Premature that was IMHO

At least we have a new movie to look forward to I guess.

[psyche101]

Bible belt states, all republican, highest dropout rates, highest crime rates of the states, and highest poverty rates.

That is most interesting, I must check the stats, Dawkins mentions that there have been 42 studies pertaining to educational ability in a religious environment and said that all but 4 studies showed a negative correlation too.

LINK

If you can spare half an hour, it is a good speech.

[+DieChecker]

Gallup Poll... 2003

http://www.gallup.co...-religious.aspx

Does More Educated Really = Less Religious?

Bottom Line

To some degree, those with a lower level of education are more likely to "talk the talk" when it comes to religion -- that is, they're more likely to say they believe in God, place religion prominently in their lives, and recognize religion's importance in the world. But those with a higher level of education are as likely as those with less education to "walk the walk" -- by belonging to a congregation and attending services regularly. These results may point to a failure on the part of organized religion to attract and connect with those with a lower education level, perhaps reflecting the trend in the last century toward more highly educated clergy.

However, even though they do not belong in as great a number or attend as frequently as their more highly educated counterparts, those on the lower end of the educational scale have much more faith in religious institutions, perhaps reflecting a broader tendency to rely on institutions in other areas of their lives -- unions, HMOs, government agencies, etc. Those in this group have far less faith in the individuals at the head of their religious institutions -- the clergy -- than in the institutions themselves.

Wikipedia...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_education

Different studies show contrasted conclusions regarding any link between the two concepts, depending on whether "religiosity" is measured by religious practices (attendance at places of worship, for example) or specific religious beliefs (belief in miracles, for example), with notable differences between nations. For example, an international study states that in some Western nations the intensity of beliefs decreases with education, but attendance and religious practice increases.[1] Other studies indicate that the religious have higher education than the non-religious.[2] Other studies find that the positive correlation with low or non religiosity and education has been reversed in the past few decades.[3][4]

In terms of university professors, one study concluded that in the US, the majority of professors, even at "elite" universities, were religious.[5]

Edited January 14, 2016 by DieChecker

[+DieChecker]

http://www.independe...ic-8758046.html

Religious people are less intelligent than atheists, according to analysis of scores of scientific studies stretching back over decades

A piece of University of Rochester analysis, led by Professor Miron Zuckerman, found “a reliable negative relation between intelligence and religiosity” in 53 out of 63 studies.

The review, which is the first systematic meta-analysis of the 63 studies conducted in between 1928 and 2012, showed that of the 63 studies, 53 showed a negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity, while 10 showed a positive one.

Only two studies showed significant positive correlations and significant negative correlations were seen in a total of 35 studies.

...

The three psychologists carrying out the review defined intelligence as the “ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn from experience”.

This very well could be true. As intelligence isn't necessarily the equivalent of education, which my last post had links to. One can be very intelligent and yet uneducated, and one can be of average intelligence and yet highly educated. I suspect there is also a correlation between very intelligent people and arrogance.

As a religious person, the problem I see with this is that religious people aren't necessarily going to value the “ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn from experience”. Since, in part, they are going to assume God is looking out for them. A foolish assumption of course, but one commonly made. This then would result in a religious person being rated as less intelligent, when what should be used for intelligence is a standardized test. In which many of these studies did use, but we don't know which did, or did not, use IQ scores or testing. The authors only say they used the quoted rational.

It is also interesting that ANY of the studies found a positive correlation between education and religiousness.

Edited January 14, 2016 by DieChecker

[+DieChecker]

It's almost as though right-wing religious nuts are violent, anti-intellectuals who have no problem using violence and ignoring sanity and logic to pursue their own goals.

An unfair characterization I would say. Almost like saying all atheists are liberal bleeding hearts who apologize for criminals and rapists because they had a hard time growing up, and demand they not have to be punished.

[+DieChecker]

Arkansas, Article 19, Section 1:

No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.

Maryland, Article 37:

That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.

Mississippi, Article 14, Section 265:

No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.

North Carolina, Article 6, Section 8

The following persons shall be disqualified for office: Any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.

South Carolina, Article 17, Section 4:

No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.

Tennessee, Article 9, Section 2:

No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.

Texas, Article 1, Section 4:

No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

LINK

What is interesting about the State laws regarding holding office and belief in God, is that many say that the US was not founded as a Religious/Christian nation, yet it would seem these Constitutional segments would indicate otherwise.

I don't see why in this day and age, if the SCotUS can strike down a man+woman marriage law at the state level, they don't throw out these God requirement laws also??

Say... Doesn't the UK money have the Queen on it? Who is the head of the Church of England??

That's like having the Pope on your money.

Interestingly, if almost all congressmen claim to religious, that means the problem isn't a red state vs blue state issue. It means that there are still enough religious people that claiming a religious affiliation is a vote collector.

It is interesting that Jews make up 5% to 10% of the Congress, as the Jewish population is only about 2% of the population.

Isn't the UK anthem "God save the Queen"?

Edited January 14, 2016 by DieChecker

[Stubbly_Dooright]

It's my looks isn't it, a burden I am learning to live with.

I'm sure you can handle the burden, Sweetcheeks!

It also seems a fantastic waste. There are such good reasons to look at Atheism, "for the sake of it" being none of them. I suppose some people just want to be atheist for the same reasons that people want to be Satanists, it just seems pointless and silly. I think if one does not know either way, as we discussed in another post, one should just say "I don't know" Why we must find answers to everything is just a measure of ego I think.

Yeah, I think that is true with varying people in the varying beliefs and lack there of. I can really understand, where a particular faith, or the realization that one has none, can be the defining moment in a point of view, and thus a change in life and probably when things get better for them, but I feel that is do to personal happenstance of seeing something they see, and have the experiences in that moment to back up to see that. I consider that the real true defining changes in point of view in belief or lack of one. I see that as something those go through personally.

When it's to prove it to others, then I would think that is wrong. One is not doing it for themselves, and probably are going to have heartaches in the future, plus with lying to others, thus hurting them in the long run. I'm with you there.

It is encouraging, I just hope there aren't a lost of fake atheists in there as well. All I ever used to hear about were Bible Belts, that we have areas that embrace reasoning and challenge questions is encouraging for us as a species.

I really gets me about that nick name here in the states. And I have lived in the area too. Biloxi Mississippi, for maybe about six months, but enough time to experience the south, and yes, the belief too. I remember, as soon we drove past the point it was the southern US, I kept seeing crosses in fields of grass.

I think it was a miracle, no one dragged our asses into church at all, during that time. But the thing is, the south is still part of the secular U.S. and it's still where everyone can practice, or not practice at all, a religion or belief. Maybe it's just me, but it sparks as a bit of 'wrong' maybe to nickname that in this country. *shrugs*

Gosh that was awful, Sandy Hook I mean. I'd really love to hear about an end to Gun Massacre in the US, but sadly, it seems that there are too many people who prefer guns to a safer society, and take any data or resolution as an attack. I have to say, as with the US Vs UK currency I pointed out, the US seems to be rather resistant to change. I can understand why people feel that way, but I hope that examples from other places will eventually be seen as assistance and not an attack.

I know, one would think. I know two people who have friends who l lost siblings in that. I'm from the same college that one of the lost brave teachers got her education degree.

And this is where it still effects me, I remember waiting on the family and the young boy, who happened to be one of the lost souls. I remember hearing the uncle saying to me about traveling about an hour to the store, ( yes, it's that far away ) and I remember what I was trying to look for for the young one, and then reading later, (as I recognized his picture in the paper ) of the interests he had, ( it was part of the thing I tried looking for and then offered to order it )

This may sound pretentious, but I feel utter sense of sadness for him, and for his family. I remember a family gathering that day when I helped them, and then seeing them go through this. I feel that for all that some are trying to learn from this event, there are still about over twenty dead individuals, gone young children. They're still gone!

I feel we have to all register that!

I reckon I would be happy to just see that ball rolling, it keeps hitting the gutter so far.

Yup, I see that. And I also feel, other things like mental health, again, gets thrown to the gutter and disappears too. I never read so much on the monster who did this, and his family, and reading how so much wrong went into that family, ( my thoughts on that ) and how so much could have been done. Instead, heads turn the other way...................

Love Star Trek, I will have to start watching those series again, when on earth is a new series going to grace our screens!

Thanks to J.J. Abrams, we have the new reimagined movies. ( I wonder if Gene Roddenberry is turning in his grave. ) I'm still reeling from the distruction of Vulcan and Romulus.

Voyager was so long ago, and then Enterprise was cut off half way through!!

I remember that of 'Enterprise' from what I noticed, it was very low ratings.

I never understood that. In all the series you can see the actors a bit uncomfortable in the first few seasons, then as they get to know each other, the episodes get better and better. Premature that was IMHO

At least we have a new movie to look forward to I guess.

Yup.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

It also seems a fantastic waste. There are such good reasons to look at Atheism, "for the sake of it" being none of them. I suppose some people just want to be atheist for the same reasons that people want to be Satanists, it just seems pointless and silly. I think if one does not know either way, as we discussed in another post, one should just say "I don't know" Why we must find answers to everything is just a measure of ego I think.

It is encouraging, I just hope there aren't a lost of fake atheists in there as well. All I ever used to hear about were Bible Belts, that we have areas that embrace reasoning and challenge questions is encouraging for us as a species.

I wanted to add on to this, for I forgot to mention it in the previous post to you. I feel, at my end of the states. Usually, the Atheists here are those, that are just raised that way. (strange I didn't turn out that way, *shrugs* ) It's just a given that one would see that there is no way, in their lives, to have any personal proof to believe. )

It's not questioned most of the time, and no one really is pushing others to do what 'they should do' when it comes to religion. Oh yeah, you still have your door to door, and there are evangelicals up here, but a lot of the times, they're brushed off. Unfortunately, and this is through my experience of living here and living else's where, it tends to also everyone kind of not bothered to look your way either. It's every man to themselves sometimes. *shrugs*

Gallup Poll... 2003

http://www.gallup.co...-religious.aspx

Wikipedia...

https://en.wikipedia...y_and_education

It seems, in a sense, what is being stated here, is that those that are more educated, are more humble and not broadcasting their beliefs, like the one who are not as educated.

Frankly, I kind of believe that, but that could go with educated and uneducated Atheists too.

In a sense, and I'm using my experiences in living in the far north and in the far south, but I have seen educated believers who show an understanding of others and their beliefs or lack of, and their ways of life. I have seen uneducated Atheists too, who seem just as intolerant to others as well.

What is interesting about the State laws regarding holding office and belief in God, is that many say that the US was not founded as a Religious/Christian nation, yet it would seem these Constitutional segments would indicate otherwise.

I don't see why in this day and age, if the SCotUS can strike down a man+woman marriage law at the state level, they don't throw out these God requirement laws also??

Say... Doesn't the UK money have the Queen on it? Who is the head of the Church of England??

That's like having the Pope on your money.

Interestingly, if almost all congressmen claim to religious, that means the problem isn't a red state vs blue state issue. It means that there are still enough religious people that claiming a religious affiliation is a vote collector.

It is interesting that Jews make up 5% to 10% of the Congress, as the Jewish population is only about 2% of the population.

Isn't the UK anthem "God save the Queen"?

I think it is being stated, that Britain is just as much, as the U.S. in doing this.

But, yeah, that is a good point, I think. Considering how Henry the eighth, ( from my understanding and my interest and research on the subject ) took over the church in England, and made himself the head of it. And things went on from there.

[Podo]

An unfair characterization I would say. Almost like saying all atheists are liberal bleeding hearts who apologize for criminals and rapists because they had a hard time growing up, and demand they not have to be punished.

Bleeding heart atheists are far better for society than right-wing religious folks killing children who have different beliefs, or ramming planes into buildings, or trying to get science removed from the school systems, or oppressing women, or denying reproductive rights, or discriminating against homosexuals, or (etc etc). The former is annoying. The latter is dangerous.

[GoldenWolf]

An unfair characterization I would say. Almost like saying all atheists are liberal bleeding hearts who apologize for criminals and rapists because they had a hard time growing up, and demand they not have to be punished.

I don't hate to say it, but that really is you guys.

Matthew 24:35

I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

Luke 23:34

Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."

the mental illness interfered with the defendant's ability to distinguish right from wrong

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insanity

"What would you rather be, a bus driver, or a super terrorist?"

Edited January 14, 2016 by Mystic Crusader

[GoldenWolf]

[psyche101]

In terms of university professors, one study concluded that in the US, the majority of professors, even at "elite" universities, were religious.[5]

[psyche101]

http://www.independe...ic-8758046.html

This very well could be true. As intelligence isn't necessarily the equivalent of education, which my last post had links to. One can be very intelligent and yet uneducated, and one can be of average intelligence and yet highly educated. I suspect there is also a correlation between very intelligent people and arrogance.

Well, studies overwhelmingly support the conclusion.

It stand to reason doesn't it?

The Universe was created from something out of nothing due to a difference of potential that upset the balance between virtual particles.

Or

The universe exists because Gioddidit.

Is there any competition there?

As a religious person, the problem I see with this is that religious people aren't necessarily going to value the “ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn from experience”. Since, in part, they are going to assume God is looking out for them. A foolish assumption of course, but one commonly made. This then would result in a religious person being rated as less intelligent, when what should be used for intelligence is a standardized test. In which many of these studies did use, but we don't know which did, or did not, use IQ scores or testing. The authors only say they used the quoted rational.

Well, we saw what Nick Cowan had to say, and he was lucky enough to manage entry into an academic institution.

It is also interesting that ANY of the studies found a positive correlation between education and religiousness.

I would love to see them, I would like to know who did them, and where they were carried out, I suspect that might have some bearing on the outcome.

[psyche101]

What is interesting about the State laws regarding holding office and belief in God, is that many say that the US was not founded as a Religious/Christian nation, yet it would seem these Constitutional segments would indicate otherwise.

I don't see why in this day and age, if the SCotUS can strike down a man+woman marriage law at the state level, they don't throw out these God requirement laws also??

The level of permeation is just ridiculous, with relgion being forced down everyone's throat at any opportunity, to the level of paranoia that the Church illustrates with regard to Evolution and leaves a nation that is not what I consider "free" at all. Why throw them out when they sway the voting process? An Atheist running for President does not stand a chance due to the level of paranoid hysteria and ignorance. That narrows the field greatly for a start.

Say... Doesn't the UK money have the Queen on it?

Yes.

Who is the head of the Church of England??

The Archbishop of Canterbury is the Primate of All England, leading the Church of England and acting as a focus of unity for the wider Anglican Communion. The Supreme Governor of the Church of England is merely a ceremonial role. (that is the Queen and where I assume you are going with this?)

That's like having the Pope on your money.

Nope, nothing like it, The Archbishop is he one close to God, the Queen is intermediate between the Archbishop and the people.

And a farce of a relgion it is!!! Invented so Henry the 8th could knock off Catherine of Aragon and start bonking Anne Boleyn!!!!

Real close to Godliness that is!!!!

Interestingly, if almost all congressmen claim to religious, that means the problem isn't a red state vs blue state issue. It means that there are still enough religious people that claiming a religious affiliation is a vote collector.

It is interesting that Jews make up 5% to 10% of the Congress, as the Jewish population is only about 2% of the population.

It means the US remains in a grip of relgion is what it means, and is continually being forced down your throat. Bush Snr said he did not consider Atheists citizens!! Bigotry seems to be popular when voting for a President? Mate - NOT a bright outlook, or anything to be impressed by!

Isn't the UK anthem "God save the Queen"?

No, England herself does not actually have an official Anthem that song is popular mostly at sporting events. It is the Anthem for some Commonwealth realms and their territories, but not England. The Bill for an official English national anthem will be debated in March this year.

Edited January 15, 2016 by psyche101

[+DieChecker]

Bleeding heart atheists are far better for society than right-wing religious folks killing children who have different beliefs, or ramming planes into buildings, or trying to get science removed from the school systems, or oppressing women, or denying reproductive rights, or discriminating against homosexuals, or (etc etc). The former is annoying. The latter is dangerous.

So you are not arguing about the mischaracterization, you are indeed embracing mischaracterization on all sides. You believe that divisiveness is good? You would demonize everyone into wide groups that you can rant against, rather then understanding people are individuals. Way to go....... (Sigh!)

[Podo]

So you are not arguing about the mischaracterization, you are indeed embracing mischaracterization on all sides. You believe that divisiveness is good? You would demonize everyone into wide groups that you can rant against, rather then understanding people are individuals. Way to go....... (Sigh!)

Exceptions exist, of course they do. But stereotypes exist for a reason. I don't like whiny or dogmatic atheists any more than I like whiny and dogmatic religious types. But, if I had to choose between them, I'd go with the dogmatic atheist because a dogmatic atheist won't kill you or deny you your rights, while history shows that a dogmatic religious person probably will.