patrick.net

Dan8267 says

Adults tend to reject superstitious nonsense that weren't exposed to as kids.

LOL....that was one of the most striking things to me about that article, saying something about how 46% of church attendees are lost between the teen and young adult years.

And my only thought was, "You mean the age where their parents stop being able to control them, and force them to attend? Makes sense."

Actually, my first thought was "Yeah....they don't want to get sucked into the Catholic Church's rape factory!" but that seemed a bit off color.....

Dan8267 says

But more dangerous. If religion takes off in Russia, it could cause them to be the next Afghanistan only with nukes.

Don't worry, it won't. It's just respect for tradition, and goes it mostly no deeper than St. Patrick's Day, Clovers, and Green Beer. Of course, there are always a few old farts that get all mystical as they approach death.

I think Putin thinks sponsoring Orthodoxy is important because the US is trying to encircle and fragment Russia, so it gives the Russians a piece of national identity. Not that I think the US project to break Russia into a thousand pieces has any chance of success either way.

Cloud says

Because some cruel GI striped down some Muslim terrorist and scared them with a german sheppard America sucks?

If you think that this was an isolated incident, you are a fool and an uninformed one at that. But since you need more pictures...

And those are just what has been released to the public. Far more evidence was destroyed including video showing a naked prisoner being literally torn to death by an attack dog.

And shit like this doesn't go on without systematic approval.

If you really believed that what the Nazis did was evil, then you would be as appalled by these events and condemn them and our government for doing them as much as I do. If you don't, then what you really believe is that everything the Nazis did would be ok if it were done by your government instead of theirs. And unfortunately, that's how about one third of Americans think.

Dan8267 says

And shit like this doesn't go on without systematic approval.

YEP. And these were guys picked up off the street, arrested but not convicted. Most of them were guilty of being in the wrong place and the wrong time, and looking "Suspicious" to non-Arabic Speaking foreign 19-year olds from another continent, who have very little way to judge what is suspicious in Mesopotamia.

I wonder how many sermons and church retreats and camps these MPs attended as children?

Don't forget the German guy tortured for over a year for having married an Islamic woman. That's it. He got married to a Muslim. She wasn't arrested and had nothing to do with terrorism, but she was a Muslim and he married her. So he was kidnapped and tortured for a year. Makes you proud of America, doesn't it?

China presently has more active Christians by number than the US. I read a book on that about 6 years ago. The communist government booted out all the missionaries during their hellish "cultural revolution" and murdered anyone who claimed to be a Christian.
But, about 15 years ago several bibles were found buried in the ground. Certain Chinese people read them, converted, and 5 years later almost 100 million others had joined them in faith.
An atheist country is like dry brush to the wildfire of truth.
I heard one of their leaders speak. He said that in China they have institutional persecution. He'd been beaten, jailed for years, starved, and viciously abused for his faith. But in America, he then stated, you have a sort of emotional and social persecution, where people both of faith and without, argue viciously with each other, making anyone with true faith out to be an idiot or a cretin. This amazed him, as he was used to the physical abuse, but felt unprepared for the unkind words of those he assumed to be his brothers and sisters in Christ.

That's sort of what's going on here, isn't it?

Yep. And our President:

In August, 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder — under continuous, aggressive prodding by the Obama White House — announced that three categories of individuals responsible for Bush-era torture crimes would be fully immunized from any form of criminal investigation and prosecution: (1) Bush officials who ordered the torture (Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld); (2) Bush lawyers who legally approved it (Yoo, Bybee, Levin), and (3) those in the CIA and the military who tortured within the confines of the permission slips they were given by those officials and lawyers (i.e., “good-faith” torturers). The one exception to this sweeping immunity was that low-level CIA agents and servicemembers who went so far beyond the torture permission slips as to basically commit brutal, unauthorized murder would be subject to a “preliminary review” to determine if a full investigation was warranted — in other words, the Abu Ghraib model of justice was being applied, where only low-ranking scapegoats would be subject to possible punishment while high-level officials would be protected.

Yesterday, it was announced that this “preliminary review” by the prosecutor assigned to conduct it, U.S. Attorney John Durham, is now complete, and — exactly as one would expect — even this category of criminals has been almost entirely protected, meaning a total legal whitewash for the Bush torture regime:

http://www.salon.com/2011/07/01/torture_51/

I'm getting hay fever from all the strawmen put up in this thread.

Cloud says

Dan speaks for a quarter of the worlds population, " The 141 million Russians and 1.3 billion Chinese don't seem to have a problem living with the acknowledgement that no god exists."

Wow. This is truly miraculous. Dan knows the thoughts and believes of 141 million Russians and a billion Chinese.

freak80 makes the ridiculous claim that the absent of belief in god makes life itself meaningless and I provide real-world empirical evidence that shows otherwise. Then two fools think I'm writing a dissertation on Russian psychology simply by pointing out that during the period of state-sponsored atheism Russians didn't commit mass suicide and they continued to have babies.

You guys really need to purchase another tool for your toolbox. The only arguments you ever make are Straw Man arguments, and that shows how weak your positions are. If you're positions had any real merit, you'd debate the real me not the imaginary one you right-wingers like to debate.

Well, at least that explains the Republican convention.

The thing is, on a forum, the chair can talk back.

"Uphold Science, Eradicate Superstition"

curious2 says

A Noble prize winner in physics (forget his name) said.....

The name you're looking for is Steven Weinberg, and there are two versions of the quote (one from a conference, the other from a subsequent article). The final version, from the article:

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion."

Thanks curious.

Cloud says

Steve Wein who?

he he he
Hard to keep up with so many brilliant atheist scientists, isn't it?
The next time a scientist invents something that makes your life better or even saves your life......remember it was probably an atheist.
:)

Cloud says

Still waiting for your list by the way...

What list? Are you still talking about a list of atheists? Just pick your scientists. And given the % of scientists who are atheist, perhaps you should stop posting about scientists from centuries ago who were believers. Times change.

Cloud says

Still waiting for your list by the way...

I already sent it. Not just 5, but hundreds.
Check comment #125.
For your convenience I am resending the list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_science_and_technology

Ah, that firm believer Einstein. I don't know how many scientists will be remembered, do I? Most people can only name a handful, if that, but that doesn't mean they haven't made enormous contributions to society. They have. Just list all the great scientists there have been in the last 50 years say and tell me how many of those are/were believers.
And I see you've resorted to name calling again. I'm not going to respond in kind - it would be too easy.

Cloud says

The reason no atheist here wants to hand love over to me is because they can't; and yet they use the word their whole misguided life.

You really are hung up about love aren't you?
what exactly do you want? A valentine card?

Raw says

Cloud says

The reason no atheist here wants to hand love over to me is because they can't; and yet they use the word their whole misguided life.

You really are hung up about love aren't you?
what exactly do you want?

Maybe Cloud's parents gave too much love to their god(s), and had none left for Cloud. It would be interesting to study whether religious parents are more likely to have excessively needy children. Along with the increased risk of child mortality associated with religions that refuse medical care, this might become an argument for prohibiting religious people from getting married, at least to each other. Personally, I support marriage equality, but some of the more religious posters don't.

Cloud? Does your God love this innocent child?
http://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2009/08/12/vulture-stalking-a-child/

Cloud, just grow up.

Parents shouldn't be allowed to brainwash their children with their ideology. Children should be brainwashed with MY ideology! ;-)

The First Amendment doesn't cover:
1. Threats of violence.
2. Slander and liable.
3. Cyberstalking.
4. False reporting of emergencies.
5. Perjury.
6. Violations of personal privacy including posting kiddie porn.
7. Corporate speech including spam.

Any comments that violate those rules will be deleted. So far, you have been the only person on any of my threads to violate any of those rules. As long as you don't violate those rules, you're free to post any bat-shit crazy thing you want. Of course, others are free to demonstrate how bat-shit crazy you are.

Anyone is free to argue that the First Amendment should cover one of the above exceptions, but given that the purpose of the First Amendment is to protect the citizens from government and keep government as honest and transparent as possible, I doubt there's much ground to make such a case as the exceptions all deal with protecting individual persons and their rights.

Cloud says

Dan, I just want to know if you think the government should protect in accordance with The First Amendment (with force if necessary) a person's right to assemble and have a religion?

Yes, if a armed person is shooting people for attending church, the government should take him down.

Conversely, if the any politician passes a law granting privileges to any religion or forcing a religious belief on any person, that politician should be banned from government.

Cloud says

By the way, interesting that this is the first of the Bill of Rights.

The whole reason it's in the Bill of Rights is that the founding fathers came from an England in which the Catholics and the protestants were actively slaughtering each other. The First Amendment is a reaction to that.

That said, the First Amendment does not mean that religion gets to be privileged. Nor does it mean that Christian mythology is allowed to determine secular legislation. Nor does it mean that the people can't actively call out religion for the bullshit it is and discourage such irrational thought and behavior.

Finally, when forced to choose between freedom of speech and freedom of religion by the religious, I'll always side with freedom of speech. Freedom of speech trumps freedom of religion. So when your religion prevents people from free speech as in the case of profanity on television and radio, free speech takes precedence. Freedom to marry whomever you want also takes precedence over other people's religion, and this includes gay marriage.

Dan8267 says

. Perjury.

Quick question Dan: In order to be convicted of purjury, do you have to be "under oath"? If so, who or what is the oath sworn to?

Bap33 says

do you have to be "under oath"?

Oath or affirmation, in a government setting, e.g. court testimony, judicial depositions, official investigations. For example, when a baseball player is required to testify before Congress, he is warned that if he lies he may be prosecuted for perjury. The oath or affirmation is to the forum itself, either judicial, legislative, or executive; the legal penalty is in essence for breach of a social contract.

There is no legal penalty for lying to a preacher though, so next time you go to confession, feel free to go nuts. "Father, last night three women and I got stuck at the top of a ferris wheel for five hours. The night before...."

Bap33 says

Dan8267 says

. Perjury.

Quick question Dan: In order to be convicted of purjury, do you have to be "under oath"? If so, who or what is the oath sworn to?

Not your god. Perjury is a crime because all parties involved in a testimony freely agree that it should be a crime to lie in the testimony. This is done so that all parties can have a certain degree of trust in each others statements regarding facts. The agreement is between the state and the parties making the agreement. There is no supernatural being necessary for this legal contract.

As a liberal, i.e. someone who believes in liberty and personal self-determination, I strongly hold the opinion that no one should be forced into such an agreement under any circumstances and that if they are, the agreement is not valid or even a real "agreement".

Hence, I do not support perjury charges on anything that you are forced to sign including IRS tax returns. Now, I'm not advocating lying on tax returns, but since you are forced to fill them out against your will, it should not carry a perjury charge. Actually, I don't think you should be forced to give government any information you don't want as it violates both the First and Fifth Amendments, but that's another story.

Similarly, I don't believe that people in court should be required to take an oath or answer all questions. A defendant should be able to choose which questions he/she wishes to answer and to what extent. The prosecution, however, should not since it's not their ass on the line.

Some folks really, really, need an ultimate authority figure to appeal to. Ironically, these people are usually the noisiest complaining about freedom:

"What, McDonalds has to post calorie information by law? That's an assault on freedom!"

thunderlips11 says

Some folks really, really, need an ultimate authority figure to appeal to. Ironically, these people are usually the noisiest complaining about freedom:

"What, McDonalds has to post calorie information by law? That's an assault on freedom!"

Homo Economicus. A Legendary Creature, like Bigfoot, claimed to exist by Pseudoscientists.

They appeal to authority when they try to get their draconian laws passed, but appeal to freedom when anyone places a reasonable restriction on business to protect the consumer, employee, or competition.

What are regulations? They are laws to prevent criminal behavior by corporations. But because the laws apply to corporations rather than the individuals, we call them "regulations" instead of "laws" and imply that they are a bad thing. Why don't we get rid of regulation of drug use, how much clothing one has to wear in pubic, and the content of speech on public airwaves?

But this goes back to why monotheists insist that there must be a god, but then also insist that there must be only one. If you have more than one god, they can disagree, which means they can disagree with the draconian propositions of the believer.

All the false arguments that our universe must have a creator would also apply to our universe having many creators. And doesn't cooperation in the creation of a complex thing make more sense than one entity doing it all?

@Patrick,

Hey, what happened to all the comments in this thread? The comment count shows 218, but there are no comments being displayed.

OK, fixed now. Thanks for telling me! It was a problem where deleting spam caused the comment number stored in the threads table to get out of sync with the real number of comments.

Please tell me about any more bugs to fix, or suggestions for improvement.

Dan8267 says

What are regulations? They are laws to prevent criminal behavior by corporations. But because the laws apply to corporations rather than the individuals, we call them "regulations" instead of "laws" and imply that they are a bad thing. Why don't we get rid of regulation of drug use, how much clothing one has to wear in pubic, and the content of speech on public airwaves?

Jesus Dan, this is gold.

Restrictions on personal behavior - upholding "standards of decency." (ie stopping shit I find "icky" or bothersome for some reason I can't exactly put my finger on but something to do with tradition.)

Restrictions on the use of property - an assault on freedom.

thunderlips11 says

"Uphold Science, Eradicate Superstition"

Whoever said that was trying to sell their own belief system.

There are many religious atheists. They are religiously rejecting other belief systems.

thunderlips11 says

Dan8267 says

But more dangerous. If religion takes off in Russia, it could cause them to be the next Afghanistan only with nukes.

Don't worry, it won't. It's just respect for tradition, and goes it mostly no deeper than St. Patrick's Day, Clovers, and Green Beer. Of course, there are always a few old farts that get all mystical as they approach death.

I think Putin thinks sponsoring Orthodoxy is important because the US is trying to encircle and fragment Russia, so it gives the Russians a piece of national identity. Not that I think the US project to break Russia into a thousand pieces has any chance of success either way.

When you compare the USA to the Nazis, it shows your ignorance. You are ignorant of the world Dan; very ignorant.

Truthplease says

When you compare the USA to the Nazis, it shows your ignorance. You are ignorant of the world Dan; very ignorant.

Who compared USA to the Nazis?

You want to see a real Nazi threat, take a look over here:
http://patrick.net/?p=1219684

Peter P says

There are many religious atheists. They are religiously rejecting other belief systems.

Keep fucking that chicken and I'll keep posting this retort.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/A41WZBcmnfc

If you can't demonstrate that Maher's analysis is wrong, then your assertion must be.

Truthplease says

When you compare the USA to the Nazis, it shows your ignorance. You are ignorant of the world Dan; very ignorant.

1. I did not compare the USA to the Nazis.

2. If I do compare the USA to the Nazis I'll have a damn good reason and if you cannot show that the reason is bad, then such a comparison is valid.

3. There are ways in which our government is like the Nazi regime For example, our government completely lacks respect for human life as demonstrated by the fact that our government tortured innocent people in Gitmo and other secret prisons. Now that's exactly the kind of values one would associate with Nazis.

One of the above images is from Nazi Germany, and the other is from Gitmo as ran by the USA. Notice the similarities.

OK, Truthplease, now that I've actually made a comparison between the USA and the Nazis, specifically that the US's use of torture centers mirrors the morality of the Nazis, let's see how use justify that torture done by the US is somehow morally superior to torture done by the Nazis.

Of course, you could live up to your handle, truthplease, and admit that the evils done by any nation are almost certainly by every other nation capable of getting away with it.

Oh, and if that example isn't enough... The Nazis are most well-known for genocide. Of course, their genocide was nowhere near the scope of the genocide committed by the United States against the Native Americans. Our government wiped out an entire continent of people. Oh, please challenge me on the premise that the US committed genocide. Please do. I'd love to go into detail about how our government has blocked international anti-genocide laws precisely because it knows it is guilty of genocide.

Peter P says

There are many religious atheists. They are religiously rejecting other belief systems.

Bill Maher via Dan already refuted this above.

I would add an issue of motivation. What you call "religiously rejecting" is, I think, more likely the political response to organized religion hijacking American government. It isn't about reciting "Jehovah doesn't exist" as a mantra expecting supernatural intervention from the ghost of Christopher Hitchens. The issue is that American government confers enormous subsidy and privilege upon anything the IRS certifies as a "bona fide" religion. Romney's cult has amassed over $30 billion and wields terrible political power. The Pope controls $2 billion personally plus the vast resources of the Vatican, plus the Knights of Columbus (basically the mafia, they don't even pretend to be a charity). Objecting to their influence is like objecting to the more far-fetched claims of chiropractic. Public money shouldn't be subsidizing organizations that take $ under false pretenses. And, on the subject of money, for most of American history it didn't all say "In God we trust." The founders rejected religious mottoes in favor of "e pluribus unum" (out of many, one) and the more ambiguous "annuit coeptis" (the eye of providence is watching). The original pledge of allegiance did not say "one nation under god," it said "one nation indivisible." The currency and pledge were deliberately changed in the 1950s for the sole purpose of fusing American and religious symbols. When any organized lobby tries to take over the government, which belongs to everyone, it is logical to expect a reaction. BTW, only two groups of people are exempt from Obamacare's insurance mandate: illegal aliens and adherents of "bona fide" religions recognized by the IRS who object on religious grounds; no other objection is permitted, only "bona fide" religious objection.

Wrong Dan, that picture isn't Gitmo. That picture is Abu ghraib. I am sure you believe Abu ghraib is just like the nazi death camps. In that case, you are wrong. The USA's morality isn't even relevant guy, the nazis purposely tried to extinguish a race of people. Abu ghraib was more like the Stanford prison experiment. www.prisonexp.org

We don't have any info on Gitmo. We only have the government's word. We do have people who were wrongfully imprisoned AND tortured trying to sue the US government, but not getting anywhere because the Judges fall for the National Security BS and dismiss their claims as too harmful to national security to be revealed.

That means to me they have a leg to stand on.

BTW, we hung Japanese Officers for waterboarding. WW2 Vets must be turning in their grave.