patrick.net

Dan, this is the reason why a society needs Christianity or some other "-ism". The stupid people (read: CIC and friends), need to believe that they are saved, if they follow a doctrine, Messiah, or even a cult of bozos like themselves.

But then, the smarter folks, live their lives w/o needing a church to validate their existence. If you remember one of the tenets of Huxley's 'Brave New World', the leader Mustapha Mond made sure that the masses had their bread and circuses, while he got in indulge in the arts and literature, w/o it destabilizing society.

And for the most part, I concur with the above. Ppl are stupid. Think about how many ppl had entered the financial services sector, just to burn their bonuses on cars and houses. What percent of them went into the sciences, arts, or literature, as a result of being free of having to work for a living? And that's the mass of humanity.. fucking losers.

The atheistic human race will gravitate back toward some other form of all encompassing and unprovable "truth" - like genetic reassignment, quantum Internet, or climate change 2.0. Reject deity but bow down to East Anglia Climate Research. Another day another god. I personally am going back to worshipping the Sun. It makes complete sense scientifically.

But today's Islamic radicals (whom I define as those who would push for Sharia law) need to wake up and smell the 19th Century. Eh...maybe I'm wrong and a good strict Don't-Rape-Strangers Class will clear the whole messy problem up. Those signs with a guy' hand reaching for a girl's butt - with a big black line across it are an excellent start. Don't be surprised if "guns" are used to correct the problem - even over there in liberally enlightened Europe.

Dan8267 says

Bullshit. It is a false dichotomy to state that one must choose between Christianity and Islam.

Not a false dichotomy. It was history. It is a damn good thing that our Christian ancestors were strong enough in their religion and culture to keep the Islamic mind virus of infecting the West.

Dan8267 says

In fact, the existence of Christianity makes a society more susceptible to Islam than an atheistic society.

Right - have you been paying attention to what has been happening in Europe lately? The Post-Christian societies can't even be bothered to breed to maintain a sustainable population. No kids, not future. Now they are busy importing primitive Muslims and learning to live with Islam's intolerance and backwardness.

Dan8267 says

Meanwhile, the lifespan of human beings has literally doubled as science, once outlawed by Christian law, has replaced faith in all matters.

The smug ignorance is staggering.

"Following the Fall of Rome, monasteries and convents remained bastions of scholarship in Western Europe and clergymen were the leading scholars of the age - studying nature, mathematics and the motion of the stars (largely for religious purposes).[citation needed] During the Middle Ages, the Church founded Europe's first universities, producing scholars like Robert Grosseteste, Albert the Great, Roger Bacon and Thomas Aquinas, who helped establish scientific method.[citation needed] During this period, the Church was also a great patron of engineering for the construction of elaborate cathedrals. Since the Renaissance, Catholic scientists have been credited as fathers of a diverse range of scientific fields: Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744–1829) prefigured the theory of evolution with Lamarckism; Friar Gregor Mendel (1822–84) pioneered genetics and Fr Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966) proposed the Big Bang cosmological model.[citation needed] The Jesuits have been particularly active, notably in astronomy. Church patronage of sciences continues through elite institutions like the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and Vatican Observatory."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science

Dan8267 says

By the way, for 1600 of the 2000 years of Christianity, which is 80% of Christian history, Christians were just as barbaric as Muslims are today.

Nope. Not even close.

Dan8267 says

The more Christianity has been weakened, the more peaceful, productive, and happy society has become.

Soviet Union being a great example - right? China under Mao? Laos under Pol Pot? North Korea under Kim? Cuba under Castro?

socal2 says

Finally, I think it is funny that Liberals/Progressives (what ever you call yourself these days) seem absolutely incapable of criticizing Islam's obvious problems, misogyny, patriarchy, intolerance and bigotry without trying to dump on other religions that have managed to accept pluralism and live peacefully with each other. Do you do this out of knee jerk liberal political correctness? Do you do it out of fear? Ignorance?

this is definitely funny and interesting. is it just the poverty of the immigrants, like P N Dr Lo R suggested?

or the fact that they are ethnic and exotic from the western point of view? could it be that anything at all that is not traditionally western will be glorified by the PC crowd?

why is fundamentalist christianity dumped on so hard for relatively trivial things like not believing in evolution, while at the same time not a word comes from the left about the truly unspeakable horrors committed daily in the name of islam?

the next mass murder of random innocent people by muslims in the name of islam will likely happen today or tomorrow somewhere, probably somewhere america's foreign policy is utterly irrelevant. and again, there will be not a peep of disapproval by the same people who so intensely hate christianity. why exactly is this?

Rin says

Dan, this is the reason why a society needs Christianity or some other "-ism". The stupid people (read: CIC and friends), need to believe that they are saved, if they follow a doctrine, Messiah, or even a cult of bozos like themselves.

The solution to that is to prevent stupid people from breeding. Otherwise, you are simply allowing the gene pool to be polluted and making life harder and less safe for future generations. Revolving society around the most stupid of people is never a good idea.

Strong laws and isolating the violent so they cannot reproduce is also effective.

Rin says

Ppl are stupid

Ah, but why are people stupid? For 10,000+ years stupidity and superstition has been strongly encouraged while atheism and rationalism has been weeded out of the gene pool. It's time to do the opposite.

deepcgi says

The atheistic human race will gravitate back toward some other form of all encompassing and unprovable "truth" - like genetic reassignment, quantum Internet, or climate change 2.0.

That is just a retarded statement. People become atheists because they value evidence and proof. And genetics, quantum mechanics, and climate change are provable and proven. Again, only brainwashed idiots deny man-made climate change, and it's no coincidence that 100% of these brainwashed idiots are religious.

deepcgi says

Soviet Union being a great example - right? China under Mao? Laos under Pol Pot? North Korea under Kim? Cuba under Castro?

Dan usually resorts to name calling and sexual attacks when these facts are brought up. He's fairly predictable that way.

"There are none so blind as those who refuse to see."

Dan8267 says

Revolving society around the most stupid of people is never a good idea.

Strong laws and isolating the violent so they cannot reproduce is also effective.

Well... we live in a 'No Retard Left Behind' type of culture.

socal2 says

Dan8267 says

Bullshit. It is a false dichotomy to state that one must choose between Christianity and Islam.

Not a false dichotomy. It was history

No, it's not history that people must choose either Christianity or Islam.

And atheism and agnosticism are growing exponentially.

socal2 says

It is a damn good thing that our Christian ancestors were strong enough in their religion and culture to keep the Islamic mind virus of infecting the West.

It's a damn bad thing that Christianity held Europe in the Dark Ages for a thousand years. Had rationalism, naturalism, and atheism taken over Europe in 300 A.D., Europe would have had stealth bombers, ICBMs, and nuclear weapons by the time Islam was even invented and Muslims were riding camels and throwing spears. The Middle East would have followed the same path as the Native Americans only quicker.

socal2 says

Dan8267 says

Meanwhile, the lifespan of human beings has literally doubled as science, once outlawed by Christian law, has replaced faith in all matters.

The smug ignorance is staggering.

Once again, you are caught making blatantly false statements. In contrast, I do not have to make any false statements to support my position.

socal2 says

Dan8267 says

By the way, for 1600 of the 2000 years of Christianity, which is 80% of Christian history, Christians were just as barbaric as Muslims are today.

Nope. Not even close.

OK, so let's discard 1600 years of history because you say "nope, not even close". That's not how arguments work.

Christians committed torture, rape, enslavement, and genocide throughout their reign. And it's only been three generations since most, but not all, of this shit has stopped. Your denial is simply a lie.

socal2 says

Dan8267 says

The more Christianity has been weakened, the more peaceful, productive, and happy society has become.

Soviet Union being a great example - right? China under Mao? Laos under Pol Pot? North Korea under Kim? Cuba under Castro?

So, I point out that the United States of America has gotten far better as the power of Christianity has waned, and you have to resort to the false association of the Soviet Union, China, and North Korea as "atheist" states to respond to this fact. Well, that is simply disingenuous. It's time you read my classic thread, Tom Selleck and Charlie Chaplin are the most dangerous despots ever.

Once again, those who support religion have to resort to repeating debunked lies because there is nothing in history to support their ridiculous assertions.

this is definitely funny and interesting. is it just the poverty of the immigrants, like P N Dr Lo R suggested?

I think it is a combination of many things. A big part is Western self-hatred and the belief of the "Noble Savage" taught in our schools. Basically believing Islam wouldn't be so fucked up if Europeans and Americans didn't "meddle" with them. Totally not realizing that Islam has been a retrograde force and aggressor since it's founding and that primitive people weren't that noble in the Middle East, Africa, Asia and North America.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage

The other major part is that if they criticize Islam specifically, they MUST concede that Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism (Western Civilization) are superior in many respects and atheist fanatics like Dan can't concede a single inch that these other religious beliefs provided humanity any good at all.

this is definitely funny and interesting. is it just the poverty of the immigrants, like P N Dr Lo R suggested?

Poverty and income inequality are the two greatest causes of violent crime in the United States because the other major causes of violent crimes have been effectively addressed. However, the crimes committed by the Muslim immigrants is almost certainly not caused by poverty or income inequality, but rather by the culture of violence and selfishness created by unrestrained religious fever. Religion requires faith which is mutually exclusive with rational thought.

Rational thought is an effective means of creating a peaceful, productive, and just society. It may not be obvious why this is as sometimes it is rational to be evil depending on your values, but empirically rational people throughout society and rational societies have been statistically more peaceful and just than irrational ones. The mechanism for this certainly warrants study, but the evidence is so overwhelming that it's obvious.

could it be that anything at all that is not traditionally western will be glorified by the PC crowd?

The PC crowd, i.e. the left, loves to glorify non-Western cultures because they falsely think that doing so makes them look cultured and enlightened. It doesn't. Hollywood will glorify Gandhi and Buddhism even though Gandhi was extremely racist and real Buddhism would be offensive to Hollywood and vice versa.

However, the left are not liberals. As a liberal and as a rationalist, I have no problem saying that western culture is far superior to Middle East culture or eastern Asian culture. The only problem with the west is that our societies have rarely lived up to our ideals, but thankfully that is changing with each decade. The entire history of the United States can be viewed as a barbaric and tyrannical society gradually becoming like the society it likes to pretend it is. So I'm hopeful about the future of western society.

why is fundamentalist christianity dumped on so hard for relatively trivial things like not believing in evolution, while at the same time not a word comes from the left about the truly unspeakable horrors committed daily in the name of islam?

An easy way to tell liberals and the left apart is that a leftist won't criticize Islam and a liberal won't stop criticizing it. Of course, we liberals reserve the right to criticize Christianity, the dominate religion in our society, as well since it's more relevant to our lives and our laws.

the next mass murder of random innocent people by muslims in the name of islam will likely happen today or tomorrow somewhere

The best way to defeat Islam is to defeat all religions by creating a unified western culture of rationalism, naturalism, atheism, and liberalism. Unfortunately, I can't come up with a descent acronym for this. Ideas anyone?

Rin says

Well... we live in a 'No Retard Left Behind' type of culture.

Best counterargument ever made against any of my positions.

Dan8267 says

The best way to defeat Islam is to defeat all religions

It doesn't even dawn on Dan that he shares ISIS' goals of defeating all other religions.

Militant atheists like Dan are ISIS' useful idiots in the West by constantly projecting Islam's dysfunction on millions of peaceful and tolerant Christians, Jews and Hindus. Dan8267 says

Unfortunately, I can't come up with a descent acronym for this. Ideas anyone?

It was called Communism. How did that work out for humanity?

"The state was committed to the destruction of religion,[2][3] and destroyed churches, mosques and temples, ridiculed, harassed, incarcerated and executed religious leaders, flooded the schools and media with atheistic teachings, and generally promoted atheism as the truth that society should accept.[4][5] The total number of Christian victims of Soviet state atheist policies, has been estimated to range between 12-20 million.[6][7][8]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union

socal2 says

It doesn't even dawn on Dan that he shares ISIS' goals of defeating all other religions.

I'm well aware of that, which is exactly why the very core of religion, faith itself, must be defeated.

socal2 says

Militant atheists like Dan are ISIS' useful idiots in the West by constantly projecting Islam's dysfunction on millions of peaceful and tolerant Christians, Jews and Hindus

1. How the fuck am I militant?
2. Why should anyone take your opinion of others seriously when you are clearly an idiot yourself?
3. Faith is, by definition, a dysfunction. The belief in spite of reason is mentally dysfunctional.
4. Christianity has a 1600-year history of being extremely evil and a 400-year history of becoming less evil solely because it has become less powerful.
5. Do you believe Jesus is a god who rose from the dead and is all-knowing and all-powerful? Because if you do, then you are clearly insane and have no grasp on reality. And that is why your opinion on any subject matter carries no weight. In comparison to you, someone who thinks he's Napoleon is sane and reasonable.

socal2 says

It was called Communism.

Communism was not rationalism, atheism, naturalism, or liberalism. Nope, not even atheism. Sure, the Soviet Union outlawed religion, but that had nothing to do with Communism. Cuba was and still is Communistic and it is very religious. Once again, mustaches don't make people dictators, you fool. The fact that you are incapable of understanding this simple truth demonstrates how warped your mind is and why no one should ever listen to you.

Dan8267 says

The best way....

Dan, I agree in part: the best argument against Islam is reason, including pointing out objectively that Islam makes cultures worse off than they were before they became infected with it. In contrast, Christian W's global "crusade" made matters worse, especially since he claimed to "respect" Islam and seemed to be working primarily for Bandar Bush.

However, many people feel a need for religion, e.g. the elderly widow who has nothing left but the hope of being eventually reunited with her husband. Calling her stupid for failing to recognize the hopelessness of her situation doesn't really help. At best, one might point out that paying charlatans won't improve her chances, and she should think rather of her family and community.

Another way might be to encourage Muslims to study their own history and consider the religions that worked best for their ancestors.

Regarding Christianity and western Europe, you could really extend your argument further. Much has been written about why Rome fell, but one huge reason was the imposition of Christianity as the official religion. Rome rose as a republic with freedom of religion, continued to prosper as an empire with officially divine emperors, then became Christian, then fell. Neitzsche would say that the conversion to Christianity replaced master morality with slave morality. The consequent weakening of Roman ideals created a power vacuum, allowing both Christianity and Islam to rise. Eventually, Christians dismissed the original deities of Hadrian's Pantheon as "pagan filth" (reminds me of ISIL/Daesh smashing Roman artifacts at Palmyra) and replaced them with Christian saints, and it took 1,000 years for anybody to build a dome surpassing it (Brunelleschi's duomo in Florence, with help from Davinci). Although today's Christians blame irreligion for the western European doormat attitude towards Islam, I think it results more from what Neitzsche would call Christian slave morality, idolizing self-sacrifice. When the Danes enacted legislation saying refugees who could afford to pay for their own housing should do so, other Europeans criticized them for being "selfish", instead of sharing the burden of supporting the Muslims (and thus Islam). Expecting people to sacrifice themselves in service to hostile enemy invaders makes no sense in any other moral system that I have ever seen, except Christianity. Also, Saudi patronage of NATO politicians and military-industrial contractors greases the wheels, shall we say. If Rome had stuck with its various deities and quarrels, or even if Rome had stuck with divine emperors, then it might have continued to rule the west and the period of Islamic conquest might never have happened.

America's founders chose expressly Roman symbols as the model for the new republic, and although they acknowledged their Christian heritage, they stated expressly that the new government should have no religious test of office, and should make no law respecting an establishment of religion - nor restricting the free exercise thereof. ISIL/Daesh have declared war on what they call "Rome", i.e. the west, including us. They use "Rome" as an insult, but I take it as a compliment, because Rome achieved the greatest civilization the world had ever known, and the greatest the world ever saw until the west surpassed it, which took 1,000 years to do.

Our ironic "alliance" with the Saudis reflects shared interests, but not shared values. They aspire to establish an Islamic caliphate. They say quite openly, even on their flag, "there is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet." Their flag literally underlines that assertion with a sword, similar to the ones they use to behead apostates and blasphemers. Yet, for some reason, western leaders blind themselves to the Saudi flag that is literally right in front of them. "Money changes everything:" "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

Dan8267 says

By the way, for 1600 of the 2000 years of Christianity, which is 80% of Christian history, Christians were just as barbaric as Muslims are today. The past 20% has been improved only by weakening Christianity and that false religion's grip on state power and cultural influence. The more Christianity has been weakened, the more peaceful, productive, and happy society has become.

Just reading about Vasco de Gama. He set fire to a pilgrimage ship after he looted it, with infants and babies on board, in the name of Portugal and the Holy Family.

curious2 says

Pantheon as "pagan filth" (reminds you of ISIL/Daesh smashing Roman artifacts at Palmyra) and replaced them with Christian saints, and it took 1,000 years for anybody to build a dome surpassing it (Bruneleschi's duomo in Florence, with help from Davinci).

Interesting! The Pantheon is still the world's largest unsupported concrete dome, never surpassed. I had thought some train station in Victorian England surpassed it, but it's dome is supported.

curious2 says

However, many people feel a need for religion, e.g. the elderly widow who has nothing left but the hope of being eventually reunited with her husband.

Religion is like a narcotic or alcohol. Sure it may make you feel better in the short-term, but there are serious consequences to drinking or smoking crack to escape your problems. Although I have sympathy for people who want to delude themselves to avoid psychological pain, religion is not the optimal way of doing this. Smoking weed is just as effective of a false emotional high without all the negative consequences of religion. It would make far more sense to smoke weed or even drink or smoke crack than to engage in religion.

As for the hope of being reunited with loved ones, false hope is not better than no hope. It is better to reach the acceptance stage of grieving than to dwell in denial. The consequences of denial are grave.

12-year-old girl kills herself because of the lie of an afterlife

A 12-year-old girl whose father died, takes her own life in order to see her father again. Of course, she does not get to see her father again because there is no afterlife. Sure, the lie of the afterlife might numb the pain of loss for a child, but if that child actually believes the lie, she might act on it as this poor girl did.

Now, this isn't about blame. It's about not repeating the same mistake. Stop telling children the lie about there being an afterlife. The lie does far more damage than good.

All the false comfort in all of history that the lie of an afterlife offered is outweighed by this one girl's death. The tally is negative for this alone, and I doubt very much that this is the first time in history someone has wasted his or her life because of the afterlife lie. It's just the first indisputable proof we've seen.

Worst still, the negative consequence of religion are not born by the religious alone. The costs are born by all of society and by future generations who are infected with the plague and whose societies and social justice are harmed by religion. For example, we are still bearing the cost of slavery, which in dollars alone, ignoring all the human suffering, outweighs the financial gains of slavery by many orders of magnitude.

curious2 says

Regarding Christianity and western Europe, you could really extend your argument further. Much has been written about why Rome fell, but one huge reason was the imposition of Christianity as the official religion. Rome rose as a republic with freedom of religion, continued to prosper as an empire within officially divine emperors, then became Christian, then fell.

I agree that Christianity contributed to the fall of Rome, and I agree that it was not the only cause as well. Rome was an evil empire. In fact, there has never been an empire in all of human history that has not been evil, including the United States. Empires by their nature are evil. I think Rome would most likely still have fallen without Christianity, but it would have taken longer. By demanding conquest and expansion of the religion, Christianity spurred Rome to overexpand and pay and equip mercenaries, much like the U.S. is doing now. Actually, there are a lot of parallels between the U.S. today and Rome right before the fall.

Dan8267 says

Actually, there are a lot of parallels between the U.S. today and Rome right before the fall.

As usual, my best insights are often thought of by others before me.

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/26/8_striking_parallels_between_the_u_s_and_the_roman_empire/

Ironman says

the immature folks have to come on Patnet once a week, starting new threads, trying to validate their pathetic existence in life.

Said by a man, who's here daily (and sometimes more than daily), bickering with Dan and others, constantly looking to push his P.O.V onto others. What a hypocrite!

At least I have job.

Dan8267 says

Religion is like a narcotic or alcohol.

It is the opiate of the masses, but if you look at Prohibition and the "War on Drugs," you might consider that you can't save people from themselves.

Dan8267 says

Rome was

an empire, providing Europeans plenty of clean potable water and consequently better health than they would see again for 1,000 years. Without your health, you have nothing. It had problems too, e.g. asbestos miners were known to suffer the conditions we now call asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma. But really, if you compare Europe before and immediately after the fall of the Roman empire, most people would say the empire was better. Your own chart showing urban populations illustrates the point: most of those people chose to live in Roman cities when they could, then fled reluctantly when the cities fell.

Dan8267 says

we are still bearing the cost of slavery,

Most of the ongoing "cost" attributed to slavery results largely from the war on drugs, which in practice and by specific intent is a partial repeal of the 13th and 15th Amendments. The drug war was specifically motivated by a desire to incarcerate black Americans (including a particularly bizarre obsession with Billie Holiday). Populations recover from old wounds if allowed to heal. The drug war inflicts, deliberately, repetitive injuries with no chance to recover. Forget about reparations, just end the drug war, and you'll see most of the ongoing "cost" evaporate swiftly.

I would say the Rule of Law, Democracy and Free Enterprise are still our best hope. But the Rule of Law has to apply to individuals, cities, states, nations, leaders, the wealthy and international banks, no matter how large.

As far as the Rule of Reason is concerned, Quantum Physics research is turning the world on its head. However, it isn't only the religious world that finds itself upside down. It is the scientific world as well. It is most likely telling us that consciousness precedes chemistry - and that the modern scientific foundation of Determinism is incomplete at best.
What the elite should probably fear most is both the transparency AND the secrecy that will come from quantum encryption. It will work. In fact, it already works. And it will be affordable. Oh dear.

Dan8267 says

Sure, the Soviet Union outlawed religion, but that had nothing to do with Communism.

Huh? Outlawing religion had *NOTHING* to do with Communism? Why on earth do you think the Commies in the Soviet Union went through the great effort and cost to demolish Churches and Synagogues and persecute/murder religious people? The Communists spanning several countries make ISIS look like pikers in terms of the number of Churches and Synagogues (let alone human lives) they destroyed. The Communists didn't want all those "irrational" religious types competing morally or philosophically in the public square with all those "rational sophisticate" atheists ruling us in the government. So they used the awesome power of the State to destroy religious belief.

If there is nothing else that is good about religious influence in America and the West, is to temper and compete with the dangerous ideologue fanatics like you from infesting our government and imposing your rationality or moral on us. The fanatic zeal is really not much different than ISIS.

You are so blind or historically ignorant of this reality that you are even using Karl Marx locutions "Religion is a narcotic". But sure, Communism/Marxism banning and persecuting religious people has NOTHING to do with Communism and militant atheism.

"The Soviet regime had an ostensible commitment to the complete annihilation of religious institutions and ideas.[10] Militant atheism was central to the ideology of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union[11] and a high priority of all Soviet leaders.[3] Convinced atheists were considered to be more virtuous individuals than those of religious belief.[3]

The state established atheism as the only scientific truth.[12][13][14][15][16][17][unreliable source?] Soviet authorities forbade the criticism of atheism or of the state's anti-religious policies; such criticism could lead to forced retirement, arrest and/or imprisonment.[18][19][20]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union

curious2 says

It is the opiate of the masses, but if you look at Prohibition and the "War on Drugs," you might consider that you can't save people from themselves.

With one big difference. When parents get their 5-year-olds drunk, we arrest them.

curious2 says

an empire, providing Europeans plenty of clean potable water and consequently better health than they would see again for 1,000 years.

But really, if you compare Europe before and immediately after the fall of the Roman empire, most people would say the empire was better.

That's true, but the good the Roman Empire did was not the result of their evil actions (mass murder, rape, torture, slavery). The good came from Roman engineers. The most important Roman was the one who invented concrete. He, she, or (most likely) they were far more important than all the emperors and senators combined.

My point is that the good things accomplished by empires including the Romans are not accomplished by empirical policy and military might, with the sometimes exception of peacekeeping, but by STEM workers, the engineers, mathematicians, and the precursors of scientists who were called natural philosophers. And none of those groups are dependent on empire building.

curious2 says

Most of the ongoing "cost" attributed to slavery results largely from the war on drugs, which in practice and by specific intent is a partial repeal of the 13th and 15th Amendments.

True, but I would add a significant cost in the form of systemic intergenerational poverty requiring spending on social safety nets like public housing, welfare, food programs as well as crime fighting costs and loss of economic opportunity both of which are the consequence of poverty.

socal2 says

Dan8267 says

Sure, the Soviet Union outlawed religion, but that had nothing to do with Communism.

Huh? Outlawing religion had *NOTHING* to do with Communism?

That's right. Cuba, as I have stated in my prior post, is Communistic and highly religious. Here are some other examples.

- Mustaches have nothing to do with Nazism.
- The color red is not in itself communistic.
- Being a short French person does not mean one is likely to invade Russia during the winter.
- Wearing spandex does not give one mutant super powers.

Correlation, particularly very rare correlations like sample sets of carnality one, does not imply causality.

I am a hard-core atheist. That does not mean I believe in Communism as a political or economic institution. Nor does it mean that my politics are even remotely like the Soviet Union. There is no relationship between rejecting the existence of fictional gods and establishing a cold war superpower. To imply so is ridiculous and people who do so should be ridiculed.

Again, this was explained in detailed in the thread Tom Selleck and Charlie Chaplin are the most dangerous despots ever.

Stalin was coincidentally an atheist and would have been a fucking asshole even if he were Christian. The motherfuckers in the Inquisition tortured people directly because of their religion. Totally different. To attempt to imply that Communism is evidence that atheism is bad is disingenuous. To attempt to imply that the Spanish Inquisition is evidence that religion is bad is not.

Furthermore, atheists do not follow Stalin, or praise him, or in any way agree with him. Ask any atheist what he thinks of Stalin, and he'll say Stalin was one of the worst people in history and the world is far better off without him.

In contrast, throughout history up to and including today, billions of religious people fervently support the evil advocated by religious leaders.

Like always, you are wrong because you are willfully ignorant. The key word being willfully.

Dan8267 says

I am a hard-core atheist.

You mean there are degrees? Are hard cores the ones who are angry all the time (they all seem to be)? What do you think Madelyn Murray O'Hair was?

Pagan Ancient Rome was incredibly better. It's absolutely irrefutable from Archaeology. A Roman Slave lived better than a well-off Medieval peasant. Even the stables had standardized, mass-produced, tile roofs located a hundred miles up winding hillside roads from where they were made - or a thousand miles away by sea.

Huge watermills built near the farmland, with the water to power them brought in via miles of concrete and iron aqueduct.

There's copper coins all over Hadrian's Wall, at the very extreme point of the Roman Empire, the border with the untamed barbarian North. Humble soldiers and travellers used them to pay for food and lodging, coinage didn't enter everyday ordinary life in Europe again for almost 1000 years.

When a slave tripped and broke amphorae in Britain, imported from Catalonia overseas, nobody gave a shit, they had a ton of them just like it. A few hundred years later, and those very same jugs were buried with Christian Anglo-Saxon Kings as "high status" goods. Stuff that slaves used to keep their food in.

P N Dr Lo R says

You mean there are degrees?

Yes.

The belief and disbelief in supernatural entities including gods spans a wide spectrum including the following:

Strong Monotheism - the belief in a particular deity and only that deity
Strong Polytheism - the belief in multiple particular deities
Weak Monotheism - the belief in a single, but largely unknown or unspecified deity
Weak Polytheism - the belief that there are gods, but no particular allegiance
Vague Monotheism - the belief in some kind of creation force, but not necessarily a conscious one or moral authority
God of the Gaps - the belief in some intelligence to fill in the gaps of knowledge
Weak Agnosticism - the belief that we cannot know whether or not there is one or many gods until we die and have proof
Strong Agnosticism - the belief that we cannot ever know if a god exist even if it reveals itself because it's impossible even in principle to prove that oneself is god and not merely really powerful.
Weak Atheism - the disbelief in all gods ever proposed, which is simply taking monotheism one god further
Strong Atheism - the disbelief in all possible gods even ones that have not been proposed

Is that too advance of a concept for you?

P N Dr Lo R says

Are hard cores the ones who are angry all the time (they all seem to be)?

No. Nor do they seem to be. You are simply trying to make an unfounded ad hominem attack on a group of people you don't like. You are asserting that atheists are angry and thus unlikable and therefore no one should listen to them. This is simply a bigoted lie motivated by a disingenuous political agenda. It's no different than the racist claim that all black men are angry and dangerous, and you should be ashamed of using such an attack.

P N Dr Lo R says

What do you think Madelyn Murray O'Hair was?

If you are trying to judge all atheists based on your perception of one atheist, that is the very definition of bigotry. It is also extremely stupid.

Would you judge all white people based on Hitler?

If you are trying to argue that O'Hair was advocating bad policy, then grow a pair of balls and outright state which policies you think were bad and why. Do note that I am under no obligation to agree with everything every atheist in history has ever said. That would be impossible anyway.

What O'Hair is most famous for is a legal challenge to the words "Under God" being added to the American Pledge of Allegiance as it was a clear violation of the First Amendment prohibition on the government sponsoring religions, particularly Christian religions. She was 100% correct. This phrase was added in the 1950s as a way of stating that America was morally superior to the Soviet Union because America was Christian. Thus the addition of the phrase was a clear Unconstitutional endorsement of religion by the government and a violation of the religious freedom of all Americans including Christians who are smart enough to realize that they had the right to opt out of their religion.

Of course, the American Pledge of Allegiance, and in fact all pledges of allegiance, is wicked, vile, and evil. Good does not require loyalty pledges. Only evil does. And requiring children to say the Pledge of Allegiance is blatant brainwashing and is antithetical to the principles of democracy, liberty, and an educated and just society.

thunderlips11 says

There's copper coins all over Hadrian's Wall

Interesting tidbit about Hadrian's Wall. It wasn't built to keep barbarians out of Roman Britain, but rather to keep Rome from being politically pressured by politicians to expand even further. The thing about walls is that they don't move. They have a fixed location. So Hadrian could justify not expanding Rome's reach further and expending unnecessary resources for little gain and risking over-expansion.

socal2 says

Dan - did those nations become "great" after they gave up Christianity? Really? Imagine what Europe would look like today without Christianity.

You can't ask Dan to imagine that. In his mind he sees a very different world, he's a communist. He can't understand that without Christianity principles of "love thy neighbor" you only get a society where dog eats dog, where exploitation of human race for the benefit of the government is the norm. He doesn't understand how society needs to be raised on moral principles so that it would not fall into decadence and decay like we are falling into today.

Dan8267 says

thunderlips11 says

There's copper coins all over Hadrian's Wall

Interesting tidbit about Hadrian's Wall. It wasn't built to keep barbarians out of Roman Britain....

Yes it was, along with the other purpose you mention, and (crucially) more. First, the construction project kept the legions busy, because Hadrian knew that idle hands do the devil's work, especially in the military. Second, it gave Roman soldiers a secure place to live, with the equivalent of garrison towns all along the border. (Even engineers need security Dan, because you can't design and build much if barbarians kill you.) Third, it was by far the most impressive construction project the barbarians had ever seen, and in addition to providing Roman soldiers a formidable defense, it made a hugely powerful statement to deter raids: don't dare mess with an empire that can literally wall off entire countries.

In contrast, Germany's Christian Democrat leaders prefer to throw their coins like a trail of bread crumbs for the barbarians to follow, and prostrate themselves like doormats with a big "WELCOME" sign on their backs. Such is what Neitzsche would call the change of morality from master to slave, pagan Roman to Christian. The Romans believed and proved, "our civilization is better and our beliefs are better, and if you don't like it then stay the hell out you barbarian fools." The Scots, even more stubborn then than now, stayed out for 1,000 years.

But you do have a point: Hadrian wasn't hell bent on bankrupting the treasury to "improve" the whole world. Though he had risen through the ranks of the military, like Eisenhower, he wasn't beholden to the military industrial complex. If the barbarians wanted to live primitively and watch their children die prematurely on the moors, Hadrian didn't try to save them from themselves.

Dan8267 says

systemic intergenerational poverty

I had considered that cost and the best way I can explain it is by reference to your own charts above on life expectancy. Most of the gain in doubling life expectancy came from reducing childhood mortality. Even when average life expectancy at birth was 40, most people didn't die at 40; if they survived past the age of 10, most tended to live to around 70. When you average two different data sets, you can get a muddled and misleading result.

Ditto the "costs" ("intergenerational poverty") that you misattribute to slavery. In 1865, former slaves had nothing but their freedom, just like many of the Irish immigrants who arrived in 1848, and many immigrants through Ellis Island into the 20th century. The differences since then result from Jim Crow followed intentionally by the "drug war", which took off in earnest after black Americans began succeeding conspicuously. And seriously, the personal obsession with Billie Holiday. Federal programs intended supposedly to help had also perverse incentives and adverse consequences, including for example the story of the Pruitt Igoe housing project. Most of the deck gets re-shuffled every three generations or so, but the drug war continues to inflict deliberate injury, and that produces an adversely affected data set (e.g. prisoners fixing Chris Christie's broken office chairs for no money, unable to support their own kids), which in turn pulls down the averages. Racists blame the lower averages on allegedly lower intelligence, while others blame it on slavery, but it results mainly from ongoing policies including especially the drug war.

A lot of the "barbarians" freely passed through gates in Hadrian's wall to trade with the Romans and many lived on the Roman side of the walls in little villages that sprung up along the wall.

Roman legions were also quite effective at using encampments and palisades to guarantee security. Palisades are much more effective than a long horizontal wall and they can be built far easier and more quickly than walls.

So I think the wall's military function was more symbolic than strategic, and it's political function was more important.

curious2 says

Most of the gain in doubling life expectancy came from reducing childhood mortality. Even when average life expectancy at birth was 40, most people didn't die at 40; if they survived past the age of 10, most tended to live to around 70.

Science hasn't slow down the aging process. We still age at the same rate as our Stone Age ancestors.

However, science, technological, and social progress made possible by the waning of religion has
- reduced the deaths of women in child labor
- reduced the per capita murder rate which devastate young men throughout history
- reduced war and famine which killed many children and many adults
- improved sanitation greatly reducing disease and plagues
- created antibiotics which saved many lives

When you add that all together, you get a hell of a fewer people dying between the ages of 20 and 50.

curious2 says

Ditto the "costs" ("intergenerational poverty") that you misattribute to slavery. As of 1865, former slaves had nothing but their freedom, just like many of the Irish immigrants who arrived in 1848, and many immigrants through Ellis Island into the 20th century. The differences result from Jim Crow followed intentionally by the "drug war", which took off in earnest after black Americans began succeeding conspicuously

I consider the racist policies like segregation, Jim Crow, and the war on drugs to be consequences of America's slavery-laden history.

curious2 says

But you do have a point: Hadrian wasn't hell bent on bankrupting the treasury to "improve" the whole world. Though he had risen through the ranks of the military, like Eisenhower, he wasn't beholden to the military industrial complex.

Yes, Hardian does seem similar to Eisenhower in that way. Perhaps that's why I like them both.

Dan8267 says

America's slavery-laden history.

And yet America is the only country in history that recognized the evils of slavey and set about eliminating them to the best of its less-than perfect human ability to do so. In your world, America doesn't get credit for anything good.

Dan8267 says

You are simply trying to make an unfounded ad hominem attack on a group of people you don't like

Like you do?

Dan8267 says

You are asserting that atheists are angry and thus unlikable and therefore no one should listen to them

A pretty accurate assessment and good advice.

P N Dr Lo R says

And yet America is the only country in history that recognized the evils of slavey and set about eliminating them to the best of its less-than perfect human ability to do so. In your world, America doesn't get credit for anything good.

Not the only and definitely not the first by a two or three generations. The Slave Trade was first banned by Britain during the Napoleonic Wars, followed by a total ban on Slavery in 1833. Britain was the first, also France, then others, the US was a relative latecomer. I think Brazil was the last big country to end slavery, just a few years after the US. Slavery of course continued among the Desert Raider Religion until 1962 officially, but continues to this day de facto in Saudi households and Qatari construction sites

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833

Ironman says

I decided to retire early and have some additional fun, unencumbered by "work"..

Hilarious, a man who's independently wealthy but spends 100% of his time on PatNet, arguing with Dan.

This man ain't no Tony Starks.

P N Dr Lo R says

Dan8267 says

America's slavery-laden history.

And yet America is the only country in history that recognized the evils of slavey and set about eliminating them to the best of its less-than perfect human ability to do so. In your world, America doesn't get credit for anything good.

You are a disingenuous piece of shit.

First off, you don't get credit for being the last major country to stop practicing slavery. Hell, you don't get credit for no longer committing a crime against humanity. If the Nazi's won WWII and stopped committing genocide ten years later, would you praise their moral integrity?

Second, America is not the only country in history that recognized the evils of slavery. That's a fucking ridiculous statement. America is the only country in history that had to fight a bloody civil war to end slavery because half the country wanted it so bad they would kill and die for it. Every other country in the world either did not practice slavery or got rid of it without civil war. That doesn't speak well for America.

Third, you are a pathological liar. Acknowledging the evils done in your country's history does not mean that a person never acknowledges the good parts of that history. You are simply trying to poison the well and that is a clear indication of dishonesty.

I've acknowledged quite a few great things about America and have strongly advocated that western civilization in general is far superior to all others. Examples of great things in American history include
1. The Progressive Movement
2. Anti-Trust Laws
3. The Civil Rights Movement
4. Marriage Equality
5. The decline of religion, particularly Christianity
6. The high tax rates on the uber-rich that existed in the 1950s
7. Social Security
8. Public housing for the poor
9. Food programs for the poor
10. The funding of STEM back in the 1950s and 1960s
11. Al Gore's legislation to open up development of the Internet
12. Elizabeth Warren's financial industry reforms
13. Bernie Sander's platform

A good citizen acknowledges both the good and the evil in his country's history. It is especially important to acknowledge openly and honestly the evil because the entire purpose of history is to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past and it is the bad things in history, the mistakes, that teach the important lessons. There is nothing patriotic about whitewashing your country's history. All you are doing is hurting future Americans.

P N Dr Lo R says

Dan8267 says

You are simply trying to make an unfounded ad hominem attack on a group of people you don't like

Like you do?

I attack the policies of conservatives and their actual motivations. That's not an ad hominem attack. Learn the difference.

Furthermore, I provide evidence to support my arguments.

P N Dr Lo R says

Dan8267 says

You are asserting that atheists are angry and thus unlikable and therefore no one should listen to them

A pretty accurate assessment and good advice.

Hypocrisy. You just made another ad hominem attack and two lies. The first lie is that atheists are angry. The second lie is that I'm advocating the advice that atheists should not be listened to.

In taking these dishonest steps, you have proven my point that you are dishonest and disingenuous and that you are making false arguments. If you have to lie to support your position, your position is not worth supporting.

By the way, you have repeatedly violated the commandment of your false god, "Thou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.". You are exactly bearing false witness against many of your neighbors. What you are doing is a sin according to your religion. Oh, the hypocrisy of Christians.

thunderlips11 says

Not the only and definitely not the first by a two or three generations. The Slave Trade was first banned by Britain during the Napoleonic Wars, followed by a total ban on Slavery in 1833.

Yes, ironically American history would have been better if we had lost the American Revolution. Slavery would have been extinguished a generation earlier and countless murders and rapes avoided.

One of the great, for lack of a better word, ironies of history is that America fought a revolution for liberty yet there would have been more liberty in America if it had lost that revolution. Sad, but true.