How old is the earth?

[Skipjack]

In America it is Customary for our Presidents to be religious.

Again, what if he was a Hindu? Would you find it just as agreeable?
You still have not answered this.
With the speed at which the indian population continues to explode and the rate of immagration of indians to the US, it could very well soon be the case, you know.
What if he was a muslim? They essentially believe the same creation myth that the christian believe. So if he wanted to teach that in schools?

One would think that having been apprised of the mountains of bodies given to the world by Atheist rulers, you might have the ability to see the benefits of the less bloody Christian led governance.

These atheists that you are quoting still believed in a form of religion (communism and national socialism etc). Religious people may not like the comparison, but they are essentially just as much a believe system based on irrational and false conclusions based on outdated knowledge as any religion is. They were just as much in denial of reality as a certain texan creationist and IMHO, therein lies the danger.

Of course only talking about the 20th century completely removes the christians out of the picture who commited many cruel and bloody murders from the death of Hypatia, to the crusades. Among them one against the eastern christian church when pope Innocent said "kill them all, god will separate the righteous from the sinners in heaven". Then to the witchhunts and the killings of the hugenots and other so called heretics. The 30 year war where millions died and so on...

[Skipjack]

We make efforts to be tolerant, but that is just the current lay of the land.

Ok, so I am not sure now. On one hand you are claiming to be religiously tolerant, on the other, you are not.
What is it?

[Diogenes]

In America it is Customary for our Presidents to be religious.

Again, what if he was a Hindu? Would you find it just as agreeable?
You still have not answered this.
With the speed at which the indian population continues to explode and the rate of immagration of indians to the US, it could very well soon be the case, you know.
What if he was a muslim? They essentially believe the same creation myth that the christian believe. So if he wanted to teach that in schools?

Answered above.

One would think that having been apprised of the mountains of bodies given to the world by Atheist rulers, you might have the ability to see the benefits of the less bloody Christian led governance.

These atheists that you are quoting still believed in a form of religion (communism and national socialism etc). Religious people may not like the comparison, but they are essentially just as much a believe system based on irrational and false conclusions based on outdated knowledge as any religion is. They were just as much in denial of reality as a certain texan creationist and IMHO, therein lies the danger.

Of course only talking about the 20th century completely removes the christians out of the picture who commited many cruel and bloody murders from the death of Hypatia, to the crusades. Among them one against the eastern christian church when pope Innocent said "kill them all, god will separate the righteous from the sinners in heaven". Then to the witchhunts and the killings of the hugenots and other so called heretics. The 30 year war where millions died and so on...

I used the chart that I could find. If you find a better one, please post it. I believe you will be shocked at the difference in deaths between Christian rulers and Atheist rulers. People often cite the "Spanish Inquisition" as an example of Christian excess. If I remember the data correctly, they killed around 65,000 people in something like 500 years. Not even on the chart by atheist standards.

Take a look at the Atheistic bloody French Revolution. (Also a socialist movement.)

[Skipjack]

You are advancing what is known as an "Ad hominem. " It is an argument that someone is wrong about something because of an unrelated bit of derogatory information alleged about them.

No, I am trying to show you the problem with this way of thinking.
Dominant religions change and what then?
Wouldnt it be better to advance the scientific understanding of the people so much, that religion whichever it may be, will not be able to influence politics?

[Diogenes]

We make efforts to be tolerant, but that is just the current lay of the land.

Ok, so I am not sure now. On one hand you are claiming to be religiously tolerant, on the other, you are not.
What is it?

You are equating one kind of tolerance with another. We don't care what people wish to believe who want to live amongst us, but we don't want anyone but Christians to be our President, at least not yet. Perhaps someday, but I don't see it coming soon.

THAT is how things currently stand.

[Skipjack]

If I remember the data correctly, they killed around 65,000 people in something like 500 years. Not even on the chart by atheist standards.

Naa, rather take the crusades, or the 30 year war, where millions died.
Also the sloughter by the spanish in the name of the catholic church in middle and southern america...

[Skipjack]

You are equating one kind of tolerance with another.

Ok, so you are saying that some religions are better than others that some should have more rights than others? E.g. in regards to what is being tought at school?
The way I see it, either all of them are tought equally at school or none of them is (which is what I prefer), everything else could be interpreted as an attack on religious freedom.

[Diogenes]

You are advancing what is known as an "Ad hominem. " It is an argument that someone is wrong about something because of an unrelated bit of derogatory information alleged about them.

No, I am trying to show you the problem with this way of thinking.
Dominant religions change and what then?
Wouldnt it be better to advance the scientific understanding of the people so much, that religion whichever it may be, will not be able to influence politics?

You suffer from an illusion if you think you can get there from here. We are not a society of educated Brainiacs. While we have very intelligent people, the bulk of society is average. I would say the evidence of history indicates that Average people need the crutch of religious belief to make their lives tolerable. I think it is an innate characteristic of Human genes.

As Mao said, "Religion is the opiate of the masses. " You will not like the result if you take away the masses opiate. You eliminate religion and it will be automatically replaced by a violently inclined cynicism.

[Diogenes]

If I remember the data correctly, they killed around 65,000 people in something like 500 years. Not even on the chart by atheist standards.

Naa, rather take the crusades, or the 30 year war, where millions died.
Also the sloughter by the spanish in the name of the catholic church in middle and southern america...

Even though a lot of the stuff you mention was contrary to the teachings of the religion in question, Go ahead.

Add the Crusades. Add the 30 years war. Add the horrible things the Spanish did to the Indians of South America. Come up with a number, then divide it by the years over which it occurred. Or just compare the biggest number you come up with, to the total for the atheists. I've done this before, and it's not even close.

Most of the things you mention had more to do with expanding the power and dominance of the Catholic Church than they did with anything else, but if you want to believe that a Non Religious Europe would have been less blood thirsty, go ahead. You might also take a look at what the Romans did before they became Catholic.

[Skipjack]

Add the Crusades. Add the 30 years war. Add the horrible things the Spanish did to the Indians of South America. Come up with a number, then divide it by the years over which it occurred. Or just compare the biggest number you come up with, to the total for the atheists. I've done this before, and it's not even close.

There were also a lot less people in total living in the more limited regions in question then. The christian world was "smaller" and distances were "larger" and the numbers should be seen in this context and I think that this changes it. I am not defending the communists and nazis, btw. Dont get me wrong. I see them as another example of the same problem.

[Diogenes]

You are equating one kind of tolerance with another.

Ok, so you are saying that some religions are better than others that some should have more rights than others? E.g. in regards to what is being tought at school?
The way I see it, either all of them are tought equally at school or none of them is (which is what I prefer), everything else could be interpreted as an attack on religious freedom.

Let me give you a quick lesson on Religion in America. The Nation Declared Independence on July 4, 1776 and a Federal government was created under a compact called the "Articles of Confederation." Each of the 13 states had its own official state religion, much as the states of Europe used to have as well.

In 1787, The New governing document was created. (The US Constitution.) It specifically mentions Jesus, and it specifically exempts the President from working on Sundays. (Christian Sabbath) It did NOT Forbid religious preference to the States. Individual states did still maintain OFFICIAL state religions up till about 1827, if I remember correctly.

In case you don't understand this, States were free to teach one religion over another if they so chose. That was considered to be the prerogative of each and every state. The FEDERAL government was banned from choosing a specific religion. (The Usage of the word religion in the US Constitution might more properly be regarded as the word "Denominations" which we use today. Governing a Country with states of several different Christian denominations would only be possible if one was not favored over the other, while ALL of them were still Christian.)

You can claim this isn't fair if you want, but at this time most blacks were slaves, Indians were not citizens, and women couldn't vote. "Fairness" as you might regard it wasn't relevant.

The Practice of teaching a preference for Christianity continued in American schools till the 1960s, when Kook judges (All appointed by Roosevelt/Truman) declared that the 14th amendment, (The Amendment which grants citizenship to Freed slaves.) causes all prohibitions on FEDERAL government to be applied to the states.

Since the FEDERAL government was prohibited from favoring a particular religion, then so must the states be! This is utter nonsense, but the Supreme court can make ridiculous law, and if the executive branch tolerates it, law enforcement agencies will thereafter enforce it.

America started it's social decline at the same time these kook judges arose to the pinnacle of their power.


In any case, Real world results demonstrate that Christianity has produced a very good quality society, as opposed to everything else which has tried to replace it. Again, world history of development seems to have favored the Christianized parts of the world far more than the rest. It is only recently that the non Christianized parts of the world have caught up or started to catch up. Much of this is due more to the decline in the formerly Christianized parts as well.

[Diogenes]

That's it for me for now.

[Skipjack]

Even though a lot of the stuff you mention was contrary to the teachings of the religion in question, Go ahead.

Yeah, every time I confront a communist about the millions that his religion has killed, they bring the same argument: "they missinterpreted it", or something like that. Heck ask the average muslim about the muslim terrorism and they will tell you the same thing.

You suffer from an illusion if you think you can get there from here. We are not a society of educated Brainiacs. While we have very intelligent people, the bulk of society is average. I would say the evidence of history indicates that Average people need the crutch of religious belief to make their lives tolerable. I think it is an innate characteristic of Human genes.

The average IQ may be too low to get some concepts, but I think that it is a mistake to artificially dumb these people down even further by withholding good education from them.

As Mao said, "Religion is the opiate of the masses. " You will not like the result if you take away the masses opiate. You eliminate religion and it will be automatically replaced by a violently inclined cynicism.

I think that this is a very questionable conclusion based on very few facts.
Dont even bother referring to the communist and national socialist religions, because they are just that, religions but under a different name.

[Skipjack]

In case you don't understand this, States were free to teach one religion over another if they so chose. That was considered to be the prerogative of each and every state. The FEDERAL government was banned from choosing a specific religion. (The Usage of the word religion in the US Constitution might more properly be regarded as the word "Denominations" which we use today. Governing a Country with states of several different Christian denominations would only be possible if one was not favored over the other, while ALL of them were still Christian.)

You can claim this isn't fair if you want, but at this time most blacks were slaves, Indians were not citizens, and women couldn't vote. "Fairness" as you might regard it wasn't relevant.

The Practice of teaching a preference for Christianity continued in American schools till the 1960s, when Kook judges (All appointed by Roosevelt/Truman) declared that the 14th amendment, (The Amendment which grants citizenship to Freed slaves.) causes all prohibitions on FEDERAL government to be applied to the states.

Ahh, so because something was done a certain way a few hundred years ago, when knowledge and understanding were at a much lesser level than today, we should continue to do it in this backwards way?
How about we all continue to ride horses and carriages instead of cars? I mean that is the way it was done back then and so it should be done today as well, right? Or what is it you are trying to tell me here?

[seedload]

as opposed to the guy in the oval office who doesnt understand economics, I prefer having a president who understands economics but has funny ideas about science than the other way around.

Well personally I would prefer a president who lives in the real world versus some fantasy world... You know, so he can make real world decisions.

Doesn't matter much what you would prefer now does it? You don't get a vote.

Reagan also believed in teaching creationism in schools. Obviously, like them or not, Reagan could make real world decisions. And, while that religious nut Reagan was in office, you guys elected a Nazi.

I checked Perry's Govenors web site, education link. Not a single mention of creationism. I checked Perry's presidential site, issues link. Not a single mention of creationism.

What that video really shows is that a woman, using a child for a political ploy, could so easily achieve the desired effect of making an issue out of Perry's personal religious beliefs, and that she could so easily persuade a great thinker like yourself that they really matter at all in the real world.

regards