Religious fanatic murders child and gets a slap on the hand

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1742680' date='Apr 2 2009, 17.19'][b]Except its not an isolated few causing the trouble. Roughly 40% of this country last poll I saw don't believe in evolution (and do believe in creationism). That is an ENORMOUS level of willful stupidity.[/b] I've already trotted out the ways in which that is dangerous and damaging to the country. We've got entire countries operating under the (sometimes cultural, but usually...) religiously motivated, government mandated reality that women deserve less rights then men and homosexuals should have their rights restricted from an inability to marry upwards to execution. I still can't see tits or too much cursing on network TV and I guarantee I would be able to in the absence of religious folks. We had a fair chunk of our civil service filled via a religious/ideological litmus test, dragging hundreds from a single Fundy university of minimal educational merit. Abstinence only mandates was killing people in Africa last Administration and it always pops up for schools in this country, threatening to increase the spread of teen pregnancy and STD's.

I haven't even gotten to the true crazies and we already have a boatload of dangers and problems that can fairly be laid at the feet of religion. This is a fundamental, systematic problem. Maybe not in Canada, but it sure as fuck is here and its worse in many other places.[/quote]You may also want to account for the economic and educational backgrounds of said percentages.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1742686' date='Apr 2 2009, 16.31']Well, EHK, if you're going to correlate things like this person killing their child because of religion, you have to correlate people donating in the name of the lord as because of religion. You don't get to say that religion only causes bad stuff but never causes good.[/quote]

Didn't I just correlate that above? And I acknowledged that it causes some good stuff about 10 pages back. (and on the last page as well)

[quote]So shouldn't you attribute that to religion?[/quote]

I thought I just did.

[Kalbear]

[quote]Didn't I just correlate that above? And I acknowledged that it causes some good stuff about 10 pages back. (and on the last page as well)[/quote]

[quote]religion isn't necessary for most of the good it provides. It regularly is done and done well via secular means.[/quote]The thing is, evidence is fairly reasonable that it isn't. Addiction and recidivism is a good example where areligious folks just don't come close. Charity is statistically better from the religious than the not, though some of that may simply be tithing.

[Guest Other-in-law]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1742730' date='Apr 2 2009, 17.08']Charity is statistically better from the religious than the not, though some of that may simply be tithing.[/quote]
How many non-religious people's charitable donations go toward a gold plated Rolls Royce for Richard Dawkins, or gold-plated bathroom taps for Sam Harris? Or even unnecessarily sumptuous furnishings for the local atheist club? Quite a bit of religious donations went to precisely that sort of crap for religious leaders. Even if the amounts are less, it's probably more effectively targeted toward causes of genuine worth overall.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='Bill Starbuck' post='1742693' date='Apr 2 2009, 16.36']I mean to say: where does it stop? Anything's okay so long as you aren't actually hitting them? My perspective is: if they're hurting someone, make them stop -- if they're not hurting anyone, leave them alone. And why not? What's the alternative? Beating someone up, if only figuratively, [i]solely[/i] because he holds a completely inoffensive precept? Just where do we get off?[/quote]

When you live in a country with free speech it pretty much is ok so long as you aren't actually hitting them. When is it fair to call the entire precept offensive? Do we need a majority doing/believing something harmful? If that's the case, we pretty much have that already. Roughly a majority (if you figure 80-85% of the country are Christians and 40% of the entire country don't believe in evolution) of Christians in this country don't believe in evolution. A HUGE majority of Christians in this country support the continued discrimination against gays. Both of those are harmful and/or pretty damned offensive. A majority of Christians in this country are hurting people...can I declare Christianity itself offensive yet? At least in the US?

[quote]The thing is, evidence is fairly reasonable that it isn't. Addiction and recidivism is a good example where areligious folks just don't come close. Charity is statistically better from the religious than the not, though some of that may simply be tithing.[/quote]

Well, I've already pointed out where religious donation is potentially (and most likely far) outweighed by their political positions. And some of the same reasoning can be applied to drug addiction since again, the party they (devout Christians) identify with almost exclusively favors chucking people into prison with an absolute minimum spent on actual treatment. For every step forward they directly or indirectly cause (or wish to cause) a few steps back.

[Lord Mord]

EHK,

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1742680' date='Apr 2 2009, 14.19']Except its not an isolated few causing the trouble. Roughly 40% of this country last poll I saw don't believe in evolution (and do believe in creationism). That is an ENORMOUS level of willful stupidity. I've already trotted out the ways in which that is dangerous and damaging to the country. We've got entire countries operating under the (sometimes cultural, but usually...) religiously motivated, government mandated reality that women deserve less rights then men and homosexuals should have their rights restricted from an inability to marry upwards to execution. I still can't see tits or too much cursing on network TV and I guarantee I would be able to in the absence of religious folks. We had a fair chunk of our civil service filled via a religious/ideological litmus test, dragging hundreds from a single Fundy university of minimal educational merit. Abstinence only mandates was killing people in Africa last Administration and it always pops up for schools in this country, threatening to increase the spread of teen pregnancy and STD's.[/quote]


Okay ... so we'll skip the car analogy which really doesn't cover this. Basically now we're looking at it like this: the whole country is a car, and the residents are passengers. Religion is a chain fastened to the [i]QE II[/i] and the religious are passengers holding onto the chain.



My problem with all this, though, is that it's possible for them to let go of the [i]QE II[/i] and grab instead a string attached to a kite. Why not encourage them to do that?

[CiaranAnnrach]

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1742666' date='Apr 2 2009, 16.05']Also, I know its not your intention and a whole shitload of Christians make this mistake without even realizing it, but the implication that being kind or a good person somehow requires religion is ENORMOUSLY insulting to non-theists, not to mention entirely untrue. The suggestion that lack of religion makes someone even slightly less likely to be a kind and good person is baseless, arrogant, and insulting.[/quote]


You're stuffing words into my mouth, and they don't taste good. Please don't do that.

Never did I say that atheists were bad people. Or that by being an atheist you would become a bad person. Most of my friends are atheists. What I did say was that there are some people today who could become a good person and live a moral life without any sort of guiding religion. I also said that most people, though, are stupid, arrogant, and selfish, and these are the ones I am referring to who would not do so well and would simply give into their base desires if it wasn't for religion being there to nudge them back onto the right track.

Personally, I hold a very pessimistic view of the world. I don't think most people are inherently good, nor do I think they are generally intelligent. This includes religious people as well as atheists. And it is those people, in the absence of a guiding force, who would be detrimental to society.

And if you think religion doesn't have any effect on a person's moral values, then you're just ignorant.

And it's not quite baseless, either. Here's a prime example of what I'm referring to: [url="http://allafrica.com/stories/200807240416.html"]http://allafrica.com/stories/200807240416.html[/url]

and

[quote]The paper on religion cites data on cities where higher church membership correlates with lower crime rates and concludes that religion does play a central role in sustaining the moral order.[/quote] from [url="http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=75441"]http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=75441[/url]

[quote name='EHK']Further, religious folks are the main stumbling block in most countries to equal rights for homosexuals and sometimes women. How can they be considered good people or have a higher likelihood of being good people when they support discrimination?[/quote]

Polly want a cracker?
Stop repeating yourself, and stop trying to judge the masses as a whole for the actions of a select vocal few. This is the single biggest problem I and others have with your arguments.

I'd go on, but it's time to go home.

[Kalbear]

[quote]Well, I've already pointed out where religious donation is potentially (and most likely far) outweighed by their political positions. And some of the same reasoning can be applied to drug addiction since again, the party they (devout Christians) identify with almost exclusively favors chucking people into prison with an absolute minimum spent on actual treatment. For every step forward they directly or indirectly cause (or wish to cause) a few steps back.[/quote]See, I don't see how the political views of some of the people in the US takes away from the worldwide implications and behaviors elsewhere. Drug addiction fighting works best with religious views ANYWHERE.

I think you're lumping evangelical US christians in with every single religion out there, and that's pretty naive. It's as naive as conflating all religions with the Taliban, or all atheists with the Unabomber.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='Bill Starbuck' post='1742746' date='Apr 2 2009, 17.27']EHK,

Okay ... so we'll skip the car analogy which really doesn't cover this. Basically now we're looking at it like this: the whole country is a car, and the residents are passengers. Religion is a chain fastened to the [i]QE II[/i] and the religious are passengers holding onto the chain.

My problem with all this, though, is that it's possible for them to let go of the [i]QE II[/i] and grab instead a string attached to a kite. Why not encourage them to do that?[/quote]

I will have to plead ignorance...I have no idea what QE II is.


[quote]You're stuffing words into my mouth, and they don't taste good. Please don't do that.[/quote]

Than be more careful with your words. Because the implication I noted was VERY easy to get from what you wrote.

[quote]Never did I say that atheists were bad people. Or that by being an atheist you would become a bad person. Most of my friends are atheists. What I did say was that there are some people today who could become a good person and live a moral life without any sort of guiding religion. I also said that most people, though, are stupid, arrogant, and selfish, and these are the ones I am referring to who would not do so well and would simply give into their base desires if it wasn't for religion being there to nudge them back onto the right track.[/quote]

And now I see that the implication I noted was pretty much right on the mark. Hell, it gets even worse here. You are suggesting that most people would be bad, immoral people without religion. The natural extension of that being that atheists on average are worse people than religious ones. Give in to their base, animal instincts if they don't turn to god to guide them to the light. Shit like this makes me want to vomit. Rest assured that most of us have no problem 'finding the right track', and given religion's track record on gay and women's right, we're more likely to find that path than your religious brethren are. I presume you have some evidence or reasoning to back up this nonsense?

[quote]Personally, I hold a very pessimistic view of the world. I don't think most people are inherently good, nor do I think they are generally intelligent. This includes religious people as well as atheists. [b]And it is those people, in the absence of a guiding force, who would be detrimental to society.[/b][/quote]

As opposed to people who despite all evidence, logic, and reason believe the world is 6,000 years old and that Adam ran with the dinosaurs? Yeah, religion is a GREAT guide for society's idiots. This clip covers some of the other 'great guiding directives' Christianity gives us.
[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD52OlkKfNs"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD52OlkKfNs[/url]

Those inherently not smart, not good people would be better off reading Harry Potter.

Now lets get to that evidence you provided...

[quote]And it's not quite baseless, either. Here's a prime example of what I'm referring to: [url="http://allafrica.com/stories/200807240416.html"]http://allafrica.com/stories/200807240416.html[/url]

And from the article:

said majority of the people that responded to the research questionnaire distributed by the agency on sexual violence in the country, agreed that most rapists do not have sound religious backgrounds while only 11 percent said otherwise.[/quote]

Dude, you just posted a public opinion poll as evidence of something other than public opinion. Some respondents in a survey said that they don't think rapists have a sound religious background and you're presenting that as PROOF that rapists don't have a sound religious background. Are you fucking kidding me? Do you not understand how incredibly stupid that is? Do you get that 51%+ of the people saying 'I think this' doesn't actually make it true? Unbelievable. Lets see what else you got.

[quote]The paper on religion cites data on cities where higher church membership correlates with lower crime rates and concludes that religion does play a central role in sustaining the moral order.
from [url="http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=75441"]http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=75441[/url][/quote]

You know what you just quoted there? The entirety of what your linked abstract actually says about the paper. You did not link the actual paper. We know nothing about the methodology, who conducted the study and what their motivations might have been, whether they adequately controlled or any of the countless other variables that could account for varying crime rates, or whether the paper itself withstood any peer review. In essence, you've given me nothing.


[quote]Stop repeating yourself, and stop trying to judge the masses as a whole for the actions of a select vocal few. This is the single biggest problem I and others have with your arguments.[/quote]

Select and vocal few? THE VAST MAJORITY OF CHRISTIANS IN THIS COUNTRY SUPPORT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST GAYS. That is not an enclave of isolated extremists, that is MOST of the Christians in the country. Jesus...its taking every ounce of my willpower not to repeat the Tommy Boy speech right now.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1742753' date='Apr 2 2009, 17.32']See, I don't see how the political views of some of the people in the US takes away from the worldwide implications and behaviors elsewhere. Drug addiction fighting works best with religious views ANYWHERE.

I think you're lumping evangelical US christians in with every single religion out there, and that's pretty naive. It's as naive as conflating all religions with the Taliban, or all atheists with the Unabomber.[/quote]

The worldwide implications and behaviors get worse the more prominent a role religion plays in the individual countries. Drug addiction fighting may work better when done in conjunction with religion, but those religious folks are still (likely) doing more harm than good when it comes to drug addiction when they vote for a party that favors slashing treatment. I know that is the political situation in the US. I can't speak for the rest of the world. Maybe the parties that the most religious folks rally behind in the rest of the world support treatment over incarceration, an adequate welfare state, and significant foreign aid, but I have my doubts.

[Lord Mord]

EHK,

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1742741' date='Apr 2 2009, 15.21']When you live in a country with free speech it pretty much is ok so long as you aren't actually hitting them.[/quote]

Oh. That is too bad.


[quote]When is it fair to call the entire precept offensive?[/quote]

When it is unavoidably the precept itself that is doing the harm.

I just heard this lady in the booth next to me say, "Christ, absolve me of my sins. You are lord of my life."

And you know, it's really weird and kooky ... But I feel fine. No joke -- I mean, all my limbs seem intact, everything seems to work still. Shouldn't I be in spasms or something by now?


ETA: I apparently meant the [i]QE2[/i], aka the [i]RMS Queen Elizabeth 2[/i]. I just assumed they'd use Roman numerals, though of course that'd get mis-read as "the Second," instead of "Two." In short, it's a really big boat. :)

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

[quote name='Other-in-law' post='1742737' date='Apr 2 2009, 18.17']How many non-religious people's charitable donations go toward a gold plated Rolls Royce for Richard Dawkins, or gold-plated bathroom taps for Sam Harris? Or even unnecessarily sumptuous furnishings for the local atheist club? Quite a bit of religious donations went to precisely that sort of crap for religious leaders. Even if the amounts are less, it's probably more effectively targeted toward causes of genuine worth overall.[/quote]Just like the taxes of old helped support the lavish lifestyles of secular monarchs. What's your point?

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1742806' date='Apr 2 2009, 19.10']Select and vocal few? [b]THE VAST MAJORITY OF CHRISTIANS IN THIS COUNTRY SUPPORT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST GAYS.[/b] That is not an enclave of isolated extremists, that is MOST of the Christians in the country. Jesus...its taking every ounce of my willpower not to repeat the Tommy Boy speech right now.[/quote]Also most Americans support discrimination against gays. We should get rid of America.

[The Khaleesi]

[quote name='Bill Starbuck' post='1742830' date='Apr 3 2009, 12.28']I just heard this lady in the booth next to me say, "Christ, absolve me of my sins. You are lord of my life."[/quote]
Where on earth ARE you? In a confessional?

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='Matrim Fox Cauthon' post='1742861' date='Apr 2 2009, 18.55']Also most Americans support discrimination against gays. We should get rid of America.[/quote]

No need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Toss out the religious and America would be voting for equal rights tomorrow.

[quote]When it is unavoidably the precept itself that is doing the harm.[/quote]

Well, in this case, it pretty much is.

[Meili]

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1742806' date='Apr 2 2009, 18.10']Jesus...its taking every ounce of my willpower not to repeat the Tommy Boy speech right now.[/quote]

Do you have a link to that clip? I have stepped out of religious debates here because I am a guy who has a big mouth and low temper forged by years of pointless agruements when I talk to ummmm......, See! I can be nice to Christians. But only if I don't speak. But I'd like to to see Farley's speech to vent, in Farley's unique way and pretend I am speaking to...... no worries though, I'll keep the venting in my home, with heathen friends or on Campus.

EHK is doing a much nicer and more polite and patient job of chatting much better than I have the ability to do.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1742893' date='Apr 2 2009, 20.20']No need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Toss out the religious and America would be voting for equal rights tomorrow.[/quote]You are throwing out most of America, so you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. You are not advocating real progress.

[Lord O' Bones]

[quote name='Matrim Fox Cauthon' post='1742915' date='Apr 2 2009, 17.30']You are throwing out most of America, so you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. You are not advocating real progress.[/quote]
He should have said "religion" rather than "religious." Maybe he meant to?

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='Meili' post='1742910' date='Apr 2 2009, 19.28']Do you have a link to that clip? I have stepped out of religious debates here because I am a guy who has a big mouth and low temper forged by years of pointless agruements when I talk to ummmm......, See! I can be nice to Christians. But only if I don't speak. But I'd like to to see Farley's speech to vent, in Farley's unique way and pretend I am speaking to...... no worries though, I'll keep the venting in my home, with heathen friends or on Campus.

EHK is doing a much nicer and more polite and patient job of chatting much better than I have the ability to do.[/quote]

Wow...can't believe I totally screwed up my film reference. I meant the Billy Madison speech. In particular this one:
[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKjxFJfcrcA"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKjxFJfcrcA[/url]

[quote]You are throwing out most of America, so you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. You are not advocating real progress.[/quote]

The end result would be a shitload of real progress on just about every front.

[Lord O' Bones]

Try [url="http://img.moonbuggy.org/reject-christ/"]this[/url] tactic, EHK.

[The_BlauerDragon]

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1742893' date='Apr 2 2009, 17.20']No need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Toss out the religious and America would be voting for equal rights tomorrow.[/quote]
I have two primary thoughts (or questions) about this.
1. I wonder how many people that would leave behind?
2. I wonder if you'd get the same results if you just threw all of the Americans out of America (as some groups most certainly want to do).

Now I do have a serious question. Without the religious, do you honestly think that you'd have a right to vote on anything? You seem like a reasonably intelligent individual, so I ask that you stop and ponder that for a moment.