LINK (http://www.newsweek.com/id/192583?GT1=43002) (The article is way too long to be copy/pasted here)
QuoteThe percentage of self-identified Christians has fallen 10 points in the past two decades. How that statistic explains who we are now—and what, as a nation, we are about to become.
It was a small detail, a point of comparison buried in the fifth paragraph on the 17th page of a 24-page summary of the 2009 American Religious Identification Survey. But as R. Albert Mohler Jr.—president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, one of the largest on earth—read over the document after its release in March, he was struck by a single sentence. For a believer like Mohler—a starched, unflinchingly conservative Christian, steeped in the theology of his particular province of the faith, devoted to producing ministers who will preach the inerrancy of the Bible and the Gospel of Jesus Christ as the only means to eternal life—the central news of the survey was troubling enough: the number of Americans who claim no religious affiliation has nearly doubled since 1990, rising from 8 to 15 percent. Then came the point he could not get out of his mind: while the unaffiliated have historically been concentrated in the Pacific Northwest, the report said, "this pattern has now changed, and the Northeast emerged in 2008 as the new stronghold of the religiously unidentified." As Mohler saw it, the historic foundation of America's religious culture was cracking.
"That really hit me hard," he told me last week. "The Northwest was never as religious, never as congregationalized, as the Northeast, which was the foundation, the home base, of American religion. To lose New England struck me as momentous." Turning the report over in his mind, Mohler posted a despairing online column on the eve of Holy Week lamenting the decline—and, by implication, the imminent fall—of an America shaped and suffused by Christianity. "A remarkable culture-shift has taken place around us," Mohler wrote. "The most basic contours of American culture have been radically altered. The so-called Judeo-Christian consensus of the last millennium has given way to a post-modern, post-Christian, post-Western cultural crisis which threatens the very heart of our culture." When Mohler and I spoke in the days after he wrote this, he had grown even gloomier. "Clearly, there is a new narrative, a post-Christian narrative, that is animating large portions of this society," he said from his office on campus in Louisville, Ky.
What do you think?
Kevin
Dawkins+Hitchens+Dennet+Harris FTW!!!!!
:yeah:
Religion as a phenomenom, is a nice collection of everything which is bad and evil in humanity.
Quote from: Eochaid on April 08, 2009, 05:30:03 AM
What do you think?
I think the contention is absurd, and the R. Albert Mohler is an attention-whoring moron.
When one screams that the sky is falling because 15% of the US population is religiously unaffiliated, one demonstrates Marti-style thinking, which means zero cred.
While I would LIKE to believe that what the article states is accurate, I dunno. Lots of people down here are insanely religious, of course, and I don't see that trend changing. I can't believe this guy is based in Louisville and is worried about Christianity dying in America.
Religion at heart is a group of good, kind persons with a set of deeply illogical, even evil, beliefs starting with a childish, zealous God that punishes sons for their father's sin, feels a strange fascination with genitalia and how do we use them, and wants us to buy a ticket to Eternal Happiness obbeying and suffering his every whim, not always worthy (ask Job, Saul or Abraham). Given such a contradiction, it's not surprising that its main manifestations are hipocrisy, fanaticism and silent dissent.
Yes, many Christians have done good deeds, but was it because they were Christians, or because they were for starters good persons?
Why, yes, I'm from Europe. How did you know?
Quote from: Alatriste on April 08, 2009, 06:53:39 AM
Religion at heart is a group of good, kind persons with a set of deeply illogical, even evil, beliefs starting with a childish, zealous God that punishes sons for their father's sin, feels a strange fascination with genitalia and how do we use them, and wants us to buy a ticket to Eternal Happiness obbeying and suffering his every whim, not always worthy (ask Job, Saul or Abraham). Given such a contradiction, it's not surprising that its main manifestations are hipocrisy, fanaticism and silent dissent.
Yes, many Christians have done good deeds, but was it because they were Christians, or because they were for starters good persons?
Why, yes, I'm from Europe. How did you know?
I'm a step more cynical than you even. Though I agree with most of the above, I don't think religion at heart is a group of good, kind persons. I think that good, kind people get swept up into religions, but I think that probably most religions have been started by, at best, con artists and at worst sociopaths. I mean, look at how (most) people today view Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard, Jim Jones, Charlie Manson, Rev. Moon, and David Koresh.
Atheists molest children.
This is indeed fun.
God is a pedo.
Do you condone pedophilia?
Relying on the goodness of people's hearts to keep them from doing bad things to each other is a losing proposition; we need fear of external consequences. In the modern world, we have government for that, so religion is losing its power.
Quote from: The Nickname Who Was Thursday on April 08, 2009, 07:28:04 AM
Relying on the goodness of people's hearts to keep them from doing bad things to each other is a losing proposition; we need fear of external consequences. In the modern world, we have government for that, so religion is losing its power.
:yes: People are animals. :mad:
This thread reminded me it was Easter week. :blush:
I will sacrifice a ham for god.
Quote from: Caliga on April 08, 2009, 07:39:00 AM
:yes: People are animals. :mad:
Except Cal who is all altruism and goodness. -_-
Quote from: Alatriste on April 08, 2009, 06:53:39 AM
Religion at heart is a group of good, kind persons with a set of deeply illogical, even evil, beliefs starting with a childish, zealous God that punishes sons for their father's sin, feels a strange fascination with genitalia and how do we use them, and wants us to buy a ticket to Eternal Happiness obbeying and suffering his every whim, not always worthy (ask Job, Saul or Abraham). Given such a contradiction, it's not surprising that its main manifestations are hipocrisy, fanaticism and silent dissent.
Yes, many Christians have done good deeds, but was it because they were Christians, or because they were for starters good persons?
Why, yes, I'm from Europe. How did you know?
The way I see it, no matter how kind, well-meaning and benevolent religious people are, they are bound to be eventually wrong about something, because of the GIGO principle.
Their choices and decisions are informed by a set of data that is simply wrong.
Quote from: Caliga on April 08, 2009, 07:18:27 AMI mean, look at how (most) people today view Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard, Jim Jones, Charlie Manson, Rev. Moon, and David Koresh.
As enlightened men with beautiful souls?
My birthday is on Easter this year - I think for the first time.
I think this means I am like Jesus or something.
I though David Koresh was sorta cool. :Embarrass:
Quote from: Berkut on April 08, 2009, 08:11:31 AM
My birthday is on Easter this year - I think for the first time.
I think this means I am like Jesus or something.
eh.... I sort of assumed you already knew that Easter=Jesus tortured to death....
Quote from: Berkut on April 08, 2009, 08:11:31 AM
My birthday is on Easter this year - I think for the first time.
I think this means I am like Jesus or something.
Xmas is about Jesus's birth. Easter is about His martyrdom.
Which makes you wonder - would you want your followers to have their biggest party in the entire year to celebrate the fact that you have been brutally murdered? :unsure:
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2009, 08:09:32 AMThe way I see it, no matter how kind, well-meaning and benevolent religious people are, they are bound to be eventually wrong about something, because of the GIGO principle.
Their choices and decisions are informed by a set of data that is simply wrong.
I always get the sense you people mean by 'religious' people you mean fundamentalist Ned Flanders types exclusively.
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2009, 08:13:52 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 08, 2009, 08:11:31 AM
My birthday is on Easter this year - I think for the first time.
I think this means I am like Jesus or something.
Xmas is about Jesus's birth. Easter is about His martyrdom.
Which makes you wonder - would you want your followers to have their biggest party in the entire year to celebrate the fact that you have been brutally murdered? :unsure:
25 dec is Mithras' birthday. Astronomers put Jesus' birthday at 9 September iirc.
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2009, 08:13:52 AMXmas is about Jesus's birth. Easter is about His martyrdom.
Which makes you wonder - would you want your followers to have their biggest party in the entire year to celebrate the fact that you have been brutally murdered? :unsure:
Easter is the biggest party of the year? Dude we don't even get presents! Anyway it is better than the Jews celebrating the killing of all the Egyptian babies.
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2009, 08:16:40 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2009, 08:13:52 AMXmas is about Jesus's birth. Easter is about His martyrdom.
Which makes you wonder - would you want your followers to have their biggest party in the entire year to celebrate the fact that you have been brutally murdered? :unsure:
Easter is the biggest party of the year? Dude we don't even get presents! Anyway it is better than the Jews celebrating the killing of all the Egyptian babies.
WE GET EGGS. DELICIOUS COLORED EGGS.
Quote from: Viking on April 08, 2009, 08:15:51 AM25 dec is Mithras' birthday. Astronomers put Jesus' birthday at 9 September iirc.
That is ridiculous. The Astronomers would have to accept on faith the whole nonsense about the big star thing was based on historical fact. The entire birth narrative, and any of the stuff about Jesus' youth, is almost certainly completely invented after the fact-if his life entirely was not in fact invented completely after the fact.
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2009, 08:15:16 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2009, 08:09:32 AMThe way I see it, no matter how kind, well-meaning and benevolent religious people are, they are bound to be eventually wrong about something, because of the GIGO principle.
Their choices and decisions are informed by a set of data that is simply wrong.
I always get the sense you people mean by 'religious' people you mean fundamentalist Ned Flanders types exclusively.
Well, they are more obvious about it.
Still, even the most well-meaning religious person has his decisions informed to some extent by religious convictions, some of which are (at least according to me) wrong.
For example, the belief in afterlife makes people more accepting of their shitty existence (rather than willing to improve it). If you think the world is going to end in 50 years, what's the point of preventing the climate change. Etc.
Quote from: Berkut on April 08, 2009, 08:11:31 AM
My birthday is on Easter this year - I think for the first time.
I think this means I am like Jesus or something.
Just as Jesus rose from the Dead, Berkut was ejected from the womb! All hail Berkut! He has given us life after gestation.
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2009, 08:20:09 AM
If you think the world is going to end in 50 years, what's the point of preventing the climate change. Etc.
My Fiancee has thus far refused to invest in her retirement just in case the Mayans were right about 2012 :bleeding:
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2009, 08:21:43 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2009, 08:20:09 AM
If you think the world is going to end in 50 years, what's the point of preventing the climate change. Etc.
My Fiancee has thus far refused to invest in her retirement just in case the Mayans were right about 2012 :bleeding:
Dude. :lol:
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2009, 08:15:16 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2009, 08:09:32 AMThe way I see it, no matter how kind, well-meaning and benevolent religious people are, they are bound to be eventually wrong about something, because of the GIGO principle.
Their choices and decisions are informed by a set of data that is simply wrong.
I always get the sense you people mean by 'religious' people you mean fundamentalist Ned Flanders types exclusively.
I consider people to be religious who consider believe a substantial part of the mythology of any one religion to be true. Or people who believe that there is a supernatural mover which effects the real world.
I do think eventually Christianity, along with all the other religions, will have to change with the times or continue to erode.
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2009, 08:16:40 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2009, 08:13:52 AMXmas is about Jesus's birth. Easter is about His martyrdom.
Which makes you wonder - would you want your followers to have their biggest party in the entire year to celebrate the fact that you have been brutally murdered? :unsure:
Easter is the biggest party of the year? Dude we don't even get presents! Anyway it is better than the Jews celebrating the killing of all the Egyptian babies.
Well, I don't know about other Christian denominations and sects, but at least in the Catholic Church Easter is definitely considered the most important religious holiday of the year. The celebration lasts four days, you are absolutely required to participate (the Easter Mass is the "absolute minimum" Mass every Catholic must attend) etc.
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2009, 08:21:43 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2009, 08:20:09 AM
If you think the world is going to end in 50 years, what's the point of preventing the climate change. Etc.
My Fiancee has thus far refused to invest in her retirement just in case the Mayans were right about 2012 :bleeding:
I've got a bridge I might want to sell her....
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2009, 08:21:43 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2009, 08:20:09 AM
If you think the world is going to end in 50 years, what's the point of preventing the climate change. Etc.
My Fiancee has thus far refused to invest in her retirement just in case the Mayans were right about 2012 :bleeding:
Well, she is probably better off than all those poor suckers who thought Alan Greenspan was right about 2008. :P
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2009, 08:24:22 AM
I do think eventually Christianity, along with all the other religions, will have to change with the times or continue to erode.
As long as it doesn't change into a Joel Olsteen type of thing. Man, I want to punch him in the nuts when I watch a bit of his show.
Bring back Jimmy Swaggart.
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2009, 08:24:38 AMWell, I don't know about other Christian denominations and sects, but at least in the Catholic Church Easter is definitely considered the most important religious holiday of the year. The celebration lasts four days, you are absolutely required to participate (the Easter Mass is the "absolute minimum" Mass every Catholic must attend) etc.
I guess religiously it is. Christmas is by far the most important holiday in the United States though, whether you are a Christian or not (unless you are one of those religions that gets pissed if you celebrate it like a Jew or Muslim-though the American Jews take an obscure Hellenistic era holiday and make it a big deal just so they can party with us and not be left out).
By the way technically Easter is celebrating Jesus being raised from the dead not his brutal martydom. That is what we celebrate on 'good friday'. I was never really clear what was so good about your savior being killed.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 08, 2009, 08:27:41 AMAs long as it doesn't change into a Joel Olsteen type of thing. Man, I want to punch him in the nuts when I watch a bit of his show.
Bring back Jimmy Swaggart.
Actually I kinda think it will morph into some sort of affirmation love fest sorta thing.
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2009, 08:29:43 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 08, 2009, 08:27:41 AMAs long as it doesn't change into a Joel Olsteen type of thing. Man, I want to punch him in the nuts when I watch a bit of his show.
Bring back Jimmy Swaggart.
Actually I kinda think it will morph into some sort of affirmation love fest sorta thing.
bleh.
I'm looking forward to explaining Easter to my son.
What I say: "Look, it is very simple. Today we search for brightly coloured chocolate eggs to celebrate the horrible torment and death and subsequent resurrection of a Jewish rebel who is also one-third of your mom's ancestral god 2000 years ago. Your dad's maternal folks basically worshipped the same god, but do not believe the dead Jew was him, or that he could be divided in thirds. The eggs probably originate from pre-existing pagan rituals relating to rebirth... ".
What he hears: "blah blah CHOCOLATE blah blah blah".
I don't think a decrease in the number of self-identifying Christians constitutes an enormous shift away from Christianity. It would be better to look at what those identifying themselves as Christians do to really see if religion was more or less important. Evidence on the surface looks as if religion is as much a marker for a particular voting habit and set of values than it has ever been.
Does the rise of fundamentalism in other parts of the world necessarily point towards an increase in religious awareness? Quite the contrary; religious fundamentalists (and indeed fundamentalists of any hue and colour) insist that the current ills, as defined by them, are due to moving away from God and religious doctrine.
When accepted as everyday practice and uncontroversial, religion does not become a political force. When threatened, it reacts. Well, religious people react, but you get my drift. And I suppose this pattern isn't unique to religion or politics.
Quote from: Malthus on April 08, 2009, 08:33:29 AM
I'm looking forward to explaining Easter to my son.
What I say: "Look, it is very simple. Today we search for brightly coloured chocolate eggs to celebrate the horrible torment and death and subsequent resurrection of a Jewish rebel who is also one-third of your mom's ancestral god 2000 years ago. Your dad's maternal folks basically worshipped the same god, but do not believe the dead Jew was him, or that he could be divided in thirds. The eggs probably originate from pre-existing pagan rituals relating to rebirth... ".
What he hears: "blah blah CHOCOLATE blah blah blah".
:lol: I remember explaining to my friend's daughter that Santa Claus is actually the God Odin riding across the sky on his eight-legged horse.
Hey it is probably easier than having to explain Passover to him, when all he has to look forward to is some bitter herbs and wine.
Quote from: Norgy on April 08, 2009, 08:35:23 AM
I don't think a decrease in the number of self-identifying Christians constitutes an enormous shift away from Christianity. It would be better to look at what those identifying themselves as Christians do to really see if religion was more or less important. Evidence on the surface looks as if religion is as much a marker for a particular voting habit and set of values than it has ever been.
But that is only because not everybody is Christian like they used to be. It would have been suicide to be the 'non-fundamentalist' party back in the day.
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2009, 08:35:42 AM
:lol: I remember explaining to my friend's daughter that Santa Claus is actually the God Odin riding across the sky on his eight-legged horse.
Hey it is probably easier than having to explain Passover to him, when all he has to look forward to is some bitter herbs and wine.
Hey, the drugstore in my parent's area (heavily Jewish) was sellin plastic '10 plagues' toys. We got "frogs". :lol:
Carl loved the concept.
Quote from: Malthus on April 08, 2009, 08:33:29 AM
What he hears: "blah blah CHOCOLATE blah blah blah".
At long last a god I can pray to. The Holy Trinity of Beer, Pizza and Chocolate.
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2009, 08:37:01 AM
But that is only because not everybody is Christian like they used to be. It would have been suicide to be the 'non-fundamentalist' party back in the day.
I believe that is what I wrote in the rest of the post you quoted.
This reminds me, I need to buy some Chocolate.
Quote from: Norgy on April 08, 2009, 08:40:38 AMI believe that is what I wrote in the rest of the post you quoted.
Bah reading is over-rated :blush:
Quote from: Caliga on April 08, 2009, 07:18:27 AMI mean, look at how (most) people today view Rev. Moon.
As the True Father :)
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2009, 08:41:40 AM
Bah reading is over-rated :blush:
Not to mention dangerously time-consuming.
Quote from: Norgy on April 08, 2009, 08:42:58 AM
Not to mention dangerously time-consuming.
You speak the truth brother Norge.
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2009, 08:21:43 AMMy Fiancee has thus far refused to invest in her retirement just in case the Mayans were right about 2012 :bleeding:
I suggest you be the one to make all the decisions in this marriage. You can make the decisions, she can make the sandwiches.
Quote from: Caliga on April 08, 2009, 08:48:36 AM
I suggest you be the one to make all the decisions in this marriage. You can make the decisions, she can make the sandwiches.
Well...she does make some amazing sandwiches.
Quote from: Eochaid on April 08, 2009, 05:30:03 AMWhat do you think?
Quote from: Treaty of TripoliArt. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Since no one had posted it yet, and it needed to be in this thread...
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2009, 09:06:12 AMWell...she does make some amazing sandwiches.
I am: wise.
I'm always amused that Marty and Tamas are such strident athiests. The Soviets were much better at brainwashing then we gave them credit for.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 08, 2009, 09:13:34 AM
I'm always amused that Marty and Tamas are such strident athiests. The Soviets were much better at brainwashing then we gave them credit for.
Marty would have been a Christian had he been straight. His gayness saved his soul.
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2009, 09:15:12 AMMarty would have been a Christian had he been straight. His gayness saved his soul.
Marti strikes me as the type who would be militant no matter what, yeah... if he was an African-American, he'd be a Black Muslim. If he was Jamaican, he'd be Rasta. If he was Austrian, he'd be a basement jailor.
Quote from: Caliga on April 08, 2009, 06:47:38 AM
While I would LIKE to believe that what the article states is accurate, I dunno. Lots of people down here are insanely religious, of course, and I don't see that trend changing. I can't believe this guy is based in Louisville and is worried about Christianity dying in America.
There's a sense of martyrdom, of suffering for the faith, that's inherent to Christianity. Christians go out of their way, as a result, to find ways to feel persecuted. In a nation where they're the overwhelming majority of the population and it's impossible to achieve the highest political offices without at least swearing lip service to their religion that requires a lot of grasping at straws, like this.
Nobody here is talking about Passover?
Disapointing.
Quote from: Siege on April 08, 2009, 09:33:58 AM
Nobody here is talking about Passover?
Disapointing.
Malthus and I mentioned it. It seems his kid thinks the ten plagues were pretty cool.
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2009, 08:24:38 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2009, 08:16:40 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2009, 08:13:52 AMXmas is about Jesus's birth. Easter is about His martyrdom.
Which makes you wonder - would you want your followers to have their biggest party in the entire year to celebrate the fact that you have been brutally murdered? :unsure:
Easter is the biggest party of the year? Dude we don't even get presents! Anyway it is better than the Jews celebrating the killing of all the Egyptian babies.
Well, I don't know about other Christian denominations and sects, but at least in the Catholic Church Easter is definitely considered the most important religious holiday of the year. The celebration lasts four days, you are absolutely required to participate (the Easter Mass is the "absolute minimum" Mass every Catholic must attend) etc.
Yes you are absolutely required to participate in backward religion-ridden Poland. :P Here only a handful of people bother enough to go to the mass and such.
Quote from: Siege on April 08, 2009, 09:33:58 AM
Nobody here is talking about Passover?
Disapointing.
Why would we be?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 08, 2009, 09:13:34 AM
I'm always amused that Marty and Tamas are such strident athiests. The Soviets were much better at brainwashing then we gave them credit for.
I grew up in America, how did I get de-godified? Just remember the most strident hand clasper on Languish was Hortlund from atheist sweden...
Quote from: Razgovory on April 08, 2009, 09:13:34 AM
I'm always amused that Marty and Tamas are such strident athiests. The Soviets were much better at brainwashing then we gave them credit for.
I am indeed an atheist. Marty isn't. He himself admits that much.
And I suspect he has a secret longing for the whole Catholic parade thing, he just can't succumb because catholics hate gays. :P
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2009, 09:35:12 AM
Quote from: Siege on April 08, 2009, 09:33:58 AM
Nobody here is talking about Passover?
Disapointing.
Why would we be?
It is tonight.
And I can't drink coors lite for a WEEK!!!!
Quote from: Siege on April 08, 2009, 09:33:58 AM
Nobody here is talking about Passover?
Disapointing.
we don't care about no bloody matzo balls!
Quote from: Siege on April 08, 2009, 09:37:23 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2009, 09:35:12 AM
Quote from: Siege on April 08, 2009, 09:33:58 AM
Nobody here is talking about Passover?
Disapointing.
Why would we be?
Maybe you should give up your god then.
It is tonight.
And I can't drink coors lite for a WEEK!!!!
Quote from: Viking on April 08, 2009, 09:36:27 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 08, 2009, 09:13:34 AM
I'm always amused that Marty and Tamas are such strident athiests. The Soviets were much better at brainwashing then we gave them credit for.
I grew up in America, how did I get de-godified? Just remember the most strident hand clasper on Languish was Hortlund from atheist sweden...
The public school system is designed to make people atheist.
Quote from: Siege on April 08, 2009, 09:37:23 AMIt is tonight.
And I can't drink coors lite for a WEEK!!!!
Yes but you get to eat bitter herbs and drink wine. That is almost as good right?
Quote from: Siege on April 08, 2009, 09:39:19 AMThe public school system is designed to make people atheist.
Indeed, after suffering through public school I do not see how any American could still beleive in a benevolent God.
Quote from: Viking on April 08, 2009, 09:37:35 AM
Quote from: Siege on April 08, 2009, 09:33:58 AM
Nobody here is talking about Passover?
Disapointing.
we don't care about no bloody matzo balls!
Are saying that there is blood in the matzah?
Anti-semite!!!!!
Quote from: Siege on April 08, 2009, 09:39:19 AM
The public school system is designed to make people atheist.
Lemme see, the de-godified secular american system results in believers, but the the state school system in europe where each person is educated in christianity results in infidels?
Is that your point?
Wow, my legs are hot.
Quote from: Siege on April 08, 2009, 09:41:37 AM
Are saying that there is blood in the matzah?
Anti-semite!!!!!
:hug: you are so wonderfully predictable... if we ever meet I'm gonna have to teach you how to drink beer.
Quote from: Siege on April 08, 2009, 09:43:16 AM
Wow, my legs are hot.
Maybe you should wear shorts.
Quote from: Siege on April 08, 2009, 09:37:23 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2009, 09:35:12 AM
Quote from: Siege on April 08, 2009, 09:33:58 AM
Nobody here is talking about Passover?
Disapointing.
Why would we be?
It is tonight.
And I can't drink coors lite for a WEEK!!!!
Yeah, but we don't have any observant Jews here.
Quote from: Viking on April 08, 2009, 09:43:42 AM
Quote from: Siege on April 08, 2009, 09:41:37 AM
Are saying that there is blood in the matzah?
Anti-semite!!!!!
:hug: you are so wonderfully predictable... if we ever meet I'm gonna have to teach you how to drink beer.
That's because you missed the part where I started screaming "anti-semite" like Donald Sutherland in the final scene of "Invasion of the body snatchers"....
Quote from: Siege on April 08, 2009, 09:49:13 AM
Quote from: Viking on April 08, 2009, 09:43:42 AM
Quote from: Siege on April 08, 2009, 09:41:37 AM
Are saying that there is blood in the matzah?
Anti-semite!!!!!
:hug: you are so wonderfully predictable... if we ever meet I'm gonna have to teach you how to drink beer.
That's because you missed the part where I started screaming "anti-semite" like Donald Sutherland in the final scene of "Invasion of the body snatchers"....
no, because you got the blood libel reference rather than the use of bloody as a mere profanity.
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2009, 09:34:40 AM
Quote from: Siege on April 08, 2009, 09:33:58 AM
Nobody here is talking about Passover?
Disapointing.
Malthus and I mentioned it. It seems his kid thinks the ten plagues were pretty cool.
Correction: he thinks the
toys based on the ten plagues were cool. I'm pretty sure he has no idea what they stand for though, Biblical study being a trifle beyond the average three-year old. :lol:
If US politicians ever stop ending their speeches with God blessing everyone that might be the time to talk about Christianity suffering some kind of setback.
Quote from: Viking on April 08, 2009, 09:37:35 AM
we don't care about no bloody matzo balls!
KILL THE GYPPOS!
Quote from: Viking on April 08, 2009, 08:13:51 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 08, 2009, 08:11:31 AM
My birthday is on Easter this year - I think for the first time.
I think this means I am like Jesus or something.
eh.... I sort of assumed you already knew that Easter=Jesus tortured to death....
that's good friday.
Easter = zombie jesus
Quote from: Berkut on April 08, 2009, 08:11:31 AM
My birthday is on Easter this year - I think for the first time.
I think this means I am like Jesus or something.
I was born on Good Friday - the day Jesus died.
I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean. :huh:
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2009, 10:02:16 AM
If US politicians ever stop ending their speeches with God blessing everyone that might be the time to talk about Christianity suffering some kind of setback.
Like most God stuff in American politics that came out of the Cold War as a reaction to the militant atheism of the Soviet Union. We put God in everything just to show we were not evil Commie bastards.
But we didn't do most of that stuff pre-Cold War.
I don't have much investment in this, since Canada has already surpassed Christianity.
Quote from: Barrister on April 08, 2009, 10:09:38 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 08, 2009, 08:11:31 AM
My birthday is on Easter this year - I think for the first time.
I think this means I am like Jesus or something.
I was born on Good Friday - the day Jesus died.
I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean. :huh:
I think it means you are 13,832 years old in dog years.
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2009, 10:14:33 AM
I don't have much investment in this, since Canada has already surpassed Christianity.
does this mean canada is more popular than the beatles?
Incidentally, Christian America is hardly "ending," it's just becoming more polarized (like everything else). On the one end, you have New England's atheist population growing. On the other, you have the Texas schoolboard dismantling science education in the state so as to avoid offending the YEC crowd.
Quote from: vinraith on April 08, 2009, 10:23:30 AMOn the other, you have the Texas schoolboard dismantling science education in the state so as to avoid offending the YEC crowd.
There are zillions of school boards in Texas. The only one that dismantles science education is probably in a rural district that never really taught it to begin with.
There is no State school board.
Do the school boards in Texas have those holes drilled into them to make them sting more? Brain might be interested.
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2009, 10:25:22 AM
Quote from: vinraith on April 08, 2009, 10:23:30 AMOn the other, you have the Texas schoolboard dismantling science education in the state so as to avoid offending the YEC crowd.
There are zillions of school boards in Texas. The only one that dismantles science education is probably in a rural district that never really taught it to begin with.
There is no State school board.
In spite of any actual facts you may present, I am gonna continue to view Texas through the lens of the most retarded thing any backwoods hick Texan has ever said or done. I sorta picture the whole state as inhabited by Yoseminie Sam look-alikes, only carrying Bibles and stomping on science textbooks.
Just because it's funny. :D
Quote from: Malthus on April 08, 2009, 10:31:01 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2009, 10:25:22 AM
Quote from: vinraith on April 08, 2009, 10:23:30 AMOn the other, you have the Texas schoolboard dismantling science education in the state so as to avoid offending the YEC crowd.
There are zillions of school boards in Texas. The only one that dismantles science education is probably in a rural district that never really taught it to begin with.
There is no State school board.
In spite of any actual facts you may present, I am gonna continue to view Texas through the lens of the most retarded thing any backwoods hick Texan has ever said or done. I sorta picture the whole state as inhabited by Yoseminie Sam look-alikes, only carrying Bibles and stomping on science textbooks.
Just because it's funny. :D
More like a state filled with Speedy Gonzales. And the fat slow one that I can't remember the name of.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 08, 2009, 10:32:38 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 08, 2009, 10:31:01 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2009, 10:25:22 AM
Quote from: vinraith on April 08, 2009, 10:23:30 AMOn the other, you have the Texas schoolboard dismantling science education in the state so as to avoid offending the YEC crowd.
There are zillions of school boards in Texas. The only one that dismantles science education is probably in a rural district that never really taught it to begin with.
There is no State school board.
In spite of any actual facts you may present, I am gonna continue to view Texas through the lens of the most retarded thing any backwoods hick Texan has ever said or done. I sorta picture the whole state as inhabited by Yoseminie Sam look-alikes, only carrying Bibles and stomping on science textbooks.
Just because it's funny. :D
More like a state filled with Speedy Gonzales. And the fat slow one that I can't remember the name of.
The fat slow one gets stomped at the border by Yoseminie Sam. Speedy, as his name suggests, escapes to sell amphetemines. :D
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 08, 2009, 10:32:38 AM
More like a state filled with Speedy Gonzales. And the fat slow one that I can't remember the name of.
Jaron :contract:
Quote from: Viking on April 08, 2009, 10:35:42 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 08, 2009, 10:32:38 AM
More like a state filled with Speedy Gonzales. And the fat slow one that I can't remember the name of.
Jaron :contract:
:lmfao:
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2009, 10:25:22 AM
Quote from: vinraith on April 08, 2009, 10:23:30 AMOn the other, you have the Texas schoolboard dismantling science education in the state so as to avoid offending the YEC crowd.
There are zillions of school boards in Texas. The only one that dismantles science education is probably in a rural district that never really taught it to begin with.
There is no State school board.
That's odd, I wonder what these guys (http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/sboe/) do for a living, then?
It IS the state board of education, which just adopted new science standards weakening the language surrounding evolution, completely removing discussion of the age of the universe, and doing assorted other grievous harms to science education in your state. Try to keep up.
Quote from: Viking on April 08, 2009, 10:35:42 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 08, 2009, 10:32:38 AM
More like a state filled with Speedy Gonzales. And the fat slow one that I can't remember the name of.
Jaron :contract:
:D
Quote from: Malthus on April 08, 2009, 10:31:01 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2009, 10:25:22 AM
Quote from: vinraith on April 08, 2009, 10:23:30 AMOn the other, you have the Texas schoolboard dismantling science education in the state so as to avoid offending the YEC crowd.
There are zillions of school boards in Texas. The only one that dismantles science education is probably in a rural district that never really taught it to begin with.
There is no State school board.
In spite of any actual facts you may present, I am gonna continue to view Texas through the lens of the most retarded thing any backwoods hick Texan has ever said or done. I sorta picture the whole state as inhabited by Yoseminie Sam look-alikes, only carrying Bibles and stomping on science textbooks.
Just because it's funny. :D
It's really, really not. Especially since it IS state-wide, and Texas is a large enough consumer of text books that their education standards affect the entire country to some degree.
http://www.statesman.com/search/content/news/stories/local/03/28/0328sboe.html
Quote from: Viking on April 08, 2009, 08:40:07 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 08, 2009, 08:33:29 AM
What he hears: "blah blah CHOCOLATE blah blah blah".
At long last a god I can pray to. The Holy Trinity of Beer, Pizza and Chocolate.
Are you a woman? :huh:
Quote from: vinraith on April 08, 2009, 10:40:37 AMIt's really, really not. Especially since it IS state-wide, and Texas is a large enough consumer of text books that their education standards affect the entire country to some degree.
Quite a lot, actually. Texas is the second-biggest textbook buyer (after California), and most textbooks are written to be acceptable to California and Texas.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/29/arts/textbook-publishers-learn-avoid-messing-with-texas.html
Quote from: ulmont on April 08, 2009, 10:47:01 AM
Quote from: vinraith on April 08, 2009, 10:40:37 AMIt's really, really not. Especially since it IS state-wide, and Texas is a large enough consumer of text books that their education standards affect the entire country to some degree.
Quite a lot, actually. Texas is the second-biggest textbook buyer (after California), and most textbooks are written to be acceptable to California and Texas.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/29/arts/textbook-publishers-learn-avoid-messing-with-texas.html
Yup, it's a matter of national importance. What really scares me is that they apparently did it so quietly that a generally intelligent and well informed Texan like Valmy had no idea it was going on. This should be getting national news coverage, that it's not even getting
state coverage is disturbing.
Quote from: vinraith on April 08, 2009, 10:38:18 AMThat's odd, I wonder what these guys (http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/sboe/) do for a living, then?
Well ok that is new. It used to be the TEA was managed by a few appointed people and had only very limited power. It looks like that was reformed recently. That sorta makes me nervous as it threatens the historical independence of the districts. I suppose it is being done to counter the idiocy that mostly resulted from the historical independence of the districts :P
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/sboe/schedule/2009/march/full_board/thur_5_ch112_a2.pdf
Ok there is the new science policy.
QuoteScience concepts. The student knows the scientific theories of cosmology. The student is expected to:
(A) research and describe the historical development of the Big Bang Theory, including red shift, cosmic microwave background radiation, and other supporting evidence;
(B) research and describe current theories of the evolution of the universe, including estimates for the age of the universe; and
(C) research and describe scientific hypotheses of the fate of the universe, including open and closed universes and the role of dark matter and dark energy.
So um...how are they going to teach the Big Bang theory without mentioning the age of the universe?
QuoteScience concepts. The student knows the characteristics and life cycle of stars. The student is expected to:
(A) identify the characteristics of main sequence stars, including surface temperature, age, relative size, and composition;
(B) characterize star formation in stellar nurseries from giant molecular clouds, to protostars, to the development of main sequence stars;
(C) evaluate the relationship between mass and fusion on the dying process and properties of stars;
(D) differentiate among the end states of stars, including white dwarfs, neutron stars, and black holes;
(E) compare how the mass and gravity of a main sequence star will determine its end state as a white dwarf, neutron star, or black hole;
(F) relate the use of spectroscopy in obtaining physical data on celestial objects such as temperature, chemical composition, and relative motion; and
(G) use the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram to plot and examine the life cycle of stars from birth to death.
I might not be a cosmologist but I presume the life cycle of a star is longer than six thousand years.
QuoteScience concepts. The student knows evolutionary theory is a scientific explanation for the unity and diversity of life. The student is expected to:
(A) analyze and evaluate how evidence of common ancestry among groups is provided by the fossil record, biogeography, and homologies, including anatomical, molecular, and developmental;
(B) analyze and evaluate the sufficiency or insufficiency of common ancestry to explain the sudden appearance, stasis, and sequential nature of groups in the fossil record;
(C) analyze and evaluate how natural selection produces change in populations, not individuals;
(D) analyze and evaluate how the elements of natural selection, including inherited variation, the potential of a population to produce more offspring than can survive, and a finite supply of environmental resources, result in differential reproductive success;
(E) analyze and evaluate the relationship of natural selection to adaptation and to the development of diversity in and among species; and
(F) analyze and evaluate the effects of other evolutionary mechanisms, including genetic drift, gene flow, mutation, and recombination.
Well...if the teacher is teaching a group of science students I think he or she should have no problem teaching the students all they need to know about evolution and the age of the universe with those guidlines.
Quote from: The Nickname Who Was Thursday on April 08, 2009, 10:46:11 AM
Quote from: Viking on April 08, 2009, 08:40:07 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 08, 2009, 08:33:29 AM
What he hears: "blah blah CHOCOLATE blah blah blah".
At long last a god I can pray to. The Holy Trinity of Beer, Pizza and Chocolate.
Are you a woman? :huh:
No, I just like chocolate.
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2009, 11:00:54 AM
Well...if the teacher is teaching a group of science students I think he or she should have no problem teaching the students all they need to know about evolution and the age of the universe with those guidlines.
This isn't about the teachers that
want to teach science, it's about weakening standards so that those teachers with an ideological agenda can weaken those elements of scientific education that conflict with their dogma.
But as long as you and the Discovery Institute (http://www.discovery.org/a/9851) are both pleased with the new standards I suppose everything will be fine.
Quote from: vinraith on April 08, 2009, 11:09:13 AMThis isn't about the teachers that want to teach science, it's about weakening standards so that those teachers with an ideological agenda can weaken those lements of scientific education that conflict with their dogma.
But as long as you and the Discovery Institute (http://www.discovery.org/a/9851) are both pleased with the new standards I suppose everything will be fine.
I have a hard time seeing somebody who hates biology teaching biology. This is meant for high school students. The teacher would only teach biology and nothing else. Would somebody really seek out or get that job if they were not a science teacher? Certainly not in a major district.
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2009, 11:11:54 AM
Quote from: vinraith on April 08, 2009, 11:09:13 AMThis isn't about the teachers that want to teach science, it's about weakening standards so that those teachers with an ideological agenda can weaken those lements of scientific education that conflict with their dogma.
But as long as you and the Discovery Institute (http://www.discovery.org/a/9851) are both pleased with the new standards I suppose everything will be fine.
I have a hard time seeing somebody who hates biology teaching biology.
:blink:
If all biology teachers were on board with evolution we wouldn't be having these problems. Your naivete is charming, though.
As to your questions about the age of the universe portion of things, I refer you here:
http://www.physorg.com/news158320278.html
Quote from: vinraith on April 08, 2009, 11:13:38 AM:blink:
If all biology teachers were on board with evolution we wouldn't be having these problems. Your naivete is charming, though.
Hey there is only so much a distant bureaucracy can do about what goes on in the actual classroom. These guidelines make it clear that at the very least the kids will learn about what the theory of evolution, as it currently exists, says. I am sure 15 year olds who are so inclined will not have any problem learning what they need to know and if they are in a place where raving lunacy is accepted I do not see how we can effect that simply through some proclamation from far off.
http://www.physorg.com/news158320278.html
Again that assumes alot. They presume the age of the universe will be elminated and then report it as fact.
It strikes me that they are trying to compromise and come up with language that will satisfy all parties. Clearly they are not doing a good job.
Further I do not see the term 'intelligent design' appear anywhere in the science standards.
It will however leave local school boards with the chance to water down the science part to accomadate their constituents. Since this will not happen in any of the major cities, where the overwhelming majority of Texans live this does not concern me that much. My hypothetical kids will be fine. There is nothing in there to compel a school district to change its curriculum to teach intelligent design, it simply gives them the option to.
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2009, 11:18:37 AM
Further I do not see the term 'intelligent design' appear anywhere in the science standards.
:blink:
No, of course not. It's not about building ID up at this point, just tearing evolution down. You behave as though you've never read a word about this debate before. It's not about new language being added to the standards, it's about what's being subtracted. Every time there's a revision, a little more specificity gets removed and the door is opened a little more to the anti-science brigade. Every time this happens, they celebrate a bit more.
Quite frankly if the Discovery Institute popping champagne corks over this set of standards isn't enough to give you pause there's really nothing I can do to help you. Enjoy your state gradually sliding into the dark ages and dragging the rest of us with it. Congratulations, you're the new Kansas.
Quote from: vinraith on April 08, 2009, 11:24:07 AM
:blink:
No, of course not. It's not about building ID up at this point, just tearing evolution down. You behave as though you've never read a word about this debate before.
Quite frankly if the Discovery Institute popping champagne corks over this set of standards isn't enough to give you pause there's really nothing I can do to help you, enjoy your state gradually sliding into the dark ages and dragging the rest of us with it.
Gradually? Have you seen the academic performance of the non-suburban districts? I would be ecstatic if most of the kids were literate, much less that they were educated enough to have an opinion on Evolution.
The suburban districts will be fine and my local schools will not be effected.
QuoteEvery time there's a revision, a little more specificity gets removed and the door is opened a little more to the anti-science brigade. Every time this happens, they celebrate a bit more.
They are dellusional and are convincing nobody. A few bones will be tossed their way but that is all they will ever get.
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2009, 11:18:37 AM
Further I do not see the term 'intelligent design' appear anywhere in the science standards.
It will however leave local school boards with the chance to water down the science part to accomadate their constituents. Since this will not happen in any of the major cities, where the overwhelming majority of Texans live this does not concern me that much. My hypothetical kids will be fine. There is nothing in there to compel a school district to change its curriculum to teach intelligent design, it simply gives them the option to.
ID has been effectively dead since Dover v. Kitzmiller. But that hasn't stopped the devout from pushing the issue.
Quote from: Viking on April 08, 2009, 11:31:35 AMID has been effectively dead since Dover v. Kitzmiller. But that hasn't stopped the devout from pushing the issue.
Good. Everytime they do this idiocy it continues the 'blue'ing of the Texas cities.
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2009, 11:25:58 AM
They are dellusional and are convincing nobody. A few bones will be tossed their way but that is all they will ever get.
I wish I could believe that, but those bones seem to be piling up awfully quickly and the movement's ability to jam bodies of elected officials full of their own people does little to ease my mind.
Quote from: vinraith on April 08, 2009, 11:24:07 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2009, 11:18:37 AM
Further I do not see the term 'intelligent design' appear anywhere in the science standards.
It's not about new language being added to the standards, it's about what's being subtracted. Every time there's a revision, a little more specificity gets removed and the door is opened a little more to the anti-science brigade. Every time this happens, they celebrate a bit more.
:yes:
I'm often pretty centrist on a lot of issues and open to compromise, but on bullshit things like this I'm utterly resolute.
Quote from: vinraith on April 08, 2009, 11:40:15 AMI wish I could believe that, but those bones seem to be piling up awfully quickly and the movement's ability to jam bodies of elected officials full of their own people does little to ease my mind.
I guess the thing is Vinny we have had a certain number of fundies on our elected bodies forever and they always are on some crusade or another. It used to be sex education, for example. Eventually they move on to the next thing. We make compromises and do what we need to do to satisfy them but they rarely do any lasting harm. It is just a fact of life living down here. It is also one of the reasons I like the Latinos coming in. It helps keep the Baptist beast at bay.
The main thing that irritates me about it, is it keeps the press babbling about whatever issue they are bringing up and keeps the heat off the real and substantial failures of the state's educational system.
Quote from: FunkMonk on April 08, 2009, 11:43:31 AM:yes:
I'm often pretty centrist on a lot of issues and open to compromise, but on bullshit things like this I'm utterly resolute.
You mean about how evolution led to Nazi Germany and the Gulags?
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2009, 11:44:34 AM
Quote from: vinraith on April 08, 2009, 11:40:15 AMI wish I could believe that, but those bones seem to be piling up awfully quickly and the movement's ability to jam bodies of elected officials full of their own people does little to ease my mind.
I guess the thing is Vinny we have had a certain number of fundies on our elected bodies forever and they always are on some crusade or another. It used to be sex education, for example. Eventually they move on to the next thing. We make compromises and do what we need to do to satisfy them but they rarely do any lasting harm. It is just a fact of life living down here. It is also one of the reasons I like the Latinos coming in. It helps keep the Baptist beast at bay.
The main thing that irritates me about it, is it keeps the press babbling about whatever issue they are bringing up and keeps the heat off the real and substantial failures of the state's educational system.
Well, that's certainly understandable. From an
outside perspective it's really the textbook issue that has me concerned with all this.
Anyway, apparently the sex ed thing is ongoing too:
http://tfnblog.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/follow-testimony-on-tx-sex-ed-bills-online/
Quote from: vinraith on April 08, 2009, 11:13:38 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2009, 11:11:54 AM
Quote from: vinraith on April 08, 2009, 11:09:13 AMThis isn't about the teachers that want to teach science, it's about weakening standards so that those teachers with an ideological agenda can weaken those lements of scientific education that conflict with their dogma.
But as long as you and the Discovery Institute (http://www.discovery.org/a/9851) are both pleased with the new standards I suppose everything will be fine.
I have a hard time seeing somebody who hates biology teaching biology.
:blink:
If all biology teachers were on board with evolution we wouldn't be having these problems. Your naivete is charming, though.
That isn't the case at all though - most of the demands for YEC-type bullshit are done over the objections of the actual teachers, generally pushed by some dumb ass elected school board that doesn't know the first thing about teaching because they are religious fundy soccer moms or some crap like that.
I think you are making much ado about....well, not nothing, but not much.
How are those guidelines, for example, going to force textbook manufacturers to short shrift evolution, for example - even if we accept for the sake of argument that the standards allow for more religious influence from the teachers?
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2009, 11:51:54 AM
Quote from: FunkMonk on April 08, 2009, 11:43:31 AM:yes:
I'm often pretty centrist on a lot of issues and open to compromise, but on bullshit things like this I'm utterly resolute.
You mean about how evolution led to Nazi Germany and the Gulags?
:lmfao:
Quote from: vinraith on April 08, 2009, 11:55:47 AMWell, that's certainly understandable. From an outside perspective it's really the textbook issue that has me concerned with all this.
Anyway, apparently the sex ed thing is ongoing too:
http://tfnblog.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/follow-testimony-on-tx-sex-ed-bills-online/
Hehe that is so hilarious. Sometimes the best we can hope for is simply to be a warning to others. I love the combination of the social conservatives putting forth policies that increase teen pregnancies while at the same time severely limiting who can adopt children.
And anyway the Austin schools teach a comprehensive sex ed curriculum so I was not aware of the controversy. Not that teaching the kids about contraception seems to be helping much, we still have a pretty high teen pregnancy rate.
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2009, 11:11:54 AM
I have a hard time seeing somebody who hates biology teaching biology.
Please note that teaching high-school biology and supporting the theory of evolution are two different things. High school biology is mostly about anatomy and rote memorization. Although evolution rates a mention, it certainly would be easy to teach it without mention of the theory, just as was done for decades.
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2009, 12:34:23 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2009, 11:11:54 AM
I have a hard time seeing somebody who hates biology teaching biology.
Please note that teaching high-school biology and supporting the theory of evolution are two different things. High school biology is mostly about anatomy and rote memorization. Although evolution rates a mention, it certainly would be easy to teach it without mention of the theory, just as was done for decades.
Agreed. I'd argue that is a big problem, as well.
With the Evangelical movement dividing Christians into Us and Pseudo-Humanists this isn't that surprising. But the Evangelical movement is now totally out of steam, and there are a few more moderate Christian intellectuals out there. I fully expect to see a Moderate Christian revival that will help stem the bleeding from two decades of Bible-bashing insanity, and I think the Dawkins-Hitchens-Whatever crowd are now poisoning the atmosphere for atheism as badly as the Evangelicals ever did for Christianity.
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2009, 11:17:38 AM
It strikes me that they are trying to compromise and come up with language that will satisfy all parties. Clearly they are not doing a good job.
They can't satisfy all parties. Anything short of creationism-only will not satisfy the types of people who go in for this thing. On the other hand, any loosening of a loophole drives the science watchdogs insane. In the meantime, none of this really has much of an effect on the classroom, and all it does is make lawyers wealthy.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 08, 2009, 12:40:55 PMI think the Dawkins-Hitchens-Whatever crowd are now poisoning the atmosphere for atheism as badly as the Evangelicals ever did for Christianity.
No question of that. militant atheism has done a fair bit of harm to secular causes (and science in general, arguably) here lately.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 08, 2009, 12:40:55 PM
But the Evangelical movement is now totally out of steam, and there are a few more moderate Christian intellectuals out there.
I see no support for either statement.
Quote from: vinraith on April 08, 2009, 10:40:37 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 08, 2009, 10:31:01 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2009, 10:25:22 AM
Quote from: vinraith on April 08, 2009, 10:23:30 AMOn the other, you have the Texas schoolboard dismantling science education in the state so as to avoid offending the YEC crowd.
There are zillions of school boards in Texas. The only one that dismantles science education is probably in a rural district that never really taught it to begin with.
There is no State school board.
In spite of any actual facts you may present, I am gonna continue to view Texas through the lens of the most retarded thing any backwoods hick Texan has ever said or done. I sorta picture the whole state as inhabited by Yoseminie Sam look-alikes, only carrying Bibles and stomping on science textbooks.
Just because it's funny. :D
It's really, really not. Especially since it IS state-wide, and Texas is a large enough consumer of text books that their education standards affect the entire country to some degree.
http://www.statesman.com/search/content/news/stories/local/03/28/0328sboe.html
Not intended as a dig at your serious points - I just wanted to rile Valmy. :D
Quote from: Barrister on April 08, 2009, 12:48:37 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on April 08, 2009, 12:40:55 PM
But the Evangelical movement is now totally out of steam, and there are a few more moderate Christian intellectuals out there.
I see no support for either statement.
They've run the Republican Party into the ground and couldn't get Huckabee nominated, they've turned to relatively moderate (and soft spoken) people like Warren who tend to focus more on poverty relief than prayer in schools, and well we now have Ross Douthat writing for the NYT, Andrew Sullivan and a few others.
Quote from: vinraith on April 08, 2009, 12:48:29 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on April 08, 2009, 12:40:55 PMI think the Dawkins-Hitchens-Whatever crowd are now poisoning the atmosphere for atheism as badly as the Evangelicals ever did for Christianity.
No question of that. militant atheism has done a fair bit of harm to secular causes (and science in general, arguably) here lately.
Yes they are doing so much damage that we have a thread called "The End of Christian America". What Dawkins et.al. do is force the choice between tradition and reason. People resent being forced to make the choice. Needless to say, eventually the choice leads to either reason or fundamentalism.
Quote from: vinraith on April 08, 2009, 12:48:29 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on April 08, 2009, 12:40:55 PMI think the Dawkins-Hitchens-Whatever crowd are now poisoning the atmosphere for atheism as badly as the Evangelicals ever did for Christianity.
No question of that. militant atheism has done a fair bit of harm to secular causes (and science in general, arguably) here lately.
Every time I hear someone argue that Atheists are more educated/intelligent/tolerant/fun, I just send them this YouTube Video;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mgGBuEdvF0
While I respect a lot of Atheists (yourself included) and tend to agree with them on a lot of things (state secularism, science and whatnot), there is a certain type of unintelligent Atheist who thinks his Atheism is a panacea for his want of intelligence that I think is far, far more annoying than your garden variety Evangelical.
Quote from: Viking on April 08, 2009, 12:57:13 PM
Quote from: vinraith on April 08, 2009, 12:48:29 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on April 08, 2009, 12:40:55 PMI think the Dawkins-Hitchens-Whatever crowd are now poisoning the atmosphere for atheism as badly as the Evangelicals ever did for Christianity.
No question of that. militant atheism has done a fair bit of harm to secular causes (and science in general, arguably) here lately.
Reason and Fundamentalism are not diametrically opposed, as what was once reasonable can be held to religiously and become "Fundementalist". Was Communism that long ago?
Yes they are doing so much damage that we have a thread called "The End of Christian America". What Dawkins et.al. do is force the choice between tradition and reason. People resent being forced to make the choice. Needless to say, eventually the choice leads to either reason or fundamentalism.
Reason and Fundamentalism are not diametrically opposed, as what was once reasonable can be held to religiously and become "Fundementalist". Was Communism that long ago?
Actually the polarization you describe is a pretty fundamentalist tactic.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 08, 2009, 12:40:55 PM
With the Evangelical movement dividing Christians into Us and Pseudo-Humanists this isn't that surprising. But the Evangelical movement is now totally out of steam, and there are a few more moderate Christian intellectuals out there. I fully expect to see a Moderate Christian revival that will help stem the bleeding from two decades of Bible-bashing insanity, and I think the Dawkins-Hitchens-Whatever crowd are now poisoning the atmosphere for atheism as badly as the Evangelicals ever did for Christianity.
I guess it depends on what you see as the source of the upswing in atheism. If you see it as dissatisfaction with the religious right, then your analysis might hold. However, if you see it as a general decrease in the level of superstition in society, then I'm not sure that a 'Great Revival' is possible.
Quote from: Viking on April 08, 2009, 12:57:13 PM
Quote from: vinraith on April 08, 2009, 12:48:29 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on April 08, 2009, 12:40:55 PMI think the Dawkins-Hitchens-Whatever crowd are now poisoning the atmosphere for atheism as badly as the Evangelicals ever did for Christianity.
No question of that. militant atheism has done a fair bit of harm to secular causes (and science in general, arguably) here lately.
Yes they are doing so much damage that we have a thread called "The End of Christian America". What Dawkins et.al. do is force the choice between tradition and reason. People resent being forced to make the choice. Needless to say, eventually the choice leads to either reason or fundamentalism.
I weep for the excluded middle. :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on April 08, 2009, 01:04:11 PM
Quote from: Viking on April 08, 2009, 12:57:13 PM
Quote from: vinraith on April 08, 2009, 12:48:29 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on April 08, 2009, 12:40:55 PMI think the Dawkins-Hitchens-Whatever crowd are now poisoning the atmosphere for atheism as badly as the Evangelicals ever did for Christianity.
No question of that. militant atheism has done a fair bit of harm to secular causes (and science in general, arguably) here lately.
Yes they are doing so much damage that we have a thread called "The End of Christian America". What Dawkins et.al. do is force the choice between tradition and reason. People resent being forced to make the choice. Needless to say, eventually the choice leads to either reason or fundamentalism.
I weep for the excluded middle. :lol:
That's what you get for being a
Social Fascist Tolerant Moderate!
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2009, 01:03:16 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on April 08, 2009, 12:40:55 PM
With the Evangelical movement dividing Christians into Us and Pseudo-Humanists this isn't that surprising. But the Evangelical movement is now totally out of steam, and there are a few more moderate Christian intellectuals out there. I fully expect to see a Moderate Christian revival that will help stem the bleeding from two decades of Bible-bashing insanity, and I think the Dawkins-Hitchens-Whatever crowd are now poisoning the atmosphere for atheism as badly as the Evangelicals ever did for Christianity.
I guess it depends on what you see as the source of the upswing in atheism. If you see it as dissatisfaction with the religious right, then your analysis might hold. However, if you see it as a general decrease in the level of superstition in society, then I'm not sure that a 'Great Revival' is possible.
This doesn't hold, I don't think, as there has been no great upswing in education or science or the like to explain the rise in Secularism as anything other than a reaction against a Revival.
And need I remind you that this country is (in)famous for its revivals. Fanatical with the Pilgrims, the most secular nation in the world during the Revolution, fanatical during the Great Revival, secular after the Civil War, etc.....
Quote from: Queequeg on April 08, 2009, 01:06:26 PMThat's what you get for being a Social Fascist Tolerant Moderate!
What?
Quote from: Queequeg on April 08, 2009, 01:08:44 PMThis doesn't hold, I don't think, as there has been no great upswing in education or science or the like to explain the rise in Secularism as anything other than a reaction against a Revival.
And need I remind you that this country is (in)famous for its revivals. Fanatical with the Pilgrims, the most secular nation in the world during the Revolution, fanatical during the Great Revival, secular after the Civil War, etc.....
Well we had two Great Awakenings but the last one was over 150 years ago...
Quote from: Queequeg on April 08, 2009, 01:08:44 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2009, 01:03:16 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on April 08, 2009, 12:40:55 PM
With the Evangelical movement dividing Christians into Us and Pseudo-Humanists this isn't that surprising. But the Evangelical movement is now totally out of steam, and there are a few more moderate Christian intellectuals out there. I fully expect to see a Moderate Christian revival that will help stem the bleeding from two decades of Bible-bashing insanity, and I think the Dawkins-Hitchens-Whatever crowd are now poisoning the atmosphere for atheism as badly as the Evangelicals ever did for Christianity.
I guess it depends on what you see as the source of the upswing in atheism. If you see it as dissatisfaction with the religious right, then your analysis might hold. However, if you see it as a general decrease in the level of superstition in society, then I'm not sure that a 'Great Revival' is possible.
This doesn't hold, I don't think, as there has been no great upswing in education or science or the like to explain the rise in Secularism as anything other than a reaction against a Revival.
I think you are
A) Wrong about there not being any great upswing in education, and
B) Creating a false dichotomy that says that absent an upswing in education, we must presume that the only thing that can explain a rise in secularism is a reaction against a revival. Or a Revival.
Lastly, I think your reminding us that this country is famous for revivals is bogus. The US has always been a mostly Christian nation, and the relative importance of religion has not varied all that much while steadily declining at a relatively low rate with the occasional blip.
Quote from: Viking on April 08, 2009, 12:57:13 PM
Yes they are doing so much damage that we have a thread called "The End of Christian America". What Dawkins et.al. do is force the choice between tradition and reason. People resent being forced to make the choice. Needless to say, eventually the choice leads to either reason or fundamentalism.
Honestly, I don't see why people should be "forced to make a choice" between "reason" and "tradition", and I think it's a constructed meta-reality that such a choice exists.
And it does not lead to "either reason or fundamentalism", it leads to the precise silliness Dawkins spends half his time debunking (when he's not busy killing God); alternative medicine, healing, aural energy stuff. It leads to invented tradition covered in scientific language, half-baked imported mysticism with a hint of animist religion. If the Christian god is dead, we'd better find a new one, because this science god is boring and demands evidence.
I applaud the willingness to challenge unreason and counterknowledge, but I sincerely doubt hyperbole and tabloidisation of science helps. T
Quotealternative medicine, healing, aural energy stuff
Hey Quantum Mechanics proves all this stuff is true somehow.
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2009, 01:21:34 PM
Quotealternative medicine, healing, aural energy stuff
Hey Quantum Mechanics proves all this stuff is true somehow.
And Quantum Mechanics is, as we all know, science. Super fantastic rational reasonable science!!! :swiss: :uffda: :w00t: :w00t:
Quote from: Queequeg on April 08, 2009, 12:59:06 PM
Every time I hear someone argue that Atheists are more educated/intelligent/tolerant/fun, I just send them this YouTube Video;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mgGBuEdvF0
Thank you. Now I can explain to people why I've grown tired of atheists. I can just point them to the YouTube douchebag.
:)
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 08, 2009, 01:23:40 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on April 08, 2009, 12:59:06 PM
Every time I hear someone argue that Atheists are more educated/intelligent/tolerant/fun, I just send them this YouTube Video;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mgGBuEdvF0
Thank you. Now I can explain to people why I've grown tired of atheists. I can just point them to the YouTube douchebag.
:)
How many atheists do you know who act like that? Must be quite a lot, you should video them and post them on youtube.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 08, 2009, 01:08:44 PM
This doesn't hold, I don't think, as there has been no great upswing in education or science or the like to explain the rise in Secularism as anything other than a reaction against a Revival.
And need I remind you that this country is (in)famous for its revivals. Fanatical with the Pilgrims, the most secular nation in the world during the Revolution, fanatical during the Great Revival, secular after the Civil War, etc.....
There has, however, been a great upswing in our knowledge of the universe, and the evidence to support it. That knowledge is devastating to Christianity.
Quote from: Berkut on April 08, 2009, 01:31:12 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 08, 2009, 01:23:40 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on April 08, 2009, 12:59:06 PM
Every time I hear someone argue that Atheists are more educated/intelligent/tolerant/fun, I just send them this YouTube Video;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mgGBuEdvF0
Thank you. Now I can explain to people why I've grown tired of atheists. I can just point them to the YouTube douchebag.
:)
How many atheists do you know who act like that? Must be quite a lot, you should video them and post them on youtube.
That would mean having to listen to them. Ugh.
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2009, 01:32:22 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on April 08, 2009, 01:08:44 PM
This doesn't hold, I don't think, as there has been no great upswing in education or science or the like to explain the rise in Secularism as anything other than a reaction against a Revival.
And need I remind you that this country is (in)famous for its revivals. Fanatical with the Pilgrims, the most secular nation in the world during the Revolution, fanatical during the Great Revival, secular after the Civil War, etc.....
There has, however, been a great upswing in our knowledge of the universe, and the evidence to support it. That knowledge is devastating to Christianity.
The high school graduation rate since 1940 has gone from about 50% to about 80%.
College attendance rates, I am sure, have gone up dramatically as well.
The argument that there has been no upswing in education is spectacularly wrong.
Quote from: Berkut on April 08, 2009, 01:36:19 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2009, 01:32:22 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on April 08, 2009, 01:08:44 PM
This doesn't hold, I don't think, as there has been no great upswing in education or science or the like to explain the rise in Secularism as anything other than a reaction against a Revival.
And need I remind you that this country is (in)famous for its revivals. Fanatical with the Pilgrims, the most secular nation in the world during the Revolution, fanatical during the Great Revival, secular after the Civil War, etc.....
There has, however, been a great upswing in our knowledge of the universe, and the evidence to support it. That knowledge is devastating to Christianity.
The high school graduation rate since 1940 has gone from about 50% to about 80%.
College attendance rates, I am sure, have gone up dramatically as well.
The argument that there has been no upswing in education is spectacularly wrong.
I meant in the last 20 years, with the upswing in those who identify as non-religious.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 08, 2009, 01:08:44 PM
This doesn't hold, I don't think, as there has been no great upswing in education or science or the like to explain the rise in Secularism as anything other than a reaction against a Revival.
And need I remind you that this country is (in)famous for its revivals. Fanatical with the Pilgrims, the most secular nation in the world during the Revolution, fanatical during the Great Revival, secular after the Civil War, etc.....
Religion is down everywhere, not just the US. It is a global phenomenon, even if it is felt strongest in Europe. Availability of information is anathema to any kind of superstition.
Quote from: Iormlund on April 08, 2009, 01:42:06 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on April 08, 2009, 01:08:44 PM
This doesn't hold, I don't think, as there has been no great upswing in education or science or the like to explain the rise in Secularism as anything other than a reaction against a Revival.
And need I remind you that this country is (in)famous for its revivals. Fanatical with the Pilgrims, the most secular nation in the world during the Revolution, fanatical during the Great Revival, secular after the Civil War, etc.....
Religion is down everywhere, not just the US. It is a global phenomenon, even if it is felt strongest in Europe. Availability of information is anathema to any kind of superstition.
China, Turkey, the rise of Evangelical Christianity in Latin America? If anything the secularization of Europe is somewhat unique to Europe, though obviously some areas are affected by Europe (Quebec).
Quote from: Berkut on April 08, 2009, 01:36:19 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2009, 01:32:22 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on April 08, 2009, 01:08:44 PM
This doesn't hold, I don't think, as there has been no great upswing in education or science or the like to explain the rise in Secularism as anything other than a reaction against a Revival.
And need I remind you that this country is (in)famous for its revivals. Fanatical with the Pilgrims, the most secular nation in the world during the Revolution, fanatical during the Great Revival, secular after the Civil War, etc.....
There has, however, been a great upswing in our knowledge of the universe, and the evidence to support it. That knowledge is devastating to Christianity.
The high school graduation rate since 1940 has gone from about 50% to about 80%.
College attendance rates, I am sure, have gone up dramatically as well.
The argument that there has been no upswing in education is spectacularly wrong.
Cherry-picked. How about in comparison to 1980?
Quote from: Queequeg on April 08, 2009, 12:59:06 PM
Every time I hear someone argue that Atheists are more educated/intelligent/tolerant/fun, I just send them this YouTube Video;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mgGBuEdvF0
While I respect a lot of Atheists (yourself included) and tend to agree with them on a lot of things (state secularism, science and whatnot), there is a certain type of unintelligent Atheist who thinks his Atheism is a panacea for his want of intelligence that I think is far, far more annoying than your garden variety Evangelical.
Great you find one idiot on YouTube and you've got proof positive that atheists are arrogant idiots. But to point you to the Project Steve (http://ncseweb.org/taking-action/project-steve) response to anecdotal arguments. Where the NCSE responded to the Discovery Institutes signature list of 200 scientists by getting 200 Scientists names Steve to sign a counter signature list.
For every Amazing Atheist you have a VenomFangX (http://www.youtube.com/user/VenomFangX) who equates atheism with ignorance and can't understand the big bang theory and a dozen more less clever creationists who can't work their camera.
I'd like to know, which atheist thinks "Atheism is a panacea for" anything?
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2009, 01:45:05 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 08, 2009, 01:36:19 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2009, 01:32:22 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on April 08, 2009, 01:08:44 PM
This doesn't hold, I don't think, as there has been no great upswing in education or science or the like to explain the rise in Secularism as anything other than a reaction against a Revival.
And need I remind you that this country is (in)famous for its revivals. Fanatical with the Pilgrims, the most secular nation in the world during the Revolution, fanatical during the Great Revival, secular after the Civil War, etc.....
There has, however, been a great upswing in our knowledge of the universe, and the evidence to support it. That knowledge is devastating to Christianity.
The high school graduation rate since 1940 has gone from about 50% to about 80%.
College attendance rates, I am sure, have gone up dramatically as well.
The argument that there has been no upswing in education is spectacularly wrong.
Cherry-picked. How about in comparison to 1980?
The 2003 census saw the highest high school and bachelor degrees ever. Increase from ~70% in 1980 to nearly 85% of 25 year olds having a high school diploma or more.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 08, 2009, 01:39:40 PM
I meant in the last 20 years, with the upswing in those who identify as non-religious.
High school graduation rates in the US have increased over the last 20 years.
Obviously, as they approach higher percentages, teh rate of increase will decline.
But by another metric (percent with a bachelors degree or more) that provides a little more room for growth, in the 1980-2003 time frame the US saw the percentage go from ~15% to nearly 30%. Almost double.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fthumb%2F0%2F03%2FEducational_attainment.jpg%2F561px-Educational_attainment.jpg&hash=39e1c0c5bd2f24157b03b1ccfc1370816d20a35b)
That's more useful. Although it also goes to show how devalued and dumbed-down education has become.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 08, 2009, 12:54:37 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 08, 2009, 12:48:37 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on April 08, 2009, 12:40:55 PM
But the Evangelical movement is now totally out of steam, and there are a few more moderate Christian intellectuals out there.
I see no support for either statement.
They've run the Republican Party into the ground and couldn't get Huckabee nominated, they've turned to relatively moderate (and soft spoken) people like Warren who tend to focus more on poverty relief than prayer in schools, and well we now have Ross Douthat writing for the NYT, Andrew Sullivan and a few others.
I suspected you were confusing the political strength of the evangelical movement with its overall strength.
Don't do it.
The numbers I've seen still show that the number of self-identified evangelicals continues to increase.
Quote from: Berkut on April 08, 2009, 02:08:03 PM
Obviously, as they approach higher percentages, teh rate of increase will decline.
That's my exact objection; if Education and Secularization had such an obvious relationship, than the rise in self-identification as non-religious should have happened post-war rather than in the 1980s, as since then it appears as though the rate of growth in number of High School graduates, and the number of people receiving Bachelor's Degrees went from extremely low to pretty low.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 08, 2009, 01:44:49 PM
China, Turkey, the rise of Evangelical Christianity in Latin America? If anything the secularization of Europe is somewhat unique to Europe, though obviously some areas are affected by Europe (Quebec).
The minor rise of a few unimportant (in context) religions in the backdrop of a uniform conservative background doesn't mean much. Islam, Evangelism and most religions are on the rise in Spain. But so is atheism or agnosticism, in much bigger numbers. They are all eating from the same cake, Catholicism. Over 70% of Spaniards say they are Catholics, yet seminars and churches are chronically empty. Nobody visits them for anything else besides marriages or funerals.
That gay marriage and adoption was passed over here without serious opposition speaks volumes. And Spain is not even a secular country.
Granted, the more barbaric a place, the less this trend is manifested. But it happens. External influence has been accused of corrupting people for eons. And it does. And now a big part of the World has access to material that undermines religious teachings.
Spain ! = The World. If the Left had won the Civil War, in all probability after the collapse of a Communist Spanish government you'd have seen the rebirth of Catholicism; instead, the Church went into bed with Franco and still suffers from that. Combined with the European tendency towards Secularization and you have a powerful social force.
But this is a unique case. Hinduism is reviving under the BJP, Islam with Fundamentalism and the AKP, Christianity in China and with Evangelical movments encroaching on the terf of an ineffectual Catholic Church...
If anything the argument could be made that Secularism seems to be loosing ground outside of the United States, with the growth of Islam in Europe, and religious moments across Asia.
Nice try.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 08, 2009, 02:32:00 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 08, 2009, 02:08:03 PM
Obviously, as they approach higher percentages, teh rate of increase will decline.
That's my exact objection; if Education and Secularization had such an obvious relationship, than the rise in self-identification as non-religious should have happened post-war rather than in the 1980s, as since then it appears as though the rate of growth in number of High School graduates, and the number of people receiving Bachelor's Degrees went from extremely low to pretty low.
You should not confuse self-identification with actual belief. I'm pretty sure "morals" declined sharply during those years. Sexual revolution, for example?
Quote from: Iormlund on April 08, 2009, 02:35:58 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on April 08, 2009, 02:32:00 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 08, 2009, 02:08:03 PM
Obviously, as they approach higher percentages, teh rate of increase will decline.
That's my exact objection; if Education and Secularization had such an obvious relationship, than the rise in self-identification as non-religious should have happened post-war rather than in the 1980s, as since then it appears as though the rate of growth in number of High School graduates, and the number of people receiving Bachelor's Degrees went from extremely low to pretty low.
You should not confuse self-identification with actual belief. I'm pretty sure "morals" declined sharply during those years. Sexual revolution, for example?
American parishioners listen to talks about Chastity in Church while ogling the rack of the Preacher's daughter. Why do you think Evangelicals have high rates of teen pregnancy?
Quote from: Queequeg on April 08, 2009, 02:39:45 PM
American parishioners listen to talks about Chastity in Church while ogling the rack of the Preacher's daughter. Why do you think Evangelicals have high rates of teen pregnancy?
Best part of Easter: the young mothers in their sunday dresses, and imaging what I would do to them.
I wish there were more hot chicks at Princesca's family church. :(
They need to bring a dentist in there STAT.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 08, 2009, 02:32:00 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 08, 2009, 02:08:03 PM
Obviously, as they approach higher percentages, teh rate of increase will decline.
That's my exact objection; if Education and Secularization had such an obvious relationship, than the rise in self-identification as non-religious should have happened post-war rather than in the 1980s, as since then it appears as though the rate of growth in number of High School graduates, and the number of people receiving Bachelor's Degrees went from extremely low to pretty low.
You are reading way to0 much into the data, and more importantly details about the specific timing of particular "bumps". Education levels have consistently risen - secularism has consistently risen. They are likely linked, but not necessarily in such a direct manner that one would expect some kind of 1:1 ratio maintenance. There are a lot of variables involved beyond those two, even if one if influenced by the other to a great degree.
When will currency read "In PT Anderson and Sofia Coppola We Trust" :frog: :w00t:
Quote from: Caliga on April 08, 2009, 02:45:55 PM
I wish there were more hot chicks at Princesca's family church. :(
They need to bring a dentist in there STAT.
Middle class church goers for the win!
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 08, 2009, 02:48:23 PMMiddle class
Not this bunch. :(
Princesca has: dramatically improved her lot in life. :cool:
Quote from: Barrister on April 08, 2009, 02:20:40 PM
The numbers I've seen still show that the number of self-identified evangelicals continues to increase.
Evangelical christianity is a bit like Amway. Eventually they will run out of friends and relatives to whom they can pitch their product.
Quote from: Caliga on April 08, 2009, 02:49:26 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 08, 2009, 02:48:23 PMMiddle class
Not this bunch. :(
Princesca has: dramatically improved her lot in life. :cool:
I thank my parents every year for moving the hell away from Kentucky.
What amuses me is that I now have alot of Facebook "friends" who are native to this area, and tons of them put stuff like this in the "Religion:" field:
"OMG JAYSYS IS MAH GAHDING LAHT"
Strangely, it seems these are also always the people who engage in lots of immoral behavior like drug use, out of wedlock children, DUIs, and so on. :huh:
I can't think of any 'secular' friends I have who have similarly shady morals.
Quote from: Caliga on April 08, 2009, 02:53:50 PM
What amuses me is that I now have alot of Facebook "friends" who are native to this area, and tons of them put stuff like this in the "Religion:" field:
"OMG JAYSYS IS MAH GAHDING LAHT"
Strangely, it seems these are also always the people who engage in lots of immoral behavior like drug use, out of wedlock children, DUIs, and so on. :huh:
I can't think of any 'secular' friends I have who have similarly shady morals.
Three words: Guilt based culture.
Quote from: Caliga on April 08, 2009, 02:53:50 PM
What amuses me is that I now have alot of Facebook "friends" who are native to this area, and tons of them put stuff like this in the "Religion:" field:
"OMG JAYSYS IS MAH GAHDING LAHT"
Strangely, it seems these are also always the people who engage in lots of immoral behavior like drug use, out of wedlock children, DUIs, and so on. :huh:
I can't think of any 'secular' friends I have who have similarly shady morals.
This chick that gave me the best blowjob ever was so religious, Jesus himself would start edging away from her.
But damn, she was a freak in the sack. But on Sunday, she was in the front pew.
Quote from: Habsburg on April 08, 2009, 02:47:47 PM
When will currency read "In PT Anderson and Sofia Coppola We Trust" :frog: :w00t:
Maybe when Sofia Coppola starts making good films again, rather than relying on the strength of her first one.
Quote from: Caliga on April 08, 2009, 02:53:50 PM
What amuses me is that I now have alot of Facebook "friends" who are native to this area, and tons of them put stuff like this in the "Religion:" field:
"OMG JAYSYS IS MAH GAHDING LAHT"
Strangely, it seems these are also always the people who engage in lots of immoral behavior like drug use, out of wedlock children, DUIs, and so on. :huh:
I can't think of any 'secular' friends I have who have similarly shady morals.
I've always attributed that to the source of behaviour. The atheist can base his behavior of his morality because doesn't need to square his deeds with an external source of morality but only his conscience, while the believer needs to square his personal view of right and wrong with his external source of morality.
I try to avoid getting excessively anecdotal on Languish, but this is something I just noticed the other day and thought it was relevant. :cool:
Quote from: Queequeg on April 08, 2009, 02:34:23 PM
Spain ! = The World. If the Left had won the Civil War, in all probability after the collapse of a Communist Spanish government you'd have seen the rebirth of Catholicism; instead, the Church went into bed with Franco and still suffers from that. Combined with the European tendency towards Secularization and you have a powerful social force.
But this is a unique case. Hinduism is reviving under the BJP, Islam with Fundamentalism and the AKP, Christianity in China and with Evangelical movments encroaching on the terf of an ineffectual Catholic Church...
If anything the argument could be made that Secularism seems to be loosing ground outside of the United States, with the growth of Islam in Europe, and religious moments across Asia.
Nice try.
If the commies had won the war you could have seen something similar to what happened in Russia. Membership of the Church may have grown spectacularly after the commies lost power, but actual practice levels would not be higher than now.
Today's youth doesn't give a shit about Franco and they still don't flock to the seminars. They are more interested in oversize alloy rims and Jennies (the Spanish equivalent of white trash chicks).
About the rest, what Berkut said.
"OMG today's youth don't care about anything :mad: " is just about the oldest accusation there is. I believe I read it in Suetonius ;)
Quote from: Caliga on April 08, 2009, 03:04:59 PM
I try to avoid getting excessively anecdotal on Languish, but this is something I just noticed the other day and thought it was relevant. :cool:
:huh: :lmfao:
What am I, a clown? :)
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 08, 2009, 02:58:54 PM
Quote from: Caliga on April 08, 2009, 02:53:50 PM
What amuses me is that I now have alot of Facebook "friends" who are native to this area, and tons of them put stuff like this in the "Religion:" field:
"OMG JAYSYS IS MAH GAHDING LAHT"
Strangely, it seems these are also always the people who engage in lots of immoral behavior like drug use, out of wedlock children, DUIs, and so on. :huh:
I can't think of any 'secular' friends I have who have similarly shady morals.
This chick that gave me the best blowjob ever was so religious, Jesus himself would start edging away from her.
But damn, she was a freak in the sack. But on Sunday, she was in the front pew.
Lots of practice kneeling. :P
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2009, 08:18:23 AM
That is ridiculous. The Astronomers would have to accept on faith the whole nonsense about the big star thing was based on historical fact. The entire birth narrative, and any of the stuff about Jesus' youth, is almost certainly completely invented after the fact-if his life entirely was not in fact invented completely after the fact.
Not by that long. The only reason they were able to extrapolate the date is detailed description of the night sky at that time. They've used similar techniques in extrapolating birth/death dates of pharoahs.
Quote from: Viking on April 08, 2009, 03:02:25 PM
I've always attributed that to the source of behaviour. The atheist can base his behavior of his morality because doesn't need to square his deeds with an external source of morality but only his conscience, while the believer needs to square his personal view of right and wrong with his external source of morality.
The religious believe if they don't confess, they're damned. The nonreligious believe that if they don't confess, they get away with it. :contract:
Quote from: Caliga on April 08, 2009, 03:09:17 PM
"OMG today's youth don't care about anything :mad: " is just about the oldest accusation there is. I believe I read it in Suetonius ;)
We have records of Sumerians complaining about how the younger generation is going to fuck everything up.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 08, 2009, 03:47:31 PMNot by that long. The only reason they were able to extrapolate the date is detailed description of the night sky at that time. They've used similar techniques in extrapolating birth/death dates of pharoahs.
Right that was exactly what I was saying. They are making that guess based on suspect data. I mean the gospels are being written decades after Jesus "died" how could they possibly have an accurate idea what the night sky looked like?
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2009, 03:52:20 PM
Right that was exactly what I was saying. They are making that guess based on suspect data. I mean the gospels are being written decades after Jesus "died" how could they possibly have an accurate idea what the night sky looked like?
*shrugs* It doesn't really affect me either way, not being religious, it just amounts to what date I get out of work or school. However, if the Bible was intended to be interpreted as nonfiction, why would they have bothered to describe the sky at all, unless the current conditions were remarkably similar?
Decades isn't long enough for constellation drift, so they know roughly what star charts to work with, and from there, the description simply outlines the position in the calendar year.
Quote from: Berkut on April 08, 2009, 02:47:25 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on April 08, 2009, 02:32:00 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 08, 2009, 02:08:03 PM
Obviously, as they approach higher percentages, teh rate of increase will decline.
That's my exact objection; if Education and Secularization had such an obvious relationship, than the rise in self-identification as non-religious should have happened post-war rather than in the 1980s, as since then it appears as though the rate of growth in number of High School graduates, and the number of people receiving Bachelor's Degrees went from extremely low to pretty low.
You are reading way to0 much into the data, and more importantly details about the specific timing of particular "bumps". Education levels have consistently risen - secularism has consistently risen. They are likely linked, but not necessarily in such a direct manner that one would expect some kind of 1:1 ratio maintenance. There are a lot of variables involved beyond those two, even if one if influenced by the other to a great degree.
Again, this is only true in Europe and a few heavily Europeanized areas (Quebec, maybe some of the Crown Colonies). The rise of an educated middle class in Turkey, China and India have gone hand in hand with a rise in religious observance. Look at it this way; in 1960, a lot of Turkish, Chinese and Indian towns would have had no place of worship, all three were ruled by a secular elite (in the case of China an actively, belligerently anti-theist one), and all three eventually ended up stagnating and turning to capitalism. Today there are more active Christians in China than in Europe (and the number appears to be growing rapidly), the massively expanding Indian Middle Class is the backbone of the BJP (with the stagnant areas like West Bengal supporting the Communist Party), with a similar situation in Turkey with the AKP. Religion has become far more important in all three societies in the last 30 years, not less so. This is especially problematic for your theory as all three societies have seen a rapid increase in education and religiosity
at the same time. I would argue that you are correct in a certain sense; education, urbanization economic shift are a very fertile ground for the birth/strengthening of new ideas and identities, and stagnant national churches (in Protestant Europe) or super-stagnant international churches (the Catholic Church) have a hard time keeping up. Some of these are Secular, some (most?) aren't.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2009, 02:50:45 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 08, 2009, 02:20:40 PM
The numbers I've seen still show that the number of self-identified evangelicals continues to increase.
Evangelical christianity is a bit like Amway. Eventually they will run out of friends and relatives to whom they can pitch their product.
And yet it's been increasing for what - 30-40 years?
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2009, 09:15:12 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 08, 2009, 09:13:34 AM
I'm always amused that Marty and Tamas are such strident athiests. The Soviets were much better at brainwashing then we gave them credit for.
Marty would have been a Christian had he been straight. His gayness saved his soul.
Yeah. Or I would be a Christian if they weren't so stuck up about gays (and a couple of other things, like birth control). I don't believe in cherry-picking type of religion, so since I reject some of its tenets, I don't see myself sincerely embracing the rest. I think it's a honest approach, rather than pretending some of the nasty stuff isn't there.
I like Jesus and the whole catholic drama-queenish love for pomp and circumstance, though. The cult of saints, with its BDSM homoeroticism is rather nice too. And the whole catholic guilt thing tickles my martyr complex.
Quote from: Tamas on April 08, 2009, 09:36:47 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 08, 2009, 09:13:34 AM
I'm always amused that Marty and Tamas are such strident athiests. The Soviets were much better at brainwashing then we gave them credit for.
I am indeed an atheist. Marty isn't. He himself admits that much.
And I suspect he has a secret longing for the whole Catholic parade thing, he just can't succumb because catholics hate gays. :P
My approach to religion is best summed up by Oscar Wilde's quote: "I intend to die a catholic. I just can't imagine myself living as one." :P
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2009, 04:15:11 PM
Yeah. Or I would be a Christian if they weren't so stuck up about gays (and a couple of other things, like birth control). I don't believe in cherry-picking type of religion, so since I reject some of its tenets, I don't see myself sincerely embracing the rest. I think it's a honest approach, rather than pretending some of the nasty stuff isn't there.
I like Jesus and the whole catholic drama-queenish love for pomp and circumstance, though.
Huh. I believe Kain said something along those lines and he put it pretty well: Catholics see church as a temple; Protestants (mostly, exception made for Episcopalians) see it as a country club.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 08, 2009, 04:17:49 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2009, 04:15:11 PM
Yeah. Or I would be a Christian if they weren't so stuck up about gays (and a couple of other things, like birth control). I don't believe in cherry-picking type of religion, so since I reject some of its tenets, I don't see myself sincerely embracing the rest. I think it's a honest approach, rather than pretending some of the nasty stuff isn't there.
I like Jesus and the whole catholic drama-queenish love for pomp and circumstance, though.
Huh. I believe Kain said something along those lines and he put it pretty well: Catholics see church as a temple; Protestants (mostly, exception made for Episcopalians) see it as a country club.
I've always respected Cain more than Abel. At least he had his pride.
Quote from: Caliga on April 08, 2009, 03:12:36 PM
What am I, a clown? :)
Nah, you know, you're just funny.
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2009, 04:19:34 PM
I've always respected Cain more than Abel. At least he had his pride.
Except the person in question is KainShinra from Kapland and Paradox. Great guy, but refusing to degrade himself isn't one of his more notable traits. ;)
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2009, 04:19:34 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 08, 2009, 04:17:49 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2009, 04:15:11 PM
Yeah. Or I would be a Christian if they weren't so stuck up about gays (and a couple of other things, like birth control). I don't believe in cherry-picking type of religion, so since I reject some of its tenets, I don't see myself sincerely embracing the rest. I think it's a honest approach, rather than pretending some of the nasty stuff isn't there.
I like Jesus and the whole catholic drama-queenish love for pomp and circumstance, though.
Huh. I believe Kain said something along those lines and he put it pretty well: Catholics see church as a temple; Protestants (mostly, exception made for Episcopalians) see it as a country club.
I've always respected Cain more than Abel. At least he had his pride.
Anyone who gives a salad to someone who ordered filet minion deserves whatever he gets.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 08, 2009, 03:49:50 PM
Quote from: Viking on April 08, 2009, 03:02:25 PM
I've always attributed that to the source of behaviour. The atheist can base his behavior of his morality because doesn't need to square his deeds with an external source of morality but only his conscience, while the believer needs to square his personal view of right and wrong with his external source of morality.
The religious believe if they don't confess, they're damned. The nonreligious believe that if they don't confess, they get away with it. :contract:
That sounds like a really great slogan... do you have any corroboration for that argument?
Quote from: vinraith on April 08, 2009, 11:24:07 AM
No, of course not. It's not about building ID up at this point, just tearing evolution down.
Actually, ever since Dover, that's the entirety of their strategy. They don't have ID, they can't teach the controversy. All they have now is the dissent from Darwin holding action until they can get the Establishment Clause overturned in the courts.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 08, 2009, 04:23:42 PM
Anyone who gives a salad to someone who ordered filet minion deserves whatever he gets.
Did their god actually order a filet mignon? He asked for sacrifice, and got it. The Christian god is pure evil. If I thought for a minute that he actually existed, I'd expend all my efforts and power to destroy him.
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2009, 04:43:17 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on April 08, 2009, 04:23:42 PM
Anyone who gives a salad to someone who ordered filet minion deserves whatever he gets.
Did their god actually order a filet mignon? He asked for sacrifice, and got it. The Christian god is pure evil. If I thought for a minute that he actually existed, I'd expend all my efforts and power to destroy him.
Well, in all fairness Cain's reaction to God's displeasure with his veggies was way more over-the-top than God's "disrespect" for his offering.
Quote from: The Nickname Who Was Thursday on April 08, 2009, 04:51:12 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2009, 04:43:17 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on April 08, 2009, 04:23:42 PM
Anyone who gives a salad to someone who ordered filet minion deserves whatever he gets.
Did their god actually order a filet mignon? He asked for sacrifice, and got it. The Christian god is pure evil. If I thought for a minute that he actually existed, I'd expend all my efforts and power to destroy him.
Well, in all fairness Cain's reaction to God's displeasure with his veggies was way more over-the-top than God's "disrespect" for his offering.
Who were you in The Old Country, TNWWT?
Eddie Teach.
Quote from: Barrister on April 08, 2009, 04:04:44 PM
And yet it's been increasing for what - 30-40 years?
I guess thats right. The birth is probably the rise of the moral majority in the 80s. Do you think it is still increasing in numbers? I would have thought that particular market of belief became saturated by the end of the 90s. Where is the room for growth now?
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2009, 05:26:16 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 08, 2009, 04:04:44 PM
And yet it's been increasing for what - 30-40 years?
I guess thats right. The birth is probably the rise of the moral majority in the 80s. Do you think it is still increasing in numbers? I would have thought that particular market of belief became saturated by the end of the 90s. Where is the room for growth now?
With respect, I think you're equating the politically religious right with the general growth of the evangelical faith. Growth in evangelism arguably goes as far back as the 40s and 50s and Billy Graham and the like (although the movement goes back even further than that). It was only in the 1980s that certain aspects turned to political activism, but the churches, the preaches were all there well before that,
Where is the room for growth? Well its two-fold. First is the developing world. Latin America, Asia, is probably the source of most of the growth. But beyond that most "mainstream" Christian denominations continue to see falling numbers, so there is plenty of room for growth there.
Now I tried to find hard numbers and couldn't find any, but I'll keep looking.
Quote from: The Nickname Who Was Thursday on April 08, 2009, 04:51:12 PM
Well, in all fairness Cain's reaction to God's displeasure with his veggies was way more over-the-top than God's "disrespect" for his offering.
Why? The Christian god wanted blood, and blood he got. Yahweh revels in murder.
Quote from: Barrister on April 08, 2009, 05:52:14 PM
Where is the room for growth? Well its two-fold. First is the developing world. Latin America, Asia, is probably the source of most of the growth. But beyond that most "mainstream" Christian denominations continue to see falling numbers, so there is plenty of room for growth there.
The evangelicals can grow all they like in the third world, so long as their numbers continue to collapse in the first world. The numbers of Southern Baptists are down a little, and that's a start.
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2009, 06:07:36 PM
The evangelicals can grow all they like in the third world, so long as their numbers continue to collapse in the first world. The numbers of Southern Baptists are down a little, and that's a start.
Strictly speaking southern baptists are not evangelicals, IIRC.
Quote from: Barrister on April 08, 2009, 06:09:31 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2009, 06:07:36 PM
The evangelicals can grow all they like in the third world, so long as their numbers continue to collapse in the first world. The numbers of Southern Baptists are down a little, and that's a start.
Strictly speaking southern baptists are not evangelicals, IIRC.
They're definitely protestants.
Man, why the hell did this thread get so many posts?
I can't read that fast!
Quote from: Siege on April 08, 2009, 06:27:43 PM
Man, why the hell did this thread got so many posts?
I can't read that fast!
Do what i do and post something nonsensical and off topic!
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2009, 06:11:21 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 08, 2009, 06:09:31 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2009, 06:07:36 PM
The evangelicals can grow all they like in the third world, so long as their numbers continue to collapse in the first world. The numbers of Southern Baptists are down a little, and that's a start.
Strictly speaking southern baptists are not evangelicals, IIRC.
They're definitely protestants.
They're something like Wiccans and believe that they have the original Chrisitianity that they kept secret from the world for 1000 years or so.
Quote from: katmai on April 08, 2009, 06:28:28 PM
Quote from: Siege on April 08, 2009, 06:27:43 PM
Man, why the hell did this thread got so many posts?
I can't read that fast!
Do what i do and post something nonsensical and off topic!
But I want to read it.
Can I get a sumary?
Quote from: Siege on April 08, 2009, 06:29:19 PM
Quote from: katmai on April 08, 2009, 06:28:28 PM
Quote from: Siege on April 08, 2009, 06:27:43 PM
Man, why the hell did this thread got so many posts?
I can't read that fast!
Do what i do and post something nonsensical and off topic!
But I want to read it.
Can I get a sumary?
Yahweh sucks donkey cock. He hates you, too. Southern Baptists are not Evangelicals. Lapsed catholics are, though.
Did I get it right, guys? :unsure:
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2009, 06:11:21 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 08, 2009, 06:09:31 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2009, 06:07:36 PM
The evangelicals can grow all they like in the third world, so long as their numbers continue to collapse in the first world. The numbers of Southern Baptists are down a little, and that's a start.
Strictly speaking southern baptists are not evangelicals, IIRC.
They're definitely protestants.
Both you and Martinus are men.
That doesn't mean you're gay however.
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2009, 06:07:36 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 08, 2009, 05:52:14 PM
Where is the room for growth? Well its two-fold. First is the developing world. Latin America, Asia, is probably the source of most of the growth. But beyond that most "mainstream" Christian denominations continue to see falling numbers, so there is plenty of room for growth there.
The evangelicals can grow all they like in the third world, so long as their numbers continue to collapse in the first world. The numbers of Southern Baptists are down a little, and that's a start.
But the number of people who describe themselves as 'born again' is up. Meanwhile, to use a hideous phrase I saw in the Wall Street Journal (barely better than the Telegraph and 'staycation'), 'pastorpaneurs' (God help me!) are growing their churches/businesses in South Korea, China, Latin America and Africa. China's got more Christians (and they tend to be individualist, emotional outbursty Christians) than they have Communist Party members. It's about to become one of the world's largest Christian countries (not to mention Muslim countries).
America has showed, yet again, that it's true skill is turning something once for an elite into something everyone can have. In this case even the elect don't match American mass capitalism.
Quote from: Barrister on April 08, 2009, 06:35:24 PM
Both you and Martinus are men.
That doesn't mean you're gay however.
:zipped:
Quote from: Barrister on April 08, 2009, 06:35:24 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2009, 06:11:21 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 08, 2009, 06:09:31 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2009, 06:07:36 PM
The evangelicals can grow all they like in the third world, so long as their numbers continue to collapse in the first world. The numbers of Southern Baptists are down a little, and that's a start.
Strictly speaking southern baptists are not evangelicals, IIRC.
They're definitely protestants.
Both you and Martinus are men.
That doesn't mean you're gay however.
That's at least two erroneous statements right there.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 08, 2009, 06:29:12 PM
They're something like Wiccans and believe that they have the original Chrisitianity that they kept secret from the world for 1000 years or so.
I know. The earliest Christian writings we have, before the fucking Nicene Creed, uses analogy to study the Bible and yet now, 2000 years later we discover that's wrong and the meaning's there all along. I mean Christ alive the Church was built on Jewish and Greek culture, it was never going to be that simple.
Quote from: katmai on April 08, 2009, 06:36:47 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 08, 2009, 06:35:24 PM
Both you and Martinus are men.
That doesn't mean you're gay however.
:zipped:
Did you and Neil have a tender moment together you'd like to talk about? :)
Quote from: Barrister on April 08, 2009, 06:38:15 PM
Did you and Neil have a tender moment together you'd like to talk about? :)
He's already said he'd bury me, so i better not say anything. :Embarrass:
Quote from: Razgovory on April 08, 2009, 06:29:12 PM
They're something like Wiccans and believe that they have the original Chrisitianity that they kept secret from the world for 1000 years or so.
It's not really so odd, given that many Christians believe that their god sent everybody to hell for millions of years before Jesus came along.
Quote from: katmai on April 08, 2009, 06:38:49 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 08, 2009, 06:38:15 PM
Did you and Neil have a tender moment together you'd like to talk about? :)
He's already said he'd bury me, so i better not say anything. :Embarrass:
Maybe he will bury you for bukkake only?
Martinus, I wish so much you were an arab in whatever country I'm deploying next.
Quote from: Barrister on April 08, 2009, 06:09:31 PM
Strictly speaking southern baptists are not evangelicals, IIRC.
Based on what?
QuoteSouthern Baptist Identity: An Evangelical Denomination Faces the Future
http://www.amazon.com/Southern-Baptist-Identity-Evangelical-Denomination/dp/1433506793
QuoteThe Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination with 16 million members, has provoked sharp criticism in recent years for its attempts to convert Jews, Muslims and Hindus. This year, the SBC announced a new evangelistic campaign in six religiously diverse cities in the North and West, and that too drew complaints.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week345/feature.html
QuoteThis week, CBS News' Brian Goldsmith talked with one of the nation's key evangelical leaders, Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/08/politics/politicalplayers/main4331863.shtml
QuoteGlobal Evangelical Relations
http://www.sbc.net/globalrelations/
QuoteGuideStone Financial Resources exists to assist the churches, denominational entities, and other evangelical ministry organizations by making available retirement plan services, life and health coverage, risk management programs and personal and institutional investment programs.
http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/legal/guidestone.asp
It looks like others consider Southern Baptists Evangelical, like the Southern Baptists call themselves at least in part Evangelical, and like the Southern Baptists act in an Evangelical manner...
Quote from: Barrister on April 08, 2009, 06:35:24 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2009, 06:11:21 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 08, 2009, 06:09:31 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2009, 06:07:36 PM
The evangelicals can grow all they like in the third world, so long as their numbers continue to collapse in the first world. The numbers of Southern Baptists are down a little, and that's a start.
Strictly speaking southern baptists are not evangelicals, IIRC.
They're definitely protestants.
Both you and Martinus are men.
That doesn't mean you're gay however.
True, but 'man' isn't a synonym for 'gay'.
Quote from: Siege on April 08, 2009, 06:44:35 PM
Martinus, I wish so much you were an arab in whatever country I'm deploying next.
Don't worry. You'll be an arab in whatever country you're deploying next.
Quote from: ulmont on April 08, 2009, 06:45:13 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 08, 2009, 06:09:31 PM
Strictly speaking southern baptists are not evangelicals, IIRC.
Based on what?
How about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_of_Evangelicals
Southern Baptists are not a member.
Now lets not go too far down this road, as Southern Baptists are a pretty conservative Christian bunch and have much in common with Evangelicals. Pentacostals and Mormons are also fairly conservative and growing and are not Evangelicals.
And by the way, don't confuse the term evangelism with the Evangelical Christianity. Many/all Christian faiths, including Baptists and Catholics, engage in evangelism.
Quote from: Barrister on April 08, 2009, 07:00:02 PM
Quote from: ulmont on April 08, 2009, 06:45:13 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 08, 2009, 06:09:31 PM
Strictly speaking southern baptists are not evangelicals, IIRC.
Based on what?
How about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_of_Evangelicals
Southern Baptists are not a member.
Now lets not go too far down this road, as Southern Baptists are a pretty conservative Christian bunch and have much in common with Evangelicals. Pentacostals and Mormons are also fairly conservative and growing and are not Evangelicals.
And by the way, don't confuse the term evangelism with the Evangelical Christianity. Many/all Christian faiths, including Baptists and Catholics, engage in evangelism.
And West Germany wasn't a democracy, as it wasn't part of the Democratic German Republic.
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2009, 06:40:05 PM
It's not really so odd, given that many Christians believe that their god sent everybody to hell for millions of years before Jesus came along.
Well, yes, but if they were virtuous pagans born at the wrong time or sincerely unable to believe then they're only in the first circle of hell and it's not all bad there. I mean they're missing out on God, but who needs God when you're room-mates with Homer?
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 08, 2009, 07:13:38 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2009, 06:40:05 PM
It's not really so odd, given that many Christians believe that their god sent everybody to hell for millions of years before Jesus came along.
Well, yes, but if they were virtuous pagans born at the wrong time or sincerely unable to believe then they're only in the first circle of hell and it's not all bad there. I mean they're missing out on God, but who needs God when you're room-mates with Homer?
See, Catholicism isn't that bad. Their willingness to compromise every one of their principles in an effort to be accepted is commendable. That's why I don't get all the bitching about condoms and abortion from the Church.
Quote from: Barrister on April 08, 2009, 07:00:02 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_of_Evangelicals
Southern Baptists are not a member.
Now lets not go too far down this road, as Southern Baptists are a pretty conservative Christian bunch and have much in common with Evangelicals. Pentacostals and Mormons are also fairly conservative and growing and are not Evangelicals.
I thought Pentecostals were also Evangelicals? There are no less than 4 "Pentecostal" churches on your National Association of Evangelicals list, and also see:
QuoteLatino Pentecostal Identity - Evangelical Faith, Self and Society
http://www.amazon.com/Latino-Pentecostal-Identity-Evangelical-Society/dp/0231127332
What we have here is a failure to communicate. :P
Beeb is using the term "Evangelicals", meaning the organization(s). ulmont is using the lower-case-e evangelicals, ie--the adjective. The adjective came into the political lexicon as describing the NAE member churches IIRC. Now, it's used to describe anyone with more belief than Dawkins.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 08, 2009, 08:58:38 PM
Beeb is using the term "Evangelicals", meaning the organization(s). ulmont is using the lower-case-e evangelicals, ie--the adjective.
There were still 4 Pentecostal churches in Beeb's organizational list...
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2009, 06:52:11 PM
Quote from: Siege on April 08, 2009, 06:44:35 PM
Martinus, I wish so much you were an arab in whatever country I'm deploying next.
Don't worry. You'll be an arab in whatever country you're deploying next.
:face:
Quote from: Queequeg on April 08, 2009, 04:01:01 PM
Today there are more active Christians in China than in Europe (and the number appears to be growing rapidly),
Christianity is even on the rise in a number of arab countries. Algeria for example has seen a boom (heh) in it's numbers of christians. And mostly young people at that too. Only question is how long they'll remain christian and wether or not they can expand their numbers further.
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2009, 06:50:51 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 08, 2009, 06:35:24 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2009, 06:11:21 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 08, 2009, 06:09:31 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2009, 06:07:36 PM
The evangelicals can grow all they like in the third world, so long as their numbers continue to collapse in the first world. The numbers of Southern Baptists are down a little, and that's a start.
Strictly speaking southern baptists are not evangelicals, IIRC.
They're definitely protestants.
Both you and Martinus are men.
That doesn't mean you're gay however.
True, but 'man' isn't a synonym for 'gay'.
Is it a: homonym?
Would Martinus be less a whiny bitch if he wasn't gay?
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2009, 07:18:19 PMSee, Catholicism isn't that bad. Their willingness to compromise every one of their principles in an effort to be accepted is commendable. That's why I don't get all the bitching about condoms and abortion from the Church.
The Church wants to increase the number of Catholics.
Quote from: Valmy on April 09, 2009, 08:24:21 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2009, 07:18:19 PMSee, Catholicism isn't that bad. Their willingness to compromise every one of their principles in an effort to be accepted is commendable. That's why I don't get all the bitching about condoms and abortion from the Church.
The Church wants to increase the number of Catholics.
Then again, I guess it depends on who the Church is going for. To increase their flock in North America, they need to say 'Yay condoms!'. On the other hand, Africans hate condoms.
Quote from: Valmy on April 09, 2009, 08:24:21 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2009, 07:18:19 PMSee, Catholicism isn't that bad. Their willingness to compromise every one of their principles in an effort to be accepted is commendable. That's why I don't get all the bitching about condoms and abortion from the Church.
The Church wants to increase the number of Catholics.
Well, I am not sure it works. In the West, it scares off probably more people than it causes to be born, grow up AND stay Catholic.
In Africa I am not sure about the exact numbers, but I wouldn't say that having twice as many followers, but all of them dying of AIDS, is better.
Quote from: Neil on April 09, 2009, 08:45:38 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 09, 2009, 08:24:21 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2009, 07:18:19 PMSee, Catholicism isn't that bad. Their willingness to compromise every one of their principles in an effort to be accepted is commendable. That's why I don't get all the bitching about condoms and abortion from the Church.
The Church wants to increase the number of Catholics.
Then again, I guess it depends on who the Church is going for. To increase their flock in North America, they need to say 'Yay condoms!'. On the other hand, Africans hate condoms.
Why would you want your followers to suffer from various stages of a lethal disease, though?
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on April 09, 2009, 01:14:58 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on April 08, 2009, 04:01:01 PM
Today there are more active Christians in China than in Europe (and the number appears to be growing rapidly),
Christianity is even on the rise in a number of arab countries. Algeria for example has seen a boom (heh) in it's numbers of christians. And mostly young people at that too. Only question is how long they'll remain christian and wether or not they can expand their numbers further.
Still, it's not like these are secular humanists converting to Christianity there. Of the two evils, I'd rather have more Christians than more Muslims. It's like going from childhood to puberty.
Quote from: Martinus on April 09, 2009, 08:52:05 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 09, 2009, 08:45:38 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 09, 2009, 08:24:21 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2009, 07:18:19 PMSee, Catholicism isn't that bad. Their willingness to compromise every one of their principles in an effort to be accepted is commendable. That's why I don't get all the bitching about condoms and abortion from the Church.
The Church wants to increase the number of Catholics.
Then again, I guess it depends on who the Church is going for. To increase their flock in North America, they need to say 'Yay condoms!'. On the other hand, Africans hate condoms.
Why would you want your followers to suffer from various stages of a lethal disease, though?
It's not ideal, but Africans hate condoms anyways, so what difference does it make?
Quote from: Caliga on April 08, 2009, 07:39:00 AM
Quote from: The Nickname Who Was Thursday on April 08, 2009, 07:28:04 AM
Relying on the goodness of people's hearts to keep them from doing bad things to each other is a losing proposition; we need fear of external consequences. In the modern world, we have government for that, so religion is losing its power.
:yes: People are animals. :mad:
:yeahright:
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 09, 2009, 06:15:56 AM
Would Martinus be less a whiny bitch if he wasn't gay?
Oddly enough, I think he'd be more like garbon if he wasn't gay. He'd still gripe about stuff but not care enough about anything to go into deep hysterical mode.
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 09, 2009, 06:15:56 AM
Would Martinus be less a whiny bitch if he wasn't gay?
I would have directed my ire at whiny emo wastes-of-oxygen like yourself, instead.
Quote from: The Nickname Who Was Thursday on April 09, 2009, 10:34:16 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 09, 2009, 06:15:56 AM
Would Martinus be less a whiny bitch if he wasn't gay?
Oddly enough, I think he'd be more like garbon if he wasn't gay. He'd still gripe about stuff but not care enough about anything to go into deep hysterical mode.
Disagree. He'd be even more ferociously anti-American.
Quote from: Martinus on April 09, 2009, 10:35:42 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 09, 2009, 06:15:56 AM
Would Martinus be less a whiny bitch if he wasn't gay?
I would have directed my ire at whiny emo wastes-of-oxygen like yourself, instead.
:ike:
You're the gay lawyer here. Who's wasting oxygen now?
Holy shit. In a Martinus- Gay Fox slapfight, I don't know who to root for.
Quote from: Neil on April 09, 2009, 10:35:53 AM
Disagree. He'd be even more ferociously anti-American.
Perhaps. But he'd have one less thing to hate us for.
Quote from: The Nickname Who Was Thursday on April 09, 2009, 10:43:20 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 09, 2009, 10:35:53 AM
Disagree. He'd be even more ferociously anti-American.
Perhaps. But he'd have one less thing to hate us for.
Wrong. As a Polish Catholic, he'd hate American fag-enablers.
My guess is he'd be a Neo-Nazi.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 09, 2009, 10:42:36 AM
Holy shit. In a Martinus- Gay Fox slapfight, I don't know who to root for.
There can be no winners, only tears.
Quote from: The Nickname Who Was Thursday on April 09, 2009, 10:34:16 AM
Oddly enough, I think he'd be more like garbon if he wasn't gay. He'd still gripe about stuff but not care enough about anything to go into deep hysterical mode.
But I'm the actually gay one. :(
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 09, 2009, 11:08:12 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 09, 2009, 10:42:36 AM
Holy shit. In a Martinus- Gay Fox slapfight, I don't know who to root for.
There can be no winners, only tears.
However, his tears would be a biohazard, while yours would be bitter emo tears.