Secretnude's Drabble Poetry Corner

Short Stories available for anyone to read
Forum rules
These posts are public, and will be searched by Google. If you want to maintain "First Worldwide Rights" on your story, post in the Short Stories (Member Only) forum. Story authors still retain ownership and copyright, either way.
User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

Religion and Unreason

Post by secretnude » Fri Jun 20, 2014 12:52 am

http://www.brw.com.au/p/business/big_is ... rr9ImtkzrJ
Since 2008 the Australian economy has grown by 14.3 per cent. Of that growth, Mining has contributed 3.2 percentage points (pp) of which iron ore alone has added 2.3pp. But not far behind is Health Care (1.7pp), Professional services (1.6pp) and Construction (1.4pp).

At the other end of the scale, Manufacturing has sliced 0.4pp off growth, while Arts, Agriculture, Transport, Education and Utilities all added nothing to Australia's economic growth.

So it is clear that Australia has been riding on the back of iron ore (as opposed to riding the sheep back in the 1950s). In the coming year Mining will pull back, but there is plenty of scope for other sectors to grow. In the equivalent five year period before 2008, from 2002-2007, the economy grew 19.8 per cent with Finance (3.1pp), Construction (2.6pp) and Health Care (1.4pp) the main contributors to growth.

The drivers of the Australian economy regularly change and indeed they will again over coming years as the mining construction boom fades and mining exports take over. But clearly other sectors will pick up the slack, with Construction – in particular home construction – the most likely candidate.
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf ... 02012-2013
there has been a long-term decrease in affiliation to Christianity from 96% in 1911 to 61% in 2011. Conversely, although Christian religions are still predominant in Australia, there have been increases in those reporting an affiliation to non-Christian religions, and those reporting 'No Religion'.

In the past decade, the proportion of the population reporting an affiliation to a Christian religion decreased from 68% in 2001 to 61% in 2011.
...
The number of people reporting 'No Religion' also increased strongly, from 15% of the population in 2001 to 22% in 2011. This is most evident amongst younger people, with 28% of people aged 15-34 reporting they had no religious affiliation.
http://m.smh.com.au/national/australia- ... 1b4ib.html
Is Australia a racist country? The answer to this troubling question turns out to be: overall, no.

A national study of attitudes towards race and multiculturalism has found Australians are mostly tolerant of cultural difference.

But NSW compares poorly with other states and some pockets, such as Strathfield, suffer relatively high rates of racism.
Most people are inherently good.

Just take a good
look at the Advanced Secular Democracy
that's Australia that has diversity
and a high quality
of life.

Life
is quite good
in Australia and Religion
is losing its grip but social conditions
are still quite good.

America is a 1st World exception
but it's also facing Secularization
that in the long run
will make everyone under the sun
more tolerant
and less ignorant.

I'm more optimistic on man
than
you
and you
seem to need the Security blanket
of Religion.

Religion
gets
to separate
us and breed hate
via Dogmatic Unreason.

http://prospect.org/article/religion-unreason
The irrelevance of evidence in the face of sacred causes explains the dogged denial of global warming, the deep belief that the Obama Administration was responsible for the killing of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens in Benghazi and that Obama is not a legitimate American. To go back farther, it explains the claims that FDR arranged for the attack on Pearl Harbor and gave much of the world away to Stalin at Yalta (an idea Joe Scarborough is still clinging to). Repealing Obamacare will eventually go the way of repealing the New Deal. But the opposition will never fade entirely away—and it may well be strong enough in this year's elections to determine the outcome. It is something people are willing to sacrifice for and feel noble about. Creeds are not built up out of facts.
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
strawman
Member
Posts: 5966
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 2:20 pm
Location: South Georgia

Re: Secretnude's Drabble Poetry Corner

Post by strawman » Fri Jun 20, 2014 1:40 am

You will be assimilated.
Resistance is futile.
Never judge anyone until you have biopsied their brain.

"Be kind, for everyone is fighting a hard battle."
Known Some Call Is Air Am
Spoiler:
Non sum qualis eram = "I am not who I will be"

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

a résistance est futile

Post by secretnude » Fri Jun 20, 2014 2:11 am

A French government report has proposed a radical overhaul of the “assimilation” model which requires immigrants to abandon their culture for that of France, including ending the ban on Muslim headscarves in schools and naming streets and squares after notables of foreign origin.

In response to fears over growing racism and ethnic divisions in the country, it recommends emphasising the “Arab-Oriental” dimension of French identity, barring the media from mentioning a person’s ethnicity and promoting the teaching of Arabic and African languages in schools.

The report on how to better integrate France’s millions of citizens and residents of foreign origin was commissioned by Socialist Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault who plans to overhaul policy next year.

But it has drawn a furious reaction from the country’s conservative opposition, which said it amounted to an abandonment of French culture and secular values. “It will no longer be up to immigrants to adopt French culture but up to France to abandon its culture, its values, its history to adapt to the culture of others,” Jean-François Copé, leader of the UMP main opposition party, said.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... rants.html
Barely half the French population describe themselves as Catholic, according to a poll released yesterday, sparking a leading religious publication to declare France "no longer a Catholic country".

A poll published in Le Monde des Religions yesterday showed the number of self-declared French Catholics had dropped from 80 per cent in the early 1990s and 67 per cent in 2000 and to 51 per cent today.

The number of atheists has risen sharply to 31 per cent from 23 per cent in 1994.

"In its institutions, but also in its mentalities, France is no longer a Catholic country," wrote Frederic Lenoir, editor in chief of Le Monde des Religions.

French Catholicism, while suffering during the Revolution, did not begin its real decline until 1905, experts say, when pre-war France was declared a secular state, all funding of religious groups was stopped and religious buildings were declared the property of the state.

Yesterday's poll showed that only 10 per cent go to church regularly — mainly to Sunday mass or christenings. Of the 51 per cent who still call themselves Catholics, only half said they believed in God. Many said they were Catholics because it was a family tradition.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... untry.html

The Borg
does sound Nordic but Australian Borg
is way funnier.

Why not try an even funnier
French Borg?

Secular People aren't Cyborg yet
but once we do get
the technology we Seculars
would have less objection in particular
to becoming a Cyborg.

Secularism
leads to pluralism
in some places like Australia
but not France
due to the French
idea of Cultural Superiority
that France
is trying to retain
despite the certain
and constant intrusion of Hollywood
that they may see as not good.

In the Secular World
there's much Worldly diversity
unlike the nondiversity
of many faith based communities.
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

Neogenesis of Evangelicals

Post by secretnude » Fri Jun 20, 2014 3:39 am

a book being worrisomely read by evangelical leaders, evangelicalism is receding. As the book, written by an evangelical pastor, notes: "the church's overall numbers are shrinking. Its primary fuel--donations--is drying up and disappearing. And its political fervor is dividing the movement from within."

(Pedantic, but important, point: many people confuse or conflate evangelical Christianity with fundamentalist Christianity. Fundamentalists are biblical literalists and more of the fire-and-brimstone variety, while evangelical are concerned with engaging in the wider world, "converting souls," and less theologically rigid (think Rick Warren and Joel Osteen)).

A significant explanatory factor of why evangelicalism is in decline is demographics: nearly half of evangelicals are over the age of 50, and over 80 percent are white. In contrast only 17 percent of evangelicals are in the 18-29 age demographic. Meanwhile, those claiming no religious affiliation has risen to 20 percent -- much of the so-called "nones" are Millenials. As the Barna Group, a pre-eminent evangelical research group, reports:

Over half of Millennials with a Christian background (59%) have, at some point, dropped out of going to church after having gone regularly, and half have been significantly frustrated by their faith. Additionally, more than 50% of 18-29 year olds with a Christian background say they are less active in church compared to when they were 15.

And why are Millenials leaving the church in droves? Not only is it culture war issues such as LGBT rights and abortion, but social justice issues like income inequality and environmental concerns.

And there is the rub. The decline of the current evangelical movement is inherent in the membership of the movement itself. As the older, more socially conservative evangelicals eventually pass away they will either not be replaced or be replaced by evangelicals with a significantly different worldview.
http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs ... of_eva.php

Old White
Conservative and Evangelical
may practically
be the profile of the current Christian Right
but that will not be right
for long.

The Values
the Evangelical
Conservatives do hold strong
may not be the Values
of the new Evangelicals.

Christianity
must evolve
to save Christianity
from itself since the World no longer
seems to revolve
mostly around Christian Values
as Secular Values
displace Christian Values.

A Christian
that adopts Secular Values
may feel Pseudo-Christian
but Christianity
evolves with Humanity.

Humanity
will win in the end with
or without
Christianity
even if Christianity
feels Humanity
is quite doomed without Christ.
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America decided in 2009 that rather than use the Bible as a guide for faith and life, it would use human experience. They were not the first to do so, having been preceded by the Episcopalians. The ELCA worded this seismic change in their worldview as follows: “The scriptural witness does not address the context of sexual orientation and lifelong loving and committed relationships that we experience today.”

This quotation comes from a document entitled “Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust” adopted by the 2009 Churchwide Assembly of the Evangelical Church in America. To put this statement in other words, we human beings have evolved beyond the scope of God’s revelation of himself in the Bible. More simply, human beings have outgrown the Bible.

Christians who view the Bible as God’s sufficient guide for faith and life view this statement as heresy. Some would dispute the use of such a strong word, but the definition of heresy is: “adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma,” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heresy) or “unorthodox religious opinion: an opinion or belief that contradicts established religious teaching.” (http://www.bing.com/search?q=definition ... &sk=&ghc=1) Almost certainly some will consider it excessive to call this view “heresy.” Nevertheless, most churches that call themselves Christian would balk at the idea of rejecting the Bible as the authority for faith and life. The Bible is the place where most churches look for guidance on the subject of human sexuality and all other questions about faith and life. For two thousand years, Christians have been willing to die in order to obtain and possess and read and share the Bible, because it is God’s voice in writing, the source where Christians can discover what God has to say about the way they live. In countries like Uzbekistan, people risk re-education sentences and heavy fines in order to read the Bible and live by its teachings. Those people would be horrified to discover that they risk imprisonment and even torture for the sake of something humans have now outgrown.

Some ELCA Lutherans who chose to try to live in peace with four different newly-discovered versions of God’s plan for human sexuality were seriously blind-sided by the almost immediate decision to roster homosexuals living in an active homosexual relationship. The national synod expressed an accommodation for congregations that choose to state right up front that they will not consider a homosexual pastor, but this plan left congregations in which the church leadership avoids taking a vote at risk of being presented with a homosexual candidate, regardless of the majority opinion. Just last week, a bigger issue arose when a California synod elected a homosexual bishop. Suddenly, all the churches in that synod are under the authority of a homosexual bishop, even if some of those churches completely reject the legitimacy of an active homosexual on the roster. The decision of the ELCA to let the secular worldview dominate at the highest levels has now borne serious fruit.

It is very hard for Christians to stand strong for their faith in a world where secular thinking dominates. Even though the worldwide pressure of Islam is also felt in the US, it is not experienced as a daily abrasion the way secularism is. As more and more people openly identify themselves as unconnected with any religion at all, the number of openly secular thinkers increases and the number of openly Christian thinkers decreases. Secular thinkers view all religions with equal scorn, yet they tend to show more accommodation for Islam due to the fact that Christians have been dominant in the culture for so long. Somewhere in the depths of secular thinking is a sense that some cosmic wrong is righted by abusing Christian religious liberty in the name of being “fair” to Islam. However, the real betrayal Christians feel is when their own leaders abandon them. In the ELCA, many Christians who had been proud to identify with the ELCA prior to 2009, suddenly didn’t want anyone to know they were associated with such a group. They felt that their firm footing in their faith had turned from stone to sand when the national leadership and the Church Assembly voted to throw away the Bible and start discovering moral teachings by “experience” the way secular thinkers do.

Martin Luther started a huge argument when he nailed his 95 Theses to the door of the church at Wittenberg, and he was up against exactly the same issue as contemporary Christians.
http://livingontilt.com/2013/06/10/what ... worldview/

Holy Anime http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neon_Genesis_Evangelion
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
strawman
Member
Posts: 5966
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 2:20 pm
Location: South Georgia

Re: Secretnude's Drabble Poetry Corner

Post by strawman » Fri Jun 20, 2014 9:18 am

A French government report has proposed a radical overhaul of the “assimilation” model which requires immigrants to abandon their culture for that of France, including ending the ban on Nazi paraphernalia in schools, and naming streets and squares after notable Nazi generals.

In response to fears over growing racism and ethnic divisions in the country, it recommends emphasising the German dimension of French identity, barring the media from mentioning a person’s ethnicity and promoting the teaching of German and National Socialism in schools.

The report on how to better integrate France’s millions of citizens and residents of former concentration camp managers was commissioned by Socialist Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault who plans to overhaul policy next year.

But it has drawn a furious reaction from the country’s conservative opposition, which said it amounted to an abandonment of French culture and secular values. “It will no longer be up to Nazis to adopt French culture but up to France to abandon its culture, its values, its history to adapt to the culture of others,” Jean-François Copé, leader of the UMP main opposition party, said.
How far you willing to go In the name of diversity?
Never judge anyone until you have biopsied their brain.

"Be kind, for everyone is fighting a hard battle."
Known Some Call Is Air Am
Spoiler:
Non sum qualis eram = "I am not who I will be"

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

The French are French

Post by secretnude » Fri Jun 20, 2014 10:48 am

I'm not French
even if I love the French.

I don't profess to being culturally
or spiritually
superior and there are Secular Democracies
that are Secular
and multicultural
like the Australian Model
and the American Model.

The French tend to take to extremes
and then regress to the mean.

The French maybe reforming
their policies like the Scarf Ban
that they indeed can
or must reform.

Secular Values
are the Core Values
of the French
but the French
are mostly monocultural
and not multicultural.

A Tolerant Society would be multicultural
in the ideal
but the French have quite different ideals.
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

Comparing France to Biblical Israel

Post by secretnude » Fri Jun 20, 2014 11:20 am

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 63259.html
Time magazine has caused indignation in France by posting an obituary, on the front page of its European edition, announcing the "Death of French Culture". Despite the vast quantities of public money spent on arts subsidies and despite a ferocious diplomatic campaign to protect France's "cultural exception", Time proclaims that "the land of Proust, Monet, Piaf and Truffaut" has "lost its status as a cultural superpower".
This is one of the old, cyclical, favourites of foreign journalists, like the prevalence of dog-shit on the streets of Paris and the decline of French love-making. I wrote something similar on the collapse of French creativity when I first went to Paris 11 years ago. I was wrong, but not wholly wrong, then. Time is wrong, but not wholly wrong, now.
If there is any news to report, it is the revival of French artistic creativity in many areas, ranging from architecture and pop to classical music and film.
The French feel the need
to impose their Culture indeed
since they feel the need
to defend their Culture indeed
against the Anglophones
since there are far fewer Francophones.

Like Biblical Israelites, the French Nation
do fear assimilation
by the Borg Like Global Culture
and so this Nation
may take to extreme measures
to try to preserve their Culture
for sure.

Embracing
the Global Culture
for sure
might bring peace as the National
makes way for the Global
reducing
the Cultural
Barriers to mutual understanding
and bringing
more Cross Border Trade
to aid
in the Economic Development
of the Underdeveloped.
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

Strangely well fed Terrorists

Post by secretnude » Fri Jun 20, 2014 1:34 pm

Secular Education
might be the tool for the eradication
of Terrorism aside from the extension
of Freedom and Democracy
in existing Theocracies
and unhip
Dictatorships.

I can probably blame Indoctrination
via Extremist Religion
with some degree of exclusion
of Poverty based on the Research.

Research
like these should inform efforts
that I fully support
to eradicate
extremism via Secular Education
in lieu of a Religious Education.

A Religious Education
that preserves traditions
may have been good in the Middle Ages
but not in this Modern Age.

Traditions
and identities
are fluid
and a Global Identity
is maybe what we need.

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com ... nt-page-2/
Their findings could challenge the way we approach fighting terror, not just in Pakistan but around the world.

First, they find that in general Pakistanis don’t like militant groups. Not just al Qaeda, but the other ones like the Pakistani or Afghan Taliban.

Second, contrary to conventional wisdom, poor Pakistanis dislike militant groups more than the middle classes.

Third, the people who hate militants the most are the urban poor, probably because more than any other group they’re the ones who are affected by terror attacks — bombs in subways or cafes or whatever.

It’s an interesting conclusion. The people we’ve long considered the likeliest candidates for extremism are actually the ones most against it.

The study points out that this goes against most of the existing policy literature on the subject.

It cites both the U.S. State Department and the UK’s Department for International Development as saying poverty motivates people to extreme violence.

Now, giving aid to poor people is good in and of itself. But if we’ve been doing that to prevent them from becoming Islamic fundamentalists, then this study suggests we’ve been aiming at the wrong target. Perhaps our focus should be on the middle classes or on secular education.
An associate professor at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government respecfully disagrees: Terrorism caused by lack of political freedom, not poverty:

Associate Professor of Public Policy Alberto Abadie examined data on terrorism and variables such as wealth, political freedom, geography, and ethnic fractionalization for nations that have been targets of terrorist attacks.

Abadie, whose work was published in the Kennedy School's Faculty Research Working Paper Series, included both acts of international and domestic terrorism in his analysis.

Though after the 9/11 attacks most of the work in this area has focused on international terrorism, Abadie said terrorism originating within the country where the attacks occur actually makes up the bulk of terrorist acts each year. According to statistics from the MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base for 2003, which Abadie cites in his analysis, there were 1,536 reports of domestic terrorism worldwide, compared with just 240 incidents of international terrorism.

Before analyzing the data, Abadie believed it was a reasonable assumption that terrorism has its roots in poverty, especially since studies have linked civil war to economic factors. However, once the data was corrected for the influence of other factors studied, Abadie said he found no significant relationship between a nation's wealth and the level of terrorism it experiences.

"In the past, we heard people refer to the strong link between terrorism and poverty, but in fact when you look at the data, it's not there. This is true not only for events of international terrorism, as previous studies have shown, but perhaps more surprisingly also for the overall level of terrorism, both of domestic and of foreign origin," Abadie said.

Instead, Abadie detected a peculiar relationship between the levels of political freedom a nation affords and the severity of terrorism. Though terrorism declined among nations with high levels of political freedom, it was the intermediate nations that seemed most vulnerable.

Like those with much political freedom, nations at the other extreme - with tightly controlled autocratic governments - also experienced low levels of terrorism.

Prof. Abadie's conclusion can be paraphrased thusly: A nonfree but well fed nation is more likely to produce...well fed terrorists.
[/quote]
http://forums.cnet.com/7723-6130_102-44 ... t-exactly/
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
strawman
Member
Posts: 5966
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 2:20 pm
Location: South Georgia

Re: Secretnude's Drabble Poetry Corner

Post by strawman » Fri Jun 20, 2014 8:26 pm

I think I understand your vision, Secretnude.
Seems like a fair statement that you can only believe by having faith in the fundamental goodness of human beings. And, in fact, if human beings were fundamentally good, your Utopia might well be achievable. And that might even make it worth fighting for, or forcing some recalcitrants into going along against their will.

But this is a case where being wrong does not result in a lost wager or an "Oh, Well, lets pick up the pieces and give something else a try."

If, as I hold, human beings are fundamentally flawed, they need a higher power, or else their flaws will result in Super Al Qaeda and SuperNSA using science to annihilate the planet.

You appear to have some knowledge of the Higher Power of AA. Atheists always seem to wrestle with any thought of submission to a Higher Power. Some accept The Group as that power. AA is a pretty strong argument in my favor on this issue. You criticize its efficacy, and there are scores of secular efforts to criticize and change them to suit secular tastes.

But your idealism with regard to human goodness is mistaken.

Those who deny the existence of a Power Greater than themselves impose on themselves a lack of humility which is the fundamental human flaw. Thinking you should have the power to impose this utopia confirms that lack of humility. It is no different from an islamist forcing you to accept God or be relieved of your head. Except you would be the one with the sword.

I say, better to see that human flaw in yourself and in everyone else before you put your vision into effect. I know I'll do whatever I can to make sure it doesn't come to pass.
Never judge anyone until you have biopsied their brain.

"Be kind, for everyone is fighting a hard battle."
Known Some Call Is Air Am
Spoiler:
Non sum qualis eram = "I am not who I will be"

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

AA is Legally a Religion and Christian Slave Mentality

Post by secretnude » Sat Jun 21, 2014 2:15 am

For the one who was a slave when called to faith in the Lord is the Lord's freed person; similarly, the one who was free when called is Christ's slave.
http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/7-22.htm

Religion may save
like the way AA saves
and Jesus Saves
but not all people want to be saved.

The people that are 'Slaves'
simply replace one form of Slavery
for another form of Slavery.

A Lord
needs Slaves
and many Christians are happy
to be
Slaves
of the Lord.

Some Religions like Buddhism
gives Enlightenment without Theism
and the fact that Buddhism
is compatible
with Atheism
and not terrible
tells me that Theism
isn't special.

The claim that Christianity
is special
is problematic since Christians
act as if they have special
answers
but the answers may not be special.
Academic inquiry into the possible cult identity of Alcoholics Anonymous is just that — academic. Therein lies a chief weakness of the Bufe book. For decades, millions of people have suspected, believed, or known that Alcoholics Anonymous is religious. Anyone can see that it is, yet an entire nation accepted its sophomoric disclaimer, “Not religious, just spiritual.” Recently, however, federal courts have asserted, “AA is unequivocally religious.”
http://www.positiveatheism.org/rw/ofcourse.htm
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

Blind Obedience versus Moral Reasoning

Post by secretnude » Sat Jun 21, 2014 2:45 am

A reasonable
man applying reason
will come to the conclusion
that killing is bad
even without a God
and sadly
many people kill because of a God.

If our Reason
thus is denied by Faith
and Faith
declares that the Heathen
you must hate
then the Heathen
will get the sword
according to God's word.

Your opposition
to my position
is based on Faith
and Faith
cannot be Challenge
but I humbly Challenge
you to challenge
your own assumptions
that a reasonable
man without faith is terrible
and unable
to live a Moral Life.

I do live a Moral Life.
Almost every theistic, religious system of morality is founded upon the premise that a god has created morality and has issued moral commands to humanity. Thus the nature of this moral system is ultimately obedience to this god, regardless of what the commands are. Neither disobedience nor questioning are permitted. Real morality, however, cannot be mere obedience: for a person to be morally responsible, they must be able to reason out their choices and decide for themselves.
http://atheism.about.com/od/doesgodexis ... rality.htm

God Made Me Do It http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/god-made-me-do-it/
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

Reason is the vehicle for rational self-control

Post by secretnude » Sat Jun 21, 2014 3:30 am

I take the Democratic Position
that everyone can reason
to determine if an act is Moral
or Immoral
and the Abrahamic God
fails the Moral Test.

Putting God
to a Test
maybe at best
heretical
but I'm a heretic
and I don't believe in God.

Your impulse to impose your God
on me is Authoritarian.

I don't need to impose my lack of God
on you and hence my Authoritarian
impulses are more controlled.

Reason
is the vehicle for rational
self-control
and a person that Reasons
Morally
without a deity
has more self-control
than one that relies on a Deity.
“God is righteous and only sends people to hell because they deserve it.”

I’m sure Professor Radisson thinks he is right to do what he does too. But that doesn’t make it true. We need objective ways to assess the claims to righteousness of people in authority. And the God of the Bible fails the most important moral tests we have. He condemns the whole human race for Adam and Eve’s sin–cursing us with original sin and with suffering. It’s immoral to punish people for others’ sins. In the Old Testament He commands genocides, commands slavery, commands stoning people for petty infractions, and drowns everyone on the planet (even the innocent babies). In the New Testament the idea of hell is introduced–infinite punishment for finite sins, which is the height of cruel injustice.
only way to say God is righteous is to ignore everything we have come to realize about morality in the last 2,000 years and for no good reason, by faith, declare all the evils in the Bible good out of the dogmatic assertion God must be good so whatever God did must be right. That’s not proving your God is good, it’s ignoring all the clear counter-evidence and warping all your moral judgments accordingly, even if it means making excuses for the most heinous crimes imaginable. That is arbitrariness and authoritarianism, the total antithesis of objective morality
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswith ... ntitheists
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
strawman
Member
Posts: 5966
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 2:20 pm
Location: South Georgia

Re: Secretnude's Drabble Poetry Corner

Post by strawman » Sat Jun 21, 2014 3:43 am

Truth doesn't depend on us.
Never judge anyone until you have biopsied their brain.

"Be kind, for everyone is fighting a hard battle."
Known Some Call Is Air Am
Spoiler:
Non sum qualis eram = "I am not who I will be"

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

Objective Truths are best taken Provisionally

Post by secretnude » Sat Jun 21, 2014 4:02 am

Maybe the Abrahamic God
is an Evil God
that's out to deceive us all.

You do recall
that I'm open the possibility
of the existence of a Deity
but observationally
I think that this supposed Deity
is more likely to be an Evil Deity.

How sure are you that the Deity
isn't playing games with us like that
of the Cosmic Cat?

I hold to the primacy of Objectivity
and Objective Truths
obtained via Observation.

The Humility
imposed by the supposition
that any Observable Truth
is provisional
is better than having Eternal
Truths
that maybe quite false at the root.
God is good despite evil.

One argument comes from the sudden prophetic utterances of an elderly woman suffering dementia and coming in and out of lucidity. She has a sudden moment of clarity where she lectures her smug, materialistic, unabashedly selfish son Mark who gloats about getting away with being rotten while she suffers after a life of devotion to God. In her speech, as though channeling some supernatural entity before suddenly snapping out of it and not even knowing who she is talking to again, she talks about how bad people prosper in this world because the devil wants it that way. He makes their sinfulness so comfortable on Earth that they never repent. They are people actually in a spiritual jail cell who can leave at any moment. The door’s open. But they never walk out. Then, when they die, the door slams shut and they’re trapped and they learn the true nature of what they’ve chosen.

This is wishful fantasy. Not much of an argument. It also raises questions of why God lets people be deceived like that. Romans 9 would tell us that it’s because He makes some people with the express purpose of never saving them, that He actively hardens some people’s hearts against Him, and that He creates them in the first place to be destroyed. John 12:40 explains the unbelief people experience even when seeing Jesus perform miracles by saying this is to fulfill Isaiah’s prophecy that “The Lord has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts–so that their eyes cannot see, and their hearts cannot understand, and they cannot turn to me and have me heal them.” Who has blinded the people so they cannot turn to Jesus? Not the devil, but the Lord. So much for free will, Christians!
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswith ... ntitheists
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

It Sucks to be a Christian

Post by secretnude » Sat Jun 21, 2014 4:10 am

Nobody is perfect
but have you examined the imperfection
in your Perfect religion?

Science humbly says it doesn't know
what it doesn't know
but a religion claims to know
things with certainty
that certainly
cannot be determined with certainty.

You claim to be Christian
and yet pass judgement and hence become
Unchristian
but it does sucks to be
a Christian.

Attributing failures to
your Humanity
is at best certainly
a way to
divert from the problems of Christianity.

How could an ethical system
made millennia ago still be an effective system?

Christianity
must change with Humanity
and be more Human.
I’m not one to judge, because ain’t none of us perfect.

I know that lying is wrong, but when I need a personal day to catch up in my personal life…it’s just easier to tell my boss that I’m sick rather than to explain the fact that I need to go to Brooklyn for a special event. I doubt my boss really cares either what I do with my personal days, so she doesn’t really care what excuse I use.

…but…I have to recognize that as a Christian, whenever I lie I go against the will of God.

I know that stealing is wrong, but if I’m at the cafeteria and there’s no one there to take my money at the register…it’s really the cafeteria’s fault that I can walk straight through without paying for my meal.

…but…I have to recognize that as a Christian, whenever I take something from another person I go against the will of god.

I also have to recognize that event if I am not sinning directly, I am responsible for the final outcome of my actions. You can’t get out of the responsibility of your actions, just because you act indirectly or use another person as a tool to commit the sin.

If I ask my coworker to lie to cover for me, that lie belongs to both of us.

If my friend works for a bookstore and I ask him to swipe some reading material for me, that theft belongs to both of us.

Perhaps you think that lying to your boss isn’t “that big a lie” or that stealing from a big box store isn’t “so bad” because you’re stealing from a corporation rather than a person.

If you’re an Atheist, bully for you! You’ve chosen to live by your own moral code, and…you know…I really can’t fault you for taking advantage of that.

I’m not going to fault a Christian for that either as long as you recognize that you’re acting outside how Jesus instructed you to live your life. As a Christian you can lie to your boss or steal from a company as long as you’re willing to either say,

“What I’m doing now is a sin. I know God will disapprove, but right now I feel that certain circumstances are making this act necessary and I hope that God will understand.”

…or…

“What I’m doing now is not a sin. I know that the teachings of Jesus are contrary to my actions, but he lived 2,000 years ago and really his teachings aren’t that applicable to the current situation.”

If you are a Christian and you are acting contrary to Jesus’ teachings and you cannot say either of the above, you are a hypocrite.

If you lie to your boss and think, “God has truly blessed me for my ability to lie to get out of going to work.” you are a hypocrite.

If you steal from a faceless corporation and think, “God has truly blessed me by making this bounty available to me” you are a hypocrite.

That’s why it sucks to be a Christian. Atheists can live by a rule of relative morality so they can justify any action they use to take. As a Christian you’ve always got to measure your actions against the teachings and example of Jesus Christ.

Crap…I didn’t even mention killing. This is where being a Christian gets really sucky.

Taking the life of another human being is always a sin, regardless of the situation.

I know that killing is a sin, but if I find myself alone with a child molester and a weapon he deserves to be killed, and possibly by killing him other children will be prevented from being molested.

…but…I have to recognize that as a Christian, whenever I kill I go against the will of God.

Maybe he deserves to die, but that’s not a Christian’s call to make. Only God can make that call.

I also have to recognize that event if I am not sinning directly, I am responsible for the final outcome of my actions. You can’t get out of the responsibility of your actions, just because you act indirectly or use another person as a tool to commit the sin.

If I support the armed forces and cheer them on as they kill, that killing belongs to both of us.

The killing of Osama bin Laden brought this to mind. Are you a Christian that cheered when Osama bin Laden was killed in our name?
http://zimmertyne.wordpress.com/2011/05 ... e-atheist/
Religion, by such means, becomes a thing of form, instead of fact — of notion, instead of principles; morality is banished to make room for an imaginary thing called faith, and this faith has its origin in a supposed debauchery; a man is preached instead of God; an execution is an object for gratitude; the preachers daub themselves with the blood, like a troop of assassins, and pretend to admire the brilliancy it gives them; they preach a humdrum sermon on the merits of the execution; then praise Jesus Christ for being executed, and condemn the Jews for doing it. A man, by hearing all this nonsense lumped and preached together, confounds the God of the creation with the imagined God of the Christians, and lives as if there were none.

Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is none more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory in itself, than this thing called Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too inconsistent for practice, it renders the heart torpid, or produces only atheists and fanatics. As an engine of power it serves the purpose of despotism; and as a means of wealth, the avarice of priests; but so far as respects the good of man in general, it leads to nothing here or hereafter.
http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/reason37.htm
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

Brain suicide for Jesus; become a mind-martyr

Post by secretnude » Sat Jun 21, 2014 5:15 am

Christopher Hitchens wrote this year was a peroration against recent translations of the King James Bible, designed to update religion for the modern world and get rid of all those pesky thees and thous, which modern worshippers supposedly cannot comprehend.

Alluding to the common cultural references that the King James version has provided for every great writer in the English language, Christopher asserted:

“A culture that does not posses this common store of images and allegories will be a perilously thin one. To seek relentlessly to update it or to make it `relevant’ is to miss the point, like yearning for a hip-hop Shakespeare. `Man is born unto trouble as the sparks fly upward,’ says the Book of Job. Want to try to improve that for Twitter?”

The essay describes the abandonment of the King James version by many modern churches, including the Church of England, as “yet another demonstration that religion is man-made, with inky human fingerprints all over its supposedly inspired and unalterable texts.”

Of course, some well-known religious believers, apparently unaware that one of the reasons atheists become atheists is that they have read the Bible carefully, mistook Christopher’s beautiful elegy for our common culture as a sign that he was abandoning his atheism. That one may love these glorious words and images without believing, say, that God created the world in six days or that a man rose from the dead is lost on the faithful literalists.
http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/2011 ... ason/17054
Atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons are among the highest-scoring groups on a new survey of religious knowledge, outperforming evangelical Protestants, mainline Protestants and Catholics on questions about the core teachings, history and leading figures of major world religions.

On average, Americans correctly answer 16 of the 32 religious knowledge questions on the survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life. Atheists and agnostics average 20.9 correct answers. Jews and Mormons do about as well, averaging 20.5 and 20.3 correct answers, respectively. Protestants as a whole average 16 correct answers; Catholics as a whole, 14.7. Atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons perform better than other groups on the survey even after controlling for differing levels of education.
http://www.pewforum.org/files/2010/09/r ... report.pdf

Assuming God gave man
the ability to think
then why would it stink
for man
to think?

The Bible is quite inconsistent
which is consistent
with Human
rather than
fine
Divine
Authorship.

A Bible that's more consistent
would make us more confident
of Divine Inspiration
but it wouldn't still be free of interpretation
as many sects
interpret the Biblical Text
to fit a given context.

How do you know that your interpretation
is the correct interpretation?

If you claim your interpretation
is correct and not subject to correction
then that can only be spiritual pride
that's quite easy to deride.
Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
John 20:29 (ESV)
....
John 20:29 quote above, has Jesus placing a higher value on those who believe without evidence, than those who are able to verify by sensory evidence.

Let’s state plainly what Jesus was saying: “To believe based on what you can personally verify is ok, but if you make a leap of faith and believe based on hearsay, then you are truly blessed.” This is some of the worst advice that one could give, seeing as how all sorts of nonsense from bogus cancer cures, to Nigerian email scams, rely on people’s unquestioning acceptance of claims without proof. Essentially, Jesus is placing a spiritual premium on being gullible and naïve. Credulous acceptance of any and all claims is a virtue. Mindlessness is next to godliness. P. T. Barnum’s sucker-born-ever-minute had just been granted sainthood.

The Old Testament also promotes this attitude, as evidenced in this popular Bible verse:

Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding.
Proverbs 3:5 (ESV)

In the New Testament, the writers of the Gospels shrewdly muddy the waters by claiming that people refused to believe despite witnessing Jesus performing miracles. This of course, goes hand in hand with the Christian refrain that atheists know God exists, but simply choose to deny this. Why provide evidence if some people aren’t going to believe anyway?

In Luke 16, Jesus tells the story of a rich man who ends up in the torments of Hell and begs Abraham to send someone back from the dead to warn his brothers so they don’t end up there too.

Abraham replies that the man’s brothers have the writings of Moses and the prophets, and that should be enough. The rich man, recognizing the value of evidence in persuading people, insists that if someone is raised from the dead that will make his brothers take notice. Abraham replies that even then, the brothers would still not be swayed. In other words, why give them evidence, if they won’t believe anyway.

Of course Abraham’s assertion that a book is all the evidence needed is ridiculous, but this is how it works in the fantasyland of Christianity. Christians have a Bible filled with miraculous, unprovable claims and they believe those claims, simply because they are found between the covers of that book.

The Apostle Paul does his part to promote evidence-free belief:

For we walk by faith, not by sight.
2 Corinthians 5:7 (ESV)

And, let us not forget the unnamed author of Hebrews who devotes the whole of chapter 11 to the praise of mindless belief.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Hebrews 11:1 (KJV)

Who needs evidence when belief itself becomes the proof?

In a revealing admission, after enumerating the assorted exploits of the heroes of the Jewish faith, the author of Hebrews says:

And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised,
Hebrews 11:39 (ESV)

Get that folks? All these people died (some of them in horrible ways) without ever seeing the result of what their faith promised them. The golden carrot on the stick dangled just on the other side of death, as it still does. And, since Father Abraham doesn’t like the idea of sending anyone back from the dead to verify the state of the afterlife for us, you just have to devote your life to your religion and its invisible god, in the hope – or should I say in ‘faith’ that there will be a life after death, and that heavenly carrot will be waiting for you.

In the Christian faith, mindlessness is next to godliness. To trust reason and require evidence is to imperil your very soul. Blind belief becomes a feat of spiritual strength to be admired and emulated. Strap a Bible to your head and send your brain on a suicide mission for Jesus; become a mind-martyr for the cause.
For the believer, the retreat into dogmatic belief is like a warm, soft security blanket they can wrap themselves in when facts and reason provide cold comfort. Doubt is disparaged and demonized by religion, but doubt is actually a valuable tool, guarding against self-deception and delusion.
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.c ... on_11.html
Spiritual pride is an insidious enemy that we all continually must guard against and fight. It was one of the main sins of the Pharisees. They thought that they were a notch above their fellow Jews (John 9:28-34) and far above the despised Gentile dogs. To confront such pride, Jesus told the parable of the Pharisee and the publican who went up to the temple to pray (Luke 18:9-14). The Pharisee thanked God that he wasn’t like the publican. But how many times have you read that story and thought, “Thank God that I’m not like that Pharisee!”
https://bible.org/seriespage/lesson-70- ... ns-1116-24
Paris' conservative establishment was horrified at the emergence of enlightened thinkers.

Why? Well, for starters, the French literati promoted atheism because they saw the church use god to terrify and control the uncontrollable rabble.

They explained evolution two centuries before Darwin proved it, and discussed advanced mathematics even though the unfathomable formulas that made it work wouldn't be invented for centuries.

They expounded on natural history to prove that the Earth was much older than the 6,000 years the Bible claimed it to be. Indeed, they showed conclusively how the Bible was a random collection of myths and fables that changed with each new translation rather than being the divine word of a non-existent deity.

If French thinkers were around today, Texas schoolbooks wouldn't be allowed to mention a word about them.
...
Centuries on, we still face a near-daily pummelling by the religious right and its political spearchuckers who insist that only when America bows to a specific, narrow Christian version of a god will eternal peace and prosperity shine upon us. They infect elections and policies.

Our founders knew this was hogwash and enshrined their concerns in a Bill of Rights. Thomas Jefferson, who crafted most of the Constitution, wrote frequently that future Americans were likely to be atheists or maybe Unitarians so he had to protect their non-beliefs from the tyrrany of religion and politicians who use divinity as a weapon.

It's never made a whit's difference to me if someone follows a religion or worships a god. Their faith doesn't affect me - as long as they keep it private. Yet having faced down the crisis of my own mortality, I know that America faces its own crisis because far too many politicians insist on throwing their faith in my face, endorsing anti-thought, anti-science and anti-learning policies that fall outside their own narrow view of the world.

French thinkers of the Enlightenment would understand the problem religion and churches pose for us in 2012.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/0 ... f-Unreason
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

Brimstone of Hell for being genetically unwell.

Post by secretnude » Sat Jun 21, 2014 5:53 am

Science has a better account for why man
isn't perfect
and I do say man
with the emphasis on the male
rather than the female.

If God
has made Humans then God
must hate Human males
condemning more Human males
than females
to the fire and brimstone of Hell
for being genetically unwell.

Predestination
has its critics
but Genetics
isn't a critic
of Predestination.

Why God
is so unfair to the male sex
that God
hath hexed
with aggressive
tendencies that maybe regressive?

In other words a Female God
maybe preferable to a Male God
which is the Abrahamic God.
Waller, in his book Becoming Evil, gives an explanation as to why humans have the potential to be so destructive. He says that we are less than 10,000 generations away from being hunter-gatherers. Our ancestors needed to be aggressive in order to eat and survive; however the evolution of traits has not had enough time to catch up with our development. Modern day lifestyles do not require us to hunt for our food, or fight for our survival. Waller comments, "there is often be a lag in time- very substantial in the case of human evolution- between a new adaptive problem and the evolution of the mechanism designed to solve it" ((2)) . The human brain is still highly evolved to living in a hunger-gatherer type of lifestyle, even though new developments have allowed us to surpass our ancestors.
Combining modern day technologies such as guns, bombs and other advanced weaponry with the hunter-gather mindset can be a deadly mix. With violent crime rates on the rise, the search for the genetic answer to aggression has never been more needed. The latest research has shown that a smaller prefrontal cortex in the brain can lead to aggressive and very violent behavior. The prefrontal cortex is found right behind the eyes and is believed to play a critical role in self- restraint and rationalization of emotions. It is also a key component in feeling guilt, remorse and experiencing social awareness. Using brain-mapping technology, scientists were able to find that even a reduction of 11% of the prefrontal cortex nerve tissue leads to antisocial and violent behavior ((4)).
One factor believed to at least help with aggressive behavior in small children is proper nutrition. Good nutritional habits help promote brain growth and function in developing humans, so by eating better, even during pregnancy can potentially help with aggressive behavior. Also a diet rich in omega -3 fish oil showed a reduction in antisocial behavior even in adults ((3)). The concept that food, or nutritious elements found in our food can have an impact on our brain and therefore behavior is more evidence that aggressive behavior does have a large biological component to it.
An equally interesting study dealt with the idea of revenge. "Tagged" water was followed through out the body and the brains of men playing a card game. The men, when another player cheated, could decide if they wanted to get revenge on the other person by taking away some of their points. However, when the stakes were too high, or too risky the players who could get revenge usually decided against it. So even though the player wanted revenge, they decided against it. The results found were that the area of brain activated the most for revenge was the dorsal striatum, however it is interesting to note that the prefrontal cortex was also highly active when the player was weighing the risks between punishing/ getting revenge on another player or deciding that the risks were to high. A researcher comments, "In fact, I believe that our evidence shows that people deal quite rationally with their emotions"( (5)). This implies that indeed the prefrontal cortex does seem to control what emotions we choice to act on or not act upon, and without a fully functional prefrontal cortex people are less likely or maybe incapable of rational decision making.
Other researchers are studying specifically chromosomes and looking for any inherent differences in our genetic makeup itself that would lead to abnormal, violent behavior. Males born with the chromosome combination of XYY are believed to be more inclined to commit dangerous and violent crimes. Known to be very tall, have a small IQ, and low fertility XYY men could be genetically predisposed from birth to be aggressive. Tests done in mental hospitals in the United Kingdom found that 7 men, all who had committed violent crimes, had XYY chromosomes ((6)). One flaw in jumping to the conclusion that because a man is XYY he is therefore a threat to society is that only men who had been already convicted of crimes had been tested. There could be plenty of XYY men living perfectly normal lives without any record of abnormal behavior because they have none anything wrong, but they do not factor in the study results because only men previously convicted were tested. Therefore it is hard to say that all XXY men are predisposed to abnormal behavior.
If all humans, seeing as we all came from the same ancestors, have the potential to be destructive why aren't we? Culture and the rise of civilization has something to do with it. We learn to control our impulses or instincts as young children. We learn quickly that we will be punished if we do something wrong. If we do not fear punishment from other people, we fear punishment from ourselves in the form of guilt. People who are lacking this ability to learn "right from wrong" and rationalize their actions are the ones who actually lash out and do violent things. Whether or not the size of the prefrontal cortex or an extra Y chromosome are the genetic causes to aggression is still unclear.
It would be interesting to see more research on the nutrition end of the discussion and how it could affect the size of the prefrontal cortex. Also an analysis of the evolution of XYY to see if it was more prevalent 10,000 years ago or if the numbers of XYY men are on the rise. Maybe there are so few known XYY males because national selection is beginning to select against this genetic combinations because aggressive behavior is no longer needed in our society. One other major flaw in all current research is the lack of study of violent woman. There have been no recorded links between genetics and female aggressiveness.
...
Clearly environment and circumstances affect human behavior. The debate is only to figure out what the ratio is between the factors and how genetic factors can be minimized.
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/n ... llich.html
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

Most people aren't violent

Post by secretnude » Sat Jun 21, 2014 6:03 am

If all the newest research is correct then we could one day be able to determine based on genetics or brain size, whether or not someone will be violent. Does this mean we have to the right to punish them, is it their fault that they lack the metal abilities to adjust to our society rather than the ones of our hunter- gatherer ancestors? I would say no, because any genetic explanation for aggression or violence can not completely explain our behavior. Even serial killers turn themselves in because they know they are doing something wrong, or something is not right with their actions even if they can not stop themselves.
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/n ... llich.html

Even people with Bad Genetics
can be good
and the goodness
of man
can
be enhanced by Genetics.

Most people aren't violent
and the peaceful Secular
1st World countries show us that Secularism
isn't a threat to Humanity
as much as Fundamentalist Christianity
or Fundamentalist Islam.

If you walk in a China Town
the Chinese down
there do seem to show fine Confucian ethics
that's pretty much like Christian ethics.

Ethically
speaking, Christianity
isn't special
and your elevation
of Christianity
as special
does beg the question
why?

Why
the Totalitarian impulse
that thus repulse
me to make all Humans
Christian?
when God and Mammon collide, Mammon usually wins.

Toward the right edge of the graph—in the realm of the most-prosperous countries—and at the very bottom lies western Europe, where God, if not dead, has only a faint pulse. Islam, to be sure, is increasingly prevalent in countries such as France and Great Britain, and one can also detect a slight uptick in Christian religiosity across much of the Continent in the past decade or so. But at the same time, the region’s last significant pockets of concentrated religiosity are collapsing. Fifty years ago, Spain and Ireland were two of the most religious countries in Europe; now they are among the least. Not long ago, Spain was governed by a fascist dictator in close collaboration with the Catholic Church; now it allows both gay marriage and adoption by gay couples, making it as liberal as Massachusetts. Ireland once gave us, in the form of James Joyce’s Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, one of the most chilling depictions of damnation in world literature; these days, Dublin’s churches are emptying out, and the few parishioners are apt to be Polish immigrants, most of whom presumably came to Ireland to nourish their bank accounts, not their souls.
...
Asian countries surveyed are scattered around the graph, but they follow the graph’s basic pattern (as do Asian countries not included in the graph). Indonesia, one of the poorest countries in the region, is up among the world’s most religious ones, and has been the scene of considerable, and considerably gruesome, religious violence. China, a bit richer, is less religious (though even in poorer times, China was not generally given to religious fervor, at least not in the way that Westerners understand the term). India, China’s main rival for future domination of the world economy, is also less religious than the continent’s poorer countries. It does have a popular political party, the Bharatiya Janata Party, that advocates a militant and politicized form of Hinduism. But the BJP, which was part of a coalition that led the government for several years beginning in 1998, lost power in 2004 and has not recovered. Pakistan, India’s poorer neighbor, shelters Osama bin Laden and turns out jihadists in droves. But its population is more moderate than many Westerners suppose: its leader, Pervez Mu-sharraf, gets his main support from the military, not the mullahs; and the chief opposition figure, until her assassination in December, was an Oxford- and Harvard-educated woman backed by legions of well-dressed lawyers.

Among the so-called Asian Tigers—Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan—only South Korea, where Christian fundamentalism is thriving, is known for religiosity. And even there, it has been leveling off in recent years. Japan, the richest nation in Asia, is right where one would expect it to be on the religiosity scale—alongside the godless countries of western Europe.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... is/306654/
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

Why impose on others what they already rejected

Post by secretnude » Sat Jun 21, 2014 6:52 am

I am just a person speaking
and saying
what I observe
and I do observe
dogmatic inflexibility in some your positions.

Religion
may
or may
not be contrary to Reason
but I hold to my positions
based on Reason
with support of Documentation.

A Peaceful World
will most likely be a Secular World
that in the long run reduce Religious Wars
near and far
and make people rich and happy in this life
and not in the elusive afterlife.

Why seek to impose
on others what they already did propose
as logically bunk
and totally made up of illogical junk?
Religious peace will be the single most important consequence of the secular underpinning of today’s religious growth. All religions tend to be protective of their traditions and rituals, but all religions also change depending upon the cultural practices of the societies in which they are based. Protestantism and secularism have always had close ties: as noted, Locke was drawing on a specifically Protestant sensibility when he wrote in defense of secular ideals. Other religions in secular environments have shown themselves quite willing to adopt Protestant notions about how faith should be practiced in order to gain or retain adherents. During the Second Vatican Council, in the early 1960s, the Catholic Church accepted the idea of religious liberty. Jews in the United States find themselves organized into denominations—Reform, Conservative, Orthodox—in ways that borrow from Protestant traditions.
Historians may one day look back on the next few decades, not as yet another era when religious conflicts enveloped countries and blew apart established societies, but as the era when secularization took over the world.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... is/306654/
A meta-analysis of 63 studies showed a significant negative association between intelligence and religiosity. The association was stronger for college students and the general population than for participants younger than college age; it was also stronger for religious beliefs than religious behavior. For college students and the general population, means of weighted and unweighted correlations between intelligence and the strength of religious beliefs ranged from -.20 to -.25 (mean r = -.24). Three possible interpretations were discussed. First, intelligent people are less likely to conform and, thus, are more likely to resist religious dogma. Second, intelligent people tend to adopt an analytic (as opposed to intuitive) thinking style, which has been shown to undermine religious beliefs. Third, several functions of religiosity, including compensatory control, self-regulation, self-enhancement, and secure attachment, are also conferred by intelligence. Intelligent people may therefore have less need for religious beliefs and practices.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23921675
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

A Secular World is bad that you must fight it?

Post by secretnude » Sat Jun 21, 2014 7:15 am

UNODC murder rates most recent year
Region Rate Count
Africa 12.5 134,881
Americas 17.0 161,865
Asia 2.9 122,229
Europe 3.0 21,990
Oceania 3.0 1,108
World 6.3 442,073
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... icide_rate

Is a peaceful and Secular World so bad
that you must fight it?

It
might be sad
that faith had
to be lost
by many as a cost
of economic development
but is that a bad
development?

Assuming that more people do live
peaceful and productive lives
like in low Crime Japan and Europe
isn't that a hopeful
vision?

Even if God
is barely felt in Europe
Europe
is mostly peaceful
unlike the dysfunctional US of A
today.

If man
is inherently bad then man
should do more crime without religion
but the facts don't bare that notion
with distinction.
strawman wrote: But your idealism with regard to human goodness is mistaken.

Those who deny the existence of a Power Greater than themselves impose on themselves a lack of humility which is the fundamental human flaw. Thinking you should have the power to impose this utopia confirms that lack of humility. It is no different from an islamist forcing you to accept God or be relieved of your head. Except you would be the one with the sword.

I say, better to see that human flaw in yourself and in everyone else before you put your vision into effect. I know I'll do whatever I can to make sure it doesn't come to pass.
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

Post Reply