 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> On 6-7-2009 0:09, Darren New wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> IIRC One of the groups that was prayed for did significantly worse*.
>>> I don't remember exactly which one, I think the group that knew.
>>
>> Oh, yes. By "surprising", I thought you meant the prayer actually
>> helped, which would be surprising to those doing the experiment.
>>
> Any change would be surprising to the non-believer. This has the
> advantage that everybody is just as astonished.
I had understood that the third group (unlike the others) were told they
were being prayed for. That's why there were three groups instead of two.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> As soon as you say "you have all the rights, we just won't *call* it
> marriage", then you're opening up to discrimination, including lawsuits
> where a law says "married couples" and it gets enforced as "but not
> civil unions." "Separate but equal" has been shown to be a bad idea,
> and I'm really kind of surprised that so many blacks here voted for it
> less than a generation after it was applied to *them*.
>
A black atheist recently stated in an article she wrote that this is the
one great tragedy of America. You can be a serial killer, rapist, child
molester, or just about anything else, and as long as you are
"religious" you will get more respect in black community than an atheist
who runs charities, helps the poor, works as a doctor, or anything else.
Confronted with horrible conditions and hardships while slaves, they
embraces the "promises" of their slaver's religion so completely that it
is no ingrained into the culture so deeply that anything can be excused,
as long as its "religious". Ask one of the descendants of slave owners
if they think religion is beneficial, they will tell you that they
*believe* it is. Ask someone growing up in the black communities that
rose out of the same nasty insanity and they will tell you that they
***know*** it is. The reason Prop 8 passed is because the wackos staged
it as an "religious" issue, and the black community fell for it, hook
line and sinker, so they voted for it, because anything defending
"religion" is right, no matter how fundamentally wrong it might have
seemed if presented in secular liberal terms instead. God is on their
side, in their minds, because he helped them through past tragedies, and
continues to help them through their present blind refusal to take
control of their own lives and rise out of the ghetto. Its a self
perpetuating mess. Insist that everyone else is stacking the deck
against you, like always, turn to god to solace in your time of
tribulation, fail to do anything that "solves" the problems, including
the things you "should do", which is reject people that claim religion,
but commit crimes (after all, they do so because of the oppression and
inequity, not because they are not good believers), and when things
don't get better, go back to step one.
Its ironic, the priests proved to be better slavers than the people
buying and selling slaves (then again, they have had centuries more
practice).
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6-7-2009 0:28, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 6-7-2009 0:09, Darren New wrote:
>>> andrel wrote:
>>>> IIRC One of the groups that was prayed for did significantly worse*.
>>>> I don't remember exactly which one, I think the group that knew.
>>>
>>> Oh, yes. By "surprising", I thought you meant the prayer actually
>>> helped, which would be surprising to those doing the experiment.
>>>
>> Any change would be surprising to the non-believer. This has the
>> advantage that everybody is just as astonished.
>
> I had understood that the third group (unlike the others) were told they
> were being prayed for. That's why there were three groups instead of two.
And a possible explanation would be that they would think somebody else
would help them so they could devote energy to other things than
recovering. Still most probably a fluke.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 22:53:38 +0200, andrel wrote:
>> Many religious people are tolerant. A majority of them around here are
>> *not*.
>
> A majority of voters, which may not be the same, but I can see why you
> are angry.
One of the largest financial contributors (if not the single largest
contributor) to the pro-Proposition 8 vote was the LDS Church and its
membership.
Q.E.D.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
>>> "Why do christians get divorced at the same rate as non-christians?
>>> Because God is imaginary."
>>>
>>> That answer is a complete non-sequitur.
>
>> Sorry, but you can not judge a video by what you decide is it's main
>> point. Nor is it your prerogative to decide for me what I should
>> consider the most important points.
>> About that quote: It *is* a non-sequitur and therefore I dismissed it as
>> of being of no value and I won't discuss any such nonsense that is not
>> defended by anyone here.
>
> I don't really understand what you are saying. Are you saying that yes,
> there is a flaw in the video, but that I shouldn't judge it for that flaw?
>
How about, judging the entire thing based on only its flaws is as bad as
what you accuse it of doing, by having any in the first place? All such
lists are flawed, because there will be people stating that a) well it
doesn't apply to the ones "I" consider to belong to the group it talks
about, b) such and such group doesn't include X idea, and I don't
imagine Y or Z does either (which just shows a lack of imagination imho
lol), or c) it really is, in this one case, a bad argument, whether the
rest is sort of accurate or not. So... point out where its inaccurate
and be "specific" about who its inaccurate about. Don't presume that
because you find it inaccurate that its "not" accurate for the group
"they" where talking about, even as a general example of the sort of
issues that crop up.
That said.. Highest divorce rates, child abuse rates, incest, etc.
always seem to be in states that are high religion, and
literalist/dominionist/creationist at that, and the only thing that has
changed in that particular statistic is the accuracy of the "collection"
of such data. Sure, at one time it was probably less likely that people
divorced, but "in general", this seemed to happen a lot more with the
highly religious people than the more wishy washy ones. Two obvious
reasons this may be the case is a) the inflexibility of relationships in
such households, which means a greater odds of conflicts, and b) a much
more strict idea about the rules on when, how, and what you do before,
marriage, which can result in them having no clue when they do it, if
they are compatible in the first place (in any respect, including the bed).
In other words, the deck is stacked "against" them having stable social
relationships, and the only thing the prevalence of divorces indicated
is a recognition that its not worth living in such incompatible
conditions. Mind, they also have the highest rate of "actual" cheaters
too, probably do to the same social issues.
Ah, you might wonder why I say "actual" cheaters... This stems from
something I never put into words myself, but which someone else did at
one point. They where describing how they reached the conclusion of why
"some" situations caused jealousy and some didn't, including one case of
attending an orgy. The conclusion they reached was that it was about
self respect and inclusion. Attending the orgy was a "mutual" choice,
with both parties talking about the situation, knowing what was going to
happen, and accepting that it would, because they "both" decided it was
something they wanted together. A later situation was the exact
opposite. Her boy friend simply cheated, without talking about it at
all, with someone she didn't know about, when she thought he was doing
something else. That later case she had to wonder a) why he didn't feel
the need to consult her at all, b) why she wasn't good enough to consult
about it, never mind good enough period, and c) what else (or who else)
he might have done behind her back without her being even talked to
about it.
Its kind of an interesting look at the reality of what the word means.
And, the fact that she could switch from, "This is no big deal.", in any
number of cases she "knew" what was going on, and agreed with it, to
absolute rage in the ones she didn't, didn't make sense to her, until
she took a look at "why" the situations where different.
That said, people who think sleeping outside marriage is absolutely
wrong, like the highly religious, are a) not going to tell/consult their
partner when they do it, b) going to do it anyway, and c) going to do
everything they can to hide that its happening. This can "only" lead to
jealousy and rage, but.. for the very reason they hide it from the
spouse, they can't avoid the backlash resulting "from" it. The opted to
exclude their partner from the choice, "knowing" that they not only
wouldn't approve, but that that they wouldn't respect their partners
refusal, even if they "did" consult them. And, that.. right there shows
a lack of real commitment/respect to their partner in the first place.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> Then have a quick-n-easy "Next of Kin" specification. Anything not
>> covered by a will is left to your next of kin and, if they don't claim
>> it, then it goes to the State.
>
> Yeah. We call that "marriage", dude. :-)
>
Marriage has a number of things associated with it that don't make it
ideal for this purpose. For one thing, the religious ideas that
accompany the word, which in effect limit who you can designate.
A designation of your heir shouldn't be limited by religious constraints
like that.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> I disagree. I think most of the people who aren't allowed to marry would
> be happy to actually have all the rights and privileges of a religious
> marriage without the religion.
Then don't you think the two institutions should be separate, if there
is a significant demand for one without the other?
>
>> Then, if gay people wanted to get married, all they would have to do
>> would be to find a church that allows them to.
>
> And I would bet that the first thing that would happen is the religious
> types would try to get that religion somehow declared improper.
Yes, but we at least have a couple hundred years dealing with unpopular
religions. The issue of a religion not being popular but still being
protected from persecution has been mostly sorted out.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> One of the largest financial contributors (if not the single largest
> contributor) to the pro-Proposition 8 vote was the LDS Church and its
> membership.
Its membership, not the Church itself. As a rule the Church itself
stays out of politics, other than to say "Follow your conscience."
In fact, just about every election the leaders are asked to read a
statement to the congregations reminding them that
1) The Church does not tell you how to vote.
2) Church facilities may not be used for political purposes
3) The Church does not endorse any specific individual OR piece of
legislation
4) You should vote.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> If the muslims here were rioting and murdering in the name of Islam here,
>> I'm sure there would be videos of ten things intelligent muslims need to
>> address, too. :-)
>
> I don't think so. Muslims are rioting in Europe, yet it's forbidden to
> say anything bad about them. In Finland, for example, you can literally
> get jailed if you made such a video about islam. There have been concrete
> cases. (Christianity, on the other hand, is completely free to be bashed.)
>
And, when ever you do, some of them write you a nasty fatwa envy letter,
which basically states, "Man, its a good thing I am not one of those
Muslims, because if I was, you couldn't get away with this, and you
might just end up dead. But, this isn't a death threat, because as much
as I would love to kill you, and do it myself, Christians don't make
such threats, only Muslims do."
Some people are a bit too freaked by Islam in Europe right now, and just
like Christians, the moderate Muslims won't fracking stop supporting the
radical ones by proxy of not doing anything "about" the radical ones at
all. The only difference seems to be that Christians want to legislate
you to death, while Islam has less respect for civilization, and figures
that just blowing you up, along with the local super market, is much
easier than passing stupid laws, arresting you for blasphemy, then
jailing you, thus leaving the infrastructure intact. The same poisonous
hate and insanity exists in both, and even to some extent in the Jewish
faith, though in even smaller numbers than among Christians, but "all of
them", have 80% of the rest of the followers pointing fingers at, and
babbling about "intolerance" every time someone "outside" does what they
usually won't in anything like real numbers, and appose the stupidities.
This whole argument is an example of such. The video implies "everyone"
in some category share some traits, when they don't. It attacks the true
crazies, but the moderates get pissed that it makes the whole edifice
look bad, and so one. Well... tough fracking shit. You're holding the
wrong end to of damn stick. If you don't like what the video implies
about the "whole", then stop trying to argue that atheists and others
are poking the wrong caged animal, grab a stick yourself, and beat the
idiots that "are" the problem senseless, with us. So long as all your
effort goes into trying to take the stick away, because poking at the
cage looks bad, and we just "can't have that", all you are doing is
emboldening the rabies infested critters we are trying to distract with
the stick, and pissing off the people with the courage to at least "try"
to get it to stop biting random people, and infection more with the same
poisons in the process.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Marriage has a number of things associated with it that don't make it
> ideal for this purpose. For one thing, the religious ideas that
> accompany the word, which in effect limit who you can designate.
You're assuming to start with that marriage has something to do with
religion, then saying "we shouldn't have marriage because it has something
to do with religion." You are, in short, begging the question.
> A designation of your heir shouldn't be limited by religious constraints
> like that.
It's not. There's no religious constraint on my marriage. I didn't have a
religious marriage. Yet my *default* heir would still be my wife, and I'd
still need to have her agree if I changed her to not be my heir.
When someone gets hurt in an accident, who should the doctor allow to visit?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
