Does Jesus make you fat?
Does Jesus make you fat? Apparently so.
Here is an obesity map of the United States from the Centers for Disease Control. The darker the read the higher the percentage of obese residents in that state.
When I first saw the map it immediately struck me that the fat states are the Bible-belt states. Bible-believing Christians like to argue that the body is the temple of God. And they love megachurches so I guess it follows that they love megabodies as well.
Of course the red states in the fat map are also the “red states” on the political map since America has divided itself political on religious grounds with the Republicans being dominated by an American version of the Taliban and the Democrats being secularists for the most part. Libertarians were once proudly secular but these days one has to wonder.
Compare the fat map to the Jesusland USA map that was circulated after the last presidential election.
There is lots of overlap. Certainly the Bible-belt states tend to be the fat states. This is no surprise actually. The Bible-belt states tend to be dysfunctional is dozens of ways. They are more crime prone, less educated, have more poverty, more venereal disease, higher teen pregnancy rates, higher divorce rates, more homicides, shorter life spans, etc. See here,
I previously identified the most fundamentalist states in America as Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas. Every one of these states have obesity levels exceeding 25% of the state’s population.
At the same time I identified the US states that were the least religious. Those were California, Massachusetts, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wyoming. Everyone of these “secular” states had obesity rates below 20%.
Religiosity and obesity seem to go together.
I don’t purport to prove that religion causes people to be fat. I actually don’t believe that. Nor do I think that religion causes them to have higher divorce rates, higher VD rates, higher crime rates, etc., even if all those connections are there. In reality I suspect that religion, and other forms of dysfunctional behaviors and attitudes, come from a common root: a lack of intelligence.
There is a clear correlation between crime rates and intelligence. The less intelligent people are more likely to commit crimes. But lower intelligence is positively correlated with all sorts of dysfunctional attitudes and actions. The reality is that people aren’t stupid because they are fundamentalists -- they tend to be fundamentalists because they are stupid. And this level of dumbth, as Steve Allen would describe it, is responsible for lots of other social problems. Dumb people tend to be fatter, more criminally prone, more likely to contract VD, more likely to have children out of marriage, more likely to be drug addicts, alcoholics or exhibit a myriad of social problems.
posted by GodlessZone at Thursday, August 30, 2007
23 Comments:
I'm not going to call "causation" here, but correlation will do just fine. Have a look here; having established the correlation of intelligence (admittedly notoriously difficult to pin down) and degree of religiousness, it isn't too touch to extend the tenuous logical train by linking intelligence with tendency to preserve one's own health.
Apart from that, I think there's still a lot of work to be done reconciling science and religion. Given that medicine is science and much of religion is at odds at some level or another with science (Creationism? Mormons refusing blood transfusions?) then again, that can contribute more directly to the correlation you're seeing. And that is causation.
--
The Banjo Players Must Die
August 30, 2007
You had me right until the word 'intelligence'. That's cheap and easy. The potential in those states is no different from any of the others. You're mistaking intelligence for education - admittedly a very common mistake. Still, not one that does you any credit.
August 30, 2007
Actually, I think Sarah's mixing up intelligence and aptitude. I will stipulate that, with some variation for genetics, all people have similar aptitude for learning. But there clearly are some states that don't educate their citizenry as well as others. In those states, the populace is, in fact, less intelligent.
August 30, 2007
I disagree with Sarah only because in the bible-belt states (and I live in one of them) the root cause is indeed a lack of intelligence and they dont care about education and just only believe in what the bible says.
I have seen this first hand. The public school systems have failed as america becomes more of a christian nation by those with political influcence (Pat Robertson, John Hagee, who demands that Iran be destroyed, James Kennedy and so on).
When I became educated by reading and developing myself, I have a strong passion for morality and respect of life, unlike most religious people, who they define morality as whatever god says is right or wrong.
So, NGZ is correct in his article about Jesusland USA.
August 30, 2007
Josef: thanks for the link. I hadn’t seen that page and it’s a good resource and confirms other material I have seen.
Sarah: I have to disagree, I was raised with these people and a very, very large number of them are as thick as mud. Some are merely uneducated but a large number lack the ability for serious thinking. They are attracted to authoritarian religion (and poltics) precisely because they are unable, in many cases, and unwilling in the rest, to think for themselves.
There are people who lacked opportunity. But the studies I’ve seen showed that they tended to do well if they were intelligent in spite of that lack of education. And others, who just don’t have the mental ability do poorly no matter how many scholarships you throw at them. This does not mean there hasn’t been a dumbing down of the educaiton system inflicting ignorance on people -- there has been. But it seems that a lot of these people are just unable to think.
There is no evidence that all people have some sort of egalitarian aptitude to learn. Some learn easily and without effort and for others it takes a great deal of struggling and for some, no amount of effort will help. The idea that everyone of us has the same mental faculties is as absurd as assuming that we can all run as fast as the others. Nature is very unegalitarian.
One proof that this is not directly tied to education is that as educational levels in the US have increased we have not witnessed the decline of fundamentalism. If it is education then as more people graduate high school and seek out college the numbers of fundamentalists should be in free fall.
August 30, 2007
If religion is an indication of a lack of intelligence, then I insist politics is also, and as almost everyone is political, intelligence must be vanishingly rare.
August 30, 2007
Actually there is a correlation between political beliefs and intelligence. It has been documented as well. Dumb people tend to be attracted to authoritarian politics.
August 30, 2007
All politics is authoritarian to some extent. The most intelligent people must be anarchists! I ditched the republican party a few years ago and I now have raging anarchist tendencies, so I guess what I'm saying is I sure look smart to me.
August 30, 2007
Er, well, I never officially withdrew my republican registration, and I like Ron Paul, so I guess it's not fair to say I ditched politics entirely. It's only a matter of coincidence that he's a republican though, so I don't feel too bad about saying I'm not in the party faithful anymore.
August 30, 2007
Brian: You aren't far off. Basically what was found was that people who didn't finish high school tended to be authoritarians and conservatives. As people became more educated (which itself is a sign of intelligence) the percentage who feel into the libertarian camp increased dramatically. Individuals with post-graduate work tended to be split between modern leftists and libertarians.
One of the problems libertairans have is that the complexity of libertarianideas are difficult for the less intelligent to grasp. Of course I find it strange that a "raging anarchist" would be enamoured with a social conservative like Paul. He's too statist for me.
August 30, 2007
Indeed. Ron Paul is a statist. I also know about the cult of Mr Paul supporters on several web sites that clam to be anti-state.
When I became educated, a whole world open up to me. I think for myself and I became free, unlike religious people who most are uneducated and enjoy having a government that does things for them at other people's expense.
September 01, 2007
Ethereal: I like how you think. I have to say there is a perversion of libertarianism going on in the name of "anarchocapitalism". The label stays but the product is being switched under people's noses. And as long as they use the same label and slogans people refuse to see the switch taking place.
I know individuals who claim to be anti-state and support government restrictions on immigration for instance. I personally think the individuals (particularly one in question) behind this campaign are basically racists. The one flirts with neoNazi groups in Europe every summer and promotes thinkers who believe in the racial inferiority of black people. He's a bigot and a fraud. Yet this sect of Far Right "anarchists" are pushing him as some sort of libertarian guru. All those people are close to Paul.
In fact the article in Paul's newsletter that was wiedely seen as racist was written by one of these people -- Paul won't name who was the author. Lets just say if someone dropped a nuclear bomb on Auburn the libertarian movement would be in better shape.
September 01, 2007
It seems to me the "linking" here should be wealth or income not religion. Poor people - for whatever oxymoronic reason - tend to be more obese than wealthier people. Now the reasons they are poor could well be that they are uneducated or maybe they are lazy.
As for lack of intelligence as an angle, I'll buy that. However it would be interesting to see a map of average daily TV viewing overlayed on that first map... It would explain both the obesity and the lack of intelligence.
An aside does this blog hate any other God than the Christian God - it seems really lopsided???
January 20, 2008
Wealth or income is pretty much correlated to intelligence as well. Poverty in developed countries is pretty much on par with obesity, crime, drug abuse, teen pregnancy, etc. -- it is more pronounced the lower the intelligence.
I have discussed non-Christian gods but the reason it is lopsided is that 99% of the readers live in countries dominated by Christian thinking. Of course my views about the Christian god (Jesus) also apply equally to the idea of Jehovah (a Jewish concept) and I've targeted the absurd Allah as well.
January 20, 2008
All this talk about lack of intelligence in Christian states amazes me. Denial of facts strikes me as being a sign of lacking intelligence. And liberal, God-hating individuals like the person who wrote this article, exemplify that brand of ignorance. No where is that more evident than in the blue states.
Religion is not even necessary to refute ignorant lies of God-haters like the one who wrote the article.
SECULAR LIE OR IGNORANCE: "I support abortion because it's a woman's right to choose and besides it's nothing more than a blob of tisse." TRUTH: Science proves that when a baby is conceived, it's always a baby. Pictures show the truth as well.
SECULAR LIE OR IGNORANCE: Baraka "Hussein" Obama offers great hope as the next president of our nation. He's about bringing people together and offering fresh hope. TRUTH: Obama (who's name gives him away) is clearly a radical Moslem who is hiding his true colors to get elected. His continuing associations with terrorists, his hatred for America make it clear that this guy is attempting to harm our country from the inside. And even if he wasn't anti-American- his lack of any substantial and positive experience are totally lacking.
SECULAR LIE:
Science proves evolution. Creationism and Intelligent Design have been disproved. TRUTH: Evolution in the sense that secularists insist upon (one species changing into another) have been and are still unproven. No fossil records have ever been discovered to link this hypothesis. The idea of macro-evolution remains no more than a theory. Likewise, if macro-evolution were to be proven, it would not disprove creationism or intelligent design theory- much to the chagrin of atheists like yourself who wish that it would. Atheist secularists don't need proof of anything at all (while demanding Christians procure proof of their God) concerning evolution, but instead want to foist "non-fact" on Christians to "prove" there is no God and to convert them to Atheism which is the hilt of ignorance.
The ridiculous inaccuracies go on and on. As the saying goes misery loves company and Atheistic secularists want to covert everyone to their experience of life as nothing more than an empty, dead in road. One common thread runs through atheistic secular strategies- that is to restrain from even attempting to factually win an argument with a Christian; instead, when you have no facts to counter their points, call them stupid followers, call them fat, and criticize their religion. So much for tolerance and sensitivity, right?
April 19, 2008
Let me point out a few things our so-called “4life” Christianist. Denial of facts is not a sign of lack of intelligence, it is a sign of faith. And you are the one denying facts. Let us look at the rather dumb fallacies you have committed in your little gospel message.
1. There is no god-hating individual here. You can’t hate that which does not exist. I don’t hate Santa, the Easter bunny or the Loch Ness monster and I don’t believe they exist either. What I find troublesome is that there are people who take their imaginary friends seriously and then try to impose the alleged will of their imaginary friend, via the force of law, on others.
Second, repeating the accusation of a god-hater who wrote this article a second time doesn’t make it any more true than the first time you committed that fallacy.
Now let us look at your dumb remarks about “secular lies”. Clearly you don’t have an idea what secular means.
Someone who has secular ethics may be pro-choice or anti choice. Someone who is a religion crazy may be pro-choice or anti choice. Neither positions is inherently secular. I suggest you actually have no idea what the word secular means.
The science doesn’t show when conception takes place is “always a baby”. Well, actually I should say that I have no frigging idea what you mean. But I suspect neither do you.
Regarding Obama. Get a fucking life. I wouldn’t vote for Obama if my life depended on it. Most my atheist friends aren’t voting for Obama either. Where did you get the incredibly stupid idea that voting for Obama is somehow a secular value? Do you actually think for yourself or do you just repeat the absurd rantings of the Far Right preachers whose butts you kiss?
Next the word is Muslim not Moslem. If you want to prove Christianists aren’t stupid that sort of error doesn’t help. He is not a radical Muslim. He’s a Left-wing moron but not a radical Muslim. That you think indicates you might want a MRI pronto -- either this is brain lesions on your part or you just terminally dumb.
Repeating the bullshit about his association with terrorists is another indication that you suffer from an advanced state of religiously-induced mental dysfunctionality. I think the closest Obama got to a terrorists was listening to Bush deliver his State of the Union speech.
Clearly you don’t even understand evolution. Evolution is not one species changing into another. Evolution is adaptation over time. There may be some sudden leaps but that is not the evolutionary theory. Next equating evolution with secularism is another dumb fallacy. Most the religious people I know believe in evolution -- including the Pope I might note. The main opposition to evolution comes from Bible Fundamentalists, a mass of monumental ignorance, and Muslim fundamentalists (ditto). The reality is you Fundamentalists are the ones who have more in come with Islamic fundamentalists.
To speak of trying to “disprove creationism” also shows you are ignorant of logic. It is not incumbent on anyone to disprove anything. It is incumbent on the one making the assertion to offer the evidence. You have to prove there is creationism not the other way around. As for the mountains of evidence on evolution it is so overwhelming that virtually no scientists in the field believe your rubbish. You would have a hard time finding 5% of seriously scientists, in appropriate fields, attesting to creationism.
Life is not an “empty, dead in road” as you said -- Did you mean “dead end road”? My life is not empty. I actually find it rather full thank you. But religious loonies of all stripes have to convince themselves that non-believers are miserable -- it is part of the lie you believe and the propaganda you need to promote. The evidence shows atheists less likely to be criminals, less likely to be poor, less likely to be stupid, less likely to be drug addicts, less likely to give birth in their teens, less likely to have VD, etc. It sounds to me like the most religious groups in the country are the most screwed up -- perhaps religions just attracts the mentally fucked up.
Let us get to your final claim that criticizing religious nutters is intolerance. Intolerance is not criticism. Tolerance is respecting the rights of others. I do not want your books censored. Christians do want other books censored. I do not want to force anyone to listen to my message. Christians do want to use government force to make other people listen to their message.
I would never advocate that someone’s rights be violated merely because they are religious. Christians regularly argue that the rights of gay people can’t be respected because it violates Christian bullshit. Christians want to impose their standards on woman thus violating their rights. I respect your rights to be a moron and that you engage that right to such spectacular levels doesn’t bother me. I give you all the rights that I claim for myself.
You may read anything you want. You may live unmolested by the state in my world (note I said in my world not in the current state of affairs). You can go to church and preach nonsense all you want. I don’t want to regulate your marriage or sex life. I don’t want to regulate your beliefs. Yet fundamentalists christians overwhelming want to censor others, want government interference in the “moral” sphere, want to regulate beliefs, want to control who other people love or marry, etc. Your idea of tolerance is non-resistance to the Christianist desire to impose on others. That isn’t tolerance but surrender.
April 19, 2008
First off, I'm not a fundamentalist.
I'm a Roman Catholic Christian. My Church teaches that not every part of Bible is literal, but some parts are to be taken literally.
If you don't hate what you don't believe, then why do you even have to identify yourself as Godless and dedicate your blog to that end? Why do you expend so much energy trying to prove to other people that a God doesn't exist and that if they believe in God and his commandments they're morons? Sounds like you’re always on the defensive trying to disprove something you can’t.
Can you personally prove that water is made of 2 parts water and 1 part oxygen? Unless you’re a scientist you probably can't prove that yourself- you depend upon the expertise of someone else. Yet on the spiritual plane, you don’t seem to accept the authority, education, and discipline of anybody (not even Jesus Himself) or any Church.
I think you really do believe in God and because of a difficult upbringing, confusion on issues, an immoral lifestyle or a relentless selfishness, you'd rather try to comfort yourself in trying to believe God doesn't really exist- to make things “supposedly” easier on yourself. After all, that seems to be the premise of all your arguments against morality. Have you ever noticed that your perspectives line up squarely against many of the ten commandments of God? And do you honestly think a world that followed all the commandments of God would be a better, more honest place or a worse, more dishonest place to live? (You're assertion of atheists having a lower percentage of murder, etc. is bunkum.. Some people that do things like that may be Christian in name, but clearly, by their nihilist actions are practical atheists- that is, I don't care about God or anybody else- just myself).
You're for murder (ie. you state your support of abortion- which, if you pick up a bonafide biology book will substantiate that life ALWAYS begins at conception-- If there's not conception, there's no life. Same definition holds true for pigs or frogs. If someone is pregnant, it means they've conceived a child and that child continues or has continued to grow. Please brush off the old biology book and refamiliarize yourself with these basic biological principles. It’s not a guessing game as to whether conception is the beginning of life or not. Scientifically, factually, it is). I can go down the list and point out how your opposition to good and your support of bad things, is less an intellectual decision and more of a rebellion against the God you claim doesn’t even exist.
Check your dictionary on the defintion of a Moslem-- “A believer in Islam.. Of or pertaining to Islam or the Muslims. And Obama is clearly in tight with Muslim (or would you rather me say Moslem) radical terrorists. Even secular (from my perspective, secular means "of the world" with no consideration for the spiritual. The dictionary defines it as “of the world, worldly- not spiritual. Not sacred.”) TV networks are reporting connections that make this obvious. If you can't draw conclusions of some guilt by association, his failure to say the pledge of allegience, etc., then I suggest you connect the dots a little bit better. I'm glad to hear you're not voting for him. But, I don’t believe you’re aware of the danger present (to liberal and conservative Americans) if he were to be elected President.
With regards to your points about evolution; I don’t understand how we can even have a serious debate about evolution, if you don’t even understand the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Many scientists do believe in macro-evolution even though it has not been proven (just because there are scientists who don't belive macro-evolution is fact, because there is not sufficient fossil proof, should not be carte blanche called kooks). The type of evolution the Pope has said could be possible is the notion of mirco-evolution (ie. if you change nutritional elements, living conditions, etc. a species can evolve different traits- for instance, now people are taller than in a bygone era, they weigh more, maybe eye colors have changed, etc. due to healthier living conditions). But, in no way, shape, or form, has the Church declared macro-evolution (the unproven notion that one species, for instance, a monkey- crossed over and became another species- a human being) is unambiguous scientific fact. You’re misconstruing the Church’s perspective on the debate.
Finally, Prohibitionists called themselves prohibitionists, because they had something they wanted to prohibit- alchohol. You can't be an Atheist without something or someone to atheiate against or to oppose. Your self identification as an atheist and the energies you expend to convince others that there is no God is part of a selfish rebellion against God. If your belief that there is no God is definitively that, why are you hassling others? Why not keep quiet about it and enjoy your “happy”, Godless life? Basing your existence, your philosophies, your ethos against a God you say doesn't exist, is to implicity recognize Him. But to live without God is to entertain misery. It is a dead end- no consolation in a happy afterlife. And no real basis for faith or hope except in fallible, faltering human beings. Your foul language and your crude tone indicate your unhappiness- an unhappiness that is evident no matter how much you verbally deny it.
I will pray for you and hope that you see the lack of objectivity you use to rationalize a Godless world. Whether you realize it or not, you are precious to God. Since you don't pray, maybe you can recite the periodical table for me or something like that. Thanks and God bless you, my friend.
April 20, 2008
4Life: You say you are not a fundamentalist. Fundamentalist means two things. One is a set of specific doctrines and the other is a mindset. Orthodox Catholicism is largely fundamentalist in both senses of the term. You say that “not every part of the Bible is literal.” Do you mean that some parts are not true? If you say every part is true you are a fundamentalists. If you say some parts are not true can you tell me how to tell the false parts from the true parts?
I don’t hate a non-existent being and by definition that is impossible. I do hate what Christians do with their religion and I do hate the effects of religion on the world. It is largely destructive and evil.
I spend no energy trying to prove anything to anyone. I write what I think. In fact I rarely write for people like you. I don’t care if Christians read it per se. I generally write for my fellow non-believers who don’t need convincing to be rational. The one benefit it getting Christians to abandon their faith is that it weakens the political power of Christianity which I consider to be wholly negative. Thus it is good for individual freedom. But my goal is not to convince believers as I make no effort to go out of talk to them. If they come here and want a fight I might give them one for the fun of it but if they don’t change their mind it is no skin off my nose.
Whether one can prove that water is H2O or any other scientific fact is irrelevant. That most people can’t prove it doesn’t mean that science facts are on the same plane as theological bullshit. The difference is that no one can prove that which is based on supernatural claims. By definition the supernatural is beyond nature and thus not open to proof. That water can be proven to be H20 is true. That Jesus or anyone else is a god can’t be proven. One claim is open to reasonable investigation and the other is not. They are vastly different claims and trying to treat them as similar is not going to work.
You are allowed to invent any belief you want. You obviously do that by coming up with the crap that anyone who doesn’t believe had “a difficult upbringing, confusion on issues, an immoral lifestyle or a relentless selfishness.” etc. That is you projecting. Most atheists are no different from most believers except we tend to have higher IQs, tend to commit fewer crimes, etc. You are merely inventing a theory to make yourself feel good about the nonsense you choose to believe. I fear when you suggest an “immoral lifestyle” you are confusing me with a Catholic priest.
If you want to prove that atheists are as you describe them can you point to any study showing that atheists are more prone to such problems than Christians? Can you name one proper study that does that?
The only reason to debunk god nonsense is because so many people use this undefined, undefinable concept to inflict harm on other human beings. As a Catholic you should know your own church has done that for centuries including having people killed in the name of your imaginary friend.
You say my assertion that atheists are less likely than believers to be criminals is “bunkum”. Here are a couple of statistical facts. One is that we have the religious affiliations of prisoners on record. Only about 5% of them say they are atheists. In the general population about 10% of the American population says they are atheists. If atheists were as likely to commit crimes as others in society then 10% of prisoners would be atheists. That this is not the case indicates strongly that atheists are less likely to commit crimes.
Second, the prison population tends to be younger than the average population. That is young people tend to commit more crimes than old people. The percentage of atheists among the young is around 20% today. This would mean that the percentage of individuals in prison who would identify as atheists ought to actually be above the 10% level just to be representative. That is is well below it again supports my claim.
Next we can look at the most religious states in the US versus the most secular states in the US. Some states are more Christian than others. I did that comparison based on the most religious states versus the least religious states. And the religious states, on average, had much higher crime rates.
Next we can compare US crime rates to those of similar Western nations. The percentage of Christians in Canada, New Zealand, Sweden, Germany, etc. is far lower than in the US. But they are relatively similar countries otherwise. Crime rates in Western countries with high percentages of atheists is much lower than the crime rate in the US with many Christians.
With in America itself we can measure the religious attitudes of various ethnic groups. Members of groups that tend to be highly religious are more likely to be arrested for crimes than are members of groups that tend to be less religious. All these facts support my thesis that religious people also tend to be more crime prone. I believe that to be true but I don’t say that religion causes them to be crime prone. That is not my view. We do know that people with lower IQ levels tend to be more religious than people with higher IQ levels. We also know that people with lower IQ levels tend to be more criminally inclined than people with higher IQ levels.
I don’t believe that religion causes crimes. I believe that low level of intelligence are related to crimes (and I mean real crimes with victims not merely breaking a law which is different). I also believe that low levels of intelligence cause people to be religious -- they don’t have the ability to understand things more complex than the “god” explanation. So religion and crime are more the result of dumbness than anything else.
Do I believe that a world that follows the commands of god would not be a better place? Which god? If you mean Allah clearly not. Oh, but you don’t believe in Allah. You follow the Christian god. Now which commandments of this God did you have in mind?
Most Christians drone on about the ten commandments. So let us take those as an example. What they like to ignore is that those commandments also had prescribed penalties with them.
So what about honor the Sabbath? Which Sabbaths? Saturday or Sunday. Individuals who didn’t honor the sabbath were to be put to death. Would a society that kills people for working on the sabbath be better than one that doesn’t? Nope, it would be worse.
We are told to honor our parents. Well, most societies, Christian or not, do that. But in the Old Testament the penalty for not respecting parents was also death. The god in that book was very fond of killing people. Do I think we’d be better off with a society that kills disobedient children? No.
The ten commandments forbid adultery. Not a bad idea itself. But the penalty for adultery was --- well you know the rest. Bloodthirsty deity with a sword sort of thing.
Of course there are other commandments as well. For instance the Bible says to kill “witches” and to execute homosexuals? Would we better off doing that? I don’t think so.
It says that “thou shalt have no other god before me”. So nonJehovah worshippers would be breaking one of the commandments. And, of course, the loving god of the Bible said such people should be killed. So once again your commandment honoring society would be one filled with lots of killing. I don’t think that is an improvement.
So following the commandments of the Bible won’t make us better off but would put us on par with the barbarians who impose God’s law in Iran.
I did not say I support abortion. I don’t. I support choice. A fetus is not a human being. Nor is it alive. At that stage it can not survive without using the mother’s body to live. A fetus left to develop will become a human eventually. Just like a seed left to develop can become an oak. But the seed is not a tree and the fetus is not a person. You saw that your anti choice view is biology yet few biologists would actually oppose choice. I don’t think freedom of choice is bad.
I don’t think freedom is bad. The difference between us is that you want to control others in the name of your religion and I don’t want to control anyone. My lack of desire to rule others is what you call evil. That says a lot about you.
Again the word is spelled Muslim and you said Obama was a Muslim. Now you change it to say he is “in tight with Muslim (or would you rather me say Moslem)”. No, You were the one who spelled it Moslem not me and you were wrong. And your grammar is wrong again as it ought to be “in tight with Muslims” (plural not singular). But even if you got the spelling and grammar correct the thesis is still a lie. What evidence do you have that Obama, who would be an awful president (just like McCain and Hillary) is “in tight” with terrorists? The commandments you worship also say “thou shalt not bear false witness”. I accuse you of bearing false witness. Offer up your evidence or admit you are sinning against the God you claim to believe.
The closest to guilt you offer is his alleged refusal to say the pledge of allegiance. What fucked up logic? First, what proof do you have he refused this? Second, how does that prove anything. Many Christians refuse the pledge as well because they say their only allegiance is to their god not to the flag. Are they Islamic terrorists for that?
Second, are you aware the author of the pledge was a socialist who said he wanted to teach the school children obedience to the state as a way of promoting socialism? What kind of moron would turn that pledge, to promote statism, into a litmus test for whether one is an Islamic terrorist. But I did argue that religious tend not to be bright. And I appreciate you illustrating my point for me.
Clearly you have no idea what atheist means. You stupidly, very, very, very stupidly argue “You can’t be an atheist without something or someone to atheiate against or to oppose.” First, there is no such word as atheiate. That is really silly. Second atheist is two words combined a-theist. The “a” means without, the “theists” means god. It means “without god” or without a belief in a god.” It does not mean against god. Did god reveal this dumbness to you, or is it something that comes naturally for you?
You are free to pray all you want for me. In fact I encourage it. I figure that Christians talking to their imaginary friend are far less dangerous to the world in that activity than in many of the other things they like to do.
April 20, 2008
I said I wasn't a Fundamentalist. The Catholic Church which assembled the BIble (in 396) is the true interpreter of that work and has constantly had that authority. Clearly, if the Church put together an infallible book, then She should be able to infalliby interpret it (through the power of the Holy Spirit). Some passages are considered not to be taken literally (for instance, while God did create the world, we're not expected to believe he took a whole day to create the ocean, etc.) while others are to be taken literally ("Whosoevers' sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them", etc.).
Godless: I do hate what Christians do with their religion and I do hate the effects of religion on the world. It is largely destructive and evil.
So you hate what Mother Theresa and other great saints have done to help the poor and sick? Blessed Mother Theresa said that her orders' successes came as a direct result of the Catholic Church? Was she lying? Was she a charlatain? Do you hate the fact that the Catholic Church has done more than any other institiution in the history of the world to help the poor and sick? Do you hate the universities and centers of education the Catholic Church originated back in the middle ages? What about the hospitals that were started by the Catholic Church through the initiation and direct work of monks and monasteries? Do you hate the contributions of inventions and thought the Church has brought into our lives and contributed to society? And what about culture and the arts? What about the great leaders and role models throughout history who have credited the Church with their success?
Godless: The difference is that no one can prove that which is based on supernatural claims. By definition the supernatural is beyond nature and thus not open to proof. . . That Jesus or anyone else is a god can’t be proven.
There are some proofs of a Divine existence irregardless of faith. How could the earth just happen to have just enough oxygen to support human life? (none of the other planets in our solar system do, mind you) And walla, human life springs up throughout the earth. Gravity happens to be just the right amount where we won't either be crushed or float off into space, and so on and so on.
Coincidence?
Then there are events which happened indicating the miraculous in the history of the Church. In 1917, Our Lady of Fatima appeared to 100,000 people in Portugal (among them atheists). The sun was reported to have spun from its' axis and come at them and at the last minute it went back in the direction it had come. It was reported by atheists in secular newspapers of the time.
In Lourdes, France in 1858, the Blessed Virgin appeared to a peasant girl. Thousands of people with various illnesses have been cured there. There are documented reports of doctors who were atheists attesting to miracles; and many became Christian.
There are the lives of all the saints. Almost all of them performed miracles as well. And then there are the saints who are incorruptible (despite Oxygen surrounding their bodies, their bodies remain intact).
And the list goes on and on. Historians have also documented that Jesus was a real person and that he performed many miracles. Early historians (Catholic and not) have documented that the Resurrection really did happen).
godless one: I fear when you suggest an “immoral lifestyle” you are confusing me with a Catholic priest.
That's a cheap shot. Less than three percent of Catholic priests have been accused (some have even been falsely accused). But, the ones who have done disgusting things--- they did these things despite what the Catholic Church taught them, not because of the Catholic Churh. If you want to see wha the Church is all about- how it's intended to effect lives- then look at the greatest Christians of all time- the saints.
Godless one: If you want to prove that atheists are as you describe them can you point to any study showing that atheists are more prone to such problems than Christians? Can you name one proper study that does that?
You did not reference one source where you got your studies. But even if they are accurate, it still doesn't prove that religion causes more crime than atheism. As I said before, there are many people that are Christian in name, but atheistic in their attitudes and behaviors. Common sense would suggest that those who live by a code of true Christian moral rules are less likely to commit crimes of any sort.
Godless one:
As a Catholic you should know your own church has done that for centuries including having people killed in the name of your imaginary friend.
Another cheap shot. Don't judge the Catholic Church by what human beings (Catholic or otherwise) have done in opposition to the Church's mission. For instance, the Crusades were a noble endeavor of the Church initiated to take back the Holy Land from Muslims who had stolen it from Christianity. Also, Christian pilgrims were being robbed, harassed, and killed. The intent of the Crusades was good. The majority of knights were good. But, some of the Crusaders went bad- pillaging, etc. Did the Catholic Church mandate those abuses? No. Did it happen? Yes.
Other percieved historical abuses include events like the Spanish Inquisition. These court hearings were actually fairer trials than we have today in America. Total guilt had to be proven before punishment (not beyond a reasonable doubt). In 20 years, less than 50 people were executed as a result of the Inquisition in Spain- and these were killed because they were working to destroy Christiandom. For instance, in one case, Jews professed themselves to be converted Christians, and then, when inside a castle at Ovid, Spain, they threw open the front gates allowing the Muslims to slaughter 10,000 people. Jewish people were not killed for being Jewish. It was the Muslim sword that was brandished to steal Christian lands, slaughter Christians, and force conversions to Islam. An Atheist friend of mine, himself a good researcher, read articles I presented to him about this issue, and he conceded that the research was reliable.
Oh, and during the Nazi invasions Pope Pius IX sheltered over 10,000 Jews in the Vatican. He never openly spoke out against Nazism to the world, because a Cardinal in Germany had done so from the pulpit-- Hitler's retaliation- thousands of people in that area were exterminated. Books like "Hitler's Pope" are lies intended to make the Catholic Church look like a fiend. Cromwell's research was horrendous, he made things up, and jumped to illogical conclusions.
Are all people in the Catholic Church perfect and have they been through centuries? No.
Godlessone:
Most Christians drone on about the ten commandments. . .
God didn't come up with the punishments. The people themselves did. He allowed it because of the hardness of their hearts (as Jesus stated to those clamoring for the Old Testament idea of divorce). You see, in the Old Testament, God tried to help them, but for the most part their hearts were turned away from God. Jesus changes things in the New Testament.
Godless one:
The ten commandments forbid adultery. Not a bad idea itself. But the penalty for adultery was --- well you know the rest.
Jesus stopped the men from stoning the woman caught in adultery and He forgave her. He came up with new laws that overturned the old laws. . . Turn the other cheek, forgive your enemy, etc.
Godlessone:
Of course there are other commandments as well. For instance the Bible says to kill “witches” and to execute homosexuals?
Please enlighten me on this one. Where are you getting that from?
godlessone
So following the commandments of the Bible won’t make us better off but would put us on par with the barbarians who impose God’s law in Iran.
Have you not read the New Testament-- which is the fulfillment of the Old Testament. Jesus came to make all new in His love.
Godlessone:
I did not say I support abortion. I don’t. I support choice. A fetus is not a human being. Nor is it alive. At that stage it can not survive without using the mother’s body to live.
You're very confused on this one. First off, a fetus is defined as "offspring". Blobs of tissue cannot be defined as the offspring of a person. The Human fetus is actually alive-- he or she has a beating heart, active brainwaves, can feel pain, etc. Alive.
You say the baby cannot survive without using the mother's body to live. A 2 year old cannot survive without using his or her mother to live either. Which brings me to the point of you saying "I support choice." That doesn't make any sense. Hitler had a choice; he could've chosen to harm no one, but he chose to exterminate people. If you were to respond I support choice to his options: first, it makes no sense, but second, by indifferent support of any choice-- you support both the bad and the good. Ultimately, if you support the bad and the bad happens, your support of choice is not a support of the good at all (because a good choice was not chosen). The fact that you say you don't support abortion indicates to me you think it is wrong. Well, if it's just a blob of tissue, not a human being, then why is it wrong and why do you not support abortion? Even though you make that claim, your support of choice makes it clear you do support abortion. So which is it support of abortion or rejection of it? There's no grey.
Godlessone:
The difference between us is that you want to control others in the name of your religion and I don’t want to control anyone.
It's ironic you use these statements. When a mother participates in destroying the innocent life within her womb, she has just participated in the ultimate physical control of another- an execution where one person has all the control (and you state that you're for that choice to control and destroy another human being). But, my Church, the Catholic Church wants to save the baby's life and help the mother as well (note that there are hundreds of homes for unwed mothers run and paid for by the Catholic Church). That instance doesn't sound like control, but a true choice- a new found freedom that some of these women have never experienced and the opportunity to give them control over their lives in a positive way- maybe for the first time ever. It's made possible by someone finally caring for them, showing an interest in them- loving them. That's not controlling or manipulating- that's loving and that's what true Christianity is all about.
Godlessone:
What evidence do you have that Obama, who would be an awful president (just like McCain and Hillary) is “in tight” with terrorists? The commandments you worship also say “thou shalt not bear false witness”. I accuse you of bearing false witness.
His associations for many years with terrorist instigators, of itself, definitely makes him an awful choice for president. In addition, he's stridently pro-abortion; therefore, he is also a bona fide terrorist of babies.
Godlessone:
Many Christians refuse the pledge as well because they say their only allegiance is to their god not to the flag. Are they Islamic terrorists for that?
Jehovah's Witnesses do not meet the definition of Christians. If they had prior friendly associations with Islamic terrorists or open supporters of terrorism, yes I would say they're Islamic terrorists as well.
Godlessone:
You stupidly, very, very, very stupidly argue “You can’t be an atheist without something or someone to atheiate against or to oppose.” First, there is no such word as atheiate. . . It means “without god” or without a belief in a god.” It does not mean against god.
Let's quit playing semantical games here. As an atheist, you say it means "without God". What that ultimately means is that you are against the idea of God; therefore, you're against God. If you're against the idea of the Big Bang Theory, you're against the Big Bang Theory. You certainly do oppose the God you don't believe in; otherwise you wouldn't expend so much energy trying to prove He doesn't exist.
Godlessone:
I figure that Christians talking to their imaginary friend are far less dangerous to the world in that activity than in many of the other things they like to do.
What's far more dangerous than your delusions of bad things Christians do for the world, is the notion that atheists continue to make progress in stripping away the God-fearing, God-loving principles implicit in our country from the beginning. As the athiest Nietsche near his death went crazy banging his piano wildly saying he envied Christians because they had an answer to their whys, America will continue to go crazy as well. No Jesus, No Peace. Know Jesus, Know Peace.
God bless you.
April 23, 2008
4Life: You claim you are not a fundamentalist and then prove your Catholic fundamentalism in the very letter where you deny it.
How did the Catholic church put together what was the Bible? By killing Christians who believed other books should be included. Are you telling me the only way to know what is true or false in the Bible is by listen to Catholic priests up to the pope?
Mother Theresa was awful -- she preferred to give people a place to die as opposed to caring and curing them. But when I said that religion does evil I did not mean exclusively and with a lick of sense would assume that is what I meant. I’m talking about the centuries of slaughter that your church carried out in particular and which only stopped when they lost power. When they could no longer kill anyone they pleased they suddenly had a change of heart.
I will try to answer some of your statement. Your remarks on air and gravity reveal your ignorance of evolution. You seem to think we existed and then oxygen was miraculously added to the atmosphere so we could survive. The oxygen was there first and as life evolved it did so because it could use that oxygen. Plants were different and used other gasses to survive. Ditto for gravity.
Life evolved on this planet and not the others because the conditions on the others were not favorable. Life didn’t come first and then some god swooped down and created the conditions.
As for Catholic delusions by weepy schoolchildren and ignorant peasants -- what rubbish. I have watched film of such hysteria with the gullible then believe without any evidence. In one case people were staring into a bright light for a long time waiting for the Virgin Mary to appear. One hysterical woman suddenly screams out she sees something and the whole crowd, emotional prepared and worked up by their own delusions, suddenly said they could see it too. They waited and worked themselves up and it took one person screaming it was there to set them off. Of course the cameras that filmed all this showed nothing -- but maybe the Virgin Mary is like a vampire and her image can’t be recorded except in bad velvet art paintings and cheap statues sold to the gullible by a multi-trillion dollar corporation called the Vatican.
Lourdes is so much bullshit. All these supposed miracles. Why is it that something that truly is miraculous never happens. Legs never grow back for instance. Instead people with symptoms that are often hysterical or mental in nature are prone to cures. But someone with a lung removed due to cancer isn’t cured and has a new lung. Someone with psychosomatic traits can easily be cured and Lourdes has a history of such cures but none of the truly miraculous kinds.
The saints didn’t perform miracles and there is no evidence they did. Now you Catholics made Theresa a saint -- what miracles did she perform? Give me one firm proof that anyone performed a miracle. All you offer is church folklore. And the incorruptible body bullshit has been disproved. Some of these bodies do fall apart. Other bodies of non saints also show the same preservation for long periods of time. It is not so unusual but claimed a miracle when church charlatans are involved -- and always with candles to light for some cash.
Let us note that no historian has documented that Jesus performed miracles and none documented he existed. Some, like Josephus reported that he existed but didn’t document it. They heard stories but no historian who saw him exists only those who heard rumors of him. None mentioned miracles or the resurrection but Catholic fraudsters did take later copies of their works and add such claims to the text. Unfortunately for them they weren’t able to find all the early version of these histories and change them. So the early copies of these historians lack what the fraudulent Catholic Church later added.
As for the “cheap shot”. Hypocrite. You argue that I could only be an atheist because I must have an immoral life and then when I throw the same sort of argument back at you, but use true examples you are suddenly offended. And these priests didn’t do things contrary to the church they did things with the church actively protecting them and hiding them. And that rot went up to Archbishops and Cardinals who actively worked to keep these priests operating.
As for the example of saints: Most never existed, most are fairy tales invented by the Catholic Church which actively manufactured invented history for centuries. Some were so badly invented that the Church eventually dropped them. Those we do know about are often clearly mentally disturbed wackos who engaged in harming their own bodies, living in filth in the name of faith and other self-destructive activities. They didn’t need to be canonized they need to be hospitalized.
On the crime issue: You once again said I didn’t prove that theism causes crime. Okay, now you are being stupid. I didn’t say it did. I made that clear in that last e-mail. I said stupidity causes a lot of crime and stupid causes a lot of religion (you are working hard to prove that). You are not rebutting what I said you are misrepresenting it and then claiming I didn’t prove something which I actually never said.
In your logic any Christian who is evil is actually an atheist. In other words you define Christian and atheist in ways so that one is never bad and the other never good. That is irrationality at its height but a sign of a true fundamentalist who twists logic to meet his faith.
As for the inquisition, etc. That was not a cheap shot. The Catholic Church did these things and they were monsters for it. Evil, vicious criminals not saints and this includes the Popes who were involved. You can pretend otherwise but the Church was bloodthirsty and vicious and only stopped when they couldn’t get away with it. The church may not have mandate some bad things that superstitious Catholics did but it did mandate many evils that they did such as the Inquisition and the burning of witches and the murders of members of other faiths.
Your justification of the Inquisition proves you have no morality yourself. You say it was fair to try people and that only a few were killed. Killed for what? Your church forced people to be Catholic or face legal persecution and they tried people who weren’t sincere in converting. And you anti-Semitic bit about Jews betraying Christians is disgusting. Any trial for heresy is an abomination even if “fair”. People have the right to be heretics and the church has no right to murder people for having wrong beliefs. You are saying that it is fine to kill people for not being Catholic provided the trial is fair and the people really aren’t Catholic.
Some Catholics hide Jews and lots of Catholics rounded them up. Oddly the Catholic church, to this day, never found a reason to excommunicate Hitler from the faith. And German bishops, cardinals and archbishops were some of Hitler’s greatest supporters. But I didn’t mention any of this did I -- you brought it up not me.
You say God didn’t mandate the punishments. Your ignorance of the Bible is amazing. The same OT books which carry the commandments also quote God as telling them how to punish the offenders after telling them what was a crime.
As for the new laws of Jesus -- he didn’t come up with anything that other humane thinkers hadn’t already come up with.
As for witches and killing gays. You want enlightenment. Obviously you don’t read the very book you say God inspired. but that is typical of Catholics who have to be spoon fed theology and can’t read the Bible for themselves. But if you actually own one try Exodus 22:18 and Leviticus 20:13. Exodus and Leviticus are books in the Bible in case you don’t know.
That’s all I have time for today. I have to be up early to drive people to catch a train. But you sure are amusing.
April 24, 2008
Quick reply some incredible stupid claims. A fetus is not defined as “offspring” and offspring doesn’t mean human. A fetus has no beating heart or brainwaves when conceived -- it has no heart or brain. Without a heart or a brain you are not alive. I would note that the Catholic church previously held that abortion was permissible until “quickening” when the fetus was capable of moving. Prior to that it was not forbidden. The anti-abortion hysteria is a much more recent thing.
Don’t drop context. You know when I meant when I said I support choice. Don’t twist it with stupid HItler analogies. I don’t get pregnant, that would be a miracle, so abortion is not an issue for me. I support the right of women to decide whether to give birth or not. I offer no advice otherwise since it is not my body and not my choice.
A undeveloped fetus is not a human. You want to sacrifice the rights of a living, breathing, full developed human being (the mother) to what, at best, is a “potentiality”. It is not a life, it does not breath, it does not think, it does see, it does have a working brain, working lungs or a anything sufficiently developed to allow it to live for two minutes outside the woman. And to that you would sacrifice the rights of a fully developed human being. You have to pretend the mass of cells is a fully functioning human in order to even try to justify your anti choice position.
I asked you for evidence that Obama is a terrorist and you repeat the accusation. You have still given no evidence whatsoever except to define terrorists as anyone who doesn’t want to ban abortion. I think you are a small minded fanatic.
I personally think you are a rather large ass and your statement on JWs and terrorisms is offered up as proof. You really are a fundamentalist who dismisses the faith of anyone except your own -- that is fundamentalism.
I wasn’t playing semantics you were -- even to the point of inventing meaningless words and redefining them so that they would appear to support your claims. I am against the idea of a god but not against god since there is no god to be against.
I would guess that you don’t believe in Santa Clause (though I won’t stake my life on given your propensity toward the absurd). You don’t think that Santa exists. Does that mean you are against Santa? I don’t think space men from other planets visit earth. I don’t think they exist. I’m not against them, I actually don’t care one way or another. I have no reason to think they exist. You are playing semantics by redefining words so that they can mean what you want them to mean.
Jesus is a fraud, at least the Jesus your church invented with virgin births and resurrections. As for the founding of America if you check the religious credentials of the founding fathers you will find hardly an orthodox Christian among them. Some had a belief in some sort of deity and may have liked the moral teachings of Jesus as they understood them but they didn’t believe he was God. And among those who did believe almost zero were Catholics and most thought the Catholic Church was an abomination. Since you clearly don’t think non-Catholics are true Christians you can’t claim the founding fathers were god-fearing since they didn’t fear the God your church manufactured.
Now I really go to bed.
April 24, 2008
Anyone who says Mother Theresa was awful, is clearly a lunatic. It's obvious she was a million times the person you or I will ever be. You claim that no saints ever performed any miracles, that the Catholic Church killed people to force them to become Christians, saints are fairy tales (yawn, yawn- believe what you want to believe), etc. etc. Congrulations-- you have made yourself a god. You're omnipotent. Never mind that you're oblivious to a great portion of reality- you're the king of the land. You think you know everything that ever happened in the history of the world, you know why it happened, and you know that you are the center of the universe. You are greater than the saint-producing Catholic Church and all the saints which you say never existed (amazing how many people must have lied through the centuries to make up all those saint stories and the entire Christian history and tradition). You are greater than Jesus Christ who died and rose Himself from the dead. You are the smartest, greatest , most perfect person in the whole world. You probably can raise people from the dead and walk on water too. No, you're too humble to admit that. There is no need for you to acknowledge anything outside of your mind- because your mind is bigger than the world and everything contained in it. It's perfectly natural for you, Godlessone to attack anything you don't understand or appreciate, because your opinions are fact. Congratulations and good luck in life, oh great one! By the way, do you have any friends?
You ignore facts I stated to you and then you make up your own. You act as if you know everything about anything, but a great portion of your remarks are uninformed, they don't make sense, and they're totally lacking in credibility.
You make up lies about the Catholic Church, you pretend a human fetus is not a person (look in the dictionary- fetus DOES mean "offspring". How totally disingenious for someone who likes to act intelligent to reject science), you reject historical claims, you reject miracles, you reject anything that doesn't fit into your sad, little world. I guess that's how you operate- make up your own truth and try to convince other people it's fact. Oh and you show super-gifted intelligence and charity when you call everybody who happens to be Christian stupid and an assortment of other words (not once, mind you, but multiple times- to drive home the point that you are superior to everyone). That's a tough burden to carry, godlessone.
One day I hope you are able to humble yourself just a little bit, open your mind and heart to some of the truths you fail to acknowledge, and admit you don't know half as much as you think you do. Then, you will be a happier person. I wish you well.
April 24, 2008
Journalists have already taken of your phony saint Theresa and how she raised oodles of money to spread her personal sect but spent very little on actual medical care. She got off on people suffering (Catholics are big into suffering especially when others are doing it.)
I say there are no miracles because there is no fricking evidence of miracles. One doesn’t have to be a god all one has to do is look at the evidence that Catholic lunatics provide -- which is none. When people claim things which can’t be duplicated and which are impossible (and hence “miracles”) all I need know is that they produce nothing which counts as real evidence for it. The impossible is impossible and if you want to claim that self flaggelating anorexic performed miracles then offer substantial and overwhelming evidence. To deny the impossible doesn’t require godlike knowledge just common sense.
You believe because you were told it and you want to believe it not because you were presented with proof for the absurd. It is just your desire to be duped not evidence that leads you. So far you have not offered evidence for anything you said. You came up with crap such as a functioning brain and heart existing from the moment of conception. You came up with support for the Church murdering people for not “converting” sincerely.
I do humble myself unlike you who claims you have can know the impossible. I don’t claim to know the impossible. I don’t claim to have divine revelations that cause me to ignore reality. I simply say that if people, like yourself, make silly claims about the impossible that you are required to provide some proof for it. You whine that we should just believe your absurdities because you pretend an imaginary friend revealed it to you. You are the one playing god not me. There is no god but you pretend you know what he wants -- yet it is really want you want.
I note that you bring up one topic after another but never return to the silly topics you started. You seemed to think that the Bible never said kill witches and gays. Did you go look up the verses in question?
April 24, 2008
Post a Comment
<< Home