Another superficial post. Why bother with this crap wink-wink-nudge-nudge non-analysis?Three ways to get with the red dots, according to the study:Religiosity is measured using a three-item index ranging from 0-3, with "3" representing the most religious position. Respondents were given a "1" if they believe faith in God is necessary for morality; a "1" if they say religion is very important in their lives; and a "1" if they pray at least once a day.,If the people in the US agree that faith in God is not necessary for morality (so common a POV it does not warrant discussion), you can not deny your fellow citizen the right to believe that God is important in their lives and to pray daily, can you? Yet for atheists, it is not enough to go about their areligious existence. They have to feign persecution and attack the theists (lumping red, green and blue dots) as the source of all evil.What is God doing? Creating believers, one at a time:http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_truck_accident.htm
How are atheists trying to deny you you're right to believe? I haven't heard anyone make an argument for some kind of a legal ban on religion (Elton John does not count). Making arguments against religious belief is not denying you any right. Either you're arguments hold up or they don't. You can accept them reject them, or just not listen but no one is forcing you to believe or profess anything. Who is feigning persecution now?
With regard to the chart, which you do not address, how can you draw the reds and blues together with out knocking down that number - from 2 as it is to 1 or zero - without actively interfering with the desire of a free person to worship?Atheists are not using force? Your hero Dawkins mounts child abuse accusations against the religious to block their right to raise their children as they see proper. This fascistic desire to separate children from information does have me 'feigning' persecution.
Dawkins is exactly right that religion is child abuse. Parents don't own their children and taking advantage of a child's credulity to imbue him with a set of fatuous lies, which have the effect of making him feel different from other people who believe a different set of idiotic propositions, is child abuse. We don't talk of Marxist or libertarian children and anyone who said that forcing a child to be a libertarian on threat of eternal punishment, was child abuse, would be right. You're children are not your chattel and you shouldn't have the right to take such liberties with them, or at least you should be thought a scumbag for doing it. You can teach them about religions which would deny them no information, but to teach it as true is child abuse. How laughable that you call it denying them information when religious people teach their children biblical literalism to the exclusion of all modern science and this passes without a whisper from you. But someone who says simply that religions shouldn't be taught as true, is denying children information. Religion isn't information its folklore.
Scratch the surface and the fascist bile comes spilling out. Really nuanced reply:Parents don't own their children ...to imbue him with a set of fatuous lies [amounting to ] child abuse. Thrice married Dawkins, absentee father to one daughter is going to dictate how my kid is raised? Fat chance.We don't talk of Marxist or libertarian children If you have not heard of red diaper babies let me introduce you to the Roosevelt administration's inner circle.You're [sic] children are not your chattel and you shouldn't have the right to take such liberties with them ...you can teach them about religions which would deny them no information, but to teach it as true is child abuse.Do we use the same standards for teaching them science, just to play fair? The result is a terrible poverty of the imagination. As Chesterton said, the problem when people don't believe in God is not that they believe nothing, it is that they believe anything
"Do we use the same standards for teaching them science, just to play fair? The result is a terrible poverty of the imagination."Science and religion are not equivalent. One is contingency free and the other's credibility is contingent on one's gullibility. There is no fair play that we need to establish between the two. And religion is a poverty of the imagination. Why investigate or think or have any sens eof wonder at the observable word when you can simply say "God did it." Its religion that impverishes the imagination and the fact that religious belief corellates with lower levels of education, would I think serve as evidence.
the fact that religious belief corellates (sic) with lower levels of education, would I think serve as evidenceCorrelation does not mean cause. Jim Watson could not figure that out, and now puts that sailing hat to good use.Save your kids from the poverty of imagining Santa. 20 years hence the backlash from your Skinner rats will be sweet.
Post a Comment