1
   

Imagine there's no heaven...

 
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Jul, 2006 05:07 pm
megamanXplosion wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
His premise still has not been proven. Does it make you feel good referring to people who you don't even know as imbeciles?


An imbecile is a person with a mental age of 3-7 years old. My nephew, who is 7 years old, was able to point to Russia as the part of the map that wasn't blue like the bar on the left. It took my 7 year old nephew 5 minutes to figure that out when it took you more than 24 hours. In other words, my 7 year old nephew figured it out ~300x faster than you. Does it make me feel good to say you were being an imbecile? Just a little bit.

Quote:
BBC News and CNN would beg to differ, as all news concerning Russia comes under their European sections.


I highly doubt BBC and CNN would beg to differ. A small part of Russia, the part that is west of the Ural mountains, is a part of Europe ("European Russia") but by far it is an Asian country. It is obvious from the geographical chart that data for Russia, whether in part or in whole, was not provided.

Quote:
Europe and Asia are actually part of the same land mass. Why do we call them two continents?


It is more of a sociopolitical separation than a geological one. Europe and Asia were separate long before tectonic plates were discovered. Considering them two continents is more of a tradition than a valid distinction according to the modern conception of what continents are. I am in favor of combining them into one continent called Eurasia.


Hey Einstein,

Are you bright enough to attribute quotes to the correct people? One is mine and the rest are not. You should have got the kids to check it for you. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
megamanXplosion
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Jul, 2006 05:45 pm
Intrepid wrote:
megamanXplosion wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
His premise still has not been proven. Does it make you feel good referring to people who you don't even know as imbeciles?


An imbecile is a person with a mental age of 3-7 years old. My nephew, who is 7 years old, was able to point to Russia as the part of the map that wasn't blue like the bar on the left. It took my 7 year old nephew 5 minutes to figure that out when it took you more than 24 hours. In other words, my 7 year old nephew figured it out ~300x faster than you. Does it make me feel good to say you were being an imbecile? Just a little bit.

Quote:
BBC News and CNN would beg to differ, as all news concerning Russia comes under their European sections.


I highly doubt BBC and CNN would beg to differ. A small part of Russia, the part that is west of the Ural mountains, is a part of Europe ("European Russia") but by far it is an Asian country. It is obvious from the geographical chart that data for Russia, whether in part or in whole, was not provided.

Quote:
Europe and Asia are actually part of the same land mass. Why do we call them two continents?


It is more of a sociopolitical separation than a geological one. Europe and Asia were separate long before tectonic plates were discovered. Considering them two continents is more of a tradition than a valid distinction according to the modern conception of what continents are. I am in favor of combining them into one continent called Eurasia.


Hey Einstein,

Are you bright enough to attribute quotes to the correct people? One is mine and the rest are not. You should have got the kids to check it for you. Rolling Eyes


Your name is attributed to only one quote. A literate person would have no difficulty discerning who wrote the last two.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Jul, 2006 05:47 pm
Oh, and how is that? You messed up...admit it and get over it. Or, perhaps it was intentional.
0 Replies
 
megamanXplosion
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Jul, 2006 06:20 pm
How does one discern who wrote the last two messages I quoted? By reading the three posts that came before mine and realizing that one of them was attributed to you while the other two were not.

And was my method of posting intentional? Yes. I pressed the quote button on your post and typed the quote tags for the other two. I thought I could reduce the effort of responding by writing two quote tags instead of three. Yes, I confess, that was completely intentional. And I will also admit that I made a mistake. My mistake was not misattributing messages to the wrong authors because that was not a mistake I made. My mistake stems from thinking I could get my point across with the minimal effort required and people would be able to discern who I was talking to. I confess, I made the mistake of overestimating the intelligence of a certain member here. Consider me guilty!
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Jul, 2006 07:20 pm
Your laziness is no excuse. I had absolutely no trouble determining who the other quotes were from because I did not write them. My concern is others coming into the thread and reading quoted lines attributed to me that I did not write.

If you have trouble comprehending that, then you. The fact that you can't accept your folly puts you in a special category.
0 Replies
 
megamanXplosion
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Jul, 2006 07:39 pm
Intrepid wrote:
Your laziness is no excuse. I had absolutely no trouble determining who the other quotes were from because I did not write them. My concern is others coming into the thread and reading quoted lines attributed to me that I did not write.

If you have trouble comprehending that, then you. The fact that you can't accept your folly puts you in a special category.


There were 4 consecutive posts: yours, Wolf's, Nick's, and then there was mine that referenced the three posts before it. If anybody is too dimwitted to figure out that my 3 quotes were from the 3 posts before mine then that is not my problem. And their laziness to discover who wrote them is not an excuse for them either. So, Intrepid, buzz off.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Jul, 2006 07:47 pm
When I imagine that there is no heaven, I will think of you.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Jul, 2006 09:21 pm
I suppose some serious dialogue on the topic at hand is out of the question?

There are a few interesting issues here for me, I'll see if I can outline them....

1) Are individuals happier with or without religion?
2) Are populations of more religious countries happier or not?
3) Most importantly...is there a correlation, and is it causation, and in which direction? (eg Religion makes you more/less happy OR Being less happy leads to more religion)
4) Is happiness more important than knowledge?
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Jul, 2006 10:22 pm
Eorl wrote:
1) Are individuals happier with or without religion?
Define happiness.
Eorl wrote:
2) Are populations of more religious countries happier or not?
Define happiness.
Eorl wrote:
3) Most importantly...is there a correlation, and is it causation, and in which direction? (eg Religion makes you more/less happy OR Being less happy leads to more religion)
Yes / Yes / Define happiness.
Eorl wrote:
4) Is happiness more important than knowledge?
Define happiness. By "more important" define the specific contexts and comparators inferred.
.
.
.
My wife tells me I can't leave the windows open at night because it lets in mosquitoes, what the hell do I know about mosquitoes or their happiness?
0 Replies
 
megamanXplosion
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Jul, 2006 01:28 am
Quote:
When I imagine that there is no heaven, I will think of you.


And when I imagine that there is a heaven, I will think of you and a way out.

Quote:
1) Are individuals happier with or without religion?


One should be careful when talking about religion. I do not mind Deism and similar beliefs. It is the religions that state there is some supreme being intervening in the actions of the world and has revealed laws, legislature, etc. that I do mind. For the purpose of this response I am talking about the latter forms of religion.

I think the stages of disbelief require distinction. One who is raised without religion can be perfectly happy without it. One who experiences a religious upbringing will be unhappy when first beginning to question their beliefs. They may feel that they are turning their back on their religious leaders, may begin to think that there isn't some big brother watching them and helping them, may feel that their past life may have been a lie, and so on. One who has moved away from their religious upbringing a sufficient amount will be happier to have been set on the right path and probably also happy about how much one has learned when being skeptical of one's beliefs. On an individual level I think people would be happier, in the long run, to not be religious.

If you are asking the question on a global level then I do think the world would be better without religion. Without religion there wouldn't be nearly as much sexual repression. Sexually repressed people can sometimes mutilate their bodies to keep repressing their sexuality. Saint Rose of Lima whipped her private region over 50,000 times, for instance. Some can become hysterical and begin to think religious figures are having their way with them. Personal vibrators were originally medical tools used to combat the problem of hysteria caused by sexual repression. Nowhere near as many sex crimes would be commited because a large portion of offenders have lived sexually repressed lives. Then there are those religious people who feel they should enforce sexual repression on the rest of society. Those are the people who try to influence the government, refuse to give rape victims the morning-after pill, those who bomb abortion clinics, try to prevent sex education, and so on. Teen pregnancy rates and STD infection rates are higher in the more religious societies because the teens try to repress their hormonal urges and then later break down into rampant promiscuity. Abortion rates are also highest in the more religious societies because there is more intimidation to repress one's urges and because they seek abortion to hopefully avoid the punishment that will be inflicted on them by their disappointed religious parents. Sexual repression also tends to lead to child molestation. It is no coincidence that children are more likely to be molested by fanatically religious parents. Divorce rates are also higher in the more religious societies and that is also largely rooted in sexual repression because people get married to have sex and later divorce because they were never in love. Then there is the problem of prosecution and murder. There wouldn't have been nearly as many prosecutions against scientists and other good people if religion weren't around. The advancements that could've been made by now if those scientists were allowed to live and continue their research is unthinkable. We probably would've been more prosperous than we are right now. It is difficult to think of a single thing where religion has actually helped. It is of my opinion that religions are more detrimental than beneficial.

Quote:
2) Are populations of more religious countries happier or not?


They may claim to be happier and it may be possible to gather data on the claims of happiness but I do not see any way for someone to measure actual happiness. The UN's Human Development Index measures prosperity which does seem to have a correlation with societal happiness though. In the Human Development Index the least religious societies tend to be the most prosperous while the most religious societies tend to be the least prosperous. The two notable exceptions to this is Ireland and the United States. Ireland, as I explained earlier, was an absolute wreck until it joined the largely secular European Union and received loads of money to convert from an agricultural society to an industrialized one. Due to all of the recent child molestation and rape scandals amongst the churches in Ireland and their recent prosperity I think its religiosity will slowly decline from here on. The foundations of the United States were put in place by agnostics, atheists, deists, etc. and religions like Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. had very little part in it. Besides America and Ireland, which were largely successful due to secular influences, practically all of the prosperous societies are secular and practically all of the less prosperous societies are unwaiveringly religious. Because of the correlation between prosperity and happiness, it is logical to conclude that secular societies tend to be the happiest.

Quote:
3) Most importantly...is there a correlation, and is it causation, and in which direction? (eg Religion makes you more/less happy OR Being less happy leads to more religion)


I think unhappiness leads to religion and not the other way around. Russia, as I explained earlier, was a large mass of unhappy people. Now that communist government has essentially come to an end they sought to remedy their unhappiness with superstition. As their infant mortality rate increases, medical standards decrease, and so on they have again turned to superstition for "answers" to their problems. I also do not think it is a coincidence that the lower portion of the United States is more religious than the higher portion and also have higher STD infection rates, higher amount of abortions, higher amount of poverty, etc. It should also be pointed out that the nonreligious people who convert to a religion typically do so in their 40s or later and not early in their lives, which tells me that they sought religion because they were unhappy with the idea that their end is approaching. It is a truly rare occurance to see religion bring happiness or for happiness to bring religion, religion is practically handcuffed to the iron gates of unhappiness.

Quote:
4) Is happiness more important than knowledge?


In my opinion, this is a weird question to ask. It is much like asking: are all of the floors above the first in an apartment complex more important than the elevator/steps that allows one to get there? Knowledge is one of the most influential factors in acheiving happiness. Knowledge of the Earth revolving around the Sun expanded our Universe from a few miles to billions and billions of miles and allowed us to truly appreciate the grandeur and awe-inspiring nature of the Universe. Knowledge of how light reacts to elements and shapes allowed us to see that diseases were not demons that possessed the body but were microscopic life forms and allowed us to combat them and save many lives. Knowledge of architecture and the needs of people allowed us to create portable homes that could be taken with us as we hunted instead of freezing in the cold searching for new caves. Knowledge allowed us to take heat away from elements and create refrigerators and then we were able to stock up on food and consequently create permenant homes. If it weren't for knowledge we would still be fighting bears with sticks and rocks to take over their caves and hoping that one of the many pregnancies will result in a child that wasn't stillborn. Knowledge has brought more happiness than any superstition.

(Edit: I have rewrote most of the text for readability, the overall message is the same.)
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Jul, 2006 04:22 am
No, megamanXplosion, I must agree with Intrepid, you messed up. It is good etiquette to name the people you are quoting at least once in your retorts, whereas you did not with me or Nick.

By not naming us, you were in effect, crediting all those quotes to Intrepid. It's not a slow witted person that wouldn't realise you were quoting other people, but a person that doesn't have the time to backtrack and see who you quoted.

Last year, I often stopped by to check through posts quickly and I never had the time to backtrack and see the real context of the quotes.
0 Replies
 
megamanXplosion
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Jul, 2006 05:34 am
I was not responding to answer any questions, admit any mistakes, correct any problems, and so on. I was merely raising a certain finger of mine and purposely irritating a certain somebody for entertainment value. There was no deeper meaning to my responses. Do I consider the lack of names atop the quotes to have been a mistake? Yes and no at the same time. I partly consider it a mistake inasmuch as it could lead to confusion but I also partly consider it to not be a mistake because of the entertainment value.
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Jul, 2006 05:50 am
As to the original topic, might I point out that his little "exegesis" is slightly incorrect. This is a better study on the levels of secularism compared to religiosity and societal health.

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/2005-11.pdf
0 Replies
 
megamanXplosion
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Jul, 2006 06:48 am
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
As to the original topic, might I point out that his little "exegesis" is slightly incorrect. This is a better study on the levels of secularism compared to religiosity and societal health.

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/2005-11.pdf


That is the web site where I got most of my information when answering the 4 questions posed by Eorl. I should've included a link to it within my response.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Jul, 2006 07:31 am
megamanXplosion wrote:
I was not responding to answer any questions, admit any mistakes, correct any problems, and so on. I was merely raising a certain finger of mine and purposely irritating a certain somebody for entertainment value. There was no deeper meaning to my responses. Do I consider the lack of names atop the quotes to have been a mistake? Yes and no at the same time. I partly consider it a mistake inasmuch as it could lead to confusion but I also partly consider it to not be a mistake because of the entertainment value.


In other words. We should not take anything you say seriously?
0 Replies
 
megamanXplosion
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Jul, 2006 07:42 am
Intrepid wrote:
megamanXplosion wrote:
I was not responding to answer any questions, admit any mistakes, correct any problems, and so on. I was merely raising a certain finger of mine and purposely irritating a certain somebody for entertainment value. There was no deeper meaning to my responses. Do I consider the lack of names atop the quotes to have been a mistake? Yes and no at the same time. I partly consider it a mistake inasmuch as it could lead to confusion but I also partly consider it to not be a mistake because of the entertainment value.


In other words. We should not take anything you say seriously?


No.
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jul, 2006 07:17 am
megamanXplosion wrote:
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
As to the original topic, might I point out that his little "exegesis" is slightly incorrect. This is a better study on the levels of secularism compared to religiosity and societal health.

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/2005-11.pdf


That is the web site where I got most of my information when answering the 4 questions posed by Eorl. I should've included a link to it within my response.


It's not really a website. It's an E-Journal, but I get what you mean.
0 Replies
 
megamanXplosion
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jul, 2006 02:48 pm
A web site is a collection of Web pages, typically common to a particular domain name (creighton.edu) or subdomain (moses.creighton.edu) on the World Wide Web on the Internet.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/18/2024 at 12:17:21