>>>

I don't envision many evangelical christians converting to either Judaism or Islam (or Catholicism, which doesn't have a good track record with regards to evolution)...do you?  

>>>

Islam seems more hostile towards science to me.

That whole were you there really is lame and worse undermines jesus for that matter. How do you know jesus was the messiah? Were you there? How do you know the gospels were written by the apostles? Were you there? I could see a smart ass kid in sunday school driving their teacher mad. Don't know if Ken Ham has young kids but how funny would that be if they turned such a dumb question back on him.

Also if there was a murder scene but no direct witnesses then there would be no reason to look for a murderer. The judge would ask WYT? No? Case dismissed.

Labels labels labels.

If it weren't for people being born.

Survival of anything is a result of climate of the time not an invention of a label. If you are going to give Muslims credit then why are you not a Muslim?

If things survive like this, it is because the value is in the observation and compassion, not the label. Humans existed before Christianity, and Islam even Hebrews. There is lots lost to history because of superstition and our advancement as a species is hindered, not by labels, but by credulous people, of all labels. When a society is stuck on a label, they will do anything to hide the truth.

Says you.

And yet, here we are, thousands of years later.  I'm going with "The proof is in the pudding."

You do know (or maybe not) that rewriting the Torah is frowned upon and that we have evidence it hasn't been changed in millenia.

Because they have no evidence that it hasn't been changed in millenia.

So, the people with the highest number per capita, by wide margins, of Nobel Prize winners in the sciences are lacking in reasoning and critical thinking skills?  Arrogant much?

What's your CV look like?  Would you like to stack it up against mine?

You've been paying too much attention to anti-Semetic clap-trap.

xxx

Probably a good idea, because the "four sources" you postulated above haven't been proven to be four of anything.

Oh, and 450 BCE -- that would be about 2,500 years, which counts as "Millenia".  Might wanna bone up on what "millenia" means, along with what "BCE" means, along with what "hypothesis" and "unproven" mean.

There'll be a test, I promise!

FCH

You are such a religio-tard that you didn't notice that I also said:

“The proof is that people have been brainwashing their children in their particular delusion for thousands of years.  Time for the criminal behavior to end, IMO.  Terrorizing children is an abhorrent activity that only the mentally ill ‘religious’ segment of the community still seem to find an acceptable behavior.  Not me.”

Thereby acknowledging that Jews have been brainwashing their children for 'millenia'.  You think that makes your particular superstitious sect more 'right' than other superstitions?

The article I quoted also said:

"...or at least into the arms of compromising Episcopalians, whom they despise."  

When did Episcopalians become a Jewish Sect?  To the best of my knowledge Episcopalians are still a denomination of the Christian superstition.  So much for your comment that these Evangelists are becoming Jews.

Answer my question...how many of these red-necked christian evangelists that have defected to Judaism have been awarded a Nobel prize in anything?

>>>

You are being too kind.  

FCH is just another rabid, superstitious, mentally ill, moron.  Let's hope she can't breed.

>>>

I feel that how tolerant you are towards other people seems to be affected a lot more by your environment and upbringing rather than whether you're a Christian, Muslim or Jew. So, the much of the discussion is moot. In the end, a religion is a religion and, many religions, given the hellhole that is currently much of the Middle East, would be extremely violent and dangerous, even if not as dangerous as fundamentalist Islam. The only kind of people where virtually everyone could be trusted to contribute positively in almost any society would be non-religious that value science and skepticism above all, as I am sort of assuming that they would never consistently base actions on irrational beliefs.

Heh. Memories...
Furry made an attempt on my credibility and education last time around. Didn't work too well, of course, because I was still right and she was still wrong. But then, she doesn't let logic get in the way.
I find theists who pursue such strategies to be easy prey. Just keep them talking and noone can dispute their flawed logic. Eventually they burn out and vanish for awhile, or start ignoring the people who owned them (leading to them vanishing when there's noone left that they aren't ignoring).
You and I have some things in common. I only dabbled a bit in college, being largely unimpressed with the quality of education offered. I have never pursued riches, and hold strong to my principles. If I were to pursue riches, I'd be betraying those principles. So when attacked for being less than a corporate gold mine, I take it as a compliment.

No, I don't read all the posts because I have a real life and this website has one of the absolute WORST interfaces going.

You're also utterly incapable of "owning" me and "she left, I owned her" is another example of how f*cking stupid you are.

Ok, that's a valid objection.

I think it's a bit of a strawman, though; just hear me out...

You are sharp. There's no doubt about it, and I have little reason to doubt that you are well educated and well read overall. But, why do you seem to have a bias for supernatural theories to make sense of reality?

Because I just don't see any reason to not give high probability that the universe(sic) and the 'life' that formed in it, could not simply have occurred by the odds, naturally.

I didn't claim it was a demonstration of superior critical thinking skills. It was just pointing out that having a degree or winning a Nobel prize doesn't mean that one can walk and chew gum at the same time.

See my previous response, with the caveat that being fluent in 3 languages does afford me some additional understanding on how to translate and transpose ideas and concepts faithfully from one language to another, and the other being that I am a lifelong classical musician who really tried long and hard to understand and reconcile how 'creativity' arises.

This included Transcendental Meditation, experimenting with hallucinogens, hanging out with Buddhists and Taoists and training in Martial Arts.

I've made 'spiritual journeys'.

But, I'm not one to ever say 'I know G-d does NOT exist'.

For all intents and purposes, I live my life as though there isn't one, much the same way I live my life as if there aren't extraterrestrials, even though I think the odds of them not existing is slim to none.

Just so there's no misunderstanding, I agreed with your overall approach to being a 'good' person, and (for what it's worth) I see more similarities in disposition between us than not, so, I can't say that I don't like you, and still be honest with myself.

I do like your spirit, but I see a bit of a contradiction in your description of your apathy to others not believing as you do. I don't personally care that FCH believes in G-d, because I don't think you use that as a basis to do much other than believe G-d was the 'Prime Mover' or whatever.

On my scale of 'problem theists', IMHO, I don't think you'd even register.

A few of my best friends have some version of 'belief' in a god, and they know exactly my take on it, and we can even debate it, with zero after effects whatsoever, afterwards, both short term and long term.

My issue with theism is mainly dogma, preaching that there are 'objective morals' that are transcendent, and simply people 'projecting' their beliefs of 'truth' on children before the child has the autonomy to hear all the other 'truth' claims and use the best means they can find to develop their own personal conclusions.

I was raised in a secular home, and exposed to all major religions in History class, with no bias at all.

I've given serious thought to the probablities, but have found serious problems implicit in the premises of the monotheistic Abrahamic G-d claims. I reject the premises as unsound, even at the most stripped down level of the ontological or cosmological arguments, and the premise of our physical bodies being occupied by a 'soul/spirit' that lifts off the body at death.

Why do I believe G-d exists?  As in, my personal, subjective, firm and unshakable belief?

Because it has historically worked for me to the point that it is part of "Who I am".

Things have happened that others might say "Ah-ha!  Proof of G-d!" or "G-d spoke to me" or "I've come to know Jesus in a deep and personally meaningful way" (I was a Jesus Freak as a teen ...).  To me, not so much.  I've had those things happen -- some =very= profoundly disturbing events that others I know think is "G-d spoke to you."  Maybe G-d did, but not so much on too many other topics.

A number of things that people you might describe as "Problem Theists" do are absolutely stupid to me.  Some of them have been borne out by the behavior of those "Problem Theists" and others make no sense because they take away =our= responsibility for making this a better planet or living up to the Tenets Of Our Faith.  If one believes, as I do, that G-d gave us "Free Will", we need to own that and do something with it and not expect G-d to pop on in and fix things up.

For example, I belonged to a Charismatic Christian Church when I was 14.  I was dealing with severe depression (physical abuse as a kid), this Christian couple invited me to their church, it was much more "uplifting" than the mainstream Liberal Protestant Church I attended, so I went for a few years -- I think it was 3 or 4.  For several weeks there was a couple there who was praying for Jesus to give them a new refrigerator.  Within that sect this was pretty common behavior -- "I need a new car" and then the minister would pray REALLY REALLY HARD.  No new fridge.  This was one of those times when I realized that if there is a message in the Bible, it's not that G-d gives free goodies from Heaven, it's that we're stuck on this rock and we only have each other.  What informed THAT was actually a sermon about five years earlier at a completely different church -- Heaven and Hell are the same place, the only difference is that in Heaven people help each other and in Hell they don't.  But because of the "environment" in both places, the only way to be happy was to help each other.  That was the entire difference.  There was no other difference, only the behavior of the individuals.

Now you might say "Well, I'm sure that some nice Atheist could come up with all these really nice platitudes about helping Your Fellow Man", but I'm not seeing it, and I'm not that young.  Not quite ancient yet, but I'm on the downstroke of life.  I hope -- too many body parts are suffering the ravages of time.  Do NOT think in your youth "This is okay" because when you get old you will look back and go "Wow, wish I hadn't done that!"  But, I have no regrets.

What does this have to do with the existence of G-d?

Well, I see this "Atheism United" effort that's going on here, and the conversations about making Atheists more visible in certain ways that might help people understand Atheists Aren't Bad People.  This is definitely a good idea in my mind -- see my earlier comment about being stuck on this rock together.  What I see the Atheism United people doing strikes me as being in the early stages of crafting what might be called "a new religion".  For some reason those people want others to think of them as "Good People".  Not asking for Free Stuff From Heaven, which I agree -- stupidity -- but genuinely Good People.

This gets back to the entire "Does G-d Exist?" thing because it's been my observation that most people want some kind of social approval.  There are sociopaths and psychopaths and even the odd megalomaniac, but most people seem to want to think they are "good" and have others like them.  We're a social species, makes sense to me.  But the only "force" that has the ability to bind subatomic particles =and= say "we're all stuck on this rock together and we all need to look out for each other OR ELSE" is ... something "supernatural".  Without something more persistent than an organization like Atheism United, along comes the next person and says "This is all really stupid, let's just spend our money on gaming consoles", and then back you slide into social disapproval, misery, people not having their basic needs met, and social decay.

To me it seems =reasonable= that some "higher authority" has to exist, the same way that Gravity can't just be ignored.  Social Rules or Norms exist outside the Physical Reality of Quantum Mechanics or General Relativity.  There's no Pauli Exclusion Principle driving "Sharing is Caring!", but there does seem to be =something= no less real.

Does it have to be "G-d"?  No, it absolutely doesn't, but G-d is forever and "Gee, we should get people to think we're nice people" isn't.  If I had to point to something and say "That!  That thing there!  That is proof!", there's the proof for me.

See? Just like I said. Intellectual laziness wrapped in a package of stupidity. She can't even consider the possibility that she's wrong, despite being VERY wrong. Sad, but also funny.

That still sounds like a 'feel good' thing, or a 'Hope' thing. That's about emotions.

I agree. The problem is the more they 'hope' that God exists, the more irrational they needed to become.

It's proportional. The more irrational they are=the more hopeful they are.

Nothing. The conversation seems to have derailed into 'why' people 'hope' there is a god, which is not what I'm after.

I'm questioning if there is any actual evidence that such a thing is real, outside the minds and hopes of certain people.

Then you might be unaware that what some prominent individuals are doing is starting organizations like 'Project Reason' .

http://www.project-reason.org/

******************************

"Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. Drawing on the talents of the most prominent and creative thinkers across a wide range of disciplines, Project Reason seeks to encourage critical thinking and wise public policy through a variety of interrelated projects. The foundation will convene conferences, produce films, sponsor scientific studies and opinion polls, publish original research, award grants to other charitable organizations, and offer material support to religious dissidents and public intellectuals — all with the purpose of eroding the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.

While the foundation is devoted to fostering critical thinking generally, we believe that religious ideas require a special focus. Both science and the arts are built upon cultures of vigorous self-criticism; religious discourse is not. As a result, religious dogmatism still reigns unchallenged in almost every society on earth—dividing humanity from itself, inflaming conflict, preventing wise public policy, and diverting scarce resources. One of the primary goals of Project Reason is to change this increasingly unhealthy status quo."

***********************

Most people like to be liked, I will agree. However, the desire, or the 'disease to please' can tip the scales into dysfunction.

Luckily, I don't seem to have those genes, and I'm glad...

This is all about superficial 'subjective' personal feel good 'morals'. There's the larger scope of 'morals' that deals with being 'humane' to humans, which is a distinctly different thing, and that we must not conflate the two.

You mean it's external, universal and occupies our bodies?

I disagree.

For some people, it's like breathing.

I don't know why you're misanthropic and jaded to that extent. We're not feral.

If we were by and large inclined to be that way without a dogma or explicit belief in the supernatural, or transcendent objective morals, you'd see examples of what you describe in Denmark and Sweden (for example).

We see the 'reverse' of that in those societies.

I disagree.

And Neurophysics is going to provide us with many, many scientific studies why there's no reason to indulge in conclusions that you and so many others are drawing about 'The Human Condition' They've been studying stuff like this waaaaay before I studied psychology in the 80's.

The most famous example that began to seriously study the human condition was from Pavlov

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_conditioning

There's also this little known study of how and why "Good People Do Bad Things"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

Then I don't have to waste any time and effort convincing you of that.

Good.

But my question of why someone like yourself, who is educated, well read, and sharp, not get behind organizations that are trying to firmly set the groundwork for a better global society and 'humanity' based on what we do know and can know with a higher degree of certainty, rather than arguing about things we can't know don't exist for certain, like *drum roll please*......GODS...?

That's presuppositionalism. That's a 'top down' methodology, aka: Confirmation Bias.

Like Astrology.

I don't care if people want to argue that it has it's 'uses'; that it can 'offer explanations' for things we don't understand yet.

It's fucking useless, and it's been scientifically shown to be useless and fallacious. Just like 'G-d'.

AFAIC, that makes it an objective fact that it's as fucking productive as a placebo.

That is not a sound and valid argument why humans should drink the Koolaid in the 21st century...

 I’m still looking for any information to prove or disprove FHC’s allegation that:

  Israel has the highest number of Nobel Laureates and  that the Israeli Nobel Laureates are all religious i.e., practicing Jews.

However, I did come across this article…which seems to dispute FHC’s allegation that the majority of Nobel Laureates are religious at all.  It is dated, but I really don't believe it's my job to prove FHC's claims

Leading Scientists Still Reject God

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm

The popular media balyhoo the fiction that science is supportive of religion. A recent issue of Newsweek (July 20, 1998) featured a cover story "Science finds God" which gave many innocent readers the impression that scientists in droves were finding scientific "evidence" allowing for God and an afterlife and were jumping on the religion bandwagon. Some of these 1998 reports were stimulated by a June 1998 Science and the Spiritual Quest Conference organized by Robert John Russell, and sponsored by The Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences (CTNS) at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley. Since this is an organization devoted to the reconcilation of science and religion it's no surprise the the speakers were supportive of the idea of the possibility of god and/or an afterlife, though some of the papers were so speculative and abstruse that it's hard to tell whether they were profound philosophy or mere moonshine. One wonders whether some speakers came just for the stipend provided by the John Templeton Foundation. Several Nobel-Prize winning scientists gave papers at this meeting. The papers were mostly philosophical and speculative. No new hard evidence was produced. News reports failed to put these wishful speculations in perspective by pointing out that most scientists are, in fact, not religious. And the percent of "leading" scientists who hold religious beliefs has been declining from around 30% in 1914 to less than 10% in 1998. Wayne Spencer, editor of The Skeptical Intelligencer (a publication of the Association for Skeptical Inquiry) has provided me with this summary of an article in the journalNature which documents this fact.

[Links to the CTNS are provided above, but this does not mean that I in any way endorse the opinions expressed at those web sites. For a detailed critique of these bogus science rationalizations, see Victor Stenger's excellent Has Science Found God?, a draft of an article for Astronomy magzaine. For a broader perspective on the science/religion questions, see these Religion and Philosophy links and these Science, Religion and Philosophy links. I also highly recommend Michael Koller's Essays on Science, Philosophy, and Religion. Also see the skeptic links on my web page.] — Donald E. Simanek.

[Summary of a paper that appeared in the 23 July 1998 issue of Nature by Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham: "Leading Scientists Still Reject God." Nature, 1998;394, 313.]

Larson and Witham present the results of a replication of 1913 and 1933 surveys by James H. Leuba. In those surveys, Leuba mailed a questionnaire to leading scientists asking about their belief in "a God in intellectual and affective communication with humankind" and in "personal immortality". Larson and Witham used the same wording [as in the Leuba studies], and sent their questionnaire to 517 members of the [U.S.] National Academy of Sciences from the biological and physical sciences (the latter including mathematicians, physicists and astronomers). The return rate was slightly over 50%.

The results were as follows (figures in %):

     BELIEF IN PERSONAL GOD          1914   1933    1998

     Personal belief                                      27.7    15       7.0

     Personal disbelief                                 52.7    68      72.2

     Doubt or agnosticism                           20.9    17      20.8

     BELIEF IN IMMORTALITY           1914    1933    1998

     Personal belief                                    35.2    18       7.9

     Personal disbelief                               25.4    53      76.7

     Doubt or agnosticism                         43.7    29      23.3

Note: The 1998 immortality figures add up to more than 100%. The misprint is in the original. The 76.7% is likely too high.

The authors elaborated on these figures:

Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality).

Larson and Witham close their report with the following remarks:

As we compiled our findings, the NAS issued a booklet encouraging the teaching of evolution in public schools.  The booklet assures readers, 'Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral'. NAS president Bruce Alberts said: 'There are many very outstanding members of this academy who are very religious people, people who believe in evolution, many of them biologists.' Our survey suggests otherwise."

There is a review of earlier studies of the religiosity of scientists at pp 180ff of:

Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi and Michael Argyle. The Psychology of Religious Behaviour, Belief and Experience. London & New York: Routledge, 1997. ISBN: 0-415-12330-5 (hbk) or 0-415-12331-3 (pbk).

On the subject of eminent scientists, they mention unpublished data collected by one of the co-authors: "Beit-Hallahmi (1988) found that among Nobel Prize laureates in the sciences, as well as those in literature, there was a remarkable degree of irreligiosity, as compared to the populations they came from." The reference is to: Beit-Hallahmi, B. (1988). The religiosity and religious affiliation of Nobel prize winners. Unpublished data.

>>>

This will come as no surprise to most posters on this forum...except those superstitious 'believers' who put their heads in the sand.

 You are quite welcome.

Next post...Israeli Nobel prize winners.

 Religiosity and intelligence

Studies comparing religious belief and I.Q

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence

In 2008, intelligence researcher Helmuth Nyborg examined whether IQ relates to denomination and income, using representative data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth, which includes intelligence tests on a representative selection of white American youth, where they have also replied to questions about religious belief. His results, published in the scientific journal Intelligence demonstrated that on average, Atheists scored 1.95 IQ points higher than Agnostics, 3.82 points higher than Liberal persuasions, and 5.89 IQ points higher than Dogmatic persuasions. 

Nyborg also co-authored a study with Richard Lynn, emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Ulster, which compared religious belief and average national IQs in 137 countries.  The study analyzed the issue from several viewpoints. Firstly, using data from a U.S. study of 6,825 adolescents, the authors found that atheists scored 6 g-IQ points higher than those adhering to a religion.

Secondly, the authors investigated the link between religiosity and intelligence on a country level. Among the sample of 137 countries, only 23 (17%) had more than 20% of atheists, which constituted “virtually all... higher IQ countries.” The authors reported a correlation of 0.60 between atheism rates and level of intelligence, which is “highly statistically significant.”

Gallup surveys have found that the world's poorest countries may be the most religious. Some social scientists believe this is because religion plays a more functional role (helping people cope) in poorer nations. Because poverty is also correlated with IQ, this could make matters of IQ and religion more complex. That was an idea expressed by Gordon Lynch, a Professor at Birkbeck College in London. He worries that findings simply correlating IQ and religion neglect various relevant factors, especially social, historical and economic factors - each of which has been shown to interact with religion and IQ in different ways.

>>> 

Which I would suggest infers that the more tolerant a person is, the more irreligious that person might be and, therefore, the more intelligent the person is. 

It’s stretching the evidence…but it works for me.

>>> 

>>>

Thank you.  Did I make my point?  

PS:  Another (IMO) non-Jewish recipient on the list of Nobel Laureates...Henry Kissinger

Here:  Kissinger in '72: Jews 'self-serving bastards'

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4150018,00.html

I don't believe he could count himself a Jew while describing them (Jews) as 'self-serving bastards'.  Or is this an example of self-criticism?  The article refers to him (Kissinger) as a Jewish-American.  I'd describe Kissinger as a naturalized German-American of Jewish ancestry.

Anyway, thanks again.

>>>

>>>

Good thing she had a male child.  Her Mitochondrial DNA won't be passed on.  She is 'dead' (her line) and she doesn't even realize it.  

I agree, Furball is a joke...somebody needs to cough her up and spit her out.  Her contributions only serve to prove my point...atheists are smarter or at least have the capability of being smarter given the resources than religio-tards like her.

>>>

Pesky parasitic bacterium -- good riddance!

He got my smarts, tho, and I'd rather he got my smarts than some parasite that infects all our cells

>>>

IMO, considering that Judaism can 'proudly' claim to be the forefather of both Christianity and Islam...two of the three most virulent and hateful religions/superstitions ever conceived by a bunch of equally mentally ill practitioners...all I have to say is good job...well done.

Lest I forget...Abraham was married to his half-sister.  Therefore, Isaac was an inbred moron.  At least Muslims can be happy that Ismael (although the product of Abraham's relationship with his wife's slave) were just bastards and not inbred morons.

>>>

Judaism isn't the forefather of either religion.  Neither are consistent with having their origins within Judaism.

That said, several hundred million people are descendents of Abraham.  You may well be one of those off-spring of an inbred moron or a mere bastard!

But for inbred morons, we is rily smart and gots lots of book learnin'.  I saw me one of them gold medals in a box of chocolates, so I ate it!

>>>

Sorry to disappoint you...Semitic people didn't get as far north as my family came from.

Both Christianity and Islam are considered Abrahamic religions...IIUC.  

Maybe because you don't remember or choose to forget...I'll provide your own words...#1 response to my post

FHC wrote:

The bigger irony is that neither Judaism nor Islam are as hostile towards Science as the Evangelical Christians are.  There's nothing wrong with a Jew or Muslim believing in the Big Bang =or= Evolution, and once again it would appear that the Church is going to enter a brand new age of Darkness while the other two Abrahamic faiths (ahem) don't ...

Was I wrong to assume you were inferring that Christianity and Islam are separate superstitions from the same 'root' i.e., Judaism?

Or were you just trying to say that Evangelist Christians and Episcopalian Christians 'are the other two Abrahamic faiths'?  That wouldn't make sense, would it?

So...I can only assume that you need a good dose of oxytocin

My advice...go masturbate.  You will feel much better.

>>>