On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 19:38:58 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

Tweaking your chime a wee bit... can't you admit that religion has
been the cause of most wars and most ills of the world ?:-)
...Jim Thompson

Nope. Money is the cause of most wars. For example, the history of
the Crusades is more about plunder than religion. However, I will
admit that religion makes a good cover story.

As for the ills of the world, the basic problem is that the planet has
too many people. I have no idea what to do about that. Hopefully, I
won't be around when someone tries to solve that problem.

Drivel: Not too many years ago, mankind looked to religion for the
answers to his problems. Today, mankind seems to be look at religion
as the cause of his problems. That's a fairly impressive switch in
perhaps 150 years.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 20:48:36 -0700, Robert Baer
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 09:24:00 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:


Peace will come when it’s gone

Recently some billboards went up in and near downtown Phoenix
proclaiming “Imagine No Religion.” For most folks, that’s hard to do.
But imagine the peace of no Protestant versus Catholic, no Moslem
versus Jew, no Hindu versus Moslem, no Sunni versus Shiite, no
inquisition and no suicide bombers. Think of the billions of dollars
(mostly solicited from the poor) to support cathedrals, elaborate
church campuses, missionaries and televangelist ministries.

Where would one go to feel guilty? Who would be around to oppose
science and reason? Who would manipulate our elections or pressure
elected officials to promote their religious agenda? Hey, I can
imagine no religion and it sounds pretty good to me.

HAROLD L. SAFERESTEIN

SCOTTSDALE



Overall, religion has done more good than harm. And since it's
probably wired into most humans, it's probably impossible to
eliminate.

Without religion, groups of people will find other criteria for
forming teams and fighting. Color, language, history, favorite soccer
team, political party, whatever. Atheist Nazis fought atheist Soviets
with unparalleled enthusuasm.

In my personal experience, believers are usually nicer people than
atheists.

John


Err..what about the so-called "holy" wars waged by various religions?


Which ones?

John

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 22:51:18 -0500, Kris Krieger
wrote:

John Larkin wrote in
:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 09:24:00 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:


Peace will come when it’s gone

Recently some billboards went up in and near downtown Phoenix
proclaiming “Imagine No Religion.” For most folks, that’s hard to do.
But imagine the peace of no Protestant versus Catholic, no Moslem
versus Jew, no Hindu versus Moslem, no Sunni versus Shiite, no
inquisition and no suicide bombers. Think of the billions of dollars
(mostly solicited from the poor) to support cathedrals, elaborate
church campuses, missionaries and televangelist ministries.

Where would one go to feel guilty? Who would be around to oppose
science and reason? Who would manipulate our elections or pressure
elected officials to promote their religious agenda? Hey, I can
imagine no religion and it sounds pretty good to me.

HAROLD L. SAFERESTEIN

SCOTTSDALE


Overall, religion has done more good than harm. And since it's
probably wired into most humans, it's probably impossible to
eliminate.

Without religion, groups of people will find other criteria for
forming teams and fighting. Color, language, history, favorite soccer
team, political party, whatever. Atheist Nazis fought atheist Soviets
with unparalleled enthusuasm.

In my personal experience, believers are usually nicer people than
atheists.

John




Do you just mean believers in Biblically-based religions, or does that apply
to any spiritual belief system?

Just curious.

I was thinking of followers of formal religions, conventional
Christians and Mormons and a Muslim or two. It's a trend I've
observed, but by no means an absolute. But at the extreme end of the
curve, I can't recall knowing any really evil Xtians, but have known a
few really rotten atheists. I can't say what the causalities are here.

Weren't Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot atheists? They did a lot of harm.

John

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 20:24:35 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 19:38:58 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:


On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 21:27:08 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 09:24:00 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:


Peace will come when its gone

Recently some billboards went up in and near downtown Phoenix
proclaiming €œImagine No Religion.€� For most folks, thats hard to do.
But imagine the peace of no Protestant versus Catholic, no Moslem
versus Jew, no Hindu versus Moslem, no Sunni versus Shiite, no
inquisition and no suicide bombers. Think of the billions of dollars
(mostly solicited from the poor) to support cathedrals, elaborate
church campuses, missionaries and televangelist ministries.

Where would one go to feel guilty? Who would be around to oppose
science and reason? Who would manipulate our elections or pressure
elected officials to promote their religious agenda? Hey, I can
imagine no religion and it sounds pretty good to me.

HAROLD L. SAFERESTEIN

SCOTTSDALE

===

EV Tribune, Letter-to-the-editor, this morning, Sept 20

===

...Jim Thompson

Among a slew of other fallacies that's akin to saying there'd be peace
if mankind were rabbits instead of homo sapiens.

Might be but they aren't.

Tweaking your chime a wee bit... can't you admit that religion has
been the cause of most wars and most ills of the world ?:-)

...Jim Thompson

No and no.

John

You must be getting old ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine Sometimes I even put it in the food

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 13:09:57 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:


On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 15:01:30 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 12:38:05 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:


My rock 'n' roll CD collection includes all the Beatles' works.

---
Got any Procol Harum or Rotary Connection?

JF

I don't recognize that... whatzit?

...Jim Thompson

---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procol_Harum

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

JF

flipper wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

can't you admit that religion has
been the cause of most wars and most ills of the world ?:-)

Why would I when it isn't true?

Not most, but a fair few nasty ones that could have been easily avoided.

Graham

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

Tweaking your chime a wee bit... can't you admit that religion has
been the cause of most wars and most ills of the world ?:-)

Nope. Money is the cause of most wars. For example, the history of
the Crusades is more about plunder than religion. However, I will
admit that religion makes a good cover story.

As for the ills of the world, the basic problem is that the planet has
too many people. I have no idea what to do about that. Hopefully, I
won't be around when someone tries to solve that problem.

Drivel: Not too many years ago, mankind looked to religion for the
answers to his problems. Today, mankind seems to be look at religion
as the cause of his problems. That's a fairly impressive switch in
perhaps 150 years.

Just goes to show how adaptable the human race is, which is probably a
damn good thing, except for the hoodwinking of the west about AGW (the
Asians, Chinese and Japanese don't give a damn about it I notice btw).

Graham

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 01:29:31 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 22:02:01 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 19:38:58 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

Tweaking your chime a wee bit... can't you admit that religion has
been the cause of most wars and most ills of the world ?:-)
...Jim Thompson

Nope. Money is the cause of most wars.

I think that's an oversimplification.

I agree. I didn't want to get into the details. Perhaps another
oversimplification will help. Most modern wars and revolutions are
started for religious, political, racial, tribal, or just plain stupid
purposes. Left to themselves, such wars tend to fizzle out rapidly.
What perpetuates them is that wars and revolts are a very efficient
method of redistributing wealth and political power. It's also the
source of substantial revenue for the industrial sector. Small
changes can be done peacefully, but if you want to reorganize the
country quickly, it takes a war or revolution.

For example, the history of
the Crusades is more about plunder than religion.

I think that's an oversimplification as well. 'Living off the land'
and 'plundering' the 'conquered' was SOP for thousands of years prior
and hundreds of years after the 'Crusades' so that aspect was not
particularly 'unique'

Yep. I just supplied an example, not a detailed history of the
numerous wars of the time. A good question would be why there was
almost continuous warfare during the middle ages? That's because
making war on the neighbors was literally the only effective means of
generating positive growth for the local rulers. When the economic
basis of the rulers was land, the only way to get more land was to
make war.

The problem was that war wasn't particularly popular. The peasants
weren't particularly interested in a war of expansion for their
rulers. The feudal system provided relatively cheap cannon fodder,
but there was only so much of that available. The military quality of
the peasantry was also demonstratively lousy. So, the rulers hired
mercenaries, which required (insert drum roll) money. Initially, they
were paid with a license to plunder, but that was insufficient. The
mercenaries wanted at least their expenses paid in advance, which
means that the war was to be fought with cash in advance. Plundering
continued, but primarily as a performance bonus.

However, the peasants still found it useful to know why they were
fighting. So, a proper atrocity and list of grievances were
fabricated for the occasion. Religion usually played a major part of
this although racial and political reasons were sometimes added.

The first crusade took place only after decades of pleading by the
Byzantine Empire for help against Muslims invasion from the east and
one of the reasons for a delayed response is Europe was also fighting
Muslim invasion from the south into Spain and Italy. Or, rather,
retaking the regions.

Yep.... and the first thing the Crusaders did, at the start of the 4th
Crusade, when arriving in Constantinople was get involved in the
palace intrigues, expedite a coup (twice), demand payment for their
help in the coup, and then sack the town when payment was not
forthcoming:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Crusade
Yeah, I know it's an oversimplification as the politics was really
thick. I just wanted to point out the importance of cash payments,
even during the Crusades.

It's not just a bit ironic that Muslims complain the 'crusades' were
invasions of 'their lands' when every square inch of it they took by
the sword.

How far back to you want to go? The map of the world has changed
drastically over the centuries. Although there have been some
peaceful border changes, the overwhelming majority of such changes
were inspired by wars.

However, I will
admit that religion makes a good cover story.

As for the ills of the world, the basic problem is that the planet has
too many people.

You think it had 'too many people' when ancient Egypt conquered it's
'known world', or Alexander, or Caesar, or the Moguls, and the list
goes on?

Yes. Many invasions and migrations were initiated because the
available land could not support a growing population. Modern food
production technology has delayed the inevitable Malthusian disaster
for centuries. The problem is the same today as it was in Egypt,
Greece, and central Asia, as it was in ancient history. Only the
scale is different. Countries where population pressure is extreme
(i.e. India and China) have adopted philosophical and political
systems that are designed to help them tolerate overcrowding and
shortages. That works, but is only a temporary expedient.

Btw, the Mongols did more damage to the Muslim empires than the
'Christians' of the time ever dreamed of.

Yep. The Mongols were more honest about it too. The Mongols were in
it for the plunder and didn't need any religious or political
motivation. If the Crusaders had been as honest about their
intentions and centralized their leadership, methinks they would have
done much better.

I have no idea what to do about that. Hopefully, I
won't be around when someone tries to solve that problem.

Drivel: Not too many years ago, mankind looked to religion for the
answers to his problems. Today, mankind seems to be look at religion
as the cause of his problems. That's a fairly impressive switch in
perhaps 150 years.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 09:24:00 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:


Peace will come when it’s gone

Recently some billboards went up in and near downtown Phoenix
proclaiming “Imagine No Religion.” For most folks, that’s hard to do.
But imagine the peace of no Protestant versus Catholic, no Moslem
versus Jew, no Hindu versus Moslem, no Sunni versus Shiite, no
inquisition and no suicide bombers. Think of the billions of dollars
(mostly solicited from the poor) to support cathedrals, elaborate
church campuses, missionaries and televangelist ministries.

Where would one go to feel guilty? Who would be around to oppose
science and reason? Who would manipulate our elections or pressure
elected officials to promote their religious agenda? Hey, I can
imagine no religion and it sounds pretty good to me.

HAROLD L. SAFERESTEIN

SCOTTSDALE


It ain't that simple, Harry.

Religion is one of the many ways that 'human nature' is reflected.

Laziness, ignorance and orneriness are manifested daily in many other
arenas of human endeavor.

RL

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 08:32:11 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 13:09:57 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:


On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 15:01:30 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 12:38:05 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:


My rock 'n' roll CD collection includes all the Beatles' works.

---
Got any Procol Harum or Rotary Connection?

JF

I don't recognize that... whatzit?

...Jim Thompson

---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procol_Harum

I certainly remember "A Whiter Shade of Pale", but nothing else.


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

JF

Never heard of that bunch.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine Sometimes I even put it in the food

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 15:58:26 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

Tweaking your chime a wee bit... can't you admit that religion has
been the cause of most wars and most ills of the world ?:-)

Nope. Money is the cause of most wars. For example, the history of
the Crusades is more about plunder than religion. However, I will
admit that religion makes a good cover story.

As for the ills of the world, the basic problem is that the planet has
too many people. I have no idea what to do about that. Hopefully, I
won't be around when someone tries to solve that problem.

Drivel: Not too many years ago, mankind looked to religion for the
answers to his problems. Today, mankind seems to be look at religion
as the cause of his problems. That's a fairly impressive switch in
perhaps 150 years.

Just goes to show how adaptable the human race is, which is probably a
damn good thing,

Are you sure it's human adaptability that's prevented a meltdown and
not improved technology? Methinks technology has saved our posterior
from disaster so many times in the past, that we're taking continuous
progress for granted. That may not be true as we seem to again be
running out of everything (and what's left is polluted).

except for the hoodwinking of the west about AGW (the
Asians, Chinese and Japanese don't give a damn about it I notice btw).

You had to throw that in. I've been ignoring the never ending AGW
thread because it has become so repetitive.

Here's a thought experiment for you. If we don't downsize our
technology or lifestyle very much, what would you guess would be a
good sustainable number for the world population? Extra credit for
suggesting how we should get there. (I've worked out my guess, but
hesitate to post it as my reputation is already at an all time low).

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:

Tweaking your chime a wee bit... can't you admit that religion has
been the cause of most wars and most ills of the world ?:-)

Nope. Money is the cause of most wars. For example, the history of
the Crusades is more about plunder than religion. However, I will
admit that religion makes a good cover story.

As for the ills of the world, the basic problem is that the planet has
too many people. I have no idea what to do about that. Hopefully, I
won't be around when someone tries to solve that problem.

Drivel: Not too many years ago, mankind looked to religion for the
answers to his problems. Today, mankind seems to be look at religion
as the cause of his problems. That's a fairly impressive switch in
perhaps 150 years.

Just goes to show how adaptable the human race is, which is probably a
damn good thing,

Are you sure it's human adaptability that's prevented a meltdown and
not improved technology? Methinks technology has saved our posterior
from disaster so many times in the past, that we're taking continuous
progress for granted. That may not be true as we seem to again be
running out of everything (and what's left is polluted).

except for the hoodwinking of the west about AGW (the
Asians, Chinese and Japanese don't give a damn about it I notice btw).

You had to throw that in. I've been ignoring the never ending AGW
thread because it has become so repetitive.

Here's a thought experiment for you. If we don't downsize our
technology or lifestyle very much, what would you guess would be a
good sustainable number for the world population? Extra credit for
suggesting how we should get there. (I've worked out my guess, but
hesitate to post it as my reputation is already at an all time low).

Aside from some parts of Africa and countries like Australia and New Zealand
I expect we're pretty close to the maximum sustainable figure as it is, using
oil based products. Lose the readily available oil (or continue to use it
unwisely / wastefully) and those numbers will have to reduce.

Graham

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Extra credit for suggesting how we should get there.

In terms of reduction of energy use, and especially finite fossil fuel use,
ultra-insulation for all buildings has to be a VERY high priority. And easily
done with existing technology. Tricky with older buildings but they can be
improved with internal 'dry lining' for example.

But do you see the 'greens' saying this ? NO they just want more tax-funded
expensive wind turbines and solar farms.

Actually in the RIGHT PLACE, wind turbines aren't so bad, but promoting them
as a panacea is insane. Oooh, I could talk about that.

If nanosolar's PV panels turn out to be as good as they say, then even PV
solar might make a viable contribution. In the the meantime PV solar's a tax
dependent sop to the greens. Solar thermal can be useful though, as can
intelligent solar gain in buildings.

And when car companies perfect the PHEV and GM's well on the way to
introducing 2 models in the next few years, we can radically reduce our
dependence on oil for transport.

So where does the power come from ? Nukes of course. Proven safe in the west,
the latest generation are better than ever. France's Areva has now even sold
I think it's 6 x 1.6GW plants to CHINA. With CLEAN fuel re-processing (when
required - store the used fuel safely maybe for the time being) that could
keep us in energy for many centuries if not millenia.

And then there's CHP (combined heat and power) or co-gen if you prefer. Put
the 'waste' heat from power plants to good use such as in some Scandinavian
countries.

Graham

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Not too many years ago, mankind looked to religion for the
answers to his problems. Today, mankind seems to be look at religion
as the cause of his problems. That's a fairly impressive switch in
perhaps 150 years.

Just goes to show how adaptable the human race is, which is probably a
damn good thing,

Are you sure it's human adaptability that's prevented a meltdown and
not improved technology?

Do you think God improved the technology ?

It was human adaptability. It's what makes us what we are. Always striving
for something 'better'.

Graham

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 17:45:36 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Here's a thought experiment for you. If we don't downsize our
technology or lifestyle very much, what would you guess would be a
good sustainable number for the world population? Extra credit for
suggesting how we should get there. (I've worked out my guess, but
hesitate to post it as my reputation is already at an all time low).

Aside from some parts of Africa and countries like Australia and New Zealand
I expect we're pretty close to the maximum sustainable figure as it is, using
oil based products. Lose the readily available oil (or continue to use it
unwisely / wastefully) and those numbers will have to reduce.
Graham

So, won't even venture a wild guess? Look at it this way. All the
posturing about AGW, pollution, resource depletion, and sky high taxes
are solved by simply reducing population. Think of it as a short cut
to world peace. Simply downsize to a yet to be decided population
level, and all will be well. Call it long term planning or something
equally positive.

However, much of the world seems to be thinking short term. See the
graph under "rate of increase" at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
The 3rd world areas that need the largest reduction in population seem
to be growing rapidly, while the industrialized nations seem to grow
more slowly. Europe even shows a decrease in population growth,
probably due to the effects of socialized medicine.

Of course, downsizing the world population by perhaps 75% would create
some sizable opposition. The lack of a "fair" way to decide who goes
or who stays, allows for arbitrary means, such as war. Many will
protest on moral, religious, economic, legal, ethical, political,
racial, ethnic, and scientific grounds, but that's what starts wars
anyway. I don't think too many would argue that a population
reduction might be a good thing. It's just that they don't want to be
the ones that are getting "reduced". I'll leave that problem and the
details to the next administration or world government.

As for the target value, I'll keep my number to myself for a while.
You can get a clue by looking at the "Estimated world population at
various dates" table. Just pick the historical period in time, when
the application of modern technology would have created a sustainable
ecology and eliminated the need to have a multitude of kids because of
infant mortality.

By comparison, this kinda makes AGW look like a small problem?

Do you think God improved the technology ?

No. We improved on god. After losing ground to science and
technology for several centuries, the religious establishment has
restructured its offering into something more realistic than ultimate
perfection. Todays religions accept women, debate, mild heresy,
printed documentation in vulgar tongues, and revision of established
dogma. That's quite an improvement.

Drivel: Judaism meets Unix
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.unix.sco.misc/msg/ccef57b1a28ed0fd

It was human adaptability. It's what makes us what we are. Always
striving for something 'better'.

Yeah, that's the problem. The basic choices a
"good, fast, cheap... pick two".
The problem with striving for something good, is that it comes out
slow and not very cheap. I think we would do better if aimed for
something less expensive.

As for adaptability, the church used to say something like "give me
the brat up to age 6 and we've got him for life". It's true. A
persons basic attitudes and beliefs are saved to NVRAM early in life
and very difficult to change.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

John Larkin wrote in
:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 22:51:18 -0500, Kris Krieger
wrote:

John Larkin wrote in
m:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 09:24:00 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:


Peace will come when it’s gone

Recently some billboards went up in and near downtown Phoenix
proclaiming “Imagine No Religion.” For most folks, that’s hard to do.
But imagine the peace of no Protestant versus Catholic, no Moslem
versus Jew, no Hindu versus Moslem, no Sunni versus Shiite, no
inquisition and no suicide bombers. Think of the billions of dollars
(mostly solicited from the poor) to support cathedrals, elaborate
church campuses, missionaries and televangelist ministries.

Where would one go to feel guilty? Who would be around to oppose
science and reason? Who would manipulate our elections or pressure
elected officials to promote their religious agenda? Hey, I can
imagine no religion and it sounds pretty good to me.

HAROLD L. SAFERESTEIN

SCOTTSDALE


Overall, religion has done more good than harm. And since it's
probably wired into most humans, it's probably impossible to
eliminate.

Without religion, groups of people will find other criteria for
forming teams and fighting. Color, language, history, favorite soccer
team, political party, whatever. Atheist Nazis fought atheist Soviets
with unparalleled enthusuasm.

In my personal experience, believers are usually nicer people than
atheists.

John




Do you just mean believers in Biblically-based religions, or does that
apply to any spiritual belief system?

Just curious.

I was thinking of followers of formal religions, conventional
Christians and Mormons and a Muslim or two. It's a trend I've
observed, but by no means an absolute. But at the extreme end of the
curve, I can't recall knowing any really evil Xtians, but have known a
few really rotten atheists. I can't say what the causalities are here.

Weren't Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot atheists? They did a lot of harm.

John


Well, there are examples of evil *so-called* Christians. I alwasy say that
no group has a monopoly on bad behavior *or* good behavior.

There is too much history to put into a short blurb, really...but overall,
after living in so amny places, and metting/workign with so many different
people, also studying/reading way too much diverse stuff G!, the one
definite thing I've learned is that generalizations are only useful for
rather a few types of analyses.

One truth that holds, however, is that when someone feels himself to be
better, superior, "more human", than others, that person will latch onto
whatever belief system seems to lend itself to justifying that egotosm.
Many are "Christtians" simply because teh majority of the population
declares itself to be Christian - if the majority religion were, oh,
Ishkabbibblism, than most rotten people would be Ishkabbibblists.


Now, one theing that is highly relevant is the fact that what tends to
stick out in a person's mind/memory are the things which (1) are unusual
and (2) elicit a strong emotional reaction. That is well-known via
numerous studies. It's based on the fact that, to survive, humans had to
learn to recognize, react to, and avoid, danger *fast*, and to also
remember indelibly things and places that were dangerous. At eh same tiem,
tho', they also had tolearn to recognize and rememebr good things/places,
such as areas of plentiful and/or high-quality food sources. Things/events
that don't elicit stong feelings do not elicit memories that are as at all
as clear/sharp as those that did elicit a strong emotional reaction.
((THat's been shown thorugh a number of studies, but, given how many divese
things I read, and how much, and since I read for pleasre, I don't keep
refernce lists, but you should be able to find the info on-line fairly
easily.))

OK, so, all that being said, I've known far fewer Atheists than Christians,
and far more Agnostics than Atheists (tho' many peole lump Agnostics and
Atheists together). I have not noticed a big difference in terms of
"good" versus "not good". But you have to keep in mind that I don't have
the same emotional reactions as do 'normal' people (I have Asperger's), so
I do not assign any particular weight to a person's beliefs - most of the
"social"-type things that other people react emotionally to are, to me,
irrelevant, so I tend to consider people on a more equal playing field so
to speak. I don't know whetehr thzat is a good thing or a bad thing -
certainly, it's won me alot of enemies, because most people *don't want*
to be looked at so dispassionately; most *want* to have their religion,
job, house, wtc. to "weigh in their favor", and it ****es them off when
someone only looks at things like character, treatment of others, openness
to new ideas, and the like. But, in any event, that's just telling you
"where I'm coming from" so to speak, what my point of reference is.

THe main point is that from everything I've seen, People Are People. Race,
religion, educational level, etc and so on and so forth - there are rotten
ones and nice ones, closed-minded ones and ones open to different ideas an
dpoeple. I've even worked with a few "intellectually-challenged" poeple
who I liked quite well as friends, just becasue they weer upbeat, pleasant,
and so on. Yeah, I had to be patient with them in certain ways, but hell,
given my IQ etc., that's true of *most* people, so it doesn't matter all
that much to me. I've also known quite a few "smart" peole whomI found to
be narrow-minded, intolerant, supercilious a-hole *******s shrug.

People are people.


So, without hard data, although I of course cannot make any sort of valid
claim your impression/opinion/experience (since you expereinced it, not
me), I am nonetheless compelled to doubt words like "most"/"the majority"
in terms of whether there is a higher percentage of "evil *******s" so to
speak among one or another given belief system. I suspect that, since pure
atheists are still rather rare, it might be that they stick out in your
memory more strongly, and the rotten one's more strongly still.

- K.

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 15:58:56 -0500, Kris Krieger
wrote:

John Larkin wrote in
:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 22:51:18 -0500, Kris Krieger
wrote:

John Larkin wrote in
:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 09:24:00 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:


Peace will come when it’s gone

Recently some billboards went up in and near downtown Phoenix
proclaiming “Imagine No Religion.” For most folks, that’s hard to do.
But imagine the peace of no Protestant versus Catholic, no Moslem
versus Jew, no Hindu versus Moslem, no Sunni versus Shiite, no
inquisition and no suicide bombers. Think of the billions of dollars
(mostly solicited from the poor) to support cathedrals, elaborate
church campuses, missionaries and televangelist ministries.

Where would one go to feel guilty? Who would be around to oppose
science and reason? Who would manipulate our elections or pressure
elected officials to promote their religious agenda? Hey, I can
imagine no religion and it sounds pretty good to me.

HAROLD L. SAFERESTEIN

SCOTTSDALE


Overall, religion has done more good than harm. And since it's
probably wired into most humans, it's probably impossible to
eliminate.

Without religion, groups of people will find other criteria for
forming teams and fighting. Color, language, history, favorite soccer
team, political party, whatever. Atheist Nazis fought atheist Soviets
with unparalleled enthusuasm.

In my personal experience, believers are usually nicer people than
atheists.

John




Do you just mean believers in Biblically-based religions, or does that
apply to any spiritual belief system?

Just curious.

I was thinking of followers of formal religions, conventional
Christians and Mormons and a Muslim or two. It's a trend I've
observed, but by no means an absolute. But at the extreme end of the
curve, I can't recall knowing any really evil Xtians, but have known a
few really rotten atheists. I can't say what the causalities are here.

Weren't Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot atheists? They did a lot of harm.

John


Well, there are examples of evil *so-called* Christians. I alwasy say that
no group has a monopoly on bad behavior *or* good behavior.

There is too much history to put into a short blurb, really...but overall,
after living in so amny places, and metting/workign with so many different
people, also studying/reading way too much diverse stuff G!, the one
definite thing I've learned is that generalizations are only useful for
rather a few types of analyses.

One truth that holds, however, is that when someone feels himself to be
better, superior, "more human", than others, that person will latch onto
whatever belief system seems to lend itself to justifying that egotosm.
Many are "Christtians" simply because teh majority of the population
declares itself to be Christian - if the majority religion were, oh,
Ishkabbibblism, than most rotten people would be Ishkabbibblists.


Now, one theing that is highly relevant is the fact that what tends to
stick out in a person's mind/memory are the things which (1) are unusual
and (2) elicit a strong emotional reaction. That is well-known via
numerous studies. It's based on the fact that, to survive, humans had to
learn to recognize, react to, and avoid, danger *fast*, and to also
remember indelibly things and places that were dangerous. At eh same tiem,
tho', they also had tolearn to recognize and rememebr good things/places,
such as areas of plentiful and/or high-quality food sources. Things/events
that don't elicit stong feelings do not elicit memories that are as at all
as clear/sharp as those that did elicit a strong emotional reaction.
((THat's been shown thorugh a number of studies, but, given how many divese
things I read, and how much, and since I read for pleasre, I don't keep
refernce lists, but you should be able to find the info on-line fairly
easily.))

OK, so, all that being said, I've known far fewer Atheists than Christians,
and far more Agnostics than Atheists (tho' many peole lump Agnostics and
Atheists together). I have not noticed a big difference in terms of
"good" versus "not good". But you have to keep in mind that I don't have
the same emotional reactions as do 'normal' people (I have Asperger's), so
I do not assign any particular weight to a person's beliefs - most of the
"social"-type things that other people react emotionally to are, to me,
irrelevant, so I tend to consider people on a more equal playing field so
to speak. I don't know whetehr thzat is a good thing or a bad thing -
certainly, it's won me alot of enemies, because most people *don't want*
to be looked at so dispassionately; most *want* to have their religion,
job, house, wtc. to "weigh in their favor", and it ****es them off when
someone only looks at things like character, treatment of others, openness
to new ideas, and the like. But, in any event, that's just telling you
"where I'm coming from" so to speak, what my point of reference is.

THe main point is that from everything I've seen, People Are People. Race,
religion, educational level, etc and so on and so forth - there are rotten
ones and nice ones, closed-minded ones and ones open to different ideas an
dpoeple. I've even worked with a few "intellectually-challenged" poeple
who I liked quite well as friends, just becasue they weer upbeat, pleasant,
and so on. Yeah, I had to be patient with them in certain ways, but hell,
given my IQ etc., that's true of *most* people, so it doesn't matter all
that much to me. I've also known quite a few "smart" peole whomI found to
be narrow-minded, intolerant, supercilious a-hole *******s shrug.

People are people.


So, without hard data, although I of course cannot make any sort of valid
claim your impression/opinion/experience (since you expereinced it, not
me), I am nonetheless compelled to doubt words like "most"/"the majority"
in terms of whether there is a higher percentage of "evil *******s" so to
speak among one or another given belief system. I suspect that, since pure
atheists are still rather rare, it might be that they stick out in your
memory more strongly, and the rotten one's more strongly still.

- K.


Read "Who Really Cares?"

As far as the USA goes, look at the red-state/blue-state maps, and
maps of religious tendencies, and maps of charitable donations per
capita, and maps of violent crime, and maps of volunteerism... all
easily available on the web. Interesting correlations.

John

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 14:38:51 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 14:23:10 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 10:42:04 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 12:16:04 -0500, John Fields
wrote:


Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

How much money did John Lennon make writing and singing stuff like
this? How much of it did he give away?

---
Dunno, don't care.
---

Reminds me of other noble egalitarians, like Cat Stevens and Bob Dylan
and Barbara Streisand.

They sing this stuff because they make a huge amount of money doing
it.

---
I don't imagine it could be because they're artists pursuing their
passion and money happens to be part of the territory?

Hardly ever.

---
How would _you_ know?

Are you so connected that you've got the pulse of showbiz sussed and can
report on who's doing what and why?

I don't think so.

What I see is the green-eyed monster forcing you to eat sour grapes.
---

You claim to be an artist, yet I don't see you turning down work because
you think you're getting too rich, yet you begrudge them their fortunes.


I don't begrudge any Hollywood fathead the money they make.

---
Then you begrudge them their fame.

"Hollywood fathead?"

That derision, alone, speaks volumes since you profess to profess
tolerance, and yet, when you think the gains of others are greater than
yours, and gained at less expense, you rail against them.

How many "Hollywood fatheads" have you met and interacted with?

Did you ever meet John Lennon?

or Cat Stevens?

or Bob Dylan?

or Barbra Streisand?

or anyone who you decry as being a "Hollywood fathead"

and hold a conversation with them which led you to believe they weren't
egalitarian?

I think not.
---

I wouldn't
live their lives for a gigabuck.

---
From your end It's all about money, huh?
---

Why do they keep sticking needles in
their arms, and beating up/shooting their families, and becoming
alcoholics/suicides/dead at phenomenal rates if they are such pure
artists?

---
It's about what one learns at the edge, John.

Vincent Van Gogh cut off his ear.

Does that make his art less vivid?
---

We do turn down work if we think it's harmful or immoral. Like
manufacturing cigarettes, or helping certain countries improve their
Bombs.

---
Bull****.

You'll sell your crap to anyone, but you're restrained by DoD as to what
weapons systems you can sell offshore.

Cigarettes?

If you're any good why don't you come up with an antiviral/antibiotic
system which can be delivered through a smoke?

JF

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 14:38:51 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 14:23:10 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 10:42:04 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 12:16:04 -0500, John Fields
wrote:


Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

How much money did John Lennon make writing and singing stuff like
this? How much of it did he give away?

---
Dunno, don't care.
---

Reminds me of other noble egalitarians, like Cat Stevens and Bob Dylan
and Barbara Streisand.

They sing this stuff because they make a huge amount of money doing
it.

---
I don't imagine it could be because they're artists pursuing their
passion and money happens to be part of the territory?

Hardly ever.

---
How would _you_ know?

Are you so connected that you've got the pulse of showbiz sussed and can
report on who's doing what and why?

I don't think so.

What I see is the green-eyed monster forcing you to eat sour grapes.
---

You claim to be an artist, yet I don't see you turning down work because
you think you're getting too rich, yet you begrudge them their fortunes.


I don't begrudge any Hollywood fathead the money they make.

---
Then you begrudge them their fame.

"Hollywood fathead?"

That derision, alone, speaks volumes since you profess to profess
tolerance, and yet, when you think the gains of others are greater than
yours, and gained at less expense, you rail against them.

How many "Hollywood fatheads" have you met and interacted with?

Did you ever meet John Lennon?

or Cat Stevens?

or Bob Dylan?

or Barbra Streisand?

or anyone who you decry as being a "Hollywood fathead"

and hold a conversation with them which led you to believe they weren't
egalitarian?

I think not.
---

I wouldn't
live their lives for a gigabuck.

---
From your end It's all about money, huh?
---

Why do they keep sticking needles in
their arms, and beating up/shooting their families, and becoming
alcoholics/suicides/dead at phenomenal rates if they are such pure
artists?

---
It's about what one learns at the edge, John.

Vincent Van Gogh cut off his ear.

Does that make his art less vivid?
---

We do turn down work if we think it's harmful or immoral. Like
manufacturing cigarettes, or helping certain countries improve their
Bombs.

---
Bull****.

You'll sell your crap to anyone, but you're restrained by DoD as to what
weapons systems you can sell offshore.

Cigarettes?

If you're any good why don't you come up with an antiviral/antibiotic
system which can be delivered through a smoke?

JF

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 18:26:47 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 14:38:51 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 14:23:10 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 10:42:04 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 12:16:04 -0500, John Fields
wrote:


Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

How much money did John Lennon make writing and singing stuff like
this? How much of it did he give away?

---
Dunno, don't care.
---

Reminds me of other noble egalitarians, like Cat Stevens and Bob Dylan
and Barbara Streisand.

They sing this stuff because they make a huge amount of money doing
it.

---
I don't imagine it could be because they're artists pursuing their
passion and money happens to be part of the territory?

Hardly ever.

---
How would _you_ know?

Are you so connected that you've got the pulse of showbiz sussed and can
report on who's doing what and why?

I don't think so.

What I see is the green-eyed monster forcing you to eat sour grapes.
---

You claim to be an artist, yet I don't see you turning down work because
you think you're getting too rich, yet you begrudge them their fortunes.


I don't begrudge any Hollywood fathead the money they make.

---
Then you begrudge them their fame.

"Hollywood fathead?"

That derision, alone, speaks volumes since you profess to profess
tolerance, and yet, when you think the gains of others are greater than
yours, and gained at less expense, you rail against them.

How many "Hollywood fatheads" have you met and interacted with?

Did you ever meet John Lennon?

or Cat Stevens?

or Bob Dylan?

or Barbra Streisand?

or anyone who you decry as being a "Hollywood fathead"

and hold a conversation with them which led you to believe they weren't
egalitarian?

I think not.
---

I wouldn't
live their lives for a gigabuck.

---
From your end It's all about money, huh?
---

Why do they keep sticking needles in
their arms, and beating up/shooting their families, and becoming
alcoholics/suicides/dead at phenomenal rates if they are such pure
artists?

---
It's about what one learns at the edge, John.

Vincent Van Gogh cut off his ear.

Does that make his art less vivid?
---

We do turn down work if we think it's harmful or immoral. Like
manufacturing cigarettes, or helping certain countries improve their
Bombs.

---
Bull****.

You'll sell your crap to anyone, but you're restrained by DoD as to what
weapons systems you can sell offshore.

Cigarettes?

If you're any good why don't you come up with an antiviral/antibiotic
system which can be delivered through a smoke?

JF


Sounds like *somebody* here is burning with jealousy.

John

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 18:26:47 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 14:38:51 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 14:23:10 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 10:42:04 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 12:16:04 -0500, John Fields
wrote:


Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

How much money did John Lennon make writing and singing stuff like
this? How much of it did he give away?

---
Dunno, don't care.
---

Reminds me of other noble egalitarians, like Cat Stevens and Bob Dylan
and Barbara Streisand.

They sing this stuff because they make a huge amount of money doing
it.

---
I don't imagine it could be because they're artists pursuing their
passion and money happens to be part of the territory?

Hardly ever.

---
How would _you_ know?

Are you so connected that you've got the pulse of showbiz sussed and can
report on who's doing what and why?

I don't think so.

What I see is the green-eyed monster forcing you to eat sour grapes.
---

You claim to be an artist, yet I don't see you turning down work because
you think you're getting too rich, yet you begrudge them their fortunes.


I don't begrudge any Hollywood fathead the money they make.

---
Then you begrudge them their fame.

"Hollywood fathead?"

That derision, alone, speaks volumes since you profess to profess
tolerance, and yet, when you think the gains of others are greater than
yours, and gained at less expense, you rail against them.

How many "Hollywood fatheads" have you met and interacted with?

Did you ever meet John Lennon?

or Cat Stevens?

or Bob Dylan?

or Barbra Streisand?

or anyone who you decry as being a "Hollywood fathead"

and hold a conversation with them which led you to believe they weren't
egalitarian?

I think not.
---

I wouldn't
live their lives for a gigabuck.

---
From your end It's all about money, huh?
---

Why do they keep sticking needles in
their arms, and beating up/shooting their families, and becoming
alcoholics/suicides/dead at phenomenal rates if they are such pure
artists?

---
It's about what one learns at the edge, John.

Vincent Van Gogh cut off his ear.

Does that make his art less vivid?
---

We do turn down work if we think it's harmful or immoral. Like
manufacturing cigarettes, or helping certain countries improve their
Bombs.

---
Bull****.

You'll sell your crap to anyone, but you're restrained by DoD as to what
weapons systems you can sell offshore.

Cigarettes?

If you're any good why don't you come up with an antiviral/antibiotic
system which can be delivered through a smoke?

JF


Sounds like *somebody* here is burning with jealousy.

John

Maybe its a moot point:

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/UnNews:Large_Hadron_Collider_'destroys_God_by_acci dent'

;-)

--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
Have gnu, will travel.

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 18:10:04 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 18:26:47 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 14:38:51 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 14:23:10 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 10:42:04 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 12:16:04 -0500, John Fields
wrote:


Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

How much money did John Lennon make writing and singing stuff like
this? How much of it did he give away?

---
Dunno, don't care.
---

Reminds me of other noble egalitarians, like Cat Stevens and Bob Dylan
and Barbara Streisand.

They sing this stuff because they make a huge amount of money doing
it.

---
I don't imagine it could be because they're artists pursuing their
passion and money happens to be part of the territory?

Hardly ever.

---
How would _you_ know?

Are you so connected that you've got the pulse of showbiz sussed and can
report on who's doing what and why?

I don't think so.

What I see is the green-eyed monster forcing you to eat sour grapes.
---

You claim to be an artist, yet I don't see you turning down work because
you think you're getting too rich, yet you begrudge them their fortunes.


I don't begrudge any Hollywood fathead the money they make.

---
Then you begrudge them their fame.

"Hollywood fathead?"

That derision, alone, speaks volumes since you profess to profess
tolerance, and yet, when you think the gains of others are greater than
yours, and gained at less expense, you rail against them.

How many "Hollywood fatheads" have you met and interacted with?

Did you ever meet John Lennon?

or Cat Stevens?

or Bob Dylan?

or Barbra Streisand?

or anyone who you decry as being a "Hollywood fathead"

and hold a conversation with them which led you to believe they weren't
egalitarian?

I think not.
---

I wouldn't
live their lives for a gigabuck.

---
From your end It's all about money, huh?
---

Why do they keep sticking needles in
their arms, and beating up/shooting their families, and becoming
alcoholics/suicides/dead at phenomenal rates if they are such pure
artists?

---
It's about what one learns at the edge, John.

Vincent Van Gogh cut off his ear.

Does that make his art less vivid?
---

We do turn down work if we think it's harmful or immoral. Like
manufacturing cigarettes, or helping certain countries improve their
Bombs.

---
Bull****.

You'll sell your crap to anyone, but you're restrained by DoD as to what
weapons systems you can sell offshore.

Cigarettes?

If you're any good why don't you come up with an antiviral/antibiotic
system which can be delivered through a smoke?

JF


Sounds like *somebody* here is burning with jealousy.

---
Precisely my point.

JF

"John Larkin" wrote in message
...
If everyone abstained before marriage, and was monogamous after, as
the Pope recommends, there would be no AIDS.

The built-in drive to have sex (without a whole lot of regard for monogamy)
is -- in most people -- a even stronger than the drive to believe in a God,
IMO. Historically one man having many female partners was the most common
form of living arrangement anyway, and the idea that this person you call
your "wife" is also "your [one and only] sex partner" is a *very* recent
invention.

Many religious rules were
probably evolved as methods to reduce communicable diseases.

Yes, absolutely.

Sex/drugs/rock-and-roll spread sixty or so nasty viruses and at least
a dozen unpleasant bacteria, all of which are working on their drug
resistance.

Sexual reproduction is inherently a flawed design? ;-)

Just kidding. You have a point, certainly, but even if one argues that
people today are more promiscuous than in times past (highly unlikely on a
"global" time scale, but let's go with it), the discovery of anti-biotics,
"safe sex" techniques, etc. still makes the world a much less risky place
than in those years past. Look at sex workers: It's almost unheard of for
one of them to infect another worker, and these are people who -- over the
span of their lives -- often have literally 1000x as many different partners
as the average perosn. They just know how to "play it safe" and get tested
quite regularly for diseases, of course.

---Joel

"John Larkin" wrote in message
...
Humans have radically changed their social behavior in the last few
thousand years; dolphins and chimps haven't. AIDS is killing a lot of
people, but not many dolphins or apes, as far as I can tell.

Death due to AIDS is less than 2% (of all deaths) in developed countries --
people who engage in safe sex practices anyway can generally improve their
odds of survival more by examining what they eat and how often they exercise
than worrying about whether or not an additional tryst is going to kill
them.

In undeveloped countries, AIDS is a much bigger concern. Comprehensive
education is needed, which includes not only telling people that, yes,
abstinence provides 100% protection against AIDS (and perhaps a marked
decrease in their enjoyment of life :-) ), but also that, if they are going
to have sex (and the vast majority will -- after all, those "Promise Keeper"
kids in the U.S. end up having pretty much the exact same amount of
pre-marital sex as non-Promise Keepers!), what methods should be used to
largely prevent the transmission of disease.

And of course hand out plenty of free condoms while you're at all...

"John Larkin" wrote in message
...
Humans have radically changed their social behavior in the last few
thousand years; dolphins and chimps haven't. AIDS is killing a lot of
people, but not many dolphins or apes, as far as I can tell.

Death due to AIDS is less than 2% (of all deaths) in developed countries --
people who engage in safe sex practices anyway can generally improve their
odds of survival more by examining what they eat and how often they exercise
than worrying about whether or not an additional tryst is going to kill
them.

In undeveloped countries, AIDS is a much bigger concern. Comprehensive
education is needed, which includes not only telling people that, yes,
abstinence provides 100% protection against AIDS (and perhaps a marked
decrease in their enjoyment of life :-) ), but also that, if they are going
to have sex (and the vast majority will -- after all, those "Promise Keeper"
kids in the U.S. end up having pretty much the exact same amount of
pre-marital sex as non-Promise Keepers!), what methods should be used to
largely prevent the transmission of disease.

And of course hand out plenty of free condoms while you're at all...

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 05:31:42 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
wrote:

"John Larkin" wrote in message
.. .
Humans have radically changed their social behavior in the last few
thousand years; dolphins and chimps haven't. AIDS is killing a lot of
people, but not many dolphins or apes, as far as I can tell.

Death due to AIDS is less than 2% (of all deaths) in developed countries --
people who engage in safe sex practices anyway can generally improve their
odds of survival more by examining what they eat and how often they exercise
than worrying about whether or not an additional tryst is going to kill
them.

In undeveloped countries, AIDS is a much bigger concern. Comprehensive
education is needed, which includes not only telling people that, yes,
abstinence provides 100% protection against AIDS (and perhaps a marked
decrease in their enjoyment of life :-) ), but also that, if they are going
to have sex (and the vast majority will -- after all, those "Promise Keeper"
kids in the U.S. end up having pretty much the exact same amount of
pre-marital sex as non-Promise Keepers!), what methods should be used to
largely prevent the transmission of disease.

It's not the amount of sex that's dangerous, it's the number of
different people you do it with, and how many people *they* do it
with. That should be the bottom line of sex education. Girls should be
taught to go after shy geeky guys, and not the gorgeous popular
football jocks, because the geeks are a lot safer.

"The only use that women have for engineers is to marry them."


And of course hand out plenty of free condoms while you're at all...


They are unaffordable in poor countries, and used less than half the
time by teens in the USA.

John

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 05:31:42 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
wrote:

"John Larkin" wrote in message
.. .
Humans have radically changed their social behavior in the last few
thousand years; dolphins and chimps haven't. AIDS is killing a lot of
people, but not many dolphins or apes, as far as I can tell.

Death due to AIDS is less than 2% (of all deaths) in developed countries --
people who engage in safe sex practices anyway can generally improve their
odds of survival more by examining what they eat and how often they exercise
than worrying about whether or not an additional tryst is going to kill
them.

In undeveloped countries, AIDS is a much bigger concern. Comprehensive
education is needed, which includes not only telling people that, yes,
abstinence provides 100% protection against AIDS (and perhaps a marked
decrease in their enjoyment of life :-) ), but also that, if they are going
to have sex (and the vast majority will -- after all, those "Promise Keeper"
kids in the U.S. end up having pretty much the exact same amount of
pre-marital sex as non-Promise Keepers!), what methods should be used to
largely prevent the transmission of disease.

It's not the amount of sex that's dangerous, it's the number of
different people you do it with, and how many people *they* do it
with. That should be the bottom line of sex education. Girls should be
taught to go after shy geeky guys, and not the gorgeous popular
football jocks, because the geeks are a lot safer.

"The only use that women have for engineers is to marry them."


And of course hand out plenty of free condoms while you're at all...


They are unaffordable in poor countries, and used less than half the
time by teens in the USA.

John

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 05:22:03 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
wrote:

"John Larkin" wrote in message
.. .
If everyone abstained before marriage, and was monogamous after, as
the Pope recommends, there would be no AIDS.

The built-in drive to have sex (without a whole lot of regard for monogamy)
is -- in most people -- a even stronger than the drive to believe in a God,
IMO. Historically one man having many female partners was the most common
form of living arrangement anyway, and the idea that this person you call
your "wife" is also "your [one and only] sex partner" is a *very* recent
invention.

The idea of having an intellect is so that you can do what's smart,
not just what your instincts suggest.

Lots of things are recent inventions, like airplanes. Airplanes are
superb disease vectors. Patient Zero of the US Aids epidemic was a
violently promiscuous, virulently infectuous, totally gorgeous airline
steward.

What's your basis for suggesting that marriage is a recent invention?
It appears in literature from when literature was invented. Many
animals mate for life, and many more mate for the duration of raising
their brats. A larger community (like, the entire world, instead of
one village) sure changes disease dynamics.


Many religious rules were
probably evolved as methods to reduce communicable diseases.

Yes, absolutely.

Sex/drugs/rock-and-roll spread sixty or so nasty viruses and at least
a dozen unpleasant bacteria, all of which are working on their drug
resistance.

Sexual reproduction is inherently a flawed design? ;-)

Just kidding. You have a point, certainly, but even if one argues that
people today are more promiscuous than in times past (highly unlikely on a
"global" time scale, but let's go with it), the discovery of anti-biotics,
"safe sex" techniques, etc. still makes the world a much less risky place
than in those years past. Look at sex workers: It's almost unheard of for
one of them to infect another worker,


Do sex workers have sex with other sex workers? Who pays who?


and these are people who -- over the
span of their lives -- often have literally 1000x as many different partners
as the average perosn. They just know how to "play it safe" and get tested
quite regularly for diseases, of course.

A village was a constrained disease environment, and there were plenty
of rules and eyeballs that kepy hanky-panky down to limited
proportions. Big cities and universities encourage hook-ups; sex
tourism is sort of a new invention, although even sailing ships were a
novel and efficient disease spreading mechanism.

I've known two women who died from uterine cancer, which is mostly
caused by sexually-transmitted viruses. I don't want my wife or any of
my daughters or grand-daughters to go that way.


John

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 05:22:03 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
wrote:

"John Larkin" wrote in message
.. .
If everyone abstained before marriage, and was monogamous after, as
the Pope recommends, there would be no AIDS.

The built-in drive to have sex (without a whole lot of regard for monogamy)
is -- in most people -- a even stronger than the drive to believe in a God,
IMO. Historically one man having many female partners was the most common
form of living arrangement anyway, and the idea that this person you call
your "wife" is also "your [one and only] sex partner" is a *very* recent
invention.

The idea of having an intellect is so that you can do what's smart,
not just what your instincts suggest.

Lots of things are recent inventions, like airplanes. Airplanes are
superb disease vectors. Patient Zero of the US Aids epidemic was a
violently promiscuous, virulently infectuous, totally gorgeous airline
steward.

What's your basis for suggesting that marriage is a recent invention?
It appears in literature from when literature was invented. Many
animals mate for life, and many more mate for the duration of raising
their brats. A larger community (like, the entire world, instead of
one village) sure changes disease dynamics.


Many religious rules were
probably evolved as methods to reduce communicable diseases.

Yes, absolutely.

Sex/drugs/rock-and-roll spread sixty or so nasty viruses and at least
a dozen unpleasant bacteria, all of which are working on their drug
resistance.

Sexual reproduction is inherently a flawed design? ;-)

Just kidding. You have a point, certainly, but even if one argues that
people today are more promiscuous than in times past (highly unlikely on a
"global" time scale, but let's go with it), the discovery of anti-biotics,
"safe sex" techniques, etc. still makes the world a much less risky place
than in those years past. Look at sex workers: It's almost unheard of for
one of them to infect another worker,


Do sex workers have sex with other sex workers? Who pays who?


and these are people who -- over the
span of their lives -- often have literally 1000x as many different partners
as the average perosn. They just know how to "play it safe" and get tested
quite regularly for diseases, of course.

A village was a constrained disease environment, and there were plenty
of rules and eyeballs that kepy hanky-panky down to limited
proportions. Big cities and universities encourage hook-ups; sex
tourism is sort of a new invention, although even sailing ships were a
novel and efficient disease spreading mechanism.

I've known two women who died from uterine cancer, which is mostly
caused by sexually-transmitted viruses. I don't want my wife or any of
my daughters or grand-daughters to go that way.


John

John Larkin wrote in
:

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 15:58:56 -0500, Kris Krieger
wrote:
[snip]

So, without hard data, although I of course cannot make any sort of
valid claim your impression/opinion/experience (since you
expereinced it, not me), I am nonetheless compelled to doubt words like
"most"/"the majority" in terms of whether there is a higher percentage
of "evil *******s" so to speak among one or another given belief system.
I suspect that, since pure atheists are still rather rare, it might be
that they stick out in your memory more strongly, and the rotten one's
more strongly still.

- K.


Read "Who Really Cares?"

Um, if you don't care about responses/input, why do you bother posting...?
More to the point, if you don't care about input, why should people care
enough to read what you write?


As far as the USA goes, look at the red-state/blue-state maps, and
maps of religious tendencies, and maps of charitable donations per
capita, and maps of violent crime, and maps of volunteerism... all
easily available on the web. Interesting correlations.

John


I think you missed my point, but since you say that you don't care, there is
no reason for me to waste my time trying to clarify it.

I give people the benefit of the doubt, and I tried to respond to your posts
in a civil "informal discussion" manner. But I'm glad you at least had the
decency to tell me that you don't care about that and don't care about what I
have to say, so that I can avoid wasing my time.

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 03:26:02 -0500, John Fields
wrote:




Sounds like *somebody* here is burning with jealousy.

---
Precisely my point.

JF

The only thing wrong with my life is that the nearest Dunkin' Donuts
is in Sacramento. At least we can pick up a box of Boston Cremes on
the way to Tahoe.

How are you doing?

John

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 22:54:17 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:


On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 20:24:35 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 19:38:58 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:


On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 21:27:08 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 09:24:00 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:


Peace will come when it’s gone

Recently some billboards went up in and near downtown Phoenix
proclaiming “Imagine No Religion.” For most folks, that’s hard to do.
But imagine the peace of no Protestant versus Catholic, no Moslem
versus Jew, no Hindu versus Moslem, no Sunni versus Shiite, no
inquisition and no suicide bombers. Think of the billions of dollars
(mostly solicited from the poor) to support cathedrals, elaborate
church campuses, missionaries and televangelist ministries.

Where would one go to feel guilty? Who would be around to oppose
science and reason? Who would manipulate our elections or pressure
elected officials to promote their religious agenda? Hey, I can
imagine no religion and it sounds pretty good to me.

HAROLD L. SAFERESTEIN

SCOTTSDALE

===

EV Tribune, Letter-to-the-editor, this morning, Sept 20

===

...Jim Thompson

Among a slew of other fallacies that's akin to saying there'd be peace
if mankind were rabbits instead of homo sapiens.

Might be but they aren't.

Tweaking your chime a wee bit... can't you admit that religion has
been the cause of most wars and most ills of the world ?:-)

...Jim Thompson

No and no.

John

You must be getting old ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Older and wiser. And more tolerant.

John

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:55:54 -0500, Kris Krieger
wrote:

John Larkin wrote in
:

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 15:58:56 -0500, Kris Krieger
wrote:
[snip]

So, without hard data, although I of course cannot make any sort of
valid claim your impression/opinion/experience (since you
expereinced it, not me), I am nonetheless compelled to doubt words like
"most"/"the majority" in terms of whether there is a higher percentage
of "evil *******s" so to speak among one or another given belief system.
I suspect that, since pure atheists are still rather rare, it might be
that they stick out in your memory more strongly, and the rotten one's
more strongly still.

- K.


Read "Who Really Cares?"

Um, if you don't care about responses/input, why do you bother posting...?
More to the point, if you don't care about input, why should people care
enough to read what you write?


As far as the USA goes, look at the red-state/blue-state maps, and
maps of religious tendencies, and maps of charitable donations per
capita, and maps of violent crime, and maps of volunteerism... all
easily available on the web. Interesting correlations.

John


I think you missed my point, but since you say that you don't care, there is
no reason for me to waste my time trying to clarify it.

When did I say that I don't care? And about what?


I give people the benefit of the doubt, and I tried to respond to your posts
in a civil "informal discussion" manner. But I'm glad you at least had the
decency to tell me that you don't care about that and don't care about what I
have to say, so that I can avoid wasing my time.

You noted a lack of "hard data", and I suggested some ways to find it.

I didn't say anything about you; you're the one who swung personal
here.

John

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 11:36:07 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 03:26:02 -0500, John Fields
wrote:




Sounds like *somebody* here is burning with jealousy.

---
Precisely my point.

JF

The only thing wrong with my life is that the nearest Dunkin' Donuts
is in Sacramento. At least we can pick up a box of Boston Cremes on
the way to Tahoe.

How are you doing?

---
Just fine, thanks, and I don't obsess over doughnuts...

JF

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 16:30:44 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 11:36:07 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 03:26:02 -0500, John Fields
wrote:




Sounds like *somebody* here is burning with jealousy.

---
Precisely my point.

JF

The only thing wrong with my life is that the nearest Dunkin' Donuts
is in Sacramento. At least we can pick up a box of Boston Cremes on
the way to Tahoe.

How are you doing?

---
Just fine, thanks, and I don't obsess over doughnuts...

JF

Then you've probably never had a Boston Creme.

John

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 19:53:02 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



Jim Thompson wrote:

Phil Hobbs wrote:
[snip]

This is all happening because the Left has abandoned the idea that
there's such a thing as truth. If reality is just a social
construction, then all there is to argue about is whether it's going to
be MY construction or YOURS. That is, it's a matter of who gets to
impose their will on whom. That's the classic recipe for totalitarianism.

You nailed it! Liberals == Totalitarianism

George W Bush was doing a good job of it too.

How about politics and/or religion = totalitarianism ?

Graham

That seems like the truth. Neo Con = New Con (game)
--


----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

John Larkin wrote in
:

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:55:54 -0500, Kris Krieger
wrote:

John Larkin wrote in
m:

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 15:58:56 -0500, Kris Krieger
wrote:
[snip]

So, without hard data, although I of course cannot make any sort of
valid claim your impression/opinion/experience (since you
expereinced it, not me), I am nonetheless compelled to doubt words
like "most"/"the majority" in terms of whether there is a higher
percentage of "evil *******s" so to speak among one or another given
belief system.
I suspect that, since pure atheists are still rather rare, it might
be
that they stick out in your memory more strongly, and the rotten one's
more strongly still.

- K.


Read "Who Really Cares?"

Um, if you don't care about responses/input, why do you bother
posting...? More to the point, if you don't care about input, why
should people care enough to read what you write?


As far as the USA goes, look at the red-state/blue-state maps, and
maps of religious tendencies, and maps of charitable donations per
capita, and maps of violent crime, and maps of volunteerism... all
easily available on the web. Interesting correlations.

John


I think you missed my point, but since you say that you don't care,
there is no reason for me to waste my time trying to clarify it.

When did I say that I don't care? And about what?

Maybe I misinterpreted "Who Really Cares?" - the way I perceived it was "I
read this as falling into teh category of "Who Really Cares?". THat was
confusing to me, because I was confused as to why soemone would post if he
didn't care about responses. ((I fully admot that I have some
communication glitches - I'm told that's part of the Asperger's.))

If I screwed up, than you have my apologies and a request to please clarify
what you meant (since, if what I read was not what you meant, then I
definitely *did* miss your meaning - and it's highly likely that when you
do explain, I'll smack my head and say DOH!...)





I give people the benefit of the doubt, and I tried to respond to your
posts in a civil "informal discussion" manner. But I'm glad you at
least had the decency to tell me that you don't care about that and
don't care about what I have to say, so that I can avoid wasing my time.

You noted a lack of "hard data", and I suggested some ways to find it.

I didn't say anything about you; you're the one who swung personal
here.


I didn't intend it to be personal, tho' I'm not going to argue that it
wouldn't come across that way. Mostly, I was confused.

Since what you said was obviously not the same thing as what I heard (well,
so to speak), I'm going back an recap - you mentioned your thoughts
decent bahavior, and correlation with believers and atheists. I mentioned
the possibility that it *might* be that the unusual (atheists) and negative
(bad behavior) stuck out in your memory because of various factors
invilving how the mind/memory is thought to work, with the caveat that I
can't and woudln't try to say as a fact that you didn't expereince what you
did becasue your expereinces are nto mine to dismiss, sicne i don't knwo
what your expereinces have been (any mroe than you know what mine have
been). I was expecting something that might illustrate your experiences -
I obviously did not understand your response (my bad...), was therefore
confused, and responded based upon that confusion...

embarassment
Er, could you explain what you meant...?

On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 14:17:49 -0500, Kris Krieger
wrote:

John Larkin wrote in
:

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:55:54 -0500, Kris Krieger
wrote:

John Larkin wrote in
:

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 15:58:56 -0500, Kris Krieger
wrote:
[snip]

So, without hard data, although I of course cannot make any sort of
valid claim your impression/opinion/experience (since you
expereinced it, not me), I am nonetheless compelled to doubt words
like "most"/"the majority" in terms of whether there is a higher
percentage of "evil *******s" so to speak among one or another given
belief system.
I suspect that, since pure atheists are still rather rare, it might
be
that they stick out in your memory more strongly, and the rotten one's
more strongly still.

- K.


Read "Who Really Cares?"

Um, if you don't care about responses/input, why do you bother
posting...? More to the point, if you don't care about input, why
should people care enough to read what you write?


As far as the USA goes, look at the red-state/blue-state maps, and
maps of religious tendencies, and maps of charitable donations per
capita, and maps of violent crime, and maps of volunteerism... all
easily available on the web. Interesting correlations.

John


I think you missed my point, but since you say that you don't care,
there is no reason for me to waste my time trying to clarify it.

When did I say that I don't care? And about what?

Maybe I misinterpreted "Who Really Cares?" - the way I perceived it was "I
read this as falling into teh category of "Who Really Cares?". THat was
confusing to me, because I was confused as to why soemone would post if he
didn't care about responses. ((I fully admot that I have some
communication glitches - I'm told that's part of the Asperger's.))

I suppose I should have cited this:

http://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Car.../dp/0465008216

It's well researched and footnoted, written by a statistician who was
surprised by what he found.

John