Mecoman wrote:

"Hang Dog" wrote in message
...



So that would be Falwell, Buchanan, Robertson, Limburg ...


What would flying non-stop across the Atlantic to Paris have to do with
those other 3 guys?

Oh yeah, I get it. The *Spirit* of St. Louis.


???!

On 7 Nov 2005 03:35:56 GMT, D Murphy wrote:

Like I've been warning you G.

Hehe yeah I remember you claiming Harvard and NOAA's web sites

??

were right
wing blogs and that I shouldn't believe what I was reading there.

Should not be confused by what some may have posted/written there.
Wingers and those funded by Exxon or neocons are allowed to write too.
(If they have the skills G.)
Still in denial about global warming?
--
Cliff

Still in denial about global warming?

That's not global warming you're feeling, Cliff. That's Hell reaching
up to grab you. g

Tillman

Second, there is no god.

If there is no God, why is it that you atheists get so worked up about
those who know God is real? There's an awful lot of hate of the
Faithful, especially Christians, that spews forth from the mouths of
you progressive types. If we're so foolish, just let us bask in the
glory of our foolishness. Someone praying to a God that doesn't exist
in a school doesn't hurt you at all. How could it, if God doesn't
exist?

You are certainly entitled to your faith that there is no God, after
all, God gave you the free will to embrace that faith, but I am
certainly entitled to accept the fact the God is real.

I don't have to read your statements of faith that there is no God
anymore that you have to read my acknowledgement of God. If you stand
on the corner shouting 'God is a Lie', I might get annoyed, but it is
your right and I won't stop you. If you want to stand during a silent
moment in a public school and proclaim your faith in the non-existence
of God, you certainly have the right to do that, just as I should have
to right to use that time to pray to God, silently or aloud.

Bottom line, we're not trying to pass laws or re-interpret the
constitution to prevent you from professing your faith, although I do
acknoledge that occurred (wrongly) in the past. Why do you fight so
hard to restrict our Faith? What about it threatens you so?

Tillman

First, Barney writes.....


Second, there is no god. Except in the imagination of individuals who
can't handle reality. And the reality is: we DID evolve from lower
life forms (aka apes), which in turn evolved from even lower life
forms. No all-powerful entity created us, or the Earth, or the
universe. The whole works evolved over billions of years.

Third, get used to it...because that is the first, last, and ONLY
truth going...




So, the fact that he has spoken, negates ANY written word or centuries-old
records concerning creationism and the existence of God.....The Bible, The
Koran, The Torah, etc....the "blogs" of their era.


Yet, in order to support HIS point, he refers to a number of modern-day
websites - many of which contain the word "atheist"....but remain, of
course, totally unbiased in their research into the existence of God.




It is good that you ask for proof.
These links are only a tiny, tiny fraction of the evidence:



http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...imp_genes.html



http://www.jmooneyham.com/the-case-against-god.html


http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/dawkins3.htm


http://www.geocities.com/closetatheist/betalove.htm


http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm



http://angryatheist.blogspot.com/200...tion-works.htm
l


http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaver.../evoverac.html


http://www.impactpress.com/articles/.../thei6798.html



I could go on all day, but i do have to go to work. Maybe I'll post a
couple hundred later on...



Interestingly, there are Christians, Jews and Muslims who could - in all
likelyhood - post 100 times as many centuries-old references supporting the
existence of God than the recent, atheist-oriented opinions, essays, blogs,
etc. that you post in the guise of aledgedly unbiased "evidence" that God
does NOT exist.

Opinion does NOT equal fact!

I COULD state that ol' Barney is a drooling idiot of questionable
intelligence, and although several might agree - and it might even ring
true - my opinion cannot be taken seriously as irrefutable fact.

Any following posts stating, "Yeah! Barney IS an idiot!" simply offer MORE
opinion - not fact......

.......just like your little school chums writing in their biased,
atheist-agenda-driven publications and blogs.

If we are expected to accept that they are correct in their assessment -
which flies in the face of more established fact - then, we SHOULD be able
to accept that I am correct in MY assessment......."Barney is, in fact, a
drooling idiot."

On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 19:25:20 -0700, Winston Smith
wrote:

(snips)

It is NOT what the blues want.

Yes, it obviously is.

If they don't win elections, how can you say the way things are run is
the way they want. Clearly they didn't want it or they would have
voted red.

The existing laws can't be changed by slim majorities due to
the 60% vote required to overcome a Senate filibuster, and,
yes, some weak-kneed "liberal" Republicans.

The
reds have the vote, any "socialist entitlement programs" are the
NeoCons. They can vote to stop it tomorrow.

Hardly repudiation of the redistributive Federal state.

How much harder could they repudiate? They voted - the Red states out
vote them - and then reds vote to tax blues. Then reds say high
taxes are the blues fault.

The high taxes and the programs are already in place. When
the Reds try to cut either the taxes or the programs, the
Blues and their allies in the MSM squeal like pigs.

But they are out voted.

Not by enough of a majority. The status quo still obtains.

The NeoCons hold the House, the Senate, the
Presidency, and soon the courts. How can you hold anyone but them
responsible for anything you don't like. They can change the laws
today if it suits them. They don't.

There is definitely a split among Republicans between those
who want change and those who don't.

Ted
Kennedy becomes downright porcine - well, even more porcine
than he usually is. The high taxes (perhaps, as you say,
paid disproportionally by the Blue states) and big programs
(again, perhaps disproportionally benefitting the Red
states) are both legacies of the New Deal/Security State
paradigm - not exactly libertarian/conservative ideas.

When can I expect NeoCons to correct this error?

"Neocons" are a small minority among Republicans. They are,
apparently, in favor of the status quo as to domestic
programs - but I really don't know. Is there a "Neocon"
party line on domestic programs. I've never heard of one.

If the Blues would repudiate the high taxes and big
programs, and join the Reds in ditching them, the Blue
staters' complaints about the unfairness of the application
of THEIR ideas would go away.
The Blues don't have to repudiate or join anything. THE NEOCONS HAVE
ALL THE VOTES !!
But I don't expect leftist
"liberals" to start opposing high taxes and big social
programs any time soon. Do you?

No, I don't expect the NeoCons to make any of the changes they have
been preaching about for 50 years. Some how that will be the Liberals
fault, I'm sure.

It will be the fault of everyone who opposes change, whether
"Neocons" or "liberals." But blaming those who do favor
change, when they don't have the votes to make changes,
seems a little disingenuous.

--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/

In article , Robert Sturgeon says...

"Neocons" are a small minority among Republicans. They are,
apparently, in favor of the status quo as to domestic
programs - but I really don't know. Is there a "Neocon"
party line on domestic programs. I've never heard of one.

There is, if you consider that the overseas fiascos do require
money to achieve. So it gets funnelled in from domestic
programs, and deficit spending.

Is massive deficit spending a 'domestic program?'

It would seem to be so.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

tillius wrote:
ROFLMAO

Thats "lib-turd"
Heh Heh
Marc

"George Willer" wrote

Of course we evolved from lower life forms. That's how God did it. Are
you
so arrogant you can decide what God can or cannot do?

There are many who are... see below

I can't be certain whether there is a God or not... but I'm not so
arrogant
as to claim there is not. That's only for fools. Suppose you are wrong?

If he is wrong, he will get to enjoy the treatment of the pseudoChristians
as they are hoist on their own petards. Gotta love a group whose belief
system ****s on them...

Dan


--
"... our constitution cites 'one nation under God'."

- Karen Hughes, on tour in Egypt, September, 2005

"You can support the troops but not the president."

-- House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Tex.


"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a
clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."

-- Karen Hughes


"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to
explain to us what his exit strategy is."

-- George W. Bush

"Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony."

- Morpheus

"tillius" wrote in message
ups.com...
Second, there is no god.

If there is no God, why is it that you atheists get so worked up about
those who know God is real? There's an awful lot of hate of the
Faithful, especially Christians, that spews forth from the mouths of
you progressive types.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. We don't hate YOU. We hate what you
DO in your misinterpretation of your own holy screeds.

To hate you, we would first have to respect you. How can you respect
someone who cannot even read his/her own holy texts?

No, true hatred is reserved for the True Believers, those so enraptured
in their own disrespect of reason that they can HATE without cause...

Dan



--
"... our constitution cites 'one nation under God'."

- Karen Hughes, on tour in Egypt, September, 2005

"You can support the troops but not the president."

-- House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Tex.


"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a
clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."

-- Karen Hughes


"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to
explain to us what his exit strategy is."

-- George W. Bush

"Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony."

- Morpheus

"tillius" wrote

Ah, blue state = liberal mecca
liberal = redistribution of the middle class' money through socialist
entitlement programs

Well, that's good enough for me! "tillius" makes an assertion, and
so it must be true.

Ah, to be a blissful neocon!

Dan


--
"... our constitution cites 'one nation under God'."

- Karen Hughes, on tour in Egypt, September, 2005

"You can support the troops but not the president."

-- House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Tex.


"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a
clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."

-- Karen Hughes


"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to
explain to us what his exit strategy is."

-- George W. Bush

"Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony."

- Morpheus

"tillius" wrote

Huh? Nearly every redistibutuive entitlement program was ill concieved
and voted in by liberals.

AND he has a sense of humor, to boot. The complete man, this "tillius" is!

Dan


--
"... our constitution cites 'one nation under God'."

- Karen Hughes, on tour in Egypt, September, 2005

"You can support the troops but not the president."

-- House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Tex.


"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a
clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."

-- Karen Hughes


"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to
explain to us what his exit strategy is."

-- George W. Bush

"Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony."

- Morpheus

"Robert Sturgeon" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 19:25:20 -0700, Winston Smith
wrote:

(snips)

It is NOT what the blues want.

Yes, it obviously is.

If they don't win elections, how can you say the way things are run is
the way they want. Clearly they didn't want it or they would have
voted red.

The existing laws can't be changed by slim majorities due to
the 60% vote required to overcome a Senate filibuster, and,
yes, some weak-kneed "liberal" Republicans.

It IS a shame those laws were enacted in just the last few years.

Yessirree, a shame...

Dan

(Sheesh. God MUST be ****ed, to have handed out so many brains to people
who refuse to use them).

--
"... our constitution cites 'one nation under God'."

- Karen Hughes, on tour in Egypt, September, 2005

"You can support the troops but not the president."

-- House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Tex.


"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a
clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."

-- Karen Hughes


"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to
explain to us what his exit strategy is."

-- George W. Bush

"Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony."

- Morpheus

Dan

Just no longer worth my time.

On 7 Nov 2005 06:26:40 -0800, "tillius"
wrote:

Second, there is no god.

If there is no God, why is it that you atheists get so worked up about
those who know God is real?

Because god *isn't* real....any more than any of the thousands of
other gods that superstitious humans have worshipped since before we
crawled out of the caves\trees. (And you are probably thinking to
yourself, "But my God is the one true God". Hey, wait a minute...They
have ALL "said" that...!)
Christianity, like Islam and Judaism, are all relatively the "new
kids on the block" as far as religion goes. Study human history,
you'll see what I mean.

Bottom line, we're not trying to pass laws or re-interpret the
constitution to prevent you from professing your faith, although I do
acknoledge that occurred (wrongly) in the past. Why do you fight so
hard to restrict our Faith? What about it threatens you so?

Tillman


Hmmm, let's see... thousands of years of war, tyranny, oppression,
terrorism, looting, sexual depravity, ad nauseum, all in the name of
this, that, or some other "god". How many wars have been fought, and
how much blood has been spilled over religious differences, as opposed
to differences in scientific theory?
Look at the content of the Old Testament... Doesn't "your" god sound
like a blood-thirsty demon?
Offering up everybody's enemies like sheep to the slaughter? And then
POOF! suddenly in the "New" Testament "he" is all cuddly and
luvy-duvy.
Doesn' t the difference make you wonder just a little bit who is
kidding who(m)????
In some countries, it is "the law" to practice whatever brand of
religion is going, or else!
If it wasn't all so tragic, it would make me die from laughter...
If the human race continues to believe in such utter nonsense, then we
are indeed doomed to self-destruction... "My god has a bigger dick
than your god". It is so pathetically ridiculous.

I'm just saying, man, if you want to believe in it, and it makes you
happy doing so, then more power to ya. But I'm telling you, it just
isn't for real...


BK

Hmmm, let's see... thousands of years of war, tyranny, oppression,
terrorism, looting, sexual depravity...

And I acknowledged the wrong behaviour of some of those past.
That doesn't mean those who believe today are the same as those who
were wrong anymore than those who opposed the Republican Lincoln
administration (what would be todays Democratic party) mean todays
Demoncrats oppose emancipation of slaves.

I'm just saying, man, if you want to believe in it, and it makes you
happy doing so, then more power to ya.

Well, that's at least civil.

But I'm telling you, it just isn't for real...

And that's opinion, which you're entitled too.

Tillman

"Hang Dog" wrote in message
...
Mecoman wrote:

"Hang Dog" wrote in message
...



So that would be Falwell, Buchanan, Robertson, Limburg ...


What would flying non-stop across the Atlantic to Paris have to do with
those other 3 guys?

Oh yeah, I get it. The *Spirit* of St. Louis.


???!

That would be Charles Lindbergh in 1927 as opposed to Rush Limbaugh
currently.

--
Jeff
It is preferential to refrain from the utilization of sesquipedalian
verbiage in the circumstance that your intellectualization can be verbalized
using compararatively simplistic lexicographical entitities.

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 06:48:47 -0600, Barney-Killer
wrote:

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 05:28:41 -0500, Strabo
wrote:



First, sorry for the cross-posting

Second, there is no god. Except in the imagination of individuals who
can't handle reality. And the reality is: we DID evolve from lower
life forms (aka apes), which in turn evolved from even lower life
forms. No all-powerful entity created us, or the Earth, or the
universe. The whole works evolved over billions of years.

As you are absolutely convinced of this, you can of course
provide proof.



It is good that you ask for proof.
These links are only a tiny, tiny fraction of the evidence:



http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...imp_genes.html


http://www.jmooneyham.com/the-case-against-god.html


http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/dawkins3.htm


http://www.geocities.com/closetatheist/betalove.htm


http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm


http://angryatheist.blogspot.com/200...ion-works.html


http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaver.../evoverac.html


http://www.impactpress.com/articles/.../thei6798.html




I could go on all day, but i do have to go to work. Maybe I'll post a
couple hundred later on...


BK

Interesting theories, some of them.. But Im still waiting for proof.
Supposition and therories dont cut it.

Atheism..just another faith based belief system.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

"tillius" wrote in message
ups.com...
Second, there is no god.

If there is no God, why is it that you atheists get so worked up about
those who know God is real? There's an awful lot of hate of the
Faithful, especially Christians, that spews forth from the mouths of
you progressive types. If we're so foolish, just let us bask in the
glory of our foolishness. Someone praying to a God that doesn't exist
in a school doesn't hurt you at all. How could it, if God doesn't
exist?

You are certainly entitled to your faith that there is no God, after
all, God gave you the free will to embrace that faith, but I am
certainly entitled to accept the fact the God is real.

I don't have to read your statements of faith that there is no God
anymore that you have to read my acknowledgement of God. If you stand
on the corner shouting 'God is a Lie', I might get annoyed, but it is
your right and I won't stop you. If you want to stand during a silent
moment in a public school and proclaim your faith in the non-existence
of God, you certainly have the right to do that, just as I should have
to right to use that time to pray to God, silently or aloud.

Bottom line, we're not trying to pass laws or re-interpret the
constitution to prevent you from professing your faith, although I do
acknoledge that occurred (wrongly) in the past. Why do you fight so
hard to restrict our Faith? What about it threatens you so?

You got it backward, Bub. It's you Christians that are tying to push your
religion on everyone else. It isn't enough for you to have the freedom to
practice your religion on your own time, but you have to cram it down the
throats of the rest of us. Your crowd has been trying to make all students
in school pray to your God for 50 years. You crowd is trying to force the
government to make everyone else follow your religious rules of morality.
Nobody is trying to restrict your faith. You are entitled to follow whatever
religion you want. The rest of us would just appreciate it if you kept it to
yourself. If you do that, we'll do the same. But as long as you can't be
content to keep your faith to yourselves then we'll keep trying to stop you.

Hawke

"*" wrote in message
news:01c5e3a8$f0269b40$9da6c3d8@race...
First, Barney writes.....


Second, there is no god. Except in the imagination of individuals who
can't handle reality. And the reality is: we DID evolve from lower
life forms (aka apes), which in turn evolved from even lower life
forms. No all-powerful entity created us, or the Earth, or the
universe. The whole works evolved over billions of years.

Third, get used to it...because that is the first, last, and ONLY
truth going...




So, the fact that he has spoken, negates ANY written word or centuries-old
records concerning creationism and the existence of God.....The Bible, The
Koran, The Torah, etc....the "blogs" of their era.


Yet, in order to support HIS point, he refers to a number of modern-day
websites - many of which contain the word "atheist"....but remain, of
course, totally unbiased in their research into the existence of God.




It is good that you ask for proof.
These links are only a tiny, tiny fraction of the evidence:




http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...imp_genes.html



http://www.jmooneyham.com/the-case-against-god.html


http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/dawkins3.htm


http://www.geocities.com/closetatheist/betalove.htm


http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm




http://angryatheist.blogspot.com/200...tion-works.htm
l


http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaver.../evoverac.html


http://www.impactpress.com/articles/.../thei6798.html



I could go on all day, but i do have to go to work. Maybe I'll post a
couple hundred later on...



Interestingly, there are Christians, Jews and Muslims who could - in all
likelyhood - post 100 times as many centuries-old references supporting
the
existence of God than the recent, atheist-oriented opinions, essays,
blogs,
etc. that you post in the guise of aledgedly unbiased "evidence" that God
does NOT exist.

Opinion does NOT equal fact!

I COULD state that ol' Barney is a drooling idiot of questionable
intelligence, and although several might agree - and it might even ring
true - my opinion cannot be taken seriously as irrefutable fact.

Any following posts stating, "Yeah! Barney IS an idiot!" simply offer MORE
opinion - not fact......

......just like your little school chums writing in their biased,
atheist-agenda-driven publications and blogs.

If we are expected to accept that they are correct in their assessment -
which flies in the face of more established fact - then, we SHOULD be able
to accept that I am correct in MY assessment......."Barney is, in fact, a
drooling idiot."


As soon as you present some real evidence that there is some superbeing you
call God that exists then I'll be glad to change my opinion that it's you
that is the drooling idiot.

Hawke

Barney-Killer wrote:

If it wasn't all so tragic, it would make me die from laughter...
If the human race continues to believe in such utter nonsense, then we
are indeed doomed to self-destruction...

While I pretty much agree with what you have said, this is where you
have not thought of a question.

Why have so many believed such silly things for so long?

My conclusion is that some people are just wired to need to have a
focus. (And, incidentely, they cannot accept that some people do not
need to believe. They are totally close minded on that subject.) They
can no more go without a belief structure to "have faith in" than they
can go without food, water, or air. Cut them free from Christianity, and
they will find something else, such as sports, a hobby or profession,
some loony cult (such as Islam), or some political cause (such as
Communism or Socialism).

All in all, I think it best to leave them alone as much as possible,
especially if their religious beliefs are relatively innocuous. If and
when they become a problem, like the Moslems are today, smack them down
or kill them. Don't mess with the ones that are not a problem.

"Offbreed" wrote in message
...
Barney-Killer wrote:

If it wasn't all so tragic, it would make me die from laughter...
If the human race continues to believe in such utter nonsense, then we
are indeed doomed to self-destruction...

While I pretty much agree with what you have said, this is where you
have not thought of a question.

Why have so many believed such silly things for so long?

My conclusion is that some people are just wired to need to have a
focus. (And, incidentely, they cannot accept that some people do not
need to believe. They are totally close minded on that subject.) They
can no more go without a belief structure to "have faith in" than they
can go without food, water, or air. Cut them free from Christianity, and
they will find something else, such as sports, a hobby or profession,
some loony cult (such as Islam), or some political cause (such as
Communism or Socialism).

All in all, I think it best to leave them alone as much as possible,
especially if their religious beliefs are relatively innocuous. If and
when they become a problem, like the Moslems are today, smack them down
or kill them. Don't mess with the ones that are not a problem.

There's some interesting new psych research on the subject, which suggests
that part of belief is based on a human tendency to put the most positive
face on all outcomes, both good and bad. An accumulation of positive
interpretations of events ("mother was suffering so much, it's providential
that she died quickly...") leads to a sense of intelligent guidance.

This adds to some earlier research concerning anxiety over things like fear
of dying, inexplicable events in the physical world that are most easily
explained as the product of supernatural intelligence, etc. It's an
interesting field, but it sounds like a lot of guesswork, so far.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Offbreed" wrote in message
...
Barney-Killer wrote:

If it wasn't all so tragic, it would make me die from laughter...
If the human race continues to believe in such utter nonsense, then
we are indeed doomed to self-destruction...

While I pretty much agree with what you have said, this is where you
have not thought of a question.

Why have so many believed such silly things for so long?

My conclusion is that some people are just wired to need to have a
focus. (And, incidentely, they cannot accept that some people do not
need to believe. They are totally close minded on that subject.) They
can no more go without a belief structure to "have faith in" than
they can go without food, water, or air. Cut them free from
Christianity, and they will find something else, such as sports, a
hobby or profession, some loony cult (such as Islam), or some
political cause (such as Communism or Socialism).

All in all, I think it best to leave them alone as much as possible,
especially if their religious beliefs are relatively innocuous. If
and when they become a problem, like the Moslems are today, smack
them down or kill them. Don't mess with the ones that are not a
problem.

There's some interesting new psych research on the subject, which
suggests that part of belief is based on a human tendency to put the
most positive face on all outcomes, both good and bad. An
accumulation of positive interpretations of events ("mother was
suffering so much, it's providential that she died quickly...") leads
to a sense of intelligent guidance.

This adds to some earlier research concerning anxiety over things
like fear of dying, inexplicable events in the physical world that
are most easily explained as the product of supernatural
intelligence, etc. It's an interesting field, but it sounds like a
lot of guesswork, so far.

Ed,
Do you have a reference that I can search for this material?

--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
m...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Offbreed" wrote in message
...
Barney-Killer wrote:

If it wasn't all so tragic, it would make me die from laughter...
If the human race continues to believe in such utter nonsense, then
we are indeed doomed to self-destruction...

While I pretty much agree with what you have said, this is where you
have not thought of a question.

Why have so many believed such silly things for so long?

My conclusion is that some people are just wired to need to have a
focus. (And, incidentely, they cannot accept that some people do not
need to believe. They are totally close minded on that subject.) They
can no more go without a belief structure to "have faith in" than
they can go without food, water, or air. Cut them free from
Christianity, and they will find something else, such as sports, a
hobby or profession, some loony cult (such as Islam), or some
political cause (such as Communism or Socialism).

All in all, I think it best to leave them alone as much as possible,
especially if their religious beliefs are relatively innocuous. If
and when they become a problem, like the Moslems are today, smack
them down or kill them. Don't mess with the ones that are not a
problem.

There's some interesting new psych research on the subject, which
suggests that part of belief is based on a human tendency to put the
most positive face on all outcomes, both good and bad. An
accumulation of positive interpretations of events ("mother was
suffering so much, it's providential that she died quickly...") leads
to a sense of intelligent guidance.

This adds to some earlier research concerning anxiety over things
like fear of dying, inexplicable events in the physical world that
are most easily explained as the product of supernatural
intelligence, etc. It's an interesting field, but it sounds like a
lot of guesswork, so far.

Ed,
Do you have a reference that I can search for this material?

There's something on it in this month's _Science_. although I haven't read
that version. If you have access, look for "Daniel Gilbert." Here's an
online news summary in the Salt Lake Tribune:

http://sltrib.com/faith/ci_3184822

Gilbert wrote a psych journal article about it:

Gilbert DT, Brown RP, Pinel EC, Wilson TD. The illusion of external agency.
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000 Nov;79(5):690-700.

Here's the abstract, on PubMed:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Citation

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
m...
guesswork, so far.

Ed,
Do you have a reference that I can search for this material?

BTW, if you search on the MeSH term in PubMed, "Religion and Psychology,"
you get 4254 hits. Happy hunting! That's the kind of thing I do all day long
these days. g

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
m...
guesswork, so far.

Ed,
Do you have a reference that I can search for this material?

BTW, if you search on the MeSH term in PubMed, "Religion and
Psychology," you get 4254 hits. Happy hunting! That's the kind of
thing I do all day long these days. g

So you've turned it around and rather than your job becoming an obsession,
your obsession has become your job?
LOL and it's good to see you posting again Ed.

Thanks for the reference.

--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
m...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
m...
guesswork, so far.

Ed,
Do you have a reference that I can search for this material?

BTW, if you search on the MeSH term in PubMed, "Religion and
Psychology," you get 4254 hits. Happy hunting! That's the kind of
thing I do all day long these days. g

So you've turned it around and rather than your job becoming an obsession,
your obsession has become your job?

Born to Research...

LOL and it's good to see you posting again Ed.

Thanks for the reference.

Look quick, I'm gone. g Good to see you, John. PubMed will give you all
you could want in this area.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
m...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
m...
guesswork, so far.

Ed,
Do you have a reference that I can search for this material?

BTW, if you search on the MeSH term in PubMed, "Religion and
Psychology," you get 4254 hits. Happy hunting! That's the kind of
thing I do all day long these days. g

So you've turned it around and rather than your job becoming an
obsession, your obsession has become your job?

Born to Research...

LOL and it's good to see you posting again Ed.

Thanks for the reference.

Look quick, I'm gone. g Good to see you, John. PubMed will give you
all you could want in this area.

I'll be having discussions in the near future with the well known former
athiest and now born agian Christian Dr. James Carroll and want to see what
this issue looks like from a professionals point of view. OTOH, perhaps he
will see this and I won't here from him.

--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

When can you convince the rich to give up their loopholes
& pay their fair share?

You mean those rich liberal types that occupy the blue areas around the
major cities?
I doubt that's possible, you see, they'd have to actually care more
about equity and justice and less about building and maintaining a
powerbase built on the entitlement driven enslavement of minorities and
the poor.

Tillman

"tillius" wrote in message
oups.com...
Dan

Just no longer worth my time.

Translation: "Spanked again. Boy that hurts. Enter avoidance mode."

Gotta love them NeoCons...

Dan



--
"... our constitution cites 'one nation under God'."

- Karen Hughes, on tour in Egypt, September, 2005

"You can support the troops but not the president."

-- House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Tex.


"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a
clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."

-- Karen Hughes


"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to
explain to us what his exit strategy is."

-- George W. Bush

"Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony."

- Morpheus

On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 11:50:13 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



There's some interesting new psych research on the subject, which suggests
that part of belief is based on a human tendency to put the most positive
face on all outcomes, both good and bad. An accumulation of positive
interpretations of events ("mother was suffering so much, it's providential
that she died quickly...") leads to a sense of intelligent guidance.

This adds to some earlier research concerning anxiety over things like fear
of dying, inexplicable events in the physical world that are most easily
explained as the product of supernatural intelligence, etc. It's an
interesting field, but it sounds like a lot of guesswork, so far.


I think you are closer to the heart of the matter than you may
realize, Ed. Human psychology is definitely a complex area, where even
the most highly educated people can do some guesswork at least part of
the time, but the unspoken truth is that what you just posted, and
what scientists are researching in that area, makes a lot more sense
than most, if not all, religious texts (which, bottom line, tend to
play on Human emotions, not logic or reason).
Ultimately, logic and reason should win out. At least we as a species
should hope so It may be, and probably will be, the only thing that
saves us as a species. Not to mention all the other life forms sharing
the planet with us!


BK

"Barney-Killer" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 11:50:13 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



There's some interesting new psych research on the subject...


I think you are closer to the heart of the matter than you may
realize, Ed. Human psychology is definitely a complex area, where even
the most highly educated people can do some guesswork at least part of
the time, but the unspoken truth is that what you just posted, and
what scientists are researching in that area, makes a lot more sense
than most, if not all, religious texts (which, bottom line, tend to
play on Human emotions, not logic or reason).
Ultimately, logic and reason should win out. snip

Well, we can always hope, but I think that this must be one of the hardest
subjects to investigate scientifically while keeping your head on straight.
If you get into it, you make yourself a target from both sides.

Maybe it's a job for masochists. g

--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)

Ed Huntress wrote:
It's an
interesting field, but it sounds like a lot of guesswork, so far.

Unless psychology has changed drastically in recent years, it always has
been mostly guesswork. They did not make falsible studies.

Back in 1968, a CulAnthro professor told me about a study by someone in
the CulAnthro field (IIRC) comparing the effectiveness of witch doctors
and "modern psychology", with an untreated control group. The witch
doctors did some good, the "modern psychologists" did harm. I've been on
the look out for that study for some time, haven't found it on the net.

So, priests of assorted types are able to do some good, along with the
obvious harm they sometimes do.

"Offbreed" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
It's an
interesting field, but it sounds like a lot of guesswork, so far.

Unless psychology has changed drastically in recent years, it always has
been mostly guesswork. They did not make falsible studies.

Back in 1968, a CulAnthro professor told me about a study by someone in
the CulAnthro field (IIRC) comparing the effectiveness of witch doctors
and "modern psychology", with an untreated control group. The witch
doctors did some good, the "modern psychologists" did harm. I've been on
the look out for that study for some time, haven't found it on the net.

Haha! I'd like to see that one, too.


So, priests of assorted types are able to do some good, along with the
obvious harm they sometimes do.

Well, pysch and the social sciences are built upon inferential models, which
is all you can do when you don't know what the exact causative mechanisms
are. Even medicine has elements of such modeling, as I've learned over the
past year and a half. And witch-doctoring is all about inferential models,
most of which are nonsense but some of which are very useful and effective.

The wonder is how much they've learned in the life sciences and the "soft"
sciences, and how much actually works. As understanding of causation grows
deeper in those fields, the old models fall away fairly rapidly in favor of
better ones. But the models they have now are surprisingly useful and
effective, in my opinion. In fact, I'm alive today because of such
inferential reasoning and modeling, in a medical field in which the actual
causative mechanisms are only vaguely understood.

--
Ed Huntress

"Barney-Killer" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 11:50:13 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



There's some interesting new psych research on the subject, which
suggests
that part of belief is based on a human tendency to put the most positive
face on all outcomes, both good and bad. An accumulation of positive
interpretations of events ("mother was suffering so much, it's
providential
that she died quickly...") leads to a sense of intelligent guidance.

This adds to some earlier research concerning anxiety over things like
fear
of dying, inexplicable events in the physical world that are most easily
explained as the product of supernatural intelligence, etc. It's an
interesting field, but it sounds like a lot of guesswork, so far.


I think you are closer to the heart of the matter than you may
realize, Ed. Human psychology is definitely a complex area, where even
the most highly educated people can do some guesswork at least part of
the time, but the unspoken truth is that what you just posted, and
what scientists are researching in that area, makes a lot more sense
than most, if not all, religious texts (which, bottom line, tend to
play on Human emotions, not logic or reason).

Religious texts are, in fact,
excellent observations of the human condition, with some social constructs
thrown in for "improvement" WRT the current political structure. The King
James version is a specific directed translation made for political
purposes,
for instance.

Ultimately, logic and reason should win out.
At least we as a species
should hope so It may be, and probably will be, the only thing that
saves us as a species. Not to mention all the other life forms sharing
the planet with us!


--


"History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the
Party is always right."

"... by far the more important reason for the readjustment of the past is
the need to safeguard the infallibility of the Party. It is not merely that
speeches, statistics and records of every kind must be constantly brought up
to date in order to show that the predictions of the Party were in all cases
right. It is also that no change of doctrine or in political alignment can
ever be admitted. For to change one's mind, or even one's policy, is a
confession of weakness."

"It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words."

- George Orwell, "1984"

"Dan" wrote in message
...


"Barney-Killer" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 11:50:13 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



There's some interesting new psych research on the subject, which
suggests
that part of belief is based on a human tendency to put the most
positive
face on all outcomes, both good and bad. An accumulation of positive
interpretations of events ("mother was suffering so much, it's
providential
that she died quickly...") leads to a sense of intelligent guidance.

This adds to some earlier research concerning anxiety over things like
fear
of dying, inexplicable events in the physical world that are most
easily
explained as the product of supernatural intelligence, etc. It's an
interesting field, but it sounds like a lot of guesswork, so far.


I think you are closer to the heart of the matter than you may
realize, Ed. Human psychology is definitely a complex area, where even
the most highly educated people can do some guesswork at least part of
the time, but the unspoken truth is that what you just posted, and
what scientists are researching in that area, makes a lot more sense
than most, if not all, religious texts (which, bottom line, tend to
play on Human emotions, not logic or reason).

Religious texts are, in fact,
excellent observations of the human condition, with some social constructs
thrown in for "improvement" WRT the current political structure. The King
James version is a specific directed translation made for political
purposes,
for instance.

Ultimately, logic and reason should win out.

All decisions are based on emotion. Without emotion, no choice is in any
way better than any other...

At least we as a species
should hope so It may be, and probably will be, the only thing that
saves us as a species. Not to mention all the other life forms sharing
the planet with us!

But the NeoCons feel it is OK to trash the place. After all, Armageddon
is right around the corner, so who cares is we leave a trashed planet
behind...

See what I mean about emotion.

Dan

"History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which
the
Party is always right."

"... by far the more important reason for the readjustment of the past is
the need to safeguard the infallibility of the Party. It is not merely
that
speeches, statistics and records of every kind must be constantly brought
up
to date in order to show that the predictions of the Party were in all
cases
right. It is also that no change of doctrine or in political alignment can
ever be admitted. For to change one's mind, or even one's policy, is a
confession of weakness."

"It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words."

- George Orwell, "1984"

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Offbreed" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
It's an
interesting field, but it sounds like a lot of guesswork, so far.

Unless psychology has changed drastically in recent years, it always has
been mostly guesswork. They did not make falsible studies.

Back in 1968, a CulAnthro professor told me about a study by someone in
the CulAnthro field (IIRC) comparing the effectiveness of witch doctors
and "modern psychology", with an untreated control group. The witch
doctors did some good, the "modern psychologists" did harm. I've been on
the look out for that study for some time, haven't found it on the net.

Haha! I'd like to see that one, too.


So, priests of assorted types are able to do some good, along with the
obvious harm they sometimes do.

Well, pysch and the social sciences are built upon inferential models,
which
is all you can do when you don't know what the exact causative mechanisms
are. Even medicine has elements of such modeling, as I've learned over the
past year and a half. And witch-doctoring is all about inferential models,
most of which are nonsense but some of which are very useful and
effective.

Well, witch doctoring (and all shamanism) is based on intimate, close
knowledge
of the individuals, people, and culture, and using ALL those factors in
effecting
a cure.

Hardly something a stranger can accomplish in a handful of one-hour clocked
sessions...

Dan

--


"History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the
Party is always right."

"... by far the more important reason for the readjustment of the past is
the need to safeguard the infallibility of the Party. It is not merely that
speeches, statistics and records of every kind must be constantly brought up
to date in order to show that the predictions of the Party were in all cases
right. It is also that no change of doctrine or in political alignment can
ever be admitted. For to change one's mind, or even one's policy, is a
confession of weakness."

"It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words."

- George Orwell, "1984"

"Stuart Grey" wrote in message
...
John Kunkel wrote:

From my personal observation, those who claim to be Christians but "who
aren't truly a Christian" outnumber the other kind by a ratio of a couple
of million to one.

Yes, God. You do get to decide who is a Christian and who isn't, and what
is part of your religion and what isn't.

( LOL! )

Who would have thought that God would go by the name of Kunkel and have a
google e-mail account.

Don't know about going by the name of Kunkel, but it seems like either God
or Satan must love Google.

Top posted just to **** of little cliffie
(liberal brain dead whimpering lib-turd)
Who cannot accept life as we know it.
Marc


Cliff wrote:
On 7 Nov 2005 03:35:56 GMT, D Murphy wrote:


Like I've been warning you G.

Hehe yeah I remember you claiming Harvard and NOAA's web sites


??


were right
wing blogs and that I shouldn't believe what I was reading there.


Should not be confused by what some may have posted/written there.
Wingers and those funded by Exxon or neocons are allowed to write too.
(If they have the skills G.)
Still in denial about global warming?

tillius wrote:
Still in denial about global warming?


That's not global warming you're feeling, Cliff. That's Hell reaching
up to grab you. g

Tillman

ROFLMAO
Gotta love the Brain dead
anyone wanna help get little cliffe a brain ?
Marc