Guest Ralph Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1005071716170001@66-52-22-37.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <oiM0i.616$t7.45@bigfe9>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-0905071643390001@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <mki4431tcqdskqorq76098rtemcrd05622@4ax.com>, Don Kresch >> > <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >> > >> >> In alt.atheism On Wed, 09 May 2007 11:24:44 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >> >> (Jason) let us all know that: >> >> >> >> >In article <1178712817.212134.22560@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, >> >> >Martin >> >> ><phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On May 9, 1:32 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > Don, >> >> >> > It was actually a warning. >> >> >> >> >> >> Jason, >> >> >> And I'm warning you: one day you may come to realize that your >> >> >> religion is all complete bunk and you'll never get back the life >> >> >> you >> >> >> wasted believing in it. You only have one life, Jason, the here >> >> >> and >> >> >> now, and you don't want to waste it believing in a fairy tale. >> >> >> >> >> >> Martin >> >> > >> >> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> > >> >> >Martin, >> >> >It has actually helped me stay out of prison and jail. >> >> >> >> Oddly enough, I've never been in trouble with the cops. And >> >> I'm an atheist. Fancy that. >> >> >> >> Looks like you need the carrot-stick method. I don't. I'm >> >> better than you. >> >> >> >> >> >> Don >> > >> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> > >> > Don, >> > Good for you. I live in California. I read an article in the newspaper >> > yesterday indicating that all of the prisons in California--there are >> > about a dozen of them--are overcrowded. The governor wants to spend a >> > billion dollars on building even more prisons in California. Let me ask >> > you an honest question. If everyone in Calfornia was a Christian that >> > obeyed the 10 commandments--do you think that the Governor would need >> > to >> > spend a billion dollars constructing new prisons? >> > Jason >> >> Let me ask you a question? Do you think that if everyone lived by the >> principles of life that Confucius established that we would need to build >> new prisons? >> >> The first thing you have to do is to establish is that atheists commit >> more >> crimes than Christians and this you can't do because it isn't so. Your >> problem is that you don't understand what an atheist is. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > If everyone in the world lived by the principles of life that Confucius > established, we would not need to build new prisons. > > It's my opinion that atheists are more likely to commit Crimes than > Christians that take their religion seriously. I know that some atheists > are outstanding people that obey the laws even when there are no cops > around. I attended a class taught by a professor that was proud of her > atheism and even rediculed members of her classes that were Christians. It > was a psychology class. She divided the class into about 5 small groups. > The exercise involved the famous "life boat scenario". These people were > on a life boat in the ocean from a ship that has sunk. One person was a > doctor, one person was an elderly man, one person was 12 years old and the > last person was a college professor. Since there was a very limited amount > of water, we had to determine which person to cast overboard. > > The obvious answer was the elderely man. One group decided not to cast > anyone overboard since it would be murder and they not want to commit > murder. > > The professor rediculed the members of that group. She told us that in > some cases such as the case mentioned above, murder was the only option. > > Yes, I believe that lots of atheists are like that college professor. Many > of them make decisions--not based on Christian principles--but instead > related to self interest. That would even involve robbing a store if they > were hungry or killing someone if they were on a life boat. It may even > involve shaddy business practices. > > Of course, there are some wonderful athests that would never do those > sorts of things. There are even some Christians in name only that would do > those sorts of things. However, I do not believe that a Christian or > believer in Confucius that took their religions seriously would ever cast > someone overboard or rob a store or bank. They would also not commit shady > business practices. They would even pay their taxes. I read about rich > people that have millions of dollars in overseas bank accounts or bank > accounts in South American banks so they won't have to pay taxes on that > money. A True Christian would not do that. > Jason > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Then, you si,r are nothing more than an ignorant Christian bigot. You don't have a clue! Quote
Guest Ralph Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1005071726180001@66-52-22-37.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <reM0i.591$t7.205@bigfe9>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-0805072011460001@66-52-22-100.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <nq92431l4ohte63h9qljbuej9dmrh84v5a@4ax.com>, Don Kresch >> > <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >> > >> >> In alt.atheism On Tue, 08 May 2007 18:28:41 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >> >> (Jason) let us all know that: >> >> >> >> >In article <h9r143tsbtqf7gf83d1oq0ea0ebfcscjij@4ax.com>, Don Kresch >> >> ><ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> In alt.atheism On Tue, 08 May 2007 12:20:57 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >> >> >> (Jason) let us all know that: >> >> >> >> >> >> >In article <5abcb1F27c3irU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >> >> >> ><witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> news:Jason-0705072156340001@66-52-22-48.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >> >> >> > snip >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> So you can't pin it down within a factor of a thousand. Not >> >> >> >> >> exactly >> >> >> >> >> impressive. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > You are correct. I admit that I cannot impress you by telling >> >> >> >> > you >> >> >how many >> >> >> >> > years ago that God created all life forms. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> What's your evidence that this god exists and created anything? >> >> >> > >> >> >> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> >> > >> >> >> >The best selling book in America. >> >> >> >> >> >> Not evidence. >> >> >> >> >> >> Where's your evidence that this god exists and created >> >> >> anything? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Don >> >> > >> >> >You have more faith than I have if you actually believe that life can >> >> >evolve from non-life. >> >> >> >> Mmmhmm. >> >> >> >> Let's go through this step by step, then. >> >> >> >> You: believe that life cannot come from non-life. >> >> >> >> You: believe that humans were created. >> >> >> >> You: must believe that the creator is alive. >> >> >> >> You: MUST believe that the creator was created, since life >> >> cannot come from non-life. >> >> >> >> If you: do not believe that the creator was created, you are a >> >> hypocrite, and we should not believe a word you say. >> >> >> >> >> >> Don >> >> --- >> > >> > Don, >> > Good question. I have been asked that question before. My answer will >> > not >> > satify you or anyone else. I don't know how God came to be. However, >> > when >> > I get to heaven, I will ask God or one of the angels how God came to >> > be. >> >> You do that. >> >> >> > Now, explain to me how life can evolve from non-life. >> >> I Don't know how, I know that it did because it one time life didn't >> exist >> on earth and now it does. > > Brillant--you have strong faith that life evolved from non-life despite > having no proof or scientific evidence to back up your conclusion. I was > told that evolution is based on science--not faith. I guess that is not > true. Perhaps you can't gather the salient point of what I stated. I'll do it again, only much slower. At one time the earth had no life. Now it does. That isn't enough evidence for you? >> > Even Darwin believed >> > that God created life and that after God created life--evolution took >> > over. >> >> Please provide a source for that statement. > > I no longer have a copy of his famous book. Does anyone else have that > quotation from his book--if so--post it. I have his "famous" book and another that isn't so famous. There is no such statement in either book that I can find. Perhaps you should again obtain the "famous" book and this time you should read it. >> >That makes more sense than saying that life evolved from non-life. >> > If life could evolve from non-life--it would be easy to prove in a >> > laboratory. >> > jason >> >> Why would it be easy to prove? Do we know the precise conditions at the >> time >> life started on earth? > > No--but researchers know the elements that were present at the time life > started on this earth. They surmise that life evolved from amino acids. > However, as far as I know, a living cell has never evolved from amino > acids. They just have faith that living cells evolved from amino acids > millions of years ago. No scientist knows the composition of the atmosphere at the time life formed. You also need to do a search for the work that is presently being done in this area. A Google search shows 218,000 hits. You might read this as an introductory that is written so you can understand it: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 In article <oiM0i.616$t7.45@bigfe9>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-0905071643390001@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <mki4431tcqdskqorq76098rtemcrd05622@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > > <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > > > >> In alt.atheism On Wed, 09 May 2007 11:24:44 -0700, Jason@nospam.com > >> (Jason) let us all know that: > >> > >> >In article <1178712817.212134.22560@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > >> ><phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On May 9, 1:32 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > Don, > >> >> > It was actually a warning. > >> >> > >> >> Jason, > >> >> And I'm warning you: one day you may come to realize that your > >> >> religion is all complete bunk and you'll never get back the life you > >> >> wasted believing in it. You only have one life, Jason, the here and > >> >> now, and you don't want to waste it believing in a fairy tale. > >> >> > >> >> Martin > >> > > >> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >> > > >> >Martin, > >> >It has actually helped me stay out of prison and jail. > >> > >> Oddly enough, I've never been in trouble with the cops. And > >> I'm an atheist. Fancy that. > >> > >> Looks like you need the carrot-stick method. I don't. I'm > >> better than you. > >> > >> > >> Don > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > Don, > > Good for you. I live in California. I read an article in the newspaper > > yesterday indicating that all of the prisons in California--there are > > about a dozen of them--are overcrowded. The governor wants to spend a > > billion dollars on building even more prisons in California. Let me ask > > you an honest question. If everyone in Calfornia was a Christian that > > obeyed the 10 commandments--do you think that the Governor would need to > > spend a billion dollars constructing new prisons? > > Jason > > Let me ask you a question? Do you think that if everyone lived by the > principles of life that Confucius established that we would need to build > new prisons? > > The first thing you have to do is to establish is that atheists commit more > crimes than Christians and this you can't do because it isn't so. Your > problem is that you don't understand what an atheist is. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If everyone in the world lived by the principles of life that Confucius established, we would not need to build new prisons. It's my opinion that atheists are more likely to commit Crimes than Christians that take their religion seriously. I know that some atheists are outstanding people that obey the laws even when there are no cops around. I attended a class taught by a professor that was proud of her atheism and even rediculed members of her classes that were Christians. It was a psychology class. She divided the class into about 5 small groups. The exercise involved the famous "life boat scenario". These people were on a life boat in the ocean from a ship that has sunk. One person was a doctor, one person was an elderly man, one person was 12 years old and the last person was a college professor. Since there was a very limited amount of water, we had to determine which person to cast overboard. The obvious answer was the elderely man. One group decided not to cast anyone overboard since it would be murder and they not want to commit murder. The professor rediculed the members of that group. She told us that in some cases such as the case mentioned above, murder was the only option. Yes, I believe that lots of atheists are like that college professor. Many of them make decisions--not based on Christian principles--but instead related to self interest. That would even involve robbing a store if they were hungry or killing someone if they were on a life boat. It may even involve shaddy business practices. Of course, there are some wonderful athests that would never do those sorts of things. There are even some Christians in name only that would do those sorts of things. However, I do not believe that a Christian or believer in Confucius that took their religions seriously would ever cast someone overboard or rob a store or bank. They would also not commit shady business practices. They would even pay their taxes. I read about rich people that have millions of dollars in overseas bank accounts or bank accounts in South American banks so they won't have to pay taxes on that money. A True Christian would not do that. Jason ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Quote
Guest cactus Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <oiM0i.616$t7.45@bigfe9>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-0905071643390001@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>> In article <mki4431tcqdskqorq76098rtemcrd05622@4ax.com>, Don Kresch >>> <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >>> >>>> In alt.atheism On Wed, 09 May 2007 11:24:44 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >>>> (Jason) let us all know that: >>>> >>>>> In article <1178712817.212134.22560@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>>>> <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On May 9, 1:32 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Don, >>>>>>> It was actually a warning. >>>>>> Jason, >>>>>> And I'm warning you: one day you may come to realize that your >>>>>> religion is all complete bunk and you'll never get back the life you >>>>>> wasted believing in it. You only have one life, Jason, the here and >>>>>> now, and you don't want to waste it believing in a fairy tale. >>>>>> >>>>>> Martin >>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>>> >>>>> Martin, >>>>> It has actually helped me stay out of prison and jail. >>>> Oddly enough, I've never been in trouble with the cops. And >>>> I'm an atheist. Fancy that. >>>> >>>> Looks like you need the carrot-stick method. I don't. I'm >>>> better than you. >>>> >>>> >>>> Don >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> >>> Don, >>> Good for you. I live in California. I read an article in the newspaper >>> yesterday indicating that all of the prisons in California--there are >>> about a dozen of them--are overcrowded. The governor wants to spend a >>> billion dollars on building even more prisons in California. Let me ask >>> you an honest question. If everyone in Calfornia was a Christian that >>> obeyed the 10 commandments--do you think that the Governor would need to >>> spend a billion dollars constructing new prisons? >>> Jason >> Let me ask you a question? Do you think that if everyone lived by the >> principles of life that Confucius established that we would need to build >> new prisons? >> >> The first thing you have to do is to establish is that atheists commit more >> crimes than Christians and this you can't do because it isn't so. Your >> problem is that you don't understand what an atheist is. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > If everyone in the world lived by the principles of life that Confucius > established, we would not need to build new prisons. > > It's my opinion that atheists are more likely to commit Crimes than > Christians that take their religion seriously. Of course you believe that, you claim to be a Christian. Can you back that up with figures, or is this just another one of your arrogant "I'm a Christian, and anyone who misbehaves isn't?" screeds> I know that some atheists > are outstanding people that obey the laws even when there are no cops > around. You are a patronizing arrogant SOB. I would trust an atheist more than you because you would flaunt your Christianity, which is cause for doubt. I attended a class taught by a professor that was proud of her > atheism and even rediculed members of her classes that were Christians. It > was a psychology class. She divided the class into about 5 small groups. > The exercise involved the famous "life boat scenario". These people were > on a life boat in the ocean from a ship that has sunk. One person was a > doctor, one person was an elderly man, one person was 12 years old and the > last person was a college professor. Since there was a very limited amount > of water, we had to determine which person to cast overboard. > > The obvious answer was the elderely man. One group decided not to cast > anyone overboard since it would be murder and they not want to commit > murder. > > The professor rediculed the members of that group. She told us that in > some cases such as the case mentioned above, murder was the only option. > > Yes, I believe that lots of atheists are like that college professor. Have you read about the Donner Party? No atheists there AFAIK. You simply assume that you would act in a certain way. Don't count on it. Read about Stanley Milgrom's "Obedience to Authority" experiments. Then learn about survivors' guilt and maybe just maybe you will see that the issue is a bit more complicated that you arrogantly assume. Many > of them make decisions--not based on Christian principles--but instead > related to self interest. The "Christian principles" you display so far are arrogance, pride and a lack of acceptance of others. That would even involve robbing a store if they > were hungry or killing someone if they were on a life boat. It may even > involve shaddy business practices. Did you know that Ken Lay was an officer of his church? > > Of course, there are some wonderful athests that would never do those > sorts of things. There are even some Christians in name only that would do > those sorts of things. However, I do not believe that a Christian or > believer in Confucius that took their religions seriously would ever cast > someone overboard or rob a store or bank. They would also not commit shady > business practices. They would even pay their taxes. I read about rich > people that have millions of dollars in overseas bank accounts or bank > accounts in South American banks so they won't have to pay taxes on that > money. A True Christian would not do that. > Jason You are so arrogant that you cannot see how deluded you are. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 In article <reM0i.591$t7.205@bigfe9>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-0805072011460001@66-52-22-100.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <nq92431l4ohte63h9qljbuej9dmrh84v5a@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > > <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > > > >> In alt.atheism On Tue, 08 May 2007 18:28:41 -0700, Jason@nospam.com > >> (Jason) let us all know that: > >> > >> >In article <h9r143tsbtqf7gf83d1oq0ea0ebfcscjij@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > >> ><ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> In alt.atheism On Tue, 08 May 2007 12:20:57 -0700, Jason@nospam.com > >> >> (Jason) let us all know that: > >> >> > >> >> >In article <5abcb1F27c3irU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > >> >> ><witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> >> >> news:Jason-0705072156340001@66-52-22-48.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >> >> >> > snip > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> So you can't pin it down within a factor of a thousand. Not > >> >> >> >> exactly > >> >> >> >> impressive. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > You are correct. I admit that I cannot impress you by telling you > >> >how many > >> >> >> > years ago that God created all life forms. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> What's your evidence that this god exists and created anything? > >> >> > > >> >> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >> >> > > >> >> >The best selling book in America. > >> >> > >> >> Not evidence. > >> >> > >> >> Where's your evidence that this god exists and created > >> >> anything? > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Don > >> > > >> >You have more faith than I have if you actually believe that life can > >> >evolve from non-life. > >> > >> Mmmhmm. > >> > >> Let's go through this step by step, then. > >> > >> You: believe that life cannot come from non-life. > >> > >> You: believe that humans were created. > >> > >> You: must believe that the creator is alive. > >> > >> You: MUST believe that the creator was created, since life > >> cannot come from non-life. > >> > >> If you: do not believe that the creator was created, you are a > >> hypocrite, and we should not believe a word you say. > >> > >> > >> Don > >> --- > > > > Don, > > Good question. I have been asked that question before. My answer will not > > satify you or anyone else. I don't know how God came to be. However, when > > I get to heaven, I will ask God or one of the angels how God came to be. > > You do that. > > > > Now, explain to me how life can evolve from non-life. > > I Don't know how, I know that it did because it one time life didn't exist > on earth and now it does. Brillant--you have strong faith that life evolved from non-life despite having no proof or scientific evidence to back up your conclusion. I was told that evolution is based on science--not faith. I guess that is not true. > > Even Darwin believed > > that God created life and that after God created life--evolution took > > over. > > Please provide a source for that statement. I no longer have a copy of his famous book. Does anyone else have that quotation from his book--if so--post it. > > > > > >That makes more sense than saying that life evolved from non-life. > > If life could evolve from non-life--it would be easy to prove in a > > laboratory. > > jason > > Why would it be easy to prove? Do we know the precise conditions at the time > life started on earth? No--but researchers know the elements that were present at the time life started on this earth. They surmise that life evolved from amino acids. However, as far as I know, a living cell has never evolved from amino acids. They just have faith that living cells evolved from amino acids millions of years ago. Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 On 10 May 2007 14:20:22 -0700, Budikka666 <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote: - Refer: <1178832022.863147.44760@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> >On May 10, 12:15 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >[snipped previous] >> > Thanks for the public admission in these world-wide fora that you >> > cannot even handle, let alone rebut the facts of evolution. >> >> > Budikka >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> I accept most aspects of evolution theory. >> Jason >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >You have no idea what it's about yet you LIE that there are problems >with it, and when you're put on the spot you cannot name even one >problem with it, let alone name one and support it with science. >You're pathetic hypocrite, coward, and LIAR. > >Budikka He is a Jehova's Witness. They are all REQUIRED to be liars. -- Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 On Thu, 10 May 2007 17:16:16 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1005071716170001@66-52-22-37.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <oiM0i.616$t7.45@bigfe9>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-0905071643390001@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <mki4431tcqdskqorq76098rtemcrd05622@4ax.com>, Don Kresch >> > <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >> > >> >> In alt.atheism On Wed, 09 May 2007 11:24:44 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >> >> (Jason) let us all know that: >> >> >> >> >In article <1178712817.212134.22560@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> >> ><phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On May 9, 1:32 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > Don, >> >> >> > It was actually a warning. >> >> >> >> >> >> Jason, >> >> >> And I'm warning you: one day you may come to realize that your >> >> >> religion is all complete bunk and you'll never get back the life you >> >> >> wasted believing in it. You only have one life, Jason, the here and >> >> >> now, and you don't want to waste it believing in a fairy tale. >> >> >> >> >> >> Martin >> >> > >> >> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> > >> >> >Martin, >> >> >It has actually helped me stay out of prison and jail. >> >> >> >> Oddly enough, I've never been in trouble with the cops. And >> >> I'm an atheist. Fancy that. >> >> >> >> Looks like you need the carrot-stick method. I don't. I'm >> >> better than you. >> >> >> >> >> >> Don >> > >> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> > >> > Don, >> > Good for you. I live in California. I read an article in the newspaper >> > yesterday indicating that all of the prisons in California--there are >> > about a dozen of them--are overcrowded. The governor wants to spend a >> > billion dollars on building even more prisons in California. Let me ask >> > you an honest question. If everyone in Calfornia was a Christian that >> > obeyed the 10 commandments--do you think that the Governor would need to >> > spend a billion dollars constructing new prisons? >> > Jason >> >> Let me ask you a question? Do you think that if everyone lived by the >> principles of life that Confucius established that we would need to build >> new prisons? >> >> The first thing you have to do is to establish is that atheists commit more >> crimes than Christians and this you can't do because it isn't so. Your >> problem is that you don't understand what an atheist is. > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >If everyone in the world lived by the principles of life that Confucius >established, we would not need to build new prisons. > >It's my opinion that atheists are more likely to commit Crimes than >Christians that take their religion seriously. But neither you nor I have the ability to know who takes their religion seriously. George W Bush claims to be a Christian yet engages in murderous crimes and other violations of the law and Constitution. Apparently he doesn't take his Christianity seriously. >I know that some atheists >are outstanding people that obey the laws even when there are no cops >around. I attended a class taught by a professor that was proud of her >atheism and even rediculed members of her classes that were Christians. It >was a psychology class. She divided the class into about 5 small groups. >The exercise involved the famous "life boat scenario". These people were >on a life boat in the ocean from a ship that has sunk. One person was a >doctor, one person was an elderly man, one person was 12 years old and the >last person was a college professor. Since there was a very limited amount >of water, we had to determine which person to cast overboard. Spelling advice: Ridiculed. >The obvious answer was the elderely man. One group decided not to cast >anyone overboard since it would be murder and they not want to commit >murder. So, why isn't it murder/suicide of the entire group not to decide? Is killing four somehow morally superior to killing one? Were the Eskimos who had ceremonies for the elderly sent to their death immoral? In modern days is it more moral to spend a million dollars to keep someone alive and in pain as they die rather than spend that money on preventive medicine for uninsured children? >The professor rediculed the members of that group. She told us that in >some cases such as the case mentioned above, murder was the only option. I probably wouldn't have liked that professor, but I like the people who chose group suicide even less. >Yes, I believe that lots of atheists are like that college professor. Many >of them make decisions--not based on Christian principles--but instead >related to self interest. That would even involve robbing a store if they >were hungry or killing someone if they were on a life boat. It may even >involve shaddy business practices. Javert was evil. None of this has anything to do with religion, of course. >Of course, there are some wonderful athests that would never do those >sorts of things. There are even some Christians in name only that would do >those sorts of things. However, I do not believe that a Christian or >believer in Confucius that took their religions seriously would ever cast >someone overboard or rob a store or bank. They would also not commit shady >business practices. They would even pay their taxes. I read about rich >people that have millions of dollars in overseas bank accounts or bank >accounts in South American banks so they won't have to pay taxes on that >money. A True Christian would not do that. How smugly you rant. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 On Thu, 10 May 2007 13:09:56 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1005071309560001@66-52-22-18.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <BrJ0i.2408$zj3.20@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>, .... >I do credit religion with the low crime rates in the 1700' and 1800's. Really? What evidence do you have that there was a low crime rate? Do you exclude the crimes committed against slaves? >I was raised in a small town in Virgina--part of the so called Bible Belt. >People in that small town took their religion very seriously. If someone >ended up in jail, everyone talked about it--gossip. As you know, no one >that lives in a SMALL town wants to be the victim of redicule. Those >people that ended up in jail became the victims of redicule. I challenge >you or anyone else to do a google search to determine the percentage of >people that were in state prisons in 1800 compared to the percentage of >people that were in state prisons in 2000. That percentage will be MUCH >higher. The population of state prison inmates almost doubled between 1990 >and 2003 according to the statistics on page 382 of the 2005 Time Almanac. You seem to ignore that jail was not the preferred method of punishment. Learn before you get on your self-righteous high horse. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 In article <gjb74395scoco5ibbhd9jt0222dst3plb7@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Thu, 10 May 2007 16:43:44 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com > (Jason) in > <Jason-1005071643450001@66-52-22-37.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote: > > >In article <go57431ut1omedgtbkc799inqcftvjinhb@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein > ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 10 May 2007 14:46:44 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com > >> (Jason) in > >> <Jason-1005071446440001@66-52-22-29.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote: > >> > >> >In article <qtu643l398b2ba0fquuvpurl5go0gbnkds@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein > >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Thu, 10 May 2007 14:04:01 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com > >> >> (Jason) in > >> >> <Jason-1005071404020001@66-52-22-29.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >In article <svr643d5m5gdq8ajnsm1t6ebf8nq9avvor@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein > >> >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> On Thu, 10 May 2007 13:09:56 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com > >> >> >> (Jason) in > >> >> >> <Jason-1005071309560001@66-52-22-18.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> [snip] > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >I do credit religion with the low crime rates in the 1700' and > >1800's. I > >> >> >> >was raised in a small town in Virgina--part of the so called > >Bible Belt. > >> >> >> >People in that small town took their religion very seriously. If > >someone > >> >> >> >ended up in jail, everyone talked about it--gossip. As you know, no one > >> >> >> >that lives in a SMALL town wants to be the victim of redicule. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> What does the size of the town have to do with religion? What I think > >> >> >> you show here is that with small towns there are other ways to control > >> >> >> people besides prison. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> [snip] > >> >> > > >> >> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >> >> > > >> >> >Matt, > >> >> >Have you ever watched a television series called "Little House in the > >> >> >Praire". I realize that it was a fictional show but that show indicated > >> >> >what life was like back in the 1800's and early 1900's. Yes, there are > >> >> >other ways to control people besides prison. > >> >> > >> >> So religion and possible loss of same is not why we have more people > >> >> in prison. > >> > > >> >It's my opinion that Christians that take their religion very seriously > >> >are less likely to go to jail or prison than atheists or Christians that > >> >do NOT take their religion seriously. > >> > > >> Can you tell, before you find out about any crimes, whether or not > >> someone takes their religion seriously? Or do you do that only after > >> the fact? > > > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >By their works, we will know them. > > Then you are cheating. If someone does wrong you just say they are not > a serious Christian. As a result serious Christians can do no wrong. > The term is meaningless. > > > In other words, it's usually easy to > >determine whether a person that I know takes their religion seriously. For > >example, if I saw a neighor mowing the grass of another neighbor that had > >health problems, I would come to the opinion that he was taking his > >religion seriously. > > Even if that person were an atheist or something other than a > Christian? I know of plenty examples of both of those who do for > others. > > >On the other hand, if I found out that a fellow > >Christian was arrested for beating his wife, it would be my opinion that > >he did not take his religion seriously. > > There are Christians who disagree with you. I wonder who has the best > support from the Bible: > > Christian Domestic Discipline Store : Consensual Christian Domestic > Discipline > "In today?s society where any physical discipline is severely frowned > upon, it is important that even a Christian Domestic Discipline > relationship be consensual; however, it is interesting to note that > Biblically, a man?s right to chastise and discipline his wife is > strongly implied. Just as a parent would never stop to ask permission > to chastise his child, a husband should not have to obtain consent to > discipline his wife; however, our legal system has put him in the > position of having to do so. Just as our culture is turned upside down > in so many other things, the traditional Christian marriage is no > exception." I read the above statement two times and failed to see the word "BEAT". It's possible to discipline a child, wife or husband without having to BEAT a child, wife or husband. For example, a child could be sent to his or her room for the rest of the night. A teenage child could be ordered to not go out on any dates for two weeks. All wives know that the best way to discipline a husband is by ordering him to sleep on the couch. I do believe that it's alright for parents to spank their small children. If there is a Christian organization that advises husbands to beat their wives--they are wrong and I would never be a member of that organization. http://shop.christiandomesticdiscipline.com/displayProductDocument.hg?productId=2 > > >In some cases, it is difficult to > >tell. Of course, I know that there are some atheists that are kind and > >wonderful people. I was shocked when I found out that a college professor > >that was a kind and wonderful person was an atheist. I made the mistake of > >assuming that he was a Christian. On the other hand, I've seen college > >professors that were NOT kind and wonderful that were Christians. God can > >see our hearts so he can easily separate the true Christians from the > >Christians that are Christians in name only. > > Sounds like it does not help to know that someone is a Christian. The Bible has a verse that tells us to not judge other people so it's really not a problem. I don't really worry about the other Christians in my church. I don't follow them around in an attempt to find out whether or not they are good Christians. Did you read the book entitled, "The Scrarlet Letter". The story was about a lady in the 1800's that became pregnant outside of marriage. The was forced to wear a giant A (for adultery) on her clothing. She refused to tell anyone the name of the father. In the last chapter, the father was revealed--it was the preacher. Things were different in those days. Christians did judge people and they excommunicated anyone that was involved in major sin. My church does not excommunicate people. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 In article <5hN0i.2119$LR5.1734@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>, bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <BrJ0i.2408$zj3.20@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>, > > bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> In article <1178792287.190815.145890@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin > >>> Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On May 10, 2:24 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> It has actually helped me stay out of prison and jail. When I was about 30 > >>>>> years old, I could not find a job and was running out of money. I had a > >>>>> gun so knew that it would be easy to rob a store or rob people. The reason > >>>>> I did not do that was because I knew that God was watching me and would > >>>>> have been disappointed with me if I disobeyed one of his commandments. > >>>> All this proves was that your parents failed to teach you to be > >>>> morally centered: your entire reason for not robbing people nor > >>>> threatening them with violence is that you fear you will go to Hell. > >>>> You are a truly frightening person indeed. > >>>> > >>>> Martin > >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >>> > >>> It's effective. My minor in college was history. I leared that in the > >>> 1700's and 1800's just about everyone in America were Christians that took > >>> their religion very seriously. In almost every state they only had one > >>> prison--California was about the only state that had two prisons. None of > >>> the small jails were ever over crowded. That has all changed. All prisons > >>> are now over-crowded and almost every state now has more than one prison. > >>> In fact, California has about a dozen over-crowded prisons and plans to > >>> build about two or three more prisons. Almost every city jail is over > >>> crowded. You may think that the rise in atheism is a good thing but I > >>> think that the rise in atheism has some serious negative consequences. The > >>> percentage of people in prisons is now higher than it has ever been in > >>> American history. > >>> Jason > >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >>> > >>> > >> First of all, the population was much lower and population density was > >> much less. So crime rates were lower. > >> > >> Second, criminals were harder to catch. Murders were much more difficult > >> to solve because forensic science was so primitive. Also, if someone > >> committed a crime, they could run away, go west or even to another > >> state. Communications were so poor that catching them would be highly > >> unlikely. > >> > >> Third, there were fewer laws and hence fewer crimes. Things such as > >> spouse abuse that are considered crimes today were not. > >> > >> Fourth, punishments were different. Corporal punishment was prevalent in > >> the 18th Century CE. So criminals would have been flogged, but not > >> imprisoned. Also capital punishment was more prevalent, so prisons would > >> only have been necessary until the hanging. There were few, if any > >> avenues of appeal, so there was relatively little waiting time. > >> > >> Fourth, there was less law. There were few judges outside the cities. > >> Circuit courts were exactly that, circuit riding judges who went from > >> town to town holding court. > >> > >> Fifth, summary justice was not uncommon, especially in the West, where a > >> horse thief or cattle rustler might be killed on the spot. Lynchings > >> for those accused of particularly heinous crimes were not infrequent either. > >> > >> So don't credit your religion with creating a pastoral utopia during > >> that time. It was not utopia, and religion was simply part of the > >> culture, helping as much as hindering progress. > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > I do credit religion with the low crime rates in the 1700' and 1800's. I > > was raised in a small town in Virgina--part of the so called Bible Belt. > > People in that small town took their religion very seriously. If someone > > ended up in jail, everyone talked about it--gossip. As you know, no one > > that lives in a SMALL town wants to be the victim of redicule. > > And single mothers were also despised, and members of other races, and > subscribers to different religions. Anyone who wasn't like everyone else > was subject to scrutiny if not ridicule. > > Those > > people that ended up in jail became the victims of redicule. I challenge > > you or anyone else to do a google search to determine the percentage of > > people that were in state prisons in 1800 compared to the percentage of > > people that were in state prisons in 2000. That percentage will be MUCH > > higher. > > As noted, there are more crimes defined, drugs are much more available > than they were at that time, so the crimes associated with drug use were > much less common. Drug addiction first became a problem here after the > Civil War, and did not become a criminal offense until some time after that. > > The population of state prison inmates almost doubled between 1990 > > and 2003 according to the statistics on page 382 of the 2005 Time Almanac. > > > More crimes, more opportunities to commit them, more social problems > (some a legacy of slavery and the associated racism), fewer > opportunities for the economic underclasses, greater population density, > vastly reduced opportunities to move away from the problem. > > I don't see religion as being a panacea, then or now. In the 18th > Century CE there were at least as many churches supporting slavery as > opposing it. Racism after the Civil War was institutionalized in the > churches and we are still paying for that today. Religious fanatics > introduced Prohibition, our greatest social failure in two centuries. > Before it was repealed, it created an entire class of crimes, gave the > Mafia its start, and encouraged people to disobey the law of the land. > > Don't claim religion as a panacea, and don't think that a small town is > the ideal place to live, especially if you are the least bit different. Hello, Thanks--you made some good points. I do recall that most of the people that were the "least bit different" moved away from that small town after they graduated from high school. I left that small town due to the lack of job opportunities. There are lots of issues related to crime rates. I had forgotten about the hangings that were done in the 1700's and 1800's--esp. in the old west. That brings to mind one of Clint Eastwood's movies that I believe was called, "Hangem High" or something like that. They hung horse theives and cow thieves without trials. They also placed people in stocks for punishment. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 <snip> > >> > Now, explain to me how life can evolve from non-life. > >> > >> I Don't know how, I know that it did because it one time life didn't > >> exist > >> on earth and now it does. > > > > Brillant--you have strong faith that life evolved from non-life despite > > having no proof or scientific evidence to back up your conclusion. I was > > told that evolution is based on science--not faith. I guess that is not > > true. > > Perhaps you can't gather the salient point of what I stated. I'll do it > again, only much slower. At one time the earth had no life. Now it does. > That isn't enough evidence for you? I know the answer--God created all life forms on this earth. Even Darwin believed that God created life and that after God created life--evolution took over. > >> Please provide a source for that statement. > > > > I no longer have a copy of his famous book. Does anyone else have that > > quotation from his book--if so--post it. > > I have his "famous" book and another that isn't so famous. There is no such > statement in either book that I can find. Perhaps you should again obtain > the "famous" book and this time you should read it. > > > >> >That makes more sense than saying that life evolved from non-life. > >> > If life could evolve from non-life--it would be easy to prove in a > >> > laboratory. > >> > jason > >> > >> Why would it be easy to prove? Do we know the precise conditions at the > >> time > >> life started on earth? > > > > No--but researchers know the elements that were present at the time life > > started on this earth. They surmise that life evolved from amino acids. > > However, as far as I know, a living cell has never evolved from amino > > acids. They just have faith that living cells evolved from amino acids > > millions of years ago. > > No scientist knows the composition of the atmosphere at the time life > formed. You also need to do a search for the work that is presently being > done in this area. A Google search shows 218,000 hits. You might read this > as an introductory that is written so you can understand it: > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 In article <70b743l9mj86hncc0mpstnd0h47907uj9v@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Wed, 09 May 2007 22:19:41 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-0905072219410001@66-52-22-2.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <q9t443pl9r2uuleeuq5t3qlk48pnofph8m@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 09 May 2007 19:27:54 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-0905071927540001@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >In article <99s44393vdd6b88aiapie53imd8m8augch@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Wed, 09 May 2007 19:09:23 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> >> <Jason-0905071909230001@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >> >In article <a4p4435faotd68qdr94mkqg2bml1dlt9tk@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein > >> >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> On Wed, 09 May 2007 16:43:39 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com > >> >> >> (Jason) in > >> >> >> <Jason-0905071643390001@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> [snip] > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Don, > >> >> >> >Good for you. I live in California. I read an article in the newspaper > >> >> >> >yesterday indicating that all of the prisons in California--there are > >> >> >> >about a dozen of them--are overcrowded. The governor wants to spend a > >> >> >> >billion dollars on building even more prisons in California. Let me ask > >> >> >> >you an honest question. If everyone in Calfornia was a Christian that > >> >> >> >obeyed the 10 commandments--do you think that the Governor would > >need to > >> >> >> >spend a billion dollars constructing new prisons? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> The vast majority of the population of CA is Christian. There are > >> >> >> fewer atheists in prison than one would expect given their % of the > >> >> >> population. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> And that "obey" part is cheating. First, most of the 10C are not laws. > >> >> >> Second, if you want laws the Torah has hundreds. Third, if people > >> >> >> obeyed whatever rules then we would not need prisons. > >> >> > > >> >> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >> >> > > >> >> >I disagree. It's my opinion that If everyone in Calfornia was a > >> >Christian that > >> >> >obeyed the 10 commandments that we would not need any more prisons in > >> >> >California. I believe that most reasonable people would agree with me. > >> >> > > >> >> The Ten Commandments have only a very peripheral relationship to > >> >> Christianity. The worship of the Ten Commandments is a modern-day > >> >> heterodoxy. > >> >> > >> >> I am curious. Would you just let all sex offenders, including rapists > >> >> and pedophiles, go free because that is not forbidden in the Ten > >> >> Commandments? > >> > > >> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >> > > >> >Good point. One of the commandents states: Thou shall not commit adultery. > >> >The implication is clear--God wants people to get married and not cheat on > >> >their mates. Other parts of the Bible make it clear that God wants men to > >> >marry women. In fact, the main reason God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah is > >> >because of their sins--such as the sin of sodomy. > >> > >> So you aren't relying on the Ten Commandments, are you. > >> > >> After all, beating someone to a bloody pulp isn't forbidden, either. > > > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > >You seem to be argumenatative. The 10 commandments are the main laws that > >God established. Of course, there are other rules and laws in other parts > >of the Bible. > > What do you mean by 'main'? Have you read the laws of the Old Testament? Yes--I have read the entire Bible. Those chapters related to those thousands of laws were difficult to read. I learned that most of those laws were related to their situation and are not related to life in America. For example, lots of the laws were related to livestock and temple worship. > > > In fact, back in the 1700's and 1800's --many or even most > >laws were based on the Bible. > > No, that is not a fact. I disagree. Ask any college professor that teaches courses related to the history of America. Quote
Guest cactus Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <5hN0i.2119$LR5.1734@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>, > bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <BrJ0i.2408$zj3.20@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>, >>> bm1@nonespam.com wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>>> In article <1178792287.190815.145890@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>>>> Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On May 10, 2:24 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> It has actually helped me stay out of prison and jail. When I was > about 30 >>>>>>> years old, I could not find a job and was running out of money. I had a >>>>>>> gun so knew that it would be easy to rob a store or rob people. > The reason >>>>>>> I did not do that was because I knew that God was watching me and would >>>>>>> have been disappointed with me if I disobeyed one of his commandments. >>>>>> All this proves was that your parents failed to teach you to be >>>>>> morally centered: your entire reason for not robbing people nor >>>>>> threatening them with violence is that you fear you will go to Hell. >>>>>> You are a truly frightening person indeed. >>>>>> >>>>>> Martin >>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>>> >>>>> It's effective. My minor in college was history. I leared that in the >>>>> 1700's and 1800's just about everyone in America were Christians that took >>>>> their religion very seriously. In almost every state they only had one >>>>> prison--California was about the only state that had two prisons. None of >>>>> the small jails were ever over crowded. That has all changed. All prisons >>>>> are now over-crowded and almost every state now has more than one prison. >>>>> In fact, California has about a dozen over-crowded prisons and plans to >>>>> build about two or three more prisons. Almost every city jail is over >>>>> crowded. You may think that the rise in atheism is a good thing but I >>>>> think that the rise in atheism has some serious negative consequences. The >>>>> percentage of people in prisons is now higher than it has ever been in >>>>> American history. >>>>> Jason >>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>>> >>>>> >>>> First of all, the population was much lower and population density was >>>> much less. So crime rates were lower. >>>> >>>> Second, criminals were harder to catch. Murders were much more difficult >>>> to solve because forensic science was so primitive. Also, if someone >>>> committed a crime, they could run away, go west or even to another >>>> state. Communications were so poor that catching them would be highly >>>> unlikely. >>>> >>>> Third, there were fewer laws and hence fewer crimes. Things such as >>>> spouse abuse that are considered crimes today were not. >>>> >>>> Fourth, punishments were different. Corporal punishment was prevalent in >>>> the 18th Century CE. So criminals would have been flogged, but not >>>> imprisoned. Also capital punishment was more prevalent, so prisons would >>>> only have been necessary until the hanging. There were few, if any >>>> avenues of appeal, so there was relatively little waiting time. >>>> >>>> Fourth, there was less law. There were few judges outside the cities. >>>> Circuit courts were exactly that, circuit riding judges who went from >>>> town to town holding court. >>>> >>>> Fifth, summary justice was not uncommon, especially in the West, where a >>>> horse thief or cattle rustler might be killed on the spot. Lynchings >>>> for those accused of particularly heinous crimes were not infrequent > either. >>>> So don't credit your religion with creating a pastoral utopia during >>>> that time. It was not utopia, and religion was simply part of the >>>> culture, helping as much as hindering progress. >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> >>> I do credit religion with the low crime rates in the 1700' and 1800's. I >>> was raised in a small town in Virgina--part of the so called Bible Belt. >>> People in that small town took their religion very seriously. If someone >>> ended up in jail, everyone talked about it--gossip. As you know, no one >>> that lives in a SMALL town wants to be the victim of redicule. >> And single mothers were also despised, and members of other races, and >> subscribers to different religions. Anyone who wasn't like everyone else >> was subject to scrutiny if not ridicule. >> >> Those >>> people that ended up in jail became the victims of redicule. I challenge >>> you or anyone else to do a google search to determine the percentage of >>> people that were in state prisons in 1800 compared to the percentage of >>> people that were in state prisons in 2000. That percentage will be MUCH >>> higher. >> As noted, there are more crimes defined, drugs are much more available >> than they were at that time, so the crimes associated with drug use were >> much less common. Drug addiction first became a problem here after the >> Civil War, and did not become a criminal offense until some time after that. >> >> The population of state prison inmates almost doubled between 1990 >>> and 2003 according to the statistics on page 382 of the 2005 Time Almanac. >>> >> More crimes, more opportunities to commit them, more social problems >> (some a legacy of slavery and the associated racism), fewer >> opportunities for the economic underclasses, greater population density, >> vastly reduced opportunities to move away from the problem. >> >> I don't see religion as being a panacea, then or now. In the 18th >> Century CE there were at least as many churches supporting slavery as >> opposing it. Racism after the Civil War was institutionalized in the >> churches and we are still paying for that today. Religious fanatics >> introduced Prohibition, our greatest social failure in two centuries. >> Before it was repealed, it created an entire class of crimes, gave the >> Mafia its start, and encouraged people to disobey the law of the land. >> >> Don't claim religion as a panacea, and don't think that a small town is >> the ideal place to live, especially if you are the least bit different. > > > Hello, > Thanks--you made some good points. I do recall that most of the people > that were the "least bit different" moved away from that small town after > they graduated from high school. I left that small town due to the lack of > job opportunities. > There are lots of issues related to crime rates. I had forgotten about the > hangings that were done in the 1700's and 1800's--esp. in the old west. > That brings to mind one of Clint Eastwood's movies that I believe was > called, "Hangem High" or something like that. They hung horse theives and > cow thieves without trials. They also placed people in stocks for > punishment. It's nice actually to have a conversation. A breath of fresh air. Does any of this affect your views? Perhaps some nuances/refinements? There can be a lot of good in growing up in a small town - community can be a good thing. But I have always lived in cities, and have found that small communities form within them - the floor of a dorm, fellow students in a program, families of the children in your child's class etc. Those can be as positive or as dysfunctional as any community. But I think that individuals are driven to crime by a combination of personality and circumstance - religion is simply an excuse for doing or not doing. I also believe that conversion experiences in prison can be genuine: prisoners rediscover the faith that they were raised in, and embrace it. It's not that they didn't have it before, it was like a muscle that they had to learn to use. > Jason > > Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 On May 11, 2:33 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > The > percentage of people in prisons is now higher than it has ever been in > American history. Then I suggest you fundies stop commiting crimes and thereby stop being a burden on society. You should be respectable, law abiding citizens like us atheists. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 On May 11, 2:39 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1178805594.500838.233...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On May 10, 8:50 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > When I wrote a 5 page report on Neanderthals in 1971, I checked about 20 > > > separate reference books in search of the best 5 references to use. At > > > that time, the experts believed that there were so many genetic > > > differences between Neanderthals and Cro-Magnums that they could NOT have > > > produced offspring if they mated. > > > Yes, the experts labeled different branches of early man as different > > species based on the _assumption_ that they couldn't mate. > > > > I don't expect you to believe that > > > Cro-Magnums and Neanderthals are two separate races just because I believe > > > it. > > > Let me check my back again in the mirror. Yep, plenty of hair. Also > > on my arms, legs and chest. Cro-Magnum and Neanderthal skeletons were > > both found in Europe where my ancestors came from. Could I have genes > > from both groups? Possibly. Note however that this is perfectly > > consistent with evolution: we are as different from Cro Magnum and > > Neanderthals as they were from Homo Erectus and likewise with Homo > > Erectus and the common ancestor of gorillas and man. It would appear > > you are now arguing in favour of evolution. > > Martin, > I disagree. Evolution teaches that Neanderthals were a step in the > evolution of man. No, it doesn't say that it all. It had been assumed that they were two separate species that co-existed. It was never stated that Cro- Magnum men descended from Neanderthals. Neanderthals had been considered a separate branch. Perhaps you're thinking of Homo Erectus. > I don't believe that Neanderthals were a step in the > evolution of man. Instead, I believe that Neaderthals and Cro-Magnums were > two separate races. Then you _agree_ with the current findings that suggest that Neanderthals and Cro-Magnum man could interbreed. > I read an article in the ICR newsletter indicating > they believe Neaderthals were Cro-Magnums that had some sort of bone > disease or genetic related disorder. Stop reading fiction and stick to reliable sources. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 On May 11, 2:52 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > Not all sins are a violation of the law. If we commit those sorts of sins, > Christians ask for forgiveness. If the sin (robbing a store, murdering) is > a violation of the law, we not only ask for forgiveness but if we get > caught--we have to go to jail or prison. I am also a fan of Angelina > Jolie. I see. Thus the law of your god does nothing to prevent you from commiting crimes because you can just ask your god for forgiveness and all will be forgiven. Thank you for proving what we suspected all along, namely that Christians have an out that allows them to commit crimes and not have to feel guilty about them. Martin Quote
Guest Charles & Mambo Duckman Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 Jason wrote: >>Absolutely. But I have some bad news for you. Europe, which is far >>less Christian according to most measures and certainly according to >>American fundamentalists has a much lower % of its population in >>prison. Why did straying from religion make European law abiding and >>American's criminals? > > > I don't know the reason. Perhaps they have different laws and no > mandantory sentencing laws in Europe. They may also have shorter sentences > for major crimes. Perhaps people in Europe are not placed in prison if > they are caught with lots of illegal drugs. Or perhaps they get a red lollipop after committing murder and a pat on the ass for rape. Or perhaps there's an invisible army of mutant ninjas kidnapping criminals and erasing any trace of their existence in order to make crime rate look lower. Or perhaps, much like an average redneck conservative American who hasn't been more than 50 miles away from his trailer park, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, but it doesn't seem to stop you from offering ignorant and remarkably stupid opinions on everything and anything, as long as you twist reality to match your god delusion. > I seem to recall reading that > some drugs that are illegal in America are legal in some European > countries. Rest of conjecture bullshit snipped for sanity. -- Come down off the cross We can use the wood Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 On May 11, 2:08 am, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > "Martin" <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1178806728.032464.171000@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...> On May 10, 8:44 am, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > Quite frankly, I would like to see some one actually rebut his positions > > > rather than attacking him personally. > > > Aaron spoke of the "Myth of the Open System" but there is no such > > myth: the Earth is an open system and it is getting energy from the > > sun which fuels the evolution process. Happy now? Many people said > > this already, by the way. > > Then these many people made a "knee-jerk" conclusion based > upon this statement "Myth of the open system" and read nothing > that followed. > > The "myth" Kim was in reference to was the myth perpetuated > by some evolutionist that "open systems are beyond the scope > of this law (2nd law of thermodynamics)". > > On this, Kim is correct. The SLot applies to open systems > and closed systems alike. So, his argument is misscharacterized > by about 100%. Actually, he's wrong. The second law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems. There's nothing preventing open systems from getting energy from outside (by definition) and using it so long as less than 100% of the energy coming in is used. The percentage of energy put to good use is called the efficiency of the system. > Also if these people had read his post they would realize that > he wrote, "It is true that life derives its energy from the sun". The point is that while he admitted that the Earth got energy from the sun, he denied that this meant that the entropy of the Earth could decrease. This is 100% wrong. > My problem is that Kim is not taken to task for what he > said, but rather for things he never said. I see no honesty > in this. I see no honesty in your defense of his deliberate dishonesty. > > Oh and could people please trim out the stuff we've already read ten > > times over? Most newsreaders will direct people back to the beginning > > of the thread if people want to read it. It is actually quite rude to > > make people wade through three hundred lines of text to find a thirty > > line response. > > Good, hope this advice is taken. The irony is that I was refering to your own post. Martin Quote
Guest Charles & Mambo Duckman Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 Jason wrote: > It's my opinion that atheists are more likely to commit Crimes than > Christians that take their religion seriously. And just like a wise man said, opinions are like assholes - everyone has one and they all stink. -- Come down off the cross We can use the wood Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 On May 11, 5:04 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > Have you ever watched a television series called "Little House in the > Praire". I realize that it was a fictional show but that show indicated > what life was like back in the 1800's and early 1900's. Yes, there are > other ways to control people besides prison. Jason, have you ever watched old Westerns? I realize that they were fictional but they indicated what life was like back in the 1800's and early 1900's. They usually ended with the villain getting shot. I never saw anybody taken to prison. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 On May 11, 4:22 am, George <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote: > On May 10, 5:19 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > You seem to be argumenatative. The 10 commandments are the main laws that > > God established. Of course, there are other rules and laws in other parts > > of the Bible. In fact, back in the 1700's and 1800's --many or even most > > laws were based on the Bible. > > jason > > Utter bloody rubbish! > You want the origin of your ten commandments look no further than > Hammurabi 18-17th centuries bc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM 282 commandments in total. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 On May 11, 5:36 am, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Really? I don't see how my behavior changed at all when I realized that the > god of the Hebrew bible didn't exist. I know that my behaviour has improved since I realized that Moslems are no more evil than Christians. I'd hate to think what the average Christian would do to the average Moslem if he thought he could get away with it (or vice versa). Jason should take a look at this study done by theists like him and see what results they came up with. http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html "A few hundred years ago rates of homicide were astronomical in Christian Europe and the American colonies (Beeghley; R. Lane). In all secular developed democracies a centuries long-term trend has seen homicide rates drop to historical lows (Figure 2). The especially low rates in the more Catholic European states are statistical noise due to yearly fluctuations incidental to this sample, and are not consistently present in other similar tabulations (Barcley and Tavares). Despite a significant decline from a recent peak in the 1980s (Rosenfeld), the U.S. is the only prosperous democracy that retains high homicide rates, making it a strong outlier in this regard (Beeghley; Doyle, 2000). Similarly, theistic Portugal also has rates of homicides well above the secular developed democracy norm. Mass student murders in schools are rare, and have subsided somewhat since the 1990s, but the U.S. has experienced many more (National School Safety Center) than all the secular developed democracies combined. Other prosperous democracies do not significantly exceed the U.S. in rates of nonviolent and in non-lethal violent crime (Beeghley; Farrington and Langan; Neapoletan), and are often lower in this regard. The United States exhibits typical rates of youth suicide (WHO), which show little if any correlation with theistic factors in the prosperous democracies (Figure 3). The positive correlation between pro-theistic factors and juvenile mortality is remarkable, especially regarding absolute belief, and even prayer (Figure 4). Life spans tend to decrease as rates of religiosity rise (Figure 5), especially as a function of absolute belief. Denmark is the only exception. Unlike questionable small-scale epidemiological studies by Harris et al. and Koenig and Larson, higher rates of religious affiliation, attendance, and prayer do not result in lower juvenile- adult mortality rates on a cross-national basis.<6> "Although the late twentieth century STD epidemic has been curtailed in all prosperous democracies (Aral and Holmes; Panchaud et al.), rates of adolescent gonorrhea infection remain six to three hundred times higher in the U.S. than in less theistic, pro-evolution secular developed democracies. (Figure 6). At all ages levels are higher in the U.S., albeit by less dramatic amounts. The U.S. also suffers from uniquely high adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates, which are starting to rise again as the microbe's resistance increases (Figure 7). The two main curable STDs have been nearly eliminated in strongly secular Scandinavia. Increasing adolescent abortion rates show positive correlation with increasing belief and worship of a creator, and negative correlation with increasing non-theism and acceptance of evolution; again rates are uniquely high in the U.S. (Figure 8). Claims that secular cultures aggravate abortion rates (John Paul II) are therefore contradicted by the quantitative data. Early adolescent pregnancy and birth have dropped in the developed democracies (Abma et al.; Singh and Darroch), but rates are two to dozens of times higher in the U.S. where the decline has been more modest (Figure 9). Broad correlations between decreasing theism and increasing pregnancy and birth are present, with Austria and especially Ireland being partial exceptions. Darroch et al. found that age of first intercourse, number of sexual partners and similar issues among teens do not exhibit wide disparity or a consistent pattern among the prosperous democracies they sampled, including the U.S. A detailed comparison of sexual practices in France and the U.S. observed little difference except that the French tend - contrary to common impression - to be somewhat more conservative (Gagnon et al.)." JRS stands for Journal of Religion and Society Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 <snip> > > Hello, > > Thanks--you made some good points. I do recall that most of the people > > that were the "least bit different" moved away from that small town after > > they graduated from high school. I left that small town due to the lack of > > job opportunities. > > There are lots of issues related to crime rates. I had forgotten about the > > hangings that were done in the 1700's and 1800's--esp. in the old west. > > That brings to mind one of Clint Eastwood's movies that I believe was > > called, "Hangem High" or something like that. They hung horse theives and > > cow thieves without trials. They also placed people in stocks for > > punishment. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > It's nice actually to have a conversation. A breath of fresh air. > > Does any of this affect your views? Perhaps some nuances/refinements? > There can be a lot of good in growing up in a small town - community can > be a good thing. > > But I have always lived in cities, and have found that small communities > form within them - the floor of a dorm, fellow students in a program, > families of the children in your child's class etc. Those can be as > positive or as dysfunctional as any community. > > But I think that individuals are driven to crime by a combination of > personality and circumstance - religion is simply an excuse for doing or > not doing. I also believe that conversion experiences in prison can be > genuine: prisoners rediscover the faith that they were raised in, and > embrace it. It's not that they didn't have it before, it was like a > muscle that they had to learn to use. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You made some good points. Yes, I agree that there are lots of different reasons for getting involved in criminal behavior. A person's religion and "upbringing" does play a role. For example, people raised in stable home environments are less likely to get involved in criminal behavior than people raised in disfuctional family situations. I agree that prisons are a wonderful place to discover Christianity. Jason ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 In article <1178863261.311307.168450@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 11, 2:33 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > The > > percentage of people in prisons is now higher than it has ever been in > > American history. > > Then I suggest you fundies stop commiting crimes and thereby stop > being a burden on society. You should be respectable, law abiding > citizens like us atheists. > > Martin ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Martin, If you are ever in a life boat, please don't throw an elderly man overboard so that you will be able to have more water for yourself. jason Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 On May 11, 7:43 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > I was shocked when I found out that a college professor > that was a kind and wonderful person was an atheist. I made the mistake of > assuming that he was a Christian. You'll find that most college professors are atheists. Religious belief correlates negative with intelligence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence "According to a study by Paul Bell, published in the Mensa Magazine in 2002, there is an inverse correlation between religiosity and intelligence. Analyzing 43 studies carried out since 1927, Bell found that all but four reported such a connection, and he concluded that "the higher one's intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious or hold 'beliefs' of any kind."[1] A survey published in Nature in 1998 confirms that belief in a personal God or afterlife is at an all time low among the members of the National Academy of Science, only 7.0% of which believed in a personal God as compared to more than 85% of the US general population.[2]" Martin Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.