"Letter to a Christian Nation"

[revots33]

Just read Sam Harris' "Letter to a Christian Nation", and found this quote interesting:

"While you believe that bringing an end to religion is an impossible goal, it is important to realize that much of the developed world has nearly accomplished it. Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark, and the United Kingdom are among the least religious societies on earth. According to the United Nations' Human Development Report (2005) they are also the healthiest, as indicated by life expectancy, adult literacy, per capita income, educational attainment, gender equality, homicide rate, and infant mortality."

Having not read the UN report myself, I am taking Harris at his word. But the passage brought a couple of questions to my mind...

1. Why do these less religious countries have higher standards of living, better health, and lower crime rates than very religious ones? Shouldn't it be the opposite?

2. Does anyone think there is a chance that the U.S. will eventually outgrow religion? I notice two athiest books on the best-seller list as I write this, perhaps this is a sign of a growing movement?

3. Why is the U.S. so much more religious than these other wealthy countries?

Just wondering what people think. At any rate, it's an interesting little book, although I'm sure Harris is only preaching to the converted.

[alphatmw]

2. sure hope so.

[KUJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Matthew 19-24

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." Mark 2:17

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, it even says that Jesus is not referring literally to the sick, but I think that those in "better" living conditions are more likely to believe that they are not in need of help.

[Dominic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Matthew 19-24

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." Mark 2:17

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, it even says that Jesus is not referring literally to the sick, but I think that those in "better" living conditions are more likely to believe that they are not in need of help.

[/ QUOTE ]

you do realize the bible is just a book written by men, right?

[KUJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
you do realize the bible is just a book written by men, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Take out the word "just" and yes, I do. The medium is not often of much consequence when discussing the importance/validity of an idea.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]

2. Does anyone think there is a chance that the U.S. will eventually outgrow religion? I notice two athiest books on the best-seller list as I write this, perhaps this is a sign of a growing movement?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's been outgrowing it. Religion means little more than a sunday service and a weak belief in god "just in case" for most of the Christians in America. Within six generations, the blasphemous new concept that man evolved from ape is now commonplace teaching, and the mere fact that creationism is allowed to coexist with it in the state of kansas is considered an atrocity.

Religion is for the uncivilized, and it's going to become extinct.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
Just read Sam Harris' "Letter to a Christian Nation", and found this quote interesting:

"While you believe that bringing an end to religion is an impossible goal, it is important to realize that much of the developed world has nearly accomplished it. Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark, and the United Kingdom are among the least religious societies on earth. According to the United Nations' Human Development Report (2005) they are also the healthiest, as indicated by life expectancy, adult literacy, per capita income, educational attainment, gender equality, homicide rate, and infant mortality."

Having not read the UN report myself, I am taking Harris at his word. But the passage brought a couple of questions to my mind...

1. Why do these less religious countries have higher standards of living, better health, and lower crime rates than very religious ones? Shouldn't it be the opposite?

2. Does anyone think there is a chance that the U.S. will eventually outgrow religion? I notice two athiest books on the best-seller list as I write this, perhaps this is a sign of a growing movement?

3. Why is the U.S. so much more religious than these other wealthy countries?

Just wondering what people think. At any rate, it's an interesting little book, although I'm sure Harris is only preaching to the converted.



[/ QUOTE ]

Convoluted logic in which religion is held responsible for bad effects and of course not responsible for supposed good effects. This is a wet dream. Tantamount to connecting terrorism to poker, at best political blather.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Why do these less religious countries have higher standards of living, better health, and lower crime rates than very religious ones? Shouldn't it be the opposite?

[/ QUOTE ]

A very good question. I haven't read the book, but the correlation between religiousness and standard of living strikes me as dubious. Is he suggesting that there is a clear, causal link between religion and the homocide rate? The picture might become more complicated if he didn't cherry-pick facts which are genial to his position.

[CityFan]

[ QUOTE ]
you do realize the bible is just a book written by men, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

You realise that books written by men can contain valuable wisdom, right? Even if that wisdom is framed in outdated concepts.

[Silent A]

At a minimum it shows that there is no link between godlessness (in the mild sense of the word) and mass anti-social behaviour.

Many Christians in North America (especially south of the border) take it as a truism that a society that moves away from "God" can't help but go to proverbial hell.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you do realize the bible is just a book written by men, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Take out the word "just" and yes, I do. The medium is not often of much consequence when discussing the importance/validity of an idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

This exchange is so funny because at first I interpreted KU's post this way:

There's more crime in the more religious countries because Jesus is calling for sinners. Meaning that people prone to respond to Jesus are more likely to sin (i.e. commit crimes).

Obviously, we non-believers don't need to heed his call because we're not "sick".

[Dominic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you do realize the bible is just a book written by men, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

You realise that books written by men can contain valuable wisdom, right? Even if that wisdom is framed in outdated concepts.

[/ QUOTE ]

true dat

[benjdm]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Why do these less religious countries have higher standards of living, better health, and lower crime rates than very religious ones? Shouldn't it be the opposite?

[/ QUOTE ]
No. Religion allows you to believe anything you want to believe via faith. If you are forced to base your beliefs and actions on actual evidence, you do better.
[ QUOTE ]
2. Does anyone think there is a chance that the U.S. will eventually outgrow religion? I notice two athiest books on the best-seller list as I write this, perhaps this is a sign of a growing movement?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm working on it. /images/graemlins/smile.gif
[ QUOTE ]
3. Why is the U.S. so much more religious than these other wealthy countries?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know.

[guesswest]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Why do these less religious countries have higher standards of living, better health, and lower crime rates than very religious ones? Shouldn't it be the opposite?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but I'm going to suggest this correlation is presented backwards, or at the very least that it's bi-directional. People in poverty are more attracted to religion because it offers hope and escape from their circumstances. These countries aren't prosperous because they lack religion, they lack religion because they're prosperous.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but I'm going to suggest this correlation is presented backwards, or at the very least that it's bi-directional. People in poverty are more attracted to religion because it offers hope and escape from their circumstances. These countries aren't prosperous because they lack religion, they lack religion because they're prosperous.

[/ QUOTE ]

It warms my heart that people aren't being duped by Harris, even if they are sympathetic to his cause.

[FortunaMaximus]

Future updates might improve the product that is Christianity. Simplify the message, throw out the mythical babble. We're near enough that trigger point anyway.

Whether I believe in the dogma or not, the first thing I think when I see an awesome woman... It isn't standards of cosmetic beauty /images/graemlins/smirk.gif is, "Goddamn." Or a variation of.

<shrugs> The book, like most anything else, is tl;dr where I'm concerned. The main points have value. The judgment criteria, not so much.

Read the begats and got the point.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. Why do these less religious countries have higher standards of living, better health, and lower crime rates than very religious ones? Shouldn't it be the opposite?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but I'm going to suggest this correlation is presented backwards, or at the very least that it's bi-directional. People in poverty are more attracted to religion because it offers hope and escape from their circumstances. These countries aren't prosperous because they lack religion, they lack religion because they're prosperous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. I understand Harris' implication of direct cause-and-effect is dubious. But I was thinking more about how god supposedly intervenes to help those who believe in him. The facts the author presents (if true) seem to suggest just the opposite. A country full of people all praying and worshiping god should have less disease and suffering than a bunch of athiests, no?

It also seems to me that saying "they lack religion because they're prosperous", can be seen as supporting the "religion as a necessary crutch" argument.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. Why do these less religious countries have higher standards of living, better health, and lower crime rates than very religious ones? Shouldn't it be the opposite?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but I'm going to suggest this correlation is presented backwards, or at the very least that it's bi-directional. People in poverty are more attracted to religion because it offers hope and escape from their circumstances. These countries aren't prosperous because they lack religion, they lack religion because they're prosperous.

[/ QUOTE ]

^
|
|
This is correct.

http://www.acton.org/publicat/m_and_m/new/review.php?article=54:

"The varied decline and persistence of religion in the world today is most strongly correlated with differing levels of “existential security.” Essentially, religion persists where people bear high levels of risk due to inequality, poverty, and inadequate social provision by the state. Conversely, more equal, less impoverished societies, especially those with comprehensive welfare provisions, have become increasingly secular by every relevant measure. The authors’ complex regression analyses show these correlations to be very robust across more than seventy countries."

[vhawk01]

So the US is so religious because we have a more marked rich-poor divide than most industrialized countries?

[benjdm]

[ QUOTE ]
So the US is so religious because we have a more marked rich-poor divide than most industrialized countries?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think that would be a contributing factor.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
"The varied decline and persistence of religion in the world today is most strongly correlated with differing levels of “existential security.” Essentially, religion persists where people bear high levels of risk due to inequality, poverty, and inadequate social provision by the state. Conversely, more equal, less impoverished societies, especially those with comprehensive welfare provisions, have become increasingly secular by every relevant measure. The authors’ complex regression analyses show these correlations to be very robust across more than seventy countries."

[/ QUOTE ]

In this case, the reasonable course of action for you atheists is not to rid the world of religion, but to make the world a better place, so that people won't need it.

[KUJustin]

There is indeed a sense among many people in developed countries that they don't "need" God. The comforts of the world lure us and we begin to think that this earth is our true home.

In case there's any confusion about the verse mentioned: Jesus says he came for sinners, not the righteous. Well, we're all sinners. The meaning here is he came for those who can recognize that they need a savior.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
So the US is so religious because we have a more marked rich-poor divide than most industrialized countries?

[/ QUOTE ]

What? The divide's just as pronounced in every country. Name a country without an upper, middle, and lower class.

/images/graemlins/confused.gif

The difference is, in the First World, there's actually a higher % of a middle class relative to the upper and lower than in the Second and Third World.

[MidGe]

Of the first world countries, the USA is the most religious by a long shot, and also has the highest rate of incarceration, crimes, murders, std, teenage and underage pregnancies and heaps more.... Must be the religious influence then!

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do these less religious countries have higher standards of living, better health, and lower crime rates than very religious ones?

[/ QUOTE ] Western European countries first started on the affluent and powerful road (and other things as well) and then they started on the less religious road.

The social conditions in Europe you think were irrelevant to the spread of Protestantism? Those conditions simply have not been there for the muslims, yet, in general.

BTW, I think the more-religious countries beat us in the crime rate front.

Mickey Brausch

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
In this case, the reasonable course of action for you atheists is not to rid the world of religion, but to make the world a better place, so that people won't need it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't that the flip side of the western europe, canada, austalia etc examples. They rank high in quality of life and they rank low on religiosity. Nothing is going to come down to two variables in social situations but it's not that correlation disproves causation either. Correlation should at least produce a 'hmmmm...'

luckyme

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, I think the more-religious countries beat us in the crime rate front.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that fundamentalist countries like the USA have a lower crime rate than sweden canada, etc? I'm not sure which way you're using 'beat'.

luckyme

[guesswest]

[ QUOTE ]
What? The divide's just as pronounced in every country. Name a country without an upper, middle, and lower class.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not true. The US clearly has a greater divide between rich and poor than many (most) other rich countries. I'm not making an argument as to whether that's a good thing or a bad thing - just on point of fact the US is a lot further 'right' than somewhere like Sweden and has a much more uneven distribution of wealth.

[guesswest]

[ QUOTE ]
Fair enough. I understand Harris' implication of direct cause-and-effect is dubious. But I was thinking more about how god supposedly intervenes to help those who believe in him. The facts the author presents (if true) seem to suggest just the opposite. A country full of people all praying and worshiping god should have less disease and suffering than a bunch of athiests, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, yes. I'm not a theist and I have a hard time disputing that. But I can play devil's advoctate and suggest that these religious countries could be even worse off without religion. It's certainly not the case that religion is the only thing to impact the wealth of a nation - natural resources, geography and how it impacts trade etc.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So the US is so religious because we have a more marked rich-poor divide than most industrialized countries?

[/ QUOTE ]

What? The divide's just as pronounced in every country. Name a country without an upper, middle, and lower class.

/images/graemlins/confused.gif

The difference is, in the First World, there's actually a higher % of a middle class relative to the upper and lower than in the Second and Third World.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I'm misreading, but is this post saying that every country has just as pronounced of a divide, except some countries don't have nearly as pronounced of a divide?

[FortunaMaximus]

The points of the divides and the thickness of the gaps between the 3 major classes, more likely. I stand corrected, but there seems to be an effect in where the more narrow and the higher percentage of the wealth in the upper class, the vaster the lower classes are in numbers.

Looks like a three-tier inverse square law to me really, but I'm just babbling nonsense again.

The more extreme the % of wealth is held by the upper class, the more % of the population lives below the poverty line, as a they struggle to subsist on what remains in the economy to be shared.

There are no middle classes in a exploitative dictatorship.

Africa could subsist without foreign help, but ultimately the problem is in that most African countries are in effect a 1 or 2 family dictatorship, or military dictatorship in where the wealth stays at the top and is distributed among the army on its needs or is rerouted elsewhere to, say, Zurich, and 99% of the population doesn't get enough to eat.

South America and Asia I'll leave alone, because it's a similar problem but there are a few countries in each continent that are doing it differently and mroe or less succeeding.

Stupid planet run by stupid people, but what can you do?

[IronUnkind]

It's only the same if the degree of correlation is the same. If we take the quoted study at its word, desperate conditions are highly correlated with religiosity and healthy conditions are highly correlated with a lack thereof. Harris's thesis, as I understand it, is predicated upon a mishmash of facts which are convenient to his viewpoint.

More than that, the idea that religiousness would be a common response to poor conditions is quite sensible. The idea that the homocide rate would rise appreciably due to religion is dubious. Basically, my response to Harris is "huh?" while my response to the other study is, as you say, "hmm."

It is tough to infer causation but common sense tells me that murder is more apt to cause religion than the other way around (and you know I'm not talking about The Crusades or 9/11 or some such).

[jstnrgrs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Matthew 19-24

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." Mark 2:17

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, it even says that Jesus is not referring literally to the sick, but I think that those in "better" living conditions are more likely to believe that they are not in need of help.

[/ QUOTE ]

This post is an important reply to this question. It is not suprising that wealthy countries are less religious. Yes, the USA will become less religious, but religion will never be gone from the entire world. As one country becomes wealthier, another poorer country becomes more religious.

[guesswest]

[ QUOTE ]
As one country becomes wealthier, another poorer country becomes more religious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you arguing that there's a fixed amount of religion in the world? Like energy?

[IronUnkind]

I think he's saying that the forces of capitalism crush foreign economies, but it increases their religious faith. The US, Christian nation that it is, has found an ingenious way to evangelize!

[guesswest]

I suppose that's correct in principle if people are in fact more prone to become religious when they experience existential discomfort. I don't think economies actually work like this in reality tho - there isn't a fixed amount of capital floating about.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think economies actually work like this in reality tho - there isn't a finite amount of capital floating about.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know dick about economics, so I'm in no position to comment, but word up anyhow.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose that's correct in principle if people are in fact more prone to become religious when they experience existential discomfort. I don't think economies actually work like this in reality tho - there isn't a fixed amount of capital floating about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, well, let's just hope the pace of capital and methods of dispersion can keep up and outrun population growth, it's smooth sailing.

Probably.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, well, let's just hope the pace of capital and methods of dispersion can keep up and outrun population growth, it's smooth sailing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope the world goes busto and everyone starts loving Jesus. Holla!

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BTW, I think the more-religious countries beat us in the crime rate front.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that fundamentalist countries like the USA have a lower crime rate than Sweden, Canada, etc?

[/ QUOTE ]/images/graemlins/smile.gif Ease up, I do not have the United States in the camp of religious fundamentalist countries, no.

Compared to Sweden (or Canada) the American political scene looks closer to fundamentalism, yes (but not its laws!), however I was comparing western democracies in general versus religious fundamentalist societies.

Mickey Brausch

[BPA234]

I heard Harris interviewed and thought he came accross as intelligent, cogent and reasonable.

Regarding your questions:
1. I believe that you can attribute cause, at least in part, to the differing state of social evolution of each referenced country. For the US, a nation of immigrants, we are, as a whole, socially unevolved and in many ways socially retarded. With those two states, comes all the accompanying poor marks for the listed social measures.

2. I believe social maturation always leads to a reduction in beliefs that are not based in empiricism.

3. See answer number 1.

[TomBrooks]

Strong belief in some religion often clouds one's mind with misconceptions about god that leaves one further from the truth than those who's minds are less encoumbered. Less religious societies may therefore be closer to understanding "god" than the more religous ones. This may be why they tend to be healthier, live longer and be more prosperous etc.

[thedarknight]

http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v12n03_are_religious_societies_healthier.html

reaffirms some of sam harris' reseach, there have been actual studies on this matter, but it does not provide a causation that religion "destroys" societies. I have no read this whole thread, but to the person who believes religion will become extinct in the US is being overly optimistic. In the wake of Bush's crusade and the event of 9/11 we are seriously facing another Great Awakening. All this religious fervor is scary, and increasingly becoming a factor when it becomes politicized. When our kids are being spoon fed these lies, it will be hard to "break the spell".

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
Just read Sam Harris' "Letter to a Christian Nation", and found this quote interesting:

"While you believe that bringing an end to religion is an impossible goal, it is important to realize that much of the developed world has nearly accomplished it. Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark, and the United Kingdom are among the least religious societies on earth. According to the United Nations' Human Development Report (2005) they are also the healthiest, as indicated by life expectancy, adult literacy, per capita income, educational attainment, gender equality, homicide rate, and infant mortality."

Having not read the UN report myself, I am taking Harris at his word. But the passage brought a couple of questions to my mind...

1. Why do these less religious countries have higher standards of living, better health, and lower crime rates than very religious ones? Shouldn't it be the opposite?

2. Does anyone think there is a chance that the U.S. will eventually outgrow religion? I notice two athiest books on the best-seller list as I write this, perhaps this is a sign of a growing movement?

3. Why is the U.S. so much more religious than these other wealthy countries?

Just wondering what people think. At any rate, it's an interesting little book, although I'm sure Harris is only preaching to the converted.

[/ QUOTE ]


It's actually really obvious what's going on. The crucial point is that religion is completely irrelevant (and in fact downright counterproductive) to moral considerations. Societies and individuals that realize this are in a better positions to make the decisions that make societies and individuals better.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
All this religious fervor is scary, and increasingly becoming a factor when it becomes politicized. When our kids are being spoon fed these lies, it will be hard to "break the spell".

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a viewpoint borne of myopia. You sound almost exactly like the Apocalyptic Christians who are conceding the day to The Devil. Why is everyone so convinced of their own defeat?

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
It's actually really obvious what's going on. The crucial point is that religion is completely irrelevant (and in fact downright counterproductive) to moral considerations. Societies and individuals that realize this are in a better positions to make the decisions that make societies and individuals better.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is non-obvious to me how religion is both irrelevant AND counterproductive. Perhaps you could enlighten me since, after all, this is the crucial point.

[MidGe]

Morality is only possible within an atheist framework. Religion demands that you subjugate your own moral notions to a god. I know of no religion which allows you to even take their god/s to task for their obvious immorality.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
Morality is only possible within an atheist framework.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a minority position among people with half a brain.

[ QUOTE ]
know of no religion which allows you to even take their god/s to task for their obvious immorality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Elie Wiesel recounts the story of three rabbis who put God on trial for murder while they were being held in a concentration camp. They reached a guilty verdict.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a minority position among people with half a brain.

[/ QUOTE ]

And a majority position among people with a full brain. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Elie Wiesel recounts the story of three rabbis who put God on trial for murder while they were being held in a concentration camp. They reached a guilty verdict.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that's at least three enlightened religionists, if the story is not apocryphal. Of course they had some experiences that most religionists find hard to conceive!

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
And a majority position among people with a full brain.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sklansky must have two brains! He and Steve Martin agree with me.

[ QUOTE ]
Well, that's at least three enlightened religionists, if the story is not apocryphal.

[/ QUOTE ]

It wonder whether it might be. Wiesel presents it as fact, however.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, that's at least three enlightened religionists, if the story is not apocryphal.

[/ QUOTE ]

It wonder whether it might be. Wiesel presents it as fact, however.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it true it shows again, the superior pragmatism (one of its endearing qualities to me) of the Judaic tradition over its christian offshoot.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
If it true it shows again, the superior pragmatism (one of its endearing qualities to me) of the Judaic tradition over its christian offshoot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't let Judaism charm its way out of your seething contempt for all religion.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If it true it shows again, the superior pragmatism (one of its endearing qualities to me) of the Judaic tradition over its christian offshoot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't let Judaism charm its way out of your seething contempt for all religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't worry, I will stand steadfast against all noxious/toxic aspects of religion, whichever one it happens to be. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[vhawk01]

Wow, this is like the first time Midge ever pwned anyone in any thread I've ever seen him in. Iron, you are usually pretty solid in SMP, so I'm gonna chalk this one up to lack of sleep or some other distraction. Good show, Midge.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, this is like the first time Midge ever pwned anyone in any thread I've ever seen him in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me pwned?!! I haven't seen such questionable officiating since the 72 Olympics!

Let's review:

He writes:

[ QUOTE ]
Morality is only possible within an atheist framework.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me:

[ QUOTE ]
This is a minority position among people with half a brain.

[/ QUOTE ]

A little jab of a zinger, but good for a point.

His reply:

[ QUOTE ]
And a majority position among people with a full brain.

[/ QUOTE ]

He gets two points for returning my serve (which is usually Roddick-like) and showing some wit, but -1 for being too on the nose, and also for being factually wrong, since his position is, in fact, the minority.

Tie ballgame

Me:

[ QUOTE ]
Sklansky must have two brains! He and Steve Martin agree with me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Patronizing me is like patronizing Sklansky (since we hold the same position). Sklansky's known as an egghead, hence the two brains comment. You may be forgiven, however, if the awesome Steve Martin reference (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085894/) missed you.

2-1 Me.

After I agreed that the Wiesel story (which explicitly contradicted his point about theists condemning their god, and for which I chose not to award myself any of the points) might be apocryphal, he writes:

[ QUOTE ]
If it true it shows again, the superior pragmatism (one of its endearing qualities to me) of the Judaic tradition over its christian offshoot.

[/ QUOTE ]


Uh, Zing? No points for shoehorning his usual anti-Christian rhetoric into the discussion.

Me:

[ QUOTE ]
Don't let Judaism charm its way out of your seething contempt for all religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is tactful sarcasm which exposes his one-sidedness without directly insulting him.

Another 1/2 point for me. 2.5-1.

His response:

[ QUOTE ]
Don't worry, I will stand steadfast against all noxious/toxic aspects of religion, whichever one it happens to be.

[/ QUOTE ]

He either didn't get that I was being sarcastic and responded literally, in which case he should be docked a point, or, he understood my meaning, and is taking explicit pride in his own biases!

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and award 0 points.

End of exchange, and my scorecard reads: 2.5-1 Ironunkind. It could well read: 4-1 Ironunkind, or if you are in a really giving mood, 2-1.5 Ironunkind. I can't conceive of any way that he won the exchange, unless you are giving him far too much credit for his initial rejoinder and ignoring the substance underneath the repartee. Eeking out a dubious victory does not equal pwning in my book.

Maybe some other judges will weigh in, but I can't see that anyone will concur with your analysis. Maybe you're just being generous because MidGe managed to go the distance.

[vhawk01]

You are far too kind to yourself in this analysis, and forget to give Midge the required 2 point handicap. Come on though, on the half a brain one, you set him up perfectly and he knocked it out of the park. No posts in between means he was quick about it as well!

And yes, I certainly am ignoring the substance of the spat. This was scored for artistic merit only, but even on technical merit I think its a wash.

Adjusted score: Midge 4, Iron 2, ship it to Midge.

[madnak]

If you were joking here, you just gained a point. If you weren't joking, you just lost the whole game.

I don't have much of an opinion on how things were before this post, but MidGe was swinging strong. Now that you've done a blow-by-blow and dissected the thing, you're going to have to work to pull ahead. Remember - winners pretend not to care about winning.

[vhawk01]

I think all SMP threads should come with an official scoring system, hopefully as arbitrarily derived as possible. I volunteer to chair the Scoring Committee if no one objects.

[madnak]

Who could possibly object, Sir Chairperson Sir?

[vhawk01]

Madnak +42

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
If you weren't joking, you just lost the whole game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was moving up a level, which is always a dangerous move if one's critics interpret this as sincerity.

[ QUOTE ]
Now that you've done a blow-by-blow and dissected the thing, you're going to have to work to pull ahead.

[/ QUOTE ]

Had I been serious, I agree that this is very bad form.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
I think all SMP threads should come with an official scoring system, hopefully as arbitrarily derived as possible. I volunteer to chair the Scoring Committee if no one objects.

[/ QUOTE ]

Has Sklansky abdicated this position?

[PantsOnFire]

As science and scientific knowledge advance, myths are broken down and disappear. And the more educated society becomes in these matters, the less likely that they will accept or believe in matters based solely on faith or emotion.

Religions and religious leaders used to fight science head on; think Copernicus, et al. That sort of fight or resistance is no longer possible in general. I feel that religion as we know it will cease to exist in the near future (although I have no quanity for "near").

So on to your post. I think the countries you have mentioned are the most advanced in the areas of scientific knowledge and education of their societies. And religion is a direct casualty of this advancement of civilization based on my arguement above.

I can only guess why the US is slightly different. It may be that values and beliefs are held onto a little more strongly and change will thus take more time. While this is so is hard for me (a Canadian) to try and fathom, it might be related to the fight the US had to become an independent and free country. Your Consitution was written by strong and great men who happened to also be religious so that in itself may cause some to resist change in their beliefs.

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's actually really obvious what's going on. The crucial point is that religion is completely irrelevant (and in fact downright counterproductive) to moral considerations. Societies and individuals that realize this are in a better position to make the decisions that make societies and individuals better.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is non-obvious to me how religion is both irrelevant AND counterproductive. Perhaps you could enlighten me since, after all, this is the crucial point.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is counterproductive, because religion's proponents fail to realize the completely obvious fact that religion is completely irrelevant to moral considerations.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
So on to your post. I think the countries you have mentioned are the most advanced in the areas of scientific knowledge and education of their societies. And religion is a direct casualty of this advancement of civilization based on my arguement above.

I can only guess why the US is slightly different.

[/ QUOTE ]

While the US holds it own at the top levels of scientific knowledge, the average citizen doesn't. Few europeans or japanese etc, think the earth is 10,000 old, but a fair chunk of americans do. The cultural mindset that permits that type of thinking allows a lot of fact-dodging.
It also encourages a dismissal of learning and intellectual curiousity in favor of a more dogmatic approach. It's 'stupid proud', listen to Bush, the leader, speak about intellectuals and science.

luckyme

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you weren't joking, you just lost the whole game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was moving up a level, which is always a dangerous move if one's critics interpret this as sincerity.

[ QUOTE ]
Now that you've done a blow-by-blow and dissected the thing, you're going to have to work to pull ahead.

[/ QUOTE ]

Had I been serious, I agree that this is very bad form.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I interpreted correctly and responded appropriately.

[madnak]

Well, at least I have that +42 to cushion the fall.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I interpreted correctly and responded appropriately.

[/ QUOTE ]

This can't be the case. My pants aren't on fire.

[Jasper109]

[ QUOTE ]
Just read Sam Harris' "Letter to a Christian Nation", and found this quote interesting:

"While you believe that bringing an end to religion is an impossible goal, it is important to realize that much of the developed world has nearly accomplished it. Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark, and the United Kingdom are among the least religious societies on earth. According to the United Nations' Human Development Report (2005) they are also the healthiest, as indicated by life expectancy, adult literacy, per capita income, educational attainment, gender equality, homicide rate, and infant mortality."

Having not read the UN report myself, I am taking Harris at his word. But the passage brought a couple of questions to my mind...

1. Why do these less religious countries have higher standards of living, better health, and lower crime rates than very religious ones? Shouldn't it be the opposite?

2. Does anyone think there is a chance that the U.S. will eventually outgrow religion? I notice two athiest books on the best-seller list as I write this, perhaps this is a sign of a growing movement?

3. Why is the U.S. so much more religious than these other wealthy countries?

Just wondering what people think. At any rate, it's an interesting little book, although I'm sure Harris is only preaching to the converted.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think even Canada, as a country, still has a long way to go.

Virtually every reasonably sized community has double digits in terms of different types of churches, synagogues, meeting halls, etc)

Most of these communities (at least in the province I live in) have separate (read Catholic) schools.

Anyone aspiring to political office on any kind of regional/national level must be a member of a main stream organized religion to have any chance of being elected.

[FortunaMaximus]

Eh. I don't disagree with you on that, Jasper, but your perception might be a little biased towards the pragmatism in Alberta.

Religion simply isn't the issue here that it is in the Prairies and the Western provinces.

Then again, I'm on the fringes of the GTA, so I have my own biases. I tell you what, going into Toronto these days is weird. Literally every country in the world seems to have its own neighborhood.

[Jasper109]

[ QUOTE ]
Eh. I don't disagree with you on that, Jasper, but your perception might be a little biased towards the pragmatism in Alberta.

Religion simply isn't the issue here that it is in the Prairies and the Western provinces.

Then again, I'm on the fringes of the GTA, so I have my own biases. I tell you what, going into Toronto these days is weird. Literally every country in the world seems to have its own neighborhood.

[/ QUOTE ]

Edmonton is reasonably cosmopolitan/liberal, but I've lived at various times over the past 20 years in small rural communities in this province. A family pet would get elected in these areas over a human being with any type of leanings that might be described as "liberal"

I'd imagine the GTA and rural central Alberta would be about as far on opposite ends of the demographic spectrum as possible in this country. Having said that, I'd be surprised if an "open atheist" could be elected mayor of Toronto. An openly gay person definitely could, but I'm not as sure that an atheist could. (I could be wrong, as I've spent roughly 4 days of my life in Ontario)

[FortunaMaximus]

You'd have to spend time in Toronto to realize just how fascinating the political structure is. Um, Mel Lastman was mayor of North York for over 20 years, and also ran a successful retail furniture, etc. business on the side. If you've seen a Bad Boy commerical, yup. His son, and apparently now his grandson are continuing the family tradition, in business.

He's much lambasted, or has been, for being literally nuts. But there's no doubt he was a great politician. Anyway, the central artery of North York can best be described as Toronto's answer to Manhattan, without the financial district. That's Bay Street, of course.

He was largely responsible for amalgating all 6 munis into a megacity, and by and large it works very well. <shrugs> That's just about the only neighborhood I'd live in though, as the economic disparities in Toronto have driven the affulent to York Region and the suburbs on either end of Toronto.

Funnily enough, Edmonton is one of the few Canadian cities I haven't been to yet, although I've been meaning to. I hitched to Tofino one year, and coming back from B.C. it was simply too cold to consider a detour to Edmonton.

What I've found, what I recall most about that trip is how very friendly and accessible the people of the Prairies and the West are.

I've lived all over Ontario, also, and a lot of communities are small-knit, but there isn't the impact of religiosity here that seems to be the case in Alberta. Huntin', fishin', farmin'.

Having a Newfoundlander for a father, I'll say this about Newfoundland though. It is the best province in all of Canada. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

This country rocks, and any sort of referendum that passes splitting it up would be a damnable shame. Ottawa has to be a huge challenge for any politician, period.

[Jasper109]

Edmonton is actually a reasonably cool place considering what is all around us.

There are provincial elections where the only non-Conservative members of parliament elected are within the city limits. Even Calgary is usually a sweep for the Conservatives.

Whyte Avenue is reasonably happening, and we have all kinds of festivals during the summer months. West Edmonton Mall is a bit over hyped, but everyone should at least check it out once if they get a chance. Add a gorgeous river valley, and I think this city has a lot to offer.

The only reason that I'm probably not going to spend the rest of my life here is the freaking weather. I'm starting to crave hot weather in my old age. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

My mother retired in Kelowna, and there is a place that has a lot of what I'm looking for in a place to live.

I actually know a reasonable amount about Mel Lastman, and his political career. There was some controversy he was involved in a few years back, but I can't seem to remember exactly what it was.

I need to get out to the Maritimes one of these days. It's kind of sad that I've been to Europe more than a dozen times but have never been to Vancouver Island or the Maratimes. I definitely agree with what you said about Canada.

[FortunaMaximus]

I'm not sure I'd ever relocate, and I've lived in south Texas and northern California, and have family there. Still, there's something to be said about Aruba and Costa Rica and the rest of the Caribbean and parts of South America. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Flights from Pearson to everywhere are reasonably cheap and you can practically go worldwide in a matter of hours or a day.

So, yeah, the GTA will always be home. Leafs, Raptors, Jays. <chuckles>

[Jasper109]

I used to be a big Jays fan (more so Expos) from the beginning through the championship years. Lately I'm more into fantasy baseball, and am less likely care which actual team wins. Poker has convinced me that 162 games might be too small a sample size, and that the playoffs are completely irrelevant.

Was a big Leafs fan during the Daryl Sittler, Lanny McDonald, Ian Turnbull, Borje Salming, Mike Palmateer era. Became more of an Oilers fan, then about 10 years ago I got totally sick of hockey and haven't watched a game from start to finish since.

Raptors. Bleh. Used to watch some NBA from Magic/Larry through to Michael, but now rarely watch a game. The Raptors have made terrible decision after terrible decision starting with the hiring of Isaiah Thomas. Hopefully Colangelo can turn things arounds. I must admit that what Nash is doing is pretty cool.

[FortunaMaximus]

I like what Ted Rogers is doing with the franchise. Of course, having to play a huge % of your games against the Yanks and Sox... Ugh.

Dan Daoust. Heh. Loved those bad Leafs teams, grew up watchin' them Saturday nights. 20-goal game with the Oilers when Gretz was at his peak. Oh, man.

Raptors look good, 7-0 pre-season. Bosh is peaking, the offense's fluid, there's a confide3nce that Colangelo seems to have brought with him. Still, I'll hold off until later in the season. That's a harsh 82-game schedule, as there are only 2 or 3 bad East teams in general.

Edit: Uh, sorry about the 'jack, guess this isn't SMP fare. Heh.