My $50,000 Challenge

[HeavilyArmed]

Alfred Nobel endowed his famous prizes starting in 1901. I'm anxious to wager that among the winners of the science* prizes (physics, chemistry and medicine) there are a majority of self-identified Christians. It will be somewhat difficult to define the exact rules of the wager since it's impossible to ask every winner and to ask only the most recent would be serious selection bias. I imagine that there exists biographic data on many so it may not be that difficult to reach a fair working methodology.

Assume I win (I figure it will be by 65/35 or more). What can be said of this (assumed) strong Christian showing in a nearly pure research science environment? They don't hand these prizes out to just anyone. You could reasonably assume that most of those that win have an intelligence that resides well over in the right hand tail of the normal curve.

I have more but that will be added later.

* Economics was added in 1969 and selection bias disqualifies it. That and it's not really a science.

[vhawk01]

You are very, very bad at gambling.

Edit: And slightly worse at analogies.

[Schmitty 87]

The identifier "Christian" is really broad and ambiguous. Even Christian theologians like Paul Tillich can't really be considered Christians (and if so, he's nothing like the vast majority of followers). Other people consider themselves Christian simply because they were raised Christian and still believe in some type of higher something.

[SBR]

I'll wager 99% of nobel prize winners could not past the lie detector test in DS's challenge.

[arahant]

Why is asking recent winners selection bias?

[vhawk01]

Seriously there needs to be more derision of the ridiculousness of this OP, not because of the lame retort he thinks he is making but because of the absurd nature of the bet.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll wager 99% of nobel prize winners could not past the lie detector test in DS's challenge.

[/ QUOTE ]

You'll need your own $50k challenge then, eh?

[arahant]

What do you want to show here? I assume you wish to imply that Nobel winners are more likely to be Christian, so let's change your bet by comparing the sample to the population. We can correct it for religion by nationality, of course.

I will give you 3:1 odds on immediate payment, or 10:1 on an annuity. We will each contribute half the cost of submitting this to a researcher.

Or were you just trying to show that there are a lot of chistians in western countries?

[luckyme]

Is there some principle or theory that your wager is intended to highlight. From the loose criteria so far I can't see anything. What do you have in mind?
I realize you haven't tackled the specifics, but just in a general way then.

luckyme

[Bandgeek]

[ QUOTE ]
Alfred Nobel endowed his famous prizes starting in 1901. I'm anxious to wager that among the winners of the science* prizes (physics, chemistry and medicine) there are a majority of self-identified Christians. It will be somewhat difficult to define the exact rules of the wager since it's impossible to ask every winner and to ask only the most recent would be serious selection bias. I imagine that there exists biographic data on many so it may not be that difficult to reach a fair working methodology.

Assume I win (I figure it will be by 65/35 or more). What can be said of this (assumed) strong Christian showing in a nearly pure research science environment? They don't hand these prizes out to just anyone. You could reasonably assume that most of those that win have an intelligence that resides well over in the right hand tail of the normal curve.

I have more but that will be added later.

* Economics was added in 1969 and selection bias disqualifies it. That and it's not really a science.

[/ QUOTE ]

You honestly think that a majority of Nobel Prize winning scientists believe the earth is only 6000 years old?

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is asking recent winners selection bias?

[/ QUOTE ]

I won't allow a lot of solid data from recent decades and a wholed data set from 100 years ago. Solid Christian identification or otherwise needs to be proportional through the decades to be a fair test. There's little doubt that atheism is on the rise. Just look at the culture today vs 45 years ago.

Also there's the need to use identical identification methods to keep it fair. If a biographer can come up with identification then it's reasonably honest for the purposes of comparison.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
If a biographer can come up with identification then it's reasonably honest for the purposes of comparison.

[/ QUOTE ]

Comparing What ???

luckyme

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why is asking recent winners selection bias?

[/ QUOTE ]

I won't allow a lot of solid data from recent decades and a wholed data set from 100 years ago. Solid Christian identification or otherwise needs to be proportional through the decades to be a fair test. There's little doubt that atheism is on the rise. Just look at the culture today vs 45 years ago.

Also there's the need to use identical identification methods to keep it fair. If a biographer can come up with identification then it's reasonably honest for the purposes of comparison.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know this is aside from your wager, but if you believe a rise in atheism to 5% accounts for the VAST majority of recent Nobel winners, what do you intend to show about a time when 'atheism' was probably at about .0001%?

EDIT: In other words, your "recent bias" caveat is essentially you conceding the point. If you are admitting that over 50% of atheist Nobel Winners would come from a population with far less than 50% atheists, what are you trying to prove? That when open atheism was lower the rate of atheist winners was lower?

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why is asking recent winners selection bias?

[/ QUOTE ]

I won't allow a lot of solid data from recent decades and a wholed data set from 100 years ago. Solid Christian identification or otherwise needs to be proportional through the decades to be a fair test. There's little doubt that atheism is on the rise. Just look at the culture today vs 45 years ago.

Also there's the need to use identical identification methods to keep it fair. If a biographer can come up with identification then it's reasonably honest for the purposes of comparison.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know this is aside from your wager, but if you believe a rise in atheism to 5% accounts for the VAST majority of recent Nobel winners, what do you intend to show about a time when 'atheism' was probably at about .0001%?

EDIT: In other words, your "recent bias" caveat is essentially you conceding the point. If you are admitting that over 50% of atheist Nobel Winners would come from a population with far less than 50% atheists, what are you trying to prove? That when open atheism was lower the rate of atheist winners was lower?

[/ QUOTE ]

At this moment you have no idea what my point is even though you are anxious to argue against it. What does that say?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why is asking recent winners selection bias?

[/ QUOTE ]

I won't allow a lot of solid data from recent decades and a wholed data set from 100 years ago. Solid Christian identification or otherwise needs to be proportional through the decades to be a fair test. There's little doubt that atheism is on the rise. Just look at the culture today vs 45 years ago.

Also there's the need to use identical identification methods to keep it fair. If a biographer can come up with identification then it's reasonably honest for the purposes of comparison.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know this is aside from your wager, but if you believe a rise in atheism to 5% accounts for the VAST majority of recent Nobel winners, what do you intend to show about a time when 'atheism' was probably at about .0001%?

EDIT: In other words, your "recent bias" caveat is essentially you conceding the point. If you are admitting that over 50% of atheist Nobel Winners would come from a population with far less than 50% atheists, what are you trying to prove? That when open atheism was lower the rate of atheist winners was lower?

[/ QUOTE ]

At this moment you have no idea what my point is even though you are anxious to argue against it. What does that say?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are bad at making points?

Also, making wagers on things which have already happened and are either true or not is a really bad idea. How are you going to get GOOD action on this wager?

[alphatmw]

wait so your challenge is simply for someone to do research, then collect winnings in the case that you are wrong?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Assume I win (I figure it will be by 65/35 or more). What can be said of this (assumed) strong Christian showing in a nearly pure research science environment?

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless the ratio is higher than the general population then you'd making a poorly constructed broader case along the lines of DS. If there were anyway to set your criteria meaningfully you'd prove that the super-bright are less likely to be christians than the average dolt.

But you don't have to go to such extremes to prove that, the National Academy numbers clear that up just fine.

luckyme.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
wait so your challenge is simply for someone to do research, then collect winnings in the case that you are wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah. I mean, I assume his challenge was made as a joke, but he should have said so. If someone presented it right now he isn't going to pay 50k.

Heavily,

Please clear this all up for us. Make your point in straightforward terms so that even a dummy like me can follow, ok?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Assume I win (I figure it will be by 65/35 or more). What can be said of this (assumed) strong Christian showing in a nearly pure research science environment?

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless the ratio is higher than the general population then you'd making a poorly constructed broader case along the lines of DS. If there were anyway to set your criteria meaningfully you'd prove that the super-bright are less likely to be christians than the average dolt.

But you don't have to go to such extremes to prove that, the National Academy numbers clear that up just fine.

luckyme.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont know who HeavilyArmed is. Is it possible that that IS his point? He is on DS's side of this and is trying to go about it in a different way? If thats the case, this is a much, much worse way of presenting the case. Yeah, it will show that Christians are underrepresented, but not nearly as powerfully as other methods. Luckyme made that point already.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
What do you want to show here? I assume you wish to imply that Nobel winners are more likely to be Christian, so let's change your bet by comparing the sample to the population. We can correct it for religion by nationality, of course.

Or were you just trying to show that there are a lot of Christians in western countries?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are close. My point was to present the accumulated work toward building and maintaining society done by the sectarian. WHile the balance at the highest levels may be shifting toward the secular, there can be little argument that civilization as I know it was built chiefly by Christians and Jews. Now, what proportion of the world's population do those two groups represent? And what proportion of prize winners past and even present do you imagine they represent? It's a lock that they are very much over-represented.

It's also true that the secular are likely over-represented today but this is a very recent trend, historically speaking. It also may prove to be a passing fancy. Time will tell.

If you're of the opinion that all cultures and/or religions are equal, I think it's fair to ask 'How well represented is -blank- on the list of prize winners?" Obviously many of you celebrate the triumph of the secular using such methods. It's only fair to ask who is not measuring up as well. If you fill the blank with Islam you will be counting very few. The idea of an Islamic Europe and more is one that I can not imagine. Where's the Islamic I-Pod? Heck, where's the Islamic automobile? That's century old technology. Maybe Indonesia has something but it won't be coming from the Middle East. I use Islamic oil but it's not pumped by Islamic pumps.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What do you want to show here? I assume you wish to imply that Nobel winners are more likely to be Christian, so let's change your bet by comparing the sample to the population. We can correct it for religion by nationality, of course.

Or were you just trying to show that there are a lot of Christians in western countries?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are close. My point was to present the accumulated work toward building and maintaining society done by the sectarian. WHile the balance at the highest levels may be shifting toward the secular, there can be little argument that civilization as I know it was built chiefly by Christians and Jews. Now, what proportion of the world's population do those two groups represent? And what proportion of prize winners past and even present do you imagine they represent? It's a lock that they are very much over-represented.

It's also true that the secular are likely over-represented today but this is a very recent trend, historically speaking. It also may prove to be a passing fancy. Time will tell.

If you're of the opinion that all cultures and/or religions are equal, I think it's fair to ask 'How well represented is -blank- on the list of prize winners?" Obviously many of you celebrate the triumph of the secular using such methods. It's only fair to ask who is not measuring up as well. If you fill the blank with Islam you will be counting very few. The idea of an Islamic Europe and more is one that I can not imagine. Where's the Islamic I-Pod? Heck, where's the Islamic automobile? That's century old technology. Maybe Indonesia has something but it won't be coming from the Middle East. I use Islamic oil but it's not pumped by Islamic pumps.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont think you know much of history if you are so willing to dismiss the contributions of Muslims to science in general, physics, mathematics, etc.

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f242/hoyahawk/chartscience2.gif

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont think you know much of history if you are so willing to dismiss the contributions of Muslims to science in general, physics, mathematics, etc.


[/ QUOTE ]

And I ask 'What have you done for me lately?' and 'What will you be doing for me tomorrow?'

I'll keep my expectations very low and avoid disappointment.

Edit - Just saw the chart. You've left off the somewhat more important last 500 years.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont think you know much of history if you are so willing to dismiss the contributions of Muslims to science in general, physics, mathematics, etc.


[/ QUOTE ]

And I ask 'What have you done for me lately?' and 'What will you be doing for me tomorrow?'

I'll keep my expectations very low and avoid disappointment.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are very confusing. Isnt this the EXACT argument you are trying to refute with regards to Christians?

[vhawk01]

Its not like I picked an unfair time range. I mean, Islam is a newer religion than Christianity, there were certainly Christians around during that period. And you obviously dont mean 'recently' since you've already conceded defeat over the last...I don't know, 100 years? So when you say recently do you mean a narrow 3-400 year window from like late 16th century until late 19th century or so?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]

And I ask 'What have you done for me lately?' and 'What will you be doing for me tomorrow?'

I'll keep my expectations very low and avoid disappointment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's see... islam is underrepresented and that tells us something. cristians are underrepresented and that tells us something.

ok, got it.

luckyme

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And I ask 'What have you done for me lately?' and 'What will you be doing for me tomorrow?'

I'll keep my expectations very low and avoid disappointment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's see... islam is underrepresented and that tells us something. cristians are underrepresented and that tells us something.

ok, got it.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, so I'm really bored and insomniac, so I did a little detective work. Needless to say I won't be participating in any more of HeavilyArmed's threads. He has a habit of being illogical and belligerent, as well as interjecting his disdain for the liberal atheist education system in the MOST inappropriate places. He's not a troll, I don't think, but this isn't going to be very productive.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
cristians are underrepresented...

[/ QUOTE ]

Christians (note spelling) are not underrepresented. In fact they are largely overrepresented. Where'd you get that idea?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
cristians are underrepresented...

[/ QUOTE ]

Christians (note spelling) are not underrepresented. In fact they are largely overrepresented. Where'd you get that idea?

[/ QUOTE ]
He meant now. Christians are grossly underrepresented in the upper echelons of science. Muslims also are. Muslims were overrepresented for a few hundred years, during which time Christians were again underrepresented.

The only point of interest I see here is that non-theism has only recently become a real option, and it has quickly shown itself to be RIDICULOUSLY over-represented. Your only good point is that this is fairly recent, ~100 years, and so its hard to say its here to stay. The rest of your points are either completely unsupported or in fact in error.

[vhawk01]

Also, do you actually have any reason to believe its going to be Christians/Jews by 65/35? Its only been given out since 1901. I think you might be shocked at the real results of this, although obviously its impossible.

[JimNashe]

I'm fairly sure that OP is very wrong, but I don't have 50,000$ to gamble (nor the inclination to do the research).

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
It's a lock that they are very much over-represented.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually it's a lock they aren't. "Over-represented" doesn't mean "more than half." It means "more than would be expected based on the general population." And atheists have always been over-represented at the highest levels. Only recently have they actually constituted a majority, but that's a very different thing. The former is much more statistically significant.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
WHile the balance at the highest levels may be shifting toward the secular, there can be little argument that civilization as I know it was built chiefly by Christians and Jews.

[/ QUOTE ]

Setting aside the greeks and romans, was it the christian estabsishment arguing against say, the divine right of kings, slavery, or for womens equality, ..whatever.
It's bad enough you screwed up the math portion of the representation aspects of your claim, but the history of modern movements is anti- the established religious stance ( which is by it's rigid nature always stuck 1 lap behind even the status quo).

luckyme

[vhawk01]

Oh by the way, my detective work last night made me nearly certain that the OP will never again visit this thread. He never addresses flat-out refutations, but prefers to make snide comments along the lines of "Well, its always nice to talk with the reading-challenged" and "Typical liberal brainwashing!" and so on.

Of course, maybe THIS post will coax him out for one last hurrah but I doubt it.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
WHile the balance at the highest levels may be shifting toward the secular, there can be little argument that civilization as I know it was built chiefly by Christians and Jews.

[/ QUOTE ]

Setting aside the greeks and romans, was it the christian estabsishment arguing against say, the divine right of kings, slavery, or for womens equality, ..whatever.
It's bad enough you screwed up the math portion of the representation aspects of your claim, but the history of modern movements is anti- the established religious stance ( which is by it's rigid nature always stuck 1 lap behind even the status quo).

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand you have some personal need to make small the Christian contribution to civilization. But my country, America, is built solidly upon Christian foundations. You may not like it and I'm sure you'll find some lame counter argument but this is not a point of future debate.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
WHile the balance at the highest levels may be shifting toward the secular, there can be little argument that civilization as I know it was built chiefly by Christians and Jews.

[/ QUOTE ]

Setting aside the greeks and romans, was it the christian estabsishment arguing against say, the divine right of kings, slavery, or for womens equality, ..whatever.
It's bad enough you screwed up the math portion of the representation aspects of your claim, but the history of modern movements is anti- the established religious stance ( which is by it's rigid nature always stuck 1 lap behind even the status quo).

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand you have some personal need to make small the Christian contribution to civilization. But my country, America, is built solidly upon Christian foundations. You may not like it and I'm sure you'll find some lame counter argument but this is not a point of future debate.

[/ QUOTE ]
It was built by Christians AGAINST the will of other Christians right? So did Christians build it or hinder it?

By the way, fantastic job of finding one example to support your ridiculous assertions.

[HeavilyArmed]

If Christians represent 40% of the prize winners over the past 25 years then they are vastly overrepresented. Go research global population demographics if you doubt me. Jews are likely overrepresented by a factor of >20, Christians by 2 or 3. Muslims are not much of a blip on the radar.

But really, through all of this, I'm amazed at the nearly naked hatred of all things Christian. The need to make small their contributions is telling.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
If Christians represent 40% of the prize winners over the past 25 years then they are vastly overrepresented. Go research global population demographics if you doubt me. Jews are likely overrepresented by a factor of >20, Christians by 2 or 3. Muslims are not much of a blip on the radar.

But really, through all of this, I'm amazed at the nearly naked hatred of all things Christian. The need to make small their contributions is telling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Throughout this I am amazed at the near naked devotion to all things Christian. The need to magnify and exaggerate their contributions is telling.

Remember who started this thread, Mr. "I have next to no faith."

And we're still waiting on your 40% number. Got names? There are only about 400 or so Nobel winners in Chemistry, Physics and Medicine, less than 300 if you throw out Medicine (which you probably should). Care to rattle off a couple hundred Christian winners?

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
Throughout this I am amazed at the near naked devotion to all things Christian. The need to magnify and exaggerate their contributions is telling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well done. It has a certain childlike charm.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Throughout this I am amazed at the near naked devotion to all things Christian. The need to magnify and exaggerate their contributions is telling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well done. It has a certain childlike charm.

[/ QUOTE ]

See my previous post where I explained that this is EXACTLY the type of response to expect from you. Its only about 5 posts up, you should be able to find it.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand you have some personal need to make small the Christian contribution to civilization.

[/ QUOTE ]

What can I say, Religion lags behind social changes. How could it do otherwise, it's built on what 'was'.
When the tide has clearly changed, then you may see some specific cults get behind it. The oppressive customs in the past were supported by the current religion, often to the death of reformers.

That advances were made in christian countries is not a feather in the cap of the religion because most of them were made in spite of rather than because of.

No different currently. Those leading the charge to turn the clock back and resisting improvement are not secularists.

luckyme

[SBR]

[ QUOTE ]
If Christians represent 40% of the prize winners over the past 25 years then they are vastly overrepresented. Go research global population demographics if you doubt me. Jews are likely overrepresented by a factor of >20, Christians by 2 or 3. Muslims are not much of a blip on the radar.

But really, through all of this, I'm amazed at the nearly naked hatred of all things Christian. The need to make small their contributions is telling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please look at the distribution of winners by country then look at the percentage of Christians in those countries. Location is a much better predictor than religion. To put it another way Jews and Christians aren't over represented. Rather countries that have relatively large amounts of Jewish and Christian populations are over represented (and please don't fall into the obvious fallacy here). In fact I would wager that if you take into acount country of origin Christians and Jews are represented at a rate far less then would be expected.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
Rather countries that have relatively large amounts of Jewish and Christian populations are over represented ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Some would argue that the reason for the overrepresentation might lie in these two religions.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Rather countries that have relatively large amounts of Jewish and Christian populations are over represented ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Some would argue that the reason for the overrepresentation might lie in these two religions.

[/ QUOTE ]

What are those elipses taking the place of in your quote?

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
...resisting improvement...

[/ QUOTE ]

A more judgmental phrase is hard to imagine.

I'm wondering if you're refering to the improvements to American society realized by the explosive out-of-wedlock birth rate? Something like that?

I could list ten other 'improvements' that will similarly spell doom for my society.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...resisting improvement...

[/ QUOTE ]

A more judgmental phrase is hard to imagine.

I'm wondering if you're refering to the improvements to American society realized by the explosive out-of-wedlock birth rate? Something like that?

I could list ten other 'improvements' that will similarly spell doom for my society.

[/ QUOTE ]

And let me guess, this is the fault of our schools only teaching 'condoms and cucumbers' right?

[vhawk01]

Oh and since this thread seems to be Logical Fallacy Central, do you think Christians are over or under-represented among pregnant teenagers?

[arahant]

Pretty sure most of us can agree that HeavilyArmed is an idiot, but I do wonder about what seems to be his point (or at least, would be if someone good at argument were making this post).

Do we agree that most 'rich'/'developed' countries are 'christian'? You can supply your own definitions for both terms.

If so, is this an historical accident?
The only rich non-christian country that comes off the top of my head is Japan. (well, Israel...that's tricky obviously).

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
The only rich non-christian country that comes off the top of my head is Japan. (well, Israel...that's tricky obviously).

[/ QUOTE ]

Some of the arab countries are doing alright. Essentially, discovering and having the riches of a resourse-laden new world would make any culture look good, even if they were bottahooligans.

luckyme

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
Pretty sure most of us can agree that HeavilyArmed is an idiot,

[/ QUOTE ]

Furthermore, anyone who reads his contributions to this thread and does not think he's an idiot, is an idiot.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The only rich non-christian country that comes off the top of my head is Japan. (well, Israel...that's tricky obviously).

[/ QUOTE ]

Some of the arab countries are doing alright. Essentially, discovering and having the riches of a resourse-laden new world would make any culture look good, even if they were bottahooligans.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't be serious. Do you have any understanding of the rights of women in most every Arab country? Look at the US bill of rights and consider that in most Arab countries you can likely toss out 7 or more of the amendments. But the 2nd amendment, baby they all get full auto AK-47s. The downside is they have to use them weekly.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that perhaps your multicultural college indoctrination is standing in the way of real world critical thinking. Breaking those shackles is harder than quitting smoking.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pretty sure most of us can agree that HeavilyArmed is an idiot,

[/ QUOTE ]

Furthermore, anyone who reads his contributions to this thread and does not think he's an idiot, is an idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

No worries mate. If folks here don't jump right in with the personal attacks I feel like I'm not doing my job. Anyone that's recently US educated likely has no frame of reference when they encounter my ideas. Conservative and patriotic and nativist ideas don't get any play in American colleges. Too bad you won't be looking at these posts twenty five years from now.

[madnak]

You must feel like the troll of the month, huh? 50 responses in a day. You're the master of disaster, my friend. You must be elated.

[SBR]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Rather countries that have relatively large amounts of Jewish and Christian populations are over represented ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Some would argue that the reason for the overrepresentation might lie in these two religions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then argue it. Don't just tell me that some people might argue that. I know. Tell me what specifically about the two religions causes over representation.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone that's recently US educated likely has no frame of reference when they encounter my ideas.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps because that description doesn't fit me I had no problem framing it in Berlin in the 30's or Alabama in the 50's. Nothing new in them.

luckytme

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
If Christians represent 40% of the prize winners over the past 25 years then they are vastly overrepresented. Go research global population demographics if you doubt me. Jews are likely overrepresented by a factor of >20, Christians by 2 or 3. Muslims are not much of a blip on the radar.

But really, through all of this, I'm amazed at the nearly naked hatred of all things Christian. The need to make small their contributions is telling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do they have to believe god authored or inspired the bible?

If not, or you dont provide some other strong criteria, then what you're doing is stupid.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Rather countries that have relatively large amounts of Jewish and Christian populations are over represented ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Some would argue that the reason for the overrepresentation might lie in these two religions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then argue it. Don't just tell me that some people might argue that. I know. Tell me what specifically about the two religions causes over representation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like so many things here, I find little upside in continuing the debate. You say 'black', I say 'white'. A third party jumps in and calls me and idiot or racist or ... We simply start too far apart, ideologically speaking.

[HeavilyArmed]

I notice you've ignored the post where I explain your error in assesing Arab society and your multi-cultural indoctrination. Instead you call me a racist and dodge the debate. This is 100% typical of all that lack any critical thinking.

My assesment of your indoctrination is now reinforced.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I notice you've ignored the post where I explain your error in assesing Arab society and your multi-cultural indoctrination.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, let's look over your explaination -.

The question was about RICH countries -
[ QUOTE ]
The only rich non-christian country that comes off the top of my head is Japan. (well, Israel...that's tricky obviously).

[/ QUOTE ]

I commented -
[ QUOTE ]
Some of the arab countries are doing alright.

[/ QUOTE ]

You ' corrected ' that with -

[ QUOTE ]
You can't be serious. Do you have any understanding of the rights of women in most every Arab country?

[/ QUOTE ]

And you think that warrants a response ..
ok, that is an idiotic non-corrective.
Feel better?

luckyme

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
Do we agree that most 'rich'/'developed' countries are 'christian'? You can supply your own definitions for both terms.

If so, is this an historical accident?
The only rich non-christian country that comes off the top of my head is Japan.

[/ QUOTE ]

The answer to this question is totally dependent on your point of view. 50 years ago and further, the answer from most Americans would be no, it is obvious that western success was due to its Christian foundation. Today, this idea is academic poison but still true. You say such a thing in a university and kiss your shot at tenure goodbye.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I notice you've ignored the post where I explain your error in assesing Arab society and your multi-cultural indoctrination.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, let's look over your explaination -.

The question was about RICH countries -
[ QUOTE ]
The only rich non-christian country that comes off the top of my head is Japan. (well, Israel...that's tricky obviously).

[/ QUOTE ]

I commented -
[ QUOTE ]
Some of the arab countries are doing alright.

[/ QUOTE ]

You ' corrected ' that with -

[ QUOTE ]
You can't be serious. Do you have any understanding of the rights of women in most every Arab country?

[/ QUOTE ]

And you think that warrants a response ..
ok, that is an idiotic non-corrective.
Feel better?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Context please. We are/were assesing cultures, not counting dollars.

I'm lowering the bar for you once again.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do we agree that most 'rich'/'developed' countries are 'christian'? You can supply your own definitions for both terms.

If so, is this an historical accident?
The only rich non-christian country that comes off the top of my head is Japan.

[/ QUOTE ]

The answer to this question is totally dependent on your point of view. 50 years ago and further, the answer from most Americans would be no, it is obvious that western success was due to its Christian foundation. Today, this idea is academic poison but still true. You say such a thing in a university and kiss your shot at tenure goodbye.

[/ QUOTE ]

50 years ago most americans believed a computer could never beat a chess master. If americans have changed their mind on a subject we should at least allow some % of the possible reasons to the fact that they were wrong in the past rather than the present. ( whatever the real answer is).
When possible, my default assumption is that we are wrong, past and present. Especially if it's a subject that can be meaningfully analyzed.

Why was Mexico poor and USA rich 50 years ago. Mexico was more christian. Why is Mexico getting wealthier now, is it even more christian, or did they find oil or ..
What about Venezuela .. did it suddenly find christianity.
what about china, which will be the leading econominc power in a few years ... are they all taking communion?

luckyme

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
What about Venezuela .. did it suddenly find christianity.
what about china, which will be the leading econominc power in a few years ... are they all taking communion?


[/ QUOTE ]

Up-and-comers! You should pack and move now to beat the rush.

Wrap your mind around this. Increasing economic output is not a promise of a healthy culture. China has gone from a per capita output of squat-doodle to 1.5 squat-doodles in a generation while reducing the murder of the citizenry to a modest fraction of the Mao days. Venezuela is a communist s--t hole. Enjoy!

Christianity is not sufficient to build a successful culture but it seems to be a fine building block, if not necessary. The combination of Christianity and the Caucasians seems to be a solid winner.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What about Venezuela .. did it suddenly find christianity.
what about china, which will be the leading econominc power in a few years ... are they all taking communion?


[/ QUOTE ]

Up-and-comers! You should pack and move now to beat the rush.

Wrap your mind around this. Increasing conomic output is not a promise of a healthy culture. China has gone from a per capita output of squat-doodle to 1.5 squat-doodles in a generation while reducing the murder of the citizenry to a modest fraction of the Mao days. Venezuela is a communist s--t hole. Enjoy!

Christianity is not sufficient to build a successful culture but it seems to be a fine building block, if not necessary. The combination of Christianity and the Caucasians seems to be a solid winner.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm curious as to what your objective culture metric is. Let me guess, the more like the US they are, or at least the more Christian they are, the more advanced and robust their culture, right? Thats hardly begging the question at all!

Oh and you seem to be on a tangent here, since economic prosperity is EXACTLY the key indicator that SBR was talking about wrt to Nobel winners, and lo and behold this thread was supposed to be about Nobel Prize winners.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm curious as to what your objective culture metric is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would I move there? More generally, is the world anxious to move there? And I not just talking about the huddled masses, I'm talking about those with some education.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm curious as to what your objective culture metric is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would I move there? More generally, is the world anxious to move there? And I not just talking about the huddled masses, I'm talking about those with some education.

[/ QUOTE ]

The favored nations by that standard tend to be the most secular, canada, norway etc.

luckyme

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm curious as to what your objective culture metric is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would I move there? More generally, is the world anxious to move there? And I not just talking about the huddled masses, I'm talking about those with some education.

[/ QUOTE ]

The favored nations by that standard tend to be the most secular, canada, norway etc.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I won't research this but it's a sure bet they're not moving to China and Venezuela.

Also, Canada and Norway are tending toward secularism but to deny their Christian roots is dishonest. Doesn't Norway have a cross on their flag?

Also also, The net immigration into California has got to be bigger that the immigration into Canada or Norway. I'm just spit balling here but those are tiny countries.

Also also also, we in America are hamstrung by the immigration law of 1965, preventing us from making meaningful discriminations among potential immigrants on the basis of their economic and intellectual potential.

[SBR]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do we agree that most 'rich'/'developed' countries are 'christian'? You can supply your own definitions for both terms.

If so, is this an historical accident?
The only rich non-christian country that comes off the top of my head is Japan.

[/ QUOTE ]

The answer to this question is totally dependent on your point of view. 50 years ago and further, the answer from most Americans would be no, it is obvious that western success was due to its Christian foundation. Today, this idea is academic poison but still true. You say such a thing in a university and kiss your shot at tenure goodbye.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please go read Guns, Germs and Steel. It will show you how very wrong you are (also your other post was a copout, if you can make an argument then do it, don't just tell me we are too far apart ideologically when you don't even know what my ideology is).

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
I won't research this but it's a sure bet they're not moving to China and Venezuela.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've reconsidered. I'll bet there's a bunch of North Koreans trying to sneak in to China, at least for a meal.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
...when you don't even know what my ideology is...

[/ QUOTE ]

Absent any tells, one of my shortcuts here is to assume most every poster is:

1. Young
2. Above average educationally
3. Center-left to way, way liberal

I imagine i'm right 80% of the time. I'd imagine I get two out of three 90% of the time. The one that I do know with certainty is that the posters here are <25 yo median age. ANd young correlates with liberal really well. And recent college education correlates with way liberal really well.

Obviously this post is an open invitation for every poster that is not in the above profile to post and tell the world what an idiot I am. It will prove a wonderful exercise in selection bias.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...when you don't even know what my ideology is...

[/ QUOTE ]

Absent any tells, one of my shortcuts here is to assume most every poster is:

1. Young
2. Above average educationally
3. Center-left to way, way liberal

I imagine i'm right 80% of the time. I'd imagine I get two out of three 90% of the time. The one that I do know with certainty is that the posters here are <25 yo median age. ANd young correlates with liberal really well. And recent college education correlates with way liberal really well.

[/ QUOTE ]

hahaha, so in 5-10 years the republicans won't be able to win a seat.

luckyme

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
hahaha, so in 5-10 years the republicans won't be able to win a seat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not quite. With age comes wisdom. Hopefully.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
hahaha, so in 5-10 years the republicans won't be able to win a seat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not quite. With age comes wisdom. Hopefully.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, we will remain ignorant.
I realize you don't care, but this is kind of a common fallacy we see a lot. 'the media has a liberal bias', 'universities have a liberal bias', etc. The actual fact is, smart people have a liberal bias, and almost all professional fields are dominated by smart people. In fact, as Colbert put it so well, "reality has a well-known liberal bias".

The republicans will still be winning 50% of the races in 50 years, but i promise you that they will no longer be against gay rights and will be much less likely to oppose abortion.

To your earlier point...since CA has by far the most immigrants in the US, will you now concede that CA is a 'better' culture than, say, Alabama?

LOL...why am I responding. You know where ad hominen attacks come from? They come from people like you who ignore normal arguments...

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, we will remain ignorant.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think history bears you out. The correlation between age and political leaning is reasonably strong. You see this changing?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, we will remain ignorant.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think history bears you out. The correlation between age and political leaning is reasonably strong. You see this changing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is stronger, the correlation between age or the correlation between education/intelligence? I know that from your point of view intelligence definitely doesnt equal education, but we'll have to overcome your ridiculous bias since I doubt there are IQ/political party determinations.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, we will remain ignorant.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think history bears you out. The correlation between age and political leaning is reasonably strong. You see this changing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is stronger, the correlation between age or the correlation between education/intelligence? I know that from your point of view intelligence definitely doesnt equal education, but we'll have to overcome your ridiculous bias since I doubt there are IQ/political party determinations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's a link to aid you in answering your question. linky (http://www.google.com/)

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, we will remain ignorant.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think history bears you out. The correlation between age and political leaning is reasonably strong. You see this changing?

[/ QUOTE ]
Not neccesarily. The difference is you seem to believe that as people get older, their views become more conservative. What is actually happening is that their views reflect the views of their birth cohort. Over time, each succeeding cohort has become less socially conservative. In 100 years, there will still be liberals and conservatives, but the conservatives will look like todays liberals. The world advances whether conservatives want it to or not.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, we will remain ignorant.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think history bears you out. The correlation between age and political leaning is reasonably strong. You see this changing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is stronger, the correlation between age or the correlation between education/intelligence? I know that from your point of view intelligence definitely doesnt equal education, but we'll have to overcome your ridiculous bias since I doubt there are IQ/political party determinations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's a link to aid you in answering your question. linky (http://www.google.com/)

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's a more useful link: Exhibit A (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=8252951&an=0&page=0& vc=1)

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
Canada or Norway. I'm just spit balling here but those are tiny countries.


[/ QUOTE ]

And you're arguing that Christians *aren't* less intelligent than atheists?

[SBR]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...when you don't even know what my ideology is...

[/ QUOTE ]

Absent any tells, one of my shortcuts here is to assume most every poster is:

1. Young
2. Above average educationally
3. Center-left to way, way liberal

I imagine i'm right 80% of the time. I'd imagine I get two out of three 90% of the time. The one that I do know with certainty is that the posters here are <25 yo median age. ANd young correlates with liberal really well. And recent college education correlates with way liberal really well.

Obviously this post is an open invitation for every poster that is not in the above profile to post and tell the world what an idiot I am. It will prove a wonderful exercise in selection bias.

[/ QUOTE ]

So instead of actually responding to my post you go off on a random tangent and try to change the subject. Since you are apparently unable to make an argument I'm done. You seem to just want to post some assumptions and pretend you've made some sort of point.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
Over time, each succeeding cohort has become less socially conservative. In 100 years, there will still be liberals and conservatives, but the conservatives will look like todays liberals.

[/ QUOTE ]

No doubt. I've seen it in my lifetime. A J. F. Kennedy today would be a Republican. John McCain and GWB aren't really conservatives.

I see it as one more sign that America is doomed.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Canada or Norway. I'm just spit balling here but those are tiny countries.


[/ QUOTE ]

And you're arguing that Christians *aren't* less intelligent than atheists?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who suggested that I was Christian?

Also, Canada is roughly 1/10th of the USA across the board save acreage and Tim Horton's franchises, eh?

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]

Who suggested that I was Christian?


[/ QUOTE ]

Your posting history has "suggested" it. Heavily.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, we will remain ignorant.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think history bears you out. The correlation between age and political leaning is reasonably strong. You see this changing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is stronger, the correlation between age or the correlation between education/intelligence? I know that from your point of view intelligence definitely doesnt equal education, but we'll have to overcome your ridiculous bias since I doubt there are IQ/political party determinations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's a link to aid you in answering your question. linky (http://www.google.com/)

[/ QUOTE ]
Seriously, do you have to be like this? It was your assertion, I am just questioning it. Do you actually have any reason to post these things or is this based on years of your careful observation? Thanks for the sarcastic link, it was as hurtful as it was clever.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...when you don't even know what my ideology is...

[/ QUOTE ]

Absent any tells, one of my shortcuts here is to assume most every poster is:

1. Young
2. Above average educationally
3. Center-left to way, way liberal

I imagine i'm right 80% of the time. I'd imagine I get two out of three 90% of the time. The one that I do know with certainty is that the posters here are <25 yo median age. ANd young correlates with liberal really well. And recent college education correlates with way liberal really well.

Obviously this post is an open invitation for every poster that is not in the above profile to post and tell the world what an idiot I am. It will prove a wonderful exercise in selection bias.

[/ QUOTE ]

So instead of actually responding to my post you go off on a random tangent and try to change the subject. Since you are apparently unable to make an argument I'm done. You seem to just want to post some assumptions and pretend you've made some sort of point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did my best to explain why I was not going to engage you on the topic you hold dear. I understand the futility of much of my posting here. I may as well be speaking Urdu for all the good it does. I just can't single-handedly take on every argument since I'm multi-tabling and I'm a por typost.

Did I stereotype you correctly? Most folks hate that.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Canada or Norway. I'm just spit balling here but those are tiny countries.


[/ QUOTE ]

And you're arguing that Christians *aren't* less intelligent than atheists?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who suggested that I was Christian?

Also, Canada is roughly 1/10th of the USA across the board save acreage and Tim Horton's franchises, eh?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you? This is a flat-out, straight-up question. Are you a Christian, are you a theist, what specific denomination?

You basically intentionally mislead and are deceptively vague in your posts. It does little to foster the honest debate you claim to be interested in. It doesnt prevent you from attacking all of us, though.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...when you don't even know what my ideology is...

[/ QUOTE ]

Absent any tells, one of my shortcuts here is to assume most every poster is:

1. Young
2. Above average educationally
3. Center-left to way, way liberal

I imagine i'm right 80% of the time. I'd imagine I get two out of three 90% of the time. The one that I do know with certainty is that the posters here are <25 yo median age. ANd young correlates with liberal really well. And recent college education correlates with way liberal really well.

Obviously this post is an open invitation for every poster that is not in the above profile to post and tell the world what an idiot I am. It will prove a wonderful exercise in selection bias.

[/ QUOTE ]

So instead of actually responding to my post you go off on a random tangent and try to change the subject. Since you are apparently unable to make an argument I'm done. You seem to just want to post some assumptions and pretend you've made some sort of point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did my best to explain why I was not going to engage you on the topic you hold dear. I understand the futility of much of my posting here. I may as well be speaking Urdu for all the good it does. I just can't single-handedly take on every argument since I'm multi-tabling and I'm a por typost.

Did I stereotype you correctly?

[/ QUOTE ]

So instead you choose to ignore any exchange that exposes your fallacies and unsupported assertions, and stick to using your valuable time to make distracting, off-topic red-herring posts. At least you are good at time-management!

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Canada or Norway. I'm just spit balling here but those are tiny countries.


[/ QUOTE ]

And you're arguing that Christians *aren't* less intelligent than atheists?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who suggested that I was Christian?

Also, Canada is roughly 1/10th of the USA across the board save acreage and Tim Horton's franchises, eh?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you? This is a flat-out, straight-up question. Are you a Christian, are you a theist, what specific denomination?

You basically intentionally mislead and are deceptively vague in your posts. It does little to foster the honest debate you claim to be interested in. It doesnt prevent you from attacking all of us, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have next to no faith. That remaining lower case epsilon of faith is not Christian. But I am a big fan.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Canada or Norway. I'm just spit balling here but those are tiny countries.


[/ QUOTE ]

And you're arguing that Christians *aren't* less intelligent than atheists?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who suggested that I was Christian?

Also, Canada is roughly 1/10th of the USA across the board save acreage and Tim Horton's franchises, eh?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you? This is a flat-out, straight-up question. Are you a Christian, are you a theist, what specific denomination?

You basically intentionally mislead and are deceptively vague in your posts. It does little to foster the honest debate you claim to be interested in. It doesnt prevent you from attacking all of us, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have next to no faith. That remaining lower case epsilon of faith is not Christian. But I am a big fan.

[/ QUOTE ]

Finally a straight answer! Ok, now that leads to my next question, a big fan of what? Obviously not the actual beliefs. You appear to be a fan of what Christianity (and for some reason specifically Christianity) has accomplished. Do you think there is something unique about the actual beliefs that led to these supposed accomplishments? Or is it just a coincidence? If these same people had been Jain would America still exist? Why did it take 1800 years for the idea of America to take hold of Christians?

[luckyme]

I'm trying to figure out, if american society is so admired, when they travel to other christian countries the smart thing for them to do is wear canadian lapel pins?

luckyme

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Canada or Norway. I'm just spit balling here but those are tiny countries.


[/ QUOTE ]

And you're arguing that Christians *aren't* less intelligent than atheists?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who suggested that I was Christian?

Also, Canada is roughly 1/10th of the USA across the board save acreage and Tim Horton's franchises, eh?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you? This is a flat-out, straight-up question. Are you a Christian, are you a theist, what specific denomination?

You basically intentionally mislead and are deceptively vague in your posts. It does little to foster the honest debate you claim to be interested in. It doesnt prevent you from attacking all of us, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have next to no faith. That remaining lower case epsilon of faith is not Christian. But I am a big fan.

[/ QUOTE ]

Finally a straight answer! Ok, now that leads to my next question, a big fan of what? Obviously not the actual beliefs. You appear to be a fan of what Christianity (and for some reason specifically Christianity) has accomplished. Do you think there is something unique about the actual beliefs that led to these supposed accomplishments? Or is it just a coincidence? If these same people had been Jain would America still exist? Why did it take 1800 years for the idea of America to take hold of Christians?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a fan of Judaism too. There's a soft spot for Confucius as well. Add Mormons too (if they are not considered a Christian subset).

Bottom line, I'm a bottom line guy. Whatca done for me lately? I can't explain why Christianity has worked its magic throughout western culture and I don't understand the currently fashionable need to make light of it. I can take my Christian American culture in one hand and Islamic Middle Eastern culture in another and tell you without equivocation why one is so much superior to the other. THat's an essay for another time.

I can tell you without a doubt that I am personally safer, in life and property, in rural Utah than most anywhere else in America and that's because it's a state of overwhelming faith. Why is that so? I don't care why. It is. Bottom line.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I can tell you without a doubt that I am personally safer, in life and property, in rural Utah than most anywhere else in America and that's because it's a state of overwhelming faith. Why is that so? I don't care why. It is. Bottom line.

[/ QUOTE ]

so the world is flocking to UTAH not CA?
Except for young girls perhaps?

luckyme

[vhawk01]

The point is that if you dont stop or bother to think about WHY the Christians or Jews or Mormons are more likely to create the type of society or culture you seem to enjoy, you are at great risk of missing what may be simply a coincidence, and what might, in the future, come back to bite you. Your willful ignorance (apparently in the name of intellectual independence?) works out pretty well for you because you happen to live in a fairl Christian and fairly affluent society. There are MANY dirt-poor Christian societies and a good number of non-Christian (or Jewish or Mormon) cultures, and if you are relying or depending on a rise in Christianity saving you from a decline in your society you might be sorely disappointed.

[luckyme]

Utah, USA, is the beacon of progress and women's rights etc that you've been touting. wow.
you gotta get out more.

luckyme

[vhawk01]

Double post, sorry.

[vhawk01]

Oh and I meant a perceived or subjective decline in your society since I don't think that American society is on the decline at all, and certainly not because of a rise in secularism (if there can be said to be a rise in secularism at all, I'm skeptical).

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm trying to figure out, if american society is so admired, when they travel to other christian countries the smart thing for them to do is wear canadian lapel pins?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

You won't find real Americans doing that. Lots of Blue staters, sure. Dixie chicks, you betcha.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can tell you without a doubt that I am personally safer, in life and property, in rural Utah than most anywhere else in America and that's because it's a state of overwhelming faith. Why is that so? I don't care why. It is. Bottom line.

[/ QUOTE ]

so the world is flocking to UTAH not CA?
Except for young girls perhaps?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for fulfilling my expectations for a stereotypical liberal.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
The point is that if you dont stop or bother to think about WHY the Christians or Jews or Mormons are more likely to create the type of society or culture you seem to enjoy, you are at great risk of missing what may be simply a coincidence, and what might, in the future, come back to bite you. Your willful ignorance (apparently in the name of intellectual independence?) works out pretty well for you because you happen to live in a fairl Christian and fairly affluent society. There are MANY dirt-poor Christian societies and a good number of non-Christian (or Jewish or Mormon) cultures, and if you are relying or depending on a rise in Christianity saving you from a decline in your society you might be sorely disappointed.

[/ QUOTE ]

No worries. I'll stick to the intersection of Christianity and Caucasian. It's way too big of a success story to be simply coincidence.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The point is that if you dont stop or bother to think about WHY the Christians or Jews or Mormons are more likely to create the type of society or culture you seem to enjoy, you are at great risk of missing what may be simply a coincidence, and what might, in the future, come back to bite you. Your willful ignorance (apparently in the name of intellectual independence?) works out pretty well for you because you happen to live in a fairl Christian and fairly affluent society. There are MANY dirt-poor Christian societies and a good number of non-Christian (or Jewish or Mormon) cultures, and if you are relying or depending on a rise in Christianity saving you from a decline in your society you might be sorely disappointed.

[/ QUOTE ]

No worries. I'll stick to the intersection of Christianity and Caucasian. It's way too big of a success story to be simply coincidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh. Any particular reason you would have ANY idea whats too big to be a coincidence?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm trying to figure out, if american society is so admired, when they travel to other christian countries the smart thing for them to do is wear canadian lapel pins?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

You won't find real Americans doing that. Lots of Blue staters, sure. Dixie chicks, you betcha.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can hear the Lee Greenwood and see the eagle shedding a single tear as you speak sir. You are a true patriot.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
No worries. I'll stick to the intersection of Christianity and Caucasian. It's way too big of a success story to be simply coincidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

have you ever been a member of the KKK and, if so, are you still?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No worries. I'll stick to the intersection of Christianity and Caucasian. It's way too big of a success story to be simply coincidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

have you ever been a member of the KKK and, if so, are you still?

[/ QUOTE ]

Before another post by OP, let me save you the time:

"Oh, typical blue-staters, can't beat my arguments so go to the old stand-by of just calling me a racist or a bigot! Your college professors sure brainwashed you good!"

SNORE.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm trying to figure out, if american society is so admired, when they travel to other christian countries the smart thing for them to do is wear canadian lapel pins?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

You won't find real Americans doing that. Lots of Blue staters, sure. Dixie chicks, you betcha.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://bluewaffle.com/images/redneck.jpg

[kurto]

I just want to say this is the funniest thread of the day. heavily has provided many chuckles.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously this post is an open invitation for every poster that is not in the above profile to post and tell the world what an idiot I am. It will prove a wonderful exercise in selection bias.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am a 37 year old with a BS in communication studies. So I'm older then your guess. I'm not overly educated... just a simple BS degree.

Your posts are funny. You have horrible logic. You are getting decimated in this thread. You're all over the place.

You also don't address all the people that repost your contradictions. For instance, where you posted that you have nearly zero faith then go on for post after post about your ceaseless defense of everything Christian and your faith.

This thread has grown long quickly, I suspect, because its probably fun batting each of your responses out of the ballpark.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
I can tell you without a doubt that I am personally safer, in life and property, in rural Utah than most anywhere else in America and that's because it's a state of overwhelming faith. Why is that so? I don't care why. It is. Bottom line.


[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps it has as much to do with the population density?