The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

ISAW

Wicknight wrote:

Yes, but thats my point. Children are the only difference between heterosexual sex and homosexual sex, if you remove the possibility of children there is no different. The "utter giving of oneself to another" is common in both heterosexual sex within a committed loving relationship and homosexual sex in a committed loving relationship.

So why is one the hight of morality, and the other the hight of immorality.

This is an example of one of the main reasons I find religion so distasteful, there is no logical difference between the emotional relationship of a heterosexual couple and that of a homosexual couple, but because it was written down in a book 3000 years ago that one is immoral and the other isn't we are still stuck with this ridiculous notion of morality thousands of years later.

This is a good point. But the "pro family" argument is not necessarily to do with religion. The Irish constitution supports marriage and the family. One argument in favour of that is that the family is a stable societal unit and supplies the citizens of the next generation. There is further evidence to suggest that a "family" is considered to be a hertosexual married couple with children. i.e. single parents childless couples and homosexual couples mitigate against the advantages the family gives to the nation state and as such the family deserves to be protected or have special rights.

So even if you don't believe homosexuality is genetic (why wouldn't you, except maybe because it is too hard to admit that God actually made homosexuality as part of nature?), you can rest assured it isn't because homosexual men spent too much time helping their mother with the ironing.

Indeed one could argue that if the percentage of homosexuals was reversed with the current amount of herterosexuals then the problems of the would would be solved since there would be a rapid population collapse.

How? You saying God is straight so everyone else must be straight? Who does God have sex with?

I would suggest the concept of God goes beyond male and female.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote:

Its 6.8 murders for every 100,000 people (1997).

And the Vatican has a population of about roughly 500 people,

No it doesnt! It has maybe 600 citizens. That does not count other people who live there or work there every day. How could they list a birth rate in your source if the whole population only included celebate clergy? and that is even discounting the tourists. 50,000 a day tuen up to see the Pope etc.

so its muder rate is actually, put into context with the American statistics, 6 murders for every 12,000 citizens, which is nearly 100 times higher than America's.

No it isnt! the murder rate is done per population not per citizen! Are you really claiming that a guest worker in Germany or an immegrant in the Us can neither be murdered or murder people?

But as I said, this is all a bit pointless since the Vatican city only has a handful of citizens

But if it is pointless then why do you continue. REmember the point came from the idea you advanced that "less believers means less crime"

so arguing over its crime and murder rate is silly because the sample size is far to small to draw any conclusions over the effect of strong faith on morality or the ability to be law abiding.

No it isnt! The statistical errors increase but it is not pointless! How can you argue that Ireland with a population of four million is as significant as the US?

I'm not sure that was actually the claim that was made. I think, from my reading of the posts, the claim was if atheism and non-religion leads to immoral behaviour why are countries with high rates of atheism also countries with low crime rate. The example was being used to disprove the original hypotheis, that lack of religion leads to immorality.

Wolfbain - "I deny that unbelievers are just as likely to be moral as believers. Just look around you. That all have a conscience is true, but that conscience is more often overruled in the unbeliever than in the believer."

Scofflaw - "The least violent and criminal societies are also those with the highest percentage of unbelievers."

This was the counter claim to respond to wolfbains original statement. It isn't attempting to say that atheism drives down crime, only that the idea that atheism increase crime and immorality is obviously wrong.


Well it kinda is because you seem to be miss-understanding what was originally said.



Your point is invalid because you seem to be assuming a meaning from what was said that doesn't appear to actually be there in the context of the discussion.


Well for the counter claim to disprove the original claim, that atheists are more likely to be immoral and criminal, you only need to find one example where that isn't true, which was given.


True, but to an atheists such as myself that kinda makes a mockery of the term "morality", since to a suicide bomber blowing up a bus full of children he is doing the work of God and as such is carrying out a moral action. Which is one of main objections to people puting a lot of weight into the "morality" of a taught religion.



Atheism isn't a religion, so I'm not quite sure how someone would religiously follow it


From humanity, as does all morality. Morality is a system of human interaction, derived from both lower levels of human consciousness (emotion) and higher levels (logic and reason), and (at least to an atheists) it itself comes from human interaction, not a supernatural god or gods.


That is a myth, taught by the religions themselves to give the illusion of order and control (sorry if that sounded a bit conspiricy theory, I don't mean it in an actual orderd "we know what we are doing" fashion, like people on the ground making this up).

The reality is that subjective reading of the teachings of religions, from the Bible to the Quar'an is wide spread, and in fact fundamental to the spread of these religions.



If that was the case then you would have no future suicide bombers being taught Islamic fundamentalism and hatred for non-Muslims in a Mosque in Iran when British Muslims are being taught in a Mosque in towns around Britian to respect the civil law of the country and respect for non-Muslims.

You wouldn't have Catholics in Ireland having protected sex with a condom when Catholics in a poor African village are having unprotected sex despite the huge risk of catching HIV.

Morality with in a religion, just like morality in all of humanity, is subjective.

ISAW

Asiaprod wrote:

When did you last look, I am one, its not a religion, it pays homage to no god.

Is buddhism a religion?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_world_religion
http://www.omsakthi.org/religions.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/buddhism/
http://allaboutsikhs.com/religion/buddhism.htm
http://www.teach12.com/ttc/Assets/courseDescriptions/6105.asp?pc=SiteIndex

Maybe you dont believe so but the above seem to think it is.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote:

How could they list a birth rate in your source if the whole population only included celebate clergy?

Because the citizenship doesn't include only celebate clergy. How could they list a birth rate in the only other people were tourists or workers? Most people don't have children at work or at a tourist spot.

ISAW wrote:

No it isnt! the murder rate is done per population not per citizen! Are you really claiming that a guest worker in Germany or an immegrant in the Us can neither be murdered or murder people?

No, are you claiming the vast majority of murder in the US is carried out by non-nationals?

Look ISAW, for this to be a factor a large proportion of Americans murders would have to be carried out by non-nationals, and a large proportion of the Vaticans murders would have to be carried out by non-nations. Neither, as far as I know, are true.

The only murder I'm aware of in recent times in the vatican was carried out by a Swiss guard.

ISAW wrote:

REmember the point came from the idea you advanced that "less believers means less crime"

Firstly, that wasn't the point. The "point" was that the idea that religious populations are more moral and law abiding is false as shown by examples of populations with high levels of atheism and low levels of crime. No one was claiming that atheism lowers crime (that wouldn't really make sense as a statement on its own), only that religion is not necessary for a moral law abiding society.

Secondly you used the Vatican as an example of more believers means less crime, which, no matter how you view the statistics, is false using that example. The Vatican has a high murder rate amoung its actual citizens. (1 in every 500, 600 or even 1000 is high)

The issue of the non-nationals only comes into the equation when you want to compare this statistic to other countries, because you have to make sure the other countries aren't including non-nationals as well.

But even if a lot of murders in American are carried out by non-nationals, and the vatican rate isn't as high as America's with non-nationals included (doubtful) this is rather irrelivent, the rate is still high I know at least 600 people and none of them have killed anyone yet (that I know)

But as I said, the sample size is too small to draw conclusions as to the effect of religion on moral behaviour. It only takes one murder to completely swing the statistics. If that swiss guard hadn't killed his wife and commanding officer the Vatican would have a very low murder rate in the last few years.

ISAW wrote:

How can you argue that Ireland with a population of four million is as significant as the US?

I'm not sure I did.

Asiaprod

ISAW wrote:

Is buddhism a religion?: Maybe you dont believe so but the above seem to think it is.

Yes, sad is it not. I am one, it is not a religion, it a philosophy thingy. There is no god in Buddhism in the sense of the Christian God. It is a completly different concept, an honorific title if anything.
There are protective spirits that were one man, demons that were one evil man, no Gods. Gods are Hindu. Buddhha was a MAN.:D Happy Devil's day:)

Scofflaw

Well, ISAW, I'm afraid I really can't be bothered arguing with you about something I didn't claim. This will save you some time, which you can use to brush up on the ideas of "nuance" and "context", plus perhaps looking up "statistically significant".

If you wish to, er, claim you've won a point here or something, by all means, be my guest.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

I had a quick chat with my buddy who is a geologist in the oil patch. He told me that there is absolutely no doubt of a worldwide flood. He also is an old earth creationist and stated that there have also been othet floods throughout the millenia that have been more localised. Although he implied that geologists don't necessarily take the flood into consideration while looking for oil, they oil deposits are contained within certain rock formations that were formed by the flood or a flood.

That is a quick statement. Don't expect a response to any question regarding the report of the chat because I wont have an answer.

ISAW

J C wrote:

Quote Wicknight

I actually AGREE with you on this one.
As I have ALSO explained many times before, Evolution DOESN’T advance.
In fact, it’s supposed ‘diversity generation mechanism’ (mutation) actually DEGRADES genetic information.

What do ou mean? This suggests that later generations are not a "pure" as earlier ones.
Which is entirely in agreement with genetics. But you seem to be claiming that that species do the opposite of progress. what do you mean by diversity "degrades"?

However, the fact that Evolution doesn’t advance (a fact on which you also apparently agree) is logically devastating for a mechanism that Evolutionists maintain accounts for the ‘advancement’ evident between Muck and Man.

You are committing a common error . Biological "evolution" is not the same as social "evolution" . When you add social judgements that we are somehow "better" than cave men you are not judging it from a biological perspective.

Natural Selection does indeed ADAPT populations to changing environments and/or allows populations to exploit new ecological niches – but it uses extant pre-existing genetic diversity to do so.

You are suggesting that based on the fact that all species are made of the same stuff that no new species arise. Everything is also made of elements but that does not mean new chemicals are not created.

Quote ISAW
Newton? ...check out when you begin that the authorities you use are not heretics.

Yes, indeed this is the Great Sir Isaac Newton – ‘the father’ of Physics.

Are you now claiming that someone is to be admired for their ability in spite of their moral or religious views? do you admire Satan's ability?

that doesn’t in any way lessen his authority as one of the greatest scientific brains that ever lived. It also doesn’t invalidate the fact that he was a Creationist.

It is argument from authority! If you claim Newton was right about something than re state what you claim he was right about. don't insist it must be correct just because anyone stated it! Hitler liked painting. Does that mean all house painters are evil? I

I may disagree with Sir Isaac Newton’s lack of Christian orthodoxy but that doesn’t reduce my respect for him as a Creation Scientist of the highest calibre.

If you believe creation science is linked to Christianity it does in fact! Do you accept the religious views of a heretic and believe that his views on religious beliefs are dictum? By the way Newton's science was also not correct enough to explain some things we observe.

Creation Science is indeed at least several hundred years old as I have already pointed out and contains within it’s ranks people from all Christian denominations, other mono-theists and people with no particular religious conviction.

But it is in your view coming from a common Christian belief. If one of the authorities is a heretic then you accept his scientific view even if he is heretical in a christian sense?

Therefore Creation Science ISN’T confined to ONLY Born Again, Bible Believing Christians (as some contributors to this thread have tried to intimate).
Creation Scientists concentrate exclusively on the scientific evidence for Creation. They have a strict division between their scientific activities, based upon repeatably observable evidence, and their personal religious convictions, based upon their various faith positions.

Quote ISAW
And Arian Heritics.

I think that you are confusing the scientific observations of top Creation Scientists such as Sir Isaac Newton, with their religious convictions. While it is true that many Creation Scientists are saved Christians – others may not have been saved.
[/quote]

While it is a source of great regret for me that this may be the case, I believe that this in no way invalidates the Creation Science research activities of such people.

So you accept Newton was a heretic but you suggest we should listen to his arguments about his religious beliefs being connected to science? And that those beliefs are correct?

Originally Posted by J C
I am a Christian who BELIEVES on the Lord Jesus Christ and a Creation Scientist who KNOWS that ‘muck didn’t evolve into MAN’
Quote ISAW
You "Know" it? you don’t just believe it? You actually know because you have factual evidence?

Yes I KNOW that ‘muck didn’t evolve into Man’ based upon the Laws of Probability and large numbers as well as much repeatably observable evidence.

So you know that based on probability muck was made into man but it couldnt have evoloved?

Quote ISAW
What do you mean by "evolve"?
do you believe ther were no species capable of breeding with human beings and that god came along and actually placed the first human man and woman on the Earth?

By ‘evolve’ I mean the gradual development of two or more distinct kinds from one common ancestor.

Do you subscribe to Behe's "Irreducible complexity" theory?

Is it true that you do not believe that apes and man had a common ansestor then?

Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution.

I KNOW that there were no species capable of breeding with Human Beings and I BELIEVE that God actually directly placed the first human man and woman on the Earth

You believe speciation does not occur?
You believe that there were no homonid species ata the same time as humans. How about neanderthals or cro magnons?
Scientists don't claim that cells came into being through random processes. They are thought to have evolved from more primitive precursors.

We should distinguish abiogenesis from evolution here.

This is precisely my point that triangulation from Earth is only able to DIRECTLY MEASURE stars less than 50 Light Years away.

Actually it is closer to 400 ly. But in any case these are used to calibrate more distant objects within standard errors. When it comes to nearby galaxies one may have errors of hundreds of thousands of years but the distincases are in millions or tens of millions of light years.

There are more than twenty ways of estimating distance. Only parallax is direct. The next most common use variable stars and are calibrated by parallax. If you are suggesting that rr Lyra oe Cepheid variables are an inaccurate method and do not show objects thousands tens of thousands and up to millions of light years away then please post some evidence.
To suggest a method is not trustworthy because it is indirect is plainly silly! The Bible is apparently an indirect record of Gods teachings and history. To reject one indirect method for another inderect rocord is plainly preposterous.

Even after achieving the absolutely amazing resolution of 0.001 arc seconds (which is the ability to see and measure something the size of a coin over the distance between New York and San Francisco), only the distances of 118,000 stars THAT ARE LESS THAN 300 LIGHT YEARS AWAY have been measured directly!!

Yes but not 30-50 light years as you sugested. So you accept the NY San Fransisco measurement.

Could I point out that 300 Light Years is certainly within a Biblical Timeframe of less than 10,000 years!!

You could. So what? You are just making the same point: That because a method is indirect it is not reliable. But it is reliable. It is not as accurate but it is reliable within the error perameters. At greater distances of tens of thousands of ly they do not make even the galaxy smaller than the literal Biblical interpretation.

Just how old do you believe the Universe is anyway?

Quote ISAW
Before Hipparcos, no Cepheid distances could be determined directly using the parallax method, but had to be measured using an intermediate method known as the "Cluster Method," in which the bulk motion of a cluster of stars is used to obtain their distance.

The entire Cepheid Hypothesis is precisely that, just a Hypothesis that Cepheid variables have a relationship between their brightness and their "period" (length of pulsation).

the cluster method is a form of parallax measurement! The cepheid variable method has been verified by the use of parallax measurement to the same stars.

The handful of Cepheid distances now definitively known, do not constitute a statistically significant sample from which to draw scientifically valid conclusions about the distances of all other Cepheids.

Really? how do you measure "statistical significance"? what is "scientifically valid"?

The Universe is probably infinite – reflecting the infinite majesty of it’s Creator – and the fact that there WASN’T a Big Bang.

Your evidence it is infinite is?

However, we cannot scientifically conclude that any observed Supernova is any more than about 300 Light Years away.

Yes we can! Do you really believe gamma ray bursters all occur within say 6000 ly? Or in the past 6000 years within a few light years? Do you realise the energy coming from them? Life couldn't survive one close by.

So the idea that SN1987A was 164,000 Light Years away is wishful thinking (on the part of Evolutionists) – and it is certainly NOT irrefutable evidence of an old Universe.

You do not believe anything can be more than 6000 ly away?

Asiaprod

Asiaprod wrote:

Yes, sad is it not. I am one, it is not a religion, it a philosophy thingy. There is no god in Buddhism in the sense of the Christian God. It is a completly different concept, an honorific title if anything.
There are protective spirits that were one man, demons that were one evil man, no Gods. Gods are Hindu. Buddhha was a MAN.:D Happy Devil's day:)

I refer to it as a religion out of convenience, but I wouldn't really say I'm "religious"...

re·li·gion Audio pronunciation of "religion" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

1.
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.


Though foremost it is a philosophy for life, I'd agree

ISAW

Wicknight wrote:

Because the citizenship doesn't include only celebate clergy. How could they list a birth rate in the only other people were tourists or workers? Most people don't have children at work or at a tourist spot.

But the population listed as the 500 were clergy or swiss guard. to my knowledge the swiss guard are all male. so either a miricle is happening and men are giving birth or there are other females not listed in the 500.

No, are you claiming the vast majority of murder in the US is carried out by non-nationals?

I am claiming that murders by non nationals are inculded in the crime statistics.

Firstly, that wasn't the point. The "point" was that the idea that religious populations are more moral and law abiding is false as shown by examples of populations with high levels of atheism and low levels of crime.

Well "higher" tendencies to atheism not implying higher violent crime. I accept the point made but not as it was stated. Something different was stated. But I concede the point. Higher levels of religious practice does not correllate with lower levels of violent crime in certain modern democracies. This does not prove the point either way. I mean it does not prove that more people going to Mass for example creates less violence. Nor does it show that less people going to Mass creates less violence.

No one was claiming that atheism lowers crime (that wouldn't really make sense as a statement on its own), only that religion is not necessary for a moral law abiding society.

Now this is a different statement. I accept what is meant by it. what is a "moral" society? From whence do the "morals" derive?

Secondly you used the Vatican as an example of more believers means less crime, which, no matter how you view the statistics, is false using that example. The Vatican has a high murder rate amoung its actual citizens. (1 in every 500, 600 or even 1000 is high)

Indeed it is but 500 as I pointed out above is not the correct fugure. I believe it is over 1000. Even forgetting about the millions of outsiders one murder since 1998 is one in eight years. thats 1 in 8000 over the period, closer to 0.0001 than to 0.001 .

The issue of the non-nationals only comes into the equation when you want to compare this statistic to other countries, because you have to make sure the other countries aren't including non-nationals as well.

A crime is a crime under law in that country even if non nationals commit it. Take Spain. they have tens of millions of tourists. I dont know how many violent crimes they commit but I suggest the crime rate might be lower if the country had less foreigners. then again it night well be higher since banning all tourism would cause economic and social collapse. It wouldnt cause that in the Vatican.

But even if a lot of murders in American are carried out by non-nationals, and the vatican rate isn't as high as America's with non-nationals included (doubtful) this is rather irrelivent, the rate is still high I know at least 600 people and none of them have killed anyone yet (that I know)

As do I. and I also know of people who have killed people. Thats why we dont use our experience but refer to stats.

But as I said, the sample size is too small to draw conclusions as to the effect of religion on moral behaviour. It only takes one murder to completely swing the statistics. If that swiss guard hadn't killed his wife and commanding officer the Vatican would have a very low murder rate in the last few years.

It still does. By the way since you mentioned his wife I assume the wife was not a citizen of the vatican. Yet it is still a murder.

Scofflaw

ISAW wrote:

But the population listed as the 500 were clergy or swiss guard. to my knowledge the swiss guard are all male. so either a miricle is happening and men are giving birth or there are other females not listed in the 500.

Vatican "population" varies from year to year depending on the number of Church and Vatican officials requiring citizenship. The CIA world factbook has a population increase rate because it is assuming that the Vatican is a normal society, which it isn't.

ISAW wrote:

Well "higher" tendencies to atheism not implying higher violent crime. I accept the point made but not as it was stated. Something different was stated. But I concede the point. Higher levels of religious practice does not correllate with lower levels of violent crime in certain modern democracies. This does not prove the point either way. I mean it does not prove that more people going to Mass for example creates less violence. Nor does it show that less people going to Mass creates less violence.

Since higher levels of irreligion in the only available statistics do correlate with lower incidence of violence in general populations in the only statistics we have available, we can safely say that as far as the statistics show, higher levels of religious practice do not correlate with decreased crime levels, whereas lower levels of religious practice do. As far as I'm concerned, that was the point under discussion. That the statistics apply to 18 comparable countries, covering nearly a billion people (851,740,377), makes the conclusion widely tenable for the First World.

Levels of irreligion do correlate with lower levels of crime and other negative social indicators in prosperous democracies - in other words, "less people going to Mass creates less violence".

ISAW wrote:

Indeed it is but 500 as I pointed out above is not the correct fugure. I believe it is over 1000. Even forgetting about the millions of outsiders one murder since 1998 is one in eight years. thats 1 in 8000 over the period, closer to 0.0001 than to 0.001 .

I still can't see why you think the Vatican is comparable to any other modern society. It's so much a special case that quite aside from its small size it's of no value as a comparison. Vatican citizens are not exactly ordinary church-goers, are they?

By the way, what would you imagine is the reporting rate for crime in the Vatican? Do they even publish crime statistics?

regards,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod

bluewolf wrote:

I refer to it as a religion out of convenience, but I wouldn't really say I'm "religious"...Though foremost it is a philosophy for life, I'd agree

Welcome back, how went the exams.

I think you have presented the case very well. people do tend to referee to Buddhism as a religion out of simple convenience or a lack of understanding.
It is a question that used to trouble me deeply and after many many conversations with people that know far more than me the best description would be:
Buddhism is a philosophy with an attached spiritual aspect
Sounds fine to me.

ISAW

Scofflaw wrote:

Well, ISAW, I'm afraid I really can't be bothered arguing with you about something I didn't claim. This will save you some time, which you can use to brush up on the ideas of "nuance" and "context", plus perhaps looking up "statistically significant".

If you wish to, er, claim you've won a point here or something, by all means, be my guest.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I already conceeded the point! But on the basis of what you meant and not on what you wrote.

ISAW

Scofflaw wrote:

Since higher levels of irreligion in the only available statistics

i.e. the evidence of a single paper

do correlate with lower incidence of violence in general populations

in a small sample of populations from eleven western democracies

in the only statistics we have available,

If you havent got the back up stats then don't bleme anyone else

we can safely say that as far as the statistics show, higher levels of religious practice do not correlate with decreased crime levels, whereas lower levels of religious practice do.

This is what you above claimed you were not claiming! You claim is also couched in terms lie "as far as statistics show" -when you have ONE single source for these stats.

Basically we can not safely say that "lower level of belief means lower violent crime"
I note also that you standard of judgement of believers in a socisty has now become "levels of religious practice" . This is a tenuous link. It is not proven that when more people practice then more people believe. It may well be that in certain countries people prefer not to go to a congregation.

As far as I'm concerned, that was the point under discussion. That the statistics apply to 18 comparable countries, covering nearly a billion people (851,740,377), makes the conclusion widely tenable for the First World.

a conclusion in a single paper which does not claim that "higher atheism (lower belief) causes lower crime"

Levels of irreligion do correlate with lower levels of crime and other negative social indicators in prosperous democracies

Exactly! CORRELATES! It may also correlate with higher chocolate consumption. Would you then claim chocolate CAUSES crime?

- in other words, "less people going to Mass creates less violence".

This just can not go unchallanged as is plainly unproven.
And the extreme "If nobody went to mass there would be almost no violent crime" is plainly silly.

I still can't see why you think the Vatican is comparable to any other modern society.

I only picked the Vatican as a State with a lot of people practicing religion. One could pick Ireland which is possibly the highest level of belief in the world. In spite of terrorism Ireland has a low violent (but climing as church attendance goes down ironically) but high practice rate.

You could also pick monasteries, convents etc. You could pick the murder rate among clergy (who practice daily and all believe) worldwide. These would, I guess, show a low level of violence among practitioners.

It's so much a special case that quite aside from its small size it's of no value as a comparison. Vatican citizens are not exactly ordinary church-goers, are they?

How arent they? Priests and police go to mass also you know. Or would you prefer to restrict the sample to prison populations? I would bet that the level of violent crime among guantanamo bay inmates is very low- and they pray five times a day. But again we shall not know until some of them are actually charged with a crime and convicted.

By the way, what would you imagine is the reporting rate for crime in the Vatican?

If you suggest they cover up murders you should hop over to skeptics and post about conspiracy theories that Pope John Paul I was murdered. I only selected it because it is a society of people who practice religion. Maybe some of the Swiss guard are atheist, I dont know. WE could find out. But in that society of believers I believe that violent crime is low. given almost 100 per cent believers by your claim about "non believing societies causing low crime "and vice versa it should be high

ISAW

BrianCalgary wrote:

I had a quick chat with my buddy who is a geologist in the oil patch. He told me that there is absolutely no doubt of a worldwide flood. He also is an old earth creationist and stated that there have also been othet floods throughout the millenia that have been more localised. Although he implied that geologists don't necessarily take the flood into consideration while looking for oil, they oil deposits are contained within certain rock formations that were formed by the flood or a flood.

That is a quick statement. Don't expect a response to any question regarding the report of the chat because I wont have an answer.

The claim here is that "man(kind) is older than Coal/Oil"

The claim is unsupported and much counter evidence dates the age of the Earth as older than the 6000 years ago of literal Bible translation.
There are several methods of dating which all agree with each other.

Geological column - qualitive but goes bak into geological time and offers species from spoecific epochs .

Dendrochronology - youngner specemins can use tree rings limit with petrified trees about a million years

radiometric dating - some elements such as Xircon have half lives which are ~ 30Ga twice the age of the Universe.

Chronomagnetic - Switches in the magnetic poles of the Earth every 28,000 years or so - extend into geological time - hundreds of millions of years

Ijn addition Eugene Shoemaker proposed a dating method of Moons and planets based on crate density. Unfortunatley for older moons like Earths moon so many craters have been caused that it is not reliable since you cant count craters which are concealed "under" other ones.

There is other evidence such as extraterrestrial meteorites. Hubble expansion the Hydrogen Helium Ratio oand the Cosmic microwave background radiation which point to and universe billions of years.

You "chat" with your friend does not convince me.

ISAW

Asiaprod wrote:

Buddhism is a philosophy with an attached spiritual aspect
Sounds fine to me.

Sounds like scientology to me. "Whatever is true for you is true"

Mind you Christianity also has a rational philosophy and a spiritual aspect. the spititual aspect happens to be monotheistic. Buddism is not atheism in my book.

ISAW

ISAW wrote:

Sounds like scientology to me. "Whatever is true for you is true"

Mind you Christianity also has a rational philosophy and a spiritual aspect. the spititual aspect happens to be monotheistic. Buddism is not atheism in my book.

Buddhism is atheistic(or at least agnostic) by default. It is not concerned with gods. They're irrelevant whether they exist or not.
Some mix it into other religions and are theistic buddhists, but at its core it's not theistic

asia: thy went badly for the most part I'm afraid, for once I'm going to have to repeat them in august

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

I had a quick chat with my buddy who is a geologist in the oil patch. He told me that there is absolutely no doubt of a worldwide flood.

Your buddy is wrong.

There is actually no evidence ever found for a world wide flood, in recent history or ancient history. There are plenty of evidence for large scale local floods, perhaps that is what your friend meant?

Also it is highly doubtful there ever could be a world wide flood.

Put simply there isn't enough water to cover the entire Earths surface, from the bottom of the oceans to the top of Everest. The high of the surface of the Earth makes this impossible, since to cover even the tips of the small mountains in Ireland the entire sea level of the Earth would have to be raised about a kilometre.

We worry about global warming and the ice sheet melt raising the sea level by a few metres, the idea that it could be raised by hundreds of metres doesn't make sense. And remember that is just to cover Ireland, a low lying country. To flood all of America and Asia that sea level would have to be raised by nearly 3 kilometres, 300 times more than the level it would be raised if all ice melted.

So not only is there no evidence a world wide flood ever happened, there is no logical method that we are aware off that could have cause such a flood. There isn't enough water.

To explain this creationists like JC come up with ridiculous explinations, like the Earth was totally flat so the oceans could cover them, and then some how the ocean floor was pushed down and the land mass pushed up so all the water flowed into the ocean. That is ridiculous in the extreme, there is no know process that could cause that event, or known evidence that even suggests it happened or is even possible. Put simply he is just making that up. It is as valid a theory as asking a 3 year old where chocolate comes from.

Other creationists explinations include the needed water being sucked out into space after the flood (and forming the comets), the water flowing underground (where exactly underground is not clear), or simply God removed all this water to allow Noah to survive. None of these theories are based in scientific reality. If any of these things happened God has changed things around to make it look like it didn't

Scofflaw

ISAW wrote:

1. the evidence of a single paper, in a small sample of populations from eleven western democracies

2. If you havent got the back up stats then don't bleme anyone else

3. This is what you above claimed you were not claiming! You claim is also couched in terms lie "as far as statistics show" -when you have ONE single source for these stats.

4. Basically we can not safely say that "lower level of belief means lower violent crime".

5. I note also that you standard of judgement of believers in a socisty has now become "levels of religious practice" . This is a tenuous link. It is not proven that when more people practice then more people believe. It may well be that in certain countries people prefer not to go to a congregation.

6. a conclusion in a single paper which does not claim that "higher atheism (lower belief) causes lower crime"

7. Exactly! CORRELATES! It may also correlate with higher chocolate consumption. Would you then claim chocolate CAUSES crime?

If you bothered to read the study, you would see that:

1. the survey interviewed approximately 23,000 people in almost all (17) of the developed democracies; Portugal is also plotted as an example of a second world European democracy.

2. I have stats, covering nearly the entire First World, where are yours? I think you have none.

3. It's a secondary study, drawing on several primary sources. If it were one small study, your point would be appropriate.

4. Yes, we can.

5. The study covers both "religious practice" and direct questions about belief.

6. No, they say that lower levels of religion correlate with lower levels of crime.

7. Yes, correlates.

ISAW wrote:

This just can not go unchallanged as is plainly unproven.
And the extreme "If nobody went to mass there would be almost no violent crime" is plainly silly.

It was a silly statement in the first place, since mostly we're not even talking about Mass. It was irresistible to quote it back at you, but you're right, it's not accurate. We can certainly say that "if there was no-one going to Mass levels of crime would be significantly lower", although we don't know whether this is cause, or common effect..

ISAW wrote:

I only picked the Vatican as a State with a lot of people practicing religion. One could pick Ireland which is possibly the highest level of belief in the world. In spite of terrorism Ireland has a low violent (but climing as church attendance goes down ironically) but high practice rate.

Cough. Ireland is in the study.

ISAW wrote:

You could also pick monasteries, convents etc. You could pick the murder rate among clergy (who practice daily and all believe) worldwide. These would, I guess, show a low level of violence among practitioners.

And are totally unrepresentative of the general population.

ISAW wrote:

How arent they? Priests and police go to mass also you know. Or would you prefer to restrict the sample to prison populations? I would bet that the level of violent crime among guantanamo bay inmates is very low- and they pray five times a day. But again we shall not know until some of them are actually charged with a crime and convicted.

No, I'm happy to use general populations. So far none of your "comparative" groups have been "general population".

ISAW wrote:

If you suggest they cover up murders you should hop over to skeptics and post about conspiracy theories that Pope John Paul I was murdered. I only selected it because it is a society of people who practice religion. Maybe some of the Swiss guard are atheist, I dont know. WE could find out. But in that society of believers I believe that violent crime is low. given almost 100 per cent believers by your claim about "non believing societies causing low crime "and vice versa it should be high

No, because it's not a comparable general population - it's a clerical bureaucracy.

ISAW, read the study, or stop arguing with me about it.

regards,
Scofflaw

ISAW

Scofflaw wrote:

If you bothered to read the study, you would see that:

1. the survey interviewed approximately 23,000 people in almost all (17) of the developed democracies; Portugal is also plotted as an example of a second world European democracy.

All eighteen are not plotted in all plots. I believe some hav as low as eleven.

2. I have stats, covering nearly the entire First World, where are yours? I think you have none.

Ha! The fallacy of "shifting the burden" combined with the fallacy of "proving a negative". You have a SINGLE source to support your claim. Furthermore I didnt make the claim YOU did! Therefore it is not for me to show any evidence it is for you to do so. I suppose If I claim that there are unicorns in my garden then I can demand yu produce evidence to prove it is not true?

3. It's a secondary study, drawing on several primary sources. If it were one small study, your point would be appropriate.

It is a single source. The fact that it depends on several census and national crime statistics which the author didnt do himself is beside the point.

5. The study covers both "religious practice" and direct questions about belief.

I agree it is better than nothing but one can question whether it is a proven measurement of belief. Census data in Ireland for example has religious affiliation. Official statistics in the US are not allowed to record this data.

7. Yes, correlates.

and not "causes" as you intimate in your claim

It was a silly statement in the first place, since mostly we're not even talking about Mass. It was irresistible to quote it back at you, but you're right, it's not accurate.

Well at least we agree on something.

We can certainly say that "if there was no-one going to Mass levels of crime would be significantly lower", although we don't know whether this is cause, or common effect..

We can say anything we like but this above quotation also has almost no basis in fact.

Cough. Ireland is in the study.

Not in the data I have suggesteed above. and if you read the footnotes you will notice disclaimers as to validity and/or reliability of statistics on the Us and Ireland.

No, I'm happy to use general populations. So far none of your "comparative" groups have been "general population".

No they havent! For the reason that the implication in the claim is that a population ("society") of total believers would be very violent and a population of criminals but a population of unbelievers would be very low in crime.


But now you are back to making a general claim which you earlier denied you were making, that in general "lower belief causes lower crime".

No, because it's not a comparable general population - it's a clerical bureaucracy.

So you ARE claiming your reference means that "lower belief creates lower crime " and vice versa?

ISAW, read the study, or stop arguing with me about it.

It was not I who brought it up as evidence. Where does it say "lower belief causes lower crime"? I doesnt say that anywhere.

robindch

> [ISAW] You could pick the murder rate among clergy (who practice daily and
> all believe) worldwide. These would, I guess, show a low level of
> violence among practitioners.

FYI - the Irish Catholic had a frontpage headline a year or two back saying that "Only Four Percent of Convicted Paedophiles are Priests", apparently unaware that priests form around 0.1% of the population at large. Dividing 4 by 0.1, it turns out that Irish clergy are *forty* times more likely to be convicted child-abusers than non-clergy.

A "low level of violence"? 'fraid not!

Asiaprod

bluewolf wrote:

asia: thy went badly for the most part I'm afraid, for once I'm going to have to repeat them in august

I am so sorry to hear that, I am sure you will pull through in August, will be thinking of you ;)at that time which is an auspicious time since it is also my birthday.

Scofflaw

ISAW wrote:

All eighteen are not plotted in all plots. I believe some hav as low as eleven.

So what?

ISAW wrote:

Ha! The fallacy of "shifting the burden" combined with the fallacy of "proving a negative". You have a SINGLE source to support your claim. Furthermore I didnt make the claim YOU did! Therefore it is not for me to show any evidence it is for you to do so. I suppose If I claim that there are unicorns in my garden then I can demand yu produce evidence to prove it is not true?

It's not "proving a negative", you eejit. It's proving a negative correlation! I've shown you the evidence of a positive correlation between religion and negative social indicators. Now you show the opposite - that's the negative correlation. If you can't, you can't, and all we have is the positive correlation already demonstrated.

ISAW wrote:

It is a single source. The fact that it depends on several census and national crime statistics which the author didnt do himself is beside the point.

The several surveys in question obviously support the same conclusions, or they wouldn't in the synthesis, would they? Your constant repetition of this irrelevant point will not make it any stronger.

ISAW wrote:

I agree it is better than nothing but one can question whether it is a proven measurement of belief. Census data in Ireland for example has religious affiliation. Official statistics in the US are not allowed to record this data.

They're not used in the study, so this point is also irrelevant.

ISAW wrote:

and not "causes" as you intimate in your claim

Don't start telling me what I think again.

ISAW wrote:

We can say anything we like but this above quotation also has almost no basis in fact.

Well, it can be shown from the statistics. What more do you want?

ISAW wrote:

Not in the data I have suggesteed above. and if you read the footnotes you will notice disclaimers as to validity and/or reliability of statistics on the Us and Ireland.

There are no footnotes. What are you referring to? There are some notes about accuracy of data, but they're not sufficient to invalidate the data.

What data have you "suggested above"?

ISAW wrote:

No they havent! For the reason that the implication in the claim is that a population ("society") of total believers would be very violent and a population of criminals but a population of unbelievers would be very low in crime.

This would be the case, assuming you're talking about general populations, yes. I doubt it would be a black-and-white picture of violent anarchy versus peaceful co-existence as you imply, though.

ISAW wrote:

But now you are back to making a general claim which you earlier denied you were making, that in general "lower belief causes lower crime".

So you ARE claiming your reference means that "lower belief creates lower crime " and vice versa?

No. Nor did I claim this earlier. I AM claiming, now, that lower belief correlates with lower crime. As far as we have statistics, this is borne out.

If you can manage not to misinterpret this, you can have a discussion.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

ISAW do you actually disagree with the results of this study?

Or are you objecting purely on principle that the study is flawed and should be ignored?

robindch

Pursuant to all the talk above about whether or not scientists take account, or not, of any ethical considerations, there's a public talk this evening given by Dr Siobhan O' Sullivan of the Irish Council for Bioethics on the topic of Stem Cell Research and the scientific, ethical and policy issues surrounding it. The talk will be taking place this evening at 8pm in the Gandon Suite South, Davenport Hotel, Merrion Square:

Few scientific issues today are as potentially promising and simultaneously controversial as stem cell research. Human stem cell research is a rapidly evolving field of research that holds out the promise of treating a variety of debilitating diseases. Although stem cell research is on the cutting edge of biological science, the field is still in its infancy. Nonetheless, the pace at which developments are occurring is breathtaking and many predict that adult and embryonic stem cell therapies might only be a decade away. These developments require that the legal and ethical issues associated with this research are addressed and articulated both at national and international level. Creating sound public policy on such a scientifically complex and ethically fraught area requires people to be adequately informed.

Given that President Bush has cited religious reasons when he chose to veto federal funding for stem cell research outside of a handful of pre-existing cell lines (for which he voted $250 million, or somewhat less than four hour's worth of what he chooses to spend on his military), this talk might be interesting for religious people interested in what happens when religious morality is applied in real-life situations.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

ISAW do you actually disagree with the results of this study?

Or are you objecting purely on principle that the study is flawed and should be ignored?

In which case I'd like to see a criticism of the methodology.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod

Asiaprod wrote:

I am so sorry to hear that, I am sure you will pull through in August, will be thinking of you ;)at that time which is an auspicious time since it is also my birthday.

Yes by then I will have realised that it's not feasible to learn a whole semester of maths (including 70 theorems >.>) in two days... even if you try it for 3 different modules...


As for noah's ark,
http://evolutionofgenesis.homestead.com/Zuisudra.html
hmm

Zombrex

robindch wrote:

there's a public talk this evening given by Dr Siobhan O' Sullivan of the Irish Council for Bioethics on the topic of Stem Cell Research and the scientific, ethical and policy issues surrounding it.

Damn,would have been very interested in that. Left work just before you posted this Robindch and went to the gym, only home now.

Damn my perfectly formed abs and biceps!! :cool:

Zombrex

bluewolf wrote:

As for noah's ark,
http://evolutionofgenesis.homestead.com/Zuisudra.html
hmm

It is interesting, but is it true? Can't find any references. If it was it would really blow the whole Young Earth out of the water (as if the theory can be blow ever higher out of the water).

BTW, where is JC? Is he in a cave somewhere praying to God for all our unholy heretic souls to shown the light?

Son Goku

bluewolf wrote:

Yes by then I will have realised that it's not feasible to learn a whole semester of maths (including 70 theorems >.>) in two days... even if you try it for 3 different modules...

Off topic:
What were the modules actually?