Discussion:
"Closet Atheists"?
(too old to reply)
b***@gmail.com
2017-04-17 10:09:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
How to find “closet atheists” *

So if you can’t ask people outright whether they’re atheist and
get an honest response, how do you go about finding them?

Gervais and Najle set up a very subtle test. They sent a nationally representative poll to 2,000 Americans, who were randomly
assigned to two conditions.

The first condition asked participants to read through a bunch
of statements like, “I am a vegetarian,” “I own a dog,” and,
"I have a dishwasher in my kitchen.”

All the participants had to do was simply write down the number
of statements that were true for them.

The value of this method is that participants don’t have to
directly say, “I am a vegetarian,” or, “I’m a dog owner” — they only
have to acknowledge the number of statements that apply to them.
That alone should zero out any embarrassment or hesitance to
admit to a particular item.

That’s important because the other 1,000 or so participants saw
the exact same list — but with one statement added: “I believe in God.”

By comparing the responses between the two groups, Gervais and
Najle could then estimate how many people don’t believe in God. (
Because both groups of 1,000 poll takers should, in theory, have
the same number of vegetarians, dog owners, and so on in each
group, any increases in the number of agreed-to statements from
the first group to the second should be reflective of the number
of people who don’t believe in God.)

One thing is clear from the results: Much more than 10 or 11 percent
of the country (as assessed in Gallup and Pew polling) does not believe in God. “We can say with a 99 percent probability that it’s higher than [11 percent],” said Gervais.

*http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/4/13/15258496/american-atheists-how-many
GLOBALIST
2017-04-17 14:29:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
How to find “closet atheists” *
So if you can’t ask people outright whether they’re atheist and
get an honest response, how do you go about finding them?
Gervais and Najle set up a very subtle test. They sent a nationally representative poll to 2,000 Americans, who were randomly
assigned to two conditions.
The first condition asked participants to read through a bunch
of statements like, “I am a vegetarian,” “I own a dog,” and,
"I have a dishwasher in my kitchen.”
All the participants had to do was simply write down the number
of statements that were true for them.
The value of this method is that participants don’t have to
directly say, “I am a vegetarian,” or, “I’m a dog owner” — they only
have to acknowledge the number of statements that apply to them.
That alone should zero out any embarrassment or hesitance to
admit to a particular item.
That’s important because the other 1,000 or so participants saw
the exact same list — but with one statement added: “I believe in God.”
By comparing the responses between the two groups, Gervais and
Najle could then estimate how many people don’t believe in God. (
Because both groups of 1,000 poll takers should, in theory, have
the same number of vegetarians, dog owners, and so on in each
group, any increases in the number of agreed-to statements from
the first group to the second should be reflective of the number
of people who don’t believe in God.)
One thing is clear from the results: Much more than 10 or 11 percent
of the country (as assessed in Gallup and Pew polling) does not believe in God. “We can say with a 99 percent probability that it’s higher than [11 percent],” said Gervais.
*http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/4/13/15258496/american-atheists-how-many
Maybe they keep their beliefs private
and do not proselytize, looking for new
folks to share their great insight.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-04-17 14:39:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
How to find “closet atheists” *
So if you can’t ask people outright whether they’re atheist and
get an honest response, how do you go about finding them?
Gervais and Najle set up a very subtle test. They sent a nationally representative poll to 2,000 Americans, who were randomly
assigned to two conditions.
The first condition asked participants to read through a bunch
of statements like, “I am a vegetarian,” “I own a dog,” and,
"I have a dishwasher in my kitchen.”
All the participants had to do was simply write down the number
of statements that were true for them.
The value of this method is that participants don’t have to
directly say, “I am a vegetarian,” or, “I’m a dog owner” — they only
have to acknowledge the number of statements that apply to them.
That alone should zero out any embarrassment or hesitance to
admit to a particular item.
That’s important because the other 1,000 or so participants saw
the exact same list — but with one statement added: “I believe in God.”
By comparing the responses between the two groups, Gervais and
Najle could then estimate how many people don’t believe in God. (
Because both groups of 1,000 poll takers should, in theory, have
the same number of vegetarians, dog owners, and so on in each
group, any increases in the number of agreed-to statements from
the first group to the second should be reflective of the number
of people who don’t believe in God.)
One thing is clear from the results: Much more than 10 or 11 percent
of the country (as assessed in Gallup and Pew polling) does not believe in God. “We can say with a 99 percent probability that it’s higher than [11 percent],” said Gervais.
*http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/4/13/15258496/american-atheists-how-many
I suspect that a lot of people who don't believe in any "god"
would say they do, perhaps because their neighbors wouldn't
let their kids play with a kid whose parents don't believe in
any god, and partly just so as not to upset their grandparents.
My son told his grandparents that he believed in god some
time before they died, even though he didn't, and his
grandparents were overjoyed. His grandfather was a Baptist
minister descended from a big religious figure surnamed
"Janz" in Germany.

Most people have enough to worry about already, what
with mortgages and paying insurance premiums, that they
don't want to introduce the problem of being shunned by
neighbors who think they must be ax-murderers because
they don't believe in "God". (Whereas if one is an
ax-murderer but does believe in "God", that's more OK.
Sometimes ax-murdering of different kinds of people is
what the religion itself encourages.)
mg
2017-04-17 15:59:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
How to find “closet atheists” *
So if you can’t ask people outright whether they’re atheist and
get an honest response, how do you go about finding them?
Gervais and Najle set up a very subtle test. They sent a nationally representative poll to 2,000 Americans, who were randomly
assigned to two conditions.
The first condition asked participants to read through a bunch
of statements like, “I am a vegetarian,” “I own a dog,” and,
"I have a dishwasher in my kitchen.”
All the participants had to do was simply write down the number
of statements that were true for them.
The value of this method is that participants don’t have to
directly say, “I am a vegetarian,” or, “I’m a dog owner” — they only
have to acknowledge the number of statements that apply to them.
That alone should zero out any embarrassment or hesitance to
admit to a particular item.
That’s important because the other 1,000 or so participants saw
the exact same list — but with one statement added: “I believe in God.”
By comparing the responses between the two groups, Gervais and
Najle could then estimate how many people don’t believe in God. (
Because both groups of 1,000 poll takers should, in theory, have
the same number of vegetarians, dog owners, and so on in each
group, any increases in the number of agreed-to statements from
the first group to the second should be reflective of the number
of people who don’t believe in God.)
One thing is clear from the results: Much more than 10 or 11 percent
of the country (as assessed in Gallup and Pew polling) does not believe in God. “We can say with a 99 percent probability that it’s higher than [11 percent],” said Gervais.
*http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/4/13/15258496/american-atheists-how-many
There are at least two kinds of people who I think probably
stay up late nights trying to figure out ways to deceive and
outsmart the public.

The first kind is psychiatrists who try to develop
scientifically valid methods for finding out what H. sapien
really think and what makes them tick.

The second kind is U.S. presidents who try to figure out
ways to trick the public into supporting illegal and immoral
wars.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-04-17 18:22:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
How to find “closet atheists” *
So if you can’t ask people outright whether they’re atheist and
get an honest response, how do you go about finding them?
Gervais and Najle set up a very subtle test. They sent a nationally representative poll to 2,000 Americans, who were randomly
assigned to two conditions.
The first condition asked participants to read through a bunch
of statements like, “I am a vegetarian,” “I own a dog,” and,
"I have a dishwasher in my kitchen.”
All the participants had to do was simply write down the number
of statements that were true for them.
The value of this method is that participants don’t have to
directly say, “I am a vegetarian,” or, “I’m a dog owner” — they only
have to acknowledge the number of statements that apply to them.
That alone should zero out any embarrassment or hesitance to
admit to a particular item.
That’s important because the other 1,000 or so participants saw
the exact same list — but with one statement added: “I believe in God.”
By comparing the responses between the two groups, Gervais and
Najle could then estimate how many people don’t believe in God. (
Because both groups of 1,000 poll takers should, in theory, have
the same number of vegetarians, dog owners, and so on in each
group, any increases in the number of agreed-to statements from
the first group to the second should be reflective of the number
of people who don’t believe in God.)
One thing is clear from the results: Much more than 10 or 11 percent
of the country (as assessed in Gallup and Pew polling) does not believe in God. “We can say with a 99 percent probability that it’s higher than [11 percent],” said Gervais.
*http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/4/13/15258496/american-atheists-how-many
There are at least two kinds of people who I think probably
stay up late nights trying to figure out ways to deceive and
outsmart the public.
The first kind is psychiatrists who try to develop
scientifically valid methods for finding out what H. sapien
really think and what makes them tick.
The second kind is U.S. presidents who try to figure out
ways to trick the public into supporting illegal and immoral
wars.
I may be prejudiced - it's been known to happen - but
I think that a lot of people may say, even to themselves
that they believe in "God" when they really don't. They
may, IMV, just have internalized the social pressure to
believe in a deity to the extent that they profess it even
to themselves, but it really plays no part in their life
decisions.

Also of course, a lot of people think that belief in "God"
helps keep kids out of trouble, particularly with regard
to drugs and premarital sex, so think they have to push
religion at their kids. Then (amateur psychologist here)
they instinctively transfer that pushing to themselves as
well, just to be consistent when talking to their kids.

It would be interesting to see a study of adults who
say they do or don't believe in a deity, separated into
unmarried adults versus married adults with no kids
versus adults with kids.

There's another source of pressure too, of course,
from friends and family if those are theistically
religious.
mg
2017-04-17 19:42:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
How to find “closet atheists” *
So if you can’t ask people outright whether they’re atheist and
get an honest response, how do you go about finding them?
Gervais and Najle set up a very subtle test. They sent a nationally representative poll to 2,000 Americans, who were randomly
assigned to two conditions.
The first condition asked participants to read through a bunch
of statements like, “I am a vegetarian,” “I own a dog,” and,
"I have a dishwasher in my kitchen.”
All the participants had to do was simply write down the number
of statements that were true for them.
The value of this method is that participants don’t have to
directly say, “I am a vegetarian,” or, “I’m a dog owner” — they only
have to acknowledge the number of statements that apply to them.
That alone should zero out any embarrassment or hesitance to
admit to a particular item.
That’s important because the other 1,000 or so participants saw
the exact same list — but with one statement added: “I believe in God.”
By comparing the responses between the two groups, Gervais and
Najle could then estimate how many people don’t believe in God. (
Because both groups of 1,000 poll takers should, in theory, have
the same number of vegetarians, dog owners, and so on in each
group, any increases in the number of agreed-to statements from
the first group to the second should be reflective of the number
of people who don’t believe in God.)
One thing is clear from the results: Much more than 10 or 11 percent
of the country (as assessed in Gallup and Pew polling) does not believe in God. “We can say with a 99 percent probability that it’s higher than [11 percent],” said Gervais.
*http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/4/13/15258496/american-atheists-how-many
There are at least two kinds of people who I think probably
stay up late nights trying to figure out ways to deceive and
outsmart the public.
The first kind is psychiatrists who try to develop
scientifically valid methods for finding out what H. sapien
really think and what makes them tick.
The second kind is U.S. presidents who try to figure out
ways to trick the public into supporting illegal and immoral
wars.
I may be prejudiced - it's been known to happen - but
I think that a lot of people may say, even to themselves
that they believe in "God" when they really don't. They
may, IMV, just have internalized the social pressure to
believe in a deity to the extent that they profess it even
to themselves, but it really plays no part in their life
decisions.
Also of course, a lot of people think that belief in "God"
helps keep kids out of trouble, particularly with regard
to drugs and premarital sex, so think they have to push
religion at their kids. Then (amateur psychologist here)
they instinctively transfer that pushing to themselves as
well, just to be consistent when talking to their kids.
It would be interesting to see a study of adults who
say they do or don't believe in a deity, separated into
unmarried adults versus married adults with no kids
versus adults with kids.
There's another source of pressure too, of course,
from friends and family if those are theistically
religious.
When I worked at the steel plant, I noticed that most all of
my non-religious co-workers, suddenly changed their stripes
and became active in the Mormon church. I always chalked
that up as probably being a result of pressure from their
children, who were undoubtedly active in "The Church".

I have old friend -- we go back to grade school -- who used
to be non-religious and his wife was Catholic, but she was
non-religious, also. They had been separated multiple times
and divorced at least once. He wound up going back to school
in his mid 30s and became a school teacher and then he
eventually wound up as a school teacher in Afton, Wyoming
(population ~2000).

As it turned out all, or most all, of his fellow school
teachers were Mormons, and of course his children and their
friends were Mormon, too. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised
if the whole damned town is Mormon. He wound up "seeing the
light", of course, and both he and his wife, became genuine,
certified, true-blue Mormons. Looking on the bright side, I
think it did save their marriage. Looking on the other side,
I haven't seen him in years because it makes me
uncomfortable to be around Mormons for too long (and I
suppose that it makes them uncomfortable to be around me for
too long).
rumpelstiltskin
2017-04-18 04:15:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 13:42:33 -0600, mg <***@none.nl> wrote:
<snip>
Post by mg
When I worked at the steel plant, I noticed that most all of
my non-religious co-workers, suddenly changed their stripes
and became active in the Mormon church. I always chalked
that up as probably being a result of pressure from their
children, who were undoubtedly active in "The Church".
They may well have changed to get promotions and
salary increases from the Mormon administrators.
Post by mg
I have old friend -- we go back to grade school -- who used
to be non-religious and his wife was Catholic, but she was
non-religious, also. They had been separated multiple times
and divorced at least once. He wound up going back to school
in his mid 30s and became a school teacher and then he
eventually wound up as a school teacher in Afton, Wyoming
(population ~2000).
The least populous state in the country and very
Mormon. It's beautiful country, but I sure was glad
I didn't have car trouble driving through there,
because maybe I was just letting my imagination
run away with me, but I found the place kind of
scary as a gay atheist, much more so than Utah.
Of course you couldn't pick me out as gay or
atheist by looking or talking, but even so maybe
the people up there have a sixth sense.
Post by mg
As it turned out all, or most all, of his fellow school
teachers were Mormons, and of course his children and their
friends were Mormon, too. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised
if the whole damned town is Mormon. He wound up "seeing the
light", of course, and both he and his wife, became genuine,
certified, true-blue Mormons. Looking on the bright side, I
think it did save their marriage. Looking on the other side,
I haven't seen him in years because it makes me
uncomfortable to be around Mormons for too long (and I
suppose that it makes them uncomfortable to be around me for
too long).
Not being Mormon means that you bear the
mark of Cain! No good KKKristian would want
to hang around with you too long - it might
be infectious.
mg
2017-04-18 05:58:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
When I worked at the steel plant, I noticed that most all of
my non-religious co-workers, suddenly changed their stripes
and became active in the Mormon church. I always chalked
that up as probably being a result of pressure from their
children, who were undoubtedly active in "The Church".
They may well have changed to get promotions and
salary increases from the Mormon administrators.
I left the critical part out of that sentence which was that
it usually happened around the age of 30, which I assume was
the age that their children started putting pressure on them
(and indirectly, perhaps their children's friends).
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
I have old friend -- we go back to grade school -- who used
to be non-religious and his wife was Catholic, but she was
non-religious, also. They had been separated multiple times
and divorced at least once. He wound up going back to school
in his mid 30s and became a school teacher and then he
eventually wound up as a school teacher in Afton, Wyoming
(population ~2000).
The least populous state in the country and very
Mormon. It's beautiful country, but I sure was glad
I didn't have car trouble driving through there,
because maybe I was just letting my imagination
run away with me, but I found the place kind of
scary as a gay atheist, much more so than Utah.
Of course you couldn't pick me out as gay or
atheist by looking or talking, but even so maybe
the people up there have a sixth sense.
Post by mg
As it turned out all, or most all, of his fellow school
teachers were Mormons, and of course his children and their
friends were Mormon, too. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised
if the whole damned town is Mormon. He wound up "seeing the
light", of course, and both he and his wife, became genuine,
certified, true-blue Mormons. Looking on the bright side, I
think it did save their marriage. Looking on the other side,
I haven't seen him in years because it makes me
uncomfortable to be around Mormons for too long (and I
suppose that it makes them uncomfortable to be around me for
too long).
Not being Mormon means that you bear the
mark of Cain! No good KKKristian would want
to hang around with you too long - it might
be infectious.
Actually, according to Brigham Young, the mark of Cain was
being black:

"Through the faith and obedience of Able to his heavenly
father, Cain became jealous of him, and he laid a plan to
obtain all his flocks; for through his perfect obedience to
father he obtained more blessings than Cain; consequently he
took it into his heart to put able able of this mortal
existance. after the deed was done, the Lord enquired to
able, and made Caine own what he had done with him. Now says
the grand father I will not distroy the seed of michal and
his wife; and cain I will not kill you, nor suffer any one
to kill you, but I will put a mark upon you. What is that
mark? you will see it on the countenance of every African
you ever did see upon the face of the earth, or ever will
see. Now I tell you what I know; when the mark was put upon
Cain, Abels children was in all probability young; the Lord
told Cain that he should not receive the blessings of the
preisthood nor his seed, until the last of the posterity of
Able had received the preisthood, until the redemtion of the
earth. If there never was a prophet, or apostle of Jesus
Christ spoke it before, I tell you, this people that are
commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain."
--Brigham Young

http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/sermons_talks_interviews/brigham1852feb5_priesthoodandblacks.htm
Gary
2017-04-18 11:51:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
When I worked at the steel plant, I noticed that most all of
my non-religious co-workers, suddenly changed their stripes
and became active in the Mormon church. I always chalked
that up as probably being a result of pressure from their
children, who were undoubtedly active in "The Church".
They may well have changed to get promotions and
salary increases from the Mormon administrators.
I left the critical part out of that sentence which was that
it usually happened around the age of 30, which I assume was
the age that their children started putting pressure on them
(and indirectly, perhaps their children's friends).
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
I have old friend -- we go back to grade school -- who used
to be non-religious and his wife was Catholic, but she was
non-religious, also. They had been separated multiple times
and divorced at least once. He wound up going back to school
in his mid 30s and became a school teacher and then he
eventually wound up as a school teacher in Afton, Wyoming
(population ~2000).
The least populous state in the country and very
Mormon. It's beautiful country, but I sure was glad
I didn't have car trouble driving through there,
because maybe I was just letting my imagination
run away with me, but I found the place kind of
scary as a gay atheist, much more so than Utah.
Of course you couldn't pick me out as gay or
atheist by looking or talking, but even so maybe
the people up there have a sixth sense.
Post by mg
As it turned out all, or most all, of his fellow school
teachers were Mormons, and of course his children and their
friends were Mormon, too. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised
if the whole damned town is Mormon. He wound up "seeing the
light", of course, and both he and his wife, became genuine,
certified, true-blue Mormons. Looking on the bright side, I
think it did save their marriage. Looking on the other side,
I haven't seen him in years because it makes me
uncomfortable to be around Mormons for too long (and I
suppose that it makes them uncomfortable to be around me for
too long).
Not being Mormon means that you bear the
mark of Cain! No good KKKristian would want
to hang around with you too long - it might
be infectious.
Actually, according to Brigham Young, the mark of Cain was
"Through the faith and obedience of Able to his heavenly
father, Cain became jealous of him, and he laid a plan to
obtain all his flocks; for through his perfect obedience to
father he obtained more blessings than Cain; consequently he
took it into his heart to put able able of this mortal
existance. after the deed was done, the Lord enquired to
able, and made Caine own what he had done with him. Now says
the grand father I will not distroy the seed of michal and
his wife; and cain I will not kill you, nor suffer any one
to kill you, but I will put a mark upon you. What is that
mark? you will see it on the countenance of every African
you ever did see upon the face of the earth, or ever will
see. Now I tell you what I know; when the mark was put upon
Cain, Abels children was in all probability young; the Lord
told Cain that he should not receive the blessings of the
preisthood nor his seed, until the last of the posterity of
Able had received the preisthood, until the redemtion of the
earth. If there never was a prophet, or apostle of Jesus
Christ spoke it before, I tell you, this people that are
commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain."
--Brigham Young
http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/sermons_talks_interviews/brigham1852feb5_priesthoodandblacks.htm
Genesis 4:16: ----- "And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt
in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden." (It was there he took a wife and had
children)

My grandmother was from Alabama and she was a Methodist. She taught us that the
above scripture proved that after Cain killed Abel -- he moved to the Land of
Nod -- which is Africa. And there -- he married a monkey. (There were no
other humans except Cain's family) And .... they produced the first negroes :-)
mg
2017-04-19 18:53:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
When I worked at the steel plant, I noticed that most all of
my non-religious co-workers, suddenly changed their stripes
and became active in the Mormon church. I always chalked
that up as probably being a result of pressure from their
children, who were undoubtedly active in "The Church".
They may well have changed to get promotions and
salary increases from the Mormon administrators.
I left the critical part out of that sentence which was that
it usually happened around the age of 30, which I assume was
the age that their children started putting pressure on them
(and indirectly, perhaps their children's friends).
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
I have old friend -- we go back to grade school -- who used
to be non-religious and his wife was Catholic, but she was
non-religious, also. They had been separated multiple times
and divorced at least once. He wound up going back to school
in his mid 30s and became a school teacher and then he
eventually wound up as a school teacher in Afton, Wyoming
(population ~2000).
The least populous state in the country and very
Mormon. It's beautiful country, but I sure was glad
I didn't have car trouble driving through there,
because maybe I was just letting my imagination
run away with me, but I found the place kind of
scary as a gay atheist, much more so than Utah.
Of course you couldn't pick me out as gay or
atheist by looking or talking, but even so maybe
the people up there have a sixth sense.
Post by mg
As it turned out all, or most all, of his fellow school
teachers were Mormons, and of course his children and their
friends were Mormon, too. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised
if the whole damned town is Mormon. He wound up "seeing the
light", of course, and both he and his wife, became genuine,
certified, true-blue Mormons. Looking on the bright side, I
think it did save their marriage. Looking on the other side,
I haven't seen him in years because it makes me
uncomfortable to be around Mormons for too long (and I
suppose that it makes them uncomfortable to be around me for
too long).
Not being Mormon means that you bear the
mark of Cain! No good KKKristian would want
to hang around with you too long - it might
be infectious.
Actually, according to Brigham Young, the mark of Cain was
"Through the faith and obedience of Able to his heavenly
father, Cain became jealous of him, and he laid a plan to
obtain all his flocks; for through his perfect obedience to
father he obtained more blessings than Cain; consequently he
took it into his heart to put able able of this mortal
existance. after the deed was done, the Lord enquired to
able, and made Caine own what he had done with him. Now says
the grand father I will not distroy the seed of michal and
his wife; and cain I will not kill you, nor suffer any one
to kill you, but I will put a mark upon you. What is that
mark? you will see it on the countenance of every African
you ever did see upon the face of the earth, or ever will
see. Now I tell you what I know; when the mark was put upon
Cain, Abels children was in all probability young; the Lord
told Cain that he should not receive the blessings of the
preisthood nor his seed, until the last of the posterity of
Able had received the preisthood, until the redemtion of the
earth. If there never was a prophet, or apostle of Jesus
Christ spoke it before, I tell you, this people that are
commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain."
--Brigham Young
http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/sermons_talks_interviews/brigham1852feb5_priesthoodandblacks.htm
Genesis 4:16: ----- "And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt
in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden." (It was there he took a wife and had
children)
My grandmother was from Alabama and she was a Methodist. She taught us that the
above scripture proved that after Cain killed Abel -- he moved to the Land of
Nod -- which is Africa. And there -- he married a monkey. (There were no
other humans except Cain's family) And .... they produced the first negroes :-)
As far as I know, there is no academic, scriptural, or
historical information to indicate that "Nod" referred to
Africa. The Mormons, as far as I know, didn't claim that Nod
was Africa. Instead they simply said that the decedants of
Cain had black skin. To some that might be a distinction
without a difference, but there is a difference, I think,
since Smith claimed that the Garden of Eden was located in
Missouri.
http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/gardenofeden.htm
Gary
2017-04-19 20:02:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
When I worked at the steel plant, I noticed that most all of
my non-religious co-workers, suddenly changed their stripes
and became active in the Mormon church. I always chalked
that up as probably being a result of pressure from their
children, who were undoubtedly active in "The Church".
They may well have changed to get promotions and
salary increases from the Mormon administrators.
I left the critical part out of that sentence which was that
it usually happened around the age of 30, which I assume was
the age that their children started putting pressure on them
(and indirectly, perhaps their children's friends).
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
I have old friend -- we go back to grade school -- who used
to be non-religious and his wife was Catholic, but she was
non-religious, also. They had been separated multiple times
and divorced at least once. He wound up going back to school
in his mid 30s and became a school teacher and then he
eventually wound up as a school teacher in Afton, Wyoming
(population ~2000).
The least populous state in the country and very
Mormon. It's beautiful country, but I sure was glad
I didn't have car trouble driving through there,
because maybe I was just letting my imagination
run away with me, but I found the place kind of
scary as a gay atheist, much more so than Utah.
Of course you couldn't pick me out as gay or
atheist by looking or talking, but even so maybe
the people up there have a sixth sense.
Post by mg
As it turned out all, or most all, of his fellow school
teachers were Mormons, and of course his children and their
friends were Mormon, too. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised
if the whole damned town is Mormon. He wound up "seeing the
light", of course, and both he and his wife, became genuine,
certified, true-blue Mormons. Looking on the bright side, I
think it did save their marriage. Looking on the other side,
I haven't seen him in years because it makes me
uncomfortable to be around Mormons for too long (and I
suppose that it makes them uncomfortable to be around me for
too long).
Not being Mormon means that you bear the
mark of Cain! No good KKKristian would want
to hang around with you too long - it might
be infectious.
Actually, according to Brigham Young, the mark of Cain was
"Through the faith and obedience of Able to his heavenly
father, Cain became jealous of him, and he laid a plan to
obtain all his flocks; for through his perfect obedience to
father he obtained more blessings than Cain; consequently he
took it into his heart to put able able of this mortal
existance. after the deed was done, the Lord enquired to
able, and made Caine own what he had done with him. Now says
the grand father I will not distroy the seed of michal and
his wife; and cain I will not kill you, nor suffer any one
to kill you, but I will put a mark upon you. What is that
mark? you will see it on the countenance of every African
you ever did see upon the face of the earth, or ever will
see. Now I tell you what I know; when the mark was put upon
Cain, Abels children was in all probability young; the Lord
told Cain that he should not receive the blessings of the
preisthood nor his seed, until the last of the posterity of
Able had received the preisthood, until the redemtion of the
earth. If there never was a prophet, or apostle of Jesus
Christ spoke it before, I tell you, this people that are
commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain."
--Brigham Young
http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/sermons_talks_interviews/brigham1852feb5_priesthoodandblacks.htm
Genesis 4:16: ----- "And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt
in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden." (It was there he took a wife and had
children)
My grandmother was from Alabama and she was a Methodist. She taught us that the
above scripture proved that after Cain killed Abel -- he moved to the Land of
Nod -- which is Africa. And there -- he married a monkey. (There were no
other humans except Cain's family) And .... they produced the first negroes :-)
As far as I know, there is no academic, scriptural, or
historical information to indicate that "Nod" referred to
Africa. The Mormons, as far as I know, didn't claim that Nod
was Africa. Instead they simply said that the decedants of
Cain had black skin. To some that might be a distinction
without a difference, but there is a difference, I think,
since Smith claimed that the Garden of Eden was located in
Missouri.
Well, then ! Africa is "east of" missouri :-)

Seriously, I've heard some good arguments that Eden was actually in the middle
of the Atlantic. And Africa would have been to the east. I wonder ? Did the
men who first wrote the bible -- 3,500 years ago -- have any idea where Eden
was at ? If so why didn't they tell us ?
Post by mg
http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/gardenofeden.htm
When I was young, I really enjoyed trying to prove some scriptures -- and
disprove others. As a teenager -- I wanted to become a Seventh Day Adventist
-- like my cousins -- so I could feel closer to them. I had trouble believing
all the doctrines and rules. So I decided if I learned more about the
scriptures -- I'd believe it more. So over a couple of years, I took
several correspondent courses on bible prophecy. I became pretty good at that
subject. And believe it or not -- I still find that stuff fascinating. But --
I never believed it strongly enough to join the church.

I think Grandma and her explanation are quite common among religious people.
No matter what you believe -- just like Grandma -- you can find some
justification for believing it in the bible. (If you interpret it properly :-)
mg
2017-04-19 20:40:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
When I worked at the steel plant, I noticed that most all of
my non-religious co-workers, suddenly changed their stripes
and became active in the Mormon church. I always chalked
that up as probably being a result of pressure from their
children, who were undoubtedly active in "The Church".
They may well have changed to get promotions and
salary increases from the Mormon administrators.
I left the critical part out of that sentence which was that
it usually happened around the age of 30, which I assume was
the age that their children started putting pressure on them
(and indirectly, perhaps their children's friends).
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
I have old friend -- we go back to grade school -- who used
to be non-religious and his wife was Catholic, but she was
non-religious, also. They had been separated multiple times
and divorced at least once. He wound up going back to school
in his mid 30s and became a school teacher and then he
eventually wound up as a school teacher in Afton, Wyoming
(population ~2000).
The least populous state in the country and very
Mormon. It's beautiful country, but I sure was glad
I didn't have car trouble driving through there,
because maybe I was just letting my imagination
run away with me, but I found the place kind of
scary as a gay atheist, much more so than Utah.
Of course you couldn't pick me out as gay or
atheist by looking or talking, but even so maybe
the people up there have a sixth sense.
Post by mg
As it turned out all, or most all, of his fellow school
teachers were Mormons, and of course his children and their
friends were Mormon, too. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised
if the whole damned town is Mormon. He wound up "seeing the
light", of course, and both he and his wife, became genuine,
certified, true-blue Mormons. Looking on the bright side, I
think it did save their marriage. Looking on the other side,
I haven't seen him in years because it makes me
uncomfortable to be around Mormons for too long (and I
suppose that it makes them uncomfortable to be around me for
too long).
Not being Mormon means that you bear the
mark of Cain! No good KKKristian would want
to hang around with you too long - it might
be infectious.
Actually, according to Brigham Young, the mark of Cain was
"Through the faith and obedience of Able to his heavenly
father, Cain became jealous of him, and he laid a plan to
obtain all his flocks; for through his perfect obedience to
father he obtained more blessings than Cain; consequently he
took it into his heart to put able able of this mortal
existance. after the deed was done, the Lord enquired to
able, and made Caine own what he had done with him. Now says
the grand father I will not distroy the seed of michal and
his wife; and cain I will not kill you, nor suffer any one
to kill you, but I will put a mark upon you. What is that
mark? you will see it on the countenance of every African
you ever did see upon the face of the earth, or ever will
see. Now I tell you what I know; when the mark was put upon
Cain, Abels children was in all probability young; the Lord
told Cain that he should not receive the blessings of the
preisthood nor his seed, until the last of the posterity of
Able had received the preisthood, until the redemtion of the
earth. If there never was a prophet, or apostle of Jesus
Christ spoke it before, I tell you, this people that are
commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain."
--Brigham Young
http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/sermons_talks_interviews/brigham1852feb5_priesthoodandblacks.htm
Genesis 4:16: ----- "And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt
in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden." (It was there he took a wife and had
children)
My grandmother was from Alabama and she was a Methodist. She taught us that the
above scripture proved that after Cain killed Abel -- he moved to the Land of
Nod -- which is Africa. And there -- he married a monkey. (There were no
other humans except Cain's family) And .... they produced the first negroes :-)
As far as I know, there is no academic, scriptural, or
historical information to indicate that "Nod" referred to
Africa. The Mormons, as far as I know, didn't claim that Nod
was Africa. Instead they simply said that the decedants of
Cain had black skin. To some that might be a distinction
without a difference, but there is a difference, I think,
since Smith claimed that the Garden of Eden was located in
Missouri.
Well, then ! Africa is "east of" missouri :-)
Seriously, I've heard some good arguments that Eden was actually in the middle
of the Atlantic. And Africa would have been to the east. I wonder ? Did the
men who first wrote the bible -- 3,500 years ago -- have any idea where Eden
was at ? If so why didn't they tell us ?
Post by mg
http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/gardenofeden.htm
When I was young, I really enjoyed trying to prove some scriptures -- and
disprove others. As a teenager -- I wanted to become a Seventh Day Adventist
-- like my cousins -- so I could feel closer to them. I had trouble believing
all the doctrines and rules. So I decided if I learned more about the
scriptures -- I'd believe it more. So over a couple of years, I took
several correspondent courses on bible prophecy. I became pretty good at that
subject. And believe it or not -- I still find that stuff fascinating. But --
I never believed it strongly enough to join the church.
I think Grandma and her explanation are quite common among religious people.
No matter what you believe -- just like Grandma -- you can find some
justification for believing it in the bible. (If you interpret it properly :-)
Religion is totally fascinating and it's interesting how
people can spend their whole lives on it and can become
total experts even down to knowing the smallest minutia
about a huge subject.

I suppose all religions are that way to some extent, but I
think Muslims are particularly scholarly as far as having a
lot of experts, who probably spent most of their life, or a
big part of it, just studying, studying, studying.

On the other hand, though, the rank and file of any
particular religion probably know little, or next to
nothing, about their religion.
Gary
2017-04-20 12:11:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
"Through the faith and obedience of Able to his heavenly
father, Cain became jealous of him, and he laid a plan to
obtain all his flocks; for through his perfect obedience to
father he obtained more blessings than Cain; consequently he
took it into his heart to put able able of this mortal
existance. after the deed was done, the Lord enquired to
able, and made Caine own what he had done with him. Now says
the grand father I will not distroy the seed of michal and
his wife; and cain I will not kill you, nor suffer any one
to kill you, but I will put a mark upon you. What is that
mark? you will see it on the countenance of every African
you ever did see upon the face of the earth, or ever will
see. Now I tell you what I know; when the mark was put upon
Cain, Abels children was in all probability young; the Lord
told Cain that he should not receive the blessings of the
preisthood nor his seed, until the last of the posterity of
Able had received the preisthood, until the redemtion of the
earth. If there never was a prophet, or apostle of Jesus
Christ spoke it before, I tell you, this people that are
commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain."
--Brigham Young
http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/sermons_talks_interviews/brigham1852feb5_priesthoodandblacks.htm
Genesis 4:16: ----- "And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt
in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden." (It was there he took a wife and had
children)
My grandmother was from Alabama and she was a Methodist. She taught us that the
above scripture proved that after Cain killed Abel -- he moved to the Land of
Nod -- which is Africa. And there -- he married a monkey. (There were no
other humans except Cain's family) And .... they produced the first negroes :-)
As far as I know, there is no academic, scriptural, or
historical information to indicate that "Nod" referred to
Africa. The Mormons, as far as I know, didn't claim that Nod
was Africa. Instead they simply said that the decedants of
Cain had black skin. To some that might be a distinction
without a difference, but there is a difference, I think,
since Smith claimed that the Garden of Eden was located in
Missouri.
Well, then ! Africa is "east of" missouri :-)
Seriously, I've heard some good arguments that Eden was actually in the middle
of the Atlantic. And Africa would have been to the east. I wonder ? Did the
men who first wrote the bible -- 3,500 years ago -- have any idea where Eden
was at ? If so why didn't they tell us ?
Post by mg
http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/gardenofeden.htm
When I was young, I really enjoyed trying to prove some scriptures -- and
disprove others. As a teenager -- I wanted to become a Seventh Day Adventist
-- like my cousins -- so I could feel closer to them. I had trouble believing
all the doctrines and rules. So I decided if I learned more about the
scriptures -- I'd believe it more. So over a couple of years, I took
several correspondent courses on bible prophecy. I became pretty good at that
subject. And believe it or not -- I still find that stuff fascinating. But --
I never believed it strongly enough to join the church.
I think Grandma and her explanation are quite common among religious people.
No matter what you believe -- just like Grandma -- you can find some
justification for believing it in the bible. (If you interpret it properly :-)
Religion is totally fascinating and it's interesting how
people can spend their whole lives on it and can become
total experts even down to knowing the smallest minutia
about a huge subject.
I suppose all religions are that way to some extent, but I
think Muslims are particularly scholarly as far as having a
lot of experts, who probably spent most of their life, or a
big part of it, just studying, studying, studying.
On the other hand, though, the rank and file of any
particular religion probably know little, or next to
nothing, about their religion.
That is my impression. I think (sub-consciously) people want a religion to
guide them and "save" them. But they need a leader who understands the
religion, because they don't want to bother with learning it themselves. That
is where the preacher (prophet ?) comes in.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-04-18 17:12:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
<snip>
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Not being Mormon means that you bear the
mark of Cain! No good KKKristian would want
to hang around with you too long - it might
be infectious.
Actually, according to Brigham Young, the mark of Cain was
"Through the faith and obedience of Able to his heavenly
father, Cain became jealous of him, and he laid a plan to
obtain all his flocks; for through his perfect obedience to
father he obtained more blessings than Cain; consequently he
took it into his heart to put able able of this mortal
existance. after the deed was done, the Lord enquired to
able, and made Caine own what he had done with him. Now says
the grand father I will not distroy the seed of michal and
his wife; and cain I will not kill you, nor suffer any one
to kill you, but I will put a mark upon you. What is that
mark? you will see it on the countenance of every African
you ever did see upon the face of the earth, or ever will
see. Now I tell you what I know; when the mark was put upon
Cain, Abels children was in all probability young; the Lord
told Cain that he should not receive the blessings of the
preisthood nor his seed, until the last of the posterity of
Able had received the preisthood, until the redemtion of the
earth. If there never was a prophet, or apostle of Jesus
Christ spoke it before, I tell you, this people that are
commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain."
--Brigham Young
http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/sermons_talks_interviews/brigham1852feb5_priesthoodandblacks.htm
Of course there are lighter-skinned Negroes,
and Caucasians who are darker than them.

Who's Michal, one of those extra dudes in the
Book of Norman?

My spell-checker tried to change my mistyping
"Morman" to "Mormon", but I thought "Norman"
was more entertaining.
mg
2017-04-19 18:39:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Not being Mormon means that you bear the
mark of Cain! No good KKKristian would want
to hang around with you too long - it might
be infectious.
Actually, according to Brigham Young, the mark of Cain was
"Through the faith and obedience of Able to his heavenly
father, Cain became jealous of him, and he laid a plan to
obtain all his flocks; for through his perfect obedience to
father he obtained more blessings than Cain; consequently he
took it into his heart to put able able of this mortal
existance. after the deed was done, the Lord enquired to
able, and made Caine own what he had done with him. Now says
the grand father I will not distroy the seed of michal and
his wife; and cain I will not kill you, nor suffer any one
to kill you, but I will put a mark upon you. What is that
mark? you will see it on the countenance of every African
you ever did see upon the face of the earth, or ever will
see. Now I tell you what I know; when the mark was put upon
Cain, Abels children was in all probability young; the Lord
told Cain that he should not receive the blessings of the
preisthood nor his seed, until the last of the posterity of
Able had received the preisthood, until the redemtion of the
earth. If there never was a prophet, or apostle of Jesus
Christ spoke it before, I tell you, this people that are
commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain."
--Brigham Young
http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/sermons_talks_interviews/brigham1852feb5_priesthoodandblacks.htm
Of course there are lighter-skinned Negroes,
and Caucasians who are darker than them.
"Any man having one drop of the seed of Cane in him Cannot
hold the priesthood ... I will say it now in the name of
Jesus Christ. I know it is true & they know it. The Negro
cannot hold one particle of Government ... if any man
mingles his seed with the seed of Cane the only way he Could
get rid of it or have salvation would be to Come forward &
have his head Cut off & spill his Blood upon the ground. It
would also take the life of his Children." (Wilford
Woodruff's Journal, Vol. 4, p. 97)
http://www.mormonstories.org/top10toughissues/blacks.html
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Who's Michal, one of those extra dudes in the
Book of Norman?
Smith was once asked what "Mormon" meant. He said it was a
contraction of the word "more" and "mon". Mon evidently
means "good", ergo, "Mormon" means more good. :-)

Mormonism is actually based on 4 "sacred" texts: the Bible,
the Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, and the
Pearl of Great Price.

Michal, as I recall, is another name for Adam.
Post by rumpelstiltskin
My spell-checker tried to change my mistyping
"Morman" to "Mormon", but I thought "Norman"
was more entertaining.
My spell checker accepts the word "Mormon".
Gary
2017-04-19 20:02:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Not being Mormon means that you bear the
mark of Cain! No good KKKristian would want
to hang around with you too long - it might
be infectious.
Actually, according to Brigham Young, the mark of Cain was
"Through the faith and obedience of Able to his heavenly
father, Cain became jealous of him, and he laid a plan to
obtain all his flocks; for through his perfect obedience to
father he obtained more blessings than Cain; consequently he
took it into his heart to put able able of this mortal
existance. after the deed was done, the Lord enquired to
able, and made Caine own what he had done with him. Now says
the grand father I will not distroy the seed of michal and
his wife; and cain I will not kill you, nor suffer any one
to kill you, but I will put a mark upon you. What is that
mark? you will see it on the countenance of every African
you ever did see upon the face of the earth, or ever will
see. Now I tell you what I know; when the mark was put upon
Cain, Abels children was in all probability young; the Lord
told Cain that he should not receive the blessings of the
preisthood nor his seed, until the last of the posterity of
Able had received the preisthood, until the redemtion of the
earth. If there never was a prophet, or apostle of Jesus
Christ spoke it before, I tell you, this people that are
commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain."
--Brigham Young
http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/sermons_talks_interviews/brigham1852feb5_priesthoodandblacks.htm
Of course there are lighter-skinned Negroes,
and Caucasians who are darker than them.
"Any man having one drop of the seed of Cane in him Cannot
hold the priesthood ... I will say it now in the name of
Jesus Christ. I know it is true & they know it. The Negro
cannot hold one particle of Government ... if any man
mingles his seed with the seed of Cane the only way he Could
get rid of it or have salvation would be to Come forward &
have his head Cut off & spill his Blood upon the ground. It
would also take the life of his Children." (Wilford
Woodruff's Journal, Vol. 4, p. 97)
http://www.mormonstories.org/top10toughissues/blacks.html
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Who's Michal, one of those extra dudes in the
Book of Norman?
Smith was once asked what "Mormon" meant. He said it was a
contraction of the word "more" and "mon". Mon evidently
means "good", ergo, "Mormon" means more good. :-)
Mormonism is actually based on 4 "sacred" texts: the Bible,
the Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, and the
Pearl of Great Price.
Michal, as I recall, is another name for Adam.
I've never known any Mormons on a personal level -- But I have admired and
respected them as a group. The few I have met in passing seem to all be above
average in intelligence.

I suppose it was my closeness to Adventists when young that helps me to like and
respect people who have strict belief systems. Even though I might not share
them.
mg
2017-04-19 20:51:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Not being Mormon means that you bear the
mark of Cain! No good KKKristian would want
to hang around with you too long - it might
be infectious.
Actually, according to Brigham Young, the mark of Cain was
"Through the faith and obedience of Able to his heavenly
father, Cain became jealous of him, and he laid a plan to
obtain all his flocks; for through his perfect obedience to
father he obtained more blessings than Cain; consequently he
took it into his heart to put able able of this mortal
existance. after the deed was done, the Lord enquired to
able, and made Caine own what he had done with him. Now says
the grand father I will not distroy the seed of michal and
his wife; and cain I will not kill you, nor suffer any one
to kill you, but I will put a mark upon you. What is that
mark? you will see it on the countenance of every African
you ever did see upon the face of the earth, or ever will
see. Now I tell you what I know; when the mark was put upon
Cain, Abels children was in all probability young; the Lord
told Cain that he should not receive the blessings of the
preisthood nor his seed, until the last of the posterity of
Able had received the preisthood, until the redemtion of the
earth. If there never was a prophet, or apostle of Jesus
Christ spoke it before, I tell you, this people that are
commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain."
--Brigham Young
http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/sermons_talks_interviews/brigham1852feb5_priesthoodandblacks.htm
Of course there are lighter-skinned Negroes,
and Caucasians who are darker than them.
"Any man having one drop of the seed of Cane in him Cannot
hold the priesthood ... I will say it now in the name of
Jesus Christ. I know it is true & they know it. The Negro
cannot hold one particle of Government ... if any man
mingles his seed with the seed of Cane the only way he Could
get rid of it or have salvation would be to Come forward &
have his head Cut off & spill his Blood upon the ground. It
would also take the life of his Children." (Wilford
Woodruff's Journal, Vol. 4, p. 97)
http://www.mormonstories.org/top10toughissues/blacks.html
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Who's Michal, one of those extra dudes in the
Book of Norman?
Smith was once asked what "Mormon" meant. He said it was a
contraction of the word "more" and "mon". Mon evidently
means "good", ergo, "Mormon" means more good. :-)
Mormonism is actually based on 4 "sacred" texts: the Bible,
the Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, and the
Pearl of Great Price.
Michal, as I recall, is another name for Adam.
I've never known any Mormons on a personal level -- But I have admired and
respected them as a group. The few I have met in passing seem to all be above
average in intelligence.
I suppose it was my closeness to Adventists when young that helps me to like and
respect people who have strict belief systems. Even though I might not share
them.
I don't respect religion, or the people who believe in it,
but I do respect the results in some cases, and to a large
extent, I suppose that it's probably accurate to say that
religion is what holds civilization together.

Now, having said that, I feel compelled to add that lately
it hasn't been holding it together very well.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-04-20 05:07:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 14:51:28 -0600, mg <***@none.nl> wrote:
<snip>
Post by mg
I don't respect religion, or the people who believe in it,
but I do respect the results in some cases, and to a large
extent, I suppose that it's probably accurate to say that
religion is what holds civilization together.
I don't agree with that at all. Society works better,
not worse, without religion. The only major examples
we have of religious states these days are Islamic.
They're hell-holes of course, but Christianity used to
be just like them when it was in control. It's not in
control anywhere nowadays though. Judaism is in
control in Israel, but the state is essentially secular
for Jews. Too bad for non-Jewish Palestinians
though, and the justification for that is based on a
"manifest destiny" belief, or at least fake-belief,
and that's justified or pretend-justified by Judaism.

The more dismissive of "traditional" KKristianity
religion a society is, such as in Scandinavia and
France (NOT Spain!), the more livable it is.
Post by mg
Now, having said that, I feel compelled to add that lately
it hasn't been holding it together very well.
mg
2017-04-20 14:09:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
I don't respect religion, or the people who believe in it,
but I do respect the results in some cases, and to a large
extent, I suppose that it's probably accurate to say that
religion is what holds civilization together.
I don't agree with that at all. Society works better,
not worse, without religion. The only major examples
we have of religious states these days are Islamic.
They're hell-holes of course, but Christianity used to
be just like them when it was in control. It's not in
control anywhere nowadays though. Judaism is in
control in Israel, but the state is essentially secular
for Jews. Too bad for non-Jewish Palestinians
though, and the justification for that is based on a
"manifest destiny" belief, or at least fake-belief,
and that's justified or pretend-justified by Judaism.
The more dismissive of "traditional" KKristianity
religion a society is, such as in Scandinavia and
France (NOT Spain!), the more livable it is.
I think religion holds a society together because it makes
it more homogeneous and conversely, I' think highly diverse
societies are less stable. Depending on a society's specific
homogeneous belief system, however, that's not to say, that
the society might not be a "hell hole", for example.

I'm also not saying that homogeneity necessarily has to come
from religion. I think it can come from about any type of
shared belief system. Japan, for example, is a very secular
country, but it has, I think, some very strong universally
shared beliefs and customs (in addition to being all of the
same race).
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
Now, having said that, I feel compelled to add that lately
it hasn't been holding it together very well.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-04-20 18:44:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
I don't respect religion, or the people who believe in it,
but I do respect the results in some cases, and to a large
extent, I suppose that it's probably accurate to say that
religion is what holds civilization together.
I don't agree with that at all. Society works better,
not worse, without religion. The only major examples
we have of religious states these days are Islamic.
They're hell-holes of course, but Christianity used to
be just like them when it was in control. It's not in
control anywhere nowadays though. Judaism is in
control in Israel, but the state is essentially secular
for Jews. Too bad for non-Jewish Palestinians
though, and the justification for that is based on a
"manifest destiny" belief, or at least fake-belief,
and that's justified or pretend-justified by Judaism.
The more dismissive of "traditional" KKristianity
religion a society is, such as in Scandinavia and
France (NOT Spain!), the more livable it is.
I think religion holds a society together because it makes
it more homogeneous and conversely, I' think highly diverse
societies are less stable. Depending on a society's specific
homogeneous belief system, however, that's not to say, that
the society might not be a "hell hole", for example.
I'm also not saying that homogeneity necessarily has to come
from religion. I think it can come from about any type of
shared belief system. Japan, for example, is a very secular
country, but it has, I think, some very strong universally
shared beliefs and customs (in addition to being all of the
same race).
Homogeneity, in the sense of antagonism toward "the
other", doesn't always "start" from religion, but they
feed and reinforce each other.
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
Now, having said that, I feel compelled to add that lately
it hasn't been holding it together very well.
Perhaps "conservatives", as well as "liberals"
have become disgusted with the status quo.
Kleptocracy serves noöne but the kleptocrats.
And the kleptocrats are "klever".
b***@gmail.com
2017-04-20 20:16:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Some one said (approximately) "Sadly, those with limited minds
attempt to reason about unlimited phenomena".

I'm always amused at those who will posit about an unknowable
"God" who, as Carlin noted, gives rules or else He will consign
you to a very painful for ever and ever but He loves you.
mg
2017-04-20 23:20:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
I don't respect religion, or the people who believe in it,
but I do respect the results in some cases, and to a large
extent, I suppose that it's probably accurate to say that
religion is what holds civilization together.
I don't agree with that at all. Society works better,
not worse, without religion. The only major examples
we have of religious states these days are Islamic.
They're hell-holes of course, but Christianity used to
be just like them when it was in control. It's not in
control anywhere nowadays though. Judaism is in
control in Israel, but the state is essentially secular
for Jews. Too bad for non-Jewish Palestinians
though, and the justification for that is based on a
"manifest destiny" belief, or at least fake-belief,
and that's justified or pretend-justified by Judaism.
The more dismissive of "traditional" KKristianity
religion a society is, such as in Scandinavia and
France (NOT Spain!), the more livable it is.
I think religion holds a society together because it makes
it more homogeneous and conversely, I' think highly diverse
societies are less stable. Depending on a society's specific
homogeneous belief system, however, that's not to say, that
the society might not be a "hell hole", for example.
I'm also not saying that homogeneity necessarily has to come
from religion. I think it can come from about any type of
shared belief system. Japan, for example, is a very secular
country, but it has, I think, some very strong universally
shared beliefs and customs (in addition to being all of the
same race).
Homogeneity, in the sense of antagonism toward "the
other", doesn't always "start" from religion, but they
feed and reinforce each other.
Yes, there's no doubt that religion is, and can be, and has
been, a terribly destructive force. A civilization of
Sunnis, might be stable, as with Saudi Arabia. Or, a
civilization of Shiites might be stable, as with Iran, for
example, but that doesn't mean that they don't kill and/or
torture their own citizens and it doesn't mean that Iran
might not wind up destroying Saudi Arabia, or that they
might not wind up destroying each other.

The American civil war, incidentally, was a terrible war
between two stable societies that wasn't, I don't think
based on religion. Rather, I would characterize it as two
civilizations (the North and the South) that had ideological
differences.
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
Now, having said that, I feel compelled to add that lately
it hasn't been holding it together very well.
Perhaps "conservatives", as well as "liberals"
have become disgusted with the status quo.
Kleptocracy serves noöne but the kleptocrats.
And the kleptocrats are "klever".
rumpelstiltskin
2017-04-21 03:50:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 17:20:52 -0600, mg <***@none.nl> wrote:
<snip>
Post by mg
Yes, there's no doubt that religion is, and can be, and has
been, a terribly destructive force. A civilization of
Sunnis, might be stable, as with Saudi Arabia. Or, a
civilization of Shiites might be stable, as with Iran, for
example, but that doesn't mean that they don't kill and/or
torture their own citizens and it doesn't mean that Iran
might not wind up destroying Saudi Arabia, or that they
might not wind up destroying each other.
The American civil war, incidentally, was a terrible war
between two stable societies that wasn't, I don't think
based on religion. Rather, I would characterize it as two
civilizations (the North and the South) that had ideological
differences.
One might argue that slavery versus no-slavery is
a "religious" difference, though of course slavery was
not what the Civil War was really about.
b***@gmail.com
2017-04-21 05:29:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
...One might argue that slavery versus no-slavery is
a "religious" difference, though of course slavery was
not what the Civil War was really about.
Oh really, Rumpel! Just what do you think that abomination
was really about?
rumpelstiltskin
2017-04-21 06:18:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
...One might argue that slavery versus no-slavery is
a "religious" difference, though of course slavery was
not what the Civil War was really about.
Oh really, Rumpel! Just what do you think that abomination
was really about?
Money.
http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/feature/causes-of-the-civil-war/
b***@gmail.com
2017-04-21 06:27:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Money. [the cause of the Civil War]
http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/feature/causes-of-the-civil-war/
Carefully read, your cite confirms slavery was the cause of
the Civil War. Slaves were money. There has been, over the
years, efforts by many to point to other reasons/causes but
at bottom, it was the issue of slavery.
Gary
2017-04-21 12:04:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
Money. [the cause of the Civil War]
http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/feature/causes-of-the-civil-war/
Carefully read, your cite confirms slavery was the cause of
the Civil War. Slaves were money. There has been, over the
years, efforts by many to point to other reasons/causes but
at bottom, it was the issue of slavery.
Slavery ? Yes, and no. What particualr issue of slavery caused the secession
that led to the war ? It was not ownership of slaves in the South. Yankees
did not care about that. But ... they did not want slavery extended to the new
states and territories. Most of all -- they did not want blacks in the North.

(Please see excerpt below)

What caused the secession ? The richest Southern planters wanted to form a new
nation. So they could re-open the African slave trade. They wanted more
negroes !

__________________________________________________________

Excerpt from Lincoln's 1862 speech to Congress. Promising Yankees that freed
blacks will not head North ---


"....But why should emancipation South send the free people North? People of any
color seldom run unless there be something to run from. Heretofore colored
people to some extent have fled North from bondage, and now, perhaps, from both
bondage and destitution. But if gradual emancipation and deportation be adopted,
they will have neither to flee from. Their old masters will give them wages at
least until new laborers can be procured, and the freedmen in turn will gladly
give their labor for the wages till new homes can be found for them in congenial
climes and with people of their own blood and race. This proposition can be
trusted on the mutual interests involved. And in any event, can not the North
decide for itself whether to receive them?..."
rumpelstiltskin
2017-04-21 13:54:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
Money. [the cause of the Civil War]
http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/feature/causes-of-the-civil-war/
Carefully read, your cite confirms slavery was the cause of
the Civil War. Slaves were money. There has been, over the
years, efforts by many to point to other reasons/causes but
at bottom, it was the issue of slavery.
You said it yourself, "slaves were money". Halfway
through the war, Lincoln produced the "Emancipation
proclamation", which changed everything and got
immediate support from abolitionists. It's what's
mostly in the history books these days, but that was
after the war had been going on for a couple of years,
and some of Lincoln's former supporters felt betrayed.

http://tinyurl.com/aenmcxz
mg
2017-04-21 09:38:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
Yes, there's no doubt that religion is, and can be, and has
been, a terribly destructive force. A civilization of
Sunnis, might be stable, as with Saudi Arabia. Or, a
civilization of Shiites might be stable, as with Iran, for
example, but that doesn't mean that they don't kill and/or
torture their own citizens and it doesn't mean that Iran
might not wind up destroying Saudi Arabia, or that they
might not wind up destroying each other.
The American civil war, incidentally, was a terrible war
between two stable societies that wasn't, I don't think
based on religion. Rather, I would characterize it as two
civilizations (the North and the South) that had ideological
differences.
One might argue that slavery versus no-slavery is
a "religious" difference, though of course slavery was
not what the Civil War was really about.
I remember doing about 20 minutes of research about 10 years
ago on the cause(s) of the civil war. When we were kids, we
were taught that the war was about slavery. Then a decade,
or two later, as I recall, it apparently became more
stylish, or sophisticated, to say that the war was really
fought for economic reasons. Then a decade, or two, after
that the historians apparently flip-flopped again, and the
consensus once again was apparently that the primary cause
of the war was indeed, slavery.

I'm not an expert on the subject, though, and I've never had
a lot of interest in history, so I'm willing to listen to
arguments on either side.

On a similar subject, btw, I have become convinced, in my
old age, that the Civil War was a big mistake and that the
South should have been allowed to secede from the union.
Gary
2017-04-21 12:04:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
Yes, there's no doubt that religion is, and can be, and has
been, a terribly destructive force. A civilization of
Sunnis, might be stable, as with Saudi Arabia. Or, a
civilization of Shiites might be stable, as with Iran, for
example, but that doesn't mean that they don't kill and/or
torture their own citizens and it doesn't mean that Iran
might not wind up destroying Saudi Arabia, or that they
might not wind up destroying each other.
The American civil war, incidentally, was a terrible war
between two stable societies that wasn't, I don't think
based on religion. Rather, I would characterize it as two
civilizations (the North and the South) that had ideological
differences.
One might argue that slavery versus no-slavery is
a "religious" difference, though of course slavery was
not what the Civil War was really about.
I remember doing about 20 minutes of research about 10 years
ago on the cause(s) of the civil war. When we were kids, we
were taught that the war was about slavery. Then a decade,
or two later, as I recall, it apparently became more
stylish, or sophisticated, to say that the war was really
fought for economic reasons. Then a decade, or two, after
that the historians apparently flip-flopped again, and the
consensus once again was apparently that the primary cause
of the war was indeed, slavery.
I'm not an expert on the subject, though, and I've never had
a lot of interest in history, so I'm willing to listen to
arguments on either side.
On a similar subject, btw, I have become convinced, in my
old age, that the Civil War was a big mistake and that the
South should have been allowed to secede from the union.
I would agree .... but on one condition. Slaves were worth about $1,000 each.
I think it only right to leave all colored folks in the Union when the South
left. That way, the Yankees could marry them, send them to Congress and name
holidays for them.
mg
2017-04-21 20:48:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
Yes, there's no doubt that religion is, and can be, and has
been, a terribly destructive force. A civilization of
Sunnis, might be stable, as with Saudi Arabia. Or, a
civilization of Shiites might be stable, as with Iran, for
example, but that doesn't mean that they don't kill and/or
torture their own citizens and it doesn't mean that Iran
might not wind up destroying Saudi Arabia, or that they
might not wind up destroying each other.
The American civil war, incidentally, was a terrible war
between two stable societies that wasn't, I don't think
based on religion. Rather, I would characterize it as two
civilizations (the North and the South) that had ideological
differences.
One might argue that slavery versus no-slavery is
a "religious" difference, though of course slavery was
not what the Civil War was really about.
I remember doing about 20 minutes of research about 10 years
ago on the cause(s) of the civil war. When we were kids, we
were taught that the war was about slavery. Then a decade,
or two later, as I recall, it apparently became more
stylish, or sophisticated, to say that the war was really
fought for economic reasons. Then a decade, or two, after
that the historians apparently flip-flopped again, and the
consensus once again was apparently that the primary cause
of the war was indeed, slavery.
I'm not an expert on the subject, though, and I've never had
a lot of interest in history, so I'm willing to listen to
arguments on either side.
On a similar subject, btw, I have become convinced, in my
old age, that the Civil War was a big mistake and that the
South should have been allowed to secede from the union.
I would agree .... but on one condition. Slaves were worth about $1,000 each.
I think it only right to leave all colored folks in the Union when the South
left. That way, the Yankees could marry them, send them to Congress and name
holidays for them.
I've always thought that intermarriage was the best solution
to the problem.
Gary
2017-04-21 21:30:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
Yes, there's no doubt that religion is, and can be, and has
been, a terribly destructive force. A civilization of
Sunnis, might be stable, as with Saudi Arabia. Or, a
civilization of Shiites might be stable, as with Iran, for
example, but that doesn't mean that they don't kill and/or
torture their own citizens and it doesn't mean that Iran
might not wind up destroying Saudi Arabia, or that they
might not wind up destroying each other.
The American civil war, incidentally, was a terrible war
between two stable societies that wasn't, I don't think
based on religion. Rather, I would characterize it as two
civilizations (the North and the South) that had ideological
differences.
One might argue that slavery versus no-slavery is
a "religious" difference, though of course slavery was
not what the Civil War was really about.
I remember doing about 20 minutes of research about 10 years
ago on the cause(s) of the civil war. When we were kids, we
were taught that the war was about slavery. Then a decade,
or two later, as I recall, it apparently became more
stylish, or sophisticated, to say that the war was really
fought for economic reasons. Then a decade, or two, after
that the historians apparently flip-flopped again, and the
consensus once again was apparently that the primary cause
of the war was indeed, slavery.
I'm not an expert on the subject, though, and I've never had
a lot of interest in history, so I'm willing to listen to
arguments on either side.
On a similar subject, btw, I have become convinced, in my
old age, that the Civil War was a big mistake and that the
South should have been allowed to secede from the union.
I would agree .... but on one condition. Slaves were worth about $1,000 each.
I think it only right to leave all colored folks in the Union when the South
left. That way, the Yankees could marry them, send them to Congress and name
holidays for them.
I've always thought that intermarriage was the best solution
to the problem.
That would do it. If such a marriage was universally accepted. I believe that
is what happened in Brazil. They abolished slavery in the 1890s. And they
began to marry the former slaves. I doubt they have any racial problems.
wolfbat359
2017-04-22 00:28:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
Yes, there's no doubt that religion is, and can be, and has
been, a terribly destructive force. A civilization of
Sunnis, might be stable, as with Saudi Arabia. Or, a
civilization of Shiites might be stable, as with Iran, for
example, but that doesn't mean that they don't kill and/or
torture their own citizens and it doesn't mean that Iran
might not wind up destroying Saudi Arabia, or that they
might not wind up destroying each other.
The American civil war, incidentally, was a terrible war
between two stable societies that wasn't, I don't think
based on religion. Rather, I would characterize it as two
civilizations (the North and the South) that had ideological
differences.
One might argue that slavery versus no-slavery is
a "religious" difference, though of course slavery was
not what the Civil War was really about.
I remember doing about 20 minutes of research about 10 years
ago on the cause(s) of the civil war. When we were kids, we
were taught that the war was about slavery. Then a decade,
or two later, as I recall, it apparently became more
stylish, or sophisticated, to say that the war was really
fought for economic reasons. Then a decade, or two, after
that the historians apparently flip-flopped again, and the
consensus once again was apparently that the primary cause
of the war was indeed, slavery.
I'm not an expert on the subject, though, and I've never had
a lot of interest in history, so I'm willing to listen to
arguments on either side.
On a similar subject, btw, I have become convinced, in my
old age, that the Civil War was a big mistake and that the
South should have been allowed to secede from the union.
I would agree .... but on one condition. Slaves were worth about $1,000 each.
I think it only right to leave all colored folks in the Union when the South
left. That way, the Yankees could marry them, send them to Congress and name
holidays for them.
I've always thought that intermarriage was the best solution
to the problem.
That would do it. If such a marriage was universally accepted. I believe that
is what happened in Brazil. They abolished slavery in the 1890s. And they
began to marry the former slaves. I doubt they have any racial problems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Brazil

Race indicators
Indicators White Brazilian Black & Multiracial Brazilian
Illiteracy[6] 5.9% 13.3%
University degree[7] 15.0% 4.7%
Life expectancy[8] 73.13 67.03
Unemployment[9] 5.7% 7.1%
GDP per capita[10] R$ 22,699 R$ 15,068
Homicide deaths[11] 29% 65.5%


https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/24/opinion/vanessa-barbara-in-denial-over-racism-in-brazil.html?_r=0

excerpt:

In Denial Over Racism in Brazil


SÃO PAULO, Brazil — One Friday night last month, the electricity was off in the streets of Palmeirinha, a favela in Rio de Janeiro. Three black teenagers were joking around in front of their houses. One of them started to run and the others followed, laughing. At that moment, the police came out shooting. Chauan Jambre Cezário, 19 years old, was seriously wounded. Alan de Souza Lima, 15 years old, died on the site with a cellphone in his hands — he had caught everything on video, including his own last agonizing minutes.

According to an official report released the next day, the boys were shot after a confrontation with the police. Officers allegedly found two guns at the scene and charged Mr. Cezário with resisting arrest. The boy, who sells iced tea on Ipanema Beach, was carried to the emergency room and handcuffed to the hospital bed.

Days later, the nine-minute cellphone video went public. Images clearly show that the teenagers didn’t have any guns on them and that there was neither confrontation nor resistance. Seconds after the shooting, a policeman asked why they had been running, to which a bleeding Mr. Cezário answered: “We were just playing around, sir.”

The charges have been dropped, but his experience, and the death of his younger friend, reflect a history of violence against young black men in Brazil. ....

http://www.rioinaweek.com/racism-in-brazil/

The Racism In Brazil Is A Big Problem

Brazil_Police_Killings
Racism In Brazil

The racism in Brazil.

It’s a huge problem in Brazil and I’ve seen it first-hand. So when I see Brazilians speak about racism in America, I hold back laughter because in my opinion:

The racism in Brazil is worse than racism in America.

I’m saying it and I don’t care who disagrees with me. A big reason racism in America isn’t as bad as Brazil is because of economic development.

For many Black Americans, there are realistic opportunities to reach a middle-class lifestyle despite where you start. There are thousands of Black Americans traveling to Brazil each year for vacation. How many Black Brazilians have you met visiting America on vacation?

Probably not many. I’ve met my fair share of White Brazilians though.

So, I’m tired of Brazilians denying the racism in Brazil.

While staying in a hostel in São Paulo one year, a White Brazilian woman tried to convince me Brazil didn’t have a racism problem like America.

She said that because she can call Black Brazilian men “negão”, it shows how connected and equal all Brazilians are. The democracia racial is proven because white women can call Afro-Brazilian men “big black man.”

Sure, that is true equality.

Let’s look at some of these statistics of equality shall we.

Forensic Experts Scour UPP Crime Scene In Rio De Janeiro
Quick Stats

Among college graduates, White Brazilians outearn black Brazilians by 47%.
Homicides rate have dropped for white Brazilians by 24% in the last decade. In the black population, the rate has increased by 40 percent.
Afro-Brazilians account for over 50% of favela residents in Rio de Janeiro.
Anybody remember seeing any black faces in the stands during the 2014 World Cup?
Despite being over 50% of Brazil’s population, Brazilians of African descent only account for 16% of the top richest 1%.
Black Brazilians aged 12-18 years old are 3x as likely to be murdered as White Brazilians in the same age range.

They are also more likely to be victims of police killings; a study by the University of São Carlos showed that 58 percent of all people killed in the state of São Paulo by the military police were black. They make up 62 percent of all people incarcerated nationwide.

“When you see a police patrol car, your heart freezes,” Luiz Roberto Lima, a black photographer from Rio de Janeiro who lived on the streets as a teenager, told me. “They could kill you because you were at the street or because you were standing up for your rights, and they could also kill you for pleasure. Even if you don’t have a criminal record, they may trump up something against you.”(Source)

Black Brazilians are being murdered intentionally.

People like to call the racism in Brazil covert, unlike America’s overt racism. But these statistics are pretty blatant to me.

On Dia da Consciência Negra, a day when Black Brazilians bring awareness to Black issues in Brazil, my Brown Brazilian friend on Facebook wrote a comment about why we don’t need a day for Black awareness. ....
Emily
2017-04-21 13:01:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On a similar subject, btw, I have become convinced, in my
old age, that the Civil War was a big mistake and that the
South should have been allowed to secede from the union.
I came to that conclusion a long time ago. I wouldn't personally have
benefited though since I'd have grown up in the Confederacy and my
ancestors weren't plantation or slave owners.
mg
2017-04-21 20:43:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Emily
Post by mg
On a similar subject, btw, I have become convinced, in my
old age, that the Civil War was a big mistake and that the
South should have been allowed to secede from the union.
I came to that conclusion a long time ago. I wouldn't personally have
benefited though since I'd have grown up in the Confederacy and my
ancestors weren't plantation or slave owners.
Now, looking at the situation about 50 years after I was a
kid in school, I'm starting to wonder if we were brain
washed back in those days and, come to think of it, I
suppose the kids are still being brainwashed by only hearing
one side of the story.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-04-21 13:54:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
Yes, there's no doubt that religion is, and can be, and has
been, a terribly destructive force. A civilization of
Sunnis, might be stable, as with Saudi Arabia. Or, a
civilization of Shiites might be stable, as with Iran, for
example, but that doesn't mean that they don't kill and/or
torture their own citizens and it doesn't mean that Iran
might not wind up destroying Saudi Arabia, or that they
might not wind up destroying each other.
The American civil war, incidentally, was a terrible war
between two stable societies that wasn't, I don't think
based on religion. Rather, I would characterize it as two
civilizations (the North and the South) that had ideological
differences.
One might argue that slavery versus no-slavery is
a "religious" difference, though of course slavery was
not what the Civil War was really about.
I remember doing about 20 minutes of research about 10 years
ago on the cause(s) of the civil war. When we were kids, we
were taught that the war was about slavery. Then a decade,
or two later, as I recall, it apparently became more
stylish, or sophisticated, to say that the war was really
fought for economic reasons. Then a decade, or two, after
that the historians apparently flip-flopped again, and the
consensus once again was apparently that the primary cause
of the war was indeed, slavery.
I'm not an expert on the subject, though, and I've never had
a lot of interest in history, so I'm willing to listen to
arguments on either side.
On a similar subject, btw, I have become convinced, in my
old age, that the Civil War was a big mistake and that the
South should have been allowed to secede from the union.
I agree with that last paragraph in particular. It's been
argued that slavery would have ended in the South
eventually anyway. It wouldh't have happened as fast as
it happened because the South lost the Civil War though.

In ancient times, every successful society had slavery.
The Romans in particular had so many slaves that they
were in constant fear of a slave Rebellion, which happened
under Spartacus and filled the non-slave population with
the fear of Jupiter. Spartacus was defeated and his head
was stuck on a pike along the Appian Way as, 1700 years
later, Oliver Cromwell's head was stuck and left to rot on
a pike above Westminster Hall, as a warning from the
institution of Royalty to Parliament not to behead the king
(Charles I) and abolish the institution of royalty again.
After the "Restoration" when the eldest son of Charles I
returned from exile and became king Charles II, British
royalty at least had learnt not to push the people as
hard as before, for fear of killing the goose that laid the
golden eggs for royalty.

Spartacus was Karl Marx' favourite person in history,
very appropriately IMV. We're still not free from the
depravity of dispropotionate control of law and society
by billionaires though. It continues in the USA to this day.

Oliver Cromwell is not a direct descendant of Thomas
Cromwell, the devious advisor who was for a time
trusted by and of great use to the monstrous king Henry
VIII, until he fell out of favour and got his head chopped
off as did so many others who got entangled with
Henry VIII. Oliver Cromwell was descended from
Thomas Cromwell's sister.
mg
2017-04-21 20:46:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
Yes, there's no doubt that religion is, and can be, and has
been, a terribly destructive force. A civilization of
Sunnis, might be stable, as with Saudi Arabia. Or, a
civilization of Shiites might be stable, as with Iran, for
example, but that doesn't mean that they don't kill and/or
torture their own citizens and it doesn't mean that Iran
might not wind up destroying Saudi Arabia, or that they
might not wind up destroying each other.
The American civil war, incidentally, was a terrible war
between two stable societies that wasn't, I don't think
based on religion. Rather, I would characterize it as two
civilizations (the North and the South) that had ideological
differences.
One might argue that slavery versus no-slavery is
a "religious" difference, though of course slavery was
not what the Civil War was really about.
I remember doing about 20 minutes of research about 10 years
ago on the cause(s) of the civil war. When we were kids, we
were taught that the war was about slavery. Then a decade,
or two later, as I recall, it apparently became more
stylish, or sophisticated, to say that the war was really
fought for economic reasons. Then a decade, or two, after
that the historians apparently flip-flopped again, and the
consensus once again was apparently that the primary cause
of the war was indeed, slavery.
I'm not an expert on the subject, though, and I've never had
a lot of interest in history, so I'm willing to listen to
arguments on either side.
On a similar subject, btw, I have become convinced, in my
old age, that the Civil War was a big mistake and that the
South should have been allowed to secede from the union.
I agree with that last paragraph in particular. It's been
argued that slavery would have ended in the South
eventually anyway. It wouldh't have happened as fast as
it happened because the South lost the Civil War though.
I think it's pretty obvious that slavery would have ended,
anyway, and if we had let the South secede, the
repercussions would have been their problem, not ours.
Post by rumpelstiltskin
In ancient times, every successful society had slavery.
The Romans in particular had so many slaves that they
were in constant fear of a slave Rebellion, which happened
under Spartacus and filled the non-slave population with
the fear of Jupiter. Spartacus was defeated and his head
was stuck on a pike along the Appian Way as, 1700 years
later, Oliver Cromwell's head was stuck and left to rot on
a pike above Westminster Hall, as a warning from the
institution of Royalty to Parliament not to behead the king
(Charles I) and abolish the institution of royalty again.
After the "Restoration" when the eldest son of Charles I
returned from exile and became king Charles II, British
royalty at least had learnt not to push the people as
hard as before, for fear of killing the goose that laid the
golden eggs for royalty.
Spartacus was Karl Marx' favourite person in history,
very appropriately IMV. We're still not free from the
depravity of dispropotionate control of law and society
by billionaires though. It continues in the USA to this day.
Oliver Cromwell is not a direct descendant of Thomas
Cromwell, the devious advisor who was for a time
trusted by and of great use to the monstrous king Henry
VIII, until he fell out of favour and got his head chopped
off as did so many others who got entangled with
Henry VIII. Oliver Cromwell was descended from
Thomas Cromwell's sister.
Gary
2017-04-21 12:04:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
I don't respect religion, or the people who believe in it,
but I do respect the results in some cases, and to a large
extent, I suppose that it's probably accurate to say that
religion is what holds civilization together.
I don't agree with that at all. Society works better,
not worse, without religion. The only major examples
we have of religious states these days are Islamic.
They're hell-holes of course, but Christianity used to
be just like them when it was in control. It's not in
control anywhere nowadays though. Judaism is in
control in Israel, but the state is essentially secular
for Jews. Too bad for non-Jewish Palestinians
though, and the justification for that is based on a
"manifest destiny" belief, or at least fake-belief,
and that's justified or pretend-justified by Judaism.
The more dismissive of "traditional" KKristianity
religion a society is, such as in Scandinavia and
France (NOT Spain!), the more livable it is.
I think religion holds a society together because it makes
it more homogeneous and conversely, I' think highly diverse
societies are less stable. Depending on a society's specific
homogeneous belief system, however, that's not to say, that
the society might not be a "hell hole", for example.
I'm also not saying that homogeneity necessarily has to come
from religion. I think it can come from about any type of
shared belief system. Japan, for example, is a very secular
country, but it has, I think, some very strong universally
shared beliefs and customs (in addition to being all of the
same race).
Homogeneity, in the sense of antagonism toward "the
other", doesn't always "start" from religion, but they
feed and reinforce each other.
Yes, there's no doubt that religion is, and can be, and has
been, a terribly destructive force. A civilization of
Sunnis, might be stable, as with Saudi Arabia. Or, a
civilization of Shiites might be stable, as with Iran, for
example, but that doesn't mean that they don't kill and/or
torture their own citizens and it doesn't mean that Iran
might not wind up destroying Saudi Arabia, or that they
might not wind up destroying each other.
The American civil war, incidentally, was a terrible war
between two stable societies that wasn't, I don't think
based on religion. Rather, I would characterize it as two
civilizations (the North and the South) that had ideological
differences.
Actually, the people of the North and South (circa 1860) had very few
ideologies, morals or values that we would recognise.
mg
2017-04-21 19:26:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
I don't respect religion, or the people who believe in it,
but I do respect the results in some cases, and to a large
extent, I suppose that it's probably accurate to say that
religion is what holds civilization together.
I don't agree with that at all. Society works better,
not worse, without religion. The only major examples
we have of religious states these days are Islamic.
They're hell-holes of course, but Christianity used to
be just like them when it was in control. It's not in
control anywhere nowadays though. Judaism is in
control in Israel, but the state is essentially secular
for Jews. Too bad for non-Jewish Palestinians
though, and the justification for that is based on a
"manifest destiny" belief, or at least fake-belief,
and that's justified or pretend-justified by Judaism.
The more dismissive of "traditional" KKristianity
religion a society is, such as in Scandinavia and
France (NOT Spain!), the more livable it is.
I think religion holds a society together because it makes
it more homogeneous and conversely, I' think highly diverse
societies are less stable. Depending on a society's specific
homogeneous belief system, however, that's not to say, that
the society might not be a "hell hole", for example.
I'm also not saying that homogeneity necessarily has to come
from religion. I think it can come from about any type of
shared belief system. Japan, for example, is a very secular
country, but it has, I think, some very strong universally
shared beliefs and customs (in addition to being all of the
same race).
Homogeneity, in the sense of antagonism toward "the
other", doesn't always "start" from religion, but they
feed and reinforce each other.
Yes, there's no doubt that religion is, and can be, and has
been, a terribly destructive force. A civilization of
Sunnis, might be stable, as with Saudi Arabia. Or, a
civilization of Shiites might be stable, as with Iran, for
example, but that doesn't mean that they don't kill and/or
torture their own citizens and it doesn't mean that Iran
might not wind up destroying Saudi Arabia, or that they
might not wind up destroying each other.
The American civil war, incidentally, was a terrible war
between two stable societies that wasn't, I don't think
based on religion. Rather, I would characterize it as two
civilizations (the North and the South) that had ideological
differences.
Actually, the people of the North and South (circa 1860) had very few
ideologies, morals or values that we would recognise.
What do you think was the cause of the civil war?
Gary
2017-04-21 20:20:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
I don't respect religion, or the people who believe in it,
but I do respect the results in some cases, and to a large
extent, I suppose that it's probably accurate to say that
religion is what holds civilization together.
I don't agree with that at all. Society works better,
not worse, without religion. The only major examples
we have of religious states these days are Islamic.
They're hell-holes of course, but Christianity used to
be just like them when it was in control. It's not in
control anywhere nowadays though. Judaism is in
control in Israel, but the state is essentially secular
for Jews. Too bad for non-Jewish Palestinians
though, and the justification for that is based on a
"manifest destiny" belief, or at least fake-belief,
and that's justified or pretend-justified by Judaism.
The more dismissive of "traditional" KKristianity
religion a society is, such as in Scandinavia and
France (NOT Spain!), the more livable it is.
I think religion holds a society together because it makes
it more homogeneous and conversely, I' think highly diverse
societies are less stable. Depending on a society's specific
homogeneous belief system, however, that's not to say, that
the society might not be a "hell hole", for example.
I'm also not saying that homogeneity necessarily has to come
from religion. I think it can come from about any type of
shared belief system. Japan, for example, is a very secular
country, but it has, I think, some very strong universally
shared beliefs and customs (in addition to being all of the
same race).
Homogeneity, in the sense of antagonism toward "the
other", doesn't always "start" from religion, but they
feed and reinforce each other.
Yes, there's no doubt that religion is, and can be, and has
been, a terribly destructive force. A civilization of
Sunnis, might be stable, as with Saudi Arabia. Or, a
civilization of Shiites might be stable, as with Iran, for
example, but that doesn't mean that they don't kill and/or
torture their own citizens and it doesn't mean that Iran
might not wind up destroying Saudi Arabia, or that they
might not wind up destroying each other.
The American civil war, incidentally, was a terrible war
between two stable societies that wasn't, I don't think
based on religion. Rather, I would characterize it as two
civilizations (the North and the South) that had ideological
differences.
Actually, the people of the North and South (circa 1860) had very few
ideologies, morals or values that we would recognise.
What do you think was the cause of the civil war?
If ever there was a "rich man's war ... and a poor man's fight" -- it was the
Civil War. The rich Southerners wanted to re-open the African slave-trade.
The rich Northerners wanted to protect their factories. Bankers probably held
loans on thousands of slaves as collateral.

If you want to see what the politicians were trying to sell the ordinary people
-- here is a letter written by the governor of Georgia. (published in a
newspaper) Here he explains why people should support the secession after
Lincoln's being elected November 1860. It is lengthy -- but it sums things up
pretty well.

http://www.unioncountyhistory.org/page43/page127/page129/page129.html

Excerpt ---
---------------------------------------
I propose to discuss briefly three propositions.

1st. Is the election of Mr. Lincoln to the Presidency, sufficient cause to
justify Georgia and the other Southern States in seceding from the Union?

2d. What will be the results to the institution of slavery which will follow
submission to the inauguration and administration of Mr. Lincoln as the
President of one section of the Union.

3d. What will be the effect which the abolition of Slavery will have upon the
interests and the social position of the large class of nonslaveholders and poor
white laborers, who are in the South?

-----------------------------------------
(... that last one is really good and interesting :-)
Gary
2017-04-21 20:33:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary
Post by mg
What do you think was the cause of the civil war?
If ever there was a "rich man's war ... and a poor man's fight" -- it was the
Civil War. The rich Southerners wanted to re-open the African slave-trade.
The rich Northerners wanted to protect their factories. Bankers probably held
loans on thousands of slaves as collateral.
If you want to see what the politicians were trying to sell the ordinary people
-- here is a letter written by the governor of Georgia. (published in a
newspaper) Here he explains why people should support the secession after
Lincoln's being elected November 1860. It is lengthy -- but it sums things up
pretty well.
http://www.unioncountyhistory.org/page43/page127/page129/page129.html
Excerpt ---
---------------------------------------
I propose to discuss briefly three propositions.
1st. Is the election of Mr. Lincoln to the Presidency, sufficient cause to
justify Georgia and the other Southern States in seceding from the Union?
2d. What will be the results to the institution of slavery which will follow
submission to the inauguration and administration of Mr. Lincoln as the
President of one section of the Union.
3d. What will be the effect which the abolition of Slavery will have upon the
interests and the social position of the large class of nonslaveholders and poor
white laborers, who are in the South?
-----------------------------------------
(... that last one is really good and interesting :-)
Let em add one thought to my comment : "rich man's war ... and a poor man's
fight" --

If a Southerner owned 20 slaves -- he was exempt from the military draft of the
Confederacy. (How many poor men owned 20 ?) The North had some similar
exemptions, but I can't quote them this moment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty_Negro_Law

I will have to admit -- it has been proven to me that a lot of sons of rich men
fought for the Confederacy. But -- now where near all of them :-)
mg
2017-04-21 20:56:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary
Post by Gary
Post by mg
What do you think was the cause of the civil war?
If ever there was a "rich man's war ... and a poor man's fight" -- it was the
Civil War. The rich Southerners wanted to re-open the African slave-trade.
The rich Northerners wanted to protect their factories. Bankers probably held
loans on thousands of slaves as collateral.
If you want to see what the politicians were trying to sell the ordinary people
-- here is a letter written by the governor of Georgia. (published in a
newspaper) Here he explains why people should support the secession after
Lincoln's being elected November 1860. It is lengthy -- but it sums things up
pretty well.
http://www.unioncountyhistory.org/page43/page127/page129/page129.html
Excerpt ---
---------------------------------------
I propose to discuss briefly three propositions.
1st. Is the election of Mr. Lincoln to the Presidency, sufficient cause to
justify Georgia and the other Southern States in seceding from the Union?
2d. What will be the results to the institution of slavery which will follow
submission to the inauguration and administration of Mr. Lincoln as the
President of one section of the Union.
3d. What will be the effect which the abolition of Slavery will have upon the
interests and the social position of the large class of nonslaveholders and poor
white laborers, who are in the South?
-----------------------------------------
(... that last one is really good and interesting :-)
Let em add one thought to my comment : "rich man's war ... and a poor man's
fight" --
If a Southerner owned 20 slaves -- he was exempt from the military draft of the
Confederacy. (How many poor men owned 20 ?) The North had some similar
exemptions, but I can't quote them this moment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty_Negro_Law
I will have to admit -- it has been proven to me that a lot of sons of rich men
fought for the Confederacy. But -- now where near all of them :-)
Here's an interesting quote from someone who I am sure is an
historical favorite of yours:

"Here lies the yellow man, killed by a black man, fighting
for the white man, who killed all the red men."
--Malcolm X
Gary
2017-04-21 21:34:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by Gary
Post by mg
What do you think was the cause of the civil war?
If ever there was a "rich man's war ... and a poor man's fight" -- it was the
Civil War. The rich Southerners wanted to re-open the African slave-trade.
The rich Northerners wanted to protect their factories. Bankers probably held
loans on thousands of slaves as collateral.
If you want to see what the politicians were trying to sell the ordinary people
-- here is a letter written by the governor of Georgia. (published in a
newspaper) Here he explains why people should support the secession after
Lincoln's being elected November 1860. It is lengthy -- but it sums things up
pretty well.
http://www.unioncountyhistory.org/page43/page127/page129/page129.html
Excerpt ---
---------------------------------------
I propose to discuss briefly three propositions.
1st. Is the election of Mr. Lincoln to the Presidency, sufficient cause to
justify Georgia and the other Southern States in seceding from the Union?
2d. What will be the results to the institution of slavery which will follow
submission to the inauguration and administration of Mr. Lincoln as the
President of one section of the Union.
3d. What will be the effect which the abolition of Slavery will have upon the
interests and the social position of the large class of nonslaveholders and poor
white laborers, who are in the South?
-----------------------------------------
(... that last one is really good and interesting :-)
Let em add one thought to my comment : "rich man's war ... and a poor man's
fight" --
If a Southerner owned 20 slaves -- he was exempt from the military draft of the
Confederacy. (How many poor men owned 20 ?) The North had some similar
exemptions, but I can't quote them this moment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty_Negro_Law
I will have to admit -- it has been proven to me that a lot of sons of rich men
fought for the Confederacy. But -- now where near all of them :-)
Here's an interesting quote from someone who I am sure is an
"Here lies the yellow man, killed by a black man, fighting
for the white man, who killed all the red men."
--Malcolm X
Ol' Malcolm X. He is a wonnerful Black Muslim. To tell the truth - I have
more respect for his Black heritage than his muslim beliefs.
mg
2017-04-21 20:52:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
I don't respect religion, or the people who believe in it,
but I do respect the results in some cases, and to a large
extent, I suppose that it's probably accurate to say that
religion is what holds civilization together.
I don't agree with that at all. Society works better,
not worse, without religion. The only major examples
we have of religious states these days are Islamic.
They're hell-holes of course, but Christianity used to
be just like them when it was in control. It's not in
control anywhere nowadays though. Judaism is in
control in Israel, but the state is essentially secular
for Jews. Too bad for non-Jewish Palestinians
though, and the justification for that is based on a
"manifest destiny" belief, or at least fake-belief,
and that's justified or pretend-justified by Judaism.
The more dismissive of "traditional" KKristianity
religion a society is, such as in Scandinavia and
France (NOT Spain!), the more livable it is.
I think religion holds a society together because it makes
it more homogeneous and conversely, I' think highly diverse
societies are less stable. Depending on a society's specific
homogeneous belief system, however, that's not to say, that
the society might not be a "hell hole", for example.
I'm also not saying that homogeneity necessarily has to come
from religion. I think it can come from about any type of
shared belief system. Japan, for example, is a very secular
country, but it has, I think, some very strong universally
shared beliefs and customs (in addition to being all of the
same race).
Homogeneity, in the sense of antagonism toward "the
other", doesn't always "start" from religion, but they
feed and reinforce each other.
Yes, there's no doubt that religion is, and can be, and has
been, a terribly destructive force. A civilization of
Sunnis, might be stable, as with Saudi Arabia. Or, a
civilization of Shiites might be stable, as with Iran, for
example, but that doesn't mean that they don't kill and/or
torture their own citizens and it doesn't mean that Iran
might not wind up destroying Saudi Arabia, or that they
might not wind up destroying each other.
The American civil war, incidentally, was a terrible war
between two stable societies that wasn't, I don't think
based on religion. Rather, I would characterize it as two
civilizations (the North and the South) that had ideological
differences.
Actually, the people of the North and South (circa 1860) had very few
ideologies, morals or values that we would recognise.
What do you think was the cause of the civil war?
If ever there was a "rich man's war ... and a poor man's fight" -- it was the
Civil War. The rich Southerners wanted to re-open the African slave-trade.
The rich Northerners wanted to protect their factories. Bankers probably held
loans on thousands of slaves as collateral.
If you want to see what the politicians were trying to sell the ordinary people
-- here is a letter written by the governor of Georgia. (published in a
newspaper) Here he explains why people should support the secession after
Lincoln's being elected November 1860. It is lengthy -- but it sums things up
pretty well.
http://www.unioncountyhistory.org/page43/page127/page129/page129.html
Excerpt ---
---------------------------------------
I propose to discuss briefly three propositions.
1st. Is the election of Mr. Lincoln to the Presidency, sufficient cause to
justify Georgia and the other Southern States in seceding from the Union?
2d. What will be the results to the institution of slavery which will follow
submission to the inauguration and administration of Mr. Lincoln as the
President of one section of the Union.
3d. What will be the effect which the abolition of Slavery will have upon the
interests and the social position of the large class of nonslaveholders and poor
white laborers, who are in the South?
-----------------------------------------
(... that last one is really good and interesting :-)
If one were to ask was the civil war caused by economic
issues, or ideological differences, and one were to get a
response that slaves were worth money, then I suppose, that
would lead to the conclusion that it was both economics and
ideology.

However, I would still stick to my conclusion that it was
ideological because the South believed that slavery was
moral and the North did not.
Gary
2017-04-21 21:17:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
I don't respect religion, or the people who believe in it,
but I do respect the results in some cases, and to a large
extent, I suppose that it's probably accurate to say that
religion is what holds civilization together.
I don't agree with that at all. Society works better,
not worse, without religion. The only major examples
we have of religious states these days are Islamic.
They're hell-holes of course, but Christianity used to
be just like them when it was in control. It's not in
control anywhere nowadays though. Judaism is in
control in Israel, but the state is essentially secular
for Jews. Too bad for non-Jewish Palestinians
though, and the justification for that is based on a
"manifest destiny" belief, or at least fake-belief,
and that's justified or pretend-justified by Judaism.
The more dismissive of "traditional" KKristianity
religion a society is, such as in Scandinavia and
France (NOT Spain!), the more livable it is.
I think religion holds a society together because it makes
it more homogeneous and conversely, I' think highly diverse
societies are less stable. Depending on a society's specific
homogeneous belief system, however, that's not to say, that
the society might not be a "hell hole", for example.
I'm also not saying that homogeneity necessarily has to come
from religion. I think it can come from about any type of
shared belief system. Japan, for example, is a very secular
country, but it has, I think, some very strong universally
shared beliefs and customs (in addition to being all of the
same race).
Homogeneity, in the sense of antagonism toward "the
other", doesn't always "start" from religion, but they
feed and reinforce each other.
Yes, there's no doubt that religion is, and can be, and has
been, a terribly destructive force. A civilization of
Sunnis, might be stable, as with Saudi Arabia. Or, a
civilization of Shiites might be stable, as with Iran, for
example, but that doesn't mean that they don't kill and/or
torture their own citizens and it doesn't mean that Iran
might not wind up destroying Saudi Arabia, or that they
might not wind up destroying each other.
The American civil war, incidentally, was a terrible war
between two stable societies that wasn't, I don't think
based on religion. Rather, I would characterize it as two
civilizations (the North and the South) that had ideological
differences.
Actually, the people of the North and South (circa 1860) had very few
ideologies, morals or values that we would recognise.
What do you think was the cause of the civil war?
If ever there was a "rich man's war ... and a poor man's fight" -- it was the
Civil War. The rich Southerners wanted to re-open the African slave-trade.
The rich Northerners wanted to protect their factories. Bankers probably held
loans on thousands of slaves as collateral.
If you want to see what the politicians were trying to sell the ordinary people
-- here is a letter written by the governor of Georgia. (published in a
newspaper) Here he explains why people should support the secession after
Lincoln's being elected November 1860. It is lengthy -- but it sums things up
pretty well.
http://www.unioncountyhistory.org/page43/page127/page129/page129.html
Excerpt ---
---------------------------------------
I propose to discuss briefly three propositions.
1st. Is the election of Mr. Lincoln to the Presidency, sufficient cause to
justify Georgia and the other Southern States in seceding from the Union?
2d. What will be the results to the institution of slavery which will follow
submission to the inauguration and administration of Mr. Lincoln as the
President of one section of the Union.
3d. What will be the effect which the abolition of Slavery will have upon the
interests and the social position of the large class of nonslaveholders and poor
white laborers, who are in the South?
-----------------------------------------
(... that last one is really good and interesting :-)
If one were to ask was the civil war caused by economic
issues, or ideological differences, and one were to get a
response that slaves were worth money, then I suppose, that
would lead to the conclusion that it was both economics and
ideology.
However, I would still stick to my conclusion that it was
ideological because the South believed that slavery was
moral and the North did not.
I still disagree. In 1860 -- I doubt if 10% of the American people thought
slavery immoral. Back then young working class Southern men saw slavery as a
way to get rich. Just like the Planter down the street. Yankees did no grow
enough of the field crops that justified slavery. So the saw no profit in it.
Which is the only reason slavery was not used up there.

There were one or two Northern states that forbade blacks from even being in the
state. (Indiana -- I believe)
Gary
2017-04-20 12:11:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Not being Mormon means that you bear the
mark of Cain! No good KKKristian would want
to hang around with you too long - it might
be infectious.
Actually, according to Brigham Young, the mark of Cain was
"Through the faith and obedience of Able to his heavenly
father, Cain became jealous of him, and he laid a plan to
obtain all his flocks; for through his perfect obedience to
father he obtained more blessings than Cain; consequently he
took it into his heart to put able able of this mortal
existance. after the deed was done, the Lord enquired to
able, and made Caine own what he had done with him. Now says
the grand father I will not distroy the seed of michal and
his wife; and cain I will not kill you, nor suffer any one
to kill you, but I will put a mark upon you. What is that
mark? you will see it on the countenance of every African
you ever did see upon the face of the earth, or ever will
see. Now I tell you what I know; when the mark was put upon
Cain, Abels children was in all probability young; the Lord
told Cain that he should not receive the blessings of the
preisthood nor his seed, until the last of the posterity of
Able had received the preisthood, until the redemtion of the
earth. If there never was a prophet, or apostle of Jesus
Christ spoke it before, I tell you, this people that are
commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain."
--Brigham Young
http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/sermons_talks_interviews/brigham1852feb5_priesthoodandblacks.htm
Of course there are lighter-skinned Negroes,
and Caucasians who are darker than them.
"Any man having one drop of the seed of Cane in him Cannot
hold the priesthood ... I will say it now in the name of
Jesus Christ. I know it is true & they know it. The Negro
cannot hold one particle of Government ... if any man
mingles his seed with the seed of Cane the only way he Could
get rid of it or have salvation would be to Come forward &
have his head Cut off & spill his Blood upon the ground. It
would also take the life of his Children." (Wilford
Woodruff's Journal, Vol. 4, p. 97)
http://www.mormonstories.org/top10toughissues/blacks.html
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Who's Michal, one of those extra dudes in the
Book of Norman?
Smith was once asked what "Mormon" meant. He said it was a
contraction of the word "more" and "mon". Mon evidently
means "good", ergo, "Mormon" means more good. :-)
Mormonism is actually based on 4 "sacred" texts: the Bible,
the Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, and the
Pearl of Great Price.
Michal, as I recall, is another name for Adam.
I've never known any Mormons on a personal level -- But I have admired and
respected them as a group. The few I have met in passing seem to all be above
average in intelligence.
I suppose it was my closeness to Adventists when young that helps me to like and
respect people who have strict belief systems. Even though I might not share
them.
I don't respect religion, or the people who believe in it,
but I do respect the results in some cases, and to a large
extent, I suppose that it's probably accurate to say that
religion is what holds civilization together.
Without religion there would be no civilization. Let me mention this piece of
historical trivia. Back about 2,000 years ago, Rome was bringing Europe under
their rule. They had a problem. All the countries they conquered had
religions that worshipped multiple gods. This caused the people to be in a
constant state of upheaval because some loved one god and his neighbor loved
another. The Romans looked around for a unifying religion to give its people.

The only single god group they could find was the Jews. But --- non-Jews
would not accept Judaism because it had such strict rules. (food laws and
circumcision). Then .... along came Paul! He told the Romans about the
Jewish Messiah who had recently been murdered. Christianity offered a reformed
Judaism. A religion with one god -- lots of love -- and no difficult rules.
Rome gave it to all of Europe -- and it was what helped unify the empire.

Even after the Empire collapsed four hundred years later -- Europe and its
people remained unified by the religion. And became the most advanced
civilization on Earth.

Not ... because of the religions teachings themselves. But because of the
uniting force of it. People who are motivated by the same dogma can accomplish
many things that they could not manage individually. Hence -- Civilization !

(without religion -- man can only unite and survive under a strong king or
emperor. Such as the ancient Egyptians).

Just a few thoughts about the progress (and intellginece) of our fellow man :-)
Post by mg
Now, having said that, I feel compelled to add that lately
it hasn't been holding it together very well.
So true ! TV has taken over the preachers job. And "multi-culturalism" and
"diversity" has become its religion.
mg
2017-04-20 14:14:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Not being Mormon means that you bear the
mark of Cain! No good KKKristian would want
to hang around with you too long - it might
be infectious.
Actually, according to Brigham Young, the mark of Cain was
"Through the faith and obedience of Able to his heavenly
father, Cain became jealous of him, and he laid a plan to
obtain all his flocks; for through his perfect obedience to
father he obtained more blessings than Cain; consequently he
took it into his heart to put able able of this mortal
existance. after the deed was done, the Lord enquired to
able, and made Caine own what he had done with him. Now says
the grand father I will not distroy the seed of michal and
his wife; and cain I will not kill you, nor suffer any one
to kill you, but I will put a mark upon you. What is that
mark? you will see it on the countenance of every African
you ever did see upon the face of the earth, or ever will
see. Now I tell you what I know; when the mark was put upon
Cain, Abels children was in all probability young; the Lord
told Cain that he should not receive the blessings of the
preisthood nor his seed, until the last of the posterity of
Able had received the preisthood, until the redemtion of the
earth. If there never was a prophet, or apostle of Jesus
Christ spoke it before, I tell you, this people that are
commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain."
--Brigham Young
http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/sermons_talks_interviews/brigham1852feb5_priesthoodandblacks.htm
Of course there are lighter-skinned Negroes,
and Caucasians who are darker than them.
"Any man having one drop of the seed of Cane in him Cannot
hold the priesthood ... I will say it now in the name of
Jesus Christ. I know it is true & they know it. The Negro
cannot hold one particle of Government ... if any man
mingles his seed with the seed of Cane the only way he Could
get rid of it or have salvation would be to Come forward &
have his head Cut off & spill his Blood upon the ground. It
would also take the life of his Children." (Wilford
Woodruff's Journal, Vol. 4, p. 97)
http://www.mormonstories.org/top10toughissues/blacks.html
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Who's Michal, one of those extra dudes in the
Book of Norman?
Smith was once asked what "Mormon" meant. He said it was a
contraction of the word "more" and "mon". Mon evidently
means "good", ergo, "Mormon" means more good. :-)
Mormonism is actually based on 4 "sacred" texts: the Bible,
the Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, and the
Pearl of Great Price.
Michal, as I recall, is another name for Adam.
I've never known any Mormons on a personal level -- But I have admired and
respected them as a group. The few I have met in passing seem to all be above
average in intelligence.
I suppose it was my closeness to Adventists when young that helps me to like and
respect people who have strict belief systems. Even though I might not share
them.
I don't respect religion, or the people who believe in it,
but I do respect the results in some cases, and to a large
extent, I suppose that it's probably accurate to say that
religion is what holds civilization together.
Without religion there would be no civilization. Let me mention this piece of
historical trivia. Back about 2,000 years ago, Rome was bringing Europe under
their rule. They had a problem. All the countries they conquered had
religions that worshipped multiple gods. This caused the people to be in a
constant state of upheaval because some loved one god and his neighbor loved
another. The Romans looked around for a unifying religion to give its people.
The only single god group they could find was the Jews. But --- non-Jews
would not accept Judaism because it had such strict rules. (food laws and
circumcision). Then .... along came Paul! He told the Romans about the
Jewish Messiah who had recently been murdered. Christianity offered a reformed
Judaism. A religion with one god -- lots of love -- and no difficult rules.
Rome gave it to all of Europe -- and it was what helped unify the empire.
Even after the Empire collapsed four hundred years later -- Europe and its
people remained unified by the religion. And became the most advanced
civilization on Earth.
Not ... because of the religions teachings themselves. But because of the
uniting force of it. People who are motivated by the same dogma can accomplish
many things that they could not manage individually. Hence -- Civilization !
Yes, I think that's probably all true, except I also think
that uniting force can also come from belief systems other
than religion. Japan, for instance, is an example that I
like to cite that obviously has a strong unifying force in
their culture, but it doesn't come from religion, at least
not directly.
Post by Gary
(without religion -- man can only unite and survive under a strong king or
emperor. Such as the ancient Egyptians).
Just a few thoughts about the progress (and intellginece) of our fellow man :-)
Post by mg
Now, having said that, I feel compelled to add that lately
it hasn't been holding it together very well.
So true ! TV has taken over the preachers job. And "multi-culturalism" and
"diversity" has become its religion.
Gary
2017-04-20 14:38:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Smith was once asked what "Mormon" meant. He said it was a
contraction of the word "more" and "mon". Mon evidently
means "good", ergo, "Mormon" means more good. :-)
Mormonism is actually based on 4 "sacred" texts: the Bible,
the Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, and the
Pearl of Great Price.
Michal, as I recall, is another name for Adam.
I've never known any Mormons on a personal level -- But I have admired and
respected them as a group. The few I have met in passing seem to all be above
average in intelligence.
I suppose it was my closeness to Adventists when young that helps me to like and
respect people who have strict belief systems. Even though I might not share
them.
I don't respect religion, or the people who believe in it,
but I do respect the results in some cases, and to a large
extent, I suppose that it's probably accurate to say that
religion is what holds civilization together.
Without religion there would be no civilization. Let me mention this piece of
historical trivia. Back about 2,000 years ago, Rome was bringing Europe under
their rule. They had a problem. All the countries they conquered had
religions that worshipped multiple gods. This caused the people to be in a
constant state of upheaval because some loved one god and his neighbor loved
another. The Romans looked around for a unifying religion to give its people.
The only single god group they could find was the Jews. But --- non-Jews
would not accept Judaism because it had such strict rules. (food laws and
circumcision). Then .... along came Paul! He told the Romans about the
Jewish Messiah who had recently been murdered. Christianity offered a reformed
Judaism. A religion with one god -- lots of love -- and no difficult rules.
Rome gave it to all of Europe -- and it was what helped unify the empire.
Even after the Empire collapsed four hundred years later -- Europe and its
people remained unified by the religion. And became the most advanced
civilization on Earth.
Not ... because of the religions teachings themselves. But because of the
uniting force of it. People who are motivated by the same dogma can accomplish
many things that they could not manage individually. Hence -- Civilization !
Yes, I think that's probably all true, except I also think
that uniting force can also come from belief systems other
than religion. Japan, for instance, is an example that I
like to cite that obviously has a strong unifying force in
their culture, but it doesn't come from religion, at least
not directly.
I agree that if any belief system (religious or not) is shared by a given people
-- it will unite them to a degree. I don't know anything about Japan, but I
am sure they are a united people. They've been on their island for many
millennia. I suppose the old tribal instincts from the stoneage are still with
them.

Let me offer a little heresy here. IMO, next to the Catholic and Baptist
churches -- the largest religion I've observed is Science. When it comes to
being adamant true-believers -- the followers of Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell
have nothing on the followers of Charles Darwin and Albert Einstein. They will
all hang you if you disagree with them. They all know the TRUTH :-)
mg
2017-04-20 15:04:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Smith was once asked what "Mormon" meant. He said it was a
contraction of the word "more" and "mon". Mon evidently
means "good", ergo, "Mormon" means more good. :-)
Mormonism is actually based on 4 "sacred" texts: the Bible,
the Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, and the
Pearl of Great Price.
Michal, as I recall, is another name for Adam.
I've never known any Mormons on a personal level -- But I have admired and
respected them as a group. The few I have met in passing seem to all be above
average in intelligence.
I suppose it was my closeness to Adventists when young that helps me to like and
respect people who have strict belief systems. Even though I might not share
them.
I don't respect religion, or the people who believe in it,
but I do respect the results in some cases, and to a large
extent, I suppose that it's probably accurate to say that
religion is what holds civilization together.
Without religion there would be no civilization. Let me mention this piece of
historical trivia. Back about 2,000 years ago, Rome was bringing Europe under
their rule. They had a problem. All the countries they conquered had
religions that worshipped multiple gods. This caused the people to be in a
constant state of upheaval because some loved one god and his neighbor loved
another. The Romans looked around for a unifying religion to give its people.
The only single god group they could find was the Jews. But --- non-Jews
would not accept Judaism because it had such strict rules. (food laws and
circumcision). Then .... along came Paul! He told the Romans about the
Jewish Messiah who had recently been murdered. Christianity offered a reformed
Judaism. A religion with one god -- lots of love -- and no difficult rules.
Rome gave it to all of Europe -- and it was what helped unify the empire.
Even after the Empire collapsed four hundred years later -- Europe and its
people remained unified by the religion. And became the most advanced
civilization on Earth.
Not ... because of the religions teachings themselves. But because of the
uniting force of it. People who are motivated by the same dogma can accomplish
many things that they could not manage individually. Hence -- Civilization !
Yes, I think that's probably all true, except I also think
that uniting force can also come from belief systems other
than religion. Japan, for instance, is an example that I
like to cite that obviously has a strong unifying force in
their culture, but it doesn't come from religion, at least
not directly.
I agree that if any belief system (religious or not) is shared by a given people
-- it will unite them to a degree. I don't know anything about Japan, but I
am sure they are a united people. They've been on their island for many
millennia. I suppose the old tribal instincts from the stoneage are still with
them.
Let me offer a little heresy here. IMO, next to the Catholic and Baptist
churches -- the largest religion I've observed is Science. When it comes to
being adamant true-believers -- the followers of Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell
have nothing on the followers of Charles Darwin and Albert Einstein. They will
all hang you if you disagree with them. They all know the TRUTH :-)
What I've said before on this newsgroup -- many times -- is
that I don't believe in anything (with a very few select
exceptions) and I'm not sure of anything. I'm not even sure
that the sun is going to come up tomorrow.

So, as a result, I merely assign probabilities to things.
For instance, even though I don't know if the sun is going
to come up tomorrow, I would assign a probability of
trillions to 1 to the likelihood that it will.

Therefore, I agree with science to the extent that science
agrees with me. In regard to evolution, for instance, based
on what I've read, I would set the probabilities in favor of
that theory, as being in the thousands to 1 range, or maybe
even in the hundreds of thousands to 1 range and conversely,
I would set the probability that there is a god and he
created man, as being one chance out of a about a million.
Gary
2017-04-20 15:38:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by Gary
I suppose it was my closeness to Adventists when young that helps me to like and
respect people who have strict belief systems. Even though I might not share
them.
I don't respect religion, or the people who believe in it,
but I do respect the results in some cases, and to a large
extent, I suppose that it's probably accurate to say that
religion is what holds civilization together.
Without religion there would be no civilization. Let me mention this piece of
historical trivia. Back about 2,000 years ago, Rome was bringing Europe under
their rule. They had a problem. All the countries they conquered had
religions that worshipped multiple gods. This caused the people to be in a
constant state of upheaval because some loved one god and his neighbor loved
another. The Romans looked around for a unifying religion to give its people.
The only single god group they could find was the Jews. But --- non-Jews
would not accept Judaism because it had such strict rules. (food laws and
circumcision). Then .... along came Paul! He told the Romans about the
Jewish Messiah who had recently been murdered. Christianity offered a reformed
Judaism. A religion with one god -- lots of love -- and no difficult rules.
Rome gave it to all of Europe -- and it was what helped unify the empire.
Even after the Empire collapsed four hundred years later -- Europe and its
people remained unified by the religion. And became the most advanced
civilization on Earth.
Not ... because of the religions teachings themselves. But because of the
uniting force of it. People who are motivated by the same dogma can accomplish
many things that they could not manage individually. Hence -- Civilization !
Yes, I think that's probably all true, except I also think
that uniting force can also come from belief systems other
than religion. Japan, for instance, is an example that I
like to cite that obviously has a strong unifying force in
their culture, but it doesn't come from religion, at least
not directly.
I agree that if any belief system (religious or not) is shared by a given people
-- it will unite them to a degree. I don't know anything about Japan, but I
am sure they are a united people. They've been on their island for many
millennia. I suppose the old tribal instincts from the stoneage are still with
them.
Let me offer a little heresy here. IMO, next to the Catholic and Baptist
churches -- the largest religion I've observed is Science. When it comes to
being adamant true-believers -- the followers of Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell
have nothing on the followers of Charles Darwin and Albert Einstein. They will
all hang you if you disagree with them. They all know the TRUTH :-)
What I've said before on this newsgroup -- many times -- is
that I don't believe in anything (with a very few select
exceptions) and I'm not sure of anything. I'm not even sure
that the sun is going to come up tomorrow.
I agree. I tend to "lean" towards various theories -- but I'm not a "true
believer" in any.
Post by mg
So, as a result, I merely assign probabilities to things.
For instance, even though I don't know if the sun is going
to come up tomorrow, I would assign a probability of
trillions to 1 to the likelihood that it will.
Therefore, I agree with science to the extent that science
agrees with me. In regard to evolution, for instance, based
on what I've read, I would set the probabilities in favor of
that theory, as being in the thousands to 1 range, or maybe
even in the hundreds of thousands to 1 range and conversely,
I would set the probability that there is a god and he
created man, as being one chance out of a about a million.
I don't believe in either theory. I lean toward evolution, but I don't buy
the whole package. I have no doubt it is right for recent millennia (say about
40,000 years) But how did life originate on this planet ? Lightening hitting
a puddle of water ? And that strike caused two or three billion species of
life ?

Or maybe advanced humans (space travelers) might have brought it here.

Can there be life in outer space ? I see no reason why not. Think back 200
years. A large group of humans living in Africa had an IQ of about 40.
Modern Caucasian man has an IQ of about 110. And they can put a man on the
moon. What if some humans have an IQ of 220 ? Could they not have visited
other planets in the past ?
mg
2017-04-20 23:32:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by Gary
I suppose it was my closeness to Adventists when young that helps me to like and
respect people who have strict belief systems. Even though I might not share
them.
I don't respect religion, or the people who believe in it,
but I do respect the results in some cases, and to a large
extent, I suppose that it's probably accurate to say that
religion is what holds civilization together.
Without religion there would be no civilization. Let me mention this piece of
historical trivia. Back about 2,000 years ago, Rome was bringing Europe under
their rule. They had a problem. All the countries they conquered had
religions that worshipped multiple gods. This caused the people to be in a
constant state of upheaval because some loved one god and his neighbor loved
another. The Romans looked around for a unifying religion to give its people.
The only single god group they could find was the Jews. But --- non-Jews
would not accept Judaism because it had such strict rules. (food laws and
circumcision). Then .... along came Paul! He told the Romans about the
Jewish Messiah who had recently been murdered. Christianity offered a reformed
Judaism. A religion with one god -- lots of love -- and no difficult rules.
Rome gave it to all of Europe -- and it was what helped unify the empire.
Even after the Empire collapsed four hundred years later -- Europe and its
people remained unified by the religion. And became the most advanced
civilization on Earth.
Not ... because of the religions teachings themselves. But because of the
uniting force of it. People who are motivated by the same dogma can accomplish
many things that they could not manage individually. Hence -- Civilization !
Yes, I think that's probably all true, except I also think
that uniting force can also come from belief systems other
than religion. Japan, for instance, is an example that I
like to cite that obviously has a strong unifying force in
their culture, but it doesn't come from religion, at least
not directly.
I agree that if any belief system (religious or not) is shared by a given people
-- it will unite them to a degree. I don't know anything about Japan, but I
am sure they are a united people. They've been on their island for many
millennia. I suppose the old tribal instincts from the stoneage are still with
them.
Let me offer a little heresy here. IMO, next to the Catholic and Baptist
churches -- the largest religion I've observed is Science. When it comes to
being adamant true-believers -- the followers of Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell
have nothing on the followers of Charles Darwin and Albert Einstein. They will
all hang you if you disagree with them. They all know the TRUTH :-)
What I've said before on this newsgroup -- many times -- is
that I don't believe in anything (with a very few select
exceptions) and I'm not sure of anything. I'm not even sure
that the sun is going to come up tomorrow.
I agree. I tend to "lean" towards various theories -- but I'm not a "true
believer" in any.
Post by mg
So, as a result, I merely assign probabilities to things.
For instance, even though I don't know if the sun is going
to come up tomorrow, I would assign a probability of
trillions to 1 to the likelihood that it will.
Therefore, I agree with science to the extent that science
agrees with me. In regard to evolution, for instance, based
on what I've read, I would set the probabilities in favor of
that theory, as being in the thousands to 1 range, or maybe
even in the hundreds of thousands to 1 range and conversely,
I would set the probability that there is a god and he
created man, as being one chance out of a about a million.
I don't believe in either theory. I lean toward evolution, but I don't buy
the whole package. I have no doubt it is right for recent millennia (say about
40,000 years) But how did life originate on this planet ? Lightening hitting
a puddle of water ? And that strike caused two or three billion species of
life ?
Or maybe advanced humans (space travelers) might have brought it here.
Can there be life in outer space ? I see no reason why not. Think back 200
years. A large group of humans living in Africa had an IQ of about 40.
Modern Caucasian man has an IQ of about 110. And they can put a man on the
moon. What if some humans have an IQ of 220 ? Could they not have visited
other planets in the past ?
I'm not very knowledgeable in the subjects of anthropology,
or evolution, but I don't think that there's any credible
evidence of any kind, that indicates that any sort of
supernatural, or extraterrestrial, event is necessary to
explain human evolution. So, if that's the case, why look
for one? There's no mysterious big gap, or big jump, in
evolution that has left researchers puzzled. There's only
relatively gradual, small evolutionary improvements, I
think.

If I'm not mistaken (and maybe I am), people used to talk
about the "missing link" a lot, but now, as I understand it,
the missing-link argument has totally disappeared as a
result of methodical, scientific research and
anthropological investigations.
El Castor
2017-04-21 04:03:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by Gary
I suppose it was my closeness to Adventists when young that helps me to like and
respect people who have strict belief systems. Even though I might not share
them.
I don't respect religion, or the people who believe in it,
but I do respect the results in some cases, and to a large
extent, I suppose that it's probably accurate to say that
religion is what holds civilization together.
Without religion there would be no civilization. Let me mention this piece of
historical trivia. Back about 2,000 years ago, Rome was bringing Europe under
their rule. They had a problem. All the countries they conquered had
religions that worshipped multiple gods. This caused the people to be in a
constant state of upheaval because some loved one god and his neighbor loved
another. The Romans looked around for a unifying religion to give its people.
The only single god group they could find was the Jews. But --- non-Jews
would not accept Judaism because it had such strict rules. (food laws and
circumcision). Then .... along came Paul! He told the Romans about the
Jewish Messiah who had recently been murdered. Christianity offered a reformed
Judaism. A religion with one god -- lots of love -- and no difficult rules.
Rome gave it to all of Europe -- and it was what helped unify the empire.
Even after the Empire collapsed four hundred years later -- Europe and its
people remained unified by the religion. And became the most advanced
civilization on Earth.
Not ... because of the religions teachings themselves. But because of the
uniting force of it. People who are motivated by the same dogma can accomplish
many things that they could not manage individually. Hence -- Civilization !
Yes, I think that's probably all true, except I also think
that uniting force can also come from belief systems other
than religion. Japan, for instance, is an example that I
like to cite that obviously has a strong unifying force in
their culture, but it doesn't come from religion, at least
not directly.
I agree that if any belief system (religious or not) is shared by a given people
-- it will unite them to a degree. I don't know anything about Japan, but I
am sure they are a united people. They've been on their island for many
millennia. I suppose the old tribal instincts from the stoneage are still with
them.
Let me offer a little heresy here. IMO, next to the Catholic and Baptist
churches -- the largest religion I've observed is Science. When it comes to
being adamant true-believers -- the followers of Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell
have nothing on the followers of Charles Darwin and Albert Einstein. They will
all hang you if you disagree with them. They all know the TRUTH :-)
What I've said before on this newsgroup -- many times -- is
that I don't believe in anything (with a very few select
exceptions) and I'm not sure of anything. I'm not even sure
that the sun is going to come up tomorrow.
I agree. I tend to "lean" towards various theories -- but I'm not a "true
believer" in any.
Post by mg
So, as a result, I merely assign probabilities to things.
For instance, even though I don't know if the sun is going
to come up tomorrow, I would assign a probability of
trillions to 1 to the likelihood that it will.
Therefore, I agree with science to the extent that science
agrees with me. In regard to evolution, for instance, based
on what I've read, I would set the probabilities in favor of
that theory, as being in the thousands to 1 range, or maybe
even in the hundreds of thousands to 1 range and conversely,
I would set the probability that there is a god and he
created man, as being one chance out of a about a million.
I don't believe in either theory. I lean toward evolution, but I don't buy
the whole package. I have no doubt it is right for recent millennia (say about
40,000 years) But how did life originate on this planet ? Lightening hitting
a puddle of water ? And that strike caused two or three billion species of
life ?
Or maybe advanced humans (space travelers) might have brought it here.
Can there be life in outer space ? I see no reason why not. Think back 200
years. A large group of humans living in Africa had an IQ of about 40.
Modern Caucasian man has an IQ of about 110. And they can put a man on the
moon. What if some humans have an IQ of 220 ? Could they not have visited
other planets in the past ?
I'm not very knowledgeable in the subjects of anthropology,
or evolution, but I don't think that there's any credible
evidence of any kind, that indicates that any sort of
supernatural, or extraterrestrial, event is necessary to
explain human evolution. So, if that's the case, why look
for one? There's no mysterious big gap, or big jump, in
evolution that has left researchers puzzled. There's only
relatively gradual, small evolutionary improvements, I
think.
If I'm not mistaken (and maybe I am), people used to talk
about the "missing link" a lot, but now, as I understand it,
the missing-link argument has totally disappeared as a
result of methodical, scientific research and
anthropological investigations.
But there is a theory, considered possible by many scientists, that we
exist only in the mind of a vast super computer. Perhaps God is a
quantum computer, or a child operating it, and we are nothing more
than an experiment in evolution or morality?

"Are We Living in a Computer Simulation?
High-profile physicists and philosophers gathered to debate whether we
are real or virtual—and what it means either way"
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/

"Is our world a simulation? Why some scientists say it's more likely
than not
A swath of technologists and physicists believe that ‘simulation
theory’ will be proved, just as it was proved that the Earth was not
the center of the universe"
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/11/simulated-world-elon-musk-the-matrix

"'PROOF' we’re living in a SIMULATION – top astronomers list vital
checks to confirm theory
HUMANS are living in a simulation, according to two of the world’s top
astronomers who claim there is also evidence to prove it."
http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/737006/life-is-a-SIMULATION-neil-degrasse-tyson-brian-greene-elon-musk-simulation-theory
mg
2017-04-21 10:10:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 21:03:30 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by Gary
I suppose it was my closeness to Adventists when young that helps me to like and
respect people who have strict belief systems. Even though I might not share
them.
I don't respect religion, or the people who believe in it,
but I do respect the results in some cases, and to a large
extent, I suppose that it's probably accurate to say that
religion is what holds civilization together.
Without religion there would be no civilization. Let me mention this piece of
historical trivia. Back about 2,000 years ago, Rome was bringing Europe under
their rule. They had a problem. All the countries they conquered had
religions that worshipped multiple gods. This caused the people to be in a
constant state of upheaval because some loved one god and his neighbor loved
another. The Romans looked around for a unifying religion to give its people.
The only single god group they could find was the Jews. But --- non-Jews
would not accept Judaism because it had such strict rules. (food laws and
circumcision). Then .... along came Paul! He told the Romans about the
Jewish Messiah who had recently been murdered. Christianity offered a reformed
Judaism. A religion with one god -- lots of love -- and no difficult rules.
Rome gave it to all of Europe -- and it was what helped unify the empire.
Even after the Empire collapsed four hundred years later -- Europe and its
people remained unified by the religion. And became the most advanced
civilization on Earth.
Not ... because of the religions teachings themselves. But because of the
uniting force of it. People who are motivated by the same dogma can accomplish
many things that they could not manage individually. Hence -- Civilization !
Yes, I think that's probably all true, except I also think
that uniting force can also come from belief systems other
than religion. Japan, for instance, is an example that I
like to cite that obviously has a strong unifying force in
their culture, but it doesn't come from religion, at least
not directly.
I agree that if any belief system (religious or not) is shared by a given people
-- it will unite them to a degree. I don't know anything about Japan, but I
am sure they are a united people. They've been on their island for many
millennia. I suppose the old tribal instincts from the stoneage are still with
them.
Let me offer a little heresy here. IMO, next to the Catholic and Baptist
churches -- the largest religion I've observed is Science. When it comes to
being adamant true-believers -- the followers of Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell
have nothing on the followers of Charles Darwin and Albert Einstein. They will
all hang you if you disagree with them. They all know the TRUTH :-)
What I've said before on this newsgroup -- many times -- is
that I don't believe in anything (with a very few select
exceptions) and I'm not sure of anything. I'm not even sure
that the sun is going to come up tomorrow.
I agree. I tend to "lean" towards various theories -- but I'm not a "true
believer" in any.
Post by mg
So, as a result, I merely assign probabilities to things.
For instance, even though I don't know if the sun is going
to come up tomorrow, I would assign a probability of
trillions to 1 to the likelihood that it will.
Therefore, I agree with science to the extent that science
agrees with me. In regard to evolution, for instance, based
on what I've read, I would set the probabilities in favor of
that theory, as being in the thousands to 1 range, or maybe
even in the hundreds of thousands to 1 range and conversely,
I would set the probability that there is a god and he
created man, as being one chance out of a about a million.
I don't believe in either theory. I lean toward evolution, but I don't buy
the whole package. I have no doubt it is right for recent millennia (say about
40,000 years) But how did life originate on this planet ? Lightening hitting
a puddle of water ? And that strike caused two or three billion species of
life ?
Or maybe advanced humans (space travelers) might have brought it here.
Can there be life in outer space ? I see no reason why not. Think back 200
years. A large group of humans living in Africa had an IQ of about 40.
Modern Caucasian man has an IQ of about 110. And they can put a man on the
moon. What if some humans have an IQ of 220 ? Could they not have visited
other planets in the past ?
I'm not very knowledgeable in the subjects of anthropology,
or evolution, but I don't think that there's any credible
evidence of any kind, that indicates that any sort of
supernatural, or extraterrestrial, event is necessary to
explain human evolution. So, if that's the case, why look
for one? There's no mysterious big gap, or big jump, in
evolution that has left researchers puzzled. There's only
relatively gradual, small evolutionary improvements, I
think.
If I'm not mistaken (and maybe I am), people used to talk
about the "missing link" a lot, but now, as I understand it,
the missing-link argument has totally disappeared as a
result of methodical, scientific research and
anthropological investigations.
But there is a theory, considered possible by many scientists, that we
exist only in the mind of a vast super computer. Perhaps God is a
quantum computer, or a child operating it, and we are nothing more
than an experiment in evolution or morality?
"Are We Living in a Computer Simulation?
High-profile physicists and philosophers gathered to debate whether we
are real or virtual—and what it means either way"
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/
"Is our world a simulation? Why some scientists say it's more likely
than not
A swath of technologists and physicists believe that ‘simulation
theory’ will be proved, just as it was proved that the Earth was not
the center of the universe"
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/11/simulated-world-elon-musk-the-matrix
"'PROOF' we’re living in a SIMULATION – top astronomers list vital
checks to confirm theory
HUMANS are living in a simulation, according to two of the world’s top
astronomers who claim there is also evidence to prove it."
http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/737006/life-is-a-SIMULATION-neil-degrasse-tyson-brian-greene-elon-musk-simulation-theory
I once read a sci-fi book based on that idea. I was on the
way from Utah to Maryland, in the early 60s, for advanced
military training and I wanted to save some money by taking
the bus instead of flying. So, I read some books, including
that one during the 3-day trip.

I love that theory (hypothesis), probably because I'm a big
sci-fi fan, and I don't know of any logical argument against
it, or for it, for that matter other than, intuitively
speaking, it seems highly unlikely. I've always liked the
idea that the simulation was created by humans far into the
future and when a person, like you or me, finishes one
simulation, he picks another one, depending on what his
fantasies, or interests might be. I might decide to be
Abraham Lincoln, for instance, in my next life. Or, I might
decide to be a rich sheik with 100 young wives.

Under that scenario, I am immortal and never die. I'm not
sure about you, though. Am I part of your simulation, or are
you part of mine? Perhaps you do not actually exist. :-)
rumpelstiltskin
2017-04-21 13:54:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 21:03:30 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by Gary
I suppose it was my closeness to Adventists when young that helps me to like and
respect people who have strict belief systems. Even though I might not share
them.
I don't respect religion, or the people who believe in it,
but I do respect the results in some cases, and to a large
extent, I suppose that it's probably accurate to say that
religion is what holds civilization together.
Without religion there would be no civilization. Let me mention this piece of
historical trivia. Back about 2,000 years ago, Rome was bringing Europe under
their rule. They had a problem. All the countries they conquered had
religions that worshipped multiple gods. This caused the people to be in a
constant state of upheaval because some loved one god and his neighbor loved
another. The Romans looked around for a unifying religion to give its people.
The only single god group they could find was the Jews. But --- non-Jews
would not accept Judaism because it had such strict rules. (food laws and
circumcision). Then .... along came Paul! He told the Romans about the
Jewish Messiah who had recently been murdered. Christianity offered a reformed
Judaism. A religion with one god -- lots of love -- and no difficult rules.
Rome gave it to all of Europe -- and it was what helped unify the empire.
Even after the Empire collapsed four hundred years later -- Europe and its
people remained unified by the religion. And became the most advanced
civilization on Earth.
Not ... because of the religions teachings themselves. But because of the
uniting force of it. People who are motivated by the same dogma can accomplish
many things that they could not manage individually. Hence -- Civilization !
Yes, I think that's probably all true, except I also think
that uniting force can also come from belief systems other
than religion. Japan, for instance, is an example that I
like to cite that obviously has a strong unifying force in
their culture, but it doesn't come from religion, at least
not directly.
I agree that if any belief system (religious or not) is shared by a given people
-- it will unite them to a degree. I don't know anything about Japan, but I
am sure they are a united people. They've been on their island for many
millennia. I suppose the old tribal instincts from the stoneage are still with
them.
Let me offer a little heresy here. IMO, next to the Catholic and Baptist
churches -- the largest religion I've observed is Science. When it comes to
being adamant true-believers -- the followers of Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell
have nothing on the followers of Charles Darwin and Albert Einstein. They will
all hang you if you disagree with them. They all know the TRUTH :-)
What I've said before on this newsgroup -- many times -- is
that I don't believe in anything (with a very few select
exceptions) and I'm not sure of anything. I'm not even sure
that the sun is going to come up tomorrow.
I agree. I tend to "lean" towards various theories -- but I'm not a "true
believer" in any.
Post by mg
So, as a result, I merely assign probabilities to things.
For instance, even though I don't know if the sun is going
to come up tomorrow, I would assign a probability of
trillions to 1 to the likelihood that it will.
Therefore, I agree with science to the extent that science
agrees with me. In regard to evolution, for instance, based
on what I've read, I would set the probabilities in favor of
that theory, as being in the thousands to 1 range, or maybe
even in the hundreds of thousands to 1 range and conversely,
I would set the probability that there is a god and he
created man, as being one chance out of a about a million.
I don't believe in either theory. I lean toward evolution, but I don't buy
the whole package. I have no doubt it is right for recent millennia (say about
40,000 years) But how did life originate on this planet ? Lightening hitting
a puddle of water ? And that strike caused two or three billion species of
life ?
Or maybe advanced humans (space travelers) might have brought it here.
Can there be life in outer space ? I see no reason why not. Think back 200
years. A large group of humans living in Africa had an IQ of about 40.
Modern Caucasian man has an IQ of about 110. And they can put a man on the
moon. What if some humans have an IQ of 220 ? Could they not have visited
other planets in the past ?
I'm not very knowledgeable in the subjects of anthropology,
or evolution, but I don't think that there's any credible
evidence of any kind, that indicates that any sort of
supernatural, or extraterrestrial, event is necessary to
explain human evolution. So, if that's the case, why look
for one? There's no mysterious big gap, or big jump, in
evolution that has left researchers puzzled. There's only
relatively gradual, small evolutionary improvements, I
think.
If I'm not mistaken (and maybe I am), people used to talk
about the "missing link" a lot, but now, as I understand it,
the missing-link argument has totally disappeared as a
result of methodical, scientific research and
anthropological investigations.
But there is a theory, considered possible by many scientists, that we
exist only in the mind of a vast super computer. Perhaps God is a
quantum computer, or a child operating it, and we are nothing more
than an experiment in evolution or morality?
"Are We Living in a Computer Simulation?
High-profile physicists and philosophers gathered to debate whether we
are real or virtual—and what it means either way"
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/
"Is our world a simulation? Why some scientists say it's more likely
than not
A swath of technologists and physicists believe that ‘simulation
theory’ will be proved, just as it was proved that the Earth was not
the center of the universe"
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/11/simulated-world-elon-musk-the-matrix
"'PROOF' we’re living in a SIMULATION – top astronomers list vital
checks to confirm theory
HUMANS are living in a simulation, according to two of the world’s top
astronomers who claim there is also evidence to prove it."
http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/737006/life-is-a-SIMULATION-neil-degrasse-tyson-brian-greene-elon-musk-simulation-theory
I once read a sci-fi book based on that idea. I was on the
way from Utah to Maryland, in the early 60s, for advanced
military training and I wanted to save some money by taking
the bus instead of flying. So, I read some books, including
that one during the 3-day trip.
I love that theory (hypothesis), probably because I'm a big
sci-fi fan, and I don't know of any logical argument against
it, or for it, for that matter other than, intuitively
speaking, it seems highly unlikely. I've always liked the
idea that the simulation was created by humans far into the
future and when a person, like you or me, finishes one
simulation, he picks another one, depending on what his
fantasies, or interests might be. I might decide to be
Abraham Lincoln, for instance, in my next life. Or, I might
decide to be a rich sheik with 100 young wives.
Under that scenario, I am immortal and never die. I'm not
sure about you, though. Am I part of your simulation, or are
you part of mine? Perhaps you do not actually exist. :-)
The "computer simulation" analogy seems to me
to be "Plato's cave" recast in terms more familiar to
modern sensibilities:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave
mg
2017-04-21 19:53:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 21:03:30 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by Gary
I suppose it was my closeness to Adventists when young that helps me to like and
respect people who have strict belief systems. Even though I might not share
them.
I don't respect religion, or the people who believe in it,
but I do respect the results in some cases, and to a large
extent, I suppose that it's probably accurate to say that
religion is what holds civilization together.
Without religion there would be no civilization. Let me mention this piece of
historical trivia. Back about 2,000 years ago, Rome was bringing Europe under
their rule. They had a problem. All the countries they conquered had
religions that worshipped multiple gods. This caused the people to be in a
constant state of upheaval because some loved one god and his neighbor loved
another. The Romans looked around for a unifying religion to give its people.
The only single god group they could find was the Jews. But --- non-Jews
would not accept Judaism because it had such strict rules. (food laws and
circumcision). Then .... along came Paul! He told the Romans about the
Jewish Messiah who had recently been murdered. Christianity offered a reformed
Judaism. A religion with one god -- lots of love -- and no difficult rules.
Rome gave it to all of Europe -- and it was what helped unify the empire.
Even after the Empire collapsed four hundred years later -- Europe and its
people remained unified by the religion. And became the most advanced
civilization on Earth.
Not ... because of the religions teachings themselves. But because of the
uniting force of it. People who are motivated by the same dogma can accomplish
many things that they could not manage individually. Hence -- Civilization !
Yes, I think that's probably all true, except I also think
that uniting force can also come from belief systems other
than religion. Japan, for instance, is an example that I
like to cite that obviously has a strong unifying force in
their culture, but it doesn't come from religion, at least
not directly.
I agree that if any belief system (religious or not) is shared by a given people
-- it will unite them to a degree. I don't know anything about Japan, but I
am sure they are a united people. They've been on their island for many
millennia. I suppose the old tribal instincts from the stoneage are still with
them.
Let me offer a little heresy here. IMO, next to the Catholic and Baptist
churches -- the largest religion I've observed is Science. When it comes to
being adamant true-believers -- the followers of Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell
have nothing on the followers of Charles Darwin and Albert Einstein. They will
all hang you if you disagree with them. They all know the TRUTH :-)
What I've said before on this newsgroup -- many times -- is
that I don't believe in anything (with a very few select
exceptions) and I'm not sure of anything. I'm not even sure
that the sun is going to come up tomorrow.
I agree. I tend to "lean" towards various theories -- but I'm not a "true
believer" in any.
Post by mg
So, as a result, I merely assign probabilities to things.
For instance, even though I don't know if the sun is going
to come up tomorrow, I would assign a probability of
trillions to 1 to the likelihood that it will.
Therefore, I agree with science to the extent that science
agrees with me. In regard to evolution, for instance, based
on what I've read, I would set the probabilities in favor of
that theory, as being in the thousands to 1 range, or maybe
even in the hundreds of thousands to 1 range and conversely,
I would set the probability that there is a god and he
created man, as being one chance out of a about a million.
I don't believe in either theory. I lean toward evolution, but I don't buy
the whole package. I have no doubt it is right for recent millennia (say about
40,000 years) But how did life originate on this planet ? Lightening hitting
a puddle of water ? And that strike caused two or three billion species of
life ?
Or maybe advanced humans (space travelers) might have brought it here.
Can there be life in outer space ? I see no reason why not. Think back 200
years. A large group of humans living in Africa had an IQ of about 40.
Modern Caucasian man has an IQ of about 110. And they can put a man on the
moon. What if some humans have an IQ of 220 ? Could they not have visited
other planets in the past ?
I'm not very knowledgeable in the subjects of anthropology,
or evolution, but I don't think that there's any credible
evidence of any kind, that indicates that any sort of
supernatural, or extraterrestrial, event is necessary to
explain human evolution. So, if that's the case, why look
for one? There's no mysterious big gap, or big jump, in
evolution that has left researchers puzzled. There's only
relatively gradual, small evolutionary improvements, I
think.
If I'm not mistaken (and maybe I am), people used to talk
about the "missing link" a lot, but now, as I understand it,
the missing-link argument has totally disappeared as a
result of methodical, scientific research and
anthropological investigations.
But there is a theory, considered possible by many scientists, that we
exist only in the mind of a vast super computer. Perhaps God is a
quantum computer, or a child operating it, and we are nothing more
than an experiment in evolution or morality?
"Are We Living in a Computer Simulation?
High-profile physicists and philosophers gathered to debate whether we
are real or virtual—and what it means either way"
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/
"Is our world a simulation? Why some scientists say it's more likely
than not
A swath of technologists and physicists believe that ‘simulation
theory’ will be proved, just as it was proved that the Earth was not
the center of the universe"
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/11/simulated-world-elon-musk-the-matrix
"'PROOF' we’re living in a SIMULATION – top astronomers list vital
checks to confirm theory
HUMANS are living in a simulation, according to two of the world’s top
astronomers who claim there is also evidence to prove it."
http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/737006/life-is-a-SIMULATION-neil-degrasse-tyson-brian-greene-elon-musk-simulation-theory
I once read a sci-fi book based on that idea. I was on the
way from Utah to Maryland, in the early 60s, for advanced
military training and I wanted to save some money by taking
the bus instead of flying. So, I read some books, including
that one during the 3-day trip.
I love that theory (hypothesis), probably because I'm a big
sci-fi fan, and I don't know of any logical argument against
it, or for it, for that matter other than, intuitively
speaking, it seems highly unlikely. I've always liked the
idea that the simulation was created by humans far into the
future and when a person, like you or me, finishes one
simulation, he picks another one, depending on what his
fantasies, or interests might be. I might decide to be
Abraham Lincoln, for instance, in my next life. Or, I might
decide to be a rich sheik with 100 young wives.
Under that scenario, I am immortal and never die. I'm not
sure about you, though. Am I part of your simulation, or are
you part of mine? Perhaps you do not actually exist. :-)
The "computer simulation" analogy seems to me
to be "Plato's cave" recast in terms more familiar to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave
It's interesting that you should mention that because I just
watched a few episodes of a Hulu TV series titled "The
Path". It's about some people in a fictional cult in New
York who are members of a religion called Meyerism.

In the TV show, the leader of the cult tells the story of
Plato's cave as an analogy to the world people are now
living in, but then after telling the story, he says that
people can be brought out of the cave and into reality by
following the teachings of Meyerism, which is all about
love, and compassion, etc., etc.

The cult kills people who try to leave, by the way, and the
plot is about a husband, whose wife is a staunch true
believer, who has discovered that it's all phony and wants
to leave, but doesn't know how to get himself and his family
out alive and, in the meantime, is pretending that he's a
true believer.
El Castor
2017-04-21 20:31:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 21:03:30 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by Gary
I suppose it was my closeness to Adventists when young that helps me to like and
respect people who have strict belief systems. Even though I might not share
them.
I don't respect religion, or the people who believe in it,
but I do respect the results in some cases, and to a large
extent, I suppose that it's probably accurate to say that
religion is what holds civilization together.
Without religion there would be no civilization. Let me mention this piece of
historical trivia. Back about 2,000 years ago, Rome was bringing Europe under
their rule. They had a problem. All the countries they conquered had
religions that worshipped multiple gods. This caused the people to be in a
constant state of upheaval because some loved one god and his neighbor loved
another. The Romans looked around for a unifying religion to give its people.
The only single god group they could find was the Jews. But --- non-Jews
would not accept Judaism because it had such strict rules. (food laws and
circumcision). Then .... along came Paul! He told the Romans about the
Jewish Messiah who had recently been murdered. Christianity offered a reformed
Judaism. A religion with one god -- lots of love -- and no difficult rules.
Rome gave it to all of Europe -- and it was what helped unify the empire.
Even after the Empire collapsed four hundred years later -- Europe and its
people remained unified by the religion. And became the most advanced
civilization on Earth.
Not ... because of the religions teachings themselves. But because of the
uniting force of it. People who are motivated by the same dogma can accomplish
many things that they could not manage individually. Hence -- Civilization !
Yes, I think that's probably all true, except I also think
that uniting force can also come from belief systems other
than religion. Japan, for instance, is an example that I
like to cite that obviously has a strong unifying force in
their culture, but it doesn't come from religion, at least
not directly.
I agree that if any belief system (religious or not) is shared by a given people
-- it will unite them to a degree. I don't know anything about Japan, but I
am sure they are a united people. They've been on their island for many
millennia. I suppose the old tribal instincts from the stoneage are still with
them.
Let me offer a little heresy here. IMO, next to the Catholic and Baptist
churches -- the largest religion I've observed is Science. When it comes to
being adamant true-believers -- the followers of Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell
have nothing on the followers of Charles Darwin and Albert Einstein. They will
all hang you if you disagree with them. They all know the TRUTH :-)
What I've said before on this newsgroup -- many times -- is
that I don't believe in anything (with a very few select
exceptions) and I'm not sure of anything. I'm not even sure
that the sun is going to come up tomorrow.
I agree. I tend to "lean" towards various theories -- but I'm not a "true
believer" in any.
Post by mg
So, as a result, I merely assign probabilities to things.
For instance, even though I don't know if the sun is going
to come up tomorrow, I would assign a probability of
trillions to 1 to the likelihood that it will.
Therefore, I agree with science to the extent that science
agrees with me. In regard to evolution, for instance, based
on what I've read, I would set the probabilities in favor of
that theory, as being in the thousands to 1 range, or maybe
even in the hundreds of thousands to 1 range and conversely,
I would set the probability that there is a god and he
created man, as being one chance out of a about a million.
I don't believe in either theory. I lean toward evolution, but I don't buy
the whole package. I have no doubt it is right for recent millennia (say about
40,000 years) But how did life originate on this planet ? Lightening hitting
a puddle of water ? And that strike caused two or three billion species of
life ?
Or maybe advanced humans (space travelers) might have brought it here.
Can there be life in outer space ? I see no reason why not. Think back 200
years. A large group of humans living in Africa had an IQ of about 40.
Modern Caucasian man has an IQ of about 110. And they can put a man on the
moon. What if some humans have an IQ of 220 ? Could they not have visited
other planets in the past ?
I'm not very knowledgeable in the subjects of anthropology,
or evolution, but I don't think that there's any credible
evidence of any kind, that indicates that any sort of
supernatural, or extraterrestrial, event is necessary to
explain human evolution. So, if that's the case, why look
for one? There's no mysterious big gap, or big jump, in
evolution that has left researchers puzzled. There's only
relatively gradual, small evolutionary improvements, I
think.
If I'm not mistaken (and maybe I am), people used to talk
about the "missing link" a lot, but now, as I understand it,
the missing-link argument has totally disappeared as a
result of methodical, scientific research and
anthropological investigations.
But there is a theory, considered possible by many scientists, that we
exist only in the mind of a vast super computer. Perhaps God is a
quantum computer, or a child operating it, and we are nothing more
than an experiment in evolution or morality?
"Are We Living in a Computer Simulation?
High-profile physicists and philosophers gathered to debate whether we
are real or virtual—and what it means either way"
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/
"Is our world a simulation? Why some scientists say it's more likely
than not
A swath of technologists and physicists believe that ‘simulation
theory’ will be proved, just as it was proved that the Earth was not
the center of the universe"
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/11/simulated-world-elon-musk-the-matrix
"'PROOF' we’re living in a SIMULATION – top astronomers list vital
checks to confirm theory
HUMANS are living in a simulation, according to two of the world’s top
astronomers who claim there is also evidence to prove it."
http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/737006/life-is-a-SIMULATION-neil-degrasse-tyson-brian-greene-elon-musk-simulation-theory
I once read a sci-fi book based on that idea. I was on the
way from Utah to Maryland, in the early 60s, for advanced
military training and I wanted to save some money by taking
the bus instead of flying. So, I read some books, including
that one during the 3-day trip.
I love that theory (hypothesis), probably because I'm a big
sci-fi fan, and I don't know of any logical argument against
it, or for it, for that matter other than, intuitively
speaking, it seems highly unlikely. I've always liked the
idea that the simulation was created by humans far into the
future and when a person, like you or me, finishes one
simulation, he picks another one, depending on what his
fantasies, or interests might be. I might decide to be
Abraham Lincoln, for instance, in my next life. Or, I might
decide to be a rich sheik with 100 young wives.
Under that scenario, I am immortal and never die. I'm not
sure about you, though. Am I part of your simulation, or are
you part of mine? Perhaps you do not actually exist. :-)
Perhaps (-8
Gary
2017-04-21 12:04:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by Gary
I suppose it was my closeness to Adventists when young that helps me to like and
respect people who have strict belief systems. Even though I might not share
them.
I don't respect religion, or the people who believe in it,
but I do respect the results in some cases, and to a large
extent, I suppose that it's probably accurate to say that
religion is what holds civilization together.
Without religion there would be no civilization. Let me mention this piece of
historical trivia. Back about 2,000 years ago, Rome was bringing Europe under
their rule. They had a problem. All the countries they conquered had
religions that worshipped multiple gods. This caused the people to be in a
constant state of upheaval because some loved one god and his neighbor loved
another. The Romans looked around for a unifying religion to give its people.
The only single god group they could find was the Jews. But --- non-Jews
would not accept Judaism because it had such strict rules. (food laws and
circumcision). Then .... along came Paul! He told the Romans about the
Jewish Messiah who had recently been murdered. Christianity offered a reformed
Judaism. A religion with one god -- lots of love -- and no difficult rules.
Rome gave it to all of Europe -- and it was what helped unify the empire.
Even after the Empire collapsed four hundred years later -- Europe and its
people remained unified by the religion. And became the most advanced
civilization on Earth.
Not ... because of the religions teachings themselves. But because of the
uniting force of it. People who are motivated by the same dogma can accomplish
many things that they could not manage individually. Hence -- Civilization !
Yes, I think that's probably all true, except I also think
that uniting force can also come from belief systems other
than religion. Japan, for instance, is an example that I
like to cite that obviously has a strong unifying force in
their culture, but it doesn't come from religion, at least
not directly.
I agree that if any belief system (religious or not) is shared by a given people
-- it will unite them to a degree. I don't know anything about Japan, but I
am sure they are a united people. They've been on their island for many
millennia. I suppose the old tribal instincts from the stoneage are still with
them.
Let me offer a little heresy here. IMO, next to the Catholic and Baptist
churches -- the largest religion I've observed is Science. When it comes to
being adamant true-believers -- the followers of Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell
have nothing on the followers of Charles Darwin and Albert Einstein. They will
all hang you if you disagree with them. They all know the TRUTH :-)
What I've said before on this newsgroup -- many times -- is
that I don't believe in anything (with a very few select
exceptions) and I'm not sure of anything. I'm not even sure
that the sun is going to come up tomorrow.
I agree. I tend to "lean" towards various theories -- but I'm not a "true
believer" in any.
Post by mg
So, as a result, I merely assign probabilities to things.
For instance, even though I don't know if the sun is going
to come up tomorrow, I would assign a probability of
trillions to 1 to the likelihood that it will.
Therefore, I agree with science to the extent that science
agrees with me. In regard to evolution, for instance, based
on what I've read, I would set the probabilities in favor of
that theory, as being in the thousands to 1 range, or maybe
even in the hundreds of thousands to 1 range and conversely,
I would set the probability that there is a god and he
created man, as being one chance out of a about a million.
I don't believe in either theory. I lean toward evolution, but I don't buy
the whole package. I have no doubt it is right for recent millennia (say about
40,000 years) But how did life originate on this planet ? Lightening hitting
a puddle of water ? And that strike caused two or three billion species of
life ?
Or maybe advanced humans (space travelers) might have brought it here.
Can there be life in outer space ? I see no reason why not. Think back 200
years. A large group of humans living in Africa had an IQ of about 40.
Modern Caucasian man has an IQ of about 110. And they can put a man on the
moon. What if some humans have an IQ of 220 ? Could they not have visited
other planets in the past ?
I'm not very knowledgeable in the subjects of anthropology,
or evolution, but I don't think that there's any credible
evidence of any kind, that indicates that any sort of
supernatural, or extraterrestrial, event is necessary to
explain human evolution. So, if that's the case, why look
for one? There's no mysterious big gap, or big jump, in
evolution that has left researchers puzzled. There's only
relatively gradual, small evolutionary improvements, I
think.
If I'm not mistaken (and maybe I am), people used to talk
about the "missing link" a lot, but now, as I understand it,
the missing-link argument has totally disappeared as a
result of methodical, scientific research and
anthropological investigations.
My problem with the "Theory of Evolution" (as opposed to evolution itself) is
quite simple. Everytime some legitimate doubt arises -- the theorists push the
time span back a few million years. At one time, man's time on this Earth was
figured at about 30,000 years. Then -- a million. Now I think it is close
to a billion. Who can argue with spans of time that -- the human mind cannot
conceive of ?
rumpelstiltskin
2017-04-21 14:32:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 08:04:19 -0400, Gary <***@ubn.com> wrote:
<snip>
Post by Gary
My problem with the "Theory of Evolution" (as opposed to evolution itself) is
quite simple. Everytime some legitimate doubt arises -- the theorists push the
time span back a few million years. At one time, man's time on this Earth was
figured at about 30,000 years. Then -- a million. Now I think it is close
to a billion. Who can argue with spans of time that -- the human mind cannot
conceive of ?
Must be 6,000, as the Holy Bible says.
mg
2017-04-21 20:14:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by Gary
I suppose it was my closeness to Adventists when young that helps me to like and
respect people who have strict belief systems. Even though I might not share
them.
I don't respect religion, or the people who believe in it,
but I do respect the results in some cases, and to a large
extent, I suppose that it's probably accurate to say that
religion is what holds civilization together.
Without religion there would be no civilization. Let me mention this piece of
historical trivia. Back about 2,000 years ago, Rome was bringing Europe under
their rule. They had a problem. All the countries they conquered had
religions that worshipped multiple gods. This caused the people to be in a
constant state of upheaval because some loved one god and his neighbor loved
another. The Romans looked around for a unifying religion to give its people.
The only single god group they could find was the Jews. But --- non-Jews
would not accept Judaism because it had such strict rules. (food laws and
circumcision). Then .... along came Paul! He told the Romans about the
Jewish Messiah who had recently been murdered. Christianity offered a reformed
Judaism. A religion with one god -- lots of love -- and no difficult rules.
Rome gave it to all of Europe -- and it was what helped unify the empire.
Even after the Empire collapsed four hundred years later -- Europe and its
people remained unified by the religion. And became the most advanced
civilization on Earth.
Not ... because of the religions teachings themselves. But because of the
uniting force of it. People who are motivated by the same dogma can accomplish
many things that they could not manage individually. Hence -- Civilization !
Yes, I think that's probably all true, except I also think
that uniting force can also come from belief systems other
than religion. Japan, for instance, is an example that I
like to cite that obviously has a strong unifying force in
their culture, but it doesn't come from religion, at least
not directly.
I agree that if any belief system (religious or not) is shared by a given people
-- it will unite them to a degree. I don't know anything about Japan, but I
am sure they are a united people. They've been on their island for many
millennia. I suppose the old tribal instincts from the stoneage are still with
them.
Let me offer a little heresy here. IMO, next to the Catholic and Baptist
churches -- the largest religion I've observed is Science. When it comes to
being adamant true-believers -- the followers of Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell
have nothing on the followers of Charles Darwin and Albert Einstein. They will
all hang you if you disagree with them. They all know the TRUTH :-)
What I've said before on this newsgroup -- many times -- is
that I don't believe in anything (with a very few select
exceptions) and I'm not sure of anything. I'm not even sure
that the sun is going to come up tomorrow.
I agree. I tend to "lean" towards various theories -- but I'm not a "true
believer" in any.
Post by mg
So, as a result, I merely assign probabilities to things.
For instance, even though I don't know if the sun is going
to come up tomorrow, I would assign a probability of
trillions to 1 to the likelihood that it will.
Therefore, I agree with science to the extent that science
agrees with me. In regard to evolution, for instance, based
on what I've read, I would set the probabilities in favor of
that theory, as being in the thousands to 1 range, or maybe
even in the hundreds of thousands to 1 range and conversely,
I would set the probability that there is a god and he
created man, as being one chance out of a about a million.
I don't believe in either theory. I lean toward evolution, but I don't buy
the whole package. I have no doubt it is right for recent millennia (say about
40,000 years) But how did life originate on this planet ? Lightening hitting
a puddle of water ? And that strike caused two or three billion species of
life ?
Or maybe advanced humans (space travelers) might have brought it here.
Can there be life in outer space ? I see no reason why not. Think back 200
years. A large group of humans living in Africa had an IQ of about 40.
Modern Caucasian man has an IQ of about 110. And they can put a man on the
moon. What if some humans have an IQ of 220 ? Could they not have visited
other planets in the past ?
I'm not very knowledgeable in the subjects of anthropology,
or evolution, but I don't think that there's any credible
evidence of any kind, that indicates that any sort of
supernatural, or extraterrestrial, event is necessary to
explain human evolution. So, if that's the case, why look
for one? There's no mysterious big gap, or big jump, in
evolution that has left researchers puzzled. There's only
relatively gradual, small evolutionary improvements, I
think.
If I'm not mistaken (and maybe I am), people used to talk
about the "missing link" a lot, but now, as I understand it,
the missing-link argument has totally disappeared as a
result of methodical, scientific research and
anthropological investigations.
My problem with the "Theory of Evolution" (as opposed to evolution itself) is
quite simple. Everytime some legitimate doubt arises -- the theorists push the
time span back a few million years. At one time, man's time on this Earth was
figured at about 30,000 years. Then -- a million. Now I think it is close
to a billion. Who can argue with spans of time that -- the human mind cannot
conceive of ?
Based on a chart on Wikipedia, "anatomically modern humans"
evolved about 200,000 years ago, but there are a lot of
similar species dating back millions of years ago and it
looks like the "Homo" species dates back 2.5 million years,
and there were some "human-like apes" that date back almost
6 million years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution
El Castor
2017-04-21 04:14:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by Gary
I suppose it was my closeness to Adventists when young that helps me to like and
respect people who have strict belief systems. Even though I might not share
them.
I don't respect religion, or the people who believe in it,
but I do respect the results in some cases, and to a large
extent, I suppose that it's probably accurate to say that
religion is what holds civilization together.
Without religion there would be no civilization. Let me mention this piece of
historical trivia. Back about 2,000 years ago, Rome was bringing Europe under
their rule. They had a problem. All the countries they conquered had
religions that worshipped multiple gods. This caused the people to be in a
constant state of upheaval because some loved one god and his neighbor loved
another. The Romans looked around for a unifying religion to give its people.
The only single god group they could find was the Jews. But --- non-Jews
would not accept Judaism because it had such strict rules. (food laws and
circumcision). Then .... along came Paul! He told the Romans about the
Jewish Messiah who had recently been murdered. Christianity offered a reformed
Judaism. A religion with one god -- lots of love -- and no difficult rules.
Rome gave it to all of Europe -- and it was what helped unify the empire.
Even after the Empire collapsed four hundred years later -- Europe and its
people remained unified by the religion. And became the most advanced
civilization on Earth.
Not ... because of the religions teachings themselves. But because of the
uniting force of it. People who are motivated by the same dogma can accomplish
many things that they could not manage individually. Hence -- Civilization !
Yes, I think that's probably all true, except I also think
that uniting force can also come from belief systems other
than religion. Japan, for instance, is an example that I
like to cite that obviously has a strong unifying force in
their culture, but it doesn't come from religion, at least
not directly.
I agree that if any belief system (religious or not) is shared by a given people
-- it will unite them to a degree. I don't know anything about Japan, but I
am sure they are a united people. They've been on their island for many
millennia. I suppose the old tribal instincts from the stoneage are still with
them.
Let me offer a little heresy here. IMO, next to the Catholic and Baptist
churches -- the largest religion I've observed is Science. When it comes to
being adamant true-believers -- the followers of Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell
have nothing on the followers of Charles Darwin and Albert Einstein. They will
all hang you if you disagree with them. They all know the TRUTH :-)
What I've said before on this newsgroup -- many times -- is
that I don't believe in anything (with a very few select
exceptions) and I'm not sure of anything. I'm not even sure
that the sun is going to come up tomorrow.
I agree. I tend to "lean" towards various theories -- but I'm not a "true
believer" in any.
Post by mg
So, as a result, I merely assign probabilities to things.
For instance, even though I don't know if the sun is going
to come up tomorrow, I would assign a probability of
trillions to 1 to the likelihood that it will.
Therefore, I agree with science to the extent that science
agrees with me. In regard to evolution, for instance, based
on what I've read, I would set the probabilities in favor of
that theory, as being in the thousands to 1 range, or maybe
even in the hundreds of thousands to 1 range and conversely,
I would set the probability that there is a god and he
created man, as being one chance out of a about a million.
I don't believe in either theory. I lean toward evolution, but I don't buy
the whole package. I have no doubt it is right for recent millennia (say about
40,000 years) But how did life originate on this planet ? Lightening hitting
a puddle of water ? And that strike caused two or three billion species of
life ?
Or maybe advanced humans (space travelers) might have brought it here.
Can there be life in outer space ? I see no reason why not. Think back 200
years. A large group of humans living in Africa had an IQ of about 40.
Modern Caucasian man has an IQ of about 110. And they can put a man on the
moon. What if some humans have an IQ of 220 ? Could they not have visited
other planets in the past ?
And what is "the past". The universe has existed for an infinity. An
infinity is ample time for anything you could imagine, or be incapable
of imagining, to have evolved, and decided to stick around. Perhaps we
are nothing more than an experiment or recreation. He, she, it, they,
God, or (?) could be smiling down on us right now.
Loading...