NationStates Jolt Archive

In a recent poll 45% of Americans believed that if Science and the bible conflict then the Bible is right. Meaning the earth is 6000 years old and Noah dinosaurs were presumably created as bones pre-buried in the ground at the time of creation. In England this argument would not take gain backing from any politician and not that many priests to be honest. The apparent strength of relgion in America baffles me particular amoung the youth. Does anyone know why?

That includes all religion, so you forgot Muslims, Hindues (what you quoted agrees with Jews), asian religions, etc.

Possbily for the same reason Americans are less technological than Europeans, more socially retarded than Europeans, and more politically corrupt than Europeans. Because we, Americans, on the average, are complete morons. :)

must be the difference between then and than :p

either that or the fact that our nations were not formed by religious followers seeking an end to there persecution

It appears that way because in europe science and religion aren't mutually exclusive.

In a recent poll 45% of Americans believed that if Science and the bible conflict then the Bible is right. Meaning the earth is 6000 years old and Noah dinosaurs were presumably created as bones pre-buried in the ground at the time of creation. In England this argument would not take gain backing from any politician and not that many priests to be honest. The apparent strength of relgion in America baffles me particular amoung the youth. Does anyone know why?

Well you probably can trace it to those dumb ass hypocrite Puritans(if you are European, you knew them as the English Seperatists).

Rember a poll is a best guess for the whole. The only people I have heard argue the age of the earth and the dinos are on the Net(the gateway for all mental cases ;) ).

However, you do find many that don't understand that science can't prove or disprove the existence of God.

American education is rather questionable these days.....

It appears that way because in europe science and religion aren't mutually exclusive.

I'd tend to agree, most of the scientists I know, and I admit I don't know that many, are religious, but they would also agree with Darwinism, the big bang etc. They just view themselves as studying the wonders of God's creation. To be honest I think they just ignore God when doing their jobs.

For once, I am without an answer. I don't know why Americans are so religious. But I don't think it's because of the 17th-century Puritans. Perhaps Europeans are more wary of strong religious influence in life because of Europe's history of war due to religion?

For once, I am without an answer. I don't know why Americans are so religious. But I don't think it's because of the 17th-century Puritans. Perhaps Europeans are more wary of strong religious influence in life because of Europe's history of war due to religion?

Most of which were actually over by the end of the 17th century. One could argue that up to that point, the Puritans and the rest of Europe shared the same history...

Maybe it's because of our poor educational system. Maybe it's because our land hasn't been ravaged by two world wars that showed the people that if there is a god he doesn't give a crap about your suffering. Maybe it's something in the water. I don't really know.

For once, I am without an answer. I don't know why Americans are so religious. But I don't think it's because of the 17th-century Puritans.

Are you sure?

Ask who of the Europeans landed here first(excluding the previous landings of course) and you will invariably get Columbus and the Puritans.

Ask about Jamestown and people will give you a "I heard of that" or a blank look.

Look at Thanksgiving? Who was involved with that?

Maybe it's something in the water. I don't really know.
That's the most plausable answer.

That's the most plausable answer.
That's why I stick to the alcohol.

God favors America. Consequently, more people choose to worship him:P

In a recent poll 45% of Americans believed that if Science and the bible conflict then the Bible is right. Meaning the earth is 6000 years old and Noah dinosaurs were presumably created as bones pre-buried in the ground at the time of creation. In England this argument would not take gain backing from any politician and not that many priests to be honest. The apparent strength of relgion in America baffles me particular amoung the youth. Does anyone know why?
can you link to this Poll? Those are rather interesting numbers.

Trans-human']God favors America. Consequently, more people choose to worship him:P

Except Pennsylvania! Didn't you hear Pat? :p

That's why I stick to the alcohol.

I hate to tell you but they put something in the alcohol to make people temporarily insane. A mysterious substance known as ethanol, or its more mysterious name C2H5OH

Except Pennsylvania! Didn't you hear Pat? :p
You forgot to include New Orleans:P

In a recent poll 45% of Americans believed that if Science and the bible conflict then the Bible is right. Meaning the earth is 6000 years old and Noah dinosaurs were presumably created as bones pre-buried in the ground at the time of creation. In England this argument would not take gain backing from any politician and not that many priests to be honest. The apparent strength of relgion in America baffles me particular amoung the youth. Does anyone know why?


I could write a paper on this and barely scratch the surface.

To vastly oversimplify: We have a long tradition among our religion's in America that glorifies the resisitance of what is seen as the established thought. Best examples of this are probably the puritans and the social reformers. Now science is seen as "persecuting" religion (and they honestly do beleive this) and it becomes a force to resist. More than that, America (and most other groups too) goes through swings of extreme secularism and extreme religiousity (we call them Great Awakenings), and we are on the polar opposite of the current European paradigm.

Like I said, really, I could write for hours on the "American Tradition", but basically: Poor Education, students who don't care, and strong brainwashing by parents create a bad understanding of science and then "Tradition" forces (especially youth culture) to combat the "Man" of science.

Possbily for the same reason Americans are less technological than Europeans, more socially retarded than Europeans, and more politically corrupt than Europeans. Because we, Americans, on the average, are complete morons. :)
Geez, why would we think that people like you hate America? I mean, what would give us that idea... :rolleyes:

I think it's more that, in the US people are obsessive over their religion and less analytical of it whereas in Europe it isn't as unquestioned.

I see science as the study of God's creations and I see the Bible as a 'rough guide to your spirituality'. and so science and religion acheive harmony rather than being enemies.

Americas are a bit isolated and Europeans have had time to experience religious fanaticism.

Maybe it's something in the water. I don't really know.
The water? :eek:
General Ripper was right! Those commies, poisoning our water w/flouride!

Why are Americans generally more religious then Europeans?
Easy. The Europeans remember the Dark Ages. We don't.

Easy. The Europeans remember the Dark Ages. We don't.

Yours have only just begun.

can you link to this Poll? Those are rather interesting numbers.

:sniper:

The flood would account for world wide population elimination, only 8 people saved accourding to the Bible. Noah, his 3 sons and their wifes.

Every kind of animal accourding to it's kind entered the Arc and it was God who shut the door, keeping them safe. This was the first time it had rained and it took 120 years for Noah to build the Ark. After the arc landed on ground there was the first rainbow and God said that this was a promise to never destroy the whole earth with a massive flood - ie total destruction. I think that America may be more populated that some parts of the world this could account for there being more believers??

However in Africa there is some parts where 99% believe in God.

I'm not sure of the correct answer but I know God loves me and I also know that he Love's You too!!

I'd tend to agree, most of the scientists I know, and I admit I don't know that many, are religious, but they would also agree with Darwinism, the big bang etc. They just view themselves as studying the wonders of God's creation. To be honest I think they just ignore God when doing their jobs.
Yes, true to a certain extent. Maybe they won't let God or religion get in the way of scientific work. That's how I approach religion and science.

That's why I stick to the alcohol.
Don't buy the cheap booze - not any alcohol is not your friend... What masturbation didn't achieve, methanol will!

I think it's more that, in the US people are obsessive over their religion and less analytical of it whereas in Europe it isn't as unquestioned.

I see science as the study of God's creations and I see the Bible as a 'rough guide to your spirituality'. and so science and religion acheive harmony rather than being enemies.
Yes! Thank you for that post ;)

Easy. The Europeans remember the Dark Ages. We don't.
Good call. I just hope that the Dark Ages don't return anytime soon!

I think Americans question things a little to much and since science can only give, "Well there was this bang (mubl mumble mumble) and then humans apeared!" Against faith and beliving in Christ, so you have a historically accurate book called the Bible (it realy is) against something or other and a bang. You pick.

And a little thing, the Dark Ages were caused mainly from the un-questioning stance of Europeans that we are seing again (With the economic failure of Germany) and the incompetence of Jak Harac (or whatever that French president with almost no style "I hate English Food!".
|
|
Actual Quote

I think that America may be more populated that some parts of the world this could account for there being more believers?? You mean, those huge swathes of desert and forest in the US?

And "more religious" doesn't mean that you hate science (Galileo was a very devout man). Why more Americans fear science that Europeans I don't know. I only went to America once for four days, to New York. So, basically, I'm useless to ask. :)

This is a complete guess, but it could be that that the US was more influenced by France in its early history, and Britain was more influenced by Switzerland within the same hundred or two years period.


That also explains most of the "more liberal" tendancies in Britain.


And by the way, I am no expert on that area at all, I just have a faint idea.

Jak Harac (or whatever that French president with almost no style "I hate English Food!".
Actual Quote

Freedom Fries, anyone?

the americans are generally more religious than the Europeans as we are enlightened, and somewhat intelligent


the americans elected Bush

Twice

what else need be said

Because the first people in America were the batshit crazy religious people that people in Europe didn't want. We're descendents of them.

It'd be like if the religious right went off and founded a colony on the moon or something to practice their own version of Christianity. 300 years down the road, I imagine they'd still be way more religiuous than the population at large.

Yeah, americans are way too christian to believe in anything but the bible, sorry to say. I've had to put up with them for 15 years now. I want to go :sniper:
their naivete is too much for me to stand.:headbang:
It's how republicans like bush win elections, because of the religious right and their propaganda.

like Kinda Sensible people said,
I could write a paper on this and barely scratch the surface.

To vastly oversimplify: We have a long tradition among our religion's in America that glorifies the resisitance of what is seen as the established thought. Best examples of this are probably the puritans and the social reformers. Now science is seen as "persecuting" religion (and they honestly do beleive this) and it becomes a force to resist. More than that, America (and most other groups too) goes through swings of extreme secularism and extreme religiousity (we call them Great Awakenings), and we are on the polar opposite of the current European paradigm.

Like I said, really, I could write for hours on the "American Tradition", but basically: Poor Education, students who don't care, and strong brainwashing by parents create a bad understanding of science and then "Tradition" forces (especially youth culture) to combat the "Man" of science.


there's a long line of historical influence from the annoying eruopeans that moved here. Now I know why the king hated their guts and exiled/pressured them to come here.

It's just annoying to have to put up with them because they chose to ignore reason and so then I have to have my ideals insulted.

And now happy holidays is offensive to them too, because they aren't the most powerful religion anymore.

If it doesn't have christ written all over it, it's secular, and secular means devil. :(

I just wish they would see the light.:p

edit: american, btw. zzz.

Obviously you've never heard of the Thirty Years War and all them other Religious Wars and Persecutions that happened after the Protestant Reformation.

It kinda made the common people care even less for organized religion.

I think its because Christian Americans are becoming more and more concerned with how widespread their faith is, so they work doubly hard to reinforce the idea of faith in their children. Whereas Europeans are more concerned with strengthening their faith and making it a less political and more social concept.

Yeah, americans are way too christian to believe in anything but the bible, sorry to say. I've had to put up with them for 15 years now. I want to go :sniper:
their naivete is too much for me to stand.:headbang:
It's how republicans like bush win elections, because of the religious right and their propaganda.

like Kinda Sensible people said,



there's a long line of historical influence from the annoying eruopeans that moved here. Now I know why the king hated their guts and exiled/pressured them to come here.

It's just annoying to have to put up with them because they chose to ignore reason and so then I have to have my ideals insulted.

And now happy holidays is offensive to them too, because they aren't the most powerful religion anymore.

If it doesn't have christ written all over it, it's secular, and secular means devil. :(

I just wish they would see the light.:p

Obviously you don't know how to find kindred spirits, are too stuck up, or just plain don't circulate enough.

Obviously you don't know how to find kindred spirits, are too stuck up, or just plain don't circulate enough.

no, see, there's this magical state called Colorado, and it's filled with annoying people like that. I simply state the fact that there's way more evidence behind science than the bible and off we go.

Freedom Fries, anyone?

Nope he was talking about British Food, also didn't you hear? McDonalds is bad for you.

the americans are generally more religious than the Europeans as we are enlightened, and somewhat intelligent


the americans elected Bush

Twice

what else need be said

Not exactly. It is extremely rare for an incumbent to not be re-elected. Once the country has made a choice, the logic behind it here in America is that you have to stick with it or bad things happen. I disagree, but whatever, I'm not old enough to vote.

[QUOTE=Xboxistan312]If it doesn't have christ written all over it, it's secular, and secular means devil. :(
american, btw.QUOTE]

Or the devil can be anything the teachers and pastors daughter does or doesn't do (do not ask how I know that).

Not exactly. It is extremely rare for an incumbent to not be re-elected. Once the country has made a choice, the logic behind it here in America is that you have to stick with it or bad things happen. I disagree, but whatever, I'm not old enough to vote.


if the american logic is as stupid my point stands

I would trace some of it back to WWI as well. Back then every side claimed god on its side ("Gott strafe England" and more), and the churches were amongst the first to call for people to do god's bidding and go to war against his enemies.

Turned out to be a little more nasty than initially thought, and god was nowhere to be seen. The sheer psychological effect of that war probably killed a lot of people's devout political Christianity right off.

Because there are a lot of religious people in Europe. It's just that they keep their religion to themselves more, and don't go out and preach it as much and get offended if some act differently.

May parents once told me that when I was little (I loooved Dinosaurs) I explained an acquaintance of theirs everything about why the Stegosaurus had these funny things on its back...while they tried to explain to me that there really hadn't been any dinosaurs, and that there was a great flood...

You'll find idiots everywhere. They just seem a lot more vocal in the States.
Why, I don't know.

Maybe it's because of our poor educational system. Maybe it's because our land hasn't been ravaged by two world wars that showed the people that if there is a god he doesn't give a crap about your suffering. Maybe it's something in the water. I don't really know.

Amen to that.

Nope he was talking about British Food, also didn't you hear? McDonalds is bad for you.

Since when is grease food? ;)

Because Europeans have persecuted religions so much that they kinda failed there and in America they flourished because they evaded most persecution and it reflects it here.

if the american logic is as stupid my point stands
I know they like... thought Nazis were bad people (like really their nerve!).

Some things that I want people to make me look stupid on:

1.)Food For Oil, Look who was helping Mr.Saddum the innocent
2.) If the European Countries think that the EU is so good why do they not ratify the constitution
3.) If the UN jumped for joy when America went into Haiti why are they sad when we go into Iraqi (look who cares about oil.)
4.) Freedom Fries, Anyone?
If pro-bush people made it up why won't anti-bush people drop it.

BTW: American,Christian (The kind that think JK Rowlin should get a Nobel Peace Prize for teaching kids how to read over here and will be a sleep in chrurch service until the rock band gets on the platform and will listen to secular of christian anhow any day), and I am the Peace and Freedom's Main (IE: Only) supporter (but can't vote).

It appears that way because in europe science and religion aren't mutually exclusive.

Care to clarify what you mean?

I think Americans question things a little to much and since science can only give, "Well there was this bang (mubl mumble mumble) and then humans apeared!" Against faith and beliving in Christ, so you have a historically accurate book called the Bible (it realy is) against something or other and a bang. You pick.

And a little thing, the Dark Ages were caused mainly from the un-questioning stance of Europeans that we are seing again (With the economic failure of Germany) and the incompetence of Jak Harac (or whatever that French president with almost no style "I hate English Food!".
|
|
Actual Quote
And I believe that US-Americans do not question things enough. Science is not against religion and religion is not against science. They work together very well. At least here they do.
And how is the bible a historically accurate book? I fail to see that.

And how the Dark Ages were "caused" eludes me from your explanation completely. Economic failure of Germany caused the Dark Ages? Man, get your history straight. Which recession are you talking about? I really hope you do know that (unless I'm completely off) those Dark Ages that were talked about happened during the Medieval Times (500-1500 AD) or even later during the time of the witch hunts, (1450-1750 AD, peak between 1550-1650).

And the French President's name is Jacques Chirac. To a certain extent, I can even understand his disdain for British food. It's pretty much the same with my disdain not only for British but also for French delicacies.

(...)
May parents once told me that when I was little (I loooved Dinosaurs) I explained an acquaintance of theirs everything about why the Stegosaurus had these funny things on its back...while they tried to explain to me that there really hadn't been any dinosaurs, and that there was a great flood...

You'll find idiots everywhere. They just seem a lot more vocal in the States.
Why, I don't know.
Funny you mention that. I used to have a 4th grade teacher that told me - after I started talking about dinosaurs in social studies (Sachkunde) - that religion and science do not go together and if I blieved in dinosaurs I'd end up in hell. I was 10. 4th grade.
You wouldn't believe how much hell my parents raised on that bitch, especially after I spoke up in class and refuted her crazy ideas about science and religion and she got mad and called me names...

Care to clarify what you mean?
I think he just said that because he thinks that in europe science and religion are mutually exclusive.

I think Americans question things a little to much and since science can only give, "Well there was this bang (mubl mumble mumble) and then humans apeared!" Against faith and beliving in Christ, so you have a historically accurate book called the Bible (it realy is) against something or other and a bang. You pick.

And a little thing, the Dark Ages were caused mainly from the un-questioning stance of Europeans that we are seing again (With the economic failure of Germany) and the incompetence of Jak Harac (or whatever that French president with almost no style "I hate English Food!".
|
|
Actual Quote


You mean Jaques Chirac, and since when is the bible historicly correct? :eek:
Oh, and what the hell is this supposed to mean? the Dark Ages were caused mainly from the un-questioning stance of Europeans that we are seing again

You mean Jaques Chiraque, and since when is the bible historicly correct? :eek:
Oh, and what the hell is this supposed to mean? the Dark Ages were caused mainly from the un-questioning stance of Europeans that we are seing again
Mooringtonic babble!

You mean Jaques Chiraque, and since when is the bible historicly correct? :eek:
Oh, and what the hell is this supposed to mean? the Dark Ages were caused mainly from the un-questioning stance of Europeans that we are seing again

Oh, I DO question that very much.

I know they like... thought Nazis were bad people (like really their nerve!).

Some things that I want people to make me look stupid on:

1.)Food For Oil, Look who was helping Mr.Saddum the innocent
2.) If the European Countries think that the EU is so good why do they not ratify the constitution
3.) If the UN jumped for joy when America went into Haiti why are they sad when we go into Iraqi (look who cares about oil.)
4.)
If pro-bush people made it up why won't anti-bush people drop it.

BTW: American,Christian (The kind that think JK Rowlin should get a Nobel Peace Prize for teaching kids how to read over here and will be a sleep in chrurch service until the rock band gets on the platform and will listen to secular of christian anhow any day), and I am the Peace and Freedom's Main (IE: Only) supporter (but can't vote).

Eighter i'm getting very sleepy, or that entire post made no sense whatsoever
:confused:

Eighter i'm getting very sleepy, or that entire post made no sense whatsoever
:confused:
I think it was first a swipe at Dehny being German (I believe), using the always popular "N-Word".
Then a swipe at Europe.

And that should prove his point, right?

Eighter i'm getting very sleepy, or that entire post made no sense whatsoever
:confused:
***You're not sleeepy***

Wel sorry for being under the belt but just needed to see if I could beat my high score of 3 people mad at me*. In all serious-ness I would rather live in Germany than America and just had to see if I could make people mad (which I did) and I really didn't think it would get so out of control, so sorry and I was a bad little Johhny. For the most part I think the only reason (that americans are more religious than europeans) is that Newsweek is been having to man slow days and finally decided that people were tired of the Iraqi War. Anyhow I am off to see other parts of NS and wil drop by now and then.

*For one post, but sadly no moderators (I once had 2)

4.)

Originally Posted by Whereyouthinkyougoing
Freedom Fries, Anyone?
If pro-bush people made it up why won't anti-bush people drop it.


Hmm, I don't know.

Maybe because you blamed the Impending Dark Ages on poor ol' Jak Harac's "incompetence" and based your argument on an Actual Quote of him saying "I hate English Food!"

Yes, that must be it.

Eighter i'm getting very sleepy, or that entire post made no sense whatsoever
:confused:
Reading all incoherent stuff is what makes me sleepy!

Wel sorry for being under the belt but just needed to see if I could beat my high score of 3 people mad at me*. In all serious-ness I would rather live in Germany than America and just had to see if I could make people mad (which I did) and I really didn't think it would get so out of control, so sorry and I was a bad little Johhny. For the most part I think the only reason (that americans are more religious than europeans) is that Newsweek is been having to man slow days and finally decided that people were tired of the Iraqi War. Anyhow I am off to see other parts of NS and wil drop by now and then.

*For one post, but sadly no moderators (I once had 2)

You surely do not want to piss off enough Germans or we will give you something to post about in the WWIII-thread ;)
Thanks for clearing that up, though - I shall forgive you. Just don't do it again http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/droh.gif

In all serious-ness I would rather live in Germany than America and just had to see if I could make people mad
No, I'm sorry. Don't count me in. You made me SAD - not 'mad' by any stretch of imagination.

Leave the French Fires out of this! Besides what have they done to you!;)

No, I'm sorry. Don't count me in. You made me SAD - not 'mad' by any stretch of imagination.

I find him amusing.

I find him amusing.
At this point I find MYself amusing... but that is beside the point!

No, I'm sorry. Don't count me in. You made me SAD - not 'mad' by any stretch of imagination.

Why because the youth of America is so corrupted to the inner core?
Just wondering, it is 3:47 where I live so this makes it what? Very very early in the morning like 1:00 or 2:00 or what?

At this point I find MYself amusing... but that is beside the point!

Me to, not including RBAR (A spin off of FUBAR but RBAR ,or re-bar which is a metal bar used in construction, is retarded beyond all reason.)

Why because the youth of America is so corrupted to the inner core?
Well, you brought THAT up. I wouldn't know nought about it. Hard to believe though...

EDIT: You find it hard to make a new post?
Just seek for 'reply' and click it after writing. I'd hate to comment on previous posts you have doctored.

Why because the youth of America is so corrupted to the inner core?
Just wondering, it is 3:47 where I live so this makes it what? Very very early in the morning like 1:00 or 2:00 or what?
Are you trying to ask what time it is where I'm at? Cos that is as confusing as all of your posts. Well, it's 2:02 am. Happy?!?



Me to, not including RBAR (A spin off of FUBAR but RBAR ,or re-bar which is a metal bar used in construction, is retarded beyond all reason.) I really do not understand that. So sorry.

Yes, true to a certain extent. Maybe they won't let God or religion get in the way of scientific work. That's how I approach religion and science.
huh? :confused:
"god" is completely out of the whole equation when i consider science. doesn't even come into consideration...

i'm sure thats how it is for most european scientists too (at least in uk/scandinavia where we're so a-religious, even compared to continental europe)



my take on the whole thing: religious people have too much power in the US. they use it to force their adgenda. simple.

over here religion is something of a joke and nobody takes it seriously, so any such "adgenda" is gonna be like pushing water uphill. over there, that adgenda was being pushed from day zero with the founding of the nation (as plenty of people have already pointed out)

huh? :confused:
"god" is completely out of the whole equation when i consider science. doesn't even come into consideration...

i'm sure thats how it is for most european scientists too (at least in uk/scandinavia where we're so a-religious, even compared to continental europe)
What I tried to say was that even as a scientist you can be religious. You're like scientist from 9-5 and religious in your spare time, if you wish. That should clear my statement up a little.

huh? :confused:
"god" is completely out of the whole equation when i consider science. doesn't even come into consideration...

i'm sure thats how it is for most european scientists too (at least in uk/scandinavia where we're so a-religious, even compared to continental europe)
I haven't found god in any of my essays - he hasn't helped nor hindered me. Thank him for that (?).

Thank G<oops>.. I haven't found god mentioned in any scientific studies I have had the displeasure to read recently.

Yet! I know plenty of people who 'make' science and are religious... I kinda trust their work too - anyways.

Pretty level playing field here... it seems (well gather more info - one say-so story isn't enough by far).

In a recent poll 45% of Americans believed that if Science and the bible conflict then the Bible is right.

I'd be wary of oversimplified generalised polls like that. After all, 27% of all polls are made up on the spot...

Our christcakes bring all the boys to the yard and they're like: it's better than yours. Damn right it's better than yours. I could teach you but I'd have to charge.


*slaps self*

I'd tend to agree, most of the scientists I know, and I admit I don't know that many, are religious, but they would also agree with Darwinism, the big bang etc. They just view themselves as studying the wonders of God's creation. To be honest I think they just ignore God when doing their jobs.

At my secondary school the Christian Union was set up and run by the head of Science. Draw your own conclusions people.:)

I don't think Americans are any more religious than anyone else. I think we just have a culture that over-encourages pride. In anything and everything. Even if there's nothing to be proud of, really.

The result is that people tend to view their religion, and personality, and sexuality, and race, and ethnicity, and any other identifying characteristic, as some sort of badge of honor. Embrace it, immerse themselves in it, wear it on their sleeve.

And anyone who dares to disagree that they are the be-all and end-all is persecuting them. Their "way of life" is under attack! Help! Help! They're being repressed! Etc.

Pride is the problem. Pride used to be considered a sin. Now I believe it's humility that's considered a sin.

In truth, I believe the only thing that's true of every American, regardless of race, creed, class, way of life, etc., is that every American is erroneously convinced that they are an above-average driver. :D

It's like a cycle, man. At some times Americans are extremely religious, and a decade or so later they are pretty much mellow about it. It depends on a variety of things, I guess, but I will agree that, on Average, Americans are more religious. Why? I dunno, really.

In a recent poll 45% of Americans believed that if Science and the bible conflict then the Bible is right. Meaning the earth is 6000 years old and Noah dinosaurs were presumably created as bones pre-buried in the ground at the time of creation. In England this argument would not take gain backing from any politician and not that many priests to be honest. The apparent strength of relgion in America baffles me particular amoung the youth. Does anyone know why?
Not much history that teaches them they should know better

the americans are generally more religious than the Europeans as we are enlightened, and somewhat intelligent


the americans elected Bush

Twice

what else need be said

Psst. Hey buddy! Guess what? We all didn't vote for him.

I don't know really, maybe it's because Europe is older and wiser, or something like that.

Ok, ya'll are getting kinda off topic, this is becoming a God-exist/don't exist thing which this isnt the place.

The reason why Europe is less religious (at least currantly, it fluctuates) us because European governments are typically more socialist which look at the state more taking eyes off religion, US is more conservative (thank God! :cool: ) which allows more religious aspects.

Are you sure?

Ask who of the Europeans landed here first(excluding the previous landings of course) and you will invariably get Columbus and the Puritans.

Ask about Jamestown and people will give you a "I heard of that" or a blank look.

Look at Thanksgiving? Who was involved with that?
The first Thanskgiving was in Virginia.

The second was the Puritans in Massachusetts.

Yes, your history books lied to you if you thought Mass was first thanksgiving. But see it was partially political and pride thing:
Mass. looked down on Virginians. Plus Mass. write the books back than.

In a recent poll 45% of Americans believed that if Science and the bible conflict then the Bible is right. Meaning the earth is 6000 years old and Noah dinosaurs were presumably created as bones pre-buried in the ground at the time of creation. In England this argument would not take gain backing from any politician and not that many priests to be honest. The apparent strength of relgion in America baffles me particular amoung the youth. Does anyone know why?

Because we Americans are individualistic skeptical truth-seekers. And Christianity is all about a one-on-one relationship with God through Jesus Christ.

So we can each seek the truth for ourselves, rather than swallowing whole whatever the establishment chooses as the correct worldview at the moment.

Also, the Bible does not say that the earth is 6000 years old or that dinosaur bones were pre-buried.

Presumably the Great Flood caused the destruction and sedimentation and burial of fossils, including large animals like dinosaurs.

Unfortunately, most criticisms directed at the Bible come from 99th-hand repetitions of someone else's ignorant remarks, rather than a real examination of the text and the evidence. The Bible is historical. That's why archeologists in the Middle East use it to find out where things are, and to put their finds in context.

archaeology and the bible (http://christiananswers.net//archaeology/home.html);)

Ok, ya'll are getting kinda off topic, this is becoming a God-exist/don't exist thing which this isnt the place.

The reason why Europe is less religious (at least currantly, it fluctuates) us because European governments are typically more socialist which look at the state more taking eyes off religion, US is more conservative (thank God! :cool: ) which allows more religious aspects.

Considering that all European nations are by now democratic, has it occured to you that their governments simply reflect the attitude of the population? :rolleyes:

Unfortunately, most criticisms directed at the Bible come from 99th-hand repetitions of someone else's ignorant remarks, rather than a real examination of the text and the evidence. The Bible is historical. That's why archeologists in the Middle East use it to find out where things are, and to put their finds in context.

archaeology and the bible (http://christiananswers.net//archaeology/home.html);)

Troy was discovered using the text if the Illiad. Does the fact that Troy was found due to this historical text immediately imply that Zeus, Pallas Athena, Aphrodite and Poseidon exist or existed? :rolleyes:

Yes, it is a historical text. But you ought to take the historical accuracy with at least a pound of salt.

Also, the Bible does not say that the earth is 6000 years old or that dinosaur bones were pre-buried.

Presumably the Great Flood caused the destruction and sedimentation and burial of fossils, including large animals like dinosaurs.


The bible can be used to calculate the age of the earth, by tracing back through the relatives of Adam until Jesus. It does not say that Dinosaur bones are preburied however Dinosaur bones do exist so presumably, for the Bible to be accurate, they must have been created in the ground (appearing with carbon-14 atoms that date them to 65 million years old, although in reality only a couple of thousand). This is the only logical way the bible and Dinosaurs can coexist. Sedmentation would not cause the half life of Carbon-14 to decrease and is only added when the animal is alive (by eating Carbon-14 filled food) so by measuring the amount Carbon-14 present it is possible to estimate the number of half-lives of Carbon-14 have taken place. The half life of carbon-14 can be easily measured in the labatory. The makes the idea of a flood killing Dinosaurs incredible improbable.

over here religion is something of a joke and nobody takes it seriously, so any such "adgenda" is gonna be like pushing water uphill.
Not true. The Church of England takes religion seriously. The bombers on 7th July took religion seriously.

Ok, ya'll are getting kinda off topic, this is becoming a God-exist/don't exist thing which this isnt the place.

The reason why Europe is less religious (at least currantly, it fluctuates) us because European governments are typically more socialist which look at the state more taking eyes off religion, US is more conservative (thank God! :cool: ) which allows more religious aspects.
Your theory is debunked by Ireland. For most of our history as an independent nation our government was pretty socialist, but also quite religious, in both aspects more so than America. Now that we are less socialist we are also less religious.

So we can each seek the truth for ourselves, rather than swallowing whole whatever the establishment chooses as the correct worldview at the moment.
Isn't this at odds with the idea of swallowing whole the Bible as The Truth?

Americans, on the average, are complete morons. :)

love it or leave it, jerk

Because we Americans are individualistic skeptical truth-seekers. And Christianity is all about a one-on-one relationship with God through Jesus Christ.

So we can each seek the truth for ourselves, rather than swallowing whole whatever the establishment chooses as the correct worldview at the moment.

Also, the Bible does not say that the earth is 6000 years old or that dinosaur bones were pre-buried.

Presumably the Great Flood caused the destruction and sedimentation and burial of fossils, including large animals like dinosaurs.

Unfortunately, most criticisms directed at the Bible come from 99th-hand repetitions of someone else's ignorant remarks, rather than a real examination of the text and the evidence. The Bible is historical. That's why archeologists in the Middle East use it to find out where things are, and to put their finds in context.

archaeology and the bible (http://christiananswers.net//archaeology/home.html);)
1) Skeptics don't take "facts" in a 6000 year old book of magic, monsters and genocidal rapist warlords at face value.

2) Funny, science does that. The bible sticks to a multi-millenia old world view regardless of any facts to the contrary.

3) You're right. The bible doesn't mention dinosaurs at all. Funny how the folks in Genesis didn't think to comment on attacks by voracious raptors or feasts of Apatosaurus meat.

4) Funny how the random destruction of a great flood would make sure that all dinosaurs were buried under all mammals. You would think that dinosaurs capable of running over 30 MPH would be able to outrun a few cows and make it to high ground to be buried last.

That whole book's kinda funny. Especially the bit about the bag of foreskins.

Socialism is still democratic you retard, When I mean Socialism I mean leftist not undemocratic. For example, a big example, Swedan is very socialist, high taxes, not very religious at this time and place.

The Bible, or indeed the Torah or Koran to me just seem silly. Why would God take an interest in mankind? or answers prayers? I have no problem with people having imaginary friends but surley its a problem when people take this into leglislure. Still, I straying from the topic...

Well, no disrespect. But let's face it, religion has not given this world anything except missery and wars. And I do have to state my opinion on the existence of this so-called "God". As "it" does not exist, ok? The bible was written a few thousands of years ago, I mean perhaps if Tolkien lived back then and we found a copy of his "The Lord of the Rings" then perhaps we would still believe that the little hobbit Frodo saved us all from the evil lord Sauron. I mean those people back then probably still believed that the world was flat, and had no idea of the existence of dinosaurs whatsoever. And please, to gather all the animals into one big ship? ARE YOU INSANE?! How did those animals get on the american continent anyway? Did noe take them there? Or did they walk perhaps? or swim maybe.... Come on people.

Anyway back to the topic.

Well the way I see it the Americans are just too damn fanatic about their religion, unlike the Europeans (for the most). Americans tend not to question this "God" creature, which is almighty but haven't showed his bloody face for more then 2000 years(NOT A SINGLE TIME). Ever wondered why? + Look at the American school system. They make the students say "I pledge allegiance.... one nation under god... .blah blah" or "God bless America" and crap like that.

Didn't mean to offend anyone, but quite frankly all religion just pisses me off......

In a recent poll 45% of Americans believed that if Science and the bible conflict then the Bible is right. Meaning the earth is 6000 years old and Noah dinosaurs were presumably created as bones pre-buried in the ground at the time of creation. In England this argument would not take gain backing from any politician and not that many priests to be honest. The apparent strength of relgion in America baffles me particular amoung the youth. Does anyone know why?

You got me. I wish I knew. I guess you'd have to do a study taking into account the major geographic, social, political and economic differences between Europe and the U.S.
One reason may be that the U.S. was settled by people who were either dissatisfied with their former European countries or were sent here as prisoners to places like Savannah, Georgia. Actually many people came here before the revolution not for religious freedom but for the purpose of imposing their own religion.
Also, the U.S. is about money. Churches seem to be a great place for networking.
This is all just personal conjecture. But since there is obviously a big difference between the two continents there would seem to be something(s) we could definitley point to.

The bible can be used to calculate the age of the earth, by tracing back through the relatives of Adam until Jesus. It does not say that Dinosaur bones are preburied however Dinosaur bones do exist so presumably, for the Bible to be accurate, they must have been created in the ground (appearing with carbon-14 atoms that date them to 65 million years old, although in reality only a couple of thousand). This is the only logical way the bible and Dinosaurs can coexist. Sedmentation would not cause the half life of Carbon-14 to decrease and is only added when the animal is alive (by eating Carbon-14 filled food) so by measuring the amount Carbon-14 present it is possible to estimate the number of half-lives of Carbon-14 have taken place. The half life of carbon-14 can be easily measured in the labatory. The makes the idea of a flood killing Dinosaurs incredible improbable.

Dating requires empirical knowledge of the C-14 content of the original sample, as well as any processes that may have added or removed C-14 over the years.

I have never understood why they never use the time machine to take pictures of live dinosaurs, instead of just measuring their C-14 content...;)

Also, the U.S. is about money. Churches seem to be a great place for networking.
Isn't that the kind of thing Jesus was against?

1) Skeptics don't take "facts" in a 6000 year old book of magic, monsters and genocidal rapist warlords at face value.

2) Funny, science does that. The bible sticks to a multi-millenia old world view regardless of any facts to the contrary.

3) You're right. The bible doesn't mention dinosaurs at all. Funny how the folks in Genesis didn't think to comment on attacks by voracious raptors or feasts of Apatosaurus meat.

4) Funny how the random destruction of a great flood would make sure that all dinosaurs were buried under all mammals. You would think that dinosaurs capable of running over 30 MPH would be able to outrun a few cows and make it to high ground to be buried last.

That whole book's kinda funny. Especially the bit about the bag of foreskins.

What about behemoth?
"Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feed on grass like an ox. What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly! His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron. He ranks first among the works of God..."
-Job 40:15-19 (NIV)

or leviathan?
23 The flakes of his flesh are joined together: they are firm in themselves; they cannot be moved.
"24 His heart is as firm as a stone; yea, as hard as a piece of the nether millstone.
25 When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are afraid: by reason of breakings they purify themselves.
26 The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold: the spear, the dart, nor the habergeon.
27 He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood.
28 The arrow cannot make him flee: slingstones are turned with him into stubble.
29 Darts are counted as stubble: he laugheth at the shaking of a spear."
-Job 41

Dinosaurs in the Bible (http://christiananswers.net//dinosaurs/j-where2.html)

As far as why the layers are deposited as they are, that is a matter for scientific speculation, such as on the pages listed below, taken from http://www.trueorigin.org/camplist.asp

©2001 Ashby Camp — [Last Modified: 14 November 2005]

FLOOD MODELS & PROCESSES

Austin and others, “Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: Global Flood Model of Earth History”
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=researchp_as_platetectonicsl

Baumgardner, “Catstrophic Plate Tectonics: The Physics Behind the Genesis Flood”
http://www.globalflood.org/papers/2003ICCcpt.html

Baumgardner, “Computer Modeling of the Large-Scale Tectonics”
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=researchp_jb_largescaletectonics

Baumgardner, “Runaway Subduction as the Driving Mechanism for the Genesis Flood”
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=researchp_jb_runawaysubduction

Baumgardner, Interview with Plate Tectonics Expert
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/212.asp

Baumgardner & Barnette, “Patterns of Ocean Circulation During Noah’s Flood” http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=researchp_jb_patternsofcirculation

Camp, Review of Wise’s Faith, Form and Time
http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2002/cm07%2005a.pdf

Covey, “Catastrophic Plate Tectonics”
http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/documents/CatastrophicPlates1/CatastrophicPlates1.htm

Chadwick, “A Creation/Flood Model”
http://origins.swau.edu/papers/global/chadwick/default.html

Christian Answers Net, “What About Continental Drift?”*
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c001.html

Garner, “The Age of the Earth: Geology and the Deluge”
http://www.amen.org.uk/eh/science/flodpg/flodpg3.htm

Garton, “The Real Lifestyle of the Dinosaurs”
http://www.amen.org.uk/eh/science/dinos/dinos8.htm

Johnston, “Scientific & Biblical Background to Biblical Geology & the Genesis Flood”
http://www.amen.org.uk/eh/science/flood7.htm

McIntosh, Edmondson, & Taylor, “Flood Models: the need for an integrated approach”
http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/14n1flood_models.asp

McIntosh, Edmondson, & Taylor, “The Flood as the Major Biblical Cataclysm”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/catastrophe.asp

Noel and Noel, “A Scientific Paradigm for the Genesis Flood”
http://www.bibleonly.org/gen/JATSFlood.PDF

Tyler, “Flood Models and Trends in Creationist Thinking”
http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/97/cm9705.html#Trends

Woodmorappe, “Hypercanes: Rainfall Generators During the Flood?” (pdf)*
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/area/magazines/TJ/TJv14n2_Hypercanes.pdf

What about behemoth?...or leviathon? flood...

I'm no being funny mate... But you're actually saying that you think the _entire_ world was covered by floodwater at a single point in time? I mean, I'm just wanting this to be clear so there's no confusion, that's what you're saying?

You are being as closed minded as those you accuse of narrow vision.
You cannot disprove the existance of God anymore than I can prove it to you.
I do, however, do not believe that science and religion are mutually exclusive.

Well, no disrespect. But let's face it, religion has not given this world anything except missery and wars. And I do have to state my opinion on the existence of this so-called "God". As "it" does not exist, ok? The bible was written a few thousands of years ago, I mean perhaps if Tolkien lived back then and we found a copy of his "The Lord of the Rings" then perhaps we would still believe that the little hobbit Frodo saved us all from the evil lord Sauron. I mean those people back then probably still believed that the world was flat, and had no idea of the existence of dinosaurs whatsoever. And please, to gather all the animals into one big ship? ARE YOU INSANE?! How did those animals get on the american continent anyway? Did noe take them there? Or did they walk perhaps? or swim maybe.... Come on people.

Anyway back to the topic.

Well the way I see it the Americans are just too damn fanatic about their religion, unlike the Europeans (for the most). Americans tend not to question this "God" creature, which is almighty but haven't showed his bloody face for more then 2000 years(NOT A SINGLE TIME). Ever wondered why? + Look at the American school system. They make the students say "I pledge allegiance.... one nation under god... .blah blah" or "God bless America" and crap like that.

Didn't mean to offend anyone, but quite frankly all religion just pisses me off......


Back to topic, I think that World War 2 may, indeed hold the key to reason Americans are more religious. After the War, Europe was rebuilding. The Americans, with nothing to rebuild set about returing to social normality. Conservatism swept over the nation, including a renewed focus on religion. During the more liberal 60s and 70s, a religious base maintained itself.
Part of the phenomena in the US is the idea that science and religion are two different things. This goes back to the Scopes Trial of the late 19th century that dealt with the issue of teaching evolution. This trial captured national attention and widened the percieved rift between science and religion.
Many Americans are not really anti-science, but if one believes them to be in conflict, which should be chosen.
Nobody is going to hell, or ruin their lives for not believing in carbon dating. Not believeing in the Bible, many reason, might have a very high price indeed.

Elgesh']I'm no being funny mate... But you're actually saying that you think the _entire_ world was covered by floodwater at a single point in time? I mean, I'm just wanting this to be clear so there's no confusion, that's what you're saying?

Yup, the whole thing. And yes, there is scientific evidence...see some of the links in my previous post. And really read them, not just skim the titles...

And I expect that scientific investigation will continue to prove all of the provable parts of the Bible, just as it has done to this day. Someday, in the future, educated people will laugh at those who disbelieved the Bible on scientific grounds...:) I see travelers on a starship, many light-years from Earth, their children laughing as they read about such discarded notions as Darwinism, billions of years, no world-wide flood, etc.

Genesis 7:19-22
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

Yup, the whole thing. And yes, there is scientific evidence...see some of the links in my previous post. And really read them, not just skim the titles...

And I expect that scientific investigation will continue to prove all of the provable parts of the Bible, just as it has done to this day. Someday, in the future, educated people will laugh at those who disbelieved the Bible on scientific grounds...:) I see travelers on a starship, many light-years from Earth, their children laughing as they read about such discarded notions as Darwinism, billions of years, no world-wide flood, etc.

.
I am dutifully having a little light reading :) Are you also saying that you believe the world - creation, the universe itself, in fact! - to be c. 6000 years old? (6009, in fact, I think, jewish scholars having once worked out that the '1st day' was in 4004 BC! :D)

Elgesh']I am dutifully having a little light reading :) Are you also saying that you believe the world - creation, the universe itself, in fact! - to be c. 6000 years old? (6009, in fact, I think, jewish scholars having once worked out that the '1st day' was in 4004 BC! :D)

I don't know how old it is, but definitely not 4 billion years old.

I don't believe that one can calculate it based on given lifespans of people in the Bible---unimportant people may have been left out, or there may be overlap.

I recently read a book called Starlight and Time by Dr. Russell Humphreys, which postulates a cosmology which allows for the observed stars and galaxies to be billions of years old, while the Earth is much younger. He has come up with a "white-hole cosmology", which depends upon General Relativity Theory to work.

Here is a page of links to criticisms of his theory from both evolutionists and Bible-believing scientists, along with his replies.

Russell Humphreys answers Various Critics (http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_03.asp)

And his bio: (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/r_humphreys.asp)
Biography

Dr Humphreys was awarded his Ph.D. in physics from Louisiana State University in 1972, by which time he was a fully convinced creationist. For the next 6 years he worked in the High Voltage Laboratory of General Electric Company, designing and inventing equipment and researching high-voltage phenomena. While there, he received a U.S. patent and one of Industrial Research Magazine’s IR-100 awards.

Beginning in 1979 he worked for Sandia National Laboratories (New Mexico) in nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed-power research, and theoretical atomic and nuclear physics. In 1985, he began working with Sandia’s ‘Particle Beam Fusion Project’, and was co-inventor of special laser-triggered ‘Rimfire’ high-voltage switches, now coming into wider use.

The last few years at Sandia had seen greater emphasis on theoretical nuclear physics and radiation hydrodynamics in an effort to help produce the world’s first lab-scale thermonuclear fusion. Besides gaining another U.S. patent, Dr Humphreys has been given two awards from Sandia, including an Award for Excellence for contributions to light ion-fusion target theory.

Dr Humphreys has retired from Sandia and now works with ICR. He still continues to write for TJ and serves as a resource scientist for AiG to assist with questions and information concerning physics, astronomy and cosmology.

Education
B.S., Duke University, Durham, NC, 1963
Ph.D., Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, 1972
Honors/Awards/Associations
Creation Science Fellowship of New Mexico, President
Industrial Research Magazine’s IR-100 award
Award for Excellence for contributions to light ion-fusion target theory
Adjunct professor of the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego
board member of the Creation Research Society
Publications
Dr Humphreys has published some 20 papers in secular scientific journals, as well as many creationist technical papers. He is also the author of Starlight and Time, in which he proposes a model that the universe may only be thousands of years old even though light from distant stars appears to have taken billions of years to reach Earth. He is also author of Evidences for a Young World (available as a tract), and this is also the title of a video featuring Dr Humphreys.

I don't know how old it is, but definitely not 4 billion years old.

I don't believe that one can calculate it based on given lifespans of people in the Bible---unimportant people may have been left out, or there may be overlap.

I recently read a book called Starlight and Time by Dr. Russell Humphreys...

Cheers for being so thorough! :D That's why I was so anxious to read/know what your outlook was.

Unfortunately, having read a half dozen links (grrr! the amen.co.uk ones about dinosaurs have been pulled down for 'reevalution in light of xyz' - was quite looking forward to them!), I'm not going to begin debate with you on them. Looking at the links... we'd just be speaking totally different languages to each other - I really don't think we'd accomplish owt, I'm sorry to say! :(

Nice to see you being so accomodating and precise though, thank you, bodes well for future debates on a more accessible topic :)

What about behemoth?
"Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feed on grass like an ox. What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly! His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron. He ranks first among the works of God..."
-Job 40:15-19 (NIV)

or leviathan?
23 The flakes of his flesh are joined together: they are firm in themselves; they cannot be moved.
"24 His heart is as firm as a stone; yea, as hard as a piece of the nether millstone.
25 When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are afraid: by reason of breakings they purify themselves.
26 The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold: the spear, the dart, nor the habergeon.
27 He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood.
28 The arrow cannot make him flee: slingstones are turned with him into stubble.
29 Darts are counted as stubble: he laugheth at the shaking of a spear."
-Job 41

Dinosaurs in the Bible (http://christiananswers.net//dinosaurs/j-where2.html)

As far as why the layers are deposited as they are, that is a matter for scientific speculation, such as on the pages listed below, taken from http://www.trueorigin.org/camplist.asp

©2001 Ashby Camp — [Last Modified: 14 November 2005]

FLOOD MODELS & PROCESSES

Austin and others, “Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: Global Flood Model of Earth History”
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=researchp_as_platetectonicsl

Baumgardner, “Catstrophic Plate Tectonics: The Physics Behind the Genesis Flood”
http://www.globalflood.org/papers/2003ICCcpt.html

Baumgardner, “Computer Modeling of the Large-Scale Tectonics”
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=researchp_jb_largescaletectonics

Baumgardner, “Runaway Subduction as the Driving Mechanism for the Genesis Flood”
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=researchp_jb_runawaysubduction

Baumgardner, Interview with Plate Tectonics Expert
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/212.asp

Baumgardner & Barnette, “Patterns of Ocean Circulation During Noah’s Flood” http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=researchp_jb_patternsofcirculation

Camp, Review of Wise’s Faith, Form and Time
http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2002/cm07%2005a.pdf

Covey, “Catastrophic Plate Tectonics”
http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/documents/CatastrophicPlates1/CatastrophicPlates1.htm

Chadwick, “A Creation/Flood Model”
http://origins.swau.edu/papers/global/chadwick/default.html

Christian Answers Net, “What About Continental Drift?”*
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c001.html

Garner, “The Age of the Earth: Geology and the Deluge”
http://www.amen.org.uk/eh/science/flodpg/flodpg3.htm

Garton, “The Real Lifestyle of the Dinosaurs”
http://www.amen.org.uk/eh/science/dinos/dinos8.htm

Johnston, “Scientific & Biblical Background to Biblical Geology & the Genesis Flood”
http://www.amen.org.uk/eh/science/flood7.htm

McIntosh, Edmondson, & Taylor, “Flood Models: the need for an integrated approach”
http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/14n1flood_models.asp

McIntosh, Edmondson, & Taylor, “The Flood as the Major Biblical Cataclysm”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/catastrophe.asp

Noel and Noel, “A Scientific Paradigm for the Genesis Flood”
http://www.bibleonly.org/gen/JATSFlood.PDF

Tyler, “Flood Models and Trends in Creationist Thinking”
http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/97/cm9705.html#Trends

Woodmorappe, “Hypercanes: Rainfall Generators During the Flood?” (pdf)*
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/area/magazines/TJ/TJv14n2_Hypercanes.pdf
Yeah, where were the depictions of dinosaurs in pottery and art from the bronze age? Where are the remains of dinosaurs that can be dated alongside human remains? The descriptions of Behemoth and Leviathan could apply to any number of mythical beasts, but there is no physical evidence that dinosaurs, which the fossil record shows were plentiful, lived among humans.

The first few links you provided dealt only with hypotheses of the effect a global flood might have on plate tectonics. Not with why dinosaur fossils are always found in older rock strata than mammal remains. I didn't bother to look through every link you provided. If there is a relevant one please indicate which one it is.

Sorry dude. Evolution is very well supported by the facts. Creationism requires one to ignore facts like the existence of transitional species, the existence of ring species, and the fact that we've observed mutations and have never observed a mechanism that would stop those mutations from piling up over time to make a new species.

Elgesh']Cheers for being so thorough! :D That's why I was so anxious to read/know what your outlook was.

Unfortunately, having read a half dozen links (grrr! the amen.co.uk ones about dinosaurs have been pulled down for 'reevalution in light of xyz' - was quite looking forward to them!), I'm not going to begin debate with you on them. Looking at the links... we'd just be speaking totally different languages to each other - I really don't think we'd accomplish owt, I'm sorry to say! :(

Nice to see you being so accomodating and precise though, thank you, bodes well for future debates on a more accessible topic :)

That's cool.

And interesting that they keep the site up to date to conform with current understanding of scientific evidence...

For others who may have been interested in that, here is part of amen.org.uk's intro for scientists: (http://www.amen.org.uk/eh/)

"...The main areas where our conclusions differ from conventional thinking concern biological evolution and geological timescales. Although a limited range of micro-evolutionary changes can be shown to occur within species, many conventional palaeontologists admit there is a lack of fossil evidence to support the idea that one kind of plant or animal ever turned into a fundamentally different type, as required by the speculative philosophy called "evolution". Darwin said that the lack of such evidence would be strong evidence against his theory. Moreover the origin of even the most simple forms of life is, scientifically, a total mystery.

The evidence for extremely long periods of time for the history of the Earth is absent from the geological record. Conventional geologists increasingly recognise the importance of catastrophism in the geological record, but because of their committment to long timescales, they claim that there were immensely long periods when nothing happened. Yet, often there is no sign of any erosion, or colonisation by living things, on surfaces that they suppose to have been exposed for millions of years.

The geological evidence is consistent with the Earth having suffered an extremely violent and totally destructive global Flood by water (corresponding geologically to a substantial proportion of the Precambrian sediments), followed by a return to equilibrium and stabilility during the recession stages of the Flood and for many years afterwards (the Phanerozoic). This latter period was not entirely devoid of violent events, but they took place on a more localised scale, over a period of a few hundred years. The corresponding rocks and fossils record the ecological successions as plants and animals suffered population explosions and collapse as the Earth's biosphere recovered. More details are given in our publications and those on the Lebendige Vorwelt Website.

This scenario is not only scientifically plausible, but is also consistent with the Biblical account of the Flood and its aftermath."

As for my opinion on this, I am liking the various theories for the catastrophic damage to the Earth from the cataclysmic flood.:cool:

Behemoth and Leviathan

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH711.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH711_1.html

Yeah, where were the depictions of dinosaurs in pottery and art from the bronze age? Where are the remains of dinosaurs that can be dated alongside human remains? The descriptions of Behemoth and Leviathan could apply to any number of mythical beasts, but there is no physical evidence that dinosaurs, which the fossil record shows were plentiful, lived among humans.

The first few links you provided dealt only with hypotheses of the effect a global flood might have on plate tectonics. Not with why dinosaur fossils are always found in older rock strata than mammal remains. I didn't bother to look through every link you provided. If there is a relevant one please indicate which one it is.

Sorry dude. Evolution is very well supported by the facts. Creationism requires one to ignore facts like the existence of transitional species, the existence of ring species, and the fact that we've observed mutations and have never observed a mechanism that would stop those mutations from piling up over time to make a new species.


Actually, its the opposite---the problem is worldview. Every piece of evidence must be interpreted in light of one's worldview. In mine, science must be ignored to believe in evolution.

For fossils and sorting in the flood, these contain relevant info:

McIntosh, Edmondson, & Taylor, “The Flood as the Major Biblical Cataclysm”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/catastrophe.asp

Tyler, “Flood Models and Trends in Creationist Thinking”
http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/97/cm9705.html#Trends

Plus these:


Geology and the Flood (#6)
by Henry Morris, Ph.D. (http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54)

Where are Fossils Found? (#187)
by John Morris, Ph.D.
Abstract
Lots of sedimentary rocks contain no recognizable fossils at all, other than microscopic remains such as plankton, pollen, or spores. (http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=508)

Behemoth and Leviathan

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH711.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH711_1.html

I _do_ quite enjoy old stories about alternative humans. Romans had folktales about bears with the heads of men, Jews had Adam and Eve leaving the Garden, yet CAin encountering _more_ people in 'the land of Nod' - folk memories and traditions of other hominids? Neanderthals, for example. It's far fetched and purely speculative of course, but it's interesting. Elves, fairies, supernatural humans... well, it's interesting to speculate if there's an origin in reality for them.

Giant creatures, though... it's too big a stretch to suggest we'd have stories about most of the giant mammals, let alone dinosaurs! Sadly, by extension, it also poo-poos notions of neandertals living on as folkmemories; ah well, it would have been nice to pretend otherwise! :p

Quite simple. Most human beings require a crutch in order to rationalize life. In many USians cases, that crutch is religion. In the case of many europeans that is the government and the glory of europe.

Actually, its the opposite---the problem is worldview. Every piece of evidence must be interpreted in light of one's worldview. In mine, science must be ignored to believe in evolution.

For fossils and sorting in the flood, these contain relevant info:

McIntosh, Edmondson, & Taylor, “The Flood as the Major Biblical Cataclysm”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/catastrophe.asp

Tyler, “Flood Models and Trends in Creationist Thinking”
http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/97/cm9705.html#Trends

Plus these:


Geology and the Flood (#6)
by Henry Morris, Ph.D. (http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54)

Where are Fossils Found? (#187)
by John Morris, Ph.D.
Abstract
Lots of sedimentary rocks contain no recognizable fossils at all, other than microscopic remains such as plankton, pollen, or spores. (http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=508)
One wouldn't expect fossils to be common unless the majority of living things were suddenly buried under huge ammounts of sediment by a major flood.
The following link refutes the water sorting refered to in "flood models and trends in creationist thinking"
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH561_2.html

Behemoth and Leviathan

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH711.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH711_1.html

Penis like a cedar, LOL!

Dinosaurs And The Bible (#19960922)
by Henry Morris, Ph.D. (http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=1318)
"Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. LO now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moveth his tail like a cedar: . . . His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. He is the chief of the ways of God” (Job 40:15–19).


Leviathan (#20000317)
by Henry Morris, Ph.D. (http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=17718)
“In that day the LORD with His sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and He shall slay the dragon that is in the sea” (Isaiah 27:1).

Of course, there can be no giant animals on land or sea that we could have missed discovering for thousands of years, or that were regarded as mythical before we found living specimens...;)

Holy Squid! Photos Offer First Glimpse of Live Deep-Sea Giant (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/09/0927_050927_giant_squid.html)

James Owen
for National Geographic News

September 27, 2005
Like something straight out of a Jules Verne novel, an enormous tentacled creature looms out of the inky blackness of the deep Pacific waters.

But this isn't science fiction. A set of extraordinary images captured by Japanese scientists marks the first-ever record of a live giant squid (Architeuthis) in the wild.

Penis like a cedar, LOL!

Dinosaurs And The Bible (#19960922)
by Henry Morris, Ph.D. (http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=1318)
"Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. LO now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moveth his tail like a cedar: . . . His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. He is the chief of the ways of God” (Job 40:15–19).


Leviathan (#20000317)
by Henry Morris, Ph.D. (http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=17718)
“In that day the LORD with His sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and He shall slay the dragon that is in the sea” (Isaiah 27:1).

Of course, there can be no giant animals on land or sea that we could have missed discovering for thousands of years, or that were regarded as mythical before we found living specimens...;)

Holy Squid! Photos Offer First Glimpse of Live Deep-Sea Giant (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/09/0927_050927_giant_squid.html)

James Owen
for National Geographic News

September 27, 2005
Like something straight out of a Jules Verne novel, an enormous tentacled creature looms out of the inky blackness of the deep Pacific waters.

But this isn't science fiction. A set of extraordinary images captured by Japanese scientists marks the first-ever record of a live giant squid (Architeuthis) in the wild.
I'm not sure I get your point. Are you trying to say that Behemoth and Leviathan were maybe isolated examples of dinosaurs that didn't go extinct, long before humans evolved but rather persisted in small populations?

One wouldn't expect fossils to be common unless the majority of living things were suddenly buried under huge ammounts of sediment by a major flood.
The following link refutes the water sorting refered to in "flood models and trends in creationist thinking"
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH561_2.html

That seems rather a quick and flippant reply to a complex topic.

It just says no, it didn't happen that way. No backup, just assertions.

And how come, unlike the creationists, they don't have to post any references, bibliography, links to any information backing up their refutation?

Or should we just accept what they say, because they are not religious?

I think it's the fact that some people like infusing science classrooms with religion and the idiots have the political power so it's allowed. It probably doesn't hurt that they've been hacking away at the eductational funding for years, leaving a population of stupid people to elect the same jackasses, because electing people smarter than they are just wouldn't do.

I think it's the fact that some people like infusing science classrooms with religion and the idiots have the political power so it's allowed. It probably doesn't hurt that they've been hacking away at the eductational funding for years, leaving a population of stupid people to elect the same jackasses, because electing people smarter than they are just wouldn't do.
Jeeze, Dakini! Who yanked on your chain? :eek:

I'm not sure I get your point. Are you trying to say that Behemoth and Leviathan were maybe isolated examples of dinosaurs that didn't go extinct, long before humans evolved but rather persisted in small populations?

I am saying that behemoth and leviathan are descriptions of giant dinosaur-like animals that went extinct during human history, because of major changes in the ecosphere wrought by the aftereffects of a catastrophic world-wide flood, with accompanying changes to the rotation of the earth, the atmosphere, breakup of the super-continent, climate, etc.

Someday I would like to get some software to model it, showing the global effects, the giant steam geysers, the wall of water sweeping over the continent, the breakup of the continental plates, the death of millions or billions of people and animals, etc. It would make a terrific movie!

Jeeze, Dakini! Who yanked on your chain? :eek:
I've been a thousand times more touchy lately, too (chalk it up to this Christmas bullshit :p ).
I agree with him, but he's coming off a bit more stringly than usual...
It's kinda sexy. ;)

That seems rather a quick and flippant reply to a complex topic.

It just says no, it didn't happen that way. No backup, just assertions.

And how come, unlike the creationists, they don't have to post any references, bibliography, links to any information backing up their refutation?

Or should we just accept what they say, because they are not religious?

Actually no. If you have spent time at TO you would know that if you posted something bogus, you would get ripped to shreads. You may think the evil commie liberal god hating evolutionists only pick on Christians but they are rather nasty towards each other as well. It's called Peer Review.

For everthing you suggest, there will be a 100 people screaming "What crap! Where did you get your degree? *insert hated school*?

TO polices itself rather well.

However, how many creationists/IDers accept everything from one of their own without arguement?

I am saying that behemoth and leviathan are descriptions of giant dinosaur-like animals that went extinct during human history, because of major changes in the ecosphere wrought by the aftereffects of a catastrophic world-wide flood, with accompanying changes to the rotation of the earth, the atmosphere, breakup of the super-continent, climate, etc.

Someday I would like to get some software to model it, showing the global effects, the giant steam geysers, the wall of water sweeping over the continent, the breakup of the continental plates, the death of millions or billions of people and animals, etc. It would make a terrific movie!
Whoaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh. I am saved and baptized, and spent half of my life very dedicated to the word.
You're adding to it, which is a cardinal sin. It's one thing to interpret, but you, sir, are redefining biblical text.

I am saying that behemoth and leviathan are descriptions of giant dinosaur-like animals that went extinct during human history, because of major changes in the ecosphere wrought by the aftereffects of a catastrophic world-wide flood, with accompanying changes to the rotation of the earth, the atmosphere, breakup of the super-continent, climate, etc.

If you changed the ecosphere to that extent... hardly any of the animals on the ark would be able to survive after the floodwaters receded, either. The world they were adapted to surviving in would have been destroyed for decades, centuries to come, surely?

Jeeze, Dakini! Who yanked on your chain? :eek:
huh?

I've been a thousand times more touchy lately, too (chalk it up to this Christmas bullshit :p ).
I agree with him, but he's coming off a bit more stringly than usual...
It's kinda sexy. ;)
I'm a she.

huh?
I'll gladly yank it for you, if you keep up the sexy new attitude.

I'm a she.
Why have I always assumed otherwise (and you're so not masculine, at least in writing style)? I'll still yank your chain. I likey the bitchy Dakini. :fluffle:

That seems rather a quick and flippant reply to a complex topic.

It just says no, it didn't happen that way. No backup, just assertions.

And how come, unlike the creationists, they don't have to post any references, bibliography, links to any information backing up their refutation?

Or should we just accept what they say, because they are not religious?
You're right. It is a quick reply, but not meant as flippant. Just trying to keep from having to post long, time consuming explanations. Still, it points out a clear flaw in the idea that a flood could sort the fossils. If hydrologic sorting took place slowly, light fossils would all be on top of the sediment layer and dense, compact fossils would be at the bottom. We find insect fossils throughout the column. If the flood was catastrophic we would expect fossils to be jumbled together. Dinosaurs would be found with the remains of men.

Instead what do we find? We find a progression of life with the forms below joined by transitional life forms to those above. Evidence for evolution, not hydrologic sorting.

I'll gladly yank it for you, if you keep up the sexy new attitude.
I have a chain?

I'm in a bit of a mood because I'm home for the holidays. I've been home less than 24 hours so far and I've been nagged most of that time already.

Why have I always assumed otherwise (and you're so not masculine, at least in writing style)? I'll still yank your chain. I likey the bitchy Dakini. :fluffle:
I think you've corrected me before about this, that's what I meant. Sorry, sweets. :(

Why have I always assumed otherwise (and you're so not masculine, at least in writing style)? I'll still yank your chain. I likey the bitchy Dakini. :fluffle:
*blushes*

I think you've corrected me before about this, that's what I meant. Sorry, sweets. :(
That's ok. My sn doesn't really scream "I'm a girl" and it's not like there are avatars or something.

I have a chain?

I'm in a bit of a mood because I'm home for the holidays. I've been home less than 24 hours so far and I've been nagged most of that time already.
Trust me, I know the feeling. Christmas=bullshit, to me. Here's another fluffle!
:fluffle:

Only God knows why ;)

Trust me, I know the feeling. Christmas=bullshit, to me. Here's another fluffle!
:fluffle:
:fluffle:

Besides the fossil record, which shows no evidence of sorting by any mechanism other than evolution over a long time, we have new species that couldn't have been created. They had to evolve within relatively recent history. The banana eating moths of Hawaii are one great example. The moths are found nowhere else in the world, so they didn't get to Hawaii from somewhere else. They are closely related to Hawaian moth species. However, banana trees, their only food source, didn't get to Hawaii until about 1000 years ago.

What seems more likey, they were there waiting for a meal since the beginning of life on earth, or they evolved from local species within the last thousand years?

http://www.island.net/~rjbw/opinions3.html

Not much history that teaches them they should know better

The thing you learn from history, aside from this, is that people don't learn from history. :headbang:

94% of America believes in God. Why we are more into religion than the rest of the world? I don't know.

A more detailed refutation of a global flood

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

*snip*
On a New york-minute timescale, consider viruses. I don't see denial trumping science when it comes to viral evolution. Where's the faith?

Because we Americans are individualistic skeptical truth-seekers.

Sorry, but all but a handful of the people I personally know and have met are Americans, and let me tell you, most aren't individualistic, they're just consumers; almost none are skeptical; and it is extremely difficult to define who is and who isn't a "truth-seeker".

And Christianity is all about a one-on-one relationship with God through Jesus Christ.

Well, gee, Ruloah, I'm an individualistic, skeptical (zetetic, really, in the Greek, not the flat-earth, sense), truth-seeking American and I have a different opinion on Christianity and as well I'm not religious. I would say skepticism ONLY leads to agnosticism, not any kind of adamant a/theistic position.

That's ok. My sn doesn't really scream "I'm a girl" and it's not like there are avatars or something.
Maybe it's because I got a tattoo this summer of a Dakini on my entire left forearm that's, say, less than feminine. :D ;)

Sorry, but all but a handful of the people I personally know and have met are Americans, and let me tell you, most aren't individualistic, they're just consumers; almost none are skeptical; and it is extremely difficult to define who is and who isn't a "truth-seeker".
From my experience, coolhunting (the urge to differentiate from the "masses") is the very force that drives consumer culture today. The #1 American export seems to be "cool" (different, individualistic) in its many forms.

It took me a long, long time to realize that.

Possbily for the same reason Americans are less technological than Europeans, more socially retarded than Europeans, and more politically corrupt than Europeans. Because we, Americans, on the average, are complete morons. :)

First of all, Americans are more technologically advanced than Europe.

Second of all, everyone, on the average, are complete morons. Europeans come off as little smarter than Americans because they listen to people who say smarter things, whereas Americans listen to George Bush, Sean Hannity, and Jesse Jackson. This is probably because our political system allows politicians to get elected by saying really stupid things, whereas Europe's political system requires a little more sophistication for politicians to get by.

Possbily for the same reason Americans are less technological than Europeans, more socially retarded than Europeans, and more politically corrupt than Europeans. Because we, Americans, on the average, are complete morons. :)

First of all, Americans are more technologically advanced than Europe.

Second of all, everyone, on the average, are complete morons. Europeans come off as little smarter than Americans because they listen to people who say smarter things, whereas Americans listen to George Bush, Sean Hannity, and Jesse Jackson. This is probably because our political system allows politicians to get elected by saying really stupid things, whereas Europe's political system requires a little more sophistication for politicians to get by.

First of all, Americans are more technologically advanced than Europe.

Second of all, everyone, on the average, are complete morons. Europeans come off as little smarter than Americans because they listen to people who say smarter things, whereas Americans listen to George Bush, Sean Hannity, and Jesse Jackson. This is probably because our political system allows politicians to get elected by saying really stupid things, whereas Europe's political system requires a little more sophistication for politicians to get by.
Did you really mean anything you just said?
America="More" technologically "advanced"=Hyperbolic and sensationalist argument

And Euros "come off" as smarter? Come on, you really don't believe that, do you?
If you had said their accents sound smarter, because they come off as poper, I'd agree, but that's the extent I'll go.

poper
... proper.

Well the way I see it the Americans are just too damn fanatic about their religion, unlike the Europeans (for the most).

Way to have a totally unqualified generalization about Americans, and a double-standard for Europeans on top of that, asswipe! http://forum.sunflowers.de/images/smilies/xyxthumbs.gif

Look at the American school system. They make the students say "I pledge allegiance.... one nation under god... .blah blah"

Actually,

1) "under God" was inserted by Congress in the 1950's in McCarthyist "OMG! teh commiez are everywherez!" frenzy

2) It has been ruled and upheld in federal court that schools CAN'T force anyone (read: it is un-frickin-Constitutional to force kids) to say the pledge. Granted, AFAIK the vast majority of schools still teach it to the wee kintergartners/first-graders as per tradition, but as you get further up in the grades, many kids opt not to do it either out of philosophical disagreement or (most often), they're just lazy. :)

In a recent poll 45% of Americans believed that if Science and the bible conflict then the Bible is right. Meaning the earth is 6000 years old and Noah dinosaurs were presumably created as bones pre-buried in the ground at the time of creation. In England this argument would not take gain backing from any politician and not that many priests to be honest. The apparent strength of relgion in America baffles me particular amoung the youth. Does anyone know why?

I'm just taking a guess here, but I think it has nothing to do with religion. Maybe "science vs. the bible" isn't such a big issue in Europe. I mean, Europe's largest christian religion (catholisim) says that evolution does not conflict with church teachings.

Actually,

1) "under God" was inserted by Congress in the 1950's in McCarthyist "OMG! teh commiez are everywherez!" frenzy

2) It has been ruled and upheld in federal court that schools CAN'T force anyone (read: it is un-frickin-Constitutional to force kids) to say the pledge. Granted, AFAIK the vast majority of schools still teach it to the wee kintergartners/first-graders as per tradition, but as you get further up in the grades, many kids opt not to do it either out of philosophical disagreement or (most often), they're just lazy. :)
I find it sad that you even had to explain this to anyone. Sometimes, it's easy to believe people have done their minimal requested homework before posting here.
Glad to know some people (you) have done just that.

Either way, care to comment on my post above (directed at you)?

Glad to know some people (you) have done just that.

Thanks.

From my experience, coolhunting (the urge to differentiate from the "masses") is the very force that drives consumer culture today. The #1 American export seems to be "cool" (different, individualistic) in its many forms.

It took me a long, long time to realize that.
Exactly, //consumer culture//. The "Sesame Street Fallacy," if you will - if "everyooooooone is speeeeeeecial", then, actually everyone is the same. Insert an "of a given social group"/"of the social group in question" after that second 'everyone' if you're anal.

well I honetsly believe that this is a dumb arguement-and sadly (Me being a christain) I believe that the athiests have the upper hand and are a little more logical and that's just because as much as I believe in God all of my fellow christians are only bias and you really haven't thought much about it-now personally I think that the earth began alot earlier than 6000 years, because the bible never actually says 6000 years -it says 6 days..which could mean anything-so don't assume is even an exact time measurement..It was probably just a way to divide time segments in which the earth was created-and yes that means dinasours were part of it

Because Americans are ignorant? Or mabye because alot of the first people to live in the state were ultra-religious Purtians? (who then assimilated not-so-religious immigrants)

...now personally I think that the earth began alot earlier than 6000 years, because the bible never actually says 6000 years -it says 6 days..
The core of the matter is why you would even try and reconcile parts of the Bible that are so obviously faulty with reality.
I just feel that too many Christians feel the need to accept the Bible as the "word of god" as a whole, rather than as what it actually is: "The Good Book".
It says nice things that you should follow to make the world a better place. But don't consult it to find out how the world came to be.

I come back to it all the time: Why does religion have to be such a public issue? Can't everyone just believe what they want and leave it at that?

PS: I'm not picking at you specifically, I just thought your statement highlighted my point. :)

It's not so much that Americans are overly religious...it's that a good deal of Europe is a-religious or even overtly anti-religion.

For example, the French laws banning wearing crucifixes, beeines, head scarfs or other religious apparel. In the US, this would not only consititute an assault on freedom of religion, but also on freedom of expression.

How Europeans go along with this crap, baffles me.

As for the extremeist religious cliche in the US that belives that fossils are made in a factory, yadda, yadda...well they are extremists, which means they are a marginal grup, but like all extremeists are much more vocal than the rest of the population.

Most of the largest US religious groups....Catholics being a notable one...are fine with evolution and other scientific notions.

well I honetsly believe that this is a dumb arguement-and sadly (Me being a christain) I believe that the athiests have the upper hand and are a little more logical and that's just because as much as I believe in God all of my fellow christians are only bias and you really haven't thought much about it-now personally I think that the earth began alot earlier than 6000 years, because the bible never actually says 6000 years -it says 6 days..which could mean anything-so don't assume is even an exact time measurement..It was probably just a way to divide time segments in which the earth was created-and yes that means dinasours were part of it

However valid the message of your post is, many people are not going to read it or will be forced to spend oodles of time trying to decipher it because you decided not to make paragraphs or (easily) coherent sentences.

Because Americans are ignorant? Or mabye because alot of the first people to live in the state were ultra-religious Purtians? (who then assimilated not-so-religious immigrants)

If we were ignorant, we wouldn't be issuing thousands of patents and developing new technologies in greater quantity than any other nation on Earth. The US (and EU) are the world's leaders in technology.

Exactly, //consumer culture//. The "Sesame Street Fallacy," if you will - if "everyooooooone is speeeeeeecial", then, actually everyone is the same. Insert an "of a given social group"/"of the social group in question" after that second 'everyone' if you're anal.
I don't really know what any of that means, but I'll take it as my fault for not communicating my point correctly.
In the West, the left drives the consumerist culture far, far moe than they'd like to think simply becuase their values and ideals don't mix in any logical, or rational way.
The urge to avoid conformity directly defeats their efforts to embrace a so-called collectively cooperative society. They claim to work for, yet simultaneously fuel the drive against their own efforts.
It's a race to the bottom. In all hinesty, there's no difference between "keeping up with the Jones'es" and differentiating from those you mingle with everyday.
It's one and the same, in the end.

([/hijack]... if you wanna discuss it further, we should start a thread ;) )

America was founded by puritans. That's what some people blame all our problems on.

If we were ignorant, we wouldn't be issuing thousands of patents and developing new technologies in greater quantity than any other nation on Earth. The US (and EU) are the world's leaders in technology.
Vetalia, you know I value your opinion, but as someone who values globalist ideas as much as we do, don't you think that type of perspective is a bit passe? Uncontested leaders of tech?

It's not so much that Americans are overly religious...it's that a good deal of Europe is a-religious or even overtly anti-religion.
I wouldn't say so. Although religion no longer plays much of a public role in some countries, it obviously does so very much in others (like Italy for example).
But the state has a long time ago decided that religion has no place in decisionmaking, or even education in schools. As I said before, I think WWI had a lot to do with that.

For example, the French laws banning wearing crucifixes, beeines, head scarfs or other religious apparel. In the US, this would not only consititute an assault on freedom of religion, but also on freedom of expression.

How Europeans go along with this crap, baffles me.
The French laws are meant to bring kids together. If they no longer have aspects that set them apart and put them into seperate groups, the theory goes they'll play and learn together, and come out as better citizens.
I doubt it'll work, but you have to admit that it has a good ring to it. "Europeans" go along with it because
a) they're not all French
b) it doesn't concern them
c) many might want to see whether it'll work out.
And finally, not all of them do go along with it. But the policy was defended by the Muslim Council of the country at one time.

Vetalia, you know I value your opinion, but as someone who values globalist ideas as much as we do, don't you think that type of perspective is a bit passe? Uncontested leaders of tech?

I suppose, to a degree. We're far from uncontested, but we've still got a leadership position and we still lead in a lot of technology. Perhaps it's better to say we're one of several leaders.

(Of course, now most developments aren't made by individual nations or universities but by cooperation between them worldwide, but that's apparent).

It's not so much that Americans are overly religious...it's that a good deal of Europe is a-religious or even overtly anti-religion.

For example, the French laws banning wearing crucifixes, beeines, head scarfs or other religious apparel. In the US, this would not only consititute an assault on freedom of religion, but also on freedom of expression.

How Europeans go along with this crap, baffles me.

I can't speak for them, but this is how I would justify it:

Start with the statement "the government shall not advocate a religion" or "the government will not establish a state religion", etc.

1) Assuming you wish to equate government quashing of public/official/whatever mentions and instances of one overt religious //thing// or another to //atheism//:
a) Atheism is not a religion, although it is a //religious position//
b) The aforementioned statements forbid the government from advocating a religion, not a religious position - it is impossible to do so, not necessarily for practical reasons, but for purely logical ones

2) Look at the (probable) "spirit" of such a law (as opposed to the "letter" of the law, for those of you (non-native speakers, whatever) unfamiliar with the metaphor). The idea is not to have the State "push" a religion on anyone. As I see it, there are two basic policy options:

a) Advocate nothing or next-to-nothing. Apparently, atheism.
b) "Advocate" everything.

In a recent poll 45% of Americans believed that if Science and the bible conflict then the Bible is right. Meaning the earth is 6000 years old and Noah dinosaurs were presumably created as bones pre-buried in the ground at the time of creation. In England this argument would not take gain backing from any politician and not that many priests to be honest. The apparent strength of relgion in America baffles me particular amoung the youth. Does anyone know why?

Europe has been devestated twice in both the world wars. Millions of lives were lost for no apparent reason and millions more were horribly wounded both mentally and/or physically. And I guess as a result the future generations believed if such things could be allowed to occur then how in the hell can there be a God(where was he/she/it to help them out)? America on the other hand has never experianced such horror in their region/homeland and so the majority of the population in America still believe in a God.

Well thats probably not the main reason. But you cant say that it isnt a major one.

(Of course, now most developments aren't made by individual nations or universities but by cooperation between them worldwide, but that's apparent).
Exactly. It's so much more about individual association than the tired concept of Nation States. The Sovereign Individual, and the free association thereof, has furthered nations, but not so much the other way around.
I know what you meant before, but I knew we could agree. When the ball's thrown into "their" court (and by their, I mean nations), I like to snatch it right the fuck back. ;)

The French laws are meant to bring kids together. If they no longer have aspects that set them apart and put them into seperate groups, the theory goes they'll play and learn together, and come out as better citizens.

Better citizens? How so? Will they respect each others differences when they grow older if they are not exposed to them when they are young? I doubt it. Besides eliminating the visible signs of religious belief is futile. They only have to open their mouth for their beliefs to be known.

It is also widely contrary to the very nature of being a kid: Dressing somewhat wildly to express your personality even if it means you don't fit in. I would imagine many on NS would fit this category, be they punks, stoners, metalheads or goths. Religious dress is no different as a form of expression.

Again, from the American point of view it would definitely seem to be:

1. A gov't incursion on freedom of expression.
2. A gov't incursion on freedom of religion.

Rather the French laws impose on self-determination. In order to be true to their religions, Hassidic Jews, Sihks, and other religious minorities with mandated dress would not be able to attend public schools, and therefore will be segregated from society, therefore defeating the purpose of the legislation. The state has biased against them.

A law that benefits the many at the expense of the few...and we are about talking children here....a very vulnerable group with no voting franchise..cannot be considered a just law.

It is the modern day equivalent of the old segregation laws in certain US states: You can attend a white school...as long as you look like the other white students. "Oh, you're black, too bad." It was wrong then. It still is.

In any case, the recent rioting would seem to indicate that France has bigger problems than can be solved by keeping schoolgirls from wearing a head-scarf.

BTW: Advocating "Atheism" or advocating "all religion" are not the only options. The BEST option which has worked for a very long time is NO GOVERNMENT POSTION. It leaves relgious determination up to the individual, which is as it should be.

IN closing, I'll add another reason why American's MAY be more religious than Europeans. Remember, many of the colonists and immigrants to America were running away from Europe for one reason or antoher. Some of those reasons were relgious. If you were a Puritan, Baptist, Heugonot, Jew or Catholic, there have been certain times, in certain countries, where you would have done very well to GET OUT. And many did, coming to America in the process.

In any case, the recent rioting would seem to indicate that France has bigger problems than can be solved by keeping schoolgirls from wearing a head-scarf.
I would second that.

So we conclude that the ban is not really anti-religious, but a flawed policy to achieve a worthwhile goal, thereby encroaching on individual freedom, rather than the practice of religion.

([/hijack]... if you wanna discuss it further, we should start a thread ;) )

Actually, I prefer to keep the NationStates.net forums as I like to remember them...winter of '03 or something...back in the days of phpBB2 and suuuuuuper-embedded posts that took up multiple screen lengths. But w/e. To the thread!
(http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10146675#post10146675)

BTW: Advocating "Atheism" or advocating "all religion" are not the only options.

I didn't say they were.

The BEST option which has worked for a very long time is NO GOVERNMENT POSTION. It leaves relgious determination up to the individual, which is as it should be.

My view was that should fall under #1 of what I outlined. I said (or meant) it defaulted, or has been said to default, according to some, to atheism.

I would second that.

So we conclude that the ban is not really anti-religious, but a flawed policy to achieve a worthwhile goal, thereby encroaching on individual freedom, rather than the practice of religion.

No. I do not agree with that. As I have stated before:

1. It encroaches on religious freedom
2. It encroaches on freedom of expression

Both are "Individual" freedoms.

It might have the best intentions...but it is surely flawed.

I didn't say they were.

My view was that should fall under #1 of what I outlined. I said (or meant) it defaulted, or has been said to default, according to some, to atheism.

Actually, the way I read it, you did. Maybe I have misunderstood. Please clarify.


2) Look at the (probable) "spirit" of such a law (as opposed to the "letter" of the law, for those of you (non-native speakers, whatever) unfamiliar with the metaphor). The idea is not to have the State "push" a religion on anyone. As I see it, there are two basic policy options:

a) Advocate nothing or next-to-nothing. Apparently, atheism.
b) "Advocate" everything.

1. It encroaches on religious freedom
Whatever that may be. In public schools, the government has the right to theoretically make the kids wear a school uniform.
The government does at no point say: "You're not allowed to practice your religion!" - it merely says: "Don't wear your religious symbols while you're attending a public school."

If my religion is a satanic offshoot of Voodoo, and I have to sacrifice sixty-six virgins a month, and the government tells me not to - is that an encroachment on religious freedom?

2. It encroaches on freedom of expression
Perhaps, but again, it is not a general ban, it is merely a matter of not wearing it in the classroom.
Remember the case of the US school that had a sponsorship deal with Coke, and a kid wore a Pepsi shirt?

Whatever that may be. In public schools, the government has the right to theoretically make the kids wear a school uniform.
The government does at no point say: "You're not allowed to practice your religion!" - it merely says: "Don't wear your religious symbols while you're attending a public school."

True, a school can make you wear a uniform. But these laws particularly call out dress related to religious expression which makes them extremely suspect. If your religious beliefs dictates your mode of dress, than this law is dictating how you practice your religion. Taken to the extreme you can make this analogy:

School is a public place funded by the gov't. A Municipal Park is also a public place funded by the gov't. Therefore nuns must not wear their habits in the Municipal Park because the gov't says so. This law is for their own good because the habit sets them apart from their fellow citizens and that is not good.

I think we can agree that this example is ridiculous. But it seems to be the logic that is used.


If my religion is a satanic offshoot of Voodoo, and I have to sacrifice sixty-six virgins a month, and the government tells me not to - is that an encroachment on religious freedom?

I understand what you are getting at...sort of...but this is a bad example. Civil rights are only extended as long as they do not interfere with the rights of others. Obviously sacrificing virgins impacts the rights of said virgins.


Remember the case of the US school that had a sponsorship deal with Coke, and a kid wore a Pepsi shirt?

Never heard of this. Quite honestly it sounds like an interesting way to make money. Nonetheless, I'd have to say the Pepsi kid would have a case in court, if he so desired it.

American believe more in god because everyday they see in god we trust on their money. And because they are making a lot of $, they are brainwashed by the money power

It's not so much that Americans are overly religious...it's that a good deal of Europe is a-religious or even overtly anti-religion.

For example, the French laws banning wearing crucifixes, beeines, head scarfs or other religious apparel. In the US, this would not only consititute an assault on freedom of religion, but also on freedom of expression.

How Europeans go along with this crap, baffles me.

As for the extremeist religious cliche in the US that belives that fossils are made in a factory, yadda, yadda...well they are extremists, which means they are a marginal grup, but like all extremeists are much more vocal than the rest of the population.

Most of the largest US religious groups....Catholics being a notable one...are fine with evolution and other scientific notions.


Huh??!??
Where did you get that crazy idea from? Nobody in Europe is anti-religious, and I've lived in 3 different European countries so far.
French laws banning crucifixes and headscarfes??? Most French would be more then surprised to hear such a thing... unless, of course, you refer to the wearing of religious symbols while acting as a government representative. That is banned both in Germany and France... and for good reason, I would say.

Huh??!??
Where did you get that crazy idea from? Nobody in Europe is anti-religious, and I've lived in 3 different European countries so far.
French laws banning crucifixes and headscarfes??? Most French would be more then surprised to hear such a thing... *snip*.

Actually, it's a couple of years old already, where have you been?

PARIS, France (CNN) Wednesday, December 17, 2003 --
French President Jacques Chirac has called for a law banning religious symbols and clothing in state schools and hospitals. http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/12/17/france.headscarves/

Actually, it's a couple of years old already, where have you been?

PARIS, France (CNN) Wednesday, December 17, 2003 --
French President Jacques Chirac has called for a law banning religious symbols and clothing in state schools and hospitals. http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/12/17/france.headscarves/

There you go...

From the way it was posted, I assumed that he was talking about an outright ban on all religious symbols in France in general, a ridiculous claim.

Many European countries have laws that forbid religion in any way in publicly funded institutions, and why shouldn't they? Public money can not be used to endorse any religion, and personally, I'm more than happy about that.

If you still want to wear a cross or headscraf, you'll find that there are more than enough private schools and hospitals that have no such restrictions.

...*snip*
Many European countries have laws that forbid religion in any way in publicly funded institutions, and why shouldn't they? Public money can not be used to endorse any religion, and personally, I'm more than happy about that.

If you still want to wear a cross or headscraf, you'll find that there are more than enough private schools and hospitals that have no such restrictions.

What state money are you talking about? You do understand that they are talking about the students at the schools and not the school employees, yes?

Possbily for the same reason Americans are less technological than Europeans, more socially retarded than Europeans, and more politically corrupt than Europeans. Because we, Americans, on the average, are complete morons. :)

Americans are not less 'technological' than Europeans. On the contrary, the establishment of the majority of modern advances were done by Americans, ie nuclear power, personal computers, internet, modern irrigation systems, modern military might, precision rocket propulsion, and nearly all music sold.

Where you may have something is the fact that Americans tend to be more socially conservative than their European counterparts. American government has roots in anti-authority where the majority of Europe is the opposite. Not 'socially retarded' mind you.

I would like to challenge your assertion that Americans are 'complete morons'. Which country has the most well established higher education system in the world, the United States. Even when it comes to the most prestigious of European schools, i.e. Oxford (where the buildings are decaying, there is a lack of money to improve and there is no end in sight) there has been little improvement in overall education.

Also the American system is just as politically corrupt as any European counterpart. After all in the last 10 years, France almost elected a Nazi sympathizer, France and Germany can't seem to get their debt, economy, unemployment rates and poverty rates under control. Europeans still have the same problems Americans do, they just have different solutions (cough... socialism) and all it has done is result in stagnation of the economy and slow down technological advances. It's just that the American politicians wield so much more power than their European counterparts in world economics and military might, namely. Unfortunately it looks like the United States seems to be adopting more and more authoritarian and socialist views on most issues.

What state money are you talking about? You do understand that they are talking about the students at the schools and not the school employees, yes?

Students profiting from public funding in getting an education.

If a confessional school, for example, banned symbols of any religion but its own, would you object?
So, what is the difference to the state banning all symbols of religion, as it is without religion itself and doesn't wish for any religion to be endorsed in it's institutions, be it by students, teachers or curiculum?

first, let me state that i do not believe in the bible. secondly you can not say that all that said they believe in the bible would take the bible literally. i would assume that part of the group that believes in the bible do think the earth is older than 6,000 years old, and that dinosaurs existed. you just might want to take that into consideration when arguing your point.

True, a school can make you wear a uniform. But these laws particularly call out dress related to religious expression which makes them extremely suspect. If your religious beliefs dictates your mode of dress, than this law is dictating how you practice your religion. Taken to the extreme you can make this analogy:

School is a public place funded by the gov't. A Municipal Park is also a public place funded by the gov't. Therefore nuns must not wear their habits in the Municipal Park because the gov't says so. This law is for their own good because the habit sets them apart from their fellow citizens and that is not good.

I think we can agree that this example is ridiculous. But it seems to be the logic that is used.

No, your example doesn't really work (althouhg I'm impressed by the indenting, I didn't know how to do that:) ).

A school dictates a uniform and everyone has to stick to it. They aren't expressly banning these symbols, they're just making the point that religous clothing/jewelry isn't an exeption to the rule.

While I don't really support the French policy I can see the reasoning behind it, let me use muslim headscarves as an example:

Suppose there are two different schools:

School 1 bans all religous clothing and symbology, the muslim girls can't wear headscarves.
School 2 allows any religous clothing and symbology, some girls wear burkhas and a 'religous fashion war' begins with girls who only want to wear headscarves being looked down on as 'less religous' or even 'slutty'. Girls with very religous parents may be forced to wear burkas to school when they don't want to.

I think the best approach is to find a compromise, in the UK many schools in areas with a large muslim community will consult with the local mosque to agree on a dress code that is acceptable to both parties, often just the normal uniform with a plain headscarf in an agreed colour. I think this is the best solution.

Rather the French laws impose on self-determination. In order to be true to their religions, Hassidic Jews, Sihks, and other religious minorities with mandated dress would not be able to attend public schools, and therefore will be segregated from society, therefore defeating the purpose of the legislation. The state has biased against them.

But what if the religion objects to mixed classes, should we segregate boys and girls to avoid excluding the followers of that religion?

It's because we kicked that lot out. Thank god. Imagine if they were still here.

No, your example doesn't really work.

Please explain why.

They aren't expressly banning these symbols, they're just making the point that religous clothing/jewelry isn't an exeption to the rule.

This is untrue. THEY ARE EXPRESSLY BANNING RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS. Here is a quote from the CNN article:

In an address to the nation, Chirac said: "I feel that wearing any kind of symbol that ostensibly shows faith, I feel that that is something that should not be allowed in schools and colleges.

BTW: This applies to hospital workers too.

But what if the religion objects to mixed classes, should we segregate boys and girls to avoid excluding the followers of that religion?

No. Civil rights are only extended as long as they do not interfere with the rights of others. Clearly this would affect the rights of others.

In the US, this is taken quite seriously. The gov't can compel you to do many things. They can even conscript you into the army to go and fight and die. HOWEVER, if your religion has a well known history of pacificist philosophy YOU CANNOT BE MADE TO SERVE IN THE MILITARY. Therefore, Amish, Quakers and certain Buddhist sects are exempt. The key here is that it has to be a HISTORY of this behavior.

In the case of wearing religious clothes to school, there certainly is a WELL DEFINED HISTORY of Sihks, Hassidic Jews, Muslims and Hindus wearing certain articles of clothing as prescribed by their religion. If the gov't were to suddenly ban these articles, I'm certain the courts could overturn it based on unconstitutionality.


School 1 bans all religous clothing and symbology, the muslim girls can't wear headscarves.
School 2 allows any religous clothing and symbology, some girls wear burkhas and a 'religous fashion war' begins with girls who only want to wear headscarves being looked down on as 'less religous' or even 'slutty'. Girls with very religous parents may be forced to wear burkas to school when they don't want to.

Sorry. but this doesn't work. School 1's dress code is defined by the gov't.(Like in France, right?)
Whereas school 2's dress code is defined by the parents and/or rival girls at the school as "Any" clothing is allowed. It would strictly be between the little Muslim girl and her parents as the gov't never figures into this example.

I concur with you whole-heartedly that the UK approach of compromise between the school and the student/parents is a reasonable one. It need never involve the gov't and it is a settlement that can be handled on an individual basis if needed.

Students profiting from public funding in getting an education.

If a confessional school, for example, banned symbols of any religion but its own, would you object?
So, what is the difference to the state banning all symbols of religion, as it is without religion itself and doesn't wish for any religion to be endorsed in it's institutions, be it by students, teachers or curiculum? Intersecting perpendicular lines and folds of cloth pose a threat to the security of the French état!

Americans are not less 'technological' than Europeans. On the contrary, the establishment of the majority of modern advances were done by Americans, ie nuclear power, personal computers, internet, modern irrigation systems, modern military might, precision rocket propulsion, and nearly all music sold.

Nuclear power was a concept realised by German scientists, one of these being Einstein. And as for music? How is this technological and how is American music in any way an achievement of technology, or even culture for that matter?

As for higher education, the USA may well have some of the best universities, but that by no means implies that the general populace is well educated or even intelligent for that matter.

In a recent poll 45% of Americans believed that if Science and the bible conflict then the Bible is right. Meaning the earth is 6000 years old and Noah dinosaurs were presumably created as bones pre-buried in the ground at the time of creation. In England this argument would not take gain backing from any politician and not that many priests to be honest. The apparent strength of relgion in America baffles me particular amoung the youth. Does anyone know why?

As far as I am concerned it does have to do with the Puritans. They separated from Europe for the freedom of religion and many other freedom's that we have today. The United States was started as a country that was suppose to be based on religion, hence why are money says "In God we trust," but not as many people as you think are religious. A lot of people just accept what they are told. We are led blindly by stupid leaders. Since when do Europeans look at polls and not question the credibility of them. I don't trust any media anymore. A lot of it is twisted truths to make the news more interesting, and if a lot of people believe the bible over what scientists say, good for them! As a Christian you just have faith. You can't back it up very well, but back up some other theories. The bible is very historically accurate. Many of the things written in the bible have been found to be true by modern scientists, so what is wrong with Americans trusting a historically accurate book over modern man's opinion?

As far as I am concerned it does have to do with the Puritans. They separated from Europe for the freedom of religion and many other freedom's that we have today.

The Puritans could workship in Holland and some moved there but considered it still too ungodly. They wanted to impose their beliefs on others, beliefs arguably less tolerant then Church of England they refused to join. I think your taking a rather idealised view of the Puritans.

The bible is very historically accurate. Many of the things written in the bible have been found to be true by modern scientists, so what is wrong with Americans trusting a historically accurate book over modern man's opinion?

It is in many ways but so are many of the great Greek works. In many ways the Bible is also fibbing, Noah's flood, Adam and Eve. If these are untrue what else can be?

Hmm...I think it's pretty much because generally Americans are stupid. Yes, I am an American, but there are exceptions. ;)

Several times in this thread it has been postulated that Europeans are not very religious because of the horros of WW1 and WW2.

I think this is off the mark. Let's face it, Europe is not stranger to horrific wars and disasters. The Black Death killed a much higher percentage of the European populace than either WW1 or 2....yet nobody lost faith in God. Likewise several horrific wars were fought for religious reasons. Read up on the 30 years war and you will realize just how horrible these were....yet religious fervor did not decline.

So why the decline in religion now? It's easy: Socialism.

Many of the European Gov't's are socialist in characteristic, and the populace have come to rely on them very much. In effect, the gov't has replaced religion in providing some of the psychologically fulfilling aspects of life.

Did not Marx say that "Religion is the opiate of the masses". The socialist state replaced this "drug"...but only with a new one.

In the US however, people do not rely on the gov't for much...increasingly less and less under Bushie. The gov't is a mother. Yes. Everyone needs a mother, but when she starts meddling in the daily affairs of her adult children she becomes a major pain in the ass. Distrust of the gov't runs very deep in America. Please note all the anti-this, anti-that posts on NS.

So, religions role in society has not been usurped by the gov't to the degree that it has in Europe. As somebody said in an earlier post, it does say "In God We Trust" on our money. Presumably because trusting the Gov't is a dubious business at best.

Actually no. If you have spent time at TO you would know that if you posted something bogus, you would get ripped to shreads. You may think the evil commie liberal god hating evolutionists only pick on Christians but they are rather nasty towards each other as well. It's called Peer Review.

For everthing you suggest, there will be a 100 people screaming "What crap! Where did you get your degree? *insert hated school*?

TO polices itself rather well.

However, how many creationists/IDers accept everything from one of their own without arguement?

Without argument? None. There is peer review at all the creationist/ID websites and organizations as well.

For example, my favorite new cosmology as proposed by Dr. Russell Humphreys in his book Starlight and Time has been attacked by Christian/creationist scientists as well as secular scientists.

Several times in this thread it has been postulated that Europeans are not very religious because of the horros of WW1 and WW2.

I think this is off the mark. Let's face it, Europe is not stranger to horrific wars and disasters. The Black Death killed a much higher percentage of the European populace than either WW1 or 2....yet nobody lost faith in God. Likewise several horrific wars were fought for religious reasons. Read up on the 30 years war and you will realize just how horrible these were....yet religious fervor did not decline.

So why the decline in religion now? It's easy: Socialism.

Many of the European Gov't's are socialist in characteristic, and the populace have come to rely on them very much. In effect, the gov't has replaced religion in providing some of the psychologically fulfilling aspects of life.

Did not Marx say that "Religion is the opiate of the masses". The socialist state replaced this "drug"...but only with a new one.

In the US however, people do not rely on the gov't for much...increasingly less and less under Bushie. The gov't is a mother. Yes. Everyone needs a mother, but when she starts meddling in the daily affairs of her adult children she becomes a major pain in the ass. Distrust of the gov't runs very deep in America. Please note all the anti-this, anti-that posts on NS.

So, religions role in society has not been usurped by the gov't to the degree that it has in Europe. As somebody said in an earlier post, it does say "In God We Trust" on our money. Presumably because trusting the Gov't is a dubious business at best.

*lol

It's been a long time since you've been to Europe, hasn't it, if you think that belief in government has replaced belief in god.
Most Europeans are incredibly tired of politics, the general attitude in the population is distrust towards politicians and general disinterest in anything but the most pressing political affairs. The majority can't even be arsed to go and vote every 4 years any more, being of the opinion that teir life won't change at all really, regardless of what party holds power.

You might do well reading up on Immanuel Kant, though, if you want to understand Europe's general attitude to religion.

Yes, WW I and II have a lot to do with it, but not in the way you seem to understand it. In the course of the 20th century, the lesson most Europeans learned (and passed on to their children) is one of self-reliance and a very, very healthy mistrust towards authority and ready-made world views and ideaologies of any kind. They simply applied lessons learned from Prussian militarism, National Socialism, Socialism and Communism to religion as well.

In the US, this is taken quite seriously. The gov't can compel you to do many things. They can even conscript you into the army to go and fight and die. HOWEVER, if your religion has a well known history of pacificist philosophy YOU CANNOT BE MADE TO SERVE IN THE MILITARY. Therefore, Amish, Quakers and certain Buddhist sects are exempt. The key here is that it has to be a HISTORY of this behavior.


Well, in Germany at least that even goes one step further. They have compulsory military service for young men. You have, however, the option to refuse to serve because your conscience won't allow it. All you have to do is write a refusal, and you might face an interview on your statements (I never heard of anybody being denied, though), and you can then go on spending the time you'd have to be in the military working in a social institution of your choosing (one of my brothers worked in a workshop with mentally handicaped people, my othe brother worked in a retirement home).

You don't need to be member of any religious group or sect to claim this right, although I think priests, rabbis and people in similar professions are more or less automatically granted the right.

It's been a long time since you've been to Europe, hasn't it, if you think that belief in government has replaced belief in god.

Actually, I work for a European company and travel to Europe regularly on business. I am on the phone daily with my European colleages.

I do tend to think socialism has a lot to do with it, but we will just have to agree to disagree on that.


Well, in Germany at least that even goes one step further. They have compulsory military service for young men. You have, however, the option to refuse to serve because your conscience won't allow it.

Yes. I know. The difference is that in the US the military is a voluntary institution MOST of the time. In times of extreme duress of course there is conscription. And extraordinary times will require extraordinary explanations.;)

BTW: Why "Cabra West"? Are we talking Irish songs or Porn? Both?

:confused:

BTW: Why "Cabra West"? Are we talking Irish songs or Porn? Both?

:confused:

German living in Ireland at the moment, the rest is up for interpretation ;)

I wouldn't call European state and government sturcture "socialist", Socialism is far more extreme.
However, in the mind of European citizens, the main objective of a government is the welfare of its citizens. All goverment actions are direct or indirect results of that objective, be that education, defense, public transport, jurisdiction or protection of the environment. A government is put in place by the population to protect said population.

I'm honestly not quite sure what Americans would give as justification for the existence of their government... maybe and excuse for having guns at home, in case it turns tyranical?

I'm honestly not quite sure what Americans would give as justification for the existence of their government... maybe and excuse for having guns at home, in case it turns tyranical?

Got 230 years so I can explain?:D

Basically, the prevailing philosophy lately is the less gov't the better. Ideally, the gov't provides only the services which no individual or business can provide and guarantees the rights of the individual. It's the execution of that philosophy which tends to get mucked up from time to time.

There is a saying..."In democracy we all get the Gov't we deserve." Kinda hard to refute that regardless of where you live.

Socialism is still democratic you retard, When I mean Socialism I mean leftist not undemocratic. For example, a big example, Swedan is very socialist, high taxes, not very religious at this time and place.
On the other hand, Britain has low taxes yet it is just as secular as Sweden.

Back to topic, I think that World War 2 may, indeed hold the key to reason Americans are more religious. After the War, Europe was rebuilding. The Americans, with nothing to rebuild set about returing to social normality. Conservatism swept over the nation, including a renewed focus on religion. During the more liberal 60s and 70s, a religious base maintained itself.
Good post. This sounds plausible.

Quite simple. Most human beings require a crutch in order to rationalize life. In many USians cases, that crutch is religion. In the case of many europeans that is the government and the glory of europe.
This isn't true? Are you seriously suggesting that to non-religious Europeans, the government is an equivalent to religion? The glory of Europe? Last I checked, Americans are the more nationalistic people in general than Europeans.

Second of all, everyone, on the average, are complete morons. Europeans come off as little smarter than Americans because they listen to people who say smarter things, whereas Americans listen to George Bush, Sean Hannity, and Jesse Jackson. This is probably because our political system allows politicians to get elected by saying really stupid things, whereas Europe's political system requires a little more sophistication for politicians to get by.
Yes, in America there is definitely less media criticism of politicians than there is in Europe. It's like the media is afraid to question the government at times. This is due to the fact the the American people are less willing to question the government than Europeans.

For example, the French laws banning wearing crucifixes, beeines, head scarfs or other religious apparel. In the US, this would not only consititute an assault on freedom of religion, but also on freedom of expression.

How Europeans go along with this crap, baffles me.

It's because we want to show the Muslim extremist segment of the population that we don't want to accept their authoritarian tendencies. I don't think that it goes far enough.

Several times in this thread it has been postulated that Europeans are not very religious because of the horros of WW1 and WW2.

I think this is off the mark. Let's face it, Europe is not stranger to horrific wars and disasters. The Black Death killed a much higher percentage of the European populace than either WW1 or 2....yet nobody lost faith in God. Likewise several horrific wars were fought for religious reasons. Read up on the 30 years war and you will realize just how horrible these were....yet religious fervor did not decline.

So why the decline in religion now? It's easy: Socialism.

Many of the European Gov't's are socialist in characteristic, and the populace have come to rely on them very much. In effect, the gov't has replaced religion in providing some of the psychologically fulfilling aspects of life.
Actually I would say it is due to science and rationalism. People in Europe in the Middle Ages had no science or rational philosophy to fall back on if they found themselves doubting faith. However we did in the 19th and 20th centuries. The wars just accelerated the inevitable, I think.

It's got nothing to do with socialism. The government does not fulfil psychological needs. Also, many of the social reforms that were introduced by European governments were also introduced by the American government, the big exception being natonal health care.

In the US however, people do not rely on the gov't for much...increasingly less and less under Bushie.
What? Bush hasn't made the US Government any smaller.

Got 230 years so I can explain?:D

Basically, the prevailing philosophy lately is the less gov't the better. Ideally, the gov't provides only the services which no individual or business can provide and guarantees the rights of the individual. It's the execution of that philosophy which tends to get mucked up from time to time.

There is a saying..."In democracy we all get the Gov't we deserve." Kinda hard to refute that regardless of where you live.

So, basically Americans view the government as an undesireable necessity to be avoided where possible, whereas Europeans regard theirs as a luxury for all, getting paid for taking care of things they don't want to take care of themselves?

Basically, the prevailing philosophy lately is the less gov't the better.
No it's not. I have not seen the Libertarian Party winning many elections, have you? Also, support for the Iraq War (a notably large government operation) is higher in the USA than anywhere in Europe.

BTW: Why "Cabra West"? Are we talking Irish songs or Porn? Both?
Cabra West is an area of Dublin where this user presumably lives.

BTW: Why "Cabra West"? Are we talking Irish songs or Porn? Both?

:confused:

Come to think of it... why do you ask? Is there anything about my name that I should worry about? Why porn?

I'd say because of the world wars and the general unrenforcment of views. In WW1 a lot of people came back not baliving in god, people had seen what 'Humans' could do to each other, that humans could kill millions. Someone mentioned the black death and how Europians had suffered horribally there, back then nobody knew how desisise was spread, they thought it was god doing this to them as a punishment. They didn't understand what was going on. With WW1 and WW2 it was a completely understandable man-made desaster created by humans, that wiped out entire generation. For the first time humans had the power to destroy each other.

This tied in with the rise of the left, during the post WW2 period and the lessening of church contol. Many churches closed down altogether. Scientific discoverys alse shed new light on the world and gradually repalced religion in Europe.

In America the full scale of the World Wars wasn't felt, yes Americans died but only a few out of the whole nation compared with the casultys in Europian nations, and the war was far from home. Americans lands wern't ravaged by war as France and Britians where.

I would also say that in britian religion isn't as enforced, most famillies never go to chrurch, for instance I know 1 person my age who goes to church and he's the Vicars son. Many of the very religious people are dying off and the youth of the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's don't care about relgion. And as the parents don't care, neither do the kids.

In America I imagine the landscape is very diffrent, especially in the mdiwesten states. I have no everdence for this other than cartoons and American films, ect, but I imagine most American famillies go to church at least once a week. This renforces religion on there kids, who then balive and so on.

With WW1 and WW2 it was a completely understandable man-made desaster created by humans, that wiped out entire generation. For the first time humans had the power to destroy each other.

As stated before, I am not following this logic. WW1 & 2 were completely man made...so how does this diminish one's belief in God? If anything it reinforces it. "There are no atheists in foxholes."


In America the full scale of the World Wars wasn't felt, yes Americans died but only a few out of the whole nation compared with the casultys in Europian nations, and the war was far from home. Americans lands wern't ravaged by war as France and Britians where.

True...true...but I am uncertain of the cause and effect in this equation.

As state before...WW1 and 2 were not the first massive catastrophe to be seen or even the the first high casualty war. Consider the US Civil War. The most often quoted casualty number is 620,000. This does not seem like much in comparison to WW2. But then. consider the population of the US in 1865 was only 31 million. ALL casualties were American of course. Almost all young men. Naturally the southern states were laid waste as part of Grant and Sherman's philosophy of total warfare, which supplanted the older philosophy of Napoleonic maneuver. Unfortunately, these lessons would be learned again in 1914

Naturally the Napoleonic wars themselves were also far ranging and had large casualty numbers. But these are somewhat muted as they represent a smaller portion of the entire population of combatants.

The point is that neither of these conflicts seem to have resulted in a diminishment of faith in God.

BTW: I am not trying to say that losing a whole generation of men during WW1 and anhillating another 59 million only 20 years later won't have huge sociological effects....it will. I'm just not so sure it would diminish one's belief in God.


In America I imagine the landscape is very different, especially in the mdiwesten states. I have no everdence for this other than cartoons and American films, ect, but I imagine most American famillies go to church at least once a week. This renforces religion on there kids, who then balive and so on.

A fair assessment....although most American's DON'T go to church every Sunday. Still, church attendance is probably better than in Europe.

You're missing the point in the references to WW I and II (both sides, actually).

I don't doubt that they seriously contributed to the rise of agnosticism in Europe (not necessarily atheism as in denying god, but rather complete indifference), but not due to the devestation and the number of deaths.
Rather, Europe emerged from those wars with a deeply rooted serious distrust to any form of ideology and mass movement and with an enhanced sensitivity to personal justification and a moral based on individual conscience. Hiding behind the idea of commands or commandments became highly suspicous, Europeans made some very bad experiences with it, and all ideology and religion turned from emotionalised mass-movement to a matter of personal choice and private decision.

I don't think that more Americans than Europeans are religious. But in Europe it has become bad manners to emotionally declare ones religious feelings without having been asked about them (and even when asked, it is expected to keep the conversation on a rational level). To do so will be met with deeply embarrased silence ...

First, let me say...

F*****************CK, I hate the lack of automatically embedded quotes!

Ahem.

BTW: Advocating "Atheism" or advocating "all religion" are not the only options.
I didn't say they were.
Actually, the way I read it, you did. Maybe I have misunderstood. Please clarify.
First, I never said advocating atheism, and second, regardless of whatever you see #1 as advocating, I said, "As I see it, there are two basic policy options:". I didn't say they were the only two options, period. My intention was to be as inclusive as possible (hence "basic," allowing for variations - compare "advocating nothing" with "not advocating" - or is that where you would like to move the debate, that one is not the other?).

As stated before, I am not following this logic. WW1 & 2 were completely man made...so how does this diminish one's belief in God? If anything it reinforces it. "There are no atheists in foxholes."
Actually that quote is quite bullshit. I read a piece a while back by an atheist world war two veteran. He was atheist back then and atheist when he wrote the piece.

I'm not saying that atheism is on the rise in Europe due to the world wars, but to say that wars make people more religious is stupid.

It's because Americans are (as a rule) more poorly educated and less informed than Europeans. Xenophobia may be a factor as well.
Why this has taken 14 pages is beyond me.

Please explain why.



This is untrue. THEY ARE EXPRESSLY BANNING RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS. Here is a quote from the CNN article:

In an address to the nation, Chirac said: "I feel that wearing any kind of symbol that ostensibly shows faith, I feel that that is something that should not be allowed in schools and colleges.

BTW: This applies to hospital workers too.



No. Civil rights are only extended as long as they do not interfere with the rights of others. Clearly this would affect the rights of others.

In the US, this is taken quite seriously. The gov't can compel you to do many things. They can even conscript you into the army to go and fight and die. HOWEVER, if your religion has a well known history of pacificist philosophy YOU CANNOT BE MADE TO SERVE IN THE MILITARY. Therefore, Amish, Quakers and certain Buddhist sects are exempt. The key here is that it has to be a HISTORY of this behavior.

In the case of wearing religious clothes to school, there certainly is a WELL DEFINED HISTORY of Sihks, Hassidic Jews, Muslims and Hindus wearing certain articles of clothing as prescribed by their religion. If the gov't were to suddenly ban these articles, I'm certain the courts could overturn it based on unconstitutionality.



Sorry. but this doesn't work. School 1's dress code is defined by the gov't.(Like in France, right?)
Whereas school 2's dress code is defined by the parents and/or rival girls at the school as "Any" clothing is allowed. It would strictly be between the little Muslim girl and her parents as the gov't never figures into this example.

I concur with you whole-heartedly that the UK approach of compromise between the school and the student/parents is a reasonable one. It need never involve the gov't and it is a settlement that can be handled on an individual basis if needed.

I'm going to have to apologise and backtrack on my original post. I was basing my support on the fact that in the UK schools have uniforms and religous symbols shouldn't be allowed to breach that; I completely forgot that French schools don't have uniforms so my points were irrelevant and there is no justification for banning religous symbology in French schools.

Sorry for wasting your time.:)

The rest of your post aside,
Where you may have something is the fact that Americans tend to be more socially conservative than their European counterparts. American government has roots in anti-authority where the majority of Europe is the opposite. Not 'socially retarded' mind you.

Why do you equate social conservatism to anti-authority? (Or have I misunderstood you?) How would you define each? What kind of exposure have you given yourself to ideas not to be found in the American political spectrum? And by "the opposite" of "anti-authority" "roots," do you mean Europe's history of monarchy?

In America I imagine the landscape is very diffrent,
Locally, it depends on where you are, but overall, I would say it's different, but not "very" different.

especially in the mdiwesten states.
Why in the midwest especially? The aptly named "Bible Belt," and I would think the South in general more so than elsewhere, yes...

I imagine most American famillies go to church at least once a week.
Once a week or more? Try less than half. Occaisonally? A lot more.

This renforces religion on there kids, who then balive and so on.
Agreed.

Several times in this thread it has been postulated that Europeans are not very religious because of the horros of WW1 and WW2.

I think this is off the mark. Let's face it, Europe is not stranger to horrific wars and disasters. The Black Death killed a much higher percentage of the European populace than either WW1 or 2....yet nobody lost faith in God. Likewise several horrific wars were fought for religious reasons. Read up on the 30 years war and you will realize just how horrible these were....yet religious fervor did not decline.
These wars were decidedly different. And the Plague was presented as a punishment by god for the number of heathens that were said to live among the population.
WWI however was different. It was said explicitly, by governments and churches on all sides alike that "God is on our side!". And instead you had mechanised killing. Religion did not help people through that time, so people gave up on it.
And again, in many places in Europe, religion plays a major role still. Ever been to Southern Italy?

So why the decline in religion now? It's easy: Socialism.
So, how long do you think it takes until McCarthyism finally dies out?

Basically, the prevailing philosophy lately is the less gov't the better.
Empirically denied. Like Eruantalon said, if that were true, then the "Libertarian" Party would be holding the majority of offices. The majority of elected Republicans and most conservatives don't seem to have a problem with mucking around in people's personal lives, either.

Ideally, the gov't provides only the services which no individual or business can provide and guarantees the rights of the individual.
See what Eruntalon said about the first half, and since the 1950's at least, the federal government has done a shaky job in a lot of areas of individual rights.

So, how long do you think it takes until McCarthyism finally dies out?
Nothing short of nuclear winter. :(

Empirically denied. Like Eruantalon said, if that were true, then the "Libertarian" Party would be holding the majority of offices. The majority of elected Republicans and most conservatives don't seem to have a problem with mucking around in people's personal lives, either.

Not really, because that assumes a political system that could handle the emergence of a third major party; a system which America does not have. The system right now if one particular idea gains widespread acceptance, it is simply incorporated into the larger ideological view of one of the two main parties. This is a fairly common occurance throughout American history: the Anti-Masonic Party and Populist parties with their narrow but popular agendas among the poor, rural, and Western voters were incorporated into the larger Democratic party apparatus, while the Dixiecrats with their sectional power were incorporated into the Republican party.

The libertarian ideology is simply one more example: some elements of it mesh reasonably well with the older Burkian conservative tradition (both wings oppose expansion of welfare, for instance, albeit for different reasons), so it was largely incorporated into the larger Republican platform. Republicanism, with the libertarian wing of the party forming a minority but powerful intellectual base, is currently ascendent, and the President at the very least pays lip service to the notion of libertarian ideals (and to be fair, while spending has gone up, most of it has been in military and aid to business at the expense of social services, so he is sorta libertarian in practice as well). Most libertarians vote Republican simply because that's the party that gets them closest to what they want: if they split the vote between Libertarian and Republican parties, Dems win, and moreover a lot of voters are not nearly as far out as Badnarik-class Libertarians.

-snip-
Which of course doesn't cover why the various European Libertarian Parties aren't triumphing all the time.
Fact of the matter is that when you ask normal people what libertarianism is, they don't know or don't care.
If you tell them what they stand for, some will agree with some ideas, but most won't agree with all of them.
The majority of people realise that paying taxes is a necessity for facilitiating coexistence. The majority of people also think that welfare of one form or another is justified, if only for their own self-interest (firstly because they would be eligible themselves if needed, and secondly because poor people without welfare = criminals in the making).
You can blame the political system all you want - but people don't like major change, and major, radical change is what libertarians advocate.

Which of course doesn't cover why the various European Libertarian Parties aren't triumphing all the time.
Fact of the matter is that when you ask normal people what libertarianism is, they don't know or don't care.
If you tell them what they stand for, some will agree with some ideas, but most won't agree with all of them.
The majority of people realise that paying taxes is a necessity for facilitiating coexistence. The majority of people also think that welfare of one form or another is justified, if only for their own self-interest (firstly because they would be eligible themselves if needed, and secondly because poor people without welfare = criminals in the making).
You can blame the political system all you want - but people don't like major change, and major, radical change is what libertarians advocate.

All you say is true, but it misses the (narrow) point of my post. I was simply critiquing the idea that 1) Republicans and Libertarians represent two completely distinct ideological strains 2) that would be effectively represented by the current American political system were Libertarian ideology really all that popular. My post was supposed to answer that 1) Republicans and Libertarians have related strains of thought, especially in practice, even though there are some differences as well, and 2) Libertarians have gained prominance out of all proportion to the vote for the Libertarian political party by aligning themselves with one wing of the Republican party. Moreover, this tactic is consistent with American political history.

My post was never meant to answer why Libertarians don't win in European parliamentary systems (clearly, there are substantive differences between how Europeans view government and how America views government), just to state by inference that they might demonstrate a lot more direct clout were America's legislature a proportional-representation system as well.

I never knew that Americans were more religious than Europeans. Could have something do due with the Puritans that founded the 13 colonies?

I never knew that Americans were more religious than Europeans. Could have something do due with the Puritans that founded the 13 colonies?

Actually, only two were founded by Puritans. Maryland was founded by a Catholic, Rhode Island by a rogue preacher (who believed in crazy ideas like tolerance) while the rest were economically motivated.

I knew about Rodger Williams. Forgot that Massachusetts & Virginia where the big Pilgrim/Puritian hotbeds.

I knew about Rodger Williams. Forgot that Massachusetts & Virginia where the big Pilgrim/Puritian hotbeds.

Ironically enough, the Pilgrims were originally headed for Virginia...

Possbily for the same reason Americans are less technological than Europeans, more socially retarded than Europeans, and more politically corrupt than Europeans. Because we, Americans, on the average, are complete morons. :)

Speak for yourself...

I'm sick of all this comparison with Europe; not all Americans portray the "American" stereotype. I attended a boarding school, in America, with many Europeans, 'other' Americans, and Asian peoples. There were even kids from Africa. Wouldn't you know, the American students were just as intelligent, mischievous, socially adept, technologically versed, and politically aware as the international students. As a proud American, I grow weary of these stereotypes. Now, I do not deny the fact that there certainly exists some 'ramifying' truth to these, but I believe many people hastily accept these stereotypes as true and thereby condemn Americans to a variety of typecasts.

Why is America more religious than Europe? America was founded by religious radicals and persecuted nut bags. That might explain a bit. Regardless, I will vehemently quash any perceived stereotypes about myself, my friends, and those whom I associate with.

Well you probably can trace it to those dumb ass hypocrite Puritans(if you are European, you knew them as the English Seperatists).

Rember a poll is a best guess for the whole. The only people I have heard argue the age of the earth and the dinos are on the Net(the gateway for all mental cases ;) ).

However, you do find many that don't understand that science can't prove or disprove the existence of God.

American education is rather questionable these days.....

The problem with American education is two-fold. First, there is a lack of funding, and it is most ridiculous that education is not a top or near-top priority. The second is that far too much effort and resources are expended in hiring lawyers to fight intelligent design, prevent teachers from wearing crosses (And it's their own damn decision, what the fuck happened to personal liberty and freedom of religion? I would like to e-slap, no, track down and personally pie in the face anyone that believe because a teacher wearing a necklace with a religious symbol is tantamount to the government sponsoring a religion. One major problem with this country, I believe, is that we have far too many lawyers, outrageous lawsuits, and apathetic judges.) or conduct studies about why minority children perform more poorly in certain regards than others.

We ought to use our educational resources more prudently, and not permit covert political schemes and schemers from promoting an agenda through these same means.

The problem with American education is two-fold. First, there is a lack of funding, and it is most ridiculous that education is not a top or near-top priority.



The second is that far too much effort and resources are expended in hiring lawyers to fight intelligent design,


Why is that the schools fault? That is the Christians fault. If they left things alone then the money would not be spent.


prevent teachers from wearing crosses (And it's their own damn decision, what the fuck happened to personal liberty and freedom of religion?

You can wear a cross under your shirt. Nobody is going to stop that.

However, the ones that want to wear it as a badge of honor for all to see are usually the ones who want to preech. You are there to teach an education; not your religion.


I would like to e-slap, no, track down and personally pie in the face anyone that believe because a teacher wearing a necklace with a religious symbol is tantamount to the government sponsoring a religion.


You can try on me if you like.

We had a case of such a gentlemen and guess what he did. Started telling the 4th graders about how wonderful his religion is and would be happy to talk to them about it.

He teaches in a public school and if the state and local goverments allowed it; that is sponsoring a religion.

He was fired after the school had to waste money getting rid of him(he refused to stop). Especially when the Christian version of the ACLU shoved itself into the equation since this poor christian was being so abused.


One major problem with this country, I believe, is that we have far too many lawyers, outrageous lawsuits, and apathetic judges.) or conduct studies about why minority children perform more poorly in certain regards than others.

We ought to use our educational resources more prudently, and not permit covert political schemes and schemers from promoting an agenda through these same means.


Prudent use? That is always an interpretation. I am all for keeping education free of politics but that includes keep Religion and the current views of "morality" out of it.

In a recent poll 45% of Americans believed that if Science and the bible conflict then the Bible is right. Meaning the earth is 6000 years old and Noah dinosaurs were presumably created as bones pre-buried in the ground at the time of creation. In England this argument would not take gain backing from any politician and not that many priests to be honest. The apparent strength of relgion in America baffles me particular amoung the youth. Does anyone know why?

6000 years?

Remember buddy, in the Bible, God never defines a year, and, God never said anything about dinosouars. In the Bible God states that He has not given man infinite wisdom, meaning, there are some things He has not told us. Dinosouars could be one of the things He is not telling us.

The odd part is that Canadians, while being only a stones throw away from the States, are largely secular. Government bases no policies on religion, and a teacher would be fired on the spot for teaching creationism over evolution.

Thank . . . god;) . . . for that

6000 years?

Remember buddy, in the Bible, God never defines a year, and, God never said anything about dinosouars. In the Bible God states that He has not given man infinite wisdom, meaning, there are some things He has not told us. Dinosouars could be one of the things He is not telling us.
I think that was calculated by simply taking all the generations of people begetting other people, and using their rough ages.
And since we know that the first people started begetting not all that long (a week or two perhaps) after the world was created...it's pretty valid to say that the Bible tells us that the earth is a very young planet indeed.

In a recent poll 45% of Americans believed that if Science and the bible conflict then the Bible is right. Meaning the earth is 6000 years old and Noah dinosaurs were presumably created as bones pre-buried in the ground at the time of creation. In England this argument would not take gain backing from any politician and not that many priests to be honest. The apparent strength of relgion in America baffles me particular amoung the youth. Does anyone know why?

The entire question is flawed. Prima facie, Science and the Bible can never contradict, because science works with the observable and repeatable, or in other words the present and natural processes, whereas the Bible focuses on happenings of the past, and works with a completely different set of assumptions.

Pity, isn't it, that people have zero flair for subtle distinctions.

Size and isolation, resulting in far more conservatives, and re-inforced by poor schooling.
Also religion has a foothold on the inner states (more like a head lock:) )

Europe has constant, close competition.
Europe has several powerhouses, and several second tier contries.
Thus it is more competitive, and Spain or France or another country can not retreat inwards, it has to keep up or get stomped metaphorically speaking.
America does not have that problem, due to ruling the majority of an landmass, it's large amount of power and it's neighbours do not (Canada) or can not (Mexico, South America) compete with it. Therefore areas are free to atrophy in the expansion of thought and ideas, which let's face it, happens especially in the inner states.
Religion and free or scierntific thought are not incompatible, but there is a period of adjustment and conflict. Europe has had their's in the 1600-1900's, America is just starting to now.

I realise that CAnada is of similar, perhaps superior size, but most of it is either in or near the Arctic Circle, and hence not very usuable.

Size and isolation, resulting in far more conservatives, and re-inforced by poor schooling.
Also religion has a foothold on the inner states (more like a head lock:) )

Europe has constant, close competition.
Europe has several powerhouses, and several second tier contries.
Thus it is more competitive, and Spain or France or another country can not retreat inwards, it has to keep up or get stomped metaphorically speaking.
America does not have that problem, due to ruling the majority of an landmass, it's large amount of power and it's neighbours do not (Canada) or can not (Mexico, South America) compete with it. Therefore areas are free to atrophy in the expansion of thought and ideas, which let's face it, happens especially in the inner states.
Religion and free or scierntific thought are not incompatible, but there is a period of adjustment and conflict. Europe has had their's in the 1600-1900's, America is just starting to now.

I realise that CAnada is of similar, perhaps superior size, but most of it is either in or near the Arctic Circle, and hence not very usuable.
Interesting theory, it certainly explains why Canda is more secular than the US.

Science and religion don't have to be mutually exclusive. There was a time when only a certain group of people had the time to carry out experiments-

Vicars.

It's because Americans are (as a rule) more poorly educated and less informed than Europeans. Xenophobia may be a factor as well.
Why this has taken 14 pages is beyond me.
I don't know. I have really religious friends (by that I don't mean right-wing fundamentalists) who own me when it comes to knowledge and intelligence.

As for knowledge, I think that the only field where Europeans decisively beat Americans is in the area of world geography. I don't see much evidence elsewhere. For some reason Europeans seem to have an "intellectual" image in America, which is not the case. Contrary to American belief we don't sit around in groups discussing Sartres and Rousseau.

I don't see what the level of religious belief has to do with xenophobia.

You're on the 5th page when you select 40 posts per page like me :) . It's taken up space because the question is interesting and has no immediately obvious answer. Also, some see it as a chance to bash Europeans and Americans, which is always attractive.

the President at the very least pays lip service to the notion of libertarian ideals (and to be fair, while spending has gone up, most of it has been in military and aid to business at the expense of social services, so he is sorta libertarian in practice as well). Most libertarians vote Republican simply because that's the party that gets them closest to what they want: if they split the vote between Libertarian and Republican parties, Dems win, and moreover a lot of voters are not nearly as far out as Badnarik-class Libertarians.
No no no. The Republicans are no closer to classical liberalism than the Democrats. Libertarians oppose corporate welfare as much as social welfare, and most of them oppose excessive military spending also. For a more detailed discussion of this topic, consult Eichen. Preferably in another thread, too.

Which of course doesn't cover why the various European Libertarian Parties aren't triumphing all the time.
In Europe they usually call themselves Liberal parties and over the past ten years most of them have had a decent amount of success. From observation of this forum and Americans' general rhetoric, Europeans think about politics in a much more pragmatic way than Americans who are more idealistic. Perhaps this pragmatism also accounts for Europe's lack of religious faith.

All you say is true, but it misses the (narrow) point of my post. I was simply critiquing the idea that 1) Republicans and Libertarians represent two completely distinct ideological strains 2) that would be effectively represented by the current American political system were Libertarian ideology really all that popular. My post was supposed to answer that 1) Republicans and Libertarians have related strains of thought, especially in practice, even though there are some differences as well
Many Republicans campaign like Libertarians, I'll give you that, but almost none of them govern like Libertarians.

6000 years?

Remember buddy, in the Bible, God never defines a year, and, God never said anything about dinosouars. In the Bible God states that He has not given man infinite wisdom, meaning, there are some things He has not told us. Dinosouars could be one of the things He is not telling us.
Don't you think God, in all of his infinite wisdom, knew exactly how long a year would be to us 21st century humans?
And, if the years change over the time, why doesn't the bible just get miraculously updated every millenia or so? A God that can move planets and time itself can't do a little editing of his own work every now and then? If there is a God, He needs to either get less lazy or go to a new publisher.

Funny you mention that. I used to have a 4th grade teacher that told me - after I started talking about dinosaurs in social studies (Sachkunde) - that religion and science do not go together and if I blieved in dinosaurs I'd end up in hell. I was 10. 4th grade.

Don't you know the truth? Dinosaurs are a hoax designed to line the pockets of a few conspirators. Think about it. How many billions of dollars have movies involving dinosaurs made? The motive is clearly there. I'm willing to bet you've never even seen a dinosaur, so how can you be so sure they exist? It's a conspiracy, I tell you, a hoax cooked up by a morally bankrupt cabal of reptile-lovers.

Don't you know the truth? Dinosaurs are a hoax designed to line the pockets of a few conspirators. Think about it. How many billions of dollars have movies involving dinosaurs made? The motive is clearly there. I'm willing to bet you've never even seen a dinosaur, so how can you be so sure they exist? It's a conspiracy, I tell you, a hoax cooked up by a morally bankrupt cabal of reptile-lovers.

The Ones in the London natural history museum seem pretty real to be as do the trilobites and stuff you can somtimes buy at the seaside.

In three more generations Europe will be mostly Muslims and the Americans will be predominately Hispanic Catholics. :eek:

But I wonder what would have happened if Judge John E. Jones III was in charge of the curriculum for the public schools when the Big Bang theory was first proposed and brought to the public's attention in both Europe and America nearly a hundred years ago?

After all, the Big Bang theory, which proposes that the universe began with an explosion of super-dense matter creating everything, corresponds suspiciously with the "And God said, let there be light," of Genesis.

Wouldn't the judge have called it "a mere relabeling of creationism"? Perhaps more damning still for the judge would be that the author of the theory, George Lemaitre, was a self admitted Catholic priest! And that the proposal he submitted was discarded and even ridiculed by the established astronomers and astrophysicists of the time, including Einstein himself who believed and advanced a steady-state, or static, model for the Universe.

The Big Bang theory also proposes that the universe is expanding. Expanding into what the judge may have asked? And according to astronomers: "It's not expanding into anything, it is everything." Would the theory have passed Jones' test of "testability"?

In three more generations Europe will be mostly Muslims and the Americans will be predominately Hispanic Catholics. :eek:
Why :eek:?
And besides, Muslims actually make about 14 million of 460 million people in the EU. Considering that population growth of the traditional ethnic groups is not negative in any of these places, and none of the Muslim families I had to do with actually had all that many children, I'm sceptical of that claim.
And besides, a lot will still happen until then. In three generations, perhaps they'll all be assimilated?

Would the theory have passed Jones' test of "testability"?
The big bang is a set of observations, put into a mathematical formula, and then with the t=0 put into it.
It's testable in the way that you can put in the numbers into the models we have regarding physics and chemistry, and you'll get that result.
And besides, there is the background radiation thing, which corresponds pretty well.