Most Christians in Europe are really damn mellow anyway. Religion is very very private in Europe, so you couldn't tell if someone was an atheist or a devout Christian unless you asked. I read that Voltaire waged a personal war on religion using his writings, and he helped make religion into a private matter in Europe.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-12 5:58
>>12
Voting is also considered a private matter too incidentally.
"Who are you voting for?"
"How dare you ask that?"
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-12 10:01
>>12
Actually if I remember right, Voltaire waged his war on the idea of people not being allowed to discriminate. His writings were based on the idea that peaceful discrimination was key to a happy society. Largely based on observations in how Catholics and Protistins who hated eachother, got along just fine working together in the stock market.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-12 10:13
So most of you think of God as "omnipotent figure lurking above us" apparently.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-12 15:11
I think of god as "powerful instrument to exploit lambs".
P.S.: Europe is waking up, as Atheism increases, or rather, religion decreases.
We're probably all Westerners. That's mostly the western interpretation of god and religion. Spirituality is more eastern.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-12 18:25
I have a question.
How's religion in the States? Are you generally very religious?
As for my viewpoint. God is fiction and i believe 'it' ,to put it simple, could be used to either enslave people or to help people through hard times. As i said i also believe theres more to it than that.
A God that helps through hard times and exists only inside ones own mind and heart, would be my kind of belief, if i was religious. No pope no church, priest, bible whatever... would be good..
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-12 19:06
>>18 How's religion in the States? Are you generally very religious?
Unfortunately, there are many puritans there. According to a survey, half of the people in the south believed the Tsunami was an act of god. They are holier than thou.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-12 19:54
>>19
I see.
You don't have a link or something related to that servey? Thanks in advance.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-12 20:19
>>20
I saw it in Google News Spain, no longer there, but I managed to find another source:
>>15
I find it interesting that if someone presents a point in the favor for the existance of God, people automaticly assume that they believe in God. People never consider the option that they may mearly be trying to understand other's belief in God.
Let me put it this way, I think about 60% of Americans percent believe that Genesis is literal. That's how religious the States are.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-12 21:52
>>19
Maybe they beleived that everything is an act of god. Natural disasters are after all defined by law as "Act of God".
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-15 20:06
Religious people are stupid. They are the crown of creation, ambition fulfilled. They shall also be exiting the gene pool.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-16 1:26
>>25 "They shall also be exiting the gene pool."
You say that. But you gotta admit that they often breed a lot more than aethiests. Just look at the devout Catholic families.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-16 4:19
>>26
Yes, because they're told by their shepherd to fuck without condoms. The church want this to have more lambs, because if parents are willing to do this, they are stupid zealots who will make their children stupid zealots; poverty and ignorance will help too.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-16 6:50
Doesn't change the fact that they've been suckered and this will eventually lead to their downfall.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-16 8:26
how does delusion => unfit? if their delusion makes them more aggressive and ... procreative, wouldn't that mean that they are MORE fit?
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-16 9:04
Notice that Europeans are not reproducing enough to sustain their population. The muslims migrating to Europe however, are. According to doctrine of evolutionary success, muslims are more evolutionarily successful.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-16 10:34
>>29
Religion is organised. Therefore someone is propagating the delusion for fun and profit.
>>30
You presume the plebs are going to survive a mass human crisis. Having more children now only means more of your relatives will die when a crisis happens. The people on the top of the food chain will survive while the masses die. That's my prediction anyway.
I don't think the evolutionary success is necessarily having as many children as possible. I believe that nurturing a few children can produce more successful offspring than producing shitloads of poorly nurtured kids.
Also, as evolution continues there will be positive and negative mutations, so it is safe to say, I believe, that at least 50% of new borns will have all their future ancestors die. I believe it is actually more than 50%. I almost consider all pleb bloodlines wiped out, for if you aren't at the top vying for power, that probably means your ancestors have failed already, and the people with power have secured it sufficiently to prevent plebs from getting it.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-16 12:20
>>31
Power has nothing to do with evolutionary success. Reproductive rate does. That's largely the basis of Natural Selection. Those who reproduce more will yeild a larger percentage of the population. The rest will either die out or become assimilated.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-16 14:45
>>32
A high reproductive rate is only successful in the short term, as I see it, but is doomed for failure in the long term. I think this is why people don't commonly have twins, triplets, etc. when they give birth.
Say you have 2 powerful people who, just as an example only produce 2 children, so we always have 2 powerful people. It's a bad example, but follow me here. Say you have 2 plebs who reproduce as much as possible and after a few generations say have 1000 offspring. Now we have 2 vs 1000, but the numbers for plebs mean nothing if there is a food shortage, because the powerful people ensure their supply while the plebs die.
I guess it's a little stupid to speculate on the future of the human species, because the conclusion you come to depends on your political view of the world. I think the difference between us is that I view the power/blue-bloodness you inherit heavily influences your evolutionary fitness and you don't.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-16 15:00
>>33 "I think the difference between us is that I view the power/blue-bloodness you inherit heavily influences your evolutionary fitness"
I will only go as far as to say that that view is not held by the biology community (the ones who dictate the theory of evolution).
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-16 19:09
That doesn't make them right. As I said, we are arguing politics not biology. Do you happen to know what their argument is?
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-16 19:29
>>35
When did we shift from science to politic? In short, that one who is evolutionarily more successful is one who is more reproductively soccessful. Because more of the next batch of offspring will have sprung from their loins, thereby making their genes more pronounced in the population. Less reproductively successful individuals will not have as many offspring and their genes will slowly die out as a result of inferior genes.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-16 19:53
I don't know if are agreeing or disagreeing here, but my point was that if person A produces 1 offspring after X generations, and B produces 100 offspring in X generations, but then all offspring of person B die and person A's single offspring continues, the fact that B made more offspring in the short term is irrelevent.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-16 20:08
>>37
Except that that does not happen very often. It is the exception rather than the rule.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-17 8:09
I believe it has happened enough to effect human's evolution, and that it will continue in the future, but it is just a guess afterall.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-17 14:29
>>38
The population of humans is growing very fast and once we reach a resource peak (we might never or when we do the social structure might me very different from the current, but anyway) basic resources will get very expensive and only the more prosporous would survive. The more prosporous being the single offspring of parents who have "power/blue-bloodness".