The Conservative Bible Project

[Wezil]

A similarity that Wezil shares with the followers of Jim Jones.

JM

He was a christian wasn't he?

[DinoDoc]

DD - I've answered your question.

Not in any meaningful way.

[Wezil]

So I didn't give an answer you accept. I doubt it is possible.

I'd be troubled if I lived in a community of people that believe irrational things for irrational reasons. Their reasoning faculties are impaired. When you live in a democracy and these people can vote on things that affect daily life (Sunday shopping was a terrible battle in this province) I am affected.

[Jon Miller]

I am pretty sure that they thought to stay away from those who were deluded.

It might not be the best example, I don't know much about them. One standard identifier of a cult is a desire not to be with people who beleive differently, due to them being deluded.

JM

[DinoDoc]

So I didn't give an answer you accept. I doubt it is possible.

Answers along the lines of "I think they have cooties" aren't meaningful nor are they the product of a mind that claims to value rationalism in others.

I'd be troubled if I lived in a community of people that believe irrational things for irrational reasons.

Welcome to planet Earth. We hope you come to enjoy your stay better than you have thus far.

When you live in a democracy and these people can vote on things that affect daily life (Sunday shopping was a terrible battle in this province) I am affected.

Is it the intersection between religion and government that troubles you or is it the mere existance of Christianity that troubles you? One is rationally definsible and the other isn't. I'd be interested in hearing your choice.

[Wezil]

Is it the intersection between religion and government that troubles you or is it the mere existance of Christianity that troubles you? One is rationally definsible and the other isn't. I'd be interested in hearing your choice.

Good question. The former more than the latter.

Nutbars determining public policy is certainly troubling and to address your earlier point, it does affect me. If there was no effect on policy it would be easier to endure but still troubling. In that case it's more of a head shaker.

Unfortunately, religious groups do affect public policy.

Btw, You guys seem to be under the mistaken belief that I am after christianity. For the record I lump most all organised religion into the same loony bin. Some are just stranger than others.

[onodera]

Note that a majority of the high numbers that are claimed to be atheist come from old communist nations statistics which have been proven wrong when they allowed their populace freedom of conscience. So it is expected that reported numbers of atheists in the last decade are actually lower than reported statistics from 40 years ago.

There was a small upsurge of religiosity in the Eastern bloc in the early nineties, but it was tainted by New Age and semi-paganistic bull****, because people started to believe in literally everything they could. The percentage of atheists has stabilized since then. Also, many people who report themselves as Christians are only culturally Christian, but are practically non-religious. I used to say such people should be asked to recite the Nicene Creed to prove they are Christians, but now I think even Ten Commandments will do.

[David Floyd]

Obviously religion is growing in the world. But as has been pointed out, it is growing in nations where the population is substantively growing, ie, Third World countries.

That sort of makes one wonder about the Biblical command to "go forth and multiply", as well as BK's repeated defenses of the Catholic Church's anti-contraception guidelines, as well as why almost all religions are against modern family planning. Large population growth tends to make everyone poorer, while sustainable population growth and negative population growth tends to increase wealth and prosperity.

Poor people and uneducated people tend to be religious, and while rich educated people may be religious, they are almost never as zealous or fanatical as the poor, uneducated masses, both in the West and Third World.

Correlation? I think so.

[Ben Kenobi]

That sort of makes one wonder about the Biblical command to "go forth and multiply", as well as BK's repeated defenses of the Catholic Church's anti-contraception guidelines, as well as why almost all religions are against modern family planning.

WRT Christianity only the Catholic church is against them. Everyone else has swum with the tide.

Large population growth tends to make everyone poorer, while sustainable population growth and negative population growth tends to increase wealth and prosperity.

Actually, I refer to the phenomenon as, "eating your seed corn". If you go from large families to small ones, what tends to happen is you get a temporary increase, as the large growth in population works it's way through.

What happens afterwards is interesting. Do you consider Russia the true model of economic wealth and prosperity? They exhibit the largest population drop, as they have already gone through the demographic transition, and experience year after year population declines.

'Sustainable' growth is unsustainable. Population collapse is going to lead to infrastructure collapses, as we are starting to see in some parts of Europe, particularly rural areas.

Poor people and uneducated people tend to be religious, and while rich educated people may be religious, they are almost never as zealous or fanatical as the poor, uneducated masses, both in the West and Third World.

Well part of it has to do with density in population. Look at where the Industrial revolution took off, England and then later in the Netherlands, both areas with high populations compressed into a small area. The principle here is division of labour. If we have a high population, you can divide the labour more efficiently. The fewer people, the more each person has to take on, notwithstanding any increase in efficiency.

[David Floyd]

You're missing the forest for the trees, BK. Examine world-wide population growth rates vs. world-wide GDP and per capita income. Then correlate that against the areas in which religion is expanding.

I think you'll see some convergence in your data points.

[Ben Kenobi]

You're missing the forest for the trees, BK. Examine world-wide population growth rates vs. world-wide GDP and per capita income. Then correlate that against the areas in which religion is expanding.

Yes, I'm referring to this phenomenon as the 'seed corn effect'. You have higher productivity for about 40 years or so, and then productivity drops. We saw it in Russia, we are seeing it in Japan, and we'll see it in China and Europe soon enough.

I think you'll see some convergence in your data points.

Oh, the convergence is obvious. I have seen it and I acknowledge it. If you aren't having kids, you'll experience a growth in per-capita income. WRT to total wealth, Europe is holding court and swimming water. So far the growth of total wealth (not per-capita), is about the same, despite declining share of the population in europe, while the growth in population is accompanied by an increase in income in the third world.

[MrFun]

I agree. You actually took something from that site seriously?

If conservapedia was meant to be a parody site, then you would have a point here.

[Elok]

AFAICT your average survey shows that, in America at least, most non-churchgoers are "spiritual but not religious." IE, they've gotten fed up with organized religion, but still have some nebulous sense of deity. The moment they find a religion that appeals to them, or an existing religion finds a way to reach them, they'll probably be back in the pews. Don't know about Europe.

[Dr Strangelove]

I don't think I've ever seen the word "comrade" or "volunteer" in any version of the Bible. Furthermore I haven't seen an attempt to unisex the Bible in over 30 years.

[dannubis]

FWIW, I totally reject the premise that these folks are in any way entitled to interpret scripture. This is a basic liberal school of thought that you can rewrite the bible to suit your own desires, and have it be more accurate.

I agree with them that liberals are just as bad when they rewrite the bible to suit their own prejudices, which is why we should use older bibles, that aren't afflicted in this way.

Good luck in finding the old bibles that weren't tailored to suit the needs of the roman church... And to be fully clear I am talking about pre-Nicaea here.

Besides, according to the latest view, God didn't create earth and sky, he separated them making further life possible. Any comments ? Or is this liberal bias again ?