Athiests know more about religion than the religious.

[MikeH]

Maybe God didn't change His mind but in the thousands of years of Old Testament evolution His message had been so mangled by believers that he needed to say "hang on! what's all this bull****! That's not what I said!"

About time to sort out the modern religions really. Be nice to see Jesus Jr kicking some baby raping, gay hating, roman catholic arse.

[MOBIUS]

He could stand on a hill somewhere and fire an omni-directional Hell Ray at every single Catholic priest and church, at precisely the same instant, that would instantly teleport them to all Hell for all the evil they have collectively committed over the past 2,000 years...

THAT would be cool! I'd believe in God then.

[MOBIUS]

Then he could work on all the other religions and say "Who the **** are you lot? All you Jews (I thought I told you you were finished when dad sent Jesus 1.0!), Muslims, Hindus, Scientologists etc are imposters and going straight to Hell after those evil paedos!", and ZAP! They'll all be gone!

Then we wouldn't have to worry about climate change and diminishing resources etc, because the majority of the World's population would be in Hell! In fact would could do a deal with the Devil to use the spare heat from Hell to run CHP and Geothermal Powerstations and have lots of renewable energy - talk about Win Win!

[dannubis]

If you read up on Dante, Hell is freezing over...

[MOBIUS]

Damn! I thought it was such a good idea...

[Caligastia]

Maybe God didn't change His mind but in the thousands of years of Old Testament evolution His message had been so mangled by believers that he needed to say "hang on! what's all this bull****! That's not what I said!"

[Elok]

If you read up on Dante, Hell is freezing over...

Only at the very center.

[Darius871]

Yeah, in the US at least which is why I only stated it for the US. I assume not in eg. China.

It's fairly well documented.

I still utterly fail to understand this cost argument. Am I mistaken in thinking that these added costs are solely the result of an appellate procedure, and that the procedure itself could be changed by the stroke of a pen?

Any random drug dealer, rapist, robber, etc. ordinarily goes through a trial->state appellate court->state supreme court (if discretionary review is granted)->federal district court habeas corpus proceeding (if you can jump through AEDPA hoops and afford a private lawyer for this "civil" proceeding not entitled to a public defender)->federal circuit court of appeal->U.S. Supreme Court (if discretionary review is granted), plus perhaps retrials if there was a blatant enough procedural error or dearth of evidence for a retrial to be granted.

If people sentenced to death went through the same process, it wouldn't cost more than prosecuting any random drug dealer, rapist, robber, etc. If they go through a more convoluted process, then that process is the cause of exorbitant costs and not the death penalty itself. If the justification for the more convoluted process is to be more extra-extra-extra sure of guilt than the heavy (and arguably supra-constitutional) reasonable doubt standard and appeals as of right already ensure, then the bleeding-heart death penalty opponents who insist upon that process are the cause of exorbitant costs and not the death penalty itself; i.e., the death penalty opponents create a problem and then cite that problem as a reason why not to have the death penalty. What am I missing?



(Disclaimer: I'm not even for the death penalty personally. I just think that the cost argument is a ridiculous canard that does death penalty opponents a disservice.)

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

I note that this test only has about 4 out of 15 questions that are founded on biblical content.

[Al B. Sure!]

I note that this test only has about 4 out of 15 questions that are founded on biblical content.

Umm... you do realize that it's not just about Judaism and Christianity, right? Any question about Buddhism or Hinduism is obviously not going to have any biblical basis. The majority of the questions SHOULDN'T have biblical content.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

And this thread's just packed with Hindus and Buddhists, right?

[Al B. Sure!]

What do the religious preferences of Apolyton posters have to do with your comment about the test only having 4 out of 15 questions with a biblical foundation? You noted it as if it was something interesting or unusual. I assumed you meant that the survey results wouldn't be evidence for determination of religious knowledge because many of the questions are not rooted in the foundation of two (and an iffy third) particular religions (ie- the bible), although that is silly to say because the purpose of the survey was not to determine knowledge of Judaism and Christianity alone but of various major religions and religious issues (such as the school prayer issue).

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

I'm impressed. Now make a different assumption and declare it to be silly.

[Elok]

Well, I assumed you were going to actually give us rude estimates of our sexual histories like you promised, you reneging limey SOB! :wiglaf:

[Jon Miller]

The test was ini the US.

JM