Praying for divine help... cos without it we suck balls...
Some people might disagree but allow me to explain; I have indisputable, logical proof that this is the case. Christians are weaker than atheists in every conceivable way. In fact, I’m surprised that evolution hasn’t put an end to such feeble creatures but I see empirical evidence of their continued existence everywhere so I guess they must still be around… they must have help.
As to the proof that Christians are feeble little things, Christians themselves provide most of it themselves, so who am I to argue?
Christians are not more intelligent than atheists. In fact, the evidence shows that the most intelligent people are not Christian; the most intelligent people tend to be atheists. Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein, Bertrand Russel, Richard Feynman and the list goes on (also Mick Jagger… just saying).
Christians are, on average, not more wealthy. Sure, some Christians may be richer, but some atheists may be even richer still (Bill Gates… Mark Zuckerberg…). I think you’ll find that Christians are, on average, less wealthy.
Christians are not better educated than atheists. I think you’ll find that atheists are generally better educated.
Christians don’t live longer than atheists. I think you’ll find that Christians and atheists tend to live equally long.
Christians are not happier than atheists. I don’t think Catholics are even allowed to be happy (but I might be wrong…) and then there’s Jehovah witnesses, not even birthdays or Christmas to lighten things up a little.
So Christians are generally the same or worse than atheists at just about everything. The difference is that Christians need the help of a super being just to be average. They thank this super being for just about everything they achieve or have, implying that they couldn’t have done it without the super being’s help. In fact, I’ve heard Christians say exactly that numerous times: “I couldn’t have done it without the help of my God”.
Atheists don’t have the help of an omnipotent god to help them to achieve things, to cope with things or to get things and yet they tend to be at least the same or sometimes better off than the average religionut who does have the support of a triumvirate of universe inventing super-beings.
The only reasonable conclusion that I can come to is that Christians must be a bunch of feeble wimpy losers then, since they need to be raised to mediocrity by the creator of the universe Himself. How insanely pathetic do you need to be if the power of the creator of the universe gets you… average.
Why do they not find this strange I wonder?
On the other hand……
Christians sometimes hear the atheist rant that they, atheists, don’t need a crutch to get through life. Have you ever heard that rant?
How does that view square with incontinance? With Alzheimers? In his day, Ronald Reagan was arguably the world’s most influential person. Ten years later he didn’t know who he was.
Seems to me the premise that more aptly applied is that of crippled creatures who do indeed need a crutch. Some accept one. Others are too proud or stupid to do so.
A couple of things. I wouldn’t call it a rant for starters. Calmly stating a fact is not a rant.
I have heard atheists (rightly) say that they do not require an imaginary crutch to get through life.
The crutch of religion should not be confused with an actual crutch (or similarly useful device) since the ‘crutch’ offered by religion is an invisible, intangible, non-existent, placebo, which is to say that is not a crutch at all…
But you are correct to point out “crippled creatures who do indeed need a crutch”. I agree, the cripple need a crutch.
So if you claim to have a crutch (Christians claim to have God and religion as a crutch) and you’re average, then presumably you must have been cripple and below average to begin with.
On the other had, the point of the post (as you no doubt understand) is less that anybody is cripple or require a crutch and more along the lines of nobody is cripple and the crutches are imaginary and the proof for this is that everybody gets what they get the same even though some believe they have super natural help.
Thanks for the comment though, it is appreciated (it got caught in my spam filter and I only saw it now).
Your blog subtitle is “furious rants about things” So I assumed what followed was a rant. It didn’t say “furious rants about things and the calm statement of facts”
There are several “I think you’ll finds” in your post. That hardly seems consistent with the calm statement of facts. And I was inclined to dispute your list of Hawking, etc to show that atheists are smarter than Christians….aren’t you cherry picking the data? But then….sure enough….every Chirstian I could think of was substandard mentally. It’s a wonder they could figure how to procreate. You, too, wondered about that,didn’t you? I’m surprised that evolution hasn’t put an end to such feeble creatures but I see empirical evidence of their continued existence everywhere
I’m just playing, of course, laying out a few totally unsupported opinions. But then, that’s just what you did.
But we must not squabble. I’ve just noticed we have llamas in common.
And I’m not sure why this comment would have been caught in the spam filter, but it’s happened before. Do you (seriously) have any idea why that would be? WordPress blogs I hardly even bother to comment on, it happens so frequently.
Another couple of things, I’ll be slow and explicit this time…
What that sentence refers to is not a rant and that sentence was what I referred to when I said a calm statement of fact is not a rant. It is not a rant when an atheist says: “I do not need an imaginary crutch”. I’d go so far as to presume you don’t need an imaginary crutch… but from what I can tell, you seem to think you do. Strangely.
My post can easily be called a rant, though I would have thought the tone was more… amused than angry to be honest.
I didn’t call those statements of fact though… but they are calm statements.
Yes, I was cherry picking the data to make a point. I was however cherry picking from the top, the most intelligent people happen to be atheists and research shows that the more intelligent and more educated a person is the less likely they are to be religious. However, that is not the point of the post either is it?
Neither was the point of the post to show conclusively that Christians are retarded but I guess you pick on that for the sake of argument since you don’t address the actual point.
As I said before, everybody is the same, some of us believe they have supernatural help thus implying that thy must by pretty useless without the help.
Why is it that a personal relationship with the creator of the universe doesn’t actually benefit one in tangible ways? And before you go and say that it does, show me a benefit that you can’t get anywhere else, from another religion or from no religion at all.
Yes, indeed, in line with the purpose of the post.
I saw your llama before I fully understood what your first comment was trying to say. It gave me hope… which didn’t last long… llamas are awesome though, aren’t they?
As to the spam issue, I’m not sure. I don’t see anything in particular that should have caused it to be seen as spam. The only thing I can think is that the Akismet software might have been incorrectly trained that some keywords in the comment denote spam but I’m not sure.
I don’t really know what any of this has to do with weakness or strength. Why do you think that religion exists in the first place? Looking at this from a scientific standpoint, religion must have an evolutionary advantage in order to exist.
Religion is great at encouraging submission to authority, encouraging reproduction (“happy is the man whose quiver is full”), strengthening group cohesion through social events, and, most of all, uniting people around a common cause. That cause could be anything, from helping the poor to annihilating a rival tribe of people.
The reason religion exists in the first place is because it strengthens a group. Atheism/agnosticism/etc. may be good for your intellectual development, and good for science (which is a very, very recent development in the history of homo sapiens), but on a very primal level, religion is stronger.
It has… basically nothing to do with weakness and strength. And, I don’t disagree with most of your comment, as it were… but I’m sure you know that.
Religion hasn’t been around for long enough to confer an evolutionary advantage per se. Group cohesion, reproduction, submission to authority, those traits are beneficial (and confer an evolutionary advantage) but religion is the result of those traits in humans, not the other way around. Those traits exist in other primates and I don’t see them building churches but give them time and they might. These survival traits pre-date religion by millennia.
That said, I do have a question: are you being facetious or did you really not get the point of this post?
I get the humor. Although, subtracting that, you might interpret it simply as saying that Christians are more or less just as “strong” as everyone else.
Religion certainly has evolved, and I’m not sure what you mean when you say it hasn’t been around long enough.
By the way, how do you use the quote box like in your last comment?
Yes, it has evolved (another sure sign that it’s not true).
Organised religion has been around for about 8000 years as far as I know and 8000 years is not really long enough for evolution by natural selection to work in. Artificial selection perhaps.
That’s not the point though. The survival traits in humans that caused us to invent religion and makes us accepting of religion pre-dates religion and even language by a considerable amount. As I said in my previous comment, these traits are present in other animals who obviously don’t have religion.
Religion does not confer an evolutionary advantage, it is a side effect of the traits that do.
(And the block quotes are… just that. Wrap a piece of text in <blockquote> the text here </blockquote> and it will quote it in a block.)
And before you go and say that it does, show me a benefit that you can’t get anywhere else, from another religion or from no religion at all.
Here’s one that comes to mind. I wouldn’t use it, for it is provocative. But you’ve challenged me to produce a “here and now,” practical benefit of, not just having religion, but having my own particular religion. So here goes:
Isaac Asimov (science, science fiction writer and atheist) died of AIDS after receiving a blood transfusion. Google him and “I think you’ll find” it’s so. He would have lived longer had he been of my faith. (my return link this time is to a relevant post)
And that is why Jehovah’s Witnesses are crazies. Well done.
That’s possibly the worst rationalisation of an idiotic belief I have have ever heard, but OK, since you brought it up.
A couple of things:
1. He didn’t because of the blood transfusion; he died because the blood wasn’t properly screened before it was given to him.
2. One screw up does not negate the hundreds of millions of people who survive because of blood transfusions. Hundreds of millions.
3. How long do you think he would have survived without the blood transfusion during surgery? And without the surgery?
4. Your example is like saying you shouldn’t use [insert medical care here] because sometimes things go wrong. And yet you do.
People overdose on medicine all the time, yet you continue to take them. People die in car accidents, yet you drive one. People get murdered by their spouses, yet you have one.
Hypocrite much?
I am reminded of a statement…
Now which proud and stupid imbecile said that I wonder?
Your reason for declining blood transfusions are irrational, stupid, baseless and petty. Your entire religion is the aforementioned but this blood transfusion issue a special kind of ridiculous.
And I find what you do to children is disgusting and despicable and should be classified as child abuse. I have watched little kids being told by their parents they should rather die and they should tell people that, before taking a blood transfusion. I have watched what that does to children and it’s sick and twisted.
I have to commend you on this comment. Seriously. You could have tried come up with something reasonable but instead you pick this epic fuckwittery.
Not accepting blood transfusions is no benefit, it is self imposed idiocy and child abuse and often leads to unnecessary death.
Hypocrite much?
Hypocrite not at all.
You asked for one specific benefit of adhering to the tenets of one specific religion. I gave you one. He would have lived longer had he been a JW. How was I to know the subject would trigger all manner of rants on your end? He died because, as you say, blood wasn’t “properly screened.” Does that mean he didn’t die?
The fact is, slowly but surely, and for their own reasons, not ours, the medical establishment comes around to our way of thinking. Says Gavin Murphy, a cardiac surgeon at the Bristol Heart Institute in the UK: “There is virtually no high-quality study in surgery, or intensive or acute care – outside of when you are bleeding to death – that shows that blood transfusion is beneficial, and many that show it is bad for you:”
Due to the stand of Jehovah’s Witnesses, modern medicine has developed a host of bloodless surgical techniques. By eliminating the risk of foreign tissue, human error, and blood-borne diseases, these new techniques offer a safety margin that conventional blood transfusions do not. Might the day come, or is it here already, when the number of lives saved through such medicine will outnumber those lost by a few members of a relatively tiny religious group that stuck to its principles amidst much opposition?
Now…..a caveat. Was he bleeding death following surgery? In that case, a BT may have been warranted. But, in the U.S. at least, most transfusions (until recently) have consisted of “topping off the tank” after surgery.
Seriously? Your argument then is that if he was a Jehovah’s Witness he would not have died of AIDS… except if he needed the blood, which he might have and so he did die of AIDS. So much fail.
What you gave and then immediately gave up was an example of one person at one time under circumstances that even you agree might have ‘warranted’ a transfusion. Could he have survived the surgery at all without a blood transfusion? I doubt it. If not, then not having the surgery would have killed him faster than the tainted blood did in which case you doubly have no argument what so ever. He dies without the surgery, he dies during the surgery or he dies with the tainted blood a while later.
However…
That is what I actually asked for. Any idiot can refuse a blood transfusion, they don’t need to be a Jehovah’s Witness and more to the point, they don’t need a personal relationship with the creator of the universe, they just need to be… “too proud or stupid to do so”.
Show me the benefit you get from that relationship with the creator of the universe that nobody else can have until they have that personal relationship.
To be brutally honest, if ‘not having blood transfusions’ is the best you can come up with as an example of a benefit from a personal ‘loving’ relationship with the entity who created the universe, why are you even bothering with an argument.
I get more from my personal loving relationship with bacteria.
You’re not much for checking facts, are you? If he was “bleeding to death” following surgery, then he had damn sloppy surgery. “Bleeding to death” is when you’ve been involved in some horrific accident, or you’ve some pre-existing blood-letting condition that surgery was unable to remedy. The bloodless surgical techniques mentioned involve minimizing, or even eliminating blood loss, so that transfusion is unnecessary.
Now, please, don’t just do a knee-jerk scream in replying. Research it a mite. Maybe start here, for example:
http://www.noblood.org/content/
And go easy on the insults. Insults tell me where your head is at, but I don’t consider them a substitute for facts.
Furthermore:
Show me the benefit you get from that relationship with the creator of the universe that nobody else can have until they have that personal relationship.
Rather than change the subject with some unrelated example, I’ll stick with transfusion for the present. Yes, anybody could refuse a transfusion. However, nobody did, until recently. The medical establishment assured everyone that accepting a transfusion was as much a non-event as accepting an aspirin. The New Scientist article contained in my link states: “At first glance it seems astonishing that a technique used so widely for so long could be doing such harm. Yet many surgeons have proved reluctant to submit their methods to systematic study…….[Their] assumptions went untested for the better part of a century” Having no clue that any harm could come, nobody did decline them except Witnesses.
You don’t see any connection between declining transfusions and having a relationship with the Creator? Really? In several places, the Bible speaks of abstaining from blood. One who seeks to cultivate and maintain a relationship with the Creator heeds any such counsel, so as to safeguard that relationship and reap whatever other (unknown at the time) benefits may derive therefrom.
And, as stated, because of Witnesses’ steadfastness on this point, the medical community has been spurred into new research and new practices which benefit far more people than the reletively tiny JW population.
You’re not much for understanding plain, straightforward English are you? Why is this so hard for you to understand?
I can, right now, refuse a blood transfusion. I am an atheist. I do not need a relationship with, or even to acknowledge the existence of the creator of the universe, ergo, it is not a benefit derived from the relationship with the creator of the universe. And that’s going so far as to pretend that it can be called a benefit in the first place.
Are we clear yet?
You don’t need a god’s help to be an idiot, any idiot can without the help of any god refuse a blood transfusion.
Clear now?
I can start a Satanist cult today who refuses blood transfusions for some ridiculous reason similar to your own. Would you call it a benefit of a relationship with the almighty then?
Do you understand?
It is irrelevant, as I’ve explained. Over. And over. He didn’t have to be a Jehovah’s Witness to refuse the blood transfusion and whether or not he would have survived in the 1980′s if he HAD refused the transfusion is irrelevant as you have not shown by any stretch that the ability to refuse a blood transfusion can solely be obtained by having a relationship with the creator of the universe.
Is THAT clear now?
You sure you want to be quoting the Bible to back things up? It also says slavery is OK. Do you have slaves? It says to stone to death disobedient children? Would you? It happily commands genocide. Are you happy with genocide? It commands the enslavement of virgins and the murder of children. Do you? Why DO you pick and choose from the Bible? Confirmation bias much?
And you’re convinced you’ve not misinterpreted what the ‘abstaining from blood’ passages are about? Why hammer on those passages and not the other ones?
Also, the question of “why is this so hard for you to understand” is rhetorical; I know you cannot be reasoned out of what you weren’t reasoned into in the first place. Perhaps one day you’ll spend some time looking at your religious beliefs with the same skepticism you reserve for other religions.
But I’ll tell you what, give this post another bash, more comments are better than fewer.
Has Evolutional Psychology succeeded in tracing the evolution of ill-manners yet?
Why yes, I believe it has. Apparently it’s a natural reaction to the irritation a rational person might experience when observing another otherwise rational person enforcing irrational beliefs upon themselves.
Also, it’s Evolutionary Psychology
Actually, I knew it was “evolutionary,” not “evolutional.” I’ve written on the subject.
http://tinyurl.com/6agl54j
But while writing the word out, I got it crossed with “delusional.”
I read your post and it has a number of errors but it’s not on a subject that interests me.
I won’t dispute your implication that evolutionary psychology might be delusional – I’ve read many posts on evolutionary psychology that seem more like conjecture than science but I don’t have enough experience with the subject to offer a productive opinion.
Ah…… a concession.
To me, an evolutionary psychology assertion is analogous to the religious person saying such and such is true “because the Bible says so.”
Throw me a bone once in a while, and perhaps I’ll throw you one as well. Maybe we have the makings of a discussion, after all.
I do. I’ve made a point of making it obvious every time I agree with you.
Yes, I think that sounds like a good analogy.
You are right stupid christians I see them as being destructive they do not accept anyone and they are low in statue and as for hate male from you weak christens you will not accomplish much like always.