Twitter account

Right, new plan: I won't post news stories up here any more, I'll actually post the links on my new Twitter Account! (Sure hope that link works for yas...)

So if you want updates from different news sources: Clickedy-clack that "follow"-button!

News stories and stuff, 19.9.2012

The first story is about how Feathered Dinosaurs Drive Creationists Crazy.

This is a really nice article, describing in quite some detail why Creationists want to latch on to the outdated notion of non-feathery dinosaurs. And let's be clear about this: Some dinosaurs did have feathers. They are either the direct ancestors or close cousins of modern birds. Birds ARE dinosaurs.

This quote sums up the article quite nicely:

If we can be humble enough to approach the fossilized dinosaur remains with questions, rather than prepackaged dogma, we’ll be better able to understand why we’re here at all.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The next story is about the recent/ongoing violence from some fundamentalist Muslims. (I call them "offended Muslims".) Sam Harris wrote an excellent piece on the issue: On the Freedom to Offend an Imaginary God

I've also written something here, which I think sums up the whole issue.

Here's the gist:

By the way, this has yet to be posted. It proves what Aron said about the evolution/creation debate: We're not using the same terminology.
For example, when an offended Muslim (meaning the ones who riot, as opposed to the majority who don't) says the following: (Quote from the NY Times article)
“We don’t think that depictions of the prophets are freedom of expression. We think it is an offense against our rights,” ... “The West has to understand the ideology of the people.”
they don't use the same "rights"-definition as we do.
To use that particular example:
Personal rights are usually (roughly) defined as "anything I can do without harming you". Combined with "Freedom Of Speech" it means that I can say negative things against you (with exceptions such as slander, etc.) and that wouldn't be a violation of your "right".
In their view, a "right" is "believing anything and everything without it being subjected to criticism".
I'm sure we all agree those two "definitions" are quite different.
I don't agree that you should have the right to get offended at something like that. I think what one SHOULD get offended at is honour killings, killing people for being a member of the Country in which an offence against your loony beliefs took place, the Inquisition, circumcision and the (almost systematic) abuse of small children.
Funny enough, the very people who talk about having their rights protected don't seem to care about the rights of others.
As both I and Hytegia pointed out though, there are those who don't take that view and disagree with the offended Muslims. They're the vast majority, but the problem is that they're not as vocal. Or maybe... just maybe, our press relishes the conflict. DogmasDemise, is it entirely possible that your experience of the protests, protesters and of Muslims in general is formed by the press only? Because mine isn't. I routinely frequent Muslim countries and I can, with some confidence, say that my opinion is a more objective one. What I'm saying is: Your opinion was made by others.

In any case, the article mentions one other thing and it is something I want to address:
"... the Muslim Brotherhood, declared that “the West” had imposed laws against “those who deny or express dissident views on the Holocaust or question the number of Jews killed by Hitler, a topic which is purely historical, not a sacred doctrine.”"
First, one needs to point out, as was mentioned in the article, that the US don't have that ban.
Second: Yes, that's precisely the point. Well, the words are the wrong way round, it should be "scientific history" and "merely doctrine". The difference between the two is that one can be absolutely proven to have taken place, while you can't say, with any certainty at least, anything about the other, aka your religion. That's why it's called "faith" and not "knowledge". (At least, that's the difference I see.)
There's another difference, though: The historical fact of the holocaust cost people their lives, 6 million in fact. That's not something one can or should trivialize.
Your belief though, whether it be true or not, does not play in the same category, in fact it can never. I'm trying to organize my thoughts on how to express this, but it seems that the English language is inadequate to express what I want to say. I shall try again soon.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another story is Carl Zimmer's condensed version of the E. Coli long-time study. Read it, it's so worth it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The next article is one exploring Nuclear Fusion Reactor "ITER". I'll give my views on the issue in a LoR post, but basically Fusion is a distant objective and we need to get there, but in the mean time we need other means of producing clean energy. In other words: Fission.

News stories 5.9.2012

Yesterday I talked about two things that I'll talk about again: The circumcision issue and whether or not organic or bio products are good for you.

FAZ: Öko-Debatte im Bioladen -> Ecological debate in Bio-stores
This is basically the same story as the Guardian's yesterday, so I won't have to repeat myself. I did however manage to find the actual paper the stories are based on:
Crystal Smith-Spangler, Margaret L. Brandeau, Grace E. Hunter, J. Clay Bavinger, Maren Pearson, Paul J. Eschbach, Vandana Sundaram, Hau Liu, Patricia Schirmer, Christopher Stave, Ingram Olkin, Dena M. Bravata; Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives?A Systematic Review. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2012 Sep;157(5):348-366.

This is only the short version by the way, the whole article is only for people who have money, which I don't. It shows one thing I didn't see in the Guardian story, so here it is:

Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Again, not surprising. I'm still buying organic food if I can.

FAZ: Berlin stellt Beschneidungen straffrei -> Berlin allows circumcision

... with certain rules. Only certified doctors can do it, it has to be in a sterile environment, etc. That's a huge improvement over what was done before, but it's still mutilation. Westerwelle (German Minister of Foreign Affairs) wants to "preserve Jewish and Muslim traditions".

To which I say: No, fuck em! It's not tradition, it's mutilation.

Breakthrough study overturns theory of 'junk DNA' in genome

There's an excellent video that explains DNA, watch it then come back. Don't read the comments though, they're quite stupid. Or actually, DO read them and try to figure out just WHY they're stupid.

Done? Good.
Now I'm not sure about you, but this seems like slightly out-dated news to me. We already knew that non-coding DNA had something to do with the regulation of gene expression. We're just finding out that it plays a bigger part than we thought.

Now I'm going to wait until one of two things happens:
1) An expert in the field blogs/talks about it and I find out I've been wrong.
2) I get my hands on the actual research.

I couldn't find the actual research yet and Encode seem to have published their last paper in 2011, so it's unlikely that the article is referring to that...

Blog-newsreel and plans

A few days ago, some people from the LeagueOfReason came together and discussed a potential new format for LoR-blogging and videos and the like. We'll see how that develops, but in the mean time I thought I'd start blogging again myself.

My new content will be mainly about news stories, on the topics of science, morality, economics and politics. That's a lot to cover, so I'll only take stories that interest me and I'll pretty much focus on Europe and German-speaking countries.

So without much ado, here's the first story:
Guardian - Organic food no better for you, suggests US study

The whole thing is basically the summary of a study (when, which one?) that suggests the above. To be honest, I'm not terribly shocked. Why would organic food have more nutrients than "normal" food? With the amount of fertilizing being done, I actually wouldn't have been surprised if it turned out that organic food actually has less nutrients in it.

Impact of this story on my life? 0%. None. Nada.
I'll still buy organic foods as much as possible for two reasons:
1) It's better for the environment and, if we're talking about meat, it's also better for the animals.
2) In most cases, organic food is also local food. Not importing food from far away means that a) the farmers from lower economically developed countries (LEDC's) actually have a shot at subsistence economy and b) you need less fuel to bring it to your plate, thus lowering the total CO2 output.

And if those are not enough reasons for you to buy organic food, except of course if you really can't afford it, then you're a twat. Simple as that.

The second story comes from the fabulous and extremely well researched "Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung". (FAZ) Yeah I know, German. In fact, many of my stories will come from that newspaper. I'll give you the gist:
FAZ - Wissenschaftler als Arbeitstiere -> Are scientists workaholics?

The short answer is "yes". They link to an excellent scientific paper, henceforth known as paper, which explains the study in English. Go, read it!
Done? Good.

The examiners basically looked at the amount of downloads of scientific papers done by scientists over a course of eight days. They looked at how many papers they'd download and when during the day. Unsurprising fact? Scientists work a lot during the weekend and they work very late at night.

Slightly surprising fact, at least to me? Chinese scientists take their lunch- and dinner-breaks very seriously, but they work more during the weekend.

The researchers conclude that scientists are working too much and should balance their workload with... a life. But then, who would do that when there's cancer to be cured and DNA to be sequenced? And particles to be smashed? AND!!!

The next story is also from the FAZ:
FAZ: Europa droht die Schlusslaterne -> Europe to be last in race for patents

The article basically suggests that everybody's passing Europe when it comes to making patents. I'm not going to dispute that, but one thing the article does not mention: How successful are the articles? I mean I could patent an object that removes boogers from my nose, but who will want that?

In any case, Europe: Pick up the fucking ball!

That was kinda short, so let's go to...
FAZ: Jacobs Beschneidung -> Jacobs circumcision

The article explores the depraved Leo Latasch's comparison of an eight day year old's (Jacob) circumcision to a girl getting her ears pierced. There are two videos right at the bottom, I'll link to em here:

"The Circumcision of Jacob Chai" (uncut cut version)

Kylie's ear piercing trauma

Now the "good" Jewish doctor suggests the following: We don't know if the babies (at a circumcision) are crying out of pain or out of hunger, because they haven't eaten in a few hours, which is standard medical procedure. I think if you watch the video, it's clear the boy is crying because he's being a) disturbed in his sleep and b) having his penis cut!

He then compares the whole thing to a girl getting her ears pierced and, because the girl cries longer, suggests that they're at least on equal footing.

No, they're not you inhumane asshole! Here's why:
1) To remove the blood from the boys penis, a man (usually the rabbi) takes a mouthful of wine and sucks the blood from the boys genitalia. Sometimes, he even covers the genitalia with his mouth to "disinfect" the wound. Here's the problem: It doesn't actually disinfect, it INFECTS. That's right, people can actually die from that. The kids can get herpes, permanent brain damage and they can die.
As much as I dislike kids with pierced ears, I have never heard of one dying from it. Ever.

2) One is done for a religious reason, the other isn't. As weak a reason as "being pretty" may be, "because God said so" is an even weaker one. The one can heal and close again if she doesn't want it, the removal of foreskin is permanent.

Leaving that aside though, I'd condemn both of those actions. If your child is old enough, say 12 or so, she can get her ears pierced. But if she's only 4 or 5, you do not do it for her and she doesn't get a say in the matter. It's the same thing with circumcision: If your boy wants to get circumcised when he's of age, he can do that. But DO NOT make that choice for him. It's inhumane. And that's an understatement.

PM's revealed

Avid readers of this blog (nobody, because I rarely write and anyway, who would read this tripe?) will know about my debate with TruthIsLife7/dotoree/Bryan. I wrote a reply to his wall of nonsense a few weeks ago and I got, although few, only positive criticism.

Three weeks ago, only July 16th, I received a PM from Bryan. Normally, I wouldn't post this without his permission but after having asked twice if I would have his permission to reproduce his PM either in part or full, I simply could not get a "yes" or a "no" out of him. I will only reproduce here and reply here in due time.

His first PM reads:

Hi Ben, I saw your post a few days ago, just before your message, but didn’t have time then. I’m glad you did well on your tests. I read/skimmed both of your posts (need to reread again though as I have more time) and will try to post by next week if possible. Frankly I expected a lot better from you (and any who are helping you), but it was the only response possible that could keep atheism superficially tenable, a response that rejects following where the evidence leads and instead puts a prison around science and history telling them where they can and cannot point, regardless of the evidence or the normal ways science and history have been used for centuries. Many of your arguments prove that whether you admit it or not, that BEFORE you study evidence, your commitment to atheism and materialism decides what conclusions you will allow that evidence to point to or not point to. In practice you are deciding a priori the possible conclusions before you even look at the evidence, which can NEVER be reconciled with objectivity or following the evidence wherever it leads. PERIOD. This is the typical atheist approach that I know well and one that is diametrically opposed to every fiber of rational thought. A couple brief points and I'll speak a bit strongly because the tactics you are using are the antithesis of objectivity and if applied to other fields, would destroy much legitimate knowledge and they WILL damage your life in THIS world if you continue to follow them. That's a guarantee. And I would like you to avoid quite a bit of unnecessary pain in THIS life if possible instead of learning the truth the hard way, by experience. But, we all err, and I've made big errors at times and had to correct/rethink them. So, it's part of living and learning and no matter what I still wish the best for you. 1) I’m not a proponent of telepathy, more of a skeptic of it for the most part, although some accounts and studies make me wonder a bit. The telepathy part wasn’t the reason I asked you to listen to Sheldrake at all. I listed the reason you should listen to it, and you proceeded to straw man that with the bit about telepathy, smearing a Cambridge scientist who DOES have peer reviewed evidence even for telepathy . smh. To refuse to listen and read just 10 minutes, esp. something I had said was important regarding materialism, a foundational area of our discussion (the important part came AFTER the telepathy part) is completely anti-rational, putting you on the level of those who mocked Pasteur for claiming that bacteria couldn’t possibly kill a human being since they just knew that couldn’t be true. That’s the level that you are unfortunately consistently operating at, being enslaved by the tyranny of your own lack of knowledge instead of following the evidence where it leads, something that is another way that atheism is diametrically opposed to rational thought. Anyone can dismiss any evidence they like using that technique. Sheldrake and others have published peer reviewed evidence of telepathy…and whether you and I like it or not, it IS EVIDENCE. PERIOD. That is indisputable. Here are just a couple I found at pubmed in just a couple minutes. **Meta-analyses of "ganzfield" studies as well as "card-guessing task" studies provide compelling evidence for the existence of telepathic phenomena.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21829287 **50 participants (29 women and 21 men) were recruited through an employment web site. Of 552 trials, 235 (43%) guesses were hits, significantly above the chance expectation of 25%. Further tests with 5 participants (4 women, 1 man, ages 16 to 29) were videotaped continuously. On the filmed trials, the 64 hits of 137 (47%) were significantly above chance. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16491679 **Evidence for a communal consciousness. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21724158 **http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19733813 and there are quite a few others. I'll save you time and post the part from the 10 minute portion of the video that you should have watched if you had any objectivity at ALL in this area. Cambridge Scientist Rupert Sheldrake, PhD. in an interview: “Materialists believe that the mind is nothing but the brain….This is a theoretical definition (that telepathy, consciousness, etc. can’t happen outside the brain) and in science, we’re meant to look at evidence. If we look at the evidence, we get a very different picture. Things like telepathy are common. The majority of the population say they’ve experienced it. So, it happens. There’s a lot of evidence, scientific evidence, it happens. So, it’s normal, not paranormal. It’s only paranormal from the point of view of a particular theory. And science isn’t committed to particular theories. It doesn’t have to adopt the materialistic ideology as its basis. Science is a method of inquiry where we can find out by looking at evidence and constructing hypotheses and understand the world better through proper investigation, not dogma. …One of the problems with research in this area is that because of the taboo, there’s virtually no funding for this area, so there’s very little research. Now the funding is decided by central scientific committees and they reflect scientific [establishment] prejudices and, and consensus values. It’s partly a political question and I think that in a democracy, a certain percentage of science funding should be spent on research that actually interests voters. At the moment, it’s all decided by small committees of scientific establishment people and representatives of big business. Science is not committed to any particular ideology or worldview. It’s a method of inquiry. There’s a dominant materialism that grew up in the 19th century. It’s become part of the culture of science. But, it’s really a dogmatic belief system rather than a testable theory. Things that don’t fit in with it, the evidence against materialism, like a lot for psychic phenomenon, is simply dismissed or treated as taboo. So, it’s really a matter of maintaining a belief system. And that in my opinion is extremely anti-scientific. Science is not about dogma. It’s about investigation. …Superstition is really believing something on the basis of a habit, a cultural habit..you are told about it and you go on believing it even in the absence of any evidence. I would say that in some ways the materialistic dogmas of science are a kind of superstition, a belief that anything that doesn’t fit into this way of thinking, can’t exist. It’s a kind of anti-superstition superstition...We need to investigate things on an experimental basis….If a lot of people believe in telepathy for example, maybe it’s a superstition, maybe it really happens. The only way to find out is to study the phenomenon and find out whether it happens or not, not to adopt the view that it’s a superstition, a prejudice against it and then close off inquiry. That way we learn nothing. We remain trapped in our belief system. …Materialism for example is a metaphysical doctrine. It’s says that the only physical reality is matter. Now it doesn’t prove that. It says it. It starts from that as an assumption. And with that assumption you investigate what matter does. Anything that doesn’t appear to be explicable in terms of matter is regarded as non-existent, as a metaphysical assumption.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frJpThIims8 (the whole interview is quite thought provoking interview.) What he says is true whether it is telepathy, the paranormal, religion or whatever. Science can't be banned from following the evidence where it leads, to ANY conclusion, including religion and other things that don't match well with my worldview, but that have evidence. 2) Correlation proves causation beyond any reasonable doubt in 1000s if not millions of scientific studies. Rejecting this fact will destroy a large swathe of science that is very important for human life NOW. This is only one of many ways that atheism is completely anti-science whenever the evidence points in a different direction from it’s a priori prison. 3) Your statement about no freedom if there's God and that eternal life can never be a good thing is wrong and anti-life and the principle applied on earth would mean there’s no freedom here either. I dealt with them already (shortly), but it seems you completely ignored that. 4) The demands of God by Aronra and others are a big sticking point for many atheists, but they miss many important reasons why He does not do what they are demanding. He could do all they wish easily and more. There are important reasons why He does not and this is a foundational issue that many atheists don’t comprehend, which I will address in the next post. 5) It’s very sad that you mostly or totally ignored what secular historians and scientists are saying about the Bible/SDA contributions to human rights/health. To deny the contributions of a philosophy/worldview and the only possible source of those contributions just because you think differently and have decided a priori where the evidence can or cannot point is not objective, mature or consistent in any way, esp. when you benefit from them a LOT. It's similar to white supremacists trying to deny all the accomplishments of blacks because of their a priori ideology. 6) There are many martyrs for many religions and political ideas and other ideas. Who doesn't know that? But, how often do people die for something they claim to have observed firsthand but know they didn’t? To compare someone who dies for what he has observed firsthand with someone who dies only for what he has been told is really irrational and grossly unjust. There is simply no comparison. The gigantic difference is that Jesus disciples died for supernatural events, a resurrection, that they had observed firsthand. Nobody in other religions died for a resurrection claim that they had personally observed. This is a massive difference that atheists continually misrepresent. Witnesses like this ARE evidence of the highest credibility PERIOD and many atheist experts have agreed. There is nothing you can say rationally that can validate the atheist claim that people who died for what they saw count as “no evidence” one of the most dishonest claims in all history. 7) You completely misunderstood why I posted pictures of Hitchens and my grandpa and made completely false accusations, even after I clarified it to the moderator. We all make mistakes...but this one is really egregious, as are several above: "You take one person who purposefully lived his life in such a way and you compare it to others who didn't. You disregard other people who live just as long or longer at much higher frequencies due to completely different lifestyles. In short, you cherry-pick like there's no tomorrow." I had already cited studies on 70,000 people over decades by Dan Buettner and others that are among the most sterling and respected studies in all of health science. Scientists and teachers all over the planet cite studies and then give real examples to help people see the results of scientific facts in real lives. HOW IN THE WORLD can you not know this? It's a basic form of education and that you ridicule that is just shocking. The pictures of my grandpa and Hitchens were just 2 examples reinforcing the point of NUMEROUS studies done on countless 1000s of people for decades. It was not cherry picking of ANY kind. PERIOD. To claim so is simply dishonest. Neither is it honest to say that I said anything about purposefulness, nor to smear my grandpa or anyone else as people who lived without purpose (I assure you he did not), nor that I ignore other groups (I didn’t, but there just aren’t any that live longer in America and few if any in the world). None of these accusations are based on any iota of fact. There are a lot of other problematic issues in your post...but I'll stop there. I respect your efforts in studying and researching, but when the foundational philosophy you have is an a priori bias, genuine science and rational thought are crippled and in history this practice has often led to pseudoscience, and much wasted money and lives. To err is human they say. I've done it and will do it in the future., sometimes egregious ones So, I can't expect you or anyone else not to make mistakes. It happens. But, hopefully we learn from it and avoid those same mistakes in the future. Bryan Last edited by TruthisLife7 on Mon Jul 16, 2012 4:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

After I asked him for permission, I got this in reply:

Hi Ben, Don't worry, this will be part of my reply in public, but with more documentation to show explicitly how atheist arguments shatter the concept of following the evidence where it leads and use double standards. So, you'll be able to quote from that. This is NOT only you by any means. It's the same fallacious, anti-objective reasoning methods I've been encountering for decades from atheism, and it's extremely harmful in many cases to them IN THIS LIFE, not to mention possibly the most valuable possible thing in the universe, eternal life (reread my short answers to your eternal life things and why they don't make sense....it was short, but that should be enough). Some do it with the best of intentions, but it's not possible to be objective using the reasoning you are...and I don't care if it's a religious topic or any other non-religious topic. The way you are reasoning is not possible to follow the evidence wherever it leads. It's an approach of "assume a bias first, then disregard all evidence that doesn't fit the bias" approach. I don't doubt that you and others are sincere, but this approach is the antithesis of being objective and the antithesis of the foundation of science. All the best, Bryan

To which I replied:

Inferno wrote:Hi Bryan

Are you referring to this paragraph?

Note here that the methods of science do NOT compel us to accept a material explanation of the world. If you think they do, please explain how the scientific method forces us to accept MD (but do it AFTER we’ve finished the definitions section). But, Lewontin is absolutely wrong in claiming that if you believe in God you can believe in anything. We can test many religious claims just like we do many scientific claims and 1000s have been confirmed, many conclusively. The emotional wish to dismiss miracles and the supernatural as possible is the motivation behind MD. Why do people wish this? Usually this is because they don’t like the restrictions of God that they don’t understand. But, a jet has more restrictions than a hot air balloon and this actually is precisely why it has more freedom in speed, maneuverability, etc. Wise restrictions are actually extremely empowering and even life saving. Science restricts us in very specific ways, but these restrictions empower enormous freedoms and advances. Wise restrictions are the foundation of incredible growth and freedom and pleasurable rewards. Nowhere is that more true than of God’s restrictions. Atheists who refuse to follow God’s restrictions are ironically only harming their own enjoyment in THIS world. Here’s just one short example:

Or this one?

2) There is free will in heaven, but after the experiment with sin on this earth recorded for all history, no one will even dream of trying such a horrific experiment again & thus God says sin will not rise a second time.

I've debunked the first one and rejected the second one as absurd on the following grounds:

Inferno wrote:2) So there's free will... but there isn't?

In any case, I ask again: May I, yes or no, quote what you wrote a few days ago?

Cheers
Ben

His last reply was the following:

TruthIsLife7 wrote:Hi Ben,
Sorry for delays, I suddenly had 2 unexpected research papers to edit for doctors for publication and a couple other things. I've done some work on the response, but still a bit more to do.

You haven't been able at all to reconcile materialism a priori assumptions with following the evidence wherever it leads and it is not in any way possible (and YES, a priori materialism IS what you claimed your position was and it is the position of most atheists and most importantly in practice you are following it to the letter, using it to claim any evidence that conflicts with it as invalid regardless of how good it is, no different from how birthers discard any evidence Obama was born in America). 

There is no problem with free will in heaven. Just like Americans don't give free will for child abuse and serial murder, and that makes us freer and happier, but there is much freedom in countless other areas, the same thing will be true in heaven. The difference is that people will have a much deeper of the destruction and cruelty that all sin causes and it will be abhorrent to them just like child abuse is to anyone now.

Even if you WERE right on this, it would still be a really, really foolish argument and frankly an anti-human one. People can and are happy in all kinds of environments on this earth that are horrible, ranging from the slums of India to dictatorships. And heaven with all that gone, will be a paradise, from which you can explore the entire universe. Nothing on earth will ever compare with that, even if there weren't freedom. But, the whole point of God allowing this contest in the first place is so that the universe can make a free choice about which government is best, God's or some alternative.

If you followed your principles consistently, then you should give up living on this planet, because there's no freedom to be a serial killer, a communist president, a child abuser and quite a few others without serious consequences. 
Bryan

The great debate returns

To those avid readers of my blog...
TruthIsLife7/dotoree just sent me an E-Mail two weeks ago and agreed to come back as soon as possible. I just got another E-Mail from him yesterday in which he told me that he had written over 60 thousand characters. That's more than 25,000 words and over 25 pages.
Wow, that will be quite the read.

Facebook debate in German

Just yesterday, I was invited to a "debate" on Facebook. After my last response was over a page long and this one promises to be even longer, I thought I'd continue here. What follows is a debate in German, though I will translate it if more than two people ask me to.

Altaaaaaaaaaaa, zu lange texte man, ich will einfach nur sagen, es gibt viel schlimmere sachen als Kirchen, wie z.B diese ganzen Luxussachen ! Kirchen gehören zum normalen Leben dazu, es gibt halt größere aber es is doch schön wenn sowas erhalten bleibt und noch weiter erhalten bleiben wird, Kirchen sind ein Teil der Geschichte. Is doch egal woher die Religionslehrer kommen ? Hauptsache sie bringen uns das bei, was warscheinlich das wichtigste der welt ist. Welche Personen sind die berühmtesten und werden für immer bekannt sein. Nicht die Fußballer/Politiker/Schauspielen etc. sonder die religiösen Personen! Der glaube is für viele menschen, unter anderem mich, sehr wichtig und deswegen braucht man auch diese kirchen. Die kirche hat kein geld, natürlich nicht, die war schon immer arm, is doch klar das der staat ihnen also geld gibt ! Das gehört nunmal dazu. Das is eine Sicht von Matthäus, ich kenn die bibel nicht so gut, aber ich bin mir sicher da gibt es gegensätze. Natürlich in Kirchen denkst du über Gott, denkst über das leben und so, philosophierst eben. Bedrohungen is das falsche wort, Kirchen gehören zum alltäglichen Leben dazu.

Das war die komplette Antwort meines Gegenübers. Ich werde jetzt Satz für Satz dagegen argumentieren. Sämtliche Bezeichnungen sollen als geschlechtsneutral verstanden werden.

1) Natürlich sind "Luxussachen" schlecht, aber die Kirche ist viel schlimmer. Es fängt damit an, dass die Kirche eine riesige Institution des Prunks ist und geht über Verleumdung zu Missbrauchsfällen und schlussendlich Mord, nicht zu sprechen von der Indoktrinierung, die Kinder erleiden müssen. Es ist glasklar, dass die Kirche eine Kraft des Bösen in dieser Welt ist.

2) Wie schon erläutert habe ich nichts dagegen, dass Kirchen erhalten bleiben. Wogegen ich schon bin, ist die Ausbeutung der Bürger, insbesondere der anders-religiösen bzw. nicht-religiösen, durch die Kirche. C. Frerk sowie C. Frank dokumentieren ausführlich, dass die Subventionen an die Kirche in Deutschland allein ca. 15 Milliarden Euro betragen. Davon gehen nur etwa 260 Millionen in den Denkmalschutz, eine Abgabe, die sich die Kirche ohne weiteres leisten könnte. Sie tun's aber nicht. Warum? Weil sie eine "Kraft des Bösen" sind.

3) Ist es egal wo die Religionslehrer kommen? Absolut nicht. Die einen (LehrerInnen) erhalten staatliche Bildung und unterrichten in staatlichen Einrichtungen, die anderen (ReligionslehrerInnen) erhalten staatlich geförderte Indoktrination. Warum braucht man Religionsunterricht in der Schule? Tut man nicht, man bekommt ihn trotzdem. Wenn man zusätzlich weiß wie sehr die Allgemeinbildung abnimmt, insbesondere die Naturwissenschaften, wäre eine Religionsstunde weniger und eine Wissenschaftsstunde mehr nicht fehl am Platz.

4) Was bringen sie uns bei? Was ist das wichtigste der Welt? Sicher nicht Religion, denn was kann ich mit Sicherheit über das Metaphysische sagen? Per Definition absolut nichts! Wie ich schon in meiner ersten Antwort gesagt habe, ist Religion/Theologie die Studie des Unwissbaren.

5) Religiöse Personen sind die berühmten? Tatsächlich? Aber auch nur solange die Religion noch existiert. Wer kann sich noch an Krishna, Guru Nanak, wer an Mithras erinnern? Nur die Gebildeten. Aber wer kann sich an Archimedes, Homer, Ovid, Pythagoras, Demokrit, Aristoteles oder Hippokrates erinnern? Wer an Mozart, Beethoven, Rachmaninov, Schubert, Bach? Jeder mit einem Grundwissen kennt zumindest die Namen, wenn auch nicht ihre Errungenschaften. Nein, nicht die "religiösen Personen" werden in Erinnerung behalten sondern die, die etwas wesentliches zur Gesellschaft beitragen. Wissenschaftler also, Musiker, Künstler, Poeten, Philosophen und Staatsleute.

6) Warum ist Religion für dich wichtig? Ich wage zu behaupten dass du darüber noch nie kritisch nachgedacht hast. Aber selbst wenn wir davon ausgehen, dass manche oder viele Menschen die Religion brauchen, was ich natürlich abstreiten würde, wofür sind Kirchen gut? Bete zu Hause, mit deiner Familie, mit Freunden. Warum aber brauchst du ein sündteures Haus dafür, warum jemanden der dir etwas vorpredigt? (Nicht umsonst kommt es von "Vortrag halten".) Ich habe zwar grundsätzlich etwas gegen Beten (Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer. ) aber es ist mir lieber du hälts dich an den Grundsatz zu Hause zu beten, als dass du in eine Kirche gehst und dorthin Geld fließt.

7) Die Kirche ist ARM? Was ist denn das für ein Blödsinn? Grundsätzlich hat die Kirche so viel Geld wieein kleiner Staat, subventioniert werden müssen die wirklich nicht. Die Kirche hat nur andere Prioritäten, in diesem Falle nämlich die Anhäufung von Geld.

8) Natürlich gibt es Wiedersprüche in der Bibel, wie auch in jedem anderen "Heiligen Buch". Wie sonst konnte die Kirche all die humanitären Aktionen rechtfertigen, obwohl in der Bibel so ausdrücklich Mord, Vergewaltigung und Diebstahl gepredigt wird?

9) Wie schon gesagt, fantasiert man in der Kirche über das Unwissbare. Wann ist je etwas nützliches, wertvolles aus der Religion entstanden? Nie. Viel wichtiger wäre es, die Bürger (wieder) in die Schulen zu treiben und ihnen dort selbständiges Lernen beizubringen.

10) Nein, "Bedrohung" ist absolut das richtige Wort.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Zweiter Teil, 26.12.2011 um 20:15

‎1.Jetzt ist die Kirche schon die Kraft des Bösens ? Das glaub ich kaum, der glaube ist bei vielen menschen da einzige was sie noch haben, das das auch noch böse sein soll ... In schlimmer krankheiten wir Depressionen gibt es eigentlich nur noch den glauben an Gott.

Sag das Christopher Hitchens, der hat nie aufgegeben und nie an Gott geglaubt.
Dass wir Religion brauchen ist natürlich ausgemachter Blödsinn, ich habe, seit ich zwölf war, noch nie gebetet, obwohl es mir seither schon dreckig gegangen ist.
Außerdem hat die Kirche kein Monopol auf "Glauben". Ich glaube auch an etwas, wenngleich ich nicht an einen Gott glaube. Wie wäre es mit dem Guten in der Menschheit? Selbst wenn die Menschen also Glauben bräuchte, sie tun es nicht, was hat das mit der Kirche zu tun? Nicht viel.

2. Diese Zahlen kannte ich nicht. 15 Milliarden ? Glaub ich kaum um ehrlich zu sein. Es gibt ja nicht nur Denkmalschutz, sondern auch Renovierung etc.

Und das ist genau das Problem! Es geht hier nicht um glauben bzw. Glauben, es geht um wissen und Wissen. Diese Zahlen sind dokumentiert, sie sind genau so eine Realität wie die Gravitation eine Realität ist.

3.Der Sinn am Religionsunterricht ist das man den glauben zu Gott findet, nicht wie die Lehrer ausgebildet werden. 

Und was kannst du mir mit absoluter Sicherheit über Gott sagen? Kannst du mit absoluter Sicherheit überhaup sagen dass ein Gott existiert? Wohl eher nicht. Was kannst du mir aber mit absoluter Sicherheit über Gravitation sagen? Zumindest so viel: Alle Objekte fallen aus der Ruhe nach unten und die Gravitation existiert. Das eine ist Geschwafel (Studie des Unwissbaren), das andere ist Fakt!
Zu welchem Gott? Doch nur dem Gott, der dir vorgegeben wird. Warum finden die meisten Kinder nur die Religion ihrer Eltern? Wenn irgend eine Religion wahr wäre, sollten wir entweder nur diese eine, oder aber diese eine Kulturübergreifend finden. Wir finden das Gegenteil. Die einzig logische Schlussfolgerung ist also, dass sie alle, zumindest zu einem Grad, falsch sind.

4.Die Religion ist ein großer Teil unsere Geschichte, und sagt uns wie die Erde aufgebaut ist. Das gehört auf jedenfall mit zu den wichtigsten sachen dazu ! Selbst wenn man genaueres nicht sagen kann, so richtig kann man nie 100 Prozent sicher sein.

Oho, bin ich da an einen Kreationisten geraten? Alle Entstehungsgeschichten, sei es die der Christen, Juden, Hindus oder alten Griechen, haben zwei Sachen gemeinsam: Sie sind allesamt falsch und sie ändern sich nicht mit zunehmendem Wissen über die Welt. Wo wirst du genauere Informationen über die Welt bekommen? In einem Wissenschaftsunterricht oder in einem Religionsunterricht?

5. Die Religion wird für immer existieren. Diese Personen die du genannt hast sind in mindestens 1000 Jahren vergessen. Manche sagen mir jetzt schon nix mehr. Jesus Christus/Maria/der Heilige Geist etc. werden uns für immer erhalten bleiben, soviel ist sicher.

Welche Personen sind seit mindestens 1000 Jahren vergessen? Ich werde beide Möglichkeiten beleuchten:

1) Wenn du meinst dass Archimedes, Homer, Ovid, Pythagoras, Demokrit, Aristoteles, Hippokrates, Mozart, Beethoven, Rachmaninov, Schubert und Bach seit so lange vergessen sind, müsste ich dich darauf hinweisen, dass Rachmaninov erst 1943 gestorben ist. Des weiteren müsste ich mir nicht nur über den Stand deiner, sondern über den Stand der Bildung im allgemeinen Sorgen machen.
Wenn du es also wirklich so meinst wie hier oben angeführt, wäre mein Vorschlag klar: Mehr Schule, weniger Beten! Beten hilft bei den Hausaufgaben auch nicht viel.

2) Wenn du meinst dass Krishna, Guru Nanak und Mithras vergessen wurden, muss ich dir Recht geben. Danke, dass du meinen Punkt bekräftigst. Jesus ist die Reinkarnation von Krishna (Hinduismus) und Mithras (Zoroastrimus), denn alles was er gemacht haben soll haben die beiden schon tausende Jahre vorher vollbracht! Guru Nanak ist der Begründer des Sikhismus. An keinen der drei kann man sich heute mehr erinnern. Warum? Weil eine neue Religion kommt und die Alte verdrängt.

Egal also wie du geantwortet hast, du hast dich entweder als ungebildet erwiesen, oder aber "you have made my point".

6. Über die Religion kritisch schon, weils mich am Anfang überhaupt nicht interessiert hatte. In für mich schwierigeren Zeiten habe ich jedoch "versucht mit Gott zu reden". Selbst wenn man keine Antwort bekommt, tut es wahnsinnig gut dann mit jemanden reden zu können alles aus sich raus bringen ! Kirchen sind deswegen gut weil sie "das heilige Haus" sind. Hier hat man seine absolute Ruhe, hier darf nicht geschrieen werden. In diesem Gebäude kannst du dich zurückziehen und einfach mal ne minute Pause nehmen.

Ich kann kaum glauben, dass du es kritisch beäugt hast. Beantworte mir dazu nur diese einfache Frage: Warum deine Religion, warum dein Gott?

Ist es nicht besser, mit einer echten Person zu reden, einer Person, die zurückredet, dich in den Arm nimmt?
Gibt es denn keine andere Möglichkeit als diese Haus? Wie wäre es mit der Natur, einem sonnigen/schattigen Plätzchen im Wald? Heutzutage gehen da sowieso viel weniger Leute hin, es dürfte also ruhig genug sein. ;)

Dazu noch ein Zitat von Richard Dawkins:

McDonald: Now a lot of people find great comfort from religion. Not everybody is as you are – well-favored, handsome, wealthy, with a good job, happy family life. I mean, your life is good – not everybody's life is good, and religion brings them comfort.

Dawkins: There are all sorts of things that would be comforting. I expect an injection of morphine would be comforting – it might be more comforting, for all I know. But to say that something is comforting is not to say that it's true.

8. Das gehört nunmal dazu, das leben ist nicht perfekt. Weder mit Bibel/Kirche oder ohne. 

Nicht akzeptiert. Nur weil das Leben nicht Perfekt ist heißt das nicht, dass wir nichts degegen machen sollten. Wenn wir deine Einstellung hätten, würden wir noch immer in Höhlen hausen. Ohne Kirche wäre die Welt ein etwas schönerer, wenn auch nicht perfekter Ort.

9. Wie gesagt Religion is mental sehr wichtig, du glaubst anscheinend nicht an Gott und das beten an sich, deswegen siehst dus vielleicht nicht.

Und bin damit der lebende Beweis, dass es nicht umbedingt nötig ist. Du vergisst, dass man alles "mentale" aus anderen Quellen auch, und oft sogar besser, schöpfen kann. Die Religion ist ein Relikt, sie gaukelt uns Unerlässlichkeit vor, obwohl schon ein flüchtiger Blick über den Tellerrand beweist, dass sie überflüssig geworden ist.

10. Nein immer noch nicht :P

Hast du dir den Link, zumindest zu einem Teil, angeschaut? Es ist absolut beweisbar, dass die Kirche subventioniert wird. Es ist absolut beweisbar, dass die Kirche schlechte Gesundheitstips (z.B keine Kondome) verteilt. Es ist absolut beweisbar, dass sich die Mitglieder der Kirche an praktisch keine ihrer Regeln vefolgen. (z.B Missbrauchsfälle, in die sowohl niedrige Mitglider als auch der Papst verwickelt waren)
Es ist absolut beweisbar, dass die Kirche eine negative Attitüde gegenüber Frauen und Homosexuellen hat. Es ist absolut beweisbar dass die Kirche die Nazis unterstützt hat. Alle Seiten sind nur die ersten, die ich gefunden habe, es gibt tausendfach mehr Beweise dafür.
Wenn das alles nicht genug ist um die Kirche als "Böse" abzustempeln, kann ich gerne weiter machen.