Religion diminishes intellect[W:114,1607]

calamity said:

Other myths are expanding in other parts of the world, one of them (Islam) may even someday become dominant.

Religion is a major evolutionary advantage. If it wasn't, it would have died out 100,000 years ago. I do not think that can be denied, if you look at it honestly.

Click to expand...

Islam is expanding largely due to birth rate and Islam's aversion to education is well known and for the same reasons.

Realitywins said:

Islam is expanding largely due to birth rate and Islam's aversion to education is well known and for the same reasons.

Click to expand...

The why does not matter. The result does.

As the influence of religion diminishes in the Western countries, their societies are becoming more fragmented. In fact, an argument can be made that the US itself is beginning to lose its cultural unity altogether.

We rely now almost exclusively on the God of Capitalism to bind us together. And, even that is beginning to crumble. However, it does seem to still give most immigrants to the US a reason to buy into our way of life. For our native born, Nationalism seems to have replaced Capitalism as our primary bond. Of course, this nationalism itself is a bit fragmented, since we all have a different idea of what defines our nation. But, for now, it does seem to hold.

In the end, I suspect we will lose to the hordes who are united under the banner of one religion. Why? Because it makes sense. A few billion people who share a single belief will be an impossible power to subdue or defend against.

calamity said:

That conclusion may be wrong. Like I said above, if religious thought, organization, way of life, etc. was detrimental, it would have evolved out of our society by now. It hasn't. In fact, the cohesion of like-minded peoples as brought about by common worship in things imaginary is perhaps the reason we out-lived the Neanderthals. Cro Magnum most certainly had a much better ability to communicate the abstract than did Neanderthal, and that to me is huge.

What we do know is that religion appears to be an evolutionary adaptation. It's basically a valuable tool to help us get along.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13983-religion-is-a-product-of-evolution-software-suggests/



Here's the counter-intuitive key, IMO.

Click to expand...

We have a vestigial tail as well. In the past a tail served a useful purpose. We no longer need it. So, I don't disagree with your general thesis, religion has somehow played a positive role in the human condition. Also, intuitive thinking is a vital component of our intellect today. It does not follow however that superstition is of value to a modern technological society. In fact the premise here is that it is detrimental.

calamity said:

Other myths are expanding in other parts of the world, one of them (Islam) may even someday become dominant.

Religion is a major evolutionary advantage. If it wasn't, it would have died out 100,000 years ago. I do not think that can be denied, if you look at it honestly.

Click to expand...

I don't think religion is an "evolutionary advantage." Your 'logic' flawed.
Religion/Superstition is a Remnant/holdover/hanger-on from past times that grew as world population did.

BUT...
For the for the first time in the history of mankind, indeed 1 Billion+ years of evolution in All of nature, we are seeing 'dysgenics.'
Wherein, in just the last 70 years or so..
The Smartest, most advanced of Our species/subspecies/races have stopped genociding or colonizing the lesser of the species. At least among humans. (especially 'The West)
Though We continue to wipe out other animal species save for some animals rights groups/environmentalists who realize one can 'win' to well/far.

For the First time in a billion+ years, the most advantaged of any species is ['voluntarily'] reproducing well below replacement, while the less advantaged/'less evolved' Third World well above replacement. Indeed, the lesser grow with the help/technology/medicine/Charity of the First World (ie Gates Foundation, World Bank, Western Vaccines, etc), and then migrate to that First World and out-reproduce them.
This is NOT something that the First world couldn't remedy in 1 Hour should they use the powers derived from their true evolutionary advantage.

These faster growing 'lesser' societies/groups ARE more religious, but that is Not part of any "evolutionary advantage," just a part and parcel leftover of their backwardness where more children were needed to assure survival of the parents.
While 'Compassion', affordability, and sustainability are the the minds of the more advanced.
An interesting and unprecedented situation.

Russell797 said:

We have a vestigial tail as well. In the past a tail served a useful purpose. We no longer need it. So, I don't disagree with your general thesis, religion has somehow played a positive role in the human condition. Also, intuitive thinking is a vital component of our intellect today. It does not follow however that superstition is of value to a modern technological society. In fact the premise here is that it is detrimental.

Click to expand...

I certainly used to believe that. Now, I am not so sure. The religious and uneducated are certainly out-breeding the "enlightened" atheists, for just one example. If you look at Western society, it could well be argued that they are all dying out, quite literally.

mbig said:

I don't think religion is an "evolutionary advantage." Your 'logic' flawed.
Religion/Superstition is a Remnant/holdover/hanger-on from past times that grew as world population did.

BUT...
For the for the first time in the history of mankind, indeed 1 Billion+ years of evolution in All of nature, we are seeing 'dysgenics.'
Wherein, in just the last 70 years or so..
The Smartest, most advanced of Our species/subspecies/races have stopped genociding or colonizing the lesser of the species. At least among humans. (especially 'The West)
Though We continue to wipe out other animal species save for some animals rights groups/environmentalists who realize one can 'win' to well/far.

For the First time in a billion+ years, the most advantaged of any species is ['voluntarily'] reproducing well below replacement, while the less advantaged/'less evolved' Third World well above replacement.
Indeed, the lesser grow with the technology/medicine/Charity of the First World (ie Gates Foundation, World Bank, Western Vaccines, etc), and then migrate to that First World and out-reproduce them.
This is NOT something that the First world couldn't remedy in 1 Hour should they use the powers derived from their true evolutionary advantage.

These faster growing 'lesser' societies/groups ARE more religious, but that is Not part of any "evolutionary advantage," just a part and parcel leftover of their backwardness where more children were needed to assure survival of the parents.
While 'Compassion', affordability, and sustainability are the the minds of the more advanced.
An interesting and unprecedented situation.

Click to expand...

It might make sense to exterminate the stupid and less advanced. But, we won't. And, as a result, we will eventually lose the advantages you think we have. The religious are out-breeding the non-religious all over the globe. Be careful what you wish for, it could be you they decide to exterminate.

calamity said:

It might make sense to exterminate the stupid and less advanced. But, we won't. And, as a result, we will eventually lose the advantages you think we have. The religious are out-breeding the non-religious all over the globe. Be careful what you wish for, it could be you they decide to exterminate.

Click to expand...

If you just substitute the more accurate 'Backwards' (or 'primitive') for it's partner 'religious', you'll see the point of my last, and why you're wrong about it being an 'evolutionary advantage.'

CaptainCourtesy said:

So, since I have not made a claim and you have not made a claim, we have no issue on this.

Click to expand...

I have no concern over anothers belief. Unless of course they try to make their belief a law in my land. atheism is not a fixed position. It has no choice but to start as ignosticism, From there it sometimes moves to agnostic, mostly with diests. Or to atheist where information from a theist has been shown to be wrong or at least an alternative interpretation has been given. Atheist itself means nothing more than a not a belief in a god. Often enough theists will push destructive ideas across and try to get them put into law. Then i become a militant theist and wil actively fight such a move.

In each and every case it is the theist who must make the first move.

I'm not assuming anything in that regard. You made a general claim and so I pointed out that the burden of proof would be on you with that claim. You are now stating that context is important, and I agree. If you are talking to me, then my position was correct. If you were talking as general as you say, then my position was then incorrect after your clarification.

Click to expand...

My general claim still stands. As no one has yet to present me with anything that is credible then i have no reason to even consider the existence of a god let alone buy into the cheating of a theist by attempting to assume that we must at least consider one might exist.

calamity said:

It might make sense to exterminate the stupid and less advanced. But, we won't. And, as a result, we will eventually lose the advantages you think we have. The religious are out-breeding the non-religious all over the globe. Be careful what you wish for, it could be you they decide to exterminate.

Click to expand...

Lucky me. I come from one of three countries going against that trend. Religion is diminishing in new zealand. Our only points of growth are from immigrants bringing one with them.
Religious affiliation fades as New Zealand bucks trend - National - NZ Herald News

By 2050, Pew believes 45.1 per cent of New Zealand's population will be unaffiliated - making it the largest group in the country. Only France (44.1 per cent) and the Netherlands (49.1 per cent) saw a similar projection, the centre said in its Future of World Religions study.

Click to expand...

That is of course depends on what gets defined as a religion.
As far as the great sm goes american are pastafarians while nz is piratacostal. And then there is my religion, nz census based that is. nz has the largest group of jedi knights in the world.

calamity said:

I certainly used to believe that. Now, I am not so sure. The religious and uneducated are certainly out-breeding the "enlightened" atheists, for just one example. If you look at Western society, it could well be argued that they are all dying out, quite literally.

Click to expand...

We have to stop claiming atheists to be "enlightened". I certainly do not feel enlightened or superior just because I choose not to believe in a deity. Others have claimed that I am but such is not the case. As has been stated repeatedly, some of the most intelligent people believe in god. Why not, there is no rational reason not to. It's just faith. There is also no rational reason TO believe in god. I choose therefore not to.

The entire construct of religion is what I find troublesome. They create a monstrous belief system surrounding a matter of simple faith and proceed to govern their lives by it. Even when it entails the blatant denial of science. The faith blinds them to the reality of the world they live in. Gods, ghosts, souls, angels, spirits all become part of reality. They pray to them, they worship them. They live their lives FOR them.

Now, some here will say that I can't generalize like that and not all religious folks behave that way. It's just a matter of degree how deep into the fantasy one allows themselves to descend. Some more so than others.

200 or 500 or 1,000 or 10,000 or 50,000 years ago people knew no better. Today we do. Maybe the bonds of a common belief help bring people together as you suspect, but does it in this day and age have to be based upon a demonstrably dubious at best premise? That and the irrationality of it all allows for all sorts of quacks and kooks to disseminate nonsense which the mindset of religion makes seem plausible to those who buy into it.

Realitywins said:

Ignoring you is hardly the same as running away, which is your preferred response.

Click to expand...

Nope, you ran away. Repeatedly. It's rather pathetic how easy it is to reduce you to cowering in your burrow.

Russell797 said:

We have to stop claiming atheists to be "enlightened". I certainly do not feel enlightened or superior just because I choose not to believe in a deity. Others have claimed that I am but such is not the case. As has been stated repeatedly, some of the most intelligent people believe in god. Why not, there is no rational reason not to. It's just faith. There is also no rational reason TO believe in god. I choose therefore not to.

The entire construct of religion is what I find troublesome. They create a monstrous belief system surrounding a matter of simple faith and proceed to govern their lives by it. Even when it entails the blatant denial of science. The faith blinds them to the reality of the world they live in. Gods, ghosts, souls, angels, spirits all become part of reality. They pray to them, they worship them. They live their lives FOR them.

Now, some here will say that I can't generalize like that and not all religious folks behave that way. It's just a matter of degree how deep into the fantasy one allows themselves to descend. Some more so than others.

200 or 500 or 1,000 or 10,000 or 50,000 years ago people knew no better. Today we do. Maybe the bonds of a common belief help bring people together as you suspect, but does it in this day and age have to be based upon a demonstrably dubious at best premise? That and the irrationality of it all allows for all sorts of quacks and kooks to disseminate nonsense which the mindset of religion makes seem plausible to those who buy into it.

Click to expand...

I disagree there is no rational reason not to believe in god(s). Rather, it is completely irrational to do so. This irrationality is displayed on a regular basis in the US where parents are continually allowing their children to die, often in agony, while they pray for their recovery rather than taking them to the local health-care providers.

Realitywins said:

I disagree there is no rational reason not to believe in god(s). Rather, it is completely irrational to do so. This irrationality is displayed on a regular basis in the US where parents are continually allowing their children to die, often in agony, while they pray for their recovery rather than taking them to the local health-care providers.

Click to expand...

Your definition of rational needs a lot of work then. The historical record is compelling. Denying it is irrational.

Logicman said:

Your definition of rational needs a lot of work then. The historical record is compelling. Denying it is irrational.

Click to expand...

You have absolutely no grasp of logic, how then can one take seriously anything you say about rationality?

Realitywins said:

I disagree there is no rational reason not to believe in god(s). Rather, it is completely irrational to do so. This irrationality is displayed on a regular basis in the US where parents are continually allowing their children to die, often in agony, while they pray for their recovery rather than taking them to the local health-care providers.

Click to expand...

I agree, but that's a religious belief and that's what I'm talking about.

I agree that a belief in god is irrational also as I have stated repeatedly in this thread, but I worded that sentence poorly. Very smart people have faith in god. They are not being rational when they do so. However, they can hypothesis a god as the creator of all things. No one can find evidence in support of the hypothesis so it's a dead end question, but in and of itself the hypothesis is innocuous. One can choose to believe it in the hope that someday evidence may be found.

Maybe the Universe is a computer simulation. I rather doubt it but the idea is entertained by some very smart people. I doubt anyone believes it to the point where they would cut someone's head off if that someone didn't agree. It's not really irrational to ask the question.....or is it?

This stuff can get really confusing!

mbig said:

If you just substitute the more accurate 'Backwards' (or 'primitive') for it's partner 'religious', you'll see the point of my last, and why you're wrong about it being an 'evolutionary advantage.'

Click to expand...

If atheists went to war with the religious, it would be very short---and, the end would not be in the atheists' favor.

Russell797 said:

We have to stop claiming atheists to be "enlightened". I certainly do not feel enlightened or superior just because I choose not to believe in a deity. Others have claimed that I am but such is not the case. As has been stated repeatedly, some of the most intelligent people believe in god. Why not, there is no rational reason not to. It's just faith. There is also no rational reason TO believe in god. I choose therefore not to.

The entire construct of religion is what I find troublesome. They create a monstrous belief system surrounding a matter of simple faith and proceed to govern their lives by it. Even when it entails the blatant denial of science. The faith blinds them to the reality of the world they live in. Gods, ghosts, souls, angels, spirits all become part of reality. They pray to them, they worship them. They live their lives FOR them.

Now, some here will say that I can't generalize like that and not all religious folks behave that way. It's just a matter of degree how deep into the fantasy one allows themselves to descend. Some more so than others.

200 or 500 or 1,000 or 10,000 or 50,000 years ago people knew no better. Today we do. Maybe the bonds of a common belief help bring people together as you suspect, but does it in this day and age have to be based upon a demonstrably dubious at best premise? That and the irrationality of it all allows for all sorts of quacks and kooks to disseminate nonsense which the mindset of religion makes seem plausible to those who buy into it.

Click to expand...

I'm certainly no fan of religion. I see it as legalized fraud, a scam perfectly designed to be immune from prosecution which separates people from their money.

Realitywins said:

You have absolutely no grasp of logic, how then can one take seriously anything you say about rationality?

Click to expand...

Flush

Realitywins said:

Thing is, you are supporting a religion which not only has a history as horrendous as what you say you lived through and experienced but which is still committing such atrocities today. I am pretty sure whatever situation you found yourself in you got out of yourself without the intervention of some mythical being. After all, why should it save you instead of the millions of innocents being raped, tortured and slaughtered for no reason other than the believe in a different myth?

Click to expand...

I suppose you believe I should also renounce my US citizenship because Wonded Knee and the Trail Of Tears happened.

victus qui se victus

Tigerace117 said:

Obviously you didn't actually look into what I said.

From the Mitrokhin Archive:

"Allende's orginal KGB case officer, Svyatoslav Kuznetsov, etc. That's pretty damning stuff buddy.

Yeah, anybody can communicate with who they like---but when a foreign secret police pays the president $50,000, and bribes people not to run against him, well....... That rather does make it look like he's working for them, don't ya think?

Gee, countries like Mao's China, which killed more people than even Stalin? How could we not like those bloodthirsty bastards?

Once again--- the KGB spent a ****-ton of money helping him get re-elected and bribing at least one potential opponent. They wouldn't do that for someone who just "needed their intelligence".

But as it turns out, given how closely he was working with the KGB, the likelyhood of him keeping said democracy were mill had he stayed in power.

Yep, and your beloved East Bloc agencies were the worst of the lot.

Maybe because unlike communists, we don't feel the need for show trials once somebody's no longer in power to give us an excuse to purge society. Which happened a time or twenty under Stalin.

Nope, it's pretty clear that "agreeing with you" is equated to "clear and concise" up in your worldview.

This ain't the East Bloc, and it never will be. We aren't going to change our traditions just because people who lived in the east bloc think that it makes us a theocracy.

Click to expand...

Given the anti-communist paranoia at the time, it was normal and natural that Allende seek help amongst communist allies. This is no different to people who are not always squeaky clean seeking help, money, political influence and miltary aid from the US. Let's see now, Pinochet aside, who funded the murdering Contras in Nicaragua and why did US troops end up landing on the shores of independent Grenada in an invasion? You criticise communist régimes for their actions, which I have admitted were often inexcusable, but just what were the McCarthy witchhunts? Why was Angela Davis witch hunted? Why were civil rights leaders targetted AS RECENTLY AS THE 1960's? Black Americans sought refuge in Europe where they were treated BETTER THAN IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY, and in my opinion, still are treated better here.

I never lived in the East bloc. Yugoslavia was one of the non-aligned nations, we were neither east nor west. We were not part of the soviet bloc, we had access to western media and we had planeloads of Germans and Brits holidaying on our Adriatic coast and Slovene alps who we mingled with. We were totally exposed to westerners and western culture and travelled freely when we liked. So you display your ignorance totally with your East Bloc jibes. Just as you are ignorant on communist theory, but at least you openly admit that.

Since you like history lessons:

John F. Kennedy: "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute"

Thomas Jefferson: "Religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State"

So, abit rich to see a newly inaugurated peresident going to church as part of his inauguration proceedings. Donald Trump should respect Jefferson's "wall of separation between Church and State" after all, he loves walls.

Now, it might be nice to actually debate the impact of Christianity and communism on intellect, the impact of intellect on Christianity and communism, the philosphical elements of both and why they might enhance or hinder mankind. But since you have admitted you know nothing about contemporary communist theory, I can see that's a tad hard for you to do. If you can educate yourself and come back with a dicussion on that level, like the "clear and coherent" posters here, I'll be delighted to engage with you. But please, don't just come back with another rant about irrelevant numbers, false claims about what I've said and where I come from and a childish history lesson according to the tigerace world view.

I note you have the cheek to accuse Realitywins of running away, so perhaps in your analysis you could actually answer some of my questions and points you've run away from? Notably:

You have still failed to show me where I stated people should be forced to convert, or where I brushed aside atrocities.



Now, do you have actually have any actual analysis to offer on the topic of this thread?

Urethra Franklin said:

Given the anti-communist paranoia at the time, it was normal and natural that Allende seek help amongst communist allies. This is no different to people who are not always squeaky clean seeking help, money, political influence and miltary aid from the US. Let's see now, Pinochet aside, who funded the murdering Contras in Nicaragua and why did US troops of the non-aligned nations, we were neither east nor west. We were not part of the soviet bloc, we had access to western media and we had planeloads of Germans and Brits holidaying on our Adriatic coast and Slovene alps who we mingled with. We were totally exposed to westerners and western culture and travelled freeely when we liked. So you display your ignorance totally with your East Bloc jibes. Just as you are ignorant on communist theory, but at least you openly admit that.

Since you like history lessons:

John F. Kennedy: "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute"

,' church as part of his inauguration proceedings. Donald Trump should respect Jefferson's "wall of separation between Church and State" after all, he loves walls.

Now, it might be nice to actually debate the impact of Christianity and communism on intellect, the impact of intellect on Christianity and communism, the philosphical elements of both and why they might enhance or hinder mankind. But since you have admitted you know nothing about contemporary communist theory, I can see that's a tad hard for you to do. If you can educate yourself and come back with a dicussion on that level, like the "clear and coherent" posters here, I'll be delighted to engage with you. But please, don't just come back with another rant about irrelevant numbers, false claims about what I've said and where I come from and a childish history lesson according to the tigerace world view.

I note you have the cheek to accuse Realitywins of running away, so perhaps in your analysis you could actually answer some of my questions and points you've run away from? Notably:

You have still failed to show me where I stated people should be forced to convert, or where I brushed aside atrocities.



Now, do you have actually have any actual analysis to offer on the topic of this thread?

Click to expand...

Given the "anti communist paranoia", it's only "normal" and "natural" that Allende prove that the paranoia isn't actually paranoia? That's a very stupid position to take. Gee, and here I thought Allende was supposed to be some kind of bastion of morality, being a "democratically elected Marxist" and all. Now he's "not squeaky clean"? No ****.

Who funded the murdering PFLP in Palestine? Or the murdering OIRA in Ireland? Carlos the Jackal ring any bells? Red Army Faction? Action Directe? The Red Brigades in Italy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_and_the_Soviet_Union#Support_for_terrorist_organizations

And it wasn't just the Russians. The Romanian Securitate, the Polish SB, the Czechoslovak StB and the East German Stasi all supplied weaponry and safe houses.

Ironically enough, the more years go by and rhe more information that comes out about just how deeply the KGB inflitrated the West, the "witch hunts" did have a point.

Gee, Angela Davis sure is lucky she wasn't "witch hunted" in a communist country. You can ask Trotsky about how much fun that is.

You've already shown your opinion to hold little to no merit.

I hate to break it to you, but your country was still a repressive hellhole. Westerners vacationed in the USSR as well. That doesn't mean jack.

JFK was a vastly overrated president.

Thomas Jefferson helped craft the US government's operating framework, so he wouldn't agree with your "theory".

I've already pointed it out to you repeatedly, but apparently you don't pay attention to I'll spell it out for you in very small words.

You think America is a theocracy. Theocracies have a certain modus operandi. One of those was forcing people to convert. Now, if the United States is a theocracy like you think, it would have to act a certain way.

Tigerace117 said:

Given the "anti communist paranoia", it's only "normal" and "natural" that Allende prove that the paranoia isn't actually paranoia? That's a very stupid position to take. Gee, and here I thought Allende was supposed to be some kind of bastion of morality, being a "democratically elected Marxist" and all. Now he's "not squeaky clean"? No ****.

Who funded the murdering PFLP in Palestine? Or the murdering OIRA in Ireland? Carlos the Jackal ring any bells? Red Army Faction? Action Directe? The Red Brigades in Italy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_and_the_Soviet_Union#Support_for_terrorist_organizations

And it wasn't just the Russians. The Romanian Securitate, the Polish SB, the Czechoslovak StB and the East German Stasi all supplied weaponry and safe houses.

Ironically enough, the more years go by and rhe more information that comes out about just how deeply the KGB inflitrated the West, the "witch hunts" did have a point.

Gee, Angela Davis sure is lucky she wasn't "witch hunted" in a communist country. You can ask Trotsky about how much fun that is.

You've already shown your opinion to hold little to no merit.

I hate to break it to you, but your country was still a repressive hellhole. Westerners vacationed in the USSR as well. That doesn't mean jack.

JFK was a vastly overrated president.

Thomas Jefferson helped craft the US government's operating framework, so he wouldn't agree with your "theory".

I've already pointed it out to you repeatedly, but apparently you don't pay attention to I'll spell it out for you in very small words.

You think America is a theocracy. Theocracies have a certain modus operandi. One of those was forcing people to convert. Now, if the United States is a theocracy like you think, it would have to act a certain way.

Click to expand...

Dress it up in any sheeps clothing you like, Allende was democratically elected, US supported Pinochet wasn't, Allende didn't slaughter his own people, US supported Pinochet did.

Many régimes of all colours have funded terrorist organisations of all motivations. Including the US. The world is a hard place sweetheart. That doesn't make it right but it's fact.

Thanks for the link - you've done another quick Google search. Now tap in "US funded terror" - no need to post it here as neither google search does anything to enhance this "debate" - you are simply playing "My dad's bigger than your dad" again. Mommy should be tucking you in soon after the milk and cookies.

When did you live in Yugoslavia? You evidently did to know that it was a repressive hellhole. No, western tourists did not visit the USSR en mass. Yugolsavia was a package holiday destination in all the brochures alongside the Spanish costas, the French riviera and the Greek islands. We were open for business and we took all your lovely money. You weren't herded round on a guided tour - you hopped on our trains and you hired a car and you freely went poking your nose into every corner of the country you fancied, because we didn't have anything to hide. You seem to think Yugoslavia was Romania. You have no idea that communism differed from from state to state and that there are multiple theories of communism, with free open debate amongst communists. But you don't read any contemporary theory or expand your knowledge, you just keep going on about atrocities that a) nobody's denied and b) happened in many non-communist nations too.

You have still failed to show me where I stated people should be forced to convert, or where I brushed aside atrocities.



Now, do you have actually have any actual analysis to offer on the topic of this thread?

Tigerace117 said:

Nope, you ran away. Repeatedly. It's rather pathetic how easy it is to reduce you to cowering in your burrow.

Click to expand...

:lamo You must be related to Trump with that fantasy world you live in.

Logicman said:

Flush

Click to expand...

:lamo

Realitywins said:

In fact, belief in the xian myth is eroding slowly in the US and faster in England and Europe. U.S. Public Becoming Less Religious | Pew Research Center A number of studies, which I believe I have linked elswhere on this thread, show that as people get better educated the less inclined they are to accept the baseless mythology which is xianity. Which is why people like De Vos want to dumb down the education system in the US even more.

Click to expand...

Further to the above: 0.0% of Icelanders 25 years or younger believe God created the world, poll reveals