By Dan Merica, CNN
Washington (CNN) – Very religious people rate higher – compared to the moderately religious and nonreligious – on a Gallup “well being” survey released Thursday.
According to the survey, very religious people from all religious groups surveyed higher than their nonreligious brethren. Very religious Jews scored highest on the survey with a score of 72.4. Very religious Mormons finished a close second with 71.5.
By comparison, moderately and non religious Jews scored in the 68 percentile, while moderately and non religious Mormons scored in the 63 percentile.
Gallup defines well being based on a number of emotional and physical health indexes in their Well-Being Index.
“The findings confirm that the strong positive relationship between religiosity and wellbeing that Gallup previously demonstrated holds regardless of faith,” stated a release by researchers Frank Newport, Dan Witters and Sangeeta Agrawal.
Though the difference from the top was only about 7 points, those who identified as not religious, atheist or agnostic finished at the bottom of the scale with 65.8 points.
“The relationship appears to be largely independent of the proportions of very religious, moderately religious, and nonreligious in each religious group, and it is more closely aligned with the faith itself,” the release stated.
An example: while Muslims have a lower level of well being than Jews, the gap between the most and least religious constituencies is roughly the same.
The results of the survey also show that Mormons are by far the most religious group surveyed.
Seventy-three percent of Mormons identified as very religious, compared to 50 percent of Protestants, 46 percent of Muslims and 43 percent of Roman Catholics.
In comparison, people from other non-Christian religions and Jews were predominantly nonreligious with 43.7 and 53.5 percent respectively identifying as such.
The survey was compiled from 676,000 interviews and has an error range of plus or minus less than one percent. These interviews were conducted from January 2010 to December 2011.
The data is part of a multipart Gallup series on “religiosity and wellbeing in America.”
Without knowing the actual questions asked, it's very hard to as.sign value to this poll. Well-being is a fairly ambiguous concept.
Well being that atheist atheists are without purpose before of after this short existence self and this world is all they have. That self imposed boundry limits life experience to the materialistic which is as cold as the emptyness in the universe itself. As Solomon who actually tested all the materialists avenues of joy and meaning in life concluded; meaningless all meaningless without God.
Fred, what about all the happy, contented Buddhists? They find meaning without God.
There are happy atheists as well. The article concluded that non religious people have a lower well being. I was saying that when you eliminated a belief in; heaven, Jesus, a new heaven and a new earth where God will wipe away every tear and the lion lays next to the lamb, hope that there we some meaning in the loss of a child etc. you limit your focus to what you see is what you get.
Most important is that those that actually follow Christ reach a place of very high well being in this life. I have met some Buddhists and others high on spirituality that appears to have high well being which could account for the statistics in the article.
Fred, your opinion on the thought processes of atheists is founded not in fact, but in what you want to believe. To put it plainly, it's a lie. I thought you bible said that lying was a sin. Why do christians think it's okay to defy that commandment when they want to insult people? I thought you were required to obey those commandments in order to get to that afterlife you so desperately need in order to be happy.
If you ask a buddhist what the meaning of life is, they should say to achieve nirvana (enlightenment).
If you then ask them how they know they have achieved nirvana or when they die, who/what determines if they achieved enlightenment, their answer would be....?
Additionally, nirvana is "freeing oneself from all desires". So if you had no desires, whats the meaning of life? And how do you get rid of your desire to have no desires?
In Buddhism, to achieve nirvana is to reach the point of absolute peace and calm. You would know that you reached it, because you will no longer have to go through the suffering of life, and will be free form reincarnation. They would say that none could tell you what nirvana is like, because those who achieve it will never return, but some have posited it as peaceful non-existence. they believe they can achieve it by denying cravings, anger, and self abosroption, and by focusing on calm, peaceful co-existence, and with the expression of good will and feelings towards others. There is none who determines when nirvana is acheived, it simply requires absolute peace, so they would say they will continue to try until they no longer exist to try. It's really not that hard to understand, and it functions just fine, without any gods.
Matthew 8:12; 22:1-14; 25;14-30
2 Peter 2:2
What am I missing? If there is no God or no eternal record of any sort and one day our earth is no more then there was no purpose in life. That is not a lie that is a cold reality of existence for a materialist.
We are no closer than the Neanderthal in our understanding of that which we do not know. The natural response is to look up and worship. The natural response is to fill the gap to align with our sense that there is something more to life than chemical reactions within organic matter.
"In Buddhism, to achieve nirvana is to reach the point of absolute peace and calm."
Not in jest, the only person that has reached the point of absolute peace and calm is someone who is dead. This is reality.
"You would know that you reached it, because you will no longer have to go through the suffering of life, and will be free form reincarnation."
If you're a living person, how do you know you will no longer have to go through the suffering of life, and will be free form reincarnation? Something could totally happen tomorrow that throws your life upside down. So you can never no if you reached it or not. And if you can never know you've reached it, how do you know you will no longer have to go through the suffering of life, and will be free form reincarnation. In computer science, this is an infinite loop. That's a bad thing. It's also bad from a philosophy point of view.
"They would say that none could tell you what nirvana is like, because those who achieve it will never return, but some have posited it as peaceful non-existence. "
Soo.... you really don't know...
"They believe they can achieve it by denying cravings, anger, and self abosroption, and by focusing on calm, peaceful co-existence, and with the expression of good will and feelings towards others."
If they truly deny the craving of hunger or thirst, how long will they live?
"There is none who determines when nirvana is acheived, it simply requires absolute peace, so they would say they will continue to try until they no longer exist to try."
Which you still don't know if you have achieved absolute peace, and in terms of existence Buddhism says you have to reincarnate and try again from step 1.
Pretty demoralizing way to live since no one can be sure what's going to happen or even if nirvana truly exists... since as any person in tune with reality will know that absolute peace within yourself is impossible. Oh, I forgot, as long as I think(say?) I have absolute peace, I should be ok, right?
It is not an infinite loop, unless you mess up the coding. In answer to your final question, no it is not just about saying I am at peace, for a Buddhist it is about truly achieving it.
Feeding your body and providing it with water are not cravings, it is necessary to life, but nice try at distorting things.
Your bus example pretty sorely misses the mark. If a buddhist has truly reached a point of absolute peace and calm, and is ready to reach Nirvana, and was all of a sudden hit by a bus, then that is how their life ends, they are done, and they are in Nirvana, the same would be true if they were bit by a poisonous snake, crushed by a meteor, killed by a meteorite, or died peacfully in meditation at a very old age. If they didn't achieve the goal, then they will be reincarnated, and yes, they start the game all over again.
Here's a better example for you. You program a robot to aim and fire a crossbow at a target 75 feet away. Each time it tries to acount for the weight of that specific arrow, the draw strength of the bow, predicted velocity, the rate of decent due to gravity, and the pervailing wind conditions. Then it fires. If the arrow hits anywhere other than the bullseye, the robot loads another arrow and tries again, but it doesn't use any data from the prior shot, it does all new calculations with the variables of the new arrow and new conditions. If it hit the bullseye, it stops, and shuts itself off. The end.
Does that make more sense?
Fred, if you need pretend immortality to give your life meaning, that is your problem.
I am content with the one life I have. I will live my life to the best of my ability, do my best to do no harm, and in fact try to do some good. I will end my days happy with those years I have had. I'm sorry that you think that my life has no value, but you are the greedy one. You are the one who seems to think that you are too special and important to die.
I did not say your life has no value or that your life has more or less value than mine. Without God or an eternal record keeper there will be a point when that value no longer exists. Based upon the idea of non existence after death, the atheist upon death never existed based upon his own materialistic construct without an eternal record keeper. The same logic an atheist uses to deny the existence of God now denies the existence of the atheist. Yet, the atheist says I did exist because I am. This in itself is a claim that there is more to life than chemical reaction on organic matter. One can be agnostic but to be atheist is illogical as Spock would say
Honestly, Fred, I don't know what you are trying to say. I exist. I know I exist. I have friends and family I know exist, and they know that I exist.
Life is ephemeral. The universe is very old, and life on our planet has existed for just a tiny fraction of that time. Our lives as individuals make almost no mark in the march of history.
Is that what troubles you? That you really aren't that important? It's okay, Fred. None of us are really that valuable in the big picture, but we matter to those we love and those who love us. Why isn't that enough for you? Why do you need more? Why do you need the baseless promise of immortality to find value in your existence? Why can't your own life be enough for you?
That is a good question! Even when I did not know or care about God or gods I felt there must be something more. That void could not be fllled with anything until one day I opened a Bible. What Jesus said gave hope, promise and a purpose to life. Whatever the reason it looks like I needed that long before a Bilble dropped in my hands.
I will think about that -Thanks,
That is a very sad story, Fred. I'm very sorry that your life was so empty. I'm sorry that you had to fill it with the empty promise of religion. I hope that someday you learn that your life has value, even without the approval of a non-existent supreme being.
Funny how the atheists always bash religions, they act like the Christians are intolerant. I've seen more atheists bash religion than Christians do.
Obviously you don't spend a lot of time on this blog.
Why would Christians bash religion?
Please review what you wrote and fix the message.
Who is to say Christians wouldn't bash other religions, such as Islam, Buddhism, the jews, ect.
William, go out and get some sunlight, do something with your life. Posting on faith forums all day isn't good for your mind.
You are talking about the Chrisitans that blamed the Jews for the death of Christ, and led Pog Roms that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people?
Educate yourself son, you sound childish
William Demuth, you're the one that needs to educate yourself son. Stop spreading man's lies. Jesus said,
Acts 2:5 (regarding the good Jews)
5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
John 7:1( regarding the bad Jews)
1 After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.
Christians do not blame Jews for the death of Christ. No one defended Christ, Jew or Roman. It is clear that man was responsible for the death of Christ. There's no one to blame but ourselves.
Romans 13 clearly states that the state is responsible for bearing the sword, not the church. In history, when the people in the church exceeded its mandate and bore the sword, things were not pretty. It's not God or Christ's teachings that's the problem, it's man, you and me.
Go wander over to any post about Islam. Or try any one on a specific sect of Christianity – say Catholicism or Mormonism. Then come back and say that Christians don't bash others.
I have a godmother who watched her father be shot in the back of the head by a "gentlemen" who spat on his corpse and called him a Christ killer.
You are a fool who knows NOTHING of history at all.
And what evidence do you have that would indicate that the killer followed Christ's teachings (aka A Christian)?
Guess what? you don't get to exclude people from your ranks just because its inconvenient.
If intolerant Christians don't show up they are contrived.
So very religiuos Jewish people scored highest. If this survey has any merit then I guess we had all better become very religious Jews then.
I'm atheist and depression I've experienced is a direct result of religion. It's amazing how parents can treat you when you tell them you don't believe their faith anymore. My mother said "I would rather you be dead than have you leave the faith." That's a nice sentiment. It's a pretty common one too, in the faith I came from. That's just the tip of the iceberg of things my parents have said and done.
Such a tragedy.
Wait till she is real old and then put a little Drano in her iced tea.
Vengance is a dish best served cold
Wow, that's cold. I know you're just joking but I'm not even gonna go there.
My "revenge" is to live well and prove I don't need the crutch of religion to be successful. In that faith, it was indoctrinated that people who left would become the epitome of evil. They would become drug addicts, fornicators, drunkards, and murderers. Funny people in that faith abused prescription drugs, cheated on wives constantly, love to drink and essentially murder their kids by standing by a practice of refusing blood transfusions for their kids.
I am happy you understand the joke, but I would recomend denying her last rites or a Christian burial.
We have an OBLIGATION to end the madness and the bigotry.
She took her stand, I suggest you take yours.
Let her supersticions die with her.
She doesn't believe in last rites. As a matter of fact, they are against her religion. She denied the last rites to my father who was not a part of of her religion.
Jesus Christ said:
6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
2 John 7-11
7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
8 Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.
9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine [Christianity], receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.
> Jesus Christ said:
Who cares what Jesus said? He's demonstrated himself to be a person who encourages excess drinking and someone who doesn't really care for the plight of the poor when it comes in the way of his own personal pleasures.
You can't be good and do these sorts of things. Of course, christians overlook these, because they're not in keeping with the concept of Christ they have.
It sounds like you mom is a Jehovah's Witness.
That sect is notorious for condemning virtually everybody to the fires of hell, even should they live a life full of charity, compassion, and humility.
I can only imagine how difficult it must be to contend with that type of judgement from your own mother.
My sympathy is with you.
Then find whatever she wants and destroy it.
If you want to defeat this cut mindset you need action.
Then give her a Catholic funeral and bury her in a Muslim buthcher shop in Trinidad
Bob, I'd read the following scriptures if I were you.
> Bob, I'd read the following scriptures if I were you.
I've read the bible thanks. Probably more then you.
The bible is the reason I don't believe that the Christian God exists. Because it's idiotic.
Aww, nuts. I guess the Jews won, oh well.
If one can profit from his faith, rest assurd the Jews will ALWAYS squeak out a few percentage points more.
9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.
"So the four and twenty elders and the four living beings before pregnancy, and all of them, however, was a guitar and incense filled the cups of gold, which is the prayers of the saints."
Careful, that green-eyed monster is dangerous.
While I would like to see what they score as wellness, the results here don't surprise me at all. Two of the major elements to any "wellness" evaluation in modern medicine are diet and alcohol consumption. The Jewish and Muslim faiths have the two strictest diatary rules (Judaism being the more rigid), and one of them completely bans alcohol. Of course they would score highly (followed by the Mormon faith, which also regulates a person's diet).
Additionally, it is a very unfortunate fact that most people feel an internal and primal drive to "belong". We are a pack animal, incapable surviving in teh wild on our own, so our instinct is to be part of a group. My experience is that in most people it is an overwhelming instinct (it's why peer pressure is so effective and why mob mentality is so unbelievably powerful). Those who are STRONGLY religious are feeding this instinct very well, and I imagine it makes them very happy. Good. That, the feeling of comfort brought about by having others who share your beliefs and can give you something to focus on when life is difficult is the ONLY redeeming part of religion (if you're the kind of person who needs that sort of thing).
I'm not surprised at the results, but I would put this out there. There are non-religious people who have all teh same wellbeing as the most religious of these categories, but they aren't as common, because they are the kind of people that are self driven, and have personal habits or lifestyles that force them to maintain a good diet and an active routine, and that are confident and comfortable with themselves and their own abilities, and don't feel the incesent need to be a part of a group. In my personal opinion, they are far stronger than the individuals that would not be as healthy without having the religious group to fall back on for comfort and guidance, and it would be advantages for us all to become more personally responsible for our well being; but, the result say what they say, and I can understand them. Don't, however, go thinking it is a sign of divine influence, it just shows how people work- still no gods necessary.
When confronted with the evidence of God from a scientific study the non believer must diffuse the Truth as quickly as possible. Phase one appears to be childish whining and protest. Eventually they will get around to shooting the messenger. If science does not agree with an atheist types preconceived conclusions then it can't be science. Failing any reasonable argument just dismiss the Truth out of hand.
You percieve this as evidence of your God?
Then why does it work for those worshiping a DIFFERENT God?
Based upon your logic, ALL of the Gods in the study are true, so the only thing left is which God pays the best dividends?
Get a grip!
I missed the part where this "scientific study" proved any of the mythologies to be true.
When confronted with real science, the theist puts their fingers in their ears and screams that they're right while trying to ba.t science away using the bible. When finally backed into a corner, instead of admi.tting defeat, the theist picks a random, va.gue line in the bible and claims that they knew this information the whole time and is glad to see the bible be proven correct by science. It's sad to see so many people trying so hard to hold onto an idea that is obviously false
I'm The Best!
You can't be serious? Perceptions are now evidence?
Have you any understanding of science at all?
Hate athiests all you like, but you can stamp your feet and call this science if you like, but my youngest could see this as nothing more than a beauty contest for zealots.
I'm not sure you understood my post. I may have written it poorly but I was making fun of theists. This article has no real science in it
Thank you all for confirming what I posted, you acted exactly as predicted.
Surveys and polls are reflections of opinions – they are not factual in the sense that they give hard evidence of the existence of something. They can only reflect what people say they think and feel.
For Example – Professor Greg Graffin's PhD thesis was a poll of the world's pre-eminent evolutionary biologists.
It showed that the overwhelming majority of them are atheists and that they see no conflict between religion and science – so long as religion is recognized solely as a sociological adaptation.
Do the results of that poll convince you that all religion is a man made mechanism in order to allow humans to cooperate?
If you go to a PTA meeting and ask the parents in attendance if they think students in their kids' class use and/or sell drugs, the majority will raise their hands. Ask them if their own kids use or sell drugs and not a single hand willl go up.
Opinions are not facts and truth is not determined by consensus.
Unless of course the surveys and polls support your preconceived notion of what is. It is only when Truth challenges the narrowness of your minds that you take issue.
The sound of my point going straight over Just sayin's head.
William, more towards your education ... instead of being one of the useful idiots your professors knew you to be.
No surprise that it's easier going through life believing you'll be eternally rewarded for your mindless obedience to idiotic dogma. Really takes the sting out of the whole mortality thing.
2 John 7-11
What are you doing, trying to exorcize me??
Begone foul demon!
This was originally shown in research completed by Dr.s Sethi and Seligman, which showed that more fundamentalist religious persons are more optimistic. He's something interesting - I just completed research indicating that this differentiation does not hold when comparing Christians, religious non-christians, and nonreligious people on a measure of hope. all groups score similarly when it comes to hope.
Darrin Coe, Ph.D.
lol, nice testing – if i was to believe in god, and i completely believed that if i killed you i would then secure my place in heaven ...well good sir, i think i'd be a tad optimistic about that too!
however, being optimistic doesn't prove anything about a damn thing but the person's own view on life...my gla$$ is half full AT THE MOMENT! see what i did there at the end, yeah, i know, its awesome!
I'm calling bullshlt.
What sort of controls did you use? Who were your subjects and how did the demographics break down?
You talk like you're a kid trying to bluff his way around pretending to have a phd.
I doubt you even have a degree in anything and have yet to get a GED.
Enough is enough in this world, we need another Christian crusade to cull out the non-believers. Do not spare any man, woman, or child that does not accept the Lord as their leader. Glorious battles, the Christian people will succeed. True peace can be achieved that way, through fear or force. The time will come soon enough Atheists, laying in your own pool of blood repenting for the Lord to save you, He will not save you.
"Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)"
"They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)"
I look forward to disemboweling you on the altar of your hatefull and ignorant church.
Then I will reeducate your children.
bring it bit.ch! :)
i'll be waiting.
how good are you with weapons? i've been trained, professionally!
blade, gun, bow, hand to hand...still waiting!
People like you are the reason as long as religion is in the minds of people, there will never be piece.
Anyone else think Zeal and William should meet? Anyone?
Lets just set the world back a thousand years for the sake of the unknown, unproven delusions of christards!! Who the hell raises people like 'zeal'? And they say we have no morals...absolutely amazing!!
Atheists harm no-one with our disbelief, however as is proven here, christards harm too many!!
What type of person wishes death upon people in this way? I'm guessing 'zeal' doesn't understand that christards only make up about 2 billion of the world population.
(Religion in the U.S. vs. the World:
United States World
Christian 83% 33%
No religion 13% 15%
All non-Christian religions 4% 52%
*so to kill off all non-believers in the world means killing off approximately 3.6 billion people and then we must account for those who say 'no religion'...taking out another 1.05 billion*) (for the full report go to: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/beliefnet_poll_010718.html)
Zeal: you seriously need to check your morals and get some help for the mental illness you quite apparently suffer.
I'm feeling really good about myself. Very powerful. I studied aikido and karate for years and years, but then I got my hands on an HK417 and I really felt the peace of the Lord descend on me. I'm ready.
Atheists harm no-one with our disbelief,
Hitler (no he was not a follower of Christ, Bonhoeffer was)
No not a one.
Mike from CT
Inacuarate at best, intentionaly false at worst.
Do you realize in ALL of these cases you equate the actions of the State with the beliefs of individuals.
Stalin was religious. He even REINSTATED the church during Hitlers invasion, because he needed to use its followrs to kill people.
And Pol was a devout Buddist
Everyone you just listed was a despotic bsatard, no argument there (Napoleon wasn't a complete tool to the people he had already conquered, but he did start a lot of wars). But, here's where your list falls apart. While all of those people COULD be atheists (even if they did give public speeches where they used religion as a tool to gain power), they didn't kill or commit their atrocities BECAUSE of religion. They did it because they were power hungry bsatards. Stalin abolished religion because it created a competing interest for control. If they had thought that using religion would have strengthened their positions, they would have (in Hitler's case, he did). People don't kill "in the name of no god!". But, unbalanced fanatics (not your average person who believes there is someone out there looking oover them) do kill "In the name of GOD!" That is the difference, listing bad atheists doesn't prove anything, neither does just listing bad Theists (Alexander the VI was a truly evil man), what matters is if you can gve their motivation. As I said, people have killed and waged war to "honor" their gods. Atheists have yet to wage war to disprove them.
> Atheists harm no-one with our disbelief,
Your argument is moronic. Let me show you why.
People who don't believe in the evil faeries that control your mind:
– Hitler (no he was not a follower of Christ, Bonhoeffer was)
– Pol Pot
– Kim Jong-Il
Is it sinking in yet? If I can replace "not believe in God" to "not believe in the stay puft marshmellow man" and there is no difference in the argument, the argument holds no water and it makes no sense.
Why didn't you see this flaw in your silly and stupid argument?
You've been bobinated. For like the billionth time.
William, it's time you read John 8:44.
> William, it's time you read John 8:44.
Let me translate...
NUH UH, YOU'RE LYING. ANYONE WHO SAYS WHAT I BELIEVE MIGHT NOT BE TRUE IS LYING. LA LA LA, LA LA LA (fingers in ears).
"they didn't kill or commit their atrocities BECAUSE of religion"
Please explain why Hitler target the Jews? Because they were... well off? White? Talked with a funny accent?
@Will @BRC please reconcile the difference between
"Stalin was religious. He even REINSTATED the church"
"Stalin abolished religion because it created a competing interest for control"
People who have a hatered/disbelief in the God others worship:
– Hitler (no he was not a follower of Christ, Bonhoeffer was)
– Pol Pot
– Kim Jong-Il
– The guy in the news breaking into cabins in Utah, destroying all religious possessions
"For like the billionth time." so much for living life by the facts friend :)
Hitler targeted the Jews because they were an easy scapegoat, oh and because he was f-cking insane. He needed an enemy to unite the impoverished German populace under his path to "greatness" for the Fatherland. He picked a small set of the population that was generally easily identified and used them. He didn't do it because he believed their faith in Yahweh was wrong and needed to be stamped out. He did it because he was deranged, wanted power, and used hostility against them to get it.
As for Stalin reestablishing the church, hadn't heard it, but if William looked up a historical fact I didn't, point to him; it would make it even less likely that his d-ckish behavior was caused by his atheism.
I don't know everything about history, so if you can find me a conflict broke out because one side wanted to destroy ALL religions (not just their enemy's religion, that falls as a mark against the religious), I'll give that Atheism can cause the same trouble as religion. But I've never heard of it, heard plenty of the other way though.
> "For like the billionth time." so much for living life by the facts friend
Fact 1: I like to use sarcasm.
Fact 2: You're consistently being proven wrong.
So, I make light via sarcasm to prove you're wrong.
By the way, I don't say I live stricktly by facts. You might want to work on your reading comprehension.
You've been bobinated for the billionth plus one time.
oh – delusions can be fun...i know i had my share of delusional fun as a child too. When its there time to grow up maybe they will maybe they won't...time is the keeper of all sercets.
One thing is for sure thou, the belief in god is not healthy, if it was then none would perish due to it! Unless of course if you view death as a sign of health.
Being healthy is not just for the body but for the mind as well, and these folks are true religious delusionists! Therefore they are far from healthy!
Just make sure that they get their meds.
I wonder how the followers of Jim Jones might have scored?
Jim Jones was not a follower of Christ, he thought he was Christ, a mentally unstable man that deceived a lot of people, not unlike the deception displayed by atheists on these blogs.
Jones wasn't, Manson wasn't, Hitler wasn't.
You guys lie like rugs! Face it your cult breeds LUNATICS!
You know it none of those mentioned were Christians.
nope, you are wrong just sayin!
might want to learn things besides the bible before opening that mouth of yours...unless your priest tells you to open up, then i recommend you open, and swallow slowly! :)
@ just sayin
We literally just had this conversation yesterday about how Hitler was a Christian and you could not come up with any actual facts stating that he was anything but Christian. You eventually just left the blog. Just provide one piece of evidence saying that he was an atheist. All I ask for is one piece and you have yet to provide any
My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited.
-Adolf Hitler, in his speech in Munich on 12 April 1922
14 What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15 Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. 18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. 19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder." ~James 2:14-19~
Your actions show what you truly believe. Deeds do not save you but your saving faith is reflected in your actions. Otherwise all you have are empty words.
So let's look at Hitler's actions....
By your logic Yahveh himself coldn't be Chrisitian
Salughtering Egyptian children to annoy the Pharoh?
Planing the future slaughter of billions of his own children?
Your religion is a pack of lies whispered by bronze age idiots. Its really nothing more than a cult of Autistic kids trying to play post office with human history.
1. "Salughtering Egyptian children to annoy the Pharoh"
2. "Your religion is a pack of lies whispered by bronze age idiots. "
So if 2 is correct why do you put value in 1 being true to show how insensitive God it, and it was not to annoy Pharoh, but to bring glory to His name, which it did by freeing the people of Israel after the previous NINE attempts were disregarded.
William doesn't believe what the book says, but he can still use the words to illustrate their absurdity.
Also, according to that same book, the first nine attempts didn't fail. Pharoah REPEATEDLY tried to release the hebrews, but in each of the preceeding times "God" (quoting here) "hardened Pharoah's heart"; "God" made Pharoah change his mind so he could punish him more, yes seemingly to show off how powerful he was. That's certainly the kind of behavior that I think should be worshipped.
> Will, You say
> 1. "Salughtering Egyptian children to annoy the Pharoh"
> 2. "Your religion is a pack of lies whispered by bronze age idiots. "
> So if 2 is correct why do you put value in 1 being true to show how insensitive God it, and it was not to annoy Pharoh, but to bring glory to His name, which it did by freeing the people of Israel after the previous NINE attempts were disregarded.
I've become convinced that you're mentally retarded or a troll.
If you are a troll, why you doing ship tier trolling bro? Try for God tier stuff.
"The more you know" from another /b/tard.
Ignorance is bliss
Damnit sir, you beat me to it.
You are blind, Bobinator and friends, and there is this thing called sight. Having no experience of it you prefer to live without it and rail against people who have it. We believe in color and dimension but that is ignorance and not reality.
Christians: Everyone is blind but us. We have true faith.
Muslims: Everyone is blind but us. We have true faith.
Jews: Everyone is blind but us. We have true faith.
Mormons: Eveyrone is blind but us. We have true faith.
Seems to me everyone in some sort of religion thinks they've experienced something unique. It's not so much that I don't see colour, it's that different people say different things. One says it's blue, one says it's red and the other says it's yellow. And each claims the other is wrong.
The reality is that the only thing that you can rely on is verifyable fact. If your standard of evidence is faith, you cannot distinguish between any of the religions. And given that all religions cannot be correct, you're putting yourself in the position to believe things that are contradictory.
So while you may think you see colour, rationally you have to realize that what you are seeing may not be what you think it is. Unless you're mildly retarded, which, given your response is a strong possibility.
And if you're a troll, cudos, you've walked the line between stupid and believable fairly well. Not sure which, but it warrented a reply.
OK Case, you make no sense at all. That is why we call people like you delusional.
The reality is that the only thing that you can rely on is verifyable fact.
Bob, please tell us when you are going to die. That is not an insult or a request for you to die, but if you live by facts alone, why do you save up (retirement) for something that may not be obtainable, or at least you don't have the "fact" that you will retire but you still live your life on this as.sumption.
Eggs good for you or bad for you, do you still eat them?
The health benefit of eggs, like everything, is not black and white. If you can actually get beyond the hype and stop relying on news media for your 'facts', then maybe you'll start to realize this.
Also, it is a fact that someone has the potential to retire. Thus, planning is prudent. I don't as</bsume that I'll retire – I plan for the possibility.
How dense are you?
> Bob, please tell us when you are going to die. That is not an insult or a request for you to die, but if you live by facts alone, why do you save up (retirement) for something that may not be obtainable, or at least you don't have the "fact" that you will retire but you still live your life on this as.sumption.
This has got to be the stupidest statement I have ever seen. Let me spell it out for you...
Fact 1: Some people die early
Fact 2: Most people die later on in life after retired.
Fact 3: Everyone dies.
Now that I have these facts, I realize that I'm going to die. But given the fact that most people die after their retired, I conclude that it's probably in my best interests to save for retirement.
That's my view on reality. Based on facts. Why is this so hard for people to grasp?
> Eggs good for you or bad for you, do you still eat them?
Again, let me help you out.
Fact 1: Eggs are probably worse for you due to choloesterol.
Fact 2: I like eating eggs.
Fact 3: Everyone will die eventually.
Therefore, I conclude that I will eat eggs because I'm going to die anyways and I might as well enjoy it.
Can you really be this thick?
"The health benefit of eggs, like everything, is not black and white"
" I plan for the possibility."
THATS THE POINT THAT JUST WENT SAILING OVER YOUR HEAD
You can not just rely on "facts"
"Fact 1: Eggs are probably " That's just funny
The point is you can not live out your life, just on what you "factually" think you know
Using Bob Logic
Fact 1: If I go on a killing spree I will get money and possesion of the decease
Fact 2: I will PROBABLY get caught, and face the death penalty
Fact 3: Everyone dies
Therefore, I should go on a killing spree because I was going to die anyway, "get rich or die trying"
Then there is the issue at hand was Jesus, God incarnate or not, because you claim that you do not have Facts to back that up you base your decision on the "facts" you don't have, which in turn is not a fact but a lack of information that you make your decision on.
@Bob "Fact 1: Eggs are probably " That's just funny
Actually it is a fact. You don't understand how facts work. It can be a fact that chances favour a certain outcome.
For example, if I say "When you roll a six sided die, you'll probably roll a 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5."
In this specific case I was referencing the facts that I know about my body. When I look at the qualities of eggs and their assoicated risks, I conclude that it's probably bad for me.
You're clown shoes.
> The reality is that the only thing that you can rely on is verifyable fact.
Since I figure english is your second language, I'll explain what this means.
What it means is that you can only rely, that is to say, have confidence in facts.
This does not preclude me from thinking about facts and making informed decisions.
The problem is that you're looking desperately to find some way that I'm wrong. As such, you present this laughable argument based on your poor understanding of the english language.
Learn to read and learn to think. You won't seem so foolish in the future.
> Using Bob Logic
Oh, a small minded individual is trying to use my thought process, this should be fun.
> Fact 1: If I go on a killing spree I will get money and possesion of the decease.
> Fact 2: I will PROBABLY get caught, and face the death penalty.
> Fact 3: Everyone dies.
> Therefore, I should go on a killing spree because I was going to die anyway, "get rich or die trying".
That's not my logic. I don't equate facts as equal values like you do. You equate everyone dying as equal to getting the death penalty. It's not.
> Then there is the issue at hand was Jesus, God incarnate or not, because you claim that you do not have Facts to back that up you base your decision on the "facts" you don't have, which in turn is not a fact but a lack of information that you make your decision on.
English as a second language? You write like a 6th grader. Which probably explains the way you answer people.
"For example, if I say "When you roll a six sided die, you'll probably roll a 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5."
What do you have against 6's :)
Bob, help me understand English
something that actually exists; reality; truth:
something known to exist or to have happened:
a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
something said to be true or supposed to have happened:
Law . Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circ.umstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence. Compare question of fact, question of law.
So in "fact" do you know you are going to retire? Granted the evidence points to you probably will, but then again it also points to a Creator
Fact: Jesus, existed. This fact is fact under #2,#4 even if you bypass #1.
Fact: Social economics and beliefs drastically and rapidly changed because of the teachings of the apostles
Fact: To date you have yet to address the facts presented.
Fact: You use the lack of actually having #1-4 as a fact itself to justify your behavior and beliefs
Name Calling: Propagandists use this technique to create fear and arouse pre.judice by using negative words (bad names) to create an unfavorable opinion or ha.tred against a group, beliefs, ideas or inst.itutions they would have us denounce. This method calls for a conclusion without examining the evidence. Name Calling is used as a subst.itute for arguing the merits of an idea, belief, or proposal. It is often employed using sarcasm and ridicule in political cartoons and writing. When confronted with this technique the Inst.itute for Propaganda Analysis suggests we ask ourselves the following questions: What does the name mean? Is there a real connection between the idea and the name being used? What are the merits of the idea if I leave the name out of consideration? When examining this technique try to separate your feelings about the name and the actual idea or proposal (Propaganda Critic: Common Techniques 1).
Ok, try to get this through your obviously very thick skull:
Fact: Eggs can provide some health benefit (e.g. protein)
Fact: Eggs can also provide a negative health benefit (e.g. cholesterol)
These things are facts. As a consumer, I need to weigh the available facts on my own personal situation (do I have high cholesterol? Am I getting protein from other sources?) to make an informed choice. A choice based on facts. Again, it's not black and white. It cannot possibly be that hard to comprehend this.
Now, for retirement, since this evidently needs to be spelled out for you.
Fact: the average life span for an american male, combined with the average retirement age, means that the avergae person will need a retirement account
Fact: I could die tomorrow.
I need to weigh these facts against each other to make an informed decision.
What, exactly, is it that you fail to comprehend here.
fact – noun
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth:
The object isn't a fact. The information surrounding the information is a fact.
2. something known to exist or to have happened:
That's pretty close.
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
Nope, because personal experience would be a fact. That's not true.
4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened:
Most definitely not.
5.Law . Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circ.umstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence. Compare question of fact, question of law.
No, a fact is never alleged.
> So in "fact" do you know you are going to retire?
No, it does not.
> Granted the evidence points to you probably will, but then again it also points to a Creator.
No, it really doesn't.
> Fact: Jesus, existed. This fact is fact under #2,#4 even if you bypass #1.
That's not correct. It's not known if Jesus did exist.
> Fact: Social economics and beliefs drastically and rapidly changed because of the teachings of the apostles
I'd say that's a fact.
> Fact: To date you have yet to address the facts presented.
I did address your facts. Jesus existing, not a fact. The apostiles teachings affecting the world is a fact.
> Fact: You use the lack of actually having #1-4 as a fact itself to justify your behavior and beliefs
Fact 1 isn't a fact.
The fact that you think facts are subject to different definitions at different times makes you very, very special.
fact – noun
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth:
The object isn't a fact. The information surrounding the information is a fact.
Fact 1 isn't a fact.
The fact that you think facts are subject to different definitions at different times makes you very, very special.
So what you are really saying, even though you don't realize it, is that Webster doesn't even know english?
and somehow even though your life, like everyone elses, has in its past regrettable decisions that if you had a time machine would prevent your self from making again, but yet you set yourself up as an ultimate authority having been wrong time and time again. You, and I, make horrible dieties, so don't set yourself up as one.
> So what you are really saying, even though you don't realize it, is that Webster doesn't even know english?
If Websters defines a fact as "Someone said something" then yes, it has not clue what it's talking about.
> and somehow even though your life, like everyone elses, has in its past regrettable decisions that if you had a time machine would prevent your self from making again, but yet you set yourself up as an ultimate authority having been wrong time and time again. You, and I, make horrible dieties, so don't set yourself up as one.
Everyone makes mistakes. You can make the wrong decision for the right reasons and vice versa. The difference between you and I is that I'm actually thinking about whether I make a mistake and you're just happy to believe what you want regardless if it's a mistake or not.
The reality here is that there is no sane, rational reason to believe in a God. Not one. Which is why christians like you try to find flaws in arguments rather then justify your position.
The reality here is that you have no clue what you're talking about and that you're way out of your league. Pick up a damn book besides the bible and get an education.
Bob you still go with the name calling defense, sad
I have my education in CS&E, as an engineer I know design points to a designer. My hope and pray is that it will sink in that it takes more arguments to rationalize the "randomize" of the human existence then it does to look at the historical record and the results of what the apostles and the early church have yielded.
Hopefully one day you will see you are over your head in what you think you know.
What happened to the baby in the picture ? The speaker at the front obviously just asked "who wants Taco Bell for lunch ?"..the lady on the right holding up her hand seems REAL excited 'bout that.
Rejoice in the Lord always. I will say it again: Rejoice! Let your gentleness be evident to all. The Lord is near. Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.
Yes, rejoice in ignorance, blind faith and wishing your specific brand of unfounded beliefs are correct.
I have a question. Why is it that Jews scored the highest? Does that mean their faith is better? If not, then happiness has nothing to do with the truth of the faith. Mormons scored second highest. Did John Smith have some sort of religious insight and that's why they do better then christians?
I find it funny that religious people seem to grasp any straw that is offered to help them along with their faith without actually thinking what it means.
Deuteronomy 22: 28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rap.es her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
For therefore we declare unto ye from out of our mouths yet unto the end of days, it is thereby better to be beset therefore unto thyself by delusions for thou shalt thereby do better in the Gallup and sundry polls unto the proving therefore that it is better for thy well being to be delusional, and also thereby proving that this is thereby true because this thy holy book sayeth it to you thereby, for what, therefore, did you expect this thy holy book to say, after all,, to thine self, therefore unto. :roll:
Let God arise let His enemies be scattered
Let God arise let His enemies be scattered
Let God arise let His enemies be scattered
Let God, let God ARISE !
Sounds like Jeebus needs Viagra
I'd also like to see the questions. How is this test scored?
Anyone have a link? :)
1) Just because they are happier doesn't mean that what they believe is true.
2) Drunk people on average are happier then non-drunk people.
I prefer to live in reality, even if it doesn't make me feel good all the time. Mainly becuase I'm an adult and can intellectually face reality. I don't need invisible friends promising everything "will be ok".
Bobinator: For someone who prefers to live in reality you spend a lot of time here. This isn't reality.
This message board isn't real? ZOMG.
The reality is that I enjoy posting here, even if the majority are trolls and people looking for fun. :)
Prayer changes things
Told you so!
You're a poor troll. I mean, come on. You're not even putting any effort into it.
How has prayer been proven?
Please provide examples along with study/article
Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam!
Lovely spam! Wonderful spam!
Spam spa-a-a-a-a-am spam spa-a-a-a-a-am spam.
Lovely spam! Lovely spam! Lovely spam! Lovely spam!
Spam spam spam spam!
Besides the thousands of proofs already given you now have the conclusive results of scientific study. You remember science a gift God gave mankind?Science the gift of the creator that atheist types try to elevate above God. Science the studies that atheist types tend to wet their drawers over.
No effort by anyone compares to the hand of God. God proves Himself in every aspect of human existence. We merely point out obvious facts that very few miss.
Science is a goft from 'god'? Yeah, right... and I suppose fire was a gift brought by Prometheus? Science can be verified, or soundly refuted using emprical evidence. NO 'GOD' has ever, EVER been shown to have existed throughout mankind's history. Sure, science can be exciting, learning new things. But an invisible being who watches over everything, then has the audacity to "judge" us? Not something to get excited about. You always spout that there is concrete, irrefutible 'evidence' as to your god. List your studies, the academics involved, dates, and sources.
You keep saying these proofs have been given but I've never seen any. Please relay a few here so I may see these proofs that you claim
According to this survey, you better become Jewish then. They apparently have it figured out.
That's because they are delusional
Your comment makes no sense in light of factual scientific evidence.
Please cite the sources for this purported evidence.
Read the article or stay the F in canada moron.There's your sign
> Read the article or stay the F in canada moron.There's your sign
The fail troll is back. Heya fail troll.
I have a question. Why aren't you able to actually post a decent troll response? I mean, it's not hard unless you have an IQ below 90.
There's your sign. :D
Don't give him too much credit, I have a cousin who's iq is below 90 and he's pretty good at getting under peoples skin and illiciting a response from people
I count it all joy that once again God is proven right and you atheist types are left on the pot with no paper. There you sit fussing and spewing, name calling and whining like spiritually immature monkeys.
I've realized that just sayin has never actually given any proof to anything he's ever said. When asked for it he gives opinions and when that's pointed out he just stops responding. Think its time to put up or shut up. I'll start with the prayer one, above you said there was a lot of proof that prayer works, please give one actual proof that can't be explained statistically or scientifically.
A survey is not scientific evidence.
Opinions are not fact.
Other people sharing your delusion doesn't make you any less delusional.
Go back to canada doc we have our own brand of bull sh it here yours is not needed. There's your sign
Try to wrap your redneck brain around the concept that the World Wide Web is – as the name implies – WORLD WIDE.
There's your sign – it says "Xenophobe"
Please stop using words my fellow Americans don't understand... it makes me sad.
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.