Very cool, if true

I assume the irony of that statement was deliberate? :o)

From:

magent.livejournal.com

Actually, no :) I was still shocked and stunned from the article. :D I'm only that clever accidentally :)

Magent

From:

seidl.livejournal.com

What was the poll sample and what were the other questions like? From the wording its a very 'there is one god' heavy poll, which might well bias it to those who actually believe in a god in the first place.

I know if someone called me in a telephone poll and started asking those type of questions I wouldn't have a lot of patience for it, and would tend to under-represent myself by hanging up.

From:

The figures are apparently from www.pollingreport.com. I haven't checked them myself, to tell the truth.

From:

nosrialleon.livejournal.com

I'd like all of the respondents to #3 put in camps. Comfortable camps, mind you, not forced labor or extermination camps - just somewhere where I can keep an eye on them.

I guess I fall somewhere into category #4-
"Assertions about the origin of man are inherently unproveable and therefore scientifically meaningless."

From:

derumi.livejournal.com

A lot of them probably have been going to Bible Camp, so you're in luck. ^_^

From:

nosrialleon.livejournal.com

I'll set 'em up...
you knock 'em down!

From:

substitute.livejournal.com

If you're a believer in an almighty God you're at least stuck with #1. As a Christian who went to school, though, I'm quite terrified by that 47% of ignorant people.

From:

heron61.livejournal.com

I have little problem with anyone who believes [1], although I lean more towards [2]. However, the number of people who believe [3] terrifies me.

Then again, many people living in the more benighted sections of the US likely know that they are "supposed" to answer [1] or [3], and so this may affect the results. Sometimes polls reflect what people think they are supposed to believe and not what they actually do.

If nothing else, I like my answer far better that the fact that almost half of the population of the US are potentially dangerous lunatics who are completely out of touch with reality (which honestly is the way I would consider anyone who answered [3]).

From:

blackmanxy.livejournal.com

Do not question our ways, outsider!

*waves skull-topped staff menacingly in your direction*

From:

spaj.livejournal.com

importantly, though, human beings are here. And they're voting in polls like this. Amusingly, the fact that they pretty much got it wrong means that I shouldn't worry too much? No?

If you follow my twisted, and poorly explained logic?

Adam

From:

thefirethorn.livejournal.com

Exactly!

God, in his infinite wisdom, guided the development of mankind from protomonkey to hunter-and-gatherer to internet junkie who answers polls to LJers who discus them.

From:

derumi.livejournal.com

I wouldn't worry about this, I hang up on every poll-taker that calls.

From:

darkoshi

the wording of #2 is odd. it leaves open the possibility of there being a god (in fact, it makes it sound like there still must be a God), but one which just happened to have nothing to do with the creation of humans... why didn't they just say "god doesn't exist".
Maybe the poll-givers thought that would be too blasphemous to even say?

my personal beliefs are: i don't know where humans came from and i don't pretend to; scientific evidence indicates that humans evolved over millions of years, which is as reasonable and unreasonable as anything else - i don't really /believe/ that either, but i do believe that any further physical evidence found is also likely to support that theory. And if i were to choose to believe in a god, it wouldn't be the type of god that i assume these poll-givers are talking about.

My mother is a Christian of the born-again type... she stopped "believing" (in jesus, i guess) for a while, yet supposedly still always "knew in her heart" there was a god, and then later got into all that church stuff again, and now goes to church regularly. I don't delve too deeply into her beliefs because it ...annoys... me.

She says, well, who do you think created humans, who created the universe?
I say, dunno.
She says, well, someone must have created it/us, and that is God. Surely you must feel this in your heart, everyone does!
I say, no I don't. Why did we have to be "created"? Who created God then?
She says God has always existed.
I say, if God can have always existed, why can't the universe have always existed / why can't we have always existed? Or if she says God created (him)self, I say, why can't the universe have created itself then?
...And she acts as if /I/ make no sense. Sheesh.

From:

kpollock.livejournal.com

You can't use logic on religious issues, that sort of thinking is outside logic (which is why I think religious people are crazy). It took me years of frustration to relaise it was a pointless conversation. Even in logic it is impossibel to prove that somethign doesn't exist, so you are doomed anyway.

You could, if still desperate, throw in the little bit of the brain that we all have that if poked with a wire and fed a little current gives you feelings/visions of 'god' (or some very similar huge force at onenness with the universe depending upon personal interpretation). But they (the religious) can twist that too.

From:

They don't twist it, those wacky atheistic types twist it.

After all, if people claimed that they could 'see things' normally and you had a part of the brain that, when stimulated, showed images, you'd accept that it was a part of the brain evolved to detect light (or something like it).

So when you have people that can 'feel God' and a part of the brain that equates to that, why don't you accept that it's that part of the brain that's evolved to detect God?

From:

kpollock.livejournal.com

Exactly the argument I meant (I thought it the obvious one) - you can't really argue for or against it logically (though I would point out that there are obvious sense organs for sight, with an obvious mechanism - more than I can say for the ability to detect God)

From:

kpollock.livejournal.com

But not surprising in the least.

From:

So.... middle America is predominantly Christian. Who'dve thunk?

From:

Those are just figures that convince me, yet again, that I don't want to live over there.

Thank goodness for a country where the majority of people don't go to church.

From:

Any idea why that is? Why church-going in general has died out in the UK, and yet the "God fearin'" tradition is just as strong in the US?

Why is the (arguably) most commercialised country in the world, also one that embraces religion so strongly?

From:

It is odd. England has always had a reputation for free-thinking, possibly because we're so cut off it was hard to punish us for not following church law.

Maybe it's because America was founded by religious types fleeing persecution, and so much of it is still fairly rural in character - if you don't live in the cities it's much easier to ignore the fact that many people are different to you.

From:

I'm really going to start generalising here, but is it perhaps because they tend less to equate religion with morals in the US, than in the UK?

The reason I stopped going to church, was basically down to my inability to relate my own moral code to Christianity. To be perfectly blunt, I was sleeping with my then-girlfriend, which the church (rightly) frowned upon. I couldn't reconcile the two, so I stopped going to church.

These sort of dubious moral areas don't seem to bother the average American quite so much - 'church' and 'life' seem to be far more separated than they are here. IMHO, of course.

From:

Probably true to a degree.

I've never understood the whole 'modernisation of the church' movement. Either the things God says are true, or not true. To have not allowed some things previously and then allow them either indicates the church is fallible (cos it got it wrong before) or just plain made up (because they can change the teachings on a whim).

From:

The bible explicitly states that it is a whole, which should neither be added to, nor have parts removed from. It makes it quite clear that you either accept it all, or non of it. There are no opt-out parts of Christianity - if you believe in the bible. Note - this is according to the bible. It's not my opinion, it's what is written in the good book.

It's (for example) Deuteronomy that bans homosexual sex. You can't choose to ignore that book - it doesn't work like that.

Deuteronomy (I think) is also the book that bans pre-marital sex. I couldn't agree with that, so I chose to walk away from Christianity, as opposed to being a hyprocrite.

I find nothing worse than people who have the attitude of "I can ignore this part of the bible, and this part, and basically what suits me, but I'm still a Christian". You're not. You may believe in a God-figure, and many of the ideals of Christianity, but you're not a Christian.

With regards to the church, the people who run Christianity as a religion are more interested in proctecting themselves, than their religion, hence they give in and 'modernise' the church.

This all pre-supposes that the bible is correct. There is an argument that it isn't, that man twisted God's words and fashioned them for man's own purposes. I wouldn't attempt to agree or disagree with that. What I do know is, the 'church', as a whole, should not hold the bible up as correct, and then ignore parts of it. To do so makes a mockery of the religion. But withuot the bible, where would they be?

From:

There is an argument that the old testament is superseded by the new, that the old rules are no longer in effect once Jesus steps in with the new "Love thy Neighbour" ones.

But that aside I agree with you.

Oh, and I tink you mean Leviticus, which also bans shellfish, and wearing clothes made out of two different materials.

From:

Aaargh - indeed, Leviticus, the book of rules. 18:22 to be precise.

All that was really superceded by the coming of Jesus and the New Testament was the form of punishment with regards to doing wrong. When Jesus came, he promoted tolerance and forgiveness - but the 'rules' still appply as laid down in the old testament.

Again, that's the problem with the bible - as we progress and grow as a race, 'silly' things like the rules you mention above seem more and more ridiculous. But you can't argue that they are any more or less valid than Leviticus 18:22, without undermining the whole bible. Which is OK to do.

Personally, I think the church should have done that a long time ago. Came out and said the bible was written by a bunch of men who wanted to control people. Said "God exists - love him, and love your fellow man. Be tolerant, and respect each other, and don't hurt each other." That, to me, is what Christianity should be about.

However, the church still holds up the bible as the 'book' to live by. It can't do that and expect to be taken seriously, IMHO.

From:

I have to say, that while I personaly fall firmly in the darwinian camp on this issue, I'm rather disgusted by the intolerance shown by some of the other people who have replied above.

What those people are showing is a firmly held religious belief. You may not share it, but to them it is fact which is at the core of thier existance, not a fairy story.

The various posts talking about how stupid/ignorant/worthy of being exterminated these people are smacks of appalling religious intolerance. Can I ask if those people feel the same way about devout followers of other major religions? e.g. Islam? Should all Muslims who beleive in the basics of their religion be rounded up in camps? How about Jews? I'm sure someones tried this before, the names on the tip of my tongue. (Swifty sidesteps from an invocation of Godwin)

I somehow doubt that the various people who have posted here genuinely beleive that humans shouldnt be allowed to think and believe whatever they want, but I find it rather disgusting that they chose to be so scathing for people who exercise that right to honestly beleive something different.

As for the subject of proving God vs Logic, its totaly impossible. If there is a contruct out there with the usual attributes assigned to a deity, it created us, the universe, all things we accept as 'rules', our brains, the way our brains function and any possible mechanism or data we use to assess or judge anything at all. Its the ultimate get out of jail free card, a God doenst have to fit into any 'logical' pattern we construct as they created all the things we use as reference and evidence. The existence of a God object instantly disarms any possible mechanism we might use to prove or disprove them. Its all a matter of faith, either you beleive or you don't. Bear in mind that we can't empiracaly prove there isn't a God any more than we can prove there is, so atheism is just as much a matter faith as religion. Its all very well pointing at fosils and carbon dating but if $Deity exists they created them too, and the 'physical laws' which make carbon dating work. It would be like a computer program using the subroutines that have been coded into it to prove or disprove the existance of a programmer.

Personaly I don't really beleive, particularly not in mainstream organised religion, but I try hard to not be intolerant of those who do in the same way I want them to be tolerant of me and my beliefs. At the end of the day I have no way of proving my belief with any more certainty than they can.

From:

Well said - to a degree.

I agree, I thought people were being a little OTT in response to the survey. People are entitled to believe what they want, without persecution - 'tis true.

I think though, that the general sentiment was one of disbelief in that so many people could believe something that is definitely untrue. Before you jump on me, let me point out that I was a practising Christian for many years, and while I currently walk a different path, I do believe there is room for faith in God without discouting scientific evidence.

As another example, how about people who believe the world is square (or cubed)? This was a wide held belief, that when discounted, people who thought it were believed to be silly - because, frankly, they were.

I don't think the people who've responded here are intolerant. In fact, I suspect a lot of the responses are more in fun than anything else. But I don't think there's anything necessarily *wrong* with mocking certain beliefs (such as the world is cube shaped), when they are so obviously silly. Unless you want to discount massive areas of scientific progress, it's a well established fact that the world is older than 10,000 years - much, much older. To blindly ignore this as a matter of 'faith', if that's what it is, only serves to undermine the religion in my opinion.

From:

The analogy of flat earth to theory of evolution doesnt exactly hold up. We can with our own eyes see the evidence that refutes a flat world, we can't directly see anything that supports or refutes evolution. All we can do is look at the evidence that appears to be left behind and interpret it. But if someone choose to beleive that evidence to be false or constructed (as a 'test of faith' or whatever other rationale they want to use) we can't empiricaly prove them wrong if you accept a deity into the equation. In theory you cant prove a round earth for the same reason, as $Deity created our eyes and how we interpret what they show us, but thats getting altogether to philosophical in an unecesarily Matrix type way.

At the end of the day all the mainstream religions cite observably impossible things as fact. Miracles, virgin births, resurection, afterlife, 7 days to create the earth, eve made from a rib, the whole Noahs Arc malarky (to say nothing of lifespans in the old testament). Either you beleive this stuff, or you dont. I don't see 'God put fossils here to test our faith' as being inherantly being more unlikely than 'God put evil in the world to test your faith'. If someone believes in god, your statement of 'well established fact that the world is older than 10,000 years - much, much older' is unprovable.

To be honest I find it rather funny when creationists try and argue a scientific case with evolutionists. Why bother? If they beleive in God they dont need to do any of this, all they're doing is fighting on the scientists ground, where they cant win. Same as scientific people who try to use logic to disprove God are on a hiding to nothing.

From:

"Creationists". I've never heard that before.

From: