Given that I could go over there and get paid handsomely to build those nuclear reactors...
I think the only thing that repels me is the damn firewall. Just remember there's several billion people over there happy with the system from their point of view.


I would hardly call the budget and the election promises setting things out. Budgets tend to be very short term, promises seem to be empty or flawed. Right now they're setting out 'intentions', not actual targets so much.
I'd like to see a couple of goals set, and a periodic update on their progress (which I believe china does with the 5 year plans). Essentially locked into these election promises. Right now its hard to gauge whether there is any progress on those wild promises made.

So very much to reply to...


I don't know what you're implying, but if you're pro-religion, I reply with; "that was then and this is now." If religious behaviour as a meme supported tribality etc. (which I doubt since our status as social animals is almost certainly genetic), it is now irrelevant since we're all in big honkin' close-knit communities called "cities" anyway, and even our social subgroups within such cities are often non-religiously-based. Like, for example, the university to which we go, and the forums which we are currently reading.




Here's a thought exercise I like to run for myself every so often; name one global crisis that would NOT be fixed if we had, say, half as many people in the entire world. Half as many people means half as many resources used with half as much waste produced. That's just about every environmental crisis -- anthropogenic global warming, running out of oil etc. -- completely out the window. The GFC might still have hit, but not nearly so badly, since fewer people means, as was pointed out, more affluence.

I seriously think that the entire world should adopt a one-child policy, although this is more or less impossible; it would mean (a) beating the shit out of stupid religious leaders until they agree to say contraception is okay (b) giving developing countries enough cash to get their own baby bonuses going so they can have something to take away from people with too many kids. Neither of these is likely.

And to deal with another point that I just touched on which was previously raised; baby bonuses are a good idea only in the context of a one-child policy, since this allows a form of punishment to be applied to those who break the laws.


Lucky stab there mate; similar data has come from most Western countries, except for -- guess where -- the U. S. of A. I'm not certain why this is; I asked that guest speaker bloke the atheists brought in (completely forgot his name, and can't be arsed finding it) about why this was, and he pointed out that America never had a big anti-religion downturn in the 70's in the same way as most of the west, of which current declines in religiosity are a continuation. However, he was unable to suggest an actual reason. I don't think that Thomas Jefferson would be too pleased with his country's 80-90% religious figure.

What the fuck does it matter where I'm pro-religion or not? Its a statement of fact. Your choice is to either accept or discredit it.

The inference from the statement is blantantly obvious. Evolutionary Psychology favoured the religiously minded (ie those with a genetic inclination to spiritual belief) and therefore gave rose to a societies of various religions as opposed to societies of no religion at all. In other words all the loner athiests died out while the biblebashers thrived in their huddled groups(except brief moments when they bashed each other over their choice of bibles). Just like herbivores that gathered in herds have survived whilst loner herbivores are close to none existent. And why we don't see herds of carnivores.
So now that we have a giant population which is genetically inclined to be religious. Of course that is no longer as evolutionary advantageous as it was, so we're seeing more people not genetically inclined to be religious, who aren't dying as often.

Fuck, you're just as annoying as a christian fundie. If you don't know what I'm implying, either ask or use your brain to work it out.

No, it's a statement of theory. The mere fact that you called a theoretical position a "fact" makes me even more worried about your suitability for a scientific discussion. It's entirely possible that you're not pro-religious, but your argument sounded a little like "our genes say we should be religious, therefore we should all listen to our genes and go to church on Sunday." Our genes also say that the purpose of having sex is to make babies, and when was the last time you used a condom?


And my response to the statement remains the same; religion is a favourable meme (or memeplex), not a favourable gene, and it is irrelevant in modern society. It's not that I don't understand you, it's that your position seems to be basic statement with inadequate extrapolation.


I take great offence at this. Your statement was ambiguous and sounded pro-religious. I'm simply trying to work out where you're coming from. Your argument was simply missing the logical step or steps that told me what it was actually saying.

Po Tat oh - Po Ta Toe. Statement of fact, statement of theory. Either way it was not my opinion, and thus my religious stance is irrelevant. So going back to my original question what the fuck does it matter whether I'm pro religion. Your response shouldn't change just because my religious opinion is different. It doesn't magically changing my fucking words. Your blatant obsession attacking any thing pro religious causes you to make knee jerk comments that are erroneous and annoying.

As for your youth and virginity, I'm worried that about your suitability to be discussing sex. Our genes and brain chemistry affect our libido, as well as our sexual preferences. Think about it.

I don't see the need to extrapolate my statement. How about you extrapolate your presumption that religion has no genetic correlation? Given there is emerging evidence supporting a genetic cause of altruism? Oh right, because dawkins doesn't agree right? Are you capable of your own independent thought?

Regardless of what is irrelevant in modern society, doesn't change the relevance in primitive society which came became before. Modern societies didn't just spring up out of nowhere, they formed from those primitive tribes. And as such the factors contributing to them are still significant today, particularly in understanding the state of societies today.

There is a possibility that a majority of people are genetically inclined to be superstitious (or believe in a higher power), and thus adoptive to religious belief. And as shown this is a favourable trait to form primitive society. Just as being skinny and dark skin is favourable in hot climates, and have no fold in your eyelid favourable in cold climates. Just because those traits are no longer 'relevant' to modern society, doesn't make them just dissappear from the gene pool. Hell, there could be several genes contributing to it, that all got a free ride to dominance thanks to religion.

No. You simply read what you wanted to read, and starting building your little pro religion straw man to burn. Child, i was an athiest when you were in preschool (95-96). You're just contributing to the stereotype religion sets for non believers. Learn to listen, instead of blurting out whats going through your mind.
You want to know whats offensive, having some little 18 yr old prat rattling on thinking he knows more than everyone else.

Firstly; the difference between fact and theory is a very important one in the sciences. The difference is that nothing beyond the most fundamental observations can be called facts, and even then these are affected by our human perspective. It doesn't matter how much evidence there is for religion being genetic or memetic; it will only ever be a theory. Contrary to the beliefs of your standard woomonger, this is a perfectly normal part of science.

Secondly; from a postmodern perspective, of which I subscribe to a moderate version, your pre-existing viewpoint -- particularly your religious stance -- does matter with anything you say. Even if it was a statement of "fact," it is not the fact in question I am concerned about; it is the argument derived from it. I was merely saying that your position appeared to be lauding religion on the sole basis that it is genetic. I accept that this is not your actual position, merely something that I read into it. Nevertheless had you clarified this earlier then there would be no need to flame.



As before; your argument (not your "fact") appeared to follow a pro-religious derivation. I was trying to divine its source.


Can you all say "ad hominem?"

In seriousness; sex is different to religion. Sex is an essential part of the survival of every species on the planet (excluding asexual species, of course). Religion is a trait developed only by humanity. Oh, you can talk about rationalising irrational behaviour and Pavlov's Dogs all you want, but at the end of the day, name one species other than humanity that follows a religion as it would be defined by 99.9% of the world's population. Maybe religion had some miniscule beginning in a quirk of our brain's pattern-finding tendencies, but any further extrapolations from that (mass religion, rituals, places of worship etc.) are memic, because we only see them in species with a highly developed extelligence (i.e. us).


First ad hominem and now tu quoque. If you're that upset about it quote some authority of your own to base your arguments on. It's not like Dawkins is unreliable. Or better yet, why not educate me in the precepts of whoever you're arguing from instead of merely attacking mine? I'm fully open to a new perspective here, if it's argued convincingly.


Alright, I'll give you that. But I also believe that it is our duty as humanity to rise up above the base state from which we begun, simply because we are capable of doing so. We're going into your conundrums of philosophy, but riddle me this; if you are an atheist, are you not rising above the religious past? Yes, biological determinism tells us useful things. It also tells us that lipstick is meant to make a woman's mouth look like a vagina.


And there's also a possibility that you could replace "gene" with "meme" at every point in this argument and it would still make perfect logical and scientific sense. Here's a good reason why religion isn't a gene; some people drop their religion, and some people pick it up. Genes don't change in a lifetime, memes do. When was the last time you rickrolled someone?


Do I need to make up an ad hominem dance? Actually I think I will anyway, it sounds fun. In point form, because I can't be fucked writing this out in full;

- I read what I interpreted, and what I interpreted was pro-religious. I admit that I was wrong. There, I said it. But had you clarified your position, then this argument would have been shorter.

- I was an atheist when I was in year 1; I don't really remember anything before that, although I do recall the chain of thoughts that led me to refuse belief in God. That was 1998, which isn't bad. In any case, just because something has been around for a long time, doesn't mean it's good. After all, you're anti-religion, aren't you?

- Excuse me; all my arguments, even if they were based on a false premise, were logical and reasoned responses to my interpretation of your argument. Just because my interpretation was wrong, doesn't mean my arguments weren't based on what you were saying. If they sound insulting, derogatory, defensive, or excessively verbose, that's because I'm a law student; when I argue, I argue to win.

- All of my arguments are based on the assumption that I am right, and this assumption will remain until some devastating blow proves me wrong. In competitive debate, which I choose to treat this as, this is a reasonable basis for argument. If you do prove me conclusively wrong, I will admit it. I admitted to being wrong about your convictions, even if I did shift the blame onto you. Thus far none of your arguments have proved convincing in the slightest. Maybe none of mine have to you, either, but I had fun, and that counts almost as much as winning.

tl;dr (whatever that stands for):I'm a hypocrite, but at least I admit it.

Hey princess, hop off the bed and look under the mattress. I believe I was making an observation, as to quote my self with conveniently bolded key words.

Whether I'm stating a fact, a theory (techincally I was doing both), your criticism of said fact or theory should not depend on MY perspective.
So you're playing the Edgy card, number 11 on the worst internet argument strategies. Oooo I'm post modern.
PROPANE
Oh the irony of using the word divine.

Yes. More to the point, Can you say sarcasm or better yet parody?
Oddly familiar to my comment no?
You're so fond of latin, I'll bring out my favourite Reductio ad absurdum. How do we determine whether species follows a religion when none are able to communicate to us effectively? Until we have other sentient species to have a yarn with, we can't determine it either way.

Here's your tiara, princess, courtesy of 15 seconds with google:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7 ... ation.html
Referred journal article is here:
http://0-www3.interscience.wiley.com.li ... /HTMLSTART
A more recent one citing the above (and confirming similar findings)
http://0-www3.interscience.wiley.com.li ... /HTMLSTART
What were you doing in 2005?
I don't blindly follow the wisdom of one person (ie dawkins or Jesus). I simply take in as much info on stuff that interests me and come to my own conclusions. I can't lists my influences simply because there is nothing specific.
To get all zen on you - One must know the archer to see the arrow fall.
I'm not saying religion is a gene. I'm saying we can't get rid of it so easily because its existence is caused by genes. Each religion is effectively a meme. But if its solely a matter of memetics, why aren't all of us religious? Because some of us were genetically predisposed to adopt such memes, which was once was advantageous. BTW I've never rickrolled someone.
Too late; don't read. Thought that was fucking obvious. RTFM

All scientific knowledge is tentative; this is why science works and religion doesn't. This why fundie twats who say 'but evolution is only a theory' are actually getting things right for once, and should be responded to with the observation 'so is the Law of Gravity'. That usually stumps 'em.

Alright, Norman, you're resotring to brief posts which aim to burn me rather than reply. I think that means I won.

Thanks for the confirmation Rizla.

I'm not sure whether to:

a)cry freudian projection,
b)call you a hypocrite,
c)accuse you of ignorance
d)just exclaim 'I'm wasting my time'.

My justification for each of these are as follows
A - I'm resorting to brief posts?
B - Did you just say I was resorting to Brief Posts??????
C - I think you just said my last reply was 'brief'
D - There's just no fun with someone so delusional. What Riz just said completely went over your head. I blame your choir music, as fundie christians are often in choirs and also suffer from delusions. Seems strongly related to me.

Seeing as YOU decided suddenly resort to a very brief post I can only assume YOU can't rebuke what I've said. Non of this winning or losing crap, its all collateral damage & mutually assured destruction on the intartubes.

So excuse me for previously responding without this excess hyperbole you drench your posts with. Most people just call it being CONCISE (something you might want to learn).