Elder Ballard sees possibility of Church growth in Russia

[flameburns623]

I thought the bloom was off this rose and that much of the church growth in Eastern Europe happenedin the 1990's?

http://m.deseretnews.com/article/865655745/Elder-Ballard-sees-potential-for-Church-growth-in-Russia.html?ref=http%3A%2F%2Fm.facebook.com%2F

[Johnnie Cake]

I've been to Russia.  From my very limited interactions...my impression is that these are not happy people...perhaps the church could change that for those that become involved with the church. At least give them something in this life to live for....

Edited June 9, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[Calm]

Given the huge amount of alcohol abuse in the country (assuming it hasn't changed much since we were there), living the WoW could be lifesaving for many.

[TheSkepticChristian]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Given the huge amount of alcohol abuse in the country (assuming it hasn't changed much since we were there), living the WoW could be lifesaving for many.

Or simply avoiding alcohol abuse could be lifesaving for many, no need to entirely stop drinking alcohol. Overall life-expectancy in Spain is 83 yrs (which is higher than Utah).  I assume that life expectancy in Spain is much higher for moderate drinkers. Spain, France, Italy, Iceland have higher life-expectancy than Utah. 

I seen no evidence that Mormons who strictly follow WoW live longer than moderate drinkers (non-addicts).  and please, I am not saying that moderate drinkers live longer than Mormons. 

Sources

http://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.main.688

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_11.pdf

On 6/8/2016 at 2:35 AM, flameburns623 said:

I thought the bloom was off this rose and that much of the church growth in Eastern Europe happenedin the 1990's?

The church is currently not very successful outside the USA, Mexico, Africa, and South America.

Edited June 10, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Calm]

Alcoholics don't find it easy to become moderate drinkers unfortunately.  Any amount of drinking can reactivate the addiction.

Edited June 10, 2016 by Calm

[TheSkepticChristian]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Alcoholics don't find it easy to become moderate drinkers unfortunately.  Any amount of drinking can reactivate the addiction.

True, but I believe Science has the ability to solve that problem. We need to advance Science and Medical Science first, we can worry about religion later. 

Edited June 10, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Calm]

So rather than allowing those who are suffering now have access to something that just might help them get their lives back, you are going to essentially tell them to wait until "Science" solves their problem even if that means they have to wait for decades for that to happen?  Your religion of Science comes across as rather lacking in compassion to me.

What about all of those who will be dead or whose lives are destroyed along with their health before your miracle happens?

We were told when our daughter was first diagnosed with diabetes that the transplant problem (the drugs that allow transplant cause worse problems than taking insulin) would be solved in just a few years, probably no more than 5.  That was almost 15 years ago and there is still nothing definite in that line.  What looks favourable is a different line of research that may or may not solve the primary issue.

It doesn't have to be one or the other.  It makes much more sense to use tools, both medical and religious we have now to give help we can give now and work at improving both for the future.

[TheSkepticChristian]

 

10 hours ago, Calm said:

What about all of those who will be dead or whose lives are destroyed along with their health before your miracle happens?

Do alcoholics really need religion to stop drinking? All the alcoholics I know believe in God and the afterlife. Many people that don't care about living a healthy life happen to believe in the afterlife. 

10 hours ago, Calm said:

It makes much more sense to use tools, both medical and religious we have now to give help we can give now and work at improving both for the future.

I am sorry to read that, but that is why I believe we (as Humans) should aggressively invest in Science and Technology. The real problem is that we don't have enough medical researchers and scientists.  We need more researchers,  not more pastors. 

10 hours ago, Calm said:

It makes much more sense to use tools, both medical and religious we have now to give help we can give now and work at improving both for the future.

All the evidence I seen makes me think that Theism (especially Christianity) does slow down scientific progress. Only 7% of the NAS scientists believe in God. NAS has the best scientists. According to Pew 83% of the General Public believe in God, but only 33% of Scientists believe in God, why the big difference? Why 83% vs 33%?  We should worry about Science first, we can worry about religion later.  "Similarly, those who attend religious services at least weekly are less likely than others to rank science and technology topics of particular interest to them." 

Edited June 11, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[TheSkepticChristian]

On 6/10/2016 at 11:17 AM, Calm said:

 It makes much more sense to use tools, both medical and religious we have now to give help we can give now and work at improving both for the future.

Why 83% vs 33%?  It makes me think Theism slows down scientific progress. 

Edited June 12, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[The Nehor]

On 6/10/2016 at 0:47 AM, TheSkepticChristian said:

Or simply avoiding alcohol abuse could be lifesaving for many, no need to entirely stop drinking alcohol. Overall life-expectancy in Spain is 83 yrs (which is higher than Utah).  I assume that life expectancy in Spain is much higher for moderate drinkers. Spain, France, Italy, Iceland have higher life-expectancy than Utah. 

I seen no evidence that Mormons who strictly follow WoW live longer than moderate drinkers (non-addicts).  and please, I am not saying that moderate drinkers live longer than Mormons. 

I doubt that the health effects are the primary reason for that law intended only for the saints. As far as we know this is the only dispensation such a law has been in place. It may even go away.

16 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Why 83% vs 33%?  It makes me think Theism slows down scientific progress. 

So you are suggesting that there is a shortage of scientists and that if the population becomes atheist those missing holes will be filled and progress accelerated. My experiences with friends in the sciences suggests otherwise. So how is progress being retarded? The believing scientists do less? Atheist scientists do more? What is the problem?

[TheSkepticChristian]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

So you are suggesting that there is a shortage of scientists and that if the population becomes atheist those missing holes will be filled and progress accelerated. 

We can only guess, but that is what the data makes me think. Only 4% of the General Population doesn't believe in God or a higher power, but that jumps to 41% in the Scientific community. How do you explain that? 

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

The believing scientists do less? Atheist scientists do more?

No, there are good scientists that are Christian. I am talking about the number, all the Atheists I know are very interested in Science, I can't say the same about all the Christians I know. Some Christians are very interested in Science, but not most of them. 

All I am saying is that we need more scientists so our scientific progress can accelerate. 

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I doubt that the health effects are the primary reason for that law intended only for the saints.

That was simply a response to what Cal said, she said, " living the WoW could be lifesaving for many." 

[The Nehor]

42 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

We can only guess, but that is what the data makes me think. Only 4% of the General Population doesn't believe in God or a higher power, but that jumps to 41% in the Scientific community. How do you explain that? 

No, there are good scientists that are Christian. I am talking about the number, all the Atheists I know are very interested in Science, I can't say the same about all the Christians I know. Some Christians are very interested in Science, but not most of them. 

All I am saying is that we need more scientists so our scientific progress can accelerate. 

You can explain it several ways. Religious people have found ultimate meaning so see less need to search for it in the structure of the physical universe. This is not necessarily a distaste of science just not a desire to pursue it at a professional level. My degree is in Literature and there were few religious people in that specialty. Does it therefore follow that literary progress would accelerate without religion? I would also say that the reason for this is that deeply spiritual people tend not to reverence literature the same way secular people do. When I was a teenager I attached great importance to all kinds of literature. I still derive pleasure from it but it will most likely never be as important to me again as it was then.

I would also break it down by profession. I cannot find the hard numbers but they found that the harder sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, and the like) tend to be much more equal while the softer sciences (anthropology, psychology, sociology, political sciences, and the like) tend to skew even more towards atheists. The former tend to contribute more to what I would call scientific progress.

Also, more scientists does not mean more advancement. There are only so many scientific jobs. More scientifically trained people does not make for more scientific progress. The main issue is money. Theory is cheap (as this board regularly proves). Proving it is expensive. Extrapolating from it so it is useful is sometimes an engineering job but is also expensive. Basically I am saying tell your congressional representatives to fund scientific research and NASA (especially NASA, with the advances that came from NASA we more then recouped our investment many times over) and build fewer of those aircraft carrier boondoggles that will be obsolete within a decade.

On a personal level I am convinced that scientific progress is driven by God. The more I study history the more it seems almost chance that scientific and industrial progress started now. There was nothing stopping the Chinese or the Greeks or the Romans from making the same steps towards convenience and advancement. You look back and see that they understood steam power in the First Century AD but never applied it. If Rome had expanded and did not have access to so many slaves to rely on would they have turned to industrialism? If China had made more practical use of their explosives instead of focusing on fireworks would they be the world superpower now? Why now? Why all these brilliant ideas now?

[TheSkepticChristian]

48 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

 Religious people have found ultimate meaning so see less need to search for it in the structure of the physical universe.

Thank You! You said it better than me! Exactly, that is the problem. 

48 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

This is not necessarily a distaste of science just not a desire to pursue it at a professional level.

We need more scientists to accelerate scientific and medical progress. 

48 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The former tend to contribute more to what I would call scientific progress.

Only 32% of Biological and Medical scientists believe in God.  

48 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Also, more scientists does not mean more advancement. There are only so many scientific jobs. More scientifically trained people does not make for more scientific progress. The main issue is money. 

You are assuming conditions under a Christian majority nation known as the USA. Just imagine if 83% of Americans didn't believe in Theism, you think entrepreneurs wouldn't invest in Science? The USA would be entirely different. 

Edited June 13, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Calm]

The US leads in innovation.  Russian entrepreneurs, many who were atheists or agonostics, that I saw while we were in Russia, invested in projects that brought them quick returns.  They weren't for the most part interested in making the world better for future generations.

The US leads the world in medical innovation.  It would be interesting to see who donates more to medical research charties in terms of percentage of their wealth, atheists/agnostics or theists:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kenneth-thorpe/medical-advancements-who-is-leading_b_807796.html

[The Nehor]

50 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Thank You! You said it better than me! Exactly, that is the problem. 

People finding happiness and contentment is the problem? So you would sacrifice happiness on the altar of scientific progress? That is messed up.

51 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

We need more scientists to accelerate scientific and medical progress. 

Life is a not a computer game where you can drag and drop people into the scientific section to speed up R&D.

52 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Only 32% of Biological and Medical scientists believe in God.  

Actually, it is more like 50%. Not sure who designed that idiot survey but belief in a universal spirit is pantheism and belief in a higher power is a belief in some kind of god.

53 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

You are assuming conditions under a Christian majority nation known as the USA. Just imagine if 83% of Americans didn't believe in Theism, you think entrepreneurs wouldn't invest in Science? The USA would be entirely different. 

I am not assuming those conditions. Those are the current conditions. You are suggesting that theist entrepreneurs will not invest less in science and atheist entrepreneurs will invest more? That is stupid. Entrepreneurs invest where they think money can be made. If you want to get entrepreneurs to invest in science you make it profitable. That is intrinsic in the definition of entrepreneur.

So your magical fantasy atheist faerieland will multiply the number of scientists somehow and also magically make people willing to spend more on scientific development? You do this despite most atheist nations not being bastions of scientific progress. The nations with the highest rates of atheism (China, Scandinavian nations, Germany, Netherlands, and nations of east Asia) are not rolling in scientific progress, a lot of them are still getting developments from our filthy Christian selves. Is there something special about the USA that will make sure it would still be a scientific bastion of pure progress even if it more closely matched their numbers?

Your fantasy scenario does not add up.

[TheSkepticChristian]

57 minutes ago, Calm said:

The US leads in innovation.  

because it's the biggest economy. Imagine a secular USA, it would invest even more heavily in science and technology. 

China now leads the world in Science.  See http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-worlds-best-countries-science/

Bytheway, "Once the undisputed center of global innovation in medicine, the U.S. is steadily losing ground to Asia and Europe and will, if trends continue, relinquish its leadership in the coming decade"

57 minutes ago, Calm said:

  Russian entrepreneurs, many who were atheists or agonostics, that I saw while we were in Russia, invested in projects that brought them quick returns.  They weren't for the most part interested in making the world better for future generations.

Russian atheists and agnostics are different, many of them were raised in the soviet union. 

57 minutes ago, Calm said:

The US leads the world in medical innovation. 

Again, because it's the biggest economy, but I am sure the US has the ability to do a lot more. However, sadly U.S. Slipping as Global Leader in Medical Research. "

Edited June 13, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[TheSkepticChristian]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Actually, it is more like 50%. Not sure who designed that idiot survey but belief in a universal spirit is pantheism and belief in a higher power is a belief in some kind of god.

I am talking about Theism, so it is 32%. For the sake of argument let's say it's 50%. Why 50% vs 95%. 95% of Americans believe in God or a higher power. Only 50% of Medical and Biological scientists believe in God or a Higher power.  

It's still a huge difference. 

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

People finding happiness and contentment is the problem? So you would sacrifice happiness on the altar of scientific progress? That is messed up.

What? I never said that, I said that problem is that we don't have enough scientists because most Theists don't have a passion for Science. The data says that. 

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

So your magical fantasy atheist faerieland will multiply the number of scientists somehow and also magically make people willing to spend more on scientific development? You do this despite most atheist nations not being bastions of scientific progress. The nations with the highest rates of atheism (China, Scandinavian nations, Germany, Netherlands, and nations of east Asia) are not rolling in scientific progress

Not true, China now leads the world in Science. See http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-worlds-best-countries-science/. 

and "Once the undisputed center of global innovation in medicine, the U.S. is steadily losing ground to Asia and Europe and will, if trends continue, relinquish its leadership in the coming decade"

and the only reason why Germany, Netherlands, Scandinavia are currently not leading in Science it's because their economies are smaller. The USA is the biggest economy, so of course it currently leads medical research, but that lead will soon disappear.   

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I am not assuming those conditions. Those are the current conditions

Yes I agree, but you are assuming the current conditions would not change if the USA became more secular. Again, if 83% of the General Public didn't believe God (Theism), our country would be radically different. 

 

Edited June 13, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

 

Russian atheists and agnostics are different, many of them were raised in the soviet union. 

So then if you are right, it is not atheism/agnosticism that makes the difference, but something else.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I am talking about Theism, so it is 32%. For the sake of argument let's say it's 50%. Why 50% vs 95%. 95% of Americans believe in God or a higher power. Only 50% of Medical and Biological scientists believe in God or a Higher power.  

It's still a huge difference. 

It is. I don't see the significance.

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

What? I never said that, I said that problem is that we don't have enough scientists because most Theists don't have a passion for Science. The data says that. 

No, it doesn't. It says that more people who become scientists are atheists then there are atheists in the general population. The idea that we do not have enough is not backed up by the employment data. They should have near 0% unemployment if there are not enough. Unemployment seems to be around 2% and wages are not high considering the education requirements. If we did not have enough employers would have to compete for them and wages would rise. This is not the case. We have enough scientists.

Also the idea that you do not have a passion for science is skewed. Are you only allowed to be passionate about things you are employed for?

You read the data wrong.

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Not true, China now leads the world in Science. See http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-worlds-best-countries-science/. 

and "Once the undisputed center of global innovation in medicine, the U.S. is steadily losing ground to Asia and Europe and will, if trends continue, relinquish its leadership in the coming decade"

and the only reason why Germany, Netherlands, Scandinavia are currently not leading in Science it's because their economies are smaller. The USA is the biggest economy, so of course it currently leads medical research, but that lead will soon disappear.   

No, the US leads in medical research because it is more profitable to develop new drugs here and we let the developers advertise prescription drugs. A drop is expected due to changes in health care (primarily the Affordable Care Act/Obamacare)

As to your graph and article in there I think you misread it.

"The United States comes out on top, by a wide margin, followed by Germany, China, Japan, the U.K., France, Canada, South Korea, Italy and Spain."

The US still leads in every category except for number of phds awarded which China won which does not say much. If they are producing more good scientists why are they publishing less and why do Chinese parents send their children to the US to go to college and the reverse only happens rarely? I am guessing the quality is not quite as high.

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Yes I agree, but you are assuming the current conditions would not change if the USA became more secular. Again, if 83% of the General Public didn't believe God (Theism), our country would be radically different. 

If everyone turned into fascists or socialists or Taoists or Conspiracy Theorists or wanted slavery relegalized the country would be radically different. Your problem is you think you can predict what that change would be and that it would be for the better. I doubt your prediction. If you just presented it as a guess I would not be so harsh but you dogmatically claimed it was self-evident that your prophetic vision would be the case based on a single study which is downright absurd. The world is much more complicated then that.

Edited June 13, 2016 by The Nehor

[TheSkepticChristian]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

So then if you are right, it is not atheism/agnosticism that makes the difference, but something else.

How about secular humanism? We never seen a secular humanist nation before, but I hope to see one in my lifetime. I don't know what exactly makes the difference, but It is still true that non-Theists (as a group) have a greater passion for Science. 

Bytheway, are you for or against cloning and stem cell research? Guess what, most atheists/agnostics are for it. 

40 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

They should have near 0% unemployment if there are not enough.

There are not enough scientists in humanity for a rapid scientific progress. I imagine that a super advance alien civilization may have a lot of scientists. I agree there are enough scientists in our Christian nation and our Christian economy, but I am now skeptical of our Christian nation. A more secular humanist nation would demand more scientists and would create more science jobs, not more unnecessary wars. 

40 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

"The United States comes out on top, by a wide margin, followed by Germany, China, Japan, the U.K., France, Canada, South Korea, Italy and Spain."

The US still leads in every category except for number of phds awarded which China won which does not say much. If they are producing more good scientists why are they publishing less and why do Chinese parents send their children to the US to go to college and the reverse only happens rarely? I am guessing the quality is not quite as high.

You are right, that was my mistake. China is an authoritarian country, not secular humanist. The USA is the biggest economy, so it makes sense that it leads the world in science. However, US lead in science and technology shrinking. "According to a report released today by the National Science Board (NSB), the policy making body of the National Science Foundation (NSF) and an advisor to the President and Congress, the major Asian economies, taken together, now perform a larger share of global R&D than the U.S., and China performs nearly as much of the world's high-tech manufacturing as the U.S." Our lead in medical research is shrinking too. 

Edited June 13, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[The Nehor]

18 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

How about secular humanism? We never seen a secular humanist nation before, but I hope to see one in my lifetime. I don't know what exactly makes the difference, but It is still true that non-Theists (as a group) have a greater passion for Science.

Like you said, we have not seen one. It might be wonderful. It might turn into some technocratic horror hell-bent on the singularity. It might come to persecute religious minorities. It might be wonderfully tolerant or tolerant only within very narrow margins. It would be an interesting experiment but I would like to see someone else try it first. I believe that religion provides social cohesiveness to society and would not like to see it removed....well except for a few religions I think are inherently horrible.

18 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Bytheway, are you for or against cloning and stem cell research? Guess what, most atheists/agnostics are for it. 

The church has officially taken a neutral stance on stem cell research. http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/official-statement/embryonic-stem-cell-research

I am personally for it if the embryo is harvested quickly after conception.

As to cloning I am against cloning whole people. I don't think creating genetic duplicates of people is wise either socially or ethically. I have no problem with cloning animals for food or other uses. I definitely support research into how to clone organs and body parts to avoid the problems with organ transplant rejection and possibly even regrow limbs.

18 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

There are not enough scientists in humanity for a rapid scientific progress. I imagine that a super advance alien civilization may have a lot of scientists. I agree there are enough scientists in our Christian nation and our Christian economy, but I am now skeptical of our Christian nation. A more secular humanist nation would demand more scientists and would create more science jobs, not more unnecessary wars. 

Generally the super advanced alien civilizations portrayed in fiction have solved the economic scarcity problem. This means anyone who wants to can be a scientist. That is not the case in our current society.

Again, you make assumptions that somehow secular humanism will heavily fund science and avoid war. Why? Because their principles tell them to? Christian principles speak against war too. Principles do not translate into reality. This is like westerners who discover Hinduism and find it beautiful and believe it is the key to a perfect world. Then they go to India and find Indian nationalism aimed at Pakistan, a filthy holy river, and a nasty caste system. Reality tends to dispel illusion. Fascism was very popular until reality showed how those governments tend to go. You have the same starry-eyed idealism about secular humanism. Idealism is good as long as it accepts the reality that people cause trouble and ruin almost everything. It is a defining attribute of the species. I think your path to utopia is flawed.

18 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

You are right, that was my mistake. China is an authoritarian country, not secular humanist. The USA is the biggest economy, so it makes sense that it leads the world in science. However, US lead in science and technology shrinking. "According to a report released today by the National Science Board (NSB), the policy making body of the National Science Foundation (NSF) and an advisor to the President and Congress, the major Asian economies, taken together, now perform a larger share of global R&D than the U.S., and China performs nearly as much of the world's high-tech manufacturing as the U.S." Our lead in medical research is shrinking too. 

Yeah, the United States is falling back a bit but that is almost to be expected. Many people make a big deal about American exceptionalism but the truth is we were the only major industrialized nation to survive the Second World War without major losses in infrastructure and population. We fueled that into a long-running postwar boom. Parts of western Europe still had rationing years after the war. We had a huge economic advantage and the greatest generation united the nation with massive infrastructure projects and big scientific advances. So we led the world but now the world is rebuilt and we cannot coast on that forever. We should do all we can to do the best we can but I am not convinced we will lead the world forever and I am not even convinced that we necessarily should. I do think our massive lead in military spending could be cut back a bit.

Edited June 14, 2016 by The Nehor

[TheSkepticChristian]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

 It might come to persecute religious minorities

That contradicts humanism. Humanism is against persecution and dictators. 

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I am personally for it if the embryo is harvested quickly after conception.

See! Now you want to put limits to medical progress. 

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Again, you make assumptions that somehow secular humanism will heavily fund science and avoid war. Why?

Avoid unnecessary wars like the Iraq War. "The modern secular humanist outlook has led to the application of science and technology to the improvement of the human condition.This has had a positive effect on reducing poverty, suffering, and disease in various parts of the world, in extending longevity, on improving transportation and communication, and in making the good life possible for more and more people" 

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Because their principles tell them to? 

 Especially a Transhumanism nation. 

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Christian principles speak against war too.

That is your interpretation of Christianity. Many LDS think the Iraq War didn't contradict LDS doctrine. 

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I do think our massive lead in military spending could be cut back a bit.

Good! 

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I think your path to utopia is flawed.

Of course you think that because religion means everything to you. 

I simply think we need more scientific progress and as a Bernie supporter I also think we need to change the system. 

 

Edited June 14, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Calm]

One can really speed up medical progress if we skip animal trials and go straight to humans.  Doing otherwise puts limits on medical progress, right?

And all bodies should become the property of the government at death so that they can be used for science as needed.

And those with unusual illnesses where more data is needed to understand what is happening should become wards of the state and experimented on as needed to avoid placing any limits on medical advancement.

Do you even know the timing for the appropriate harvesting of embryonic stem cells? 

Edited June 14, 2016 by Calm

[The Nehor]

13 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

That contradicts humanism. Humanism is against persecution and dictators. 

And if people followed their idealistic philosophies completely that would mean something. Sadly it doesn't. Most philosophies are opposed to persecution and dictators. It has not solved the problem.

13 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

See! Now you want to put limits to medical progress. 

I did not know you found medical ethics so monstrous. Does your secular humanist society believe in Dr. Mengele style experimentation to has preventing it would put limits on medical progress. My guess is you did not realize that is a common ethical belief across belief spectrums and attacked me out of ignorance. Is that a principle of secular humanism or are you a fraud?

13 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Avoid unnecessary wars like the Iraq War. "The modern secular humanist outlook has led to the application of science and technology to the improvement of the human condition.This has had a positive effect on reducing poverty, suffering, and disease in various parts of the world, in extending longevity, on improving transportation and communication, and in making the good life possible for more and more people" 

What wars are unnecessary is a judgement call with imperfect information. The idea that secular humanism will have some profound insight to always choose correctly on limited information is dubious at best.

13 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Especially a Transhumanism nation. 

So would a nation of pink unicorns. Since we have seen as many unicorns as we have the results of Tramshumanist transformation I think the comparison is apt.

13 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

 That is your interpretation of Christianity. Many LDS think the Iraq War didn't contradict LDS doctrine. 

Good! 

Of course secular humanism everyone agrees on everything and this problem will be done away. Humans will magically reach consensus and it will definitely match that this poster on this message board. Do you think this through at all?

13 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Of course you think that because religion means everything to you. 

I simply think we need more scientific progress and as a Bernie supporter I also think we need to change the system. 

And of course you think the way you do because secular humanism means everything to you. That argument works for everything and is totally useless. If you want to use special pleading for your worldview go ahead but do not expect people to listen to you unless they already agree with you and even then the smartest will smack you down for it.

Sorry about Bernie losing. Seriously. I would have voted for him over all the other options left. He was actually my second favorite candidate but my favorite quit much earlier. I also agree that there are many things we should try changing.

 

[Damien the Leper]

I miss the CCCP.