±«Óãtv

"The most obvious thing to do, I would have thought, is just get over it: accept that it happened, and also accept that, for the adult atheist, it meant nothing, it implies nothing, it imputes nothing, and it amounts to nothing."

Quite so. I was baptised when I was too young to have an opinion on anything, and confirmed when I was too young to have any autonomy. I don't need to have the baptism and confirmation undone; it's enough that I reject them.

The ceremonies don't matter. Being lied to and frightened about hellfire at an impressionable age - that matters.

I'm a little perplexed by "Happy Clappy" atheism. It seems as cliched and as dogamatic as the Evangelical Church that it despises. After "The God Delusion" and "God is Not Great" I would have expected something a little more militant.
It's certainly worth comparing Dawkins and Hitchens to informed atheists like Richard Gale, William Rowe, Evan Fales or Graham Oppy.

The New Atheism's certainty is commensurate with it's relative ignorance. I can understand the sort of "Moral Panic" that drives it. (God was meant to be dead in the academy and Secularisation triumphant, but the Religious just won't behave. On top of this the Religiously illiterate now face forces and movements, like ID and Jihadism, that they just can't comprehend.)So a blast of the Trumpet from the Atheist's stand was overdue. And from my point of view, most welcome.
And then, the horror. I expend energy trying to convince evangelicals that they need to read more and read seriously. I argue that evangelicals are too shallow and insulated in a lot of their preaching and evangelism. Then everthing ends like a bad dream. Instead of rigorous informed arguments, I get "The God Delusion", atheisms answer to a Ken Ham tract. Then the naffness descends like a fog. Flying Spaghetti Monsters. An Atheist "Bus". De-baptism certificates.
What's next? Evangelicals have the Veggie Tales for their kids. Will atheists have cute animal versions of Paine, Sagan and Russell? An atheistic hymn a la "Shine, Jesus Shine"? Who are these atheistic groups consulting? Rick Warren?

GV

Interesting that you were at the Vineyard baptisms yesterday Will... I heard about it from Kathryn Scott, the resident singer/songwriter up there. Whether or not it's worth it to freeze your ass off in the Irish Sea probably depends on your theology of the sacrament of baptism.

Got any comparable proposals for de-circumcision? :-)

Here's a perfectly reasonable chorus for Atheists to sing to the tune of "Shine Jesus Shine"

Free up your mind
Fill your life with the latest thinking
Though youve no soul
Science is sublime
There is no God
(Well, were almost completely certain!)
Live like youre free
Have a real good time!

I'll let someone else supply the verses. It took about sixty seconds to write, but I'm still not sure that it's naff enough to capture the naffness of evangelicalism.

I'm warning whatever Atheists are reading. Keep going down the path you're on and you'll be humming tunes like this. Then it'll be conferences about being a Happy Atheist, and then "Friendship Evangelism" and the Emergent Atheists.
Turn back while you can.

GV

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Yikes, Peter, my parents have a house in Portrush that I grew up visiting, I can barely put my feet in, let alone experience full immersion or - holy freezer - go surfing. The water where I live now is about 22 degrees right now, and about 29 degrees by August, so maybe I'm a little spoiled these days.

Last Sunday afternoon, I was filming part of a new TV documentary about religion at Portstewart Strand, where 38 adults were being baptised in the sea.

I wonder if they had wet suits on William or does that not count ? I agree with you on this one John. I went for a paddle the Saturday before last and the water was absolutely freezing !

Still, I personally think this whole this is just a gimick by the Atheists and really means nothing.

As an aside, Portrush is a hotbead of YECism in NI. American YEC has spoken at Portrush Baptist:



and then of course there's the Causeway creation campaign:



which appears to have completely flopped in their efforts to get YECism into the new visitor's centre (and the Ulster museum).

This is of course closely connected to Dunluce Christian Fellowship:



which should be on your agenda William. I'd be interested to see what they're like although they are probably typical of most evangelical churches in NI. I wonder if they (DCF) baptise people on the East Strand ?

Graham, get over yourself, dude! :-) We already know that most evangelicals are thick, and the rest are deluded - hopefully only temporarily. I was baptised at 11y on profession of faith. It was a decision *I* took; I don't regret it, and I don't need "de-baptised". I know I give you boys a hard time, but I am still a Christian; just an atheistic one. To be honest, I don't think I'd be an atheist now if I wasn't a Christian, so Jesus really *has* saved me, in a way. Ta, J! Maybe we need more resources for Christian atheists - not the Don Cupitts & Pete Rollins ones, but the normal everyday ones like me (and you, if you can pluck up the guts...) :-)

-H

PeterH - attempts to get YEC into the Ulster Museum? That's the funniest thing I've heard today, because I think I know precisely what they'll have been told. All 2 words of it.

Pity I still can't edit. That should be American YEC Roger Oakland.

Interesting.

I wonder what was wrong with post 6?

Who knows, maybe there's something wrong with this one too.

PeterH - attempts to get YEC into the Ulster Museum? That's the funniest thing I've heard today, because I think I know precisely what they'll have been told. All 2 words of it.

Yes Helio, in their original lettter to politicians (our MLAs i.e. Storey etc.) they stated that they would like this replicated in schools throughout NI as well as the Ulster Museum. Interestinly, QUB now seems to have a YEC club/society, so I suppose they'll be targeting the Ulster Museum soon. The Causeway Creation Committee is headed up by Stephen Moore, a speaker at DFC.

On the subject of baptism, don't forget that some evangelical Protestant churches don't baptise at all (how are the Atheists going to deal with these people). The Free Ps don't as a rule (although I think they will on request) and I'm sure the Sally Anne doesn't either.

Peter Henderson

The Free P's don't generally baptise, I didn't know that. I did know about the SA though. In a funny way it might be a peculiarly English and Anglican thing with the whole church and state issue coming together. Maybe however there are non conformists ex Presbyterians or Methodists who feel the same need to publicly recant. Still don't see the need for a certificate though, it's oddly religious (which was the point I was making in post 6).

My father was a Presbyterian (former member of Presbyterian Church in America) who became a Baptist. He's described his baptism/sprinkling/aspersion (depending on the term you prefer) as "An innoculation that didn't take." While he did leave the denomination, and views said baptism/sprinkling/aspersion as not being a baptism, he in no way desired to publicly recant it to the congregation/denomination and would certainly not approve of something like this.

As for the rebaptism, most Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant denominations would hold that the Sacrament of Baptism is to be administered once. (Some even incorporate the use of water in non-baptismal ways into their baptism & communion services to remind people of their baptism.) Baptists and certain Pentecostals would obviously differ. (The situation differs for things like non-traditional denominations...)

The whole idea seems kind of silly to me. If you come to the conclusion that god doesn't exist, then you must also conclude that the ritual of Baptism has no meaning. It seems to me that "debaptism" is not so much a public assertion of one's atheism as it is a display of anger. Anger at being conned into believing in god and religion in the first place. It's a display of defiance and contempt for those who were the con artists and those are still being taken in by them. There's nothing wrong with that but I think it should be recognized for what it really is.

Ouch - I kinda agree with Markie on this one. Atheism is not necessarily something you "fall back" to (much to the chagrin of angry theists who see it as a sort of Judatic betrayal, the cretins), but for many people, something they progress to, when they realise that "belief" is unnecessary.

H
It certain isn't lack of courage preventing me from being an atheist. Just lack of good reasons.

(Did you mean to say that you were baptsied at 11? Or is there a significance to 11y? Serious question - all sorts of strange ideas out there in churchdom)

Anyhows, I wouldn't have included you among the "happy clappy" atheists. You seem much too relaxed and confident about your atheism. So we can actually have a debate where we have to think about the other persons arguments.

Christianity and Islam are worldviews that necessitate evangelism. Sikhism, Buddhism and Hinduism don't. Neither does Atheism. Generally it would seem to want the intellectual high ground, and possibly a greater influence over social policy than it's competitors.
But this new evangelical Atheism wants to win people over with something less than arguments. Well, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, so as an evangelical I can't complain about that.
I would worry that atheists adopt the *style* of evangelicals. You were an evangelical. You know how naff we can be. The cringe-worthy attempts to be with-it. To "speak to people where they're really at." The deep rooted belief that listening to U2 makes a person culturally relevant.
Evangelicals put ministers in charge of PR. Atheists (who have access to artists, directors and musicians) are putting ACADEMICS in charge of their PR. So the Dawkinsistas keep talking about "Brights", and "Gerin Oil". I'm telling you - we're going to end up in a mire of naffness. We can't have TWO groups existing in inane upper middle class subcultures trying to get everyone lese to join them! We just can't! My sanity won't take it.

GV

M2
How does water on the head turn you into a Theist?
Does a meme drip into your ear or something?

GV

Peter

Did you use rude words in post 6, or say something positive about Stafford Carson?

Mark #16 -- My thoughts exactly.

Graham

Post 6... yes, I mean no, I didn't use a rude word, nor did I say anything positive about Stafford Carson, I would dream of saying anything positive about the new mod, I don't want to be kicked off completely! :-)

Anyway the nice people at ±«Óãtv blogs wrote me and told me what I had done wrong. You can't, it seems, copy (a lot of) (I didn't think it was that much) text from another website, even if you note the source and put it in quotes because it could be a breach of copyright. But fair enough.

What I think I can do tho, is tell you that I quoted from the National Secular Society website's 'About Us' link and the Evangelical Alliance website 'About Us' link and to imply that the NNS already looks a bit religious inspite of not having a chorus book.

I also said: (and I'm quoting me here!)

They (the NSS) have a charter (read doctrine), general principles (read vision statement), Honorary Associates (read Moderators and bishops and sub-cultural celebs). They have campaigns, (read mission and evangelism), speeches (read sermons), events (read conferences, concerts, summer camps), they have rallys (read, ehem, rallys! or March for Jesus or Don't March for Jesus, or March for Not Jesus, or Down With This Sort of Jesus Thing Marches), You can join (read convert, or deconvert or debaptise yourself), they have a newsletter (read Christianity Today), they have NSS on Campus (read UCCF), they have affiliated groups (read local churches) and you can donate to the NSS (read tithe).

It seems however that most of the believers and non believers on here seem to agree that the whole certificate thing is a bit odd.

Peter, really this is a bit much. Your argument that the NSS is just like a church could easily extend to any political party, or other campaigns groups such as Amnesty or Green Peace. Take The Conservative Party as a case in point:

It has a charter (read doctrine), general principles (read vision statement), Honorary Associates (read Moderators and bishops and sub-cultural celebs). They have campaigns, (read mission and evangelism), speeches (read sermons), events (read conferences, concerts, summer camps), they have rallys (read, ehem, rallys! or March for Jesus or Don't March for Jesus, or March for Not Jesus, or Down With This Sort of Jesus Thing Marches), You can join (read convert, or deconvert or debaptise yourself), they have a newsletter (read Christianity Today), they have student associations on Campus (read UCCF), they have affiliated groups (read local churches) and you can donate to the them (read tithe).

Augustine

They are the guys wanting to be de-baptised (superstition if I ever saw it!). I was being ironic! Like Graham and his chorus.

Sometimes it's the only way to deal with these things, like some of the stupid stuff Christians sell too, like here:



I suspect that if post 6 hadn't been removed the irony would have been clearer, once you have to start explaining it all....

But the substantial point is, everybody follows something.

Getting debaptised is like pretending the girl who dumped you when you were a teenager really didn't dump you, you dumped her and you want all your mates to know it. But, I suppose it's really just a bit of fun for them.

Different when they start going to court (as in Spain) trying to have their names removed from the baptismal register. As Will says, it happened, can't change that.

gveale;

"M2
How does water on the head turn you into a Theist?"

It's part of a systematic process of religious indoctrination, brainwashing them over an extended period of time to channel their thoughts for a lifetime of fidelity to a religion they cannot fully understand at their age. They are not prepared either with the wider knowledge and experience of the world or the mental stamina to think independently and critically about those issues they form opinions about. In other words, in a real sense, the religion has been forced on them by a conspiracy of their parents, church officials and possibly their community. If the day comes when they begin to question it and realize that they've been handed a complete crock in order to enslave them for their entire lives, the natural reaction is one of anger, even rage, and an instinctive desire to lash out at those who did it to them. That is why I said debaptism is an act of contempt, a display of hatred for people and ideas that betrayed them.

I personally have no such feelings. I was never convinced of any such thing. I've been an atheist all of my life so in a sense I have no religion, no spiritual beliefs whatsoever. That must be difficult for people who are believers to understand, how I could not have such thoughts and be perfectly happy and content without them, no desire to experience them. Besides the intellectual falacy of belief as I see it, from what I can tell, for the most part religion only brings people pain anyway.

PeterJ

I'm picking up a slight hostility to YEC(-:

Are things as bad as all that in PCI? I'm a preby, but I haven't been around all that long. I haven't picked up on any negative vibes for not being in the YEC camp.
In Baptist circles most folk were YECs, but there was a lot of room for disagreement - if you were prepared to press the issue(probably because the oldest generation were taught a Sunday Schools that predate AiG, and even Morris and Whitcomb).
I'd say that most Christians are fairly relaxed on the issue and can't understand the hostility generated - every time I try to engage my wife on the issue she just points out that she doen't care if I know the age of the Earth if I can't remember what time I was meant to pick the kids up.
Nearly all of the work coming out of Westminster Theological Seminaries and the Reformed Theological Seminaries on Genesis 1 is adopting the "framework" interpretation. Nobody could accuse those seminaries of being liberal. So I imagine that the tide will turn.

GV

Personally, I wouldn't get debaptised. Like Mark, I have been an atheist all my thinking life. But for many the brainwashing was effective, at least for a while. I can understand why such people want to symbolise the fact that they are hoodwinked no longer. It's a de-brainwashing ceremony, and if these people wish to proclaim their new-found disbelief in this way, fair play to them. It's a bit like the Bus Campaign. It's saying that "I am atheist and proud of it. Religion won't succeed in preying on my innocence and fears any longer. I'm free at least - free at last!"

Okay, how does water on the head of a neo-nate "brainwash" it?

Given that Eilenn Barker has shown that calims of *Moonie* brainwashing have been greatly exaggerated, I can't wait to see these explanations.

gveale, I've met the Moonies. I've spoken with them. I watched Reverend Moon speake at Madison Square Garden back in the mid 1970s. His rantings reminded me of news film I've seen of Adolf Hitler's political rallies in front of large crowds in the 1930s. These people really are crazy. But there are worse than the Moonies, much worse. The communes where people are isolated and kept away from the outside world are very dangerous environments. People who get trapped into joining them are lucky if they have friends or family close enough to them and care enough to have them kidnapped and professionally deprogrammed. They become like robots. But isn't that true of all religions to one degree or another? They all start somewhere with basic assumptions which are beyond questioning that are programmed into them. Once you are trapped in this mental process, the ability of other people to control your life is easy. For example, believers in a religion who are told by the "elders" and priests of that religion that homosexuality is a sin but who happen to be homosexuals themselves are caught on the horns of a dilemma between what they have been indoctrinated to accept from people and ideas they won't question and the reality of their own biology. This brings them great pain and anguish. It's just one example of the destructiveness of religion.

The process of religious ritual such as baptism is one element of short circuiting the process of critical thinking. I think it was that wretched monster Thomas Aquinis who said, give me a five year old and I'll return to you a good Christian for life. Brainwashing under any guise is a form of enslavement.

Lads, surely all education begins before a child is free to think for themselves. We impose speech on them, toilet training, numbers and letters, we teach them little songs and stories. In many cases people turn them into Man Utd fans! I get that you don't believe in Christianity but passing on one's beliefs to one's children is indoctrination but hardly brainwashing. There isn't some neutral position you can adopt with children where you don't teach them anything, unless you leave them to be reared by foxes.

Good point.

I made a similar point on another thread....surely one man's indoctrination is another man's education, no? no one learns anything in a vacuum, without someone teaching them. Not only that, No one teaches anything without wanting the student to learn in a certain way - their way. That's just education.

On the other hand, we're all rational enough to decide for ourselves, and even to change our minds if we later discover that we don't agree with what we've been taught. Although some people here would deny Christians that ability, that's complete and utter nonsense. I've changed my mind about loads of things that I've been taught. Sometimes I've even changed my mind, then changed it back.

If I've been brainwashed, it's been a strange kind of brainwashing. Brainwashed into being contrary...if that's not an oxymoron

I'll get back to the "brainwashing" on the morrow (off home now).

But I'd still like a little detail on the hyno-paedic powers of baptism.

GV

macadamia

It seems to me that the children left in the care of some of the Catholic ophanages in Ireland weren't raised by foxes but by far more dangerous predators. I fail to see the distinction between indoctrination into a religion and brainwashing. And I fail to see any compromise between religious indoctrination and allowing a child to develop independent thought. You either teach a child what is right and true at an early age until it is very difficult or nearly impossible for him to question it later on because it is so ingrained in his thinking or you let him learn what many other people who think differently from each other have to say and let him make up his own mind in his own good time what is true and what isn't. As for toilet training, it is a fact we ingrain into todlers that urinating and defacating wherever and whenever someone gets the urge is not acceptable to civilized society for reasons of sanitation. We don't accept any alternative truth but recognize that for various reasons such as a medical condition, accidents do happen and are just cleaned up. Too bad the on purpose religious transgressions and crimes by religious sexual predators of children can't be cleaned up quite so neatly and easily.

BI, you've been so brainwashed undoubtedly as a child insofar as your religious beliefs are concerned, you don't even know you were brainwashed. Your postings prove it beyond doubt.

Marcus, by indoctrination I meant learning doctrines. By brainwashing you try to remove a person's ability or capacity to think, or probably more accurately, to will. If Christians were brainwashers then everyone brought up by Christians would be Christian, where in fact many of them aren't, or in my terminology, lapse.

How many atheists sit down with their children and explain to them how many people in the world, in fact most people, believe the universe is created and maintained by God, while others don't believe this and you have to make up your own mind? Very few, I suspect.

Having said all that, Catholic education these days is so poor, and so secular and so pluralist and indifferent, it's a wonder anyone is still a Catholic.

And why do my posts appear with no spaces after the full stops?

McCamley, *MOST* atheist parents sit down with their children on occasion and explain to them that some people believe in all sorts of different gods and goddesses as the explanation for the world, and that we should respect people and do good. What we should NOT respect are ideas, and much less "beliefs".

Ideas should be open to testing; if they are not open to testing, or if they are insisted on as unevidenced dogma, then there is a serious problem there. You need to find out WHY someone believes something. If you are saying that catholic education is improving to the stage where kids are able to think for themselves, that is truly excellent, and I can only hope that the Protestant and Islamic and Jewish and Hindu systems all follow suit.

As for the spaces after the full stops, I can see them, but it would appear that you won't believe in them until you see them yourself ;-)

Why should we "respect people and do good"? Where does this idea or belief come from? Why should we impose it on innocent children? Should we not let them make up their own minds and perhaps decide not to respect people and to do bad? Why are you intent on brainwashing children in this way?

And why are there no spaces after my question marks?

I'm still waiting for some empirical studies to back up claims of brainwashing.

I'll even take a definition of brainwashing.

Anyone?

Mccamley, I will also "indoctrinate" my children to obey the highway code and the laws of the road, and to be cautious, courteous and conscientious not because I want to keep them out of jail, but because I want to keep them out of hospital and out of the mortuary.

That seems to make sense to me. Morality is no different. Or is it?

Helio - it makes perfect sense. And I want to keep mine out of hell as well.

Sorry - out of *where*? This hell place - can you demonstrate that it exists, and specify how precisely you think your kids are going to get there without your magic charms and rituals? And is that *really* what your morality boils down to - obeying the space pixie because if you don't, you'll get walloped? Doesn't strike me as a very satisfactory basis for ethics.

Chaps, little help here, please. Mccamley is in trouble.

Helio - actually I'd forgotten we started by talking about baptism and I wasn't especially referring to it when I talked about keeping the kids out of hell. I meant that one of the reasons I try to teach them to be good people, kind and loving is because I believe in an afterlife. But I also think it makes for a better life in the here and now. Fear of hell is bottom of the list of reasons to live a good life, in the same way that your jail is less important than the hospital or morgue. Obeying the rules of the road makes you a better and generally happier driver and if everyone does it everyone is happier. Living a good life makes you happy and I think that extends into heaven also. And if I'm wrong, what have I lost?

That said, for those who believe and have the opportunity, baptism is essential. But it is not the only means of grace available. Those of you who are good living atheists are supported by the grace of Christ whether you like it or not. And as St John of the Cross said, in the eveing of life we will be judged in love.

macadamia;

We teach children that our species is only able to survive through cooperative effort. Unlike other species where individuals can survive on their own, ours can't. We evolved as social animals whether we like it or not. Most of our morals, or ethics if you are an atheist were invented when the human race faced extinction due to a paucity of numbers. That existed until just about a century and a half ago. Now our species is threatened with extinction due to a surfeit of numbers. Global warming and other damage to the environment, depletion of resources, overcrowding are others. Malthus was right but modern science has found a way to delay the balance that nature imposed on our species, not repeal it. The current situation is unsustainable.

It's interesting that those who clamor most about global warming never talk about population control and population reduction. They are stuck in the same morality that created the problem in the first place. The illogic of their argument is that unchecked, to remain in balance with what our planet can barely sustain or as the environment slides slowly downward at for what is an acceptable level of decline to them, as there are more and more people, each person will have to live a poorer and poorer quality of life due to less per capita energy consumption, smaller homes, smaller cars, a diet poorer in animal protien, more restricted freedom to travel. It's also ironic that those who scream loudest for making abortion illegal are the most vehement for imposing the death penalty. They are also those most opposed to the public paying for the cost of housing, educating, clothing, feeding, and providing medical care for all the unwanted babies that will be born into the world that will need care at least until they are adults. They are also blind to the fact that not only will they be a drain on the economy but lacking what "wanted" children will often get except in the most meager measure will likely form in large part a disaffected criminal underclass that will be a threat to their own children and grandchildren.

My parents never told me what to believe or not believe. I was made aware and even participated in the rituals of my ancestors' religion. I will not say what that religion is but everyone seems to have one. I do not believe one word of anything related to their religious dogma, reject their cultural values as well, see their hypocricy for what it is, see that all of the other religions are exactly the same differing only in details, but have no desire to publically display my disagreement. Nor am I angry at them. They lived their lives their way, I'm living my life my way. I am grateful that I was never psychologically imprisoned as a child into being forced to see the world through someone else's eyes. I feel sorry for others who have not had that freedom. In the existential play "No Exit" by Jean Paul Sartre, in the end, the three protagonists eacho of who detests one of the other two and adores the other of the two and who have been locked in a room together in hell discover that the door to their cell has now been unlocked and they are free to leave. But they do not choose to leave, instead they choose to remain voluntarily to endure torture for all eternity. I think that is where many of those who were indoctrinated into religion as children find themselves as adults. Perhaps after all these years, I've finally found the true meaning of Sartre's play. In the end, we make our own hell. If your hell happens to be Christianity, that's your problem for not seeing it. It makes you vulnerable to condemnation and ostracism by those you've chosen for your jailers. You are always free to just walk away if you want to. But if you don't, then you have no one to blame but yourself when they tell you you are a sinner who will spend all eternity in hell if you don't do exactly what they say whether it makes sense to you or you want to or not.

OK, I think we've made some progress. Atheists and theists *do* have the same basis for moral behaviour after all - it makes life here more pleasant for all concerned. Excellente. So why bring in hell at all?

Markie has a point - this overpopulation malarkey is a major problem, and it's getting bigger. We do need to either get a handle on it, or figure out how to expand into space...

I didn't say "pleasant", I said "happy" and that's a big difference. You "bring in" hell because you think it's real, it exists and evil people will go there. And there is a devil prowling around who would like to get them and all of us there.

For some hell/heaven might be like global warming - we can't say for definite that it's true, but it's still a good idea to conserve energy and generally be respectful of the environment.

macadamia;

How much sacrifice are YOU willing to make? Will you get rid of your car and take public transportation instead? If that's not enough energy savings will you trade that in for walking and riding a bicycle? Fermentation creates CO2. Would you be willing to give up all alcoholic beverages? How about giving up meat and becoming a vegetarian? Would you be willing to live without air conditioning and only the least amount of heat necessary to keep you alive in the winter? Don't take vacations that will require a lot of travel. How far will you go, how much will you give up so that others who want to live as well as you do can consume a share of the energy you consume now so there is no net increase in CO2 production? With no limit on population, there is no limit to the sacrifice you would have to make over time to bring the environment into balance and keep it there. Are you prepared to do that especially if there is no limit to population imposed around the world, no program of population reduction?

I didn't say that helping other people should be done because it is pleasant, I said we are programmed for it as social animals and because survival depended on keeping the number of people alive and healthy at a maximum when it was part of keeping the species from becoming extinct in the past, when these moral codes were developed. But today, by feeding people in poor countries to keep them from starving to death and sending them medical technology to keep them alive as part of our moral code, we have increased their numbers only to breed more people who just make matters even worse. At what point will the capacity to feed them collide with the impact expending the energy to produce their food will have on global warming. Just a few percentage points of diversion of grain to alcohol production for fuel additives to gasoline and an increase in energy costs made food prices skyrocket a year or two ago. What do you think will happen when there is a carbon tax credit in the US environmentalists are clamoring for that farmers can sell to power companies in return for not producing food? Where do you think most of the starving people of the world get surplus food from to remain fed anyway? There is a collision coming and it will create a huge social upheaval. We've created that ourselves too because of a morality that is now exactly the opposite of what we need to survive.

Maccapacca, it's *not* real. It is made up. Hell is a human concept. There is no devil "prowling around" - haven't you been paying attention?

Dearie me!

"It's interesting that those who clamor most about global warming never talk about population control and population reduction."

That surprises me too sometimes. The pollution we produce is the product of the average pollution per person times the world population. Somehow the second factor receives little attention. When the idea of 1 billion people living pleasant lives seems far more attractive to me than 10 billion people living near starvation on a plundered planet. Another reason then to be unhappy about some people listening to the pope, as he wants women in Europe to have more babies:

One has to wonder at the motivation behind the pope's statement - I mean, in all likelihood he was just being stupid, but you could take it as being rather racist - Benny doesn't want Europe over-run with all these brown people from the rest of the world, zerefore ze white ladies must have ze more babies? Kinder Kirche Kuche? If he's so worried about depopulation of the continent, why not just let lots of African, Indian etc people move here? "Problem" solved.

Agree with PeteK - overpopulation is a real problem, and we need to get a grip.

This may be relevant.