Munger Interview

[Guest Hester]

You didn't offend me (although I think explicitly bringing up religion on an investment board is in poor taste), I just thought what you wrote was really ill informed, because of the international evidence that high religiosity is correlated with low education, poor standards of living, poor civil rights, high violence/crime, etc... Not the kind of things that build society. I'm not saying this proves any one religion is false, but to claim that a lack of religion is contributing to modern day societal decline is a laughable statement.

 

(all these are according to Gallup)

 

5 most religious states:

 

5. Arkansas

4. Louisiana

3. Alabama

2. Utah

1. Mississippi

 

5 Least religious states:

 

5. Alaska

4. Massuchussetts

3. Maine

2. New Hampshire

1. Vermont

 

5 Least religious countries:

 

5. Czech Republic

4. Norway

3. Denmark

2. Sweden

1. Estonia

 

5 most religious countries

 

5. Congo

4. Indonesia

3. Sri Lanka

2. Bangladesh

1. Egypt

 

I'll let the onlookers of this thread decide which societies they would rather live in.

[alwaysinvert]

I will agree that marriage is a more important factor, but you must remember that the institution of marriage derived from the abrahamic religions.

Nah, marriage predates all of them and exists in pretty much all cultures, and there are many examples of cultures where marriages don't have anything in particular to do with religion, such as in ancient Greece.

[Guest Hester]

I'm not religious in the least.  Having said that I do find that people who are deeply religious are often those I would depend on the most, that I trust the most, because they have acted in a virtuous manner in the past.

 

I recently got in a little bit of a spat with my roommate, who is very liberal, about Mitt Romney.  He laughed at the thought of Romney as an attractive candidate because of how 'stupid' mormonism was.  Although I haven't ever found a religion I believed in, I found it attractive that at least he was raised to have a sense of right or wrong. 

 

I'm not offended or trying to jump on you, but this sentiment flies in the face of massive evidence to the contrary (although evidence isn't religion's strongsuit)

 

Predominantly atheist countries have lowest crime rates:

 

http://www.nairaland.com/121066/predominantly-atheist-countries-lowest-crime

 

Despite being roughly 5-8% of the population, atheists make up only aboout .2% of prisoners

 

http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

 

[Rabbitisrich]

Yeah, I didn't mean to offend anyone either. My point is that you can draw misleading conclusions about a factor (religion) by looking at an associated attribute ("virtue"). For one thing, this method doesn't tell you anything about the frequency of "virtue" relative to other associated attributes. It also falsely passes the morality of an ostensible result to the cause without checking if a cause has other, less desirable effects. It's just not a powerful way of explaining things, in my opinion.

 

If you sponsor a young black athlete because you are sure that black people are great at sports, then you might have greatly improved the lives of that athlete and everyone he meets. You may also be one bad experience away from purchasing a white hood and a flammable cross.

 

 

[alwaysinvert]

I'm not religious in the least.  Having said that I do find that people who are deeply religious are often those I would depend on the most, that I trust the most, because they have acted in a virtuous manner in the past.

 

I recently got in a little bit of a spat with my roommate, who is very liberal, about Mitt Romney.  He laughed at the thought of Romney as an attractive candidate because of how 'stupid' mormonism was.  Although I haven't ever found a religion I believed in, I found it attractive that at least he was raised to have a sense of right or wrong. 

 

I'm not offended or trying to jump on you, but this sentiment flies in the face of massive evidence to the contrary (although evidence isn't religion's strongsuit)

 

Predominantly atheist countries have lowest crime rates:

 

http://www.nairaland.com/121066/predominantly-atheist-countries-lowest-crime

 

Despite being roughly 5-8% of the population, atheists make up only aboout .2% of prisoners

 

http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

Isn't the last statistic something to do with convicts being treated more leniently if they are converted when incarcerated?

 

I do however think you should be careful in implying causality to what belief system does to crime rates. Active atheists tend to be higher IQs, higher IQs have lower testosterone levels and thus are less violent and less prone to crime by default.

[Rabbitisrich]

I'm not religious in the least.  Having said that I do find that people who are deeply religious are often those I would depend on the most, that I trust the most, because they have acted in a virtuous manner in the past.

 

I recently got in a little bit of a spat with my roommate, who is very liberal, about Mitt Romney.  He laughed at the thought of Romney as an attractive candidate because of how 'stupid' mormonism was.  Although I haven't ever found a religion I believed in, I found it attractive that at least he was raised to have a sense of right or wrong. 

 

I'm not offended or trying to jump on you, but this sentiment flies in the face of massive evidence to the contrary (although evidence isn't religion's strongsuit)

 

Predominantly atheist countries have lowest crime rates:

 

http://www.nairaland.com/121066/predominantly-atheist-countries-lowest-crime

 

Despite being roughly 5-8% of the population, atheists make up only aboout .2% of prisoners

 

http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

 

It's interesting that if you look at non-theistic movements that have resulted in atrocities (cultural revolution, Stalinist purges, North Korea, arguably Nazis) you see the "worship" of some idealized superior. The people are unified through rituals, shared symbolisms, and the fear of a great enemy. Some popular atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens promote the idea of non-theism as a solution to the man's ills but call me skeptical.

[Guest Hester]

AlwaysInvert,

 

Exactly. I'm not claiming that a lack of religion improves morals or that anything I've cited proves anything other than:

The idea that declining religiosity is a factor to the downfall of modern day civilization is obviously false, since if this was true the least religious societies would be the most chaotic.

 

Rabbit,

 

Some atheists, like Sam Harris (and me) hate the word, partly for the reasons you mention. You can be atheist and still believe life shattering myths and horrible ideologies apart from religion, like Stalin did. I don't think one can attribute the atrocities to atheism, in the same way that you can't attribute Stalin's/Hitler's attrocities to their mustaches. They didn't commit the crimes because of atheism (or their mustache) but because of other awful political/racial ideologies. Atheism is not an ideology.

 

[Guest]

I've been reading a ton about religion lately. It's pretty interesting. If you guys are interested, you might want to read more about Chris Langan and his Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe.

[alwaysinvert]

I've been reading a ton about religion lately. It's pretty interesting. If you guys are interested, you might want to read more about Chris Langan and his Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe.

Try Spinoza instead. Since all the basic tenets of Langans 'theory' were stolen from there, why not go to the main source.

[moore_capital54]

AlwaysInvert,

 

Exactly. I'm not claiming that a lack of religion improves morals or that anything I've cited proves anything other than:

The idea that declining religiosity is a factor to the downfall of modern day civilization is obviously false, since if this was true the least religious societies would be the most chaotic.

 

Rabbit,

 

Some atheists, like Sam Harris (and me) hate the word, partly for the reasons you mention. You can be atheist and still believe life shattering myths and horrible ideologies apart from religion, like Stalin did. I don't think one can attribute the atrocities to atheism, in the same way that you can't attribute Stalin's/Hitler's attrocities to their mustaches. They didn't commit the crimes because of atheism (or their mustache) but because of other awful political/racial ideologies. Atheism is not an ideology.

 

Hester, Your previous posts are very unconvincing in my eyes. Here is my response:

 

What you did was choose the the poorest nations in the world, and/or states, who's poverty in all cases predated their religiosity, and then drew a conclusion that as a result of their religiosity they achieved their respective levels of prosperity. It is completely unfounded and demonstrates your lack of understanding of the positive impact of religion on society.

 

The facts are that none of the states or countries you mentioned with the highest rate of religious citizens ever achieved a level of prosperity that was any higher than their current level (with the exception of Egypt in the days of the Pharao's). They have always been poverty stricken for a multitude of reasons, some of which can be easily explained and some of which are more complex. But to say that Alabama and Arkansas are a comprehensive representation of societies with a high penetration of religion is insane.

 

Here is how things work in the real world. Historically, societies that embraced religion, democracy, and free-market capitalism, began to prosper, through several cycles, prosperous societies and their offfshot generation became more and more intelligent incorporating science as a means to explain the granular workings of our physical reality. As more time passed capitalism (or money) and knowledge have become more important pillars of society than religion historically and that is where we are today.

 

People are more interested in making money, and explaining everything, and less interested in compassion, temperance, and justice, this trend is obvious to anyone living in the western world today. Hence my comments relating to Virtue.

 

The facts are that as societies experience more prosperity they become less religious, but there is absolutely no proof that being less religious leads to more prosperity. Societies that are most poverty stricken, naturally tend to clamor to anything they can which may provide them with hope, the fact that some asshole is able to manipulate millions under the guise of religion is sad, but is not indicative of the fallacies in religion, if anything it is indicative of the lack of compassion in the rest of the world, whos inhabitants should treat each other as equal humans and get involved more rapidly in such situation, but again I am simplifying these cases (and I have some experience as my Father spent  alot of time in Africa). Certain societies have ingrained in them traits which lead to them constantly being under dictatorship...

 

Bottom line, the modern intelligentsia will have you believe that science, with its clear and concise logic,  the best foundation for societal advancement, and that embracing science is the best path towards prosperity. The problem is that not all human beings have the propensity or natural intelligence to understand that science and logic are only one component of being a virtuous human being (IE: reading spinoza on the side). And when you take a society as a whole and inject only science you are creating a society that lacks certain of the attributes which makeup what most would view as a virtuous human being today..

 

In closing let's take at look at your 5 least religious countries in closer detail so I can prove that religiosity has nothing to do with their standing as a prosperous society:

 

5. Czech Republic -

4. Norway

3. Denmark

2. Sweden

1. Estonia

 

When I look at these Countries, I see absolutely nothing special, with the exception that 4 of them were some of the easiest Countries for the Nazi's to occupy with almost no resistance (that is another thing too, atheist societies tend to have less heart in battle, because war is so illogical isnt it?).

 

I see absolutely nothing special economically with Estonia for example (your first place winner) having less GDP per capita than Greece... and Norway as you know does not belong in any comparison due to their hydrocarbon endowment.

 

Oh yeah I found another common denominator, all 5 of your "Intelligent/non-religous" countries rank in the top 20% of countries in terms of suicide rates. On average 20% of males commit suicide in those nations (21% in Estonia!).

 

So it doesn't look like all this logic and science is contributing to them being happy, if anything it almost seems like they are desperately trying to test their own theories by killing themselves prematurely  :o

 

Don't understimate the power of religion, which on the whole is a very positive power on humanity and I say that with regards to almost all religions out there from Budhism to Islam. Religion is very important for humans, whether they have a high level of intelligence or not. And if you are someone who does not require that conditioning as a youth and as you mature, that is totally fine but don't extrapolate that the athiest way would have produced the same results, as I have seen no indications of such.

 

The biggest issue I see is that ironically, and as proven by this thread, it is the atheist who spend more time proselytizing nowadays, and that is something which will surely guarantee wider adoption over time. This will contribute towards the trend I mentioned in my opening post on this thread, a loss of virtue over the ensuing generations.

 

[racemize]

AlwaysInvert,

 

Exactly. I'm not claiming that a lack of religion improves morals or that anything I've cited proves anything other than:

The idea that declining religiosity is a factor to the downfall of modern day civilization is obviously false, since if this was true the least religious societies would be the most chaotic.

 

Rabbit,

 

Some atheists, like Sam Harris (and me) hate the word, partly for the reasons you mention. You can be atheist and still believe life shattering myths and horrible ideologies apart from religion, like Stalin did. I don't think one can attribute the atrocities to atheism, in the same way that you can't attribute Stalin's/Hitler's attrocities to their mustaches. They didn't commit the crimes because of atheism (or their mustache) but because of other awful political/racial ideologies. Atheism is not an ideology.

 

Hester, Your previous posts are very unconvincing in my eyes. Here is my response:

 

What you did was choose the the poorest nations in the world, and/or states, who's poverty in all cases predated their religiosity, and then drew a conclusion that as a result of their religiosity they achieved their respective levels of prosperity. It is completely unfounded and demonstrates your lack of understanding of the positive impact of religion on society.

 

The facts are that none of the states or countries you mentioned with the highest rate of religious citizens ever achieved a level of prosperity that was any higher than their current level (with the exception of Egypt in the days of the Pharao's). They have always been poverty stricken for a multitude of reasons, some of which can be easily explained and some of which are more complex. But to say that Alabama and Arkansas represent societies with a high penetration of religiion, and hence are representative of the results of religious penetration is insane.

 

Here is how things work in the real world. Historically, societies that embraced religion, democracy, and free-market capitalism, began to prosper, through several cycles, prosperous societies and their offfshot generation became more and more intelligent incorporating science as a means to explain the granular workings of our physical reality. As more time passed capitalism (or money) and knowledge have become more important pillars of society than religion historically and that is where we are today.

 

People are more interested in making money, and explaining everything, and less interested in compassion, temperance, and justice, this trend is obvious to anyone living in the western world today. Hence my comments relating to Virtue.

 

The facts are that as societies experience more prosperity they become less religious, but there is absolutely no proof that being less religious leads to more prosperity. Societies that are most poverty stricken, naturally tend to clamor to anything they can which may provide them with hope, the fact that some asshole is able to manipulate millions under the guise of religion is sad, but is not indicative of the fallacies in religion, if anything it is indicative of the lack of compassion in the rest of the world, whos inhabitants should treat each other as equal humans and get involved more rapidly in such situation, but again I am simplifying these cases (and I have some experience as my Father spent  alot of time in Africa). Certain societies have ingrained in them traits which lead to them constantly being under dictatorship...

 

Bottom line, the modern intelligentsia will have you believe that science, with its clear and concise logic,  the best foundation for societal advancement, and that embracing science is the best path towards prosperity. The problem is that not all human beings have the propensity or natural intelligence to understand that science and logic are only one component of being a virtuous human being (IE: reading spinoza on the side). And when you take a society as a whole and inject only science you are creating a society that lacks certain of the attributes which makeup what most would view as a virtuous human being today..

 

In closing let's take at look at your 5 least religious countries in closer detail so I can prove that religiosity has nothing to do with their standing as a prosperous society:

 

5. Czech Republic -

4. Norway

3. Denmark

2. Sweden

1. Estonia

 

When I look at these Countries, I see absolutely nothing special, with the exception that the first 4 were some of the easiest Countries for the Nazi's to occupy with almost no resistance (that is another thing too, atheist societies tend to have less heart in battle, because war is so illogical isnt it?).

 

I see absolutely nothing special economically with Estonia for example (your first place winner) having less GDP per capita than Greece... and Norway as you know does not belong in any comparison due to their hydrocarbon endowment.

 

Oh yeah I found another common denominator, all 5 of your "Intelligent/non-religous" countries rank in the top 20% of countries in terms of suicide rates. On average 20% of males commit suicide in those nations (21% in Estonia!).

 

So it doesn't look like all this logic and science is contributing to them being happy, if anything it almost seems like they are desperately trying to test their own theories by killing themselves prematurely  :o

 

Don't understimate the power of religion, which on the whole is a very positive power on humanity and I say that with regards to almost all religions out there from Budhism to Islam. Religion is very important for humans, whether they have a high level of intelligence or not. And if you are someone who does not require that conditioning as a youth and as you mature, that is totally fine but don't extrapolate that the athiest way would have produced the same results, as I have seen no indications of such.

 

The biggest issue I see is that ironically, and as proven by this thread, it is the atheist who spend more time proselytizing nowadays, and that is something which will surely guarantee wider adoption over time. This will contribute towards the trend I mentioned in my opening post on this thread, a lost of virtue over the ensuing generations.

 

Weak.

[ERICOPOLY]

I would join a religion, maybe, if they would strip out all the superstition.  It's a tall order, I'll admit.

 

What is "superstition"?

 

An example would be a spirit impregnating a virgin.  Tough to sell me on that.

 

Markets of course are efficient because all of the facts are known.  I mean, I have no edge over the rest of the crowd right?  I have just my reason and logic to guide me to conclusions that most others fail to reach given the same set of data  :)

[ERICOPOLY]

I do sort of have a form of religion.

 

Heaven:

The  mental state of happiness and well being that, for example, I visit when I am kind to others and they appreciate my efforts.  Thus it pays to be kind because you go to heaven (and you don't even need to die first!).

 

Hell:

The mental state of regret, depression, guilt, etc... that I visit when I've been mean or unkind towards others. 

 

Eternity:

I feel like I have already lived forever because I can't remember my birth, nor will I be conscious of my death.  So my life is "eternal" for all intents and purposes.  If I live a mostly good life I may spend "eternity" in "heaven".

 

God:

My conscience.  I cannot hide anything from it, it is all-knowing of my deeds.  It judges my actions and sends me to "heaven" or "hell".  Judgement day is continuous in real time on a rolling basis.  The way others view my actions and provide additional feedback to me regarding the goodness of my actions is an extension of the omnipotent God.  Basically, I can't hide from God -- completely impossible.  I may try to repress something, but it will bubble up later.

 

Fountain of youth:

Woman is the fountain of youth from which my genes are born to the next generation, hopefully passing on my genes from one generation to the next.  My DNA thus is continuously reborn.  There is an alternate interpretation, being that others will remember me and be influenced by me, and they will in turn influence others, so that my actions on Earth will be retold in some small way for the rest of eternity, somewhat like a whale song.

 

So there you go, that's a religion without superstition.  It can give you reason to be kind to others, to live a virtuous life.  Just focus on being happy for this eternity, and no you can't do that without being kind to and helping out others.

[Valuebo]

 

Don't understimate the power of religion, which on the whole is a very positive power on humanity and I say that with regards to almost all religions out there from Budhism to Islam. Religion is very important for humans, whether they have a high level of intelligence or not. And if you are someone who does not require that conditioning as a youth and as you mature, that is totally fine but don't extrapolate that the athiest way would have produced the same results, as I have seen no indications of such.

 

The biggest issue I see is that ironically, and as proven by this thread, it is the atheist who spend more time proselytizing nowadays, and that is something which will surely guarantee wider adoption over time. This will contribute towards the trend I mentioned in my opening post on this thread, a loss of virtue over the ensuing generations.

 

A very positive power? It helped in building various societies early on because the big ones generally had some basic values, but claiming that acceptance of things like a atheisme and agnosticism will result in a loss of virtue... a complete joke imo!

 

Now still Vatican City prohibits the use of condoms in Africa for example. I could sum up a whole list from prohibiting gay marriage to torture and mutilation of women to show what a "very positive force" religion can be...  Not to mention that it's all bullshit used for crowd control etc. ::)  I won't even put in the effort given how impossible it generally is to convince people of another POV on subjects like religion.

Education, basic values, social safety nets,... those are the things we need as modern societies to maintain virtue; not superstition, intimidation and other nonsense.

[Guest]

I've been reading a ton about religion lately. It's pretty interesting. If you guys are interested, you might want to read more about Chris Langan and his Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe.

Try Spinoza instead. Since all the basic tenets of Langans 'theory' were stolen from there, why not go to the main source.

 

I'll read more. Have you guys looked into Ian Stevenson's work at all?

 

By the way, have you personally read his Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe?

[enoch01]

I would join a religion, maybe, if they would strip out all the superstition.  It's a tall order, I'll admit.

 

What is "superstition"?

 

An example would be a spirit impregnating a virgin.  Tough to sell me on that.

 

 

I'm not sure I understand.  What do you think is sufficient to label something a "superstition"?  It has to be more than just something that is "tough to sell you on", right?  There's lots of things that are at first tough to sell people on, but later we might think are true (e.g. a round earth, the incompleteness theorems, theory of general relativity).  Are you saying it's only a matter of perspective, or an objective quality?

 

No worries if you don't want to answer (this is an investment board after all).  I've had similar conversations before with people who use the term, and am just curious.

 

Thanks.

[Guest]

For the record, I would have to say I'm agnostic (with a slight lean towards thinking there is something after this life).

 

Why do I say this? There are many things we don't yet understand or can explain. For instance, why we dream, how the mind works, etc. Now, that doesn't mean there is a after life but it does mean there are other things we yet understand.

 

There are many stories about near death experiences that are fascinating. One was the story of Pam Reynolds. She could view the operating room while her brain is shut down. I look at religion and the academic world, at least some way, in the same way of EMT vs value investing. The data says it shouldn't work, but there are some people that do it successfully...and it's explained away (at least by some) as anomalies.

 

As for the work of Ian Stevenson,

 

"Stevenson believed the strongest cases he had collected in support of this model involved both testimony and physical evidence. In over 40 of these cases Stevenson gathered physical evidence relating to the often rare and unusual birthmarks and birth defects of children which he claimed matched wounds recorded in the medical or post-mortem records for the individual Stevenson identified as the past-life personality.[16]

The children in Stevenson's studies often behaved in ways he felt suggestive of a link to the previous life. These children would display emotions toward members of the previous family consistent with their claimed past life, e.g., deferring to a husband or bossing around a former younger brother or sister who by that time was actually much older than the child in question. Many of these children also displayed phillias and phobias associated to the manner of their death, with over half who described a violent death being fearful of associated devices. Many of the children also incorporated elements of their claimed previous occupation into their play, while others would act out their claimed death repeatedly."

 

 

[ERICOPOLY]

I would join a religion, maybe, if they would strip out all the superstition.  It's a tall order, I'll admit.

 

What is "superstition"?

 

An example would be a spirit impregnating a virgin.  Tough to sell me on that.

 

 

I'm not sure I understand.  What do you think is sufficient to label something a "superstition"?  It has to be more than just something that is "tough to sell you on", right?  There's lots of things that are at first tough to sell people on, but later we might think are true (e.g. a round earth, the incompleteness theorems, theory of general relativity).  Are you saying it's only a matter of perspective, or an objective quality?

 

No worries if you don't want to answer (this is an investment board after all).  I've had similar conversations before with people who use the term, and am just curious.

 

Thanks.

 

 

This is how I view it.

 

A father has a daughter.  He promises her to another man in marriage -- he represents her to this man as a virgin.  She gets pregnant before the wedding. 

 

A spirit did it!  She is still a virgin.  The story protects the good family name. 

 

It's tough to sell me on this kind of a story.  I am more prone to believe that she had sex out of wedlock, and that's how she got pregnant.  Others will fall (due to supernatural beliefs) for the line that a spirit did it.

 

 

 

What do you think is sufficient to label something a "superstition"?  It has to be more than just something that is "tough to sell you on", right?

 

The role that a "spirit" plays in making a woman pregnant makes it a superstition from where I stand.

 

Here is how Encyclopedia Britannica defines superstition -- I'm going to put the parts in bold that I find relevant:

 

belief, half-belief, or practice for which there appears to be no rational substance. Those who use the term imply that they have certain knowledge or superior evidence for their own scientific, philosophical, or religious convictions. An ambiguous word, it probably cannot be used except subjectively. With this qualification in mind, superstitions may be classified roughly as religious, cultural, and personal

 

 

 

 

[Parsad]

Folks, I'm an atheist, but whether all of you like it or not, you already subscribe to a religion.  And by religion, I mean a form of ideology that shapes your conduct and culture...the religion of value investing!  And I'm a far better person for it. 

 

That being said, I think religion has shaped humanity since the beginning, both for better and for worse!  So, let's leave it alone and go back to the philosophy we all agree upon...the Buffett principles.  Cheers!

[alwaysinvert]

I've been reading a ton about religion lately. It's pretty interesting. If you guys are interested, you might want to read more about Chris Langan and his Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe.

Try Spinoza instead. Since all the basic tenets of Langans 'theory' were stolen from there, why not go to the main source.

 

I'll read more. Have you guys looked into Ian Stevenson's work at all?

 

By the way, have you personally read his Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe?

No, I couldn't really be bothered.

 

Firstly, all of the warnings signs are blinking when it comes to Langan. He seems more of a self-promoter than a serious thinker. His wordings seem to be far too obfuscating to be a mere coincident - doesn't pass the smell test. Secondly, he presupposes the biblical God in his theory, which sets up the whole thing to be circular reasoning. The rest seems, like I said, to be pretty much lifted from the 17th century, albeit from brilliant sources. Couple this with the fact that no real philosophers or any oher kind of intellectuals have bothered with his ideas and I call bullshit.

 

And no, that Malcolm "Igon value" Gladwell has another explanation for Langan's obscurity doesn't really bother me.

[Guest Hester]

"What you did was choose the the poorest nations in the world, and/or states, who's poverty in all cases predated their religiosity, and then drew a conclusion that as a result of their religiosity they achieved their respective levels of prosperity."

 

 

 

What you have just seen, people, is Moore Capital artfully setting up a strawman argument and victoriously knocking it down. The one thing I hate is when someone sets up a ridiculous strawman and doesn't take the time or effort to understand my straightforward argument.

 

You are arguing that religion is an important factor to building society. I'm arguing it's not. I'm not arguing the opposite of you. I'm not saying that a lack of religion causes prosperity, and vice versa. I never did. PLEASE READ MY ARGUMENTS.

 

This misunderstanding could have spared you most of your text and probably a lot of your time. Reread your post in light of this fact (call it a revelation) and you'll realize that most of what you wrote proves my argument not yours.

 

I'll repeat that.. I AM NOT SAYING, NOR EVER SAID, THAT A LACK OF RELIGION CAUSES PROSPERITY. I AM SAYING THAT A LACK OF RELIGION DOES NOT HURT SOCIETY.

 

So your argument that poverty predates religion is correct and proves MY POINT!! The fact that the most highly religious countries are poor does not prove that religion causes poverty. It does help prove, however, that religion isn't a driving factor of prosperity, since these countries (who were poor before high levels of religion) would of become more prosperous after becoming mega religious.

 

 

The most hilarious part of your post.

 

"In closing let's take at look at your 5 least religious countries in closer detail so I can prove that religiosity has nothing to do with their standing as a prosperous society."

 

Are you friggin serious?!? Your original assertion was that less religion was causing a decline in society, and now you're trying to prove that religiosity has nothing to do with being a prosperous society? I'm dumbfounded, really. Surely you see the contradiction.

 

"The biggest issue I see is that ironically, and as proven by this thread, it is the atheist who spend more time proselytizing nowadays, and that is something which will surely guarantee wider adoption over time. This will contribute towards the trend I mentioned in my opening post on this thread, a lost of virtue over the ensuing generations."

 

But you just proved that religiosity has nothing to do with prosperity! And now you're back to asserting that a lack of religion will contribute to the downfall of man.

 

I saw a blind assertion that contradicts large amounts of evidence that falsifies the assertion, and pointed it out. That's all. And you conclude I am proselytizing. Only religion could get away with this. Questioning a political assertion, or an assertion that X stock is a good/bad investment, would never be considered proselytizing. Ever.

 

 

[Guest Hester]

To sum up the exchange between me and Moore Capital for those too busy or apathetic (understandably) to read the whole thing.

 

Moore: We're losing our religion which is causing a decline in the health of our society.

 

Hester: A lack of religion cannot possibly be destroying society because the least religious societies are doing fine and the most religious ones are struggling.

 

Moore: No you're wrong, because religiosity has nothing to do with societal health.

But the fact that you even question my religious assertions proves that a lack of religion is causing a decline in the health of our society.

 

Hester: Ummmm.......

 

 

(I can do strawman too)

[Guest]

I've been reading a ton about religion lately. It's pretty interesting. If you guys are interested, you might want to read more about Chris Langan and his Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe.

Try Spinoza instead. Since all the basic tenets of Langans 'theory' were stolen from there, why not go to the main source.

 

I'll read more. Have you guys looked into Ian Stevenson's work at all?

 

By the way, have you personally read his Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe?

No, I couldn't really be bothered.

 

Firstly, all of the warnings signs are blinking when it comes to Langan. He seems more of a self-promoter than a serious thinker. His wordings seem to be far too obfuscating to be a mere coincident - doesn't pass the smell test. Secondly, he presupposes the biblical God in his theory, which sets up the whole thing to be circular reasoning. The rest seems, like I said, to be pretty much lifted from the 17th century, albeit from brilliant sources. Couple this with the fact that no real philosophers or any oher kind of intellectuals have bothered with his ideas and I call bullshit.

 

And no, that Malcolm "Igon value" Gladwell has another explanation for Langan's obscurity doesn't really bother me.

 

Don't you think it'd be wise to read before you give such definitive opinions?

 

Here is a personal story and just another reason I think things are possible. A friend of mine has a cousin. He was sitting in a restaurant and a lady, he did not know, came up to him and ask if she could sit. She said that God told her to give him a message. I think it was something like "you have the power of a tiger within you" or something. Four days later he was diagnosed with cancer. Now, we could assume that she tells this to a lot of people...eventually someone that she tells, something life changing will happen...and people will think it's a higher power.

 

Here is another story from my mom. She was driving along and had a huge craving for a doughnut (or some other food). She wasn't a big fan, but had a craving anyway. She stops buy to satisfy her craving and pulls out. Her tie rod then breaks while she is in the parking lot.  She tells no one but my dad (cellphones were not big at the time). My dad tells no one. Later that evening a lady comes up to their house and tells my mom that God spared her life that day. Supposedly, the lady did not see anything nor did anyone tell her. Hey, maybe she's not being truthful. Maybe she say my mom that day...or someone told her.  For what it's worth, she said that no one did though.

 

I'm well aware that neither story is evidence. Just wanted to share some things (there are a couple others) which lead me to be agnostic with a lean towards something else.

 

 

[ERICOPOLY]

I've been reading a ton about religion lately. It's pretty interesting. If you guys are interested, you might want to read more about Chris Langan and his Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe.

Try Spinoza instead. Since all the basic tenets of Langans 'theory' were stolen from there, why not go to the main source.

 

I'll read more. Have you guys looked into Ian Stevenson's work at all?

 

By the way, have you personally read his Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe?

No, I couldn't really be bothered.

 

Firstly, all of the warnings signs are blinking when it comes to Langan. He seems more of a self-promoter than a serious thinker. His wordings seem to be far too obfuscating to be a mere coincident - doesn't pass the smell test. Secondly, he presupposes the biblical God in his theory, which sets up the whole thing to be circular reasoning. The rest seems, like I said, to be pretty much lifted from the 17th century, albeit from brilliant sources. Couple this with the fact that no real philosophers or any oher kind of intellectuals have bothered with his ideas and I call bullshit.

 

And no, that Malcolm "Igon value" Gladwell has another explanation for Langan's obscurity doesn't really bother me.

 

Don't you think it'd be wise to read before you give such definitive opinions?

 

Here is a personal story and just another reason I think things are possible. A friend of mine has a cousin. He was sitting in a restaurant and a lady, he did not know, came up to him and ask if she could sit. She said that God told her to give him a message. I think it was something like "you have the power of a tiger within you" or something. Four days later he was diagnosed with cancer. Now, we could assume that she tells this to a lot of people...eventually someone that she tells, something life changing will happen...and people will think it's a higher power.

 

Here is another story from my mom. She was driving along and had a huge craving for a doughnut (or some other food). She wasn't a big fan, but had a craving anyway. She stops buy to satisfy her craving and pulls out. Her tie rod then breaks while she is in the parking lot.  She tells no one but my dad (cellphones were not big at the time). My dad tells no one. Later that evening a lady comes up to their house and tells my mom that God spared her life that day. Supposedly, the lady did not see anything nor did anyone tell her. Hey, maybe she's not being truthful. Maybe she say my mom that day...or someone told her.  For what it's worth, she said that no one did though.

 

I'm well aware that neither story is evidence. Just wanted to share some things (there are a couple others) which lead me to be agnostic with a lean towards something else.

 

Was it a Krispy Kreme donut?  They are said to be heavenly.

[Guest]

I've been reading a ton about religion lately. It's pretty interesting. If you guys are interested, you might want to read more about Chris Langan and his Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe.

Try Spinoza instead. Since all the basic tenets of Langans 'theory' were stolen from there, why not go to the main source.

 

I'll read more. Have you guys looked into Ian Stevenson's work at all?

 

By the way, have you personally read his Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe?

No, I couldn't really be bothered.

 

Firstly, all of the warnings signs are blinking when it comes to Langan. He seems more of a self-promoter than a serious thinker. His wordings seem to be far too obfuscating to be a mere coincident - doesn't pass the smell test. Secondly, he presupposes the biblical God in his theory, which sets up the whole thing to be circular reasoning. The rest seems, like I said, to be pretty much lifted from the 17th century, albeit from brilliant sources. Couple this with the fact that no real philosophers or any oher kind of intellectuals have bothered with his ideas and I call bullshit.

 

And no, that Malcolm "Igon value" Gladwell has another explanation for Langan's obscurity doesn't really bother me.

 

Don't you think it'd be wise to read before you give such definitive opinions?

 

Here is a personal story and just another reason I think things are possible. A friend of mine has a cousin. He was sitting in a restaurant and a lady, he did not know, came up to him and ask if she could sit. She said that God told her to give him a message. I think it was something like "you have the power of a tiger within you" or something. Four days later he was diagnosed with cancer. Now, we could assume that she tells this to a lot of people...eventually someone that she tells, something life changing will happen...and people will think it's a higher power.

 

Here is another story from my mom. She was driving along and had a huge craving for a doughnut (or some other food). She wasn't a big fan, but had a craving anyway. She stops buy to satisfy her craving and pulls out. Her tie rod then breaks while she is in the parking lot.  She tells no one but my dad (cellphones were not big at the time). My dad tells no one. Later that evening a lady comes up to their house and tells my mom that God spared her life that day. Supposedly, the lady did not see anything nor did anyone tell her. Hey, maybe she's not being truthful. Maybe she say my mom that day...or someone told her.  For what it's worth, she said that no one did though.

 

I'm well aware that neither story is evidence. Just wanted to share some things (there are a couple others) which lead me to be agnostic with a lean towards something else.

 

Was it a Krispy Kreme donut?  They are said to be heavenly.

 

hahaha. It might've been!  ;)