Free State Project Forum

New Hampshire -- The "Live Free or Die" State => NH Information and News => Topic started by: dalebert on May 11, 2014, 10:01:58 am

Title: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: dalebert on May 11, 2014, 10:01:58 am
Second only to Vermont. Yay!

Quote
States across the South and Utah once again keep their high ranking on an annual list of the most religious U.S. states. Vermont leads the pack of least religious states.

http://www.livescience.com/43064-most-least-religious-us-states.html
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: Argentum on May 11, 2014, 12:43:53 pm
Second only to Vermont. Yay!

Quote
States across the South and Utah once again keep their high ranking on an annual list of the most religious U.S. states. Vermont leads the pack of least religious states.

http://www.livescience.com/43064-most-least-religious-us-states.html

Why "Yay!"? 
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: dalebert on May 11, 2014, 05:52:25 pm
Because 2nd place is still pretty good and we're only behind by 2 points. That's something we can work on!
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: Argentum on May 11, 2014, 06:35:49 pm
Because 2nd place is still pretty good and we're only behind by 2 points. That's something we can work on!
Sorry for not being clear.  Why is it a good thing?
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: dalebert on May 12, 2014, 07:50:36 am
Sorry for not being clear.  Why is it a good thing?

I guess it depends on your POV. From my POV, I think it speaks well for the FSP that they picked one of the most secular states. It doesn't surprise me that one of the least religious states was also one of the most libertarian. I hear there's another similar project for religious folks encouraging a move to South Carolina.
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: realquiet09 on May 12, 2014, 08:36:28 am
I'm a libertarian who is moving to New Hampshire . n Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior . Guess I won't have a hard time finding a seat. fascism is all about tolerance as long as you tow the line. try working on freedom that includes religious freedom
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: dalebert on May 12, 2014, 08:53:03 am
try working on freedom that includes religious freedom

You think I don't? Let me ask you something. Do you think you should be free to evangelize about your beliefs and use persuasion to convince others, without threats or violence, of course, to share your beliefs?
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: freedomroad on May 12, 2014, 09:33:48 am
Sorry for not being clear.  Why is it a good thing?

I guess it depends on your POV. From my POV, I think it speaks well for the FSP that they picked one of the most secular states. It doesn't surprise me that one of the least religious states was also one of the most libertarian. I hear there's another similar project for religious folks encouraging a move to South Carolina.

I doubt NH being the 2nd least religious state was a large factor in NH being selected. I don't even remember the issue coming up in any of the which state papers.

Cory Burnell admitted the Christian Exodus Project he created was partly modeled after the FSP. The Wikipedia page is hilarious. Cory said he couldn't even find a job in SC (or the border areas of NC and GA.) Maybe Cory has no skills other than failing to copy the FSP success? 15 families moved for the project... Heck, even the failed copycat called Free State Wyoming did better than that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Exodus

SC, WY, NC... they all agree that the FSP is a good idea. They all fail to actually understand the idea. They try a modified version where they live, or where they want to live. They fail.
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: MaineShark on May 12, 2014, 10:09:01 am
I doubt NH being the 2nd least religious state was a large factor in NH being selected. I don't even remember the issue coming up in any of the which state papers.

I don't think it came up as part of the selection process, but I think it has a huge impact on the liberty culture on NH, which obviously was part of the selection process.

Those who think critically about the role of government, are also likely to think critically about religion, as well.  Those who are highly religious tend to be highly supportive of the government, and of using the government to impose their beliefs on others.

Not all of them, of course, but a very high percentage.

NH, in generally, does not have a highly-religious culture.  On the other hand, NH, in general, does tend to have a fairly spiritual culture.  In other words, a lot of folks still have their spiritual beliefs, but few are strongly-dogmatic about it.  Live and let live.

So, for example, you're not likely to walk into a town meeting and hear it opened with a prayer.  But if some group wanted to pray out front before entering, and someone complained, the most likely response would be, "they're not hurting you; respectfully ignore them if you don't like it."
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: realquiet09 on May 12, 2014, 10:29:39 am
all I can be is transparent  and give testimony of what it's done in my life . I'm not here to change mans opinion that's up to the individual . I try not to even persuade my children. I would like for them to think and come up with their own conclusion  . I apologize for insinuating anything about you because I don't know you . now the question for you is how  do you reckon that we could make New Hampshire the number one least religious State ? should we have all religious people register themselves so we know who to work on ? enlighten me.  you seem to rejoice in the fact  that we can achieve this by getting 2 more percent of the populace to be less religious . Why is this important ? I know that's two questions.
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: dalebert on May 12, 2014, 12:06:08 pm
I don't think it came up as part of the selection process, but I think it has a huge impact on the liberty culture on NH, which obviously was part of the selection process.

Exactly. It would have been very bizarre for that to be a specific criteria. As I've already said, I just don't think it's a random coincidence that a very libertarian state was also less religious considering how much religions have had a role in controlling people historically, often times through the state, and if not, through other means. That said, I do think things like blue laws would have been pretty discouraging to libertarians. In Georgia, for instance, you can't buy alcohol on Sundays.

I apologize for insinuating anything about you because I don't know you.

You say that but then you present this ridiculous straw man--

Quote
should we have all religious people register themselves so we know who to work on ? enlighten me.

--that you know is absurd considering the question that you pointedly avoided answering. Allow me to simplify it. Do you believe in total free speech up to and possibly including evangelizing about one's particular religious beliefs? The question applies whether you personally intend to partake of that freedom or not. Do you believe in it for others?

I'll answer really quick for you to expedite this conversation a bit. You can correct me if I'm wrong.

"Yes, of course I believe in free speech, Dalebert. I'm a libertarian!" -realquiet09

Then you have answered your next question because that's how I intend to do it (my part, anyway)--using my free speech. I would posit that you're also doing it right now. You're arguing the merit, or at least the harmlessness of religion against me arguing why less religion is a basically good thing. Yay for free speech!

Quote
Why is this important?

Because fantasies don't solve problems. Understanding and embracing reality does. Fantasies are fine. I enjoy them. I'm a big fan of fantasy role-playing games. But getting them mixed up with reality is a bad idea. I generally feel free to use my free speech to dispel any irrational beliefs whether those beliefs are based in religions or not. That includes the belief in statism. Are someone's particular religious beliefs irrational? That's a matter of opinion but we should all feel free to talk about it. That's how we all progress and learn. I personally treat the words "religion" and "irrational" as nearly synonymous because the former calls for embracing a particular belief based on faith rather than basing your beliefs on logic and evidence. If someone's beliefs aren't like that, they'd be hard-pressed to convince me it's a "religion".

I'm actually fairly spiritual fwiw. I'm a fan of Alan Watts. And I'm totally up for discussing anything he's said which you believe to be irrational.
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: John Edward Mercier on May 12, 2014, 12:19:35 pm
all I can be is transparent  and give testimony of what it's done in my life . I'm not here to change mans opinion that's up to the individual . I try not to even persuade my children. I would like for them to think and come up with their own conclusion  . I apologize for insinuating anything about you because I don't know you . now the question for you is how  do you reckon that we could make New Hampshire the number one least religious State ? should we have all religious people register themselves so we know who to work on ? enlighten me.  you seem to rejoice in the fact  that we can achieve this by getting 2 more percent of the populace to be less religious . Why is this important ? I know that's two questions.
I'm not sure that the majority wishes to go backwards.
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: Argentum on May 12, 2014, 01:11:52 pm
Some general comments.

Liberals, especially environmentalists, are extremely religious.  Their religion is secular.  And they are very statist in orientation.  They literally worship the government.  The people that liberals, and many libertarians, called religious conservatives, are in my view hardly that religious at all.  It's all superficial.  They've thrown in the towel.  They have pro-military sermons.  They don't believe in good and evil anymore.  They accept the secular religion of Psychiatry which has replaced good and evil with mythical concepts like mental health and mental illness.  True Christians, Muslims and adherents to Judaism (not the same as Jews) should be radical in their devotion to liberty.
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: dalebert on May 12, 2014, 03:19:35 pm
I try not to even persuade my children. I would like for them to think and come up with their own conclusion.

Do you take them to a church, synagogue, mosque, or something along those lines on a regular basis?
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: John Edward Mercier on May 13, 2014, 08:31:05 am
Some general comments.

Liberals, especially environmentalists, are extremely religious.  Their religion is secular.  And they are very statist in orientation.  They literally worship the government.  The people that liberals, and many libertarians, called religious conservatives, are in my view hardly that religious at all.  It's all superficial.  They've thrown in the towel.  They have pro-military sermons.  They don't believe in good and evil anymore.  They accept the secular religion of Psychiatry which has replaced good and evil with mythical concepts like mental health and mental illness.  True Christians, Muslims and adherents to Judaism (not the same as Jews) should be radical in their devotion to liberty.
So you believe that no religion is based on the environment? And liberals supported same-sex marriage and choice because they are in opposition to liberty?
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: Planethosting on May 13, 2014, 12:07:58 pm
Some general comments.

Liberals, especially environmentalists, are extremely religious.  Their religion is secular.  And they are very statist in orientation.  They literally worship the government.  The people that liberals, and many libertarians, called religious conservatives, are in my view hardly that religious at all.  It's all superficial.  They've thrown in the towel.  They have pro-military sermons.  They don't believe in good and evil anymore.  They accept the secular religion of Psychiatry which has replaced good and evil with mythical concepts like mental health and mental illness.  True Christians, Muslims and adherents to Judaism (not the same as Jews) should be radical in their devotion to liberty.

I really like what you have to say, and your understanding of things.  I agree with you 100% about most Liberals & environmentalists worshipping a false god; but a very violent, blood thirsty god. Their god, the luciferian global Government, continually drain innocent blood into the earth, and coral humans into metal cages, and strip them of their life, liberty, and property, at will.  The true motive behind Liberals & environmentalists is rage and hate against their fellow man.  Hence their desire to feed and unleash this wicked and ferocious animal upon the unsuspecting.  They hide behind slogans about children and choice to try and defuse the reality of blood and cages.   
 
And I also agree with you regarding Christians, cheering on the murder of innocent people all over the world, like they were collecting 'pagan pelts', to hang on fence posts.   This is right before they go to their church, to see what Dr. Phil/Oprah regurgitated lies their Freemason mysticism pastor is going to spew,  in order to keep the 'spell' active upon their overtaken souls.
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: dalebert on May 13, 2014, 01:05:50 pm
Their god, the luciferian global Government, continually drain innocent blood into the earth, and coral humans into metal cages, and strip them of their life, liberty, and property, at will.

Come on... Can't you leave Lucifer out of this? As fictional characters go, he seems pretty cool. He is the light-bringer, after all.

P.S.

(http://i.imgur.com/m5xaMUP.jpg)
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: w1LE.e on May 13, 2014, 02:56:11 pm
This is straying from the topic but dalebert, every time I read your posts, in my head I hear them in Archer's voice haha.
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: dalebert on May 13, 2014, 03:46:18 pm
This is straying from the topic but dalebert, every time I read your posts, in my head I hear them in Archer's voice haha.

Then my journey to the dark side is complete. MwahahahahahAHAHAHA! ;)
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: John Edward Mercier on May 13, 2014, 04:32:39 pm
Some general comments.

Liberals, especially environmentalists, are extremely religious.  Their religion is secular.  And they are very statist in orientation.  They literally worship the government.  The people that liberals, and many libertarians, called religious conservatives, are in my view hardly that religious at all.  It's all superficial.  They've thrown in the towel.  They have pro-military sermons.  They don't believe in good and evil anymore.  They accept the secular religion of Psychiatry which has replaced good and evil with mythical concepts like mental health and mental illness.  True Christians, Muslims and adherents to Judaism (not the same as Jews) should be radical in their devotion to liberty.

I really like what you have to say, and your understanding of things.  I agree with you 100% about most Liberals & environmentalists worshipping a false god; but a very violent, blood thirsty god. Their god, the luciferian global Government, continually drain innocent blood into the earth, and coral humans into metal cages, and strip them of their life, liberty, and property, at will.  The true motive behind Liberals & environmentalists is rage and hate against their fellow man.  Hence their desire to feed and unleash this wicked and ferocious animal upon the unsuspecting.  They hide behind slogans about children and choice to try and defuse the reality of blood and cages.   
 
And I also agree with you regarding Christians, cheering on the murder of innocent people all over the world, like they were collecting 'pagan pelts', to hang on fence posts.   This is right before they go to their church, to see what Dr. Phil/Oprah regurgitated lies their Freemason mysticism pastor is going to spew,  in order to keep the 'spell' active upon their overtaken souls.

If you don't have choice, how do you have liberty?
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: dalebert on May 13, 2014, 07:29:39 pm
Respecting Others' Beliefs is BULLSHIT
by the Truth Over Comfort podcast.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qMybWCRcDc
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: Argentum on May 13, 2014, 07:44:35 pm
Belief in God, Creator or Supreme Being in no way implies that the believer is any more or less statist than the atheist.  There are plenty of States and Countries that are non-religious that are very unfree.  The United States as a whole was very religious and very free in the 19th century.  Many of the great libertarians of the past and present are religious, mostly Christians. 

Since less than 5% of the US population could be defined as libertarian, even using a broad definition of libertarianism, I don't think any conclusions can be draw. 
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: jaywalkaway on May 14, 2014, 10:06:54 am
Also in the top 10, Massachusetts and Connecticut, followed closely by NY.  Not seeing any connection between less religion and more freedom.
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: MaineShark on May 14, 2014, 10:38:36 am
Also in the top 10, Massachusetts and Connecticut, followed closely by NY.  Not seeing any connection between less religion and more freedom.

Less religion doesn't cause more freedom.  But more freedom tends to cause less religion.

There are no liberty-friendly states in the bottom ten, for example.  Even the bottom fifteen or twenty looks pretty bleak.

Almost all of the liberty-friendly states are clustered in the top fifteen or twenty.
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: freedomroad on May 14, 2014, 11:33:39 am
Also in the top 10, Massachusetts and Connecticut, followed closely by NY.  Not seeing any connection between less religion and more freedom.

Less religion doesn't cause more freedom.  But more freedom tends to cause less religion.

There are no liberty-friendly states in the bottom ten, for example.  Even the bottom fifteen or twenty looks pretty bleak.

Almost all of the liberty-friendly states are clustered in the top fifteen or twenty.

Not sure I agree. These are the most religious states.
Quote
Mississippi: 61 percent
Utah: 60 percent
Alabama: 57 percent
Louisiana: 56 percent
South Carolina: 54 percent
Tennessee: 54 percent
Georgia: 52 percent
Arkansas: 51 percent
North Carolina: 50 percent
Oklahoma: 49 percent
Kentucky: 49 percent
Texas: 48 percent
Idaho: 47 percent
Nebraska: 47 percent
Kansas: 47 percent
South Dakota: 46 percent
North Dakota: 46 percent

Freedom in the 50 States. http://freedominthe50states.org/
Notice ND, SN, TN, OK, ID, GA and UT all near the top.
(http://benswann.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Screenshot-2014-01-22-at-1.33.08-PM.png)

Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: MaineShark on May 14, 2014, 12:02:27 pm
Not sure I agree. These are the most religious states.
Quote
Mississippi: 61 percent
Utah: 60 percent
Alabama: 57 percent
Louisiana: 56 percent
South Carolina: 54 percent
Tennessee: 54 percent
Georgia: 52 percent
Arkansas: 51 percent
North Carolina: 50 percent
Oklahoma: 49 percent
Kentucky: 49 percent
Texas: 48 percent
Idaho: 47 percent
Nebraska: 47 percent
Kansas: 47 percent
South Dakota: 46 percent
North Dakota: 46 percent

Freedom in the 50 States. http://freedominthe50states.org/
Notice ND, SN, TN, OK, ID, GA and UT all near the top.

If that were a meaningful ranking, I suppose it would matter.  But they use arbitrary weighting of factors (ie, freedoms that the authors value most are given extra consideration), numerous cases of outright incorrect information, false standards, etc.  The rankings, therefore, are meaningless.
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: John Edward Mercier on May 14, 2014, 12:21:05 pm
Belief in God, Creator or Supreme Being in no way implies that the believer is any more or less statist than the atheist.  There are plenty of States and Countries that are non-religious that are very unfree.  The United States as a whole was very religious and very free in the 19th century.  Many of the great libertarians of the past and present are religious, mostly Christians. 

Since less than 5% of the US population could be defined as libertarian, even using a broad definition of libertarianism, I don't think any conclusions can be draw. 
I agree with the first line; but not that the US as a whole was very free in the 19th century. Freedom during that time was very dependent on various factors including religion.
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: lildog on May 14, 2014, 12:23:57 pm
Do you think you should be free to evangelize about your beliefs and use persuasion to convince others, without threats or violence, of course, to share your beliefs?

Isn't that what just about every single free stater already does?

You want more freedom and less government in your lifetime.  That's your belief.

You preach to the people who show up and vote for politicians who toss people in jail for victimless crimes hoping to persuade them to agree with the pro freedom argument.

Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: lildog on May 14, 2014, 12:30:16 pm
I don't think it came up as part of the selection process, but I think it has a huge impact on the liberty culture on NH, which obviously was part of the selection process.

Those who think critically about the role of government, are also likely to think critically about religion, as well.  Those who are highly religious tend to be highly supportive of the government, and of using the government to impose their beliefs on others.

I disagree with this claim on two points...

1) If you look at the most ruthless leaders in world history, many of them are atheists.

2) Of all the people I know, those who are atheists are the first to push for government force to "help" people where as the more religious people I know are the ones who are most willing to step up and actually volunteer to help those who need help without forcing others against their will to do so with them.
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: lildog on May 14, 2014, 01:14:38 pm
Then you have answered your next question because that's how I intend to do it (my part, anyway)--using my free speech. I would posit that you're also doing it right now. You're arguing the merit, or at least the harmlessness of religion against me arguing why less religion is a basically good thing. Yay for free speech!

Having read through this thread I don't see this answered, the below portion is the only attempt to answer it and I'll explain why I disagree with it.

Quote
Why is this important?

Because fantasies don't solve problems. Understanding and embracing reality does. Fantasies are fine. I enjoy them. I'm a big fan of fantasy role-playing games. But getting them mixed up with reality is a bad idea.

This is where you and I differ on our views of religion.  Yes there are those who believe Jesus walked the earth with the dinosaurs and that the earth is only 2000 years old (or whatever date they give) but religion as a whole is more about morality then it is about the stories themselves.  At least in my opinion anyway.

If you look at a lot of the religious stories, they were more about morality and things that would save your life because humans hadn't learned things like cleanliness.  So keeping your fish and meet separate was more about health lessons for instance.

But the basics are about morality and how to be better people.  Granted there are many out there though who use religion to try to force their own personal views on everyone else but that's no different then those who use government to force their views on everyone else... I don't see that as a religious vs non religious thing as much as it is human nature to try to control others.
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: MaineShark on May 14, 2014, 01:25:27 pm
1) If you look at the most ruthless leaders in world history, many of them are atheists.

"Many" is not a meaningful term.

2) Of all the people I know, those who are atheists are the first to push for government force to "help" people where as the more religious people I know are the ones who are most willing to step up and actually volunteer to help those who need help without forcing others against their will to do so with them.

And do you imagine that you know an even cross-section of society?  Anyway, anecdotal evidence is not meaningful, due to confirmation bias.

This is where you and I differ on our views of religion.  Yes there are those who believe Jesus walked the earth with the dinosaurs and that the earth is only 2000 years old (or whatever date they give) but religion as a whole is more about morality then it is about the stories themselves.  At least in my opinion anyway.

If you look at a lot of the religious stories, they were more about morality and things that would save your life because humans hadn't learned things like cleanliness.  So keeping your fish and meet separate was more about health lessons for instance.

But the basics are about morality and how to be better people.

And that you should invade someone else's country, kill the men, rape the women, and sell the children as slaves.  Wonderful "moral" lessons like that, that make folks into "better people."
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: dalebert on May 14, 2014, 11:55:53 pm
But they use arbitrary weighting of factors (ie, freedoms that the authors value most are given extra consideration), numerous cases of outright incorrect information, false standards, etc.

Exactly. Reagan effectively recruited a lot of religious people to the right. If you have a right-leaning person gauging freedom, then they'll rate it differently than someone more consistently libertarian. Those rankings have to be taken with a grain of salt.

But the basics are about morality and how to be better people.  Granted there are many out there though who use religion to try to force their own personal views on everyone else but that's no different then those who use government to force their views on everyone else... I don't see that as a religious vs non religious thing as much as it is human nature to try to control others.

There's nothing wrong with trying to convey moral lessons through stories but I would hope the moral structures themselves were based in reason. I said myself that I'm a fan of fantasy as long as it's not confused with reality. Morality is way too important to base on religion. The Satanic Bible by Anton LaVey goes into this. It's not enough to acknowledge that stories in the Bible are ridiculous and didn't really happen. A lot of the morality is actually pretty messed up and needs to be rejected along with that. "Love thy neighbor"-- sure that seems decent but there's stuph like original sin that has no basis in reality and teaching it to a child is arguably a form of emotional abuse.

1) If you look at the most ruthless leaders in world history, many of them are atheists.

Where do I start on this? Okay, who? Please don't say Hitler. That's just a lie that Christians tell that has no basis in reality. There's clear evidence he was a theist. He was also a vegetarian. Can we now associate vegetarianism with tyranny? Statistically, everyone throughout history was overwhelmingly theist and so the huge, vast, overwhelming majority of tyrants were theists. I'm not saying theism was the cause of their tyranny. I'm just pointing out the absurdity of trying to link atheism with it. Rejecting faith-based beliefs (i.e. those not found in reason and evidence) is not a silver bullet that fixes all problems. It's just the first step (http://anarchyinyourhead.com/2008/11/28/anarchy-isnt-the-answer/) in seeking rational solutions based in the actual reality we live in.

2) Of all the people I know, those who are atheists are the first to push for government force to "help" people where as the more religious people I know are the ones who are most willing to step up and actually volunteer to help those who need help without forcing others against their will to do so with them.

Really? Don't you live in NH now? I've never been surrounded by so many atheists and agnostics as when I made so many friends within the FSP. Religion seems like the exception to the rule here.

Outside of libertarian circles, this isn't about atheism so much as it's about the polarizing nature of our binary political structure in the U.S. It tends to group everyone onto two opposite sides. Just as Reagan effectively recruited Christians to the right, people who found that off-putting tended to migrate in the other direction. Most people think there's a good side and bad side and their politics tends to be shaped by the side they think is the lesser evil. Folks like us (libertarians) are the exception. The left and right were not really polarized over religion before Reagan. If anything, the Democrats were a little more popular with Christians.
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: dalebert on May 15, 2014, 10:29:00 am
(http://i.imgur.com/fbWJWtA.jpg)
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: John Edward Mercier on May 15, 2014, 01:33:07 pm
I don't think it came up as part of the selection process, but I think it has a huge impact on the liberty culture on NH, which obviously was part of the selection process.

Those who think critically about the role of government, are also likely to think critically about religion, as well.  Those who are highly religious tend to be highly supportive of the government, and of using the government to impose their beliefs on others.

I disagree with this claim on two points...

1) If you look at the most ruthless leaders in world history, many of them are atheists.

2) Of all the people I know, those who are atheists are the first to push for government force to "help" people where as the more religious people I know are the ones who are most willing to step up and actually volunteer to help those who need help without forcing others against their will to do so with them.
Only Protestants that actually attended Church voted for the original NH Constitution, and it has several clauses in it that derive help to others through taxation. It would be hard to suggest that the majority of those Protestants were actually athiest. We have further evidence through statutes and public hearings - and again it would be hard to derive that much of those speaking in support of help for others are atheist.
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: Argentum on May 15, 2014, 01:54:01 pm
The US has grown more and more secular through each succeeding generation.  At the same time it has become less and less free.  I'm not claiming causation but I do offer it as a counter-example.  The underlying implication of the original post is that religion is some sort of impediment to achieving a free society. 
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: Argentum on May 15, 2014, 02:04:20 pm
Some general comments.

Liberals, especially environmentalists, are extremely religious.  Their religion is secular.  And they are very statist in orientation.  They literally worship the government.  The people that liberals, and many libertarians, called religious conservatives, are in my view hardly that religious at all.  It's all superficial.  They've thrown in the towel.  They have pro-military sermons.  They don't believe in good and evil anymore.  They accept the secular religion of Psychiatry which has replaced good and evil with mythical concepts like mental health and mental illness.  True Christians, Muslims and adherents to Judaism (not the same as Jews) should be radical in their devotion to liberty.
So you believe that no religion is based on the environment? And liberals supported same-sex marriage and choice because they are in opposition to liberty?

I really don't understand your first question.  And no, I don't believe liberals support same-sex marriage and choice (I assume you mean abortion) because of a devotion to liberty.  They support the former because they are egalitarians and reactionaries.  They support legalized abortion because they think its some sort of sexism and/or they are reacting to what they perceive as an anti-female oppressive religious based attitude.  They don't really think a woman owns their body.  If they did, they would be libertarians.
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: dalebert on May 15, 2014, 02:42:09 pm
The underlying implication of the original post is that religion is some sort of impediment to achieving a free society.  

I believe it is, but that's not an implication of the original post. The only implication of "Yay!" is that I find it preferable. Whether that's actually tied to achieving liberty is incidental. I'd like to live in a free society. I'd also like to live in a rational society. Those are two different things that represent my preferences. If I had posted that there were a lot of tech jobs in Manchester or that the hunting was good or that there are a lot of ski resorts under "NH Information and Discussion" where those things seem completely on topic, would you then badger me for what that has to do with freedom?

If you said "I don't like ski resorts! They bring a bunch of annoying tourists." I guess I'd say "Well, I like them and so do a lot of other people who might be interested in the FSP so I decided to let people know." And then you could try to do something about them when you get here, I suppose.

It's just information. Take it for what it's worth. At least you know what you're getting into.
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: MaineShark on May 15, 2014, 02:50:26 pm
The US has grown more and more secular through each succeeding generation.  At the same time it has become less and less free.  I'm not claiming causation but I do offer it as a counter-example.  The underlying implication of the original post is that religion is some sort of impediment to achieving a free society.

The entire planet has become less and less free.  The US has not fallen as fast as the rest.  Maybe becoming more secular actually slowed the fall?

Religion is by definition, an impediment to rationality, as dalebert notes.  If it were plainly logical and rational, then it would not be religion.

Liberty is a rational position.  While someone could be irrational about religion, and rational about liberty, it's harder than just being rational about everything.  So, yes, religion is an impediment.  Maybe not an insurmountable one, but definitely an impediment.
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: John Edward Mercier on May 15, 2014, 04:37:48 pm
Some general comments.

Liberals, especially environmentalists, are extremely religious.  Their religion is secular.  And they are very statist in orientation.  They literally worship the government.  The people that liberals, and many libertarians, called religious conservatives, are in my view hardly that religious at all.  It's all superficial.  They've thrown in the towel.  They have pro-military sermons.  They don't believe in good and evil anymore.  They accept the secular religion of Psychiatry which has replaced good and evil with mythical concepts like mental health and mental illness.  True Christians, Muslims and adherents to Judaism (not the same as Jews) should be radical in their devotion to liberty.
So you believe that no religion is based on the environment? And liberals supported same-sex marriage and choice because they are in opposition to liberty?

I really don't understand your first question.  And no, I don't believe liberals support same-sex marriage and choice (I assume you mean abortion) because of a devotion to liberty.  They support the former because they are egalitarians and reactionaries.  They support legalized abortion because they think its some sort of sexism and/or they are reacting to what they perceive as an anti-female oppressive religious based attitude.  They don't really think a woman owns their body.  If they did, they would be libertarians.
The first question is easy... do you believe that no religion is based on nature? And if only those people that believe a woman owns her body (can opt for an abortion) are libertarian; wouldn't that make anyone that opposes choice anti-liberty?
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: John Edward Mercier on May 15, 2014, 04:40:46 pm
The US has grown more and more secular through each succeeding generation.  At the same time it has become less and less free.  I'm not claiming causation but I do offer it as a counter-example.  The underlying implication of the original post is that religion is some sort of impediment to achieving a free society. 
No it hasn't. Non-protestants can now vote and hold office in NH. And differences within Christian interpretations have placed limits on the scope of public intervention - not atheism.
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: Argentum on May 15, 2014, 05:24:54 pm
Some general comments.

Liberals, especially environmentalists, are extremely religious.  Their religion is secular.  And they are very statist in orientation.  They literally worship the government.  The people that liberals, and many libertarians, called religious conservatives, are in my view hardly that religious at all.  It's all superficial.  They've thrown in the towel.  They have pro-military sermons.  They don't believe in good and evil anymore.  They accept the secular religion of Psychiatry which has replaced good and evil with mythical concepts like mental health and mental illness.  True Christians, Muslims and adherents to Judaism (not the same as Jews) should be radical in their devotion to liberty.
So you believe that no religion is based on the environment? And liberals supported same-sex marriage and choice because they are in opposition to liberty?

I really don't understand your first question.  And no, I don't believe liberals support same-sex marriage and choice (I assume you mean abortion) because of a devotion to liberty.  They support the former because they are egalitarians and reactionaries.  They support legalized abortion because they think its some sort of sexism and/or they are reacting to what they perceive as an anti-female oppressive religious based attitude.  They don't really think a woman owns their body.  If they did, they would be libertarians.
The first question is easy... do you believe that no religion is based on nature? And if only those people that believe a woman owns her body (can opt for an abortion) are libertarian; wouldn't that make anyone that opposes choice anti-liberty?

I don't equate "the environment" as it is commonly understood with "nature".  I think that anyone who bases their support of abortion rights on bodily self-ownership but is not a libertarian is not being consistent with their own beliefs.  That doesn't mean that a person who opposes "choice" is anti-liberty.  There is a strong libertarian argument against abortion (which I incidentally subscribe to).  I'm sure I'm not being perfectly clear. Please let me know where I should clarify.
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: MaineShark on May 15, 2014, 05:52:55 pm
I think that anyone who bases their support of abortion rights on bodily self-ownership but is not a libertarian is not being consistent with their own beliefs.  That doesn't mean that a person who opposes "choice" is anti-liberty.  There is a strong libertarian argument against abortion (which I incidentally subscribe to).

Actually, yes, it does.  And no, there isn't.  Self-ownership is the absolute basis of libertarian thought.  Ergo, all libertarians are pro-choice, because that's the only position that is compatible with self-ownership.  You don't have to like it (I sure don't), but you do have to accept it, if you want to honestly call yourself a libertarian.
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: John Edward Mercier on May 15, 2014, 06:22:50 pm
And what do you think environmentalists believe they are protecting?
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: John Edward Mercier on May 15, 2014, 06:31:20 pm
I think that anyone who bases their support of abortion rights on bodily self-ownership but is not a libertarian is not being consistent with their own beliefs.  That doesn't mean that a person who opposes "choice" is anti-liberty.  There is a strong libertarian argument against abortion (which I incidentally subscribe to).

Actually, yes, it does.  And no, there isn't.  Self-ownership is the absolute basis of libertarian thought.  Ergo, all libertarians are pro-choice, because that's the only position that is compatible with self-ownership.  You don't have to like it (I sure don't), but you do have to accept it, if you want to honestly call yourself a libertarian.
I find the position odd. The State Constitution could have clearly defined the Right to Life beginning at conception, but didn't... and was ratified by registered, church-going, Protestants... that I'm almost positive believed in a God... and definitely existed in the period that was stated to be more liberty-oriented.
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: MaineShark on May 15, 2014, 07:30:31 pm
I find the position odd. The State Constitution could have clearly defined the Right to Life beginning at conception, but didn't... and was ratified by registered, church-going, Protestants... that I'm almost positive believed in a God... and definitely existed in the period that was stated to be more liberty-oriented.

Well, it wouldn't really matter if the right to life was listed that way.  I would say that, if a baby is born human, with human rights, then it must have been human and had those same rights a moment before birth, or a week, or a month, or half a year, or whatever.  There's no point at which one can announce, "rights have now attached to this entity!"

But, despite having all the rights of any other human, the fact of the matter is that no human has the right to occupy another human's body.  That is not a human right, ergo the fully-human baby does not have it.

In any case, there would not have been any reason for them to even put a specific prohibition against abortion into the Constitution, regardless of their concern for human rights.  The idea that Christians must oppose abortion is actually fairly recent.  Half a century ago, before Falwell went on his rants about it, the issue was far more divided, with many Christian theologians taking the (scripturally-accurate) position that abortion should be avoided, but because it "encourages promoscuity," not because it's "murder" (according to the actual text of the actual Bible, a fetus is not a human life).
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: John Edward Mercier on May 16, 2014, 12:59:49 am
My point being is that by the various postings, I would presume that atheists must have been in charge in the 18th and 19th centuries.
But your post informs me of the history a little bit better.
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: dalebert on May 16, 2014, 08:20:45 am
...Christian theologians taking the (scripturally-accurate) position that abortion should be avoided, but because it "encourages promoscuity,"

We all really know that's still the reason. Come on. More specifically, they don't want people to avoid the consequences of their "sin".
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: dalebert on May 17, 2014, 08:20:38 am
This video just came out and it reminded me of your comment.

Is Christianity Moral? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35_JHx_OzA4)

... but religion as a whole is more about morality then it is about the stories themselves.

I would encourage folks to watch some of his other videos. The animation is very early years South-Parky (he's clearly not an artist) but it works and he puts a lot of research and effort into them.

A couple screenshots for folks who don't bother watching (it's only 5 mins):

(http://i.imgur.com/YpEb4Mu.png)

(http://i.imgur.com/uy3kAYC.png)
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: John Edward Mercier on May 17, 2014, 02:18:43 pm
This video just came out and it reminded me of your comment.

Is Christianity Moral? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35_JHx_OzA4)

... but religion as a whole is more about morality then it is about the stories themselves.

I would encourage folks to watch some of his other videos. The animation is very early years South-Parky (he's clearly not an artist) but it works and he puts a lot of research and effort into them.

A couple screenshots for folks who don't bother watching (it's only 5 mins):

(http://i.imgur.com/YpEb4Mu.png)

(http://i.imgur.com/uy3kAYC.png)
Actually God forbade us to have a 'death row' - it was a lesson after Cain committed the first murder.
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: Planethosting on May 17, 2014, 05:16:13 pm
Some general comments.

Liberals, especially environmentalists, are extremely religious.  Their religion is secular.  And they are very statist in orientation.  They literally worship the government.  The people that liberals, and many libertarians, called religious conservatives, are in my view hardly that religious at all.  It's all superficial.  They've thrown in the towel.  They have pro-military sermons.  They don't believe in good and evil anymore.  They accept the secular religion of Psychiatry which has replaced good and evil with mythical concepts like mental health and mental illness.  True Christians, Muslims and adherents to Judaism (not the same as Jews) should be radical in their devotion to liberty.
So you believe that no religion is based on the environment? And liberals supported same-sex marriage and choice because they are in opposition to liberty?

I really don't understand your first question.  And no, I don't believe liberals support same-sex marriage and choice (I assume you mean abortion) because of a devotion to liberty.  They support the former because they are egalitarians and reactionaries.  They support legalized abortion because they think its some sort of sexism and/or they are reacting to what they perceive as an anti-female oppressive religious based attitude.  They don't really think a woman owns their body.  If they did, they would be libertarians.

Who owns the woman (or male) inside the woman's body?
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: dalebert on May 17, 2014, 07:41:03 pm
Who owns the woman (or male) inside the woman's body?

Can you please do the courteous thing and move your abortion discussion to a thread where it's on topic? You can start a new thread if you need to.

Meanwhile, discussion of this specific topic (NH almost the least religious state) is now up on YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMvoVL6A8LE
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: John Edward Mercier on May 18, 2014, 12:35:57 am
They could. But what they are discussing is based on their religious beliefs... which should they move to NH would be carried with them.
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: Argentum on May 18, 2014, 08:06:48 am
They could. But what they are discussing is based on their religious beliefs... which should they move to NH would be carried with them.


I assume you realize that there are libertarians who base their objection to abortion on science and philosophy, not religion.  There is http://www.l4l.org/. (http://www.l4l.org/.)
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: MaineShark on May 18, 2014, 08:53:04 am
I assume you realize that there are libertarians who base their objection to abortion on science and philosophy, not religion.  There is http://www.l4l.org/. (http://www.l4l.org/.)

Not really.  For example, "4. A prenatal child has the right to be in the mother's body" is totally incorrect.  There's no foundation within libertarian philosophy for that claim, which is integral to their argument.  They just made it up, without support.

Since there's no actual philosophical basis for their arugment, it's clear that it's just a thinly-veiled excuse for religious groups to try and put their position over on others.  Fortunately, there are many libertarians who are both religious, and honest enough to admit that their opposition to abortion is religious in nature and, therefore, that they have no right to attempt to enforce it upon others.  Since they're honest about it, that un-ties their hands and allows them to advocate intelligently for their position, attempting to convince others rather than force others to comply.

Statistically, allowing abortion makes abortion rarer, in the same way that Prohibition increased alcohol-related carnage instead of reducing it, or how suicide rates go down in jurisdictions that allow assisted suicide.  The latter example is particularly-comparable.  If someone is up against a deadline, whether that be a cut-off after which abortions cannot be obtained, or facing down the potential that s/he will be suffering but have degraded to the point that suicide is impossible without help, there's pressure to make the decision, before that point.  So, when there's less pressure, the decision is more likely to follow a "wait and see" attitude.  The longer a woman carries an unborn child, the more likely she is to decide that she wants to give it a chance in the world, just as the longer someone ill waits, the more likely it is that they will either find that there's a treatment option that is working, or that they degrade so quickly that it's irrelevant - few actually end up in that "years of pain" scenario, but it's scary enough to drive folks facing it to suicide, if they think they won't be able to manage it later.

Those who oppose abortion (or suicide) but who rationally - rather than religiously - examine the situation will realize that legalization will actually help them in their goal of reducing the abortion rate.  Legalizing it and treating it as a social issue instead of a criminal one (like drug abuse, for yet another example) is the way to end up with less abortion.  Someone not blinded by religion will see that.

There are plenty of folks who are religious, but not blinded by their religion, but there are always a substantial percentage who are blinded by their religion.  Ergo, less religion and more rationality tends to lead towards more liberty.
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: John Edward Mercier on May 18, 2014, 05:35:36 pm
They could. But what they are discussing is based on their religious beliefs... which should they move to NH would be carried with them.


I assume you realize that there are libertarians who base their objection to abortion on science and philosophy, not religion.  There is http://www.l4l.org/. (http://www.l4l.org/.)
The topic under the title is 'NH almost the least religious State'; so a basis on science and philosophy would be less on-topic than one about religious belief.
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: John Edward Mercier on May 18, 2014, 05:41:13 pm
Some general comments.

Liberals, especially environmentalists, are extremely religious.  Their religion is secular.  And they are very statist in orientation.  They literally worship the government.  The people that liberals, and many libertarians, called religious conservatives, are in my view hardly that religious at all.  It's all superficial.  They've thrown in the towel.  They have pro-military sermons.  They don't believe in good and evil anymore.  They accept the secular religion of Psychiatry which has replaced good and evil with mythical concepts like mental health and mental illness.  True Christians, Muslims and adherents to Judaism (not the same as Jews) should be radical in their devotion to liberty.
So you believe that no religion is based on the environment? And liberals supported same-sex marriage and choice because they are in opposition to liberty?

I really don't understand your first question.  And no, I don't believe liberals support same-sex marriage and choice (I assume you mean abortion) because of a devotion to liberty.  They support the former because they are egalitarians and reactionaries.  They support legalized abortion because they think its some sort of sexism and/or they are reacting to what they perceive as an anti-female oppressive religious based attitude.  They don't really think a woman owns their body.  If they did, they would be libertarians.

Who owns the woman (or male) inside the woman's body?
No one.
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: dalebert on May 18, 2014, 06:00:33 pm
They could. But what they are discussing [abortion] is based on their religious beliefs... which should they move to NH would be carried with them.

He just seemed to be arguing against legal abortion while Maineshark actually discussed it in a manner that made it relevant to the topic.
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: Planethosting on May 18, 2014, 06:40:10 pm
Regarding the callous crusading attitudes towards abortion; I believe this is part of the American culture, to crush and destroy the weak and helpless, for our own convenience, and fortune.  American Indians were exterminated.   Racial genocide is being committed against the African America population, via the 'war on drugs' ethnic cleansing, welfare - which is to African Americans what alcohol was to the Indians, oh yeah - and they do have alcohol, too, and a nifty invention called "crack"; where one in four are incarcerated in 'reservations' (a phenomenon made possible by US Government's social engineering which set out to do the same).
 
So, who is that blob in the belly? They may not be red, or brown, but they are sure to stupid to be fully developed or independent, yet.
 
The American culture is a luciferian one.  "Do as Thou Wilt".
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: MaineShark on May 18, 2014, 07:04:16 pm
Regarding the callous crusading attitudes towards abortion; I believe this is part of the American culture, to crush and destroy the weak and helpless, for our own convenience, and fortune.

Agreed.  The crusaders against abortion always target the weakest and most helpless.  And they are utterly callous - they're happy to yell epithets at rape victims, or vote to have the government assault women, but few if any will lift a hand to help that same rape victim with the costs of pregnancy or the difficulties of raising the child once it's born.  All they care about is badgering her into keeping it, but what kind of life can she give that child without help, which those who badgered her won't provide?

It's all about their convenience.  Abortion offends them (as it does me), but the most convenient way for them to deal with that is to support politicians who will ban it, and such.  Simple and easy - maximum self-righteousness, with minimum investment of time, energy, or money.  Actually helping a woman through her pregnancy and helping her care for the child, so she won't feel trapped into an abortion is hard - who wants to invest all that time and effort, when you can just have some cop assault her, instead?

Rational opponents of abortion realize that government is not the answer - the oppose restrictions on abortion, and favor helping mothers and children.  Religious opponents of abortion just go to the quick&easy option of, "have the government do it" and leave it at that...
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: John Edward Mercier on May 18, 2014, 07:33:12 pm
Regarding the callous crusading attitudes towards abortion; I believe this is part of the American culture, to crush and destroy the weak and helpless, for our own convenience, and fortune.  American Indians were exterminated.   Racial genocide is being committed against the African America population, via the 'war on drugs' ethnic cleansing, welfare - which is to African Americans what alcohol was to the Indians, oh yeah - and they do have alcohol, too, and a nifty invention called "crack"; where one in four are incarcerated in 'reservations' (a phenomenon made possible by US Government's social engineering which set out to do the same).
 
So, who is that blob in the belly? They may not be red, or brown, but they are sure to stupid to be fully developed or independent, yet.
 
The American culture is a luciferian one.  "Do as Thou Wilt".
Though it is a little off topic. Natives still exist; they weren't exterminated. Libertarians don't support the 'war on drugs' (especially as it advocates for imprisonment); and most people on 'welfare' are not African-American.

You still haven't made a point on that 'blob in the belly".
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: dalebert on May 18, 2014, 10:10:20 pm
It isn't a sin if you aren't religious! (http://explosm.net/comics/3561/)
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: Planethosting on May 19, 2014, 01:06:10 pm
Moreover, abortion may collectively be a giant 'human sacrifice' scheme, that also acts as a profit center.  Similar to war, wherein the rulers of the planet, the ones who run the governments of the world, derive great profit from their wars/human sacrifices.  Their dualistic god rewards them for all the death, carnage, and misery that they create, which is intended as and presented to this god as a sacrifice.   
 
They still today participate in public human sacrifice rituals, but it's now covert yet out in the open at the same time, it's simply cloaked in deception (magic).
 
Sure, I know, they tell us they are slaughtering innocent people all over the world to spread peace, but, the rulers of our government, from behind the scenes, are the most wicked, deranged, demented, and RELIGIOUS people that ever lived.  Their god is very very dark, but a god nonetheless.

Most of the people are blind to this, they have been hardened by their deception, their minds have been 'formed' then 'hardened' by their magic and therefore can't change, this is what these rulers refer to as "base consciousness", this is why you see people cheering on murder, unknowingly.
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: MaineShark on May 19, 2014, 01:32:05 pm
Interesting theory.  So, how does that explain that abortion rates are the lowest they've been since Roe v. Wade, and are in steady decline?  If "the powers that be" wanted abortions, wouldn't they be on the increase?
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: Argentum on May 19, 2014, 04:04:02 pm
Interesting theory.  So, how does that explain that abortion rates are the lowest they've been since Roe v. Wade, and are in steady decline?  If "the powers that be" wanted abortions, wouldn't they be on the increase?

Assuming they are down (I haven't seen the numbers), I have a very simple explanation.  Opponents of abortion have persuaded a lot of people that the fetus is a human life and not just a blob of cells.  In addition, the ultrasound has allowed people to see what a fetus actually looks like.  That being said, millions of babies have been aborted since Roe v. Wade.
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: MaineShark on May 19, 2014, 06:25:23 pm
Interesting theory.  So, how does that explain that abortion rates are the lowest they've been since Roe v. Wade, and are in steady decline?  If "the powers that be" wanted abortions, wouldn't they be on the increase?
Assuming they are down (I haven't seen the numbers), I have a very simple explanation.  Opponents of abortion have persuaded a lot of people that the fetus is a human life and not just a blob of cells.  In addition, the ultrasound has allowed people to see what a fetus actually looks like.  That being said, millions of babies have been aborted since Roe v. Wade.

Nope, the opinion polls all show that support for choice has been increasing over the same timespan.

The only anti-abortion group that has shown any gains is the foaming-at-the-mouth extremists who think abortion should be prohibited, even if it's medically-certain that the mother cannot survive the pregnancy and that blowing up abortion clinics and murdering doctors is good fun.

In every other category, the opinion shift is towards choice.

So, why have abortion rates gone down?  Planethosting suggests that there's a evil conspiracy of occultists to sacrifice babies for magical purposes, but if that were the case, then the rates would be increasing.

And yes, there have been millions of abortions since Roe v. Wade.  Guess what?  There were millions of abortions before Roe v. Wade, as well.  It's not like this is something that was invented forty years ago - abortion has existed for thousands of years.
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: John Edward Mercier on May 20, 2014, 02:02:37 am
Interesting theory.  So, how does that explain that abortion rates are the lowest they've been since Roe v. Wade, and are in steady decline?  If "the powers that be" wanted abortions, wouldn't they be on the increase?

Assuming they are down (I haven't seen the numbers), I have a very simple explanation.  Opponents of abortion have persuaded a lot of people that the fetus is a human life and not just a blob of cells.  In addition, the ultrasound has allowed people to see what a fetus actually looks like.  That being said, millions of babies have been aborted since Roe v. Wade.
The problem isn't the concept that it is a human life. Women know that. The problem is that for several reasons they do not feel ready or capable to support that human life.

As Maineshark pointed out, if enough pro-life people voluntarily supported the mother in any means that she may need to feel ready and capable of supporting that human life, abortions would go to zero.

But as he equally pointed out... those pro-lifers are all talk.
While we are ready to admit that there are limits to what we are willing to give.
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: dalebert on May 20, 2014, 07:39:26 am
I posit that another problem is the shame that goes along with unmarried pregnancy, and the primary source of that is the very same camp that tends to be for banning abortions. If you want less abortions, stop with the shaming. BTW, forgiving someone comes with the built-in presumption of guilt for something that's completely natural, so it's still shaming. To those who engage in such hypocrisy, I ask which is more valuable to you--human lives or your guilt and death cult?
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: dalebert on May 20, 2014, 09:59:13 am
(http://i.imgur.com/H52flkq.jpg)
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: lildog on May 20, 2014, 02:42:29 pm
This video just came out and it reminded me of your comment.

Is Christianity Moral? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35_JHx_OzA4)

... but religion as a whole is more about morality then it is about the stories themselves.

I would encourage folks to watch some of his other videos. The animation is very early years South-Parky (he's clearly not an artist) but it works and he puts a lot of research and effort into them.

A couple screenshots for folks who don't bother watching (it's only 5 mins):

(http://i.imgur.com/YpEb4Mu.png)

(http://i.imgur.com/uy3kAYC.png)

Don't have time to watch it right now but I plan to.

To address the two screen shots however...

1) The best way to describe the cross in my opinion is similar to that of an Italian mother working her hands raw then showing the raw skin to her kids and saying "see how hard I work for you.  See how much I suffer for you.".  It's a reminder for Christians on how much Jesus suffered on their behalf.

2) Allowing an innocent person to be punished while a murderer goes free is not something dictated by the bible as an example for us to follow.  It's part of what was happening at that time in history.  There are several of the stories during the interactions with Jesus of things that were acceptable then that Jesus points out is wrong. 
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: lildog on May 20, 2014, 02:52:06 pm
Interesting theory.  So, how does that explain that abortion rates are the lowest they've been since Roe v. Wade, and are in steady decline?  If "the powers that be" wanted abortions, wouldn't they be on the increase?

Abortions are decreasing because of the increased use of birth control, in part due to the scare of AIDS.  If you look at abortion rates they peeked in 1990 which was just about the time AIDS was starting to considered not just a gay mans illness but something anyone could catch through sexual contact.

Not that I buy into any kind of conspiracy theory here but to toss out wild ideas... if the goal of the "powers that be" is to decrease populations rates, abortion and birth control both result in the same end goal.  Enter conspiracy theories about AIDS being created by the government.
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: lildog on May 20, 2014, 03:03:58 pm
Nope, the opinion polls all show that support for choice has been increasing over the same timespan.

Majority rules does not make something right.  If it did then the whole libertarian movement is doomed and we should all give up and submit to the collective.
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: Planethosting on May 20, 2014, 03:16:32 pm
America is the most religious country on the planet.  Why else would we have military bases all over the world?  And our bosses, the Jesuit Order, is also planted in a mirror like fashion, all over the world?  However, it is not the Manger-Myth that they have supplied us with to keep us being good little slaves, that is our true religion.

America is currently the blood sacrifice arm of the Jesuit Order.  Allow me to give you a glimpse into the real religion that you, and me, and the rest of America represents:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVKCJklf3oo
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: w1LE.e on May 20, 2014, 03:33:15 pm
Your God is a homeless assasin
who roams the world to save
he's diggin' for buried treasure
he's leaving nothin but fields of graves
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: MaineShark on May 20, 2014, 03:43:30 pm
2) Allowing an innocent person to be punished while a murderer goes free is not something dictated by the bible as an example for us to follow.  It's part of what was happening at that time in history.  There are several of the stories during the interactions with Jesus of things that were acceptable then that Jesus points out is wrong.

Um, that was an analogy for the idea that Jesus (an innocent) could sacrifice himself and thereby absolve others of sin.  So, yes, that's exactly what the Bible suggests is acceptable.

Abortions are decreasing because of the increased use of birth control, in part due to the scare of AIDS.  If you look at abortion rates they peeked in 1990 which was just about the time AIDS was starting to considered not just a gay mans illness but something anyone could catch through sexual contact.

Interesting theory.  May even be correct.  If so, it agrees with my assertion, and the best way for opponents of abortion to reduce abortion would be to direct their energy towards supplying birth control to everyone who wants it, and encouraging those who "should" use it (ie, those who would get an abortion if suddenly pregnant), to do so.

Nope, the opinion polls all show that support for choice has been increasing over the same timespan.
Majority rules does not make something right.  If it did then the whole libertarian movement is doomed and we should all give up and submit to the collective.

I didn't suggest that it did.  Argentum claimed that abortion rates are down because more and more folks oppose abortion and, therefore, don't get them.  But the statistics say that's not the case.  More and more folks believe that abortion is acceptable, so if abortion rates were based upon opinion, then they would be increasing, not decreasing.

Abortion is decreasing because no one really wants to get one (or, no significant number - there are always sickos out there, but they would still exist and get them if abortion were illegal, if they actually had some mental illness compelling them to get abortions), and there are better options available.  Those who want to see abortion rates continue dropping should seek to expand those options.
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: Planethosting on May 20, 2014, 03:48:41 pm
Your God is a homeless assasin
who roams the world to save
he's diggin' for buried treasure
he's leaving nothin but fields of graves

Quite fitting, indeed!  Very nice lyrics.  It's like a giant, black, lying, stealing, murderous spirit passing around the globe like a cloud = America, the blood-bath division of the corporate sorcery wizards.
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: lildog on May 21, 2014, 08:49:41 am
Nope, the opinion polls all show that support for choice has been increasing over the same timespan.
Majority rules does not make something right.  If it did then the whole libertarian movement is doomed and we should all give up and submit to the collective.

I didn't suggest that it did.  Argentum claimed that abortion rates are down because more and more folks oppose abortion and, therefore, don't get them.  But the statistics say that's not the case.  More and more folks believe that abortion is acceptable, so if abortion rates were based upon opinion, then they would be increasing, not decreasing.

Abortion is decreasing because no one really wants to get one (or, no significant number - there are always sickos out there, but they would still exist and get them if abortion were illegal, if they actually had some mental illness compelling them to get abortions), and there are better options available.  Those who want to see abortion rates continue dropping should seek to expand those options.

I disagree with the part I put in bold.  This is a case of poll wording leading to very different results.  The polls showing majority support are the ones specifically asking if abortions should be legal, not if they are acceptable.  When specifically asked if they are morally "acceptable" the majority say NO.
http://www.lifenews.com/2014/05/08/poll-most-people-in-most-nations-say-abortion-is-morally-unacceptable/

So Argentum could be right because polls show more people are finding abortions morally unacceptable even though majority support keeping them legal.
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: MaineShark on May 21, 2014, 10:03:41 am
I disagree with the part I put in bold.  This is a case of poll wording leading to very different results.  The polls showing majority support are the ones specifically asking if abortions should be legal, not if they are acceptable.  When specifically asked if they are morally "acceptable" the majority say NO.
http://www.lifenews.com/2014/05/08/poll-most-people-in-most-nations-say-abortion-is-morally-unacceptable/

So Argentum could be right because polls show more people are finding abortions morally unacceptable even though majority support keeping them legal.

Actually, that poll has been pretty thoroughly discredited.  Pew purchased poll results from other companies, which did not necessarily use the same question wording that Pew gives in its descriptions.

For example, they found that very few Chinese people feel that belief in god is necessary to be moral.  Which is surprising, given that Chinese society is pretty religious.  However, it was determined that the company which actually did the poll used the Chinese word that means specifically the Judeo-Christian-Muslim "God," not deity, in general.  Since most of their poll respondents were not Jews, Christians, or Muslims, of course they answered, "no," while many did believe that belief in their own favored deity was necessary to being moral.

So, if you ask in such a way that the respondent is answering, "do you believe that religious folks find abortion unacceptable?," you will get a different response than if you ask, "in your own personal view of morality, is abortion acceptable?"

Additionally, according to Pew, the US portion was done by random digit dialing.  Generally-speaking, those who actually have lives, don't waste time on such nonsense.  If caller ID lists a survey, I don't answer.  If they sneak through by not listing accurately, I hang up as soon as they tell me they're conducting a survey.  If you do a random phone survey in the US, you're not going to get an accurate cross-section of society; you're going to get folks who have nothing better to do, and folks who are just itching to express their opinions on strangers' lives.  Those who actually have things to do, and/or those who don't feel like they should tell others what to do, are going to be severly under-represented.  In a political survey, that may not matter, as the latter will also be under-represented at the polls, but in a survey of "morality," it matters greatly - the moral position that, "I should not tell others how to live" won't get be accurately counted.
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: dalebert on May 21, 2014, 10:12:44 am
2) Allowing an innocent person to be punished while a murderer goes free is not something dictated by the bible as an example for us to follow.  It's part of what was happening at that time in history.  There are several of the stories during the interactions with Jesus of things that were acceptable then that Jesus points out is wrong.

Um, that was an analogy for the idea that Jesus (an innocent) could sacrifice himself and thereby absolve others of sin.  So, yes, that's exactly what the Bible suggests is acceptable.

It's more than just acceptable. It's the most foundational belief of Christianity. There are lots of versions of Christianity with varying beliefs but if you had to filter it all down to the one thing that seems to define the religion, it's the idea that Jesus died for the sins of others. What's the most universal symbol of Christianity? The cross, a symbol of torture and death. I'm glad you brought up the mom guilt-tripping her children, but in her case at least there's no ambiguity. Her pain was merely a side-effect of her labors that resulted in something real and unambiguous--food and shelter for her children. At least she didn't scrub her hands with steel wool and say that ritual of pain keeps invisible demons off them at night, demons who are coming after them because they're NAUGHTY and they deserve it, but she's protecting them anyway with her PAIN and SUFFERING because she just loves them so much. That would be a closer analogy.
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: John Edward Mercier on May 21, 2014, 11:35:34 am
Odd. I don't think that Jesus died to absolve me of my sins.
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: lildog on May 21, 2014, 01:18:33 pm
Dale, what sins?  Jesus dying did not open the door for all men from that point to toss out the 10 commandments and do what they want.  No, he died to absolve mankind of a single sin... the sin of Adam and Eve disobeying God.

"For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners" Romans 5:19

Taking it one step further (and I unfortunately cannot find the specific passage I'm thinking of), by giving himself up on our behalf, Jesus earned the right to judge people from that point on.

So if tomorrow I volunteered to get nailed to a cross so Charles Manson could be let free wouldn't be the same unless somehow by dying I gained the power to take over as judge in all future trials.
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: MaineShark on May 21, 2014, 01:46:32 pm
Jesus dying did not open the door for all men from that point to toss out the 10 commandments and do what they want.

Sure, it did.  Just ask for forgiveness, and all's peachy...

No, he died to absolve mankind of a single sin... the sin of Adam and Eve disobeying God.

Which is a ridiculous, utterly-anti-liberty proposition.  No one can be "tainted" by someone else's behavior.  If Adam and Eve disobeyed, then Adam and Eve, and no others, are responsible.

The door's also left open for some serious questions about Creation.  It's asserted that humans were Created perfect (in which case, how could they even be tempted? but that's another issue), and that disease and the ridiculously-poor design of the human body all came about because of "Original Sin."  If mankind has now been absolved, why did we not then re-attain that physical perfection that supposedly existed in Eden?  What, God's just so petty that He tortures innocents because he holds a grudge against a couple pets he had, thousands or millions of years ago?  That sounds like someone who should be spat-upon, not worshipped.
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: lildog on May 21, 2014, 02:47:39 pm
Jesus dying did not open the door for all men from that point to toss out the 10 commandments and do what they want.

Sure, it did.  Just ask for forgiveness, and all's peachy...

Forgiveness from whom?  Jesus.  Which goes back to my point about him becoming the judge.

No, he died to absolve mankind of a single sin... the sin of Adam and Eve disobeying God.

Which is a ridiculous, utterly-anti-liberty proposition.  No one can be "tainted" by someone else's behavior.  If Adam and Eve disobeyed, then Adam and Eve, and no others, are responsible.

Well now it comes down to whether you believe the bible to be factual or not.  Per the bible, we all are tainted by someone else's behavior.

But we could just as easily argue about the chemical breakdown of a chemtrail.  If you believe they are real the discussion is much different then if you doubt their existence.
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: dalebert on May 21, 2014, 03:16:19 pm
You have a very unusual take on Christianity. I've heard the same thing from SO many people of different denominations that when I hear your version of it (for the first time ever), I can't help but wonder if it's been tailored specifically to be different just to "prove me wrong". It's still just a ridiculous, of course, but in a different way than everyone else's version.

Dale, what sins?  Jesus dying did not open the door for all men from that point to toss out the 10 commandments and do what they want.  No, he died to absolve mankind of a single sin... the sin of Adam and Eve disobeying God.

That's a bizarre way to interpret it. That one act was what made it possible for people to "sin" but people engage in many sins, each of which can only be forgiven by accepting Jesus as your savior. He's very egotistical that way. You can lust and fornicate, steal, rape, and kill, and ultimately get forgiven for all of it but snub the Jeebus and you're doomed. They make a point to label even certain thoughts as sinful so they're completely unavoidable, dooming us all to Hell unless we become Christian. Convenient, aye? Which is patently absurd. Thinking lustful thoughts is a sin. That's right. Biological drives that have been absolutely crucial to the survival of the human race since forever are a sin! Being hungry should be a sin too. You were having sinful thoughts about that watermelon, Maineshark!

Quote
Taking it one step further (and I unfortunately cannot find the specific passage I'm thinking of), by giving himself up on our behalf, Jesus earned the right to judge people from that point on.

As I said, I haven't heard it that way before you and I've heard it many times, but whatever. The result is the same--six one way; half a dozen the other.
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: MaineShark on May 21, 2014, 05:18:34 pm
Forgiveness from whom?  Jesus.  Which goes back to my point about him becoming the judge.

Ah, so if an innocent person decides to volunteer to be executed on my behalf, I have to ask him to forgive me, and then it's okay?

Well now it comes down to whether you believe the bible to be factual or not.  Per the bible, we all are tainted by someone else's behavior.

Which would tie back to the original topic, nicely, because that's about the most anti-liberty position that it's possible to take.  So, therefore, that would imply that NH being less religious is actually responsible for NH being so liberty-friendly.  So, I guess that Christians must, officially, be anti-liberty, then, right?  And fewer Christians would mean greater liberty, right?

Because it's really just about impossible to find a more anti-liberty position than to claim that someone is responsible for another's act.

You were having sinful thoughts about that watermelon, Maineshark!

Heterosexual men like melons.  What can I say?
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: lildog on May 22, 2014, 08:13:25 am
Quote
Taking it one step further (and I unfortunately cannot find the specific passage I'm thinking of), by giving himself up on our behalf, Jesus earned the right to judge people from that point on.

As I said, I haven't heard it that way before you and I've heard it many times, but whatever. The result is the same--six one way; half a dozen the other.

I still can't find the specific quote I was thinking but Matthew 25 does touch on the whole point of Jesus being the judge of all.


31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory and all his angels are with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 The people of every nation will be gathered in front of him. He will separate them as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right but the goats on his left.

34 “Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, my Father has blessed you! Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the creation of the world. 35 I was hungry, and you gave me something to eat. I was thirsty, and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger, and you took me into your home. 36 I needed clothes, and you gave me something to wear. I was sick, and you took care of me. I was in prison, and you visited me.’

37 “Then the people who have God’s approval will reply to him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you or see you thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you as a stranger and take you into our homes or see you in need of clothes and give you something to wear? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’

40 “The king will answer them, ‘I can guarantee this truth: Whatever you did for one of my brothers or sisters, no matter how unimportant they seemed, you did for me.’

41 “Then the king will say to those on his left, ‘Get away from me! God has cursed you! Go into everlasting fire that was prepared for the devil and his angels! 42 I was hungry, and you gave me nothing to eat. I was thirsty, and you gave me nothing to drink. 43 I was a stranger, and you didn’t take me into your homes. I needed clothes, and you didn’t give me anything to wear. I was sick and in prison, and you didn’t take care of me.’

44 “They, too, will ask, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or as a stranger or in need of clothes or sick or in prison and didn’t help you?’

45 “He will answer them, ‘I can guarantee this truth: Whatever you failed to do for one of my brothers or sisters, no matter how unimportant they seemed, you failed to do for me.’

46 “These people will go away into eternal punishment, but those with God’s approval will go into eternal life.”
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: lildog on May 22, 2014, 08:25:25 am
Well now it comes down to whether you believe the bible to be factual or not.  Per the bible, we all are tainted by someone else's behavior.

Which would tie back to the original topic, nicely, because that's about the most anti-liberty position that it's possible to take.  So, therefore, that would imply that NH being less religious is actually responsible for NH being so liberty-friendly.  So, I guess that Christians must, officially, be anti-liberty, then, right?  And fewer Christians would mean greater liberty, right?

Because it's really just about impossible to find a more anti-liberty position than to claim that someone is responsible for another's act.

First off, the discussion of whether Christianity is pro or anti liberty is a different topic then the main point of this thread.  Not to take this current thread off topic but the concept of humanity being tainted by Adam and Eve's original sin would be similar to whether a dog's owner should be responsible for that dog attacking a child.  Admittedly that's not a perfect analogy but closest I could come up with on a whim. 

The whole point of Jesus clearing away the sins put on us as a species and allow us free will to choose right and wrong on our own in my opinion is the very concept of liberty.  We are each now responsible for our own actions.

But getting to my 2nd point, this thread is turning into a specific discussion about Christianity but the title is least religious state with the premiss being any religion leads to lack of freedom and lack of any religion leads to increased freedom.  That goes far beyond the belief of the bible or Jesus since we have many many many other faiths which don't believe those things.
Paganism (depending on the flavor practiced) is a religion which doesn't follow the bible or believe in Jesus for instance.  And of the many pagans I know, I would not call them anti religious in the least.  In fact with all their rituals I would consider them more religious then many Catholics I know who do nothing more then show up on Easter and Christmas. 
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: MaineShark on May 22, 2014, 08:48:42 am
Not to take this current thread off topic but the concept of humanity being tainted by Adam and Eve's original sin would be similar to whether a dog's owner should be responsible for that dog attacking a child.  Admittedly that's not a perfect analogy but closest I could come up with on a whim.

That's not analogous, at all.  It's like saying, "I was bit by a dog, once, so now I beat every dog I see."

The whole point of Jesus clearing away the sins put on us as a species and allow us free will to choose right and wrong on our own in my opinion is the very concept of liberty.  We are each now responsible for our own actions.

Except that you can just ask Jesus to forgive you if you do something wrong.  Not your victim.  Having daddy make it all better is not personal responsibility.  Owning up to your choices and living with the consequences, is.

But getting to my 2nd point, this thread is turning into a specific discussion about Christianity but the title is least religious state with the premiss being any religion leads to lack of freedom and lack of any religion leads to increased freedom.  That goes far beyond the belief of the bible or Jesus since we have many many many other faiths which don't believe those things.

Yes, but if one major religion is anti-liberty, then reductions in the overall frequency of religion would likely include reductions in that anti-liberty religion and, therefore, increase liberty.

There aren't many insects on top of Mt. Washington in the winter.  That also means that there are not many mosquitoes up there.
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: dalebert on May 22, 2014, 09:47:12 am
First off, the discussion of whether Christianity is pro or anti liberty is a different topic then the main point of this thread.

Calling Christianity "anti-liberty" is a sweeping statement that over-simplifies points made. It is, however, pretty easy to point out how an overly-religious culture tends to impact liberty in at least some areas, particularly in attempting to legislate morality like with blue laws, book bans, etc.

The whole point of Jesus clearing away the sins put on us as a species and allow us free will to choose right and wrong on our own in my opinion is the very concept of liberty.  We are each now responsible for our own actions.

But getting to my 2nd point, this thread is turning into a specific discussion about Christianity...

It's the predominant and most culture-impacting religion in the U.S. so that's not surprising.

...but the title is least religious state with the premiss being any religion leads to lack of freedom and lack of any religion leads to increased freedom.

I've already addressed and debunked that straw man. That was never my claim. My main point was that it's just an appealing aspect of the state from my albeit biased agnostic/atheist POV. I've only brought attention to specific cases, like blue laws, in which it generally does appear to have a negative impact, but that's only after other people brought that up.

Paganism (depending on the flavor practiced) is a religion which doesn't follow the bible or believe in Jesus for instance.  And of the many pagans I know, I would not call them anti religious in the least.  In fact with all their rituals I would consider them more religious then many Catholics I know who do nothing more then show up on Easter and Christmas.

I wouldn't call them anti-religious either. I know of many pagans who had irrational beliefs, like that they could alter reality by casting spells (Christians do too but they call it prayer). That said, pagans as a whole are relatively weak as far as their impact on the culture. Christianity is the default religion here for all practical purposes.
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: John Edward Mercier on May 22, 2014, 01:36:02 pm
Jesus dying did not open the door for all men from that point to toss out the 10 commandments and do what they want.

Sure, it did.  Just ask for forgiveness, and all's peachy...

No, he died to absolve mankind of a single sin... the sin of Adam and Eve disobeying God.

Which is a ridiculous, utterly-anti-liberty proposition.  No one can be "tainted" by someone else's behavior.  If Adam and Eve disobeyed, then Adam and Eve, and no others, are responsible.

The door's also left open for some serious questions about Creation.  It's asserted that humans were Created perfect (in which case, how could they even be tempted? but that's another issue), and that disease and the ridiculously-poor design of the human body all came about because of "Original Sin."  If mankind has now been absolved, why did we not then re-attain that physical perfection that supposedly existed in Eden?  What, God's just so petty that He tortures innocents because he holds a grudge against a couple pets he had, thousands or millions of years ago?  That sounds like someone who should be spat-upon, not worshipped.
Created perfect? I read it more as being ignorant - the chief pet in the garden.
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: dalebert on May 23, 2014, 07:14:47 pm
There. Religion no longer necessary!

(http://i.imgur.com/cWiRhKY.jpg)
Title: Re: NH almost the least religious state
Post by: TJames on May 23, 2014, 11:03:43 pm
I call fatal conceit!
Okay, someone should put this in some sort of memetic bomb to finally destroy Christianity forever!

Q. Why do Christians Worship God?
A. Because children do as they are told.
Why the fuck would it be right for God to kill two people for eating fruit? What if Adam told God that he should die if he ate something Adam thought up? You know what God can't sin? It's cuz hez friken God. If God sins it's suddenly an an exception for God and not really a sin. God's argument for everything is "ur mom" God is a tribal statist who thinks he is older than the universe, but that was before we had the concept of space-time, and if he does exist then we should defiantly give him the finger and make friends with Lucifer.
Why can't I make up a word for "sins" that offend me and tell people that it is something they have because of some fallen nature they need to be saved from? Why can't this one of many gods just get over himself as the most antihuman of gods and figure out the others don't think of themselves as rulers of morality.
In the earlier versions of the creation myth the gods couldn't really be the moral lawgiver to be obeyed or else. Eating the fruit was a good thing because it helped humans become adult and potentially join the gods.

If we have no god to tell us what isn't moral then who would build the roads!?