Why do people still believe in religion in the 21st century?
First and foremost, because parents indoctrinate children at an early age, and it has been shown through tomography that this indoctrination causes physical changes to the brain that make it very difficult for the person to think rationally on this topic in later life.Second, many people (particularly those in Third World nations) have poor education and desperate lives that make them ripe for believing in some version of an ideal afterlife. Desperate people are prone to grasping at straws, although the old "no atheists in a fox hole" argument is a myth. Someone who is an atheist because they understand science and have studied the history of religion and not merely the tenets, is no more likely to pray to Jesus in an emergency than they are to pray to Santa Claus. They know that their fate rests in their own hands and they better think rationally if they are going to survive rather than relying on random chance.Third, polls that count who is "religious" are fundamentally flawed because there is no reliable means of measuring religiousity in a simple poll. For instance, if you ask the average European if they are "Christian" they will be inclined to say yes simply to distinguish themselves from not being Muslim,. If you actually quiz this person on the Bible these days, you'll find almost no one under the age of 30 knows much of anything about Christianity - and many upon further questioning will then clarify that they don't go to church or pray, or anything else like that. In some nations now, especially Scandinavia, asking someone if they are religious is often taken as a direct insult among young people. It is almost like asking if they are crazy. The response will be indignation, but this is in parts of the world where the educational standards are high. The United States is presentely ranked #35 in nations for science at the high school level. While many American universities are excellent, only a small fraction of Americans attend and science requirements for graduation are not even up to the standards of a European high school education unless your major is physics or chemistry.
1. What can be done to make a hollow core entrance door more secure?
1. What can be done to make a hollow core entrance door more secure? 2. Steel, wood, of fiberglass entrance door, which is better for security and r- value. 3. Do you have any advice on where or how to get a good value price when buying doors? Thank you
What is the difference between a Neo-Con (new conservative) and a traditional conservative?
Well,since you obviously want to avoid all the insults the right hurls at everyone(wink wink) we'll just skip over that. Conservatism-Rule of society by an aristocracy. Sorry.That is atrocious. Neo-Con:A heavy slanderer of all non-conservatives who believes we should domesticate the world at any price.Morally and fiscally irresponsible.
What are the major cons or disadvantages of religion?
This is actually for a school project. I have to debate against people who are for religion. the judge is neutral in his state of mind so i simply have to convince him and destroy (intellectually) the other team. Now I have found some cons of religion: Inquisition, Crusades, The Bush administration, Protestants vs Catholics in Ireland, Spain vs England in the 18th century, Extremism. If you can help me find other cons of religion that can help me destroy the other team, I would be very greatful. Thanks!
What are the arguments for pro or anti monarchy in Britain?
Generally in the UK, the most common arguments stack up like this:Pro: The monarchy attracts tourists, who spend more money than it costs.The Queen is a non partisan head of state, who could act as a "brake" on the worst things an elected Government might try to do. (The supporting theory - for this is that something like Nazi Germany could not have happened in Britain, because the monarch would have started to veto things).Every country needs a head of state. If there wasn't a monarchy, there would need to be an elected head of state (e.g. a president). Lots of people fear who the British public would elect as a president!Con:It costs a load of money to keep a monarchy - if not in terms of paying the royal family directly, or the upkeep of their houses (those are mostly self funded by the family), then certainly in terms of the cost of security for them etc.It is an anachronism to have an unelected (albeit just a figurehead like the German president, rather than an executive like the US president) head of state in the 21st century. The monarchy is also tied to the Church of England, which is effectively the state religion - which is also anachronistic in a world where less than 10% of the population goes to church, and where most countries now have separation of church and state.Obviously some of the counterarguments are:Tourists would come anyway, there are plenty of other reasons to come to the UK.The British public would do just fine in electing an alternative head of state, thanks.The security costs for the royal family would instead be spent on the alternative head of state.It may be an anachronism, but it is what makes Britain different from most other countries.