Ever think to yourself, "If Jesus can walk on water, then so can I!"? No? Well me neither, but evangelist preacher Franck Kabele felt differently. He told his congregation that he too could walk on water like his pal Jesus did. Franck was convinced that if one has enough faith, one can walk on water.
Well unfortunately for Franck, faith doesn’t float and nor did he. You see, Franck walked slowly out in to the Komo estuary and soon the water was over his head. Needless to say, Franck never was seen again.
But alas! There was a miracle that day. It was a miracle that someone could be so ignorant as to think faith alone would carry you safely across.
God bless you Franck, you get a big religious freaks salute!
Related posts:
- What would Jesus listen to?
- Shunned Jesus Sues Elementary School
- Pass The Doobie Jesus
- Rowan Atkinson–The Amazing Jesus Of Nazareth
- Devout Christian Starves Herself To Death For Jesus
August 30th, 2006 at 10:22 pm
I think I’ll just state the obvious here…
This man didn’t have enough faith.
August 30th, 2006 at 10:29 pm
He had enough faith to die trying. I’m not saying it is a good thing, but it sure takes balls to go “all the way” like that. Most anyone else would have quit by the time the water hit their knees.
August 30th, 2006 at 11:22 pm
Ayn Rand just became a whole lot more poignant to me.
Faith is the abdication of reality indeed.
August 31st, 2006 at 1:58 am
I’m pretty sure there’s something other than Balls involved if you’re gonna kill yourself because you’re convinced that you can ‘walk on water’
August 31st, 2006 at 2:10 am
The man is a true example of natural selection in action…
August 31st, 2006 at 4:39 am
“The man is a true example of natural selection in action…”
Now if only natural selection would hurry up a bit and eradicate all extremists/fundamentalists(and bush too!) i would feel much better about the human race.
August 31st, 2006 at 5:41 am
Sadly, natural selection is actually increasing the numbers of these people.
As societies become better and better educated and lifestyles become more work focused, birthrates tend to drop. Those who tend towards more traditional beliefs (dont use condoms, women should stay at home and have babies etc) continue to expand in population while everyone else declines.
So despite the belief that education, knowledge, understanding evolution etc is a good thing, would the end result of everyone believing in it cause the end of the human race?
August 31st, 2006 at 6:32 am
Ummm… has it occurred to anyone else that this might not be a legit article? I can’t find any other references to it on the web, other than the zany WorldNetDaily. The Daily Record doesn’t appear to be a particularly reputable publication from what I can see, what with headlines like “Boom Boom Banged Up Forever”, and “This Year I Want To Be Narrower Than Our Christmas Tree.”
August 31st, 2006 at 7:11 am
the daily record …if your refering to the scottish newspaper….is a reputable publication. Alot of uk newspapers do like to make fun etc hence the silly front page slogans.
August 31st, 2006 at 9:07 am
Hello Skyclad,
I’ve heard the argument you put forth a few times now; the idea that fundamentalist are out-breeding everyone else and will dominate humanity because of natural selection. There is one major problem with this view. Fundamentalism is not genetic but cultural. And as can be seen from history, cultures can morph and change with time and within the same genetic pool. This gives me hope that the world can become a largely secular place.
August 31st, 2006 at 10:55 am
I walked on water,yeah,I draw a picture of water and walk on it so I could be GOD :D
August 31st, 2006 at 8:46 pm
Yes, it’s the Scottish Daily Record. I have to say, if that’s a reputable publication (going by the content on the website anyway), I’d hate to see your definition of a tabloid publication. Not to say that everything it says isn’t true, but it’s definitely sensationalist stuff, at best (even taking into account the satirical angle… I’m Australian, so I “get” that!)
Anyway, even if it is a generally solid paper, the main reason I’m suspicious is that you only get one hit from the whole interweb for “Franck Kabele” on Google News, which is from the zany Christian online trash-fest WorldNetDaily. I also so it mentioned on a random forum post as a reference to an article from The Sun, which only makes me further doubt it. Maybe it will turn up on some more “normal” news sources over the next few days though.
September 1st, 2006 at 5:17 am
sidfaiwu,
I would like to think that education for all continues to be the primary driver of societal evolution, and I think a natural by-product of that is an increase in non-deific beliefs.
The issue of birthrate is a completely different problem which stems from the same source however, and makes me wonder sometimes if the western view of gender equality and needing 2 incomes to create a household is flawed by virtue of the fact that it will result in our own extinction.
The Abrahamic religions historically has a strong effect on the nature of society and the role that women play within it, mostly in a way that those of us in the west would now consider abhorrent, but which does promote the conditions necessary to create population growth.
If education continues to improve (as I believe is important), somehow we need another societal evolution towards promoting the need to procreate before it becomes a major issue (its almost at that point in Japan already), but without resorting to certain taboo sciences, I dont currently see how that will happen.
Dave
September 1st, 2006 at 9:15 am
I think the real long term answer is that there will end up being a global equilibrium. Babies are getting made in poor countries; poor countries get wealthier, and eventually population growth slows. So buy products made in 3rd world countries, because you’re helping eradicate theism.
In seriousness, though, I don’t see a need for us to try and promote procreation. I don’t feel that my culture or my nation or my whathaveyou is in conflict with the religious baby-making regimes. I think that deistic beliefs are in general looney and have no place in the modern world, but I’m not going to crusade against them. I may occasionally try to argue the case for atheism to individuals (if I think they will listen, about which I’m entirely too optimistic) but I’m not going to fight the Catholic church by having more babies than I want. Even if I did care, it would end up being some creepy sort of breeding war… You can topple ideologies but not the armies (of babies) they enlist.
On topic, I almost like preachers that have enough faith to kill themselves (assuming this actually happened) more than a lot of the less faithful. Sure, the less faithful may not be as annoying and may be more tolerant, but it’s also somewhat creepy wrong. Teaching someone that they should believe that only through Jesus can they and their loved ones be saved and yet that they should allow their friends and family to hold different views (and burn in hell) is not a good thing, IMHO. It may seem like a great comprimise, but you’re teaching cognitive dissonance; you’re creating individuals that won’t accept rationality because they already know how to accept conflicting viewpoints and it’s much easier to do so than to think and examine one’s beliefs.
September 1st, 2006 at 9:59 am
Dave,
Are you seriously suggesting that we try to promote population GROWTH? Isn’t overpopulation a problem… especially in Japan? Have you BEEN to Japan? If any place could stand a population loss, it is Japan. The only real problem they (as well as the US) have with a downturn in birthrates is a significant elderly population that becomes a big drain on the economy. But that was going to happen anyway with the WWII baby boomers.
With 6 billion people and rising, there should be no foreseeable need to encourage population growth. Even if some huge pandemic hits and knocks that down to 4 billion, we’re still doing pretty good. The overall population is actually safer when it is smaller because disease doesn’t spread as fast. Just slowing it down a disease little can make a huge difference it the overall effect.
I think it would be awesome if the world population shrank to somewhere around 1 billion or less. There would be so much room for everyone and technology could be focused on making people’s lives better rather than making war and trying to feed and cloth everyone. Certainly the environment would thank us.
So what is the problem? People aren’t going to just stop breading. I mean, sex is just too much fun and babies are just too cute. It is just that people will much more control over how and when they have children. And with even better advances in medicine, more children will survive to offset the smaller birthrate. I mean, you only need one baby per person on average to maintain a steady population. Do you think birthrates will go significnately below that if everyone is educated?
September 1st, 2006 at 10:21 am
“With 6 billion people and rising, there should be no foreseeable need to encourage population growth. Even if some huge pandemic hits and knocks that down to 4 billion, we’re still doing pretty good. The overall population is actually safer when it is smaller because disease doesn’t spread as fast. Just slowing it down a disease little can make a huge difference it the overall effect.”
Just gonna point out that a larger gene pool would be a better way to keep humanity going if a massive pandemic hit. I absolutely agree that the last thing this world needs is more people though.
September 1st, 2006 at 10:45 am
two words:
Darwin Award :)
September 1st, 2006 at 10:49 am
> Are you seriously suggesting that we try to promote population GROWTH? Isn’t overpopulation a problem… especially in Japan? Have you BEEN to Japan?
1. Yes, if we are not growing, we are declining (sadly I dont believe in bones’ equilibrium idea), which, by its very definition leads inevitably to extinction.
2. I’m not aware overpopulation is a problem in Japan, you might be thinking of China - the Japanese population is currently declining. (see http://www.japanesestudies.org.uk/discussionpapers/Chapple.html) for some good background, including Government efforts to increase the birthrate.
3. I have been to Japan. I won an all expenses paid trip there about 7 years ago :)
> The overall population is actually safer when it is smaller because disease doesn’t spread as fast.
Not sure about this being correct, a disease travels just as fast as the person carrying it, which means it can get from any airport to any other airport in the world in about 24 hours.
> …trying to feed and cloth everyone.
There is well enough food in the world to feed everyone, and genetic engineering can quite happily ensure that there will continue to be enough for any doubling or trebling of the current world population. The issue is the failure of the richer countries to make that food available to those who need it. After all, how can we continue to get cheap imports if those countries actually begin to develop an economy?
> I mean, you only need one baby per person on average to maintain a steady population.
Not true. Child mortality and other factors such as disease mean that > 2 children per woman are required (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3560433.stm), and in many european countries this will soon become a significant issue.
And come on, you dont honestly believe that because there are less of us about, we wont find ways to make war on each other?
Dave
September 1st, 2006 at 12:51 pm
Anyone get a better understanding from when Thusla Doom made the girl fall to her death due to the fact she had faith in him.
Powerful stuff faith.
September 1st, 2006 at 1:56 pm
Your Father,
“Just gonna point out that a larger gene pool would be a better way to keep humanity going if a massive pandemic hit. I absolutely agree that the last thing this world needs is more people though.”
The quality of the gene pool and its overall resistence to disease has more to do with genetic diversity than population size. What you want to do is encourage diversity so that one disease doesn’t take everyone and reduce population density so that diseases are less likely to start and spread like wildfire in a particular population. Population density is dangerously high in many parts of the world.
September 1st, 2006 at 1:59 pm
Hello All,
I’d like to add my 2 cents about population growth. here is an interesting article, similar to the one Dave linked, addressing the issue. In industrialized nations, the birth rates are between 1.5 and 2 per female. As Dave correctly pointed out, this is not enough for equilibrium and will cause decline (2.1 is needed for equilibrium). This, however, can be offset (at least temporarily) by medical advances that extend life and increase the number of years a person can be productive in society. Life extension could be a double-edged sword since increasing the productive years would probably also extend the non-productive years in which individuals are dependent on society. If we manage to stop ageing completely and individuals could be productive indefinitely, then the optimal birth rate would be much lower. This is, of course, a big ‘if’.
Even if we fail to offset low birth rates with extending the length of people’s productive lives, population decline does not inevitably lead to extinction as claimed by Dave. It would first lead to wide-spread poverty. But poverty, it seems, will lead to higher birth rates. From this article: “Birth rates tend to fall when parents have access to family planning, health care, education and jobs†all of which, require prosperity. This would create a sort of boom-bust population cycle and achieve a dynamic, long-term, equilibrium.
And just to clear up the Japan issue, Japan’s population density is over twice that of China’s but population density is not the only factor to consider when facing a population decline. Japan has the world’s highest life expectancy. This means that, combined with a low birth rate, a huge chunk of its population is elderly. A shrinking population would alleviate the high density in the long-run, but cause serious economic problems in the short-run. This is why Japan’s government is trying to promote birth rates despite the over crowding problem.
It would seem to me that high population density would better enable the spread of infectious disease. The number of contacts per infected person would be much higher in higher density areas. When Matthew said, “The overall population is actually safer when it is smaller because disease doesn’t spread as fastâ€, he meant spread as fast through the population not across the world. In other words, if another pandemic where to happen, major cities, China, India, and other densely populated areas would be harder hit than, say, Canada.
September 1st, 2006 at 2:58 pm
Skyclad,
“1. Yes, if we are not growing, we are declining (sadly I dont believe in bones’ equilibrium idea), which, by its very definition leads inevitably to extinction.”
Only theoretically… If you give it several hundred of years of steady decline and for some reason everyone just decides to stop having children completely, which I can’t imagine happening except in some sci-fi world.
“2. I’m not aware overpopulation is a problem in Japan, you might be thinking of China - the Japanese population is currently declining. (see http://www.japanesestudies.org.uk/discussionpapers/Chapple.html) for some good background, including Government efforts to increase the birthrate.”
It isn’t a problem in the sense that they are in danger of a major catastrope, but it is certainly a quality of life issue. Being packed in with so many people in such a small space is not very good psychologically. People need their space. But I guess that is really for the Japanese to decide. Personally, I had to move out of the Chicago metro area because it was way too crowded. It would totally suck if I lived in a country where I have few options for “getting away.” But maybe that is just me.
Trying to increase the Japanese birthrate has more to do with economics than the threat of extinction. The Japanese (and other parts of the world) kinda screwed themselves (ha!) with the baby boom after WWII. They are stuck with either maintaining a high birth rate or suffering from a disproportionate number of eldery people draining the system.
“> The overall population is actually safer when it is smaller because disease doesn’t spread as fast.
Not sure about this being correct, a disease travels just as fast as the person carrying it, which means it can get from any airport to any other airport in the world in about 24 hours.”
Sorry, I should have said epidemic. Obviously pandemics only need airports to spread. Anyway, it is a well known fact that high population density breads disease. Even if you have a “mostly harmless” virus such as influenza virus constantly passing between many people in a highly dense area, it can quickly mutate into something that is much more deadly. One strategy for reducing this kind of risk is to reduce population density (as well as better sanitation, healthcare, etc)
“> …trying to feed and cloth everyone.
There is well enough food in the world to feed everyone, and genetic engineering can quite happily ensure that there will continue to be enough for any doubling or trebling of the current world population. The issue is the failure of the richer countries to make that food available to those who need it. After all, how can we continue to get cheap imports if those countries actually begin to develop an economy?”
I didn’t say it was impossible to feed and cloth everyone. I was hoping for a situaation (equalibrium?) where we dont’ need to worry about it. If the population is always increasing, you’re always going to be worried about feeding people and finding space/energy to grow the food.
And again, there are quality of life issues. Perhaps the planet COULD support double or tripple the population, but is that what we want? Do we want to live in a world with twice as many people demanding living space, recreation areas, etc? I sure don’t. Things are bad enough as it is as far as I am concerned and I live in one of the rich countries!
“And come on, you dont honestly believe that because there are less of us about, we wont find ways to make war on each other?”
If finding and maintaining access to natural resources was less of an issue then yes, I think there would be less incentive to make war. A better educated, largely secular, open minded population, of course.
If the only argument against letting the population level off or even decrease is some far off threat of extinction, I say let it happen.
September 1st, 2006 at 10:16 pm
Hey, just to clear up what I meant by equilibrium in birth rates. Talking long term, and basically just saying that as wealth increases throughout the world that the situation will change. As the world becomes more global, and people and money move more freely througout it (and ideas even moreso), people in many different places will see declines in birthrates. Which will in turn allow those who are less educated and have more children to increase their influence. And so on. Dynamic, but at equilibrium. This in no way leads to extinction, it just leads to their being a healthy mix of baby making and non baby making memes. If the population was to drop unhealthily, you can bet those with ideas of “let’s do something to make more babies” be it religiously motivated or not will miraculously come to power in a generation or two. I don’t think what I’m saying is in any way a stretch of the imagination (though feel free to dispute me here). We don’t have equilibrium now because the world is going through major changes; societies/birth patterns/etc are still feeling the change of the industrial age never mind the information age.
I was not meaning to say that equilibrium would be everyone becoming wealthy and educated and secular and stopping producing and therefore going extinct. Sorry if I gave that impression.
Maybe my point is a little fatalistic, as I’m more or less saying “no one’s ever going to win, so why bother trying.” But as I see it, the only alternative is to push some sort of meme of “I should reproduce more because I’m better than other people” amongst the educated/secular/whatever. But I don’t want to teach my children (assuming I ever have any) that the answer to people with different viewpoints is to breed more people that agree with yourself. Also, it reeks a bit of some bad ideas in history, even if creed can be chosen and is not strictly determined by birth. Maybe I got the bad atheism meme that doesn’t reproduce (either through birth or by teaching to others). But let me ask, if you think that secularism needs to be spread in the same manner as religion, what exactly does that say about secularism, ideas/memes, and people in general?
As for Japan, the argument is ill defined. What should they do towards what goal? Are they trying to maintain their culture? Their economy? Their standards of living? Are they maximizing the gain for those currently living or those in the future? Or just avoid some sort of financial collapse?
September 4th, 2006 at 4:05 am
Cheers guys. Some excellently argued points. Shall see ye in another thread soon :)
Dave
September 4th, 2006 at 11:39 am
nice point of view Bones
January 1st, 2007 at 12:49 am
This is a made up story. But, of course, it is you atheist who are the “critical thinkers”….