The Huffington Post starts digging on their own...

[Volbet]

Let me get this straight, this started as a discussion on Huffington Post and turned into a religious debate? GG guys.

I'm not saying that the debate isn't an important one, but there is a time and place for anything.

Even if the time is right, the place is not a thread concerning the bias of the Huffington Post.

 

I think I should make my own law, like Godwin's law. The longer a debate goes on, the more likely it is that it will turn to religion.

[mr moose]

Let me get this straight, this started as a discussion on Huffington Post and turned into a religious debate? GG guys.

I'm not saying that the debate isn't an important one, but there is a time and place for anything.

Even if the time is right, the place is not a thread concerning the bias if the Huffington Post.

 

I think I should make my own law, like Godwin's law. The longer a debate goes on, the likely it is that it will turn to religion.

 

fair call.

[Lewellyn]

Let me get this straight, this started as a discussion on Huffington Post and turned into a religious debate? GG guys.

I'm not saying that the debate isn't an important one, but there is a time and place for anything.

Even if the time is right, the place is not a thread concerning the bias of the Huffington Post.

 

I think I should make my own law, like Godwin's law. The longer a debate goes on, the more likely it is that it will turn to religion.

 

Yeah, well you're just a damn Nazi. The Nazis made laws, you make laws, you're a Nazis!

[OlekKing]

It is relevant, because until humanity learns to accept each other and not force our own ideals onto others, there is no educating or moving forward.  Culture and tradition may be just as important to the survival of humanity as war and greed.  There is absolutely no evidence to suggest life can only improve if religion is eradicated.   The key to moving forward is acceptance of others.  Accepting that some people like to do things different, accepting that some people like to avoid walking under ladders accepting that some people only eat red nuts for fear of developing cancer.  As nutty as it sounds to you or I, it is very relevant to others and unless those quirks do some kind of physical damage to another person then the only positive thing humanity can do is to accept.  Otherwise we will all end up back in the dark ages long before education has a chance to have an effect.

Can you please stop repeating that? I've never said that, i've never even suggested it, i said that good education, promotion of science and critical thinking contribute greatly to make a good, intelligent person. And as bonus, it will lead to atheism, to the rejection of any superstition or religious claim.

I've said this so many times now, why do you keep misrepresenting my words?

Simply pulling a switch and turning everyone into an atheist will not do anything at all, i want people to become atheists via their own thinking, via a good education, by being scientifically literate.

What we observe today is that the vast majority of atheists are usually well educated people, scientifically literate people. When you have the right intellectual faculties at your disposal, you will most likely and hopefully end up a skeptic, a non believer.

[mr moose]

Can you please stop repeating that? I've never said that, i've never even suggested it, i said that good education, promotion of science and critical thinking contribute greatly to make a good, intelligent person. And as bonus, it will lead to atheism, to the rejection of any superstition or religious claim.

I've said this so many times now, why do you keep misrepresenting my words?

Simply pulling a switch and turning everyone into an atheist will not do anything at all, i want people to become atheists via their own thinking, via a good education, by being scientifically literate.

What we observe today is that the vast majority of atheists are usually well educated people, scientifically literate people. When you have the right intellectual faculties at your disposal, you will most likely and hopefully end up a skeptic, a non believer.

 

And like this:

 

That will make people better and they'll naturally become atheists by their own reasoning, that's just a bonus, the key part is that it will make people better critical thinkers. That will lead to atheism and many other good things.

 

I can only interpret what you write. I.E Insinuating that a good intelligent person rejects religion which is a bonus.  It's almost like you can't accept there are millions of good people out there that hold religious beliefs.

 

Also the claim I make about evidence is in support of the effects of religion,  for which I have asserted in many cases there is little, yet you keep coming back to this "education".  I have shown instances where all the nasty things people claim are the results of religion exist outside of religious cultures/societies.  And to date there is no proof that if religion was eradicated (by any means, the means is not important) humanity would continue down the same path.  It doesn't matter if you think atheism is better, it doesn't matter if think education is the best path to achieve eradication of religion, that may or may not be the case.  However the reality is that people will still be arseholes long after spiritual, religious and superstitious beliefs are dead (assuming they ever will die). 

 

And for the record I am currently  an educator, I specialise in behavioral and social integration, I spend all day with my head in the latest research on the human psyche, I.Q test results, social inclusion, and cultural relevance to educational out comes, currently my chief bugbear is critical thinking, it is not taught sufficiently in schools and the effects of this are abundantly apparent in these forums.  You should get hold of the latest research on this, it'll blow your mind just how important and inefficient education is to social/cultural outcomes.  Essentially comunity/society dictates the method by which education occurs and home life dictates the level of achievement. 

[Volbet]

Can you please stop repeating that? I've never said that, i've never even suggested it, i said that good education, promotion of science and critical thinking contribute greatly to make a good, intelligent person. And as bonus, it will lead to atheism, to the rejection of any superstition or religious claim.

So, an intellient person is an atheist? I think Francis Collins would like a word with you.

I would also like to invite you to vist Scandinavia. Denmark and Sweden has the world's highest procentage of atheists, but that's not becuase we are smarter than anyone else.

It's mearly a cultural thing.

And like this:

I can only interpret what you write. I.E Insinuating that a good intelligent person rejects religion which is a bonus. It's almost like you can't accept there are millions of good people out there that hold religious beliefs.

Also the claim I make about evidence is in support of the effects of religion, for which I have asserted in many cases there is little, yet you keep coming back to this "education". I have shown instances where all the nasty things people claim are the results of religion exist outside of religious cultures/societies. And to date there is no proof that if religion was eradicated (by any means, the means is not important) humanity would continue down the same path. It doesn't matter if you think atheism is better, it doesn't matter if think education is the best path to achieve eradication of religion, that may or may not be the case. However the reality is that people will still be arseholes long after spiritual, religious and superstitious beliefs are dead (assuming they ever will die).

And for the record I am currently an educator, I specialise in behavioral and social integration, I spend all day with my head in the latest research on the human psyche, I.Q test results, social inclusion, and cultural relevance to educational out comes, currently my chief bugbear is critical thinking, it is not taught sufficiently in schools and the effects of this are abundantly apparent in these forums. You should get hold of the latest research on this, it'll blow your mind just how important and inefficient education is to social/cultural outcomes. Essentially comunity/society dictates the method by which education occurs and home life dictates the level of achievement.

I am clapping this one out.

If all religion was removed, we would just find another thing to fight about. The Hutu and Tutsi tribes sure didn't need religion.

I would also like to point out, that the moral argument is completely irrelevent to the question of God's existance.

Even if a belife in God lead to a utopia, it wouldn't prove that God exists.

An atheist society could be a utopia, and it wouldn't prove that God doesn't exist.

The same thing goes for intelligence. Even if religious people were dumber than atheist, it would prove jack about the existence of God.

[OlekKing]

So, an intellient person is an atheist? I think Francis Collins would like a word with you.

I would also like to invite you to vist Scandinavia. Denmark and Sweden has the world's highest procentage of atheists, but that's not becuase we are smarter than anyone else.

It's mearly a cultural thing.

I am clapping this one out.

If all religion was removed, we would just find another thing to fight about. The Hutu and Tutsi tribes sure didn't need religion.

I would also like to point out, that the moral argument is completely irrelevent to the question of God's existance.

Even if a belife in God lead to a utopia, it wouldn't prove that God exists.

An atheist society could be a utopia, and it wouldn't prove that God doesn't exist.

The same thing goes for intelligence. Even if religious people were dumber than atheist, it would prove jack about the existence of God.

Getting a bit old with you guys constantly misinterpreting what i'm conveying. I'm quite sure i'm being clear with my words.

I never said that only atheists are intelligent or that every intelligent person is an atheist. I am saying that most of the time, with a good education, especially if you pursue scientific studies, you'll most likely be an atheist if you apply the same kind of scrutiny to all claims.

You can look at the Scientific Elite, the best scientists in the world who have been awarded Nobel prizes, surveys have shown that an overwhelming majority are non-theists (since many don't use the label of atheist), i can't recall the exact percentage but i've seen figures ranging from 75% to 90%. And i'm not using that as an argument for anything, that's just an observation, you can look at many studies, the better the education the lower the religiosity percentage becomes. This isn't unexpected.

 

Our brain is very modular, we can hold conflicting beliefs, i actually was going to use Collins as a good example.

Also, most of the religious scientists have had a religious upbringing, in some cases really strong ones. Don't under estimate the power of indoctrination, when done right, it's extremely hard to break out of, even for brilliant scientists. Some had mid life conversions but that just shows that they don't apply the scientific principles they know so well on certain things.

 

Collins provides this text for our contemplation and then describes how it boosted him over the church transom:

 

Lewis was right. I had to make a choice. A full year had passed since I decided to believe in some sort of God, and now I was being called to account. On a beautiful fall day, as I was hiking in the Cascade Mountains during my first trip west of the Mississippi, the majesty and beauty of God’s creation overwhelmed my resistance. As I rounded a corner and saw a beautiful and unexpected frozen waterfall, hundreds of feet high, I knew the search was over. The next morning, I knelt in the dewy grass as the sun rose and surrendered to Jesus Christ. (Ibid, p. 225)

 

It is simply astounding that this passage was written by a scientist with the intent of demonstrating the compatibility of faith and reason. While Collins argues for the rational basis of his faith, passages like this make it clear that he “decided” (his word) to believe in God for emotional reasons. And if Collins’ reasoning could grow no more labile, he said that the waterfall was frozen into three streams, which put him in mind of the Holy Trinity...

 

Collins argues that science makes belief in God “intensely plausible”—the Big Bang, the fine-tuning of Nature’s constants, the emergence of complex life, the effectiveness of mathematics, all suggest to him that a “loving, logical, and consistent” God exists; but when challenged with alternate (and far more plausible) accounts of these phenomena—or with evidence that suggests that God might be unloving, illogical, inconsistent, or, indeed, absent—Collins declares that God stands outside of Nature, and thus science cannot address the question of His existence at all. Similarly, Collins insists that our moral intuitions attest to God’s existence, to His perfectly moral character, and to His desire to have fellowship with every member of our species; but when our moral intuitions recoil at the casual destruction of innocent children by, say, tidal wave or earthquake, Collins assures us that our time-bound notions of good and evil can’t be trusted and that God’s will is a mystery.

 

There is no rational reason to be a theist, to subscribe to a specific dogma. I could perhaps see how some can have some kind of vague Deism, but without a "supernatural" creator, but some incredibly advanced being who set the Universe in motion, but who at the end doesn't give a damn about the little spec of dust that we are in this universe. Who isn't concern with what you do in your own bedroom. But again no reason to jump to that conclusion either.

[Volbet]

 

Getting a bit old with you guys constantly misinterpreting what i'm conveying. I'm quite sure i'm being clear with my words.

I never said that only atheists are intelligent or that every intelligent person is an atheist. I am saying that most of the time, with a good education, especially if you pursue scientific studies, you'll most likely be an atheist if you apply the same kind of scrutiny to all claims.

You can look at the Scientific Elite, the best scientists in the world who have been awarded Nobel prizes, surveys have shown that an overwhelming majority are non-theists (since many don't use the label of atheist), i can't recall the exact percentage but i've seen figures ranging from 75% to 90%. And i'm not using that as an argument for anything, that's just an observation, you can look at many studies, the better the education the lower the religiosity percentage becomes. This isn't unexpected.

 

Our brain is very modular, we can hold conflicting beliefs, i actually was going to use Collins as a good example.

Also, most of the religious scientists have had a religious upbringing, in some cases really strong ones. Don't under estimate the power of indoctrination, when done right, it's extremely hard to break out of, even for brilliant scientists. Some had mid life conversions but that just shows that they don't apply the scientific principles they know so well on certain things.

 

Collins provides this text for our contemplation and then describes how it boosted him over the church transom:

 

Lewis was right. I had to make a choice. A full year had passed since I decided to believe in some sort of God, and now I was being called to account. On a beautiful fall day, as I was hiking in the Cascade Mountains during my first trip west of the Mississippi, the majesty and beauty of God’s creation overwhelmed my resistance. As I rounded a corner and saw a beautiful and unexpected frozen waterfall, hundreds of feet high, I knew the search was over. The next morning, I knelt in the dewy grass as the sun rose and surrendered to Jesus Christ. (Ibid, p. 225)

 

It is simply astounding that this passage was written by a scientist with the intent of demonstrating the compatibility of faith and reason. While Collins argues for the rational basis of his faith, passages like this make it clear that he “decided” (his word) to believe in God for emotional reasons. And if Collins’ reasoning could grow no more labile, he said that the waterfall was frozen into three streams, which put him in mind of the Holy Trinity...

 

Collins argues that science makes belief in God “intensely plausible”—the Big Bang, the fine-tuning of Nature’s constants, the emergence of complex life, the effectiveness of mathematics, all suggest to him that a “loving, logical, and consistent” God exists; but when challenged with alternate (and far more plausible) accounts of these phenomena—or with evidence that suggests that God might be unloving, illogical, inconsistent, or, indeed, absent—Collins declares that God stands outside of Nature, and thus science cannot address the question of His existence at all. Similarly, Collins insists that our moral intuitions attest to God’s existence, to His perfectly moral character, and to His desire to have fellowship with every member of our species; but when our moral intuitions recoil at the casual destruction of innocent children by, say, tidal wave or earthquake, Collins assures us that our time-bound notions of good and evil can’t be trusted and that God’s will is a mystery.

 

There is no rational reason to be a theist, to subscribe to a specific dogma. I could perhaps see how some can have some kind of vague Deism, but without a "supernatural" creator, but some incredibly advanced being who set the Universe in motion, but who at the end doesn't give a damn about the little spec of dust that we are in this universe. Who isn't concern with what you do in your own bedroom. But again no reason to jump to that conclusion either.

 

The problem is not your words, it's the implications of the words.

When you say that good education, with a focus on critical thinking, will lead to people rejecting religious dogma, you are implying that intelligent (educated) people reject God, and the uneducated people will keep God.

I don't think this was your point, but it's what was implied.

While I to a certain extend I agree with you, it is much more complicated than that. People will believe strange things for strange reasons.

 

I have seen those numbers about scientists before (It's 72%), but that only asks about a personal, theistic god. The study doesn't mention how many consider themselfs deists or spinozistic pantheists.

So saying that it's just because they don't use the label ´atheist´ is not completly correct. While a bunch of the 72% probably is atheists, it can't be said how many.

 

Edit: I'm such a hypocrite for joining in on this.

[OlekKing]

The problem is not your words, it's the implications of the words.

When you say that good education, with a focus on critical thinking, will lead to people rejecting religious dogma, you are implying that intelligent (educated) people reject God, and the uneducated people will keep God.

I don't think this was your point, but it's what was implied.

While I to a certain extend I agree with you, it is much more complicated than that. People will believe strange things for strange reasons.

 

I have seen those numbers about scientists before (It's 72%), but that only asks about a personal, theistic god. The study doesn't mention how many consider themselfs deists or spinozistic pantheists.

So saying that it's just because they don't use the label ´atheist´ is not completly correct. While a bunch of the 72% probably is atheists, it can't be said how many.

I used words such as most likely/most of the time/often. There is simply no way you could see that implication from my words.

I have way less of an issue with deists or pantheists. Still not applying the same scrutiny and standards that they do on their job, but at least they don't subscribe to any dogma. My point was simply to show how the percentages of theism shrink the higher up on the education scale you go.

[mr moose]

I used words such as most likely/most of the time/often. There is simply no way you could see that implication from my words.

I have way less of an issue with deists or pantheists. Still not applying the same scrutiny and standards that they do on their job, but at least they don't subscribe to any dogma. My point was simply to show how the percentages of theism shrink the higher up on the education scale you go.

 

Intelligence does not equate to a "better person" nor does it preclude the propensity to violence.  I think you will find human psychology to be a very perplexing study that defies most ideals.  In this study they are trying to find out why some people in some cultures actually benefit from a religious practice.   Now this doesn't necessarily prove anything except that we don't know enough about the human psyche to be able to definitively label religion as bad or unintelligent.

 

Maybe one day we will build communities  that don't need any form of ideology, maybe one day we will leave the planet, however right here right now all you are saying is religious people are dumb and serve no purpose other than to hurt other people.  And unfortunately for your argument (statistically speaking) there are more atheists doing more damage in Australia than religious people.

[Guest Kloaked]

My solution is to get rid of religion via good education and some state intervention. Churches and other religious organisations should not be getting tax exempt status anywhere, especially in the USA where they have been turned into multi billion dollar industries.

I agree, but only up to the point of where the church is raking in a ton of money that pretty much makes them a for-profit organization. The church I currently go to is in a state of financial struggle and taxes would make it so much worse.

We did at one point have more than enough money to get by, allowing us to feed those who were hungry, donate school supplies, etc. We still do those things, but not in the tier we used to and it's only possible because of our financial team (only one person gets paid) and our preacher took a pay cut.

Not every church is trying to be a multi-billion dollar industry selling snake oil. We don't go on the streets with picket signs shoving people's "wrong-doings" down their throat. We're actually trying to help the community while practically everyone else is out for themselves.

 

There should be a proper separation of Church and State, a bunch of religious idiots shouldn't have any say or influence on any legislative decision or action by invoking their beliefs. That's not how decisions should be made. Whatever bullshit they believe in stays in their head and their home.

I'm not sure what you're implying here. Because someone says they believe in a higher power, they shouldn't be able to vote on anything? What about the assholes in academia (which you are starting to sound like from the rest of your posts) who are taking to this idea that religion is poisonous and we're somehow a bane of society? I would like someone to point out something my church has done wrong to harm someone else. We don't impose anything on anyone except charity: free food, school supplies, clothes and so on. I'm so fucking sick of these arguments against religion when there are non-religious people who would rather spend money on needless things like the new iPad 3 when they already have the iPad 2, yet there's some kid down the street who is going hungry and has worn out shoes. That's the real fucking sick thing to do. This world is so caught up on "every man for themselves" and it's pathetic.

 

Faith Schools should not be allowed to exist, even less to receive funding by the state. All of those TV evangelists scamming people should receive punishment and should be outlawed.

Religion needs to be eradicated via good education, via the popularization of science, of critical thinking.

Faith schools are schools for people who want to further their education in theology. Not many churches have a properly educated pastor who knows what they're talking about - they just regurgitate what their dad (who also happened to be a pastor) told them, and possibly what the older people in the congregation whisper in their ear to talk about. Should someone take a course at a school of theology, they will learn the ins-and-outs of the bible, but that depends on the school and teachers as well.

TV evangelists who are for-profit and selling snake oil should be taken off air, I agree.

Religion is already being "eradicated" with "good education via popularization of science of critical thinking". If you walk into a high school in the south here (yes, even here in the bible belt) and you ask every kid what their 'religious beliefs' are, nine out of ten kids will claim to be Atheist/not religious. The main reason for this in my area is because there are a few churches here who aren't properly equipped (I'm putting this nicely) to engage in the community. Instead of preaching a message of hope and peace and standing firm on it, they sell snake oil. There are churches here who have pretty much been given a label of "hypocrite church" (I don't truly understand this because every person on this earth is a hypocrite in some way or another).

I'm also going to bite on your bait here about critical thinking. You're implying here that people of religion aren't critical thinkers? I'm a human being. I question everything, even my beliefs. I've done so for ten years and at one point I wanted to stop believing because of all of the shit I get indirectly thrown at me when my beliefs happen to come up in a conversation that I didn't start. I'm sick of being demonized for thinking differently. I don't harm anyone. I don't preach "god hates fags" with picket signs at a military funeral. I'm a normal person who is a Christian and is trying to figure things out, that's it.

 

Parents indoctrinating their children is a huge problem, especially when they get homeschooled with religious bullcrap. I'm not sure how this can be solved, but some state intervention would be necessary. Children should be taught the existence and fundamentals of all the different religious beliefs, they should be taught to not take anything on faith, to analyse claims, to go where proper evidence leads. They will naturally become atheists and good critical thinkers, good scientists and so on.

It only becomes a problem when the parents aren't being parents. What I mean is when parents are so religious that they are more worried about what their kids believe rather than loving them for who they are, that's when it becomes a problem. Religion is not something bad by itself, it's the people who take it to great lengths of evil that make it bad. There was a video posted here a month or so ago of someone who was trying to tell their religious mom and aunt that they were gay. The mom and aunt weren't having any of it. The mom was kicking the person out of the house, the aunt supposedly told the guy that she would back him up, but didn't when it came down to it. That's the kind of shit I don't condone, yet I'm a bad, unintelligent person for believing in religion, right?

 

You're telling me that this wouldn't give rise to a better world, to a better society with less or next to no conflict?

The world would be a better place if everyone stopped pointing fingers.

 

You really look like an apologist, i'm not going to dismiss you just by saying it, but it does appear so.

What in the flying fuck does this have to do with anything?

[OlekKing]

Intelligence does not equate to a "better person" nor does it preclude the propensity to violence.  I think you will find human psychology to be a very perplexing study that defies most ideals.  In this study they are trying to find out why some people in some cultures actually benefit from a religious practice.   Now this doesn't necessarily prove anything except that we don't know enough about the human psyche to be able to definitively label religion as bad or unintelligent.

 

Maybe one day we will build communities  that don't need any form of ideology, maybe one day we will leave the planet, however right here right now all you are saying is religious people are dumb and serve no purpose other than to hurt other people.  And unfortunately for your argument (statistically speaking) there are more atheists doing more damage in Australia than religious people.

Very exhausting to get straw manned by you so many times.

The last one kind of made me chuckle.

[OlekKing]

I agree, but only up to the point of where the church is raking in a ton of money that pretty much makes them a for-profit organization. The church I currently go to is in a state of financial struggle and taxes would make it so much worse.

We did at one point have more than enough money to get by, allowing us to feed those who were hungry, donate school supplies, etc. We still do those things, but not in the tier we used to and it's only possible because of our financial team (only one person gets paid) and our preacher took a pay cut.

Not every church is trying to be a multi-billion dollar industry selling snake oil. We don't go on the streets with picket signs shoving people's "wrong-doings" down their throat. We're actually trying to help the community while practically everyone else is out for themselves.

 

I'm not sure what you're implying here. Because someone says they believe in a higher power, they shouldn't be able to vote on anything? What about the assholes in academia (which you are starting to sound like from the rest of your posts) who are taking to this idea that religion is poisonous and we're somehow a bane of society? I would like someone to point out something my church has done wrong to harm someone else. We don't impose anything on anyone except charity: free food, school supplies, clothes and so on. I'm so fucking sick of these arguments against religion when there are non-religious people who would rather spend money on needless things like the new iPad 3 when they already have the iPad 2, yet there's some kid down the street who is going hungry and has worn out shoes. That's the real fucking sick thing to do. This world is so caught up on "every man for themselves" and it's pathetic.

 

Faith schools are schools for people who want to further their education in theology. Not many churches have a properly educated pastor who knows what they're talking about - they just regurgitate what their dad (who also happened to be a pastor) told them, and possibly what the older people in the congregation whisper in their ear to talk about. Should someone take a course at a school of theology, they will learn the ins-and-outs of the bible, but that depends on the school and teachers as well.

TV evangelists who are for-profit and selling snake oil should be taken off air, I agree.

Religion is already being "eradicated" with "good education via popularization of science of critical thinking". If you walk into a high school in the south here (yes, even here in the bible belt) and you ask every kid what their 'religious beliefs' are, nine out of ten kids will claim to be Atheist/not religious. The main reason for this in my area is because there are a few churches here who aren't properly equipped (I'm putting this nicely) to engage in the community. Instead of preaching a message of hope and peace and standing firm on it, they sell snake oil. There are churches here who have pretty much been given a label of "hypocrite church" (I don't truly understand this because every person on this earth is a hypocrite in some way or another).

I'm also going to bite on your bait here about critical thinking. You're implying here that people of religion aren't critical thinkers? I'm a human being. I question everything, even my beliefs. I've done so for ten years and at one point I wanted to stop believing because of all of the shit I get indirectly thrown at me when my beliefs happen to come up in a conversation that I didn't start. I'm sick of being demonized for thinking differently. I don't harm anyone. I don't preach "god hates fags" with picket signs at a military funeral. I'm a normal person who is a Christian and is trying to figure things out, that's it.

 

It only becomes a problem when the parents aren't being parents. What I mean is when parents are so religious that they are more worried about what their kids believe rather than loving them for who they are, that's when it becomes a problem. Religion is not something bad by itself, it's the people who take it to great lengths of evil that make it bad. There was a video posted here a month or so ago of someone who was trying to tell their religious mom and aunt that they were gay. The mom and aunt weren't having any of it. The mom was kicking the person out of the house, the aunt supposedly told the guy that she would back him up, but didn't when it came down to it. That's the kind of shit I don't condone, yet I'm a bad, unintelligent person for believing in religion, right?

 

The world would be a better place if everyone stopped pointing fingers.

 

What in the flying fuck does this have to do with anything?

Wasn't talking to you, didn't ask for your regurgitation either. I've spoken to hundreds if not thousands of religious people, including apologists (well most of the are in one way or another), you offer nothing new, no thank you, tired of hearing the same shit all over again.

Also have fun straw manning someone else. That sentence i put in bold, was simply pathetic.

[Guest Kloaked]

Wasn't talking to you, didn't ask for your regurgitation either. I've spoken to hundreds if not thousands of religious people, including apologists (well most of the are in one way or another), you offer nothing new, no thank you, tired of hearing the same shit all over again.

Also have fun straw manning someone else. That sentence i put in bold, was simply pathetic.

 

The only pathetic person here is you. You are demonizing those you think differently because they don't fit your mold of what you think intelligence is.

 

I've had a rebuttal to everything you said in that post and that's all you've got to say? looool

[OlekKing]

The only pathetic person here is you. You are demonizing those you think differently because they don't fit your mold of what you think intelligence is.

 

I've had a rebuttal to everything you said in that post and that's all you've got to say? looool

And you continue straw manning me, fucking ridiculous.

"I've had a rebuttal to everything you said" You sure did...

And the cycle keeps on going.

 

Honestly, do not waste your time wasting mine.

[Guest Kloaked]

And you continue straw manning me, fucking ridiculous.

"I've had a rebuttal to everything you said" You sure did...

And the cycle keeps on going.

 

I sort-of guessed you were the kind of person who hides behind that type of argument.

 

Do you talk to people like this in person? You sound like a nice person to talk to

[OlekKing]

I sort-of guessed you were the kind of person who hides behind that type of argument.

 

Do you talk to people like this in person? You sound like a nice person to talk to

You mean pointing out the fallacy you keep on making therefore completely twisting what i actually said, then telling me you rebutted all of it...this is why i never waste my time arguing with religious types, at least @mr moose offers something new from time to time, some different perspective.

You're another average/sub-average apologist who thinks he's got it all figured out. At least find some better trick and try to back me into a corner with your bullshit.

[Guest Kloaked]

You mean pointing out the fallacy you keep on making therefore completely twisting what i actually said, then telling me you rebutted all of it...this is why i never waste my time arguing with religious types, at least @mr moose offers something new from time to time, some different perspective.

You're another average/sub-average apologist who thinks he's got it all figured out. At least find some better trick and try to back me into a corner with your bullshit.

 

Clearly you've read nothing I've said.

[mr moose]

Very exhausting to get straw manned by you so many times.

The last one kind of made me chuckle.

 

I don't think you understand the straw man proposal,  you can't use it to dismiss an argument, just like you can't call someone an apologist to dismiss an argument.  Either face the facts or stop posting hate speech that has nothing to support it.

 

I have linked to several articles now supporting what I believe to be the closest thing we have to an understanding of the effects of religion, so far all you have done is call them dumb and dangerous.  Please get an education on the topic and stop being a bigot, you are making atheists look bad.

 

And finally yes, those are statistics in Australia,  1% of the population are active Christians going to church every Sunday, if you were to assume there were same again that don't go to church but are just as active you get 2% of the population,  if you doubled that to account for other religions you have 4%, let's push that all the way up to 10% and assume they are die hard religious people,  24% of our population oppose gay marriage, 74% oppose immigration, and 2/3rds of all charity and education is run by that meager 10% of religious institutions.  So as you can see there is absolutely no evidence to suggest religions are holding the country back, in fact they are over represented in all charitable and educational statistics and grossly under represented in  discriminatory policy.

 

That is not a straw man argument that is just a fact of reality. So again, if you want to insult people you should have a look at the facts before you make yourself look like a complete fool.

[OlekKing]

Clearly you've read nothing I've said.

"You're implying here that people of religion aren't critical thinkers?"

Straw man.

"That's the kind of shit I don't condone, yet I'm a bad, unintelligent person for believing in religion, right?"

Again.

"Because someone says they believe in a higher power, they shouldn't be able to vote on anything?"

Round 3.

"there are non-religious people who would rather spend money on needless things like the new iPad 3 when they already have the iPad 2, yet there's some kid down the street who is going hungry and has worn out shoes"

Round 4 + appeal to emotion.

"there are a few churches here who aren't properly equipped (I'm putting this nicely) to engage in the community. Instead of preaching a message of hope and peace"

I see, so the Churches aren't good enough at seducing youth (according to you) into believing their bullshit. Kind of shot yourself in the foot there. Also what snake oil? Are they not preaching what you want them to? So No True Scotsman fallacy as well? You're the one who can dictate what the good word is and who the good Christians and Churches are?

" I question everything, even my beliefs. I've done so for ten years and at one point I wanted to stop believing because of all of the shit I get indirectly thrown at me"

Oh you sure do. Yet again you show yourself to be a moron, you "wanted to stop believing", people don't just wake up one day and decide to stop believing, they come to a conclusion after evaluating the situation, after looking at the evidence. And you "wanted to stop" believing for the worst reason ever: emotion. That's like those people who say they became atheists because they were "angry at God", fucking worthless. I find it hilarious that you think you're questioning your belief, no you aren't buddy. 10 years according to you? You haven't been doing anything by the looks of it.

"I'm sick of being demonized for thinking differently"

Oh look at you, the poor little demonized, persecuted Christian living the South of the United States of America, i almost shed a tear. And you're not thinking differently, you're thinking like the other 80%+ of the USA, if you were thinking, you wouldn't be accepting religious claims via faith, being a vague Deist is one thing, but subscribing to a specific dogma is just beyond absurd. And of course, you fail to see it. Your comments show the exact contrary of what you claim.

 

And i saw your status update, pathetic: "I'm gonna start an argument, but back out of it when I get a legitimate argument brought toward me."

That's why people like you are a fucking waste of time, deluded, arrogant prick.

 

Constantly playing victim, constantly misrepresenting me, constantly convinced that he's somehow rebutted my points with bullshit, after straw manning me as well.

[OlekKing]

I don't think you understand the straw man proposal,  you can't use it to dismiss an argument, just like you can't call someone an apologist to dismiss an argument.  Either face the facts or stop posting hate speech that has nothing to support it.

 

I have linked to several articles now supporting what I believe to be the closest thing we have to an understanding of the effects of religion, so far all you have done is call them dumb and dangerous.  Please get an education on the topic and stop being a bigot, you are making atheists look bad.

 

And finally yes, those are statistics in Australia,  1% of the population are active Christians going to church every Sunday, if you were to assume there were same again that don't go to church but are just as active you get 2% of the population,  if you doubled that to account for other religions you have 4%, let's push that all the way up to 10% and assume they are die hard religious people,  24% of our population oppose gay marriage, 74% oppose immigration, and 2/3rds of all charity and education is run by that meager 10% of religious institutions.  So as you can see there is absolutely no evidence to suggest religions are holding the country back, in fact they are over represented in all charitable and educational statistics and grossly under represented in  discriminatory policy.

 

That is not a straw man argument that is just a fact of reality. So again, if you want to insult people you should have a look at the facts before you make yourself look like a complete fool.

I've pointed out all of the times when you've twisted my words or put other words in their place.

I said you looked like an apologist, i didn't say i was going to dismiss you with that opinion.

When i said i laughed at the last part was because it was completely irrelevant to the discussion.

"in an optional question on the 2011 Census, 61.1% of the Australian population declaring some variety of Christianity. Historically the percentage has been far higher and the religious landscape of Australia is changing and diversifying.^[1] Also in 2011, 22.3% of Australians stated "no religion", and a further 9.4% chose not to answer the question."

And this is what you consider hate speech? I'm a bigot now?

Most of the links you've provided me haven't been useful: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1449332?uid=3737760&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21104714849831

There have been plenty of those, it's no mystery that a comforting lie can make you feel better like a placebo effect. So that's suddenly a reason to be fine with it? Why don't we all start living in fantasies instead since it will be comforting and have some health benefits, eh?

[Guest Kloaked]

And i saw your status update, pathetic: "I'm gonna start an argument, but back out of it when I get a legitimate argument brought toward me."

That's why people like you are a fucking waste of time, deluded, arrogant prick.

Take a look in the mirror.

 

Constantly playing victim, constantly misrepresenting me, constantly convinced that he's somehow rebutted my points with bullshit, after straw manning me as well.

I've come in contact through the internet with a few kinds of people. Rational people, ignorant people (not using that as an insult, but for it's actual meaning) and then people who hide behind statements like yours, then judge me with statements that have no rock to stand on.

You can call me what you want, I really don't give a shit. You're just a person on the internet to me. It's really hard to be respectful to people like you, so I tried my best even though you're sly in your statements with the implied insults. Then here in this last post, you just outright call me names that could be labeled on yourself.

[OlekKing]

Take a look in the mirror.

 

I've come in contact through the internet with a few kinds of people. Rational people, ignorant people (not using that as an insult, but for it's actual meaning) and then people who hide behind statements like yours, then judge me with statements that have no rock to stand on.

You can call me what you want, I really don't give a shit. You're just a person on the internet to me. It's really hard to be respectful to people like you, so I tried my best even though you're sly in your statements with the implied insults. Then here in this last post, you just outright call me names that could be labeled on yourself.

Yep i called you names, which doesn't invalidate everything else i've written. There comes a point whenever dealing with people like you, the bubble pops. And i won't sit here and pretend that "i'm better" than that, like you are.

I pointed out all of your inconsistencies and fallacies and you basically sign off by saying you don't really give a shit?

The only fucking thing you replied to was the bottom part of that long post? If this is really how you fucking handle discussions, then stop wasting my time, and yours as well. If anyone's fucking tried here, it was me, But it's fine, i'm going to pull the fucking victim card like you do, poop little oppressed, demonized Christian living in the Bible belt of a country where 80% or more are part of the same dogma. How incredibly ignorant and disrespectful of you to your own fellow Americans who have to deal with idiotic Christians imposing themselves all over the place, you most certainly don't. Don't you ever fucking pull the victim card buddy.

[mr moose]

I've pointed out all of the times when you've twisted my words or put other words in their place.

I said you looked like an apologist, i didn't say i was going to dismiss you with that opinion.

When i said i laughed at the last part was because it was completely irrelevant to the discussion.

"in an optional question on the 2011 Census, 61.1% of the Australian population declaring some variety of Christianity. Historically the percentage has been far higher and the religious landscape of Australia is changing and diversifying.^[1] Also in 2011, 22.3% of Australians stated "no religion", and a further 9.4% chose not to answer the question."

And this is what you consider hate speech? I'm a bigot now?

Most of the links you've provided me haven't been useful: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1449332?uid=3737760&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21104714849831

There have been plenty of those, it's no mystery that a comforting lie can make you feel better like a placebo effect. So that's suddenly a reason to be fine with it? Why don't we all start living in fantasies instead since it will be comforting and have some health benefits, eh?

 

Just the response I was expecting,  You are not intelligent enough to understand why the census data is not accurate. Suffice to say actually specific surveys of churches put the average rate church goers as 19%, but this is extrapolated from people who attend 12 times a year.   If you look at the actual figures It's significantly less. 

 

Again you miss the point, I stated the cause is unknown

 

I said in reference to the link I posted:

 

.  In this study they are trying to find out why some people in some cultures actually benefit from a religious practice.   Now this doesn't necessarily prove anything except that we don't know enough about the human psyche to be able to definitively label religion as bad or unintelligent.

 

Your problem is you seem so wound up in hatred you can't think rationally about what is in front of you.  I never indicated that religion is the cause, I actually said it didn't prove anything except to show we know very little about the effects it has.  Trying to eradicate something you don't understand is ignorant and to my way of thinking very unscientific.

 

 

And i saw your status update, pathetic: "I'm gonna start an argument, but back out of it when I get a legitimate argument brought toward me."

That's why people like you are a fucking waste of time, deluded, arrogant prick.

 

 

 

Insults are the last defense of a failed argument.

[airdeano]

and since there nothing more to add, except hurling deforming comments at each other, closing this thread.