@CannotEscapeReality When a person finds he is starting to insult his opponent, that's generally a good sign that he doesn't have the facts to back up his argument...
Of course, there's not a law that has God at the end of it, because God by definition is outside of science. However, all of the circumstantial evidence shows that there MUST be a Creator/Designer of the universe. All of the ranting and biases of the atheistic scientists in the world is not going to change that.
@CannotEscapeReality What would you say of someone who rejects several scientific laws, simply to continue in a worldview? Would you not consider that insane? You should, but then you'd be insane. Atheists have no choice but to reject many established laws of science in order to reject God. That's not science, that's secular philosophy or faith.
And the Bible, by definition, is the Word of God, not the word of shepherds. Unlike the word of atheistic scientists, who are biased in their thinking.
@CannotEscapeReality That's not much of an argument to say that I'm quoting an old Book, and therefore I can't be right. Maybe the Bible IS true. We can examine it in light of what it says, and not just based on our own presuppositions.
And the old lie that it was written by sheepherders, and therefore untrustworthy, is silly. Studies have shown that people of old were JUST as intelligent as people living today. True, they had less knowledge about stuff.
@CannotEscapeReality MAN, IF MET YOU IN THE STREET I'D SWIPE YOU TIL DEATH. YOU'RE NOT A KIND OF PERSON WE SHOULD TALK POLITELY. YOU LOVE MAKING TURMOILS, OFFENCES AND CAUSE ALL KIND OF TROUBLE. I'M REALLY SORRY FOR YOU PARENTS DUDE FOR HAVE GIVEN BIRTH TO SUCH A DISGUSTING CREATURE LIKE YOU. GROW UP FUCKING BASTARD AND BECOME A REAL MAN! I HOPE GUYS LIKE YOU BE WIPED OUT FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AND LEAVE US SOME PEACE. I'M NOT CHRISTIAN OR A MEMBER OF ANY RELIGION.
@CannotEscapeReality MAN, IF MET YOU IN THE STREET I'D SWIPE YOU TIL DEATH. YOU'RE NOT A KIND OF PERSON WE SHOULD TALK POLITELY. YOU LOVE MAKING TURMOILS, OFFENCES AND CAUSE ALL KIND OF TROUBLE. I'M REALLY SORRY FOR YOU PARENTS DUDE FOR HAVE GIVEN BIRTH TO SUCH A DISGUSTING CREATURE LIKE YOU. GROW UP FUCKING BASTARD AND BECOME A REAL MAN! I HOPE GUYS LIKE YOU BE WIPED OUT FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AND LEAVE US SOME PEACE. I'M NOT CHRISTIAN OR A MEMBER OF ANY RELIGION.
@CannotEscapeReality Design in of itself doesn't necessarily point to the Christian God, but it does point to a supernatural God, god or gods of some type.
However, when you look at the witness of the Bible objectively, you see that it does have evidence(s) of divine origin. Of course, if you start with the assumption that there is no God, then you immediately ignore the Bible and regard it as mythical. And if the Bible is of divine origin, this points to the Christian God as the Creator.
@CannotEscapeReality DNA is quite clearly designed. How can I know this? Because it has been termed analagous to our computer systems---except vastly superior.
Can an atheist in all honesty believe that something more complex than modern supercomputers could have been the result of a colossal accident? Really? No, nobody truly buys that, but theism is unacceptable.
@CannotEscapeReality No, I'm not the authority who says that God isn't designed. But the Bible says so, and it is the Authority. Not only that, but there is an inherent intuition in mankind that there must be a Beginner, that there must be a First Cause. To believe that it's simply an infinite chain of events is not only impossible, but also contrary to everything we understand in science.
@CannotEscapeReality There is no designer of the Designer, because then God would not be God. God just is---He is the eternally existing Being (Psalm 90:2). Of course, this is a concept we humans cannot possibly understand.
But if you want to believe the alternative, that matter is eternal (contrary to science), or that matter came from nothing (contrary to logic and science), then so be it. But it's much more reasonable to believe in a supernatural Creator Who is outside of space and time.
@CannotEscapeReality And no, not believing in Odin, or Zeus, or Thor, etc., doesn't make me 99.99999% atheist. Nor does it make me atheist in a society that believes in such gods.
The definition of atheist (I'm sure you can look it up) is someone who Doesn't Believe In ANY GOD or god or gods.
If I believe in the Christian God, I am not an atheist in a society which believes in Thor.
Christianity cannot be mythology if so much of the Bible has been confirmed. Deal with it.
@CannotEscapeReality Hmmm, sounds like the atheist, who starts with the a priori assumption that nature is all there is. He then only reads that information which confirms his bias.
Of course, anyone who is objective knows that a universe as complex as the one we inhabit, with lifeforms exceedingly complex, with basic cells more complicated than the space shuttle, would come to the conclusion that there must be a Designer.
@CannotEscapeReality I have read the Bible, and other books. Not sure what you're in dispute of. Perhaps my definition of 'atheism?'
An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in any god, or God, so a Christian, by definition, is not an atheist. Not sure why this is difficult to understand.
(By the way, insulting people proves nothing and is just a cheap way of trying to win an argument when you don't have any facts to back up your case.)
@CannotEscapeReality BECAUSE OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU, WE HAVE POVERTY, DEATH, PAIN AND SUFFRING IN THE WORLD. YOU KNOW JUST ONE SIDE OF THE COIN MAN!!!! ANYTHING THAT COMES FROM YOUR MIND HAS ONLY ONE POINT OF VIEW. YOUR MIND IS AS HARD AS A PIECE OF STONE, AT LEAST STONES WE CAN TRANSFORM THEM. YOUR MIND IS CLOSED WITH MANY DIFFERENT KEYS AND NONE OF WHAT YOU CALL REAL KNOWLEDGE HELPS YOU TO UNDERSTAND THE UNIVERSE. YOU HAVE A LONG JOURNEY TO GO THROUGH YET MAN.
@CannotEscapeReality BECAUSE OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU, WE HAVE POVERTY, DEATH, PAIN AND SUFFRING IN THE WORLD. YOU KNOW JUST ONE SIDE OF THE COIN MAN!!!! ANYTHING THAT COMES FROM YOUR MIND HAS ONLY ONE POINT OF VIEW. YOUR MIND IS AS HARD AS A PIECE OF STONE, AT LEAST STONES WE CAN TRANSFORM THEM. YOUR MIND IS CLOSED WITH MANY DIFFERENT KEYS AND NONE OF WHAT YOU CALL REAL KNOWLEDGE HELPS YOU TO UNDERSTAND THE UNIVERSE. YOU HAVE A LONG JOURNEY TO GO THROUGH YET MAN.
It's amazing, really, that this atheist uses the same lie that (Christians) are all 99.99999% atheists.
That's not the definition of atheist. The definition of atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God. A person who is a Christian, therefore, is NOT an atheist. Ridiculous, really, that most atheists have brainwashed into this line of thinking.
Denial in the face of contrary evidence or blind faith without any evidence at all is by definition delusional…I don’t need to say more. If you understand how hypnosis works and the power of cults you will know that reasoning cannot work with these people…No need to use Greek philosophy either my friend. I am calling a spade a spade because that’s the way it is…simple.
@quarky1948 Religion is faith by definition as it is supernatural, however again would you really assert that faith/belief by its nature is delusional?
@CliffStamp Yes…religion is a cause actually. It divides and creates hatred…. religious dogma is the catalyst of many atrocities… this is an undeniable fact. Perhaps not all followers are extremists but that is not my point. Moderates may exist only because they interpret the violence espoused in their faith with less vigour and some adherents are more intelligent than the radicals, having undergone less effective indoctrination.
@quarky1948 You are just making an assertion, what proof do you have that religion is casual. To simplify, as a more general question, how can you in general prove a causal relationship?
Ok, so your assertion now is that the violent religious types are the ones that are less intelligent? Thus all the mentally handicapped Christians are therefore violent.
@CliffStamp Working on the same silly basis I can’t prove that I actually exist! You are apparently unable to grasp the obvious relationships that require no further proof. Perhaps churches are not caused by religion, bibles are not caused by religion, religion is not caused by religion….sheesh! My assertions are based on statistics, human psychology, observations and a whole range of tangible facts.
@quarky1948 That is true, that you (or I) exist in an objective reality can not be proved, it is just asserted. There is quite a large body of knowledge on that exact subject and that fundamental question was one of, if not, the founding question which gave rise to science, it really is a non-trivial idea.
@CliffStamp Nothing at all to do with being bad….it’s a state of mind induced by religious faith…a delusion by definition. There is nothing supernatural about it’s manifestation…what on earth are you talking about? Your analogy of skin colour is a straw man and ridiculous. Now I doubt that you are able to understand the reasoning in this discussion…not an insult but my honest opinion.
@quarky1948 What is the difference, you noted you had statistics and that that implied causation. I asked if I could produce similar statistics for race would you assert the same thing. We both are then using the same method. What is the difference?
@CliffStamp Your assumptions are nonsense and at no stage have I implied that race is involved, so your question is irrelevant. If I said statistics indicate that most muslims are of Arabic origin…fine. But this is a red herring… My original comments are accurate and remain unchanged by your strange pseudo intellectual questions.
@quarky1948 To clarify, I never noted you made such an assertion. What I did note is that using your same arguments and evidence I could make the same assertion, thus if your conclusion is valid then mine has to be as well.
I was not actually arguing my conclusion, I was illustrating that using your data and logic that an obvious false conclusion can be reached and thus attempting to illustrate there is a flaw in your deduction.
@CliffStamp Sorry mate…you are completely lost and out of your depth now. There is little point in trying to reason against such erroneous and shallow minded notions…a mixture of pseudo intellectual nonsense and denial. You need a much better understanding of logic to continue.
@quarky1948 Ok as the dialogue has ended, here is the reality. There is a fundamental fact of human nature called the attribute bias, that and the loss and decision bias strongly influence, almost to the point of controlling human nature. These mindsets create the filter by which we see the world, they are what make some people read the bible and see a gentle loving god, and they make other people see some kind if insane and chaotic tyrant.
@quarky1948 In short, there is no bad religion, there are just bad people, and if they were not quoting the bible they would be quoting some other book, or speaker or they would write some manifesto.
Can religion be used as a force for hate, sure, anything can, as human beings we have an almost limitless ability to make anything a cause for violence, just like internet rule 34, our imagination has little bounds.
@CliffStamp Statistics show that the more intelligent a person is, the less likely they are to be religious…why? Studies also show that lower morality exists among highly religious populations. If true are there any conclusions to be drawn from these facts.
@CliffStamp Firstly my confused and irrational friend…your obsession with peer review and scientific papers is just a smoke screen. Secondly I have told you that the information from my assertion is so voluminous it can’t be placed in these small boxes. I advised that you can do your own research using Google…have you completed this yet?
@CliffStamp The god of religions really is delusional affecting mainly the poorly educated and people with a limited intellect? Also why is it that religions fail to attain higher morality among followers…it’s actually the reverse? Religions run on attribute bias and little else…blind faith penetrates common sense and corrupts. If there is no bad religion then there is no bad disease… Taking away a disease does not necessarily follow that people with find another way to get sick!!!
@quarky1948 Yes, attribute bias is a dominating effect in how people interpret Religion (it is one of the dominating effects in how we see everything). The loss bias is the principle way that extreme people recruit followers to religion and the decision bias keeps them in it. But again this is not just Religion, it is for every decision you make.
@CliffStamp Placing useful hyperlinks into these boxes will not work. Surely you don’t require this kind of proof for every scrap of knowledge anyway…Do you believe that the Earth is spherical without reading every scientific journal on the subject?...Yes because it’s so obvious when evidence is in the public domain.
@quarky1948 No, I did not believe the Earth was spherical simply because it was said a lot. In general I would follow the principle of scientific thought which was described very elegantly by Feynman (Physicist) in his presentation to teachers on what was science. It is public domain and covers this subject in detail with the passion, insight and brilliance what was Feynman.
@CliffStamp You are clearly not fit to utter the name of Richard Feynman as though you have any idea of his contributions to science... Everything that you have presented is a jumble of poor reasoning.
@quarky1948 The disease link is not really appropriate, we know for example the causation that disease creates sickness.
A more analogous question would be are simple sugars evil because obesity is one of (if not the leading) cause of death.
Why not be outraged at the people who make foods with highly refined sugars, hydrogenated fats (alcohol, cigarettes, etc.). these kill a LOT of people.
@quarky1948 The disease link is not really appropriate, we know the causation that disease creates sickness, there is no bias of perception there.
A more analogous question would be are simple sugars evil because obesity is one of (if not the leading) cause of death.
Why not be outraged at the people who make foods with highly refined sugars, hydrogenated fats (alcohol, cigarettes, etc.). these kill a LOT of people.
(much more than religious extremists and every single year)
@CliffStamp You are being silly when you ask if sugar is evil…an accurate analogy it is to say that too much sugar is bad and for some people a small amount can be very bad. Being pedantic I’m going to inform you that obesity is not the leading cause of death at all… It’s more likely to be organ failure caused by excessive eating and lack of exercise. Obesity is only the physical sign. Where are your peer reviews and scientific papers to support your statements?...doh!
@quarky1948 I can site peer reviewed papers which do link obesity as the health risk I noted, it is a conclusion based on peer reviewed literature. There is also peer reviewed literature on the specific dangers of types of sugars, high fructose corn syrup for example.
@quarky1948 You really are asserting there is no causation between obesity and risk of heart disease (among other things) and you need a peer reviewed citation in order for you to accept it?
If you want I can go one better, I have to meet with the director of Eastern Health in the next two weeks. If you PM me and you are in the area you can come with me, you could make the assertion to them, they likely have the journals in their office.
@CliffStamp No I don’t wish to meet with anyone suffering from delusions of grandeur. I was in the medical industry for fourteen years and have sufficient knowledge about the way it works. Your preposterous analogy of a bag of sugar and religion demonstrates that you have no idea how to tackle this debate…Why can’t you admit the erroneous way that you have ploughed into this with insufficient tools and experience to achieve anything?
@quarky1948 Stating something is not the same does not make it so, if you wish to contend a proof by contradiction you have to show where the argument (or presupposition) was not equivalent, you just don't state it as a fact.
In a proof by contradiction, the argument is usually deconstructed thus there is rarely a pure 1:1 link, this was the case here I was dealing with only one element (something is evil because it can be used for evil - that was the core of your original assertion).
@CliffStamp I have offered assertions that are supported by statistics and facts… You have not done anything to counter them. This is not a place suitable for your strange style of criticism, it is where we express opinions…you have not given any . It appears as though you have read some Wikipedia definitions of logic but without fully understanding them and are trying to apply some of the principles in the style of an intellectual…clearly you are not.
@quarky1948 Yes, but not peer reviewed, I would admit you can find books that say that, I noted that in the beginning. You can find books that Gravity is a push (repulsive force) as well. I simple asked was this statement supported by current research, you indicated it was not, further you have indicated that you have no interest in what Science has to say on the matter. That is fine as well, you have that right to choose to ignore the literature.
@CliffStamp Now gravity! Another silly red herring, you are clutching at straws again. Surely you can see that that by your own definition religion has links both direct and indirect to the violence and hatred that it generates?... And also note that the links between certain foods are linked both directly and indirectly to statistics?
@quarky1948 No, as stated earlier, I would assert Religion, as with all information is not inherently evil (or good), it just exists. Morality is within the person interpreting it not in the information itself.
@CliffStamp Assert what you want...show yourself to be a fool. Everyone with a clear mind can see the evil that stems from religion. You have no idea what morality really is nor where it comes from... it is not a matter of interpretation at all. If you can't see that the codes of religion act upon minds in a bad way you are blind. Religion must be removed to remove the negative delusions that are attributed to it... religion is a cause, evil is the effect.
@quarky1948 Yes, you can state this, no issue with that, is it just an assertion. You have admitted that you have not checked the scientific literature to explore your statement, and further you have no interest in doing so. You have thus by definition noted you are simply making a non-scientific belief statement, which ironically is the main criticism of religion (it is assertion without proof).
@CliffStamp Once again you are evading the issues… My statements are true and you have not managed to counter them. Relentless denial of the facts being submitted is a sign that you are trying to protect a delusion. Criticism of religion has disturbed your world view for some reason. If you can’t see a common sense argument then I pity you. I leave it to you to find the literature that exists.
@quarky1948 You have made a statement, you have offered no proof, your entire defense consists of the assertions that (a) it is obvious to everyone, and (b) it says so in some books. The exact same argument could be made about any religion, which is kind of ironic.
@CliffStamp I am not demanding any proof that my points are correct….you are. And I have told you from the start that the information and knowledge exists in the public domain. I am not willing or able to educate you using these little boxes so have suggested that you go and find it yourself. If you choose to ignore this advice and just rant on about peer review fine, then you are some kind of nut job. The validity of my opinions are unchanged. Your knowledge clearly is very limited…
@quarky1948 If you wanted to make a belief statement there is no need for proof however all scientific assertion by definition require proof. You could just make the assertion, claim it was science, refuse to cite even one paper and simply make vague comments about "the truth is out there", "seek and ye shall find", all the while complaining in the first place how religion is a really bad thing, while duplicating exactly methods of religious indoctrination.
@CliffStamp Where did you gather another false assumption that I have no interest in science? I think that you have both a poor understanding of logic and of the English language.
@CliffStamp Where did you gather another false assumption that I have no interest in science? I think that you have both a poor understanding of logic and of the English language.
@quarky1948 Where did you gather another false assumption that I have no interest in science? I think that you have both a poor understanding of logic and of the English language.
@quarky1948 Where did you gather another false assumption that I have no interest in science? I think that you have both a poor understanding of logic and of the English language.
@CliffStamp Where did you gather yet another false assumption that I have no interest in science? I think that you have not only a poor understanding of logic but of the English language too.
@quarky1948 When you noted you were ignoring peer review and making scientific assertions. Peer review is an extension of the basis tenant of science which is explanation through observation, when observations became complex and uncertain and the analysis became complex it became quickly obvious that observation could no longer be defined as what I observe but what does everyone observe (similar for analysis and deduction).
@CliffStamp Peer review, peer review, peer review, peer review!!...What shall I have for breakfast?...don't know until I have read the peer review on Shredded Wheat... How can I get out of bed without a peer review...? Ridiculous!! Your place within the universe is as cloudy as your mind. Find some probabilty to get close to reality...it's all we have. Don't try to deconstruct things that you clearly do not understand...
@quarky1948 Where did you gather another false assumption that I have no interest in science? I think that you have both a poor understanding of logic and of the English language.
@quarky1948 No, problem, I just want to clarify, you are asserting that there is no link between obesity and heart disease and you want a peer reviewed article. It is not an issue, I just wan to be very clear what it is you are stating does not exist so I can give the correct reference.
@CliffStamp This is why you draw ridicule, because you are a fool or worse….. I did not say that there is no link between obesity and heart disease…. By using your own twisted logic I teased that your statement about obesity CAUSING death is false. Of course there are links but it is just another of your meandering red herrings, both flawed in construction and pointless in context.
@CliffStamp A peer review is not required because such knowledge is not new theory…I am free to use the word cause if I choose My points from the very start have been based upon these principles. The word evil is just the same as bad in the context of my attack on religion… even if religion has some good in it the results are both good and bad, mostly bad…in essence it is evil.
@quarky1948 Peer review is not just about advancing science, it is about interpreting what is known and what can be inferred.
Statistics is really critical to this aspect because it is so easy to manipulate information to appear to support a conclusion. For example the first IQ tests used showed consistently higher scores for men vs women. The statistics were very clear and they also showed poor rural children had lower IQ's proving a class-IQ correlation.
@CliffStamp I don't need fools like you to explain the purpose of peer review, nor that statistics can prove anything, even the truth... The points that I have made stand firm ad nauseam. God is a delusion....prove otherwise!
@quarky1948 I don't have to disprove your assertion, what you have done is commit one of the oldest logical fallacies. You have just stated prove I am wrong or otherwise admit I am right. That reasoning is ironically the cornerstone of the popular extreme Creationists such as Hovind, Comfort, etc. .
@CliffStamp You are the one who has embarked on an impossible trip of demanding proof…now you don’t like it when you are asked to produce something to counter my assertions. The points I have been making require no proof or peer review because they are self evident, although they are also backed up by science and reasoning. Go figure... This is like trying to convince the banana man that his religion is flawed...a mental block gets in the way.
@quarky1948 It is a logical fallacy to demand proof for an assertion or otherwise conclude it is proven. All those really extreme theists, they also will assert their truth is self-evident as well, and yes they will claim science and logic. It is easy to claim anything. It only requires effort when you wish to move beyond a claim and try to turn a hypothesis into accepted knowledge, that is where peer review comes in among other things.
@CliffStamp You are making the same silly mistake again and again… Assertions that are based on modern scientific literature are NOT the same as claims being made from works of ancient fiction such as the bible or quran. Another glaring gaff… you have no idea what a logical fallacy is because you use them continuously without knowing it.
@quarky1948 Your assertions are not made on current modern scientific literature, you have noted that specifically, none of it is peer reviewed, that is what the term scientific literature means.
@CliffStamp Wrong again bird brain, your ability to read is now in great doubt but this may explain a lot. Your refusal to look beyond these text boxes is disturbing too and probably a symptom of a personality disorder. Your dogmatic line of drivel is a sign that you are not even interested in learning. Text book information is probably beyond your grasp anyway. My assertions are in perfect compliance with known facts…and your pseudo intellectual rubbish can’t change that.
@CliffStamp A crazy trip of lame reasoning without reasoning. REVIEW your ridiculous assumptions and discover why you have openly declared yourself a fool. Unwilling to research the validity of points throughout. The pertinent facts and statistics remain intact within the realms of education so perhaps one day you will find them.
@CliffStamp There is little point in me offering any more support to my case if they are only met by junk philosophy or denial. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing… go back to school.
@CliffStamp It stands out by a mile that you have poor powers of reasoning and infantile communication skills. My comments right or wrong now matter very little… I am more concerned about your state of mind.
@quarky1948 The notion that religions do not induce a higher morality directly supports my assertion that it is the people who are the issue not the religion. If you are amoral, you will find the chapter and verse which justifies your decisions. If you are moral you will find the chapter and verse which justifies your decisions as well. We live in an objective world, but we are extremely subjective by nature.
@CliffStamp These foolish traps that you set spring back on you…..and again.. Tobacco, alcohol and addictive drugs can be very bad for people and I do get angry about it. I shouldn’t need to inform you that if the drugs are taken away and the pushers put out of business society will be better off. This analogy fits perfectly with religion. There is no bias involved...You have presented nothing but futile and meaningless arguments driven by a murky understanding of logic...
@quarky1948 Ok, that is where I was leading, so you believe that there should be no alcohol, no production of sugars, no production of refined fats, no food refinement at all (no white flour, etc.)?
What about just food in general, some people over eat, is serving over weight people any meals beyond 400-600 calories amoral?
And again, are these things (hydrogenated fats, HFCS, refined sugars, alcohol, etc.) evil simply because people use them to cause harm?
@CliffStamp I didn't say of that..!!!. it's the worst straw man argument I have ever seen. Irrelevant and silly. My original premise is safe from your crazed assumptions.
@quarky1948 That was the point, you were supposed to refute it.
Now, so you accept that these things if used improperly can cause huge suffering, they are even the leading cause of death, but they are not evil, it is just how they are used.
Now using the same logic how is religion evil because it can be either good or bad as well depending on how it is used?
If you are consistent you have to draw the same conclusions from the same argument.
@quarky1948 That is not a straw man fallacy. A straw man takes an argument (alters it) then disproves that and claims EoD.
What I did was take your argument, apply it to a different set of data, use the same logic and ask you to consider the obviously absurd conclusion.
That is called proof by contradiction.
(again it is not religion, it is the intent of fanatics that is evil, just like it is the intent of the people who abuse food or alcohol not the substance itself that is evil)
Religion's role is to align conscious order with biological impulse, to give an emotional root to the understanding our origins, to give meaning to the patterns of human experience, and to reinforce shared cultural values (morals etc) Religion is a constellation of cultural dreams. It has NOTHING to do with literal knowledge, nothing to do with logic or science or 'truth'. Anyone who uses the word 'god' without even a basic understanding of the language of metaphor, is just asking to be mocked.
Exodus 15:3-First of all, it doesn't declare him to be a warrior, he IS a warrior. The Jews were stating a fact. Secondly, there is no ethnic cleansing in this context, this is right after Israel escapes from the Egyptian army. Cooke is wrong on that point.
Psalm 97:9-To understand that, you have to study Genesis 14:19. Abraham is blessed by a pagan priest, but this pagan priest declares the LORD the Most High. Anyone who reads this will have to see that first and study commentary.
Craig is just a despicable little WORM crawling at the feet of his God, trying to fill his empty existence with a "relationship" with him. and when asked about the barbarism of the Old Testament God, the contemptible little nothing called w.craig states that his God is not bound by morality he imposes on his subjects - so the murderer (God) has the moral right to command us not to murder!
@virtualguitarist ..that's irrational thinking. Man made myths and fables continuue to infect the minds of millions...brainwashing our children into a myriad of conflicting faiths. They are caught in cults and escape is difficult, many are deluded for life....believing in this stuff is self hypnosis. I was a Christian once so understand how it works.
@quarky1948 What went wrong was while reading the bible, i realized the truth about how man has fallen for the deception of satan and how he became blind to the truth. Through repentance of my sins and acceptance of God's free gift of life, i have gained eternal life in heaven instead of eternal torture.
@virtualguitarist ....If you need to read a book to rationalise human nature in such a mythical way I pity you. Belief that your biblical god will send 99% oh his creation to a place you call hell to suffer forever is insane. Satan certainly has a grip on your mind my friend. Like the Muslim martyrs who murder the innocent in a crazy believe that they will end up in heaven with 70 virgins...dear oh dear...
@quarky1948 Religion is not about feeling it's about a pursuit of truth. I can see that you are not interested in the honest exchange of ideas about truth, you just want to piss on religion. Until someone is actually interested in religion, I cannot take them seriously. Plus we're on the internet.
@wigglesza ...I have exhausted my subtle debating skills with deluded fools. The words truth and religion do not belong in the same sentence. I probably know more about religion than you will ever know. Blind faith should be classified as a desease because it operates exactly like a visus... For the record I am an anti-theist and have discovered along with millions of thinking people that religion is the route of all evil. The entire planet is under threat from holy ignorance..this is truth.
@CliffStamp I'm not sure that there is a distinction to be made...as both conditions fail to question the complete absence of tangible evidence in the face of miraculous claims... closing not only ones eyes but the entire mind to more rational and reasonable ideas.
@quarky1948 I would agree as that is what belief is, acceptance without proof. However it is a pretty radical assertion that all beliefs are harmful which you seem to imply by calling them a disease. Is that really your assertion?
@CliffStamp nothing is more radical than an extreme belief in invisible gods...Such radical and opposing faiths are generating hatred on a worldwide scale with millions of followers facing terrible suffering as a direct result of such primitive dogma. It is also written into these faiths that we must kill each other in a final war that will, unless halted, lead to extinction of the human race. Read it yourself and listen to the preachers of this poison. It acts exactly like a desease...
@quarky1948 Are you stating a simple belief (theism leads to amoral behavior on a higher frequency and intensity of incidence than atheism) or making an assertion.
If it is the latter then there is scientific research on exactly that subject, can you cite the peer reviewed research which supports your assertion?
If not then you are making a belief statement that those which do not share your belief are a disease and I assume you follow they should be eradicated.
@CliffStamp No ...not my belief it's just fact, statistics show that crime, violence, intolerance and sexual abuse, is higher within populations of higher religiousity. Examples, the prison population of the US is at least 85% theist, secular countries have lower crime, violence, intolerance and sexual abuse. The book 'Society without God' by Phil Zuckerman puts together research from several studies. The way in which religion spreads can be acurately defined as viral...difficult to eradicate.
@quarky1948 I will concede you could find a book which supports your assertion, no doubt several. However books are not peer reviewed and thus not reliable sources. The science behind your assertion can be seen in behavoiral psychology. These studies will take into account the co-variance factors such as for example how many people in prison found god *after* being convicted -or- is the correlation being seen simply education related (or wealth, etc.) Note correlation never proves causation .
@CliffStamp The studies in that particular book are independently reviewed using appropriate methods. Facts are not changed by consolidating them. Your assersion that offenders may only turn to god in prisons is flawed. The statistics are taken from the time of conviction. There is also a correlation in many studies that directly connects atheism to higher education and intelligence...not necessarily wealth or demographics. Causation of this fact is obvious to rational people. Do the research.
@quarky1948 Again, I concede you can find support from your argument in a book, in fact you can find a book to support any argument. Why are you reluctant to look at the peer reviewed actual science?
Ok, so you admit that correlation does not imply (let alone prove) causation. You then however just right to a belief statement "it is obvious to rational people". How is this any different than stating it is obvious to rational people that there is a God?
@quarky1948 I did not assert that offenders only turn to god in prison, I noted it is a co-variance. If you wanted to eliminate it you would look at it before charging not after conviction. Peer review is necessary not just on raw data but also on interpretation. If you are really honestly interested, write an article using the sources in the book (co-author it) and submit it to a journal and watch what happens.
@CliffStamp I am stating that at least two major religions promote violence and killing... Islam in particular instructs killing of non muslims. If any religion can be misinterpreted in such a way by aherents then it must be both wrong and dangerous. Christian ideas of the 'rapture' and 'armagedon' provide an irrational hope to followers of a worldly conflict that scares the cr*p out of non believers. Religion can destroy the planet and probably will... I rest my case.
@quarky1948 You have not proven a generality. In the same logic, John is White, John is a racist, John promotes racism to his children, his children thus have a tendency towards severe discrimination - thus all White people should not have kids. I rest my case.
Are you familiar with the term attribute bias, it is one of the fundamental biases which in behavioral psychology is known to have a very strong influence on how people interpret information and further is a source of behavior.
@CliffStamp My “generality” and “logic” of “John” is correct….in the same way as cancer cannot be good just because some tumours are benign. It is you that is using attributed bias my friend… it’s a pity that you do not understand your own psychology better. Your case is based on some missing dots in a big picture…join them up and all becomes clear. I'll send you a PM to conclude my points...these boxes are too small.
@quarky1948 That would be more formal logic than psychology, in elemental form you are asserting because a is a set of A, and a has property /c, that all elements in A have property /c. Using the rules of logic where this assertion is true, then yes your conclusion would follow, but can you really not see the problem there? Can you not really think of a serial killer (rapist, etc.) who was atheist, thus can I now assert all atheists should be put to death (or life imprisonment if you prefer).
A flawed argument about arguments that has nothing to do with my case...god is a delusion. There are some unknowns in the universe...perhaps some things that we can never know. On these areas I will say I don't know (yet) but you don't know either...get used to it. A personal god is imaginary, an invention...religion passes on the myth to vulnerable people exactly like a virus.
@quarky1948 I am not using attribute bias, I am influenced by it of course as well as the other fundamental biases (loss, decision, etc.), I am aware of them and thus take steps to reduce their influence but they can never be removed. Anyone who claims to be completely objective is either insane, does not know what objective really means, or is a divine incarnation of the infinite. I do not believe I am any of those, however some friends would argue the first may be a possibility.
@CliffStamp You have produced a circular argument, introducing red herrings and failing to address my points with counter evidence. You have nothing tangible to offer, falling back onto supernatural divinity that cannot be tested as the last defence of all theists. You refer to my honest and more lengthy approach to this via PM as ad hominid, ignoring it rather than taking on it’s accuracy. I have noted the hypocrisy in your reply and suggest you find another atheist to learn about reasoning.
@quarky1948 I am not actually a theist so I would never assert the existence of a god. I was simply noting there is no peer reviewed literature which supports your extreme position and thus it is a belief, which is ironic as that is the same behavior you criticize another group for. Your logical reasoning has invalid inferences as well you are extending the behavior of an element of a set to the set itself. These are why there no peer reviewed assertions as you have made.
@CliffStamp Fine but this is now growing a new head! Given that the statistics regarding intelligence and religiosity, religion in prison populations etc. are verifiable using any search engine, I don’t need to present further evidence. I now need to justify my extreme behaviour? Well let’s be clear about the serious impact of religions on the planet. I simply reserve my right to turn on them with vigorous criticism. Why? because god really is a delusion! Valid evidence is available..just look.
@quarky1948 To actually advance knowledge, you make an assertion, give independent research and/or peer reviewed data, submit to peer review+refutation, and then finally/hopefully acceptance.
You are jumping from A to Z, (assertion -> acceptance) which ironically is exactly what extreme theists do. Science in the inbetween part, if you do not do it then you are in the realm of the theists.
If you want to get out, you have to do the same work everyone else and become peer reviewed.
@CliffStamp No!....that method does not work with brainwashed people. The power of cults is well known. Anyway.....Sorry but I totally disagree with your approach… I have never gone through such a process to accept anything, gravity, the speed of sound, the size of a planet, the population of my village…Statistics and other information that is compiled by credible organisations are unbiased fragments of evidence on which we can form accurate opinions.
@quarky1948 You mean peer review on cultists? No, likely not, brain washing removes choice and critical thought, to remove its effects takes a radical intervention. Peer review works only for people who actively seek an objective truth, it is essentially just a group socratic dialogue. You really can't make someone want to be objective either, though usually they avoid it because of fear, and if you remove the fear they will engage.
@CliffStamp Denial in the face of contrary evidence or blind faith without any evidence at all is by definition delusional…I don’t need to say more. If you understand how hypnosis works and the power of cults you will know that reasoning cannot work with these people…No need to use Greek philosophy either my friend. I am calling a spade a spade because that’s the way it is…simple.
@quarky1948 By the way, if you are not familiar with the process, I will co-author the paper. I will even cover all the costs of publication. Because if you can actually make a supported argument that theism has such a radical causal effect on human behavior as you assert then that would contradict some pretty fundamental ideas about current models of behavior. I would certainly not turn down the chance to be part of that.
@CliffStamp The work required has been done by other people and it includes proper scrutiny. This cannot be said of mythical assumptions and religious faith. Knowledge that radical behaviour can be derived from religion requires no further research…we see it daily all over the world. It is irrational behaviour and usually includes a fundamentalism based on myths. It can’t be compared fairly with a rational response based on facts.
@quarky1948 Lots of people would argue that what you are calling a myths are actually facts, historical science is not trivial at all to sort out the truth of what happened because of the complexity of trying to sort out the past because you can not observe and experiment just sift through incomplete data. Historical scholars will argue that Jesus for example did rise from the Dead, it is a fairly radical claim to note these people are all insane (delusional).
@CliffStamp I have tried to inform you that religion works in a particular way because it does… These books are dangerous but above all it is the teaching to children from them that perpetuates the problem. I’m not going to waste time discussing the crucifixion, nor walking on water myths, alien abductions or belief that bigfoot exists. We don’t need to produce scientific papers to assert the stupidity of many faiths…only to note that the mind is susceptible to a range of delusions.
@quarky1948 This is a different question, religion could be true and still dangerous, or it could be a myth and harmless.
What you are asserting is religion is bad because there are a lot of bad people who are religious. What about ifI could show statistics which show there are more black people in prisons than white people? Would you draw a similar conclusion?
@CliffStamp The work required has been done by other people and it includes proper scrutiny. This cannot be said of mythical assumptions and religious faith. Knowledge that radical behaviour can be derived from religion requires no further research…we see it daily all over the world. It is irrational behaviour and usually includes a fundamentalism based on myths. It can’t be compared fairly with a rational response based on facts.
@CliffStamp There is no doubt that the mental condition required for blind faith in an unknowable entity is delusional, as is any comfort derived from such a belief. I am angry that religion is causing arguments such as this and unnecessary suffering in the world. Apathy is not the appropriate way to deal with it….nor is logical reasoning apparently!
@quarky1948 You do not have a doubt, true, however it is not an established scientific fact. Nor would the literature support religion causes suffering, do you really think for example you could take a perfectly rational person, give them the Bible, and then the next day they are burning witches, stoning people who work on the sabbath, beating their slaves, sacrificing their children, etc. .
@CliffStamp Statistics regarding intelligence and religiousity, plus the studies of prisoners are already in the public domain…there is nothing new to prove. The suffering of starving children being born to African families and the spread of aids thanks only to the dogma of a roman catholic church is one example how the bible has had an impact upon people. There are terrorist activities attributed directly to passages in the quran and the islamic jihad can only be due to one book!
@quarky1948 Of course, these are facts, people have killed in the name of religion, people have killed in the name of all kinds of things. But what you have asserted is that religion is the actual cause, it is creating in people this hatred.
If this is true, how do you explain all the RC and Muslims who are not violent at all?
@CliffStamp Sorry but I totally disagree with your approach… I have never gone through such a process to accept anything, gravity, the speed of sound, the size of a planet, the population of my village…Statistics and other information that is compiled by credible organisations are unbiased fragments of evidence on which we can form accurate opinions. (Excuse the double posting) this should be the first of three.
@quarky1948 It isn't my approach, I did not create the scientific method. I would not assert that you would need to research journals to find the speed of sound, or the population of your town, these are trivial facts. But you were not noting a fact, you were stating a theory which is the highest and most complex form of scientific assertion and I would assert that theories require peer review for acknowledgment, refinement, and eventually acceptance.
This is going miles off course….Your approach has been to place unreasonable expectations upon this discussion that would only apply if there was some new scientific theory involved. There is not… To expect a person to go through the scientific method when providing existing evidence is daft. The definition of delusion is already in the books and the belief in personal gods fits it precisely. Dawkins has covered it with incredible clarity in his book The God Delusion, there are many others.
I'm a theist but I think Bill Cooke is bringing a good point of view to the debate: What is God after all?
He brings the diference between asian point of view of god (that god is in all things), and the hebrew (where God is above and is distinct to the things he has created).
@Domzdream this is the problem with every atheist debater i've seen. always trying to ridicule the theist...is that even morally sound. i dont care much but this atheist hasnt proved a thing just like all of them. pathetic
No, I'm sorry. What's pathetic is when a person still believes in magic (because let's face it, it's the same thing as a miracle except labelled differently), or a person who thinks that all those animals (inlcuding T-Rexes as shown in that creation museum in USA) were living alongside humans and sheep etc on a boat. If you don't find this ridiculous then I rest my case.
Anyway, it's your duty as a christina to prove us atheists wrong. Come on...we're still waiting.
"it's your duty as a christina to prove us atheists wrong. Come on...we're still waiting"
And you're all still stupid as ever. First of all on the subject of dinosaurs, dinosaurs were rare. Just because they showed pictures of herds of them in your little picture books doesn't mean it's true. Secondly, i'd like to see you make life with nothing but a rock and water, since that's what you're suggesting happened.
what we saw, tasted and felt. The only reason the idea of a 'god' would become a notion or thought, was if people experienced Him (either literally or spiritually), and if He intervened with mankind or as Christianity states He was there from the beginning and had fellowship with man.
My argument is hypothetically speaking, if God doesn't exist, and evolution were true and we are just biologically evolved beings and what we perceive around us (physically) to be absolute truth (with complete disgregard to the supernatural and it's notion), this would have been the same millions of years ago when we were just neanderthals or lesser evolved beings. Therefore we would have no need to even consider a higher being or God as such, because we believed in only what was literal,
ok so why dont we look at every atheist whos done something bad to prove our point instead of theists who have done bad. Looking at all the bad religion has done to prove an atheist point is invalid.
Real christian? Everyone who claims such a boast always mean themselves. Is there a christian who has never said "real christian?" There are some, no doubt. These some are always more humble, humility! Such a thing a real christian should practice.
This dude deserves to get owned. His arguments are irrelevant nonsense. Nowhere does he give a single relevant proof to support his position. When he does try and state a fact, he either makes it up (he does this more than once) or simply asserts it as fact.
On top of that, his comical rant does nothing to help his position. when he starts quoting experts and stating facts it just gets humorous. Then he decides to judge god by his own invented morality. How can anyone take this guy seriously?
Cooke is right in stating that Christians are 99% atheist (like all monotheists). They are way too concentrated in what name to call god to effecively prove that any deity exists. If Christians could open their minds just a bit they would see that their arguments are trivial compared to the great mystery that is the coming to being of life, the universe and everything.
The godless Delusion. Like Stalin's purge and Tienanmen square Massacre and such.I wonder why Atheists in the world are fleeing communism and to a religious country like America?
The same reason my brother doesn't mind staying in Boston for a while ... whatever they want to do is fine with him ... just as long as they don't come to his "dry" county where there's a church on every corner and a polite smile to greet him at the local grocery store.
Don't confuse communism with an atheist philosophy, it's about man worship, mainly the dear leader. Yes it is atheistic to the degree of worshiping ancient gods but it demands you worship the leader which itself is the problem. And now, it seems atheism is taking a sharp turn from postmodernism, where it was suggested there is no truth, everything is relative, instead atheism has taken the side of science, in this way atheists think there is a truth and it should be pursed, not assumed.
Bill Cooke totally misunderstood Dietrich Bonhoeffers quote.
DiatonicSoul 3 weeks ago
@CannotEscapeReality When a person finds he is starting to insult his opponent, that's generally a good sign that he doesn't have the facts to back up his argument...
Of course, there's not a law that has God at the end of it, because God by definition is outside of science. However, all of the circumstantial evidence shows that there MUST be a Creator/Designer of the universe. All of the ranting and biases of the atheistic scientists in the world is not going to change that.
terminat1 4 months ago
@CannotEscapeReality What would you say of someone who rejects several scientific laws, simply to continue in a worldview? Would you not consider that insane? You should, but then you'd be insane. Atheists have no choice but to reject many established laws of science in order to reject God. That's not science, that's secular philosophy or faith.
And the Bible, by definition, is the Word of God, not the word of shepherds. Unlike the word of atheistic scientists, who are biased in their thinking.
terminat1 4 months ago
@CannotEscapeReality That's not much of an argument to say that I'm quoting an old Book, and therefore I can't be right. Maybe the Bible IS true. We can examine it in light of what it says, and not just based on our own presuppositions.
And the old lie that it was written by sheepherders, and therefore untrustworthy, is silly. Studies have shown that people of old were JUST as intelligent as people living today. True, they had less knowledge about stuff.
terminat1 4 months ago
@CannotEscapeReality MAN, IF MET YOU IN THE STREET I'D SWIPE YOU TIL DEATH. YOU'RE NOT A KIND OF PERSON WE SHOULD TALK POLITELY. YOU LOVE MAKING TURMOILS, OFFENCES AND CAUSE ALL KIND OF TROUBLE. I'M REALLY SORRY FOR YOU PARENTS DUDE FOR HAVE GIVEN BIRTH TO SUCH A DISGUSTING CREATURE LIKE YOU. GROW UP FUCKING BASTARD AND BECOME A REAL MAN! I HOPE GUYS LIKE YOU BE WIPED OUT FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AND LEAVE US SOME PEACE. I'M NOT CHRISTIAN OR A MEMBER OF ANY RELIGION.
rudyalpha 4 months ago
@CannotEscapeReality MAN, IF MET YOU IN THE STREET I'D SWIPE YOU TIL DEATH. YOU'RE NOT A KIND OF PERSON WE SHOULD TALK POLITELY. YOU LOVE MAKING TURMOILS, OFFENCES AND CAUSE ALL KIND OF TROUBLE. I'M REALLY SORRY FOR YOU PARENTS DUDE FOR HAVE GIVEN BIRTH TO SUCH A DISGUSTING CREATURE LIKE YOU. GROW UP FUCKING BASTARD AND BECOME A REAL MAN! I HOPE GUYS LIKE YOU BE WIPED OUT FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AND LEAVE US SOME PEACE. I'M NOT CHRISTIAN OR A MEMBER OF ANY RELIGION.
rudyalpha 4 months ago
Comment removed
rudyalpha 4 months ago
@CannotEscapeReality Design in of itself doesn't necessarily point to the Christian God, but it does point to a supernatural God, god or gods of some type.
However, when you look at the witness of the Bible objectively, you see that it does have evidence(s) of divine origin. Of course, if you start with the assumption that there is no God, then you immediately ignore the Bible and regard it as mythical. And if the Bible is of divine origin, this points to the Christian God as the Creator.
terminat1 4 months ago
@CannotEscapeReality DNA is quite clearly designed. How can I know this? Because it has been termed analagous to our computer systems---except vastly superior.
Can an atheist in all honesty believe that something more complex than modern supercomputers could have been the result of a colossal accident? Really? No, nobody truly buys that, but theism is unacceptable.
terminat1 4 months ago
@CannotEscapeReality No, I'm not the authority who says that God isn't designed. But the Bible says so, and it is the Authority. Not only that, but there is an inherent intuition in mankind that there must be a Beginner, that there must be a First Cause. To believe that it's simply an infinite chain of events is not only impossible, but also contrary to everything we understand in science.
terminat1 4 months ago
@CannotEscapeReality There is no designer of the Designer, because then God would not be God. God just is---He is the eternally existing Being (Psalm 90:2). Of course, this is a concept we humans cannot possibly understand.
But if you want to believe the alternative, that matter is eternal (contrary to science), or that matter came from nothing (contrary to logic and science), then so be it. But it's much more reasonable to believe in a supernatural Creator Who is outside of space and time.
terminat1 4 months ago
@CannotEscapeReality And no, not believing in Odin, or Zeus, or Thor, etc., doesn't make me 99.99999% atheist. Nor does it make me atheist in a society that believes in such gods.
The definition of atheist (I'm sure you can look it up) is someone who Doesn't Believe In ANY GOD or god or gods.
If I believe in the Christian God, I am not an atheist in a society which believes in Thor.
Christianity cannot be mythology if so much of the Bible has been confirmed. Deal with it.
terminat1 4 months ago
@CannotEscapeReality Hmmm, sounds like the atheist, who starts with the a priori assumption that nature is all there is. He then only reads that information which confirms his bias.
Of course, anyone who is objective knows that a universe as complex as the one we inhabit, with lifeforms exceedingly complex, with basic cells more complicated than the space shuttle, would come to the conclusion that there must be a Designer.
terminat1 4 months ago
@CannotEscapeReality I have read the Bible, and other books. Not sure what you're in dispute of. Perhaps my definition of 'atheism?'
An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in any god, or God, so a Christian, by definition, is not an atheist. Not sure why this is difficult to understand.
(By the way, insulting people proves nothing and is just a cheap way of trying to win an argument when you don't have any facts to back up your case.)
terminat1 4 months ago
@CannotEscapeReality BECAUSE OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU, WE HAVE POVERTY, DEATH, PAIN AND SUFFRING IN THE WORLD. YOU KNOW JUST ONE SIDE OF THE COIN MAN!!!! ANYTHING THAT COMES FROM YOUR MIND HAS ONLY ONE POINT OF VIEW. YOUR MIND IS AS HARD AS A PIECE OF STONE, AT LEAST STONES WE CAN TRANSFORM THEM. YOUR MIND IS CLOSED WITH MANY DIFFERENT KEYS AND NONE OF WHAT YOU CALL REAL KNOWLEDGE HELPS YOU TO UNDERSTAND THE UNIVERSE. YOU HAVE A LONG JOURNEY TO GO THROUGH YET MAN.
rudyalpha 4 months ago
@CannotEscapeReality BECAUSE OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU, WE HAVE POVERTY, DEATH, PAIN AND SUFFRING IN THE WORLD. YOU KNOW JUST ONE SIDE OF THE COIN MAN!!!! ANYTHING THAT COMES FROM YOUR MIND HAS ONLY ONE POINT OF VIEW. YOUR MIND IS AS HARD AS A PIECE OF STONE, AT LEAST STONES WE CAN TRANSFORM THEM. YOUR MIND IS CLOSED WITH MANY DIFFERENT KEYS AND NONE OF WHAT YOU CALL REAL KNOWLEDGE HELPS YOU TO UNDERSTAND THE UNIVERSE. YOU HAVE A LONG JOURNEY TO GO THROUGH YET MAN.
rudyalpha 4 months ago
REASONS TO QUESTION EVOLUTION THEORY:
1-SCIENCE CAN NOT EXPLAIN PROPERLY FROM WHERE AND WHEN THE HOMOSAPIENS CAME OR WHY WE HAVE MANY RACES ON PLANET.
2-THERE ARE NO UNBEATABLE EVIDENCES THAT PROVE THAT HOMOSAPIENS CAME FROM PRIMITIVE MONKIES.
3-THERE ARE UNEXPLAINED SUPERNATURAL PHENOMENONS, IN A NATURAL WORLD SUPERNATURAL THINGS COULD NOT EXIST.
rudyalpha 4 months ago
It's amazing, really, that this atheist uses the same lie that (Christians) are all 99.99999% atheists.
That's not the definition of atheist. The definition of atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God. A person who is a Christian, therefore, is NOT an atheist. Ridiculous, really, that most atheists have brainwashed into this line of thinking.
terminat1 9 months ago
Denial in the face of contrary evidence or blind faith without any evidence at all is by definition delusional…I don’t need to say more. If you understand how hypnosis works and the power of cults you will know that reasoning cannot work with these people…No need to use Greek philosophy either my friend. I am calling a spade a spade because that’s the way it is…simple.
quarky1948 1 year ago
@quarky1948 Religion is faith by definition as it is supernatural, however again would you really assert that faith/belief by its nature is delusional?
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp Yes…religion is a cause actually. It divides and creates hatred…. religious dogma is the catalyst of many atrocities… this is an undeniable fact. Perhaps not all followers are extremists but that is not my point. Moderates may exist only because they interpret the violence espoused in their faith with less vigour and some adherents are more intelligent than the radicals, having undergone less effective indoctrination.
quarky1948 1 year ago
@quarky1948 You are just making an assertion, what proof do you have that religion is casual. To simplify, as a more general question, how can you in general prove a causal relationship?
Ok, so your assertion now is that the violent religious types are the ones that are less intelligent? Thus all the mentally handicapped Christians are therefore violent.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp Working on the same silly basis I can’t prove that I actually exist! You are apparently unable to grasp the obvious relationships that require no further proof. Perhaps churches are not caused by religion, bibles are not caused by religion, religion is not caused by religion….sheesh! My assertions are based on statistics, human psychology, observations and a whole range of tangible facts.
quarky1948 1 year ago
@quarky1948 That is true, that you (or I) exist in an objective reality can not be proved, it is just asserted. There is quite a large body of knowledge on that exact subject and that fundamental question was one of, if not, the founding question which gave rise to science, it really is a non-trivial idea.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp Nothing at all to do with being bad….it’s a state of mind induced by religious faith…a delusion by definition. There is nothing supernatural about it’s manifestation…what on earth are you talking about? Your analogy of skin colour is a straw man and ridiculous. Now I doubt that you are able to understand the reasoning in this discussion…not an insult but my honest opinion.
quarky1948 1 year ago
@quarky1948 What is the difference, you noted you had statistics and that that implied causation. I asked if I could produce similar statistics for race would you assert the same thing. We both are then using the same method. What is the difference?
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp Your assumptions are nonsense and at no stage have I implied that race is involved, so your question is irrelevant. If I said statistics indicate that most muslims are of Arabic origin…fine. But this is a red herring… My original comments are accurate and remain unchanged by your strange pseudo intellectual questions.
quarky1948 1 year ago
@quarky1948 To clarify, I never noted you made such an assertion. What I did note is that using your same arguments and evidence I could make the same assertion, thus if your conclusion is valid then mine has to be as well.
I was not actually arguing my conclusion, I was illustrating that using your data and logic that an obvious false conclusion can be reached and thus attempting to illustrate there is a flaw in your deduction.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp Sorry mate…you are completely lost and out of your depth now. There is little point in trying to reason against such erroneous and shallow minded notions…a mixture of pseudo intellectual nonsense and denial. You need a much better understanding of logic to continue.
quarky1948 1 year ago
@quarky1948 Ok as the dialogue has ended, here is the reality. There is a fundamental fact of human nature called the attribute bias, that and the loss and decision bias strongly influence, almost to the point of controlling human nature. These mindsets create the filter by which we see the world, they are what make some people read the bible and see a gentle loving god, and they make other people see some kind if insane and chaotic tyrant.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@quarky1948 In short, there is no bad religion, there are just bad people, and if they were not quoting the bible they would be quoting some other book, or speaker or they would write some manifesto.
Can religion be used as a force for hate, sure, anything can, as human beings we have an almost limitless ability to make anything a cause for violence, just like internet rule 34, our imagination has little bounds.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp Statistics show that the more intelligent a person is, the less likely they are to be religious…why? Studies also show that lower morality exists among highly religious populations. If true are there any conclusions to be drawn from these facts.
quarky1948 1 year ago
@quarky1948 Again, is this from a peer reviewed scientific paper?
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp Firstly my confused and irrational friend…your obsession with peer review and scientific papers is just a smoke screen. Secondly I have told you that the information from my assertion is so voluminous it can’t be placed in these small boxes. I advised that you can do your own research using Google…have you completed this yet?
quarky1948 1 year ago
@quarky1948 It is irrational to demand that science proceed through peer review?
Yes, I study Behavioral Psychology, but again it is in the peer reviewed literature, not books, which I do read, but for entertainment.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp The god of religions really is delusional affecting mainly the poorly educated and people with a limited intellect? Also why is it that religions fail to attain higher morality among followers…it’s actually the reverse? Religions run on attribute bias and little else…blind faith penetrates common sense and corrupts. If there is no bad religion then there is no bad disease… Taking away a disease does not necessarily follow that people with find another way to get sick!!!
quarky1948 1 year ago
@quarky1948 Yes, attribute bias is a dominating effect in how people interpret Religion (it is one of the dominating effects in how we see everything). The loss bias is the principle way that extreme people recruit followers to religion and the decision bias keeps them in it. But again this is not just Religion, it is for every decision you make.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp Placing useful hyperlinks into these boxes will not work. Surely you don’t require this kind of proof for every scrap of knowledge anyway…Do you believe that the Earth is spherical without reading every scientific journal on the subject?...Yes because it’s so obvious when evidence is in the public domain.
quarky1948 1 year ago
@quarky1948 No, I did not believe the Earth was spherical simply because it was said a lot. In general I would follow the principle of scientific thought which was described very elegantly by Feynman (Physicist) in his presentation to teachers on what was science. It is public domain and covers this subject in detail with the passion, insight and brilliance what was Feynman.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp You are clearly not fit to utter the name of Richard Feynman as though you have any idea of his contributions to science... Everything that you have presented is a jumble of poor reasoning.
quarky1948 1 year ago
@quarky1948 Really, you want to invoke the name of science and shift the argument to me and not what I say, that is perfectly sensible to you?
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@quarky1948 The disease link is not really appropriate, we know for example the causation that disease creates sickness.
A more analogous question would be are simple sugars evil because obesity is one of (if not the leading) cause of death.
Why not be outraged at the people who make foods with highly refined sugars, hydrogenated fats (alcohol, cigarettes, etc.). these kill a LOT of people.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@quarky1948 The disease link is not really appropriate, we know the causation that disease creates sickness, there is no bias of perception there.
A more analogous question would be are simple sugars evil because obesity is one of (if not the leading) cause of death.
Why not be outraged at the people who make foods with highly refined sugars, hydrogenated fats (alcohol, cigarettes, etc.). these kill a LOT of people.
(much more than religious extremists and every single year)
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp You are being silly when you ask if sugar is evil…an accurate analogy it is to say that too much sugar is bad and for some people a small amount can be very bad. Being pedantic I’m going to inform you that obesity is not the leading cause of death at all… It’s more likely to be organ failure caused by excessive eating and lack of exercise. Obesity is only the physical sign. Where are your peer reviews and scientific papers to support your statements?...doh!
quarky1948 1 year ago
@quarky1948 I can site peer reviewed papers which do link obesity as the health risk I noted, it is a conclusion based on peer reviewed literature. There is also peer reviewed literature on the specific dangers of types of sugars, high fructose corn syrup for example.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp Go on then.... this is what I require! Prove that obesity causes death.
quarky1948 1 year ago
@quarky1948 You really are asserting there is no causation between obesity and risk of heart disease (among other things) and you need a peer reviewed citation in order for you to accept it?
If you want I can go one better, I have to meet with the director of Eastern Health in the next two weeks. If you PM me and you are in the area you can come with me, you could make the assertion to them, they likely have the journals in their office.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp No I don’t wish to meet with anyone suffering from delusions of grandeur. I was in the medical industry for fourteen years and have sufficient knowledge about the way it works. Your preposterous analogy of a bag of sugar and religion demonstrates that you have no idea how to tackle this debate…Why can’t you admit the erroneous way that you have ploughed into this with insufficient tools and experience to achieve anything?
quarky1948 1 year ago
@quarky1948 Stating something is not the same does not make it so, if you wish to contend a proof by contradiction you have to show where the argument (or presupposition) was not equivalent, you just don't state it as a fact.
In a proof by contradiction, the argument is usually deconstructed thus there is rarely a pure 1:1 link, this was the case here I was dealing with only one element (something is evil because it can be used for evil - that was the core of your original assertion).
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp I have offered assertions that are supported by statistics and facts… You have not done anything to counter them. This is not a place suitable for your strange style of criticism, it is where we express opinions…you have not given any . It appears as though you have read some Wikipedia definitions of logic but without fully understanding them and are trying to apply some of the principles in the style of an intellectual…clearly you are not.
quarky1948 1 year ago
@quarky1948 Yes, but not peer reviewed, I would admit you can find books that say that, I noted that in the beginning. You can find books that Gravity is a push (repulsive force) as well. I simple asked was this statement supported by current research, you indicated it was not, further you have indicated that you have no interest in what Science has to say on the matter. That is fine as well, you have that right to choose to ignore the literature.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp Now gravity! Another silly red herring, you are clutching at straws again. Surely you can see that that by your own definition religion has links both direct and indirect to the violence and hatred that it generates?... And also note that the links between certain foods are linked both directly and indirectly to statistics?
quarky1948 1 year ago
@quarky1948 No, as stated earlier, I would assert Religion, as with all information is not inherently evil (or good), it just exists. Morality is within the person interpreting it not in the information itself.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp Assert what you want...show yourself to be a fool. Everyone with a clear mind can see the evil that stems from religion. You have no idea what morality really is nor where it comes from... it is not a matter of interpretation at all. If you can't see that the codes of religion act upon minds in a bad way you are blind. Religion must be removed to remove the negative delusions that are attributed to it... religion is a cause, evil is the effect.
quarky1948 1 year ago
@quarky1948 Yes, you can state this, no issue with that, is it just an assertion. You have admitted that you have not checked the scientific literature to explore your statement, and further you have no interest in doing so. You have thus by definition noted you are simply making a non-scientific belief statement, which ironically is the main criticism of religion (it is assertion without proof).
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp Once again you are evading the issues… My statements are true and you have not managed to counter them. Relentless denial of the facts being submitted is a sign that you are trying to protect a delusion. Criticism of religion has disturbed your world view for some reason. If you can’t see a common sense argument then I pity you. I leave it to you to find the literature that exists.
quarky1948 1 year ago
@quarky1948 You have made a statement, you have offered no proof, your entire defense consists of the assertions that (a) it is obvious to everyone, and (b) it says so in some books. The exact same argument could be made about any religion, which is kind of ironic.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp I am not demanding any proof that my points are correct….you are. And I have told you from the start that the information and knowledge exists in the public domain. I am not willing or able to educate you using these little boxes so have suggested that you go and find it yourself. If you choose to ignore this advice and just rant on about peer review fine, then you are some kind of nut job. The validity of my opinions are unchanged. Your knowledge clearly is very limited…
quarky1948 1 year ago
@quarky1948 If you wanted to make a belief statement there is no need for proof however all scientific assertion by definition require proof. You could just make the assertion, claim it was science, refuse to cite even one paper and simply make vague comments about "the truth is out there", "seek and ye shall find", all the while complaining in the first place how religion is a really bad thing, while duplicating exactly methods of religious indoctrination.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp This is where I started.... remember? Bill Cooke has it nailed... brilliant stuff. God is a delusion in the minds of theists...period.
quarky1948 1 year ago
@CliffStamp Where did you gather another false assumption that I have no interest in science? I think that you have both a poor understanding of logic and of the English language.
quarky1948 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CliffStamp Where did you gather another false assumption that I have no interest in science? I think that you have both a poor understanding of logic and of the English language.
quarky1948 1 year ago
@quarky1948 Where did you gather another false assumption that I have no interest in science? I think that you have both a poor understanding of logic and of the English language.
quarky1948 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@quarky1948 Where did you gather another false assumption that I have no interest in science? I think that you have both a poor understanding of logic and of the English language.
quarky1948 1 year ago
@CliffStamp Where did you gather yet another false assumption that I have no interest in science? I think that you have not only a poor understanding of logic but of the English language too.
quarky1948 1 year ago
@quarky1948 When you noted you were ignoring peer review and making scientific assertions. Peer review is an extension of the basis tenant of science which is explanation through observation, when observations became complex and uncertain and the analysis became complex it became quickly obvious that observation could no longer be defined as what I observe but what does everyone observe (similar for analysis and deduction).
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp Peer review, peer review, peer review, peer review!!...What shall I have for breakfast?...don't know until I have read the peer review on Shredded Wheat... How can I get out of bed without a peer review...? Ridiculous!! Your place within the universe is as cloudy as your mind. Find some probabilty to get close to reality...it's all we have. Don't try to deconstruct things that you clearly do not understand...
quarky1948 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@quarky1948 Where did you gather another false assumption that I have no interest in science? I think that you have both a poor understanding of logic and of the English language.
quarky1948 1 year ago
@CliffStamp Yes I want the peer review information otherwise you have no proof…this has been your constant mantra to me....see how far it helps.
quarky1948 1 year ago
@quarky1948 No, problem, I just want to clarify, you are asserting that there is no link between obesity and heart disease and you want a peer reviewed article. It is not an issue, I just wan to be very clear what it is you are stating does not exist so I can give the correct reference.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp This is why you draw ridicule, because you are a fool or worse….. I did not say that there is no link between obesity and heart disease…. By using your own twisted logic I teased that your statement about obesity CAUSING death is false. Of course there are links but it is just another of your meandering red herrings, both flawed in construction and pointless in context.
quarky1948 1 year ago
@quarky1948 That is what the word cause means, to be specific there is the root or direct cause, then there are the indirect causes.
Obesity is an indirect cause of death in most causes because it causes the direct causes.
So now you have accepted that obesity is a cause of death, and one of the leading ones.
So the question repeats, are sugars such as HFCS evil because they cause suffering and death?
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp A peer review is not required because such knowledge is not new theory…I am free to use the word cause if I choose My points from the very start have been based upon these principles. The word evil is just the same as bad in the context of my attack on religion… even if religion has some good in it the results are both good and bad, mostly bad…in essence it is evil.
quarky1948 1 year ago
@quarky1948 Peer review is not just about advancing science, it is about interpreting what is known and what can be inferred.
Statistics is really critical to this aspect because it is so easy to manipulate information to appear to support a conclusion. For example the first IQ tests used showed consistently higher scores for men vs women. The statistics were very clear and they also showed poor rural children had lower IQ's proving a class-IQ correlation.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp I don't need fools like you to explain the purpose of peer review, nor that statistics can prove anything, even the truth... The points that I have made stand firm ad nauseam. God is a delusion....prove otherwise!
quarky1948 1 year ago
@quarky1948 I don't have to disprove your assertion, what you have done is commit one of the oldest logical fallacies. You have just stated prove I am wrong or otherwise admit I am right. That reasoning is ironically the cornerstone of the popular extreme Creationists such as Hovind, Comfort, etc. .
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp You are the one who has embarked on an impossible trip of demanding proof…now you don’t like it when you are asked to produce something to counter my assertions. The points I have been making require no proof or peer review because they are self evident, although they are also backed up by science and reasoning. Go figure... This is like trying to convince the banana man that his religion is flawed...a mental block gets in the way.
quarky1948 1 year ago
@quarky1948 It is a logical fallacy to demand proof for an assertion or otherwise conclude it is proven. All those really extreme theists, they also will assert their truth is self-evident as well, and yes they will claim science and logic. It is easy to claim anything. It only requires effort when you wish to move beyond a claim and try to turn a hypothesis into accepted knowledge, that is where peer review comes in among other things.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp You are making the same silly mistake again and again… Assertions that are based on modern scientific literature are NOT the same as claims being made from works of ancient fiction such as the bible or quran. Another glaring gaff… you have no idea what a logical fallacy is because you use them continuously without knowing it.
quarky1948 1 year ago
@quarky1948 Your assertions are not made on current modern scientific literature, you have noted that specifically, none of it is peer reviewed, that is what the term scientific literature means.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp Wrong again bird brain, your ability to read is now in great doubt but this may explain a lot. Your refusal to look beyond these text boxes is disturbing too and probably a symptom of a personality disorder. Your dogmatic line of drivel is a sign that you are not even interested in learning. Text book information is probably beyond your grasp anyway. My assertions are in perfect compliance with known facts…and your pseudo intellectual rubbish can’t change that.
quarky1948 1 year ago 2
@quarky1948 Ok, another ad hominem. You have openly declared your argument is invalid. QED.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp A crazy trip of lame reasoning without reasoning. REVIEW your ridiculous assumptions and discover why you have openly declared yourself a fool. Unwilling to research the validity of points throughout. The pertinent facts and statistics remain intact within the realms of education so perhaps one day you will find them.
quarky1948 1 year ago
@CliffStamp There is little point in me offering any more support to my case if they are only met by junk philosophy or denial. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing… go back to school.
quarky1948 1 year ago
@CliffStamp Your spelling and grammar throughout this exchange has been atrocious …giving a clue to your educational background. Hope you get well.
quarky1948 1 year ago
@quarky1948 Really, ad hominem and now spelling?
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp It stands out by a mile that you have poor powers of reasoning and infantile communication skills. My comments right or wrong now matter very little… I am more concerned about your state of mind.
quarky1948 1 year ago
@quarky1948 The notion that religions do not induce a higher morality directly supports my assertion that it is the people who are the issue not the religion. If you are amoral, you will find the chapter and verse which justifies your decisions. If you are moral you will find the chapter and verse which justifies your decisions as well. We live in an objective world, but we are extremely subjective by nature.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp These foolish traps that you set spring back on you…..and again.. Tobacco, alcohol and addictive drugs can be very bad for people and I do get angry about it. I shouldn’t need to inform you that if the drugs are taken away and the pushers put out of business society will be better off. This analogy fits perfectly with religion. There is no bias involved...You have presented nothing but futile and meaningless arguments driven by a murky understanding of logic...
quarky1948 1 year ago
@quarky1948 Ok, that is where I was leading, so you believe that there should be no alcohol, no production of sugars, no production of refined fats, no food refinement at all (no white flour, etc.)?
What about just food in general, some people over eat, is serving over weight people any meals beyond 400-600 calories amoral?
And again, are these things (hydrogenated fats, HFCS, refined sugars, alcohol, etc.) evil simply because people use them to cause harm?
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp I didn't say of that..!!!. it's the worst straw man argument I have ever seen. Irrelevant and silly. My original premise is safe from your crazed assumptions.
quarky1948 1 year ago
@quarky1948 That was the point, you were supposed to refute it.
Now, so you accept that these things if used improperly can cause huge suffering, they are even the leading cause of death, but they are not evil, it is just how they are used.
Now using the same logic how is religion evil because it can be either good or bad as well depending on how it is used?
If you are consistent you have to draw the same conclusions from the same argument.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@quarky1948 That is not a straw man fallacy. A straw man takes an argument (alters it) then disproves that and claims EoD.
What I did was take your argument, apply it to a different set of data, use the same logic and ask you to consider the obviously absurd conclusion.
That is called proof by contradiction.
(again it is not religion, it is the intent of fanatics that is evil, just like it is the intent of the people who abuse food or alcohol not the substance itself that is evil)
CliffStamp 1 year ago
Religion's role is to align conscious order with biological impulse, to give an emotional root to the understanding our origins, to give meaning to the patterns of human experience, and to reinforce shared cultural values (morals etc) Religion is a constellation of cultural dreams. It has NOTHING to do with literal knowledge, nothing to do with logic or science or 'truth'. Anyone who uses the word 'god' without even a basic understanding of the language of metaphor, is just asking to be mocked.
Hufflewaffle 1 year ago
@benjmann2 That in and of itself is a religion in which mankind declares itself God, namely the government that rules over it.
wigglesza 1 year ago
Exodus 15:3-First of all, it doesn't declare him to be a warrior, he IS a warrior. The Jews were stating a fact. Secondly, there is no ethnic cleansing in this context, this is right after Israel escapes from the Egyptian army. Cooke is wrong on that point.
Psalm 97:9-To understand that, you have to study Genesis 14:19. Abraham is blessed by a pagan priest, but this pagan priest declares the LORD the Most High. Anyone who reads this will have to see that first and study commentary.
wigglesza 1 year ago
Lol the guy with the white shirt and red tie in the background looks like Bill Crooke's twin or brother.
7tylerjb 1 year ago
Craig is just a despicable little WORM crawling at the feet of his God, trying to fill his empty existence with a "relationship" with him. and when asked about the barbarism of the Old Testament God, the contemptible little nothing called w.craig states that his God is not bound by morality he imposes on his subjects - so the murderer (God) has the moral right to command us not to murder!
HerrVonManstein 1 year ago
Bill Cooke has it nailed... brilliant stuff. God is a delusion in the minds of theists...period.
quarky1948 1 year ago
@quarky1948 Cook's brilliance is a delusion.
virtualguitarist 1 year ago
@virtualguitarist ....people with a grasp on reality will disagree with you. There is no God...
quarky1948 1 year ago
@quarky1948 The only ones that can sense the spirit, are those of the spirit. Those that turn there back on God are spiritually handycapped.
virtualguitarist 1 year ago
@virtualguitarist ..that's irrational thinking. Man made myths and fables continuue to infect the minds of millions...brainwashing our children into a myriad of conflicting faiths. They are caught in cults and escape is difficult, many are deluded for life....believing in this stuff is self hypnosis. I was a Christian once so understand how it works.
quarky1948 1 year ago
@quarky1948 Atheism is deception from satan. I was a Atheist once so i understand how it works.
virtualguitarist 1 year ago
@virtualguitarist ..yeah...that's the trick that cults play on human minds.... you were born an atheist. What went wrong?
quarky1948 1 year ago
@quarky1948 What went wrong was while reading the bible, i realized the truth about how man has fallen for the deception of satan and how he became blind to the truth. Through repentance of my sins and acceptance of God's free gift of life, i have gained eternal life in heaven instead of eternal torture.
virtualguitarist 1 year ago
@virtualguitarist ....If you need to read a book to rationalise human nature in such a mythical way I pity you. Belief that your biblical god will send 99% oh his creation to a place you call hell to suffer forever is insane. Satan certainly has a grip on your mind my friend. Like the Muslim martyrs who murder the innocent in a crazy believe that they will end up in heaven with 70 virgins...dear oh dear...
quarky1948 1 year ago
@quarky1948 You are lost my friend, i will pray for your salvation.
virtualguitarist 1 year ago
@virtualguitarist ..no problem, if it makes you 'feel' better. That's what religion is all about... delusions...back where we started.
By the way...prayer is futile...it cannot and does not work period.
quarky1948 1 year ago
@quarky1948 Religion is not about feeling it's about a pursuit of truth. I can see that you are not interested in the honest exchange of ideas about truth, you just want to piss on religion. Until someone is actually interested in religion, I cannot take them seriously. Plus we're on the internet.
wigglesza 1 year ago
@wigglesza ...I have exhausted my subtle debating skills with deluded fools. The words truth and religion do not belong in the same sentence. I probably know more about religion than you will ever know. Blind faith should be classified as a desease because it operates exactly like a visus... For the record I am an anti-theist and have discovered along with millions of thinking people that religion is the route of all evil. The entire planet is under threat from holy ignorance..this is truth.
quarky1948 1 year ago
@quarky1948 All blind faith, or just religious faith.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp I'm not sure that there is a distinction to be made...as both conditions fail to question the complete absence of tangible evidence in the face of miraculous claims... closing not only ones eyes but the entire mind to more rational and reasonable ideas.
quarky1948 1 year ago
@quarky1948 I would agree as that is what belief is, acceptance without proof. However it is a pretty radical assertion that all beliefs are harmful which you seem to imply by calling them a disease. Is that really your assertion?
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp nothing is more radical than an extreme belief in invisible gods...Such radical and opposing faiths are generating hatred on a worldwide scale with millions of followers facing terrible suffering as a direct result of such primitive dogma. It is also written into these faiths that we must kill each other in a final war that will, unless halted, lead to extinction of the human race. Read it yourself and listen to the preachers of this poison. It acts exactly like a desease...
quarky1948 1 year ago
@quarky1948 Are you stating a simple belief (theism leads to amoral behavior on a higher frequency and intensity of incidence than atheism) or making an assertion.
If it is the latter then there is scientific research on exactly that subject, can you cite the peer reviewed research which supports your assertion?
If not then you are making a belief statement that those which do not share your belief are a disease and I assume you follow they should be eradicated.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp No ...not my belief it's just fact, statistics show that crime, violence, intolerance and sexual abuse, is higher within populations of higher religiousity. Examples, the prison population of the US is at least 85% theist, secular countries have lower crime, violence, intolerance and sexual abuse. The book 'Society without God' by Phil Zuckerman puts together research from several studies. The way in which religion spreads can be acurately defined as viral...difficult to eradicate.
quarky1948 1 year ago
@quarky1948 I will concede you could find a book which supports your assertion, no doubt several. However books are not peer reviewed and thus not reliable sources. The science behind your assertion can be seen in behavoiral psychology. These studies will take into account the co-variance factors such as for example how many people in prison found god *after* being convicted -or- is the correlation being seen simply education related (or wealth, etc.) Note correlation never proves causation .
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp The studies in that particular book are independently reviewed using appropriate methods. Facts are not changed by consolidating them. Your assersion that offenders may only turn to god in prisons is flawed. The statistics are taken from the time of conviction. There is also a correlation in many studies that directly connects atheism to higher education and intelligence...not necessarily wealth or demographics. Causation of this fact is obvious to rational people. Do the research.
quarky1948 1 year ago
@quarky1948 Again, I concede you can find support from your argument in a book, in fact you can find a book to support any argument. Why are you reluctant to look at the peer reviewed actual science?
Ok, so you admit that correlation does not imply (let alone prove) causation. You then however just right to a belief statement "it is obvious to rational people". How is this any different than stating it is obvious to rational people that there is a God?
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@quarky1948 I did not assert that offenders only turn to god in prison, I noted it is a co-variance. If you wanted to eliminate it you would look at it before charging not after conviction. Peer review is necessary not just on raw data but also on interpretation. If you are really honestly interested, write an article using the sources in the book (co-author it) and submit it to a journal and watch what happens.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@quarky1948 Are you asserting that all interpretations of all religions state that nonbelievers should be killed?
Or simply that some religions have some followers who interpret their religion in such an extreme manner?
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp I am stating that at least two major religions promote violence and killing... Islam in particular instructs killing of non muslims. If any religion can be misinterpreted in such a way by aherents then it must be both wrong and dangerous. Christian ideas of the 'rapture' and 'armagedon' provide an irrational hope to followers of a worldly conflict that scares the cr*p out of non believers. Religion can destroy the planet and probably will... I rest my case.
quarky1948 1 year ago
@quarky1948 You have not proven a generality. In the same logic, John is White, John is a racist, John promotes racism to his children, his children thus have a tendency towards severe discrimination - thus all White people should not have kids. I rest my case.
Are you familiar with the term attribute bias, it is one of the fundamental biases which in behavioral psychology is known to have a very strong influence on how people interpret information and further is a source of behavior.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp My “generality” and “logic” of “John” is correct….in the same way as cancer cannot be good just because some tumours are benign. It is you that is using attributed bias my friend… it’s a pity that you do not understand your own psychology better. Your case is based on some missing dots in a big picture…join them up and all becomes clear. I'll send you a PM to conclude my points...these boxes are too small.
quarky1948 1 year ago
@quarky1948 That would be more formal logic than psychology, in elemental form you are asserting because a is a set of A, and a has property /c, that all elements in A have property /c. Using the rules of logic where this assertion is true, then yes your conclusion would follow, but can you really not see the problem there? Can you not really think of a serial killer (rapist, etc.) who was atheist, thus can I now assert all atheists should be put to death (or life imprisonment if you prefer).
CliffStamp 1 year ago
A flawed argument about arguments that has nothing to do with my case...god is a delusion. There are some unknowns in the universe...perhaps some things that we can never know. On these areas I will say I don't know (yet) but you don't know either...get used to it. A personal god is imaginary, an invention...religion passes on the myth to vulnerable people exactly like a virus.
quarky1948 1 year ago
@quarky1948 I am not using attribute bias, I am influenced by it of course as well as the other fundamental biases (loss, decision, etc.), I am aware of them and thus take steps to reduce their influence but they can never be removed. Anyone who claims to be completely objective is either insane, does not know what objective really means, or is a divine incarnation of the infinite. I do not believe I am any of those, however some friends would argue the first may be a possibility.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp You have produced a circular argument, introducing red herrings and failing to address my points with counter evidence. You have nothing tangible to offer, falling back onto supernatural divinity that cannot be tested as the last defence of all theists. You refer to my honest and more lengthy approach to this via PM as ad hominid, ignoring it rather than taking on it’s accuracy. I have noted the hypocrisy in your reply and suggest you find another atheist to learn about reasoning.
quarky1948 1 year ago
@quarky1948 I am not actually a theist so I would never assert the existence of a god. I was simply noting there is no peer reviewed literature which supports your extreme position and thus it is a belief, which is ironic as that is the same behavior you criticize another group for. Your logical reasoning has invalid inferences as well you are extending the behavior of an element of a set to the set itself. These are why there no peer reviewed assertions as you have made.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp Fine but this is now growing a new head! Given that the statistics regarding intelligence and religiosity, religion in prison populations etc. are verifiable using any search engine, I don’t need to present further evidence. I now need to justify my extreme behaviour? Well let’s be clear about the serious impact of religions on the planet. I simply reserve my right to turn on them with vigorous criticism. Why? because god really is a delusion! Valid evidence is available..just look.
quarky1948 1 year ago
@quarky1948 To actually advance knowledge, you make an assertion, give independent research and/or peer reviewed data, submit to peer review+refutation, and then finally/hopefully acceptance.
You are jumping from A to Z, (assertion -> acceptance) which ironically is exactly what extreme theists do. Science in the inbetween part, if you do not do it then you are in the realm of the theists.
If you want to get out, you have to do the same work everyone else and become peer reviewed.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp No!....that method does not work with brainwashed people. The power of cults is well known. Anyway.....Sorry but I totally disagree with your approach… I have never gone through such a process to accept anything, gravity, the speed of sound, the size of a planet, the population of my village…Statistics and other information that is compiled by credible organisations are unbiased fragments of evidence on which we can form accurate opinions.
quarky1948 1 year ago
@quarky1948 You mean peer review on cultists? No, likely not, brain washing removes choice and critical thought, to remove its effects takes a radical intervention. Peer review works only for people who actively seek an objective truth, it is essentially just a group socratic dialogue. You really can't make someone want to be objective either, though usually they avoid it because of fear, and if you remove the fear they will engage.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CliffStamp Denial in the face of contrary evidence or blind faith without any evidence at all is by definition delusional…I don’t need to say more. If you understand how hypnosis works and the power of cults you will know that reasoning cannot work with these people…No need to use Greek philosophy either my friend. I am calling a spade a spade because that’s the way it is…simple.
quarky1948 1 year ago
@quarky1948 By the way, if you are not familiar with the process, I will co-author the paper. I will even cover all the costs of publication. Because if you can actually make a supported argument that theism has such a radical causal effect on human behavior as you assert then that would contradict some pretty fundamental ideas about current models of behavior. I would certainly not turn down the chance to be part of that.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp The work required has been done by other people and it includes proper scrutiny. This cannot be said of mythical assumptions and religious faith. Knowledge that radical behaviour can be derived from religion requires no further research…we see it daily all over the world. It is irrational behaviour and usually includes a fundamentalism based on myths. It can’t be compared fairly with a rational response based on facts.
quarky1948 1 year ago
@quarky1948 Lots of people would argue that what you are calling a myths are actually facts, historical science is not trivial at all to sort out the truth of what happened because of the complexity of trying to sort out the past because you can not observe and experiment just sift through incomplete data. Historical scholars will argue that Jesus for example did rise from the Dead, it is a fairly radical claim to note these people are all insane (delusional).
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp I have tried to inform you that religion works in a particular way because it does… These books are dangerous but above all it is the teaching to children from them that perpetuates the problem. I’m not going to waste time discussing the crucifixion, nor walking on water myths, alien abductions or belief that bigfoot exists. We don’t need to produce scientific papers to assert the stupidity of many faiths…only to note that the mind is susceptible to a range of delusions.
quarky1948 1 year ago
@quarky1948 This is a different question, religion could be true and still dangerous, or it could be a myth and harmless.
What you are asserting is religion is bad because there are a lot of bad people who are religious. What about ifI could show statistics which show there are more black people in prisons than white people? Would you draw a similar conclusion?
CliffStamp 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CliffStamp The work required has been done by other people and it includes proper scrutiny. This cannot be said of mythical assumptions and religious faith. Knowledge that radical behaviour can be derived from religion requires no further research…we see it daily all over the world. It is irrational behaviour and usually includes a fundamentalism based on myths. It can’t be compared fairly with a rational response based on facts.
quarky1948 1 year ago
@CliffStamp There is no doubt that the mental condition required for blind faith in an unknowable entity is delusional, as is any comfort derived from such a belief. I am angry that religion is causing arguments such as this and unnecessary suffering in the world. Apathy is not the appropriate way to deal with it….nor is logical reasoning apparently!
quarky1948 1 year ago
@quarky1948 You do not have a doubt, true, however it is not an established scientific fact. Nor would the literature support religion causes suffering, do you really think for example you could take a perfectly rational person, give them the Bible, and then the next day they are burning witches, stoning people who work on the sabbath, beating their slaves, sacrificing their children, etc. .
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp Statistics regarding intelligence and religiousity, plus the studies of prisoners are already in the public domain…there is nothing new to prove. The suffering of starving children being born to African families and the spread of aids thanks only to the dogma of a roman catholic church is one example how the bible has had an impact upon people. There are terrorist activities attributed directly to passages in the quran and the islamic jihad can only be due to one book!
quarky1948 1 year ago
@quarky1948 Of course, these are facts, people have killed in the name of religion, people have killed in the name of all kinds of things. But what you have asserted is that religion is the actual cause, it is creating in people this hatred.
If this is true, how do you explain all the RC and Muslims who are not violent at all?
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp Sorry but I totally disagree with your approach… I have never gone through such a process to accept anything, gravity, the speed of sound, the size of a planet, the population of my village…Statistics and other information that is compiled by credible organisations are unbiased fragments of evidence on which we can form accurate opinions. (Excuse the double posting) this should be the first of three.
quarky1948 1 year ago
@quarky1948 It isn't my approach, I did not create the scientific method. I would not assert that you would need to research journals to find the speed of sound, or the population of your town, these are trivial facts. But you were not noting a fact, you were stating a theory which is the highest and most complex form of scientific assertion and I would assert that theories require peer review for acknowledgment, refinement, and eventually acceptance.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
This is going miles off course….Your approach has been to place unreasonable expectations upon this discussion that would only apply if there was some new scientific theory involved. There is not… To expect a person to go through the scientific method when providing existing evidence is daft. The definition of delusion is already in the books and the belief in personal gods fits it precisely. Dawkins has covered it with incredible clarity in his book The God Delusion, there are many others.
quarky1948 1 year ago
I'm a theist but I think Bill Cooke is bringing a good point of view to the debate: What is God after all?
He brings the diference between asian point of view of god (that god is in all things), and the hebrew (where God is above and is distinct to the things he has created).
Eyelash85 1 year ago
This atheist sounds like a 7th grade dink! Please bring Dr craig back.
porkyo123 2 years ago
To an Atheist Evolution brought about our belief in God, we are to believe
MrGrandDragon 2 years ago
I love it when they ridicule these intellectuals who advocate theism.
Especially the muslim dicks.
Domzdream 2 years ago
@Domzdream this is the problem with every atheist debater i've seen. always trying to ridicule the theist...is that even morally sound. i dont care much but this atheist hasnt proved a thing just like all of them. pathetic
kalmeast 2 years ago
No, I'm sorry. What's pathetic is when a person still believes in magic (because let's face it, it's the same thing as a miracle except labelled differently), or a person who thinks that all those animals (inlcuding T-Rexes as shown in that creation museum in USA) were living alongside humans and sheep etc on a boat. If you don't find this ridiculous then I rest my case.
Anyway, it's your duty as a christina to prove us atheists wrong. Come on...we're still waiting.
Domzdream 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"it's your duty as a christina to prove us atheists wrong. Come on...we're still waiting"
And you're all still stupid as ever. First of all on the subject of dinosaurs, dinosaurs were rare. Just because they showed pictures of herds of them in your little picture books doesn't mean it's true. Secondly, i'd like to see you make life with nothing but a rock and water, since that's what you're suggesting happened.
knowwaie 2 years ago
what we saw, tasted and felt. The only reason the idea of a 'god' would become a notion or thought, was if people experienced Him (either literally or spiritually), and if He intervened with mankind or as Christianity states He was there from the beginning and had fellowship with man.
necr0sys 2 years ago
My argument is hypothetically speaking, if God doesn't exist, and evolution were true and we are just biologically evolved beings and what we perceive around us (physically) to be absolute truth (with complete disgregard to the supernatural and it's notion), this would have been the same millions of years ago when we were just neanderthals or lesser evolved beings. Therefore we would have no need to even consider a higher being or God as such, because we believed in only what was literal,
necr0sys 2 years ago
ok so why dont we look at every atheist whos done something bad to prove our point instead of theists who have done bad. Looking at all the bad religion has done to prove an atheist point is invalid.
JTRAMPO 2 years ago
i think mellielli is getting mixed up with catholics and real Christians . there is a big difference between the two
EndOfNumbers 2 years ago
Real christian? Everyone who claims such a boast always mean themselves. Is there a christian who has never said "real christian?" There are some, no doubt. These some are always more humble, humility! Such a thing a real christian should practice.
dichotomyofone 2 years ago 2
This dude deserves to get owned. His arguments are irrelevant nonsense. Nowhere does he give a single relevant proof to support his position. When he does try and state a fact, he either makes it up (he does this more than once) or simply asserts it as fact.
On top of that, his comical rant does nothing to help his position. when he starts quoting experts and stating facts it just gets humorous. Then he decides to judge god by his own invented morality. How can anyone take this guy seriously?
groundhog0339 2 years ago
Cooke is right in stating that Christians are 99% atheist (like all monotheists). They are way too concentrated in what name to call god to effecively prove that any deity exists. If Christians could open their minds just a bit they would see that their arguments are trivial compared to the great mystery that is the coming to being of life, the universe and everything.
mellielli 3 years ago
The godless Delusion. Like Stalin's purge and Tienanmen square Massacre and such.I wonder why Atheists in the world are fleeing communism and to a religious country like America?
fuuunnnn 3 years ago
The same reason my brother doesn't mind staying in Boston for a while ... whatever they want to do is fine with him ... just as long as they don't come to his "dry" county where there's a church on every corner and a polite smile to greet him at the local grocery store.
groundhog0339 2 years ago
Don't confuse communism with an atheist philosophy, it's about man worship, mainly the dear leader. Yes it is atheistic to the degree of worshiping ancient gods but it demands you worship the leader which itself is the problem. And now, it seems atheism is taking a sharp turn from postmodernism, where it was suggested there is no truth, everything is relative, instead atheism has taken the side of science, in this way atheists think there is a truth and it should be pursed, not assumed.
dichotomyofone 2 years ago 2