(March 21, 2010 at 7:56 pm)Godschild Wrote: ZenBadger you need to do research Jesus is mentioned in nonbibical historic writings.

Yeah there is evidence in roman writings that some guy calling himself Iesus existed and was a troublemaker. But that's about it. There's no reliable historic writings about miracles. When Moses opened the red sea nobody cared to write about it. When divine interventions occured nobody had a pen to relate the events......right.

(March 21, 2010 at 7:56 pm)Godschild Wrote: She did say that more believers left prison than entered prison (meaning they became believers in prison.

If an inmate wants to have his parole after doing half of his sentence he'd better play the role of the good boy who converted to christianity, especially in the southern US states.

Quote:It seems most of you did not pay attention to what I wrote or you did not care to respond to what was written.

Of course. Somethings that people like yourself put just isn't worthy of a good reply. You talk about "nonbelievers" as if we are all evil, disgusting and barbaric. No wonder discrimination is as high as it is over there. Having such a low opinion about the non-religious as you do. I for one don't think all theists are evil or disgusting. Many whom I know of are very respectable. People do bad and disgusting things regardless of what belief system they are part of (or lack thereof). Being part of a religion doesn't make you a good person, or a better person. Now I won't believe a word you say unless it has some credibility and that your words aren't based on personal feelings.

Just happened to be reading carm.org today and read this, which made me think of this thread:

"However you want to look at it, atheists, generally, are honest, hardworking people."

- http://www.carm.org/can-atheists-be-ethical

(March 21, 2010 at 8:11 pm)Darwinian Wrote: You and your wife seem to be thinking of theists, or believers as you call them, as strange alien creatures that you have trouble fathoming.

It's almost like the attitude that 18th and 19th century rich white people had towards their black African slaves in that they were savage, disrespectful, exhibited horrific behaviour and basically weren't like 'us' at all.

Is that what you think about atheists because that's certainly the impression you are giving!

Bolding and rewording by me. I'd add delusional if I say a place where it fit well

@ Tackattack.. I could see that process happening in reverse, ie We use tools to enhance natural abilites which means we come to rely on effective tools rather than tooth, nail etc. I'm just not sure what may have triggered this usage/reliance. An Arthur C Clarke moment?...I doubt it. I'd also say that we're still evolving, our physical form is not fixed. Nor is our intellect. We have need to addresss the 'other' that we feel around us, and inside us. But of what use is it in an evolving species?
@ Saerules... Thanks for that. Yep that's pretty conclusive if true, still not conclusively proven but the guy obviously is heading towards that. I always thought canines would be our best bet for discovering this sort of complex communication in other animals, but rodents are complex and social, and successful, so it makes sense. Thanks for proving me wrong. Really.
I kinda get subjectivity, although I'm not sure where love fits in. You're gonna tell me it's just a chemical confusion now aren't you? An abstract only. I may have to put my fingers in my ears...

Let's count the logical fallacies in this one, shall we?

(March 19, 2010 at 2:32 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: lol. Many species live in Australia, so there's nothing unique or special about it. Plus no one has ever believed that the tooth fairy is real.

So the qualifier here is that people have to believe in it for it to be true. Hello appeal to belief. 1.

There's nothing unique or special about one species because many species live in a region. Personal Incredulity. 2.

Joe Bloe Wrote:* For one thing it corroborates what’s written in the bible
The bible cannot be used for evidence of God's existence. I know that sounds tough, but that's the way it is.

(March 19, 2010 at 2:32 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: I understand the rules. I wasn't using the bible as evidence. I was stating that the claims made in the bible are corroborated by my evidence. Consider this allegory: Someone finds a diary, and a passage describes that a body was dumped in the dessert. Is it real, or is it fiction? A team goes out to the dessert and indeed finds the body, which corroborates what's written in the diary. Sapient intelligence represents that body. It corroborates the bible's claim that man was created in the image of God, and that animals are inferior.

First of all, dessert and desert are two different things.

Second, using a source that is in itself self-validating and written by beings with sapient intelligence, then saying it's somehow backing up the claim that a higher power created us WITH this intelligence is a shot in the dark at BEST. If that's the case, anything written by anyone, EVER, corroborates that "evidence", since other animals don't possess the need for formally written language.

Begging the question. 3.

(March 19, 2010 at 2:32 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: All I'm saying is that this points to a deity. It would be too much of a coincidence that only humans were given this advantage.

Personal Incredulity. 4.

(March 19, 2010 at 2:32 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: Other species would have benefited from intelligence, yet natural selection did not provide it.

Personal Incredulity. 5. You also don't possess a working understanding of how natural selection works.

(March 19, 2010 at 2:32 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: Not to mention that while man needed intelligence to survive, he did not need sapient intelligence to survive (e.g. Art, Science, Math, Civilization, etc.) Therefore our sapient intelligence is not a product of evolution.

Personal incredulity again. 6. Do you have ANYTHING to back up the claim that "he did not need sapient intelligence to survive"?

(March 19, 2010 at 2:32 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: Man is the only creature that serves God. So is it just a coincidence that the only animal that worships God inherited sapient intelligence? Maybe to some it is, but to me it isn't.

I think we're going for the high score on personal incredulity here. 7.

(March 19, 2010 at 2:32 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: How else would we have gotten sapient intelligence? Looking at the evolution of other species, very little happens that does not pertain to survival and preservation. I've made a point that sapient intelligence is not an evolutionary necessity. So if our sapient intelligence did not happen through evolution, then who gave it to us?

You've made it a point to not back up your claims with anything but logical fallacy. Just because you can't see any other way of it occurring, doesn't mean evolution works the way you want it to. You lack basic understanding of what natural selection does. I urge you to educate yourself and realize the folly of your argument.

Personal incredulity. 8.

(March 19, 2010 at 2:32 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: I don't really have a particular version of God. There is only one God, though people practice religion in different ways.

Hasty Generalization. 9.

How do you know there is only one God? What about polytheists? Why couldn't there be multiple Gods?

(March 19, 2010 at 2:32 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: There's a difference between God and religion. God is a being that can only be experienced through faith, and not scientific experiments.

Argument from ignorance - personal incredulity. 10. How do you know that God cannot be experienced through scientific experiments?

(March 19, 2010 at 2:32 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: It is good to speak to an adult here for a change, and thanks for addressing the subject, which is what I've been trying to get the kiddies on this forum to do.

Ad Hominem. 11.

11 logical fallacies and you didn't even write that much. That's gotta be some kind of record.

---

(March 21, 2010 at 6:08 pm)tackattack Wrote: Well first off I don't think he's insane, many people find religion in prison, and those numbers don'ttake any of that into account. I can't see the average person at my Church committing a heinous crime outside of sexual perversion.

So that means they don't do it, right?

(March 21, 2010 at 6:08 pm)tackattack Wrote: I would wager if a proper study was done, that surveying one crime.. killers... the ratio of theism prior to the commiting of the crime and after it was vastly askew. Being "God fearing" probably does more for the parole board than a rational mind.

So it's better to believe in God for the parole board? I thought we were talking about being well-rounded for society, not conforming to favoritism.

(March 21, 2010 at 6:08 pm)tackattack Wrote: @RedFish... I'll take a shot at it. As humans lost their spee and natural defences through evolution. tools were required. Structure for a society and community was formed as were heirerarchies. Tools of varying qualities distinguished value among the society. The highest in society fought for the best tools. Best became subjective as standards improved. The it was which tool had the most feathers and did the job of dicing the fish. Tool adornment was logically a first art form, that coupled with visual language development, art is a natural progression. No research just off the top.

You're on the right track.

---

(March 21, 2010 at 7:56 pm)Godschild Wrote: Min your replies are childish go play somewhere you'll be taken seriously,a sandbox would be a good start.

ZenBadger you need to do research Jesus is mentioned in nonbibical historic writings.

[quote='Godschild' pid='60951' dateline='1269215805']
It seems most of you did not pay attention to what I wrote or you did not care to respond to what was written. First of all I qualified my reply as an IMO and stated that this reply was from expereincial observation.As I stated in my last reply I've lived a life that was surrounded by non believers and I've seen how they treated their bodies and then conceive a child.Those same people would continue to abuse their bodies during the pregnacy and after the birth.They just did not care.

Wow. Just wow.

(March 21, 2010 at 7:56 pm)Godschild Wrote: My wife works in a county detention center/prison and has had to restain nonbelieveing women from aborting their unborn child.The things she has told me about nonbelievers and the ways they treat their children is nothing short of horrifying.I asked her if she thought most inmates were believers when they first arrived to her facility her answer was no.She did say that more believers left prison than entered prison (meaning they became believers in prison.

Let's all take your wife's word for it that non-believers are most likely child abusing, selfish people destined for prison. Care to take a stab at WHY people in prison believe in God?

Here's an essay about non-belief in prison:

http://reedsecular.org/2009/10/05/essay-...in-prison/

(March 21, 2010 at 7:56 pm)Godschild Wrote: leo.rcc do you believe what my wife and I have lived through is not credible eyewittness evidence.As I stated in my first reply in this forum I'm not trying to convert anyone so we have no reason to lie.What we've experienced is not different in other places in this world human nature is the same every where.

It's not a lie, it's just a biased opinion that does not represent a population fairly or accurately. For you to say "it's not different in other places" and insinuate that a God makes you a better person is pretty ridiculous. The countries with the highest human development index and largest GDP per capita are mostly secular and have high atheist populations.

http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cou...per_capita

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/us/28beliefs.html

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html

(March 21, 2010 at 7:56 pm)Godschild Wrote: I went to the website about religious persons in prison.The only question asked was what religion are you.This is very limited research.Why were those people not asked when they found their religion,was it before or after you became an inmate.You also limited your findings to federal prisons.Why did you leave out the state prisons and the county and city jails.There are far more in local institutions than federal.

Agreed, the information is spotty at best. Best not to use the argument at all.

(March 21, 2010 at 7:56 pm)Godschild Wrote: In the way you presented this information I should be able to take the no answers as people who are nonbelievers that's 20% then the religions I consider to be something other than belief in the one true God and thats another 20% combine this with those who became believers after entering prison and IMO the scales tip the other way.

"If I manipulate and skew statistics, then I can make them favor my point of view".

.....yeah.

(March 20, 2010 at 11:42 pm)Godschild Wrote: Here is my reasoning believers have a greater respect for life than nonbelievers

You think believers have a greater respect for life than nonbelievers?



A nonbeliever never burned a "heretic". A nonbeliever has never lopped off the head of someone because they don't share the same faith. A nonbeliever has never flown a plane full of people into a building full of people. A nonbeliever has never strapped a bomb to their body so they could indiscriminately kill people who don't believe as they do. A nonbeliever has never hanged a "witch". A nonbeliever has never tortured a person who doesn't believe as they do. A nonbeliever has never caused a war to promote their faith. A nonbeliever has never encouraged a group of people to drink toxic kool-aid.

Your claim that believers have a greater respect for life than nonbelievers is sanctimonious bullshit.

Wot about PolPot or Chairman Mao?
I do agree about sanctimonious bullshit though..

(March 22, 2010 at 11:50 am)RedFish Wrote: Wot about PolPot or Chairman Mao?
I do agree about sanctimonious bullshit though..

I'll elaborate a bit on Thor's point. There have been evil people on both sides of the fence of belief. However, the fact that belief can compel people to do arguably evil things as a direct result of doctrine. Atheism has no doctrine. What dictatorships often do is take away the rights of people, religion being one of them. It's not about trying to proselytize to people, it's directly telling people what to believe, and acting violently to those who oppose you. This is the problem.

Mao, Pol Pot, and Stalin were very politically charged and interested in retaining power and control, rather than promoting tenets of something which by definition, has no internal dogma, and isn't a worldview in the least.

(March 22, 2010 at 12:04 pm)tavarish Wrote:

(March 22, 2010 at 11:50 am)RedFish Wrote: Wot about PolPot or Chairman Mao?
I do agree about sanctimonious bullshit though..

I'll elaborate a bit on Thor's point. There have been evil people on both sides of the fence of belief. However, the fact that belief can compel people to do arguably evil things as a direct result of doctrine. Atheism has no doctrine. What dictatorships often do is take away the rights of people, religion being one of them. It's not about trying to proselytize to people, it's directly telling people what to believe, and acting violently to those who oppose you. This is the problem.

Mao, Pol Pot, and Stalin were very politically charged and interested in retaining power and control, rather than promoting tenets of something which by definition, has no internal dogma, and isn't a worldview in the least.

Absolutely correct! Thanks for the assist!

I must add that it is tiresome when believers pull out Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc.. as "evidence" of what happens when atheists are in charge. They don't seem to understand that these mass killers were not inspired to do evil because of atheism!