RE: what are we supposed to say
June 4, 2014 at 7:22 pm
(This post was last modified: June 4, 2014 at 7:24 pm by Statler Waldorf.)
(June 3, 2014 at 8:17 pm)Tonus Wrote: That would fall under the "context" I mentioned above.
So then there is something else that you are using as your standard of right and wrong, what is it?
Quote:That depends. What do they stand to gain?
Why does it matter?
(June 3, 2014 at 8:18 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: …to bury his claims behind a wall of text no one has time to sift through…
Slow reader?
Quote: 83% of the prison population is Christian.
0.2% is atheist. And yet his mind is still made up.
How many were Christians when they actually committed the crimes they were convicted of?
Does a group being underrepresented in the prison population demonstrate they are morally superior to other groups?
Quote: Religious people are 1/3 more likely to be rapists and child rapists:
How do you know this?
Quote:The proportion of all prisoners declaring any faith compared with those with none is about 2:1 but among those convicted of sex crime it rises to 3:1. The trend is marked across many faiths, including Buddhism, Anglicanism, Free Church Christianity and Judaism.
Again, what were the percentages when these people actually committed the act? I think you need to take a few courses in statistics if you actually think this supports your case any.
Quote: Maybe if we add a "Thou Shalt Stop Raping Children" commandment to the bible, sexual abuse of children, since it's positively correlated with religion, will finally decrease.
This is the bait and switch fallacy. You’re providing statistics dealing with religion in general to try and prove points pertaining to Christianity in particular. Secondly, the websites you are pulling this information from are dubious at best (using user-generated sites such as Wikipedia no less). You’re not even very proficient at supporting your irrelevant points I am afraid.
Quote: The more Christian a population is, the more murder there will be.
Correlation equals causation fallacy.
Quote: And yet Chad is still claiming "using fowl [sic] language on the internet" outweighs any statistical fact.
Fowl language? Duck! Goose! Swan!!
Quote:Revelation 21:8 - But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death
Yes.
Quote: He has demonstrated himself to be a less moral person than any non-believer on this forum.
According to which definition of morality?
(June 3, 2014 at 9:17 pm)Lek Wrote: Whether christian or non-christians, they all disobeyed Christ. If they had obeyed him they wouldn't have committed the crimes.
Yes, and he does nothing to support his claim that these people were Christians when they actually committed the crime.
(June 3, 2014 at 11:33 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: And there's an inverse relationship with religion to IQ.
Wikipedia? Seriously? If you’re IQ is so high then why do you insist on trying to prove your points with user-generated cites that disallow the use of primary research?
Quote: And religious people tend to be less educated…
Did you read your own Wikipedia article?
“On the individual level, the education level is positively correlated with a belief in a God In African countries…”
“The frequency of church visits is however positively correlated with education level in English-speaking countries as well as in Protestantic Europe.”
Oops!
(June 3, 2014 at 11:38 pm)Lek Wrote: All I have to do is look at your sources.
What!? You're not super impressed by Wikipedia and AtheistScholar.org?

