Where are the Morals?

[Esquilax]

Just admit it: you didn't read the whole thing, did you? You just scanned for individual words that you thought might agree with you, right? You didn't even read the complete sentences seemingly, because everything you highlighted that you say says one thing, says literally the opposite.

I have read the article and only after carefully reading, I had provided you the link. You love to force people to act in compliance with your wishes.

The following phrase is the heart of the article:

“REGARDLESS OF THE SMALL NUMBER, BASED ON ONE OR THE OTHER RELIGIOUS IDENTIFICATION SURVEY, ATHEISTS AREN’T PROPORTIONALLY REPRESENTED IN PRISON, AS A MATTER OF FACT THEY ARE BY FAR MISREPRESENTED, WITH A VERY SMALL NUMBER OF INMATES PER OVERALL ATHEIST POPULATION.”

If you read it, you clearly didn't bother to understand it; even the quote you provided doesn't say anything about the data being misrepresented, which is what you originally claimed. Everyone else can read it, can I get a little confirmation here? It says that atheists are not proportionally represented in prison statistics, that we are misrepresented in prisons, as there are less of us there than is proportional with the overall population. It doesn't say anything about the data itself, it just describes what the data says.

But you initially posted this article while claiming that it shows the data we gave you is wrong. The article, all throughout, says that the data we gave you does say what we said it did. You were wrong, and now you're continuing to be wrong.

“REGARDLESS OF THE SMALL NUMBER, BASED ON ONE OR THE OTHER RELIGIOUS IDENTIFICATION SURVEY, ATHEISTS AREN’T PROPORTIONALLY REPRESENTED IN PRISON, AS A MATTER OF FACT THEY ARE BY FAR MISREPRESENTED, WITH A VERY SMALL NUMBER OF INMATES PER OVERALL ATHEIST POPULATION.”

Yeah, actually, repeating the same wrong quote doesn't make it any better. The people can easily read the quote themselves, even the full article if they go back to my last post; the idea that you can actually fool us- if lying was what you were attempting, not idiocy- is pretty far fetched.

Can you honestly not read that sentence and understand what it says? What confidence should I have that you can comprehend any of the other sentences I'm typing to you?

n Soviet Union “Боже мое!” (Oh my God) is the most commonly used phrase among atheists. So this phrase is not only specific to WESTERN ENGLISH. The use of word “God” as an emotional expression is common in almost all cultures of the world.

Believe or not but the concept of God is rooted in the human conscious.

I didn't say it was specific to western english, I said it conveyed a certain meaning in western english. Learn to fucking read.

As to your claim that the god concept is everywhere... you're wrong. These are the Piraha people: if you read to the bottom of the "culture" section, you'll see they have no concept of god at all.

That is not conclusion rather justification.

No, it's the conclusion, given that it concludes the article. The same article that, all the way through, states that the conclusions of the data are accurate. And that you utterly failed to read properly, if at all.

Please check this article.

http://www.thelizlibrary.org/site-index/...erica.html

If the link takes you to the index page then in that index look for “Unspeakable: Father-Daughter Incest in American History, by Lynn Sacco” under the heading: “Child Abuse and Domestic Violence”

This introduction will provide you sufficient information, which you can better understand.

Why should I check any more links from you, when it's clear you're not even reading them yourself?

Dear, I am saying that if Australian Secular Laws are so good than why people over the net comparing crimes in Australia with crimes in US (no matter in whatever context). This simply shows that secular laws are not effective in Australia. Crime rate is high and secular laws are not able to combat crimes effectively whether in US, Australia, or in any secular country. If secular laws were so effective then countries like Australia and US should be the most peaceful countries in the world. However, statistics show the opposite facts.

Are you literally insane? Your own link showed that Australia, with its secular laws, is more peaceful than America! The crime rate was lower in every category! What it "simply shows" is that maybe you can't eliminate crime altogether, but that secular laws do a hell of a better job than religious ones. You literally are just talking out your ass, aren't you?

Australia and US are one of those countries which have highest crime rates. That is simply indicating that man-made secular laws are not working effectively.

Actually, in a continental sense Australia's crime rate is lower than the US and Africa, and has a proportionally lower intentional homicide rate than the world as a whole, so... once again, you're just talking out of your ass. The only continent with a lower homicide rate than Oceania- by point one of a percent- is Asia.

Can science give you any verifiable evidence on how human and monkey evolved from one common source? Or like STUPID Dawkins you work on guesstimates only.

Human chromosome 2, Endogenous retrovirals, phylogenetic and morphological similarities, and a comprehensive fossil record showing the evolution of man from primate ancestors. That was easy, and you don't know what any of those words mean.

Oh yeah! You see how it felt! When you said about Prophet David:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David

“Shocker, another source which doesn't provide any real evidence that the person in it even existed.”

That was the “honest discussion”. When I asked you the question:

“Can you prove Plato even existed?”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato

That question suddenly becomes a “dishonest discussion.”

This is known as “Double Standards!”

I don't think you even really know what you're talking about anymore.