What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Huggy Bear]

Edit: Almost forgot; there aren't any examples of you being dishonest on these forums? Ok.

*looks a mere two pages back*

No. You've never been so dishonest as to knowingly misrepresent another forum member's words in the attempt to score a petty personal point. That's so beneath one of your stature isn't it?

Fucking christ you're delusional.

I'm still waiting for an example of my "dishonesty", in the meantime here are 10 examples from atheists as promised,
1. Bad wolfs double-standard
http://atheistforums.org/thread-24301-po...#pid613111

---

Long post, edited it down to the relevant parts, can read the full post from the link.

Leviticus 25
39 And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant:
40 But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubile.

Don't play semantics with me. They were slaves. They were treated as property, they were not paid, and they could not leave whenever they wanted. The fact that you are appealing to word games is pathetic.

except that the KJV doesn't use the word "slave"

Is that all you are reduced to? Pathetic word games?

they were paid a pittance. here is part of a post I found describing life in that time period.

Its irrelevant how much they were paid. They were servants, not slaves.

As you can see making the distinction between servant/slave is semantics according to Bad wolf, except when it benefits HIS argument..

---

2.Esquilax's dishonesty
http://atheistforums.org/thread-24301-po...#pid615667

---

And I still have the passage that says they can be beaten, you unbelievable moron.

you do not have a passage that says they "CAN" be beaten, you have a passage that says what happens "IF" they are beaten.

Esquilax claims the bible state that "slaves" CAN be beaten... he has yet to provide that passage.

---

3. Wyrd of Gawd claiming Abraham "sliced and diced" Issac
http://atheistforums.org/thread-24532-po...#pid623283

---

Have you forgotten the story about Abraham slicing and dicing Issac because some voice in his head told him to do it?

Abraham never "sliced and diced" Issac.

---

4. FatAndFaithless the scientific genius...

---

http://atheistforums.org/thread-27805-po...#pid729642

Wow, you really have a bizarrely skewed idea of what scientific evidence is.  Again, try to leave the courtroom analogy behind.  Evidence when talking about a factual or scientific claim does NOT include anecdote, I'm sorry it just doesn't.  Just like the anecdotal claims of people that have seen Bigfoot is NOT evidence that Bigfoot exists, claims about miracles or faith healing or Jaysus are NOT evidence that any of those are true.  

Eyewitness testimony can be admitted as evidence in a trial of someone's guilt in a courtroom, but we are not talking about a courtroom, we're talking about scientific fact.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-27805-po...#pid729650

Ok, answer this. What is the very first step in any scientific discovery?

What a strange question..  I would say the first step would be to verify the result.

And for those that say he corrected himself, he did not, he made an excuse then gave another wrong answer.

No, you must first make an observation (eye witness), and from there you form your hypothesis and test it, and eventually come to your conclusion. that's how the scientific method works.

The initial observation is the evidence needed to form a question.

get it?

Alright, I thought you meant immediately post-observation, but that's fine.  Yes, observation is the first step.

*underlined by me*
"verify the result" isn't the second step either...

---

5. Oukoida trying to explain the placebo effect.
http://atheistforums.org/thread-27805-po...#pid753059

---

Did you even read the article I posted? The Placebo effect works through the well known reward mechanisms (the same we experience when we eat or generally do something positive to our bodies).

I could do this all day, really...

LINKS:


http://www.cell.com/neuron/abstract/S089...462-X?cc=y

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&...8745,d.d2s (it's a pdf)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14986780

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17017561


Tide goes in, tide goes out, you can't explain that!

I'm kinda glad there is a kudos button since it exposes all the mental midgets.

Every link you posted compared the placebo effect as it related to Parkinson disease..

http://www.cell.com/neuron/abstract/S089...462-X?cc=y

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14986780

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17017561

This is not the placebo effect and I'll tell you why... DOPAMINE IS THE TREATMENT FOR PARKINSON'S DISEASE. So OF COURSE if someone with Parkinson's brain, for whatever reason, released dopamine, they will see improvement.

This is from your own website  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001762/

Parkinson's disease
Paralysis agitans; Shaking palsy

Last reviewed: September 25, 2013.

Parkinson's disease causes certain brain cells to die. They are the cells that help control movement and coordination. The disease leads to shaking (tremors) and trouble walking and moving.
Causes

Nerve cells use a brain chemical called dopamine to help control muscle movement. With Parkinson's disease, the brains cells that make dopamine slowly die. Without dopamine, the cells that control movement can’t send messages to the muscles. This makes it hard to control your muscles. Slowly over time, this damage gets worse. No one knows what causes these brain cells to waste away.

Treatment

There is no cure for Parkinson's disease. However, treatment can help control your symptoms.

MEDICINE

Your health care provider will prescribe medicines to help control your shaking and movement symptoms. These drugs work by increasing dopamine in your brain.

The brain producing dopamine because of reward mechanisms, which in turn has an affect on Parkinson's, is not the placebo effect.

The placebo effect is not limited to any specific disease. The example I posted was about cancer, on which dopamine has no effect.

Nice try though... really.

---

6. Parkers Tan's muppetry
http://atheistforums.org/thread-30615-po...#pid837840

---

Parkers Tan's attempt to discredit Gallup world poll...

Seriously? The report I linked from Gallup is from 2014....

An opinion poll is not a report. It can be done in a few days with no problem.

A report, on the other hand, requires some time to gather and collate the data into a sensible whole, because it is not a simple telephone poll -- which are inherently biased -- but rather, a collection of statistics drawn out to find data.

Except HIS source acknowledges it's info is based off of Gallup, in fact his report mention Gallup 37 times.
http://atheistforums.org/thread-30615-po...#pid839178

Here you go, this one works:  http://unsdsn.org/wp-content/uploads/201...online.pdf

Now if you go to page 93 of this report, you'll find the list of references the authors used.

Not one of them is the Gallup Organization.

The fact that you don't know the difference between a report and an opinion poll speaks volumes about your education, or lack thereof.

Really? you freaking Muppet...
page 133 in the Bibliography

Bjørnskov, C. (2010). How comparable are the gallup world poll
life satisfaction data?.
Journal of Happiness Studies, 11,
41-60.

Gallup Organisation. (2012).
Indexes and Questions.

And in case you don't know what a bibliography is

A bibliography is a list of the sources you used to get information for your report. It is included at the end of your report, on the last page (or last few pages

As a matter of fact, Gallup is mentioned all throughout that report, lets see
Page 5

In Chapter 2 we update our ranking of life
evaluations from all over the world, making
primary use of the Gallup World Poll, since it
continues to regularly collect and provide com
parable data for the largest number of countries.

Also on pages 6,7,10,11,13,18,19,35,38,56,74,100,118,126,136,137,145,148 and 149
Now what's your excuse?

---

7. Parkers tan (again)
http://atheistforums.org/thread-30615-po...#pid846505

---

After making it clear that Gallup world poll (his opinion) wasn't a reliable source, guess who uses it when it's convenient for his argument?

Also, another map from the Wiki:



Looks like Denmark is listed as "least religious".

This is the difference between de facto and de jure, alluded to upthread.

Heeyyy, look who's using Gallup!

---

8. Fidel_Castronaut aka Pandæmonium
http://atheistforums.org/thread-30615-po...#pid848245

---

Pandæmonium believing that Denmark has a secular government in spite of being provided with proof that it doesn't, and refusing to acknowledge that he was wrong.

Don't bother. You could explain, in parsimonious terms, things like nominal ascriptions, codified constitutions, the nature of governmental structures, de jure defacto, and so on, and stay dry all night here would still fail to get it.

Give him a plastic toy gun and this guy would still manage to shoot himself in the foot.

You're seriously delusional.
This is a clear example of the mindset of an atheist, If you won't accept that Denmark's government is in fact NOT secular which is easily provable, how are you going to even begin to discuss spiritual matters?

Your own quote (in bold for clarity)
http://atheistforums.org/thread-30615-po...#pid835049

Secularism Gurantees what ive highlighted you suggest in the above post. It gives people the ability to chose a religion (or no-religion) without the state choosing for then. It prevents a state mandated religion from either existing or enforcing it's rules and dogmas on the body politic.

Now if that's not the 'freedom to chose' I don't know what is.

so according to YOU, secularism prevents a state mandated religion.
This link is taken from your own post.
http://atheistforums.org/thread-30615-po...#pid846133
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Denmark

Of all the religions in Denmark, the most prominent is Christianity in the form of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Denmark, the state religion.

Also according to YOU secularism "gives people the ability to chose a religion (or no-religion) without the state choosing for them"
This link is also taken from your exact same post
http://atheistforums.org/thread-30615-po...#pid846133
http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/csrpl/rinv...enmark.htm

Let me briefly summarize what the State-church system implies:

• According to the constitution (§ 54), the Lutheran-evangelic Church is the Danish People’s Church (“Folkekirke”), and is, as such, supported by the State, which means that the Lutheran-evangelic religion and its institutions and churches are given a favored place among religions in Danish society. All tax-paying citizens, regardless of their personal religious beliefs, thus contribute to the priests and bishops of the “Folkekirke.”

•  Practically all citizens are automatically born as members of the “Folkekirke.” Not to be so demands that the citizens take the initiative to leave the church. At present 83 percent of the Danish population belong to the “Folkekirke.”

Denmark, then, from one point of view is clearly a Christian country—as are by the same standards the other Scandinavian countries.

This amalgamates into what I for want of a better label would label a secularised Lutheranism as a dominant cosmology in Denmark. Although Denmark (and Sweden) is a country in which most of the citizens by tradition belong to the State church, Christianity as a religion does not characterize the life of any large segment of the population.

Need I go on?
Denmark clearly does not have separation between church and state, yet you fail to acknowledge your own evidence proving this fact.

You're contradicting yourself dude.

I can't wait to hear your next excuse....

---

9. Judi Lynn flip-flopping on her "morals"

---

http://atheistforums.org/thread-32260-po...#pid905650

Law and order has betrayed me several times over. Even so, I still hold onto my morals because I would rather do what is right and set a good example for my children, despite the wrong that was done to me.

As for whether or not I would remain I would remain moral - if you are asking whether or not I would kill someone for my own survival, I can't honestly answer that. I have never killed anyone and don't know what that feels like.

I suppose if it meant shoving one of my children out of harms way and bearing the brunt of that harm, possibly getting killed in the process, then I don't believe I would be compromising my morals because I would be trying to protect my child. And I would do whatever was necessary achieve that.

All in all, it depends on the scenario. If my children were somewhere safe and all I had to do was worry about myself, I probably would die. Killing just doesn't seem to be an option.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-32313-p...#pid906588

And yeah, I don't commit murder because I AM afraid of the death penalty. That and I obey the laws because Prison Orange isn't my color. I have a list of five people who I would happily off right now if I knew that I could get away with it. So your argument is invalid.

---

10. SteelCurtain being dishonest about the definition of an "outreach program"
http://atheistforums.org/thread-33672-po...#pid954581

---

Yes. Yes you are. Nowhere did I state that all outreach programs are religious. Yet again, right after I asked you to stop defining my position for me, you literally couldn't even wait one post before you did it again.

We're arguing semantics now? You clearly defined what you thought outreach meant.

None of those programs are intending on spreading atheism. As I have said, outreach isn't providing congregation or events for other atheists. Outreach is a church mission to go out and convert more Christians. Which was the entire point of my statement.

(emphasis mine)
I don't know how that statement doesn't imply that all outreach programs are religious, especially since YOU'RE the only one that equated outreach to religion. Now all of the sudden you're backpedaling....
http://atheistforums.org/thread-33629-po...#pid952643

Ha ha! Man did those goalposts move pretty quick!


Went from why to where in a flash.

Hypocrite
Went from "Outreach is a church mission" to "not all outreach programs are religious" pretty quick also.

As usual, you dishonest piece of shit, I'm done with you. Not sure why I let myself go down this road with you time after time. You have nothing to offer except parsing a portion of someone's post and driving down a black hole of stupidity, zeroing in on one definition of a word that has multiple and refusing to acknowledge the others.

If I could put you on ignore, I would.

My bad, I didn't realize that you don't have enough self control to simply not respond to my posts...

---