|
1541
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: Women earn $0.77 for every $1 men earn.
|
on: August 19, 2014, 02:05:16 PM
|
A man generally doesn't have to pick either having a family or having a successful career though. They might, and some absolutely do, but traditionally women have had to bear the brunt of that. It forces them to choose in ways that men often aren't forced to choose which is one reason why men can dedicate themselves more fully to work: lower costs to doing so. No one is arguing that they don't have a choice, so I'm not sure why you keep ranting about that. your inability to have babies without being pregnant (let's assume novelties like adoption or surrogates are out of the question) is a part of your gender package, just like his inability to not pay after knocking you up is part of his. each package has its own advantages/disadvantages. you can't use feminist rhetoric to compare apple to orange so that you can have your cake and eat it too. This comment doesn't even make any sense within the context of this thread. then dont put yourself in a position where you have to choose. dont waste too much time in front of the mirror and in shopping malls, get educated, have a career, rely on yourself, dont have kid just because everyone and their mother do. matter of fact, all non stupid or non lazy women these days do that. this is the scenario when the women have to make the choice: 1-she wants to have a baby 2-he wants to have a baby 3-both of them want to have a baby 4-she got knocked up by accident tell me how often each happens, and who is the ultimate decision maker in all cases |
|
|
|
|
1542
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: State Atheism
|
on: August 19, 2014, 01:57:43 PM
|
So, if the purpose for you with the first link is establish that Norwegians are rated very high in happiness, as I said before, we are good on that . If all you wanted was to establish that, and then via the other links try and connect that happiness with atheism, that is fine. Of course, you did not even establish with any of your quotes above from the first link that Norwegians are even mentioned, let alone happy, which is ironic, but since I read the whole article, and did not cherry pick it, I can concur..
But that you cannot commit to that being your only purpose in giving the first link, even that is very telling.
Whenever you are ready to answer the charge that atheists don't commit crime, non-religious places in numerous countries are safer than the US, the people are often happier than in the US. There aren't many atheists in prison. Whenever you are ready to explain why these data are wrong, or why the data suggest atheists have good morals, I am waiting. Actually, what we are seeing is that you have done a poor job of connecting the links you have posted, with the claims you have made. Clearly, the first link helps you not at all. In fact, it may actually argue your case - which may be why you have avoided noting any references from the first link that actually mention Norway. As to the other links you provided - I think over 280 post sums up where we can find such links going forward. You do not disagree with that, so, I will start with one of them next. Lets start with just one technical issue to keep it simple for you and see if you are capable of your very first rebuttal with an actual point. Atheism and crime. The blind study that was anonymous and surveyed over 4000 US prisoners found 0.7% atheists in prison, and nearly 9% of atheists in the general population. Is there something wrong with the study? Are atheists bad and have no morals.... but the police just don't catch them and send them to prison? Are the prisoners lying even though the survey is completely anonymous? What is your argument that these data don't make a case that atheists appear to be law abiding and morally intact? Present data or evidence to substantiate your argument that this study is wrong. Do the data on crime in nonreligious communities, which indicate much lower rates of crime than in the US, corroborate that atheists appear to have morals and do not commit crime? Or are they committing crime and being immoral and not getting caught? If you believe this, present some data to counter it. I have presented data and studies. You have presented......nothing. Wouldn't you like to try to have your first debate zolace? The bigger challenge is not explaining why - it getting your eyes open to see it. You are prone to superficial connections - confusing even causality with correlation. And also part of the problem is that you keep getting confused over what is being discussed. For example - the issue is not whether an atheist can or cannot be happy. But, if he is happy, whether it is due to his atheism. As far as moral - again, no one is argueing whether an atheist can have morals. But its another thing to argue that atheism promotes morals. If you ever decide to answer my questions, which are derived from solid data and provide sound evidence to my conclusions. I am here. As long as you obfuscate, you have lost by never engaging in the discussion. You look only like an idiot who continues to dodge and avoid. It must suck to have no answers and not be capable of defending a position. I wish you luck. |
|
|
|
|
1543
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: State Atheism
|
on: August 19, 2014, 01:46:25 PM
|
So, if the purpose for you with the first link is establish that Norwegians are rated very high in happiness, as I said before, we are good on that . If all you wanted was to establish that, and then via the other links try and connect that happiness with atheism, that is fine. Of course, you did not even establish with any of your quotes above from the first link that Norwegians are even mentioned, let alone happy, which is ironic, but since I read the whole article, and did not cherry pick it, I can concur..
But that you cannot commit to that being your only purpose in giving the first link, even that is very telling.
Whenever you are ready to answer the charge that atheists don't commit crime, non-religious places in numerous countries are safer than the US, the people are often happier than in the US. There aren't many atheists in prison. Whenever you are ready to explain why these data are wrong, or why the data suggest atheists have good morals, I am waiting. Actually, what we are seeing is that you have done a poor job of connecting the links you have posted, with the claims you have made. Clearly, the first link helps you not at all. In fact, it may actually argue your case - which may be why you have avoided noting any references from the first link that actually mention Norway. As to the other links you provided - I think over 280 post sums up where we can find such links going forward. You do not disagree with that, so, I will start with one of them next. Lets start with just one technical issue to keep it simple for you and see if you are capable of your very first rebuttal with an actual point. Atheism and crime. The blind study that was anonymous and surveyed over 4000 US prisoners found 0.7% atheists in prison, and nearly 9% of atheists in the general population. Is there something wrong with the study? Are atheists bad and have no morals.... but the police just don't catch them and send them to prison? Are the prisoners lying even though the survey is completely anonymous? What is your argument that these data don't make a case that atheists appear to be law abiding and morally intact? Present data or evidence to substantiate your argument that this study is wrong. Do the data on crime in nonreligious communities, which indicate much lower rates of crime than in the US, corroborate that atheists appear to have morals and do not commit crime? Or are they committing crime and being immoral and not getting caught? If you believe this, present some data to counter it. I have presented data and studies. You have presented......nothing. Wouldn't you like to try to have your first debate zolace? |
|
|
|
|
1544
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: Women earn $0.77 for every $1 men earn.
|
on: August 19, 2014, 01:43:10 PM
|
so even when a woman can choose not to have babies, and the husband sharing the housework with her, it still "doesn't solve all of the issues associated with opportunity costs when it comes to women and the workplace"? what else do you want?  |
|
|
|
|
1545
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: Women earn $0.77 for every $1 men earn.
|
on: August 19, 2014, 01:27:21 PM
|
In many institutions, the actual practice is not especially damaging compared to the perception. It's tough to make much of anecdotal evidence, but I offer a recent one. A close colleague of mine recently had a baby. That is, his wife had a baby. Our firm offers equal paid parental leave for men and women, up to 18 weeks. As the delivery date approached, he was advised by one of our superiors to not take more than 2 or 3 days. He ended up taking just the delivery date because it fell on a Friday, and was back to work Monday morning.
Putting aside whether this is fair for right, it raises several interesting questions. Would the male supervisor have advised a woman the same? How would the woman have reacted compared to my friend (who had planned to take 2 or 3 days in any event)? Putting aside the advice, if the woman took several weeks of leave and it affected promotions, salary or bonuses, what would she attribute it to? What would a male in a similar situation?
then dont have a baby if you cant afford it but dont want to miss out on career, god damn it. giving in to peer pressure and then bitching and blaming instead of taking responsibility for your action. almost every woman i know wants to have babies just because other women do, although she has no fucking career or any idea what she would do to provide a decent life for them. worse, some of them were still in the ages where they haven't finished being children themselves (16-24), still living at home, yet they keep talking about having baby NOW as if it was like getting a doll from the store. Says the person who doesn't have to choose between having a career and having a family. The entire point here is that women have these costs to their ability to be successful in their career and are forced to make these expensive tradeoffs that many men don't have to. It represents a mathematical disadvantage to women in the work place, compounded by our cultural perceptions that it should be women who handle the bulk of unpaid domestic work as well. you think men don't have to choose between having a career and family? yes, women have just as many choices as men do. or are you telling me the same women who can choose to have sex and then scream rape the next day can't choose to not get knocked up? No one forces you to have baby. no one forces you to do unpaid housework. many of you want to have baby only to be "in the club", to remain in your social circle. matter of fact, many women these days have wise up to that fact and decided to make the same choice men did, which is not to have baby, at least until both of them together can afford it. many couples i know share the house work. the wife cooks, the husband washes the dishes. the wife does the laundry, the husband takes out the trash. the wife cleans the house, the husband mows the lawn Mathematically not nearly in the same way. They can, but due to cultural gender norms and I think also motherly biology, it, on average does not. We actually have mathematical proof of this in (drum-roll please) our wage gap. You realize that it is the woman, and not the man that has to get "knocked up" yeah? Can you choose to give birth? I'm pretty sure abortion is still legal in the United States, as are Plan B, female condoms, and IUDs. To act like pregnancy is something that men do to women is absurd. The "blame" (for lack of a better word) goes both ways. what she wants is a world where both partners just spit into a bottle, and then baby would grow out of it. that way her gender would still get to have all the privileges that women are enjoying without having to have the responsibilities that entitled them to those privileges in the first place |
|
|
|
|
1546
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: Women earn $0.77 for every $1 men earn.
|
on: August 19, 2014, 01:23:28 PM
|
No one forces you to have baby. no one forces you to do unpaid housework This doesn't in any way, counter anything that I have posted. Perhaps you should try reading my post again while not frothing at the mouth and rambling on about rape. many couples i know share the house work. the wife cooks, the husband washes the dishes. the wife does the laundry, the husband takes out the trash. the wife cleans the house, the husband mows the lawn What you are talking about are egalitarian marriages, and yes, they are becoming more common, but they, socially speaking, have not been the norm in the US, nor do they solve all of the issues associated with opportunity costs when it comes to women and the workplace. your inability to have babies without being pregnant (let's assume novelties like adoption or surrogates are out of the question) is a part of your gender package, just like his inability to not pay after knocking you up is part of his. each package has its own advantages/disadvantages. you can't use feminist rhetoric to compare apple to orange so that you can have your cake and eat it too. |
|
|
|
|
1547
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: Women earn $0.77 for every $1 men earn.
|
on: August 19, 2014, 01:20:44 PM
|
No one forces you to have baby. no one forces you to do unpaid housework This doesn't in any way, counter anything that I have posted. Perhaps you should try reading my post again while not frothing at the mouth and rambling on about rape. many couples i know share the house work. the wife cooks, the husband washes the dishes. the wife does the laundry, the husband takes out the trash. the wife cleans the house, the husband mows the lawn What you are talking about are egalitarian marriages, and yes, they are becoming more common, but they, socially speaking, have not been the norm in the US, nor do they solve all of the issues associated with opportunity costs when it comes to women and the workplace. AGAIN for the umpteenth time, no one can force the women to be pregnant. Your man can choose to have more freedom in his career, or have babies and be anchored down, and limited to whatever career options that leaves him with, in order to support you AND the babies. even after you divorce him and choose not to work, he still has to pay. Likewise, you can choose to have your career, or have the babies and be limited to whatever career options the babies leave you with. Even then, you can still choose to go to work and hire a nanny. regardless of what you choose, his only choice is to pay. |
|
|
|
|
1548
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: State Atheism
|
on: August 19, 2014, 01:16:40 PM
|
So, if the purpose for you with the first link is establish that Norwegians are rated very high in happiness, as I said before, we are good on that . If all you wanted was to establish that, and then via the other links try and connect that happiness with atheism, that is fine. Of course, you did not even establish with any of your quotes above from the first link that Norwegians are even mentioned, let alone happy, which is ironic, but since I read the whole article, and did not cherry pick it, I can concur..
But that you cannot commit to that being your only purpose in giving the first link, even that is very telling.
Whenever you are ready to answer the charge that atheists don't commit crime, non-religious places in numerous countries are safer than the US, the people are often happier than in the US. There aren't many atheists in prison. Whenever you are ready to explain why these data are wrong, or why the data suggest atheists have good morals, I am waiting. |
|
|
|
|
1549
|
Other / Off-topic / Re: Honesty Integrity
|
on: August 19, 2014, 01:08:54 PM
|
Does Individual honesty and or Personal Intellectual Integrity play any part in your Religious belief System?
The question stands.
Isn't it interesting that among the numerous Christians in this group who are reading this right now, they are the most reluctant to answer it?
Yes. It is directly responsible for my lack of specific religious belief. I had to be honest with myself a long time ago in Sunday school that what i was listening to was man-made crap and I had to have the intellectual integrity to admit it publicly. |
|
|
|
|
1550
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: State Atheism
|
on: August 19, 2014, 01:03:58 PM
|
|
C'mon ...do you agree or disagree with the data hat suggests places with low value on religion and fewer religious people are saf, have low crime and have generally happy people according to surveys? What is your explanation? If atheism takes away people's morals, how are these places so safe and happy? Why are so few atheists in prison? You may disagree with the data. If you do, it would be nice if you were capable of explaining why at some point in the discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
1551
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: State Atheism
|
on: August 19, 2014, 12:59:59 PM
|
You have a ton of unanswered questions in here and you run from them like the plague by dancing around the one link about Norwegians happiness for weeks on end.
I told you many times. Forget that one link exists. Pretend I don't have it in my arsenal. Lets stick to the links about happiness of the danes, dutch, germans. Lets stick to the low crime in other nonreligious places. Lets stick to the lack of atheists in prison. Forget the first link exists, how do you explain all this if atheists have no morals?
Answer: You cant. It makes your head smoke and does not compute so you dance and avoid.
Come back with dialogue zolace. You haven't even ever said what you disagree with even in that one link. You have never entered the discussion. Do so, or please shut up.
We will get to that. But, we see how you have cherry picked from the first link, so that has yet to be established that the other links connect atheism to any benefits in any causal way. http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2013/10/29/the-worlds-happiest-and-saddest-countries-2013/Ok, so I can quote you on agreeing that the first link (above here), by itself, in no way shows that Norwegians happiness has anything to do with atheism. We can then move on to the other links - unless you voice your disagreement with that. Else, as noted, I can quote you. No you cannot quote me with your misinterpretations. No piece of information alone makes the case.....but that study is part of it all. I don't need it to make my case if it will shut you up and get you to enter the debate. In your obsession to avoid the question, all you can do is continue to circle back to the exact same argument of the previous 300 posts. You are waaaaaaaay beyond disturbed zolace. It is part of the body of evidence I presented that suggests atheists are law abiding happy people, to which you cannot respond. |
|
|
|
|
1552
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: Women earn $0.77 for every $1 men earn.
|
on: August 19, 2014, 12:56:49 PM
|
In many institutions, the actual practice is not especially damaging compared to the perception. It's tough to make much of anecdotal evidence, but I offer a recent one. A close colleague of mine recently had a baby. That is, his wife had a baby. Our firm offers equal paid parental leave for men and women, up to 18 weeks. As the delivery date approached, he was advised by one of our superiors to not take more than 2 or 3 days. He ended up taking just the delivery date because it fell on a Friday, and was back to work Monday morning.
Putting aside whether this is fair for right, it raises several interesting questions. Would the male supervisor have advised a woman the same? How would the woman have reacted compared to my friend (who had planned to take 2 or 3 days in any event)? Putting aside the advice, if the woman took several weeks of leave and it affected promotions, salary or bonuses, what would she attribute it to? What would a male in a similar situation?
then dont have a baby if you cant afford it but dont want to miss out on career, god damn it. giving in to peer pressure and then bitching and blaming instead of taking responsibility for your action. almost every woman i know wants to have babies just because other women do, although she has no fucking career or any idea what she would do to provide a decent life for them. worse, some of them were still in the ages where they haven't finished being children themselves (16-24), still living at home, yet they keep talking about having baby NOW as if it was like getting a doll from the store. Says the person who doesn't have to choose between having a career and having a family. The entire point here is that women have these costs to their ability to be successful in their career and are forced to make these expensive tradeoffs that many men don't have to. It represents a mathematical disadvantage to women in the work place, compounded by our cultural perceptions that it should be women who handle the bulk of unpaid domestic work as well. you think men don't have to choose between having a career and family? yes, women have just as many choices as men do. or are you telling me the same women who can choose to have sex and then scream rape the next day can't choose to not get knocked up? No one forces you to have baby. no one forces you to do unpaid housework. many of you want to have baby only to be "in the club", to remain in your social circle. matter of fact, many women these days have wise up to that fact and decided to make the same choice men did, which is not to have baby, at least until both of them together can afford it. many couples i know share the house work. the wife cooks, the husband washes the dishes. the wife does the laundry, the husband takes out the trash. the wife cleans the house, the husband mows the lawn |
|
|
|
|
1553
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: State Atheism
|
on: August 19, 2014, 12:37:44 PM
|
|
You have a ton of unanswered questions in here and you run from them like the plague by dancing around the one link about Norwegians happiness for weeks on end.
I told you many times. Forget that one link exists. Pretend I don't have it in my arsenal. Lets stick to the links about happiness of the danes, dutch, germans. Lets stick to the low crime in other nonreligious places. Lets stick to the lack of atheists in prison. Forget the first link exists, how do you explain all this if atheists have no morals?
Answer: You cant. It makes your head smoke and does not compute so you dance and avoid.
Come back with dialogue zolace. You haven't even ever said what you disagree with even in that one link. You have never entered the discussion. Do so, or please shut up.
|
|
|
|
|
1554
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: State Atheism
|
on: August 19, 2014, 12:31:55 PM
|
My argument is that atheists are happy. The one link above does show that.. This is why we cannot move on. You go back and forth on this. You stated the below, and the above. Do clarify what you mean by the below - that the first link alone does not make the case. Does not make the case for what? the first link alone doesn't make the case. Darn...and here I thought zolace had grown balls and might for the first time answer my charge Ive been asking for ten pages...but he cant and wont. Too dangerous for his beliefs. He lied instead and said I go back and forth on atheists being happy. Never have I done so. I guess you prefer lying to debating . Look, given that you are cherry picking, and given that you keep dancing around the first link, I suppose I should not be surprised to find you responding like that, instead of simply clarifying your position. The first link, by itself, does not support your case. You had agreed to that. But, frankly, it sounds like you are now backtracking. I think you know if you were to honestly stop cherry picking, you would lose your case here. Pick a position on the first link - and stick with it please. Either it does not, by itself, support that Norwegians happiness has anything to do with atheism. Or it does - in which case, show from the first link as to why (something you have not done). We are done with the first link. It shows Norwegians are and have been happier and have more social cohesion than we do (and everyone else) in nearly every survey. Other links show they are nonreligious. Other links show atheists don't go to prison. Other links show places with low value on religion also have low crime and are safe places with happy people. All you can do is dance around the one link without ever even explaining what you think is wrong with it. If you think the atheists among the Norwegians actually aren't happy or crime free, then explain yourself. If you think that atheists have no morals, explain why crime is low in nonreligious places.....explain why there are no atheists in prison. |
|
|
|
|
1555
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: Women earn $0.77 for every $1 men earn.
|
on: August 19, 2014, 12:16:50 PM
|
In many institutions, the actual practice is not especially damaging compared to the perception. It's tough to make much of anecdotal evidence, but I offer a recent one. A close colleague of mine recently had a baby. That is, his wife had a baby. Our firm offers equal paid parental leave for men and women, up to 18 weeks. As the delivery date approached, he was advised by one of our superiors to not take more than 2 or 3 days. He ended up taking just the delivery date because it fell on a Friday, and was back to work Monday morning.
Putting aside whether this is fair for right, it raises several interesting questions. Would the male supervisor have advised a woman the same? How would the woman have reacted compared to my friend (who had planned to take 2 or 3 days in any event)? Putting aside the advice, if the woman took several weeks of leave and it affected promotions, salary or bonuses, what would she attribute it to? What would a male in a similar situation?
then dont have a baby if you cant afford it but dont want to miss out on career, god damn it. giving in to peer pressure and then bitching and blaming instead of taking responsibility for your action. almost every woman i know wants to have babies just because other women do, although she has no fucking career or any idea what she would do to provide a decent life for them. worse, some of them were still in the ages where they haven't finished being children themselves (16-24), still living at home, yet they keep talking about having baby NOW as if it was like getting a doll from the store. |
|
|
|
|
1556
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: State Atheism
|
on: August 19, 2014, 12:12:33 PM
|
My argument is that atheists are happy. The one link above does show that.. This is why we cannot move on. You go back and forth on this. You stated the below, and the above. Do clarify what you mean by the below - that the first link alone does not make the case. Does not make the case for what? the first link alone doesn't make the case. Darn...and here I thought zolace had grown balls and might for the first time answer my charge Ive been asking for ten pages...but he cant and wont. Too dangerous for his beliefs. He lied instead and said I go back and forth on atheists being happy. Never have I done so. I guess you prefer lying to debating . |
|
|
|
|
1557
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: State Atheism
|
on: August 19, 2014, 12:01:04 PM
|
|
I repeat for the 50th time.
My argument is that atheists are happy. The one link above does show that. They have social cohesion......more than in the US......the one link and others also mentions that. There are many other sources of evidence in the US and abroad. In fact, in the US, a larger percentage of religious people think that life has no purpose compared to atheists.....albeit not huge. The evidence on crime suggests atheists and non-religious people live in crime free communities. There are few atheists in prison. Atheists are clearly not lacking morals.
Taken together....your premise that atheism is bad and leads to no control on morals, etc. is not supported by any of the evidences and you have yet to enter the discussion and provide any rebuttal whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
|
1558
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: State Atheism
|
on: August 19, 2014, 11:59:00 AM
|
These places have much lower value on religion than the US and many more atheists? T or F
These places have lower crime rates than the US? T or F
Very few people attend church in places like Norway (see my links). T or F
These places (not just Norway) rate high on quality of life and happiness surveys. T or F
In anonymous surveys of over 4000 prison inmates in the US, only 0.07% reported they were atheist. T or F
...you posit atheism is bad, there are no morals, atheist places are bad. How can you explain the answers above?
How can that be ?
Run away...change the subject. Stick to your talking points...."but that one link" Don't enter the discussion.
I do concede that you cherry picked pieces of info from this link below, no disagreement with you there. You clearly do not disagree with that. http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2013/10/29/the-worlds-happiest-and-saddest-countries-2013/I also agree with you below that if anyone was to read this link alone, they would never get the impression that atheism had any connection with Norwegians happiness. rigon: the first link alone doesn't make the case. So, again, with you NOT disagreeing with the above, we can start considering the other links (and perhaps find you cherry picked there also) - which other link that you provided should we begin with next? I considered them a long long time ago. I have been asking you to consider them all from the very beginning . No one but you ever considers one piece of information alone in a vacuum when making an argument. I understand that approach for you, the same one you take with evolution, is a requirement for you to hold onto lies and excuses. If you had to consider all the evidence, your game would end. |
|
|
|
|
1559
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: State Atheism
|
on: August 19, 2014, 11:39:51 AM
|
|
These places have much lower value on religion than the US and many more atheists? T or F
These places have lower crime rates than the US? T or F
Very few people attend church in places like Norway (see my links). T or F
These places (not just Norway) rate high on quality of life and happiness surveys. T or F
In anonymous surveys of over 4000 prison inmates in the US, only 0.07% reported they were atheist. T or F
...you posit atheism is bad, there are no morals, atheist places are bad. How can you explain the answers above?
How can that be ?
Run away...change the subject. Stick to your talking points...."but that one link" Don't enter the discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
1560
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: State Atheism
|
on: August 19, 2014, 11:18:17 AM
|
You are right ...the first link alone doesn't make the case. I already agreed with that. All my links make my case. You have not commented with any rationale to refute the case in its entirety. You are afraid to even discuss the other facts because your thread has been exposed as pure unadulterated bullshit like everything else that enters your pea-sized brain.
If anyone was to read this link alone, they would never get the impression that atheism had any connection with Norwegians happiness. http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2013/10/29/the-worlds-happiest-and-saddest-countries-2013/Sorry - a true statement. You yourself have been unable to show from that thread alone that atheism has any connection to Norwegians happiness - in fact, you agreed it does not: the first link alone doesn't make the case. and now you are backtracking? And, further, again, as noted, you steadfastly refused to note what the link below did say about Norwegians happiness. Again, very telling. You just cherry picked. Remember - no fact is an island to itself. You might want to practice that with the facts from this link. thank you for your concession. You re right no point is an island, which is why my case that you cannot address is made up of many pieces of information. Its not like you really lost ...you just never began .........you never were able to comment on why atheists are crime free happy people, or if you believe they aren't, present any evidence to the contrary I do concede that you cherry picked pieces of info from this link below, no disagreement with you there. http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2013/10/29/the-worlds-happiest-and-saddest-countries-2013/I also agree with you below that if anyone was to read this link alone, they would never get the impression that atheism had any connection with Norwegians happiness. - the first link alone doesn't make the case. Now, we can start considering the other links (and perhaps find you cherry picked there also), except you seem to want to back track on what you said before on the first link. Norwegians are happy, and they aren't religious. Same for new Zealanders, Germans, other Scandanavian places. Religion is not required for people to be crime free, happy, safe, cohesive. True or false..........Honest answers zolace. It would be nice if once in your life you answered a single question I ask. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
