Actually, that is man's interpretation of the data. People forget (intentionally) that there is no way to take into account natural C-14 activity in the past, because nobody was there measuring the C-14 data as it happened. In addition, because of the carbon dating that has been proven to be false, the best that carbon dating might be is a better interpretation of things that we know the near date of through other methods. In other words, carbon dating is all guesswork regarding the dates that are being interpreted from the results evidence.  It's not guess work! It's statistics! And that's why we do the experiments few dozens of times and we take into account a margin error! But you'd want us to be wrong about millions of years wrong? nonsense! Statistically guesswork, when you look at how far of it is most of the time. Do you have examples of statistical analysis that you don't think is guesswork? Or is all statistical analysis guesswork to you? I checked my pockets, under the bed, in the garage, the attic, and all of a sudden I realized, it is all over the Internet for anybody who wants to research it. Is all statistical analysis guesswork to you? Are you such a child that you constantly have to ask me for my beliefs, my knowledge, and my opinions? Can't you figure anything out on your own?  I'm attempting to get an answer from you. You post opinions masquerading as facts but when someone asks you a relevant question it's back to insults, eh? Just answer the question: Do you have examples of statistical analysis that you don't think is guesswork? |
|
|
|
If it can be proven without a doubt that by adopting that POV (religion) and none other my lifespan would increase and it didn't actually require me to do anything that might be detrimental to my quality of life or take up my spare time, then why not?
In the interest of full disclosure this approach would be a bad idea. Both the Gallup data I linked upthread and the analysis provided by Moloch above indicate that only the highly religious are better off. In the Gallup poll only those who reported that religion was an important part of their daily life and regularly attended worship services had the reported substantial advantages in wellbeing. The religious who were lax in their beliefs scored lower than the atheist. Ah, well then it seems I'd be better off taking medication than being superstitious, eh? |
|
|
|
I don't like it when someone calls me something mean but I believe in their right to do so. I believe it is their free speech. I am not going to boycott his business or anything of that sort.
Of course, it is wrong, when someone makes racist statements, but what they are, are just words.
If you ask me, if anything should be banned, it is the thuggery of businesses interfering in domestic issues. There should be a separation of business and state.
Even pornography and video games are protected as free-speech.
Hate is one of the emotions of human beings like love.
Repressing it through legislative actions are just trying to repress one of the basic human emotions.
Words don't physically hurt people.
I tend to believe that hate speech is a part of free speech.
Now, the definition of hate speech is very broad, after a few years, it might be offensive to even say "He' or "She"
Pooping is one of the basic human rights. It doesn't mean I want to see people pooping in the street. Keep your hate speech -- and your pooping -- to yourself. |
|
|
|
...
I am what I am. But if someone can prove to me that there is a god, I'll become a believer. And if someone can prove to me that invisible pink unicorns exist, I'll believe in them too.
Instead of looking proof consider asking yourself a question. Are you willing to embrace a worldview you cannot empirically prove i.e. requires faith if you can prove that adopting such a worldview improves both your wellbeing and fertility and likely the wellbeing of your children and grandchildren as well? What is the point believing in anything without proof? That just makes a person look foolish... particularly when they claim to know it as fact, and they can't prove shit... Why would I waste 1 second on religion? Don't give me Pascal's Wager, because it's a bullshit argument... basically a fallacy... you could say the exact same thing about Hinduism, or Islam... what if they are right, and Christianity is wrong? What if the great Ju-Ju of the mountain is the real God? I can't possibly follow the thousands of different religious beliefs, hoping one of them is true... Why waste time on speculation without a shred of evidence? Richard Dawkins - "What if you're wrong?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcgAs long as having this "faith" that he mentions doesn't actually change anything I do or think, then why not have one? I'd also faith the shit out of goblins if I had incontrovertible proof that it would grant my grandchildren a long and prosperous life. |
|
|
|
Nooooooo! Why? That was the most Off-Topic of all Off-Topic threads! It's practically the definition of Off-Topic! That thread should be stickied to the top of the Off-Topic board, not locked. Grumble. |
|
|
|
...
I am what I am. But if someone can prove to me that there is a god, I'll become a believer. And if someone can prove to me that invisible pink unicorns exist, I'll believe in them too.
Instead of looking proof consider asking yourself a question. Are you willing to embrace a worldview you cannot empirically prove i.e. requires faith if you can prove that adopting such a worldview improves both your wellbeing and fertility and likely the wellbeing of your children and grandchildren as well? If it can be proven without a doubt that by adopting that POV and none other my lifespan would increase and it didn't actually require me to do anything that might be detrimental to my quality of life or take up my spare time, then why not? If I found a medicine that has been proven to "improve both your wellbeing and fertility and likely the wellbeing of your children and grandchildren as well" then I'd probably try that too. |
|
|
|
I came across a few old quotes about religion...
A belief which leaves no place for doubt is not a belief; it is a superstition.
-José Bergamín
You’re basically killing each other to see who’s got the better imaginary friend.
-Blaise Pascal
If God has made us in his image, we have returned him the favor.
-Voltaire
How about the well-known Albert Einstein even though he is so intelligent with high IQ he do believe in God, God is real and God exists. He didn't believe in God, he believed in gods and was quite critical of Judeochristian religious beliefs. Einstein was not on your side. |
|
|
|
Moloch - I think you have something to answer for. I said I came across some quotes, not that I fact-checked them... I see plenty of sources attributing the quote to either man, and given that Blaise Pascal lived 300 years before Richard Jeni, I'd go with Pascal...  I really don't care who said it first... it's a good quote It was a joke. I really don't care who said what. Common sense tells me what I need to know about this subject. Besides, don't we have a thread somewhere that hook-nosed people are evil?  You're nowhere near the point that we're discussing. If the note in the picture is it, at least we have friends. Yeah, yeah, entropy, blah blah. You mean complexity, right? Of course, I don't know where my mind was. Oh yeah, in the real world. Sorry BD. BD? Do you mean BADecker? Huh. All this time I thought the name was BAD ecker (a german word for a kind of nut), but it's actually BA Decker? |
|
|
|
Just because studies are available doesn't mean you should use them. You're making a very strong statement that requires equally strong proof. Lots of anecdotal evidence != strong proof.
If I was to write "Religion is poison" I can guarantee you my arguments would be watertight, and the only studies I would use to support my argument would be published and peer reviewed research with a valid methodology and adequate statistical analysis.
All studies that present potentially important results deserve evaluation. What I have shown is that there are are studies that show a correlation between atheism and reduced wellbeing and fertility. I have also highlighted several pieces of anecdotal evidence that suggest this correlation may be causation. I do not claim to have proven that atheism is poisonous. What I have done is gathered sufficient evidence to convince me personally that atheism is unhealthy to many who adopt it. Everyone's threshold of evidence is different and if yours is not met that is not unreasonable. The purpose of this post is to share the information I have gathered and let people come to their own conclusions. The data needs to be shared even though though it is not perfect because its implications are so profound. You're not really evaluating here, just collating and commenting. To evaluate, you'd need to replicate the studies in question. There are lots of studies that suggest hugely important advances in physics and medicine. Before we begin to assess the validity of their claims, what do we do? We wait for results to be replicated. Without relying on independent replication of experimental results, Cold Fusion would still be the Next Big Thing. |
|
|
|
Moloch - I think you have something to answer for. I said I came across some quotes, not that I fact-checked them... I see plenty of sources attributing the quote to either man, and given that Blaise Pascal lived 300 years before Richard Jeni, I'd go with Pascal... I really don't care who said it first... it's a good quote It was a joke. I really don't care who said what. Common sense tells me what I need to know about this subject. Besides, don't we have a thread somewhere that hook-nosed people are evil? You're nowhere near the point that we're discussing. If the note in the picture is it, at least we have friends. Yeah, yeah, entropy, blah blah. You mean complexity, right? |
|
|
|
Actually, that is man's interpretation of the data. People forget (intentionally) that there is no way to take into account natural C-14 activity in the past, because nobody was there measuring the C-14 data as it happened. In addition, because of the carbon dating that has been proven to be false, the best that carbon dating might be is a better interpretation of things that we know the near date of through other methods. In other words, carbon dating is all guesswork regarding the dates that are being interpreted from the results evidence. It's not guess work! It's statistics! And that's why we do the experiments few dozens of times and we take into account a margin error! But you'd want us to be wrong about millions of years wrong? nonsense! Statistically guesswork, when you look at how far of it is most of the time. Do you have examples of statistical analysis that you don't think is guesswork? Or is all statistical analysis guesswork to you? I checked my pockets, under the bed, in the garage, the attic, and all of a sudden I realized, it is all over the Internet for anybody who wants to research it. Is all statistical analysis guesswork to you? |
|
|
|
This type if thinking represents the misguided and horrific idea that embracing evil will lead to good.
BADecker I do not know if you are a misguided zealot or a clever atheist promoting his true beliefs by deliberately peddling falsehood.
Religious. I cannot believe that someone could be so keen as to keep up this sort of charade for so long. Only some very motivated person could keep posting the way he does. Also, BADecker's views are actually pretty tame compared to another forumite BitNow, who actually promotes murder of atheists as a a net positive and not a sin. In the end it does not matter. In the 2+ years I have followed this forum I have seen many bad posts. However, prior to you my ignore list was empty. Congratulations you now have this space entirely to your yourself.
I wouldn't. You're missing out on a bunch of fun. You just can't take him too seriously, is all. I dunno... it really is a waste of time even reading BADecker comments, much less responding to them... I imagine those hours are better spent elsewhere I wouldn't do it if it got boring, but otherwise it's good practice when it comes to debating with those who are anti-logic. |
|
|
|
Yet the factual science that I have shown you, which proves God exists, trumps all that theoretical science, that nobody knows exists the way the theories state. You would rather have the make-believe than the reality. You haven't actually shown any factual science, just your own unprovable hypotheses and incomprehensible jargon. You still don't have a proof that god exists. I've shown you the proof over and over. No you haven't. I understand your ideas quite well, but they're not science and not factual.
But since you don't understand it, no wonder you don't understand that you haven't proven God to NOT exist.
So you set yourself up with god-strength by saying that God doesn't exist, when, even with your poor understanding of things, even you understand that He might exist. Then you shoot yourself in the foot (head) by saying god/you doesn't exist.
There is no need to prove God doesn't exist. What's the need? Bertrand russell illustrates why, but simply put the burden of proof lies with the claimant. Otherwise, why not start with the tooth fairy? Or invisible pink unicorns? Can you prove either don't exist? If you had been only agnostic, you might have a sliver of an excuse. But no. You have to stick to the faith of your religion, atheism, even though you are contradicting yourself all the way through it. I don't have faith in a religion. You call me atheist because I often argue against organised religion, but the truth is I just don't care about the supernatural. I do however care about logic and truth, so if you really need to label me with a religion, call it Truth or Logic, not Atheism. I am what I am. But if someone can prove to me that there is a god, I'll become a believer. And if someone can prove to me that invisible pink unicorns exist, I'll believe in them too. |
|
|
|
This type if thinking represents the misguided and horrific idea that embracing evil will lead to good.
BADecker I do not know if you are a misguided zealot or a clever atheist promoting his true beliefs by deliberately peddling falsehood.
Religious. I cannot believe that someone could be so keen as to keep up this sort of charade for so long. Only some very motivated person could keep posting the way he does. Also, BADecker's views are actually pretty tame compared to another forumite BitNow, who actually promotes murder of atheists as a a net positive and not a sin. In the end it does not matter. In the 2+ years I have followed this forum I have seen many bad posts. However, prior to you my ignore list was empty. Congratulations you now have this space entirely to your yourself.
I wouldn't. You're missing out on a bunch of fun. You just can't take him too seriously, is all. |
|
|
|
The only reason atheists have morality is, they were trained by people who were trained by people who were trained by people... way back to a time when the morals of the various religions, especially Christianity, ruled... and when there was very little if any atheism. If there was no morality of Christianity and other religions, atheist morality would only exist as any individual atheist agreed on within himself. This could range from essentially no morality, to a morality stricter than the most strict formal religions of today. Such religious activity on the part of atheists would make atheism the most erratic religion of all. As it is, the morality of atheism is inbred, automatic training coming mostly from Christianity. ya-ba-da-ba-do!!! About time our Flintstones friend showed up. BADecker, A person morality does not come from being trained by other people. Not sure what you mean? My morality is not that of my parents, my teachers or my priests. Most Atheists use their head to evaluate what is moral and what is not. Religion is definitely not any source of morals for Atheists. For me, I apply several tests to see if an action is moral. The most important factors for me are: - if the action causes suffering, it is immoral - if the action causes harm, it is immoral Sorry to break your bubble, but Christianity and especially Bible is the worst example of morality. My morality is not even remotely Christian. There you go, almost formally expressing that you would rather have trouble, pain and death over life. Since the atheist doesn't know that here is no God, because he has never proved it, makes the practicing atheist a faithful, hopeful person... especially in the face of the science that proves that God exists. Atheism, the most pathetic of all religions. Atheists, the most pathetic of all people, setting themselves up as gods by making the decision there is no God when they don't have enough info to think that way, and all the while claiming that they are people of science. Self-destruction mentality. "I as a god make the decision that god does not exist." So, basically, you're saying that the only thing that makes you a moral person is your religion, and without religion you wouldn't have a moral compass? You got it, man. Since God wrote His laws on your heart, dim and dulled though they have become, your religion is the reason you are moral, as well. Interesting. I wonder if that's typical of religious people? If it is, it means that a proportion of the people attracted to religions are those that have no moral compass and need one supplied by a religion in order to fit in with society. Not all religious people, of course, just those that give religion a bad name (ISIS raping captives, Christians killing non-Christians, etc) |
|
|
|
The only reason atheists have morality is, they were trained by people who were trained by people who were trained by people... way back to a time when the morals of the various religions, especially Christianity, ruled... and when there was very little if any atheism. If there was no morality of Christianity and other religions, atheist morality would only exist as any individual atheist agreed on within himself. This could range from essentially no morality, to a morality stricter than the most strict formal religions of today. Such religious activity on the part of atheists would make atheism the most erratic religion of all. As it is, the morality of atheism is inbred, automatic training coming mostly from Christianity. ya-ba-da-ba-do!!! About time our Flintstones friend showed up. BADecker, A person morality does not come from being trained by other people. Not sure what you mean? My morality is not that of my parents, my teachers or my priests. Most Atheists use their head to evaluate what is moral and what is not. Religion is definitely not any source of morals for Atheists. For me, I apply several tests to see if an action is moral. The most important factors for me are: - if the action causes suffering, it is immoral - if the action causes harm, it is immoral Sorry to break your bubble, but Christianity and especially Bible is the worst example of morality. My morality is not even remotely Christian. There you go, almost formally expressing that you would rather have trouble, pain and death over life. Since the atheist doesn't know that here is no God, because he has never proved it, makes the practicing atheist a faithful, hopeful person... especially in the face of the science that proves that God exists. Atheism, the most pathetic of all religions. Atheists, the most pathetic of all people, setting themselves up as gods by making the decision there is no God when they don't have enough info to think that way, and all the while claiming that they are people of science. Self-destruction mentality. "I as a god make the decision that god does not exist." So, basically, you're saying that the only thing that makes you a moral person is your religion, and without religion you wouldn't have a moral compass? |
|
|
|
Actually, that is man's interpretation of the data. People forget (intentionally) that there is no way to take into account natural C-14 activity in the past, because nobody was there measuring the C-14 data as it happened. In addition, because of the carbon dating that has been proven to be false, the best that carbon dating might be is a better interpretation of things that we know the near date of through other methods. In other words, carbon dating is all guesswork regarding the dates that are being interpreted from the results evidence. It's not guess work! It's statistics! And that's why we do the experiments few dozens of times and we take into account a margin error! But you'd want us to be wrong about millions of years wrong? nonsense! Statistically guesswork, when you look at how far of it is most of the time. Do you have examples of statistical analysis that you don't think is guesswork? Or is all statistical analysis guesswork to you? |
|
|
|
Yet the factual science that I have shown you, which proves God exists, trumps all that theoretical science, that nobody knows exists the way the theories state. You would rather have the make-believe than the reality. You haven't actually shown any factual science, just your own unprovable hypotheses and incomprehensible jargon. You still don't have a proof that god exists. |
|
|
|
And now you're claiming philosophy is not a science?
 Hey! Philosophy is *the* science! That's why "the sciences" were originally called "natural sciences", if I remember my undergrad philosophy correctly (don't take that as a given). |
|
|
|
What data available? Self reported surveys? And now you're claiming philosophy is not a science?
The studies on fertility, health, and wellbeing reported in the OP. Is it perfect or level 1A evidence no but it's the data currently available on the topic. Just because studies are available doesn't mean you should use them. You're making a very strong statement that requires equally strong proof. Lots of anecdotal evidence != strong proof. If I was to write "Religion is poison" I can guarantee you my arguments would be watertight, and the only studies I would use to support my argument would be published and peer reviewed research with a valid methodology and adequate statistical analysis. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
