Health and Religion

[BADecker]

I'm a christian and I don't hate atheists. I can't actually remember when was the last time I felt hate, probably back when I was still an atheist and slave to my emotions like Moloch is today

Did you seriously just say you don't hate Atheists, then in the next sentence slander me?

The hypocrisy is getting thick, and we're still on the first page... slow down hoss

you are right .. i hate religious persons's hypoccrisy.. they say we dont hate atheism but they are scared atheists to death.. i dont get this thing..

Slandering someone who deserves the slander, especially since he is slandering himself all the time by his stupidity, doesn't have anything to do with hate. It's all about trying to jog the atheist into seeing how self-contradictory atheism really is. Smart atheists would know this... if you could find one.

[organofcorti]

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.

[af_newbie]

...
Consider. The average Neanderthal was smaller than we, but had almost half again the brain capacity... something like the Roswell aliens.

Neanderthal's brain capacity was around 1600 cm3 vs 1200-1400 cm3 brain capacity of homo sapiens.

[BADecker]

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. 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.

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.

[af_newbie]

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. 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.

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.

You have not shown any proofs.  Please re-post it if you have any proof that God exist.

 

[BADecker]

...
Consider. The average Neanderthal was smaller than we, but had almost half again the brain capacity... something like the Roswell aliens.

Neanderthal's brain capacity was around 1600 cm3 vs 1200-1400 cm3 brain capacity of homo sapiens.

I suppose that you are one of the big brains who has without proof determined that God doesn't exist, while many of the smaller brains have determined that we just don't know, and that there might be a possibility. Big brain in your case isn't working.

[af_newbie]

...
Consider. The average Neanderthal was smaller than we, but had almost half again the brain capacity... something like the Roswell aliens.

Neanderthal's brain capacity was around 1600 cm3 vs 1200-1400 cm3 brain capacity of homo sapiens.

I suppose that you are one of the big brains who has without proof determined that God doesn't exist, while many of the smaller brains have determined that we just don't know, and that there might be a possibility. Big brain in your case isn't working.

I don't need proof because I'm not making any claims.

You are making an extraordinary, existential claim and provide no proof.

[mrflibblehat]

But also consider that vehicles with 600 cmc engines go faster than vehicles with 5000 cmc engines. Bigger doesn't actually mean better.

[af_newbie]

But also consider that vehicles with 600 cmc engines go faster than vehicles with 5000 cmc engines. Bigger doesn't actually mean better.

+1
Exactly right.  Homo sapiens were more social, formed larger groups that is what allowed them to displace (smash those large brains) the Neanderthals.  With smaller brains Sapiens were able to dominate stronger, smarter, more muscular Neanderthals.

Scientists estimate Neanderthals formed small groups of 50-100 people vs Sapiens groups of 1000-5000 peoples.  Neanderthals did not stand a chance.

[CoinCube]

If atheists went into their closet, and didn't even propagate, we could all wait until the cancer of atheism died out. We could tell by the stench coming out of the closet.

But now because atheists are spreading their poisonous cancer to many people, especially to the children, the only thing left for GOOD religious folks to do is to attempt to stamp out the cancer of atheism in every way possible.
...
Since atheists are genociding themselves simply by being atheists, why no be amicable with them, and help them along a little? Oh yes. We want to give them every opportunity to change their minds and be saved for everlasting life in Heaven.

Well it was a nice conversation until someone came along promoting the values and morals of the inquisition.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vatican/esp_vatican29.htm

In 1244, the Council of Harbonne ordered that in the sentencing of heretics, no husband should be spared because of his wife, nor wife because of her husband, and no parent spared from a helpless child. Once in custody victims waited before their judge anxiously, while he pondered through the document of their accusation. During the first examination, enough of their property was likewise confiscated to cover the expenses of the preliminary investigation.
 
The accused would then be implicated and asked incriminating and luring questions in a dexterous manner of trickery calculated to entangle most.

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.

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.

[organofcorti]

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.

[Moloch]

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

[organofcorti]

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.

[organofcorti]

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.

[CoinCube]

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.

[organofcorti]

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.

"All studies that present potentially important results deserve evaluation."

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]

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.

What I have shown is that there are are studies that show a correlation between atheism and reduced wellbeing and fertility.

I have seen several studies that show Atheists have higher well-being, quality of life, etc...

http://smithandfranklin.com/current-issues/Atheism-Wellbeing-and-the-Wager-Why-Not-Believing-in-God-With-Others-is-Good-for-You/9/16/120/html



Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands... all highly Atheist countries (America did not even make the list)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism#Europe

[CoinCube]

...

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 for 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?

[organofcorti]

...

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.

[Moloch]

...

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=6mmskXXetcg