Health and Religion

[organofcorti]

Alright! You are not an atheist then. What's the point? All your quoting doesn't prove or disprove the fact that atheism is poison. If it does, how? The quoting of Jesus shows that God exists.

    

Atheists are actually able to say "Jesus" and recite quotes from the bible -- it's not a solely Christian ability. You need to learn what an atheist is.

https://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism

WHAT IS ATHEISM?

No one asks this question enough.

The reason no one asks this question a lot is because most people have preconceived ideas and notions about what an Atheist is and is not. Where these preconceived ideas come from varies, but they tend to evolve from theistic influences or other sources.

Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as "wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives. Clearly, theistic influence taints dictionaries. People cannot trust these dictionaries to define atheism. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as "there is no God" betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read "there are no gods."

Why should atheists allow theists to define who atheists are? Do other minorities allow the majority to define their character, views, and opinions? No, they do not. So why does everyone expect atheists to lie down and accept the definition placed upon them by the world’s theists? Atheists will define themselves.

Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position."

The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system, sacred scripture or atheist Pope. This means atheists often disagree on many issues and ideas. Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds. We are as unique as our fingerprints.

You need to learn what atheism is not. The major thing it is not is, atheism is not truth.

In your picture, above, you have falsely quoted the things that Jesus said. Do you really know the things that Jesus said? Have you really gotten into the Bible?

Wake up. Your atheism dream religion (yes, religion; see the atheism dogma you quoted above) is the exact thing that is killing you.

What? I quoted nothing except an excerpt from an atheism website. I'm certain none of it consists of Jesus' quotes.

But you quoted it from the standpoint that sounded like you were agreeing with it, the things in the atheism website. Those things are part of the dogma of the atheism religion. And you seem to agree with them.

And you said they were quoting Jesus. Your point?

As usual, you intentionally misunderstand.

In the picture of Jesus, above, the words are not quotes of Jesus found in the Bible.

The things in the referenced atheism site are the dogma of the atheism religion.

Do you have a point?

You know quite well I didn't post any Jesus pictures and yet you try to convince everyone that I did.

My point is you were either lying or covering up your own confusion or trying to confuse other people. You made things up and then back-peddled. Again.

But you DID post it. And you know quite well you did post it. It is posted right above in one of your reply posts, if nowhere else. So, YOU DID post it after all. And you want to lie about it? And badmouth me on top of your lies?

Mwahahahahahaha. You can't get away with it, no matter how hard you try. Even deleting the post will only show you to be a liar more firmly.

No, there's no post from me where I quote Jesus or post pictures of him. Are you confused or lying?

If I am lying it is by accidental mistake. This is nothing when compared with all the deceitful lying that you do constantly... to yourself if to nobody else.



EDIT: Oh looky, looky. You DID post it in your reply post here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg14099518#msg14099518.

No, I was quoting a post as you are well aware. If you think that quoting a post is the same as posting, then you're an atheist because you've quoted people who are.

How about you just apologise, accept your mistake and move on.

[1715362795]

1715362795

[1715362795]

1715362795

[1715362795]

1715362795

[1715362795]

1715362795

[BADecker]

No, I was quoting a post as you are well aware. If you think that quoting a post is the same as posting, then you're an atheist because you've quoted people who are.

How about you just apologise, accept your mistake and move on.

Well, your reply post didn't simply jump up there all by itself, did it?   

[FinalFantasy]

Tell that to Richard Dawkins !
Or wait, lots already have https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gW7607YiBso

[CoinCube]

Tell that to Richard Dawkins !
Or wait, lots already have https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gW7607YiBso

There is no evidence that theism increases IQ or protects you from making a verbal fool of yourself. There are dumb theists just as their are dumb atheists. If my arguments in the OP are correct their may actually be relatively fewer low IQ atheists.

I agree that Richard Dawkins would likely disagree with some of the arguments made in this thread especially the ones regarding group selection for he is on record as opposing this idea. Other evolutionary biologists disagree with Dawkins on this issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

Dawkins has consistently been sceptical about non-adaptive processes in evolution (such as spandrels, described by Gould and Lewontin)[37] and about selection at levels "above" that of the gene.[38] He is particularly sceptical about the practical possibility or importance of group selection as a basis for understanding altruism.[39]:169–172 This behaviour appears at first to be an evolutionary paradox, since helping others costs precious resources and decreases one's own fitness. Previously, many had interpreted this as an aspect of group selection: individuals are doing what is best for the survival of the population or species as a whole....

Dawkins popularised these ideas in The Selfish Gene, and developed them in his own work.[42] Dawkins has also been strongly critical of the Gaia hypothesis of the independent scientist James Lovelock.[43][44][45] In June 2012 he was highly critical of fellow biologist E.O. Wilson's 2012 book The Social Conquest of Earth.[46]

...

Advocates for higher levels of selection (such as Richard Lewontin, David Sloan Wilson, and Elliott Sober) suggest that there are many phenomena (including altruism) that gene-based selection cannot satisfactorily explain. The philosopher Mary Midgley, with whom Dawkins clashed in print concerning The Selfish Gene,[52][53] has criticised gene selection, memetics, and sociobiology as being excessively reductionist;[54]

Edit: As an interesting aside from the wikipedia article it appears that Dawkins himself fulfills Charlton's triad.
Obviously high IQ        (yep)
Socialism                    (self identified feminist and on record support of liberal democrats)
Atheism                      (self identified)
Low Fertility               (only one child)

[organofcorti]

No, I was quoting a post as you are well aware. If you think that quoting a post is the same as posting, then you're an atheist because you've quoted people who are.

How about you just apologise, accept your mistake and move on.

Well, your reply post didn't simply jump up there all by itself, did it?   

So, everything you post you agree with then? Everything in one of your posts you support? This is another example of you painting yourself into a corner and then resorting to more and more bizarre arguments before giving up in a flood of crankiness.

[Moloch]

Low Fertility               (only one child)

I think you confuse, "Low Fertility", with choosing to not have lots of children...

I don't believe there is a scientific study showing Atheists produce lower sperm counts, or any such indicator of fertility

Since when is having 1 child instead of 5 a bad thing?  I don't even see how this is a negative trait

If it were a race to have the most children... anyone with less than 20 children loses, right?

[CoinCube]

Low Fertility               (only one child)

I think you confuse, "Low Fertility", with choosing to not have lots of children...
I don't believe there is a scientific study showing Atheists produce lower sperm counts, or any such indicator of fertility
Since when is having 1 child instead of 5 a bad thing?  I don't even see how this is a negative trait
If it were a race to have the most children... anyone with less than 20 children loses, right?

This issue came up earlier

But artificial manipulation of fertility through contraception or other practices would make it only useful if you managed to discount those practices.
Just because an intelligent couple choose to have no children has no necessary meaning to their true "biological fitness"?

Biological Fitness is an empiric not a moral measurement.  
There are two accepted empiric measures of biological fitness these are Absolute Fitness and Relative Fitness. Both of these are directly proportional to fertility unless there is a large differences in infant mortality between the groups. As all of the data comes from one country USA there should be no large differences in infant mortality.

Now the case can certainly be made that Biological Fitness is an irrelevant metric. However, it is likely that some readers will feel this metric to be important and that makes the data relevant.

As I mentioned in my response to anon_giraffe fertility rate like biological fitness is an empiric not a moral measurement and its relevance to this discussion can certainly be disputed. There are multiple definitions of fertility. The most relevant is the Fertility Rate.

Deciding if sub-replacement fertility is a good or a bad thing is a deep topic and beyond the scope of the the arguments in the opening post. I am content to leave this decision up to the reader but have no objections to anyone who wishes to promote their views on the matter.    

[Melech]

Low Fertility               (only one child)

I think you confuse, "Low Fertility", with choosing to not have lots of children...
I don't believe there is a scientific study showing Atheists produce lower sperm counts, or any such indicator of fertility
Since when is having 1 child instead of 5 a bad thing?  I don't even see how this is a negative trait
If it were a race to have the most children... anyone with less than 20 children loses, right?

This issue came up earlier

But artificial manipulation of fertility through contraception or other practices would make it only useful if you managed to discount those practices.
Just because an intelligent couple choose to have no children has no necessary meaning to their true "biological fitness"?

Biological Fitness is an empiric not a moral measurement.  
There are two accepted empiric measures of biological fitness these are Absolute Fitness and Relative Fitness. Both of these are directly proportional to fertility unless there is a large differences in infant mortality between the groups. As all of the data comes from one country USA there should be no large differences in infant mortality.

Now the case can certainly be made that Biological Fitness is an irrelevant metric. However, it is likely that some readers will feel this metric to be important and that makes the data relevant.

As I mentioned in my response to anon_giraffe fertility rate like biological fitness is an empiric not a moral measurement and its relevance to this discussion can certainly be disputed. There are multiple definitions of fertility. The most relevant is the Fertility Rate.

Deciding if sub-replacement fertility is a good or a bad thing is a deep topic and beyond the scope of the the arguments in the opening post. I am content to leave this decision up to the reader but have no objections to anyone who wishes to promote their views on the matter.    

Blah, blah

FIRST, you have to show/prove that the rate of children Atheists have is a bad thing

I could argue that fewer children is a good thing...  If you have $100,000 inheritance, it goes to 1 person, instead of 5 people each getting $20k... fewer children = better

I would also argue that parents who have 5+ children tend to be on welfare their entire lives and are a huge drain on the system, providing nothing, taking everything

Humans are not horses used for breeding and you cannot possibly justify using a "fertility rate", even misnamed such as you are, against Atheists

Your arguments against Atheists are super thin... they are tall, smart, athletic, etc... oh noes... better kill those poisonous assholes!

This entire thread is nonsense, as most religious threads are

[anon_giraffe]

Low Fertility               (only one child)

I think you confuse, "Low Fertility", with choosing to not have lots of children...
I don't believe there is a scientific study showing Atheists produce lower sperm counts, or any such indicator of fertility
Since when is having 1 child instead of 5 a bad thing?  I don't even see how this is a negative trait
If it were a race to have the most children... anyone with less than 20 children loses, right?

This issue came up earlier

But artificial manipulation of fertility through contraception or other practices would make it only useful if you managed to discount those practices.
Just because an intelligent couple choose to have no children has no necessary meaning to their true "biological fitness"?

Biological Fitness is an empiric not a moral measurement.  
There are two accepted empiric measures of biological fitness these are Absolute Fitness and Relative Fitness. Both of these are directly proportional to fertility unless there is a large differences in infant mortality between the groups. As all of the data comes from one country USA there should be no large differences in infant mortality.

Now the case can certainly be made that Biological Fitness is an irrelevant metric. However, it is likely that some readers will feel this metric to be important and that makes the data relevant.

As I mentioned in my response to anon_giraffe fertility rate like biological fitness is an empiric not a moral measurement and its relevance to this discussion can certainly be disputed. There are multiple definitions of fertility. The most relevant is the Fertility Rate.

Deciding if sub-replacement fertility is a good or a bad thing is a deep topic and beyond the scope of the the arguments in the opening post. I am content to leave this decision up to the reader but have no objections to anyone who wishes to promote their views on the matter.    

Blah, blah

FIRST, you have to show/prove that the rate of children Atheists have is a bad thing

I could argue that fewer children is a good thing...  If you have $100,000 inheritance, it goes to 1 person, instead of 5 people each getting $20k... fewer children = better

I would also argue that parents who have 5+ children tend to be on welfare their entire lives and are a huge drain on the system, providing nothing, taking everything

Humans are not horses used for breeding and you cannot possibly justify using a "fertility rate", even misnamed such as you are, against Atheists

Your arguments against Atheists are super thin... they are tall, smart, athletic, etc... oh noes... better kill those poisonous assholes!

This entire thread is nonsense, as most religious threads are

It's an interesting metric, you are mis understanding it.
As used it is an indicator of physical health,

but we both agree it is not useful in this case as western atheists generally choose their own fertility rate rather than let nature take its course.

[anon_giraffe]

Atheism can send the wrong message across to people, especially those weaker in faith but brushed off and laughed at by every religious sect out there. It is not a religion, just a group of non believers.

Yes you are right. People should realize that Atheism comes from a lack of knowledge and information and misinterpretation of their understanding of what is and what is not.

But mostly, atheism comes from corrupt people, who know that God exists, but think that they can get away with going their own presumptuous way, and that they sill somehow get away from God.

Silly atheists. Their doom is all wrapped up. It is theirs...  if they do not change. Only a few years more, and they will die, only to face God in the resurrection. Even now God laughs at their pitiful attempts to disregard Him.

I believe many Theists to have a corrupt view of God. The obvious answer to being exposed to such corruption is to declare it as folly and become an Atheist.

Ignoring the obvious issue of a particular sect of Christian God vs all the other potential versions of God.
It seems your view of God is corrupt.
What is God such that God would laugh at an atheist?

Your vision of God is weak and small minded and therefore corrupt. If I was raised in your sect and could find no other truth in your cesspit of ignorance, I would become an atheist too.

[CoinCube]

It's an interesting metric, you are mis understanding it.
As used it is an indicator of physical health,

but we both agree it is not useful in this case as western atheists generally choose their own fertility rate rather than let nature take its course.

A neutral 3rd party observer might have difficulty distinguishing between the voluntary adoption of an 'intellectual structure' whose adoption drove total fertility to zero and a spreadable physical ailment that did the same.

Voluntarily choosing sub-replacement fertility is a rational choice when resources are insufficient to properly raise a additional child. It is also a rational choice if one foresees such a shortage in the future and acts preemptively with a discrete plan for ones descendants to return to at least replacement level fertility. Finally it is a rational choice perhaps a heroic one when an individual is a known carrier of severe genetic disease and chooses not to pass that to the next generation.

Absent these conditions voluntarily choosing sub-replacement fertility is not rational as it is not synonymous with sustained existence.

[BADecker]

Atheism can send the wrong message across to people, especially those weaker in faith but brushed off and laughed at by every religious sect out there. It is not a religion, just a group of non believers.

Yes you are right. People should realize that Atheism comes from a lack of knowledge and information and misinterpretation of their understanding of what is and what is not.

But mostly, atheism comes from corrupt people, who know that God exists, but think that they can get away with going their own presumptuous way, and that they sill somehow get away from God.

Silly atheists. Their doom is all wrapped up. It is theirs...  if they do not change. Only a few years more, and they will die, only to face God in the resurrection. Even now God laughs at their pitiful attempts to disregard Him.

I believe many Theists to have a corrupt view of God. The obvious answer to being exposed to such corruption is to declare it as folly and become an Atheist.

What?! A theist might be like an ostrich on the beach in the morning when there is a heavy fog over quiet waters. He looks out, eyes trying to penetrate the fog, to see the boat that is coming to shore.

The atheist has looked, but can't see the boat, either - even though he can hear the oars slapping against the water.

The atheist buries his head in the sand because he can't see the boat. The theist may never see the boat clearly, but he keeps on trying.

Ignoring the obvious issue of a particular sect of Christian God vs all the other potential versions of God.
It seems your view of God is corrupt.
What is God such that God would laugh at an atheist?

The Psalms in the Bible says this about atheist fools. God laughs at them.

What is man that He would understand anything about God if God hadn't told mankind?

Your vision of God is weak and small minded and therefore corrupt. If I was raised in your sect and could find no other truth in your cesspit of ignorance, I would become an atheist too.

How silly of you. You want to go from weak understanding to complete blindness.

Just because you are sick in the head, doesn't mean you have to commit suicide like this. Rather, learn more about God through the only things that teach about Him - nature and the Bible.

[BADecker]

No, I was quoting a post as you are well aware. If you think that quoting a post is the same as posting, then you're an atheist because you've quoted people who are.

How about you just apologise, accept your mistake and move on.

Well, your reply post didn't simply jump up there all by itself, did it?   

So, everything you post you agree with then? Everything in one of your posts you support? This is another example of you painting yourself into a corner and then resorting to more and more bizarre arguments before giving up in a flood of crankiness.

Often I am leery of re-posting things in other peoples posts that I don't agree with. If I re-post them, that doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with them. What about you? You re-posted some of my commenting. That doesn't mean you necessarily agree with what I say, right?

At least I don't lie about the fact that I post other people's things when I re-post their things.

Oh, btw, lots of people have pained themselves into corners. They don't all sit their and wait for the paint to dry. Some of them simply paint themselves out over the wet paint.

[anon_giraffe]

Your vision of God is weak and small minded and therefore corrupt. If I was raised in your sect and could find no other truth in your cesspit of ignorance, I would become an atheist too.

How silly of you. You want to go from weak understanding to complete blindness.

Just because you are sick in the head, doesn't mean you have to commit suicide like this. Rather, learn more about God through the only things that teach about Him - nature and the Bible.

There are some who are only exposed to a weak view of God that when compared to the glory of simple nature, will chose nature over the weak and corrupt.
Their view of God would be of poison. Even if many apparent Theists accept that poison, the true path would be to reject that poison.

If you worship a false idol and claim that as God. Then the correct choice is to worship no idea as God.

The Bible is as corrupted by the many conflicting views as Christianity. God has no religion except himself.
God is not the Bible and the Bible is not God.

If you read the Bible, know that man is fallible.

[anon_giraffe]

It's an interesting metric, you are mis understanding it.
As used it is an indicator of physical health,

but we both agree it is not useful in this case as western atheists generally choose their own fertility rate rather than let nature take its course.

A neutral 3rd party observer might have difficulty distinguishing between the voluntary adoption of an 'intellectual structure' whose adoption drove total fertility to zero and a spreadable physical ailment that did the same.

Voluntarily choosing sub-replacement fertility is a rational choice when resources are insufficient to properly raise a additional child. It is also a rational choice if one foresees such a shortage in the future and acts preemptively with a discrete plan for ones descendants to return to at least replacement level fertility. Finally it is a rational choice perhaps a heroic one when an individual is a known carrier of severe genetic disease and chooses not to pass that to the next generation.

Absent these conditions voluntarily choosing sub-replacement fertility is not rational as it is not synonymous with sustained existence.

So you're claiming fertility rate is also a sign of psychological incompetence? Only within a limited framework.

You seem to be basing the desired fertility to be based on survival. We are intellectual beings and survival is not be our raison d'etre.
If you want to be an animal sure.

We in the Western World live in a time of plenty, there is no threat to our sustained existence, only to our personal set of genes.

One reason you might consider it a necessary in this time of plenty, is if you think your particular cult/tribe needs to outbreed another cult/tribe. (as was more important in the stories of the Old Testament)

[BADecker]

Your vision of God is weak and small minded and therefore corrupt. If I was raised in your sect and could find no other truth in your cesspit of ignorance, I would become an atheist too.

How silly of you. You want to go from weak understanding to complete blindness.

Just because you are sick in the head, doesn't mean you have to commit suicide like this. Rather, learn more about God through the only things that teach about Him - nature and the Bible.

There are some who are only exposed to a weak view of God that when compared to the glory of simple nature, will chose nature over the weak and corrupt.
Their view of God would be of poison. Even if many apparent Theists accept that poison, the true path would be to reject that poison.

If you worship a false idol and claim that as God. Then the correct choice is to worship no idea as God.

The Bible is as corrupted by the many conflicting views as Christianity. God has no religion except himself.
God is not the Bible and the Bible is not God.

If you read the Bible, know that man is fallible.

In addition to understanding God through nature, your whole post here is more or less why theists reject your self-god declaration, which is somewhat hidden in the wording of your post I quoted above.

[organofcorti]

No, I was quoting a post as you are well aware. If you think that quoting a post is the same as posting, then you're an atheist because you've quoted people who are.

How about you just apologise, accept your mistake and move on.

Well, your reply post didn't simply jump up there all by itself, did it?    

So, everything you post you agree with then? Everything in one of your posts you support? This is another example of you painting yourself into a corner and then resorting to more and more bizarre arguments before giving up in a flood of crankiness.

Often I am leery of re-posting things in other peoples posts that I don't agree with. If I re-post them, that doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with them. What about you? You re-posted some of my commenting. That doesn't mean you necessarily agree with what I say, right?

You're making my point for me. You wrote that I posted something, but I'd actually quoted it.

At least I don't lie about the fact that I post other people's things when I re-post their things.

You lie about other people posting things, instead.

Oh, btw, lots of people have pained themselves into corners. They don't all sit their and wait for the paint to dry. Some of them simply paint themselves out over the wet paint.

Yes, that's what you do. Argue the unarguable and then look silly - that is to say you paint yourself into a corner, and then end up covered in paint.

[BADecker]

No, I was quoting a post as you are well aware. If you think that quoting a post is the same as posting, then you're an atheist because you've quoted people who are.

How about you just apologise, accept your mistake and move on.

Well, your reply post didn't simply jump up there all by itself, did it?    

So, everything you post you agree with then? Everything in one of your posts you support? This is another example of you painting yourself into a corner and then resorting to more and more bizarre arguments before giving up in a flood of crankiness.

Often I am leery of re-posting things in other peoples posts that I don't agree with. If I re-post them, that doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with them. What about you? You re-posted some of my commenting. That doesn't mean you necessarily agree with what I say, right?

You're making my point for me. You wrote that I posted something, but I'd actually quoted it.

At least I don't lie about the fact that I post other people's things when I re-post their things.

You lie about other people posting things, instead.

Oh, btw, lots of people have pained themselves into corners. They don't all sit their and wait for the paint to dry. Some of them simply paint themselves out over the wet paint.

Yes, that's what you do. Argue the unarguable and then look silly - that is to say you paint yourself into a corner, and then end up covered in paint.

What's the big deal? You posted the quote. So, you posted it.    

[organofcorti]

No, I was quoting a post as you are well aware. If you think that quoting a post is the same as posting, then you're an atheist because you've quoted people who are.

How about you just apologise, accept your mistake and move on.

Well, your reply post didn't simply jump up there all by itself, did it?    

So, everything you post you agree with then? Everything in one of your posts you support? This is another example of you painting yourself into a corner and then resorting to more and more bizarre arguments before giving up in a flood of crankiness.

Often I am leery of re-posting things in other peoples posts that I don't agree with. If I re-post them, that doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with them. What about you? You re-posted some of my commenting. That doesn't mean you necessarily agree with what I say, right?

You're making my point for me. You wrote that I posted something, but I'd actually quoted it.

At least I don't lie about the fact that I post other people's things when I re-post their things.

You lie about other people posting things, instead.

Oh, btw, lots of people have pained themselves into corners. They don't all sit their and wait for the paint to dry. Some of them simply paint themselves out over the wet paint.

Yes, that's what you do. Argue the unarguable and then look silly - that is to say you paint yourself into a corner, and then end up covered in paint.

What's the big deal? You posted the quote. So, you posted it.    

No big deal. I just hadn't realised you were an atheist.

[seo11]

If you are religous or not, well that is a question of believe...      todaypk
fmovies





-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sukhbir Singh badal