Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 4/12/09 04:32 AM, JackPhantasm wrote:

At 4/10/09 09:29 PM, poxpower wrote:
And of course they spend a lot of that money on shit like crazy Pope hats and priceless Cathedrals or Art.

Fast food, movies, sports cars. You criticize the pageantry of one enterprise, you question the ethics of all of them. Accept this do you?

Ok...
"If you don't buy this sports car, people won't like you as much as they could."
"If you don't buy this sports car, you're going to hell.

"If you don't buy this movie, you're missing out on grade A entertainment."
"If you don't buy this movie, you're going to hell."

... you get the idea.

---

"You're forgiven your earthly sins a la Jesus' life, death and resurrection. Information inside."
"You're part of an organization that does bad things in adverse ways. Deal."

Sounds like a bunch of winners.

---

At 4/12/09 12:54 AM, Brick-top wrote:
And let's not forget it's still under investigation, you have just committed an argument from adverse consequences.

i said gives of what? not some group that gives black kids scholarships, thats welfare and affirmative action. which is bad

So just because some Agnostics hate Atheists that inherently means they're totally different?

Wow, great logic.

No, they're the same, the only difference is Agnostics believe eternal knowledge is impossible. What has God got? Eternal knowledge. LOOK IT UP.

atheism and theism are both beliefs, you've got faith like them, agnostic dont go out of their to argue with religious people.
[Agnosticism is] properly a theory about knowledge, not about religion. A theist and a Christian may be an agnostic; an atheist may not be an agnostic. An atheist may deny that there is a God, and in this case his atheism is dogmatic and not agnostic. Or he may refuse to acknowledge that there is a God simply on the ground that he perceives no evidence for his existence and finds arguments which have been advanced in proof of it invalid. In this case his atheism is critical, not agnostic. The atheist may be, and not infrequently is, an agnostic.[7]

---

At 4/12/09 06:02 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:
Ok...
"If you don't buy this sports car, people won't like you as much as they could."
"If you don't buy this sports car, you're going to hell.

"If you don't buy this movie, you're missing out on grade A entertainment."
"If you don't buy this movie, you're going to hell."

Yes. They have a good business jingle don't they. You're saying that's dishonest? Hell is made up. How can you even define that as a threat.

How is lying and saying that a movie is good and that the car will run any different.

---

At 4/12/09 03:31 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Yes. They have a good business jingle don't they. You're saying that's dishonest?

Both sides are dishonest. Neither is more dishonest. But the weight applied to the dishonesty is different.

Hell is made up. How can you even define that as a threat.

Religious don't believe Hell is made up. It is a very real threat to them.

---

At 4/12/09 03:50 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:
Religious don't believe Hell is made up. It is a very real threat to them.

Not all of them.

---

At 4/12/09 04:16 PM, JackPhantasm wrote:

At 4/12/09 03:50 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:
Religious don't believe Hell is made up. It is a very real threat to them.

Not all of them.

For the love of...

Ok. And for the religious that do believe Hell is real?

Er I mean...

There are people who believe other than the established norm!? You have opened my eyes and clearly destroyed any argument I was making!

Can we get back on topic now?

---

At 4/12/09 01:25 PM, afuckingname wrote:

At 4/12/09 12:54 AM, Brick-top wrote:
And let's not forget it's still under investigation, you have just committed an argument from adverse consequences.

i said gives of what? not some group that gives black kids scholarships, thats welfare and affirmative action. which is bad

Read your own damn links and you'll know what I'm talking about.

atheism and theism are both beliefs, you've got faith like them, agnostic dont go out of their to argue with religious people.

Prove it.

That's right, PROVE to me no Agnostic has EVER argued with Religious people.

Regarding whether or not it's a belief, I already answered this in one of my blog posts.

Is Atheism a Religion or Belief?
I don't know. In all honesty I don't care and I think it's irrelevent.

[Agnosticism is] properly a theory about knowledge, not about religion. A theist and a Christian may be an agnostic; an atheist may not be an agnostic. An atheist may deny that there is a God, and in this case his atheism is dogmatic and not agnostic. Or he may refuse to acknowledge that there is a God simply on the ground that he perceives no evidence for his existence and finds arguments which have been advanced in proof of it invalid. In this case his atheism is critical, not agnostic. The atheist may be, and not infrequently is, an agnostic.[7]

Agnosticism:
A religious orientation of doubt; a denial of ultimate knowledge of the existence of God

The disbelief in any claims of ultimate knowledge

Your definition came from a book written in 1903!!

Also the author said this:
" Every man is an atheist who does not believe that there is a God, although his want of belief may not be rested on any allegation of positive knowledge that there is no God, but simply on one of want of knowledge that there is a God."

---

Oh wait...

At some time in the future, JackPhantasm wrote: Buddhists don't believe in hell.

Ok. Now can we get back on topic?

---

At 4/12/09 08:24 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: Oh wait...

At some time in the future, JackPhantasm wrote: Buddhists don't believe in hell.

Ok. Now can we get back on topic?

It is the topic.

You said religion is dishonest. False claims. That is why it is not respectful. I source that there are many religious persons who seek to reconcile false claims of the past with the logic of the present.

It is completely on topic.

---

At 4/12/09 08:24 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: Oh wait...

At some time in the future, JackPhantasm wrote: Buddhists don't believe in hell.

Ok. Now can we get back on topic?

There are various buddhist traditions. I've read the Dhamapada, and it actually does mention a hell for those who aren't even worthy of re-entering in the next life (the horrible, horrible, HORRIBLE people), whereas the exceptional and enlightened break free of the cycle of rebirth into what is believed to be a state of total contentment, yet not necessarily happiness.

---

At 4/12/09 10:28 PM, MJTTOMB wrote: There are various buddhist traditions.

At 4/12/09 10:11 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: It is the topic.

You said religion is dishonest. False claims. That is why it is not respectful. I source that there are many religious persons who seek to reconcile false claims of the past with the logic of the present.

It is completely on topic.

There is still a huge proponent of religious people who use the afterlife as a reward-punishment model. It is strictly with these people that my argument is applied. To jump in and say not all religious people believe in the reward-punishment model is an aside, and should not be followed IN LIEU of the actual argument: that there is something very wrong with the afterlife-as-reward/punishment-model.

I would have been fine if you noted my poor choice of words, but ALSO answered to the argument at hand. Rather, you dropped the argument at hand to harp on my poor choice of words.

And ofcourse you can say it's all on topic because they were my words. Fucking Genius.

---

At 4/12/09 10:51 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 4/12/09 10:28 PM, MJTTOMB wrote: There are various buddhist traditions.

At 4/12/09 10:11 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: It is the topic.

You said religion is dishonest. False claims. That is why it is not respectful. I source that there are many religious persons who seek to reconcile false claims of the past with the logic of the present.

It is completely on topic.

There is still a huge proponent of religious people who use the afterlife as a reward-punishment model. It is strictly with these people that my argument is applied. To jump in and say not all religious people believe in the reward-punishment model is an aside, and should not be followed IN LIEU of the actual argument: that there is something very wrong with the afterlife-as-reward/punishment-model.

I would have been fine if you noted my poor choice of words, but ALSO answered to the argument at hand. Rather, you dropped the argument at hand to harp on my poor choice of words.

And ofcourse you can say it's all on topic because they were my words. Fucking Genius.

I think an afterlife should in some ways remain an incentive not to be bad. But it should never be the main incentive. In the wise words of the christmas song, people should just "be good for goodness's sake."

---

Religion deserves no respect. Like political partisanship and hookers, its a vice that should be taxed and open to criticism like any of the thousands of life choices you male.

---

At 4/11/09 08:26 PM, Brick-top wrote: Of course I'm against it. It offers unproven promises and makes assertions without backing them up.

Well that's just your personal opinion and a hang up of yours. You seem to had some bad experiences with religion.

Religion is a 'feel good factor' designed to sucker people in with bribery, blackmail and tactics used by cult leaders.

Bribery: "Do this, that and you'll get into eternal paradise, happy and luxuries"

Blackmail: "Don't do this, that and you'll get into eternal torture, punishment and suffering"

That is of course this Religion has a heaven and hell scenario.

Well again your personal outlook on it and not really something that happens in most Church's any more in Christianity when it comes to how your life is affected. And not all religion has a heaven or hell such as Hinduism or Buddhism.

The cult tactic is used by telling people they've sinned, they're inherently evil and the only way to make themselves good is by following a Religion.

If you read between the lines religion teaches you to be a good person.

Does this study indicate Religion is caused by ignorance?

Considering what the article says "high intelligence produced an extremely high likelihood of the rejection of religious faith."

Yes that's because they aren't as likely to have an extremist religious person telling them right and wrong. Which was still my point.

If they purposefully or even accidentally used more Christians than Atheists the study would've been thrown out. The article says it's been examined and if there was an issue similar to what you're stating they'd have their balls cut off.

The study also shows in the Bible Belt which has the largest amount of evangelical Christians. Coincidence?

Is it proportionally and statistically? There are more Christian's divorced because they're more of them.

Read it again: " Comparing 18 prosperous democracies from the U.S. to New Zealand"

As for being rich, I'm sure you know what prosperous means. They're ALL rich.

No, you just didn't read it.

I still would say that a countries with a high percentage of Christian's like the USA and Western Europe will be affected by their views. Even if they are supposedly founded on an Atheist view, the Atheists are still the minority. So even if they are, they are still controlled by Christian as statically there would be more Christian's in high jobs than other faiths.

Treaty of Tripoli.
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion

It wasn't based on an Atheist view it was based on freedom that every man can be excepted. Also why do you have "In God we Trust" on your money?

Societies were already established in many countries of Europe long before Christianity was introduced.

The laws of the Bible are the basis of our law and we know this for a fact as you said.

Two words: Prove it.

PROVE to me the laws we have NOW were derived from the Bible and PROVE the laws of the Bible were the first to be implemented.

Well here are laws used in finance that were founded in the Bible.

Here is how your countries laws as well

If Jesus said it, I'm sure you can offer quotes or evidence for it. But before you do I'm suspecting you've just bastardised scripture to make it fit.

Well here is one from educationally books for GCSE students You can find more information on it, it's something I learnt in school.

Observational selection fallacy.

Too long ago to recall to be honest.

Then read the previous posts.

You're just denying that religion has done good because you seem to have some prejudiced views towards it.

Cherry picking. If God is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent he'd see this coming. Or you're just not following them because society has more modern and moral laws than an archaic book.

As I said the books guidance is still valid today. Some laws maybe be invalid but I'm talking about a handful.

But Biblical laws never change. Unless you want to rewrite the Bible.

They have no need to change because they are still practised. Even the invalid ones maybe valid to someone out there.

1. Friendship

Read my question:
"Name me one beneficial thing Religious people can do which cannot be achieved through other means."

Talking to God of course. When someone is sick I will pray for them and everyone I have prayed for have gone into better health, no one close to me has ever died. Sure death will happen but not through the means of the sicknesses that they have had.

What do you do to wish someone better? Nothing of course only wait and see. You don't believe there is a God so you cannot speak with him or use his name to wish someone better. You can only say Good Luck.

2. Spiritual Growth

If all this does is strengthen your beliefs then you're not being subjected to criticism because if everyone in a group has the same beliefs no one is going to criticise it.

Well why would you worship with non-believers? Just doesn't make sense, why would you except the criticism of a person who is only going to offend you? In order to make yourself better.

3. Mental Health

If they're facts they can't be disputed because they're factual. You said facts, I didn't. And you've already read my reply.

Game of tennis here, you know what to do.

You never said practising Christians. You said 'religious beliefs'

Not really since you did a piss poor job arguing them while I actually examined your study and the persons performing it.

No you just created a stereotypical atheist view based around self indulgence where you think you are always right and fail to have a truly open mind.

You are assuming it's benefiting billions rather than saying some.

Well theirs over a billion Christian's , your just playing on words throughout this argument.

It's not exactly hard to check.

Yeah but all the ones I argue with are the same to be honest so why check. Why go into the belly of the beast when it's filled with acid?

Then this is nothing special or unique.

They are much more special then you can conceive.

And finding logical fallacies in your posts which you don't bother to check.

Argued against this already

All you said was it's "an extreme term to use" then you pulled some anecdotal dog shit.

Again you relied a play on words and of course failed to argue truly.

And this has relevance? No, you cannot dispute the correlation between non-believers in prison and the ones in the general population. The general population has a much higher level than those in prison which doesn't fit if Religion is supposed to be morally/ethically superior.

Yes if you group every religious people together. Thank you for bringing this study forward, I never knew there were more people with a religion then without a religion.

You are just going across the internet finding other Atheists opinions and using them for yourself in order to try and find a fault. You have only been working on asking me questions and not actually answering any so it's more or less you trying to work me into a corner to try and work yourself up. Well let's see you deal with some question yourself.

So here I have found an argument creating by a great Christian mind for you to debunk my faith. Here is the link towards, seeing you are using other Atheist's arguments I will use other Christian's ones.

Here you go argue with this.

---

Hello I hope you do not mind that I contribute my little two cents to this topic at hand. See I totally agree religion fills the voids in people's lives and makes them feel at ease. Religion has done a lot of good for a lot of people. But it has also done bad, because even if a belief and faith is good a structure religion based upon a book and not an idea can be bad. I will not go into the Crusades and all those horrible times let us deal with the here and now let us say the past three hundred years or so (and no I will not talk about the Holocaust or Armenian Genocide). See the thing about religion is I respect it, but sometimes people just ignore factual evidence to things. Instead of maybe incorporating evolution with creationism (which some scientist and others have done) is they totally deny it. They also do not condone many other things, especially when it comes to science. But the arguement could be made that maybe religion keeps science on check and from it not going over board (Brave New World), Now Abortion and stem cell research is highly debatable but one thing I have found that is not is the fight for gay rights. The denial of Gay Rights is simply because of certain peoples religious beliefs. Now in the Bible there are many instances of slavery but we have acknowledged slavery to be very outdated and inhumane. I don't think you can find many churches now that condone slavery and yet they deny gay's rights still. In my opinion basing your faith 100% off of a book is just plain foolish especially when the book is thousands of years old. It is like having an American Constitution with no adding on to it amendments. I mean the whole structure of religion is sort of flawed in the way that they stick to their faith in god as if it is concrete ya know? God (if such an entity exist) I believe would be more understanding and is not held by any ser of rules. Why should a religion stick to something if God himself does not? If God himself could change whatever she/he wished? Why must we pray to a book and not to all examples from around us? Why do we pray to Jesus and not Ghandi or Martin Luther King Jr.? Why don't we pray to human examples of the extraordinary and spiritual miracles? Religion sort of stops faith in a way like school stops someone from learning. It isn't necesarily they aren't teaching you but they stick to a certain cirriculum and don't allow you to expand your mind past this point. But back to Religions impact (hasn't written segway since 1995). The fact that ones religious ideals interfere in the way as to hold back social progress is disgusting. I think we have moved past the point where we can't give rights to everyone and let society work the way it is supposed to. It is as if the people who preach the belief in governmental positions are a sort of God themselves. The seperation of Church and State is really sort of non-existant and it sickens me. We live in a society where a person can get sued over anything where people are afraid to speak sometimes. The people who take their religious beliefs to politics expand this fear. In my mind the only reason religion exsist is man's own fear of his mortality, of not knowing the answers. And here in our modern day society somehow Religion is making people fearful. Anyway that is all I have to ay for now sorry for the spelling mistakes, and I will wait for a counter point.

---

Of course I'm against it. It offers unproven promises and makes assertions without backing them up.

Religion is a 'feel good factor' designed to sucker people in with bribery, blackmail and tactics used by cult leaders.

Bribery: "Do this, that and you'll get into eternal paradise, happy and luxuries"

Blackmail: "Don't do this, that and you'll get into eternal torture, punishment and suffering"

That is of course this Religion has a heaven and hell scenario.

The cult tactic is used by telling people they've sinned, they're inherently evil and the only way to make themselves good is by following a Religion.

In modern times, they're making more use of music to attract young people. You can see this in the christian rock scene. Rigid adherance to tradition doctrine tends to get the highest numbers of priests (since most applicants are conservatism, amazingly). This isn't particularly focused on Hell. The big issues are normally, do you ordain women, how do you view homosexuals, do you obey the eucharist rigidly, stuff like that.

I know a lot owe a lot of their success to things like, self help with masturbation, things that people feel guilty about. Coupled with help for drug users, prisoners, poverty people.

Hell and heaven aren't a major part of it. They're important, but only in so far as they have morals. Bad things can't be tolerated, good things (like you, my flock member) will go to heaven.

Bribery and blackmail wouldn't be successful strategies. Making people feel like they want to go to church with modern culture, passionate services that let people experience a connection with god, lots of work to help the helpless. That's generally what they do. There's even a load of niche churches, for motorbikers and cowboys, that are growing a lot.

Where did you get the idea that hell and heaven were major parts of their marketing techniques?

It's more like, you feel guilty for thing x, so come to us and sing hymns and raise your hands and confess brother. Especially in the churches people see most, evangelistic ones, that borrow heavily from business strategy.

---

At 4/12/09 10:51 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:
There is still a huge proponent of religious people who use the afterlife as a reward-punishment model. It is strictly with these people that my argument is applied. To jump in and say not all religious people believe in the reward-punishment model is an aside, and should not be followed IN LIEU of the actual argument: that there is something very wrong with the afterlife-as-reward/punishment-model.

That's not an argument that's a fact. Dishonesty is NEVER good. It does harm. Basic philosophy.

I am not interested in arguing with basic facts that I agree with. The asides are all I'm concerned with. You would not have the fact without the aside for perspective.

I'm arguing from the perspective of the thread title.

I would have been fine if you noted my poor choice of words, but ALSO answered to the argument at hand. Rather, you dropped the argument at hand to harp on my poor choice of words.

Did I? I thought you quoted me first.

And ofcourse you can say it's all on topic because they were my words. Fucking Genius.

Well when you put the words "respect" and "religion" in the title I think the subject will naturally be very broad.

---

At 4/10/09 07:51 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 4/10/09 06:36 PM, Victory wrote: Personal gain by being rewarded with heaven?

Brick, you're speaking as if you know that God is real, but are so pissed at him that you would rather ignore him.... Well I'm sure its just a misunderstanding.
Or you're just exposing a weakspot for me to sink my teeth into, thanks 8)

Aren't they the same?

Oh wait, I forgot blackmailing with hell.

God: "Do what I say and I'll give you a luxurious reward"

God: "Don't do what I say and I'll give you eternal torture, suffering and unpleasantness"

Actually, the better way to look at it is, God is perfect and he wont accept anything other than perfection, when we sinned against him we became unworthy n were doomed by our own actions, by our own design we'll send ourselves to Hell, wherever that is.
So we were seperated from God when Adam and Eve disobeyed God n we're ass doomed to die a mortal death, but in the christian faith, Jesus, God in the flesh came and sacrificed himself, taking away the eternal damnation that we deserve, so all you have to do is repent and ask for forgivness n the chances are good that you'll be saved, pretty easy to understand.

Bribery and blackmail all in one little book.

Its not bribery or blackmail, Gos wants us to love him, but he doesn't want to force us to so he gave us the will to choose, depending on what you believe will happen if you accept or refuse is none of my business however, you don't have to believe you're going to Hell if you refuse n I'm sure that may be the thing that turns some people away, the fear of eternal punishment, its not really a punishment its just that the idea of being disconnected from God forever..... it doesn't seem like a pleasent one seeing as God is pretty much.... well hes God n hes good n he loves you..... anyone seeing a connection?

So....yeah... when somone tell you "you'll go to Hell if you don't believe" theyre saying "You wont like where you'll have to go if not with God". Have I cleared that up for you?

---

No offense, but this is a debate, not a religious revival.

---

Shaggy how is god sending us to hell if we don't love him not like blackmail?
All you said was that god gives us the choice to love him. That doesn't make it any less blackmail.

---

At 4/13/09 01:48 PM, aninjaman wrote: Shaggy how is god sending us to hell if we don't love him not like blackmail?
All you said was that god gives us the choice to love him. That doesn't make it any less blackmail.

......(laughs) did you read?

I SAID!@#$!@
That by our own design, if we are unworthy= sinner=/thief/rapist/murderer/ect/ect/ec t
OBVIOUSLY! We wont be able to be with god then will we now, Since God is perfect n he wont settle for anything but.
Sooooo, you're saying its blackmail because there is something that seems like a punishment..... but I assure you this the punishment isn't like God would want you to suffer, you would probably suffer by your own hands seeing as eternal disconnection from God doesn't seem pleasent as I said before!

Anyway what you have to consider that is God doesn't punish us directly, we punish ourselves in a way, let me simplify it, lets say you have two magnets, they stock together right? Now lets say you turn one magnet around so they repel eachother, thats probably what its like for people who sin n don't repent...which isn't very fun (trying to reach something but never getting to it)

DO YOU GET IT?

Also you have to know the definition of blackmail, God gives us the free will choice, and depending on what you believe in, heaven or hell, if you believe hell is a bad place then you'd be smart to avoid it wouldn't you?
Its like the difference between good n evil, if you believe there is good n evil then you must give thought into the belief that there may be pure oposites of them, for evil people may think of Satan but regardless of what you believe, Satan what created by God who is obviously good, so evil itself is simply the oposite of good.....

So look at it this way, God is good, and doing anything that God doesn't want you to do is evil, like killing others for instance which many people can agree, so picture being with God as everything good....Now picture the oposite....thats probably what happens when you choose to not be with God....its pretty simple.......right?.........

---

At 4/13/09 02:10 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote

So look at it this way, God is good, and doing anything that God doesn't want you to do is evil,

This is the main idea of your post. The idea that we punish ourselves from being away from god.
But god is the one that sends us to hell. So we act nice out of fear of being away from god and then being sent to hell.

---

At 4/13/09 02:21 PM, aninjaman wrote: At 4/13/09 02:10 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote

So look at it this way, God is good, and doing anything that God doesn't want you to do is evil,

This is the main idea of your post. The idea that we punish ourselves from being away from god.
But god is the one that sends us to hell. So we act nice out of fear of being away from god and then being sent to hell.

Well its like we are little children n god is the mom/dad.
Think of it from this perspective, lets say were eating dinner n were throwing food around, n God tells us to stop or we'll be sent to our room, we have the choice to obey or disobey, you can use that in alot of ways, you wouldn't like it if you're dog bit you, but your dog doesn't know its wrong, so you let the dog know its wrong don't you, then he knows it is n what the punishment will be if he does it again.....

So its not blackmail, as if anyone in their right mind would ever not want to love God, well thats pretty much where evil comes from, n evil people tend to want to drag others down with them, like when you see people in cults having mass suicides, kids shooting up their schools, you think they care if they live or die?
So pretty much, it is the fear of death that people need, death is an enemy since we brought it on ourselves....(adam and eve)

Aight I g2g, hope you think about it dude.

---

At 4/13/09 02:29 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Well its like we are little children n god is the mom/dad.

So god is like a parent that punishes you? Only his punishments tend to be out of porportion to the crime (eating apple from tree=eternal sin). Also god wants us to be perfect and live up to his unattainble standards.
All in all god is a bit like an emotionally distant overly strict parent.

---

At 4/13/09 02:43 PM, aninjaman wrote:

At 4/13/09 02:29 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Well its like we are little children n god is the mom/dad.

So god is like a parent that punishes you? Only his punishments tend to be out of porportion to the crime (eating apple from tree=eternal sin). Also god wants us to be perfect and live up to his unattainble standards.
All in all god is a bit like an emotionally distant overly strict parent.

They also lied to him after and, broke their word about not eating it before. And then tried to shift the blame. That's not the recipe for a successful relationship.

---

At 4/13/09 02:59 PM, Ytaker wrote: They also lied to him after and, broke their word about not eating it before. And then tried to shift the blame. That's not the recipe for a successful relationship.

Of course thats not perfect. But the punishment is a bit strict don't you think?
Do you wish eternal pain, damnation, and sin unto people (and their descendants) for lying to you about eating something they told you not to eat?

---

eating something they told you not to eat?

eating something you told them not to eat. Correction.

---

At 4/13/09 06:45 AM, Pugberto wrote: Well that's just your personal opinion and a hang up of yours. You seem to had some bad experiences with religion.

Assertions and promises of Christianity:
God exists.
God made the universe.
You'll live on after you die.
You'll go to Heaven/Hell

Well again your personal outlook on it and not really something that happens in most Church's any more in Christianity when it comes to how your life is affected.

Any more?..... You're asserting Religion evolves?

It seems God's mentality mirrors the believer rather than vice versa.

And not all religion has a heaven or hell such as Hinduism or Buddhism.

Which is why I said "that is of course bla bla"

If you read between the lines religion teaches you to be a good person.

And to have a vulgar opinion of other beliefs.

Psalms 14:1
The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.

You never actually addressed the cult tactic I proposed. You merely said it teaches you to be good.

You have sinned.
You need God to be good.
If you do you will go into the arms of the lord.

Typical cult tactic.

Yes that's because they aren't as likely to have an extremist religious person telling them right and wrong. Which was still my point.

It's an invalid point. The study indicates this:
Higher intelligence = Less faith in God.

I wonder if this study indicates having faith in God is a cause of ignorance.

Is it proportionally and statistically? There are more Christian's divorced because they're more of them.

Publicly yes, but not in a study. They don't use the entire nations population in order to conduct one.

I still would say that a countries with a high percentage of Christian's like the USA and Western Europe will be affected by their views.

The percentage of Christians in Europe are dramatically smaller than in the US.

In Britain 31 - 44% of people are not Religious

Tell me why countries with a lower Religious percentage have lower crimes. I've already rules out communism because....non of them listed in the study were communist and they're all rich.

Even if they are supposedly founded on an Atheist view, the Atheists are still the minority.

Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion

It wasn't based on an Atheist view it was based on freedom that every man can be excepted.

You said:
And also the funny thing is most of the countries named were founded on Christian principles such as the US

Tripoli shows, it wasn't.

Also why do you have "In God we Trust" on your money?

Location: UK

Happily making assumptions are we?

Well here are laws used in finance that were founded in the Bible.

Bankruptcy means unable to pay your debts. That's it. This guy quotes Deuteronomy and several other chapters of the Old Testament. If I'm not mistaken, those laws are void. Unless you either want to admit cherry picking or you're too busy to kill homosexuals and adulterers.

Here is how your countries laws as well

The Treaty refutes this and I'm appalled you linked this after I even quoted the US constitution stating the US government was NOT founded on the Christian Religion.

You failed to prove it by failing to provide a correlation between biblical and governmental law, you've just stated "we got this here" without evidence. You also didn't prove the laws of the Bible were the very first to be implemented.

Well here is one from educationally books for GCSE students You can find more information on it, it's something I learnt in school.

You're just denying that religion has done good because you seem to have some prejudiced views towards it.

And you seem to think meditation and literature study are only sourced through the Bible.

As I said the books guidance is still valid today. Some laws maybe be invalid but I'm talking about a handful.

Once again, Cherry picking. If you decide what laws to follow you're cherry picking. Which is what you've just admitted to doing in the text below.

They have no need to change because they are still practised. Even the invalid ones maybe valid to someone out there.

Such as homosexuality.

See? I can link sites I haven't read either.

Talking to God of course. When someone is sick I will pray for them and everyone I have prayed for have gone into better health, no one close to me has ever died. Sure death will happen but not through the means of the sicknesses that they have had.

Appeal to ignorance.
misunderstanding the nature of statistics.
Non sequitur.
Observational selection.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
Statistics of small numbers.

One great big fallacy sandwich. There is no evidence prayer healing works. Also.

What do you do to wish someone better? Nothing of course only wait and see.

Begging the question fallacy.

You don't believe there is a God so you cannot speak with him or use his name to wish someone better. You can only say Good Luck.

I'd have their illness treated by a doctor. Statistically, doctors are more reliable than praying.

Well why would you worship with non-believers? Just doesn't make sense, why would you except the criticism of a person who is only going to offend you? In order to make yourself better.

Does except mean accept?

I never said worship with others, I said being with other people of the same belief inhibits criticism. Others and myself have criticised Atheism. If you cannot take or distribute criticism about your beliefs then you must be concerned with it's validity.

Game of tennis here, you know what to do.

Yep, especially when you don't know the definition of 'fact'

No you just created a stereotypical atheist view based around self indulgence where you think you are always right and fail to have a truly open mind.

Usually the accuser has a less open mind than those they're accusing.

Well theirs over a billion Christian's , your just playing on words throughout this argument.

And you're grammar is shit, so who is to blame?

Over a billion Christians? There are over 60 million people living in the UK, using your logic all of them are inherently British.

Yeah but all the ones I argue with are the same to be honest so why check. Why go into the belly of the beast when it's filled with acid?

You're right, when a building is on fire, why bother to check if the path is safe? Just dive in and save your pets.

They are much more special then you can conceive.

You accused me of using my personal opinion and now you're guilty of the same crime.

Again you relied a play on words and of course failed to argue truly.

You're blaming my methods for your inability to debate.

Yes if you group every religious people together. Thank you for bringing this study forward, I never knew there were more people with a religion then without a religion.

You should also note Christians are on the top. You also fail to understand the correlation between those in the general public and those in prison especially since you've stated the Bible is guidance.

Can you say Willingly Ignorant?

You are just going across the internet finding other Atheists opinions and using them for yourself in order to try and find a fault. You have only been working on asking me questions and not actually answering any so it's more or less you trying to work me into a corner to try and work yourself up. Well let's see you deal with some question yourself.

Find a direct quote showing I have taken other arguments. Actually I've noticed similarities in your arguments. You're on the exact same site doing the exact same thing, pot calling kettle black?

Here you go argue with this

I'll read it, and debunk it later. But I can tell you he argues against Christianity in the first sentence. That's funny.

---

Also Pug, I said this:

"Name me one beneficial thing Religious people can do which cannot be achieved through other means."

There are alternatives to everything you've stated.

You still need to answer it. And I'm opening the challenge to anyone reading this.