Men, Women, Religion, and Arguments

[patches70]

I think
that people who are sure there is a God and people who are sure there isn't a God, are both doing the exact same thing. Exercising a bit of Faith......

[chang50]

I think
that people who are sure there is a God and people who are sure there isn't a God, are both doing the exact same thing. Exercising a bit of Faith......

I concur wholeheartedly,doubt is the only reasonable position,thus I am an agnostic athiest.Quite often faith is presented as something noble and admirable when I would contend it is the exact opposite,arrogant and fatuous,pretending to be humble.Can you think of any other form of activity than religious practice where it would be considered praiseworthy to declare 'I have a simple faith in,insert deity of choice',despite the overwhelming absence of evidence for said deity's existence.Imagine if a doctor declared a simple faith in a course of treatment for which there was virtually no evidence of it's efficacy.How long would he be allowed to practice?
But we appear to have developed special rules for religion..

[patches70]

Quite often faith is presented as something noble and admirable when I would contend it is the exact opposite,arrogant and fatuous,pretending to be humble.Can you think of any other form of activity than religious practice where it would be considered praiseworthy to declare 'I have a simple faith in,insert deity of choice',despite the overwhelming absence of evidence for said deity's existence.Imagine if a doctor declared a simple faith in a course of treatment for which there was virtually no evidence of it's efficacy.How long would he be allowed to practice?
But we appear to have developed special rules for religion..

Sure sure sure. Sometimes too much of a thing can have ill consequences, surely.

However,
if you were diagnosed with cancer and the doctor suggested a course of treatment along with the realistic odds, tell me this-

Would you consider it "noble and admirable" if you had doubt to the point you said- "Aww, f*ck it doc, I won't bother with treatment cause the odds are stacked against me" or would it be "arrogant and fatuous" if you said "Sounds good doc, let's do it and by the hair on my chin I'll beat this thing!"?

Hmmmm......

Faith can be good if channeled to proper purpose, as much as doubt can be bad that it extinguishes hope. And hope is rarely such a bad thing....

[JJM]

I heard a long time ago about Men and Women arguing. During an argument men keep going further and further into logic, reason, facts, and examples. The women keep going further and further into feelings, emotions, fairness. This is why the arguments rarely get settled.

This got me thinking about religious arguments. You can't argue with religious people, because they aren't logical. Religion by definition isn't based in logic, reason, examination, or common sense. It is based on Faith. Faith is "belief that is not based on proof." If religions weren't based on Faith, and were instead based on logic, reason, examination etc, they would be called Science.

Thus, Religion is illogical, and does nothing more than to deprive people of the ability to think and learn on their own. It hinders growth, expansion and progress, and keeps people stupid and living in the dark ages.

The essence of Christianity is told to us in the Garden of Eden history. The fruit that was forbidden was on the Tree of Knowledge. The subtext is, All the suffering you have is because you wanted to find out what was going on. You could be in the Garden of Eden if you had just kept your fucking mouth shut and hadn't asked any questions.

When you say that we are not logical. I say to you that we have many reasons. Amazing events such as Washington's men surviving a great winter, and the landing on the Hudson. The Bible also predicted that Isreal would once again become a nation. Do you really think that so many people would have followed Jesus and became christians if he had not done something? Also I have noticed that most athiests are frequently mad and unhappy people who always want to argue, while most who are religous lead very happy lives.

You conveniently left out the rest of the post where I attempted to reason with you according to what you were saying.

It is consistent with the facts about the similarities and differences of different religions, and therefore disproves your objection that it should "strike [me] as strange" translated: that it creates a problem or speaks against what I believe. For somebody who uses the language of logic, you appear to have no idea how to proceed logically. I AM NOT CLAIMING OR ATTEMPTING TO PROVE TO YOU BY THIS PARTICULAR STATEMENT THAT WHAT I SAY IS TRUE -- FOR THE 100TH TIME. yes, I "see how the pattern unfolds". I understood this idea long before I ever heard of you (probably before you were born) and if I didn't, you have re-stated it several times now and I have answered accordingly, showing that I understand it.

B. You dodged the question....again. I'll answer it for you. By saying that your statement is falsifiable, and that you can test it, you are not openly "saying that you can prove that what I believe (I’m not talking about just any teaching ever invented and called “Christian” by its inventor) is invented by human beings as opposed to being actual truth given by an actually-existing God." You are saying that my supposition could fit within the framework of yours, but if one does so, various inconsistencies emerge. I have answered you. There is no such inconsistency.

No one is stomping their feet, shouting that the other's statements are irrelevant without giving reasons for saying so, and avoiding reasoning but you.

I agree. When you mention similarities between religions, it is worth noteing that just about every religion has a flood story. Another intersting tidbit is that the Odyssey mentions a day that lasted more than 24 hours when Odysseus returned home, while the Bible also mentions a day that lasted more than 24 hours during the lifetime of Joshua. To be clear I do not believe everything in the Odyssey, I think that Odysseus existed but that the events during his return home are ficticous, but it is worth mentioning that two different sources include the same event.

We have given some good points. Why hasen't the opposition given any?

[BigBallinStalin]

Page 8, scroll toward end. D1G and I are at an impasse. He wants to stick to the unfalsifiable, and I don't.

[Neoteny]

I've got a point to give...

[daddy1gringo]

Now here's my point: Even when I try to be unbiased and treat our conclusions equally, I still come up with that we both look at the same facts and draw a conclusion that is in accord with our preference. You that there is no (G)god and people made up the stories, and I that there is one and he is communicating. Frankly, I think any decent detective would have to choose mine as making more sense: if there is a commonality to the stories, it is because there is something to them, and specifically something to the parts they have in common.

This is where we come to a standstill.

Here's a correlation. You posit, "god did it," which can't be falsified. (It could equally be possible that Flying Gnomes did it, so it depends on how one wishes to define "God", which is why I'll give deists a break).

What's more likely is that humans did it. We're ingrained with a desire to know and to understand, so we'll come up with explanations. When some of the explanations are placed into the realm of the unfalsiable, they can't be countered. God did it, Flying Gnomes did--there's no way to know which did which.

What is incorrect about stating that humans created the idea of "God"? Humans have written the books and have created the oral stories. That's evident--it can be seen and tested. If you posit, "god guided their hands," then that can't be shown--that's just faith talking.

OK, here’s how I see our impasse. You initially posit your model of people making of the stories about God as something compatible with there being a (G)god behind the stories. I could probably agree with that. Once you come to your conclusions though, you shift that model over to one of people creating the stories and the concept of God itself, as opposed to there being an actually existing (G)god, which is not the same thing, and which I can no longer agree with.

Another problem is that you group all “stories about (G)god” together, so if God is behind people creating the stories, they would have to be equally true. For example:

[the production process] can even take the "ultimate god input" as given. The pattern which you should recognize is that nearly all religious texts are always backed by the "divine inspiration" claim; however, the religious good differs. The outcomes are not the same, so the religions contradict each other (even if god is the ultimate cause). Doesn't that strike you as strange? Are you beginning to see how this pattern unfolds?

As I said. my (unfalsifiable) position is that the God who actually exists has expressed who he is and what his desire and plan is, more or less clearly and specifically in Jesus, who is God himself, a spirit, in human flesh, and in the New Testament which he had written about what Jesus did and said, and written to instruct the body of believers that he planted. He has also communicated various things about himself in nature and in the desires of our hearts, (this would correspond with the needs you talk about in your model). Without the specific revelations of the truth, the people in every culture who are sensitive to such things make their best guesses. This model not only has no problem with the similarities and differences in different religious traditions, it is a better predictor of just what those will be.

For example, it has been pointed out that the concept of resurrection from the dead is not unique to Christianity; Dionysus, Mithras and Tammuz, among many others were, according to their stories, killed and brought back from the dead. A spiritually, or metaphysically minded individual from any culture is likely to see this concept in creation. The seemingly dead trees of winter sprout to life again in the spring. The fruit falls to the ground and begins to decompose , but new life springs from the seeds contained in them. The caterpillar goes into a form that looks like an inanimate object, but emerges as something not only alive, but more beautiful, ethereal and reproductive.

So our local shaman or prophet is going to see resurrection in the nature and plan of whatever diety(ies) he believes in. The perceptions from nature are also coupled with the desire in us to survive death, and the hope that our loved ones who have died are not lost to us forever (as you describe). Resurrection, and an eternal life after this one are going to be a part of a great many “stories”, and so they are. Our shaman or prophet has to guess at the particulars, where that resurrection fits into the plan and what that afterlife is like. Some of those guesses will be better than others, but none is likely to hit the nail on the head of how God himself explains it. Many will no doubt feel or claim that their insight was given to them by inspiration from (G)od, but as you never tire of saying, just because someone thinks or claims that, doesn’t mean it is true. There we have the common threads but different details which you claim I should “find strange”.

Obviously it would seem to you arrogant to claim that the one I believe in is true while the others are not, and why I feel that claim is justified is a whole ‘nother subject. My point is that in what you said, you completely ignored the possibility of doing so, and it’s central to my view.

So to answer the last part of your post:

What is incorrect about stating that humans created the idea of "God"? Humans have written the books and have created the oral stories.

Because it doesn’t follow from the evidence you are using. People write about lots of things; some of them actually exist and some do not. People write about flowers and sea turtles. They write science books of the facts about them, and children’s stories where they talk. But flowers and sea turtles are things that actually exist: the authors did not “create the idea of” them. Now I realize that flowers and sea turtles are falsifiable; it can be objectively proven that they exist while the same is not necessarily true of God, but for my analogy it had to be something that we agree does indeed exist.

For the best I could come up with to solve that problem, I looked up the Wiki article on quarks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark
Gell-Mann and Zweig could be said to have “created the idea of” quarks, but quarks are something that actually exists; they did not invent them. The physics community wasn’t convinced of the quark model’s validity until some other guys discovered the third of six types of quark. (“History” section, paragraph 7) In the decade in between, and probably before, physicists believed because of certain evidences that the particles of which protons and neutrons are made up did exist and had various names for them and various theories of their nature, qualities, and behavior. However, Gell-Mann and Zweig had the correct and accurate one. Does this sound familiar?

Once again, I realize that quarks would probably be considered something falsifiable: something that we can prove exists, or not -- now. But if we put ourselves in that decade in between, quarks are something that actually exists, though perhaps some people don’t think so; people have different stories about them that agree in certain respects and conflict in others; one group has the true story about it; not everybody knows that yet. Does this sound familiar?

So your assertion that, because the stories people tell about (G)god(s) meet certain emotional/spiritual needs, and because there are a great variety of those stories which agree in certain points and conflict in others, that gives us good reason to believe that God is made up by those people, just doesn’t hold. My model accounts for the situation at least as well.

Your protestations about the relative falsifiability don’t work because you keep shifting the nature of your proposition: from one that simply says that people wrote the stories, which is consistent with an actually existing God, and which I do agree is falsifiable, to an entirely different one that because the stories are written by people, that necessarily means that they invented the thing about which they were written, which is not falsifiable.

I’m tired. And the rest of my family wants to get some time on the computer.

[chang50]

Quite often faith is presented as something noble and admirable when I would contend it is the exact opposite,arrogant and fatuous,pretending to be humble.Can you think of any other form of activity than religious practice where it would be considered praiseworthy to declare 'I have a simple faith in,insert deity of choice',despite the overwhelming absence of evidence for said deity's existence.Imagine if a doctor declared a simple faith in a course of treatment for which there was virtually no evidence of it's efficacy.How long would he be allowed to practice?
But we appear to have developed special rules for religion..

Sure sure sure. Sometimes too much of a thing can have ill consequences, surely.

However,
if you were diagnosed with cancer and the doctor suggested a course of treatment along with the realistic odds, tell me this-

Would you consider it "noble and admirable" if you had doubt to the point you said- "Aww, f*ck it doc, I won't bother with treatment cause the odds are stacked against me" or would it be "arrogant and fatuous" if you said "Sounds good doc, let's do it and by the hair on my chin I'll beat this thing!"?

Hmmmm......

Faith can be good if channeled to proper purpose, as much as doubt can be bad that it extinguishes hope. And hope is rarely such a bad thing....

Sure I would try the treatment if it was my best chance of recovery,even if the odds were vanishingly low,are you saying the odds on a deity existing are correspondingly low but are still our best option?A sort of Pascal's wager?Surely you can see the assumption underlying your argument,that the existence of a deity is beneficial,is not shared by all,or does it have any bearing on whether the claim to existence is true.

[patches70]

Quite often faith is presented as something noble and admirable when I would contend it is the exact opposite,arrogant and fatuous,pretending to be humble.Can you think of any other form of activity than religious practice where it would be considered praiseworthy to declare 'I have a simple faith in,insert deity of choice',despite the overwhelming absence of evidence for said deity's existence.Imagine if a doctor declared a simple faith in a course of treatment for which there was virtually no evidence of it's efficacy.How long would he be allowed to practice?
But we appear to have developed special rules for religion..

Sure sure sure. Sometimes too much of a thing can have ill consequences, surely.

However,
if you were diagnosed with cancer and the doctor suggested a course of treatment along with the realistic odds, tell me this-

Would you consider it "noble and admirable" if you had doubt to the point you said- "Aww, f*ck it doc, I won't bother with treatment cause the odds are stacked against me" or would it be "arrogant and fatuous" if you said "Sounds good doc, let's do it and by the hair on my chin I'll beat this thing!"?

Hmmmm......

Faith can be good if channeled to proper purpose, as much as doubt can be bad that it extinguishes hope. And hope is rarely such a bad thing....

Sure I would try the treatment if it was my best chance of recovery,even if the odds were vanishingly low,are you saying the odds on a deity existing are correspondingly low but are still our best option?A sort of Pascal's wager?Surely you can see the assumption underlying your argument,that the existence of a deity is beneficial,is not shared by all,or does it have any bearing on whether the claim to existence is true.

You didn't quite answer the question. I made no mention of any deity. I am talking about faith. We all have it to one degree or another.
Where you call faith "fatuous" yet you'd take the treatment and it would be best that you had a positive outlook despite what the odds would be. You'd have faith that the treatment would work, even if you had a very slim chance of survival.

Would you go into the treatment ho hum whatever, or would you go in with the mindset of I'm going to beat this thing, no matter what the odds?

Faith in itself is not a bad thing at all, be it you have faith in a deity, yourself, technology, education, government, or whatever. It's when faith is directed to bad purpose is when it turns fanaticism.
Imagine a world full of only fanatics.
Kill the infidel!
No! I'll kill you back!

Just as doubt can be a good thing as well. It is fine and good to doubt a deity, yourself, technology, education, government, or whatever. It's when doubt is directed to bad purpose is when it turns to into cynicism. Imagine a world full of nothing but cynics-
Go to the moon? What? Are you crazy! It can't be done!

That's all I'm saying. The proper use of faith can preserve hope and the absolutist view that faith is bad is short sighted and unwise (IMO). You seem to have crossed the line into cynicism in regards to matters of faith, especially in a deity. Which if that makes you happy then more power to you. But in regards to your absolute faith that there is no deity because there is no evidence of one, I'd think you'd employ a tiny bit of doubt in that absolute faith you have.
You don't appear to even be open to the possibility. Where is your doubt that you said (I think) is the only rational view to have?
In that regard you appear to have no doubt.

NOTE: I mean not to insult, be confrontational or criticize you in any way shape or form, I'm merely talking here is all.

[chang50]

Quite often faith is presented as something noble and admirable when I would contend it is the exact opposite,arrogant and fatuous,pretending to be humble.Can you think of any other form of activity than religious practice where it would be considered praiseworthy to declare 'I have a simple faith in,insert deity of choice',despite the overwhelming absence of evidence for said deity's existence.Imagine if a doctor declared a simple faith in a course of treatment for which there was virtually no evidence of it's efficacy.How long would he be allowed to practice?
But we appear to have developed special rules for religion..

Sure sure sure. Sometimes too much of a thing can have ill consequences, surely.

However,
if you were diagnosed with cancer and the doctor suggested a course of treatment along with the realistic odds, tell me this-

Would you consider it "noble and admirable" if you had doubt to the point you said- "Aww, f*ck it doc, I won't bother with treatment cause the odds are stacked against me" or would it be "arrogant and fatuous" if you said "Sounds good doc, let's do it and by the hair on my chin I'll beat this thing!"?

Hmmmm......

Faith can be good if channeled to proper purpose, as much as doubt can be bad that it extinguishes hope. And hope is rarely such a bad thing....

Sure I would try the treatment if it was my best chance of recovery,even if the odds were vanishingly low,are you saying the odds on a deity existing are correspondingly low but are still our best option?A sort of Pascal's wager?Surely you can see the assumption underlying your argument,that the existence of a deity is beneficial,is not shared by all,or does it have any bearing on whether the claim to existence is true.

You didn't quite answer the question. I made no mention of any deity. I am talking about faith. We all have it to one degree or another.
Where you call faith "fatuous" yet you'd take the treatment and it would be best that you had a positive outlook despite what the odds would be. You'd have faith that the treatment would work, even if you had a very slim chance of survival.

Would you go into the treatment ho hum whatever, or would you go in with the mindset of I'm going to beat this thing, no matter what the odds?

Faith in itself is not a bad thing at all, be it you have faith in a deity, yourself, technology, education, government, or whatever. It's when faith is directed to bad purpose is when it turns fanaticism.
Imagine a world full of only fanatics.
Kill the infidel!
No! I'll kill you back!

Just as doubt can be a good thing as well. It is fine and good to doubt a deity, yourself, technology, education, government, or whatever. It's when doubt is directed to bad purpose is when it turns to into cynicism. Imagine a world full of nothing but cynics-
Go to the moon? What? Are you crazy! It can't be done!

That's all I'm saying. The proper use of faith can preserve hope and the absolutist view that faith is bad is short sighted and unwise (IMO). You seem to have crossed the line into cynicism in regards to matters of faith, especially in a deity. Which if that makes you happy then more power to you. But in regards to your absolute faith that there is no deity because there is no evidence of one, I'd think you'd employ a tiny bit of doubt in that absolute faith you have.
You don't appear to even be open to the possibility. Where is your doubt that you said (I think) is the only rational view to have?
In that regard you appear to have no doubt.

NOTE: I mean not to insult, be confrontational or criticize you in any way shape or form, I'm merely talking here is all.

I appreciate the civil tone of your posts.It 's not about what makes me happy,or shouldn't be,I don't believe we choose what we believe,rather it is dictated by our conscience.Where I see very little evidence for a proposition my doubt is proportional to that,I cannot lie to myself.

[JJM]

I've got a point to give...

Lets hear it.

[Neoteny]

I've got a point to give...

Lets hear it.

It's in my pants.

[bedub1]

When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called a Religion. --Robert M. Pirsig

[john9blue]

When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called a Religion. --Robert M. Pirsig

you people quote your dogma more often than fundamentalists quote the bible.

[Symmetry]

When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called a Religion. --Robert M. Pirsig

you people quote your dogma more often than fundamentalists quote the bible.

I don't think quoting Robert Pirsig is anyone's idea of dogma. Well, maybe hippies who ride motorcycles and enjoy maintaining them...

[JJM]

When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called a Religion. --Robert M. Pirsig

I heard a long time ago about Men and Women arguing. During an argument men keep going further and further into logic, reason, facts, and examples. The women keep going further and further into feelings, emotions, fairness. This is why the arguments rarely get settled.

This got me thinking about religious arguments. You can't argue with religious people, because they aren't logical. Religion by definition isn't based in logic, reason, examination, or common sense. It is based on Faith. Faith is "belief that is not based on proof." If religions weren't based on Faith, and were instead based on logic, reason, examination etc, they would be called Science.

Thus, Religion is illogical, and does nothing more than to deprive people of the ability to think and learn on their own. It hinders growth, expansion and progress, and keeps people stupid and living in the dark ages.

The essence of Christianity is told to us in the Garden of Eden history. The fruit that was forbidden was on the Tree of Knowledge. The subtext is, All the suffering you have is because you wanted to find out what was going on. You could be in the Garden of Eden if you had just kept your fucking mouth shut and hadn't asked any questions.

When you say that we are not logical. I say to you that we have many reasons. Amazing events such as Washington's men surviving a great winter, and the landing on the Hudson. The Bible also predicted that Isreal would once again become a nation. Do you really think that so many people would have followed Jesus and became christians if he had not done something? Also I have noticed that most athiests are frequently mad and unhappy people who always want to argue, while most who are religous lead very happy lives.

You conveniently left out the rest of the post where I attempted to reason with you according to what you were saying.

It is consistent with the facts about the similarities and differences of different religions, and therefore disproves your objection that it should "strike [me] as strange" translated: that it creates a problem or speaks against what I believe. For somebody who uses the language of logic, you appear to have no idea how to proceed logically. I AM NOT CLAIMING OR ATTEMPTING TO PROVE TO YOU BY THIS PARTICULAR STATEMENT THAT WHAT I SAY IS TRUE -- FOR THE 100TH TIME. yes, I "see how the pattern unfolds". I understood this idea long before I ever heard of you (probably before you were born) and if I didn't, you have re-stated it several times now and I have answered accordingly, showing that I understand it.

B. You dodged the question....again. I'll answer it for you. By saying that your statement is falsifiable, and that you can test it, you are not openly "saying that you can prove that what I believe (I’m not talking about just any teaching ever invented and called “Christian” by its inventor) is invented by human beings as opposed to being actual truth given by an actually-existing God." You are saying that my supposition could fit within the framework of yours, but if one does so, various inconsistencies emerge. I have answered you. There is no such inconsistency.

No one is stomping their feet, shouting that the other's statements are irrelevant without giving reasons for saying so, and avoiding reasoning but you.

I agree. When you mention similarities between religions, it is worth noteing that just about every religion has a flood story. Another intersting tidbit is that the Odyssey mentions a day that lasted more than 24 hours when Odysseus returned home, while the Bible also mentions a day that lasted more than 24 hours during the lifetime of Joshua. To be clear I do not believe everything in the Odyssey, I think that Odysseus existed but that the events during his return home are ficticous, but it is worth mentioning that two different sources include the same event.

We have given some good points. Why hasen't the opposition given any?

I have tried to reason with you but all you can do is post somebodys little saying. Please explain to me some of the events that I have mentioned.

[Symmetry]

Wait, you want him to explain how a fictitious account in the Odyssey, a work of fiction, explains how a story in the Bible, which is completely different, is wrong? Can't you just read the stories?

[JJM]

Wait, you want him to explain how a fictitious account in the Odyssey, a work of fiction, explains how a story in the Bible, which is completely different, is wrong? Can't you just read the stories?

It is very possable that the Odyssey was written to explain the more than 24 hour day. Look at greek history, they absolutly had to have a story to explain everything. If the Sun had stayed out for hours longer than it was supposed to, they most certainly would have created a story to explain it.

[Symmetry]

Wait, you want him to explain how a fictitious account in the Odyssey, a work of fiction, explains how a story in the Bible, which is completely different, is wrong? Can't you just read the stories?

It is very possable that the Odyssey was written to explain the more than 24 hour day. Look at greek history, they absolutly had to have a story to explain everything. If the Sun had stayed out for hours longer than it was supposed to, they most certainly would have created a story to explain it.

Yeah, I studied the Odyssey as part of my degree, not saying you're wrong, just don't dismiss my take. The Odyssey is a work of fiction. The stuff didn't happen. Don't go all Discovery Channel on the maybes here- it is a work of fiction.

[john9blue]

When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called a Religion. --Robert M. Pirsig

you people quote your dogma more often than fundamentalists quote the bible.

I don't think quoting Robert Pirsig is anyone's idea of dogma. Well, maybe hippies who ride motorcycles and enjoy maintaining them...

you haven't spent enough time talking to atheists. the same quotes show up again and again and again. it's like they have their very own doctrine.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Sigh, fine I'll take the thankless task of debunking JJM's childish arguments. You guys owe me a pint.

When you say that we are not logical. I say to you that we have many reasons. Amazing events such as Washington's men surviving a great winter, and the landing on the Hudson.

Do you know anything about probabilities?
People win the lottery all the time, is this also proof of supernatural intervention?

The Bible also predicted that Isreal would once again become a nation.

Explain to me why the bible predictions are more valid than, say, Nostradamus.

Do you really think that so many people would have followed Jesus and became christians if he had not done something?

Do you really think so many people would have committed suicide as part of the People's Temple cult if Jim Jones was not really who he claimed to be?

Do you really think so many people would dedicate their life to the church of Scientology if Xenu were not real?

Yes, yes they would.

Also I have noticed that most athiests are frequently mad and unhappy people who always want to argue, while most who are religous lead very happy lives.

Care to back that up with some data?

In the mean time, I'll leave this study here for you:

The present study examined whether IQ relates systematically to denomination and income within the framework of the g nexus, using representative data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth (NLSY97). Atheists score 1.95 IQ points higher than Agnostics, 3.82 points higher than Liberal persuasions, and 5.89 IQ points higher than Dogmatic persuasions. Denominations differ significantly in IQ and income. Religiosity declines between ages 12 to 17. It is suggested that IQ makes an individual likely to gravitate toward a denomination and level of achievement that best fit his or hers particular level of cognitive complexity. Ontogenetically speaking this means that contemporary denominations are rank ordered by largely hereditary variations in brain efficiency (i.e. IQ). In terms of evolution, modern Atheists are reacting rationally to cognitive and emotional challenges, whereas Liberals and, in particular Dogmatics, still rely on ancient, pre-rational, supernatural and wishful thinking.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289608001013

I agree. When you mention similarities between religions, it is worth noteing that just about every religion has a flood story. Another intersting tidbit is that the Odyssey mentions a day that lasted more than 24 hours when Odysseus returned home, while the Bible also mentions a day that lasted more than 24 hours during the lifetime of Joshua. To be clear I do not believe everything in the Odyssey, I think that Odysseus existed but that the events during his return home are ficticous, but it is worth mentioning that two different sources include the same event.

So certain myths are common, let's see two possible causes for this:
1. People at that stage of development have similar concerns regardless of location, culture and race. You see the river flood and kill your animals, so you assume floods are what happens when the gods get angry. Also, you find seashells and stuff on mountains, and since you're not quite familiar with the functioning of tectonic plates yet you assume some massive flood put them there. Lastly, many religions borrowed elements from one another. The global flood one was probably pretty catchy, so it spreads.
2. There actually was a global flood, despite modern science telling us that's not possible.

Hmm, I think I'll go for option 1.

Also, where the hell are all the goddamn dragons? That's a pretty common myth as well.

[Symmetry]

When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called a Religion. --Robert M. Pirsig

you people quote your dogma more often than fundamentalists quote the bible.

I don't think quoting Robert Pirsig is anyone's idea of dogma. Well, maybe hippies who ride motorcycles and enjoy maintaining them...

you haven't spent enough time talking to atheists. the same quotes show up again and again and again. it's like they have their very own doctrine.

I've spent a lot of time talking to Atheists, and read Pirsig.

I think there's a middle ground of understanding that can be achieved by little steps like both sides not starting their posts with things along the lines of-

"you people quote your dogma"

[JJM]

Sigh, fine I'll take the thankless task of debunking JJM's childish arguments. You guys owe me a pint.

When you say that we are not logical. I say to you that we have many reasons. Amazing events such as Washington's men surviving a great winter, and the landing on the Hudson.

Do you know anything about probabilities?
People win the lottery all the time, is this also proof of supernatural intervention?

The Bible also predicted that Isreal would once again become a nation.

Explain to me why the bible predictions are more valid than, say, Nostradamus.

Do you really think that so many people would have followed Jesus and became christians if he had not done something?

Do you really think so many people would have committed suicide as part of the People's Temple cult if Jim Jones was not really who he claimed to be?

Do you really think so many people would dedicate their life to the church of Scientology if Xenu were not real?

Yes, yes they would.

Also I have noticed that most athiests are frequently mad and unhappy people who always want to argue, while most who are religous lead very happy lives.

Care to back that up with some data?

In the mean time, I'll leave this study here for you:

The present study examined whether IQ relates systematically to denomination and income within the framework of the g nexus, using representative data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth (NLSY97). Atheists score 1.95 IQ points higher than Agnostics, 3.82 points higher than Liberal persuasions, and 5.89 IQ points higher than Dogmatic persuasions. Denominations differ significantly in IQ and income. Religiosity declines between ages 12 to 17. It is suggested that IQ makes an individual likely to gravitate toward a denomination and level of achievement that best fit his or hers particular level of cognitive complexity. Ontogenetically speaking this means that contemporary denominations are rank ordered by largely hereditary variations in brain efficiency (i.e. IQ). In terms of evolution, modern Atheists are reacting rationally to cognitive and emotional challenges, whereas Liberals and, in particular Dogmatics, still rely on ancient, pre-rational, supernatural and wishful thinking.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289608001013

I agree. When you mention similarities between religions, it is worth noteing that just about every religion has a flood story. Another intersting tidbit is that the Odyssey mentions a day that lasted more than 24 hours when Odysseus returned home, while the Bible also mentions a day that lasted more than 24 hours during the lifetime of Joshua. To be clear I do not believe everything in the Odyssey, I think that Odysseus existed but that the events during his return home are ficticous, but it is worth mentioning that two different sources include the same event.

So certain myths are common, let's see two possible causes for this:
1. People at that stage of development have similar concerns regardless of location, culture and race. You see the river flood and kill your animals, so you assume floods are what happens when the gods get angry. Also, you find seashells and stuff on mountains, and since you're not quite familiar with the functioning of tectonic plates yet you assume some massive flood put them there. Lastly, many religions borrowed elements from one another. The global flood one was probably pretty catchy, so it spreads.
2. There actually was a global flood, despite modern science telling us that's not possible.

Hmm, I think I'll go for option 1.

Also, where the hell are all the goddamn dragons? That's a pretty common myth as well.

I shall answer your questions in the order to which they were asked.
1. First of all when you mention the lottery, that is because so many people to win, so the odds of at least one winning a not that long. Also note that Washington and Captain Sully are both religous men, amazing things can be accomplished be people of faith, for more proof study Joan of Arc and Rodrigo Diaz de vivar.

2. I do not see your point. Nostradamus was a Catholic. You are simply bettering my case.

3. Jim Jones followers were people who had felt left out and had wanted a leader, if you watch interviews with survivors many of them will say that they wanted to escape. Jesus followers remained loyal even through being persecuted. Jesus had many more believers. Jesus drew crowds on his various travels.

4. That is something that you can not put a statistic on but is something thatI have noticed. As for your point, lets judge by accomplishments instead of test scores. Every US president was Christian. Most world leaders are people of faith. So are most successful military leaders, Eisenhower, Petraeus. Even the majority of Scientists. Einstein was Jewish and Darwin was a Christian.

5. You mention Sea shells on mountains. If carbon dating is the decider then it shows that they have been up there since Earth early days as the world was forming. Also there was a rocklike structure found on an Iranian mountain that Scientists have said could very possably be petrafied wood and fits the dimensions of Noah's Arc.

[Symmetry]

Sigh, fine I'll take the thankless task of debunking JJM's childish arguments. You guys owe me a pint.

When you say that we are not logical. I say to you that we have many reasons. Amazing events such as Washington's men surviving a great winter, and the landing on the Hudson.

Do you know anything about probabilities?
People win the lottery all the time, is this also proof of supernatural intervention?

The Bible also predicted that Isreal would once again become a nation.

Explain to me why the bible predictions are more valid than, say, Nostradamus.

Do you really think that so many people would have followed Jesus and became christians if he had not done something?

Do you really think so many people would have committed suicide as part of the People's Temple cult if Jim Jones was not really who he claimed to be?

Do you really think so many people would dedicate their life to the church of Scientology if Xenu were not real?

Yes, yes they would.

Also I have noticed that most athiests are frequently mad and unhappy people who always want to argue, while most who are religous lead very happy lives.

Care to back that up with some data?

In the mean time, I'll leave this study here for you:

The present study examined whether IQ relates systematically to denomination and income within the framework of the g nexus, using representative data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth (NLSY97). Atheists score 1.95 IQ points higher than Agnostics, 3.82 points higher than Liberal persuasions, and 5.89 IQ points higher than Dogmatic persuasions. Denominations differ significantly in IQ and income. Religiosity declines between ages 12 to 17. It is suggested that IQ makes an individual likely to gravitate toward a denomination and level of achievement that best fit his or hers particular level of cognitive complexity. Ontogenetically speaking this means that contemporary denominations are rank ordered by largely hereditary variations in brain efficiency (i.e. IQ). In terms of evolution, modern Atheists are reacting rationally to cognitive and emotional challenges, whereas Liberals and, in particular Dogmatics, still rely on ancient, pre-rational, supernatural and wishful thinking.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289608001013

I agree. When you mention similarities between religions, it is worth noteing that just about every religion has a flood story. Another intersting tidbit is that the Odyssey mentions a day that lasted more than 24 hours when Odysseus returned home, while the Bible also mentions a day that lasted more than 24 hours during the lifetime of Joshua. To be clear I do not believe everything in the Odyssey, I think that Odysseus existed but that the events during his return home are ficticous, but it is worth mentioning that two different sources include the same event.

So certain myths are common, let's see two possible causes for this:
1. People at that stage of development have similar concerns regardless of location, culture and race. You see the river flood and kill your animals, so you assume floods are what happens when the gods get angry. Also, you find seashells and stuff on mountains, and since you're not quite familiar with the functioning of tectonic plates yet you assume some massive flood put them there. Lastly, many religions borrowed elements from one another. The global flood one was probably pretty catchy, so it spreads.
2. There actually was a global flood, despite modern science telling us that's not possible.

Hmm, I think I'll go for option 1.

Also, where the hell are all the goddamn dragons? That's a pretty common myth as well.

I shall answer your questions in the order to which they were asked.
1. First of all when you mention the lottery, that is because so many people to win, so the odds of at least one winning a not that long. Also note that Washington and Captain Sully are both religous men, amazing things can be accomplished be people of faith, for more proof study Joan of Arc and Rodrigo Diaz de vivar.

2. I do not see your point. Nostradamus was a Catholic. You are simply bettering my case.

3. Jim Jones followers were people who had felt left out and had wanted a leader, if you watch interviews with survivors many of them will say that they wanted to escape. Jesus followers remained loyal even through being persecuted. Jesus had many more believers. Jesus drew crowds on his various travels.

4. That is something that you can not put a statistic on but is something thatI have noticed. As for your point, lets judge by accomplishments instead of test scores. Every US president was Christian. Most world leaders are people of faith. So are most successful military leaders, Eisenhower, Petraeus. Even the majority of Scientists. Einstein was Jewish and Darwin was a Christian.

5. You mention Sea shells on mountains. If carbon dating is the decider then it shows that they have been up there since Earth early days as the world was forming. Also there was a rocklike structure found on an Iranian mountain that Scientists have said could very possably be petrafied wood and fits the dimensions of Noah's Arc.

Yeah, you overplayed it on that one, you're trolling. You don't have the Biblical know-how of an actual evangenelical, or the conviction of a Christian who seeks to argue their beliefs.

You are, however, very familiar with weird points that atheists call up in atheist 101. I'm assuming that your lack of literacy with anything even remotely regarding Christianity, and your follow up post in which you attempt to compensate via googling, are, or will be immediatelty noticeable by the people on this site who actually profess a degree of Christian faith, and aren't here to belittle it.

So colour me suspicious, but if people are really buying your shtick, I'd like to invest in your game.

[JJM]

Sigh, fine I'll take the thankless task of debunking JJM's childish arguments. You guys owe me a pint.

When you say that we are not logical. I say to you that we have many reasons. Amazing events such as Washington's men surviving a great winter, and the landing on the Hudson.

Do you know anything about probabilities?
People win the lottery all the time, is this also proof of supernatural intervention?

The Bible also predicted that Isreal would once again become a nation.

Explain to me why the bible predictions are more valid than, say, Nostradamus.

Do you really think that so many people would have followed Jesus and became christians if he had not done something?

Do you really think so many people would have committed suicide as part of the People's Temple cult if Jim Jones was not really who he claimed to be?

Do you really think so many people would dedicate their life to the church of Scientology if Xenu were not real?

Yes, yes they would.

Also I have noticed that most athiests are frequently mad and unhappy people who always want to argue, while most who are religous lead very happy lives.

Care to back that up with some data?

In the mean time, I'll leave this study here for you:

The present study examined whether IQ relates systematically to denomination and income within the framework of the g nexus, using representative data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth (NLSY97). Atheists score 1.95 IQ points higher than Agnostics, 3.82 points higher than Liberal persuasions, and 5.89 IQ points higher than Dogmatic persuasions. Denominations differ significantly in IQ and income. Religiosity declines between ages 12 to 17. It is suggested that IQ makes an individual likely to gravitate toward a denomination and level of achievement that best fit his or hers particular level of cognitive complexity. Ontogenetically speaking this means that contemporary denominations are rank ordered by largely hereditary variations in brain efficiency (i.e. IQ). In terms of evolution, modern Atheists are reacting rationally to cognitive and emotional challenges, whereas Liberals and, in particular Dogmatics, still rely on ancient, pre-rational, supernatural and wishful thinking.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289608001013

I agree. When you mention similarities between religions, it is worth noteing that just about every religion has a flood story. Another intersting tidbit is that the Odyssey mentions a day that lasted more than 24 hours when Odysseus returned home, while the Bible also mentions a day that lasted more than 24 hours during the lifetime of Joshua. To be clear I do not believe everything in the Odyssey, I think that Odysseus existed but that the events during his return home are ficticous, but it is worth mentioning that two different sources include the same event.

So certain myths are common, let's see two possible causes for this:
1. People at that stage of development have similar concerns regardless of location, culture and race. You see the river flood and kill your animals, so you assume floods are what happens when the gods get angry. Also, you find seashells and stuff on mountains, and since you're not quite familiar with the functioning of tectonic plates yet you assume some massive flood put them there. Lastly, many religions borrowed elements from one another. The global flood one was probably pretty catchy, so it spreads.
2. There actually was a global flood, despite modern science telling us that's not possible.

Hmm, I think I'll go for option 1.

Also, where the hell are all the goddamn dragons? That's a pretty common myth as well.

I shall answer your questions in the order to which they were asked.
1. First of all when you mention the lottery, that is because so many people to win, so the odds of at least one winning a not that long. Also note that Washington and Captain Sully are both religous men, amazing things can be accomplished be people of faith, for more proof study Joan of Arc and Rodrigo Diaz de vivar.

2. I do not see your point. Nostradamus was a Catholic. You are simply bettering my case.

3. Jim Jones followers were people who had felt left out and had wanted a leader, if you watch interviews with survivors many of them will say that they wanted to escape. Jesus followers remained loyal even through being persecuted. Jesus had many more believers. Jesus drew crowds on his various travels.

4. That is something that you can not put a statistic on but is something thatI have noticed. As for your point, lets judge by accomplishments instead of test scores. Every US president was Christian. Most world leaders are people of faith. So are most successful military leaders, Eisenhower, Petraeus. Even the majority of Scientists. Einstein was Jewish and Darwin was a Christian.

5. You mention Sea shells on mountains. If carbon dating is the decider then it shows that they have been up there since Earth early days as the world was forming. Also there was a rocklike structure found on an Iranian mountain that Scientists have said could very possably be petrafied wood and fits the dimensions of Noah's Arc.

Yeah, you overplayed it on that one, you're trolling. You don't have the Biblical know-how of an actual evangenelical, or the conviction of a Christian who seeks to argue their beliefs.

You are, however, very familiar with weird points that atheists call up in atheist 101. I'm assuming that your lack of literacy with anything even remotely regarding Christianity, and your follow up post in which you attempt to compensate via googling, are, or will be immediatelty noticeable by the people on this site who actually profess a degree of Christian faith, and aren't here to belittle it.

So colour me suspicious, but if people are really buying your shtick, I'd like to invest in your game.

The first part of the first response was only to add humor to his point but try to argue the rest of it. You say I do not have Biblical know-how, I have read it. Also I am not evangelical, I am Catholic. Also you attack my literacy, look at how you spelled evangelical.