Total posts: 144
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I have to say that your questions recently are very really old tired and very childish questions .
Old, tired and very childish are they?
In view of the fact that the OP is about 1000 children dying every hour is this some sort of sick joke playing on the word "children"?
So, you tire of hearing about innocent children dying every day and think it childish that someone raises the issue do you?
I think anyone with any moral sense of caring or compassion would be disgusted at such an offensively revolting and callous post.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
So, who cares about skin color, again? Why must it be a distinctive identifier at all? It's just a difference to embrace as a biologic variant meaning nothing whatsoever...........
........Except that the first examples of man were black since they evolved in a very hot climate and their skin was adapted to their environment. As the species migrated to cooler climates so too did their skin pigment evolve, again to adapt to their environment.
Created:
Posted in:
Every year approximately nine million children under the age of five-years-old die.
That's about 1000 per hour and most of those children's parents will be praying right now for God to spare their lives.
Surely a God who can either do nothing to help these children or just doesn't care is either impotent or just plain, outright evil.
Created:
Posted in:
1) How do you have your hair cut? (Leviticus 19:27 You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard.)
2) How well done do you enjoy your steak? (Leviticus 19:26 Do not eat any meat with the blood still in it)
3) Would you or do you have any tattoos on your body? (Leviticus 19:28 Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the Lord)
4) Do you condone homosexuality? (Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination)
5) Do you often pick cherries?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
As I inquired to your interrogator, Polytheist-Witch, what is the nature of "nature?"
I'm not into nitpicking so I really couldn't give a rat's orifice.
I am more into dealing with real issues.
And Poly couldn't interrogate an effeminate flea even if she tried. And I know she does try. At least she has long since dropped the "tard" word from her vocabulary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
* Operating theaters are prayer rooms:There are roughly 1M practicing doctors in the U.S.https://www.statista.com/topics/1244/physicians/Of them, 1,044 of them participated in a recent survey. 76% acknowledged belief in God. https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/survey-most-doctors-believe-god-afterlife-flna1c9442008I would say to your claim of a distinction of operating theaters and prayer rooms that they are, right now, without your "Holy Hospital," prayer rooms. Helps to know the facts.
Of those who say they believe in God very few actually do. A recent census in Australia showed that less than 14% of Roman Catholics regularly attend Church. Most who claim to be religious give faith no more than lip service.
Your trio of a replacement squad are already on the team of practicing healthcare workers. They may not all be accredited by the AMA, but that is mostly a political, not necessarily just a medical organization. As a general observation, we, the public, certainly don'y make an outcry of that distinction, anyway. Helps to know the facts.
Crap. The AMA is not political and the reason that chiropractors, naturopaths and acupuncturists are banned from registration is that they are all a bunch of dishonest, charlatan quacks whose only interest is to fleece gullible people. The AMA have made it clear that they will not have a bar to do with theses shonks.
What constitutes a "drug," and what makes water, even holy water, anything distinctive from a drug? 'Drug' definition: a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body. It seems water fits that description, or did you have something else in mind? Helps to know the facts.
Kerrist, here we go on the nitpicking again. I'll go down to my neighborhood dealer shall I and ask him if he has any water?
They have input/output just like the rest of the hospital. Restaurants do, too, by the way, yet they don't find a need to extensively multiply their size just because somebody gets a hair up their arse that they ought to change their procedures. Helps to know the facts.
Oh well, let's give you the benefit of the doubt shall we? We'll scrape up all the road crash victims over a given period (and all their missing limbs, pulverised organs and gallons of blood) then take them to the prayer room and pray real hard, I mean really really hard. Then we will compare the statistics of how many operating theater patients were wheeled into the mortuary and how many prayer room patients ended up there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Of course the placebo itself, does diddly squat.And you explained everything else perfectly.Nice one.
It is the mind of the beholder that works, not the placebo.
But okay, point taken. What I'll do is go to my physician and tell him that there is nothing wrong with me, like absolutely nothing wrong and can he please prescribe some placebos for me, like an awful lot. Then I shall swallow the lot at once and we'll see if I OD.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
the most effective" does not actually mean that they are practically effective.
I never made such an assertion nor intended such nor does it have any relevance to the thrust of the topic.
What is relevant and very showing is that you refuse to address the topic and instead resort to side issues and childish, condescending tactics...."Please actually respond or I'll just ignore you"
I suggest you may wish to brush up your act more than just a little bit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
An unwarranted, unfounded and unnecessary jibe at a popular hypothesis and it's adherents.Behaviour that might reasonably be deemed to be indicative of a lower I.Q.The pot calling the kettle black, as it were.
Okay then, would you suggest that perhaps I should have written something like; "Um, er, well, hello, um hello, oh yes um well I have heard, and like I only heard, I didn't actually say it and I am not saying that I agree but um, er with due respect just happened in passing Goggled "why do theists have lower IQs" and I got 12,200,000 hits, um like er, just saying and um maybe you would like to say something"
Your so-called "hypothesis" was confirmed by numerous properly conducted researches by "adherents" who are experts in the field.
You should also know by now that I am not one to pussy-foot around issues.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
You seem to be stuck in a rut of providing excruciating feeble excuses as answers to irrefutable facts.,,,,,,,,,,,"admitted agnosticism"; Richard Dawkins says the same thing however you somehow seem to have omitted the context, for example, Dawkins clearly stated that because God cannot be 100% ruled out he would technically call himself a .5% agnostic and only for that reason and in all probability there is no God. Have we got that little omission clear now?
your topic is presented as an absolute. Sorry, it does not hold water
Whatever you mean by "absolute" is anybody's guess and can be interpreted many ways......see, I can play your duck and dive game too. And the topic does hold water. Have you bothered to search the topic? I got 12,200,000 hits which to my mind would be enough to drown an entire town.
idiots among the atheist households
Yes, but once again you are making a cringingly obvious attempt at mitigating the fact. The topic is about a notable drop in IQ of theists as per the many leading reports and research done by experts in their fields.
As I said to The Wreakage, "It's quite sad really. I introduced and raised a perfectly legitimate point and the best you can do is pick holes in it instead of actually addressing it?
There is a plethora of authoritative and properly researched reports relating to lower IQs in theists and have we seen a theist submit a post to the effect of, "Gee Mandrakel, that certainly does raise concern in our community and I think we should look into addressing the situation, what ideas do you have?"
Can you ever muster the intestinal fortitude to actually argue a topic or offer constructive solutions instead of picking holes in someone else's (reasonably presented) argument?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Thus, we are given to understand that perspective is not the most important factor, that truth has more important matters of sustenance. More important than our technology, too, because that, as reality, is limited, as well.
Point taken. When or if we do ever positively recognise the existence of God the proof will come from a panel of qualified scientists who have thoroughly researched and submitted conclusive evidence......not from a bunch of religious, biased airheads who can only speculate and quote from irrelevant and unverified myths.
Created:
Posted in:
Father: Son, I see by your report card here that you are the absolute bottom of the class once again. What the heck anyway, that is no real indicator of your intelligence and there are flaws in the system so don't worry. What's on at school tomorrow?
Son: Aw weow Dad, wear gonna disgust Hairy Potta in English clarse.
Father: I don't think so, I will write a note excusing you from class. What other subjects do you have.
Son: Oh yeah weow wear gonna do science clarse and learn about Ever lootion and biol........
Father: .......Not going to happen. I'll write another note excusing you from that class as well.
Son: I fink I will go wotch the TV now. There's a dok....doc...documenatry by Neal Grassy Tyson and then there's Family Guy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Who said technology is supposed to prove God?
The pastor in the Church I attended for starters.
What point (if any) are you trying to make?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
practically
That's enough and getting highly ridiculous now....trying to pick and playing with semantics has nothing at all to do with the discussion.
It's quite sad really. I introduced and raised a perfectly legitimate point and the best you can do is pick holes in it instead of actually addressing it?
There is a plethora of authoritative and properly researched reports relating to lower IQs in theists and have we seen a theist submit a post to the effect of, "Gee Mandrakel, that certainly does raise concern in our community and I think we should look into addressing the situation, what ideas do you have?"
No sirree, nothing like that, just the usual diversions and denials which are consistent with the two conditions that commonly go hand-in-hand with religion; ignorance and arrogance.
Created:
-->
@janesix
Evolution is not a fact. It is a theory, and a bad one.
Just to address your confusion here....The "Theory of Evolution" forms part of the work by Charles Darwin called The Origin Of the Species. The science of evolution has proven conclusively that evolution by natural selection is irrefutable. The evidence is abundant and confirmed by thousands of qualified experts and still, evidence continues to pour in.
Now, if such science, according to you is "bad", what "theory" do you know is better and how many mountains of professionally and thoroughly collected evidence are there?
Evolution by natural selection is an established fact and creationists should lick their wounds (of stupidity) and move forward instead of continually coming out with crumby excuses and trying to pick holes into rock-solid evidence. Perhaps they could be more constructive by tabling the mountains of evidence and thoroughly and professionally written reports that conclusively confirm creation. Well?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Show me the evidence that you have the facts. Don't just tell us:
If you wish I will go to my IT support and get a print-out of my hard drive where the facts are stored and send it to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Healing would still have to work within the parameters of nature.
Isn't everything within the realms of nature?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
the fact that they are widely used is not evidence of their effectiveness
We have already covered that...no need to reiterate.
I do not have to demonstrate that they are effective since I said (now read carefully) "the fact is that they are the most effective test.
Furthermore, I said, "Show me a test that is more universally used and is more effective or useful.." You of course, failed to do so. One does wonder why, doesn't one?
Not very well on top of things are you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
She refused to issue a license, totally different. You can get a certificate to marry people and decide you don't want to marry certain individuals. No pastor has to marry church members. A judge can pass on a marriage if they parties have appeared in front of him for other things and go to another judge. There are lists of people who are legally certified to marry people in a state. None have to marry specific couples. A county has to issue a license though. It's a legal document.
Point taken.....you are quite right.
I'm not familiar with US jurisdictions but would not a judge or a pastor be guilty of violating vilification of minorities laws for refusing or passing on a marriage? Or are we getting into gay wedding cake territory here which, as I understand, has not been completely resolved.
Created:
-->
@janesix
Adaptation is not evolution.
You can mince words as much as you like but the fact is that adaptation is part of the science of evolution by natural selection.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Um... appeal to populum much? Just because something is widely propagated does not mean that it is "effective" or "useful".
Come on now!
Yes you are right however we are not talking about "something", are we?
We are specifically talking about IQ tests and the fact is that they are the most effective test. Show me a test that is more universally used and is more effective or useful....you can't, can you?
Pretty amateur try there....ad populum indeed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
No one authorized to do marriages has to marry anyone. Not even judges.
Yes they do as we all know from the Kim Davies case. If you want to get technical about it, you can't drag the woman to the alter and force a pen into her hand to marry a gay couple but she did bare the consequences of her (non) actions...she was shoved in the slammer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Again - IQ is not a useful metric, it is based on biased and nonfactual measurements, popularized by racists in the 30s - this is where eugenics was originally based, and the myth has propagated today.
That is your biased opinion but the fact is that IQ tests are still the most universally used tests to gauge intelligence and there is currently nothing better.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The stupid thing is, that placebos are effective when the problems are imaginary.
I think many people get more than a bit carried away with the (perceived) efficacy of placebos. Of course they don't bloody work...let me see a placebo re-attach a severed limb. It has been found that having a positive disposition helps one's body cure itself faster due to the release of certain substances in the body and the subject himself making positive choices in relation to diet etc. But a placebo itself does diddly squat and more often than not when someone says, gee that chiropractor really healed me, that person is really trying to kid you to cover up his own stupidity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
God is smart enough NOT to do miracles when we have the technology to document it.
How do you know that or did you just make it up for fun?
No need to answer because anyone with half a brain knows that the latter is true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
@ EtrnlVw, wrote: "of a handful of doofuses that have decided picking on religion and religious people justifies "That will be the victimhood that I mentioned earlier at post #11 They turn to the victimhood complaint when they have no answers or you have made them look bible ignorant.
Religious airheads have had their way for far too long by shoving their absurd beliefs down people's throats and taking advantage of the weak, gullible, naive and impressionable. It is not so much as giving them their own medicine but talking to them in a language that they understand only too well.
They dish it out and I give it back....with interest.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The powers of suggestion and positivity, should perhaps, also be taken seriously.
As seriously as any other placebo I reckon.
The day it is proven that prayer attached a severed limb then I will take prayer seriously.
Created:
Posted in:
Perhaps we could build a 100% natural, faith healing hospital ....we could call it "The Holy Hospital of Kindness".
* Instead of operating theatres we will have prayer rooms.
* Instead of professional doctors, nurses, and surgeons, we'll have naturopaths, chiropractors, and acupuncturists.
* Instead of drugs we will have holy water.
* And of course, we would need to erect a morgue that's larger than the hospital itself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
........you should also teach comparative religion courses where every faith is discussed. Give all sides or none.
This is already done in many schools and I suppose that what remains is to keep tabs on how the information is presented and in what context. I would like to see: "Now boys and girls, this morning we are going to learn about religion. Now there is no right or wrong about religion but there are some utter loonies out there who believe......"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
My head isn't in the sand. No church is required to marry anyone. Period.
I think this is where we get into contentiousness and we have seen this happen with civil marriages where a woman registrar was jailed for refusing to issue a marriage licence to a gay couple. Churches are not above the law and if they are going to conduct marriages then they should conduct them for all those who are legally entitled or not at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
They were both Christians not sure they were that creative.
Both?
All three were Christians, if you mean Jones, Koresh and Christ.
And there is no reason to believe that there was any difference between the three of them.
Oh, except that we know Koresh and Jones actually existed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I'm sure they are fakes. All that nonsense.
I mentioned to Fuxlaw that I consider them to be fakes by default. Sure, some of them have been authenticated as to having been written in those times however it is the content and the writers that are questionable and can never be verified.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Your conclusion is opinion, failing even to achieve an academic status.
Speak for yourself. My "opinion" is based upon the fact that the Dead Sea scrolls were located some 300 to 1600 years after the events depicted in them. The authors have not been identified and it is impossible to verify the contents. By default the Scrolls are "fake".
Of course, biblical nuts are always going to argue that "Oh, yes they are authentic because we had them carbon-dated you know". Maybe so and la-de-da, but the contents, i.e. what was written has not and never will be authenticated. The stories contained therein are no different from any of the other myths and extreme hyperbole that were the vogue of scribes in that era.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
you can't reason with someone who refuses to listen to facts and logic, such as you refuse to listen. you are as full of willful ignorance as they come.
Wrong, I have listened and replied each time.
"idiot", "stupid"........facts and logic? Refusing to supply evidence until after the fact.....facts and logic?
You speak the words of someone who has been sorely defeated and has to lower himself to uttering demeaning vitriol at the victor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
It isn't logical. Why spend a large portion of your time, as these obviously do, harassing a group of people that they disagree with. I don't see this in other, similar situations.
Maybe you could do a bit of research and discover that, for centuries, religious zealots have been forcing their ugly agendas of doom and gloom and bizarre practices on society and continue to do so. Until the very last one of them withers away and perishes never to be seen again, you will find decent, responsible, law-abiding people such as me vehemently opposing their unsavory ways which they are intent on converting others to.
Intelligently (with reason and evidence) exposing the ills of those who habitually harass is hardly called harassment, is it? I call it defending the rights and sanity of free society.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Now we have yet another dipshyt, controlling and obsessed moron taking over all religious discussions
I take it then that you share an opposing view to that of others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Why must we assume that it was either creation, or evolution, as if they are different coins of the realm.
I don't know and I also don't know who "we" are.
Nor can anyone prove to another that God exists. That discovery is had individually. The experience can be shared, but the convincing thereof is a personal experience, not collective.
You have effectively made no statement whatsoever here or, as is the common terminology: "And your point being?" Usually, when someone uses cryptical terms such as "had individually" and "personal experience", we are dealing with a state of delusion on behalf of the writer.
There was a time we were firm in the belief that the universe orbited Earth.
Quite right and you would not be called a loony in those times for making such a statement. Nowadays of course, you would be committed to the appropriate institution for uttering such nonsense.
Similarly, nowadays we have a plethora of solid information and irrefutable evidence that confirms evolution and anyone uttering otherwise is either a preacher (lying) or a candidate for psychological treatment.
Again, "we" do not collectively acquire the knowledge of God, and our place in his universe. By individual faith, which must exist before the miracle of knowledge, for if knowledge is sought without the individual sacrifice of effort to obtain that knowledge, the miracle is explained away by the simple contention that "we have always..." just as you have demonstrated.
And again, you are making a cop-out here. All religious institutions collectively praise and speak to God. When you mention "individual faith" you are in effect stating that you are unique (elitist) but in reality nothing more than self-centered to the point of delusion.
You speak of God as omnipotent, etc. What says that just because he is omni... and add your trailing suffixes, that he must always act as such? Do you use all the power you possess all the time, or do you use just sufficient for the task? Loaded question, and you may ponder the answer.
I have never claimed that God is omnipotent and even if I do infer such it is irrelevant since I would be talking hypothetically since there is no such thing as God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Seems you should be addressing the issues with your Fed, state and local political representatives to make the change you want to see in the world. Taking to theists isn't going to do it.
I do make representations and am actively involved in local interest and lobby groups.
It is unclear as to what you mean by "the issues" and indeed it is questionable as to what your post has to do with the OP.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I didn't see any facts in your post.
You'll notice that there are seven facts that I tabled in the OP and each has a heading in bolded italics.
I did a considerable amount of objective research before confirming each of the facts so you will find that each one is 100% correct.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Now, the fact that theists are more likely to have experienced higher concentrations of dogma and indoctrination?
Yep, that certainly would hinder normal development of one's IQ. I would take that further to say that kids who learn too much dogma and indoctrination are going to learn to accept things at face value rather than through considered logic and reasoning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
"Everybody is colored, otherwise we wouldn't be able to see each other."
(Frank Zappa)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Given that IQ isn't a very descriptive metric for anything, that doesn't tell us much.
I agree, however it is still used as a measuring stick and it is significant enough that there have been a number of properly conducted research studies that have arrived at this conclusion.
I think it stands to reason that if kids are going to have information suppressed from them such as biology, they will be lacking in basic knowledge compared with other kids.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
We don't yet have the technology to prove God
This excuse I have come across more than once, in fact in church. Yes, I had to go through all that stuff with the wife thinking that religion is the greatest thing since sliced bread and it will do the kids good. At least I listened to the sermons even though my head was always cocked to one side.
Anyway, this little adage slipped out one day and the congregation loved it. It supposedly gives a way out for theists having to explain why nobody has ever proved God's existence. And of course, this one doesn't grow old....you just keep moving the goal posts each time. In 500 years time when we have AI people and clones and transmoglifiable transportation, it will still come out...."Ah yes um, but we still don't have the technology to prove God."
Created:
Posted in:
The Museum of the Bible announced recently that at least five of its Dead Sea Scrolls, among the most valuable and historically significant items in its collection, are fakes.
Does it make any difference, since the information contained in all the scrolls is fake anyway?
Created:
Posted in:
Given that children will regrettably be exposed to biased religion in their lives wouldn't it be fair that their schooling should include lessons in countering such misinformation?
Also, given that research has shown the IQ of theists is lower than that of normal people, wouldn't it be in the best interests of educators to ensure that children receive a balanced education without the limitations to learning that religion imposes?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
And I'm certain that the opposing responses, will also be nothing new or devastatingly intellectual.
Really full of verve and optimism aren't we?
In this day and age one cannot be complacent lest the meek get to inherit the earth.
Notice how I said: "Following are a few reasoned, logical facts that we should consider:" See, I don't make suggestions, I actually come right out and say it. There should be no holding back when dealing with a bunch of deluded nitwits.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Ask them, why do we need it or why haven't we got it
By "them" I presume that you mean theists.
I have found from experience that to ask questions of theists to explain their nutty ideals is fraught with trepidation. The answer will invariably be completely non-sensical or not even addressing the question. That's why I prefer to slap the facts down in front of them.
Yes, of course, they will put on a brave front, jump up and down and get nasty but when they get behind closed doors they will start sobbing. Eventually I will wear the buggers down.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Are you me?
Oh, so you have taken my advice and extended your word count by 200%.
The only thing you need to work on now is your (lack of) intellect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
but it would be intellectually dishonest to pretend that your representations are the strongest arguments for god.
I would say that it would be intellectually dishonest to suppose that my arguments and "theodicies" have anything to do with being arguments for God; they are totally anti-God. Unless you have inadvertently gotten tangled up in double negatives I suggest that you read the OP again.
Created: