Welcome game1914over,
You have discovered that the man behind the curtain is a charlatan at a young age. Don't look back. Enjoy life. The further you get from the Borg the more surreal and dysfunctional it will be to you.
i have enjoyed reading your comments during the past four years.
deep down inside, i have always been agnostic.
the first few chapters in genesis are contradictory and differing.. no one has ever been able to answer my question: "why was satan ever created?".
Welcome game1914over,
You have discovered that the man behind the curtain is a charlatan at a young age. Don't look back. Enjoy life. The further you get from the Borg the more surreal and dysfunctional it will be to you.
why else would he constantly bring up "gay-inspired" clothing when speaking to such large audiences?.
nothing wrong with being gay.
but he should just come out of the closet already and stop all this stupidity... just saying.. .
Ditto,
Study: Homophobes May Be Hidden Homosexuals
The research, published in the April 2012 issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, reveals the nuances of prejudices like homophobia, which can ultimately have dire consequences. [The 10 Most Destructive Human Behaviors]
"Sometimes people are threatened by gays and lesbians because they are fearing their own impulses, in a sense they 'doth protest too much,'" Ryan told LiveScience. "In addition, it appears that sometimes those who would oppress others have been oppressed themselves, and we can have some compassion for them too, they may be unaccepting of others because they cannot be accepting of themselves."
in my intimate conversations with many of my atheists friends i have found that their real problem is the human rights abuse of the religious fanaticssomething which god hates (not the lack of proof for gods existence) (means when the religions went to one extreme, their opponents go to another extremethus god is not at all an element in religious fanaticism and atheism alike) atheists shun, belittle or resist proofs for the existence of god, because they fear it will only further strengthen the religion from which the fanaticism arisethus object of atheists attack is fanaticism (not god) .
hence what atheists do is really a service to the humanity (while fanaticism is a crime against humanity).
hence when the atheists ask for proof for the existence of god, one need not take it seriously.
Kalos,
I've not a clue as to what you are asking me. Who supports my research? It isn't my research, and it is collected by various entities, some of which are supported by Xtians. I could be a smart ass and do my Dana Carvey impersonation that "SATAN" provides my data but I will refrain.
If you have objections with the data or the manner in which it was collected and evaluated, I suggest you present those objections. If you cannot I suggest you present equally valid empirical data which appears to counter. If you cannot I suggest you admit you are wrong. If you cannot I suggest you remain silent, exhibiting some of that Xtian humility I see in such rare display on this site.
Those are your only grown up options. To entrench yourself in emotions and make believe beliefs is not an appropriate response. I've shown you a tip of the iceberg of the data which completely refutes the dumbass theists' repetitive mantra statements on this site that atheists are baby killing whores. If you wish to rely on your god(s), by all means do so. But bringing your thoughts or views out in public on this site opens them up to the bright light of rational analysis.
If you or anyone like you doesn't like that I and those like me refer to you at times as dumbasses, then please, please stop acting like dumbasses. Starting OPs and responding to OPs is in and of itself a somewhat narcissistic endeavor. The more rational one's responses are, and the more those responses are supported by the very best data possible, the less narcissistic and egoistic they become. Just the facts, ma'am. It is what it is. Select the decade of choice.
When someone's opinion is all that is offered, especially when that opinion is stated as facts unsupported by data or when those opinions are based on nothing more than the first confirmationallly biased article they could find on the 'net, then it is narcissism at its very worst. And it deserves flames and condemnation. I suggest those feeling/perceiver/believers amongst us learn from the more rational. Frame an opinon as an opinion. Provide facts and data, emprirical if possible, to support definitive statements or Professor DJS will red-line your paper and return it to you. Or call you a dumbass. I mean the term in the most loving manner possible.
I'm trying to help you and I can; but you have to let me.
i've, over the years, looked into many religions.
obviously, from those that have seen me post here, i've become an atheist simply because i couldn't find any reason to believe in god.
recently, though, over the past few months, a new change has started.
pronomono,
Take your time; there is no hurry. I always had issues with existence of a god. The last few years in the Borg (an elder at that) I began thinking of the WT as the truth (hate that effing word now) that acted like a cult. Upon exiting, which was before the full advent of the wonderful world wide web and all of its access to cult information, I took my time, knowing that the journey would end with digging up the foundation - a belief in god, jesus, bible. I've referred to it before as a Pink Floyd sojourn, another brick in the wall.
I removed each brick methodically, analyzed it carefully, and then threw it away. When the wall was gone, all that was left was the foundation. I dug that up and threw it away, and it is the best thing I've ever done. I am free to be who I am, and I like myself much more now than when I was a narrow minded, judgmental theist/Xtian/Dub, waiting impatiently on god to destroy billions of people for my benefit.
Kinda sort sick now that I think about it.
i've, over the years, looked into many religions.
obviously, from those that have seen me post here, i've become an atheist simply because i couldn't find any reason to believe in god.
recently, though, over the past few months, a new change has started.
Viviane,
What do you mean Star Trek or Star Wars?? The real debate is Star Trek or Star Trek Next Gen. Kirk vs. Picard. I avoid all religions and religious discussions, even trying to on this site. Religion is the problem; it will never be the solution.
As I've stated before, we will never reach the full potential locked in our DNA until religion ceases to exist. It is a crutch for the weak, an excuse for the malfeasant.
in my intimate conversations with many of my atheists friends i have found that their real problem is the human rights abuse of the religious fanaticssomething which god hates (not the lack of proof for gods existence) (means when the religions went to one extreme, their opponents go to another extremethus god is not at all an element in religious fanaticism and atheism alike) atheists shun, belittle or resist proofs for the existence of god, because they fear it will only further strengthen the religion from which the fanaticism arisethus object of atheists attack is fanaticism (not god) .
hence what atheists do is really a service to the humanity (while fanaticism is a crime against humanity).
hence when the atheists ask for proof for the existence of god, one need not take it seriously.
Another one,
This one is the UN's Human Development Index (HDI). The HDI was created to emphasize that people and their capabilities should be the ultimate criteria for assessing the development of a country, not economic growth alone. It is a summary measure of average achievement in key dimensions of human development: a long and healthy life, being knowledgeable and have a decent standard of living. The UN's HDI top 20 is dominated by the most secular/atheistic nations, including when other factors such as gender equality are included. http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/exporting-data-and-understanding-api.
There are other less quantitative surveys, such as the happiest countries list, which illustrate the same thing: the more atheistic and secular a nation the more functional it is likely to be.
in my intimate conversations with many of my atheists friends i have found that their real problem is the human rights abuse of the religious fanaticssomething which god hates (not the lack of proof for gods existence) (means when the religions went to one extreme, their opponents go to another extremethus god is not at all an element in religious fanaticism and atheism alike) atheists shun, belittle or resist proofs for the existence of god, because they fear it will only further strengthen the religion from which the fanaticism arisethus object of atheists attack is fanaticism (not god) .
hence what atheists do is really a service to the humanity (while fanaticism is a crime against humanity).
hence when the atheists ask for proof for the existence of god, one need not take it seriously.
Another, Dumbass,
They say that religion is the opiate of the masses, but it seems that the opiates of the religious are antidepressants.
A study released recently confirmed that Mississippi remains the most religious state in the Union, followed by a handful of its southern belt brothers: Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, as well as the Mormon stronghold of Utah. The Gallup poll showed that 58 percent of all Mississippians identify as “very religious.” The least religious states in the U.S. are the former stomping grounds of the very,very religious Puritans: Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire.
But life in these highly faithful states doesn’t seem to be all its cracked up to be. The most religious states in the U.S. share another trait: the highest use of anti-depressants.
Utah has long been the nation’s capital of happy pill popping, with its citizens twice as likely to be on anti-depressants than the general U.S. population. But the rest of the observant states aren’t far behind. Of the top-ten most religious states, nine have higher than average use of anti-depressants.
Some states have startlingly medicated populations. In Utah, Louisiana and Arkansas–the 2nd, 4th and 5th most religious states in the Union– nearly 20 percent of the population is on some form of anti-depressants, according to a 2006 study by one of the largest prescription companies.
This is just talking about anti-depressants. Do you want to see the empirical data on other dysfunctions??
in my intimate conversations with many of my atheists friends i have found that their real problem is the human rights abuse of the religious fanaticssomething which god hates (not the lack of proof for gods existence) (means when the religions went to one extreme, their opponents go to another extremethus god is not at all an element in religious fanaticism and atheism alike) atheists shun, belittle or resist proofs for the existence of god, because they fear it will only further strengthen the religion from which the fanaticism arisethus object of atheists attack is fanaticism (not god) .
hence what atheists do is really a service to the humanity (while fanaticism is a crime against humanity).
hence when the atheists ask for proof for the existence of god, one need not take it seriously.
More from the 2005 study, Dumbass.
Journal of Religion & Society Volume 7 (2005)
ISSN 1522-5658
Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies (2005) (Off Site PDF) by Gregory S. Paul
“There is evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms."
"Indeed, the data examined in this study demonstrates that only the more secular, pro-evolution democracies have, for the first time in history, come closest to achieving practical “cultures of life” that feature low rates of lethal crime, juvenile-adult mortality, sex related dysfunction, and even abortion. The least theistic secular developed democracies such as Japan, France, and Scandinavia have been most successful in these regards. The non-religious, pro-evolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator. The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted. Contradicting these conclusions requires demonstrating a positive link between theism and societal conditions in the first world with a similarly large body of data – a doubtful possibility in view of the observable trends."
in my intimate conversations with many of my atheists friends i have found that their real problem is the human rights abuse of the religious fanaticssomething which god hates (not the lack of proof for gods existence) (means when the religions went to one extreme, their opponents go to another extremethus god is not at all an element in religious fanaticism and atheism alike) atheists shun, belittle or resist proofs for the existence of god, because they fear it will only further strengthen the religion from which the fanaticism arisethus object of atheists attack is fanaticism (not god) .
hence what atheists do is really a service to the humanity (while fanaticism is a crime against humanity).
hence when the atheists ask for proof for the existence of god, one need not take it seriously.
Another one:
The godless commit less crime, have longer marriages and are more highly educated than almost any other group in America.
According to Federal Bureau of Prisons data, the number of responding people in prison acknowledging they were Catholic was 39 percent; Protestant, 35 percent; Muslim, 7 percent; Jewish, 2 percent; and godless, 0.2 percent (20 percent did not respond). Since the number of godless is estimated to be 10 percent of the general population, all things being equal you would expect their prison population to be 10 percent.
If, as many people assume, the godless do not lead moral lives, you would expect the number to be greater than 10 percent. The fact that the actual number is 50 times less than expected can lead to only one of two conclusions: either the godless commit less crime than the religious or they’re too smart to get caught very often.
According to a Barna Research Group report, an evangelical Xtian polling firm, fundamentalist Christians have the highest divorce rate, followed by Jews and Baptists. The godless are tied with Catholics and Lutherans for the lowest divorce rate. It seems that some groups that claim to follow the Bible most strictly are not putting their money where their mouths are. The godless who are thought to be without morals seem to take their vows more seriously.
According to a Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life Survey, the least-educated Americans are Jehovah’s Witnesses, followed by black Protestants and fundamentalist Christians. The most highly educated are reformed Jews, followed by Unitarian Universalists and the godless.
Some groups seem to like their flocks ignorant so that pastors’ interpretations of God’s edicts are not questioned. Other groups prize scholarship and achieve more in their lives here on Earth.
In fact, a review of worldwide studies found that criminality and religion go hand in hand. The countries with the most religious people have the highest crime rates, highest sexually transmitted diseases and the highest teen pregnancy rates.
This is also true in the United States. The more religious a state’s population, the higher the crime, STD and teen pregnancy rates.
So what conclusion can be reached? It is obvious that you do not have to believe in a higher power in order to live a moral and successful life. Quite the opposite.
in my intimate conversations with many of my atheists friends i have found that their real problem is the human rights abuse of the religious fanaticssomething which god hates (not the lack of proof for gods existence) (means when the religions went to one extreme, their opponents go to another extremethus god is not at all an element in religious fanaticism and atheism alike) atheists shun, belittle or resist proofs for the existence of god, because they fear it will only further strengthen the religion from which the fanaticism arisethus object of atheists attack is fanaticism (not god) .
hence what atheists do is really a service to the humanity (while fanaticism is a crime against humanity).
hence when the atheists ask for proof for the existence of god, one need not take it seriously.
kalos,
I'm trying really hard not to refer to you as a dumbass, but you are making it very difficult. On numerous occasions we have presented voluminous amounts of empirical data which illustrates that the more atheistic and secular a person, region or nation is, the more likely they are to be ethical, intelligent and functional. And yet you continue to spew utter bullshit. Here is one of them. We got lots. Atheists appear to behave better, on average, that theists regardless of which make believe god the yocals believe in.
Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look (2005) (Off Site PDF) by Gregory S. Paul In this landmark study, Gregory S. Paul compares rates of religiosity and societal dysfunction between 18 democratic nations in the developed world in order to "test whether high rates of belief in and worship of a creator are necessary for high levels of social health." Paul finds that "in almost all regards the highly secular democracies consistently enjoy low rates of societal dysfunction," demonstrating that widespread religious belief does not improve societal health, and that moreover there is a positive correlation between a first-world country's level of religiosity (e.g., the degree of confidence that a traditional monotheistic God exists) and level of social dysfunction (e.g., homicide rates). |