Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Large list cherrypicking three states and comparing religious community groups to...
The irreligious. Duh?
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
The reason why I mentioned causation is that for this to function as a defence of a religion, you'd have to show that religious ideology is what makes these kind of improvements possible.
You have it wrong. I am not providing a defense of religion. I am specifically attacking your terrible position with cold hard facts that make you explicitly wrong without even a tiny bit of wiggle room to debate about it.
You cannot. Until you "vaccinate" humans to not have the genes which make us predisposed to religiosity, your position is always going to be untenable.
Your premise started off as a failure to begin with.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
If you want to claim my position is "mistaken",
No, no, you're wrong, here, again. Even from the beginning, your statement, here, requires you have a correctness in the premise. Your statement right here is putting forth the incorrect assumption that I am wanting or trying to do anything against your already incorrect assertions. Factually incorrect, anti-scientific positions. That's a failed attempt at engaging in an adult conversation to begin with. You hold the incorrect notion that I have to defend some arbitrary position.
Before you can even engage in a decent conversation, you must root your ideas and points in reality. Coming from a factually incorrect, "antagonistic towards science" position already sets you up for failure. You are literally in the same category as Flat-Earthers and Young Earth Creationists. You're no better than a Christian Evangelical screaming at his congregation about how terrible homosexual buttsex is while sucking dicks in airport bathrooms between sermons. That's a terrible position. It's not even remotely controversial that participating in a positive religion (which is a majority of them) is good for your mental health, family, and community. Some atheists, who are not morons, even enjoy the ritualistic and rejuvenating nature of religiosity despite not have a theistic root in the practiced religion.
Okay, hur-dur dodgey dodge response times from you. I know. I'm ready.
First off double d, if your position doesn't address mine, then It's not relevant. If you're responding to me, I'm going to be treating it as an argument that addresses my position
The irreligious. Duh?
Lol, what? You're comparing a group of people, "the irreligious", to a cherrypicked subset of another group of people, "religious peoples affiliated in some sort of community". That is a horrible comparison.
For there to be any sort of case for correlation, you would need to be comparing secular community groups to religious groups.
If you wish to make a comparison regarding the irreligious as a whole, then you need to make it against the religious as a whole Off course you won't, since irreligious crime rates are lower.
Try again.
Factually incorrect, anti-scientific positions. That's a failed attempt at engaging in an adult conversation to begin with.
if my position that a religious moral framework is unneccesary for society is anti-scientific and factually incorrect., then feel free to post the "facts" that refute it. So far, I've seen nothing, scientific, that supports religion as a net good. At best, science has shown that religious practice is a symptom of root psychological urges, which again, does not mean it's a beneficial symptom.
Since you want to cite science, plese do cite the actual science here which renders my position unworthy of an "adults conversation."
Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
^It's....a book. SMH.You want to ban certain types of hangout discussions because someone received a book that is bipartisan? THAT is propaganda. I don't even understand how people dont' see the irony.
What is it with you and selective reading?
No one said shit regarding science as a moral code(because it's not a belief system you twit) and no one said shit about bipartisan discussion.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
First off double d, if your position doesn't address mine, then It's not relevant.
How am I supposed to respond to this except for, "No you!" Because, no you!
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
If it's anti-scientific, you're welcome to post the science that refutes it.
Already done. Cry more about it. 🙂
Ha ha! You are experiencing a huge load of cognitive dissonance and are super buttmad about it. crylaugh
Don't cut yourself on your gnostic atheism edge, Edgelord.
Don't cut yourself on your gnostic atheism edge, Edgelord.
Opinions like yours are very often indicative of young-adult, atheist, males, who are depressed.
Cognitive is the selective ignorance of information and As you have ignored the vast majority of each of my posts, you are, by definition, the cognitively dissonant party here. Your inability to defend your asinine comparison of a cherrypicked subset of the religious to all irreligious, or even attempt showing causation, or address that pre-human species have showcased morality is very much an admittance that you have nothing to offer here.
With you having essentially conceded, lets try this again for the other forumers here.
Here is my position:
You're welcome to keep your idiocy to yourself, but trying to form an objective moral framework for many people based on one unsupported source of information is dangerous and absolutely stupid for you to support.People get their beliefs from stories and with a wide range of stories to look into they can pick out bad weeds. But trying to give a single story high authority because it doesn't have the self-awareness to acknowledge that it is a story is the#1 way to get mass tragedy and mass stupidity.
For whatever reason, no one has even tried to address it, so lets try again.
Prove that dictators and their "universal moral frameworks" are necessary for society to function. I can easily prove the opposite by showcasing the much better state of affairs present in countries that don't operate on the basis of one source's whims(republics).
If religion is good, then you should be able to showcase benefits for religion that are a necessary element of religious ideology. The elevation of one story above others and deferrence of responsibility to a singular entity are certainly elements intrinsically baked into religious belief. Elements we have seen lead to disastrous consequences(dictatorships, terroism, ect)
Lets see if GDF users can showcase the capacity for critical thinking that double d, cdtm, and Rage of Olympus accuse me of lacking.
That's a whole lot of useless drivel that said nothing and ignored all points I made.
Do you understand why, before, I ignored you and stopped responding? You're just too dumb and obstinate to be worth engaging.
Don't rage quit KMC for many months, like before. Just because you had your beliefs challenged, again, and you realized you were wrong doesn't mean you have to rage quit.
Just try to check your bias and ignorance better in the future.
Post your apples to apples comparison between gnostic atheists and regular religious participants and make sure that research includes the following:
1. Published in reputable journal or publication.
2. Researchers are reasonably impartial or the funding source isn't from "Super Christian Foundation" or "Super Atheists Against Religion LLC."
3. Includes mental health outcomes including well-being, happiness, depression, etc.
4. Family quality measures such as agreeableness with family.
5. Crime rates.
6. Financial stability.
7. Socioeconomic 1 to 1 comparisons instead of comparing a rich, college educated, atheist, to a poor Latino immigrant. Or a super rich Christian Family to a super poor atheist family.
You get the point.
If you feel you can posture and strut on facts and science: prove.
I've posted my research already. 🙂 Cold hard facts that do not support yours. Now it's time for you to stick to science.
Look at me: I am better than you. And it is mostly due to my theistic nature. 😄
I talked to Rocky on hangouts.
I slowly broke down his problems in argumentation style. Pointed out when he was committing logical fallacies.
Then he kicked me from the hangouts chat when it was getting juicy. 😄
Rather fun for me. I can only imagine he had to talk to me, face to face, in real life, how much he'd shut down and screeeee.
Who isn't on fvcking Hangouts these days?
I remember when I started the sh!t back in 2015 and it was just 8 dudes from the ComicVine forums... Now four years later everyone's on there. Are Rob, Surt and Adam on there, as well?
BTW, I ain't salty about that, it's just I never imagined so many forum people would migrate there
Originally posted by MythLord
Who isn't on fvcking Hangouts these days?
I remember when I started the sh!t back in 2015 and it was just 8 dudes from the ComicVine forums... Now four years later everyone's on there. Are Rob, Surt and Adam on there, as well?
BTW, I ain't salty about that, it's just I never imagined so many forum people would migrate there
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Then double d started spamming over me while making bart-esque jokes so i jusr kicked him
That's not how chats work. I cannot "spam over you." You were just angry that you couldn't type as fast as I could by a factor of 3-5?
Also, you kicked me the second time for the immature jokes. The first time it was because I pointed out that not a single one of your arguments was anything but logical fallacies.
Don't lie.
Post the transcript if you want to lie. 😄
Edit - Don't you wish you could ban me from KMC, too? That way you don't have to read me ruining you on here, as well?