The Westboro Baptist Church

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
But people positing a higher-order are not directly observing it, are they? They are presuming it from observing other hierarchies. That makes it an unsupported hypothesis at best. And believing it without sufficient evidence is entirely improper.

You do not have to directly observe something for it to be logical for it to exist. If you want to argue that believing in a highier order is an unsupported hypothesis this wouldn't change the fact that atheism is till more irrational.

In those numbers I gave you would argue that the next number is 10 not 0, the fact that you can't see the number 10 doesn't change the fact that it is the most likely conclusion. You wouldn't argue that believing that the next number is 10 is entirely improper.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE

Communism is not synonymous with Atheism. The American Pilgrims were Communists. The Hippies were also Communists. The former were conservative Christians, and the latter were involved in the New Age Movement. It is almost as if the notion or organizing society in a lateral power structure has nothing to do with whether one believes in a supreme being.

You don't know what you're talking about....period. Let me explain Communism is an athesitic belief system the reason why it's an atheistic belief system is because atheism is a major aspect of the ideaology. What you don't seem to understand is that Marx and Engels were not simply just athiests their atheism made them draw other conclusions about the nature of the universe, man and society. For example because they didn't believe in God they didn't believe in the spirit but just matter, because they were athiests they thought that religion was stupid. Since they thought religion was stupid they used this a excuse to persecute religous people and China is still doing it today.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jun/6/chinas-christian-persecution-highest-level-mao/

Pastor Bob Fu, founder and president of ChinaAid, said the number of people arrested in China for exercising their religious freedom “has reached the highest level since the end of the Cultural Revolution.” He cited internal figures showing a nearly fivefold increase in the number of Christians who were persecuted by the government last year.

“For Christians alone, last year we documented persecution against 1,265 churches, with the number of people persecuted over 223,000. And that is just the tip of the iceberg,”

[i]Originally posted by Adam_PoE

If telepathy can be observed and reproduced in a laboratory environment, then it is a natural phenomenon, and not supernatural at all.

Except nobody not even Richard Dawkins is using you're defintion of supernatural we're obvioulsy using this one.

supernatural adjective
su·​per·​nat·​u·​ral | \ ˌsü-pər-ˈna-chə-rəl
, -ˈnach-rəl\
Definition of supernatural

1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature
b : attributed to an invisible agent (such as a ghost or spirit)

Stop playing semantical games.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE

Then you agree that it takes religion for otherwise good people to do bad things. Great.

And atheistic belief systems too.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE

If you believe that, it is no wonder you believe in a god too.

Oh it's like that huh?

BOOM!

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article135983268.html

Often not much, according to a review of several recent terrorism cases investigated by the FBI in Kansas and Missouri. The most sensational plots invoking the name of the Islamic State or al-Qaida here were largely the invention of FBI agents carrying out elaborate sting operations on individuals identified through social media as being potentially dangerous.

In fact, in terrorism investigations in Wichita, at Fort Riley and last week in Kansas City, the alleged terrorists reportedly were unknowingly following the directions of undercover FBI agents who supplied fake bombs and came up with key elements of the plans.

BOOM!!

https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/07/21/us-terrorism-prosecutions-often-illusion

“Americans have been told that their government is keeping them safe by preventing and prosecuting terrorism inside the US,” said Andrea Prasow, deputy Washington director at Human Rights Watch and one of the authors of the report. “But take a closer look and you realize that many of these people would never have committed a crime if not for law enforcement encouraging, pressuring, and sometimes paying them to commit terrorist acts.”

BOOM!

They don't just target muslims either..
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/07/21/fbi-terrorism-stings_n_5606468.html?guccounter=1

The FBI has also run terrorism sting operations against individuals who weren’t young Muslim men, including four senior citizen militia members in Georgia and members of the Christian Hutaree militia in Michigan. While some charges against the elderly militia members stuck, the Hutaree case largely fell apart because a federal judge acquitted seven members of the group on conspiracy charges. Earlier this year, three Georgia men who allegedly used Facebook to plot an antigovernment militia uprising were charged in a case involving FBI informants.

BOOM!

http://markcurtis.info/2016/09/04/britains-collaboration-with-pro-jihadist-forces-in-kosovo/

It was in this context that Islamist militants, working alongside the British-supported KLA, essentially took on the role of Western proxies, carrying out some of the dirty work that NATO could not. This story is, as we have seen, by no means unfamiliar in the postwar world.

BOOM!

Here's Gneral Flynn saying that the Obama administration made a wilful decision to support terrorists

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x95hPS7lIxc

The thing is theres lots more than this.

I can't quote your post so I'm having to copy and paste

[Quote Patient Leech/]
So now it’s a conspiracy against evidence for the supernatural? Atheists are so organized and unified that they are suppressing it? Hilarious.[/b]

BOOM!

https://thebestschools.org/features/rupert-sheldrake-interview/

Recently, summarizing your book Science Set Free at a TED talk, you addressed the problem of dogmatic materialism in science, only to have your TED talk banned because of pressure from, ahem, dogmatic materialists. The irony here is rich, with you becoming the victim of the very motions in science that you were criticizing. What's up with that?

As for everything else read my post to Adam. Posting some article about what some indivduals think about Islam doesn't refute the fact that Western intelligence agencies are the primary cause not Islam. There would be a problem without them but it wouldn't be anywhere near as bad as it has been.

Stating what you think about athieism doesn't change the fact that Communism is an atheistic belief system. Just read my post to Adam but not going to continue this if I can't quote posts, this is taking too much of my time to dig up evidence.

One more.... BOOM!!

https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/jan/17/yemen.islam

Hampton-el was described by prosecutors as a skilled bomb-maker. It was hardly surprising. In Afghanistan he fought with the Hezb-i-Islami group of mujahideen, whose training and weaponry were mainly supplied by the CIA.

But according to one American official, concentrating on bin Laden is a mistake. 'The point is not the individuals,' he said last week. 'The point is that we created a whole cadre of trained and motivated people who turned against us. It's a classic Frankenstein's monster situation.'

THink I'll make this the last one..

https://medium.com/@jackiethornhill/how-the-united-states-created-al-qaeda-2bbe129faf57

The Mujahideen, whose name roughly translates to “one engaged in Jihad”, went on to evolve into al-Qaeda, the group infamous for perpetrating the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon which killed 2,996 people and injured over 6,000.

Yeah it's religon that's the problem here.....

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
😂 Was he winning the argument because he kept declaring that he was winning, or was he actually more logically sound? 😂

It's Quan, what do you think?

It was both. 🙂

1) the WBC is really just a family and their neighbors, not a national KKK/NOI level organization
2) the WBC are no different in their intolerance to Sunni/Shia Islam
3) if the WBC are prepared to suffer the consequences (aka public backlash) for their intolerant views, then they are free to say whatever they want

Originally posted by Deadline
Since they thought religion was stupid they used this a excuse to persecute religous people and China is still doing it today.

Okay, great. They were assholes, probably even sociopaths, but show me the atheist doctrine in the atheist holy book written by no-god that required such brutality and then you'll have an argument. 👆

Originally posted by Deadline
... the fact that Western intelligence agencies are the primary cause not Islam. There would be a problem without them but it wouldn't be anywhere near as bad as it has been.

So yeah, in order for "Western intelligence agencies [to be] the primary cause" Islam would still have to have the capacity for causing otherwise good people to do evil.

Originally posted by Deadline
Yeah it's religon that's the problem here.....

(For the record, I'm not denying that we have corruption propping up horrible regimes. Wouldn't surprise me. It probably helps keep the war machine operating.)

Oh, wait, darn. I thought it was just those damn communist atheists that commit massive atrocities, not good righteous Christian conservative capitalists..?

Originally posted by Deadline
I can't quote your post so I'm having to copy and paste

(Glad it's not just me, it's irritating.)

Originally posted by Deadline
BOOM!

https://thebestschools.org/features...rake-interview/

Recently, summarizing your book Science Set Free at a TED talk, you addressed the problem of dogmatic materialism in science, only to have your TED talk banned because of pressure from, ahem, dogmatic materialists. The irony here is rich, with you becoming the victim of the very motions in science that you were criticizing. What's up with that?

Even if I granted you this tiny example is true, it doesn't prove a worldwide conspiracy against evidence for the supernatural. If there was good evidence for the supernatural it would be world news, Christian conservatives would broadcast it all over the place, you'd never hear the end of it. So you're still reaching.

Originally posted by Deadline
Posting some article about what some indivduals think about Islam doesn't refute the fact that Western intelligence agencies are the primary cause not Islam. There would be a problem without them but it wouldn't be anywhere near as bad as it has been.

We don't entirely disagree, but that was not just "some article about what some individuals think about Islam." It was straight from ISIS, it's their online magazine. It's their own fu#king magazine. And in it they broadcast why they hate us and why they fight us. It's not because we have attacked them, it's not because the US has caused war and invaded. I'll spell it out for you: It's because the whole world isn't bowing the knee to Allah. They hate us because we're not Muslims. And believe it or not you can actually read the Quran and see the doctrines that support their stance. Can you acknowledge this, so we can move on? I acknowledged that Western society is contributing to the problem... so we really don't disagree all that much.

In linguistics, meaning is use.

It's the same for group behavior. You don't need written evidence on the evils of Communism, to judge communism doesn't work.

Proponents can cry "No true Scottsman" all they want, the fact is when Communism was attempted, we got what we got.

Originally posted by Deadline
You do not have to directly observe something for it to be logical for it to exist. If you want to argue that believing in a highier order is an unsupported hypothesis this wouldn't change the fact that atheism is till more irrational.

This is the argumentative equivalent of “Oh, yeah—well, what about you?” 1. It is not true, and 2. even if it was, it would not make your position correct or even defensible.

Originally posted by Deadline
In those numbers I gave you would argue that the next number is 10 not 0, the fact that you can't see the number 10 doesn't change the fact that it is the most likely conclusion. You wouldn't argue that believing that the next number is 10 is entirely improper.

Just because you can imagine a number does not mean that something of that quantity actually exists.

Originally posted by Deadline
You don't know what you're talking about....period. Let me explain Communism is an athesitic belief system the reason why it's an atheistic belief system is because atheism is a major aspect of the ideaology. What you don't seem to understand is that Marx and Engels were not simply just athiests their atheism made them draw other conclusions about the nature of the universe, man and society. For example because they didn't believe in God they didn't believe in the spirit but just matter, because they were athiests they thought that religion was stupid. Since they thought religion was stupid they used this a excuse to persecute religous people and China is still doing it today.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/new...hest-level-mao/

Pastor Bob Fu, founder and president of ChinaAid, said the number of people arrested in China for exercising their religious freedom “has reached the highest level since the end of the Cultural Revolution.” He cited internal figures showing a nearly fivefold increase in the number of Christians who were persecuted by the government last year.

“For Christians alone, last year we documented persecution against 1,265 churches, with the number of people persecuted over 223,000. And that is just the tip of the iceberg,”

No, you do not know what you are talking about—period. By your reasoning, Socialism is a Christian ideology, because Henri de Saint-Simon was a Christian. For every example of a Communist who is an Atheist, there are examples of adherents of both Eastern and Western religions who are Communists. Again, it is almost as if he notion or organizing society in a lateral power structure has nothing to do with whether one believes in a supreme being.

Originally posted by Deadline
Except nobody not even Richard Dawkins is using you're defintion of supernatural we're obvioulsy using this one.

supernatural adjective
su·per·nat·u·ral | \ ˌsü-pər-ˈna-chə-rəl
, -ˈnach-rəl\
Definition of supernatural

1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature
b : attributed to an invisible agent (such as a ghost or spirit)

Stop playing semantical games.

The primary definition of supernatural according to the source you cited is “of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible, observable universe.” Congratulations on defeating your own argument—again.

Originally posted by Deadline
And atheistic belief systems too.

No. There are no “Atheistic beliefs.” Atheism is a rejection of the claim that a god exists. There is no Atheist dogma, or any beliefs that all Atheists hold outside of this.

Originally posted by Deadline
Oh it's like that huh?

BOOM!

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/na...e135983268.html

Often not much, according to a review of several recent terrorism cases investigated by the FBI in Kansas and Missouri. The most sensational plots invoking the name of the Islamic State or al-Qaida here were largely the invention of FBI agents carrying out elaborate sting operations on individuals identified through social media as being potentially dangerous.

In fact, in terrorism investigations in Wichita, at Fort Riley and last week in Kansas City, the alleged terrorists reportedly were unknowingly following the directions of undercover FBI agents who supplied fake bombs and came up with key elements of the plans.

BOOM!!

https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/07/21...-often-illusion

“Americans have been told that their government is keeping them safe by preventing and prosecuting terrorism inside the US,” said Andrea Prasow, deputy Washington director at Human Rights Watch and one of the authors of the report. “But take a closer look and you realize that many of these people would never have committed a crime if not for law enforcement encouraging, pressuring, and sometimes paying them to commit terrorist acts.”

BOOM!

They don't just target muslims either..
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/20...ml?guccounter=1

The FBI has also run terrorism sting operations against individuals who weren’t young Muslim men, including four senior citizen militia members in Georgia and members of the Christian Hutaree militia in Michigan. While some charges against the elderly militia members stuck, the Hutaree case largely fell apart because a federal judge acquitted seven members of the group on conspiracy charges. Earlier this year, three Georgia men who allegedly used Facebook to plot an antigovernment militia uprising were charged in a case involving FBI informants.

BOOM!

http://markcurtis.info/2016/09/04/b...rces-in-kosovo/

It was in this context that Islamist militants, working alongside the British-supported KLA, essentially took on the role of Western proxies, carrying out some of the dirty work that NATO could not. This story is, as we have seen, by no means unfamiliar in the postwar world.

BOOM!

Here's Gneral Flynn saying that the Obama administration made a wilful decision to support terrorists

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x95hPS7lIxc

The thing is theres lots more than this.

Yes, it is like that. I do not know what you think this proves. The FBI did not trick Americans into being terrorist sympathizers. They tricked Americans who were terrorist sympathizers into aiding and carrying out fake terrorist plots in order to arrest them.

Originally posted by Deadline
BOOM!

https://thebestschools.org/features...rake-interview/

Recently, summarizing your book Science Set Free at a TED talk, you addressed the problem of dogmatic materialism in science, only to have your TED talk banned because of pressure from, ahem, dogmatic materialists. The irony here is rich, with you becoming the victim of the very motions in science that you were criticizing. What's up with that?

Science is the study of the observable universe. The notion that science should study things outside of the material world is nonsensical. It is like suggesting one should use an ice cream maker to dig a hole; it is not at all what it is designed to do. BOOM, indeed.

There may not be an Atheist dogma, but most self declared Atheists do seem to share a militant condescension for religious belief.

Expressing hatred of religion to believers isn't going to win any more favors then a religious believer pulpitting about how everyone is going to hell.

Or in other words, one can disagree without being an ass about it.

Originally posted by cdtm
The thing is, people DO seem to instinctively know right from wrong. I mean, even at my ripe old age, I can remember recoiling at things as a kid I just knew were off, without anyone ever having taught me they were wrong.

Originally posted by cdtm
There may not be an Atheist dogma, but most self declared Atheists do seem to share a militant condescension for religious belief.

Expressing hatred of religion to believers isn't going to win any more favors then a religious believer pulpitting about how everyone is going to hell.

Or in other words, one can disagree without being an ass about it.

Communism is an atheistic belief system they just don't want to admit it. The reason why they don't want to admit is because they want to point at religous people all day long and then deny that athiests can be just as bad worse.

This is not about reason and logic it's not about theism and atheism and they're no different from people who think you deserve to go to hell forever just because you don't follow their faith. It's simply about wanting to feel you're better than other humans.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Like what?

As a youngun, a bunch of friends caught a jellyfish, and put it on the dock. Then put a 50,000 want floodlight over it, and whooped it up as it cooked like an egg.

I've killed plenty of things that probably have more feeling then a jellyfish. I eat meat. I'm not sure exactly what made me sick to my stomach that day, between the torture or the joy those "friends" felt at it, but I've never felt so disgusted before or since.

Did we feel so different about it, because we were taught differently? As far as I remember, theee guys came from a good home, and had very good parents, who did their best to instill good values..

Originally posted by cdtm
There may not be an Atheist dogma, but most self declared Atheists do seem to share a militant condescension for religious belief.

Expressing hatred of religion to believers isn't going to win any more favors then a religious believer pulpitting about how everyone is going to hell.

Or in other words, one can disagree without being an ass about it.

Ridiculous beliefs are worthy of ridicule. Shame is a tool that works.

Originally posted by cdtm
As a youngun, a bunch of friends caught a jellyfish, and put it on the dock. Then put a 50,000 want floodlight over it, and whooped it up as it cooked like an egg.

I've killed plenty of things that probably have more feeling then a jellyfish. I eat meat. I'm not sure exactly what made me sick to my stomach that day, between the torture or the joy those "friends" felt at it, but I've never felt so disgusted before or since.

Did we feel so different about it, because we were taught differently? As far as I remember, theee guys came from a good home, and had very good parents, who did their best to instill good values..

That you had a different reaction proves that morality is learned. If it was inherent, you all should have had the same reaction. Yours was different, because you were taught differently.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Ridiculous beliefs are worthy of ridicule. Shame is a tool that works.

A punch to the gut would also work. 🙂

If shame is a weapon, it's a weapon that indiscriminately targets enemy and innocent bystander (I, myself, have been targeted by a former friend for "ridiculous beliefs". Though not of a religious or political variety.)

The only thing accomplished, was an end to a good friendship.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
That you had a different reaction proves that morality is learned. If it was inherent, you all should have had the same reaction. Yours was different, because you were taught differently.

No, what I said about evolution.

Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with. At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-moral-life-of-babies/

https://www.cnn.com/2014/02/12/us/baby-lab-morals-ac360/index.html

Originally posted by cdtm
There may not be an Atheist dogma, but most self declared Atheists do seem to share a militant condescension for religious belief.

Expressing hatred of religion to believers isn't going to win any more favors then a religious believer pulpitting about how everyone is going to hell.

Or in other words, one can disagree without being an ass about it.

How are we being a**holes? What you are interpreting as "militant condescension" is just trying to oppose bad ideas. What other way are we supposed to do that than through conversation?

Everyone should oppose what they feel are bad ideas through conversation. That's what we do here. It's not violence.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, what I said about evolution.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-moral-life-of-babies/

https://www.cnn.com/2014/02/12/us/baby-lab-morals-ac360/index.html

It's not surprising if there is both a genetic and learned component. Almost everything we know about is like that.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
It's not surprising if there is both a genetic and learned component. Almost everything we know about is like that.

👆

When it comes to ubiquitous human behaviors, it is almost assuredly both genetic and learned.

Oh by the way I'm not finished with you guys yet, I just got fed up with the dishonesty and hypocrisy.