Atheists Smarter than Religious Believers

[Mitchell Holman]

Atheists smarter than religious believers - study
August 14, 2013


Religious people are likely to be less intelligent
than their atheist counterparts, a study claims.
The analysis, which looked at almost a century of
data, found a negative correlation between high IQs
and religiosity.

Professors Miron Zuckerman and Jordan Silberman,
from the University of Rochester, looked at 63
studies in the field carried out between 1938 and
2012. In their paper, entitled "The Relation Between
Intelligence and Religiosity: A Meta-Analysis and
Some Proposed Explanations," Zuckerman and Silberman
drew the conclusion that the majority of studies
found that more intelligent people were less likely
to subscribe to organized religion.

Out of the 63 surveys, 53 showed a negative correlation
between intelligence and religiosity, while only 10
displayed a positive one.

They found that infants with higher intelligence would
be more likely to reject religion. Furthermore, older
people with above average IQ are less religious, the
study suggests.

"Our conclusion is not new," Zuckerman said. "If you
count the number of studies which find a positive
correlation against those that find a negative
correlation, you can draw the same conclusion because
most studies find a negative correlation."


http://rt.com/news/atheists-more-intelligent-religious-433/

[Dale]

On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 21:06:21 -0500, Mitchell Holman <noe...@att.net>
wrote:

>Atheists smarter than religious believers - study
>August 14, 2013

did they have a control group who was not exposed to any possible
defacto standard of atheism to admission to education resulting in
status?
--
Dale

[Dakota]

WTF is a defacto standard of atheism? Is there a defacto standard of not
collecting stamps?

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 00:45:49 -0500, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com>
wrote:

The average theist is too stupid to grasp that as far as the average
atheist is concerned, there is no difference.

Theists are utterly certain their pretend friend is self-evidently
real and that we somehow force ourselves to believe it isn't, for all
sorts of nefarious reasons they amateur-psychologise and amount to
little more than personally nasty lies.

[Dale]

On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 00:45:49 -0500, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com>
wrote:

perhaps, not exactly, the scientific community tries to exclude
theists
--
Dale

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 11:21:14 -0400, Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Yet another stupid, obvious lie.

The moron knows it does no such thing.

Scientists who are theists, step aside from any "God did it"
presumptions because they investigate _how_ things happen(ed) - and
they happen that way whether or not a god was involved.

They also know that anything they use has to be demonstrated
objectively - which they know they can't do for their god so they
leave it out.

Plenty of scientists are theists, just not the stupid fundamentalist
kind.

[Joe Bruno]

There are problems with Zuckerman's study:

http://www.strangenotions.com/atheists-higher-iqs/

It does not account for all the variables, such as the anti-religion programs in Communist countries.

[MarkA]

That's hardly surprising. It takes a certain amount of intellectual
rigor, often associated with intelligence, to reject the easy comfort of
the "goddidit" worldview, and embrace the more impersonal, but ultimately
more satisfying, view that the Universe is what it is, and we are along
for the ride.

--
MarkA
(Signature back, despite lack of popular demand)

[WangoTango]

In article <lhcb1adinqdpsvcfc...@4ax.com>,
inv...@invalid.invalid says...

They try to exclude "God Did It", and "Then a miracle happened", as
scientific explanations, but they don't exclude data that can be
confirmed through the peer review process where results can be
replicated.

[John Locke]

On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 11:21:14 -0400, Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

..That's not the case. There is no exclusion of theists. Credible
science research, however, does ignore and exclude religious
nonsense such as Intelligent Design for good reason. Religious
pseudo-science impedes research. It yields no productive ideas
and in the end, no answers.

..if theists want become a productive part of scientific community,
then they'd better learn how to keep the god delusion bottled up so it
doesn't bias their work in favor of religious nonsense.

[duke]

On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 21:06:21 -0500, Mitchell Holman <noe...@att.net> wrote:

>
>

>Atheists smarter than religious believers - study
>August 14, 2013
>
>
>Religious people are likely to be less intelligent
>than their atheist counterparts, a study claims.

That study was by a devout atheist.

>The analysis, which looked at almost a century of
>data, found a negative correlation between high IQs
>and religiosity.

I see an extreme degree of dumb in atheists.

>
>Professors Miron Zuckerman and Jordan Silberman,
>from the University of Rochester, looked at 63
>studies in the field carried out between 1938 and
>2012. In their paper, entitled "The Relation Between
>Intelligence and Religiosity: A Meta-Analysis and
>Some Proposed Explanations," Zuckerman and Silberman
>drew the conclusion that the majority of studies
>found that more intelligent people were less likely
>to subscribe to organized religion.
>
>Out of the 63 surveys, 53 showed a negative correlation
>between intelligence and religiosity, while only 10
>displayed a positive one.

I'm on the positive side.

>They found that infants with higher intelligence would
>be more likely to reject religion. Furthermore, older
>people with above average IQ are less religious, the
>study suggests.

Yet the senior turns to God like no other person. There's something about that
impending visit with the judge that gets their attention.

>
>"Our conclusion is not new," Zuckerman said. "If you
>count the number of studies which find a positive
>correlation against those that find a negative
>correlation, you can draw the same conclusion because
>most studies find a negative correlation."
>
>
>http://rt.com/news/atheists-more-intelligent-religious-433/

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

[Dale]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 15:35:37 -0400, WangoTango
<Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:

>the peer review process

since people obviously "sense" God in some way then why aren't these
"senses" included in publications and review
--
Dale

[Dale]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 12:59:15 -0700, John Locke
<johnnyd...@demonmail.com> wrote:

>..if theists want become a productive part of scientific community,
>then they'd better learn how to keep the god delusion bottled up so it
>doesn't bias their work in favor of religious nonsense.

in is not "non-sense" it is a "sense"

why is this "sense" not exlored and published and reviewed?
--
Dale

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 21:04:54 -0400, Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 15:35:37 -0400, WangoTango
><Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>the peer review process
>
>since people obviously "sense" God

Idiot.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 21:06:24 -0400, Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

What "sense" are you lying about, imbecile?

Even you know it is the result of childhood indoctrination by theist
parents.

[Mike Duffy]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 20:33:45 -0500, Christopher A. Lee wrote:

> What "sense" are you lying about, imbecile?

Possibly he's not actually lying, but merely expressing an inate perception
which is not based on actual observation. Most often these are instinctive
biases which in a primitive culture provide a survival benefit to the
group. The most oft-misinterpreted ones are:

- A sense of awe towards misunderstood phenomena.
- Submission to the most powerful alpha male.
- Survival instinct percieved as a life "purpose".

--
http://pages.videotron.com/duffym/index.htm

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 22:23:39 -0400, Mike Duffy <md_...@videotron.ca>
wrote:

>On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 20:33:45 -0500, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
>> What "sense" are you lying about, imbecile?
>
>Possibly he's not actually lying, but merely expressing an inate perception
>which is not based on actual observation. Most often these are instinctive
>biases which in a primitive culture provide a survival benefit to the
>group. The most oft-misinterpreted ones are:

He's been trolling here long enough to know that at least it is
begging the question, but like most theists he cannot put up and is
mentally incapable of shutting up.

>- A sense of awe towards misunderstood phenomena.
>- Submission to the most powerful alpha male.
>- Survival instinct percieved as a life "purpose".

None of the above - it's a rationalisation in terms of something he
was conditioned to believe, in his childhood.

Theists are taught something called "God", and would never think to
call anything by that name without that conditionng, let alone give it
all the attributes they do.

It's a presumption, not something they "sense".

And he knows this presumption is disputed yet he talks as if it
weren't.

[Vincent Maycock]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 21:06:24 -0400, Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Why aren't religious claims studied with the ruthless persistence that
scientists investigate the behavior of, say, chemicals and atoms in
their labs? Probably because there's no such thing as a religious
sense other than people just making things up about some supposedly
real experience, and if the brutally effective tools of science were
applied to those claims, people would find those claims destroyed. So
science shies away from studying such a sensitive topic and destroys
ideas that are of less concern to people, like phlogiston or the
luminiferous ether.

[Joe Bruno]

On Monday, September 15, 2014 8:24:07 PM UTC-7, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 22:23:39 -0400, Mike Duffy <md_...@videotron.ca>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 20:33:45 -0500, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> What "sense" are you lying about, imbecile?
>
> >
>
> >Possibly he's not actually lying, but merely expressing an inate perception
>
> >which is not based on actual observation. Most often these are instinctive
>
> >biases which in a primitive culture provide a survival benefit to the
>
> >group. The most oft-misinterpreted ones are:
>
>
>
> He's been trolling here long enough to know that at least it is
>
> begging the question, but like most theists he cannot put up and is
>
> mentally incapable of shutting up.

Why should anyone shut up for you?You're a nobody.

>
>
>
> >- A sense of awe towards misunderstood phenomena.
>
> >- Submission to the most powerful alpha male.
>
> >- Survival instinct percieved as a life "purpose".
>
>
>
> None of the above - it's a rationalisation in terms of something he
>
> was conditioned to believe, in his childhood.
>
>
>
> Theists are taught something called "God", and would never think to
>
> call anything by that name without that conditionng, let alone give it
>
> all the attributes they do.
>
>
>
> It's a presumption, not something they "sense".
>
>
>
> And he knows this presumption is disputed yet he talks as if it
>
> weren't.

Disputed? So what?

[Mike Duffy]

On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 04:51:55 -0400, Vincent Maycock wrote:

> [...] there's no such thing as a religious sense other than

> people just making things up about some supposedly real experience,

I think the problem is that a religious experience is so profoundly
different than mundane percpetion that it is difficult to put it into into
a cogent narrative.

I consider myself an atheist. Nonetheless, I had an experience once that
"blew my mind". It was during a university quantum physics class, and the
prof had just perfomed a derivation of Euler's equation.

There are other wiki entries that do a better explanation of the math, but
this one has a section entitled "Mathematical Beauty".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_identity

Also, here is a link I found when searching for the wiki entry:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26151062


Essentially, I had experienced an epiphany. I even had a "time slip" and
lost auditory perception for several seconds. Up until that point, I had
regarded complex math as simply a notation to make differential equations
easier to manipulate. But at that moment, I realized that my entire
understanding of msthematics had been completely superceeded. Imaginary
numbers were, in fact, the real deal.

The religious experience is real. Something special has happened in the
brain because a vast array of memories (beliefs within the prior belief
system) need to be "re-tagged" with a reference to the new insight. Normal
consciousness needs to go "off-line" while the update is taking place.

Of course, the religious person assumes that our brains have a permanent
wi-fi connection to heaven and the update has been authorized by God.

--
http://pages.videotron.com/duffym/index.htm

[WeHang FagZ]

On Saturday, September 13, 2014 10:06:21 PM UTC-4, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> Atheists smarter than religious believers - study
>
> August 14, 2013

Atheists make more noise than religious believers and that is not smart or wise.
Religious believers know that bragging or praising oneself is against the teaching of the Bible, so they keep their talents on low profile mode.
As for atheists, they go on and on and on and on and on and on and on, telling the whole world how smart they are and what they have accomplished.
If this is what you call being smart, then you have no moral.
Next time I will show you my middle finger.


>
>
>
>
>

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 10:49:19 -0400, Mike Duffy <md_...@videotron.ca>
wrote:

Or Krishna, or Zeus, or Mithras, or Odin, or Osiris, or whichever one
of the thousands their parents taught them before they had learned to
think.

[Les Hellawell]

On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 09:26:30 -0700 (PDT), WeHang FagZ
<maca...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, September 13, 2014 10:06:21 PM UTC-4, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> Atheists smarter than religious believers - study
>>
>> August 14, 2013
>
>
>Atheists make more noise than religious believers and that is not smart or wise.
>Religious believers know that bragging or praising oneself is against the teaching of the Bible, so they keep their talents on low profile mode.

Then they have a strange idea of what 'low profile' is coming here
making a lot of noise and drawing attention to themselves.

>As for atheists, they go on and on and on and on and on and on and on, telling the whole world how smart they are and what they have accomplished.
>If this is what you call being smart, then you have no moral.

If you don't what to hear our reasons why we do not share your
relgious beliefs the thing to do is to either stop moaning about it
or go away. We did not invite you into our newsgroup remember?

>Next time I will show you my middle finger.

It would be more productive if you showed us your evidence for
a god - that is if you have any and did not decide to believe
there is a god entirely on the say so of others


--
Les Hellawell
Greetings from: YORKSHIRE
The White Rose County

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
- 1 Thessalonians 5:21

[fred1...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, September 14, 2014 10:23:30 AM UTC-7, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 11:21:14 -0400, Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 00:45:49 -0500, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com>
>
> >wrote:
>
> >
>
> >>On 9/13/2014 10:37 PM, Dale wrote:
>
> >>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 21:06:21 -0500, Mitchell Holman <noe...@att.net>
>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>
>
> >>>> Atheists smarter than religious believers - study
>
> >>>> August 14, 2013
>
> >>>
>
> >>> did they have a control group who was not exposed to any possible
>
> >>> defacto standard of atheism to admission to education resulting in
>
> >>> status?
>
> >>>
>
> >>WTF is a defacto standard of atheism? Is there a defacto standard of not
>
> >>collecting stamps?
>
> >
>
> >perhaps, not exactly, the scientific community tries to exclude
>
> >theists
>
>
>
> Yet another stupid, obvious lie.

Your uncontrollable anger over not being able to convince anyone of anything is always so adorable. Try not to have a panic attack, idiot :)

[Mitchell Holman]

Les Hellawell <l...@sshant.tell> wrote in
news:64sg1a5up3njkun3f...@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 09:26:30 -0700 (PDT), WeHang FagZ
> <maca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Saturday, September 13, 2014 10:06:21 PM UTC-4, Mitchell Holman
>>wrote:
>>> Atheists smarter than religious believers - study
>>>
>>> August 14, 2013
>>
>>
>>Atheists make more noise than religious believers and that is not
>>smart or wise. Religious believers know that bragging or praising
>>oneself is against the teaching of the Bible, so they keep their
>>talents on low profile mode.
>
> Then they have a strange idea of what 'low profile' is coming here
> making a lot of noise and drawing attention to themselves.
>
>>As for atheists, they go on and on and on and on and on and on and on,
>>telling the whole world how smart they are and what they have
>>accomplished. If this is what you call being smart, then you have no
>>moral.
>
> If you don't what to hear our reasons why we do not share your
> relgious beliefs the thing to do is to either stop moaning about it
> or go away. We did not invite you into our newsgroup remember?
>
>>Next time I will show you my middle finger.
>
> It would be more productive if you showed us your evidence for
> a god - that is if you have any and did not decide to believe
> there is a god entirely on the say so of others

The odds of getting an intelligent
response from someone posting under
the name of "We Hang Fags" are pretty
slim...........

[WeHang FagZ]

On Tuesday, September 16, 2014 1:00:25 PM UTC-4, Christopher A. Lee wrote:


You missed the main theme in the Bible. There is but one God, the God of Israel who is rich in mercy. In time of IGNORANCE He let the gentiles seek Him their own way.... Saul Of Tarsus Acts 17:22-31

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO PAUL

22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.

23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, To The Unknown God. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;

26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

32 And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter.

33 So Paul departed from among them.

kRISHNA, zEUS, mITHRAS, or oDIN are whorshiped in ignorance as God. And those who worshiped them were being idolatrous according to the text above.
YOU ARE A FOOL

[nature bats last]

Oh, this is what I call being smart -- knowing more about
various religions than believers do:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0105/Are-you-smarter-than-an-atheist-A-religious-quiz/When-does-the-Jewish-Sabbath-begin

Which simply means that atheists tend to be more educated
and more curious about things that they don't already know about.

And if for "atheist" you substitute "liberal", and you
change "religious" to "conservative", you see exactly the
same effect.

Because they are the very same thing.


Oh: I missed three out of those thirty-two.

By the way I can show you a 20 question gospel quiz in
which you are guaranteed to get zero out of twenty.
No matter how well you think you know the gospels.

Seth

[Dreamer In Colore]

You know, I'll bite.

Show me this <air quotes> gospel quiz <air quotes> of which you
speak....

[JTEM]

Mitchell Holman wrote:

> Atheists smarter than religious believers - study

This, yes, THIS explains why you screwballs keep
erroneously calling yourselves "Atheists"...

As any sane person knows, "Atheist" in not French for
"Fence Sitter." Atheists believe there is no God. And
you're not atheists. You're just weirdos who somehow
think that "Atheist" is a magic word, an incantation of
sorts, and if you use it on yourselves you'll Harry
Potter yourself a higher I.Q. and/or other attributes
that leave you "Superior"...

Pretty sad, really.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/97698841878

[Greywolf]

____________

Well, we'll just see how many "atheist" converts I make because of your
refusal to quit posting your nonsense in our ATHEIST forum, you
religiously brainwashed shit-for-brains!

[JTEM]

Greywolf wrote:

> Well, we'll just see how many "atheist" converts I make

Great. You're not an atheist. Get over it and
move on.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/97698841878

[Greywolf]

On 9/17/2014 1:19 AM, JTEM wrote:
> Greywolf wrote:
>
>> Well, we'll just see how many "atheist" converts I make
>
> Great. You're not an atheist. Get over it and
> move on.
>
>

You don't even realize just how stupid you are. Every atheist in this
forum knows you're a pathological liar, and that I'm a dyed-in-the-wool
atheist.

You're so retarded, that you cannot recognize reality when you see it.

But that's "okay". Because of *your* type, I've gone into a Christian
forum to set the "Christians" straight about their religion. And they
can thank *you* for the impetus to set them straight.

See, you don't belong here. And never have. So turnabout is "fair-play,"
don't you think?

And your God can thank *you* and your kind for my "converting"
Christians into atheists.

Proud of yourself, are you?

[JTEM]

Greywolf wrote:

> You don't even realize

That's rich, coming from someone who isn't an
atheist but claims to be totally ignorant of
this fact.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/97698841878

[Greywolf]

__________

Hey stupid-ass. Because of your disrespect for us atheists, I'm posting
in a Christian forum now. And every Christian I "convert" to atheism can
be laid at *your* door, and those like you for not leaving and posting
elsewhere, you lying sack of shit.

Every Christian I convert to atheism, can be laid at *your* doorstep for
propelling me to do what I had to do.

[nature bats last]

It's at:

http://exchristian.net/3/test_quiz.php

and I was stunned that I got zero correct. I mean, Dook
alone has demonstrated that we atheists and agnostics
know Scripture far better than some believers, particularly
Catholic ones, they being told not to worry their pretty
little heads over Scripture.

The trick here is that all answers are right -- and all
are wrong. Try it: pick answer one for all questions,
and you'll get zero right. Take the quiz again, always
choosing the other answer, and you'll still be told that
you got them all wrong. The trick? For each quote from
a gospel, there's a contradictory quote from another gospel.

Pretty neat, eh? A definite filer-awayer.


Seth

[Vincent Maycock]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 17:28:13 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 21:06:21 -0500, Mitchell Holman <noe...@att.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Atheists smarter than religious believers - study
>>August 14, 2013
>>
>>
>>Religious people are likely to be less intelligent
>>than their atheist counterparts, a study claims.
>
>That study was by a devout atheist.

It was by two people, not one, and there's no evidence that these
researchers are atheists, devout or otherwise -- other than the ironic
fact that scientists (who tend to be more intelligent than other
people tend to be less religious).

The lead author in the study, Miron Zuckerman, is not an author of
atheist rants at Secular Free Thought Web Against the Delusion'- o'
god or whatever you're implying about him.

Instead, he's a Professor of Psychology at Rochester University and
chair of the Department of the Department of Arts & Sciences at that
university. He specializes in research on social cognition in general
(among other psychological topics), so the religiosity-IQ correlation
is right down his alley, and there's no reason to think he became
involved in the subject just to rail against Catholicism or whatever
you might fantasize that he's doing.

>The analysis, which looked at almost a century of
>>data, found a negative correlation between high IQs
>>and religiosity.
>
>I see an extreme degree of dumb in atheists.

Undoubtedly there are dumb atheists, but on the average atheists are
smarter. This is simply a sociological fact that Zuckerman and
Silberman just chose to summarize in 2012 by reviewing 63 studies
by*other psychologists,* using the statistical technique known as
meta-analysis, the standard tool used by psychologists and
sociologists when the time rolls around to summarize a vast amount of
experimental research on matter in a single paper.

>>Professors Miron Zuckerman and Jordan Silberman,
>>from the University of Rochester, looked at 63
>>studies in the field carried out between 1938 and
>>2012. In their paper, entitled "The Relation Between
>>Intelligence and Religiosity: A Meta-Analysis and
>>Some Proposed Explanations," Zuckerman and Silberman
>>drew the conclusion that the majority of studies
>>found that more intelligent people were less likely
>>to subscribe to organized religion.
>>
>>Out of the 63 surveys, 53 showed a negative correlation
>>between intelligence and religiosity, while only 10
>>displayed a positive one.
>
>I'm on the positive side.

That's probably true. I mean, you did screw up back in March when you
claimed that a ball on a string doesn't rotate on its axis (and will
probably bull-headed go right back to claiming it again -- but if you
do, *think, think, think* about how subtracting out the motion of the
ball's center of gravity (recall what that is) makes the velocity
vectors on either side of the ball equal and opposite the way you
think they should be), but since most people don't even like the
concept of balls on strings and would prefer to watch TV or something,
I would guess that you're probably smarter than the average theist,
but probably not as smart as the average atheist (that would be the
operational definition required for my agreement with your vague
statement that you're "on the positive side.")

>>They found that infants with higher intelligence would
>>be more likely to reject religion. Furthermore, older
>>people with above average IQ are less religious, the
>>study suggests.
>
>Yet the senior turns to God like no other person. There's something about that
>impending visit with the judge that gets their attention.

Right. People believe in God because it helps them emotionally in
some way (e.g., in this example, provides them comfort as their
inevitable mortality begins to bear down on them psychologically),
*not because there's any actual reason to believe he exists.*

[Mitchell Holman]

JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in news:1ac58116-1160-40e6-869e-1d2fe37141f1
@googlegroups.com:

> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
>> Atheists smarter than religious believers - study
>
> This, yes, THIS explains why you screwballs keep
> erroneously calling yourselves "Atheists"...
>
> As any sane person knows, "Atheist" in not French for
> "Fence Sitter." Atheists believe there is no God.

Just one less god than you do.

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 00:41:32 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last

I think you meant to say http://exchristian.net/3

>
>and I was stunned that I got zero correct. I mean, Dook
>alone has demonstrated that we atheists and agnostics
>know Scripture far better than some believers, particularly
>Catholic ones, they being told not to worry their pretty
>little heads over Scripture.
>
>The trick here is that all answers are right -- and all
>are wrong. Try it: pick answer one for all questions,
>and you'll get zero right. Take the quiz again, always
>choosing the other answer, and you'll still be told that
>you got them all wrong. The trick? For each quote from
>a gospel, there's a contradictory quote from another gospel.
>
>Pretty neat, eh? A definite filer-awayer.

I've always had a problem with biblical contradiction. I tried to
reconcile "inerrant" with "omniscient and omnipotent" when I was 7,
but the well-meaning vicar at the Church of England where I was living
at the time had no real answers for me.

God apparently works in mysterious ways, and that's supposed to be
good enough for us...

Cheers,
Dreamer

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 07:38:33 -0500, Mitchell Holman <noe...@att.net>
wrote:

McShitforbrains lies about this deliberately in order to cause
offence. It's one of the consequences of his serious mental illness.

He _knows_ that "atheist" is merely a demographic label showing that
someone isn't theist, and is only meaningful in the specific context
of the absent theism.

He also knows _why_ atheists don't have the beliefs he lies about.

Because gods are only things that could or could not exist, in the
theist's worldview. To everybody else they're something somebody else
believes. Not just to atheists, but also believers in other gods as
well.

Eg most Christians don't get a mental picture of "it doesn't exist"
when Hindus talk about their gods - they're "what Hindus believe".

But what makes Christians particularly stupid, is they can't make the
connection to non-Christians seeing theirs in the same light.

Although McShitforbrains tries to be deliberately nasty.

[Joe Bruno]

What a load of horsepuckey you are.

[%]

hi boner

[WeHang FagZ]

I BELIEVE IN THE GOSPEL NOT THE GOSPELS AS IF THERE WERE MANY.
Many Gosples naming is the result of westerners ruse. We, Muslims rejected their classification long ago.


>
>
>
> Seth

[JTEM]

Greywolf wrote:

> Hey stupid-ass. Because of

You're not an atheist. Atheists believe there is
no God while you're merely angry at your God.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/97719748756

[JTEM]

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

> He _knows_ that "atheist" is merely a demographic label showing that
> someone isn't theist

I "Know" that you're a pretty fucked up troll...

Atheists believe there is no God. Agnostics aren't atheists,
but you're not even one of them, let alone an atheist.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/97719748756

[Andrew]

"Greywolf" wrote in message news:lvbcp0$au1$1...@dont-email.me...

> I'm posting in a Christian forum now.

Hopefully they can help you.

[nature bats last]

On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 1:20:45 PM UTC-7, JTEM wrote:

> Greywolf wrote:

> > Hey stupid-ass. Because of

> You're not an atheist. Atheists believe there is
> no God while you're merely angry at your God.

Uh-huh. Just like I'm totally pissed off at Sauron.

And while being pissed off at the non-existent
is just plain silly, it's not silly to be
anything from annoyed to outraged at believers
who commit evil due to their belief.

Seth

[Dale]

On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 04:51:55 -0400, Vincent Maycock <vam...@aol.com>
wrote:

>other than people just making things up about some supposedly
>real experience

so you are syaing other things besides real exist, like perhaps
imaginary or illogical

if the imaginary exists, and God is imaginary, he exists

do I miss something?
--
Dale

[Vincent Maycock]

On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 00:01:25 -0400, Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 04:51:55 -0400, Vincent Maycock <vam...@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>>other than people just making things up about some supposedly
>>real experience
>
>so you are syaing other things besides real exist, like perhaps
>imaginary or illogical

Imaginary entities by definition do not exist. The standard use of the
word "illogical" probably should indicate that illogical entities
*can't* exist, even hypothetically.

We would have to determine exactly how these entities are supposed to
be damaging the laws of logic, in order to decide whether or not
rational people could reasonably wonder about whether or not they
could even theoretically exist, independent of observational evidence
that they *do* exist.

>if the imaginary exists, and God is imaginary, he exists
>
>do I miss something?

Yeah, I wasn't claiming that the imaginary exists. In fact, the
opposite is the case. The imaginary does not exist, and God is
imaginary, therefore he does not exist.

[Greywolf]

_______________

They are going to get creamed, Andrew. And you know it.

Just like you've been able to prove nothing other than you're a
brainwashed religious idiot who's posting here simply for the attention
you get.

You DO, however, reflect poorly on your faith for being so disrespectful
to us atheists in our "home". That's not being very "Christian-like," is it?

You could care less about the honor and dignity of your faith. You only
care about the self-centered attention you crave. And that's *IT*!!

You're not fooling anyone, Andrew. And you've got nothing left in your
arsenal but to simply blurt out religious crap that falls flat on the floor.

You're just an attention-seeker, and that's all.

[Bart Goddard]

Vincent Maycock <vam...@aol.com> wrote in
news:0ndl1a9gmct7lqb33...@4ax.com:

> Yeah, I wasn't claiming that the imaginary exists. In fact, the
> opposite is the case. The imaginary does not exist, and God is
> imaginary, therefore he does not exist.

There's that impeccable atheist logic: "Anyone who disagrees
with me is an idiot. You disagree with me, therefore you
are an idiot."

Most of us left that nonsense on the playground and grew up.

[Dale]

On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 06:50:50 -0400, Vincent Maycock <vam...@aol.com>
wrote:

>

>Yeah, I wasn't claiming that the imaginary exists. In fact, the
>opposite is the case. The imaginary does not exist, and God is
>imaginary, therefore he does not exist.

does the imaginary exist, maybe it is just not a part of the separate
set of real things that exist

you said people "make up things"

I went over this in my post on "abstraction"

is "making up things"

1) logical abstraction
2) variant abstraction
3) random abstraction
4) illogical abstraction
5) something I have missed

in all cases someone uses a material brain with material thoughts in
the matererial brain

if the thoughts are material, don't they exist in the brain at least
by one of the processes above, while the thought is instantiated

some of the above processes could fit non-material too, but still
possibly having such exist

if the illogical exists set theory might need a whole set of different
set operators, I think a adverb set might do
--
Dale

[benj]

Obviously you have not been reading USENET posts!

[Shmuel Metz]

FUP set

In <0ndl1a9gmct7lqb33...@4ax.com>, on 09/18/2014

at 06:50 AM, Vincent Maycock <vam...@aol.com> said:

>Yeah, I wasn't claiming that the imaginary exists. In fact, the
>opposite is the case. The imaginary does not exist, and God is
>imaginary, therefore he does not exist

You're begging the question. No party to the debate has exstablished
*either* that God exists or that He does not exist. More imposrtantly,
the question has nothing to do with Logic, Mathematics or Physics.
Please take the debate where it belongs.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org

[Shmuel Metz]

In <XnsA3AC7EB706C7Ago...@74.209.136.97>, on 09/18/2014

at 05:27 PM, Bart Goddard <godd...@netscape.net> said:

>There's that impeccable atheist logic:

There's that impeccable fanatic logic: foo is a member of bar, foo
disagrees with me, therefore everybody in bar is a baz. Vincent is no
more a spokesman for atheists than you are a spokesman for believers.
A plague on both your houses.

[pitchpi...@gmail.com]

Please rephrase.

[Dakota]

On 9/18/2014 2:13 PM, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
> FUP set
>
> In <0ndl1a9gmct7lqb33...@4ax.com>, on 09/18/2014
> at 06:50 AM, Vincent Maycock <vam...@aol.com> said:
>
>> Yeah, I wasn't claiming that the imaginary exists. In fact, the
>> opposite is the case. The imaginary does not exist, and God is
>> imaginary, therefore he does not exist
>
> You're begging the question. No party to the debate has exstablished
> *either* that God exists or that He does not exist. More imposrtantly,
> the question has nothing to do with Logic, Mathematics or Physics.
> Please take the debate where it belongs.
>

You and Vincent seem to be convinced that there is only one god to
consider and that it is male. How did you reach that conclusion? What
evidence was involved?

[duke]

And still doesn't. That's a scientific assurance.

>>Yet the senior turns to God like no other person. There's something about that
>>impending visit with the judge that gets their attention.

>Right. People believe in God because it helps them emotionally in
>some way (e.g., in this example, provides them comfort as their
>inevitable mortality begins to bear down on them psychologically),
>*not because there's any actual reason to believe he exists.*

The world of theism outnumbers you atheist by 25:1. You lose.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 16:30:51 -0500, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com>
wrote:

>On 9/18/2014 2:13 PM, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
>> FUP set
>>
>> In <0ndl1a9gmct7lqb33...@4ax.com>, on 09/18/2014
>> at 06:50 AM, Vincent Maycock <vam...@aol.com> said:
>>
>>> Yeah, I wasn't claiming that the imaginary exists. In fact, the
>>> opposite is the case. The imaginary does not exist, and God is
>>> imaginary, therefore he does not exist
>>
>> You're begging the question. No party to the debate has exstablished
>> *either* that God exists or that He does not exist.

Idiot.

>> More imposrtantly,
>> the question has nothing to do with Logic, Mathematics or Physics.
>> Please take the debate where it belongs.

There is no debate - just stupid, rude believers who can't keep it
inside their pants^H^H^H^H^Hreligion.

Demands for proof are to get hem to shut the fuck up when they can't
prove it.

>You and Vincent seem to be convinced that there is only one god to
>consider and that it is male. How did you reach that conclusion? What
>evidence was involved?

None - it's the one they believe in so they "know" it's that one, and
they're too stupid to realise just how irrelevant it is outside their
religion.

[Dale]

On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 15:13:14 -0400, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
<spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:

>FUP set
>
>In <0ndl1a9gmct7lqb33...@4ax.com>, on 09/18/2014
> at 06:50 AM, Vincent Maycock <vam...@aol.com> said:
> More imposrtantly,
>the question has nothing to do with Logic, Mathematics or Physics.
>Please take the debate where it belongs.

if the imaginary or illogical exist, even just in the brain, then they
are very relevant to logic, math and physics

completely turns set operators up and down, would need others

scientific obervation would be questionable as would inference
(deduction and induction)

and for physics, how could you tell what substance is material

I'm not saying I know, but I brought up this point in another thread
called "abstraction" wwhere such things could result from

1) logic, I can't see how
2) variancy, not something outside the real or loogical I think
3) random, perhaps
4) illogical or imaginary, who would know for sure except gods and
believers
5) something I missed

it comes down to one question: does the illogical or imaginary exist
in the mind or conscious or brain, and if so, they exist in some
culpable form, if they are just "throughts" does it result in the same
believer and follower behavior as something more than "thoughts"

what is a thought? what categaory 1-5, does it fall in above

due to the above considerations I find morals (right and wrong, well
and not well) more important than science as a basis for life, science
plays a good second role to morals for me

--
Dale

[Mike Duffy]

On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 06:50:50 -0400, Vincent Maycock wrote:

> Yeah, I wasn't claiming that the imaginary exists.

What about numbers? And I am not referring specifically to "imaginary" or
"real" in the mathematical sense. In terms of physical existence, all
mathematical constructs are products of conscious thought.

Co-incidentally, our last message exchange in this very thread also dealt
with real and imaginary numbers, except that time I said they were real.
Yet I have not changed my position on my perceptions. Magic, isn't it?

--
http://pages.videotron.com/duffym/index.htm

[Andrew]

"Greywolf" wrote in message news:lvesiu$dte$1...@dont-email.me...
> Andrew wrote:

>> "Greywolf" wrote:
>>> I'm posting in a Christian forum now.
>>
>> Hopefully they can help you.
> _______________
>
> They are going to get creamed, Andrew. And you know it.

Many atheist have become Christians after embarking on
such a mission.

Here is one of them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLWMc_8ymeE

[Greywolf]

------------

Oh, I'm quite familiar with *him*!

Here's something you should know, you brainwashed idiot: No "real"
atheist turns Christian based on incontrovertible evidence, cause' there
is none.

So-called atheists turn "Christian" due to some emotional or
psychological reason. Or even possibly to make out financially.

And there is simply no incontrovertible evidence for the existence of a
"Christian" God on top of it all. So where's Strobel's "evidence"? He
really has none.

And you have to ask yourself this, you religiously brainwashed moron:
How is it that so many former Christians who felt they were filled with
the "Holy Spirit" have turned atheist? Hmmm?

Atheism is on the rise, you know. And the new converts aren't the bunch
that believes that they're cows grazing on the moon, either. Something
almost as ridiculous, "Yes". They're called "Christians".

Oh, and Strobel has had his "clock" cleaned in debates, you should know.

[Uergil]

In article <lvfv00$8gh$1...@dont-email.me>,

The use of the adjectives "real" and "imaginary", and to lesser degree
"complex" to describe types of numbers is unfortunate, as numbers which
are real only in that mathematical sense are no more 'real' or less
'imaginary' in usual everyday meaning of reality than mathematically
imaginary ones
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less
remote from the- truth who believes nothing than
he who believes what is wrong.
Thomas Jefferson

[benj]

On 09/18/2014 10:49 PM, Uergil wrote:
> In article <lvfv00$8gh$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Mike Duffy <md_...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 06:50:50 -0400, Vincent Maycock wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, I wasn't claiming that the imaginary exists.
>>
>> What about numbers? And I am not referring specifically to "imaginary" or
>> "real" in the mathematical sense. In terms of physical existence, all
>> mathematical constructs are products of conscious thought.
>>
>> Co-incidentally, our last message exchange in this very thread also dealt
>> with real and imaginary numbers, except that time I said they were real.
>> Yet I have not changed my position on my perceptions. Magic, isn't it?
>
> The use of the adjectives "real" and "imaginary", and to lesser degree
> "complex" to describe types of numbers is unfortunate, as numbers which
> are real only in that mathematical sense are no more 'real' or less
> 'imaginary' in usual everyday meaning of reality than mathematically
> imaginary ones

Of course ALL mathematics is fantasy be it real, imaginary or complex.

Which gets us back to the age old question we ask here: Does Tinker Bell
exist?

[Dakota]

He's probably making a good living fleecing the sheep.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 22:08:41 -0500, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com>
wrote:

>On 9/18/2014 9:23 PM, Greywolf wrote:
>> On 9/18/2014 9:00 PM, Andrew wrote:
>>> "Greywolf" wrote in message news:lvesiu$dte$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>>> "Greywolf" wrote:
>>>>>> I'm posting in a Christian forum now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hopefully they can help you.
>>>> _______________
>>>>
>>>> They are going to get creamed, Andrew. And you know it.
>>>
>>> Many atheist have become Christians after embarking on
>>> such a mission.
>>>
>>> Here is one of them.
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLWMc_8ymeE

Strobel is a transparent liar - he had to be some kind of Christian
already to believe the stuff he claimed converted him, because only
Christians believe that stuff.

It's as transparent as a Muslim claiming he used to be Christian until
he read the Koran - when only somebody who is already Muslim would be
convinced by it.

>> ------------
>>
>> Oh, I'm quite familiar with *him*!

He claims Lord/Liar/Lunatic convinced him.

>> Here's something you should know, you brainwashed idiot: No "real"
>> atheist turns Christian based on incontrovertible evidence, cause' there
>> is none.
>>
>> So-called atheists turn "Christian" due to some emotional or
>> psychological reason. Or even possibly to make out financially.

The only genuine one I knew personally, was the late father of the
Lady In My Life.

He was raised Hindu, became atheist and went through the motions of
conversion to Catholic when he married in a love match which was rare
in a country where at that time marriages were arranged.

After thirty years of immersion and raising a Catholic family, he had
a second baptism.

Not for any of the reasons phony "ex-atheists" claim to fellow
Christians who can't think outside the box.

>> And there is simply no incontrovertible evidence for the existence of a
>> "Christian" God on top of it all. So where's Strobel's "evidence"? He
>> really has none.
>>
>> And you have to ask yourself this, you religiously brainwashed moron:
>> How is it that so many former Christians who felt they were filled with
>> the "Holy Spirit" have turned atheist? Hmmm?
>>
>> Atheism is on the rise, you know. And the new converts aren't the bunch
>> that believes that they're cows grazing on the moon, either. Something
>> almost as ridiculous, "Yes". They're called "Christians".
>>
>> Oh, and Strobel has had his "clock" cleaned in debates, you should know.
>
>He's probably making a good living fleecing the sheep.

That's not incompatible with believing.

[Greywolf]

__________

Damn straight!!

[Greywolf]

>>> So-called atheists turn "Christian" due to some emotional, or for some

>>> psychological reason. Or even possibly to make out financially.
>
> The only genuine one I knew personally, was the late father of the
> Lady In My Life.
>
> He was raised Hindu, became atheist and went through the motions of
> conversion to Catholic when he married in a love match which was rare
> in a country where at that time marriages were arranged.
>
> After thirty years of immersion and raising a Catholic family, he had
> a second baptism.
>
> Not for any of the reasons phony "ex-atheists" claim to fellow
> Christians who can't think outside the box.
>
>>> And there is simply no incontrovertible evidence for the existence of a
>>> "Christian" God on top of it all. So where's Strobel's "evidence"? He
>>> really has none.
>>>
>>> And you have to ask yourself this, you religiously brainwashed moron:
>>> How is it that so many former Christians who felt they were filled with
>>> the "Holy Spirit" have turned atheist? Hmmm?
>>>
>>> Atheism is on the rise, you know. And the new converts aren't the bunch
>>> that believes that they're cows grazing on the moon, either. Something
>>> almost as ridiculous, "Yes". They're called "Christians".
>>>
>>> Oh, and Strobel has had his "clock" cleaned in debates, you should know.
>>
>> He's probably making a good living fleecing the sheep.
>
> That's not incompatible with believing.
>

_____________

It seems that the individual you speak of had a genuine conversion. But
that leaves the fact that since there is no incontrovertible evidence
for the existence of ANY supernatural deity, it points to some emotional
or psychological need for him to come to "believe".

I'm curious: Did he try to "convert" you?

[Andrew]

"Vincent Maycock" wrote in message news:0ndl1a9gmct7lqb33...@4ax.com...

>
> Yeah, I wasn't claiming that the imaginary exists.
> In fact, the opposite is the case. The imaginary
> does not exist, and God is imaginary, therefore
> he does not exist.

The ship of fools keeps sailing on
And on and on and on
The truth is always hard to face
Especially when you are in that place,
Like the ship of fools.
The ship of fools keeps sailing on
And on and on and on.
And so the deception continues,
Wasn't claiming that the imaginary

exists. In fact, the opposite is the case.
The imaginary does not exist, and God is

imaginary, therefore He does not exist.
So the ship of fools keeps sailing on
The ship of fools keeps sailing on
And on and on and on
And so the deception continues.
~ Selected

[Vincent Maycock]

On 18 Sep 2014 17:27:24 GMT, Bart Goddard <godd...@netscape.net>
wrote:

No, there are plenty of people who disagree with me who are not idiots
-- agnostics, for example. Also, I don't want you to equivocate
between whether theism is idiocy (which it is, given the extreme
logical fallaciousness of all its claims) and whether *theists are
idiots* just because

a) they have lower average IQ's than atheists, and
b) their ideas are all fit for the rubbish bin of logic and science

Both a) and b) are true, but it doesn't follow that theists are
"idiots." That's too vague and pejorative term to have any
sociological value.

So if theists aren't idiots, what are they doing promulgating idiocy?
Well, my explanation is that they let their emotions confuse them and
they get all addled when they try to think about religious issues. It
doesn't mean their retarded sub-morons in general.

Pscyometricians would say that religious reasoning is a "narrower
cognitive ability" than the general factor g which IQ tests measure,
and can't be used as measure of someone's ability to think in general
any more than we can select a narrow cognitive ability like "verbal
fluency" or "visuo-spatial ability" and conclude from either that they
must be a retard or a genius.

For example, some people may be good with cross-word puzzles but have
trouble finding their way around on the highways and streets.
Likewise, theists may achieve at the level of retards in the area of
religious reasoning, but excel in, say, the arena of proving
mathematical theorems.

[Vincent Maycock]

On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 15:13:14 -0400, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
<spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:

>FUP set

Followups put back, so your dishonest snippery of what actually
happened will be visible to everyone.

>In <0ndl1a9gmct7lqb33...@4ax.com>, on 09/18/2014
> at 06:50 AM, Vincent Maycock <vam...@aol.com> said:
>
>>Yeah, I wasn't claiming that the imaginary exists. In fact, the
>>opposite is the case. The imaginary does not exist, and God is
>>imaginary, therefore he does not exist
>
>You're begging the question.

No, Dale gave me the following syllogism (which, as I said, you
snipped out):

<QUOTE>

if the imaginary exists, and God is imaginary, he exists

</QUOTE>

Begging the question involves assuming the empirical validity of an
antecedent to demonstrate the empirical truth of its implication. But
Dale granted the antecedent that God is imaginary, and asked me if
something else followed from that.

So when I asserted that Dale's reasoning, when correctly formulated,
implied that God does not exist, I didn't beg any questions; rather I
simply denied the validity of the premise (or antecedent) in Dale's
syllogism by showing that one of its two necessary components (joined
by "and" in the quote above) was invalid, and that therefore his
conclusion was invalid.

> No party to the debate has exstablished
>*either* that God exists or that He does not exist.

It hasn't been established in the social sense of a broad consensus
among intellectuals in the modern world, and never will be because
theists will always be around, as surely as we'll be afflicted by
other problems (if you want to call theism a problem, which is itself
debatable) like poverty and criminality. Theism is an inherent part
of the human psyche, probably bred into us by millions of years of
evolutionary selective pressure pushing primitive hominids to a
socially stable society, since social stability is one of the main
functions of theism in the modern world.

So it hasn't been established in that sense. On the logical and (to
the extent where it becomes applicable) scientific level, we can make
short work of any theist notion -- the proofs are easier than those
found in introductory calculus class, but most people just don't want
to think about them for emotional or psychological reasons.

> More imposrtantly,
>the question has nothing to do with Logic, Mathematics or Physics.
>Please take the debate where it belongs.

I can see your objection to heated arguments about whether or not
"there is such a thing a sin" or "are theists liars?" or "did God say
abortion is wrong and does it matter?" appearing in whatever newsgroup
it is that you're posting out of, but if a theist begins to hijack the
logical apparatus of math and science to support his claims, I don't
see why a quick, concise demonstration of whichever logical fallacy
they're using should be a problem, given what you guys like to do over
there. In fact, I'll get you started on one right now, right down your
line of interest:

The great mathematician Kurt Godel made a simple error in his
mathematical proof of the existence of God (his other great
achievements notwithstanding) because he assumed that the axioms and
definitions involved in a mathematical proof must be applicable in
empirical (as opposed to mathematical) reality. And most people are
concerned with whether God exists in the former sense rather than the
latter.

[Vincent Maycock]

On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 21:23:02 -0500, Greywolf
<Greywolft...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 9/18/2014 9:00 PM, Andrew wrote:
>> "Greywolf" wrote in message news:lvesiu$dte$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>> "Greywolf" wrote:
>>>>> I'm posting in a Christian forum now.
>>>>
>>>> Hopefully they can help you.
>>> _______________
>>>
>>> They are going to get creamed, Andrew. And you know it.
>>
>> Many atheist have become Christians after embarking on
>> such a mission.
>>
>> Here is one of them.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLWMc_8ymeE
>>
>>
>>
>------------
>
>Oh, I'm quite familiar with *him*!
>
>Here's something you should know, you brainwashed idiot: No "real"
>atheist turns Christian based on incontrovertible evidence, cause' there
>is none.
>
>So-called atheists turn "Christian" due to some emotional or
>psychological reason. Or even possibly to make out financially.
>
>And there is simply no incontrovertible evidence

You mean there's no evidence at all ... now, carry on.

[Vincent Maycock]

On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 14:29:43 -0400, Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

These are interesting questions, but before we delve into their
logical structure, we'd better just cut to the chase and ask if you're
trying to equivocate between a kind of imaginary like "Tinker Bell
Harry Potter" imaginary and other kinds of imaginary like "something I
thought up in my head, which may or may not exist."

So here's a list of things that are imaginary in the former sense, to
make sure we're using the same terminology when we say "imaginary."
Some imaginary things are:

Tinker Bell
Harry Potter
Fairies
Leprechauns
Superman
Odin Zeus & Thor

Now, to cut to the logical chase, as I said above: it's in the *above
sense* in which I meant that God is imaginary, not some other more
(presumably pleasant, for a theist-leaner such as yourself) sense like
"an imaginary number" or some more general mathematical abstraction
that doesn't exist empirically or observationally but definitely is a
little bit more real than Tinker Bell.

[Vincent Maycock]

I see that you preferred not to *think, think, think* -- you know that
significant part of my post to which you replied that you snipped out
-- about

subtracting off the velocity of the center of gravity to
yield your favorite condition, equal and opposite velocity vectors

and instead, recline in "assurance" that your incorrect claims were
sensible.

>>>Yet the senior turns to God like no other person. There's something about that
>>>impending visit with the judge that gets their attention.
>
>>Right. People believe in God because it helps them emotionally in
>>some way (e.g., in this example, provides them comfort as their
>>inevitable mortality begins to bear down on them psychologically),
>>*not because there's any actual reason to believe he exists.*
>
>The world of theism outnumbers you atheist by 25:1. You lose.

Ironically, this is precisely the point. Because the distribution of
IQ scores is Gaussian (i.e., colloquially it's a bell curve), those
who are selected from the upper tail of the distribution (higher
average test scores, which atheists are known to have) are going to be
outnumbered by those closer to the mean (or average IQ score, defined
to be 100 by psychometric researchers).

[Peter Percival]

Dale wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 04:51:55 -0400, Vincent Maycock <vam...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>> other than people just making things up about some supposedly
>> real experience
>
> so you are syaing other things besides real exist, like perhaps
> imaginary or illogical

That illogical things exist can hardly be doubted: just look at the
posts to these newsgroups

> if the imaginary exists, and God is imaginary, he exists
>

> do I miss something?
>


--
[Dancing is] a perpendicular expression of a horizontal desire.
G.B. Shaw quoted in /New Statesman/, 23 March 1962

[Vincent Maycock]

On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 20:56:37 -0400, Mike Duffy <md_...@videotron.ca>
wrote:

I think we may be getting bogged down by the definition of the word
"exist." One sense in which something exists is if you can experience
it with your senses -- take a video of it, feel it bounce into your
head, etc. etc.

Now, mathematical abstractions like the number pi are definitely
"real" because you can put two people in two different rooms and ask
them to calculate the value of pi, and they'll both get the same
answer without communicating with each other. How could they do that,
if pi was something that each of them was just daydreaming about? Why
would they both daydream the 13th digit of pi to be 9 and not some
other number? So pi definitely exists and is not some Tinker Bell
fantasy.

And yet you can never take a video of pi, nor will you ever taste pi
and exclaim how sweet it is; so in what sense does it "exist"? Well,
empirical or observational existence isn't the only way that something
can exist. Another form of existence is "abstraction," either of
objects or the rules of behavior which govern those objects.

So things like gravity and entropy and the class Mammalia are
abstractions which also happen to exist empirically in the real world
(as opposed to just in your head, like pi). But other abstractions,
like pi or e or The Complex Plane or a 37-dimensional sphere exist in
the sense of being "abstractions" that don't physically exist in the
observable, measurable world that we experience around us.

So this raises the question of where God falls into all of this.
Obviously there's no reason to think he's any part of empirical
reality. But he *is* an abstraction, if a somewhat emotionally loaded
and simplistic one, so really he should be considered to be a very
simple (in most formulations of the concept) logical or mathematical
*abstraction* who doesn't exist in the other (more useful) sense of
the word -- i.e., an actual, real object that can cause things to
happen to us or otherwise affect our physical or emotional state,
independent of the psychological and neurological properties of the
human mind.

[Joe Bruno]

On Thursday, September 18, 2014 8:50:45 PM UTC-7, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 22:08:41 -0500, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com>
>
> wrote:
>
> >On 9/18/2014 9:23 PM, Greywolf wrote:
>
> >> On 9/18/2014 9:00 PM, Andrew wrote:
>
> >>> "Greywolf" wrote in message news:lvesiu$dte$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> >>>> Andrew wrote:
>
> >>>>> "Greywolf" wrote:
>
> >>>>>> I'm posting in a Christian forum now.
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>> Hopefully they can help you.
>
> >>>> _______________
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> They are going to get creamed, Andrew. And you know it.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Many atheist have become Christians after embarking on
>
> >>> such a mission.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Here is one of them.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLWMc_8ymeE
>
>
>
> Strobel is a transparent liar - he had to be some kind of Christian
>
> already to believe the stuff he claimed converted him, because only
>
> Christians believe that stuff.
>
>
>
> It's as transparent as a Muslim claiming he used to be Christian until
>
> he read the Koran - when only somebody who is already Muslim would be
>
> convinced by it.

You are a chronic liar who accuses everyone else of lying.

[Mike Duffy]

On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 07:18:35 -0400, Vincent Maycock wrote:

> So things like gravity and entropy and the class Mammalia are
> abstractions which also happen to exist empirically in the real world

Good examples. Some might argue that a mammal is a concrete instance of a
member of the set "Mammalia", but the classification Mammalia is itself a
mental abstraction.

> So this raises the question of where God falls into all of this.
> Obviously there's no reason to think he's any part of empirical
> reality. But he *is* an abstraction, if a somewhat emotionally loaded
> and simplistic one, so really he should be considered to be a very
> simple (in most formulations of the concept) logical or mathematical
> *abstraction* who doesn't exist in the other (more useful) sense of
> the word -- i.e., an actual, real object that can cause things to
> happen to us or otherwise affect our physical or emotional state,
> independent of the psychological and neurological properties of the
> human mind.

You are comparatively new here are you not? It seems to me that your views
are very much aligned with mine. Uncannily, your writing style looks almost
exactly the same as mine as well. How will we convince people here that we
are not sock puppets?

Do you mind sharing your background? For what it's worth, I:

1) Have a BSc (Physics) + Computer Science Minor
2) Worked 33 yrs doing computer admin & minor programming, (retired now).
3) Attained the suburban dream (1 wife 1 kid 1 dog 1 house 2 cars)

I learned french as a adult; I believe that has influenced my writing (and
speaking style) by getting rid of a lot of colloquial expressions.

--
http://pages.videotron.com/duffym/index.htm

[Bart Goddard]

Vincent Maycock <vam...@aol.com> wrote in

news:hosn1at1at6r1t1ip...@4ax.com:

>
> On 18 Sep 2014 17:27:24 GMT, Bart Goddard
<godd...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Vincent Maycock <vam...@aol.com> wrote in
>>news:0ndl1a9gmct7lqb33...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> Yeah, I wasn't claiming that the imaginary exists. In fact,
the
>>> opposite is the case. The imaginary does not exist, and God
is
>>> imaginary, therefore he does not exist.
>>
>>There's that impeccable atheist logic: "Anyone who disagrees
>>with me is an idiot. You disagree with me, therefore you
>>are an idiot."
>>
>>Most of us left that nonsense on the playground and grew up.
>
> No, there are plenty of people who disagree with me who are not
idiots

See that tiny, tiny spec way up there in the sky? That
was the _point_ going over your head. The point was about
the logical fallacy in the prior statement.

[Bart Goddard]

Vincent Maycock <vam...@aol.com> wrote in

news:hosn1at1at6r1t1ip...@4ax.com:

> a) they have lower average IQ's than atheists, and

Careful, that's another logical fallacy. It's a fact that
Republicans are more educated than Democrats and that
Tea Partiers are more educated than Republicans.

Well...it's a squishy fact, because what does "more"
mean? In this case, it's "average highest grade completed".

So how did the conventional wisdom get turned up-side
down, so that Tea Partiers are characterized as
inbred, drooling idiots and Democrats are somehow
the intellectual party?

The plain fact is that the Democratic Party, besides
containing a handful of intellectuals, also contains
the huge masses in the ghettos, which drags the
"average highest grade completed" way, way down.

Likewise, as a group, theists care deeply about
their fellow humans, and take great pains to have
hospitals and nursing homes and orphanages and
food banks and places to sleep.

It could be that the "average" IQ of atheists is
higher than that of theists, but maybe it wouldn't
be if you weren't all a bunch of selfish, self-
absorbed, heartless bastards who chase off any
poor, struggling person and/or try to eat their
babies or whatever it is you do at your meetings.

[Free Lunch]

On 19 Sep 2014 16:55:30 GMT, Bart Goddard <godd...@netscape.net>
wrote:

I find it funny that the vast majority of Republicans allege that they
are Christian, even though Republicans clearly reject what Jesus taught.

[Bart Goddard]

Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
news:0joo1atqinarbn54h...@4ax.com:

> I find it funny that the vast majority of Republicans allege that
they
> are Christian, even though Republicans clearly reject what Jesus
taught.

I find it funny that so many people think they know
what Jesus taught, and then say something like the above.

You're confusing the real Jesus with "Buddy Jesus."
Most Republicans don't claim to be followers of
Buddy Jesus.

[Free Lunch]

On 19 Sep 2014 17:22:03 GMT, Bart Goddard <godd...@netscape.net>
wrote:

>

>Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
>news:0joo1atqinarbn54h...@4ax.com:
>
>> I find it funny that the vast majority of Republicans allege that
>they
>> are Christian, even though Republicans clearly reject what Jesus
>taught.
>
>I find it funny that so many people think they know
>what Jesus taught, and then say something like the above.

I suppose that all of the quotations attributed to Jesus in the gospels
are made up and that Jesus didn't teach anything like the teachings in
the Sermon on the Mount. Certainly Republicans don't give a damn what
the gospels claim Jesus taught.

>You're confusing the real Jesus with "Buddy Jesus."
>Most Republicans don't claim to be followers of
>Buddy Jesus.

You have confused yourself well.

[hanson]

"Bart, the Fart, Goddard" <godd...@netscape.net>
wrote & incensed Vincent Maycock <vam...@aol.com>
when they had a t�te-�-t�te and wrote about:
> ... atheists, and <snip crap> ... theists
> <snip crap>... atheists <nip crap> ... theists
>
hanson wrote:
As long a there is any Theism, be that A-theism,
Monotheism, or Polytheism, there are elements
of deities involved which dominate your thinking.
Shake off that Theo shit & become NON-religious.
>
Said blogger Sandi Ann :
"Imagine... no religion. No one fighting over who
has the best god. No mental illness. ... what a
wonderful world that would be! Too bad it won't
happen in my lifetime".
>
Right on, Sandi, look:
.========== Nobody is born religious ==========
===== Religion is an acquired mental disease =====
= Religion is a tool used by the few to fuck the many =

[Bart Goddard]

Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in

news:7qpo1ap52obq95eb0...@4ax.com:

>>I find it funny that so many people think they know
>>what Jesus taught, and then say something like the above.
>
> I suppose that all of the quotations attributed to Jesus in the
gospels
> are made up and that Jesus didn't teach anything like the
teachings in
> the Sermon on the Mount. Certainly Republicans don't give a damn
what
> the gospels claim Jesus taught.

Two chances and still no example? Hmmmm..

[Free Lunch]

On 19 Sep 2014 19:00:38 GMT, Bart Goddard <godd...@netscape.net>
wrote:

Jesus' teachings are my examples. It's not my fault that you don't know
what the gospels say Jesus taught.

[Bart Goddard]

Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in

news:0s1p1al5iv2629fe4...@4ax.com:

Jesus taught that we're helpless against sin and needed
God to do for us that which we can not do for ourselves.
I'm not seeing much in that message which the Republicans
are actively rejecting.

And that's 3 times you've had a chance to site a teaching
of Jesus which the Republicans reject, and have declined to
do so. Yer out.

[duke]

Checked it. Deleted the garbage.

>subtracting off the velocity of the center of gravity to
>yield your favorite condition, equal and opposite velocity vectors

I repeat - a ball on a string does not rotate.

>and instead, recline in "assurance" that your incorrect claims were
>sensible.

>>>>Yet the senior turns to God like no other person. There's something about that
>>>>impending visit with the judge that gets their attention.
>>
>>>Right. People believe in God because it helps them emotionally in
>>>some way (e.g., in this example, provides them comfort as their
>>>inevitable mortality begins to bear down on them psychologically),
>>>*not because there's any actual reason to believe he exists.*
>>
>>The world of theism outnumbers you atheist by 25:1. You lose.

>Ironically, this is precisely the point. Because the distribution of
>IQ scores is Gaussian (i.e., colloquially it's a bell curve), those
>who are selected from the upper tail of the distribution (higher
>average test scores, which atheists are known to have) are going to be
>outnumbered by those closer to the mean (or average IQ score, defined
>to be 100 by psychometric researchers).

You guys are on the tail end.

[duke]

On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 21:23:02 -0500, Greywolf <Greywolft...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On 9/18/2014 9:00 PM, Andrew wrote:
>> "Greywolf" wrote in message news:lvesiu$dte$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>> "Greywolf" wrote:
>>>>> I'm posting in a Christian forum now.
>>>>
>>>> Hopefully they can help you.
>>> _______________
>>>
>>> They are going to get creamed, Andrew. And you know it.
>>
>> Many atheist have become Christians after embarking on
>> such a mission.
>>
>> Here is one of them.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLWMc_8ymeE
>>
>>
>>

>------------
>
>Oh, I'm quite familiar with *him*!
>

>Here's something you should know, you brainwashed idiot: No "real"
>atheist turns Christian based on incontrovertible evidence, cause' there
>is none.
>
>So-called atheists turn "Christian" due to some emotional or
>psychological reason. Or even possibly to make out financially.
>

>And there is simply no incontrovertible evidence for the existence of a
>"Christian" God on top of it all. So where's Strobel's "evidence"? He
>really has none.

So show us what evidence you have for there being NO God.

[Shmuel Metz]

In <ifvn1apnpirad97fd...@4ax.com>, on 09/19/2014

at 06:03 AM, Vincent Maycock <vam...@aol.com> said:

>Followups put back, so your dishonest snippery of what actually
>happened will be visible to everyone.

Well, one of us is dishonest, but it isn't me. And your nonsense still
has nothing to do with logic, mathematics or physics.

>No, Dale gave me the following syllogism (which, as I said, you
>snipped out):

It wasn't relevant, tonto. I wasn't commenting on his inference, I was
commenting on yours.

>Begging the question involves assuming the empirical validity of an
>antecedent to demonstrate the empirical truth of its implication.

Which is what you did.

>But Dale granted the antecedent that God is imaginary,

A lie of omission; what he granted was the conjunction of *two*
propositions.

>So when I asserted that Dale's reasoning, when correctly formulated,

ITYM somerthing *different* from Dale's reasoning. You may quedstion
his premise, "the imaginary exists, and God is imaginary", but the
inference itself is valid.

>It hasn't been established in the social sense of a broad consensus
>among intellectuals in the modern world,

Broad social consensus isn't relevant in sci.math, only correct
reasoning.

>On the logical and (to the extent where it becomes applicable)
>scientific level, we can make short work of any theist notion --
>the proofs are easier than those found in introductory calculus
>class, but most people just don't want to think about them for
>emotional or psychological reasons.

Are you really that dumb? On the logicval level you can't proove anything in a void; you need axioms and rules of inference. Since you have given neither, you can't either prove or disprove the existence of a deity. Take you crap to a news group where it is on topic.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org

[Free Lunch]

Every time you make it clear that you know you have no evidence for the
god you worship you have told us that your god is imaginary.

[Free Lunch]

On 19 Sep 2014 20:02:19 GMT, Bart Goddard <godd...@netscape.net>

wrote:

>Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
>news:0s1p1al5iv2629fe4...@4ax.com:
>
>> On 19 Sep 2014 19:00:38 GMT, Bart Goddard
><godd...@netscape.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
>>>news:7qpo1ap52obq95eb0...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>>>I find it funny that so many people think they know
>>>>>what Jesus taught, and then say something like the above.
>>>>
>>>> I suppose that all of the quotations attributed to Jesus in
>the
>>>gospels
>>>> are made up and that Jesus didn't teach anything like the
>>>teachings in
>>>> the Sermon on the Mount. Certainly Republicans don't give a
>damn
>>>what
>>>> the gospels claim Jesus taught.
>>>
>>>Two chances and still no example? Hmmmm..
>>
>> Jesus' teachings are my examples. It's not my fault that you
>don't know
>> what the gospels say Jesus taught.
>
>Jesus taught that we're helpless against sin

I am not a member of your religion. I have no reason to abandon hope.

>and needed
>God to do for us that which we can not do for ourselves.

The god found in Christianity is the cause of the problem. According to
Christian myth, that god royally screwed up creation and blamed the
victims. Later, that god was so angry that he engaged in mass murder of
life on earth. Such a god is worth nothing but contempt. The silly
frosting of the New Testament is just absurd.

>I'm not seeing much in that message which the Republicans
>are actively rejecting.

Of course not. Apparently Republicans don't want to hear about The
Widow's Mite or The Good Samaritan. They don't want to hear that
peacemakers are blessed or that the love of money is the root of all
evil.

>And that's 3 times you've had a chance to site a teaching
>of Jesus which the Republicans reject, and have declined to
>do so. Yer out.

You clearly do not know what Jesus taught. Fine. Don't call yourself a
Christian. You are not.

[Bart Goddard]

Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in

news:9kap1a1vemh0g0g1n...@4ax.com:

>>I'm not seeing much in that message which the Republicans
>>are actively rejecting.
>
> Of course not. Apparently Republicans don't want to hear about
The
> Widow's Mite or The Good Samaritan. They don't want to hear that
> peacemakers are blessed or that the love of money is the root of
all
> evil.

So dodging the question didn't work...maybe grasping at
straws will? 1. How on earth do you assert that
Republicans have anything against widow's having mite's
or giving them to the temple? 2. Republicans do more to
help the sick than the liberals will ever dream of doing,
so ditto the Good Samaritan (the point of which also
flies far over your head.) 3. Most US wars have been
started by Democrats and ended by Republicans, so, again,
what on earth are you babbling about "peacemakers" here?
4. Jesus never said "love of money is the root of all evil",
so now you're just looking even stupider.

>>And that's 3 times you've had a chance to site a teaching
>>of Jesus which the Republicans reject, and have declined to
>>do so. Yer out.
>
> You clearly do not know what Jesus taught. Fine. Don't call
yourself a
> Christian. You are not.

Of course I am. I'm a confessional Lutheran, the most
Christianiest type of Christian there is. You blather
that I don't know what Jesus taught, and then falsely
quote Him on "love of money"?

Frankly, I'm getting a little tired of humiliating you.

[george152]

On 20/09/14 10:18, Free Lunch wrote:

> You clearly do not know what Jesus taught. Fine. Don't call yourself a
> Christian. You are not.
>

As there was no such person he/she/it couldn't have taught anything.
A godbotherers whacky invention

[Free Lunch]

On 19 Sep 2014 23:42:09 GMT, Bart Goddard <godd...@netscape.net>
wrote:

>Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
>news:9kap1a1vemh0g0g1n...@4ax.com:
>
>
>>>I'm not seeing much in that message which the Republicans
>>>are actively rejecting.
>>
>> Of course not. Apparently Republicans don't want to hear about
>The
>> Widow's Mite or The Good Samaritan. They don't want to hear that
>> peacemakers are blessed or that the love of money is the root of
>all
>> evil.
>
>So dodging the question didn't work...maybe grasping at
>straws will? 1. How on earth do you assert that
>Republicans have anything against widow's having mite's
>or giving them to the temple?

Republicans worship wealth and the wealthy and don't care what happens
to the poor.

>2. Republicans do more to
>help the sick than the liberals will ever dream of doing,

Nonsense. Republicans do all they can to keep the poor from having
adequate health coverage or good housing or enough food.

>so ditto the Good Samaritan (the point of which also
>flies far over your head.) 3. Most US wars have been
>started by Democrats and ended by Republicans, so, again,
>what on earth are you babbling about "peacemakers" here?

Seriously?

>4. Jesus never said "love of money is the root of all evil",
>so now you're just looking even stupider.

Yes, Paul said that. I was careless. Jesus merely noted that the rich
would never be saved. He condemned greed and selfishness. He told the
rich to give their money away. There's zero chance that the Jesus found
in the gospels would tolerate today's GOP or accept their claim that
they are Christian.

>>>And that's 3 times you've had a chance to site a teaching
>>>of Jesus which the Republicans reject, and have declined to
>>>do so. Yer out.
>>
>> You clearly do not know what Jesus taught. Fine. Don't call
>yourself a Christian. You are not.
>
>Of course I am. I'm a confessional Lutheran, the most
>Christianiest type of Christian there is. You blather
>that I don't know what Jesus taught, and then falsely
>quote Him on "love of money"?

LC-MS, WELS, CLC or even more of a splitter? It doesn't matter to me.
After 50 years, I still see Herman Otten's scandal sheet every once in a
while. It's funny in a pathetic sort of way.

>Frankly, I'm getting a little tired of humiliating you.

Only in your delusions have you done it.

[benj]

On 09/19/2014 11:49 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
> On 19 Sep 2014 23:42:09 GMT, Bart Goddard <godd...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
>> news:9kap1a1vemh0g0g1n...@4ax.com:
>>
>>
>>>> I'm not seeing much in that message which the Republicans
>>>> are actively rejecting.
>>>
>>> Of course not. Apparently Republicans don't want to hear about
>> The
>>> Widow's Mite or The Good Samaritan. They don't want to hear that
>>> peacemakers are blessed or that the love of money is the root of
>> all
>>> evil.
>>
>> So dodging the question didn't work...maybe grasping at
>> straws will? 1. How on earth do you assert that
>> Republicans have anything against widow's having mite's
>> or giving them to the temple?
>
> Republicans worship wealth and the wealthy and don't care what happens
> to the poor.

Lie. Dems all pretend to help the poor only to control them.

>> 2. Republicans do more to
>> help the sick than the liberals will ever dream of doing,
>
> Nonsense. Republicans do all they can to keep the poor from having
> adequate health coverage or good housing or enough food.

As I said Dems try o "buy" the poor votes with public money. "helping"
the poor never happens.

>> so ditto the Good Samaritan (the point of which also
>> flies far over your head.) 3. Most US wars have been
>> started by Democrats and ended by Republicans, so, again,
>> what on earth are you babbling about "peacemakers" here?
>
> Seriously?

How about that "GOD" of "progressive" liberalism you all worship: FDR?

Gosh he did a GREAT job wiggling the USA into WWII when nobody really
wanted to get involved. Impressive, no?

>> 4. Jesus never said "love of money is the root of all evil",
>> so now you're just looking even stupider.
>
> Yes, Paul said that. I was careless. Jesus merely noted that the rich
> would never be saved. He condemned greed and selfishness. He told the
> rich to give their money away. There's zero chance that the Jesus found
> in the gospels would tolerate today's GOP or accept their claim that
> they are Christian.

He didn't say that either. He said that it was difficult to be saved,
not impossible. The story (for your information) was there was a certain
side entrance in the Jerusalem wall called "eye of the needle". Which
was so low and tight camels had to get on their knees to enter. Jesus
noted it was as difficult as getting a camel through the "eye of the
needle" as for a rich man to get to heaven. Note the clever inference
that a camel piled high with material goods of the world will have a
much more difficult time of getting through the low gate than one with
few goods. Jesus obviously was cool.

But even the robber barons agree: Andrew Carnegie said: "the man who
dies rich dies disgraced!" The sin is not in the making of the money (in
fact that is the "fun" of it), the sin is in leaving this place before
using it to improve the civilization that you used to earn it.
Note that "improving" civilization does not mean giving money to winos
and stoners for drink and weed no matter how "poor" they are.
Obviously Jesus voted republican!

>> Frankly, I'm getting a little tired of humiliating you.
>
> Only in your delusions have you done it.

Typical lib: News flash fantasyboi! Only in your fantasies has he NOT
done it!



--

___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/

[Malcolm McMahon]

On 16/09/2014 02:06, Dale wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 12:59:15 -0700, John Locke
> <johnnyd...@demonmail.com> wrote:
>
>> ..if theists want become a productive part of scientific community,
>> then they'd better learn how to keep the god delusion bottled up so it
>> doesn't bias their work in favor of religious nonsense.
>
> in is not "non-sense" it is a "sense"
>
> why is this "sense" not exlored and published and reviewed?
>

There has been some scientific work on the subject. Ever hear of "the
God spot"? This sense seems to originate mostly in the temporal lobe of
the brain, and in particular temporal lobe epilepsy can bring acute
feelings of "immanence".

But, of course, _scientific_ investigation isn't what you had in mind.
To you the only acceptable "explanation" would fall back to "Goddunit"

[Vincent Maycock]

On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 16:47:39 -0400, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
<spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:

>In <ifvn1apnpirad97fd...@4ax.com>, on 09/19/2014
> at 06:03 AM, Vincent Maycock <vam...@aol.com> said:
>
>>Followups put back, so your dishonest snippery of what actually
>>happened will be visible to everyone.
>
>Well, one of us is dishonest, but it isn't me.

Oh, I think it *is* you. For example, you re-set the follow-ups again
after making arguments that were relevant to math and logic.

>And your nonsense

You're begging the question. The point is, it wasn't nonsense; it was
a valid analysis of Dale's logic.

> still
>has nothing to do with logic, mathematics or physics.
>
>>No, Dale gave me the following syllogism (which, as I said, you
>>snipped out):
>
>It wasn't relevant, tonto. I wasn't commenting on his inference, I was
>commenting on yours.

Mega-tonto, I was commenting on *his* inference, so if you want to
comment on mine, his comment is relevant.

>>Begging the question involves assuming the empirical validity of an
>>antecedent to demonstrate the empirical truth of its implication.
>
>Which is what you did.

Which is what I didn't.

>>But Dale granted the antecedent that God is imaginary,
>
>A lie of omission;

Which of us did the snipping, liar?

> what he granted was the conjunction of *two*
>propositions.

As I noted in my post. By "granted the antecedent," I meant "that
component of the antecedent." It doesn't change the basic sense of
what I was saying.

>>So when I asserted that Dale's reasoning, when correctly formulated,
>
>ITYM somerthing *different* from Dale's reasoning.

Damn right. I reconstructed his antecedent so that it made sense.

>You may quedstion
>his premise, "the imaginary exists, and God is imaginary", but the
>inference itself is valid.

Valid, but not true in the sense of being sensible or "sound," since
imaginary entities of the sort he was referring to do not exist.

>>It hasn't been established in the social sense of a broad consensus
>>among intellectuals in the modern world,
>
>Broad social consensus isn't relevant in sci.math, only correct
>reasoning.

And I wasn't arguing that theism is incorrect on the basis of broad
social consensus. I was saying it's incorrect reasoning. If you've got
*reasoning* that says different, trot it out, and I'll show you what
logical error or errors you've made.

>>On the logical and (to the extent where it becomes applicable)
>>scientific level, we can make short work of any theist notion --
>>the proofs are easier than those found in introductory calculus
>>class, but most people just don't want to think about them for
>>emotional or psychological reasons.
>
>Are you really that dumb? On the logicval level you can't proove anything in a void; you need axioms and rules of inference. Since you have given neither, you can't either prove or disprove the existence of a deity. Take you crap to a news group where it is on topic.

Are you so damn fucking stupid that you've never heard the term
"proven innocent or guilty in a court of law"? Who the fuck sent you
to set up "proof in math and logic" as the only sense in which someone
could use the word "proof"?

Now, it *is* true that you can't *mathematically* prove that God
doesn't exist, because you don't have the necessary axioms. But I
wasn't arguing for a mathematical disproof of the existence of God; I
was simply arguing that the logical and scientific arguments that
theists use when arguing that theism is a logically coherent concept
are fallacious.

Now, if you want to argue about what the fuck foo is a subset of, or
whatever other shit you're doing, fine, but as long as you're
interested in whether or not an argument is logically coherent,
rational, or sensible, my ideas are relevant.

[nature bats last]

On Friday, September 19, 2014 10:22:03 AM UTC-7, Bart Goddard wrote:
> Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
> news:0joo1atqinarbn54h...@4ax.com:

> > I find it funny that the vast majority of Republicans allege that
> they are Christian, even though Republicans clearly reject what Jesus
> taught.


> I find it funny that so many people think they know
> what Jesus taught, and then say something like the above.

Oh, hey, I know what Jesus taught: that it's our duty
to help the poor, the downtrodden, and the disadvantaged.
This was his main social message.

And it's that "social" part, with its implied responsibility
to the less well off, that sticks in Republican craws.


Seth

[Vincent Maycock]

On 19 Sep 2014 16:55:30 GMT, Bart Goddard <godd...@netscape.net>
wrote:

>Vincent Maycock <vam...@aol.com> wrote in
>news:hosn1at1at6r1t1ip...@4ax.com:
>
>> a) they have lower average IQ's than atheists, and
>
>Careful, that's another logical fallacy. It's a fact that
>Republicans are more educated than Democrats and that
>Tea Partiers are more educated than Republicans.

You're working yourself deeper and deeper into a hole here, Bart. Not
only does the sociological evidence point to a negative correlation
between IQ and religiosity, but to a negative correlation between IQ
and conservatism as well.

>Well...it's a squishy fact, because what does "more"
>mean? In this case, it's "average highest grade completed".
>
>So how did the conventional wisdom get turned up-side
>down, so that Tea Partiers are characterized as
>inbred, drooling idiots and Democrats are somehow
>the intellectual party?

Probably this kind of imagery is a popular or colloquial reflection of
a real underlying social reality, as indicated by a number of studies
by social scientists of varying persuasions.

>The plain fact is that the Democratic Party, besides
>containing a handful of intellectuals, also contains
>the huge masses in the ghettos, which drags the
>"average highest grade completed" way, way down.

The average IQ of ghetto-dwellers is low, but ghetto-dwellers
constitute such a low percentage of the Democratic Party (less than 3%
of Americans live in ghettos, and even if all of them were Democrats,
that wouldn't be enough to significantly affect the measured negative
correlation between IQ and conservatism, if ghetto-dwellers weren't
included in those studies).

>Likewise, as a group, theists care deeply about
>their fellow humans, and take great pains to have
>hospitals and nursing homes and orphanages and
>food banks and places to sleep.

I was talking about group differences in IQ, not group differences in
altruism. However, there is no sociological evidence that atheists are
less moral than theists, and moral reasoning would presumably
correlate with intellectual ability.

>It could be that the "average" IQ of atheists is
>higher than that of theists, but maybe it wouldn't
>be if you weren't all a bunch of selfish, self-
>absorbed, heartless bastards who chase off any
>poor, struggling person and/or try to eat their
>babies or whatever it is you do at your meetings.

First, IQ is a highly biological variable; its expression isn't
mediated by personality factors like selfishness or heartlessness.
Second, your adjectives do not correctly describe atheists. Third, in
some of your other posts about the comparative altruism of Republicans
and Democrats, you are really confused about social reality. The fact
is, Republicans don't give a damn about the poor, while Democrats do,
your predilections to the contrary.

Democrats have a lot of foibles and faults, but disinterest in the
poor and downtrodden is not among them.