What? Where he said: "SLACKENHASH !!"? Agreed.harleyborgais wrote:BrainMan has presented the most intelligent argument I have come across so far.
1st Place for BrainMan for Intelligent Debate.

What? Where he said: "SLACKENHASH !!"? Agreed.harleyborgais wrote:BrainMan has presented the most intelligent argument I have come across so far.
1st Place for BrainMan for Intelligent Debate.
Seth wrote:Fuck that, I like opening Pandora's box and shoving my tool inside it
Pascal's Wager? Really?!! Is that the limit of your vision? This is the crappiest argument for belief in existence, and Pascal himself knew it.harleyborgais wrote:Let me put it this way, there are four possibilities to consider:
1)a)God exists and you believe = You go to Heaven.
b)God exists and you disbelieve = You go to Hell.
2)a)God doesn't exist and you believe anyways = Your life is generally better off if you live morally to avoid sin.
b)God doesn't exist and you disbelieved the whole time = No Hell, but quite likely you will be a Godless SOB, people wont [sic] like you and your life may suck!
OBVIOUSLY, believing is the best and safest bet. It does not hurt to believe in God unless you go Crusading, but as I have learned, most of the horrific things done in the name of a God did not comply with the belief system of that God.
It doesn't surprise me that this is the extent to which your thinking is limited.harleyborgais wrote:b)God doesn't exist and you disbelieved the whole time = No Hell, but quite likely you will be a Godless SOB, people wont [sic] like you and your life may suck!
If you are trying to argue that atheists are less likely to live by a code of ethics, some sort of empirical data to back that claim up with might be in order. I am not holding my breath, though, for that to happen. Statistics very strongly suggest the opposite. There is a pronounced tendency indicating that the higher the percentage of atheism in a nation, the lower the crime rate, abortion rate, and so on. In short, atheists tend to live more moral lives than theists.harleyborgais wrote:there is a greater chance of being a bad person, and living a miserable life if you don't live by a code of ethics, and most people who live by a code of ethics do so in correlation with a belief in a Creator of Physical Reality (God).
harleyborgais wrote:I should be more clear and say that there is a greater chance of being a bad person, and living a miserable life if you don't live by a code of ethics, and most people who live by a code of ethics do so in correlation with a belief in a Creator of Physical Reality (God).
What studies were those? I mean what resources did you use in your study? Are you indulging in confirmation bias with your resources? Have you considered dropping your emotional attachment to the god premise and studying outside your bias?harleyborgais wrote:From my studies, the most universal definition for God (the one you are supposed to believe in to get into Heaven), is; the being who created Physical Reality (our Universe).
harleyborgais wrote:As for moving this thread, I would like to keep this discussion on the scientific definition, explanation, and origin of Consciousness.
That topic qualifies for this thread does it not?
harleyborgais wrote:I think that what a teacher teaches should be determined by the parents for a public school, and by the administrators of private schools.
I do however agree with evolution, and that it should be taught as a likely explanation, but creationist beliefs should also be presented. The young will hopefully grow up to prove to us which is right. I think Evolution is an intentional byproduct of Gods design (and that design refers to the forces of nature, not directly the design of DNA, life-forms, or galaxies).
Any thoughts about this, Harley?LucidFlight wrote:Oh, OK.
So, the main product of design is the forces of nature, and we are a by-product? What leads you to this conclusion? How do you differentiate intentional design from unintentional design? That is to say, how do you know it was not God's specific intention for life to evolve, rather than it being a by-product?
Correlation is not causation. impoverished parts of the world which struggle for resources and deal with corruption tend to seek religion as a means to instigate moral standards. Hence those parts of the world have more religiosity. What else are they going to do. Economically they tend to be held in their poverty trap by multinational resource mining so they seek religion. The religious sectors are better behaved, less selfish and more moral. Studies back this up.Seraph wrote:If you are trying to argue that atheists are less likely to live by a code of ethics, some sort of empirical data to back that claim up with might be in order. I am not holding my breath, though, for that to happen. Statistics very strongly suggest the opposite. There is a pronounced tendency indicating that the higher the percentage of atheism in a nation, the lower the crime rate, abortion rate, and so on. In short, atheists tend to live more moral lives than theists.harleyborgais wrote:there is a greater chance of being a bad person, and living a miserable life if you don't live by a code of ethics, and most people who live by a code of ethics do so in correlation with a belief in a Creator of Physical Reality (God).
sorry i couldnt read this. Your breasts are way too distracting...charlou wrote: God as the bogeyman .... I notice that you make a distinction about belief here. There's no doubt that people are exhorted to behave in a certain way with the use of dogma (imposed values) to emphasise and manipulate their thinking and behaviour. Acknowledging that tendency does not mean that therefore god exists*.
NOT YOU AGAIN !! You are like my nemesis following me around every forum...hackenslash wrote:
As for the bold bit, better a godless SOB than a supercilious twat.
harleyborgais wrote:
I hope I have not discouraged BrainMan from this discussion with my comment of disbelievers, especially considering that he has presented the best arguments so far (better than any of my antagonists at: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post8 ... ml#p809966).
Hackenslash joined Jul 19, 2009. BrainMan joined Sat May 08, 2010.Brain Man wrote:NOT YOU AGAIN !! You are like my nemesis following me around every forum...hackenslash wrote:As for the bold bit, better a godless SOB than a supercilious twat.![]()
That is all I'm talking about. None of your special pleading or links undermine the relationship between moral conduct and religiosity as published by Zuckermann among others.Brain Man wrote:Correlation is not causation.Seraph wrote:If you are trying to argue that atheists are less likely to live by a code of ethics, some sort of empirical data to back that claim up with might be in order. I am not holding my breath, though, for that to happen. Statistics very strongly suggest the opposite. There is a pronounced tendency indicating that the higher the percentage of atheism in a nation, the lower the crime rate, abortion rate, and so on. In short, atheists tend to live more moral lives than theists.harleyborgais wrote:there is a greater chance of being a bad person, and living a miserable life if you don't live by a code of ethics, and most people who live by a code of ethics do so in correlation with a belief in a Creator of Physical Reality (God).
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests