Yeah, two points.
A Christian's nightmare
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
Yeah, two points.
phlog- Since when is "illegal alien" a protected classWhat don't you get about the word "illegal."???
Being illegal doesn't make them a lower class or make it ok to throw vitriol. They are still humans with Human Rights. Most Americans are descended from immigrants Sandy, but for some reason you think it's OK to close the door behind you. That is hypocritical.
I didn't personally attack anyone here. YOU DID
No I don't, I just point out how full of hate you are. You meanwhile have started abusing the system, and reporting fair posts. If you cannot debate, and debate fairly, and need to start playing the system, you have admitted defeat 'Sandy'.
Actually, why did I got to the bother of searching out all of Sandy's hateful posts?
Her own signature states she is 'politically incorrect', but then she moans about it when I narrow down the field of her 'incorrectness'! WTF? She admits what she is herself!
I demand an infraction against Sandy for abusing the 'report post' system.
Her own signature states she is 'politically incorrect', but then she moans about it when I narrow down the field of her 'incorrectness'! WTF? She admits what she is herself!
I demand an infraction against Sandy for abusing the 'report post' system.
phlog- Since when is "illegal alien" a protected class
Even those that violate the law have human rights. Indeed, just because an act is illegal doesn't make the law correct nor does it make the person violating the law a criminal. The "illegal" part is the excuse bigots and racists use to inspire and foster hatred for an entire class of people.
So I find phlog's criticism of you as a racist and xenophobe to be an accurate criticism.
You mentioned in a previous post that other forums ban those that personally attack individuals. This is true. Other forums also nearly instantly ban racists and bigots that inspire hatred among there users. In other words, those that live in glass houses......
This thread has got a bit personal! :booo:
It seems to show that elderly people benefit from contact with non-family members more than with family. Come on phlogistician! This isn't even evidence - let alone the "proof" you were boasting of!
I quote...
"Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept as true the proposition, "gods do not exist". Weak atheism refers to any type of non-theism which falls short of this standard."
If you argue that all religion is intrinsically homophobic because some conservative churches believe homosexuality is sinful, then using the same argument, all atheists must be homophobic too. If you accept (as I do) that homophobia occurs among a certain proportion of the population, then it is likely to surface in very conservative, authoritarian groups. Thus it is the 'conservative' nature of some conservative churches, not the religious nature that attracts homophobes (who justify their homophobia using obscure verses from the Bible). Similarly, it is the authoritarian nature of Communism (who justify their homophobia as decadent and counter-revolutionary) that made it homophobic. There are plenty of liberal theists and atheists who are strongly in favour of non-discrimination.
Let me be clear: Phelps is NOT a great spiritual teacher. Neither is he following the teachings of Jesus.
LOL, your 'reasearch' link shows nothing of the sort! It doesn't even mention the effect of religious belief on longevity!!
It seems to show that elderly people benefit from contact with non-family members more than with family. Come on phlogistician! This isn't even evidence - let alone the "proof" you were boasting of!
Look it up in Wikipedia if you think I'm inventing the term!phlogistician said:
I quote..."Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept as true the proposition, "gods do not exist". Weak atheism refers to any type of non-theism which falls short of this standard."
Soviet and Cuban Communism are specifically atheist movements. They made laws against religion and against homosexuality.phlogistician said:
If you argue that all religion is intrinsically homophobic because some conservative churches believe homosexuality is sinful, then using the same argument, all atheists must be homophobic too. If you accept (as I do) that homophobia occurs among a certain proportion of the population, then it is likely to surface in very conservative, authoritarian groups. Thus it is the 'conservative' nature of some conservative churches, not the religious nature that attracts homophobes (who justify their homophobia using obscure verses from the Bible). Similarly, it is the authoritarian nature of Communism (who justify their homophobia as decadent and counter-revolutionary) that made it homophobic. There are plenty of liberal theists and atheists who are strongly in favour of non-discrimination.
I think at last we agree on something - I too hate coercive religion! What laws are you referring to?phlogistician said:
Do you think he is a teacher of love and kindness? Am I blinkered in saying he is abusing his religion - a purveyor of hatred in a religion of love. It happens; crooked cops, bent judges, corrupt accountants, politicians who abuse power AND hatefilled preachers... Don't judge the best by the worst!phlogistician said:
Let me be clear: Phelps is NOT a great spiritual teacher. Neither is he following the teachings of Jesus.
Why? Or does this signal you've run out of intelligent arguments!
Tell you what Dog, read and understand the thread before wading in. It was not I making the claim that religion offers longevity, quite the oppposite as the link demonstrates, that gregarious behaviour is responsible for the effect.
Look it up in Wikipedia if you think I'm inventing the term!
Wikipedia records the usage of the term 'strong atheism'. It is merely reporting a widely held misnomer. There us no such thing, it is a bastardised term, and an attempt to make atheism a belief system, so it can be accused fo the same flaws of religion. Do not fall into the trap and no accept the validity of the term.
Religious societies have made laws against religion and homosexuality too. So Cuba went one better and banned more. So what?
The OT makes the claim that laying with another man is an abomination. There is no such publication for atheists.
Well, gay rights, abortion, stem cell research, pretty much anything from the Renaissance and the persecution of Galileo onwards, really.
I did read it - and understood it phlog!
The title of the research is "People with Many Friends Outlive Those with Few Friends". I'm sure that's true - but it's not an analysis of why religious people live longer, and are healthier. Your claim that this research alone explains the correlation is not supported. At best it's one factor out of many.
I don't claim any supernatural factors for religious longevity - I think it's probably a combination of meaningful relationships, stronger social networks, healthier lifestyle, increased positive thinking, greater resistance to trauma, a sense of meaning in life etc. etc. My point is that these are all desirable things in their own right!
Spiritual/religious beliefs --> greater quality of life --> greater longevity.
Your 'research' seems to support this!
I don't think many of your fellow atheists agree with you... it's not just in Wiki!phlogistician said:
http://www.answers.com/topic/weak-and-strong-atheism
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/strong_weak.htm
http://www.strongatheism.net/
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html
http://sky.fit.qut.edu.au/~hostuart/why.atheism2.html
I hardly think e.g. "www.strongatheism.net" et. al. are 'attempting to make atheism a belief system, so it can be accused of the same flaws of religion.' Do you?
Atheism is a relatively recent movement, with very few texts on sexual morality - so there wouldn't be! Plenty of secular texts (and laws) prohibit the practice however.phlogistician said:
Homophobia in the OT it seems was a reaction by the Hebrews against the religious practices of the Assyrians. According to "A History of Homophobia"
...interesting!
Are you assuming that religious people live longer than people with lots of friends? I think you are, the studies were not exclusive though, were they?
I hardly think e.g. "www.strongatheism.net" et. al. are 'attempting to make atheism a belief system, so it can be accused of the same flaws of religion.' Do you?
No, and reading their site, they themselves do not jump right into stating 'god does not exist' do they? In fact, from their pages, a well reasoned passage;
"So I think we should replace the labels “weak” and “strong” atheism with “negative arguments” and “positive arguments”. In essence, all they are, are arguments showing that belief in gods is false or undesirable, and arguments showing that gods do not exist. "
They use the term for their domain, but seek to redefine it. Thanks, you are making my argument for me.
'Secular laws'? Supposed separation of Church and State in the US defined by the constitution, but then they go and put references to 'God' on the currency! Anyway, that isn't really the argument, it's whether Atheists are a coherent group with a coherent position on homosexuality, and that isn't true.
I'm not assuming anything. There is evidence (1) that religious people live longer, there is evidence (2) that people with many friends live longer. (1) may be a contributive factor to (2). However, to reduce (1) to the single variable correlate of (2), as you claimed was 'proved' - you need to control for the other possible factors (e.g. healthier lifestyle, purpose in life etc). That's basic scientific methodology!
Quote from http://www.sciencedaily.com - entitled Research Shows Religion Plays A Major Role In Health, Longevity describing research by Rogers et. al. at Colorado University.
"The research showed that people who never attended services had an 87 percent higher risk of dying during the follow-up period than those who attended more than once a week. [...]The research team factored in such elements as education and income, social ties (including marital status and having friends and relatives to count on), and health status and behavior, including such things as smoking and alcohol use."
My overarching point is that having a spiritual/religious practice/belief is beneficial in many ways - observable as greater longevity. Yes, it encourages a network of friends, but there seem to be other factors.
You are very selective in your quotes. This is in from one article published on the site by Francois Tremblay, arguing for replacing the terms "strong" and "weak" atheism. As such it obviously is a minority view, not an accepted majority consensus among atheists. As Tremblay himself says:phlogistician said:
"The atheological debate over the terms “weak atheism” and “strong atheism” doesn’t seem to be anywhere near being solved. While two major works (“Atheism : A Philosophical Justification” and “Atheism : The Case Against God”) both affirm the distinction, other atheologists deny it altogether."
In the site's (www.strongatheism.org) introduction he aknowledges the usefulness of the terms by defining them, making no mention of objections to these terms:
www.strongatheism.net said:
Until you have put your own house in order, and have won your case with the atheist majority, the terms 'strong' and 'weak' atheism remain in use as meaningful distinctions.
I agree. Neither is it true among theists (e.g. the fierce debate among anglicans about appointing gay bishops). What is true is that conservatives/authoritarians of all types tend to oppose homosexuality e.g. in the Armed Forces. Many liberal theists (and atheists) strongly oppose discrimination. Homophobia (like racism or sexism) has nothing to do with spirituality/religion - it's a prevalent curse among a reactionary minority!phlogistician said:
Unfortunately, there has been an exodus of liberal theists from the various 'churches' (myself included), leaving the more conservative elements behind. Hence the seeming (but erroneous) association of prejudice and theism.
phlog- Since when is "illegal alien" a protected class
I didn't personally attack anyone here. YOU DID
but you do impersonally attack people