Intelligent debate between Theists and Atheists is Impossible on Sciforums

Cris said:
sam,

Who do you mean? Some will be and some won't. What's your point?
Click to expand...

That the same applies to theists. Those who want to commit crimes will use any rationalisation they can find and subvert good principles to justify or support their cause. Anyone who thinks that people commit crimes for religion is merely ignorant, either about human history or human psychology.
http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i37/37b00701.htm
 
sam,

That's nonsense. While you might think of religion as peaceful other adherents prefer the violent and intolerance that religions also teach. The 9/11 tragedy was all about religion, and the current civil war in Iraq is all about religion. The attrocities of the crusades was entirely about religion. The holocaust of WWII was all about religion, and so on.

Religion appeals to both the peacful and the violent. You choose one interpretation while the others choose another. You say you are right and they are wrong and they will say the reverse.

Why is your rationalization any better than theirs?
 
Cris said:
sam,

That's nonsense. While you might think of religion as peaceful other adherents prefer the violent and intolerance that religions also teach. The 9/11 tragedy was all about religion, and the current civil war in Iraq is all about religion. The attrocities of the crusades was entirely about religion. The holocaust of WWII was all about religion, and so on.

Religion appeals to both the peacful and the violent. You choose one interpretation while the others choose another. You say you are right and they are wrong and they will say the reverse.

Why is your rationalization any better than theirs?
Click to expand...

Its called a type I error. It leads to a false rejection of the null hypothesis when it is true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_and_type_II_errors
 
Last edited:
I think you have it the wrong way round.

The primary religions are authoritarian constructs based on reward and punishment. Violence is a primary and essential component.
 
Cris said:
I think you have it the wrong way round.

The primary religions are authoritarian constructs based on reward and punishment. Violence is a primary and essential component.
Click to expand...

Ho: Religious people are not violent.
Ha: Religious people are violent

Type I error: IF all violent people are not religious OR
IF all religious people are not violent

Type II error: IF all nonreligious people are not nonviolent OR
IF all nonviolent people are not nonreligious

Conclusion: Reject Ha

Statistically and scientifically speaking, you are wrong.
 
Logic has three operators - All, some, and none.

Your attempt at logic is faulty. Try again.
 
Cris said:
Your attempt at logic is faulty.
Click to expand...

Prove it.

Ok try this

Religious people are more violent than nonreligious people.

Women are more religious than men.

Hence women are more violent than men.


OR.

Most people are religious.

Most people are violent.

Hence nonreligous people are nonviolent. (your logic).

Or

(your logic again)

86% people are religious
Some are violent

14% people are atheists
Some are violent

Hence religious people are more violent.
 
Last edited:
Change Ho and Ha to include "some" instead of the incorrect implied "all" and you'll have a different conclusion.
 
Cris said:
Change Ho and Ha to include "some" instead of the incorrect implied "all" and you'll have a different conclusion.
Click to expand...

Ho: Some religious people are not violent
Ha: Some religious people are violent.

Type I error: ???

Type II error:??

Conclusion: Cannot reject any hypothesis as they overlap.:rolleyes:

Same as :

Ho: Sometimes there is sunlight
Ha: Sometimes there is no sunlight

Which one is true? Which one is false?

PS Please tell me you are not a scientist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top