Really, Inc, why ask for evidence. Why even give stupidity and rediculous slander the benefit of the doubt? We all know the evidence for God, the physical evidence, is inconclusive. Nevertheless, the acerbic 'Revolutionaty' atheist, despite using faith in their own conclusions pretend that there is no differnece between imagination and faith - which is why we have two different words for two very different things. After all, doe it TAKE more or less IMAGINATION to imagine that something is NOT there or that it IS there? That type of atheism is not about evidence, it is about derving self esteem and worthiness by knocking other people down. Why waste time on a attempting to tell a guy using his imagination to battle what he thinks is your imagination to achieve ... absolutey nothing. And they think religion irrational?
It's pretty simple Inc, atheists, or the modern revolutionary atheists, like toscream about evidence. They (*)(*)(*)(*)(*), whine, and moan about it, but we all know the evidence is inconclusive. We have this faith thing that acknowledges that. Atheists call in imagination. OK, fair criticism .... perhaps. If atheists could demonstrate with testable results that there is no God in an evidenced manner? Well, the atheist screaming the loudest for evidence have no evidence to support their own conclusion, and will twsit logic, rationality, and sceince (while claimin the mantel of all of those), in order to avoid given evidence or logical arguementation. In my profession, we do not ask others to do what we ourselves are not wiling to do. And those who do act like this? They are considered to be quite .... dishonorable. Do you think 'God' is in danger from that?
God is not in danger from any man or woman or any of the thoughts or actions of any man or woman... for that matter, God is not in danger of anything. Guess there are quite a few 'dishonorable' people around this forum.... judging from your viewpoint. The question here is not a matter of willing to do, anyone can claim that they are willing to perform, but when it comes to the performing, that becomes a whole different issue. There is a principle involved here. Atheists always demand that we show tangible proof of any religious claim that in their opinion is extraordinary. So, turnabout is fair play. If they make a religious claim that is extraordinary, they too should be afflicted with the obligation of showing tangible proof of their claims. The OT refers to that mindset as "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". Their methods of twisting are quite familiar to me. I have seen many of them engage that/those tactic(s). Have a blessed day in front of you.
Well you have just proved my point.There is no rationality in religion and in those who who espouse it.
Wyzaard replied to this the only way possible, given your choice of words. I would like to add, though, that what you perceive of as figthing is simply, to me, critique. The kind of reaction you just displayed here, i.e. to criticism of a priori based belief systems, I find to be one of the most interesting aspects of religiousity.
That is pure stupidity. Apologies if that hurts a little, but running aorund making comments like that are just out of line at this point. For exmaple, if I were looking over your shoulder at a math proof, and just said, "Phbt. That is utterly irrational!", and then stomped off .... that would not exactly be a cirtique of the math proof. And that 'cirtique' would continuously slide down the acceptablity scale if, geuinely curious (and giving the person the beenfit of the doubt that they are ACTUALLY cirtiques rather than just being rude), and check the math and .... no errors. The person, in response to your explanation, then begins to deliberately misrepresent portions of the proof, resisting all attempts at correction by referrencing the ACTUAL proof laid out. It would get even worse when, upon calling the proof irrational, you asked them to display the CORRECT PROOF and they respodned to something mathematical by saying, "I think the end number is negative, and you can't prove a negative." At some point, such behavior speaks for itself. And the only portion that lacks any kind of rationality are not just the atheists who continuously use that kind of sophistry with the intent to injure, it is the continuous use of excuses to justify behavior that is clearly inappropriate. Its so clearly inappropriate that as soon as a hint of the same behavior comes back the other direction and the atheists talking about the importance of 'cirtique' are suddenly flabergasted and enraged. You really think it is 'rational' to run around calling people stupid for having a different religion than you? Or at some point is being a dick to people just being dick a people? I mean really, the ONLY way possible to cirtique someone is through direct, highly rude, misrepresentative confrontation?
"critique"/"fight". What is a critique but a fight over words, thought, ideas, concepts? I am glad that you find it interesting, because there is no written law that stipulates that Religion or Religious precepts and concepts must adhere to your (temporal/secular) 'law' (a priori "bs" "words of art").
So basically, ya'll are just nattering away in your own private language, irrespective of rational discourse and the empirical world? Ok then... take it easy, see ya, hope you get some psych counseling somewhere. Nope... good thing atheists on this board have not analogously done so. Except that your posts DO have errors, which we note... and you subseqentially flip out. Golly... you sure make your straw-men and no-true-scotsmen fallacies sound good! You have been reasonably demolished on this very point several times over now; to ignore the critique and spout invective in response only further establishes your fundamental immaturity, and the need for you to drop it, or leave. Well?
Just like you are doing from the onset of your message starting with the above paragraph and extending to and through those portions that I snipped from quotation.
Context, my friend. First make it a habit to read the posts you reply to and then learn to spot the context.
Good advice that everyone should adhere to. My commendations for submitting 'good advice'. This is not saying that you heeded your own advice in the above case, but it is still good advice.
You mean context like acknowledging that you are on a forum that requires the ability to read and write? COntext that might incude knowing that you repeateldy jump into forum therad about religion to launch acerbic one liners that are devoid of anything but insult to belief, and when confronted usually take a few pot shots like claiming that it isn;t very Christian to stand up to .... deliberate slander. Or that you were clearly misquoted. Like everything else, your lastest is similiarly devoid of evidence. You were understood quite well, you just have nothing left but the proverbial pot shot - as usual.
Another misrepresentation of FACT on your part. Looking back at my post, there are clearly marked (emphasized text) indicating the words that point to the fact that you are engaged in using 'words of art' or the 'private language' of your CULT (cult = your ilk).
Pointing ain't proving; merely making a claim that I am using a private language isn't showing that I am... particularly when you are clearly not only understanding what I am saying, but are deliberately parroting my criticism in order to troll. Bye, now.
Wrong! Another obvious misrepresentation of FACT. Looking back at my post, it clearly shows in emphasized text, words that point to the FACT that you are engaged in using 'words of art' (private language). Language that is used primarily by your CULT. (cult = your ilk)
Bored... Present something other than misrepresentations, lies, and baseless arguments and you might get more out of me.
I've rejected the secularisation hypothesis, focusing on religion as a 'good' such that religious demand is maintained despite improvements in human capital and the pursuit of knowledge. However, I do value objectivity and therefore- rather than the petty "religion is irrational cos I say so" we've seen- I thought it pertinent to offer evidence that suggests I'm wrong. See Chun-Ping et al (2011, Is the secularization hypothesis valid? A panel data assessment for Taiwan, Applied Economics, Vol. 43, pp 729-745): The secularization thesis is based on the idea that a country becomes more secular as it becomes richer and more industrialized. In order to investigate whether this hypothesis is valid, we examine the relationship between religion in Taiwan and economic development across 23 counties by adopting the panel data approach for the period 1998 to 2003. We select six religious activity proxy variables and five economic development variables in a cross-county panel data framework. The evidence indicates that the ratio of females to males has a significantly positive effect and that the literacy rate and population density each have a significantly negative effect on the religious variables. Finally, except for the Christian culture, the unemployment rate has a positive effect on the religious variables. Our findings thus support the view that the religious secularization hypothesis is valid in Taiwan.
Well, if the study you cite from is more in line with your line of thought, then perhaps, Taiwan would provide you with a much better base of operation. Perhaps that group of people (the citizens of that country) would better serve your endeavors (whatever those endeavors may be). Have you considered vacationing in that area so that you could gain personal experience, interacting with those people, which would aid in validating your claims?
I know its probably an impossible task, but I'm going to try and get you to contribute something relevant! Why do you think the authors have been successful in empirically testing the validity of the secularisation hypothesis and, following that, do you have any evidence from any other empirical source that disputes their conclusions?
Amazing! I offer a suggestion that could or possibly would aid you in validating your claims, and what do I get in return???? A demeaning remark regarding whether or not I am going to contribute something relevant! My post was relevant to the information you posted. In the worse case scenario, I asked a question; then you move on to insinuate that I might have been disputing the claims made in that data report. As to the first half of your question: I have no idea about 'how' "the authors have been successful in empirically testing the validity of the secularisation hypothesis.." I am truly disappointed in the manner in which you execute an attack on someone who did nothing wrong, other than ask a question.
