Religion, the great corrupter.

[Lord Kenneth]

I was trying to determine today if a kid in my Cisco class was really a mormon like he claimed to be or was just saying that for kicks.

He said something about how Joseph Smith "translated the book of Mormon", so I said to my brother: "I was wrong, this kid is a true blue mormon!" or something along those lines (I actually joke around quite often-- for example, once when he wasn't looking I brought up mormons.org on his computer).

He then said: "I'm not a true mormon, Samantha XXXXX is. She can go into the temple and everything. She doesn't drink [caffeine], this, and this, and blah blah...."

I had that girl in my PE class last school year.

It kind of disgusts me. That person actually stood out because I realized they were genuinely nice person, unlike many people I know.

I wonder if religion, besides preventing her of enjoying many of life's luxuries, made her nice in the first place.

Is this a decent tradeoff? Is being a pawn of one man's power trip many years ago a acceptable as a means of controlling people, some ways in the positive?

I'd like to see what you people have to say.

[c4ts]

You shouldn't let the fact that somebody belongs to a certain religion cause you be prejudiced toward them, so don't assume they behave a certain way because of their religion.

[RCNelson]

All the Mormons I've ever known have been really good people in spite of their goofy belief system. Also, their goofy beliefs seem harmless enough.

As to whether adopting the Mormon belief system to become a genuinely nice person is a worthwhile tradeoff, it's for each person individually to decide for themselves.

As for me, I'd rather become a nice person without having to believe goofy things. At the same time, I think I could learn from that subset of Mormon beliefs that aren't goofy.

[LuxFerum]

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
I wonder if religion, besides preventing her of enjoying many of life's luxuries...
you will not gonna do then all anyway.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
It kind of disgusts me. That person actually stood out because I realized they were genuinely nice person, unlike many people I know.

I wonder if religion, besides preventing her of enjoying many of life's luxuries, made her nice in the first place.

Is this a decent tradeoff? Is being a pawn of one man's power trip many years ago a acceptable as a means of controlling people, some ways in the positive?

I'd like to see what you people have to say.

I don't know if religion ever *makes* people nice. We all have personal standards that we try to conform to, and religion definitely influences our personal standards.

Given the number of religious people in the world you'll have to figure that some of them will be the nicest people you ever meet, just by sheer fact of probabilistic distribution and standard deviations and what not.

All I can say is this. There is one man I know, a friend of mine. Every person who has ever met this person considers him the best person they've ever met (nice is a funny word...a woman who sleeps with every man she sees could be the nicest person in the world from a certain perspective). I only know one person who everybody considers to be the best person they've ever met. He also happens to be a devout Catholic. Perhaps there is an atheist out there who, say, 1000 people would collectively agree is the best person they've ever met.

-Elliot

[SteveW]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RCNelson
[B]All the Mormons I've ever known have been really good people in spite of their goofy belief system. Also, their goofy beliefs seem harmless enough.

If you think their "goofy" beliefs are harmless, you obviously don't know much about Mormonism.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by SteveW
If you think their "goofy" beliefs are harmless, you obviously don't know much about Mormonism.

I think it may be a case of where the beliefs have evolved over time, and certain beliefs of Mormonism have been relegated to be archaic or what not.

Of all the Mormons I've met, they seem to be nice people. Of course there are atrocious Mormons who are fueled by their beliefs, but you can say that with all types of people from all types of beliefs.

Mormonism does not compel Mormons to be horrible people, since all Mormons are not horrible and many are nice and agreeable people.

-Elliot

[Suddenly]

I guess it is important to distill exactly what we see as objectionable about religious training. I'd submit it isn't the moral teachings, per se, rather the implication that these moral teachings are backed by some supernatural carrot and stick.

As way of example, I grew up in a Christian household, a liberal one, but Christian nonetheless. I got from this an idealized idea of what it meant to be Christian, mainly stuff like "love thy neighbor", "do onto others", the value of humility, charity and yadda yadda yadda. This was accompanied by the hint of a supernatural reward/punishment system. I've managed to discard the supernatural aspects, but I retain the moral idea and still stive to conduct myself along these "christian" lines, as it seems to make me happy. It seems that there are others that do the opposite, forget the more genteel teachings and simply celebrate the supernatural. People who do bad things because of God illustrate the problem with using these sorts of inducements. God is a larger version of saying "Don't ask questions, do it because I said so." The problem occurs when the person who "said so" turns out to be a jerk.


Is this a decent tradeoff? Is being a pawn of one man's power trip many years ago a acceptable as a means of controlling people, some ways in the positive?


I think the whole thing is a smokescreen. Belief in God makes no difference, it's just a rationalization for behaviour. Good people justify their reluctance to be bad people on the basis that God is watching. Bad people use God as a reason to aspire to be better. In the end it is just a shortcut. People may come to the same conclusions if they sat down and really thought about it, but that takes too much time and effort and it is much easier just to appeal to higher authority. The price for this shorcut is absurdity and contradiction as what it means to be a "good person" evolves according to social conditions and "sacred" texts and rules do not.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Suddenly
I think the whole thing is a smokescreen. Belief in God makes no difference, it's just a rationalization for behaviour. Good people justify their reluctance to be bad people on the basis that God is watching. Bad people use God as a reason to aspire to be better. In the end it is just a shortcut. People may come to the same conclusions if they sat down and really thought about it, but that takes too much time and effort and it is much easier just to appeal to higher authority. The price for this shorcut is absurdity and contradiction as what it means to be a "good person" evolves according to social conditions and "sacred" texts and rules do not.

Suddenly, how about this.

Just for a bit, assume that God exists.

If God exists, and he cares about human behavior, what does that mean for humanity?

If God exists, and he doesn't care about human behavior, what does that mean for humanity.

I give you that if you don't believe God exists you can certainly be the nicest and most agreeable person I'd be liable to meet on any given day.

-Elliot

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by elliotfc


Suddenly, how about this.

Just for a bit, assume that God exists.

If God exists, and he cares about human behavior, what does that mean for humanity?

Nothing? What matters more is what he would do about it, and whether we had reason to believe God cared. However, since he created humans in the first place it would say much more about God than humans.

If God exists, and he doesn't care about human behavior, what does that mean for humanity.

Nothing? Makes God seem a little less a jerk though.

I give you that if you don't believe God exists you can certainly be the nicest and most agreeable person I'd be liable to meet on any given day.

-Elliot

I'd say this is more likely. Atheists don't have the problem of reconciling modern moral principles with archaic doctrine.

[Yahzi]

My two cents: even though Mormonism is wacky, stupid, and evil, and even though I've heard about lots of horrible Mormons secondhand, all of the ones I've actually known personally were very good people.

Just one of those things.

[Nyarlathotep]

I don't think there is any correlation between being religious and being "nice". I know some religious people who are very nice, I know of some atheists who are very nice. I know some religious people who are huge @$$holes and I know some atheists who are huge @$$holes. I don't notice any preponderance one way or other. Ghandi was very religious but so were the hijackers on 9/11. I think nice people are going to be nice regardless of their religiousness and mean people will be mean, likewise.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by elliotfc

Mormonism does not compel Mormons to be horrible people, since all Mormons are not horrible and many are nice and agreeable people.

-Elliot

Don't let the Militant Atheists hear you. They might kick you out of their club. Heck, they even kick agnostics out.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Don't let the Militant Atheists hear you. They might kick you out of their club. Heck, they even kick agnostics out.

I will give you this much, you are a somewhat better class of troll than Billiefan. He was getting kind of boring. :th:

[Fun2BFree]

Mormons apparently can do some pretty horrible things-try reading Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith -- by Jon Krakauer

Basing your actions in this life on your faith instead of rational ethics is a set up for evil...Faith comes from within your own mind and is not subject to the reality testing of rational thought. Too many of the major evils in this world have been carried out because the perpetrators were convinced by their own faith that they were doing God's will -with the proof always to be shown in the next world...People who do not believe in such supernatural nonsense have to justify their actions based on what the consquences are in this world.

If a psychotic guy believes in his mind that snipers are pointing guns into his apartment he may be harmless and just crawl around on the floor--no harm done...but if he decides to start shooting back??? --we have a problem--faith is of little difference from such a scenario---

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree
Mormons apparently can do some pretty horrible things

Yeah, so can anybody of any non-belief / belief. No new news there.


Basing your actions in this life on your faith instead of rational ethics is a set up for evil...


That's is your opinion, absurd, but your opinion. I know many people that base their lives on faith with no ill effects to themselves or anybody else.

You are obviously not entirely correct with your blanket statement of believers.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Don't let the Militant Atheists hear you. They might kick you out of their club. Heck, they even kick agnostics out.

In the words of Franko:

I think you guys should all get together and talk about how smart you are, and how much you agree that all of the other religions are "crazy" and inferior to your One True Faith until you cease to exist, one by one!

Needless to say, don't follow Franko's example. Just don't. It may look like the atheists are just agreeing with each other and patting themselves on the back, but it only looks that way to you because you disagree with them so strongly. Do not let your opinions distort the truth.

[Fun2BFree]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Yeah, so can anybody of any non-belief / belief. No new news there.

[/b]

That's is your opinion, absurd, but your opinion. I know many people that base their lives on faith with no ill effects to themselves or anybody else.

You are obviously not entirely correct with your blanket statement of believers. [/B]

Wrong wrong wrong...No- It is not absurd it is simple sound logic and reason....it is not opinion it is all based on facts......As usual a person of faith is incapable of understanding simple logic and reason...You are entirely ignorant of what I said and did not quote the rest of what I wrote suggesting you either do not understand it or did not read it...either way you reveal your underlying inabilty to reason--to base things on real proof--not a surprise from a believer who does not prize reason as much as those subjective thought process isolated inside your head called faith--you have proven my point you believe something for which there can be no proof.

I never said that faith will always have ill effect. You made that up just as you have made up your deity in your head. Show me where I said it will always have an ill effect--you have no proof and you make up nonsense about what I wrote to prop up your pathetic belief system.

What makes something evil? What makes something wrong? What is the factual basis? Because you read it in your little book? The evidence shows that is not the case...it is not likely that you follow everything in that book because if you did you would be in jail for stoning people and doing all sorts of other things that are illegal yet are called for in that Book...why is it illegal to stone a woman for committing adultery??? Because it is WRONG...but it is not said to be wrong in your Book...
how can it be wrong?

how do we know right from wrong??? By facts, not faith.
Wrong is defined the way we know anything is wrong --how do we know driving with your eyes closed is wrong? How do we know killing whomever you choose is wrong? How did you choose to follow a God that is mostly for peace and love and not one who demands virgin sacrifices??? How is it that one is a good religion and the other is not? They are both faiths??

First, we know generally what we want in our little gathering called society and we figure out which things will lead to those desired ends...for starters we generally agree we need peaceful coexistance, security in life and property in THIS WORLD..in THIS WORLD--IN THIS WORLD---no provisions made for what it means for the next world... what is wrong or right is known first by figuring out what it means to us IN THIS WORLD.

The only way to understand what is going on IN THIS WORLD is to know what we want and figure out how to get it--cause and effect, gathering information, experience and making connections--it is called the rational ordering of knowledge, the scientific method...rational - with reason--no need or use for faith -faith comes only without proof without reason and therefore those who start from a position that ultimate truth and right and wrong can come from inside their own heads and not subject to the confirmation of real world tests, validation, confirmation, testing, etc.... starting with the notion that moral foundation is found inside your head is a set up for evil---just because a faith generally promotes love and peace does not make it the best or right way to achieve those ends...as my example pointed out--people can believe all sorts of stupid and irrational and psychotic things and be no harm...but believing irrational things is inherently an unstable and dangerous moral foundation...thus most child molesters, most criminals, most serial killers, terrorists are deeply relgious, deeply devoted the faith in their heads...As morality can only be determined by reason- it should be based on reason.

Rationality is not perfect,..it can lead to bad outcomes when it is done with incomplete or incorrect information--that is not evil it is error...rationality cannot commit evil...it can make errors but not be evil --it is a process to achieve an end..if the end is chosen rationally it cannot be an evil end---It is a known end, testable, verifiable, agreed upon as good by independent real world confirmation--rationally---thinking that faith can provide the answer for right and wrong based on what you believe without reason or proof is dangerous--- unproveable, untestable supernatural rule books have been used over and over to commit acts of evil. The desired goals of faith are to please an unknowable superbeing, to reach a place we cannot know, measure or confirm. With all that unknowable, unproveable, untestable, unverifiable garbage anything can be done to justify the greatest evil.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree

As usual a person of faith is incapable of understanding simple logic and reason...

not a surprise from a believer who does not prize reason as much as those subjective thought process isolated inside your head called faith

you have proven my point you believe something for which there can be no proof.

just as you have made up your deity in your head

to prop up your pathetic belief system.

Because you read it in your little book?

How did you choose to follow a God that is


'Cuse me? Where did I say that I believed in anything? (expect this question to go unanswered by him folks...)

Play the angry must-explain-my-logic freethinking kid some other time, please. I agree that rationality is important. I don't disagree with you there.


thus most child molesters, most criminals, most serial killers, terrorists are deeply relgious


Whatever gets you through your day.


thinking that faith can provide the answer for right and wrong based on what you believe without reason or proof is dangerous


Um, no. That is your opinion. Many people who believe in things are non-violent. You are perpetuating a stereotype or a myth, one of the two.

The desired goals of faith are to please an unknowable superbeing, to reach a place we cannot know, measure or confirm


And in some faiths, none of those things are important.

[Fun2BFree]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


'Cuse me? Where did I say that I believed in anything? (expect this question to go unanswered by him folks...) [/B]

Oh have I misread what you have written in other posts? If so, I stand corrected...but note folks that actually he does not deny that I have hit the nail on the head here--only that in this thread he has not stated what has appeared to be his underlying guiding priniciples in his other posts....


Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Play the angry must-explain-my-logic freethinking kid some other time, please. I agree that rationality is important. I don't disagree with you there.
Many people who believe in things are non-violent. You are perpetuating a stereotype or a myth, one of the two.
[/B]



It is not whether or not rationality is important--or that faith is always leading to violence--things you keep saying that have nothing to do with what I have said...Why do you keep disputing that religion is dangerous by saying that you know religous people who are not violent? I know smokers who live to ripe old ages. I know people who do all sorts of dangerous things and do not suffer from any ill consequences. There are psychotic people who pose no threat to themselves or others, yet apparently such examples would convince you that psychosis is not a dangerous foundation upon which to interact with the world....Please explain the logic that makes anything you have written a rational response to the proposition at hand? Morality not based on rational thought is dangerous. Your statements that people who base their morality on nonrational thought can be nondangerous people does nothing to dispute the basic danger.

you claim there are faiths that have nothing to do with satisfying supernatural rules or beings...how about actually naming one?

You dismiss the FACT that most of the criminals mentioned are deeply religious--do you have some explanation for this dismissal? Is it just statistics?....most people are religious so most criminals are religious? that won't fly because the hard numbers show that religious people are way over represented in crime stats compared to non-religious people...or is it that you just don't believe that fact? if so please tell us how the numbers actually do breakdown?


Rationality is not just important in morality as you seem to agree---it is indispensible in determining truth--in knowing right from wrong...norality cannot be reliably, consistently achieved without rationality...
You have not answereed a single question that I put...how do you determine good from evil if not by rational means?

(as you have failed to answer anything I have written before with a rational or direct response I don't actually expect one here-but maybe you can surprise us...)

[T'ai Chi]

Oh have I misread what you have written in other posts? If so, I stand corrected...but note folks that actually he does not deny that I have hit the nail on the head here--only that in this thread he has not stated what has appeared to be his underlying guiding priniciples in his other posts....


You not only have misread, you wholly, out of the air, invented my supposed belief in some God. I've stated in numerous posts that I am a philosophical Taoist and atheist.

Why do you keep disputing that religion is dangerous by saying that you know religous people who are not violent?


Because you are implying that there is a causal relationship between religiousity and violence (or bad things in general), and I am not implying that causal relationship.

Morality not based on rational thought is dangerous.


Yeah, you've stated that it is, but can you prove it? Does it always lead to danger, or just sometime?


you claim there are faiths that have nothing to do with satisfying supernatural rules or beings...how about actually naming one?


Hard atheism. Scientism. Forms of Buddhism. Forms of Taoism. Many more.


You dismiss the FACT that most of the criminals mentioned are deeply religious--do you have some explanation for this dismissal? Is it just statistics?


Just statistics? heh, statistics are important. :)


the hard numbers show that religious people are way over represented in crime stats compared to non-religious people


Please, I'd like to see your hard numbers. I can already anticipate what webpage you are going to send me to..Let's see if I am right. If it is the one I am thinking, then my response is that by your stats, it is better to be a Sikh or Taoist or Scientologist, because they are less represented in prison than even non-believers are. Also, you probably only have one such study. I'll like to see it replicated. Samples sizes of 1 are not too reliable, no matter how strong your beliefs about the truth of it.

morality cannot be reliably, consistently achieved without rationality...


Again, you emotionally say that, but is there proof for that? I know many people who are irrational (according to you) and do just fine moralistically.

how do you determine good from evil if not by rational means?


If something hurts you, it could be bad. (note, I don't believe in "evil", so...)

[nightwind]

It doesn't seem to me that the Mormons are any more kookier than some of the fanatics in some other religions.

The Baptist up the road from me are a scary bunch!

[Kevin_Lowe]

LK learns a valuable lesson:

Sometimes it's more important to be nice, than it is to be smart or rational.

(Of course sometimes it's not, too).

[Fun2BFree]

The connection between immorality and superstitious beliief is not from one recent study--it has been noted at least as far back as David Hume who mentions it directly. It is not proof of the inter-relationship between faith (superstition) and immorality -it is just on e bit of the evidence of what one would expect to see if the connection is true--which all evidence supports.... Again if you are just going to deny any stats that I submit-let us hear from you how you believe the stats breakdown--what is the percentage of believers in society and what is the percentage of believers known to have committed bad acts (crimes)? And take it another step--the depth of faith can vary from deeply devoted to faith to lesser levels, can't it...how do you suppose you would find the breakdown in any population of seriously bad criminals as compared to the general population....I am confident that when you find the stats that truthfully represent how people believe you will find the same thing Hume noted...the deeper the superstition- the greater the immorality.

But you can tell us about how you know people who are very superstitious and they don't threaten or harm anyone--- but just spare us that lame answer for the third or fourth time....it proves nothing--it is the same lame answer we hear like: I know people who smoke who did not get lung cancer, so smoking does not cause lung cancer....or I know people who died from wearing their seatbelts so seatbelts are more dangereous than not wearing seatbelts....if you believe those two things are accurate then we can just stop---anyone who believes those last two things is incapable of following rational thought.

Amazing-I keep saying the same thing over and over and you keep coming up with different variations of the same non-answer about how the presence of religious people who are not violent some how disproves the danger of religion...how many examples of dangers that exist do you need to see to realize that just because something is dangerous does not mean it will always lead to a bad outcome? you keep saying this same nonsensical answer over and over as if it some how disproves the premise...but that is not what we are talking about---you just avoid the question by redefining the terms...so you reject the idea of evil..fine whatever word game you want to play...

How does one distinguish between good and bad? is it by faith or reason?

I will try to break it down into simple little steps and then you can tell me where the premise does not hold up.

A person believes something for which there can be no rational proof. That is by definition - faith...they hold that to have faith is a valuable and important thing by which they can guide their lives. that they can distinguish right and wrong by faith. Since this faith is determined inside that person's head it is subjective...They are convinced that if they believe it, it has value and it is true. This is not Voltaire's: I think, therefore, I am...This is I believe, therefore it is true. If you think that is a healthy foundation upon which to base morality, I submit that you are wrong. It may work out for many but they got the right answer by the wrong method--because it has been shown over and over to lead to the wrong answer...how many atrocities have to be committed in the service of one faith or another for you not to see the relationship...I have never stated faith CAUSES evil as you are trying to imply...the cause is irrationality...but valuing and accepting faith gives irrationality value it say it is okay and even valuable to believe things for which there is no rationality---it is not a big step from there to flying a planes into skyscrapers. Faith is not based on reality --it is inferior to any rational system of morality that says that the question of what is good or bad or evil or right or wrong is determined the same way one determines anything...based on evidence, not faith....

What is right?
The question means as much as the following:
What is the right temperature for water? For what purpose? To drink, to bathe, to swim, to skate on? Define the end, determine how to best achieve that end...Just because faith sometimes, even often times leads to the desired end- (good behavior) it can be shown to also lead to bad outcomes-(are you denying the history of bad behaviour carried out based on faith???)-so it can not be relied upon to provide the answers to such questions...experience and synthesis of the knowledge of that experience through the rational application of thought is the most reliable way. If you have a better way, let's hear it...of course in offering such a way you are by definition going to be offering up evidence that it is a better way and as such will be attempting to apply reason...so you can't get there any other way than by the path of reason.

[Fun2BFree]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
LK learns a valuable lesson:

Sometimes it's more important to be nice, than it is to be smart or rational.

(Of course sometimes it's not, too).

example?

How can it be important and not be rational?

[T'ai Chi]

Again if you are just going to deny any stats that I submit-...


You haven't submitted any. I guess you can't back up your assertion with anything other than opinion.

I am confident that when you find the stats that truthfully represent how people believe you will find the same thing Hume noted...the deeper the superstition- the greater the immorality.


Argument from authority. I'm interested in the evidence.


But you can tell us about how you know people who are very superstitious and they don't threaten or harm anyone--- but just spare us that lame answer for the third or fourth time....it proves nothing--...


Um, no, it proves that the relationship isn't a causal one, or else everyone I know who is "irrational" would be dangerous and committing crimes, etc. They aren't.


Since this faith is determined inside that person's head it is subjective...


It can be determined from other places, such as culture, society, history, nature, and probably several other sources too.

If you think that is a healthy foundation upon which to base morality, I submit that you are wrong.


Yeah, you keep saying that, but offer no proof. Come up with those statistics yet?


If you have a better way, let's hear it...of course in offering such a way you are by definition going to be offering up evidence that it is a better way and as such will be attempting to apply reason...so you can't get there any other way than by the path of reason.

Um, yeah. So you just argued that faith = reason. Good job.

[Fun2BFree]

I told what the stats are--religious types are over represented---I am still waiting for you to tell us what the stats are if what I said is not true...are religious types over under or equally represented in prison??? Simple..you say i am wrong...tell us how it really is..

Hume was not offered as an authority--but as a landmark for how long this association has been noted by independent observers in other places and times.

"Um, no, it proves that the relationship isn't a causal one, or else everyone I know who is "irrational" would be dangerous and committing crimes, etc. They aren't."

Again!??? you really think this is logical???Are you really this stupid?

So again, I am guessing you know some smokers who never got lung cancer...thus by your "logic" smoking cannot cause lung cancer...Is that how it is??? Is that the way your brain works?? You are really working hard to prove what Edison said below is right on the mark....

So do cigarettes cause lung cancer or not? Answer this question even if you keep avoiding all the other questions...

How you calculate that faith = reason from anything I said further shows how warped and deluded you are...faith is by definition the opposite of reason...if there were proof of faith it would not be faith it would be proven reality and to deny it would be irrational..faith is believing when there cannot be proof...or do you have another definition you would care to share..

(Folks- please don't expect any answers to the questions--T'ai is clearly not able to do anything but troll around here as a punching bag- but there may be some unformed young minds reading who will be confused by his strawman techniques and nonsensical obfuscation and avoidance of the facts)

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree
I told what the stats are--religious types are over represented---


Uh, that isn't statistics, those are just words.


I am still waiting for you to tell us what the stats are if what I said is not true...


It isn't up to me to prove your negative. You made the claim of statistics, you provide the evidence for your claim.


you really think this is logical???Are you really this stupid?


I guess so. I'll have to deal with that.


(Folks- please don't expect any answers to the questions--T'ai is clearly not able to do anything but troll around here as a punching bag- but there may be some unformed young minds reading who will be confused by his strawman techniques and nonsensical obfuscation and avoidance of the facts)

You made the claim of prision, blah blah, but you still haven't put your stats where your mouth is.

[Fun2BFree]

T'ai

Do cigarettes cause lung cancer?

Still waiting for an answer.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree
T'ai

Do cigarettes cause lung cancer?

Still waiting for an answer.

Show me your stats. You made the claim, be responsible and provide the evidence.

I made no claim of lung cancer or not causing lung cancer.

But you know that.

[Fun2BFree]

Do cigarettes cause lung cancer?

There is no point in giving any stats until we know whether you can understand some simple statistical realities and whether you really undestand cause and effect...(which is at its heart the core of reason and rationality)

So do they or don't they?

Then before I give you the stats tell me what that will do for you? Once you are shown stats will you admit that they prove or anything? Evidence from your avoiding the simple cigarette question suggests that you will not...so what is the point of posting references to the stats? What rational reason would I have for doing it...People that want to know them know how to look them up...do you? It is not hard to find recent federal stats..here is a link-
http://h-----m---.org/i----.htm

here's a quote of other stats from another easily found synthesis of the available data:

"Louisiana has the highest churchgoing rate in the country, but its murder rate is ..... The same pattern generally holds in the rest of the South. Tom DeLay's Bible-toting state of Texas has a murder rate .... Massachusetts, which is "ungodly" enough to have elected two openly gay members of Congress."

I have obscured these intentionally just to show it exists but to see if you have the ablity to think for yourself...I am betting you don't. For those who really want the references and are not just trolling about--just drop me a PM..this troll bores me.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
I wonder if religion, besides preventing her of enjoying many of life's luxuries, made her nice in the first place.
.

Well, for Christians, nice people are those that live by the moral code of Christianity. For Muslims, good people are those who live by the commands of Qumran.

All the really religious people I have met ( Christians, Jews and Muslims-- I do not have experience of other Religions) have something in common that has amazed me; no, they are not nice. All of them are hypocrites.

The more religious a person he appeared to be, the more hypocritical bahavior you could detect on him.

Maybe this shouldn't surprize me. After all, if you are interested in being appreciated as a nice person in your religious community, you must show that you abide by the moral code.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree
Do cigarettes cause lung cancer?


You haven't provided any statistics yet. You claimed they existed, you prove it. Please quit trying to change the subject. It isn't up to me to answer your questions about causality. It is up to you to provide evidence for your claims of there being statistics. So far, you haven't.


There is no point in giving any stats until we know whether you can understand some simple statistical realities and whether you really undestand cause and effect..


Probable translation: 'I, Fun2BFree, don't have any statistics to back up my claim. I will continue to avoid pertinent questions.'

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I can understand statistics. Should I email you pics of my masters degree in statistics and my bachelors degree in mathematics? Let's quit the bull session and see your fantasy statistics. "Statistics on the table, please." ie, shoe me the money.


Once you are shown stats will you admit that they prove or anything?


We'll never know because you haven't shown ANY statistics yet.


It is not hard to find recent federal stats..here is a link-
http://h-----m---.org/i----.htm


Um, that isn't even a real URL...


I have obscured these intentionally just to show it exists but to see if you have the ablity to think for yourself...I am betting you don't.


Heh, probable translation: 'I, Fun2BFree, still don't have any statistics, just belief. I never had any statistics. I will try to make it sound like these statistics actually exist though. I will make it some sort of logic puzzle to show how irrational others are. I will try to sound rational, when in reality, my thoughts are formed from belief in almost complete absence of evidence.'

Please actually show the statistics in your next post, or direct links to the statistics, if you even have any.