The Falsity of Religion: Twelve Indisputable Arguments

[Asian-American]

Hello,

First, let me discuss the works of Professor John Hartung. He is ethnically Jewish and was raised in a religiously Jewish family. He describes his qualifications:

"John Hartung is the Associate Editor of the Journal of Neurosurgical Anesthesiology and an Associate Professor of Anesthesiology at the State University of New York.

His Ph.D. is in anthropology from Harvard. About half of Dr. Hartung's publications are in social science, with the rest in medicine"

He discusses the historical origins of Judeo-Christianity. He states that today's Bible is not the same as the original religious texts. For example, many parts were made politically correct at various times of translation to make it more acceptable to the public. In fact, I recently was talking to a Rabbi and he told me that the Torah he uses is the original and is very different from the Torah of today's Bibles.

For example, the original Torah advocated a lot more violence and genocide than what is written in the modern Bible. Originally, the Jews of the Torah were supposed to pillage, rape, and exterminate non-Jews in order to ensure the purity of the Jewish people. Cultural and genetic contamination from Gentiles was something to be very careful of. But, today's Bible has these parts removed.

Also, Gentiles were not to be converted, because the original Jews were the only Chosen People of God.

Jesus Christ never pushed for the Conversion of Gentiles. At the time of Christ, Jewish society was no longer ethnocentric and Communist, but had transformed into Capitalism where Jewish elites betrayed the majority of Jews for their own gains. There was no unity and the Jewish community was failing. So Christ started preaching that for Israel to rise once again, they must abandon Capitalism and selfishness and return to ethnocentric Communism. Such a united society would then once again become prosperous.

It was the Israelite Saul who was kicked out of Israel and then decided to bring Judaism (Christianity) to Gentiles. He did this against the wishes of Jesus Christ. In other words, Jesus Christ never agreed to save the souls of the Gentiles, only the original Jews.

There is a lot more history that mainstream Christianity is unaware of. I have just provided a summary of Professor Hartung's research, but for the full research, go to his site at
_____________________________________________


Now, here is the article that deals with the title of this thread:

The Falsity of Religion: Twelve Indisputable Arguments

By John "Birdman" Bryant

Religion today hangs on the horns of a dilemma: On the one hand, it is false in the scientific sense, as we shall demonstrate below; but on the other hand, because religion in one form or another has been around as long as recorded history -- and in fact has played a central role in man's social and personal life -- it is almost certain that religion is useful in the sense that it has helped men to survive. The real dilemma of religion, however, is that it must be believed in order to be useful, yet this is impossible when people know that it is false.

The obvious solution to this dilemma -- if indeed there is a solution -- is to discover what is useful about religion, and to try to make use of this knowledge. This I have attempted to do in my book The Most Powerful Idea Ever Discovered. But we will be stymied in our attempt to accomplish this task -- or at least to bring it to fruition in the sense of teaching others -- if we do not first and finally sweep away the foolishness of religious belief by making a plain and clear statement as to religion's literal falsity. Accordingly, we cite below what we view as twelve compelling reasons why a rational person must regard religion as false.

[ . . . ]


______________________________________________

Regards

[Loki]

Very interesting thread, AA, but really...12 undisputable arguments...religious people don't like being argued with, and any arguments put forward are always false in their view. The fact is, faith requires - faith. I mean, come on, believing in witches and ghosts and stuff needs faith. Religion dwells on uncertainty. Give it facts, give it undisputable arguments - it can't digest them, it just doesn't accept them. It doesn't fit with its constitution.

This was a pretty pointless message, but what I mean to say is...you'll have a hard time trying to convince people that their religion, memetically inherited, environmentally pressed on them, is "false".

[Asian-American]

Very interesting thread, AA, but really...12 undisputable arguments...religious people don't like being argued with, and any arguments put forward are always false in their view. The fact is, faith requires - faith. I mean, come on, believing in witches and ghosts and stuff needs faith. Religion dwells on uncertainty. Give it facts, give it undisputable arguments - it can't digest them, it just doesn't accept them. It doesn't fit with its constitution.

This was a pretty pointless message, but what I mean to say is...you'll have a hard time trying to convince people that their religion, memetically inherited, environmentally pressed on them, is "false".

Most people of an average and below average IQ will probably remain superstitious, since research shows a positive correlation between IQ and religiosity, see But, regardless of the effects, I still enjoy debating.

I myself used to practice a religion: my parents raised me as such, but after lots of reading in philosophy, logic, anthropology, evolutionary psychology, behavioral genetics, and the like, I became an atheist.

The best way to get more people to be rational would be to increase the average intellience of a society, see Either that or the intelligent and rational could simply create their own society/nation that would be based on scientific principles, not superstition.

Cheers!

[Jay]

I didn't have to read lots of philosophy, logic, antropologic, evolutionary psychologic, behavioral genetics, and the like, books to become an atheist myself while being raised in a Christian family with Christian background for generations.

In fact I think I became an atheist when I was 12 or so. What does that make me? Uneducated (according to AA - the main point I guess) and/or evil (according to radical religion-followers) person?

[mono]

Very interesting thread, AA, but really...12 undisputable arguments...religious people don't like being argued with, and any arguments put forward are always false in their view. The fact is, faith requires - faith. I mean, come on, believing in witches and ghosts and stuff needs faith. Religion dwells on uncertainty. Give it facts, give it undisputable arguments - it can't digest them, it just doesn't accept them. It doesn't fit with its constitution.
I entirely agree here, Loki. On this 'Religious Text' section of the forum, especially, I attempt keeping myself relatively neutral, but I find that one can argue against neither reason (logic) nor faith; one provides empirical proof for its beliefs, while the other remains entirely in its own intuitive theories. I cannot call anyone (faith or reason) more superior than the other, including in intelligence or wisdom, though various debating scientists and philosophers would think otherwise (Stephen Pinker, Immanuel Kant, William James, etc.). The point seems that they both contain one's individual caste of thought, which contains a scientific argument behind it, initially of the difference between the two hemispheres of the brain. In a more "self-reliant" (Emerson), "universal thinking" (Kant) manner, I like to think that a person's beliefs seem most suitable for him/her; if one finds logical empiricist reasoning to seem more sensible, then that surely seems best; if one finds faith-based intuition to see more sensible, then that also proves best for that individual.
If I may, I will end on the note that "the perception of reality is subjective," and we all remain biased in our own manner.
And thanks for the resources, AA, very interesting. Welcome to the forum. :)

[Asian-American]

AA, very interesting. Welcome to the forum. :)

Thanks! :D

[crisaor]

So, if I understand you correctly, anyone who follows a particular religion is dumb. And you, on the opposite side of the spectrum, are the smart one. Somehow I don't see you gaining much supporters...

[Asian-American]

anyone who follows a particular religion is dumb.

Research shows a positive correlation between IQ and religiosity.


And you, on the opposite side of the spectrum, are the smart one.

The correlation is positive, but not absolute. As such, me being atheist does not garantee that I have a high IQ.


Somehow I don't see you gaining much supporters

Do you mean you believe that the majority of Homo Sapiens will believe that the study on IQ and religiosity is faulty? What do you think the majority will attribute as to the cause of this faultyness? Poor research, or intentional fabrication for political reasons?

Regards.

[crisaor]

Research shows a positive correlation between IQ and religiosity.
You believe everything (anything?) that the research tells you?
The certainty of that correlation is based on nothing. As with all things, it takes but a single example to refute the theory. And obviously there are plenty.

Do you mean you believe that the majority of Homo Sapiens will believe that the study on IQ and religiosity is faulty? What do you think the majority will attribute as to the cause of this faultyness? Poor research, or intentional fabrication for political reasons?
Both of them. But I meant that insulting people isn't gonna do much to broaden their minds, assuming of course that's the purpose, and not merely gaining followers just per se.

[Asian-American]

You believe everything (anything?) that the research tells you?

I believe the research on IQ and religiosity that I have posted above.


The certainty of that correlation is based on nothing.

Is your claim just a hypothesis, or do you have alternate research that rebutts the research I posted?


As with all things, it takes but a single example to refute the theory. And obviously there are plenty.

Would you be willing to show the research that refutes the research I posted?


insulting people isn't gonna do much to broaden their minds

I agree, ad hominem attacks are an invalid debating tactic, that is why I never use them.

[crisaor]

Is your claim just a hypothesis, or do you have alternate research that rebutts the research I posted?
It's based on logic, on how an argument is constructed. Besides, to imply that any research is failproof doesn't really give it much credibility IMO.

Would you be willing to show the research that refutes the research I posted?
Any individual with a high IQ that follows a religion does that. Choose anyone you like. And if you ask my opinion, it just doesn't make sense. There's no discernible correlation between the two. You (or the research) claim that religion is "false", but this is ridiculous. It may arguably be wrong, inaccurate, etc., but it certainly isn't false.

[Asian-American]

Besides, to imply that any research is failproof doesn't really give it much credibility IMO.

I never said the research was failproof. Scientific theories are always being thrown out and replaced, or altered. Rather, at the moment, the research I posted has not been debunked to my knowledge. This is why I was asking if you are aware of any actual research that does indeed debunk my claims.


Any individual with a high IQ that follows a religion does that.

And my research does not deny this. That is why I was trying to clarify with you that the IQ/religiosity correlation is not absolute, but just positive. Are you familiar with statistical models and how they work? Correlations indicate the degree to which two events are related. A positive correlation indicates that there is parallel relation between events, while a negative correlation indicates an antagonistic relation (as one goes up, another goes down). The research I posted shows that higher IQ people are more likely to be atheist than lower IQ people. But this does not mean that every high IQ person will be an atheist, or every low or average IQ person will practice a religion.


There's no discernible correlation between the two.

I again would ask for scientific research to back this up. If you want to simply say that this is your hypothesis, than that is fine. But to claim it as scientific truth will require evidence.


You (or the research) claim that religion is "false"

Scientifically speaking, it's false. But philosophically speaking, anything is possible.

Regards.

[Asian-American]

Mind-reading machines will soon discover religious programming in the brain. Already scientists are proving the validy of biological determinism and the claim that humans are nothing more than Turing machines:

Mind-reading machine knows what you see

15:26 25 April 2005

It is possible to read someone’s mind by remotely measuring their brain activity, researchers have shown. The technique can even extract information from subjects that they are not aware of themselves.

So far, it has only been used to identify visual patterns a subject can see or has chosen to focus on. But the researchers speculate the approach might be extended to probe a person’s awareness, focus of attention, memory and movement intention. In the meantime, it could help doctors work out if patients apparently in a coma are actually conscious.

[ . . . ]

[crisaor]

I never said the research was failproof. Scientific theories are always being thrown out and replaced, or altered. Rather, at the moment, the research I posted has not been debunked to my knowledge. This is why I was asking if you are aware of any actual research that does indeed debunk my claims.
Ah. You didn't say it, that's true. But you did post part of an article called The Falsity of Religion: Twelve Indisputable Arguments. And that's claiming failprof. You must at least support it in some way in order to post it, otherwise there'd be no point in it.

And my research does not deny this. That is why I was trying to clarify with you that the IQ/religiosity correlation is not absolute, but just positive. Are you familiar with statistical models and how they work? Correlations indicate the degree to which two events are related. A positive correlation indicates that there is parallel relation between events, while a negative correlation indicates an antagonistic relation (as one goes up, another goes down). The research I posted shows that higher IQ people are more likely to be atheist than lower IQ people. But this does not mean that every high IQ person will be an atheist, or every low or average IQ person will practice a religion.
I see what you mean. But still, this is very far of being as conclusive as you approach it. It's merely a matter of statistics. A different sample universe might come up with the exact opposite result. That is very little justification for the point you're trying to make, generalising for the whole lot of people.

I again would ask for scientific research to back this up. If you want to simply say that this is your hypothesis, than that is fine. But to claim it as scientific truth will require evidence.
Scientifically speaking, it's false. But philosophically speaking, anything is possible.
Well, it is my hypothesis. I'm sorry if it's not relevant to you. I don't base my ideas entirely on the basis of science, so I'm not into providing a justification that relies solely on that. And how would you prove religion is scientifically false? What are the false premises, or the wrong conclusions?

[kilted exile]

Ok, I normally try to steer clear of this section of the forum because I do not believe in a God/Creator/Divine Power (choose which term you will) and I do not wish to offend anyone who does believe.

However, I felt that I should add this: Asian-American, from what I can gather from your posts (in both this thread & the one which has been closed), you appear to more interested in arguing with people, and converting them to your viewpoint than having a normal civilised discussion of viewpoints. Just in-case you missed it on entry to this area of the forum it quite clearly says "Remember to respect the beliefs of others." Your posts about believers generally having a lower IQ than non-believers, is in no way respecting the beliefs of others, and if you do not wish to completely alienate the intelligent, thoughtfull, generous, good natured members of this forum, I would suggest that you cease post haste.

As a side note, statistics can be used to prove anything. For example, with little difficulty I could show using statistics that eating ice-cream at the beach kills people. However, all reasonable people would be aware that this aint true, it just means there are more people at the beach & as a result more people drown. As the great Benjamin Disraeli said " There are three kinds of lies: Lies, D*mn Lies and Statistics"

[Asian-American]

I do not wish to offend anyone who does believe.

So you follow the Liberal moral system which dictates that falsehoods should be perpetuated if exposing the fraud would end up with people being offended. Would you then support criminals because opposing them may hurt their feelings?


However, I felt that I should add this: Asian-American, from what I can gather from your posts (in both this thread & the one which has been closed), you appear to more interested in arguing with people, and converting them to your viewpoint than having a normal civilised discussion of viewpoints.

I disagree: I support academic debating, see Your beliefs though seem to be one that embraces "feel good" thinking: if something feels good, it must be proper, but if it makes anyone upset, it must be bad. It's rather "feelgoodness" that should determine everything, not where the facts stand. This is a typical tenet of Liberalism.


Just in-case you missed it on entry to this area of the forum it quite clearly says "Remember to respect the beliefs of others."

But based on your Liberal ideology, to "respect" someone's belief system, you must in fact capitulate to that person and deny your own beliefs, for doing otherwise would "offend" that person.

So, how do we define "respect"? I consider respect to be avoiding ad hominem attacks.


Your posts about believers generally having a lower IQ than non-believers, is in no way respecting the beliefs of others

Again, before you can say that, I suggest you define "respect" first.

Also, this thread includes the psychology behind superstition. Thus, the discussion of cognitive abilities and personality as to how they affect superstition is a valid topic.


and if you do not wish to completely alienate the intelligent, thoughtfull, generous, good natured members of this forum, I would suggest that you cease post haste.

So you suggest I capitulate to my opponents and denounce my world views so that your speculation of certain members leaving will not occur? Also, what do you mean by "thoughtful, generous, good natured" members? How are you defining these characterizations? And how do you quantitatively measure them? And how is it in my interest to falsely denounce my beliefs so that you are pleased?


As a side note, statistics can be used to prove anything.

Incorrect. Valid statistics can be used to prove many thing. The key is to separate between valid statistics and those based on poor research.


For example, with little difficulty I could show using statistics that eating ice-cream at the beach kills people. However, all reasonable people would be aware that this aint true, it just means there are more people at the beach & as a result more people drown.

Which again shows that one needs to separate between valid and poor statistics. I believe the IQ statistics are valid due 100 years of research on human intelligence, as well as decades of reseach on human behavior and personality.



As the great Benjamin Disraeli said " There are three kinds of lies: Lies, D*mn Lies and Statistics"

Proverbs is not the same thing as scientific research.

Regards :D

[Asian-American]

Ah. You didn't say it, that's true. But you did post part of an article called The Falsity of Religion: Twelve Indisputable Arguments. And that's claiming failprof. You must at least support it in some way in order to post it, otherwise there'd be no point in it.

Interesting point. Yes, the author, John Bryant, did state his argument in absolute terms. So, I will reject his absolutism, while at the same time holding his overall arguments as valid at least at the present moment, until alternate evidence is shown to debunk his claims.


I see what you mean. But still, this is very far of being as conclusive as you approach it. It's merely a matter of statistics. A different sample universe might come up with the exact opposite result. That is very little justification for the point you're trying to make, generalising for the whole lot of people.

Actually, the amount of research correlating IQ to rational thinking, academic achievement, and upwards social mobility is astounding. I am very confident in the validity of my claims. But, if you still don't agree, that is fine, I am not trying to emotionally force you to accept anything: you have to decide for yourself what reality means to you. Yes, I will share my views and try to convince you to accept them, but the final decision is yours.


Well, it is my hypothesis. I'm sorry if it's not relevant to you.

I don't think it's irrelevant, I actually found your posts interesting and philosophical. But in the end, my personality simply requires hard data before accepting anything as truth.


And how would you prove religion is scientifically false? What are the false premises, or the wrong conclusions?

Well, let me get philosophical: I believe no one can know absolute truth. So, we have to pick ways of making sense of the world in order to advance. To me, "truth" is limited to what can be deduced by logic and the scientific method. As such, since there is no scientific evidence for deities, souls, Hell, Heaven, and the like, I do not accept them as "truth." Plus, John Bryant and John Hartung have shown how many of the claims of mainstream religions are false in the scientific sense, though not necessarily in the philosophical sense.

[SwiftSleigh7]

Christianity is God's answer to the problem of humanity.

That said, Christ said: He who is not for me is against me.

Keeping things simple for those who are not caught up in the cliquishness of intelligentsia is what God desires most of all. Sin needs sacrifice to satisfy the holiness of God. Christ provides that sacrifice once and for all who in Faith believe in Him. Now I don't disrespect anyone else's view. And I would gladly argue for his or her right to state it here or anywhere. But each of us must realize that ultimately he or she will stand before the Judgement Seat of Christ. He will ask if we knew him. What will you say?

[Asian-American]

Christianity is God's answer to the problem of humanity.

That said, Christ said: He who is not for me is against me.

Keeping things simple for those who are not caught up in the cliquishness of intelligentsia is what God desires most of all. Sin needs sacrifice to satisfy the holiness of God. Christ provides that sacrifice once and for all who in Faith believe in Him. Now I don't disrespect anyone else's view. And I would gladly argue for his or her right to state it here or anywhere. But each of us must realize that ultimately he or she will stand before the Judgement Seat of Christ. He will ask if we knew him. What will you say?

But what if Allah is the true God, and you find yourself before Him, and He asks you if you accepted Him, what would you say?

Second point: what if instead of being raised by Christians, you were raised by Muslims, or Hindus, or Buddhists? Would you not right now be claiming the absolute existence of Allah, or Shiva, or Buddah, claiming that those that have not accepted the respective diety would go to Hell?

Since religion requires no evidence, everything is fair game. Your parents may very well have been tree worshippers and you would now be proclaiming the abosute truth of the Tree Gods.

Cheers!

[SwiftSleigh7]

Actually I am liberal-minded enough to accept the possibility that God is bigger than any one sectarian perspective--but I am wise enough to temper that liberalism with an awareness that God is gracious enough to have provided a means by which all humans might make an informed decision for or against Christ. That is why the Christian Bible says that Christ will return for a church without spot or wrinkle only after the gospel has been preached throughout the entire world. With the Internet and the current state of missionary work mushrooming exponentially, that should not take as long as you might expect. So prepare yourself to make a choice; or make yours by default; either way, I hope you aren't so broad-minded that you allow your all your fuzzy gray matter to escape! Cheers to you to my friend.

[Asian-American]

but I am wise enough to temper that liberalism with an awareness that God is gracious enough to have provided a means by which all humans might make an informed decision for or against Christ.

You are 100% confident that if you were raised as a Muslim or Hindu, you would have nevertheless ended up leaving those religions and accepting Christianity instead? I find that hard to believe, for there are currently one billion Muslims, one billion Hindus, and one billion Buddhists who have not decided to abandon their religion for Christ. What makes you think that you would have been the exception to those 3 billion people?


So prepare yourself to make a choice; or make yours by default; either way, I hope you aren't so broad-minded that you allow your all your fuzzy gray matter to escape!

So basically I am supposed to accept a random religion without any evidence provided as to the validity of it.


Cheers to you to my friend.

:D

[SwiftSleigh7]

You are 100% confident that if you were raised as a Muslim or Hindu, you would have nevertheless ended up leaving those religions and accepting Christianity instead? I find that hard to believe, for there are currently one billion Muslims, one billion Hindus, and one billion Buddhists who have not decided to abandon their religion for Christ. What makes you think that you would have been the exception to those 3 billion people?

The proof that I would be the exception is in the calling of the Holy Spirit. Those who hear his call and respond by accepting Christ as their savior are chosen. There are many called but few will accept the call.


So basically I am supposed to accept a random religion without any evidence provided as to the validity of it.

Not a religion--a relationship--note the difference... don't ignore it or disdain it glibly unless you are willing to lightly blow off a chance to know the living God... and by the way, the evidence you look for is all around you in creation! Not to mention the fact that there is much more evidence awaiting you after you have entered the relationship. Kind of like a marriage--the love grows and manifests itself more clearly. Abundantly more clearly after you have made your vows and consecrated yourself to your spouse.



:D[/QUOTE]

[Asian-American]

The proof that I would be the exception is in the calling of the Holy Spirit. Those who hear his call and respond by accepting Christ as their savior are chosen. There are many called but few will accept the call.

So you believe there is a supernatural entity called the Holy Ghost, and this entity communicated with those 3 billion non-Christians, and they told the entity that they were not interested? And what was the method of communication? Was it through sound waves or telepathically or something else? So if we were to ask those 3 billion non-Christians if they were contacted by the Holy Ghost, they would say that indeed the Holy Ghost made contact with them and they turned it down?


the evidence you look for is all around you in creation!

Can you be more specific please?


Not to mention the fact that there is much more evidence awaiting you after you have entered the relationship.

How can one believe in the existance of the Christian deities without the deities first producing the evidence? That would be like saying that one must first believe in the existance of Santa Clause, only then will Santa Clause provide evidence. This is impossible.

[SwiftSleigh7]

So you believe there is a supernatural entity called the Holy Ghost,

The Holy Spirit is part of the Tri-United Godhead: Christ the Son; God the Father; and the Holy Spirit.


and this entity communicated with those 3 billion non-Christians, and they told the entity that they were not interested? And what was the method of communication? Was it through sound waves or telepathically or something else?

It was through spiritual means... you have a spirit and it is in contact with God's spirit right now as we speak. You are engaged in a spiritual battle. Your intellect is a part of your will that is seeking to ignore the exigencies of the Holy Spirit. But don't let your mind and your emotions and your will ruin your opportunity of knowing the living God. For God is Spirit and those who come to him must worship him in spirit and truth.


So if we were to ask those 3 billion non-Christians if they were contacted by the Holy Ghost, they would say that indeed the Holy Ghost made contact with them and they turned it down?

I would never presume to speak for anyone else. They may make as many rationalizations as you have made, or none at all. They may live sensually. They may ignore the spiritual side of their lives entirely. Or they may choose to embrace another form of spirituality. How that affects their ultimate destiny only God can say. Judge not lest ye be not judged.




As for creation, and your question for specifics... imagine the lowly caterpillar who crawls and crawls until it is time to cocoon; the transformation that occurs is surely a symbolic representation of the ultimate spiritual freedom that Christians may one day receive through a personal relationship with God through Christ Jesus. This is only one example of the creation's messages many of which are abundantly clear.



How can one believe in the existance of the Christian deities without the deities first producing the evidence? That would be like saying that one must first believe in the existance of Santa Clause, only then will Santa Clause provide evidence. This is impossible.

God is the God of the Impossible. Nothing is impossible with God. Everything from the miracle of birth and nature attests to His Reality.

[Asian-American]

Thanks for the discussion, I enjoyed it :D

[kilted exile]

So you follow the Liberal moral system which dictates that falsehoods should be perpetuated if exposing the fraud would end up with people being offended. Would you then support criminals because opposing them may hurt their feelings?

You have no idea about my political leanings, I am not liberal (however, I have no problem with people who are), I am probably closest in definition to Socialist -though, Political discussion is not allowed here so I will not go into that. Also there is one huge difference between, allowing people to have faith in God and supporting criminals. A distinction that if you are unable/unwilling to see is not my problem.




I disagree: I support academic debating, see Your beliefs though seem to be one that embraces "feel good" thinking: if something feels good, it must be proper, but if it makes anyone upset, it must be bad. It's rather "feelgoodness" that should determine everything, not where the facts stand. This is a typical tenet of Liberalism.

So, am I to assume that you are in favour of making people feel like crap?




But based on your Liberal ideology, to "respect" someone's belief system, you must in fact capitulate to that person and deny your own beliefs, for doing otherwise would "offend" that person.

So, how do we define "respect"? I consider respect to be avoiding ad hominem attacks.

In this context, I take respect to mean "agree to disagree", allow people to have their beliefs, and not calling them stupid for having them.


Also, what do you mean by "thoughtful, generous, good natured" members? How are you defining these characterizations? And how do you quantitatively measure them?

I mean what I say, I have been a member of this forum for a little over a year now, and I feel I have gotten to know the personalities of the majority of the regular posters on this board. I stand by my description of them.




Incorrect. Valid statistics can be used to prove many thing. The key is to separate between valid statistics and those based on poor research.



Which again shows that one needs to separate between valid and poor statistics. I believe the IQ statistics are valid due 100 years of research on human intelligence, as well as decades of reseach on human behavior and personality.

Perhaps you would care to post the data sets to these statistics then & I will make a decision as to whether I agree/disagree with their validity




Proverbs is not the same thing as scientific research.

Yes, proverbs are different from scientific research, however, the scientific method for experimental research is based on the work of the philosopher Rene Descartes. Here are the 4 principles:

1) The first was never to accept anything as true that I did not know to be evidently so: that is to say, carefully to avoid precipitancy and prejudice, and to include in my judgements nothing more than what presented itself so clearly and so distinctly to my mind that I might have no occasion to place it in doubt.
2) The second, to divide each of the difficulties that I was examining into as many parts as might be possible and necessary in order best to solve it.
3) The third, to conduct my thoughts in an orderly way, beginning with the simplest objects and the easiest to know, in order to climb gradually, as by degrees, as far as the knowledge of the most complex, and even supposing some order among those objects which do not precede each other naturally.
4) And the last, everywhere to make such complete enumerations and such general reviews that I would be sure to have omitted nothing.

[Asian-American]

[ . . . ]

Thanks for sharing your perspective with me.

Regards :D

[crisaor]

Interesting point. Yes, the author, John Bryant, did state his argument in absolute terms. So, I will reject his absolutism, while at the same time holding his overall arguments as valid at least at the present moment, until alternate evidence is shown to debunk his claims.
So, you just take for granted a theory which from the start is presented in an unadequate way (in absolute terms) until something better comes up? How scientific is that? Wouldn't it be wiser to revise it itstead of proclaiming its validity?

Well, let me get philosophical: I believe no one can know absolute truth. So, we have to pick ways of making sense of the world in order to advance. To me, "truth" is limited to what can be deduced by logic and the scientific method. As such, since there is no scientific evidence for deities, souls, Hell, Heaven, and the like, I do not accept them as "truth." Plus, John Bryant and John Hartung have shown how many of the claims of mainstream religions are false in the scientific sense, though not necessarily in the philosophical sense.
Good. It's nice to see some philosophical thoughts. First of all, let me clarify, just as you consider truth to be that which can be deduced by logic and scientific method, there are people who consider it to be that which comes from (a) God, or who approach it by their personal experiences. It should be clear that neither of these ones is above the others. Just as religion doesn't satisfy the concepts in your mind (and it's not supposed to do so, BTW), neither does logic or science satisfy those of another person. Furthermore, the mere reference to the names John Bryant or John Hartung (which I'm not familiar with) don't qualify as evidence, not in the least.
Also, let me ask you, why do you post about scientific matters in a literature forum? I'm sure you would get much more feedback in a science forum or the like.

[Asian-American]

[ . . . ]

Thanks for sharing your views with me :D

[Loki]

Just as religion doesn't satisfy the concepts in your mind (and it's not supposed to do so, BTW), neither does logic or science satisfy those of another person. Furthermore, the mere reference to the names John Bryant or John Hartung (which I'm not familiar with) don't qualify as evidence, not in the least.

True - references to names cannot be called evidence. But that is not logic or science. What is put forth in a theory is science - the mere name of an author isn't. Scientific theories satisfy us because they are either coherent to other proven theories or proven themselves.

[subterranean]

Since religion requires no evidence, everything is fair game. Your parents may very well have been tree worshippers and you would now be proclaiming the abosute truth of the Tree Gods.

Seconded



Accordingly, we cite below what we view as twelve compelling reasons why a rational person must regard religion as false.

What if rational people choose to be irrational?... I guess it'll be just like you can fall on to you knees or got jealouse without any clear caused when you're in love with someone

[blp]

definition of an idiot:



Oh well. So much for avoiding ad hominem attacks.

Nice use of the word 'miscibility'.

AA, your smile as you politely tell everyone how much you enjoyed their views is looking increasingly strained. Frankly, mine would be too. The Holy Spirit is not talking to me, but thinking is like a massage.

[FFlyer]

It sounds a good article indeed. I will take time to read through it.
Thanks for sharing.

[Pendragon]

Look Guys. As those who have conversed with me know, I am "The Great Questioner." I am quite comfortable in my relationship with God. But would it hurt you to at least read the article posted by AA before getting so defensive about your own stand? If you are sure of your stand, the article will not change it, and will allow you to see someone else's point of view. The old Indian proverb my gramother (who was half Cherokee) always would say: Never judge a man until you have walked a mile in his moccasins. A little knowledge of the other man's views never hurt anyone who is sure of his own.