Let's hypothesize what a "god" actually is

[pacer]

I stand by my comments. Thank you.

 

[pacer]

Read the methodology and let's move along.

I honestly don't have time to read the individual methodology

Read the one at the link you provided.

 

[Tor Hershman]

What "god" and "satan" actually are, if they exist, are 100% pointlessness personified as this video proves.
For proof: just follow the vid's advice

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m6qC6FCiY0]Tor Hershman's "Chanting The Name Of The Turd" - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Boss]

Read the methodology and let's move along.

I honestly don't have time to read the individual methodology

Read the one at the link you provided.

Sorry, but the link I provided doesn't cover the methodology of each research. It says that some used "religiosity" as a criteria and others used "religious affiliation" etc. It was a combination of 900 research papers, 498 peer reviewed studies and 200 social studies, all of which have their own methodology, as all studies have. Together, they establish a clear correlation between religious people and overall happiness. Prevalence of drug abuse, alcoholism, depression and suicide are all higher in non-religious subject groups, regardless of the methodology used.

 

[pacer]

I honestly don't have time to read the individual methodology

Read the one at the link you provided.

Sorry, but the link I provided doesn't cover the methodology of each research.

It gives a general idea.

 

[pacer]

I honestly don't have time to read the individual methodology

Read the one at the link you provided.

Prevalence of drug abuse, alcoholism, depression and suicide are all higher in non-religious subject groups, regardless of the methodology used.

Alcoholism, drug abuse, etc. strikes anyone whether spiritual or not or religious or not.

 

[Tor Hershman]

Drug abuse, alcoholism, depression and suicide
what about
rape and murder?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLGJXo8gshg]LOL - Jesus Christ AntiChrist (music video) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Boss]

Read the one at the link you provided.

Sorry, but the link I provided doesn't cover the methodology of each research.

It gives a general idea.

How can it give a "general idea" of the various methodology used in 1500+ researches?

Religion and happiness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There's the link for anyone following who doesn't want to wade through 3-4 pages of pacer being an idiot. The ONLY place on the page where "methodology" is even mentioned, it says: The studies cited above test only correlation, as opposed to causation; they do not distinguish between various possible explanations.

That's basically saying, we don't know why religious people are less likely to be alcoholics or drug abusers, but they are. Could be a lot of different reasons for that, we're not looking at why. Well I have no problems with that, it doesn't refute what I said.

Read the one at the link you provided.

Prevalence of drug abuse, alcoholism, depression and suicide are all higher in non-religious subject groups, regardless of the methodology used.

Alcoholism, drug abuse, etc. strikes anyone whether spiritual or not or religious or not.

Again, I have never claimed otherwise. You apparently don't comprehend what "prevalence" means or something. When prevalence is higher it means it's more likely, not exclusive to. Yes, people who are religious also become addicted, also become alcoholics, also become depressed, also commit suicide. It's not as prevalent as it is in people who lack spiritual faith. That was my statement and goddammit, it's correct according to 1500+ researches. Now go have a big tall glass of STFU!

 

[pacer]

Again, I have never claimed otherwise. You apparently don't comprehend what "prevalence" means or something. When prevalence is higher it means it's more likely, not exclusive to.

Alcoholism, drug abuse, depression, etc. does not discriminate. 1500 studies showed the correlation between religiosity and happiness and mental well-being not the prevalence of alcoholism, drug abuse, depression, etc.

 

[daws101]

Are most scientist atheist

Seriously, dawsy? A site where ANYONE can sign up and post answers to questions? That's your empirical data? So much for any credibility you may have hoped for as a scientist!

why post any empirical data ? you don't.
besides when it is presented you dismiss it out of hand

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie


bylogos: How (Atheist) Scientists Lose Their Way
the second link is not empirical in any way. it is however a fine example of what you use as empirical evidence
em·pir·i·cal adjective \im-ˈpir-i-kəl\
: based on testing or experience

Full Definition of EMPIRICAL

1
: originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>
2
: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory <an empirical basis for the theory>
3
: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>

the last definition is why the crap you present is not science.

 

[daws101]

Where are your links to these studies dawsy?

where are yours?
don't call me dawsy
we are not friends and we never dated..
what if I CALL YOU BOSSY you're so full of shit you must be bovine.

Oh, I posted mine. You know, back where I schooled that ass on social disease in maggots like you with 498 peer reviewed studies, 200 social studies and 900 scientific papers, all confirming what I said.

you schooled no one your insistence that you did or do is again rock solid proof of you vanity

Vanity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Vainglory" redirects here. For the Old English poem, see Vainglory (Old English poem). For the style of artwork, see Vanitas. For other uses, see Vanity (disambiguation).
In conventional parlance, vanity is the excessive belief in one's own abilities or attractiveness to others. Prior to the 14th century it did not have such narcissistic undertones, and merely meant futility.[1] The related term vainglory is now often seen as an archaic synonym for vanity, but originally meant boasting in vain, i.e. unjustified boasting;[2] although glory is now seen as having an exclusively positive meaning, the Latin term gloria (from which it derives) roughly means boasting, and was often used as a negative criticism.[3]

 

[daws101]

so how is bronze age monk doing?

desperation mode engaged ,captain Vox"!
"it's having no effect sir"

dawsy, don't whine. you are always wrong, so it's time you should get used to when you are being handed your ass

another false assumption.you making it' makes you wrong .
since you make that false accusation constantly you prove yourself to be wrong far more often then I am..
also, never admitting to being wrong, another behavior you engage in continuously, strengthens my point even further..

 

[daws101]

Wrong. I posted a link the other day. It's around 50%. It might not be comfortable to your faith but life is like that.

I have no "faith", you want fires with that?

You mean fries? 98% is what you want to believe, therefore it's true. That's faith.

nope fires ...no 98% is fact believing it or not believing it changes nothing ..it's still fact....

 

[Boss]

Again, I have never claimed otherwise. You apparently don't comprehend what "prevalence" means or something. When prevalence is higher it means it's more likely, not exclusive to.

Alcoholism, drug abuse, depression, etc. does not discriminate. 1500 studies showed the correlation between religiosity and happiness and mental well-being not the prevalence of alcoholism, drug abuse, depression, etc.

Yes, all of the studies show the prevalence is higher in those who lack religious faith. Sorry, that's what the studies all indicated. General happiness is higher in those with religious faith. Again, sorry... that's what the studies all say. Suicide and depression is higher in those without religious faith, probably because they are not as happy... no determination was made on causation. Could be, people who have religious faith spend too much time doing God's work to get drunk and high? Could be, people who lack faith don't see anything wrong with getting drunk and high all the time and hence, become addicted more? The cause was not studied, only the correlation.

But now I have spent two days arguing with you about this, and you just won't shut up. You want to insist that 1500+ studies are wrong or that I am somehow misleading people. I posted the link to the webpage, people can judge for themselves. As I correctly stated, the prevalence of drug abuse, alcoholism, depression, suicide, and general unhappiness, is greater in those who lack spiritual faith and less in those who regularly practice religious faith. If you want to live in denial about the facts, that's up to you, but you're not going to sit here and call me a liar or make outrageous claims that I've said something else.

 

[Boss]

you schooled no one your insistence that you did or do is again rock solid proof of you vanity

Yes I did, daws... I schooled you, and everyone here can read it for themselves. You called "bullshit" when I stated that studies show higher prevalence of drug abuse and alcoholism in those who lack spiritual faith. You demanded proof, so I showed you where over 1,500 studies had concluded it, some of them, peer reviewed and published in science journals. Your little ass lover, pacer has spent the last two days demagoguing and filibustering, and generally making a fool of himself over it. But the studies were posted to back up what I said in spades. You LOSE fucker!

the second link is not empirical in any way. it is however a fine example of what you use as empirical evidence

I didn't ask for "empirical data" and I've never claimed to present "empirical data" here. I simply asked you to back up your loudmouth claim that 98% of scientists are Atheists, and you have failed to do that. You posted an "answers" website where anyone can log in and post their opinionated answers. There is not a thing there to corroborate or back up anything that is stated. It's pure conjecture. I think you're full of shit and judging by the board, I'm not alone.

 

[pacer]

Yes, all of the studies show the prevalence is higher in those who lack religious faith. Sorry, that's what the studies all indicated. General happiness is higher in those with religious faith. Again, sorry... that's what the studies all say. Suicide and depression is higher in those without religious faith, probably because they are not as happy... no determination was made on causation. Could be, people who have religious faith spend too much time doing God's work to get drunk and high? Could be, people who lack faith don't see anything wrong with getting drunk and high all the time and hence, become addicted more? The cause was not studied, only the correlation.

But now I have spent two days arguing with you about this, and you just won't shut up. You want to insist that 1500+ studies are wrong or that I am somehow misleading people. I posted the link to the webpage, people can judge for themselves. As I correctly stated, the prevalence of drug abuse, alcoholism, depression, suicide, and general unhappiness, is greater in those who lack spiritual faith and less in those who regularly practice religious faith. If you want to live in denial about the facts, that's up to you, but you're not going to sit here and call me a liar or make outrageous claims that I've said something else.

A large majority of the studies concluded that "higher levels of religious involvement are positively associated with indicators of psychological well-being", etc. "The studies cited...test only correlation, as opposed to causation." You cannot ignore the methodology and read whatever you please into these studies. The purpose of the studies was to determine the correlation between religiosity and happiness. These studies have nothing to do with determining the prevalence of alcoholism, etc., in general, amongst religious vs non-religious groups. Addictions, mental illness, etc. can afflict anyone.

 

[daws101]

you schooled no one your insistence that you did or do is again rock solid proof of you vanity

Yes I did, daws... I schooled you, and everyone here can read it for themselves. You called "bullshit" when I stated that studies show higher prevalence of drug abuse and alcoholism in those who lack spiritual faith. You demanded proof, so I showed you where over 1,500 studies had concluded it, some of them, peer reviewed and published in science journals. Your little ass lover, pacer has spent the last two days demagoguing and filibustering, and generally making a fool of himself over it. But the studies were posted to back up what I said in spades. You LOSE fucker!

the second link is not empirical in any way. it is however a fine example of what you use as empirical evidence

I didn't ask for "empirical data" and I've never claimed to present "empirical data" here. I simply asked you to back up your loudmouth claim that 98% of scientists are Atheists, and you have failed to do that. You posted an "answers" website where anyone can log in and post their opinionated answers. There is not a thing there to corroborate or back up anything that is stated. It's pure conjecture. I think you're full of shit and judging by the board, I'm not alone.

keep dreaming! .

 

[Boss]

Yes, all of the studies show the prevalence is higher in those who lack religious faith. Sorry, that's what the studies all indicated. General happiness is higher in those with religious faith. Again, sorry... that's what the studies all say. Suicide and depression is higher in those without religious faith, probably because they are not as happy... no determination was made on causation. Could be, people who have religious faith spend too much time doing God's work to get drunk and high? Could be, people who lack faith don't see anything wrong with getting drunk and high all the time and hence, become addicted more? The cause was not studied, only the correlation.

But now I have spent two days arguing with you about this, and you just won't shut up. You want to insist that 1500+ studies are wrong or that I am somehow misleading people. I posted the link to the webpage, people can judge for themselves. As I correctly stated, the prevalence of drug abuse, alcoholism, depression, suicide, and general unhappiness, is greater in those who lack spiritual faith and less in those who regularly practice religious faith. If you want to live in denial about the facts, that's up to you, but you're not going to sit here and call me a liar or make outrageous claims that I've said something else.

A large majority of the studies concluded that "higher levels of religious involvement are positively associated with indicators of psychological well-being", etc. "The studies cited...test only correlation, as opposed to causation." You cannot ignore the methodology and read whatever you please into these studies. The purpose of the studies was to determine the correlation between religiosity and happiness. These studies have nothing to do with determining the prevalence of alcoholism, etc., in general, amongst religious vs non-religious groups. Addictions, mental illness, etc. can afflict anyone.

Yes they do. That's exactly what they studied. No one has stated that these things can't afflict anyone, where are you getting that? The studies only conclude there is a higher prevalence in non-religious people, it doesn't determine why that is the case (causation).

I don't even think your moron ass is capable of understanding what some of these words mean. I really do think you are so retarded you can't comprehend the English language as written.

 

[daws101]

'Spiritual' young people more likely to commit crimes than 'religious' ones -- ScienceDaily

 

[pacer]

The studies only conclude there is a higher prevalence in non-religious people, it doesn't determine why that is the case (causation).

Nowhere does it state alcoholism, etc. is more prevalent, etc.