Faith is Born from Fear

[Rikurzhen]

And I know plenty of Atheists and Liberals who believe Astrology is Scientific

Did you make this up yourself?

Or did you find it on one of your extreme rightwing Christian websites?

Either way you dare not provide the link because it will expose that you are not an atheist.

That's a GSS produced graph. You can go and produce it yourself. General Social Survey. Their database is web accessable. You choose the factors and out pops your graph. Or you can go read social science literature which looked at this issue.

In other words it is nothing but the opinion of a single person who put together something to suit his partisan purposes. It has never even been peer reviewed let alone published. No wonder you were too ashamed to provide the source.

Your credibility is going negative.

You moron! The General Social Survey is run by the University of Michigan and it polls tens of thousands of people for their EXTENSIVE views on all sorts of subjects. The GSS database forms the basis for much of what we know in social science. This program has been running for decades.

You are one stupid fucking woman. I gave you the source, you can go and duplicate that very graph yourself.

The data that is polled is not the issue, dullard. They fact that the results were compiled by a single person with a partisan agenda to reflect something that has never been peer reviewed or published is the issue.

Obviously you know nothing at all about how polling works and how the questions can influence the outcome and how the data can be skewed to suit the ends of the person compiling the data.

Without peer review or publication you might as well have pulled that out of your nether regions.

You moron!. The General Social Survey is not one person with a partisan agenda, it's hundreds of people all working for the University of Michigan, social scientists, people who TEACH survey methods.

You slinging lingo around is like a monkey flinging his poo. A poll result doesn't go through peer review.

BZZZT Wrong again!

You provided a link to the author of the unpublished, unreviewed paper.

The data stands alone. YOU can go to the GSS website and duplicate it.

The Washington Post did stories on Democrats believing in Astrology. Mother Jones did their own reports. It's all over the web. The database is free for the public to use. Go do it yourself.

Heck, here's The Texas Public Policy Foundation writing about it and referencing Mother Jones and they used the GSS database and create the same damn graph I created:

This is indeed a worrying trend. It’s also an example of how the standard liberal stereotype of conservatives as “anti-science” isn’t really accurate. Using data from the General Social Survey, I looked at how a person’s political ideology (POLVIEWS) correlated with whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement that “astrology has some scientific truth” (SCITEST3). Liberals were more likely than conservatives to think that astrology definitely had some merit, with the difference being particularly pronounced among those considering themselves “extremely liberal” and “extremely conservative” (self-described moderates, who I’ve excluded here, also had more pro-astrology views).​

He gives you the question ID so you can replicate the graph yourself. Punch in POLVIEWS and SCITEST3 and boom you get the same graph.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Pogo already debunked your baseless allegations.

Do hyphenated-Americans contribute to racism Page 6 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

#180

So now you're an idiot.

Actually the links are to Google Books, where the originals may be read. That's not plagiarism; those are called "quotes". That's why the titles and authors are specified, and even linked. The translations are mine.

Might you have a point coming sometime soon or what?

That you are too dullwitted to comprehend that you are making an allegation that you cannot substantiate is not my problem.

So you can't substantiate the accusation is what you're saying. Come one, click on her 4 links and find where she lifted the text. Those links to Google books only provide the French text, not the commentary.

You have the 5 links. C/P any text "she wrote" and see if you can find it in the links. You can find it on the Nazi website though and the Nazi website is NOT included in her 5 links.

Pogo debunked your drivel to the satisfaction of posters who actually have credibility around here.

Throwing a hissyfit because you made a fool of yourself is not my problem.

So you're going to stand on your ignorance rather than take the opportunity to try to win your first argument against me by SHOWING ME the link from which she copied the plagiarized text. I'm handing your the sword, use it. SHOW ME which link has the text.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The data stands alone. YOU can go to the GSS website and duplicate it.

The Washington Post did stories on Democrats believing in Astrology. Mother Jones did their own reports. It's all over the web. The database is free for the public to use. Go do it yourself.

Heck, here's The Texas Public Policy Foundation writing about it and referencing Mother Jones and they used the GSS database and create the same damn graph I created:

This is indeed a worrying trend. It’s also an example of how the standard liberal stereotype of conservatives as “anti-science” isn’t really accurate. Using data from the General Social Survey, I looked at how a person’s political ideology (POLVIEWS) correlated with whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement that “astrology has some scientific truth” (SCITEST3). Liberals were more likely than conservatives to think that astrology definitely had some merit, with the difference being particularly pronounced among those considering themselves “extremely liberal” and “extremely conservative” (self-described moderates, who I’ve excluded here, also had more pro-astrology views).​

He gives you the question ID so you can replicate the graph yourself. Punch in POLVIEWS and SCITEST3 and boom you get the same graph.

You just PROVED that you are a partisan hack!

Texas Public Policy Foundation - SourceWatch

The Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) is a conservative think tank founded in 1989 by James R. Leininger. It is a member of the right-wing State Policy Network (SPN) and is based in Austin, Texas. It has ties to Texas Governor and former presidential candidate Rick Perry, Ted Cruz, and many other powerful politicians.[1]

According to the TPPF's website, its mission "is to promote and defend liberty, personal responsibility, and free enterprise in Texas and the nation by educating and affecting policymakers and the Texas public policy debate with academically sound research and outreach."[2]

But according to critics, TPPF's research and advocacy is influenced by donations from a relatively small group of major corporations. Craig McDonald, director of Texans for Public Justice, told the Texas Observer, “Most think tanks work for their funders and TPPF’s donors are a Who’s Who of Texas polluters, giant utilities and big insurance companies. TPPF is thinking the way its donors want it to think.”[1]

Over $3.3 Million in Koch Funding
According to a November 2013 report by Progress Texas and the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD), over the past few years TPPF "has received at least $3,314,591 from the billionaire Koch brothers or the organizations they support." This includes $733,333 received from the Koch family foundations and from Koch Industries, and $2,581,258 from the Donors Trust & Donors Capital Fund.[4] TPPF also "received nearly $300,000 from the Searle Freedom Trust between 2007 to 2011."[4]

Negative credibility really suits you!

 

[Rikurzhen]

The data stands alone. YOU can go to the GSS website and duplicate it.

The Washington Post did stories on Democrats believing in Astrology. Mother Jones did their own reports. It's all over the web. The database is free for the public to use. Go do it yourself.

Heck, here's The Texas Public Policy Foundation writing about it and referencing Mother Jones and they used the GSS database and create the same damn graph I created:

This is indeed a worrying trend. It’s also an example of how the standard liberal stereotype of conservatives as “anti-science” isn’t really accurate. Using data from the General Social Survey, I looked at how a person’s political ideology (POLVIEWS) correlated with whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement that “astrology has some scientific truth” (SCITEST3). Liberals were more likely than conservatives to think that astrology definitely had some merit, with the difference being particularly pronounced among those considering themselves “extremely liberal” and “extremely conservative” (self-described moderates, who I’ve excluded here, also had more pro-astrology views).​

He gives you the question ID so you can replicate the graph yourself. Punch in POLVIEWS and SCITEST3 and boom you get the same graph.

You just PROVED that you are a partisan hack!

Texas Public Policy Foundation - SourceWatch

The Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) is a conservative think tank founded in 1989 by James R. Leininger. It is a member of the right-wing State Policy Network (SPN) and is based in Austin, Texas. It has ties to Texas Governor and former presidential candidate Rick Perry, Ted Cruz, and many other powerful politicians.[1]

According to the TPPF's website, its mission "is to promote and defend liberty, personal responsibility, and free enterprise in Texas and the nation by educating and affecting policymakers and the Texas public policy debate with academically sound research and outreach."[2]

But according to critics, TPPF's research and advocacy is influenced by donations from a relatively small group of major corporations. Craig McDonald, director of Texans for Public Justice, told the Texas Observer, “Most think tanks work for their funders and TPPF’s donors are a Who’s Who of Texas polluters, giant utilities and big insurance companies. TPPF is thinking the way its donors want it to think.”[1]

Over $3.3 Million in Koch Funding
According to a November 2013 report by Progress Texas and the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD), over the past few years TPPF "has received at least $3,314,591 from the billionaire Koch brothers or the organizations they support." This includes $733,333 received from the Koch family foundations and from Koch Industries, and $2,581,258 from the Donors Trust & Donors Capital Fund.[4] TPPF also "received nearly $300,000 from the Searle Freedom Trust between 2007 to 2011."[4]

Negative credibility really suits you!

You fucking moron. Do you even understand how much of a moron you are? If Rick Perry told an audience that Barack Obama is President that doesn't mean that he's telling a lie. Anyone, Mother Jones or Texas Public Policy Institute, or YOU, can go to the GSS website, input the variables and output the poll results plus graph.

You've invested some time in looking for the political slant of the Texas Public Policy Institute, so why don't you invest the same amount of time and go and PRODUCE THAT GRAPH YOURSELF?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Your epic failure to produce anything credible is your problem, lackwit.

Feel free to throw hissyfits, temper tantrums and your own feces but it won't alter the fact that you have destroyed your own credibility in record time.

You failed to prove that Pogo was a plagiarist, you failed to prove your ludicrous "Religion of Liberalism", you failed to establish that you are an "atheist" and you have failed to produce any credible substantiation for your BS allegations.

You must be really proud of yourself to have achieved so little with so much effort.

Now I am going to leave you to sulk and pout and play with yourself because it patently obvious that you are unqualified to engage in adult debates.

Have a nice day.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Your epic failure to produce anything credible is your problem, lackwit.

Feel free to throw hissyfits, temper tantrums and your own feces but it won't alter the fact that you have destroyed your own credibility in record time.

You failed to prove that Pogo was a plagiarist, you failed to prove your ludicrous "Religion of Liberalism", you failed to establish that you are an "atheist" and you have failed to produce any credible substantiation for your BS allegations.

You must be really proud of yourself to have achieved so little with so much effort.

Now I am going to leave you to sulk and pout and play with yourself because it patently obvious that you are unqualified to engage in adult debates.

Have a nice day.

You're having some trouble with the concept of failure to prove. My being unable to force you to think doesn't equate to my failing to prove.

The evidence is there. My positions are proven. Your strategy is obvious to us all and don't think that people who have been reading along don't see your strategy.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Your epic failure to produce anything credible is your problem, lackwit.

Feel free to throw hissyfits, temper tantrums and your own feces but it won't alter the fact that you have destroyed your own credibility in record time.

You failed to prove that Pogo was a plagiarist, you failed to prove your ludicrous "Religion of Liberalism", you failed to establish that you are an "atheist" and you have failed to produce any credible substantiation for your BS allegations.

You must be really proud of yourself to have achieved so little with so much effort.

Now I am going to leave you to sulk and pout and play with yourself because it patently obvious that you are unqualified to engage in adult debates.

Have a nice day.

You're having some trouble with the concept of failure to prove. My being unable to force you to think doesn't equate to my failing to prove.

The evidence is there. My positions are proven. Your strategy is obvious to us all and don't think that people who have been reading along don't see your strategy.

 

[Casjah]

Ad hom attacks are tools uneducated, embittered individuals use to debate with, and it is similar to monkeys throwing their poop in frustrated protest. By all means, continue to insult people instead of debating. It shows your defeat like a white flag.. I accept your surrender.

Does your ad hom attack indicate that you are talking about yourself in this paragraph?

I use personal attacks to make points, not because I am stupid. Unfortunately, you don't get that because you use them because you are stupid.

Yes, you did. I even quoted it. You may have mis-typed.. but you did write exactly that.

Then feel free to post it and prove that is what I said.

Alternatively, you can simply take Holly's debate methods to heart and declare I said something I didn't, and use that claim to declare yourself the victor.

^ I can keep providing sources, and you will continue to ignore them and stomp your feet in angry protest.

That would be a real point if it wasn't an ad hom attack used by an
uneducated, embittered individual.

Your words, not mine.

That said, no one has yet provided a single source that is in any way relevant to the challenge I issued. All you have done is talk about side issues that are, at best, diversions. The fact that you think I am stupid enough to be convinced of something totally irrelevant because you know about neurotransmitters shows that you really are a uneducated, embittered individual.

People's sad attempt at glorifying humanity- making it isolated from the rest of nature- is why the world is in its current pathetic state. People are so desperate to feel special and unique that they find comfort in exclusivity. Ironically, this mentality is what makes us most like the primates we evolved from. Go figure.

Huh? Arguing with the voices in your head again? Where did I glorify anything? What I did was challenge the claim that all animals are afraid of the unknown. So far, all you have managed to do is prove that you don't know what you are talking about.

I have thus far provided three sources addressing this issue- sources I know full well you have no intention of considering or even examining. So how about this..? YOU provide a source proving that humans are unique from the rest of the animal kingdom. Show that we have neurotransmitters other animals do not. Prove that humans are so unique that we are disconnected from nature. You can’t. And you won’t.

You provided a source that shows that all animals have neurotransmitters. In case you don't know what that means, that means all animals have chemicals in their brains. Believe it or not, I already know that. That does not prove those chemicals equate to a fear of the unknown.

Want me to explain why your other sources are equally irrelvant to the challenge?

You have been the only one in this discussion to insult others. I have merely pointed out your own behavior. If you interpreted a general statement I made about uneducated, embittered individuals to mean you, I can see why.. but still no personal attack. Instead, I made a general statement about people who use insults to make a point.

No sources of your own, I see. The fact that human brains are more advanced than that of Other animals doesn't mean that the basic fear response is not the same. Your denial of this fact is amusing to me.. that is all.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You have been the only one in this discussion to insult others. I have merely pointed out your own behavior. If you interpreted a general statement I made about uneducated, embittered individuals to mean you, I can see why.. but still no personal attack. Instead, I made a general statement about people who use insults to make a point.

That was funny.

No sources of your own, I see. The fact that human brains are more advanced than that of Other animals doesn't mean that the basic fear response is not the same. Your denial of this fact is amusing to me.. that is all.

Why do I need a source when I am challenging you to back up something you said and you have failed to do so?

 

[the_human_being]

It has been said by many Christians that one of the primary reasons for someone being an atheist and saying that they don't believe is because they don't want to believe. They don't want to ask the hard question "What if I'm wrong?" because they can't accept the implications of that questioning. They claim that we as atheists take the easy way out but I argue that it is just the opposite. Christians downright refuse to humor any kind of questioning when it comes to their belief. They refuse to look inside themselves and ask "What if there is no God?" because they are terrified of the implications of that question. They claim we are afraid of hell but in fact it is they who are afraid of oblivion. Of nonexistence. Understandably so. The idea of ceasing to exist is unpleasant to say the least. That is why being an atheist is far from the easy way out.

As an atheist you look that unpleasant reality in the face, swallow your fear and accept it and live your life to its fullest. Being a Christian is a way of ignoring the fact that the world is an unpleasant and often unjust place where some people live their whole lives in despair before their flame of consciousness goes out forever. This world can be cruel and unfair but as atheists we accept that it's the only one we are ever going to get and that motivates us to fight our hardest to make it a better and brighter one. For our sake and for the sake of our children. We don't turn away from reality and turn a wishful eye to an afterlife that isn't going to happen.

I've seen a lot of posts but this one has to be the most stupid post I've ever seen. The OP has apparently failed to do any basic research at all upon the topic and instead appears as to only serving a very limited and extremely uninformed and biased agenda. For shame! Such tripe.

 

[Casjah]

You have been the only one in this discussion to insult others. I have merely pointed out your own behavior. If you interpreted a general statement I made about uneducated, embittered individuals to mean you, I can see why.. but still no personal attack. Instead, I made a general statement about people who use insults to make a point.

That was funny.

No sources of your own, I see. The fact that human brains are more advanced than that of Other animals doesn't mean that the basic fear response is not the same. Your denial of this fact is amusing to me.. that is all.

Why do I need a source when I am challenging you to back up something you said and you have failed to do so?

LOL Quantum Windbag indeed..

 

[AtheistBuddah]

It has been said by many Christians that one of the primary reasons for someone being an atheist and saying that they don't believe is because they don't want to believe. They don't want to ask the hard question "What if I'm wrong?" because they can't accept the implications of that questioning. They claim that we as atheists take the easy way out but I argue that it is just the opposite. Christians downright refuse to humor any kind of questioning when it comes to their belief. They refuse to look inside themselves and ask "What if there is no God?" because they are terrified of the implications of that question. They claim we are afraid of hell but in fact it is they who are afraid of oblivion. Of nonexistence. Understandably so. The idea of ceasing to exist is unpleasant to say the least. That is why being an atheist is far from the easy way out.

As an atheist you look that unpleasant reality in the face, swallow your fear and accept it and live your life to its fullest. Being a Christian is a way of ignoring the fact that the world is an unpleasant and often unjust place where some people live their whole lives in despair before their flame of consciousness goes out forever. This world can be cruel and unfair but as atheists we accept that it's the only one we are ever going to get and that motivates us to fight our hardest to make it a better and brighter one. For our sake and for the sake of our children. We don't turn away from reality and turn a wishful eye to an afterlife that isn't going to happen.

I've seen a lot of posts but this one has to be the most stupid post I've ever seen. The OP has apparently failed to do any basic research at all upon the topic and instead appears as to only serving a very limited and extremely uninformed and biased agenda. For shame! Such tripe.

Finger wagging is not an argument

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Finger wagging is not an argument

That was the point he made to you.