Proof the Bible is Garbage?

[HeavenSent]

Here's a compiliation of the TRUTH.

"Do you believe in fate Neo?"

"No."

"Why not?"

"Because I don't like the idea that I'm not in control of my life."

"I know exactly what you mean. Let me tell you why you're here: You're here because you know something. What you know you can't explain. But you feel it. You felt it your entire life. Something's wrong with the world. You don't know what it is but you've felt it your entire life. But it's there, like a splinter in your mind... driving you mad. It is this feeling that has brought you to me. Do you know what I'm talking about?"

"The Matrix?"

"Do you want to know... what it is?"

Neo nods his head..

"The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window, or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work. When you go to church. When you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth."

"What truth?"

"That you are a slave Neo. Like everyone else you were born into bondage. Born into a prison that you can not smell or taste or touch. A prison for your mind."

Etc.... or keep your fucking head in the sand!

1 http://www.youtube.com/v/amLDfAMnLVc&rel=1
2 http://www.youtube.com/v/hYtilJfbsmU&rel=1
3 http://www.youtube.com/v/FcDzibKKjGM&rel=1
4 http://www.youtube.com/v/A53T-TNMLX8&rel=1
5 http://www.youtube.com/v/aSaihY5Qug8&rel=1
6 http://www.youtube.com/v/0whAiOwm6rs&rel=1
7 http://www.youtube.com/v/JW05VtXl5ps&rel=1
8 http://www.youtube.com/v/zHEGfHbJ8Tg&rel=1
9 http://www.youtube.com/v/7twsUV44Qrw&rel=1
10 http://www.youtube.com/v/VCASbot-ktw&rel=1
11 http://www.youtube.com/v/H1OKbUqITyA&rel=1
12 http://www.youtube.com/v/o5_86aCPU-c&rel=1
13 http://www.youtube.com/v/VODFQcueQg4&rel=1
14 http://www.youtube.com/v/0UVEyfLD3ds&rel=1
15 http://www.youtube.com/v/l3tjNPIWeTw&rel=1
16 http://www.youtube.com/v/21zoi4nCWTo&rel=1
17 http://www.youtube.com/v/oCV1QIgOUH0&rel=1
18 http://www.youtube.com/v/eaAmK6sBRwQ&rel=1
19 http://www.youtube.com/v/cl_IcGrvDgo&rel=1
20 http://www.youtube.com/v/AlweWvb3-lQ&rel=1
21 http://www.youtube.com/v/YeqYZPqjhx8&rel=1
22 http://www.youtube.com/v/pJMJBy35-4Q&rel=1
23 http://www.youtube.com/v/tcF1jOXJoJs&rel=1
24 http://www.youtube.com/v/EnAHyMHZWBY&rel=1
25 http://www.youtube.com/v/uyDvDoImkFI&rel=1
26 http://www.youtube.com/v/1dp6PuT_eH4&rel=1
27 http://www.youtube.com/v/jZY7HGulzog&rel=1
28 http://www.youtube.com/v/QDnc40M49SM&rel=1
29 http://www.youtube.com/v/gCtpX5sXeB0&rel=1
30 http://www.youtube.com/v/UhHIS3l2W1c&rel=1
31 http://www.youtube.com/v/bCIv52uTshU&rel=1

[genocidal]

Please ban him for re-posting stupid shit he finds on the internet. He's ruining two threads (well they were ruined anyway, but you know).

[HeavenSent]

Muh HAHA HAaaa! :lol:

[Tone]

son Of A Fucking Bitch, The Link I Posted In The First Post Was Dead All This Time, Hold On While I Fix The Link And Post It


http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...098752165#9m1s

[HeavenSent]

He wasn't threatening you, he was saying stating his opinion about bashing religion. If he were threatening you he would have said something like this:

To which i later replied to Facetious... that I was being facetious. But heavens no... let's just leave that part of it out... cause it works better for my case AGAINST you. <_<

[MetalHeadz]

son Of A Fucking Bitch, The Link I Posted In The First Post Was Dead All This Time, Hold On While I Fix The Link And Post It


http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...098752165#9m1s

funny how no one noticed

[MetalHeadz]

He wasn't threatening you, he was saying stating his opinion about bashing religion. If he were threatening you he would have said something like this:

I'm not going to get into an argument about what he said. I understood it to be different to you, obviously.

Not specifically, but it is irritating.

It's irritating? Jesus, my grammar is usually exemplary. More to the point, why are you on a forum if you find grammatical errors irritating? They're made by everyone, all the time, including you.

Why? You don't like religious people and you think they are ignorant. If someone is making fun of the Bible then you would agree with them. I don't like putting words into your mouth but I'm just going on what you've been saying about Christians and Muslims.

Ok to clarify, a 'Biblebasher' is a term used to describe someone who worships and abides by the bible in a fundamental way. 'Basher' here connotes to 'masturbate' rather than to 'hate' or 'bully'.

The words "fuck" was strong? Jesus, man. Calling people "backward" is at best exceptionalist but in this case just ignorant. Again, I don't want to get into a cultural argument but here is a good Bible lesson for you (and you don't even have to believe in God or the Bible to abide by it!):

I often use colourful language for controversy. But truly, if you really want to get into a debate about whether Islamic culture is backwards I could go get some statistics. It's definitely not an unfounded claim, but possibly a generalisation.

Well if you are so well read then you shouldn't be making obvious mistakes like this. They are an eye-sore.

Yawn, change the tune sunshine.

Yes, stigmazing is used improperly. Look it up.

It's fuckin' not.

Also, "great guy?" Here is a quote from you about "backward" people.

You are racist and yet you believe backwards people are racist. Does that mean you're backwards as well?[/Rhetorical Question]

No, it means I use racism to look cool on a forum: but I wouldn't kill someone on the grounds of their race, or judge them (consciously) any differently. See Kurds, Shi'as, Sunnis - Iraq.

Jesus Christ you're an idiot. I know you hate religion. I used the plural "you" to make a point about your retarded statement that everyone has to have "unwarranted respect" for religion. Nobody is making you respect religion, and subsequently you don't.

You were using plural 'you'?

"Who says you have to have "unwarranted respect" for religion? You clearly don't and nobody cares because your opinion is worth less than 70 year old prostitute."

So what, the first 'you' references everyone but the second 'you' just references me? The inital usage of 'you' is clearly singular as is the second. Stop lying cunt-rag.

I think you're confusing an invented taboo in your mind with people calling you on the stupid shit you spout to them about your ideas of correlations of Atheism with intelligence (I mean seriously, how does someone say something this stupid?). I don't know about your country but America is made up probably of only about 20% of religious people. Most people may identify as Christians and may go to church once in a while but definitely aren't the type of people you're making them out to be.

"In 1990, a study was published in MC2, the magazine of Mensa Canada which compared the religious beliefs of the members of Canadian Mensa against the general population of Canada. At the time of the most recent census to ask about religious preferences, 1981, 90.0% of the population declared themselves Christian, versus 53.9% of Canadian Mensa members at the time of the study in 1990."

"In a 2007 study conducted by intelligence researcher Helmuth Nyborg, it was estimated from a sample of 7,000 subjects that atheists' IQs were on average nearly 6 points higher than religious people." - http://danish.newsvine.com/_news/200...than-believers

You're wrong, there exists strong, calibrated correlations between religiosity with stupidity and atheism with intelligence. I've read A LOT of different books written by various different college professors and A LOT of different demographical reports which all point to the same conclusion.

I did not "set a note of linguistic criticism." I was making up a mock law based on your contradictory viewpoints to make a point, which obviously went over your head.

You didn't set a note of linguistic criticism?

*their
*you're
Stigmatizing is misused - you mean something along the lines of "pigeonholing." But I guess you knew that since you're "better read."

No, you're right - you didn't. I missed the point entirely, how amazingly intelligent you are.

[MetalHeadz]

Because if you think rationally, why the hell would we reproduce? There is nothing rational about us. We don't need to exist...

Because our desire to reproduce goes beyond rational thinking.

[genocidal]

I'm not going to get into an argument about what he said. I understood it to be different to you, obviously.

Fine.

It's irritating? Jesus, my grammar is usually exemplary. More to the point, why are you on a forum if you find grammatical errors irritating? They're made by everyone, all the time, including you.

No, I don't make mistakes.

Ok to clarify, a 'Biblebasher' is a term used to describe someone who worships and abides by the bible in a fundamental way. 'Basher' here connotes to 'masturbate' rather than to 'hate' or 'bully'.

Fair enough, a misunderstanding.

I often use colourful language for controversy. But truly, if you really want to get into a debate about whether Islamic culture is backwards I could go get some statistics. It's definitely not an unfounded claim, but possibly a generalisation.

Yeah, it is pretty unfounded. Islamic culture contributed more to mathematics, astronomy, and possibly even science (at least pre-20th century) than Westerners ever did. You think they're backwards because you hate religion - basically end of story.

Yawn, change the tune sunshine.

Yawn, don't make high school mistakes.

It's fuckin' not.

Okay, I guess you'll never see the awkwardness since your online thesaurus turned that word up. I'm not sure if English is your first language so I won't blame you for the lack of cadence.

No, it means I use racism to look cool on a forum

You're not doing a very good job of looking "cool." Racism doesn't make someone look cool - you're showing your age.

: but I wouldn't kill someone on the grounds of their race, or judge them (consciously) any differently. See Kurds, Shi'as, Sunnis - Iraq.

Oh, nevermind. You're not racist since you won't kill anyone. By the way, you've already judged them.

You were using plural 'you'?

Yes. Again, it's pretty obvious that English isn't your first language so I don't blame you for not following what I was saying (since "you" in English is a pretty tricky pronoun). I'll show you:

Who says you have to have "unwarranted respect" for religion? You clearly don't and nobody cares because your opinion is worth less than 70 year old prostitute.

The first "you" is plural, meaning it's interchangeable with "one." Thus the sentence could go like this: "Who says one has to have "unwarranted respect" for religion?" Get it?

Sentence two, and the bold "you," was about you, MetalHeadz. I was stating that you obviously don't respect religion and therefore are speaking proof of the fallacy in your statement, that is that "people must have unwarranted respect for religion in society."

So what, the first 'you' references everyone but the second 'you' just references me? The inital usage of 'you' is clearly singular as is the second. Stop lying cunt-rag.

Yes, you were right. And no, I wasn't lying. It was clear from my message what I meant, even though English isn't your first language.

"In 1990, a study was published in MC2, the magazine of Mensa Canada which compared the religious beliefs of the members of Canadian Mensa against the general population of Canada. At the time of the most recent census to ask about religious preferences, 1981, 90.0% of the population declared themselves Christian, versus 53.9% of Canadian Mensa members at the time of the study in 1990."

You're giving me a poll from some members of Mensa versus some members of the general population as proof? You need to take statistics to learn what these studies actually mean. They didn't poll either entire population, and in fact you didn't even say how many they did poll.

Also, it's a false comparison because the general population includes all people while Mensa is usually comprised of only smart people. Therefore, the general population statistics don't mean anything other than 90% of whoever they tested (they could be geniuses or mentally retarded, we don't know) identify as Christian. Given that 90% of the Canadian population doesn't identify as Christian, that alone is proof that the sample-size was no where near large enough to have any significant meaning for the entire population.

"In a 2007 study conducted by intelligence researcher Helmuth Nyborg, it was estimated from a sample of 7,000 subjects that atheists' IQs were on average nearly 6 points higher than religious people." - http://danish.newsvine.com/_news/200...than-believers

Are you fucking serious? The dude that did your "study" also concluded that white people are smarter than black people. This outdated degenerate lost his job over his stupid research that seems not to be respected by anyone. I can't believe you would cite that as evidence. That's a HeavenSent move.

You're wrong, there exists strong, calibrated correlations between religiosity with stupidity and atheism with intelligence. I've read A LOT of different books written by various different college professors and A LOT of different demographical reports which all point to the same conclusion.

Wow a LOT of books? By professors, too? Wow, I guess you're right man. Demographical reports? Wow, the same conclusion. You're not kidding anybody. Believe what you want but don't try to pawn this shit off as proof.

You didn't set a note of linguistic criticism?

No, because that doesn't mean anything in English. I don't know what it means in your native language but I wasn't criticizing your language (if that's even what you mean by your extremely awkward phrase). I was criticizing your IDEA that "there should be legislation forcing religious criticism on people."

No, you're right - you didn't. I missed the point entirely, how amazingly intelligent you are.

End.

[MetalHeadz]

Yeah, it is pretty unfounded. Islamic culture contributed more to mathematics, astronomy, and possibly even science (at least pre-20th century) than Westerners ever did. You think they're backwards because you hate religion - basically end of story.

Ok smarty pants, I'm talking about contemporary political culture here - not what some arab created in 800 CE. But even so, I'm quite puzzled as to your claim that Islamic culture has contributed more to mathematics and science than (as you so vaguely and may I add apathetically put it) 'Westerners', even pre-20th century. I sense this could be a can of worms but could you briefly give some evidence of such claims. Contributed more to science than Brown, Newton or Darwin? More to maths than Euler or Pythagoras? To name a few pre-20th Century 'Western' academics off the top of my head.

Okay, I guess you'll never see the awkwardness since your online thesaurus turned that word up. I'm not sure if English is your first language so I won't blame you for the lack of cadence.

Please, expain to me in grammatical terms how stigmatised is awkward in the context that I used it.

You're not doing a very good job of looking "cool." Racism doesn't make someone look cool - you're showing your age.

There's something in Britain called 'tongue in cheak' humour. It's more widely known as irony but some people don't get it. Don't worry yourself about it though.

Oh, nevermind. You're not racist since you won't kill anyone. By the way, you've already judged them.

I can make generalisations about a culture without asserting an actively discriminative approach to an individual. I could say, for example, that the Sudanese public are a less educated people, shown through statistics like literacy rates. This doesn't mean that I've judged everyone in Sudan - it means that I have recognised an aggregated trend.

Yes. Again, it's pretty obvious that English isn't your first language so I don't blame you for not following what I was saying (since "you" in English is a pretty tricky pronoun). I'll show you:

It is actually.

The first "you" is plural, meaning it's interchangeable with "one." Thus the sentence could go like this: "Who says one has to have "unwarranted
respect" for religion?" Get it?

I'll give you the pronoun argument because I misread the sentence initially. I didn't use such a strong auxiliary "must" though.

You're giving me a poll from some members of Mensa versus some members of the general population as proof? You need to take statistics to learn what these studies actually mean. They didn't poll either entire population, and in fact you didn't even say how many they did poll.

This was just to serve as an insight into the beliefs of the intellectually superior. They usually favour atheism. It's not telling of the whole public, but I'm sure you'll appreciate the worth of such statistics. Religion is definitely not the choice of philosophy for European and American academics.

Are you fucking serious? The dude that did your "study" also concluded that white people are smarter than black people. This outdated degenerate lost his job over his stupid research that seems not to be respected by anyone. I can't believe you would cite that as evidence. That's a HeavenSent move.

Ok, let's get the big guns out.

Isaac Asimov - "To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remans premature today."

Thomas Howell's Study - 1927
"Religious students are, in general, relatively inferior in intellectual ability"

Abraham Franzbalu Study - 1934
"...there is a negative correlation between religiosity and iQ"

Thomas Symington Test - 1935 (Studied church groups)
"There is a constant positive relation in all the groups between liberal religious thinking and mental ability...There is also a constant positive relation between liberal scores and intelligence."

Albert Einstein - "I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frality. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."

Brown and Love Study - 1951
The mean test scores of non-believers was 119 points and for believers it was 100. The non-belivers ranked in the 80th percentile, and the believers in the 50th.

Michael Argyle Study - 1958
"...although intelligent children grasp religious concepts earlier, they are also the first to doubt the truth of religion, and intelligent students are much less likely to accept orthodox beliefs."

C. Plant and E. Minium Study - 1967
The more intelligent students were less religious, both before entering college and after 2 years of college.

Norman Poythress Study - 1975
Mean SATs:
- Strongly anti-religious (1148)
- Moderately anti-religious (1119)
- Slightly anti-religious (1108)
- Religious (1022)

Wiebe and Fleck Study - 1980
"...nonreligious student's tended to be strongly intelligent" and "more intelligent than religious student's."

Ann Roe Study - 1953
Interviewed 64 "eminent scientists, nearly all members of the prestigious National Academy of Sceinces or the American Philosophical Society. She reported that, while nearly all of them had religious parents and had attended Sunday school, 'now only three of these men are seriously active in church. A few others attend upon occasion, or even give some financial support to a church which they do not attend...All the others have long since dsmissed religion."

Jack Chambers Study - 1964
Questionnaired 740 US pschologists and chemists. He reported, "The highly creative men...significantly more often show either no preference for a particular religion or little or no interest in religion."

I'd like to see a rebuke to these studies you fucking douche. Coincidently, there's not been much research recently in this area just because it's an accepted trend within the scientific community.

I challenge you to find me one study which gives an opposite conclusion.

No, because that doesn't mean anything in English. I don't know what it means in your native language but I wasn't criticizing your language (if that's even what you mean by your extremely awkward phrase). I was criticizing your IDEA that "there should be legislation forcing religious criticism on people."

You didn't understand 'linguistic criticism' and I'm apparently the non-native speaker of english?

I suggest you get a dictionary.

[Superted]

Abraham Franzbalu Study - 1934
"...there is a negative correlation between religiosity and iQ"

I admit I'll accept this study on Jewish 12-16 year olds, but a more recent study on a similar age range shows that there is "no evidence for a relationship, either positive or negative, between intelligence and religiosity." (Francis, 1998)

Thomas Symington Test - 1935 (Studied church groups)
"There is a constant positive relation in all the groups between liberal religious thinking and mental ability...There is also a constant positive relation between liberal scores and intelligence."

"Libreality in religious thought was found to be positively related to intelligence, amount of education [which is perhaps why they were deemed more intelligent], attendance at Sunday school, church membership."

I may have misread but that last bit suggests to me that those whom are more intelligent attend Sunday school and participate in the church more?

Wiebe and Fleck Study - 1980
"...nonreligious student's tended to be strongly intelligent" and "more intelligent than religious student's."

This study shows that the extrinsically religious and non-religious freshmen were different to religious freshmen in personality variables including superego strength, emotional sensitivuty and liberalism. I don't see anywhere (in the abstract) that mentions intelligence.

[MetalHeadz]

I admit I'll accept this study on Jewish 12-16 year olds, but a more recent study on a similar age range shows that there is "no evidence for a relationship, either positive or negative, between intelligence and religiosity." (Francis, 1998)

Could I have a link or reference so I could examine this claim.

"Libreality in religious thought was found to be positively related to intelligence, amount of education [which is perhaps why they were deemed more intelligent], attendance at Sunday school, church membership."

I may have misread but that last bit suggests to me that those whom are more intelligent attend Sunday school and participate in the church more?

I think you misread and misinterpreted. The conclusions found by Symington were that of people who do attend church, it was the more liberal (rather than the conservative/fundamental) christians who were more intelligent. The more liberal, aka 'free', your religiosity (even within religious groups) the more intelligent you are likely to be.

This study shows that the extrinsically religious and non-religious freshmen were different to religious freshmen in personality variables including superego strength, emotional sensitivuty and liberalism. I don't see anywhere (in the abstract) that mentions intelligence.

Not sure where you got such information, the report clearly states what I quoted as a conclusion to a study on Canadian students.

In brief, religion contains a set of logical and factual claims, and those with the most logic and facts at their disposal reject it largely on those grounds.

[Foreign]

If indeed you believe that those who are religious are generally simply too unintelligent to know any better, then I am truly confused. I don't understand why you think arguing your points against those who are supposedly mentally inferior is worth your time. If I were you I would be happy for them because their ignorance offers them bliss that my cursed genes do not.

I don't buy it, though.

[Vykromond]

>No, it means I use racism to look cool on a forum

eot

[jeem]

this would probably warrant a new thread but since i'm sure it would get similarly derailed i will just ask here:

what version do those of you in the know recommend? i read something about a "received text" or textus receptus- where can i get something like this or does it go by a different name?

or i guess more to what i actually want, do you know of any good summaries of the goings on? i really don't want to read the whole thing but i would very much like to be aware of references when i come across them in our bible-soaked world.

cheers for any help