Now, how about I suggest we move this discussion along to something more "down to earth" but still based on the topic of this thread? How about we discuss the effect(s) on society with religion and with out religion?

That is most certainly within the topics I wanted discussed here.

Question: With out a (super majority of the world's) belief in a higher authority than man, what do you think would happen to society?

I suspect we know how this will be answered.

Now how about we propose a double-blind study on this.

Oh, wait. If you understand a double-blind study, and everyone in the world is supposed to be a subject, then who is collecting the data? Ha ha!

Question: With out a (super majority of the world's) belief in a higher authority than man, what do you think would happen to society?

It would remain exactly the same, less some churches and homicidal maniacs.

Perhaps parents would have to explain why something is wrong to do, instead of saying "don't do that or [the all loving] GOD will punish you"

And I suppose many would need some new hobbies.

---

#resist

You don't believe in God because he hasn't been proven to exist in a series of repeatable experiments based on arbitrary rules from a very small group of people you call you peers.

If you'd be a little more fair in your assessment of your opposition, perhaps you would come to understand them better.

I don't believe in God because I see no direct evidence to support the idea, nor is there any repeatable experiments based upon a precise set of rules that can change should someone offer a good enough reason to.

Ok, got it.

No, I don't think you do. You're not even trying to. You can't really, because understanding would be for you to admit that there just might be a valid alternative view, and admitting that there's a valid alternative view backed by pure observation would likely mean you would have to reconsider your own position and world view. Can't let that happen, now can we? Just sayin.

Now, how about I suggest we move this discussion along to something more "down to earth" but still based on the topic of this thread? How about we discuss the effect(s) on society with religion and with out religion?

So you want to discuss whether religion has had a positive effect on society, and from this I surmise that due to your inability to provide directly observable evidence to believe in your Creator (as I have asked several times) your finalized point will be to prove that the lies and mythologies of religion are too important to take away from society. That somehow society needs religion to keep itself from going completely mad. That somehow religion provides order out of chaos, and morals out of anarchy.

And your stance is exactly why you cannot be taken seriously by your peers (in the scientific sense). Your entire premise is to show that belief in a deity is a simple conclusion drawn by the wonders of nature's design, and that those scientists who would dare suggest anything other than a Grand Designer must be vilified simply so you and your kind can keep on even ground. But you can never be because you cannot bring forth sufficient evidence to support your ideas.

Let me start off with these simple statements: There are people (still a super majority of the world) who absolutely cannot believe there is nothing else more to life than just what we experience here on this planet. Based on what they see/hear/smell/taste/touch/feel in their everyday lives, even though it hasn't been proven to some other's satisfaction, they have come to the absolute conclusion there must be something more when this earthly existence ceases to function. They absolutely cannot accept the alternative. Without this belief, the alternative makes absolutely no sense to them.

Yes, religion is deeply entrenched in today's society, and that is why people like you attack scientific findings that refute religious teachings. Like trying to take the training wheels off of a young child's bicycle, afraid that the ensuing chaos of doing something on their own, without additional support frightens the likes of many believers.

People are already letting go of the fairy tales of religion, even as believers. Many Believers, who still think there is a Designer, know that the stories in the Bible are parables and not meant for direct interpretation. Many of them know that our scientific progress has brought about a great many number of advances in our understanding of the universe around us. It will likely take a few more centuries for people to finally let the lies of religion go, and come to understand that there really is no more out there, despite what they were told for generations (generations, by the way, that could only explain the universe as well as their current tools allowed them to).

But I'm afraid there will always be a small group that refuse to let go, like a holding onto a security blanket of hope that makes them think that their own mortality is non-existent. That they will actually achieve some sort of immortality if they simply have faith and believe in a Designer.

Yes, science has a long uphill battle to release the evil grip religion holds on the minds of the masses who feel religion is the only hope for importance in life.

Question: With out a (super majority of the world's) belief in a higher authority than man, what do you think would happen to society?

I have to admit, its quite genius of you to constantly remind the reader that the "super majority" of the world are believers, as if to suggest that the majority simply cannot be wrong.


What do I think will happen to a society that doesn't believe in a higher authority than man?

Some people won't be able to cope, and they'll either commit mass murder or commit suicide.

Others will feel an emptiness, as if they think there's no reason to live, but they cannot bring themselves to kill themselves.

Others still will think that this gives them an excuse to break laws without fear of hellfire and brimstone.


And all those people will simply be the ones that actually let religion dictate how they should live their lives.

For the rest of society - the majority of people - once the reality settles in that there is nothing out there, they will pick up the pieces and move on. They will learn that this is the only life they have, and they might as well make the most of it while they can, and to make a positive change in the world around them.

Sure, there will always be people who simply want to watch the world burn, but we already have that now, don't we?

In other words, very little will change.

Question: With out a (super majority of the world's) belief in a higher authority than man, what do you think would happen to society?

I have to admit, its quite genius of you to constantly remind the reader that the "super majority" of the world are believers, as if to suggest that the majority simply cannot be wrong.

A stupid decision made by millions of people, is still a stupid decision.

+1

---

Now, how about I suggest we move this discussion along to something more "down to earth" but still based on the topic of this thread? How about we discuss the effect(s) on society with religion and with out religion?

That is most certainly within the topics I wanted discussed here.

Question: With out a (super majority of the world's) belief in a higher authority than man, what do you think would happen to society?

I suspect we know how this will be answered.

Now how about we propose a double-blind study on this.

Oh, wait. If you understand a double-blind study, and everyone in the world is supposed to be a subject, then who is collecting the data? Ha ha!

Fine with me. Please explain the evidenciary basis for the assertion religion is beneficial society. One does hope against all hope and knows one will be disappointed to learn there is no basis other than the apocalyptic ravings of believers.

It differs in kind but no in substance from promises of plagues and famine and boils as a consequence of failure to do as the god ravers demand.

There is no reason to be polite to either medicine men or bishops or bible channel freaks. They are all in it for the power.

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

There really are no believers. Rather there are highly selective non-atheists. Instead of declining to believe in all the thousands of gods they decline to believe in thousands minus one.

Perhaps they should be thanked for doing the yeoman's work of getting rid of so many thousands leaving only one upon which to focus the remaining evidence.

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

All this ad hominem is not anything close to debate, or facts for that matter.

Can consensue also be called peer review?

No.

The Merriam-Webster

con·sen·sus noun, often attributive \kən-ˈsen(t)-səs\
Definition of CONSENSUS
1a : general agreement : unanimity <the consensus of their opinion, based on reports … from the border — John Hersey> b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the consensus was to go ahead>
2: group solidarity in sentiment and belief
Synonyms: accord, concurrence, concurrency, agreement, unanimity, unison
Antonyms: conflict, disagreement, dissensus
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Merriam-Webster

peer reviewnoun
Definition of PEER REVIEW
: a process by which something proposed (as for research or publication) is evaluated by a group of experts in the appropriate field
— peer–review transitive verb
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

It seems that Merriam-Webster's--Design is more intelligent then you.

Question: With out a (super majority of the world's) belief in a higher authority than man, what do you think would happen to society?

I have to admit, its quite genius of you to constantly remind the reader that the "super majority" of the world are believers, as if to suggest that the majority simply cannot be wrong.

A stupid decision made by millions of people, is still a stupid decision.

Nevertheless this is how law is made in our Country. Good thing you're not part of the process.

All this ad hominem is not anything close to debate, or facts for that matter.

So says the person that has used ad hominem throughout various parts of the discussion.

Question: With out a (super majority of the world's) belief in a higher authority than man, what do you think would happen to society?

I have to admit, its quite genius of you to constantly remind the reader that the "super majority" of the world are believers, as if to suggest that the majority simply cannot be wrong.

A stupid decision made by millions of people, is still a stupid decision.

Nevertheless this is how law is made in our Country. Good thing you're not part of the process.

Good thing the law tends to rely more on science these days than religious views.

3+ Posts in a ROW is called SPAMMING. Please tone things down to a more controlled DEBATE!.

---

I Desire Peace and Justice, Jim Scott (Mod-Ret.)

Oh, wait. If you understand a double-blind study, and everyone in the world is supposed to be a subject, then who is collecting the data? Ha ha!

Fine with me. Please explain the evidenciary basis for the assertion religion is beneficial society. One does hope against all hope and knows one will be disappointed to learn there is no basis other than the apocalyptic ravings of believers.

Even from what little I've posted recently, an intelligent person can get some feel for where I stand, and here you are blathering about a position you think I have taken.

Unless you meant to respond to someone else's post?

Because my post that you are quoting was regarding that apparently someone in here has a misunderstanding of what a double-blind study entails. There can be no double-blind study if everyone on Earth is supposed to be a subject. Your blathering is in no way a response to that point.

(Furthermore, you could not get everyone to participate in a study on prayer, as obviously some do not believe in it and so would not pray, Or deliberately masquerade as praying. Or pray for something else. Of course, statisticians and those that use statistics know they have to consider honesty of subjects in certain things.)

You still have not provided a reason to assume a Designer with any directly observable evidence. You simply argue that chance is not chance but design, but nothing that shows how we can prove there is a Designer. You offer interpretation but no way to test the interpretation to make it a theory instead of a hypothesis.

Blank Man,

What is true blue? What is true yellow?

Is this not determined by consensue?

Once that truth is thrashed out and set as an example is not an equal portion of both true green?

Can consensue also be called peer review? And why would you not call the hoi polloi a group of experts on the subject of God the Designer? You seem to know nothing about Him. They also are the source of your pay check.

Perhaps you should think simple from time to time? And as the kids say--just sayin...

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

Yes I did. I offered a link about monkey DNA and the time needed. Just because one person said that there is a "Missing Link" between us and them does not mean a dang thing unless you can stand up that missing link. Do you have that missing link in your closet? Is it in a lab someplace mislabled? Since you have no said..."Missing link" the point is moot.

I also added the God Partical, indeed it has not been found yet but they are close. This is what gives mass--mass. In this line of thought I told everyone that we own nothing but our soul. I also pointed out that we live inside of a 3D TV so to speak and this is how God keeps track of us.

I also added in the Intelligent Design thread [that is miss spelled by the way] Fibonacci numbers, The Golden Spiral, Nick added [beat me to it] Elliott Wave theory, there is structure in Nature and in Mathematics, also added was the Spirograph. At this point I will also submit...

In this movie most all of the math above was used to make this movie. In order to make the background seem more real to the watcher digital magic was made. How much more do I need add? Can you put 2 and 2 together? Make the stretch fro 2D to 3D. And add your place in the universe---are you on the inside looking out, or, are you on the outside looking in?

There are still 42 papers left in the link I supplied here about Intelling Design and the gaining steam in order to point at Design not chance as the reason we see what we see.

I have added the axiom and the logic therein in all of my arguments. I have been of good faith in laying down the line of thought here. And yet I still get mouth from the nut section of the science division. Ever hear of the axiom of choice. Most of you fools act as if only the 'nonempty' sets contain only chance as a cause. This is not true and it is intellectually dishonest, as is the ad hominem. I have used axioms not ad hominem.

Sooooo, lets see you chimps rub sticks together and make fire. Yep, that was ad hominem...

A priori---A posteriori---Ad maiorem dei gloriam

"George H. Gallup" wrote:

“I could prove God statistically. Take the human body alone-the chances that all the functions of an individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity.”

You just quoted yourself.... who are you replying to?

Question: With out a (super majority of the world's) belief in a higher authority than man, what do you think would happen to society?

I have to admit, its quite genius of you to constantly remind the reader that the "super majority" of the world are believers, as if to suggest that the majority simply cannot be wrong.

A stupid decision made by millions of people, is still a stupid decision.

Nevertheless this is how law is made in our Country. Good thing you're not part of the process.

I was going to reply, but there is nothing that need be said.

---

snip

3+ Posts in a ROW is called SPAMMING. Please tone things down to a more controlled DEBATE!.

Where is that called spamming? I have read the rules for a second time.
And why am I being the only one called out on this when there are others as well who have done the same thing?