Douche bags from god!

[Rev Dark]

Fidhooki opined

---

While you made a good argument you missed the point
entirely. The car analogy is technically truthful barring
any outside information, HOWEVER, it is not the real truth
on account it does not consider the full issue. Your
implied argument that 'IF these people were not religious,
they would not have had a guy perform an 'exorcism' on
their son' is the same type of analogy and just as flawed.

---

Incorrect, as their behavior is exclusive to the religious. You cannot say that Grand Theft Auto is the cause of murder as murders are done by people who do not play Grand Theft Auto but you can cite Exorcism as a behavior to unique to the religious as only the religious conduct them. This does not mean that all religious people conduct exorcisms; only that it is a behavior unique to that particular demographic.

---

Another flawed statement since if they did beleive in demons
they would not be athiests.

---

That whoosh sound is the point flying over your head. You were looking for proof to back up my contention that Atheism makes you more resistant to the claims of hucksters, mountebanks and charlatans. I offered up the point salient to your query the subject at hand which is unique to the religious. Atheists do not do exorcisms it is unique to the religious. They dont believe in demons again that is the bailiwick of the religious. As for the studies I reference look the fucking things up there is no need to re-quote them verbatim; just because you are google dysfunctional. You asked for studies I provided them.

---

Okay now for the philosophy queston of the day. If an athiest believes in a personal god, is he or she still an athiest? If he isn't it could invalidate the entire survey.

---

It is not a philosophical question an atheist by very definition does not believe in a personal god a personal god being one that actively messes with the universe. Look up theist and deist. Do not confuse what is commonly referred to as Einsteinian religion with theism and do not confuse your own ignorance with philosophy.

---

Who is using them to support their position? You are. It is
your responsibility to supply the verification of your
evidence. Not mine. Also i will point out that in such diversity
of Relgious and secular beleifs what the subjects were tested
on is paramount. If an creationist is given a test designed for
an evolutionist they will naturally score lower. That does
not, however, mean that a creationsit is not as smart.

---

I have provided you with the appropriate studies it is your responsibility to read them; however I think you harbor serious delusions about the nature of testing and science; as evidenced by your nonsensical rant on testing evolutionists and creationists.

---

Yes they are otherwise they would all think and believe the
same. Which is not the case pointed out by your example
earlier, provided that is correct of course.

---

I am beginning to think that you are functionally illiterate - hint look up the word atheist - and scientifically challenged to boot. If you want to change an atheists mind about the non-existence of god - any god you have to have evidence. I know, playing in the really, real world is tough, but that is the way of it. Atheists can and do argue about a variety of topics and hold different opinions but the arguments put forward especially in the sciences are based on evidence; not belief. You can spend hours reading the interplay between Richard Dawkins and the late Stephen J. Gould on the subject of punctuated evolution but the eventual answer to this interesting question will come from evidence and testing not some revelation from on high, sacred scripture or personal vision. That is a fundamental difference in a belief being held dogmatically (religion) and scientifically (secular) science allows, in fact welcomes challenge; dogmatic belief defies challenge even, or rather, especially in the face of evidence to the contrary. If you have a better theory, with the evidence to back it up, then the old theory is replaced.

---

This is the major flaw in your logic. Always has been. Disbelief should NEVER be the default on any quest for knowledge or
enlightenment. Skeptism should for the simple reason it allows
for error or insufficent evidence. Debelief does not.

---

I think you are playing semantics here. Disbelief is the default position but it can and is changed by the presentation of observation and evidence. You could call is skepticism if you wish, but it amounts to the same thing you cannot claim something exists without evidence and observation. That goes for god, the celestial teapot, or the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Hint - we have a huge amount of evidence for one of these things.

---

As interpeted by you. Since your view on religion is that
it is a total fraud it doesn't say much for to get an honest
and fair opinion. And as far as Gopher boy goes, I suspect he
will say whatever he has to to keep out of jail and his
testimony should be taken as such...

---

Yes. As interpreted by me. I might be wrong. In the presence of telling evidence to the contrary, I will admit to being wrong. It is a hypothesis based upon the data that I have on hand. You know, the scientific method and all. I am very pleased to see you are implying on equal or lesser evidence, that laughing boy will be breaking his religions commandment on lying as well as his secular oath in a court of law.

---

Here is where we differ. If these parents lived in an isolated
situation with little to no outside influences then you might
have a pressing argument but they lived in society as far as I
know and that means taking common sense precautions. Did
they ask if he was an ordained and sanctioned priest?

---

Asking about the qualifications of a priest prior to performing an exorcism invalidates the so-called common sense precautions. Not unless you can provide a single, peer-reviewed paper on the efficacy of using exorcism to treat autism or anything else for that matter. Bronze Age superstition by the very definition invalidates any common sense argument.

---

Did they
try to check him out with the church? Did they petition the
church to investigate the possibility that their son might be
possessed?

---

Theres that common sense thing again. Common sense dictates that you do not go to a church for medical diagnosis any more than you go to the dentist to get an opinion on hemorrhoids.

---

As far as I know, no they did not. hence why I say
these parents were stupid and desperate. if you are going to
do something that could potentially break the law and cause
harm to another human being, especially your own child, you'd
better make sure it is what you have to do, it is needed, and
that it done properly. I do not believe these two idiots
met that criteria in the slightest..

---

Stupid. Yes. Religious. Yes. Desperate. Not enough evidence to call that one. If they were peasants in 13th century Europe then going to the church would have been common sense. They are not.

---

Well I chalk that one up to lack of sleep and edited it out
after a few hours of sleep.
Still it does bring up an interesting
point I want to bring up. Just because the stats say they will do something doesn't meant they will do it. Also when does it
cross the line to the 'self fulliflling prophecy' mentality?

---

Well, I am relieved that you feel a few extra hours of sleep has been such a boon to your debating skills. It hasnt helped much. You are quite correct about statistical evidence in behavioral studies; but miss the point nonetheless. They are based on a percentage, but there is no way of determining whether the subject falls into that critical percentage whether is be suicide, murder.
Shayne
(Who is going on vacation and will be unable to reply for a week or so.)