Douche bags from god!

[Rev Dark]

Douche bags from God! (Irony time occasionally being a spelling douche bag, I misspelled douche bag. Thankfully the douche bags at Microsoft had my back covered. So to speak)
Now before I begin, I feel that I owe douche bags worldwide an apology. They have a difficult job to do; and they serve a useful and practical roll in society as well as other places.
So despite the title and opening statement; I shall no longer refer to the subjects of this message as douche bags. They shall from this point on be referred to as arseholes.
Edward Uyesugi II is an arsehole. This usher at the Cherry Hill Christian Center really wanted to get his Jesus on. No, he didnt break out three nails and ask a passing Roman Centurion to put him up for the night; he decided he would cast out some evil spirits. No. He wasnt merely driving the porcelain bus and yakking up a gutful of tequila and champers. No. He wanted to cast the evil spirits of Autism out of a 14 year old boy.
Uyesugi convinced the parents of the boy to bring him back from a group home for the exorcism. They are also arseholes, but I shall deal with that shortly. Uyesugi then proceeds to unload a large load of heavenly whoop-arse on the autistic child. A prolonged beating. This wasnt a few sprays of holy water and a whole bunch of da power of god compels you. Eddie-baby put the hurt on, knocking the boy down, punching him, choking him, forcing his eyes open and jamming fingers down the boys throat, in the hopes that the Autism demons would surf out on a wave of vomit. As I previously noted. Arsehole.
Hold up. I have just been sent a memo from the Royal Order of the Puckered Starfish. These proponents of the rusty freckle itself have made it clear that Eddie is in no way associated with them, and this August body of sphincters and tea-towel holders are mortified to think that Eddie-baby is somehow counted among their numbers. Their point is well taken.
Edward Uyesugi is a fundamentalist jack-off and is currently awaiting charges of assault and forcible confinement. I do not know at this time if the parents are being charged. Autism is tragic and it is difficult to deal with, but, and this is a large, slap-it-on-the-dance-floor-to-get-your-freak-on but, to willingly subject their child to this is the work of douch arseh fundamentalist jack-offs. These FJOs stood by and watched while Eddie whipped a beating on their son, and when they had concerns about what had happened they contacted the church, not the police. The church, in a fine demonstration of separation, called the police, and quickly disavowed any and all association with Eddie-baby. (They still have an extensive section on miracles on their web-site though; take that whichever way you would like to.)
It truly boggles the mind that in this day and age that these FJOs are still obsessed with base wish-thinking. I am sure they thought their hearts were in the right place, but their brains most certainly were not or rather they were in the right place, but woefully underutilized. Stupid, ignorant and superstitious is a very, very dangerous combination to be around, as the unfortunate boy found out. There is no god (probability approaching zero to such a degree that the figure is indistinguishable from zero) and Autism is not properly treated by fundamentalist jerk-offs beating.
Here endeth the lesson,
The Reverend Shayne Dark

[Kokuten]

*sniff*
Is that.. Gasoline, I smell?Wire Geek - Burning the weak and trampling the dead since 1979Wire Geek - Burning the weak and trampling the dead since 1979

[Fidoohki]

So let me get this straight.. All fundementalist should be
blamed for this idiots actions? Wow.. I'll remember that the next time a latino is involved in a crime so i can blame all
latinos for it or a canadian has an accident here so i can blame all canadians! *sarcasm off*

And as for the parents, if they believed a guy whose the
equivalent of a gopher they need to be put in the cell next
to him. It jsut goes to show that there are more stupid
parents in the world or that not all monsters are myths...

[Rev Dark]

Aaaahh! Fidooki, I woke up this morning and said to myself I really want to read some drivel from someone with no more than a passing acquaintance of logic. And here you are.
I described laughing boy as a fundamentalist. I described his parents as fundamentalists. That does not mean that all fundamentalists are to blame for his actions. I can describe my dog as pet. I can report that my pet crapped on sidewalk. That does not imply that all pets crap on the sidewalk.
Your logical construction isnt. Get some new rhetoric. Yours doesnt work.

[Morganite]

I wouldn't be surprised if this guy has pissed off most fundamentalists, really...
-Morgan.

[CattyNebulart]

There really should be a license requirement for becoming a parent, though I shudder at the horrors the government would force on us then.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

[Fidoohki]

---

Aaaahh! Fidooki, I woke up this morning and said to myself I really want to read some drivel from someone with no more than a passing acquaintance of logic. And here you are.

---

Well you replied to it so it served its purpose I guess

---

I described laughing boy as a fundamentalist. I described his parents as fundamentalists. That does not mean that all fundamentalists are to blame for his actions. I can describe my dog as pet. I can report that my pet crapped on sidewalk. That does not imply that all pets crap on the sidewalk.

---

True but you seemed to almost harp on the fact that they
were 'Fundamentalists jack-offs'. While I can't and won't
argue the jack-off part because I agree with it you kept
pointing out their fundamentalist leanings. Hard to beleive
you were not implying anything with it given your views of
religon as a whole.

---

Your logical construction isnt. Get some new rhetoric. Yours doesnt work.

---

Two words. You first.
((edited: changed jerk-off to jack-off for quoting purposes.))

[Rev Dark]

So Fidhooki, you admit your attack was at the heart, flawed; and your only defense is that you chose to read something else into the initial article; rather than what was presented. What a special world you must live in.
While you agree to the jack-off description, I will note again that they were fundamentalist jack-offs; not mere jack-offs. I didnt seem to harp on them for being fundamentalist I emphasized it. Their fundamentalism is not a matter for debate as the facts are clearly laid out; parents and laughing boy shared a common delusion based upon a particular set of scriptures. That sort of idiocy absolutely requires a strict adherence to such beliefs. Not all fundamentalists (there are so many flavors) would agree with their actions, but in order to perform such actions the parents and exorcism boy had to be fundamentalist in their beliefs. As Weinberg so eloquently says Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Shayne

[Fidoohki]

---

So Fidhooki, you admit your attack was at the heart, flawed; and your only defense is that you chose to read something else into the initial article; rather than what was presented. What a special world you must live in.

---

No, the response to your second post was started with
a poor attempt at sarcasm. The rest however was showing
the ridiculousness of your 'blame fundementalists for these
jack-offs actions' speil. It's the equivalent of blamings cars
for car accidents.
I'm now gonna say saomthing that will probably set off a firestorm but so be it. For an athiest Rev, you sure seem to
think you know alot on how other people should worship....

[Rev Dark]

Fidhooki, you really need to learn how to read. Fundamentalism is the tool by which these idiots did their stupid, evil, actions. I know it is a subtle distinction that escapes you. You would not know a subtle distinction if it climbed up your arse and had vigorous doggy-style sex with your right kidney whilst singing subtle distinctions are here to stay whilst accompanying itself on the spoons. You do not, as your second poor attempt at argument tries to explain, blame cars for car accidents. But you recognize that the idiot in question can do significantly more damage when wrapped in a car; or as was demonstrated in this case, wrapped up in a primitive, violent, misogynist, genocidal, intolerant, petty, set of Bronze Age myths.
What sort of Jack-off beats an autistic child in order to exorcise a mental disorder? What sort of Jack-offs stand by and allow this to happen to their child? Even worse, when they begin to wonder if it is the right path what sort of Jack-off calls the Church instead of the Police?
Fundamentalist Jack-offs. The sort who were all convinced that they were doing good, whilst committing what can only be described as an evil act.
And because you asked for it, and in the words of Bugs Bunny Remember you asked for it.
The Reverend Darks Rules For Worship
The rules for worship should be the same as the ones for sex. Two consenting adults (or a whole bunch of consenting adults, a tarp, and a bottle of lube). No kids. No coercion physical or mental - unless that is your kink and you all agree on a safe word. Everyone is free to leave at any time. Your fetishes are your fetishes, feel free to discuss them with like minded individuals, but dont try and make them public policy. Your imaginary friend might have a thing for no-prophylaxis, enforced heterosexuality, golden showers, virgins and cuckoldry, but that does not mean the rest of us need to hear about it.
Here endeth the lesson.

[Kokuten]

Rev, that's just disgusting, and I'm highly offended - where do you get off thinking you can actually educate a religious person?
; )
-K, Tounge FIRMLY in cheekWire Geek - Burning the weak and trampling the dead since 1979

[Fidoohki]

---

Fidhooki, you really need to learn how to read. Fundamentalism is the tool by which these idiots did their stupid, evil, actions. I know it is a subtle distinction that escapes you. You would not know a subtle distinction if it climbed up your arse and had vigorous doggy-style sex with your right kidney whilst singing subtle distinctions are here to stay whilst accompanying itself on the spoons.

---

Hmm I was wondering why my side hurt and I had this tune
in my head...

---

You do not, as your second poor attempt at argument tries to explain, blame cars for car accidents. But you recognize that the idiot in question can do significantly more damage when wrapped in a car; or as was demonstrated in this case, wrapped up in a primitive, violent, misogynist, genocidal, intolerant, petty, set of Bronze Age myths.

---

You don't blame the tool because it was misused. This was
a case of two desperate and stupid people plus someone who
was deluded and stupid. When it came to these idiots, you
could have substituted athiest, doctor office, nurse and
chiropratic treatement for the religious facts and still gotten
the same results in my opinion because this is a story of
someone preying on desperate idiots for their own
purposes.

---

What sort of Jack-off beats an autistic child in order to exorcise a mental disorder? What sort of Jack-offs stand by and allow this to happen to their child? Even worse, when they begin to wonder if it is the right path what sort of Jack-off calls the Church instead of the Police?

---

The same people that might have called the 'doctors office' if
this new 'chiropractic treatment' the 'nurse' was performing
was netting the same results though I wonder if the doctor
would have called the police or their laywers first. The point
I am trying to make is you are 'emphesizing' the tool when
you should be placing the blame on the people that misused
it.

---

And because you asked for it, and in the words of Bugs Bunny Remember you asked for it.

---

That I did so go for it doc!

---

The rules for worship should be the same as the ones for sex. Two consenting adults (or a whole bunch of consenting adults, a tarp, and a bottle of lube). No kids. No coercion physical or mental - unless that is your kink and you all agree on a safe word. Everyone is free to leave at any time. Your fetishes are your fetishes, feel free to discuss them with like minded individuals, but dont try and make them public policy. Your imaginary friend might have a thing for no-prophylaxis, enforced heterosexuality, golden showers, virgins and cuckoldry, but that does not mean the rest of us need to hear about it.

---

Well.. I did ask for it... wow.. you realize this would only work
if everyone thought as you did right?

[Kokuten]

---

The point I am trying to make is you are 'emphesizing' the tool when you should be placing the blame on the people that misused

---

woah hey, give the man a cigar - he's absolutely right here. Wire Geek - Burning the weak and trampling the dead since 1979Wire Geek - Burning the weak and trampling the dead since 1979

[rmthorn]

---

The point I am trying to make is you are 'emphesizing' the tool when you should be placing the blame on the people that misused

---

True. Except that a tool that doesn't require the use of logical thought and common sense (and in the case of religion, actually requires the lack of them), is more open to abuse than one that doesn't.

[Fidoohki]

---

True. Except that a tool that doesn't require the use of logical thought and common sense (and in the case of religion, actually requires the lack of them), is more open to abuse than one that doesn't.

---

Which is irrelevant since these people would have most likely ended up in a similar way reguardless of their belief. These people were desperate for a 'cure' and stupid to begin with,
a very dangerous combonation. If it hadn't been a religous
premise, it most likely would have been medical. Maybe with
some quack cleaning their accounts out while strapping
electrodes to the poor kids nads and zapping them as a
form of 'adversion therapy'. (feh I saw it on Law & Order
once.))An extreme example but this was the road these
idiots were on.

[Kokuten]

---

If it hadn't been a religous premise, it most likely would have been medical

---

Nothing on the bullshit radar, Rev..
this thread is threatening my assumptions!Wire Geek - Burning the weak and trampling the dead since 1979Wire Geek - Burning the weak and trampling the dead since 1979

[Rev Dark]

---

The same people that might have called the 'doctors office' if
this new 'chiropractic treatment' the 'nurse' was performing
was netting the same results though I wonder if the doctor
would have called the police or their laywers first. The point
I am trying to make is you are 'emphesizing' the tool when
you should be placing the blame on the people that misus

---

You really do have a talent for choosing the worst examples. How often do you go to see a doctor professionally, about the leaking fuel valve in your car ? (We are going through with this little thought experiment with the caveat that your Doctor does not maintain a thriving garage on the side.) You would be an idiot to do so. Your doctor makes no claims to be a healer of automobiles. If your doctor suddenly claimed that he could fix your car through the power of his mind Mentok wills it! Oooo-eeee-Ooooo you would be seeking a new physician.
Then you have your church; which is not populated with medical professionals , but which makes great claims to miraculous healing powers; up to and including resurrection. It also talks at length of disease being caused by demons and the power of those of the faith being able to cast those demons out. They also claim that their imaginary friends who is also your imaginary friend, is the highest authority on all things, and their book is inspired directly by this imaginary friend. The church that Laughing Boy and the parents belonged to actually offers courses on how to exorcise demons; and its miracles sections claims to have cured scoliosis, blindness and other conditions. See the disconnect?
If prayer worked in healing it would be used. As it is the Templeton Foundations latest attempt to prove such has failed to bring the goods. (Intercessory prayer study). Quackery all quackery - resists testing; for just this reason. They have no game, but continue to insist that they are players.
Would the parents have gone to another source of treatment if religion was not available? I dont think the characterization of desperate and stupid is as accurate as fundamentalist and stupid. Their child was fourteen and was in a group home; his autism was not a new thing. Even a desperate idiot would clue in that the 'treatment' was hogwash after the first punch. To allow the beating to go on for as long (11 fucking hours!) as it did requires something more. Perhaps there was a secondary stressor possibly financial that is unknown at this time. What we do know is that the perp and parents were members of a fundamentalist church; that openly preached that they were capable of miraculous healings. That is the reinforcement mechanism that allows their idiocy to reach full flower. There are two distinct problems. The first that they are idiots. They second that they are fundamentalist. These problems are symbiotic in nature. Fundamentalism urges faith over reason, stifles genuine inquiry and urges primacy of authority in temporal as well as spiritual things. It is the reinforcement mechanism that allows idiocy to both thrive and flourish.
One of the funny things about exorcism related deaths and beatings in the last century (there an incredible number of them); almost every one has been inflicted on religious people by religious people. Non religious quackery is much more evenly distributed.
To site you poor example again; when your doctor, or someone in their practice lies to you about the services that they offer it is called malpractice. When religion does it, it is called a sermon.

---

hat I did so go for it doc!
Quote:
The rules for worship should be the same as the ones for sex. Two consenting adults (or a whole bunch of consenting adults, a tarp, and a bottle of lube). No kids. No coercion physical or mental - unless that is your kink and you all agree on a safe word. Everyone is free to leave at any time. Your fetishes are your fetishes, feel free to discuss them with like minded individuals, but dont try and make them public policy. Your imaginary friend might have a thing for no-prophylaxis, enforced heterosexuality, golden showers, virgins and cuckoldry, but that does not mean the rest of us need to hear about it.

Well.. I did ask for it... wow.. you realize this would only work
if everyone thought as you did right?

---

No. They dont have to think like me. They just have to think. Thinking should always be the first step.

[Fidoohki]

---

See the disconnect?

---

If you are saying that if these people were not
religous thier son would not have been
exorcised then I agree but I will point
out that is like saying if there were no cars then my
cousin would still be alive because he'd never been
in the car accident that killed him. While accurate
it doesn't take in other factors or the damage
it would do as a whole. Now before you start to go
off on another rant on religion, This is a matter of
opinion between us and I will not rehash it here.
Now if you are saying the child would not have been
hurt if these people were not religous then I disagree.
I think you underestimate the power of desperation here
and being an athiest does not make you any smarter
than anyone else despite what you may believe.

---

It is the reinforcement mechanism that allows idiocy to both thrive and flourish.

---

So you are blaming the tool for the crime.

---

One of the funny things about exorcism related deaths and beatings in the last century (there an incredible number of them); almost every one has been inflicted on religious people by religious people. Non religious quackery is much more evenly distributed.

---

You know this is like saying illegal aliens have the lowest crime rate...

---

No. They dont have to think like me. They just have to think. Thinking should always be the first step.

---

Sorry but jsut because you put them on the what you beleive
is the 'right road' doesn't mean they are going to the same
destination youarrived at..
Wow.. lot of car metaphors here.. oh well keep on truckin

[Rev Dark]

Fidhooki mewled

---

If you are saying that if these people were not
religous thier son would not have been
exorcised then I agree but I will point
out that is like saying if there were no cars then my
cousin would still be alive because he'd never been
in the car accident that killed him. While accurate
it doesn't take in other factors or the damage
it would do as a whole. Now before you start to go
off on another rant on religion, This is a matter of
opinion between us and I will not rehash it here.

---

A nonsensical statement that does not answer the thrust of the argument put forward. Just because you cannot articulate your argument logically, you dismiss it or try and shuffle it past; with a decoy of a personal tragedy to try and deter response. Pathetic.

---

Now if you are saying the child would not have been
hurt if these people were not religous then I disagree.
I think you underestimate the power of desperation here
and being an athiest does not make you any smarter
than anyone else despite what you may believe.

---

Those are two completely disconnected statements. I will deal with the second one first. Atheism does not necessarily make you smarter but it does make you considerably more resistant and resilient to the claims of hucksters, mountebanks and charlatans. Does god exist? Show me the proof. Does this treatment work? Show me the proof. You can find water by dowsing? Great, let us do a double blind test and see if you actually find water or if you are just talking out of your arse. You may not necessarily be smarter, but you do more with whatever smarts you have, and develop the capacity for analysis, observation and inquiry to expand your horizons.
The child was in a group home prior to the incident; that indicates that the parents were at least in some part capable of dealing with the situation. There were other children in the household; children that were not in social services that also infers a moderately stable home environment. In the description of the exorcism the victim retreated to the parents bedroom as a safe haven indicating that there was a sense of comfort with the parent making abuse more unlikely. Again we do not have complete information, but the sharp whiff of desperation is absent; the rank stench of fundamentalism is not.

---

So you are blaming the tool for the crime.

---

It isnt nearly so simple; what is the reinforcement mechanism for tools? How often has your high torque drill ever spoken to you? When was the last time that you attended a gathering of dust-collectors and listened to the parable of the planer and the band saw? Religion is what is known as a human universal. It has existed in one form or another throughout every human culture known. Not because it is true; but because it provided answers when we had none. They werent good answers; but they were the best our primitive understanding of the world allowed. We have much better answers now. Religion as a pervasive meme is still present in all aspects of our various cultures. As has been observed previously, faith is rarely challenged and the beliefs of the faithful are given a protected status that is unique (I buck this trend.) The faithful can get away with making pronouncements that would get any other organizations sued; as alluded to in the previous post. If your real estate agent sold you three stories, two baths and a walk in closet and you found yourself in a cardboard box on a rubbish tiff; you would sue. If your religion promises similar outrageous, outright, lies; nothing. The family was a member of a church that promises faith based healing of all types (check out their website it is very shiny and thoroughly pathetic at the same time). The established meme was that through prayer and faith, miracles do happen. Most religions but especially this particular schism hold this to be true. One only has to look at the truly pathetic miracles used to buttress the beatification of Mother Theresa to see this in action. In other words, religion as an established meme allows and encourages this particular type of stupidity to flourish. Religion actively promotes the meme that it has an authority that is not to be challenged an authority that is leveraged by the various leadership castes within it. If a doctor does something untoward you question it. A religious authority is far more likely to get a pass as the established meme not to challenge to actions of those of the same faith kicks in.

---

You know this is like saying illegal aliens have the lowest crime rate...

---

That is a nonsensical statement and completely unconnected to the argument. I know it is hard to stay focused, but do try. Your crass attempts to link your spurious line of thought with a hot button issue are pathetic, trite and sadly predictable.

---

Sorry but jsut because you put them on the what you beleive
is the 'right road' doesn't mean they are going to the same
destination youarrived at..

---

No, but they are going to travel that road with more care to the bumps, blind curves and warning signs and with any luck, be more considerate to the other travelers on the route. As opposed to swerving from lane to lane because turn signals are the tools of the devil; tailgating because Mary and Joseph rode ass to Bethlehem, and stopping suddenly for no reason because they, like their lord, wish to move in a mysterious way.

[Fidoohki]

---

A nonsensical statement that does not answer the thrust of the argument put forward. Just because you cannot articulate your argument logically, you dismiss it or try and shuffle it past; with a decoy of a personal tragedy to try and deter response. Pathetic.

---

You seem to not understand the answer. Blaming all religion
for these three actions is the same thing as my car analogy.
It is not my fault you refuse to understand it.

---

Those are two completely disconnected statements. I will deal with the second one first. Atheism does not necessarily make you smarter but it does make you considerably more resistant and resilient to the claims of hucksters, mountebanks and charlatans. Does god exist? Show me the proof. Does this treatment work? Show me the proof. You can find water by dowsing? Great, let us do a double blind test and see if you actually find water or if you are just talking out of your arse. You may not necessarily be smarter, but you do more with whatever smarts you have, and develop the capacity for analysis, observation and inquiry to expand your horizons.

---

Does it? I'd love to see a study done to see if that is true but
since you allready beleive that those that practice religion are
allready being duped it would be useless. And for the record
there are religious people that do the same delelopment on
the capacity for analysis observation, and iquiry to expand
their horizons as athiests.

---

Again we do not have complete information, but the sharp whiff of desperation is absent; the rank stench of fundamentalism is not.

---

The first part of this sentence is the only thing that
was 'true'. the rest was just opinion on your, or whichever
source you got it from if it wasn't yours, part.

---

A religious authority is far more likely to get a pass as the established meme not to challenge to actions of those of the same faith kicks in

---

So you are blaming the their religion, the church they
belonged to AND all religion in general for the actions of
three people that could have been making it up as they
went along. Gee.. so much for free will and personal
responsiblity huh? *sarcasm off*

---

That is a nonsensical statement and completely unconnected to the argument. I know it is hard to stay focused, but do try. Your crass attempts to link your spurious line of thought with a hot button issue are pathetic, trite and sadly predictable.

---

Pot meet kettle.

---

No, but they are going to travel that road with more care to the bumps, blind curves and warning signs and with any luck, be more considerate to the other travelers on the route. As opposed to swerving from lane to lane because turn signals are the tools of the devil; tailgating because Mary and Joseph rode ass to Bethlehem, and stopping suddenly for no reason because they, like their lord, wish to move in a mysterious way.

---

Are they? How do you know this? Can you read minds!?? Did
Mentok train you?! DO you "oooOOOOooo EeeeEEE oooOOOO'
when you read them?! *sarcasm off*
The problem is that you making a dangerous assumption that
they will come to the same or similiar conclusions as you did
based on 'facts' as you view them. which is pretty suspect
given your views to begin with..
To coin a phrase
'Thus endeth the sermon'
((Edited from previous posting due to pure lack of sleep when
writing previous post. It was just bad...))

[Ayiekie]

---

Everything else is guessing and hoping.

---

I don't think you quite understand how the world works.

[Rev Dark]

---

You seem to not understand the answer. Blaming all religion for these three actions is the same thing as my car analogy.
It is not my fault you refuse to understand it.

---

Your car analogy, as I have previously stated is deeply flawed I elucidated this in my last post in regards to tools and reinforcement mechanisms. While Occams razor must be kept sharp, simple analogies will not always work for complex constructions. I understand your desire for a simple analogy, but having an accurate one is far better. Would your cousin be alive if there were no cars? Perhaps perhaps not, while cars take lives, they also serve as a convenient receptacle in which to conceive them lacking that convenience he might not have even been.

---

Does it? I'd love to see a study done to see if that is true but
since you allready beleive that those that practice religion are
allready being duped it would be useless. And for the record
there are religious people that do the same delelopment on the capacity for analysis observation, and iquiry to expand
their horizons as athiests.

---

Well you can start with direct observation; one that has been made already. Exorcism. Not a lot of atheists doing exorcisms. Why? Simply put there is no proof or even evidence for the existence of demons; therefore no need to cast them out. As for studies - A survey of the National Academy of Science shows 72% atheists, 21% agnostic, and 7% believing in a personal god. How about Franzblaus study of religiosity and honesty (negative correlation)? As to religion and IQ, check out Burnham Beckwiths article The effect of Intelligence on Religious Faith. The studies are out there you are just too lazy to go look them up. While some religious people and religions do get into the habits of analysis, observation and inquiry methodology; you will find (as you dig) that they are more deist than theist, moving away from a personal god (one that actively fucks with the universe.)
Unlike the religious, atheists are not subject to unchanging beliefs I keep repeating this, but it doesnt seem to sink into your head. If you want to change my belief that there is no god prove there is a god. While you are at it, prove a bunch of gods, fairies and the celestial teapot. If you dont have proof you dont have game. Disbelief in all things temporal and especially spiritual should be the default position.

---

The first part of this sentence is the only thing that
was 'true'. the rest was just opinion on your, or whichever
source you got it from if it wasn't yours, part.

---

Well I did read a number of articles on the story, including the depositions taken by the law enforcement officials concerning the attack, the timeline, etc. I also looked at the home where the attack took place; and did several other searches concerning the parties involved. All available evidence points to Fundamentalism driven wish thinking, rather than desperation driven actions; I expect this to be further buttressed when laughing boy goes to trial shortly. The information is there, you just have to go look for it.

---

So you are blaming the their religion, the church they belonged to AND all religion in general for the actions of
three people that could have been making it up as they
went along. Gee.. so much for free will and personal responsiblity huh? *sarcasm off*

---

All religions make it up as they go along. They are entirely created by humans. The moment that you choose faith over fact in anything, you leave yourself open to the dangers of wish thinking. It can and as demonstrated here, does create an intellectual blind spot. The three protagonists in this sad tale were personally responsible for their actions but their actions absolutely required the presence of fundamentalist religion in order to reach fruition. If they had not been religious they would not have attempted the exorcism. Would they have tried something else equally destructive? Unlikely. There is not the psychological reinforcement associated with quackery as there is with religion. Come on, if you believe that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in all humanity because a rib-woman was convinced to eat from a magical tree by a talking snake with legs then you can certainly believe in a beating casting out demons while at the same time denying the mountains of evidence that you share common ancestry with apes.

---

Are they? How do you know this? Can you read minds!?? Did
Mentok train you?! DO you "oooOOOOooo EeeeEEE oooOOOO'
when you read them?! *sarcasm off*
The point is that you don't know. You are guessing at best..
That is your main problem is that you think you know what
other people will do given the same information you have. Just like you think you know all about religion and how
people should worship. Well you don't because these are
people and the only sure thing about people is that they will
die someday. That's it. Everything else is guessing and
hoping. Who would have guessed these three would have
done this? Answer? no one. How about that?

---

Wow, theres wrong, theres wrong, and then there is you. Observation and prediction are great tools they are used all the time; by scientists, psychologists, law enforcement officials and even cold reading charlatans. Given even small clues you can readily predict what people will do. You dont need to be Mentok and perhaps you should not be it is not easy being green. When a prisoner is placed on suicide watch there is a reason previous observations of homo sapiens animal in the situation have demonstrated a strong correlation between the situation and suicide attempts. There is a whole list of demonstrated correlations when dealing with premeditated murder. There is guessing, there is hoping, but of much greater importance and use there is empirical evidence. To deny such is to show willful ignorance, and Fidhooki, your ignorance is showing.

[Fidoohki]

---

Your car analogy, as I have previously stated is deeply flawed I elucidated this in my last post in regards to tools and reinforcement mechanisms. While Occams razor must be kept sharp, simple analogies will not always work for complex constructions. I understand your desire for a simple analogy, but having an accurate one is far better. Would your cousin be alive if there were no cars? Perhaps perhaps not, while cars take lives, they also serve as a convenient receptacle in which to conceive them lacking that convenience he might not have even been.

---

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.

---

Well you can start with direct observation; one that has been made already. Exorcism. Not a lot of atheists doing exorcisms. Why? Simply put there is no proof or even evidence for the existence of demons; therefore no need to cast them out.

---

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

---

As for studies - A survey of the National Academy of Science shows 72% atheists, 21% agnostic, and 7% believing in a personal god.

---

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.

---

How about Franzblaus study of religiosity and honesty (negative correlation)? As to religion and IQ, check out Burnham Beckwiths article The effect of Intelligence on Religious Faith. The studies are out there you are just too lazy to go look them up.

---

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.

---

Unlike the religious, atheists are not subject to unchanging beliefs

---

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.

---

Disbelief in all things temporal and especially spiritual should be the default position.

---

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.

---

Well I did read a number of articles on the story, including the depositions taken by the law enforcement officials concerning the attack, the timeline, etc. I also looked at the home where the attack took place; and did several other searches concerning the parties involved. All available evidence points to Fundamentalism driven wish thinking, rather than desperation driven actions; I expect this to be further buttressed when laughing boy goes to trial shortly. The information is there, you just have to go look for it.

---

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...

---

The three protagonists in this sad tale were personally responsible for their actions but their actions absolutely required the presence of fundamentalist religion in order to reach fruition. If they had not been religious they would not have attempted the exorcism. Would they have tried something else equally destructive? Unlikely.

---

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? 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? 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..

---

Wow, theres wrong, theres wrong, and then there is you. Observation and prediction are great tools they are used all the time; by scientists, psychologists, law enforcement officials and even cold reading charlatans. Given even small clues you can readily predict what people will do. You dont need to be Mentok and perhaps you should not be it is not easy being green. When a prisoner is placed on suicide watch there is a reason previous observations of homo sapiens animal in the situation have demonstrated a strong correlation between the situation and suicide attempts. There is a whole list of demonstrated correlations when dealing with premeditated murder. There is guessing, there is hoping, but of much greater importance and use there is empirical evidence. To deny such is to show willful ignorance, and Fidhooki, your ignorance is showing.

---

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?
Also one more thing . I skipped over the old arguments
on account that we have had them out on other theads
and they were adding nothing here.

[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.)