Lol...?

Its great because its well put together and arguments I didn't even know existed are there and arguments that I thought no one else thought of before might be there, I gotta skim over it. But also, try coming up with that many reasons why atheism is wrong lol. Like I have never seen others call out apologetics before, anyways, and I saw them call it out but they did it differently than I did. I should skim through it a bit, ctrl+f would possibly be useful or looking below at the alphabetized list, since ctrl+f might take me all over the place with such a large page.

Oh you prolly think its funny, saying its short but its a massive link, I meant my post was going to be short and sweet lol, silly me.

Close, but it's more like who the hell cares?

It's cool that you found it interesting, but I think you may need a reality check.

People are free to believe what they want, fam. You or anyone else has no precedence to even bother to challenge someone's beliefs unless those beliefs are in line with hatred or bloodshed.

I have reasons for it, and its my blog so I'll do as I please, if you want to disagree then consider these points.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/06/religious-children-less-altruistic-secular-kids-study

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-28537149

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/06/peace-on-earth-atheism

With religion around you are more likely to fall for scam, commit crime, and both harm education through socioeconomic factors, and atheists get less divorces which helps family stability and actually effects socioeconomics as well. With more well rounded individuals being atheists more often, atheism is the way to go.

Not only that, theism is literally bad, there are evolution deniers and people getting paid to misinform the public in the south, the south like Texas has taught creationism instead of evolution. Spreading ignorance is the same as spreading crime in the long term, education is highly linked to reduced crime, so much so I don't even need to google it for you.

That is why I post what I will, and if you disagree you are wrong, and I dare you to suggest otherwise, bring the evidence. So I will keep doing what I do. Religion is outdated.

Also if people didn't want to click it they wouldn't've, that proves others have interest, theres a view counter, so that alone disproves your opinion.

Err... yeah... Like I said, reality check.

I don't know you enough to judge whether or not you're trolling, but you certainly have an awful mind. My advice would to be to just start looking at things objectively and not with the unfathomable assumptions and reasoning that you're doing (aka your facts aren't real, you're not comprehending what I'm saying, etc). Up to you whether or not you care enough to do that though man.

For the record I am actually agnostic.

Well if you have concerns explain them, and support them. You haven't given me anything to suggest your view is an accurate representation of the world, only some unexplained criticisms. And idk how you can say my mind is awful, this stuff is fact. People are abusing misinformation, and it needs to stop. If the world really is different surely other studies you find can contradict mine.

The thing is that although I could explain to you exactly what I mean, more than likely you won't care about it anyways. I'm already busy as it is and I'd rather not waste any more time than I need to.

Anyways, I'm sure you're an intelligent individual but your thinking needs improvement. I don't care about religion and I'm still saying that to you.

Well I know my thinking isn't perfect, but my points are legitimate, and you had time enough to respond, since you did, but w/e, buhbye.

It doesn't seem you think it isn't perfect with how you're assuming a lot. My line of thinking isn't perfect either, but at least I can actually acknowledge that and put some effort into seeing things differently.

Also, you do realize that I'm saying that I don't want to waste time going into detail about everything, right? That would take hours and that's time I really don't have. I took 3-5 minutes to respond with those. You act in a snide manner and you're pretty patronizing. This is why I said your thinking is awful and why I also said that it's up to you to see that in yourself. The only one who can make the change is you.

I do put effort into seeing things differently, its just not consistent. I can handle constructive criticism. And sure, I might be overdoing it,  and some might not care for my 'point' but curious people can still find it interesting or useful. Why argue over something being shared, unless you can point out something wrong with it. Not like I'm sharing propaganda, this is entirely accurate, maybe a mistake on one of the 1300 here n there, doubtful, this one was really well organized. Some of the arguments are meh though, but theres more than enough valid ones to make up for it.

If it's not consistent then you can't say you put effort into it. Let's say I had a school project and I only cared enough to do half of it. You can't say to me that you put effort into it because you didn't even bother finishing it.

The point is that many, many people who are religious do not do any of those things that you mentioned. Sure, a percentage of religious people do those things but that can also be said for those who are atheist or agnostic. And actually, you are sharing propaganda.. That's partly why I said something. They're clickbaity articles that stretch a truth and make generalizations. They are absolutely not very accurate at all. They're wanting you to believe certain points.  You'll find published articles that will tell you the exact opposite of what you read in these. You have to keep in mind that there are more Christians, Catholics, etc in the world compared to Atheists, Buddhists, etc.

Hence why I said work on your thinking because you're not seeing these things when you look at articles like that. You're just buying into what they're saying and agreeing with it for some reason. I don't know whether or not it is due to personal issues, but you're biased towards it.

The most important thing to realize is that it has very little to do with religion and more to do with individual actions. Your life or society's well being isn't going to change because people convert to atheism over being religious. Religion certainly plays a part, but nowhere near the amount the articles or you believe them to be.

You are wrong, its just a list of arguments nothing more. Some arguments are a little ad-hominem-like, sure, but most are well argued and make sense. I understand confirmation bias too, and I habitually internally rationalize to check for faults with logic, but I want to prevent problems, so I tend to make sure I just adopt ones that work or it'd make me look more like a fool. It'd hurt to approach it dishonestly and such than to approach it more thoroughly. But there are so many ways an argument can be wrong, occasionally I might not find a fallacy hidden between two valid successions of logic or such. But to just prove my point lemme find a roughly random argument from the page. Zoomed into the 1150s the first to catch my eye was '(1154) Jesus, compared to others, was not special'  http://www.kyroot.com/?page_id=4459#1154My first assumption was others of his kind, of the bible, but I was wrong, as I continued to read which is why I continued to read to see if it was wrong, then found that it wasn't wrong, I was wrong. And it explains it well, thus I am right. They make a valid case, others were more fit than Jesus. Granted, I do see its flaw, which is his miracles could've made him 'special'. But in that case, is his behavior really representative of godliness? Which is what they try answering, they ask which trait makes one more such as that? I mean if a common person was given miracle powers, then he isn't really flawless just being a normal dude, so his behavior would need evidence of him being exceptional or 'special' so the type of argument isn't invalidated despite being flawed. 

Naw science =/= propaganda, propaganda is a biased article cherry picking of 'science'. Granted technically all articles are cherry-picking studies, generally, theres a larger body of studies confirming than denying what I have shared previously. Also for a study to be statistically relevant it should contain at least 30 individuals usually, maybe even per group such as 30 for a control group and 30 the different experimental groups, not 30 altogether. But I think it actually was 30 altogether if I recall from my statistics class. (Now I recall, it was for polls 30 is the minimum)

Anyways I can show you what is propaganda https://answersingenesis.org/countering-the-culture/responding-to-atheist-propaganda/ very meta, its propaganda on propaganda, squared value lel. Its this guy listing definitions, and saying its his argument. Now to show you what isn't propaganda http://www.forbes.com/sites/jvchamary/2015/11/05/religion-morality/#135383f0670e (idk why this isn't linking properly, just copy pasta it into the toolbar if you want to see it) a study of over 1 thousand children. And I just found this one today, and if I were listing propaganda rather than science, then surely there are studies out there contradicting this one, with similar execution quality. Because to find the exact truth of a study we need to know the exact contexts. Alot of studies can be inconclusive, yes, and some can be intentionally misinterpreted or blown out of proportion etc. But thats a thousand kids, not 30 or less. And its from around the world, so less cultural bias.

Now if what you mean by something is wrong with me, and what I shared was propaganda. Maybe, sure, religion might help some people, sure. But do you have proof? Because, guaranteeing heaven for all we know causes a spoiled attitude and a superiority complex which is what makes them more selfish, from believing they are more informed, instead of finding out more, then they act entitled. But that also might not be the precise case, its just as valid if not more so than what your explanations may be.

So biased? Sure, not like I'm giving both sides, just the correct side, I'm biased towards that ok. Propaganda? Eh if its the same as the biased bit relatively, sure ok, but if you mean intentionally misleading information to force an opinion, that'd be wrong. This isn't propaganda so much as education. Granted even drug education programs are technically propaganda I guess. Anything dictating behavior is propaganda then. Does this mean its wrong? Some propaganda did help people, so even if I gave you the propaganda argument it doesn't mean my side is automatically false, it doesn't delete all the evidences my arguments have.

Which is why I say share some proof. I know my psychology is flawed. But I can still know I am correct, thus spreading education or truth theres nothing wrong with. You would need to disprove it, and I know you can't. You could enlighten me to some unforeseen context of all the studies that dissuades the idea of it being true, thats about all you could do.

But whatever personality quirks I have I don't think matters. Its a different topic, and it wasn't my list, did my list alone cause you to say those things about me or was it my attitude after? Because we need to address the list first, then my attitude, like one or the other not both in the same stroke. Because then, you can't argue against my information being propaganda because it wouldn't be your concern, your concern is my attitude.

If it's not consistent then you can't say you put effort into it. Let's say I had a school project and I only cared enough to do half of it. You can't say to me that you put effort into it because you didn't even bother finishing it.

Oh, so you believe thats true huh, have any proof? 

Because you just seem authoritarian, telling me how I think and that you know more about my context than you do. 

I have mixed interests, and spare time, a fickle mind, so tell me, how much effort do I need to put in before its considered 'effort'. Any, is the answer. And I did put effort in, its just inconsistent, as I said. If you want to disagree then by all means, you must be me to know that much about me, tell me, what is my favorite food. I mean you obviously know more about me than I do. Even me just sharing a simple link seems to tell you worlds of information. 

Also studies speak of trends, you wouldn't even be able to say I was generalizing all christians or something unless a study said it, because I'm basically speaking for the studies findings. Obviously there are exceptions, like how christian atheists exist. Its just far simpler to phrase things conveniently, and I'm too lazy to look through over an argument as petty as semantics, which is basically an ad hominem.

And sure, ad homs are fine if you say were giving me constructive criticism, but you haven't really delivered on that.

The most important thing to realize is that it has very little to do with religion and more to do with individual actions. Your life or society's well being isn't going to change because people convert to atheism over being religious. Religion certainly plays a part, but nowhere near the amount the articles or you believe them to be.

Thats a claim, an assertion, a statement of what you presume to be true. But is it true? What makes you think its true? Do you have evidence its true? So far everything points to atheism being generally good, except stress, but thats the same for homosexuals. They get more stress just by having an abnormal(not an insult, just using the technical word) orientation. Like, homosexuals have higher suicide rates. To neglect that perhaps they have more daily social conflicts that causes it is plain ignoring the context, and I already explained the importance of context of studies above. So I think there was one study suggesting atheists have more mental illness than the religious but less than the spiritual. Other trends(possibly vague use of bayesian logic here) lead me to believe its because atheism is unaccepted as of yet. And they are, why else are there fairy tales that they are less moral, and studies suggesting the opposite? Its as simple as a politician pointing a finger, it was a disinformation campaign or assumption so christians can make themselves feel superior. The origin to the word atheist from france was used as an insult for instance. You know what people do to tarnish reputations, lie, at the same time it protects themselves. This is called psychological projection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projectionand if you think me spelling it out for you is patronizing, thats not how I intend it, because I do not know what others know, I only know sometimes people don't know and thats good enough to share. Some people need it spelled out for them. And giving evidence isn't bad, or people might just deny it as it suits them.

They are absolutely not very accurate at all. They're wanting you to believe certain points.  You'll find published articles that will tell you the exact opposite of what you read in these.

Prove its not accurate. Assertions need evidence.

Ok, who doesn't want people to make true informed decisions thats not evidence of misintentions or anything.

Yeah its called apologetics, and thats been debunked already in the link of 1300 but I could explain it in detail for you if you like. Basically apologetics wouldn't exist if it were accurate, because no one would have any merit for claiming its inconsistent or inaccurate. Also, apologetics can be used to reconcile ANY two contradictions with the use of creative problem solving. Does not mean its true however, and if you need me to give an example I can. 

So are we done here?

Yeah, so you're basically acting how I said you would act.

I said your thinking was awful because that's what it is, not for ad hominem related reasons.

I also said I wasn't going to use my time to go into my detail and I'm going to do just that. There's no way I'm going to spend hours talking to you about this useless stuff. If you want to keep believing shitty rhetoric and act intelligent on void reasoning then that's on you and nothing I could ever say will change that. If you don't want to see it differently, that's fine. That choice is up to you. You can find studies, articles, etc saying the exact opposite via the same method you found the articles you listed, so if you really want to see those things then just do that.

On ‎10‎/‎20‎/‎2016 at 11:47 PM, Lil Pip said:

Oh, so you believe thats true huh, have any proof?

Well, yeah? If you only cared enough to do half of it then you didn't really try. I'm not sure what's hard to see about that. half=/=full.

Not going to read the rest of it because you're too stuck to see it differently, and from what I did skim it was completely irrelevant to what the problem is...

That's all I really have to say.

Have a good day/evening/night.

Welp w/e, if you wanna find studies you do it but I already explained that.