Nah, you either believe in god or you don't. Saying you don't know if you believe in god or not, is saying "I don't know what I believe" which is a lie. People know what they think, people know what they believe.

Which is why agnostics are just evil atheists (like FaZ) who have donned a clever disguise.

If you want to claim that there exists a correlation between intelligence (however you want to define it) and believing that gods exist, then you need to back up that claim with evidence.

Otherwise you're launching an unsubstantiated personal attack against people such as myself.

Non-religious means agnostic, if you're anti-religion you're atheist.


Agnosticism, the people who I can somewhat understand.

Also, don't start another argument by taking Norm out of context too...

Stop getting your panties in a bunch, and try re-reading the point of my post before you throw a hissy fit. I never once said there was a correlation, and you shouldn't take fragments of statements that go together to try to rebuttal against someone...


@Falkoner, how is non-religious agnostic at all?

How is it not atheist then?

Because a lot of people use observation to see that many gods do in fact exist, but choose not to worship any of them.

Oh, this must be one of those metal religions, I see Well, I'm done in this topic

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Nov 23 2009, 10:52 pm by JaFF. Reason: Topic clean-up. You did nothing wrong.

You said "people who are intelligent enough to know that gods exist"
This is the statement:
"person X is intelligent enough"
"person X knows that gods exist"

This statement is logically equivalent to:
"persons X does not know that gods exist"
"person X is not intelligent enough"

If you're going to accuse me of taking you out of context here, please show me how the context of what you're saying changes any of this.

Are you aware of the comma following that last word you quote? Are you aware that there is a second clause that completes the sentence there? You are trying to argue with a point that no one ever made because you're not taking the time to actually read something before you want to argue with it.

lol @ this topic.

People are animals. 'Nuff said.

I'm Athiest and fully law abiding, now what?

Erm, good for you? I don't believe anyone said anything like 'if you're atheist you're a criminal'...

It looked pretty fuckin' implied.

Question; why is it that every time I come into SD (or an SD topic that got moved to null) because I see something that I think might be interesting to look at actually be another fucking religion discussion? Seriously.

I think someone should draw the line. No religion discussion in topics that aren't a religion discussion.

Because religion takes care of your afterlife/soul, so that makes it important, enough that everyone always brings it into discussion.

Honestly, if you really don't like it, then people need to stop getting their panties in a bunch if anything with even a slight hint of religion comes up, the post I made that caused half this topic was taken out of context, and the intended meaning behind it had to be restated five times before the discussion ended.

OK. I've just spent about 15 minutes removing the crap out of this topic. And there's still some remaining. If I see any more of this shit appear here, I'll just lock it.

Use your brains, people; you know who you are.

I'll stray into the territory of religion here, because most of the last three pages have centered on it; I'm generally against religion, because while it can support a society, at the same time it promotes ignorance. However, I DO believe it can support society, in part by reducing crime rates. It's the same basic idea as my extremely-harsh-punishment idea. People have to fear the law, and religion takes it a step further, saying that if you do something horrible you will be tortured in the afterlife as well. That's all I'll contribute to the matter (until someone decides to respond to me in an annoying manner or something). Also, scwizard, people should be punished for their own actions, not for those of their relatives. Your idea to kill the family of the murderer is, I think, a rather horrid one, and I would much rather just have the government slowly torture and kill the murderer. Hell, maybe air occasional tortures and subsequent deaths on the internet so they'll be available for someone who wants to see what happens to murderers and to deter those who want to test the law (subject to parental controls, of course).

Scwizard is approaching the level of Swift's Proprosal at this point, I expected much better from SEN.

You're more than welcome to believe this, but all research done shows the exact opposite to be true. Do you have evidence to support your claim or any research which might corroborate?


Centreri your ideas for punishment are barbaric and lack both thought and research. I'm a proponent of the death penalty but if the United States adopted such a policy I would immediately leave (conveniently avoiding the war as the rest of the world decides to invade us and overthrow our now authoritarian government). The motives behind almost any crime are ignorance and ease. Those are the problems that need to be addressed, dealing only with the punishment is taking a gigantic step backwards in human progression.

And you're more than welcome to believe that, and I wish you the best of luck in devising a rival system of reducing crime that would break through the contempt for society displayed by the psychopaths and such of the world.

Not that I'm supporting either side, but do you have proof that 'religion' directly implies higher crime rate? If you have it, show it.