hopefulLandlord:


Please be serious, nobody takes that stupid website serious, not even their dubious sources which most to as don't carry any weight

I'm still waiting for that list you're talking about

do not be bias. if you keep your trust in Wikipedia then confirm. They use citations just like wikipedia. Check the citations and see if those are reliable . check the references they give if it is not reliable

i do not do stereotyping, i can only give you source which i did

vaxx:
do not be bias. if you keep your trust in Wikipedia then confirm. They use citations just like wikipedia. Check the citations and see if those are reliable . check the references they give if it is not reliable

i do not do stereotyping, i can only give you source which i did

That source isn't reliable anywhere, a simple google search of "is conservapedia reliable"? would show you not one article supporting them in the slightest except their own personal website attesting to their own reliability

I'm still asking for the list, not an article, you've been talking about. All you're doing so far is trying to change the topic

hopefulLandlord:

That source isn't reliable anywhere, a simple google search of "is conservapedia reliable"? would show you not one article supporting them in the slightest except their own personal website attesting to their own reliability

I'm still asking for the list, not an article, you've been talking about. All you're doing so far is trying to change the topic

i am not changing the topic bro. i am only letting you know that both wiki and conservapedia are both subjected to the same standard of citations. yes it is not reliable just like wikipedia. but am using it for the sake of mental stability. so if you reject conservapdia , then stop using wikipedia as your souce of references.

where on earth do you want me to get the list of all atheist that went on a suicide mission? i can only provide you prominent acclaimed atheist, which i think fox already did that last time you engage him

vaxx:
i am not changing the topic bro. i am only letting you know that both wiki and conservapedia are both subjected to the same standard of citations. yes it is not reliable just like wikipedia. but am using it for the sake of mental stability. so if you reject conservapdia , then stop using wikipedia as your souce of references.

Conservapedia makes article with an end in mind, gather unreliable and dubious sources to make it happen and make up sources when there's none. This is entirely different from Wikipedia and putting Wikipedia on same level as Conservapedia is an insult to Wikipedia haha

where on earth do you want me to get the list of all atheist that went on a suicide mission? i can only provide you prominent acclaimed atheist, which i think fox already did that last time you engage him

YOU claimed there's a list not me, you're now running around when that claim is challenged

on a side note, do you see how asinine it is when the OP insulted the other person for asking for something to buttress what he claimed, you supported him and here you are claiming there's a list and you're not able to bring out such a list for the umpteenth time of asking

BTW I don't remember engaging faxole on suicide, I only challenged his claim about morality

hopefulLandlord:

Conservapedia makes article with an end in mind, gather unreliable and dubious sources to make it happen and make up sources when there's none. This is entirely different from Wikipedia and putting Wikipedia on same level as Conservapedia is an insult to Wikipedia haha

YOU claimed there's a list not me, you're now running around when that claim is challenged

on a side note, do you see how asinine it is when the OP insulted the other person for asking for something to buttress what he claimed, you supported him and here you are claiming there's a list and you're not able to bring out such a list for the umpteenth time of asking

BTW I don't remember engaging faxole on suicide, I only challenged his claim about morality

i do not know how to engage this. go through this yourself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

The first thing to understand is that Wikipedia is not a static reference work its articles are constantly evolving. An article that is in good shape today may be in poor shape tomorrow, and vice versa. The second thing is that Wikipedia quality is very variable – the spectrum ranges from truly outstanding articles to complete nonsense, along with anything in between just like conservapedia,The are both open source. so you arguing in support of wikipedia is very laughable.

i do not know what you really want dude, but relax, will you read ? will you not throw another unwarranted question to me again?

the lists are here pls http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/161/12/2303

please visit your comment with fox, it seems you are forgeting

Seems butterflyl1on has finally been banned

superhumanist:
Seems butterflyl1on has finally been banned

Antispambot. I know you wish I would disappear

Thanks to 10 minute mail. I keep resurfacing

vaxx:
i do not know how to engage this. go through this yourself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

The first thing to understand is that Wikipedia is not a static reference work its articles are constantly evolving. An article that is in good shape today may be in poor shape tomorrow, and vice versa. The second thing is that Wikipedia quality is very variable – the spectrum ranges from truly outstanding articles to complete nonsense, along with anything in between just like conservapedia,The are both open source. so you arguing in support of wikipedia is very laughable.

No its not

what's laughable is not realising how awful Conservapedia is, Wikipedia is a lot more neutral about its articles while Conservapedia already has a goal in mind; this makes a lot of difference when you cycle between both and see how biased one is over the other; Conservapedia blames Liberals, atheists, non Christians for everything bad while Christianity is whitewashed as possible, all their mods are conservative Christians who ban anyone attempting to bring some neutrality and sense into the site

I'm not telling you to trust Wikipedia completely, its not infallible but the difference is very clear and only an ignorant person would bring it up

i do not know what you really want dude, but relax, will you read ? will you not throw another unwarranted question to me again?

the lists are here pls http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/161/12/2303

please visit your comment with fox, it seems you are forgeting

Dunno about you but i got "Page not found" when I clicked the link

BTW I remember my argument with faxole is about morality, I and him never debated suicide; he debated it with Martinez19 NOT me and I'm not Martinez19

Butterfllylion:


Antispambot. I know you wish I would disappear

lies. spambot got 2 of your usernames? butterflyl1on and butterflylioNn?

vaxx:
i do not know how to engage this. go through this yourself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

The first thing to understand is that Wikipedia is not a static reference work its articles are constantly evolving. An article that is in good shape today may be in poor shape tomorrow, and vice versa. The second thing is that Wikipedia quality is very variable – the spectrum ranges from truly outstanding articles to complete nonsense, along with anything in between just like conservapedia,The are both open source. so you arguing in support of wikipedia is very laughable.

i do not know what you really want dude, but relax, will you read ? will you not throw another unwarranted question to me again?

the lists are here pls http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/161/12/2303

please visit your comment with fox, it seems you are forgeting

Vaxx go through this


https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5a2a902ee4b022ec613b812b/amp

That's an article by a very vocal atheist.

And this


https://amp.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/2iq290/without_god_i_feel_suicide_makes_logical_sense/

Check the comments from atheists there.

superhumanist:


lies. spambot got 2 of your usernames? butterflyl1on and butterflylioNn?

Because I was trying to post an article. Something in the article must disagree with it

hopefulLandlord:

No its not

what's laughable is not realising how awful Conservapedia is, Wikipedia is a lot more neutral about its articles while Conservapedia already has a goal in mind; this makes a lot of difference when you cycle between both and see how biased one is over the other; Conservapedia blames Liberals, atheists, non Christians for everything bad while Christianity is whitewashed as possible, all their mods are conservative Christians who ban anyone attempting to bring some neutrality and sense into the site

I'm not telling you to trust Wikipedia completely, its not infallible but the difference is very clear and only an ignorant person would bring it up


Dunno about you but i got "Page not found" when I clicked the link

BTW I remember my argument with faxole is about morality, I and him never debated suicide; he debated it with Martinez19 NOT me and I'm not Martinez19

I observed that Wikipedia is very neutral as possible.

Vaxx this is the very opening comment from the huffpost article by an atheist

Depression is a serious problem within the greater atheist community and far too often, that depression has led to suicide. This is something many of my fellow atheists often don’t like to admit, but it is true. I know a lot of atheists, myself included, would all like to believe that atheists are happier people than religious believers and in many ways we are. But we also have to accept the reality that in some very important ways we are not.

Vaxx China is the worlds most irreligious / atheist nation and China ranks high on the suicide index. Currently the suicide rating in china is put at 22.23 suicides for every 100,000

hopefulLandlord:

No its not

what's laughable is not realising how awful Conservapedia is, Wikipedia is a lot more neutral about its articles while Conservapedia already has a goal in mind; this makes a lot of difference when you cycle between both and see how biased one is over the other; Conservapedia blames Liberals, atheists, non Christians for everything bad while Christianity is whitewashed as possible, all their mods are conservative Christians who ban anyone attempting to bring some neutrality and sense into the site

I'm not telling you to trust Wikipedia completely, its not infallible but the difference is very clear and only an ignorant person would bring it up


Dunno about you but i got "Page not found" when I clicked the link

the bone of argument is how reliable is wikipedia and conserverpedia. both of them are open to vandalism , so where dose neutrality come in here. i can today go ahead and edit wikipedia. i can post a false information on my own account. so tell me where neutrality take place here? both of them are open sites , one feels wiki is bias and decided to create her own page to address it. i expect you as a clever individual to check the citation and see if it is truly reliable instead of you condemning it entirely. that will be a complete bias to me. or do you want me to show you a lot of false information on wikipedia? to me, only an arrogant fellow will continue arguing the same issue when the correction is being throw to his face. both of them are not reliable. simple.



you can use the advance search on to verify?


both this the abstract of the article, i can not post all...

''OBJECTIVE: Few studies have investigated the association between religion and suicide either in terms of Durkheim's social integration hypothesis or the hypothesis of the regulative benefits of religion. The relationship between religion and suicide attempts has received even less attention.
METHOD: Depressed inpatients (N=371) who reported belonging to one specific religion or described themselves as having no religious affiliation were compared in terms of their demographic and clinical characteristics.

RESULTS: Religiously unaffiliated subjects had significantly more lifetime suicide attempts and more first-degree relatives who committed suicide than subjects who endorsed a religious affiliation. Unaffiliated subjects were younger, less often married, less often had children, and had less contact with family members. Furthermore, subjects with no religious affiliation perceived fewer reasons for living, particularly fewer moral objections to suicide. In terms of clinical characteristics, religiously unaffiliated subjects had more lifetime impulsivity, aggression, and past substance use disorder. No differences in the level of subjective and objective depression, hopelessness, or stressful life events were found.

CONCLUSIONS: Religious affiliation is associated with less suicidal behavior in depressed inpatients. After other factors were controlled, it was found that greater moral objections to suicide and lower aggression level in religiously affiliated subjects may function as protective factors against suicide attempts. Further study about the influence of religious affiliation on aggressive behavior and how moral objections can reduce the probability of acting on suicidal thoughts may offer new therapeutic strategies in suicide prevention''( source from the articule)

vaxx:
the bone of argument is how reliable is wikipedia and conserverpedia. both of them are open to vandalism , so where those neutrality come in here. i can today go ahead and edit wikipedia. i can post a false information on my own account. so tell me where neutrality take play here? both of them are open sites , one feels wiki is bias and decided to create her own page to address it. i except as a clever individual to check the citation and see if it is truly reliable instead of you condemning it entirely. that will be a complete bias to me. or do you want me to show a lot of false information on wikipedia? to me only an arrogant fellow will continue arguing the same issue when the correction is being throw to his face. both of them are not reliable. simple.



you can use the advance search on to verify?


both this the abstract of the article, i can post all...''OBJECTIVE: Few studies have investigated the association between religion and suicide either in terms of Durkheim's social integration hypothesis or the hypothesis of the regulative benefits of religion. The relationship between religion and suicide attempts has received even less attention.
METHOD: Depressed inpatients (N=371) who reported belonging to one specific religion or described themselves as having no religious affiliation were compared in terms of their demographic and clinical characteristics.

RESULTS: Religiously unaffiliated subjects had significantly more lifetime suicide attempts and more first-degree relatives who committed suicide than subjects who endorsed a religious affiliation. Unaffiliated subjects were younger, less often married, less often had children, and had less contact with family members. Furthermore, subjects with no religious affiliation perceived fewer reasons for living, particularly fewer moral objections to suicide. In terms of clinical characteristics, religiously unaffiliated subjects had more lifetime impulsivity, aggression, and past substance use disorder. No differences in the level of subjective and objective depression, hopelessness, or stressful life events were found.

CONCLUSIONS: Religious affiliation is associated with less suicidal behavior in depressed inpatients. After other factors were controlled, it was found that greater moral objections to suicide and lower aggression level in religiously affiliated subjects may function as protective factors against suicide attempts. Further study about the influence of religious affiliation on aggressive behavior and how moral objections can reduce the probability of acting on suicidal thoughts may offer new therapeutic strategies in suicide prevention''( source from the articule)

Bros, stop running around and strawmanning, WHERE IS THE LIST?
That's the Genesis of this discussion and all these Wikipedia Conservapedia argument are beside the point

you said there's a list, where is it?

hopefulLandlord:

Bros, stop running around and strawmanning, WHERE IS THE LIST?
That's the Genesis of this discussion and all these Wikipedia Conservapedia argument are beside the point

you said there's a list, where is it?

what list do you want me to post again? that article is academia and individual names are protected. so you are expecting me to be listing A and b?

vaxx:
what list do you want to post again? that article is academia and individual names are protected. so you are expecting me to be listing A and b?

Here is the list I've been asking for again and again
you said the below

The only evidence the dude can use is the list of prominent people that are actually atheist(well known)and this list is available online.

This is it and I'm asking what the list is and what it shows but all you've done so far is google and google

WHERE IS THE LIST?

hopefulLandlord:



Here is the list I've been asking for again and again



This is it and I'm asking what the list is and what it shows but all you've done so far is google and google

WHERE IS THE LIST?

so why do you not do the needful. i said it is available online and not offline. am sure you are not offline?

vaxx:
so why do you not do the needful. i said it is available online and not offline. am sure you are offline?

The onus is always on the claimant, that's the sensible way a discourse should go otherwise one can make bullsheet claim and say the challenger should be the one to do the searching. I thought this much is obvious to anyone who's debated before....

You're the one to bring the list or give link to the list

vaxx:
the bone of argument is how reliable is wikipedia and conserverpedia. both of them are open to vandalism , so where dose neutrality come in here. i can today go ahead and edit wikipedia. i can post a false information on my own account. so tell me where neutrality take place here? both of them are open sites , one feels wiki is bias and decided to create her own page to address it. i expect you as a clever individual to check the citation and see if it is truly reliable instead of you condemning it entirely. that will be a complete bias to me. or do you want me to show you a lot of false information on wikipedia? to me, only an arrogant fellow will continue arguing the same issue when the correction is being throw to his face. both of them are not reliable. simple.



you can use the advance search on to verify?


both this the abstract of the article, i can not post all...

''OBJECTIVE: Few studies have investigated the association between religion and suicide either in terms of Durkheim's social integration hypothesis or the hypothesis of the regulative benefits of religion. The relationship between religion and suicide attempts has received even less attention.
METHOD: Depressed inpatients (N=371) who reported belonging to one specific religion or described themselves as having no religious affiliation were compared in terms of their demographic and clinical characteristics.

RESULTS: Religiously unaffiliated subjects had significantly more lifetime suicide attempts and more first-degree relatives who committed suicide than subjects who endorsed a religious affiliation. Unaffiliated subjects were younger, less often married, less often had children, and had less contact with family members. Furthermore, subjects with no religious affiliation perceived fewer reasons for living, particularly fewer moral objections to suicide. In terms of clinical characteristics, religiously unaffiliated subjects had more lifetime impulsivity, aggression, and past substance use disorder. No differences in the level of subjective and objective depression, hopelessness, or stressful life events were found.

CONCLUSIONS: Religious affiliation is associated with less suicidal behavior in depressed inpatients. After other factors were controlled, it was found that greater moral objections to suicide and lower aggression level in religiously affiliated subjects may function as protective factors against suicide attempts. Further study about the influence of religious affiliation on aggressive behavior and how moral objections can reduce the probability of acting on suicidal thoughts may offer new therapeutic strategies in suicide prevention''( source from the articule)

What you posted here from conservapedea is the same conclusion made from the atheist who wrote the article I posted from huffpost.

The fact is that because a lot of atheists want to live in denial and see talks about atheist suicide rates as a very big dent on atheism, they would keep lying about it and deceiving themselves despite being depressed themselves.

It's a defence mechanism they put up out of pride just to protect their atheistic ego.

Superhumanist your desire kolewerk. This antispambot has it out for me today sha. I cannot post articles, nothing but simple Comments. It is well sha. Where there is a will, there is a way.

hopefulLandlord:


The onus is always on the claimant, that's the sensible way a discourse should go otherwise one can make bullsheet claim and say the challenger should be the one to do the searching. I thought this much is obvious to anyone who's debated before....

You're the one to bring the list or give link to the list

hopefulland, this is what i am doing since. do not let me see you as an inconsistent fellow. you are not arrogant am sure these are the links again. there is correlation between atheism and suicide ...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108625/more-religious-countries-lower-suicide-rates.aspx

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/abs/10.1176/appi.ajp.161.12.2303

https://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Ath-Chap-under-7000.pdf

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/abs/10.1176/appi.ajp.161.12.2303



if you want names ,visit the topic you have with fox . or should i post the link here?

Being ignored must really hurt especially if you're an attention seeker. Even the person he's supporting and opening new accounts for and mentioning upandan hasn't quoted him once

hopefulLandlord:
Being ignored must really hurt especially if you're an attention seeker. Even the person he's supporting and opening new accounts for and mentioning upandan hasn't quoted him once

You must be salt and I, water because it seems if you quote me directly you would obviously melt

Vaxx and I have a "mental" understanding. I never asked him to quote me as all I did was provide him with links as my understanding of his position which you are shamelessly lying to yourself about.

True men stand up to their fellow men and quote them directly. You are obviously still an adolescent.

vaxx:
hopefulland, this is what i am doing since. do not let me see you as an inconsistent fellow. you are not arrogant am sure these are the links again. there is correlation between atheism and suicide ...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108625/more-religious-countries-lower-suicide-rates.aspx

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/abs/10.1176/appi.ajp.161.12.2303

https://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Ath-Chap-under-7000.pdf

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/abs/10.1176/appi.ajp.161.12.2303



if you want names visiot your topic with fox or should post the links here?

I still haven't seen any list you're talking about

BTW are you not Talking about the same Faxole? its a pity the thread is deleted but all I challenged him for are 2 things

1. Nigeria morals is being influenced mainly by Christianity

2. USA is founded on Christian principles

I then supported Darkchild's argument about alcohol and homosexuality then debated Emannystone on Introverts are sad and lonely claim. I always pick my battles so I usually know exactly what I'm arguing for or against.

I hope Faxole or anyone else (asides the attention seeker of course) can correct me if I did argue against suicide with Faxole on that thread

All these are still beside the point, Let's assume Faxole and I did argue suicide, how does that stop you giving the list you claim you have links to? why are you dragging this on and on and on?

Lionbutterfly:


You must be salt and I, water because it seems if you quote me directly you would obviously melt

Vaxx and I have a "mental" understanding. I never asked him to quote me as all I did was provide him with links as my understanding of his position which you are shamelessly lying to yourself about.

True men stand up to their fellow men and quote them directly. You are obviously still an adolescent.

i really like your gut. and i think these are one of the reason people may not consider atheism as a right choice. keeping malice online for about one year is not a good idea to me i think.

vaxx:
hopefulland, this is what i am doing since. do not let me see you as an inconsistent fellow. you are not arrogant am sure these are the links again. there is correlation between atheism and suicide ...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108625/more-religious-countries-lower-suicide-rates.aspx

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/abs/10.1176/appi.ajp.161.12.2303

https://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Ath-Chap-under-7000.pdf

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/abs/10.1176/appi.ajp.161.12.2303



if you want names ,visit the topic you have with fox . or should i post the link here?

Going through these articles for future reference. Also do you know that the top ten WHO listed highly irreligious countries in the world have the highest suicide rates while the bottom ten high religious countries have the lowest?

Also as I look into this issue more, I keep getting more shocking revelations.

Look at this article


https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2010/aug/26/doctors-religious-beliefs-terminally-ill

The study finds that "Atheist doctors 'more likely to hasten death of terminally Ill patients".

And it begins thus

Terminally-ill patients would be well advised to find out the religious beliefs of their doctor, according to research showing the effect of faith on a doctor's willingness to make decisions that could hasten death.

[b]Doctors who are atheist or agnostic are twice as likely to take decisions that might shorten the life of somebody who is terminally ill as doctors who are deeply religious – and doctors with strong religious convictions are less likely even to discuss such decisions with the patient, according to Professor Clive Seale, from the centre for health sciences at Barts and the London school of medicine and dentistry.