http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/stor...code=402381&c=2
It certainly gives support to religions which try to supress education in it's followers. If you can call it support.
i always wanted to know, when based on total lack of evidence, why religious people think their specific religion is true and other religions are false...
It would be far more truthful to say that institutes of higher learning are generally atheist FRIENDLY and religious UNFRIENDLY...
It is very biased to say that religious persons are stupid and entirely one sided. It seems the propagators of this sort of study would understand that a person who said yes on such a report would be viewed with skepticism by their peers.
I conform to no religion and simply think that the whole "freedom of religion" change is "feel free to throw any credibility you have away". The posting of this sort of biased trash , especially the heading it was put under, leaves little doubt that the Poster intended to laugh at others expense. A view that is rampant in the current climate....
I think YOU are STUPID. Not because religion is folly or not folly, but because you measure the quality of peoples worth in such a narrow , bigoted, Schoolyard bully tactics kind of way
Grow a little hair on your chin , get some wrinkles and then let others alone.
Iseason
It is very biased to say that religious persons are stupid and entirely one sided. It seems the propagators of this sort of study would understand that a person who said yes on such a report would be viewed with skepticism by their peers.
I conform to no religion and simply think that the whole "freedom of religion" change is "feel free to throw any credibility you have away". The posting of this sort of biased trash , especially the heading it was put under, leaves little doubt that the Poster intended to laugh at others expense. A view that is rampant in the current climate....
I think YOU are STUPID. Not because religion is folly or not folly, but because you measure the quality of peoples worth in such a narrow , bigoted, Schoolyard bully tactics kind of way
Grow a little hair on your chin , get some wrinkles and then let others alone.
Iseason
It is very disappointing to see a science forum which can be read around the world let such a topic as this be posted.
Saying people are stupid is so disrespectful.
You can easily see the poster wants attention.
I have never met someone who did not have intelligence.
However I must reconsider after seeing what this poster is willing to put into a world of science forum.
Saying people are stupid is so disrespectful.
You can easily see the poster wants attention.
I have never met someone who did not have intelligence.
However I must reconsider after seeing what this poster is willing to put into a world of science forum.
Obviously I need to clarify my own views, since some posters here are assuming things about me from just the title of this thread, which is ironic considering they are complaining about me supposedly assuming things about others from a single bit of information about them.
I had just read some of dad1's posts and then saw this on a news site. People like dad1 and MrBelfry or whatever is it are prime examples of the kind of thing the study talk about. It's been my experience that the people most vocal in their disbelief of evolution or even less directly religious things like the big bang are the most ignorant of them. dad1 and MrBelfry know very little about it either of them. Same goes for no1nose. For the big bang, people like Kaneda are an example.
I do not instantly think "Dumbass" when someone tells me they are religious. They do have to show that they are rational though, because it's been my experience that those people who are very religious are often out of touch with rationality. I know some clever, rational religious people and I know some staggeringly stupid atheists. I would imagine that many of the cranks on these forums are at least agnostic and I consider a few of them wastes of oxygen.
I had just read some of dad1's posts and then saw this on a news site. People like dad1 and MrBelfry or whatever is it are prime examples of the kind of thing the study talk about. It's been my experience that the people most vocal in their disbelief of evolution or even less directly religious things like the big bang are the most ignorant of them. dad1 and MrBelfry know very little about it either of them. Same goes for no1nose. For the big bang, people like Kaneda are an example.
I do not instantly think "Dumbass" when someone tells me they are religious. They do have to show that they are rational though, because it's been my experience that those people who are very religious are often out of touch with rationality. I know some clever, rational religious people and I know some staggeringly stupid atheists. I would imagine that many of the cranks on these forums are at least agnostic and I consider a few of them wastes of oxygen.
QUOTE
However I must reconsider after seeing what this poster is willing to put into a world of science forum.
Have you seen my other posts on this forum? I would say, without being arrogant or delusional, I'm in the top 3 of people on these forums for physics knowledge. If I wanted attention I'd be posting claims like Farsight or StevenA about pet theories of mine. But I don't post my work because I know it wouldn't stimulate discussion.
QUOTE (iseason+Jun 12 2008, 09:17 AM)
It would be far more truthful to say that institutes of higher learning are generally atheist FRIENDLY and religious UNFRIENDLY...
Many universities, including many ivy league schools have religious curriculum.
Harvard Divinity School
Oxford Faculty of Theology
University of Cambridge Faculty of Divinity
Duke Divinity School
Yale Divinity School
So basically yer jes plain WRONG!
Please quote fer me the portion o that article which says "religious people are stupid."
It don't exist. The fact is that people with higher IQs tend to be less religious an more likely to be atheist. That's a fact, not an insult.
Please quote fer me the portion o that article which says "religious people are stupid."
It don't exist. The fact is that people with higher IQs tend to be less religious an more likely to be atheist. That's a fact, not an insult.
It seems the propagators of this sort of study would understand that a person who said yes on such a report would be viewed with skepticism by their peers.
What? What does that even mean, son? Ya think folk are bein pressured to say they're an atheist?
Oh, he's a jerk fer postin a link to an article fer discussion, but yer not an idiot fer ASSumin to know why he did it?
Oh, he's a jerk fer postin a link to an article fer discussion, but yer not an idiot fer ASSumin to know why he did it?
I think YOU are STUPID. Not because religion is folly or not folly, but because you measure the quality of peoples worth in such a narrow , bigoted, Schoolyard bully tactics kind of way
roflmao
Awww, poor iseasons thinks pointin out facts is bullyin! An that somehow, knowin more'n him makes Alpha stupid.... What a dumb thing to say!
Many universities, including many ivy league schools have religious curriculum.
Harvard Divinity School
Oxford Faculty of Theology
University of Cambridge Faculty of Divinity
Duke Divinity School
Yale Divinity School
So basically yer jes plain WRONG!
QUOTE
It is very biased to say that religious persons are stupid and entirely one sided.
Please quote fer me the portion o that article which says "religious people are stupid."
It don't exist. The fact is that people with higher IQs tend to be less religious an more likely to be atheist. That's a fact, not an insult.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It is very biased to say that religious persons are stupid and entirely one sided. |
Please quote fer me the portion o that article which says "religious people are stupid."
It don't exist. The fact is that people with higher IQs tend to be less religious an more likely to be atheist. That's a fact, not an insult.
It seems the propagators of this sort of study would understand that a person who said yes on such a report would be viewed with skepticism by their peers.
What? What does that even mean, son? Ya think folk are bein pressured to say they're an atheist?
QUOTE
The posting of this sort of biased trash , especially the heading it was put under, leaves little doubt that the Poster intended to laugh at others expense. A view that is rampant in the current climate....
Oh, he's a jerk fer postin a link to an article fer discussion, but yer not an idiot fer ASSumin to know why he did it?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The posting of this sort of biased trash , especially the heading it was put under, leaves little doubt that the Poster intended to laugh at others expense. A view that is rampant in the current climate.... |
Oh, he's a jerk fer postin a link to an article fer discussion, but yer not an idiot fer ASSumin to know why he did it?
I think YOU are STUPID. Not because religion is folly or not folly, but because you measure the quality of peoples worth in such a narrow , bigoted, Schoolyard bully tactics kind of way
roflmao
Awww, poor iseasons thinks pointin out facts is bullyin! An that somehow, knowin more'n him makes Alpha stupid.... What a dumb thing to say!
QUOTE (rethinker+)
It is very disappointing to see a science forum which can be read around the world let such a topic as this be posted.
Yeah, especially as we all know science must be politically correct, so it's findin's don't offend no-one.
But wait, don't all the evidence supportin evolution offend creationists? Well, we'll jes have to stop teachin evolution an studyin it.
Wait, don't all o our modern technology offend the Amish? Well, I guess we'll jes have to stop usin it an developin it... No more vaccines fer yer kids (if ya got any) rethinker, cause that's offensive to some people, an we can't have people gettin offended, even if it means kids dyin to prevent it...
That's right. Now remember all them folk what called ya stupid? Might it be because they got no respect for ya?
I'll tell ya the truth: I think yer stupid. I got no noticable respect for ya. So yer right on this one.
O course, this article don't actually call anyone stupid, so I dunno why ya brought it up...
Oh yeah! Cause yer stupid
That's right. Now remember all them folk what called ya stupid? Might it be because they got no respect for ya?
I'll tell ya the truth: I think yer stupid. I got no noticable respect for ya. So yer right on this one.
O course, this article don't actually call anyone stupid, so I dunno why ya brought it up...
Oh yeah! Cause yer stupid
I have never met someone who did not have intelligence.
I have!
Hey AlphaNumeric:
Ain't it funny how these two bitch n moan about this article insultin folks, then come on this forum an insult you? I think it's priceless, a little gem o hypocrisy!
Yeah, especially as we all know science must be politically correct, so it's findin's don't offend no-one.
But wait, don't all the evidence supportin evolution offend creationists? Well, we'll jes have to stop teachin evolution an studyin it.
Wait, don't all o our modern technology offend the Amish? Well, I guess we'll jes have to stop usin it an developin it... No more vaccines fer yer kids (if ya got any) rethinker, cause that's offensive to some people, an we can't have people gettin offended, even if it means kids dyin to prevent it...
QUOTE
Saying people are stupid is so disrespectful.
That's right. Now remember all them folk what called ya stupid? Might it be because they got no respect for ya?
I'll tell ya the truth: I think yer stupid. I got no noticable respect for ya. So yer right on this one.
O course, this article don't actually call anyone stupid, so I dunno why ya brought it up...
Oh yeah! Cause yer stupid
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Saying people are stupid is so disrespectful. |
That's right. Now remember all them folk what called ya stupid? Might it be because they got no respect for ya?
I'll tell ya the truth: I think yer stupid. I got no noticable respect for ya. So yer right on this one.
O course, this article don't actually call anyone stupid, so I dunno why ya brought it up...
Oh yeah! Cause yer stupid
I have never met someone who did not have intelligence.
I have!
QUOTE
However I must reconsider after seeing what this poster is willing to put into a world of science forum.
Hey AlphaNumeric:
Ain't it funny how these two bitch n moan about this article insultin folks, then come on this forum an insult you?
I think it's priceless, a little gem o hypocrisy!
Not really sure how we can discuss this topic as the article referred to in the link has not actually been published yet and we have no information on sources, methodology etc - not very "scientific" !!
QUOTE (iseason+Jun 12 2008, 05:17 AM)
I think YOU are STUPID. Not because religion is folly or not folly, but because you measure the quality of peoples worth in such a narrow , bigoted, Schoolyard bully tactics kind of way
Grow a little hair on your chin , get some wrinkles and then let others alone.
Iseason
You mean like when you post rants about typos, grammatical structure or some other irrelevant tangent at a person who is debating a topic or taking a side in a debate that you personally disagree with rather than to debate the actual topic at hand?
Your plea would carry more weight if your actions reflected them.
Grow a little hair on your chin , get some wrinkles and then let others alone.
Iseason
You mean like when you post rants about typos, grammatical structure or some other irrelevant tangent at a person who is debating a topic or taking a side in a debate that you personally disagree with rather than to debate the actual topic at hand?
Your plea would carry more weight if your actions reflected them.
QUOTE (iseason+Jun 12 2008, 09:17 AM)
It would be far more truthful to say that institutes of higher learning are generally atheist FRIENDLY and religious UNFRIENDLY...
It is very biased to say that religious persons are stupid and entirely one sided. It seems the propagators of this sort of study would understand that a person who said yes on such a report would be viewed with skepticism by their peers.
I conform to no religion and simply think that the whole "freedom of religion" change is "feel free to throw any credibility you have away". The posting of this sort of biased trash , especially the heading it was put under, leaves little doubt that the Poster intended to laugh at others expense. A view that is rampant in the current climate....
I think YOU are STUPID. Not because religion is folly or not folly, but because you measure the quality of peoples worth in such a narrow , bigoted, Schoolyard bully tactics kind of way
Grow a little hair on your chin , get some wrinkles and then let others alone.
Iseason
He fudged on the title and gave little explanation. He made an error.
I wouldn't believe he is stupid enough to overlook Einstein who was religious.
It is very biased to say that religious persons are stupid and entirely one sided. It seems the propagators of this sort of study would understand that a person who said yes on such a report would be viewed with skepticism by their peers.
I conform to no religion and simply think that the whole "freedom of religion" change is "feel free to throw any credibility you have away". The posting of this sort of biased trash , especially the heading it was put under, leaves little doubt that the Poster intended to laugh at others expense. A view that is rampant in the current climate....
I think YOU are STUPID. Not because religion is folly or not folly, but because you measure the quality of peoples worth in such a narrow , bigoted, Schoolyard bully tactics kind of way
Grow a little hair on your chin , get some wrinkles and then let others alone.
Iseason
He fudged on the title and gave little explanation. He made an error.
I wouldn't believe he is stupid enough to overlook Einstein who was religious.
QUOTE (iseason+)
It would be far more truthful to say that institutes of higher learning are generally atheist FRIENDLY and religious UNFRIENDLY...
Wrong, as MjolnirPants pointed out earlier. Many of the "higher learning institutes" have special divisions and subschools for theology.
You completely misunderstood the topic title, didn't you?
You completely misunderstood the topic title, didn't you?
I think YOU are STUPID. Not because religion is folly or not folly, but because you measure the quality of peoples worth in such a narrow , bigoted, Schoolyard bully tactics kind of way
So posting an article is a bullying tactic? Using a sarcastic title for your thread is narrow and bigoted? Making an observation is measuring the "quality" of peoples "worth"?
You really need to get out more...
Wrong, as MjolnirPants pointed out earlier. Many of the "higher learning institutes" have special divisions and subschools for theology.
QUOTE
The posting of this sort of biased trash , especially the heading it was put under, leaves little doubt that the Poster intended to laugh at others expense.
You completely misunderstood the topic title, didn't you?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The posting of this sort of biased trash , especially the heading it was put under, leaves little doubt that the Poster intended to laugh at others expense. |
You completely misunderstood the topic title, didn't you?
I think YOU are STUPID. Not because religion is folly or not folly, but because you measure the quality of peoples worth in such a narrow , bigoted, Schoolyard bully tactics kind of way
So posting an article is a bullying tactic? Using a sarcastic title for your thread is narrow and bigoted? Making an observation is measuring the "quality" of peoples "worth"?
You really need to get out more...
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jun 12 2008, 08:24 AM)
Many universities, including many ivy league schools have religious curriculum.
I've been trying to think of a major private university in the US that does NOT have a religious affiliation... Only one I can think of is Cornell.
What others am I missing?
I've been trying to think of a major private university in the US that does NOT have a religious affiliation... Only one I can think of is Cornell.
What others am I missing?
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+Jun 12 2008, 04:39 PM)
I wouldn't believe he is stupid enough to overlook Einstein who was religious.
True, Einstien was a Christian.
True, Einstien was a Christian.
QUOTE (Evans+Jun 12 2008, 08:04 PM)
True, Einstien was a Christian.
Oh no, it's you again.
Go away.
Oh no, it's you again.
Go away.
QUOTE (Evans+Jun 12 2008, 03:04 PM)
True, Einstien was a Christian.
That must be Alfred E Einstien...
'Cuz I believe Albert Einstein was born into a Jewish family.
That must be Alfred E Einstien...
'Cuz I believe Albert Einstein was born into a Jewish family.
QUOTE (gmilam+Jun 12 2008, 08:09 PM)
Albert Einstein was born into a Jewish family.
He was a Catholic.
Of course you don't like the truth.
"Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompense; He will come and save you.
Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing: for in the wilderness shall waters break out, and streams in the desert.
Isa. 35:4-6"
He was a Catholic.
QUOTE
Oh no, it's you again.
Go away.
Go away.
Of course you don't like the truth.
"Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompense; He will come and save you.
Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing: for in the wilderness shall waters break out, and streams in the desert.
Isa. 35:4-6"
QUOTE (Evans+Jun 12 2008, 03:12 PM)
He was a Catholic.
And you're obviously a troll or an idiot. Which is it?
And you're obviously a troll or an idiot. Which is it?
QUOTE (gmilam+Jun 12 2008, 08:13 PM)
And you're obviously a troll or an idiot. Which is it?
Let me guess....and your an atheist right?
Let me guess....and your an atheist right?
QUOTE (Evans+)
Of course you don't like the truth.
Oh, I'm fine with the truth. I'm not fine with you passing your beliefs as fact, though.
Oh, I'm fine with the truth. I'm not fine with you passing your beliefs as fact, though.
QUOTE (gmilam+)
And you're obviously a troll or an idiot. Which is it?
Both, I'm afraid.
Both, I'm afraid.
QUOTE (TheDoc+Jun 12 2008, 08:18 PM)
Oh, I'm fine with the truth
If you were you wouldnt support evolution nonsense.
Only people I khown who is fine with the truth are christians.
So will you give any evidence that Einstien wasnt a Catholic?
No. I thought so.
If you were you wouldnt support evolution nonsense.
Only people I khown who is fine with the truth are christians.
So will you give any evidence that Einstien wasnt a Catholic?
No. I thought so.
QUOTE (Evans+Jun 12 2008, 03:16 PM)
Let me guess....and your an atheist right?
Maybe, maybe not.. irrelevant.
But you are obviously a troll.
Maybe, maybe not.. irrelevant.
But you are obviously a troll.
QUOTE (gmilam+Jun 12 2008, 08:20 PM)
Maybe
Explains your agression very well.
I suggest you to find a Jesus my friend.
God bless you.
Explains your agression very well.
I suggest you to find a Jesus my friend.
God bless you.
QUOTE (Evans+)
If you were you wouldnt support evolution nonsense.
Wrong.
And what about Jews? Muslims? Buddhists? Scientologists?
And what about Jews? Muslims? Buddhists? Scientologists?
So will you give any evidence that Einstien wasnt a Catholic?
Who is Einstien?
Wrong.
QUOTE
Only people I khown who is fine with the truth are christians.
And what about Jews? Muslims? Buddhists? Scientologists?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Only people I khown who is fine with the truth are christians. |
And what about Jews? Muslims? Buddhists? Scientologists?
So will you give any evidence that Einstien wasnt a Catholic?
Who is Einstien?
QUOTE (Evans+Jun 12 2008, 03:23 PM)
Explains your agression very well.
I suggest you to find a Jesus my friend.
God bless you.
I know where he is. He's downstairs working in the warehouse...
We usually call him Jessie. (He says only his mom calls him Jesus.)
I suggest you to find a Jesus my friend.
God bless you.
I know where he is. He's downstairs working in the warehouse...
We usually call him Jessie. (He says only his mom calls him Jesus.)
QUOTE (TheDoc+Jun 12 2008, 08:23 PM)
And what about Jews? Muslims? Buddhists? Scientologists?
Yeah right.
You could add faschists, homosexuals, hippys to the list.
You of course dont know that there is only one true religion (the oldest one) - Chrisitianity.
"Who is Einstien?"
Oh typo, my bad.
he is famous scientist and a catholic.
Yeah right.
You could add faschists, homosexuals, hippys to the list.
You of course dont know that there is only one true religion (the oldest one) - Chrisitianity.
"Who is Einstien?"
Oh typo, my bad.
he is famous scientist and a catholic.
QUOTE (Evans+)
You could add faschists, homosexuals, hippys to the list.
Except fascists are bad. Jews and Buddhists are good.
Wrong. Policeboxism is the only religion that offers truth.
Wrong. Policeboxism is the only religion that offers truth.
Oh typo, my bad.
he is famous scientist and a catholic.
Typo Einstien? Never heard of him.
Except fascists are bad. Jews and Buddhists are good.
QUOTE
You of course dont know that there is only one true religion (the oldest one) - Chrisitianity.
Wrong. Policeboxism is the only religion that offers truth.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You of course dont know that there is only one true religion (the oldest one) - Chrisitianity. |
Wrong. Policeboxism is the only religion that offers truth.
Oh typo, my bad.
he is famous scientist and a catholic.
Typo Einstien? Never heard of him.
QUOTE (TheDoc+Jun 12 2008, 08:30 PM)
Wrong. Policeboxism is the only religion that offers truth.
Considering your an atheist thats no wonder you believe in this. Because you also believe the worst myth ever - evolution.
"Jews and Buddhists are good.
"
Good or not good it doesnt make there religios any more close to reality.
Considering your an atheist thats no wonder you believe in this. Because you also believe the worst myth ever - evolution.
"Jews and Buddhists are good.
"
Good or not good it doesnt make there religios any more close to reality.
QUOTE (Evans+)
Considering your an atheist thats no wonder you believe in this.
You completely misunderstood that statement, didn't you?
No worse than the everything-was-made-in-a-week myth.
No worse than the everything-was-made-in-a-week myth.
Good or not good it doesnt make there religios any more close to reality.
That applies to Xian people as well.
You completely misunderstood that statement, didn't you?
QUOTE
Because you also believe the worst myth ever - evolution.
No worse than the everything-was-made-in-a-week myth.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Because you also believe the worst myth ever - evolution. |
No worse than the everything-was-made-in-a-week myth.
Good or not good it doesnt make there religios any more close to reality.
That applies to Xian people as well.
QUOTE (TheDoc+Jun 12 2008, 08:39 PM)
No worse than the everything-was-made-in-a-week myth.
Myth?
Yeah right.
Bible is a histrory book and everything is a fact in it.
Historical record, you know. about 30% of world population believe its not myths and they are able to feel god.
You also dont trust your history school boks?
Myth?
Yeah right.
Bible is a histrory book and everything is a fact in it.
Historical record, you know. about 30% of world population believe its not myths and they are able to feel god.
You also dont trust your history school boks?
OK - this guy has to be a troll. No one spells that poorly unless it's on purpose.
I mean, come on dood, the forum gives you a spell check button!
I mean, come on dood, the forum gives you a spell check button!
QUOTE (Evans+)
Bible is a histrory book and everything is a fact in it.
Prove it.
Do you have a link or a source to back that up? Cause that would certainly help you right about now...
Do you have a link or a source to back that up? Cause that would certainly help you right about now...
OK - this guy has to be a troll. No one spells that poorly unless it's on purpose.
Your observations seem quite correct.
Prove it.
QUOTE
about 30% of world population believe its not myths and they are able to feel god.
Do you have a link or a source to back that up? Cause that would certainly help you right about now...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| about 30% of world population believe its not myths and they are able to feel god. |
Do you have a link or a source to back that up? Cause that would certainly help you right about now...
OK - this guy has to be a troll. No one spells that poorly unless it's on purpose.
Your observations seem quite correct.
QUOTE (TheDoc+Jun 12 2008, 08:49 PM)
Prove it.
Do you have a link or a source to back that up? Cause that would certainly help you right about now...
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
gmilam
"OK - this guy has to be a troll. No one spells that poorly unless it's on purpose.
I mean, come on dood, the forum gives you a spell check button!"
No matter how good my spelling is, I think you understand me very well judging by your resposes.
Do you have a link or a source to back that up? Cause that would certainly help you right about now...
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
gmilam
"OK - this guy has to be a troll. No one spells that poorly unless it's on purpose.
I mean, come on dood, the forum gives you a spell check button!"
No matter how good my spelling is, I think you understand me very well judging by your resposes.
Yes sir. I understand you very well.
Troll!
Troll!
QUOTE (gmilam+Jun 12 2008, 08:55 PM)
Yes sir. I understand you very well.
Troll!
Why are you repeating 'troll" all the time. Is it your name or someting
Troll!
Why are you repeating 'troll" all the time. Is it your name or someting
QUOTE (Evans+Jun 12 2008, 03:58 PM)
Why are you repeating 'troll" all the time. Is it your name or someting
It's likely because he wants to write on a forum, but can not come up with anything.
It's likely because he wants to write on a forum, but can not come up with anything.
QUOTE (Evans+Jun 12 2008, 02:20 PM)
If you were you wouldnt support evolution nonsense.
Only people I khown who is fine with the truth are christians.
So will you give any evidence that Einstien wasnt a Catholic?
No. I thought so.
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish." -Albert Einstein
Only people I khown who is fine with the truth are christians.
So will you give any evidence that Einstien wasnt a Catholic?
No. I thought so.
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish." -Albert Einstein
QUOTE (barakn+Jun 12 2008, 09:18 PM)
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish." -Albert Einstein
Woow youve made up quote on the fly, good job.
Ive read a lot of quotes from Einstien which say he believes in christian god.
Woow youve made up quote on the fly, good job.
Ive read a lot of quotes from Einstien which say he believes in christian god.
Bullsht. Can you use Google? Check, why don't you?
QUOTE (rethinker+Jun 12 2008, 04:12 PM)
It's likely because he wants to write on a forum, but can not come up with anything.
You may want to read this person's posts before coming to his/her defense.
They are purposely trying to make Christians look stupid.
You may want to read this person's posts before coming to his/her defense.
They are purposely trying to make Christians look stupid.
QUOTE (Sapo+Jun 12 2008, 09:26 PM)
Bullsht. Can you use Google? Check, why don't you?
Use google for what?
Ive read this in my one of my books about Einstien.
Internet is the unreliabel source for information - so I don;'t trust some search engine.
Use google for what?
Ive read this in my one of my books about Einstien.
Internet is the unreliabel source for information - so I don;'t trust some search engine.
QUOTE (Evans+Jun 12 2008, 09:31 PM)
Use google for what?
Ive read this in my one of my books about Einstien.
Internet is the unreliabel source for information - so I don;'t trust some search engine.
At lst teh intrnt hs a spellchckr.
Ive read this in my one of my books about Einstien.
Internet is the unreliabel source for information - so I don;'t trust some search engine.
At lst teh intrnt hs a spellchckr.
QUOTE
Evans Posted: Today at 6:27 AM You of course dont know that there is only one true religion (the oldest one) - Chrisitianity.
great someone that can answer my questionQUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Evans Posted: Today at 6:27 AM You of course dont know that there is only one true religion (the oldest one) - Chrisitianity. |
great someone that can answer my question
kjw Posted: Yesterday at 6:26 PM i always wanted to know, when based on total lack of evidence, why religious people think their specific religion is true and other religions are false...
kjw Posted: Yesterday at 6:26 PM i always wanted to know, when based on total lack of evidence, why religious people think their specific religion is true and other religions are false...
how do you know that christianity is true and that every other religion is not ?
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jun 12 2008, 03:11 AM)
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/stor...code=402381&c=2
It certainly gives support to religions which try to supress education in it's followers. If you can call it support.
That's why I have an IQ of at least 145 and I am a christian.
Nice try.
It certainly gives support to religions which try to supress education in it's followers. If you can call it support.
That's why I have an IQ of at least 145 and I am a christian.
Nice try.
This thread maybe wasn't the best idea. In fact, it's pretty darn close to trolling by putting out a statement which is sure to cause anger.
All it's done is start another fight between the religious people and the athiests. And these arguments don't really have an end to them. People can believe whatever the hell they want, as long as they don't press it onto others. Unfortunately, people seem to do that a lot here. But the least we can do is try to keep these conflicts to a minimium. This forum isn't for back and forth insults, it's for scientific discussion.
- Gehn
All it's done is start another fight between the religious people and the athiests. And these arguments don't really have an end to them. People can believe whatever the hell they want, as long as they don't press it onto others. Unfortunately, people seem to do that a lot here. But the least we can do is try to keep these conflicts to a minimium. This forum isn't for back and forth insults, it's for scientific discussion.
- Gehn
QUOTE (Evans+Jun 12 2008, 09:44 PM)
Bible is a histrory book and everything is a fact in it.
Kings 7:23 is a lie.
Kings 7:23 is a lie.
Killer signature AN.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jun 12 2008, 08:11 AM)
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/stor...code=402381&c=2
It certainly gives support to religions which try to supress education in it's followers. If you can call it support.
Interesting. My roommate, the son of a preacher, was home schooled. His parents were so afraid of "evil evolution" that he didn't have a single science class (if that's even legal... but that's what happened). The poor child was so ignorant growing up, and now he has almost no ability to question anything. He now believes the very first explanation he hears about a new situation with zeal- every time. For example, he believes that democrats secretly want to destroy America and that they are in league with militant Islamic extremists. Ridiculous. I believe his parents should be arrested for child abuse.
Does religious indoctrination limit your ability to think critically in at least some situations? I think the answer is yes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It certainly gives support to religions which try to supress education in it's followers. If you can call it support.
Interesting. My roommate, the son of a preacher, was home schooled. His parents were so afraid of "evil evolution" that he didn't have a single science class (if that's even legal... but that's what happened). The poor child was so ignorant growing up, and now he has almost no ability to question anything. He now believes the very first explanation he hears about a new situation with zeal- every time. For example, he believes that democrats secretly want to destroy America and that they are in league with militant Islamic extremists. Ridiculous. I believe his parents should be arrested for child abuse.
Does religious indoctrination limit your ability to think critically in at least some situations? I think the answer is yes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE (Evans+Jun 12 2008, 08:04 PM)
True, Einstien was a Christian.
You know, that's odd, considering that Einstein said that the religion that depicts God as a being that cares about human actions was a childish superstition.
Here is exactly what he said:
And if you dared to say otherwise someone set you alight!
g.
You know, that's odd, considering that Einstein said that the religion that depicts God as a being that cares about human actions was a childish superstition.
Here is exactly what he said:
QUOTE (Einstein+)
"the word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nati...einstein14.html
In what way is that Christian, or Catholic, or Jewish, etc?
EDIT
Wait, I get it. This is a clever attempt at humor. Well done, Evans, well done.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nati...einstein14.html
In what way is that Christian, or Catholic, or Jewish, etc?
EDIT
Wait, I get it. This is a clever attempt at humor. Well done, Evans, well done.
I am going to give a practical application of evolution. Over the vast majority of civilization, the human mind has evolved using a God concept. For most of history, religion was not like it is today for the vast majority of humans. Religion was a full time job, for everyone, since there was no science, per se, so God was everywhere all the time; Willie Nelson; "always on my mind".
Where I am heading with this, is this continuous programming of the human mind and brain with religion for 10,000 years makes religion one of the foundations of the human mind. Outside of instinct, no thought-behavior was done as much, continuously, by almost all the people through history. In fact, some religion forbid instincts, thereby placing religion as number one. Reason is fairly new, on a wide scale, and comes easily to young people after 200 years of programming with broad education. We are talking 10,000 years. At some unconscious level a god image has been imprinted on the brain/genetics. If this is not the case, we need to revise the genetic connection to evolving animal behavior. If an acorn size brain can do it.......
Where I am heading with this, is this continuous programming of the human mind and brain with religion for 10,000 years makes religion one of the foundations of the human mind. Outside of instinct, no thought-behavior was done as much, continuously, by almost all the people through history. In fact, some religion forbid instincts, thereby placing religion as number one. Reason is fairly new, on a wide scale, and comes easily to young people after 200 years of programming with broad education. We are talking 10,000 years. At some unconscious level a god image has been imprinted on the brain/genetics. If this is not the case, we need to revise the genetic connection to evolving animal behavior. If an acorn size brain can do it.......
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Jun 12 2008, 11:22 PM)
That's why I have an IQ of at least 145 and I am a christian.
Nice try.
And nice inability to understand what was said in the article. It didn't say "EVERY person who believes in a God or Gods has a below average IQ" but that the more education and high IQs tended to be less religious.
Do you understand what 'average' means? Do you think that saying "The average IQ of the population is 100" means everyone in the population has an IQ of 100 or do you understand it's a spectrum centres on 100?
Besides IQ tests are dubious at best, particular internet ones. If I go by the more generous internet tests I've done I've got an IQ is the region of 175. Do I think I have? Nope. Besides, any IQ test which asks "Whats the next number in this sequence" is wrong.
Nice try.
And nice inability to understand what was said in the article. It didn't say "EVERY person who believes in a God or Gods has a below average IQ" but that the more education and high IQs tended to be less religious.
Do you understand what 'average' means? Do you think that saying "The average IQ of the population is 100" means everyone in the population has an IQ of 100 or do you understand it's a spectrum centres on 100?
Besides IQ tests are dubious at best, particular internet ones. If I go by the more generous internet tests I've done I've got an IQ is the region of 175. Do I think I have? Nope. Besides, any IQ test which asks "Whats the next number in this sequence" is wrong.
QUOTE
Religion was a full time job, for everyone, since there was no science, per se, so God was everywhere all the time
And if you dared to say otherwise someone set you alight!
g.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Jun 12 2008, 10:22 PM)
That's why I have an IQ of at least 145 and I am a christian.
Nice try.
Nice try.
Evans,
You are incorrect, Christianity is not the oldest religion.
You are incorrect, Christianity is not the oldest religion.
History Timeline of World Religions and its Founders
2,085 BC. Judaism-Abraham
1,500 BC. Hinduism- no specific founder
560 BC. Buddhism- Gautama Buddha
550 BC. Taoism - Lao Tzu
599 BC. Jainism, Mahavira
30 AD. Christianity Jesus Christ
QUOTE
You of course dont know that there is only one true religion (the oldest one) - Chrisitianity.
You are incorrect, Christianity is not the oldest religion.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You of course dont know that there is only one true religion (the oldest one) - Chrisitianity. |
You are incorrect, Christianity is not the oldest religion.
History Timeline of World Religions and its Founders
2,085 BC. Judaism-Abraham
1,500 BC. Hinduism- no specific founder
560 BC. Buddhism- Gautama Buddha
550 BC. Taoism - Lao Tzu
599 BC. Jainism, Mahavira
30 AD. Christianity Jesus Christ
Evans,
You are wrong, again
You are wrong, again
A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.
I would suggest that it is honesty that leads to atheism or agnosticism. I'm not sure that honesty is only reachable to those of a high IQ, however it does take a degree of logical deduction to see past believing in a God with no evidence. Belief in this sense seems to be more of an emotional response to the bewildering question of existence. There are many highly intelligent folks who are also believers. We must ask the question why are they not questioning their own beliefs with the same vigor that they possibly do the beliefs and assumptions of others?
Humans seek patterns and have become very good at it. Sometimes the patterns are real and sometimes not. When they are not 'real' historically we have created a familiar
pattern to help make sense of something. ie; Why else would we see characters in the position of stars?, If we were to stand on another planet, the arrangement of the stars would appear different, yet countless real world phenomena have been attributed the characters perceived from our Earthbound perspective, ie; Astrology.
We are in a more privileged position on the time-line and can easily see through the incorrect assumptions of those in the past, however there seems to be a prevailing assumption that disregarding these 'patterns' will leave us with no connection to the Universe or no purpose etc. This I submit is totally wrong. The real joy is in seeing a genuine pattern that DOES connect us. Evolution is one such pattern. It connects us to the Universe, Earth and all other living creatures past, present and future, yet it has overwhelming real evidence in it's favor and has been observed, verified and strengthens with newer more detailed analysis ie; Genetics, Microbiology etc, etc. This is as close to the truth of our origins that we have ever known.
Belief in God or Intelligent Creator etc is not necessarily a sign of stupidity (IMHO) but more an over stepping of what is actually known. Perhaps this belief can lead to stupidity, especially if you deny real existing evidence to accommodate it, in much the same way as Astrology has lead to odd deductions about the way we are connected.
An incorrect starting premise or assumption that flavors the perception of reality when left unchallenged or unquestioned.
We must be honest as much as clever and start with the premise that there is no God until evidence is discovered that supports it's existence. We must also work harder to clarify which type of God's' we are proposing, discussing, dismissing etc.
And remember Occam's razor!!
Kind regards to all
I would suggest that it is honesty that leads to atheism or agnosticism. I'm not sure that honesty is only reachable to those of a high IQ, however it does take a degree of logical deduction to see past believing in a God with no evidence.
I think people tend to be either uncertainty phobes or innaccuracy phobes.
If someone is terrified of not knowing the answer they willl not consider other possibilities because that would lead to uncertainties.
Actually, you are incorrect here. Correlation of A and B means one of three things. Either A causes B, B causes A, or some unknown C causes both A and B.
Now, since this study is done by survey and isn't a controlled experiment like one would set up in a lab, I would think it is far more likely that some uncontrolled and unexpected variable is the cause of both.
As someone else pointed out, this is yet to be published, but if the published paper is as bad as the article written about it, I would take it to be pretty much meaningless. In the posted article the author uses IQ and intelligence interchangeably, which is incorrect and also makes the mistake of calling increased knowledge increased intelligence. As far as I know there is no evidence that in the last 100 years humans have gotten more intelligence as a whole, but there is evidence that we have gotten much more knowledgeable in the past century.
I have confidence that in the scientific paper, these obvious errors will not be made.
And I was going to comment on Quantum_conundrum's response but Alphanumeric beat me to it.
Not the "Bad Pi Approximation" argument again...
Look, you wouldn't be satisfied if it gave a 100 decimal place approximation because we now knwo it to billions of decimal places, at least the computers do anyway. Well get over it.
No, I'd be satisfied if it was within 1 cubit. The correct approximation is 31 cubits, not 30.
Obviously you know about it but clearly you just ignore it. How open minded of you.
QUOTE
If you were you wouldnt support evolution nonsense.
You are wrong, again
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If you were you wouldnt support evolution nonsense. |
You are wrong, again
A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.
And Sigmund Freud was a stout Christian too.
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+Jun 12 2008, 09:18 PM)
And Sigmund Freud was a stout Christian too.
and a prude
and a prude
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jun 12 2008, 06:13 PM)
Kings 7:23 is a lie.
Not the "Bad Pi Approximation" argument again...
Look, you wouldn't be satisfied if it gave a 100 decimal place approximation because we now knwo it to billions of decimal places, at least the computers do anyway. Well get over it.
Not the "Bad Pi Approximation" argument again...
Look, you wouldn't be satisfied if it gave a 100 decimal place approximation because we now knwo it to billions of decimal places, at least the computers do anyway. Well get over it.
What are we debating? - as I pointed out yesterday the study has not yet been published - and this adds to what Gehn has said about the wisdom of starting this thread in the first place.
QUOTE
Believe In God? Then You're Stupid...., New study says higher IQ => atheism
I would suggest that it is honesty that leads to atheism or agnosticism. I'm not sure that honesty is only reachable to those of a high IQ, however it does take a degree of logical deduction to see past believing in a God with no evidence. Belief in this sense seems to be more of an emotional response to the bewildering question of existence. There are many highly intelligent folks who are also believers. We must ask the question why are they not questioning their own beliefs with the same vigor that they possibly do the beliefs and assumptions of others?
Humans seek patterns and have become very good at it. Sometimes the patterns are real and sometimes not. When they are not 'real' historically we have created a familiar
pattern to help make sense of something. ie; Why else would we see characters in the position of stars?, If we were to stand on another planet, the arrangement of the stars would appear different, yet countless real world phenomena have been attributed the characters perceived from our Earthbound perspective, ie; Astrology.
We are in a more privileged position on the time-line and can easily see through the incorrect assumptions of those in the past, however there seems to be a prevailing assumption that disregarding these 'patterns' will leave us with no connection to the Universe or no purpose etc. This I submit is totally wrong. The real joy is in seeing a genuine pattern that DOES connect us. Evolution is one such pattern. It connects us to the Universe, Earth and all other living creatures past, present and future, yet it has overwhelming real evidence in it's favor and has been observed, verified and strengthens with newer more detailed analysis ie; Genetics, Microbiology etc, etc. This is as close to the truth of our origins that we have ever known.
Belief in God or Intelligent Creator etc is not necessarily a sign of stupidity (IMHO) but more an over stepping of what is actually known. Perhaps this belief can lead to stupidity, especially if you deny real existing evidence to accommodate it, in much the same way as Astrology has lead to odd deductions about the way we are connected.
An incorrect starting premise or assumption that flavors the perception of reality when left unchallenged or unquestioned.
We must be honest as much as clever and start with the premise that there is no God until evidence is discovered that supports it's existence. We must also work harder to clarify which type of God's' we are proposing, discussing, dismissing etc.
And remember Occam's razor!!
Kind regards to all
SU,
Thank you for that most coherent post. Would you agree that the distinction that we need to come to terms with is that science is evidence based while religion is founded on faith, and that this on-going Religion v. Science debate is meaningless because it fails to take account of this fundamental difference? The other thing that really bothers me is that the scientific community - insofar as it is represented here- is at times intolerant of religion to a degree that is reminiscent of the attitude of religious bodies a few hundred years ago.
It should not be necessary to state my own personal views but if I donīt the chances are I will be accused of being the pope!! I am agnostic and would tend to regard both theism and atheism as being, to at least a degree, intellectually arrogant.
edward
Thank you for that most coherent post. Would you agree that the distinction that we need to come to terms with is that science is evidence based while religion is founded on faith, and that this on-going Religion v. Science debate is meaningless because it fails to take account of this fundamental difference? The other thing that really bothers me is that the scientific community - insofar as it is represented here- is at times intolerant of religion to a degree that is reminiscent of the attitude of religious bodies a few hundred years ago.
It should not be necessary to state my own personal views but if I donīt the chances are I will be accused of being the pope!! I am agnostic and would tend to regard both theism and atheism as being, to at least a degree, intellectually arrogant.
edward
QUOTE (Evans+Jun 12 2008, 08:04 PM)
True, Einstien was a Christian.
You mean one of those Jews for Christ?
I didn't think they got started till the 50's or sometime like that.
You mean one of those Jews for Christ?
I didn't think they got started till the 50's or sometime like that.
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Jun 13 2008, 10:39 AM)
I would suggest that it is honesty that leads to atheism or agnosticism. I'm not sure that honesty is only reachable to those of a high IQ, however it does take a degree of logical deduction to see past believing in a God with no evidence.
I think people tend to be either uncertainty phobes or innaccuracy phobes.
If someone is terrified of not knowing the answer they willl not consider other possibilities because that would lead to uncertainties.
haha, this story made it to digg this morning
Yanno, I seen a couple people point out that corrolation don't mean causation.
That's true.
But keep this in mind; while the study focused on academics, it mentioned polls which show that atheists tend to have higher IQs in the general population, too. That means while ya may have several factors at work, ya end up with only two possible interpretations:
Higher IQ's result in atheism as a rule, or;
Religion results in lower IQs as a rule.
Yanno how women have better hand-eye coordination than men do? Sayin that the two factors involved here (IQ an atheism/religion) ain't related is like sayin women's better hand-eye coordination don't have nothin to do with them bein women.
Sorry to all the religious nutters out there, but this poll is pretty definative. Either smarter people tend not to be religious, or religion makes people dumber are the only interpretations.
Oh yeah, Einstein was Agnostic, Quantum_Dumbconman prolly cheated on his IQ test, if he's even tellin the truth about the score (I'd give em 130, tops, cause people smarter than average DO tend to be wackos, sometimes ) Evan is a joke (on purpose or not) an I have a higher IQ than AlphaNumeric
That's true.
But keep this in mind; while the study focused on academics, it mentioned polls which show that atheists tend to have higher IQs in the general population, too. That means while ya may have several factors at work, ya end up with only two possible interpretations:
Higher IQ's result in atheism as a rule, or;
Religion results in lower IQs as a rule.
Yanno how women have better hand-eye coordination than men do? Sayin that the two factors involved here (IQ an atheism/religion) ain't related is like sayin women's better hand-eye coordination don't have nothin to do with them bein women.
Sorry to all the religious nutters out there, but this poll is pretty definative. Either smarter people tend not to be religious, or religion makes people dumber are the only interpretations.
Oh yeah, Einstein was Agnostic, Quantum_Dumbconman prolly cheated on his IQ test, if he's even tellin the truth about the score (I'd give em 130, tops, cause people smarter than average DO tend to be wackos, sometimes
) Evan is a joke (on purpose or not) an I have a higher IQ than AlphaNumeric QUOTE (Edward 3+Jun 13 2008, 12:00 PM)
SU,
Thank you for that most coherent post. Would you agree that the distinction that we need to come to terms with is that science is evidence based while religion is founded on faith, and that this on-going Religion v. Science debate is meaningless because it fails to take account of this fundamental difference? The other thing that really bothers me is that the scientific community - insofar as it is represented here- is at times intolerant of religion to a degree that is reminiscent of the attitude of religious bodies a few hundred years ago.
It should not be necessary to state my own personal views but if I donīt the chances are I will be accused of being the pope!! I am agnostic and would tend to regard both theism and atheism as being, to at least a degree, intellectually arrogant.
edward
Hi Edward 3 and all,
Firstly I think it's important to clarify my position as to not be misunderstood.
In regards to the Christian, Islamic and Judaistic proposal of God I am an Atheist.
I take this position as these Religions essentially propose an Intelligent creator who tinkers and intervenes with the World, answers prayers, spares the lives of selected individuals, Strikes a personal relationship etc, etc.
There is no evidence what so ever to warrant this type of entity. I would also go further and assert that this God as portrayed in the various scriptures is all loving, all knowing, Omniscient etc, yet kills certain individuals mainly for not worshiping it in a way that it proclaims is sufficient. Why would such an entity require worship? There are many examples of contradiction etc that leave any thinking person who again honestly examines the texts in a state of disbelief or non-belief.
If this God was indeed true we would expect to see scientific evidence of it everywhere and also I believe that there would be no debate regarding it's existence.
This is not the world we see. The fact that there is debate is evidence that we are not being governed in this way. Also I regard the privacy of others important enough for me not to spy on them, even if I had the means to read their minds, it would be an ethical necessity to not monitor their every thought or action. If God is indeed all loving then it would be in breach of ethical privacy to spy on peoples thoughts in this way. There are many lines of reason and questioning that follow on from that ethical privacy that dictate that even 'IF' there is a God and it is indeed all loving etc then it would be much more appropriate for it to be 'non-existent'
Again it's important to clarify which God is being proposed.
The creator of the Universe God also fails simple logical reasoning in that the entity would have to be more complicated than the Universe, which leads you to ask 'Who created the creator?'
I could go on, but I think agnosticism can easily be misconstrued as 50% chance of existence. This is not the case. I of course leave a minute probability that there is a God, however the more I learn about how nature works and the more honest I am, the less need I find to warrant or need for there to be a God.
I prefer freedom of thought to 24/7 monitoring any day.
Thank you for that most coherent post. Would you agree that the distinction that we need to come to terms with is that science is evidence based while religion is founded on faith, and that this on-going Religion v. Science debate is meaningless because it fails to take account of this fundamental difference? The other thing that really bothers me is that the scientific community - insofar as it is represented here- is at times intolerant of religion to a degree that is reminiscent of the attitude of religious bodies a few hundred years ago.
It should not be necessary to state my own personal views but if I donīt the chances are I will be accused of being the pope!! I am agnostic and would tend to regard both theism and atheism as being, to at least a degree, intellectually arrogant.
edward
Hi Edward 3 and all,
Firstly I think it's important to clarify my position as to not be misunderstood.
In regards to the Christian, Islamic and Judaistic proposal of God I am an Atheist.
I take this position as these Religions essentially propose an Intelligent creator who tinkers and intervenes with the World, answers prayers, spares the lives of selected individuals, Strikes a personal relationship etc, etc.
There is no evidence what so ever to warrant this type of entity. I would also go further and assert that this God as portrayed in the various scriptures is all loving, all knowing, Omniscient etc, yet kills certain individuals mainly for not worshiping it in a way that it proclaims is sufficient. Why would such an entity require worship? There are many examples of contradiction etc that leave any thinking person who again honestly examines the texts in a state of disbelief or non-belief.
If this God was indeed true we would expect to see scientific evidence of it everywhere and also I believe that there would be no debate regarding it's existence.
This is not the world we see. The fact that there is debate is evidence that we are not being governed in this way. Also I regard the privacy of others important enough for me not to spy on them, even if I had the means to read their minds, it would be an ethical necessity to not monitor their every thought or action. If God is indeed all loving then it would be in breach of ethical privacy to spy on peoples thoughts in this way. There are many lines of reason and questioning that follow on from that ethical privacy that dictate that even 'IF' there is a God and it is indeed all loving etc then it would be much more appropriate for it to be 'non-existent'
Again it's important to clarify which God is being proposed.
The creator of the Universe God also fails simple logical reasoning in that the entity would have to be more complicated than the Universe, which leads you to ask 'Who created the creator?'
I could go on, but I think agnosticism can easily be misconstrued as 50% chance of existence. This is not the case. I of course leave a minute probability that there is a God, however the more I learn about how nature works and the more honest I am, the less need I find to warrant or need for there to be a God.
I prefer freedom of thought to 24/7 monitoring any day.
QUOTE (Edward 3+Jun 13 2008, 08:00 AM)
SU,
Thank you for that most coherent post. Would you agree that the distinction that we need to come to terms with is that science is evidence based while religion is founded on faith, and that this on-going Religion v. Science debate is meaningless because it fails to take account of this fundamental difference? The other thing that really bothers me is that the scientific community - insofar as it is represented here- is at times intolerant of religion to a degree that is reminiscent of the attitude of religious bodies a few hundred years ago.
It should not be necessary to state my own personal views but if I donīt the chances are I will be accused of being the pope!! I am agnostic and would tend to regard both theism and atheism as being, to at least a degree, intellectually arrogant.
edward
"Would you agree that the distinction that we need to come to terms with is that science is evidence based while religion is founded on faith, and that this on-going Religion v. Science debate is meaningless because it fails to take account of this fundamental difference? "
Edward, that's exactly why this debate is going on. Religion and Science are two very different human activities and when they encroach on each other's territory there will be conflict.
But there can also be a meeting place. There is sense of comfort for me when I read about a bead found in a cave carbon-dated to 40,000 years ago. The person who made the bead, and I, have both have participated in a grand flow of consciousness, a flow that is larger then our individual, insignificant lives. We both had the opportunity to experience that grandness. I am sure that is the same sense of comfort that a religious person feels in thinking that God exists. Both ideas give meaning to our lives.
"The other thing that really bothers me is that the scientific community - insofar as it is represented here- is at times intolerant of religion to a degree that is reminiscent of the attitude of religious bodies a few hundred years ago."
On this point I think the intolerance that you mention is brought here by religious people trying to impose their faith based world views on people who are evidence based. For the life of me I don't understand why they don't just enjoy what they have found. Why they think it's necessary that everyone should believe what they do. I think the responses we see here towards those people isn't intolerance but a rallying to an invasion
Thank you for that most coherent post. Would you agree that the distinction that we need to come to terms with is that science is evidence based while religion is founded on faith, and that this on-going Religion v. Science debate is meaningless because it fails to take account of this fundamental difference? The other thing that really bothers me is that the scientific community - insofar as it is represented here- is at times intolerant of religion to a degree that is reminiscent of the attitude of religious bodies a few hundred years ago.
It should not be necessary to state my own personal views but if I donīt the chances are I will be accused of being the pope!! I am agnostic and would tend to regard both theism and atheism as being, to at least a degree, intellectually arrogant.
edward
"Would you agree that the distinction that we need to come to terms with is that science is evidence based while religion is founded on faith, and that this on-going Religion v. Science debate is meaningless because it fails to take account of this fundamental difference? "
Edward, that's exactly why this debate is going on. Religion and Science are two very different human activities and when they encroach on each other's territory there will be conflict.
But there can also be a meeting place. There is sense of comfort for me when I read about a bead found in a cave carbon-dated to 40,000 years ago. The person who made the bead, and I, have both have participated in a grand flow of consciousness, a flow that is larger then our individual, insignificant lives. We both had the opportunity to experience that grandness. I am sure that is the same sense of comfort that a religious person feels in thinking that God exists. Both ideas give meaning to our lives.
"The other thing that really bothers me is that the scientific community - insofar as it is represented here- is at times intolerant of religion to a degree that is reminiscent of the attitude of religious bodies a few hundred years ago."
On this point I think the intolerance that you mention is brought here by religious people trying to impose their faith based world views on people who are evidence based. For the life of me I don't understand why they don't just enjoy what they have found. Why they think it's necessary that everyone should believe what they do. I think the responses we see here towards those people isn't intolerance but a rallying to an invasion
I'm postin again so soon jes to be fair: Strictly speakin, I am a religious person. O course, I grew up in a christian household, goin to a church what commonly defined religion as "a collection of behaviors intended to result in a favorable afterlife." An as a result o that I generally call myself a spiritual person, t'make clear the difference. I don't go to no church, I don't study the bible, I don't take communion or nothin like that. I don't believe in creationism, I don't believe in convertin people to my way o thinkin, nothin like that. I jes think there is a God in this universe, the same way there is a mind in yer brain.
Is heat real? O course it is, you can get burned easy enough. Things get hot enough they combust, an make light n smoke n plasma.
But heat is jes vibratin particles. It's what we call an emergent property.
Is a human an individual? O course he is, he thinks, feels, acts all as an individual. He has a distinct personality, based on his past experiences an genetic predisposition.
But a human is jes a big mass o individual cells. Individuality is an emergent property.
So is this human intelligent? O course he is. He solves problems, imagines new possibilities, discovers new things.
But all this intelligence is jes a bunch o neurons firin an chemicals mixin. It's an emergent property.
Does that make any o them concepts less real? Nope. People really are intelligent individuals, hot things really do burn us.
Well, we know a system as relatively simple as a human brain can produce incredible intelligence, so why can't the universe as a whole? Who is to say that our universe ain't jes one cell in a gigantic brain? Who is to say that gravity on a scale as large as the universe don't produce effects similar to electromagnetism on the scale o a single cell? Hell, who is to say there ain't a fifth fundamental force in physics, one which makes intelligence possible? Well, it ain't scientific, that's fer sure. (except fer the last one, which we can test fer, one day.) But neither is the many worlds interpretation o quantum mechanics. How would we test whether or not different universes exist? We can't, meanin it's not -strictly speakin- a scientific theory. Neither is much o current cosmology. Whether or not there's a universe out there in which gravity is half the strength of the electromagnetic force ain't somethin we can test, an it ain't somethin which would participate in our universe.
So what's my point? It's simple. Ya don't have to be religious to believe in God. God is a philosophical entity. The bible, on the other hand, ain't. The bible is real. I got me a copy to prove it. It makes specific claims about the way the universe works, an about history. Them claims can -an have been- falsified. They ain't true.
All them folk out there whinin bout evolution bein jes a theory, or bein a religion or bein evil are jes plain wrong. Evolution don't mean squat when it comes to whether or not God exists. Evolution is history. Atheism don't say squat bout whether or not God exists, either. It's jes someone's beliefs. All these ain't arguin fer God, they're arguin fer the bible. An frankly, that's jes plain wrong. Even the catholic church accepts the scientific account o history. Why? Because that's where the smart catholics end up? No, because the folks in the upper tiers o catholic heiracy don't wanna get proven wrong everytime they argue this point. They wanna be on the side o the TRUTH. All our religious learnins are jes searches for the TRUTH. An when someone decides they're gonna abandon facts in their search for the truth, they're blindin themselves.
Believe in God all ya like. But don't believe in religion. Don't believe in the bible, or yer preacher or priest. Ye'll never find what yer lookin fer, that way.
Is heat real? O course it is, you can get burned easy enough. Things get hot enough they combust, an make light n smoke n plasma.
But heat is jes vibratin particles. It's what we call an emergent property.
Is a human an individual? O course he is, he thinks, feels, acts all as an individual. He has a distinct personality, based on his past experiences an genetic predisposition.
But a human is jes a big mass o individual cells. Individuality is an emergent property.
So is this human intelligent? O course he is. He solves problems, imagines new possibilities, discovers new things.
But all this intelligence is jes a bunch o neurons firin an chemicals mixin. It's an emergent property.
Does that make any o them concepts less real? Nope. People really are intelligent individuals, hot things really do burn us.
Well, we know a system as relatively simple as a human brain can produce incredible intelligence, so why can't the universe as a whole? Who is to say that our universe ain't jes one cell in a gigantic brain? Who is to say that gravity on a scale as large as the universe don't produce effects similar to electromagnetism on the scale o a single cell? Hell, who is to say there ain't a fifth fundamental force in physics, one which makes intelligence possible? Well, it ain't scientific, that's fer sure. (except fer the last one, which we can test fer, one day.) But neither is the many worlds interpretation o quantum mechanics. How would we test whether or not different universes exist? We can't, meanin it's not -strictly speakin- a scientific theory. Neither is much o current cosmology. Whether or not there's a universe out there in which gravity is half the strength of the electromagnetic force ain't somethin we can test, an it ain't somethin which would participate in our universe.
So what's my point? It's simple. Ya don't have to be religious to believe in God. God is a philosophical entity. The bible, on the other hand, ain't. The bible is real. I got me a copy to prove it. It makes specific claims about the way the universe works, an about history. Them claims can -an have been- falsified. They ain't true.
All them folk out there whinin bout evolution bein jes a theory, or bein a religion or bein evil are jes plain wrong. Evolution don't mean squat when it comes to whether or not God exists. Evolution is history. Atheism don't say squat bout whether or not God exists, either. It's jes someone's beliefs. All these ain't arguin fer God, they're arguin fer the bible. An frankly, that's jes plain wrong. Even the catholic church accepts the scientific account o history. Why? Because that's where the smart catholics end up? No, because the folks in the upper tiers o catholic heiracy don't wanna get proven wrong everytime they argue this point. They wanna be on the side o the TRUTH. All our religious learnins are jes searches for the TRUTH. An when someone decides they're gonna abandon facts in their search for the truth, they're blindin themselves.
Believe in God all ya like. But don't believe in religion. Don't believe in the bible, or yer preacher or priest. Ye'll never find what yer lookin fer, that way.
QUOTE
But keep this in mind; while the study focused on academics, it mentioned polls which show that atheists tend to have higher IQs in the general population, too. That means while ya may have several factors at work, ya end up with only two possible interpretations:
Higher IQ's result in atheism as a rule, or;
Religion results in lower IQs as a rule.
Higher IQ's result in atheism as a rule, or;
Religion results in lower IQs as a rule.
Actually, you are incorrect here. Correlation of A and B means one of three things. Either A causes B, B causes A, or some unknown C causes both A and B.
Now, since this study is done by survey and isn't a controlled experiment like one would set up in a lab, I would think it is far more likely that some uncontrolled and unexpected variable is the cause of both.
As someone else pointed out, this is yet to be published, but if the published paper is as bad as the article written about it, I would take it to be pretty much meaningless. In the posted article the author uses IQ and intelligence interchangeably, which is incorrect and also makes the mistake of calling increased knowledge increased intelligence. As far as I know there is no evidence that in the last 100 years humans have gotten more intelligence as a whole, but there is evidence that we have gotten much more knowledgeable in the past century.
I have confidence that in the scientific paper, these obvious errors will not be made.
And I was going to comment on Quantum_conundrum's response but Alphanumeric beat me to it.
I admit it guys and I'm sorry. I made the account Evans as a joke.
QUOTE (DuzmA+Jun 13 2008, 10:36 PM)
I admit it guys and I'm sorry. I made the account Evans as a joke.
Hehehe
Hehehe
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Jun 13 2008, 04:26 AM)
Not the "Bad Pi Approximation" argument again...
Look, you wouldn't be satisfied if it gave a 100 decimal place approximation because we now knwo it to billions of decimal places, at least the computers do anyway. Well get over it.
No, I'd be satisfied if it was within 1 cubit. The correct approximation is 31 cubits, not 30.
Obviously you know about it but clearly you just ignore it. How open minded of you.
DuzmA
Without a winking smilie or other overt sign of irony, it is impossible to create a parody of a creationist that someone will not believe is legitimate.
Grumpy
QUOTE
I admit it guys and I'm sorry. I made the account Evans as a joke.
Without a winking smilie or other overt sign of irony, it is impossible to create a parody of a creationist that someone will not believe is legitimate.
Grumpy
I thought Evans and Jeremy were both creations of Mjolnir Pants.
The Hunt for Red Jeremy is on.
Who will claim to be his proud Papa?
The Hunt for Red Jeremy is on.
Who will claim to be his proud Papa?
QUOTE (Steveo+Jun 13 2008, 10:00 PM)
Actually, you are incorrect here. Correlation of A and B means one of three things. Either A causes B, B causes A, or some unknown C causes both A and B.
So if it's unknown cause C, then yer left with the assumption that somethin increases IQ while decreasin the likelyhood o bein religious, or vice versa.
What can do that? It'd have to be a biological agent or a drug, to affect the human psyche as well as innate an relatively static problem solving skills (which is what IQ measures, even if that's not the great an wonderful g.
So unless ya think the study is indicative o population-wide drug use, there's no likely "cause C." Besides which, religious leanin ain't emotionally simple, they're purty durn complex, meanin that only influences which have a broad-rangin an powerful effect on the emotional centers o the brain could accomplish that part. Drugs fit nicely there, an they've been known to lower IQ test results, too.
Then there's the coincidental evidence o the relationship between religion an logical, critical thought. Critical thought is nigh anti-thesis to religion, as evidenced by religious reservations against skepticism an methodical naturalism. That's a mighty fine coincidence, right there...
So ya have three options here, t'be honest:
Occam's razor.
From where I sit it's fairly straightforward, if a bit o soft science. Ya can't fake IQ test scores (or we'd all be 'geniuses') an folk don't tend to lie about their religious affiliations. AN like I said, the list o "causes C" is purty durn short an unlikely.
From where I sit it's fairly straightforward, if a bit o soft science. Ya can't fake IQ test scores (or we'd all be 'geniuses') an folk don't tend to lie about their religious affiliations. AN like I said, the list o "causes C" is purty durn short an unlikely.
In the posted article the author uses IQ and intelligence interchangeably, which is incorrect and also makes the mistake of calling increased knowledge increased intelligence.
That is true, IQ and g ain't the same thing, but they do tend to be closely related.
The abstract o this article is purty durn short, but it suggest there have been increases in the past 50 years...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...07849d556b75809
Curiously enough, although knowledge has continued to increase durin that time, IQ increases have slowed, accordin to the same abstract.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~c...87957807~db=all
This one agrees too, although with a short abstract, again.
The abstract o this article is purty durn short, but it suggest there have been increases in the past 50 years...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...07849d556b75809
Curiously enough, although knowledge has continued to increase durin that time, IQ increases have slowed, accordin to the same abstract.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~c...87957807~db=all
This one agrees too, although with a short abstract, again.
I have confidence that in the scientific paper, these obvious errors will not be made.
Yeah, the article certainly wasn't written from a neutral POV, that's fer sure.
So if it's unknown cause C, then yer left with the assumption that somethin increases IQ while decreasin the likelyhood o bein religious, or vice versa.
What can do that? It'd have to be a biological agent or a drug, to affect the human psyche as well as innate an relatively static problem solving skills (which is what IQ measures, even if that's not the great an wonderful g.
So unless ya think the study is indicative o population-wide drug use, there's no likely "cause C." Besides which, religious leanin ain't emotionally simple, they're purty durn complex, meanin that only influences which have a broad-rangin an powerful effect on the emotional centers o the brain could accomplish that part. Drugs fit nicely there, an they've been known to lower IQ test results, too.
Then there's the coincidental evidence o the relationship between religion an logical, critical thought. Critical thought is nigh anti-thesis to religion, as evidenced by religious reservations against skepticism an methodical naturalism. That's a mighty fine coincidence, right there...
So ya have three options here, t'be honest:
- Increased IQ results in decreased odds of being religious (coincidental evidence supportin this one.)
- Religion reduces IQ scores (Counter-intuitively suggest that religious reservations against critical thinking lowers IQ by signifigant amounts)
- Some other cause hitherto unknown to science manifests itself by either increasing IQ and decreasing religious yearnings, or producing the opposite effect (not very likely, given a lack of any evidence.)
Occam's razor.
QUOTE
Now, since this study is done by survey and isn't a controlled experiment like one would set up in a lab, I would think it is far more likely that some uncontrolled and unexpected variable is the cause of both.
As someone else pointed out, this is yet to be published, but if the published paper is as bad as the article written about it, I would take it to be pretty much meaningless.
As someone else pointed out, this is yet to be published, but if the published paper is as bad as the article written about it, I would take it to be pretty much meaningless.
From where I sit it's fairly straightforward, if a bit o soft science. Ya can't fake IQ test scores (or we'd all be 'geniuses') an folk don't tend to lie about their religious affiliations. AN like I said, the list o "causes C" is purty durn short an unlikely.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Now, since this study is done by survey and isn't a controlled experiment like one would set up in a lab, I would think it is far more likely that some uncontrolled and unexpected variable is the cause of both. As someone else pointed out, this is yet to be published, but if the published paper is as bad as the article written about it, I would take it to be pretty much meaningless. |
From where I sit it's fairly straightforward, if a bit o soft science. Ya can't fake IQ test scores (or we'd all be 'geniuses') an folk don't tend to lie about their religious affiliations. AN like I said, the list o "causes C" is purty durn short an unlikely.
In the posted article the author uses IQ and intelligence interchangeably, which is incorrect and also makes the mistake of calling increased knowledge increased intelligence.
That is true, IQ and g ain't the same thing, but they do tend to be closely related.
QUOTE
As far as I know there is no evidence that in the last 100 years humans have gotten more intelligence as a whole, but there is evidence that we have gotten much more knowledgeable in the past century.
The abstract o this article is purty durn short, but it suggest there have been increases in the past 50 years...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...07849d556b75809
Curiously enough, although knowledge has continued to increase durin that time, IQ increases have slowed, accordin to the same abstract.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~c...87957807~db=all
This one agrees too, although with a short abstract, again.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As far as I know there is no evidence that in the last 100 years humans have gotten more intelligence as a whole, but there is evidence that we have gotten much more knowledgeable in the past century. |
The abstract o this article is purty durn short, but it suggest there have been increases in the past 50 years...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...07849d556b75809
Curiously enough, although knowledge has continued to increase durin that time, IQ increases have slowed, accordin to the same abstract.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~c...87957807~db=all
This one agrees too, although with a short abstract, again.
I have confidence that in the scientific paper, these obvious errors will not be made.
Yeah, the article certainly wasn't written from a neutral POV, that's fer sure.
QUOTE (Orestis+)
I thought Evans and Jeremy were both creations of Mjolnir Pants.
Hell, man, I enjoy arguin with em, but I damn sure got better things to do than pretend to be em!
Hell, man, I enjoy arguin with em, but I damn sure got better things to do than pretend to be em!
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jun 13 2008, 08:03 PM)
What can do that? It'd have to be a biological agent or a drug, to affect the human psyche as well as innate an relatively static problem solving skills (which is what IQ measures, even if that's not the great an wonderful g.
I would probably lean more towards something environmental, rather than something physical, but without further study it's impossible to say.
I would probably lean more towards something environmental, rather than something physical, but without further study it's impossible to say.
QUOTE (NeoDevin+Jun 14 2008, 03:32 AM)
I would probably lean more towards something environmental, rather than something physical, but without further study it's impossible to say.
Ya mean somethin that one group or the other experienced? Head trauma, maybe.
I know it sounds like me tossin up drugs n head trauma as the only other possible factors is pretty tautological, but I'm open t'bein wrong, folks. Tell me somethin that could do that, an I'll consider it.
Ya mean somethin that one group or the other experienced? Head trauma, maybe.
I know it sounds like me tossin up drugs n head trauma as the only other possible factors is pretty tautological, but I'm open t'bein wrong, folks. Tell me somethin that could do that, an I'll consider it.
Those who accept the top down pronouncements of religion are not encouraged to develop thinking skills, in fact such development usually is actively DISCOURAGED.
The mind must be trained to think in a scientific manner, it is a much harder thing to do than just believing what you are told. This training actually increases the intelligence(thinking ability) while not developing these skills actually DECREASES the intellectual capacity(use it or lose it). During training the brain develops more connections between neurons(physical development) and a willingness to question everything(mental development).
So this study does not surprise me in the least, as a teacher for so many years my experience has been that it is the most THOUGHTLESS and least IMAGINATIVE that are the most susceptible to the religious disease, and it shows in their performance in testing and in life.
Grumpy
The mind must be trained to think in a scientific manner, it is a much harder thing to do than just believing what you are told. This training actually increases the intelligence(thinking ability) while not developing these skills actually DECREASES the intellectual capacity(use it or lose it). During training the brain develops more connections between neurons(physical development) and a willingness to question everything(mental development).
So this study does not surprise me in the least, as a teacher for so many years my experience has been that it is the most THOUGHTLESS and least IMAGINATIVE that are the most susceptible to the religious disease, and it shows in their performance in testing and in life.
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+Jun 14 2008, 10:09 AM)
my experience has been that it is the most THOUGHTLESS and least IMAGINATIVE that are the most susceptible to the religious disease, and it shows in their performance in testing and in life.
Grumpy
I think this is easy to see looking into the present leader.
He did finally learn to just say AHHHHHHH while trying to hear his advisers tell him what to say during his speeches.
Claiming a connection to God the present leader disconnects with his people,and the world can see right through him.
Why we let one persons agenda have this much power eludes me.
Grumpy
I think this is easy to see looking into the present leader.
He did finally learn to just say AHHHHHHH while trying to hear his advisers tell him what to say during his speeches.
Claiming a connection to God the present leader disconnects with his people,and the world can see right through him.
Why we let one persons agenda have this much power eludes me.
Rethinker,
You can blame religion for Bush but essentially all your thesis really suggests is that, firstly, the entire American people are even thicker than the Doc and myself combined and, secondly you need international observers to oversee your elections in the same way as they are required in third world countries. I donīt actually believe this scenario but it is a reasonable conclusion based on what you say.
But, beware - from what I can see from my side of the pond the fundamentalists and creationists have grown stronger over the past 6/7 years - AND I am referring to fundamentalists of all hues.
peace
edward
You can blame religion for Bush but essentially all your thesis really suggests is that, firstly, the entire American people are even thicker than the Doc and myself combined and, secondly you need international observers to oversee your elections in the same way as they are required in third world countries. I donīt actually believe this scenario but it is a reasonable conclusion based on what you say.
But, beware - from what I can see from my side of the pond the fundamentalists and creationists have grown stronger over the past 6/7 years - AND I am referring to fundamentalists of all hues.
peace
edward
QUOTE (DuzmA+Jun 13 2008, 10:36 PM)
I admit it guys and I'm sorry. I made the account Evans as a joke.
Is this for real?
Is this for real?
QUOTE (<Max>+Jun 14 2008, 10:11 PM)
Is this for real?
HAHAHAHAHAH
I love it. You guys making up sockpuppet accounts and arguing with a made-up "religious wacko" who was actually one of your own kool-aid drinkers.
Look at the thread I started about Richard Lynn...you supposed Atheist hero...
Richard Lynn, a despicable scientist
I love it. You guys making up sockpuppet accounts and arguing with a made-up "religious wacko" who was actually one of your own kool-aid drinkers.
Look at the thread I started about Richard Lynn...you supposed Atheist hero...
Richard Lynn, a despicable scientist
QUOTE (deadbeat+Jun 15 2008, 01:11 AM)
HAHAHAHAHAH
I love it. You guys making up sockpuppet accounts and arguing with a made-up "religious wacko" who was actually one of your own kool-aid drinkers.
Look at the thread I started about Richard Lynn...you supposed Atheist hero...
Richard Lynn, a despicable scientist
Why you even postin here, son? We already know yer stupid.
I love it. You guys making up sockpuppet accounts and arguing with a made-up "religious wacko" who was actually one of your own kool-aid drinkers.
Look at the thread I started about Richard Lynn...you supposed Atheist hero...
Richard Lynn, a despicable scientist
Why you even postin here, son? We already know yer stupid.
Keep telling yourself that.
But try not to break an arm patting yourself on the back.
But try not to break an arm patting yourself on the back.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jun 14 2008, 03:15 AM)
I'm postin again so soon jes to be fair: Strictly speakin, I am a religious person. O course, I grew up in a christian household, goin to a church what commonly defined religion as "a collection of behaviors intended to result in a favorable afterlife." An as a result o that I generally call myself a spiritual person, t'make clear the difference. I don't go to no church, I don't study the bible, I don't take communion or nothin like that. I don't believe in creationism, I don't believe in convertin people to my way o thinkin, nothin like that. I jes think there is a God in this universe, the same way there is a mind in yer brain.
Is heat real? O course it is, you can get burned easy enough. Things get hot enough they combust, an make light n smoke n plasma.
But heat is jes vibratin particles. It's what we call an emergent property.
Is a human an individual? O course he is, he thinks, feels, acts all as an individual. He has a distinct personality, based on his past experiences an genetic predisposition.
But a human is jes a big mass o individual cells. Individuality is an emergent property.
So is this human intelligent? O course he is. He solves problems, imagines new possibilities, discovers new things.
But all this intelligence is jes a bunch o neurons firin an chemicals mixin. It's an emergent property.
Does that make any o them concepts less real? Nope. People really are intelligent individuals, hot things really do burn us.
Well, we know a system as relatively simple as a human brain can produce incredible intelligence, so why can't the universe as a whole? Who is to say that our universe ain't jes one cell in a gigantic brain? Who is to say that gravity on a scale as large as the universe don't produce effects similar to electromagnetism on the scale o a single cell? Hell, who is to say there ain't a fifth fundamental force in physics, one which makes intelligence possible? Well, it ain't scientific, that's fer sure. (except fer the last one, which we can test fer, one day.) But neither is the many worlds interpretation o quantum mechanics. How would we test whether or not different universes exist? We can't, meanin it's not -strictly speakin- a scientific theory. Neither is much o current cosmology. Whether or not there's a universe out there in which gravity is half the strength of the electromagnetic force ain't somethin we can test, an it ain't somethin which would participate in our universe.
So what's my point? It's simple. Ya don't have to be religious to believe in God. God is a philosophical entity. The bible, on the other hand, ain't. The bible is real. I got me a copy to prove it. It makes specific claims about the way the universe works, an about history. Them claims can -an have been- falsified. They ain't true.
All them folk out there whinin bout evolution bein jes a theory, or bein a religion or bein evil are jes plain wrong. Evolution don't mean squat when it comes to whether or not God exists. Evolution is history. Atheism don't say squat bout whether or not God exists, either. It's jes someone's beliefs. All these ain't arguin fer God, they're arguin fer the bible. An frankly, that's jes plain wrong. Even the catholic church accepts the scientific account o history. Why? Because that's where the smart catholics end up? No, because the folks in the upper tiers o catholic heiracy don't wanna get proven wrong everytime they argue this point. They wanna be on the side o the TRUTH. All our religious learnins are jes searches for the TRUTH. An when someone decides they're gonna abandon facts in their search for the truth, they're blindin themselves.
Believe in God all ya like. But don't believe in religion. Don't believe in the bible, or yer preacher or priest. Ye'll never find what yer lookin fer, that way.
I Haven't seen much o' yor postin' son, but ths'n here's jus bout as good as i seen .
Sorry about the poor mimic. jus' couldn' resis n'all.
Haven't seen anybody write they way they talk before. It's true that there is a definition which MUST be taken account when looking at people who discuss religion and sometimes even defend the seemingly indefensible.
Two things are clear. Religion WAS the birth nurse for most scientific institutions. Whether we like it or not, history can and will not be done over again so that the rate that science was or was not held back cannot be changed. It is what it is.
In the current climate other institutions have the upper hand and are currently ensuring that their views are seen as the strongest. Nothing wrong in that, but the same sales tactics as those employed in religion appear time and again.
Critics will say that "We don't slaughter people for differing views any more". That is true, But this is by no means because 'science' is in play. Given the current civilized environment, exclusion is about the strongest weapon available, and it is used often and to great effect.
Choosing ignorance , rather than discussion (as seen in many a science forum ) is not exclusively a religious trait.very many answers in these topics lack any real thought or consideration as is expected when discussing 'the speed of light or 'mass'.
it's good to see (if only in one or two posts) the (why I feel the way I do's) coming out. I can respect a reasoned debate far more than schoolyard bully tactics which are so often used here.
To get back to the discussion of God. I do not agree that God is "a zapp powered ,superbeing with every bodies good at heart". My view is that God is an inevitable RESULT of energy 'coming of age'.
Those who seek to position themselves one way or another are doomed to failure , since the di was caste long before time started . for those interested, this means the result is already without doubt. The events in between MUST align to this end. this is not the mind of a dictator , but a LAW which cannot be otherwise.
Cheers
Iseason
Is heat real? O course it is, you can get burned easy enough. Things get hot enough they combust, an make light n smoke n plasma.
But heat is jes vibratin particles. It's what we call an emergent property.
Is a human an individual? O course he is, he thinks, feels, acts all as an individual. He has a distinct personality, based on his past experiences an genetic predisposition.
But a human is jes a big mass o individual cells. Individuality is an emergent property.
So is this human intelligent? O course he is. He solves problems, imagines new possibilities, discovers new things.
But all this intelligence is jes a bunch o neurons firin an chemicals mixin. It's an emergent property.
Does that make any o them concepts less real? Nope. People really are intelligent individuals, hot things really do burn us.
Well, we know a system as relatively simple as a human brain can produce incredible intelligence, so why can't the universe as a whole? Who is to say that our universe ain't jes one cell in a gigantic brain? Who is to say that gravity on a scale as large as the universe don't produce effects similar to electromagnetism on the scale o a single cell? Hell, who is to say there ain't a fifth fundamental force in physics, one which makes intelligence possible? Well, it ain't scientific, that's fer sure. (except fer the last one, which we can test fer, one day.) But neither is the many worlds interpretation o quantum mechanics. How would we test whether or not different universes exist? We can't, meanin it's not -strictly speakin- a scientific theory. Neither is much o current cosmology. Whether or not there's a universe out there in which gravity is half the strength of the electromagnetic force ain't somethin we can test, an it ain't somethin which would participate in our universe.
So what's my point? It's simple. Ya don't have to be religious to believe in God. God is a philosophical entity. The bible, on the other hand, ain't. The bible is real. I got me a copy to prove it. It makes specific claims about the way the universe works, an about history. Them claims can -an have been- falsified. They ain't true.
All them folk out there whinin bout evolution bein jes a theory, or bein a religion or bein evil are jes plain wrong. Evolution don't mean squat when it comes to whether or not God exists. Evolution is history. Atheism don't say squat bout whether or not God exists, either. It's jes someone's beliefs. All these ain't arguin fer God, they're arguin fer the bible. An frankly, that's jes plain wrong. Even the catholic church accepts the scientific account o history. Why? Because that's where the smart catholics end up? No, because the folks in the upper tiers o catholic heiracy don't wanna get proven wrong everytime they argue this point. They wanna be on the side o the TRUTH. All our religious learnins are jes searches for the TRUTH. An when someone decides they're gonna abandon facts in their search for the truth, they're blindin themselves.
Believe in God all ya like. But don't believe in religion. Don't believe in the bible, or yer preacher or priest. Ye'll never find what yer lookin fer, that way.
I Haven't seen much o' yor postin' son, but ths'n here's jus bout as good as i seen .
Sorry about the poor mimic. jus' couldn' resis n'all.
Haven't seen anybody write they way they talk before. It's true that there is a definition which MUST be taken account when looking at people who discuss religion and sometimes even defend the seemingly indefensible.
Two things are clear. Religion WAS the birth nurse for most scientific institutions. Whether we like it or not, history can and will not be done over again so that the rate that science was or was not held back cannot be changed. It is what it is.
In the current climate other institutions have the upper hand and are currently ensuring that their views are seen as the strongest. Nothing wrong in that, but the same sales tactics as those employed in religion appear time and again.
Critics will say that "We don't slaughter people for differing views any more". That is true, But this is by no means because 'science' is in play. Given the current civilized environment, exclusion is about the strongest weapon available, and it is used often and to great effect.
Choosing ignorance , rather than discussion (as seen in many a science forum ) is not exclusively a religious trait.very many answers in these topics lack any real thought or consideration as is expected when discussing 'the speed of light or 'mass'.
it's good to see (if only in one or two posts) the (why I feel the way I do's) coming out. I can respect a reasoned debate far more than schoolyard bully tactics which are so often used here.
To get back to the discussion of God. I do not agree that God is "a zapp powered ,superbeing with every bodies good at heart". My view is that God is an inevitable RESULT of energy 'coming of age'.
Those who seek to position themselves one way or another are doomed to failure , since the di was caste long before time started . for those interested, this means the result is already without doubt. The events in between MUST align to this end. this is not the mind of a dictator , but a LAW which cannot be otherwise.
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (deadbeat+Jun 14 2008, 09:11 PM)
HAHAHAHAHAH
I love it. You guys making up sockpuppet accounts and arguing with a made-up "religious wacko" who was actually one of your own kool-aid drinkers.
Look at the thread I started about Richard Lynn...you supposed Atheist hero...
Richard Lynn, a despicable scientist
And in the past you have used multiple accounts on this forum as well.
Then there is Poes law, the fact that we have a theist on this forum who looks forward to killing non-xians is some religious blood-letting fantasy and other theist who wish to make all follow religious rules and commandments in violation of personal freedoms.
Not that odd that so many saw Evans not as a parody account but a legitimate user.
I love it. You guys making up sockpuppet accounts and arguing with a made-up "religious wacko" who was actually one of your own kool-aid drinkers.
Look at the thread I started about Richard Lynn...you supposed Atheist hero...
Richard Lynn, a despicable scientist
And in the past you have used multiple accounts on this forum as well.
Then there is Poes law, the fact that we have a theist on this forum who looks forward to killing non-xians is some religious blood-letting fantasy and other theist who wish to make all follow religious rules and commandments in violation of personal freedoms.
Not that odd that so many saw Evans not as a parody account but a legitimate user.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jun 15 2008, 07:00 PM)
Not that odd that so many saw Evans not as a parody account but a legitimate user.
Wait a minute, he's not a legitimate user? I'm disappointed, I thought he made sense.
Wait a minute, he's not a legitimate user? I'm disappointed, I thought he made sense.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jun 15 2008, 07:00 PM)
And in the past you have used multiple accounts on this forum as well.
Then there is Poes law, the fact that we have a theist on this forum who looks forward to killing non-xians is some religious blood-letting fantasy and other theist who wish to make all follow religious rules and commandments in violation of personal freedoms.
Not that odd that so many saw Evans not as a parody account but a legitimate user.
HAHAHAHAH
Oh Gene you are just precious.
One time I posted under a different name, but even stated who my main account was in that post. I was just checking to see if somehow I had been banned or something, but it turned out just to be website difficulties.
And here you sit, justifying the appalling but typical behavior of your little buddies.
The reason so many people saw him that way was because he PRETENDED to be that way, and was taken at his word, which among you of course means nothing.
Apparently character, integrity and honor are just words in a dictionary for some.
Then there is Poes law, the fact that we have a theist on this forum who looks forward to killing non-xians is some religious blood-letting fantasy and other theist who wish to make all follow religious rules and commandments in violation of personal freedoms.
Not that odd that so many saw Evans not as a parody account but a legitimate user.
HAHAHAHAH
Oh Gene you are just precious.
One time I posted under a different name, but even stated who my main account was in that post. I was just checking to see if somehow I had been banned or something, but it turned out just to be website difficulties.
And here you sit, justifying the appalling but typical behavior of your little buddies.
The reason so many people saw him that way was because he PRETENDED to be that way, and was taken at his word, which among you of course means nothing.
Apparently character, integrity and honor are just words in a dictionary for some.
My guess is that it has do with education as well as IQ!
Take someone with a below average IQ (< 100) and educate them, and I'll bet they are more likely to be an atheist then their peers that are not educated. Education can (but not always does) free the mind, if it is true to the principles of scientific thought and open to new ideas. Teach critical thinking skills... Teach how to arrive at a logical answer, not the answer! This is where we have failed today. We test our kids to an answer not a process.
This is one reason why we (USA) are so far behind in the education of our children.
FGG
Take someone with a below average IQ (< 100) and educate them, and I'll bet they are more likely to be an atheist then their peers that are not educated. Education can (but not always does) free the mind, if it is true to the principles of scientific thought and open to new ideas. Teach critical thinking skills... Teach how to arrive at a logical answer, not the answer! This is where we have failed today. We test our kids to an answer not a process.
This is one reason why we (USA) are so far behind in the education of our children.
FGG
QUOTE (FGG+Jun 15 2008, 11:54 PM)
My guess is that it has do with education as well as IQ!
Take someone with a below average IQ (< 100) and educate them, and I'll bet they are more likely to be an atheist then their peers that are not educated. Education can (but not always does) free the mind, if it is true to the principles of scientific thought and open to new ideas. Teach critical thinking skills... Teach how to arrive at a logical answer, not the answer! This is where we have failed today. We test our kids to an answer not a process.
This is one reason why we (USA) are so far behind in the education of our children.
FGG
While I would provisionally agree with you, I had attended school in Europe (Germany) during my youth.
It is and has been in vogue with the Elitist (and somewhat socialist) edifice that is the education system. The precepts of Atheism are pushed forward in education by camoflauging them as "scientific".
The reason our schools lag so far behind (primary education primarily) is the religion of environmentalism and lately global warmingism and just general liberalism often are taught more than actual standard subjects. We spend more time on sex education, social tolerance and racism prevention, as well as any number of other social programs like anti-drug and smoking, drinking etc than the actual class time on real subjects like Math and science.
That is why many of us who like "no child left behind" are so happy with the standardized testing, it FORCES schools to actually teach some standard of learning beyond the political agenda. And why the Teachers unio9ns and liberals hate it so much too, in my humble opinion.
Take someone with a below average IQ (< 100) and educate them, and I'll bet they are more likely to be an atheist then their peers that are not educated. Education can (but not always does) free the mind, if it is true to the principles of scientific thought and open to new ideas. Teach critical thinking skills... Teach how to arrive at a logical answer, not the answer! This is where we have failed today. We test our kids to an answer not a process.
This is one reason why we (USA) are so far behind in the education of our children.
FGG
While I would provisionally agree with you, I had attended school in Europe (Germany) during my youth.
It is and has been in vogue with the Elitist (and somewhat socialist) edifice that is the education system. The precepts of Atheism are pushed forward in education by camoflauging them as "scientific".
The reason our schools lag so far behind (primary education primarily) is the religion of environmentalism and lately global warmingism and just general liberalism often are taught more than actual standard subjects. We spend more time on sex education, social tolerance and racism prevention, as well as any number of other social programs like anti-drug and smoking, drinking etc than the actual class time on real subjects like Math and science.
That is why many of us who like "no child left behind" are so happy with the standardized testing, it FORCES schools to actually teach some standard of learning beyond the political agenda. And why the Teachers unio9ns and liberals hate it so much too, in my humble opinion.
QUOTE (kjw+Jun 12 2008, 08:26 AM)
i always wanted to know, when based on total lack of evidence, why religious people think their specific religion is true and other religions are false...
I developed a theory that supports your statement. It involves certainty and mathematical logic to prove that religion is a massive leap of faith and is possibly incorrect. I hope to post it here in the future.
I developed a theory that supports your statement. It involves certainty and mathematical logic to prove that religion is a massive leap of faith and is possibly incorrect. I hope to post it here in the future.
QUOTE (deadbeat+)
The precepts of Atheism are pushed forward in education by camoflauging them as "scientific".
Nope. Good education teaches critical thinking. Atheism is the direct result of that.
Nope. Good education teaches critical thinking. Atheism is the direct result of that.
QUOTE (deadbeat+)
The reason our schools lag so far behind (primary education primarily) is the religion of environmentalism and lately global warmingism and just general liberalism often are taught more than actual standard subjects. We spend more time on sex education, social tolerance and racism prevention, as well as any number of other social programs like anti-drug and smoking, drinking etc than the actual class time on real subjects like Math and science.
[sarcasm]
If only we had more "common sense" to avoid "political correctness" like you and your idol, the great genius Glenn Beck.
Of course everything is part of the liberal agenda, what with the president being...oops..republican from the last 8 years.
[/sarcasm]
[sarcasm]
If only we had more "common sense" to avoid "political correctness" like you and your idol, the great genius Glenn Beck.
Of course everything is part of the liberal agenda, what with the president being...oops..republican from the last 8 years.
[/sarcasm]
QUOTE (deadbeat+Jun 16 2008, 09:38 AM)
While I would provisionally agree with you, I had attended school in Europe (Germany) during my youth.
It is and has been in vogue with the Elitist (and somewhat socialist) edifice that is the education system. The precepts of Atheism are pushed forward in education by camoflauging them as "scientific".
The reason our schools lag so far behind (primary education primarily) is the religion of environmentalism and lately global warmingism and just general liberalism often are taught more than actual standard subjects. We spend more time on sex education, social tolerance and racism prevention, as well as any number of other social programs like anti-drug and smoking, drinking etc than the actual class time on real subjects like Math and science.
That is why many of us who like "no child left behind" are so happy with the standardized testing, it FORCES schools to actually teach some standard of learning beyond the political agenda. And why the Teachers unio9ns and liberals hate it so much too, in my humble opinion.
Science is not Atheistic! It just does not push religion because there is absolutely no scientific evidence to support a theistic view of the universe. Therefore, to theists, this appears on the surface to support an Atheistic view (which in reallity it does). The problem is of course there is no scientific basis for god! so it's your view of science and gods place in the universe that is at fault, not science.
I have three kids in 3rd, 5th, and 7th grades and would say you are totally screwed up in your assessment of science education at least in my district. Yes the kids learn about responsible environmental habits but not overly so. Sex ed is taught several years too late and is only skimmed over briefly. It should be taught in every grade starting at about 2nd grade. Sex is not taboo, it human nature.
Since you seem to think liberalism is so bad... Can you name one significant social advance in American history that was championed by the conservatives?
Freeing the slaves? Nope.
Voting rights for woman? Nope.
Equal rights? Nope.
All meaningful social advances have come from the LIBERAL side! While conservatives only only seem to champion the status-quo! they seem to fear social change!
No child left behind insures that our kids are ignorant It teaches facts, not critical thinking. The reason why religious-nuts like it so much is just that It allows kids to be brainwashed by religion while schools teach meaningless facts and not how or why to question idiotic non-supported beliefs. If you taught kids how to think critically, Religion would fade into the past as it is in many other countries that are ahead of us! The fact that the US has a high percentage of religious-nut bags and scores low on international science/math tests is no coincidence! they are inexorably linked! Religion requires ignorance to flourish.
FGG
It is and has been in vogue with the Elitist (and somewhat socialist) edifice that is the education system. The precepts of Atheism are pushed forward in education by camoflauging them as "scientific".
The reason our schools lag so far behind (primary education primarily) is the religion of environmentalism and lately global warmingism and just general liberalism often are taught more than actual standard subjects. We spend more time on sex education, social tolerance and racism prevention, as well as any number of other social programs like anti-drug and smoking, drinking etc than the actual class time on real subjects like Math and science.
That is why many of us who like "no child left behind" are so happy with the standardized testing, it FORCES schools to actually teach some standard of learning beyond the political agenda. And why the Teachers unio9ns and liberals hate it so much too, in my humble opinion.
Science is not Atheistic! It just does not push religion because there is absolutely no scientific evidence to support a theistic view of the universe. Therefore, to theists, this appears on the surface to support an Atheistic view (which in reallity it does). The problem is of course there is no scientific basis for god! so it's your view of science and gods place in the universe that is at fault, not science.
I have three kids in 3rd, 5th, and 7th grades and would say you are totally screwed up in your assessment of science education at least in my district. Yes the kids learn about responsible environmental habits but not overly so. Sex ed is taught several years too late and is only skimmed over briefly. It should be taught in every grade starting at about 2nd grade. Sex is not taboo, it human nature.
Since you seem to think liberalism is so bad... Can you name one significant social advance in American history that was championed by the conservatives?
Freeing the slaves? Nope.
Voting rights for woman? Nope.
Equal rights? Nope.
All meaningful social advances have come from the LIBERAL side! While conservatives only only seem to champion the status-quo! they seem to fear social change!
No child left behind insures that our kids are ignorant It teaches facts, not critical thinking. The reason why religious-nuts like it so much is just that It allows kids to be brainwashed by religion while schools teach meaningless facts and not how or why to question idiotic non-supported beliefs. If you taught kids how to think critically, Religion would fade into the past as it is in many other countries that are ahead of us! The fact that the US has a high percentage of religious-nut bags and scores low on international science/math tests is no coincidence! they are inexorably linked! Religion requires ignorance to flourish.
FGG
QUOTE (deadbeat+Jun 15 2008, 05:53 AM)
Keep telling yourself that.
Hehe...
Son, I ain't the only one "tellin myself that."
Wow. Where did that one come from? Do go back an quote me where I implied that you bein so dumb makes me so smart.
Wow. Where did that one come from? Do go back an quote me where I implied that you bein so dumb makes me so smart.
And here you sit, justifying the appalling but typical behavior of your little buddies.
"apalling but typical," I like that.
Kinda like the way religious folk call evolution or liberalism or (in yer case) communism or environmentalism a religion. It's apallingly stupid, but typical o religious arguments.
Yeah, don't ya jes hate dishonest, hypocritical folk?
Yeah, don't ya jes hate dishonest, hypocritical folk?
The precepts of Atheism are pushed forward in education by camoflauging them as "scientific".
Well that's bull. Ya got any proof o this? Or do ya think that critical thinkin an methodological naturalism are synonymous with atheism? Cause they ain't. Jes like ignorance an superstition ain't synonymous with religion.
That's jes more bullcrap. It jes ain't true. Did ya even go to school, son? School is about impartin knowledge not ideologies. The fact that some ideologies are more attractive to those more educated is beside the point.
That's jes more bullcrap. It jes ain't true. Did ya even go to school, son? School is about impartin knowledge not ideologies. The fact that some ideologies are more attractive to those more educated is beside the point.
We spend more time on sex education, social tolerance and racism prevention, as well a
Hehe...
Son, I ain't the only one "tellin myself that."
QUOTE
But try not to break an arm patting yourself on the back.
Wow. Where did that one come from? Do go back an quote me where I implied that you bein so dumb makes me so smart.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But try not to break an arm patting yourself on the back. |
Wow. Where did that one come from? Do go back an quote me where I implied that you bein so dumb makes me so smart.
And here you sit, justifying the appalling but typical behavior of your little buddies.
"apalling but typical," I like that.
Kinda like the way religious folk call evolution or liberalism or (in yer case) communism or environmentalism a religion. It's apallingly stupid, but typical o religious arguments.
QUOTE
Apparently character, integrity and honor are just words in a dictionary for some.
Yeah, don't ya jes hate dishonest, hypocritical folk?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Apparently character, integrity and honor are just words in a dictionary for some. |
Yeah, don't ya jes hate dishonest, hypocritical folk?
The precepts of Atheism are pushed forward in education by camoflauging them as "scientific".
Well that's bull. Ya got any proof o this? Or do ya think that critical thinkin an methodological naturalism are synonymous with atheism? Cause they ain't. Jes like ignorance an superstition ain't synonymous with religion.
QUOTE
The reason our schools lag so far behind (primary education primarily) is the religion of environmentalism and lately global warmingism and just general liberalism often are taught more than actual standard subjects.
That's jes more bullcrap. It jes ain't true. Did ya even go to school, son? School is about impartin knowledge not ideologies. The fact that some ideologies are more attractive to those more educated is beside the point.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The reason our schools lag so far behind (primary education primarily) is the religion of environmentalism and lately global warmingism and just general liberalism often are taught more than actual standard subjects. |
That's jes more bullcrap. It jes ain't true. Did ya even go to school, son? School is about impartin knowledge not ideologies. The fact that some ideologies are more attractive to those more educated is beside the point.
We spend more time on sex education, social tolerance and racism prevention, as well a