Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Atheist tactics in Calif


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
94 replies to this topic

#91    Alienated Being

Alienated Being

    Government Agent

  • Banned
  • 4,163 posts
  • Joined:03 Sep 2006

  • "The best way to predict the future is by inventing it."

    "Record

Posted 19 November 2012 - 01:58 AM

View PostEldorado, on 19 November 2012 - 01:36 AM, said:

Likewise, for the proven intelligently superior atheists it is equally pathetic that they indulge in such blatant childish and spiteful behaviour.  They hate Christians, end of.
I should like to address the first point wherein you said that atheists are proven to be intellectually superior than believers; where, exactly, are you getting the impression that atheists portray themselves as being intellectually superior? Because we don't invest belief in faery tales and myth? That we don't take the word from one lone book as being irrefutable fact, and encourage others to follow the same path? What the **** is wrong with telling others that their beliefs are not scientificially sound (which they are not), and that a more logical approach should be taken? There is a difference between encouraging logical thinking and portraying yourself as being intellectually superior.

Secondly, I don't hate Christians -- I hate Christianity, and I hate organized religion. Period. It has done nothing but impede technological and scientific progress in the preceding centuries.

Edited by Alienated Being, 19 November 2012 - 02:00 AM.


#92    shadowsot

shadowsot

    Nightstalker

  • Member
  • 9,113 posts
  • Joined:27 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida

  • Oops.

Posted 19 November 2012 - 02:02 AM

View PostEldorado, on 19 November 2012 - 01:48 AM, said:

Who am I bullying?  If you can show me a post where I have bullied a person, I will give up my membership of UM out of shame.
You're aggressively dismissing the majority (How nice of you to drop it to 99%) of atheists as having their head up their tookus. To me, it also seems to seem to be reading antagonism into posts where it's simply not there.
I, at least, see this as toeing the line.

It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
-Terry Pratchett

#93    _Only

_Only

  • Member
  • 6,782 posts
  • Joined:24 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northern California

  • Did you ever grow anything in the garden of your mind? You can grow ideas, in the garden of your mind. - Mr. Rogers

Posted 19 November 2012 - 02:04 AM

View PostImaginarynumber1, on 19 November 2012 - 01:33 AM, said:

Goddamn, man. It's not the end of the world. Somebody said something and I responded with a bit of interesting information. Is it so hard for you to accept that some people don't believe the same things you do?

I will say this only one more time clearly, and I'll leave, because this is really starting to upset me. I do not believe in any religion or god in particular. I can only dealing with what I know, which is basically nothing. I am bothered by the shots being sent against differing sides of a discussion. I accept people who don't believe the same thing as me, but they can do it respectfully. The lack of respect toward people is all I came, stayed, and am leaving for in this thread. Aggressive negativity is bad, but is often fueled by reaction (aka not thinking things out). I can understand that, but passive aggression bothers me far more. This aggression is not just a negative force sent out, but also a form of lie. One can hurt the other and then claim innocence. I hate it.

Edited by _Only, 19 November 2012 - 02:05 AM.

"I think there may be "ghost phenomenon" that may be still not fully understood or dismissed, but that doesn't make it spirits of the dead, anymore than "UFO" means "spaceship" or even "UFO" or "spaceship" is directly related to aliens, or anything else. There is way too much assumption and a baseless reliance on anecdotal lore, like when people assert this or that about the spirit world or the astral plane or Ouija board demons, or religion. I say 'says WHO?'" - Paranormalcy

#94    GreenmansGod

GreenmansGod

    Mostly Harmless

  • Member
  • 11,330 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Hurricane State

  • May the laughter ye give today return to thee 3 fold.

Posted 19 November 2012 - 02:40 AM

As a Pagan I would be counted as theist, but I find it is much easier for me to get a long with atheist than I do with Christians. Eldorado, I guess is an example as to why.   He picked up his toys and left in a hissyfit. My objection is they are putting religious displays in a public park.  Lights, trees, Santa no big deal, but nativity scenes belong on Church property.

"The world is changed. I feel it in the water. I feel it in the earth. I smell it in the air. Much that once was is lost; for none now live who remember it."  Galadriel

#95    meryt-tetisheri

meryt-tetisheri

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,363 posts
  • Joined:12 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Female

Posted 19 November 2012 - 03:27 AM

View PostImaginarynumber1, on 19 November 2012 - 01:23 AM, said:

That fact also remains that there is a negative correlation between intelligence and religious belief.
http://davesource.co...-Lynn-et-al.pdf

It is 4 A.M. here, so I will just make a very brief comment on the study. I had a brief look at it but will read it in more detail later.
One cannot but have serious doubts about the validity of the study, or about the universal applicability of its findings when one of its main sources states the following:

Quote

Zuckerman draws attention to four problems associated with this data set. These are possible low response rates, weaknesses in random sample selection, regime or peer pressure in influencing responses and problems of terminological variation between cultures over words such as religious’ or‘secular’. Despite these possible sources of error however Zuckerman urges acceptance of the data by quoting Robert Putnam to the effect that “we must make do with the imperfect evidence that we can find, not merely lament its deficiencies.”

On its own, each of these 'deficiencies' is enough to shoot down the study; together, they cast serious doubt on its methodology and therefore its conclusions! If their samples are not representative, participation of respondents is evaluated as 'low rate', the terminology used was not clear or sufficiently defined, and variables were not accounted for, how rigorous was the research? If the researchers are aware of the flows of the study, define them as 'deficiencies', yet still urge that their work be accepted, then that can only indicate a subjective bias on their part, which casts further doubt on the whole study.

Another point, how can any serious research compare Angola, Afghanistan and Bangladesh, with Belgium and Denmark without factoring in things like rate of illiteracy, education, poverty, malnourishment, socio-political instability, access to computers....all are factors which would influence an individual's IQ score and would definitely reflect on the results of 'IQ' rate on a national level. I will not broach the point of national income, sanitation, disease and availability of health care. All of these are factors which affect the development of a child, and have nothing to do with the presence or lack of a belief system.

This study while claiming to have global significance (137 countries), is so seriously flawed that I doubt the relevance of its findings on any level, let alone reaching a valid conclusion on the rate of intelligence of several billion people.















Edited by meryt-tetisheri, 19 November 2012 - 03:35 AM.


#96    Imaginarynumber1

Imaginarynumber1

    I am not an irrational number

  • Member
  • 7,762 posts
  • Joined:22 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 19 November 2012 - 03:38 AM

View Postmeryt-tetisheri, on 19 November 2012 - 03:27 AM, said:

It is 4 A.M. here, so I will just make a very brief comment on the study. I had a brief look at it but will read it in more detail later.
One cannot but have serious doubts about the validity of the study, or about the universal applicability of its findings when one of its main sources states the following:



On its own, each of these 'deficiencies' is enough to shoot down the study; together, they cast serious doubt on its methodology and therefore its conclusions! If their samples are not representative, participation of respondents is evaluated as 'low rate', the terminology used was not clear or sufficiently defined, and variables were not accounted for, how rigorous was the research? If the researchers are aware of the flows of the study, define them as 'deficiencies', yet still urge that their work be accepted, then that can only indicate a subjective bias on their part, which casts further doubt on the whole study.

Another point, how can any serious research compare Angola, Afghanistan and Bangladesh, with Belgium and Denmark without factoring in things like rate of illiteracy, education, poverty, malnourishment, socio-political instability, access to computers....all are factors which would influence an individual's IQ and would definitely reflect on the results of 'IQ' on a national level. I will not broach the point of national income, sanitation, disease and availability of health care. All of these are factors which affect the development of a child, and have nothing to do with the presence or lack of a belief system.

This study while claiming to have global significance (137 countries), is so seriously flawed that I doubt the relevance of its findings on any level, let alone reaching a valid conclusion on the rate of intelligence of several billion people.


You raise some good points, but the fact remains, when you look at academia, very very few of the worlds best and brightest are religious in any sense of the word. I think about 3% of Royal Society fellows believe in any god and a poll in the 90's showed that about 7% of members of the American National Academy of Sciences believed in a god.

Personally, I just don't care.

"You do not teach the paths of the forest to an old gorilla."


"It's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired - you quit when the gorilla is tired."


RAPTORS! http://www.unexplain...pic=233151&st=0





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users