Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
ranrod

Atheist tactics in Calif

94 posts in this topic

That fact also remains that there is a negative correlation between intelligence and religious belief.

http://davesource.co...-Lynn-et-al.pdf

Very interesting...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference is that they are defending what they believe. Atheists don't believe in anything, so what are they defending against?

Atheists believe in plenty, just not gods.

Nothing; they're attacking the rest, who are wrong.

Every situation is different. You cannot say that every time there is an argument between a christian and an atheist is is because the atheist is attacking the christian. This is exactly why atheists need to have their voices heard and represented in the public setting. The level of disdain is just staggering and frankly, a little pathetic coming from such a "compassionate" and "loving" religion.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't do it. Why do I care so much if I'm not even involved in any religion (of which I feel all are harmful to us all)? It's the passive aggressive insults given a moral higher ground because one side feels they are right. Religious people are less intelligent; message received. I can't read this any more; I want to sleep tonight.

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?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference is that they are defending what they believe. Atheists don't believe in anything, so what are they defending against?

Atheists believe in plenty. Just not your god. And they want to defend the right to be able to disagree.

Nothing; they're attacking the rest, who are wrong.

Right, we'll have to disagree here. let's leave it at that. There doesn't seem to be a way to progress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Atheists believe in plenty, just not gods.

Every situation is different. You cannot say that every time there is an argument between a christian and an atheist is is because the atheist is attacking the christian. This is exactly why atheists need to have their voices heard and represented in the public setting. The level of disdain is just staggering and frankly, a little pathetic coming from such a "compassionate" and "loving" religion.

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.

If your behaviour is just as bad as those you complain of, as is Israels and the Palestinians right now in the World At War arena, you should have a look at yerself. Imo.

Edited by Eldorado

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Likewise, for the proven intelligently superior atheists it is equally pathetic that they indulge in such blatant childish and spiteful behaviour.

Careful with that chip on your shoulder.

They hate Christians, end of.

In my personal experience, Christians very much hate atheists as well. I like to think I have managed to put aside my grudge.

It's certainly easier for Atheists to express their hate online, for those who may be in areas where such opinions would not be healthy. Either socially or physically.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 don't hate Christians. I, personally, don't know one atheist that does. Some of my best friends are christians. XD

Do I think that their beliefs are silly? Absolutely. Just as you would think it's silly if you met an adult that actually believed in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

Until you met each and every atheists in the world and have a very long conversation with each of them, you cannot say that they hate Christians. Those blanket statements and beliefs are exactly why atheists should be just as represented in public forums as everyone else.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Careful with that chip on your shoulder.

It's a big chip, ShadowSot. I hate bullying; no matter who the bully is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a big chip, ShadowSot. I hate bullying; no matter who the bully is.

That chip's causing you to act like a bully yourself. Best make peace before you begin to hate yourself.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That chip's causing you to act like a bully yourself. Best make peace before you begin to hate yourself.

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.

Edited by Eldorado

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a big chip, ShadowSot. I hate bullying; no matter who the bully is.

Then you should hate christians more than you do atheists. We're not the ones spouting hate filled rhetoric at people based on their sexual orientation or trying to get jewish fairy tales taught as science. We don't tell people they're going suffer for eternity if they don't believe what we do. Atheists don't get into positions of authority and trust and use that authority and trust to molest little children and cover it up. (To be fair, catholic priests do not have a monopoly on pedophilia.)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then you should hate christians more than you do atheists. We're not the ones spouting hate filled rhetoric at people based on their sexual orientation or trying to get jewish fairy tales taught as science. We don't tell people they're going suffer for eternity if they don't believe what we do. Atheists don't get into positions of authority and trust and use that authority and trust to molest little children and cover it up. (To be fair, catholic priests do not have a monopoly on pedophilia.)

Most children who have been abused, have been abused by their own family members. That's a fact, a horrible one, but a fact.

p.s. I hope to God you don't think I'm defending the Institutional cover-ups of abuse by what I say.

Edited by Eldorado

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most children who have been abused, have been abused by their own family members. That's a fact, a horrible one, but a fact.

I agree, but was just making a point. That's still a conversation that I'd rather not have here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.