[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Horsesh*t.

Yes? What can I do for you?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Is being black a belief system?

So, you are saying that a person's religious beliefs are fodder for disrespect and discrimination? Both "being black" and "having religion" are things that are normally protected (here in the US anyways) constitutionally from the effects of bigotry.

My point was that both forms of bigotry could be justified by "data" and that such efforts really didn't mask the true nature of the attacks when they are given. Disagreeing with someone's belief system and inferring that they are stupid because they hold those beliefs are two different things the same way disagreeing with something a black person might do is different from saying that they do it because black people are stupid.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

Just look at the huge influx of people who flocked to church in the hours and days following September 11th. Any large catastrophe or personal crisis will drive a large portion of learned people to god for comfort and to find meaning.

Made me think of this quote:

"My last vestige of "hands off religion" respect disappeared in the smoke and choking dust of September 11th 2001, followed by the "National Day of Prayer," when prelates and pastors did their tremulous Martin Luther King impersonations and urged people of mutually incompatible faiths to hold hands, united in homage to the very force that caused the problem in the first place." - Richard Dawkins

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It's not really much different than if someone stated that they thought black people Muslims were stupid.

Try that one, I think it will land.

You guys defending the study should really be ashamed.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Disagreeing with someone's belief system and inferring that they are stupid because they hold those beliefs are two different things...

Wrong. "Stupid is as stupid does." If you believe in stupid things, then you're willfully stupid.

[Lava Lamp Freak]

I'm always reminded what I used to be taught, hate the sin but not the sinner. I personally hate the belief, but not the believer. Unfortunately, the two are hard to separate, and saying the belief is stupid offends the believer of it.

While I do think that my own knowledge about religion plays a role in my non belief, I know that I'm not more intelligent than many of the believers in the world. I have friends with graduate degrees who are strong believers. Of course a few of those went to seminary so they are more likely to believe those things.

I don't think it is true though that believers are all happier than non believers. I can't even count how many times my friends post on their blogs how depressed they are that God doesn't love them any more, they don't have the things they are praying for, and things just aren't going the way they want them to. It is almost like a drug for them. They go back to church on Wednesday and Sunday and suddenly they are all pumped up on the holy spirit and good to go another few days. If I want an artificial high, I'll drink a Coke and watch Stargate.

[smacintush]

It may have been Dawkins who said something like "There are two types of religious people: those who for various reasons haven't really given it honest thought, and imbeciles.

That is an oversimplification. The problem with it is that in order to have "faith" you must either deliberately or inadvertently avoid giving the evidence any serious thought. Turn off your brain to turn on your faith. While an otherwise smart person might do this, it's a pretty stupid thing to do.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

So, you are saying that a person's religious beliefs are fodder for disrespect and discrimination? Both "being black" and "having religion" are things that are normally protected (here in the US anyways) constitutionally from the effects of bigotry.

My point was that both forms of bigotry could be justified by "data" and that such efforts really didn't mask the true nature of the attacks when they are given. Disagreeing with someone's belief system and inferring that they are stupid because they hold those beliefs are two different things the same way disagreeing with something a black person might do is different from saying that they do it because black people are stupid.

I don't disagree with what you say here, but I just don't think it's bigotry to criticize (even forcefully or obnoxiously) a belief. To argue otherwise is contrary to the whole notion of a marketplace of ideas.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Try that one, I think it will land.

You guys defending the study should really be ashamed.

I said earlier that there's a great deal of research on happiness and religion, and the clear consensus is that there's a positive correlation. Would you defend that research or not? And what other research is indefensible, in your view? (BTW, the original research certainly does not say "religious people are stupid." That language may be in the newspaper piece or in this thread, but not in this paper.)

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

So, you are saying that a person's religious beliefs are fodder for disrespect and discrimination?

Discrimination is one thing, but why should religion be any more immune from disrespect than that of Astrology?

Both "being black" and "having religion" are things that are normally protected (here in the US anyways) constitutionally from the effects of bigotry.

So does the constitution prevent me from saying publicly that: "I hate black people because they are stupid"? Is someone prevented from saying…oh I don't know…No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots."?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

It may have been Dawkins who said something like "There are two types of religious people: those who for various reasons haven't really given it honest thought, and imbeciles.

That is an oversimplification.

Actually, it's plainly ridiculous. Most people believe in God in hope of an afterlife. That may not be a provable idea, but it isn't inherently stupid, either. It's only when you tie that belief to a medieval outlook that you start down the path of stupidity.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I said earlier that there's a great deal of research on happiness and religion, and the clear consensus is that there's a positive correlation. Would you defend that research or not?

Well, I wouldn't defend it, it's still fluff science. Quantifying happiness is a miniscule step above quantifying intelligence, as far as scientific merit. They're very nebulous and subjective properties. But there is one defining difference between that and the "stupid" study, and it's that the latter is hateful. There's a reason the scientific community rejects certain experiments regardless of their technical thoroughness (of which btw I am highly skeptical in this case, if that's not already apparent), and that reason is ethics. Some things are just unethical to publish, even if they're technically correct. This is one of them. I haven't read the study itself, and I don't want to read it. Nor would I want to read one about how Muslims are statistically more criminal, how Democrats are more gullible, how gays are more obsessed with sex, or any study in which X cultural group is correlated with Y negative attribute. Fluff science is fine, when it's... fluffy. When it's hurtful, that's no longer acceptable.

(BTW, the original research certainly does not say "religious people are stupid." That language may be in the newspaper piece or in this thread, but not in this paper.)

The author is quoted as saying exactly that, unless you want to draw a distinction between "stupid" and "lower IQ." And he claims it's causal, which would be nigh impossible to show scientifically (well, without performing experiments using unethical methods). It's bad science, and bad ethics both. CLEARLY over the line.

Let me put it this way. Do you ever get frustrated when people reject hard scientific evidence of things like evolution and climate change? The fuel for that fire is exactly this, "studies" that "scientifically prove" things which are outlandish and petty. If you and the scientific community at large refuse(s) to distinguish between the junk science and the legit stuff, how can you ever fault the "skeptics" for doing exactly the same thing? If "science" claims that religious people are stupid, with a straight face, then all credibility that "science" thought it had on "real" issues is right out the window. Even if it were objectively true that intelligence and atheism were causally related (in either direction), that's a very serious claim to make, and it would require extraordinary evidence, not something you'd let fly in the newspaper with nothing more than a correlation. Correlation doesn't show causality, that's one of the most basic rules of science.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Actually, it's plainly ridiculous. Most people believe in God in hope of an afterlife. That may not be a provable idea, but it isn't inherently stupid, either.

It flies in the face of not only logic, but any observable phenomena in the known world to think that somehow when we die, we don't really die. It's not stupid, it's beyond stupid.

I know, you said "hope".

So you can't see the stupidity in allowing yourself to believe something that defies logic or reason and without any evidence whatsoever…in order satisfy a wholly illogical hope that is reinforced by nothing observable whatsoever?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

The problem with it is that in order to have "faith" you must either deliberately or inadvertently avoid giving the evidence any serious thought. Turn off your brain to turn on your faith. While an otherwise smart person might do this, it's a pretty stupid thing to do.

See, that's where your own ignorance feeds your bigotry. Some of the smartest people in the world are people who have "faith" and do so after much thought and internal debate and do not fit your invented stereotype. Just because some people engage in the same internal debate and come away with a different conclusion, doesn't make them necessarily "right" or "wrong". Can you prove that this is no God? No? Can you prove there is no God? No? You can't prove scientifically that either side is wrong. When you insist that you can and ascribe negative attributes to those who disagree, you're doing it because you have bias and bigotry. It's really not that much different than racial bigotry.

Much of science is truly based on faith that unproven assumptions are true. You might not be able to measure the evidence that supports every single assumption, but you have faith that the bulk of circumstantial evidence supports your conclusion. The same is often true of those who have religious faith. A lot of people will tell you that there is evidence of a "god" everywhere you look. Just because you do not, or can not see it does not mean that it doesn't exist. It might not be able to be measured and recorded in the manner that scientific study demands (which separates faith from science), but to suggest that it does not exist and is the product of stupidity is ignorant.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

It flies in the face of not only logic, but any observable phenomena in the known world to think that somehow when we die, we don't really die. It's not stupid, it's beyond stupid.

Something being "observable" depends entirely on your perception. Your life experience and history of observations is different from every other person in the world. And even if another person had lived the exact same life as you, their perception of it would be colored differently by both the physiology of their senses and also their personal psychological biases as they process and store those perceptions in their minds as memories. So it really comes down to you calling them "stupid," and them calling you "stupid" right back. Who's "right?" Observable phenomena tell me there are more of them than there are of you, and it defies logic and reason to choose to make this a contentious issue, when you have the option to live and let live. The really "stupid" person is the one who insists on declaring themselves "smarter," when it's impossible to objectively demonstrate it beyond merely stating it, and when so stating wouldn't change the reality either way. IMHO.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

So does the constitution prevent me from saying publicly that: "I hate black people because they are stupid"?

It depends. If you say it during an interview for a job for a black person, it would likely cause you to lose your job due to laws outlawing discrimination.

The truth is though (thank ...uh...someone) that in the US you are still free to be a bigot. While I don't like bigotry, I'd hate to live in one of the countries that outlaw bigoted speech. That's real scary.

[hyteckit]

All men are created by God. So if you are stupid, it's obviously God's fault.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

See, that's where your own ignorance feeds your bigotry. Some of the smartest people in the world are people who have "faith" and do so after much thought and internal debate and do not fit your invented stereotype. Just because some people engage in the same internal debate and come away with a different conclusion, doesn't make them necessarily "right" or "wrong".

Yes, I know it happens. The fact that some do come to those conclusions in no way invalidates my conclusion. You misunderestimate the power and influence of your culture and your familial upbringing. Often their conclusions are based upon their prejudices given to them by those around them as they grew up.

Can you prove that this is no God? No? Can you prove there is no God? No? You can't prove scientifically that either side is wrong. When you insist that you can and ascribe negative attributes to those who disagree, you're doing it because you have bias and bigotry. It's really not that much different than racial bigotry.

This argument is based upon the mistaken notion that since god can be neither proven nor disproved, that the probability of either is about 50/50 but the probability of all of this being created by a super-being by the sheer force of his will is extremely tiny. It's Russell's Teapot.

Much of science is truly based on faith that unproven assumptions are true. You might not be able to measure the evidence that supports every single assumption, but you have faith that the bulk of circumstantial evidence supports your conclusion. The same is often true of those who have religious faith. A lot of people will tell you that there is evidence of a "god" everywhere you look. Just because you do not, or can not see it does not mean that it doesn't exist. It might not be able to be measured and recorded in the manner that scientific study demands (which separates faith from science), but to suggest that it does not exist and is the product of stupidity is ignorant.

Yeah, and this is where I bring up the invisible pink unicorn and I say that there is "evidence" of it everywhere you look etc.

So if believing in something without any evidence whatsoever isn't necessarily stupid, at least explain to me how this belief is based upon anything resembling intelligence or rational thought. All you've given me so far is more examples of people believing in something because they choose to. Which is essentially what I said earlier.

[Randman]

God doesn't kill people. People who believe in God kill people.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Something being "observable" depends entirely on your perception.

So you are suggesting that someone might actually observe evidence of life after death?

So it really comes down to you calling them "stupid," and them calling you "stupid" right back. Who's "right?" Observable phenomena tell me there are more of them than there are of you, and it defies logic and reason to choose to make this a contentious issue, when you have the option to live and let live.

You are asking me to keep my opinion to myself when the other side doesn't generally give the same respect. Apparently a lack of belief in god is reason enough to not trust someone with public office.

The really "stupid" person is the one who insists on declaring themselves "smarter," when it's impossible to objectively demonstrate it beyond merely stating it, and when so stating wouldn't change the reality either way. IMHO.

Your right. Stupid people are the ones who give their opinions. Wait…what?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It depends. If you say it during an interview for a job for a black person, it would likely cause you to lose your job due to laws outlawing discrimination.

There's your difference between disrespect and discrimination. One is legal and acceptable, the other is neither.

So can we all stop conflating the two? I'm not suggesting that we need to pass laws to take rights away from someone or anything like that. I am just giving my opinion.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

It flies in the face of not only logic, but any observable phenomena in the known world to think that somehow when we die, we don't really die.

I know that, you know that, but I'm not gonna bother with harmless notions.

It's not stupid, it's beyond stupid.

I assume this is hyperbole?

So you can't see the stupidity in allowing yourself to believe something that defies logic or reason and without any evidence whatsoever…in order satisfy a wholly illogical hope that is reinforced by nothing observable whatsoever?

Illogical != stupidity. Remember: "stupid is as stupid does." If a belief in God, gods, fairies, or smurfs doesn't lead to ignorant behaviour, it's not all that important.

You're trying to group harmless fantasies with dangerous fanaticism. It's a pointless waste of effort. If someone tells me they believe in God, I'll probably change the subject. If someone tells me non-Christians are unworthy of heaven, I put him in his place. I don't believe in God or heaven, but I don't sit by while someone denigrates others for no good reason.

[Lava Lamp Freak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Much of science is truly based on faith that unproven assumptions are true.

The difference is when evidence presents itself that a prior scientific assumption is false, the whole community changes text books and its way of thinking. The religious community dismisses anything contradictory as either inaccurate or planted by Satan or God to test your faith. In the religious community faith trumps everything else. That is not so in the scientific world.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Randman 

God doesn't kill people. People who believe in God kill people.

Some do, most don't. There's been a few murderous atheists too, but I wouldn't paint them all with the same brush.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Well, I wouldn't defend it, it's still fluff science. Quantifying happiness is a miniscule step above quantifying intelligence, as far as scientific merit. They're very nebulous and subjective properties. But there is one defining difference between that and the "stupid" study, and it's that the latter is hateful. There's a reason the scientific community rejects certain experiments regardless of their technical thoroughness (of which btw I am highly skeptical in this case, if that's not already apparent), and that reason is ethics. Some things are just unethical to publish, even if they're technically correct. This is one of them. I haven't read the study itself, and I don't want to read it. Nor would I want to read one about how Muslims are statistically more criminal, how Democrats are more gullible, how gays are more obsessed with sex, or any study in which X cultural group is correlated with Y negative attribute. Fluff science is fine, when it's... fluffy. When it's hurtful, that's no longer acceptable.

I'm the chair of the institutional review board at my university that reviews research for ethics, so I know a bit about this, and what makes something unethical is if the data were collected in an unethical fashion, not if the findings happen to offend people.

And that's really the problem: Some research findings are bound to tick someone off. Often, either way the results turn out, some party is not going to like it. The religious or the atheists. The oil companies or the environmentalists. The racists or the multi-culturalists. The feminists or the mens' rights people. I don't see how anyone could ever do research on sex differences, for example, under your "only inoffensive research" plan. Or any research, really.

But you're in good company: It's no different, in principle, from the 16th century church not liking scientists who questioned their cosmological dogma, or the Soviets who didn't like researchers questioning their economic plans.

The author is quoted as saying exactly that, unless you want to draw a distinction between "stupid" and "lower IQ." And he claims it's causal, which would be nigh impossible to show scientifically (well, without performing experiments using unethical methods). It's bad science, and bad ethics both. CLEARLY over the line.

Let me put it this way. Do you ever get frustrated when people reject hard scientific evidence of things like evolution and climate change? The fuel for that fire is exactly this, "studies" that "scientifically prove" things which are outlandish and petty. If you and the scientific community at large refuse(s) to distinguish between the junk science and the legit stuff, how can you ever fault the "skeptics" for doing exactly the same thing? If "science" claims that religious people are stupid, with a straight face, then all credibility that "science" thought it had on "real" issues is right out the window. Even if it were objectively true that intelligence and atheism were causally related (in either direction), that's a very serious claim to make, and it would require extraordinary evidence, not something you'd let fly in the newspaper with nothing more than a correlation. Correlation doesn't show causality, that's one of the most basic rules of science.

I didn't see that causal claim, and I would bet that the author didn't do that in this peer-reviewed paper in this respected journal. Don't take dumb newspaper's accounts of research at face value.

[edit] Here's the abstract from the journal's web page.

Evidence is reviewed pointing to a negative relationship between intelligence and religious belief in the United States and Europe. It is shown that intelligence measured as psychometric g is negatively related to religious belief. We also examine whether this negative relationship between intelligence and religious belief is present between nations. We find that in a sample of 137 countries the correlation between national IQ and disbelief in God is 0.60.

I will say this: Country-level correlations like this are meaningless. You get all kinds of crazy results when you compare national average levels of one variable to the national average levels of another. I read recently that, using this national-average method, there's a positive correlation between longevity and smoking - the more smokers there are in the country, the longer they live. On an individual level you're obviously not going to find that, it's just that people in wealthier countries both live a lot longer and also have more smokers than very poor countries.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Lava Lamp Freak 

The difference is when evidence presents itself that a prior scientific assumption is false, the whole community changes text books and its way of thinking. The religious community dismisses anything contradictory as either inaccurate or planted by Satan or God to test your faith. In the religious community faith trumps everything else. That is not so in the scientific world.

This isn't true. Some religious communities are inflexible, many aren't. You'd be very surprised what many Catholic scholars and liberal Protestants are willing to acknowledge about the historical Jesus. Not every Christian is a biblical inerrantist.

Also, not all religions are faith-based. Some are practice-based, like Buddhism or Judaism.

[Lava Lamp Freak]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

This isn't true. Some religious communities are inflexible, many aren't. You'd be very surprised what many Catholic scholars and liberal Protestants are willing to acknowledge about the historical Jesus. Not every Christian is a biblical inerrantist.

Also, not all religions are faith-based. Some are practice-based, like Buddhism or Judaism.

I was speaking about the form of protestant Christianity I deal with a daily basis. All of my friends are Baptist since I live in the city that is home to the Southern Baptist Convention. I don't have a problem with the non faith based religions. I just don't like the ones that follow a God, or an old Bible, and deny anything modern science provides as false and say "you have to have faith".

I realize that there are scientists who believe in God, even if they don't believe all of the stuff in the Bible. That reminds me of Richard Dawkins interview on Real Time with Bill Maher.

YouTube - 04/11/2008 | Bill Maher | Part Five | Richard Dawkins

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

This argument is based upon the mistaken notion that since god can be neither proven nor disproved, that the probability of either is about 50/50 but the probability of all of this being created by a super-being by the sheer force of his will is extremely tiny. It's Russell's Teapot.

Lets speak on something touching this then...

Where'd the universe come from? Matter/Energy can neither be created or destroyed, so where did either Matter or Energy come from to start the Big Bang?

We'd have to toss out everything we know about Physics in order to explain this, so, why is it so hard to believe that something that doesn't have to subscribe to the laws of the Universe started it all?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

You're trying to group harmless fantasies with dangerous fanaticism. It's a pointless waste of effort.

So YOU think it's harmless to teach a child that if they don't believe in and do what the book says that they are going to burn in agony forever and ever and ever? Is it harmless to deny people the ability to marry because they don't fit with what THEIR belief says? Or to use your majority status to keep those who disagree with you from having any political voice whatsoever? What religion was Jerry Falwell anyway? He was harmless enough.

Don't kid yourself. The only reason we have those "harmless fantasies" in America is because we have it pretty damned good. That same book and those same churches can be very different under different circumstances. Kinda like a certain man invoking that word "crusade" after 9/11.

[Lava Lamp Freak]

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob 

Lets speak on something touching this then...

Where'd the universe come from? Matter/Energy can neither be created or destroyed, so where did either Matter or Energy come from to start the Big Bang?

We'd have to toss out everything we know about Physics in order to explain this, so, why is it so hard to believe that something that doesn't have to subscribe to the laws of the Universe started it all?

I have no problem with that at all, but you are making a wide leap from the point that something outside of the universe created it, to Jesus Christ is that something and you will be tortured for eternity if you don't accept and follow him.

[aristotles]

Apparently these "researchers" were unaware that the head of the human genome project is a believer or that many other prominent scientists, captains of industry and politicians are also believers. There was an interesting article on Tony Blair recently in Time magazine. If anything, fanatical atheism leads to delusional thinking where one ignores or dismisses anything that does not fit their narrow world view. Fanaticism tends to do that to a person regardless of who they are fanatic about. One only need to look at Richard Dawkins. I feel sorry for that man and I have him and others like him in my prayers.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob 

Lets speak on something touching this then...

Where'd the universe come from? Matter/Energy can neither be created or destroyed, so where did either Matter or Energy come from to start the Big Bang?

We'd have to toss out everything we know about Physics in order to explain this, so, why is it so hard to believe that something that doesn't have to subscribe to the laws of the Universe started it all?

Well then who created god? If he is eternal then why can't he universe be eternal? The "big bang" is only an event that may have happened at the beginning of the universe as it is now. Perhaps the universe is always collapsing and banging, changing for perpetually for all time.

[Jawbone54]

Is a belief in a higher being truly any more of a stretch of the imagination than a belief in the "big bang?"

I stopped letting myself get offended by anything on this forum quite a while back. This thread was obviously posted in an attempt to either ruffle some feathers or preach to (and laugh with) the choir. No big deal.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by aristotles 

Apparently these "researchers" were unaware that the head of the human genome project is a believer or that many other prominent scientists, captains of industry and politicians are also believers. There was an interesting article on Tony Blair recently in Time magazine. If anything, fanatical atheism leads to delusional thinking where one ignores or dismisses anything that does not fit their narrow world view. Fanaticism tends to do that to a person regardless of who they are fanatic about. One only need to look at Richard Dawkins. I feel sorry for that man and I have him and others like him in my prayers.

Many of the people you mention are in a decided minority. Also, if you were to ask them I'd bet a good number believe in god in a more agnostic sense rather than a personal god sense. As far as politicians, statistically there should be as many as 50 atheists in congress yet how many do YOU know of. They lie to get in office because atheists can't get elected in this "secular" and "open-minded" country.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Is a belief in a higher being truly any more of a stretch of the imagination than a belief in the "big bang?"

Aren't there all kinds of hypotheses and predictions that can be empirically tested that come from the big bang and related theories?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Is a belief in a higher being truly any more of a stretch of the imagination than a belief in the "big bang?"

Yes, it is.

[aristotles]

Originally Posted by Lava Lamp Freak 

I have no problem with that at all, but you are making a wide leap from the point that something outside of the universe created it, to Jesus Christ is that something and you will be tortured for eternity if you don't accept and follow him.

Wow. This perfectly illustrates how some people have no idea what Christianity is all about. The main premise of salvation in the Christian tradition is that everyone from the nicest person on earth to the most vile mass murder is under the judgment of God because everyone has sinned. The only way to pay for that is through a sacrificial lamb provided by God to atone for the sins of the world.

Forget what you have seen in movies or heard from catholic priests. There are no degrees of sin. All sin is deadly. It is deadly because it separates us from God and from each other.

The movies have also confused people into believing that people can somehow earn their way into heaven or that good people go to heaven.

The fact of the matter is that people will get into heaven not by their good behavior or good deeds but by admitting who they are and making a decision to change their path in life to follow the way.

I am no better than a nonbeliever by my own merit but I believe that I will go to heaven by the grace of god through my acceptance of salvation by faith in Christ. The reason why non-believers will not go to heaven is because God respects human free will. God will not force anyone into heaven.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Lava Lamp Freak 

I was speaking about the form of protestant Christianity I deal with a daily basis. All of my friends are Baptist since I live in the city that is home to the Southern Baptist Convention. I don't have a problem with the non faith based religions. I just don't like the ones that follow a God, or an old Bible, and deny anything modern science provides as false and say "you have to have faith".

I don't like them either, but live and let live.

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob 

Where'd the universe come from? Matter/Energy can neither be created or destroyed, so where did either Matter or Energy come from to start the Big Bang?

We'd have to toss out everything we know about Physics in order to explain this, so, why is it so hard to believe that something that doesn't have to subscribe to the laws of the Universe started it all?

The Big Bang is the origin of the present arrangement of the universe, not of the matter/energy.

Originally Posted by Lava Lamp Freak 

I have no problem with that at all, but you are making a wide leap from the point that something outside of the universe created it, to Jesus Christ is that something and you will be tortured for eternity if you don't accept and follow him.

I'm not making that leap at all. I'm an atheist.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

So YOU think it's harmless to teach a child that if they don't believe in and do what the book says that they are going to burn in agony forever and ever and ever?

No, I think it's terrible. But only fringe zealots actually do that. Trust me: I grew up in a Catholic household and went to Catholic school, and I was never taught that.

Is it harmless to deny people the ability to marry because they don't fit with what THEIR belief says? Or to use your majority status to keep those who disagree with you from having any political voice whatsoever?

Those are political questions, not theological ones. You can believe in God and not advocate those horrible things.

What religion was Jerry Falwell anyway? He was harmless enough.

Politically, he is irrelevant. He's a blowhard with a tv show. Even the Republican party had no interest in him.

Don't kid yourself. The only reason we have those "harmless fantasies" in America is because we have it pretty damned good.

You're right. Politically, we will always need freedom of religion. Religion without political power is toothless.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Yes, it is.

Why?

Originally Posted by BRussell

Aren't there all kinds of hypotheses and predictions that can be empirically tested that come from the big bang and related theories?

Probably. There's data out there that supports nearly every belief system. There are Christian scientists who believe they can prove that creationism is more scientifically credible as well (but surely they'll be dismissed as something other than "real scientists").

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by aristotles 

Wow. This perfectly illustrates how some people have no idea what Christianity is all about. The main premise of salvation in the Christian tradition is that everyone from the nicest person on earth to the most vile mass murder is under the judgment of God because everyone has sinned. The only way to pay for that is through a sacrificial lamb provided by God to atone for the sins of the world.

The historical Jesus disagrees. "Not everyone who calls me "Lord, lord" will see heaven, but only those who do what my Father requires." Something like that.

Forget what you have seen in movies or heard from catholic priests. There are no degrees of sin.

That settles it: the Catholics have common sense on their side!

The movies have also confused people into believing that people can somehow earn their way into heaven or that good people go to heaven.

I'm pretty sure that idea is far older than "movies."

The fact of the matter is that people will get into heaven not by their good behavior or good deeds but by admitting who they are and making a decision to change their path in life to follow the way.

You mean "the way of Paul," right? Jesus himself never taught such a doctrine.

Paul was a smart guy. His doctrine was a clever innovation which brought monotheism to the Greeks and Romans without them needing to adopt foreign Jewish customs. And it didn't offend Greeks or Romans because they already believed they were going to Hades (a gloomy afterlife, not hellfire). What a practical approach. I'm sure if Paul preached "turn or burn," it wouldn't have caught on.

I am no better than a nonbeliever by my own merit but I believe that I will go to heaven by the grace of god through my acceptance of salvation by faith in Christ. The reason why non-believers will not go to heaven is because God respects human free will. God will not force anyone into heaven.

What a swell guy. Is there any way someone could convince God to come down here and remind the "religious right" of the value of free will?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by aristotles 

Wow. This perfectly illustrates how some people have no idea what Christianity is all about. The main premise of salvation in the Christian tradition is that everyone from the nicest person on earth to the most vile mass murder is under the judgment of God because everyone has sinned. The only way to pay for that is through a sacrificial lamb provided by God to atone for the sins of the world.

Forget what you have seen in movies or heard from catholic priests. There are no degrees of sin. All sin is deadly. It is deadly because it separates us from God and from each other.

The movies have also confused people into believing that people can somehow earn their way into heaven or that good people go to heaven.

The fact of the matter is that people will get into heaven not by their good behavior or good deeds but by admitting who they are and making a decision to change their path in life to follow the way.

I am no better than a nonbeliever by my own merit but I believe that I will go to heaven by the grace of god through my acceptance of salvation by faith in Christ. The reason why non-believers will not go to heaven is because God respects human free will. God will not force anyone into heaven.

How did you disagree with what he said? If you don't follow Jesus, you are tortured for eternity (or, as you said, you don't go to heaven). The post you quoted didn't say anything about sin.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

So you are suggesting that someone might actually observe evidence of life after death?

Yes. In the same way that I might observe evidence of the Iraq war or of the chinese earthquake or 1000 other things I will never see in person, only by 3rd party description. Why not?

You are asking me to keep my opinion to myself when the other side doesn't generally give the same respect.

When has the other side come out of nowhere to declare that non-believers are stupid?

Apparently a lack of belief in god is reason enough to not trust someone with public office.

Any significant difference from "the norm" is reason enough for that. You are drawing a correlation with religion when the correlation also applies to most of humanity (just like the subject of the thread).

Your right. Stupid people are the ones who give their opinions. Wait…what?

If their opinions are hateful, inflammatory and hypocritical, yes, that is stupid. For all your talk of "logic and reason," what is the logic and reason behind picking a fight over who is stupider, when there is no evidence on either side?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I'm the chair of the institutional review board at my university that reviews research for ethics, so I know a bit about this, and what makes something unethical is if the data were collected in an unethical fashion, not if the findings happen to offend people.

And that's really the problem: Some research findings are bound to tick someone off. Often, either way the results turn out, some party is not going to like it. The religious or the atheists. The oil companies or the environmentalists. The racists or the multi-culturalists. The feminists or the mens' rights people. I don't see how anyone could ever do research on sex differences, for example, under your "only inoffensive research" plan. Or any research, really.

I was talking about fluff science, the kind with no controls and which never mentions the words "necessary" or "sufficient." Sorry for being unclear. Making "scientifically supported" claims with weak evidence like that is merely a distraction. Making "scientifically supported" claims that are inflammatory and hurtful with weak evidence like that is irresponsible and destructive.

But since you brought it up, your ethics board doesn't find any topic inappropriate, regardless of methods? What if someone proposed a study to find out if Blacks were actually lazier than non-Blacks, whether Hispanics' backs were naturally wetter, or if Jews actually were more likely to have horns on their heads?

But you're in good company: It's no different, in principle, from the 16th century church not liking scientists who questioned their cosmological dogma, or the Soviets who didn't like researchers questioning their economic plans.

It's similar, in that for those scientists to overturn the conventional wisdom they needed strong, reproducible evidence. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. This story has none of that. If this guy manages to gather some actual solid evidence of his hypothesis, then more power to him. But I still maintain that making the claim before gathering the evidence is wrong, even if he is later vindicated.

I didn't see that causal claim

You didn't? "Why should fewer academics believe in God than the general population? I believe it is simply a matter of the IQ. Academics have higher IQs". I honestly don't know how you could have glanced at the article and not seen it.

and I would bet that the author didn't do that in this peer-reviewed paper in this respected journal. Don't take dumb newspaper's accounts of research at face value.

Would you also bet the direct quote was faked?

****

Edit: Let me make things simple. I answered your alternative, now I will ask you to answer mine. If you saw a study claiming a statistically significant (positive) correlation between Muslims and terrorism, and the author of the study gave an interview explaining how he thought that the violent nature of Islam lends itself to terrorism and thus the correlation he found, would you find this objectionable? If not, we can simply agree to disagree.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Lava Lamp Freak 

According to polls, Obama is the choice of the majority of atheists voting. He falls more into the universalism way of thinking as far as his religion goes. He has my vote.

I'm a universalist too, and an ardent Theist. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

I was thinking the other day about how religion was invented by a bunch of psychotherapist magicians to pacify and control stupid people. Clearly, they realised that there would probably always be stupid people around, and that these people would need something like religion to keep them from killing themselves and endangering the commonweal.

Probably seemed like a good idea at the time.

Religion is fine, dogma is the true culprit.

[Lava Lamp Freak]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I'm a universalist too, and an ardent Theist. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

I wasn't meaning to imply that. My point is just that as an atheist I support Obama. George H.W. made the horrible comment about atheists not being citizens or patriots, and I would not support someone who thinks that someone different from him less of an American. Obama is not a bigot, but G.H.W.B. is.

George H. W. Bush: "Atheists Neither Citizens Nor Patriots

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Is being black a belief system?

Do you like to ask people questions with obvious answers? Did you know social education at university level, such as psychology, is a garbage can for students who aren't smart enough to learn anything useful?

Isn't that fascinating?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

I was thinking the other day about how religion was invented by a bunch of psychotherapist magicians to pacify and control stupid people.

Psychotherapist magicians? Was their leader named Xenu?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I was talking about fluff science, the kind with no controls and which never mentions the words "necessary" or "sufficient." Sorry for being unclear. Making "scientifically supported" claims with weak evidence like that is merely a distraction. Making "scientifically supported" claims that are inflammatory and hurtful with weak evidence like that is irresponsible and destructive.

But since you brought it up, your ethics board doesn't find any topic inappropriate, regardless of methods? What if someone proposed a study to find out if Blacks were actually lazier than non-Blacks, whether Hispanics' backs were naturally wetter, or if Jews actually were more likely to have horns on their heads?

No it wouldn't be rejected, but of course it wouldn't be framed like that. There's a lot of research on racial disparities in things like educational attainment and criminal behavior, for example. It's bound to be offensive to someone, and you seem to be saying the research shouldn't be allowed. That's just crazy, and I don't think you really believe it, which is why you have to come up with silly examples about research on who has the wettest backs. Let me put it this way: I can't think of an interesting or important area of study that shouldn't be allowed because the findings might offend some people.

It's similar, in that for those scientists to overturn the conventional wisdom they needed strong, reproducible evidence. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. This story has none of that. If this guy manages to gather some actual solid evidence of his hypothesis, then more power to him. But I still maintain that making the claim before gathering the evidence is wrong, even if he is later vindicated.

You didn't? "Why should fewer academics believe in God than the general population? I believe it is simply a matter of the IQ. Academics have higher IQs". I honestly don't know how you could have glanced at the article and not seen it.

Would you also bet the direct quote was faked?

I wouldn't have said that, and I don't think most researchers would have either, not without qualifying the correlation/causation issue, but this is a tabloid newspaper, so who knows what the context was. Maybe he was pointedly asked to give his opinion, and so he gave it. In the end, it's the peer-reviewed paper that matters, not a single quote in a rag.

Edit: Let me make things simple. I answered your alternative, now I will ask you to answer mine. If you saw a study claiming a statistically significant (positive) correlation between Muslims and terrorism, and the author of the study gave an interview explaining how he thought that the violent nature of Islam lends itself to terrorism and thus the correlation he found, would you find this objectionable? If not, we can simply agree to disagree.

Not only would I not find it objectionable, it's hard to think of a more important area of research. Why do some people resort to terrorism? Is there a cultural reason? Religious? That would be some good stuff. And although I think researchers have a responsibility to accurately present their research in the press, they're people too, and I don't think it's too terribly awful to offer speculative opinion about their work. I'd rather listen to Carl Sagan discuss stuff that's way out and speculative like whether there's life on other planets than just recite known facts.

[dcmacdaddy]

How often does it need to be said: Correlation != Causation

I can't believe this needs to be said over and over and over again.