Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Religious people are less intelligent than atheists

Religious people are less intelligent than atheists (Page 3)
Thread Tools
shifuimam
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Somewhere in the Pacific Northwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2013, 09:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
We need to show restraint and understanding with Islam due to a minority of crazy, radical Muslims, yet it's okay to mock and persecute Christianity due to a relatively tiny number of loud-mouthed Evangelicals?
Yeah, this pisses me off, too. It's in vogue to pick and choose what's untouchable and what "deserves it".
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2013, 02:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
"lefties" got me 510 results in the Pol/War Lounge
"far left" got me 308
'ignorant left' got me 226
"Nobama" got me 13 different threads
"Obummer" got 34 posts

How's that for productive discussion?
hey I didn't say the lounge was a shining example of productive discussion, but it's been alot better lately without all the trolls. We should look towards productive conversation right? I mean otherwise, what's the point?
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2013, 02:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
"right" as in correct.
Yeah, I know. I was pointing out that "we" don't hear it that much. You do, because you look for it.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2013, 07:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
Laminar in particular has seemed significantly more negative, snarky, trollish, and angry since he got married. Maybe it's a coincidence, but I noticed a particular increase in negative behavior from him following his marriage.
Surely you can understand where such a thing is extremely personal. I've asked posters who seem uncharacteristically prickly if something were wrong, but I'm not going to speculate to them that it has something to do with their marital status. That's just a personal dig, of the highest order.

It does no good to join a conversation about a topic like this just to scream PROVE IT! PROVE IT! at the people who disagree with you. It contributes nothing, it does nothing to support your side of the (not-just-two-sided) debate, and it makes you look like kind of a douche (to some people).
Hasn't the douche already been let out of the bag (ewwww-- so to speak) with the subject matter of the post itself? Would you be absolutely shocked to know the OP was an Atheist? I wouldn't. Do you suppose the OP is a Christian who is doing some soul-searching or trying to improve the image of religion? I've been here 10 years and have seen this topic at least three times and they are invariably from those traditionally hostile to religion. The studies don't improve and if I recall -- haven't even changed, it's the same recycled metadata re-released. The metrics aren't more telling. The conclusion never quite clear, but you see none of this matters. It's the narrative that must be evangelized here every few years.

Moreover, it seems that the desire is to reduce all examples to "anecdotal evidence". Since every single person on this planet bases their views of philosophy, religion, and humanities on what they observe from their own experiences and worldview, it's impossible for this discussion to NOT involve "anecdotal evidence". If what you're looking for is years-long research using the scientific method to explain one's philosophical beliefs and perspectives on life, you're looking in the wrong place.
That's kinda what I thought too.

The original topic is "are religious people less intelligent', is it not? If you're trying to say that no, religious people aren't less intelligent, trying to instigate shit and refusing to actually contribute anything of substance to the conversation goes a long way toward making you look unintelligent. Just sayin'.
The original topic was not "ARE religious people less intelligent" as if left to question; it was "Religious people ARE less intelligent" as if conclusive evidence had been offered by the aptly entitled study cited by the OP. It is right that people would challenge the study or challenge people offering nothing more than anecdotal evidence to support that conclusion. It is wrong to bring up someone's marriage as cause for their frustration with yet another, futile attempt to evangelize Atheism.

On the other hand, I know intellectually brilliant people who are incapable of having a logical discussion about their faith - they're more than happy to talk about whatever branch of science or math they study, but as soon as you try to discuss anything religious, it devolves into anger and name-calling.
Interesting. Using this forum as a test-control; it actually works out exactly opposite. We hear from the non-religious how much preaching and moral authority is thrown about the place while the only ones preaching and throwing around their moral dogma here are those decidedly hostile to religion.

Quite frankly, what I've seen in this thread from the religious side has been more on the angry name-calling side of things, rather than actually participating in the discussion.
The first, truly personal attack I found was lodged by you.

Our freshman Biology book was a Bob Jones University publication. It promoted only New Earth Creationism and went so far as to say that any Christian who believed in Old Earth Creationism was heretical and sinful, and that the things that scientists use to show how old the earth is were put on the planet by God to essentially mislead us.
Can you cite for me the name of this book? I'd be curious to see it. Using science as essentially the arbiter of salvation kind of defeats the whole philosophical foundation of Christianity.

Sorry, but to me, that's throwing science out the window in favor of religious dogma. I am not saying that all Christians are like this - but quite a few are.
At the surface, I'd be more inclined to believe you've mistook the elements of that Biology book for the instructor's own creative editing. I find it much more believable that a zealot instructor might bastardize text than the text itself in making such leaps. Not unlike the ignorant science teachers today still teaching about human gill slits and other such aspects of recapitulation wholly debunked from the early 1900s. Sometimes their own zealotry just... slips out -- both acting in spite of the advancement of science.

I wasn't aware that I was quoting the Atheist Manifesto. Since I'm (a) not an atheist and (b) can't stand Richard Dawkins and his ilk, I know nothing about that particular book/document/whitepaper.
That's just my term for what seems to be nothing less than a creed for the Atheist faith. it must begin -- Religious people (usually just Christian because that's the only faith that has embittered them so) are stupid and science proves it with _______...

As far as my faith is concerned, I was raised in a very conservative protestant Christian home, going to a non-denominational protestant Christian school K-12 and going to church twice a week until I was 17. The older I got, the more I started researching other faiths out of a general interest in the subject...
... and a perfectly natural desire to branch off away from your upbringing. A sort of counterintuitive progression that allows us to leave the loving arms of parents and free rent.

I realized that there are multiple religions that try to claim to be the One True Source Of Absolute Truth, and insisting that one is better than the other just didn't really settle with me.
Instead of viewing one as better than the other, my journey began by simply identifying the unique aspects of their overarching philosophies. I think "sportsmen" like to make sport of such things and attempt to pit one thing against another unnecessarily.

I'm not a Christian. I don't claim to be one. I know more than a lot of people about the faith - I studied apologetics in high school pretty voraciously. I believe in intelligent design and that there's a higher power out there, but I don't believe that Christians are magically the only ones who know anything about that higher power, and I don't believe that anyone who tries to know more about such a higher power and isn't a Christian is automatically wrong, heretical, sinful, or evil.
Can they ALL be correct? Are there ANY you find more questionable than another?

I believe that humans are inherently bad - I think that all of documented human history is a pretty clear indicator that, if given the choice, humans are more likely to indulge their self-serving side than altruism, and it takes conscious effort to put others before oneself.
I get to that point as well, but sometimes one has to dig more deeply into an issue to find otherwise. In other words, you didn't hear nearly as much about the incredible acts of heroism around Katrina as you did about the firing of guns at rescue workers and looting. However, there were literally thousands of acts of altruism around the recovery efforts etc... These are the types of issues that test mankind and I'm often encouraged by what I see that won't get reported.

I hope that clears things up for you on that front. I'm not a bitter ex-Christian. I do believe that some of my more religious friends back home are missing out on things in life by cloistering themselves inside the comfort of the Christian bubble, but that's their choice, and as long as they're not hurting others with their choices, I can't really fault them for it.
Can you produce a small list of things that your more religious friends back home are missing out on in life?

I also know "Christians" who use their faith to abuse and control those around them. Those are the ones I have a serious problem with.
Some of the biggest perpetrators of atrocity of recent history did so, not with religion, but in fact with science and with anti-religious sentiment. This is a trait of human kind and not that of any particular religion or propensity for it.

Also: for what it's worth, I appreciate your contributions to discussions like these. From what I've seen over the years, I'm pretty sure you're religious to some extent, but you are able to talk about it without trying to instigate conflict. So, yeah.
I appreciate that shifuimam and have appreciated much of what you've had to say over the years as well. Your perspective is often very refreshing.
ebuddy
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2013, 08:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Interesting. Using this forum as a test-control; it actually works out exactly opposite. We hear from the non-religious how much preaching and moral authority is thrown about the place while the only ones preaching and throwing around their moral dogma here are those decidedly hostile to religion.
That's not true at all.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2013, 10:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I also know "Christians" who use their faith to abuse and control those around them. Those are the ones I have a serious problem with.
Some of the biggest perpetrators of atrocity of recent history did so, not with religion, but in fact with science and with anti-religious sentiment. This is a trait of human kind and not that of any particular religion or propensity for it.
That
     
shifuimam
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Somewhere in the Pacific Northwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2013, 11:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Hasn't the douche already been let out of the bag (ewwww-- so to speak) with the subject matter of the post itself? Would you be absolutely shocked to know the OP was an Atheist? I wouldn't. Do you suppose the OP is a Christian who is doing some soul-searching or trying to improve the image of religion? I've been here 10 years and have seen this topic at least three times and they are invariably from those traditionally hostile to religion. The studies don't improve and if I recall -- haven't even changed, it's the same recycled metadata re-released. The metrics aren't more telling. The conclusion never quite clear, but you see none of this matters. It's the narrative that must be evangelized here every few years.
I rather took the OP as an opening for discussion, not a conclusive statement to be refuted.

But that's also because I don't take besson's posts as being "I'm right, prove me wrong". I take them more as catalysts for discussion.

Interesting. Using this forum as a test-control; it actually works out exactly opposite. We hear from the non-religious how much preaching and moral authority is thrown about the place while the only ones preaching and throwing around their moral dogma here are those decidedly hostile to religion.
Perhaps, but going off my own experiences with people IRL, militant believers (atheist or Christian) tend to get really defensive if you try to even have a conversation about their beliefs.

Can you cite for me the name of this book? I'd be curious to see it. Using science as essentially the arbiter of salvation kind of defeats the whole philosophical foundation of Christianity.

At the surface, I'd be more inclined to believe you've mistook the elements of that Biology book for the instructor's own creative editing. I find it much more believable that a zealot instructor might bastardize text than the text itself in making such leaps. Not unlike the ignorant science teachers today still teaching about human gill slits and other such aspects of recapitulation wholly debunked from the early 1900s. Sometimes their own zealotry just... slips out -- both acting in spite of the advancement of science.
This is the book: Biology for Christian Schools - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here's an analysis of it as part of the court case in California regarding this book: http://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/stea...ss_kennedy.pdf

There was an entire section on theistic evolution, claiming that any Christian who believes that the earth is billions of years old is a heretic trying to explain away the miracle of God's creation with evolution - which you probably already know is completely false. There are a lot of Christians who believe the earth is old while also not believing in Darwinian evolution.

Believe me, the book was on the loony end of the spectrum. The school dropped it in favor of a more mainstream book published by Prentice Hall, because the state required the use of approved textbooks in order to be accredited for athletic competitions with public schools.

That's just my term for what seems to be nothing less than a creed for the Atheist faith. it must begin -- Religious people (usually just Christian because that's the only faith that has embittered them so) are stupid and science proves it with _______...
That's not really my angle. I think there are stupid Christians and there are smart Christians. Stupidity and ignorance don't discriminate based on religion, in my experience.


... and a perfectly natural desire to branch off away from your upbringing. A sort of counterintuitive progression that allows us to leave the loving arms of parents and free rent.
Maybe...It's only been in the last three or four years that I've really realized that I don't identify with Christianity anymore. I hung on to it for a long time after I moved out on my own.

Instead of viewing one as better than the other, my journey began by simply identifying the unique aspects of their overarching philosophies. I think "sportsmen" like to make sport of such things and attempt to pit one thing against another unnecessarily.
I don't view any as better than others. I think they're all created by humans to explain that which cannot be explained. I realize that probably makes me sound like an atheist, but I'm really not one at all. I just don't find a need for an organized religion to tell me how to think about God.

Can they ALL be correct? Are there ANY you find more questionable than another?
I really doubt that any of them are completely correct. As far as what's questionable, I'd say that Scientology is on the far end of "using religion to control people". Mormonism is a close second, if only because it's painfully obvious that Joseph Smith concocted the entire religion based on his own experiences with Freemasonry.

But, when you think about it, if a virgin gave birth to a baby today, in 2013, who claimed to be the Son of God and the only way to salvation, people would tar and feather him. I'm not inclined to give a religion more legitimacy simply because it's been around longer (e.g. all the abrahamic religions).

I get to that point as well, but sometimes one has to dig more deeply into an issue to find otherwise. In other words, you didn't hear nearly as much about the incredible acts of heroism around Katrina as you did about the firing of guns at rescue workers and looting. However, there were literally thousands of acts of altruism around the recovery efforts etc... These are the types of issues that test mankind and I'm often encouraged by what I see that won't get reported.
I'm not saying that people can't be altruistic. I'm saying that core, genetically programmed human nature is to be selfish - it's the heart of survival of the fittest. What separates us from animals is that we have the ability to CHOOSE to be unselfish. It's still a choice, though, and I doubt that the people who did great things in the aftermath of Katrina were born really good people. It's more likely that their upbringing and environment encouraged them to choose to be unselfish and resist the inborn desire to look out for themselves first.

Can you produce a small list of things that your more religious friends back home are missing out on in life?
Not living in the Midwest would be a big one. Most of the kids I know from my high school married each other, work at their parents' companies, and generally haven't evolved as people since we all graduated in 2002.

They're essentially the more socially adjusted version of a neckbearded geek who still lives in his mom's basement. I don't really have a list of what one misses out on by choosing that life, but I do know that my life has been significantly more fulfilling since I left the Christian bubble behind.

Some of the biggest perpetrators of atrocity of recent history did so, not with religion, but in fact with science and with anti-religious sentiment. This is a trait of human kind and not that of any particular religion or propensity for it.
I agree - I was only stating for the record that I've met both good and bad Christians through the years. Most are good. The bad ones are really, really, really brutally bad and make life hell for everyone around them, claiming that it's okay because they've got God on their side.

I don't think you can generalize an entire demographic based on selecting the good or the bad.

I appreciate that shifuimam and have appreciated much of what you've had to say over the years as well. Your perspective is often very refreshing.
Thanks.

I'm not really hostile to Christianity the way that a lot of ex-Christians are. People can believe whatever they want - but they need to give others the same allowance. I feel like that's the part that a lot of Christians have some serious difficulty with.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2013, 12:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Easy because of the media exposure of the loudmouths, not easy because it is correct or right.
I thought you previously determined that Western media isn't biased to the Left? Surely they wouldn't isolate such a small minority of Christians to make the whole lot look bad, would they?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2013, 12:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
I thought you previously determined that Western media isn't biased to the Left? Surely they wouldn't isolate such a small minority of Christians to make the whole lot look bad, would they?

I think that the question of whether they are biased or not is the wrong one. The question is whether they are lazy, and the answer is an unequivocal "yes".
     
shifuimam
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Somewhere in the Pacific Northwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2013, 01:05 PM
 
There's also the fact that reporting on extremists gets more views than more boring stuff.

There's a reason why the Westboro Baptist Church is so notorious. They got a lot of attention because of their extremism, not in spite of it.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2013, 01:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I think that the question of whether they are biased or not is the wrong one. The question is whether they are lazy, and the answer is an unequivocal "yes".
Of course, otherwise the discussion would be over. However, we'd be talking about a level of laziness that makes Homer Simpson look like a workaholic, and I simply don't buy that. The fact is, it's fashionable to make fun of the Christian "loonies" and rip on them for their beliefs, boldly calling them out as less intelligent, because they take it with at least a moderate amount of grace, unlike others who strap bombs to themselves and fly airliners into heavily populated skyscrapers.

Let's just call it what it is, established intellectual bullying, in an attempt to embarrass a group into distancing themselves from their beliefs. It's shameful and not in any way socially constructive.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2013, 05:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
There's also the fact that reporting on extremists gets more views than more boring stuff.

There's a reason why the Westboro Baptist Church is so notorious. They got a lot of attention because of their extremism, not in spite of it.

Exactly, that's all I was saying.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2013, 05:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Of course, otherwise the discussion would be over. However, we'd be talking about a level of laziness that makes Homer Simpson look like a workaholic, and I simply don't buy that. The fact is, it's fashionable to make fun of the Christian "loonies" and rip on them for their beliefs, boldly calling them out as less intelligent, because they take it with at least a moderate amount of grace, unlike others who strap bombs to themselves and fly airliners into heavily populated skyscrapers.

Let's just call it what it is, established intellectual bullying, in an attempt to embarrass a group into distancing themselves from their beliefs. It's shameful and not in any way socially constructive.

It sounds like you have personal experiences to draw from here which I don't, so I can't really comment on this. I think that extreme religious viewpoints of any kind are loony. Moderate ones I can deal with.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2013, 08:38 PM
 
Now I suppose we need to develop a litmus test to determine which groups are loony? What beliefs are considered to be "extreme"?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2013, 08:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Do you just have a huge folder of religious memes or something? I don't think the format adds any credibility to an argument.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2013, 09:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
I rather took the OP as an opening for discussion, not a conclusive statement to be refuted.
But that's also because I don't take besson's posts as being "I'm right, prove me wrong". I take them more as catalysts for discussion.
Wait, mattyb is besson3c? I usually don't analyze "style" enough to fashion a guess on such things, but if this is true -- I absolutely stand behind what I've said.

Perhaps, but going off my own experiences with people IRL, militant believers (atheist or Christian) tend to get really defensive if you try to even have a conversation about their beliefs.
It is also generally true that the least invested in a discipline one is intellectually or otherwise, the less apt they are to defend it. Otherwise, I don't know a single person who doesn't get defensive about something they're invested in.

This is the book: Biology for Christian Schools - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here's an analysis of it as part of the court case in California regarding this book: http://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/stea...ss_kennedy.pdf

There was an entire section on theistic evolution, claiming that any Christian who believes that the earth is billions of years old is a heretic trying to explain away the miracle of God's creation with evolution - which you probably already know is completely false. There are a lot of Christians who believe the earth is old while also not believing in Darwinian evolution.
Excellent. I'm curious what the deal is on this and the case helps. For what it's worth to you, I'll check it out and get back to this.

That's not really my angle. I think there are stupid Christians and there are smart Christians. Stupidity and ignorance don't discriminate based on religion, in my experience.
I hear ya. I'd include - based on religion or any other single factor, but I think I gotcha.

Maybe...It's only been in the last three or four years that I've really realized that I don't identify with Christianity anymore. I hung on to it for a long time after I moved out on my own.
IMO this is unfortunate, but it is what it is.

I don't view any as better than others. I think they're all created by humans to explain that which cannot be explained. I realize that probably makes me sound like an atheist, but I'm really not one at all. I just don't find a need for an organized religion to tell me how to think about God.
IMO, no authoritative source of information is above the fray. Granted, there's a very kitschy culture at the surface of many folks' Christian worship, but for me it has become much deeper than this and the fellowship is everything. I get defensive about some aspects of scripture and Christianity, not as defensive about other aspects of it. I avoid using the Bible to make arguments (it's usually not necessary), proselytize, or denigrate another's faith unless they've demonstrated an inability to appreciate diplomacy in discussions like these.

I really doubt that any of them are completely correct. As far as what's questionable, I'd say that Scientology is on the far end of "using religion to control people". Mormonism is a close second, if only because it's painfully obvious that Joseph Smith concocted the entire religion based on his own experiences with Freemasonry.
I'd be surprised if Scientology had any staying power, but Freemasonry is nearly a culture all its own.

But, when you think about it, if a virgin gave birth to a baby today, in 2013, who claimed to be the Son of God and the only way to salvation, people would tar and feather him. I'm not inclined to give a religion more legitimacy simply because it's been around longer (e.g. all the abrahamic religions).
I'm inclined to agree with you. I mean, I don't see why it would be any different today in that regard than it was when He was crucified. As you know per Christian doctrine, that was a means to an end and relied heavily on people being what they had ultimately become. There were many who were capable of incredible acts of decency as well, but that's not as newsworthy.

I'm not saying that people can't be altruistic. I'm saying that core, genetically programmed human nature is to be selfish - it's the heart of survival of the fittest. What separates us from animals is that we have the ability to CHOOSE to be unselfish. It's still a choice, though, and I doubt that the people who did great things in the aftermath of Katrina were born really good people. It's more likely that their upbringing and environment encouraged them to choose to be unselfish and resist the inborn desire to look out for themselves first.
I agree with you here and of course organized religion has definitely had a major role in providing a way to look beyond one's self. We're now at a point where people would choose to save their house-pet over another human being. I still see, when faced with incredible adversity; a great number of people capable of wonderful acts of charity and support.

Not living in the Midwest would be a big one. Most of the kids I know from my high school married each other, work at their parents' companies, and generally haven't evolved as people since we all graduated in 2002.
Ouch? Did you look at my location before or after saying that? That's a huge generalization anyway, and on this I can speak from absolute authority.

They're essentially the more socially adjusted version of a neckbearded geek who still lives in his mom's basement. I don't really have a list of what one misses out on by choosing that life, but I do know that my life has been significantly more fulfilling since I left the Christian bubble behind.
Eesh, that's a very select, little bubble you had there. Otherwise, the only reason you would be compelled to avoid them so passionately is an incredible sense of conviction or hypocrisy (more from the pedestal you were placed on as a Christian than the pedestal you asked to be placed on) for doing what you'd likely consider unhealthy anyway.

I agree - I was only stating for the record that I've met both good and bad Christians through the years. Most are good. The bad ones are really, really, really brutally bad and make life hell for everyone around them, claiming that it's okay because they've got God on their side.
Yeah, but you can almost immediately find other Christians who agree with you on this problem. There's no reason your faith is defined by its most deplorable adherents. Again, unless you succumbed to a very small environment, but that's still all you as you found from those who never graduated from highschool, so to speak.

I don't think you can generalize an entire demographic based on selecting the good or the bad.
Like Midwest or something?

I'm not really hostile to Christianity the way that a lot of ex-Christians are. People can believe whatever they want - but they need to give others the same allowance. I feel like that's the part that a lot of Christians have some serious difficulty with.
I find they're just as tolerant in a public setting as anyone else. They are where they are after all. What's unfortunate is how phobic people are to even talk about things other than sports, games, or gossip.
ebuddy
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2013, 11:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Do you just have a huge folder of religious memes or something? I don't think the format adds any credibility to an argument.
Why yes, I do.

Catholic Memes
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2013, 07:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
This is the book: Biology for Christian Schools - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here's an analysis of it as part of the court case in California regarding this book: http://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/stea...ss_kennedy.pdf

There was an entire section on theistic evolution, claiming that any Christian who believes that the earth is billions of years old is a heretic trying to explain away the miracle of God's creation with evolution - which you probably already know is completely false. There are a lot of Christians who believe the earth is old while also not believing in Darwinian evolution.

Believe me, the book was on the loony end of the spectrum. The school dropped it in favor of a more mainstream book published by Prentice Hall, because the state required the use of approved textbooks in order to be accredited for athletic competitions with public schools.
These books are indeed, unfortunate. I've told my kids when they were younger and asking questions around this that no matter what conclusions they developed through their schooling, they have to fully understand the principles they're examining and they have to be doubly-exposed. That is to say, an exceptional Christian student must be twice as diligent as their secular counterparts to be aware not only of their own principle tenets, but of the principles of their audience. There can be no critical analysis of 1/3rd the available evidence and there can be no reasoned discussion/debate on matters for which you're unaware or do not understand. This would leave the student believing they were merely disliked or that the system was somehow being unfair to them personally with no regard for the quality of their education -- in fact retarding their development. Worse, I'm not sure how the text purports to support an important Biblical tenet of knowledge, but Scripture itself talks of those who would bastardize it for their personal gain. These seem apt examples. Thank you for bringing these up. The good news is, the Christian School system saw fit to eliminate these textbooks to ensure their curricula met the basic requirements of California's accreditation.
ebuddy
     
shifuimam
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Somewhere in the Pacific Northwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2013, 10:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Now I suppose we need to develop a litmus test to determine which groups are loony? What beliefs are considered to be "extreme"?
You can probably just use common sense to identify what's loony and what isn't.

Forcing women to stay off birth control and produce as many children as possible before menopause (the Quiverfull movement) is loony.

Forcing people to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and sign a billion-year contract of loyalty (Scientology) is loony.

Forcing children to stand on street corners at soldier funerals holding "God Hates Fags" signs (Westboro Baptist Church) is loony.

I think you can probably figure things out from there.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Wait, mattyb is besson3c? I usually don't analyze "style" enough to fashion a guess on such things, but if this is true -- I absolutely stand behind what I've said.
Well, crap. I totally thought besson started the thread since he was most active in the discussion. Whoops.

It is also generally true that the least invested in a discipline one is intellectually or otherwise, the less apt they are to defend it. Otherwise, I don't know a single person who doesn't get defensive about something they're invested in.
That's true, but getting defensive to the point that you are unwilling to have a conversation about your beliefs with anyone except those who agree with you is dangerous IMO. That goes down the road of willfully maintaining ignorance of viewpoints that conflict with your own.

I know a lot of people wonder why I stick around MacNN, given that I really don't like Apple as a company and I don't have any intention of owning another non-vintage Apple product. The simple fact is that I'd prefer to interact with people who aren't exactly like me. There are plenty of forums out there where everyone can sit around making fun of Mactards all day. That's far less interesting than here.

I'm not generalizing and saying everyone is like that. Most people aren't. The people who are, however, can damage the reputation of their peers, as they tend to be more vocal than the sane ones.

IMO, no authoritative source of information is above the fray. Granted, there's a very kitschy culture at the surface of many folks' Christian worship, but for me it has become much deeper than this and the fellowship is everything. I get defensive about some aspects of scripture and Christianity, not as defensive about other aspects of it. I avoid using the Bible to make arguments (it's usually not necessary), proselytize, or denigrate another's faith unless they've demonstrated an inability to appreciate diplomacy in discussions like these.
Just out of curiosity - are you a member of a specific denomination?

Maybe it's because I'm a woman, but I found the "fellowship" aspect of Christianity to be more about backstabbing and gossiping. I tried going to church as an adult, and it was a social anxiety nightmare.

I'd be surprised if Scientology had any staying power, but Freemasonry is nearly a culture all its own.
I don't get Freemasonry at all. There are plenty of Mormons who are perfectly comfortable in their faith, and that's great, but the correlation to Freemasonry is pretty obvious IMO.

I'm inclined to agree with you. I mean, I don't see why it would be any different today in that regard than it was when He was crucified. As you know per Christian doctrine, that was a means to an end and relied heavily on people being what they had ultimately become. There were many who were capable of incredible acts of decency as well, but that's not as newsworthy.
This is probably one of the biggest things that bothered me about Christianity and the way that it was presented to me throughout my childhood. All other religions are false, believing anything other than our interpretation of the Bible is false, even considering the possibility that God isn't what you think he is is false, etc.

Anyone of any religion can say the same things. The logical side of me just can't buy into it anymore.,

I agree with you here and of course organized religion has definitely had a major role in providing a way to look beyond one's self. We're now at a point where people would choose to save their house-pet over another human being. I still see, when faced with incredible adversity; a great number of people capable of wonderful acts of charity and support.
I think at least some of that comes from how religion has shaped the evolution of society and culture.

People have tried to pull the whole "imagine a world with no religion" thing after 9/11, but it's impossible to imagine. Religion, dogma, mysticism, and beliefs have existed since humans had enough intellectual capability to wonder what kept the sun burning in the sky every day.

Ouch? Did you look at my location before or after saying that? That's a huge generalization anyway, and on this I can speak from absolute authority.
hahaha no. I don't think everyone needs to leave the Midwest - it's a good place to raise a family, and the cost-of-living is dirt cheap, even in metro areas like Indianapolis.

I do think that my school peers who didn't even leave the neighborhood in which they were raised are seriously missing out, though. Several of my classmates teach at the school we graduated from, they never changed churches, and their entire social circle hasn't expanded since high school. That's just weird to me.

Eesh, that's a very select, little bubble you had there. Otherwise, the only reason you would be compelled to avoid them so passionately is an incredible sense of conviction or hypocrisy (more from the pedestal you were placed on as a Christian than the pedestal you asked to be placed on) for doing what you'd likely consider unhealthy anyway.
I'm not sure how the interpret that last part, but I will absolutely acknowledge that I was raised in a particularly conservative, cloistered, anti-secular-society environment until I went to college. It's certainly shaped how I view Christianity and what my beliefs have become as an adult.

The kids I know back home who were raised in more normal families - friends outside of church and school, social activities with non-Christian peers, etc. - are significantly more well-adjusted than those who were raised in an environment that tried to pretend that anyone who was a non-Christian was a leper to be avoided at all costs.

Yeah, but you can almost immediately find other Christians who agree with you on this problem. There's no reason your faith is defined by its most deplorable adherents. Again, unless you succumbed to a very small environment, but that's still all you as you found from those who never graduated from highschool, so to speak.
Nah, my departure from Christianity isn't because of the bad ones.

The bad ones are a particular concern of mine because I'm directly related to someone who uses his beliefs to control and abuse those around him. I fear for his wife and I fear for the day when he has children. Literally.

I find they're just as tolerant in a public setting as anyone else. They are where they are after all. What's unfortunate is how phobic people are to even talk about things other than sports, games, or gossip.
In public, yes. At home...not so much.

As soon as my mom figured out that I wasn't going to church anymore, she assumed I wasn't a Christian, didn't believe in God, and refused to talk to me about theology and religion. That's the kind of attitude I'm talking about.

I stopped going to church long before I stopped identifying as a Christian, mostly because I liked sleeping in on Sunday mornings.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2013, 12:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
The premise of this thread is bigoted and hateful. Shame on you.

The party of tolerance, ladies and gentlemen.
Says the guy who hate Muslims.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2013, 12:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
This is typically the reasoning of an atheist in an attempt to pit the two disciplines against one another, but since you've called me out on this unfairness; what is it in you that allows room for scientific reasoning while maintaining faith in a deity that is not also in the others for which you're obligated to generalize?
Man, that is one long run-on sentence.

I think Christians do a fine job at pitting religion against science without the involvement of Atheists. Stop blaming Atheists for what Christians do. That's like blaming Atheists for pitting the Amish against modern technology.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2013, 04:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Man, that is one long run-on sentence.

I think Christians do a fine job at pitting religion against science without the involvement of Atheists. Stop blaming Atheists for what Christians do. That's like blaming Atheists for pitting the Amish against modern technology.


That would be Protestant Christians.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2013, 05:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Man, that is one long run-on sentence.
I used the proper punctuation.

I think Christians do a fine job at pitting religion against science without the involvement of Atheists. Stop blaming Atheists for what Christians do. That's like blaming Atheists for pitting the Amish against modern technology.
OH! I see where you're confused. Let me help you with some context.

I was talking to Shifuimam when I said;
Originally Posted by ebuddy
Why would a religious person have to put aside scientific reasoning? It birthed the discipline and facilitated most of what we know of the natural world today. In fact, they've enjoyed quite a fruitful relationship. This is typically the reasoning of an atheist in an attempt to pit the two disciplines against one another...
I responded to shif's notion that religious people would have to put aside scientific reasoning as an attempt of atheists to pit the two disciplines against one another. Christians wouldn't insist that religious people are putting aside scientific reasoning because of course, in context that wouldn't make any sense. I was blaming atheists for the arguments they make.
ebuddy
     
shifuimam
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Somewhere in the Pacific Northwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2013, 05:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I responded to shif's notion that religious people would have to put aside scientific reasoning as an attempt of atheists to pit the two disciplines against one another. Christians wouldn't insist that religious people are putting aside scientific reasoning because of course, in context that wouldn't make any sense. I was blaming atheists for the arguments they make.
Well, it's not black-and-white.

I'm more specifically referring to situations where Christians throw science out the window to support their dogmatic view on life.

For instance:

Fossils aren't really as old as science says they are. It was the Great Flood that created a whole bunch of fossils all at once, and God made it seem like the fossils were a lot older than they really are.

Or, using another religion:

Even though there is zero scientific or anthropological evidence that white, European-descended humans lived in Missouri during Christ's lifetime on Earth, our holy book (the Book of Mormon) tells us this, so it must be true.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2013, 05:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
Well, it's not black-and-white.
No, no -- I gotcha. I was catching hyteckit up with the flow of conversation. You and I had already clarified all this.

I'm more specifically referring to situations where Christians throw science out the window to support their dogmatic view on life.
For instance:
Fossils aren't really as old as science says they are. It was the Great Flood that created a whole bunch of fossils all at once, and God made it seem like the fossils were a lot older than they really are.
Anecdotes abound as in the example I provided earlier of zealots of another kind teaching about "gill slits in human embryos" as if the flexion folds you also have on your index finger purport to serve or demonstrate a history of serving respiratory functionality is equally absurd. I too dislike simpleton reasoning like the above, but I also see an equal per capita share (at least, using this forum as, but one, more immediate example among others given) of readily making science something it is not to support their dogmatic view on life. Again, this is people doing what people do, not religion doing what religion does. Intellectual laziness is intellectual laziness.

To suggest a distasteful human trait is somehow uniquely related to this bloc of people or that bloc is errant reasoning IMO and only serves antagonism and intolerance.
ebuddy
     
shifuimam
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Somewhere in the Pacific Northwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2013, 05:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Intellectual laziness is intellectual laziness.
This right here is why I absolutely loathe and despise the politicization of science. Once science turns political, it stops evolving and growing beyond what politics say the right answer is.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 5, 2013, 03:22 PM
 
The same cast of characters on this forum who keep chanting about how Muslims are more violent than Christians and now complaining about someone making the argument that Religious people are less intelligent than Atheists.

What a bunch of hypocrites.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 5, 2013, 03:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
So atheists believe that their religious opinions are somehow more valid than others. Proof?
Actually, Atheists believe no religious opinions are more valid than others. That's why they are Atheists. Otherwise they would be religious and affiliate themselves with a particular religion.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
shifuimam
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Somewhere in the Pacific Northwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 5, 2013, 05:30 PM
 
You know someone is a douche anytime they start a sentence with "ACTUALLY...."

But, seriously.

There are a lot of atheists who are just as militant and passionate about their beliefs as the worst fundies out there.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 5, 2013, 06:30 PM
 
Are there a lot of adoption clinic bombings?
     
shifuimam
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Somewhere in the Pacific Northwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 5, 2013, 07:48 PM
 
Christians use guns, not bombs.

pew pew.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 5, 2013, 08:08 PM
 
And what do the militant atheists use to bomb adoption clinics?
( Last edited by Laminar; Sep 5, 2013 at 09:17 PM. )
     
Cold Warrior
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Polwaristan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 5, 2013, 08:09 PM
 
I'll recommend a review of Rule 9 based off of some page 2 comments I read. Let's police up the personal stuff. Thanks.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2013, 01:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
You know someone is a douche anytime they start a sentence with "ACTUALLY...."

But, seriously.

There are a lot of atheists who are just as militant and passionate about their beliefs as the worst fundies out there.
Actually, a douche is someone who attacks another for starting a sentence with "actually..."

You do know you are calling a bunch of people on this forum a douche right?
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2013, 01:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
The same cast of characters on this forum who keep chanting about how Muslims are more violent than Christians and now complaining about someone making the argument that Religious people are less intelligent than Atheists.

What a bunch of hypocrites.
I'm not seeing the hypocrisy there. Can you explain that?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2013, 05:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
I'm not seeing the hypocrisy there. Can you explain that?
The same cast of characters who feel anecdotal evidence is sufficient enough proof to form negative assessment about a religious group(s), now feels anecdotal evidence and statistical evidence is insufficient proof to form a negative assessment of a religious group(s) when they happen to be included in that group.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2013, 07:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Are there a lot of adoption clinic bombings?
What's an adoption clinic?
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2013, 07:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
The same cast of characters who feel anecdotal evidence is sufficient enough proof to form negative assessment about a religious group(s), now feels anecdotal evidence and statistical evidence is insufficient proof to form a negative assessment of a religious group(s) when they happen to be included in that group.
Yeah, but Woodrow Wilson believed in killing Muslims for democracy's sake!
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2013, 08:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
I'm not seeing the hypocrisy there. Can you explain that?
No, he cannot. You see, it's enough to be able to come in with the one-liner and then bail when you're challenged on your reasoning. He's done what he wanted to do. Troll.

While this study purports to measure intelligence quotient, what hyteckit is decrying (as usual) is altogether irrelevant. The fact is, if we're trending atrocity in the modern age, there simply is no competition for Allahu Akbar! While Muslims comprise approximately 1/5th of the global population, they constitute more than 2/3rd the global conflicts currently underway. Between the years 1983 and 2000, Muslims were responsible for 11 of 16 major acts of international terrorism, 5 of 7 states listed by the U.S. State Department as supporting terrorism are Muslim, and the overwhelming majority of foreign organizations listed as terrorists are Muslim. To be clear, these acts are decidedly in conflict with many aspects of Islamic doctrine so I don't blame the religion -- i blame the socioeconomic conditions that lead to oppression generally under corrupted (not religious) leadership. So while I'm not one hyteckit can point at, I thought it important to at least include meaningful statistical differences between the arguments.
ebuddy
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2013, 08:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
So while I'm not one hyteckit can point at, I thought it important to at least include meaningful statistical differences between the arguments.
No, the two arguments are exactly the same, and the only reason hyteckit is wrong is because it's rarely actually the same posters who deny one while praising the other (careful lest you become one of them while trying to deny it ). This OP's study's conclusion is wrong because it only shows that the characteristic (being dumb) contains more of the demographic (the religious), not that the demographic is more likely to contain the characteristic. Your statistics make the exact same error, showing only that the characteristic (terrorism) contains more of the demographic (Muslims), but not that the demographic is more likely to contain the characteristic. If anything, your error is more egregious than the other, because the error in general is proportional to the rarity of the characteristic (see Bayes rule), and terrorism is a more rare event than is low intelligence.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2013, 09:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Actually, Atheists believe no religious opinions are more valid than others. That's why they are Atheists. Otherwise they would be religious and affiliate themselves with a particular religion.
Athiests OPINION is that their is no God, etc. This suggests they assume to know for a fact, something they cannot prove either way. Their opinion is as much faith as a believer would have.
     
shifuimam
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Somewhere in the Pacific Northwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2013, 10:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
terrorism is a more rare event than is low intelligence.
You don't get out much, do you...

Terrorism is a more rare event in Western countries than low intelligence.

Terrorism is a daily event in the Middle East. If you don't know this, you are either ignoring it or don't ever read the news.

Militant Islam is a daily occurrence in the mideast. There are entire countries, as we all know now, run based on militant Islam. Buildings are bombed daily. People are murdered daily. Christians and Jews are particularly targeted. All in the name of Allah.

No, ebuddy is spot on, no matter how uncomfortable his facts make you feel inside.

Because of everything that has happened in Western culture (not just the United States, mind you, I'm including Western Europe in this) since 9/11, Islam has become a special sort of untouchable, and stating unfortunate facts that involve Islam and Muslims is somehow verboten.

People stopped murdering in the name of Jesus centuries ago. Muslims continue to murder in the name of Allah today. Right now. At this very moment in time, there is violent conflict occurring in the Middle East in the name of Allah.

None of this is false:
  • they constitute more than 2/3rd the global conflicts currently underway
  • Between the years 1983 and 2000, Muslims were responsible for 11 of 16 major acts of international terrorism
  • 5 of 7 states listed by the U.S. State Department as supporting terrorism are Muslim
  • the overwhelming majority of foreign organizations listed as terrorists are Muslim

That this makes you feel uncomfortable inside because of this ridiculous need to put Islam on a pedestal doesn't invalidate the facts at all.

In the 70s and 80s, just replace "Muslims" with "Communists"...
     
shifuimam
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Somewhere in the Pacific Northwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2013, 10:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
The same cast of characters who feel anecdotal evidence is sufficient enough proof to form negative assessment about a religious group(s), now feels anecdotal evidence and statistical evidence is insufficient proof to form a negative assessment of a religious group(s) when they happen to be included in that group.
Only one person in this thread has continually invalidated others' views claiming "that's just anecdotal evidence" but refuses to contribute anything of value to the conversation.

Don't generalize everyone here based on that one person....
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2013, 03:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
People stopped murdering in the name of Jesus centuries ago.
I can't believe you actually posted that.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2013, 04:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
The same cast of characters who feel anecdotal evidence is sufficient enough proof to form negative assessment about a religious group(s), now feels anecdotal evidence and statistical evidence is insufficient proof to form a negative assessment of a religious group(s) when they happen to be included in that group.
Anecdotal?!? Daily car bombings and crimes against humanity are anecdotal? You're trying to draw some type of parity there? Are you nuts?

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
No, he cannot. You see, it's enough to be able to come in with the one-liner and then bail when you're challenged on your reasoning. He's done what he wanted to do. Troll.

While this study purports to measure intelligence quotient, what hyteckit is decrying (as usual) is altogether irrelevant. The fact is, if we're trending atrocity in the modern age, there simply is no competition for Allahu Akbar! While Muslims comprise approximately 1/5th of the global population, they constitute more than 2/3rd the global conflicts currently underway. Between the years 1983 and 2000, Muslims were responsible for 11 of 16 major acts of international terrorism, 5 of 7 states listed by the U.S. State Department as supporting terrorism are Muslim, and the overwhelming majority of foreign organizations listed as terrorists are Muslim. To be clear, these acts are decidedly in conflict with many aspects of Islamic doctrine so I don't blame the religion -- i blame the socioeconomic conditions that lead to oppression generally under corrupted (not religious) leadership. So while I'm not one hyteckit can point at, I thought it important to at least include meaningful statistical differences between the arguments.
Bingo, on the button.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
shifuimam
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Somewhere in the Pacific Northwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2013, 05:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
I can't believe you actually posted that.
I'm sorry, when's the last time a Christian zealot made international news for orchestrating the massacre of hundreds or thousands of people in the name of Jesus?

Can you provide a few articles referencing Christians who strapped bombs to themselves or planted bombs in cars recently in the name of Jesus? How about naming any countries who, as of today, are governed by a body that adheres to extremist, fundamentalist Christian morality and imposes that on all citizens with threat of torture and death if they do not comply?

Regardless of how politically incorrect it is to point this out, Islam has had a very violent and bloody history in just the past decade - far more so than any other ancient religion on Earth.
( Last edited by shifuimam; Sep 6, 2013 at 05:20 PM. )
     
finboy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2013, 05:28 PM
 
I'd venture (and I have) that the researchers used a very narrow definition of religion. Confining the alternative position to atheism is limiting as well. For example, there are plenty of stupid people who believe in things like astrology, but I'm not sure that's counted as religion (it should be). So the term "religious people" is probably not well defined. Another example: anthropogenic global warming - that's a religion if there ever was one.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2013, 08:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Anecdotal?!? Daily car bombings and crimes against humanity are anecdotal? You're trying to draw some type of parity there? Are you nuts?
What do you think anecdotal evidence means?

You are drawing a conclusion based on observations without research conducted under controlled conditions.

Are you a ditz?
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2013, 08:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
I'm sorry, when's the last time a Christian zealot made international news for orchestrating the massacre of hundreds or thousands of people in the name of Jesus?
Pres. Bush. God told him to invade Iraq.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2013, 08:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Athiests OPINION is that their is no God, etc. This suggests they assume to know for a fact, something they cannot prove either way. Their opinion is as much faith as a believer would have.
Faith in believing is something that they can't prove the existence of.

An Atheist is someone who does not believe in or no faith in the existence of God(s).

Not believing in something that can't be proven requires no faith.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:57 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,