Theology Overrides Science

[montgomery]

I recall as an infant, my parents were told by my sunday school teacher not to bring me back, unless I was prepared to believe what I was told. They never sent me back :)

 

I started with the top job in the USA ie the President, what chance does an Atheist have of being elected or even nominated for the Presidency. ZERO that demonstrates discrimination. 

 

Religion is big money in the US and in other parts of the world as well. It is not a charity so why is it not taxed, like any other cooperation. Governments will tax everything else, how is this not discrimination against other cooperations.

 

I agree completely religious indoctrination of children is child abuse. 

 

As people near death, religion might even give them something more to worry about. ie which way are they going up or down :) There gods are not known for forgiveness, a minor failing in life might get them sent the wrong way, regardless of the kiddy fidling priests telling them otherwise as they give them the last rights.

 

Depth of Religious conviction might be a measure of gullibility, and we all fall for lies on occasion.

I don't think that religion gives people near death somethinig else to worry about. Even a vicious serial killer can be saved if he cooperates and accepts the god. Total and complete bullshit of course.

 

I think that religious belief could enhance a person's propensity to commit vicious crimes, for example the Las Vegas mass shooting. the shooter would  be of the impression that he can  be saved any time he feels he needs to. An hour before his execution is not too late. Big business, as you've mentioned, won't turn away the chance of making money off the most evil in society.

 

It looks like Moronium has gone dark on us now. He's likely too smart to try to defend his ridiculous sky fairy bullshit.

[Moronium]

I think that religious belief could enhance a person's propensity to commit vicious crimes, for example the Las Vegas mass shooting. the shooter would  be of the impression that he can  be saved any time he feels he needs to.

 

By that reasoning, every atheist would have an increased propensity to commit violent crimes.  Typical of a fanatic to suggest that ONLY the devils on the other side are less than pure, eh?

[Moronium]

Michael Ruse a philosopher who is also a staunch atheist and a devout neo-darwinist has been severely critical of his fellow atheist friends, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, et al on a number of grounds, primarily that their approach to religion is extremely naive and argues against nothing but a distorted caricature. (strawman).

 

He made some very good points, including the observation that Dawkins was essentially attempting to "establish" a state religion (atheism) in violation of the First Amendment.

Edited March 17, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

You can always go through history and find examples of genocide or war in the name of a religion or a political belief. You could take as an example the Roman empire, and perhaps emperor Constantine and the creation of Christianity in 325AD. The religion he created based around his sun worship is likely responsible for more deaths and genocide than any other religion today, take the crusades for example. 

 

 

I'm glad you are open enough to add "or a political belief."   It is the nature of man to want to slaughter those who oppose their ideological beliefs, but that drive seems to be especially strong in totalitarian atheistic "leaders"  Religion is hardly the only thing people fight about.

 

The "atheists only" communist regimes in the last century are generally estimated to have slaughtered over 100 million of their own people, not even countiing foreign enemies.

 

To even compare that to medieval times is specious.

Edited March 17, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

 Rudolph Joseph Rummel was professor of political science who taught at the Indiana University, Yale University, and University of Hawaii. He spent his career studying data on collective violence and war with a view toward helping their resolution or elimination. Rummel coined the term democide for murder by government (compare genocide), such as the Stalinist purges and Mao's Cultural Revolution.

 

According to Rummel, the killings committed by Communist regimes can best be explained as the result of the marriage between absolute power and an absolutist ideology—Marxism. "Of all religions, secular and otherwise", Rummel positions Marxism as "by far the bloodiest – bloodier than the Catholic Inquisition, the various Catholic crusades, and the Thirty Years War between Catholics and Protestants. In practice, Marxism has meant bloody terrorism, deadly purges, lethal prison camps and murderous forced labor, fatal deportations, man-made famines, extrajudicial executions and fraudulent show trials, outright mass murder and genocide."  

 

  Scholars such as R. J. Rummel, Daniel Goldhagen, Richard Pipes and John N. Gray consider Communism as a significant causative factor in mass killings.  The Black Book of Communism claims an association between Communism and criminality, saying:  

 

 "Communist regimes [...] turned mass crime into a full-blown system of government" 

 

 

In official study materials published in 1948, Mao envisaged that "one-tenth of the peasants" (or about 50,000,000) "would have to be destroyed" to facilitate agrarian reform.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes

 

Well, ya can't say the commies aren't devoted to their religion, eh?  Their stated goal was to create a "paradise."  Didn't quite work out that way, though

Edited March 17, 2019 by Moronium

[fahrquad]

Moronium, IQ tests have to be changed to include questions on religion in order to more closely assess intelligence. The problem that now needs to be dealt with is allowing somebody who's been indoctrinated into believing at childhood and is therefore devoid of intelligence on that topic alone. Just how much it should influence a person's final score is the big question. But all else being equal between two people of equal intelligence on current tests, the one who is not a believer should come out being rated higher. Wouldn't you agree?

 

Can you think of it in terms of a well-rounded aptitude being more important than a very limited aptitude? Did Stephen Hawking have a well-rounded aptitude to go along with his very high IQ? I think so. He certainly was well above the level of any others who were striken with religious beliefs. 

 

The show "Adam Ruins Everything" went into detail about the invalidity of IQ tests the other day.

 

https://www.trutv.com/shows/adam-ruins-everything/videos/why-iq-tests-are-bunk.html

[GAHD]

The show "Adam Ruins Everything" went into detail about the invalidity of IQ tests the other day.

 

https://www.trutv.com/shows/adam-ruins-everything/videos/why-iq-tests-are-bunk.html

You have to note how Adam sticks to the shtick of just ruining rather than going deeply into the modern version of what's being talked about...

 

[Moronium]

I didn't notice any references to religious beliefs, or lack thereof, in that presentation, for some reason.

[Moronium]

Some studies have shown a correlation between national average IQ and levels of atheism in society,[6] although others have questioned whether any correlations are due to a complex range of social, economic, educational and historical factors, which interact with religion and IQ in different ways.

 

The definitions of intelligence are controversial since at least 70 definitions have been found among diverse fields of research.  People’s religious ideas are fragmented, loosely connected, and context-dependent, as in all other domains of culture and in life. The beliefs, affiliations, and behaviors of any individual are complex activities that have many sources including culture. As examples of religious incongruence he notes, "Observant Jews may not believe what they say in their Sabbath prayers. Christian ministers may not believe in God. And people who regularly dance for rain don’t do it in the dry season."...Dr. David Hardman of London Metropolitan University says: "It is very difficult to conduct true experiments that would explicate a causal relationship between IQ and religious belief."  A critical review of the research on intelligence and religiosity by Sickles et al. observed that conclusions vary widely in the literature because most studies use inconsistent and poor measures for both religiosity and intelligence.

 

According to anthropologist Jack David Eller, "atheism is quite a common position, even within religion" and that "surprisingly, atheism is not the opposite or lack, let alone the enemy, of religion but is the most common form of religion."...Harvard researchers found evidence suggesting that all religious beliefs become more confident when participants are thinking intuitively (atheists and theists each become more convinced). Thus reflective thinking generally tends to create more qualified, doubted belief.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence

 

What they seem to be saying here is that intuitive thinking, as opposed to analytical or "reflective" thinking, is more predominant in both theistic and atheistic theologies.  But don't EVER try to tell a militant atheist that, eh?  They'll always insist that they are "entirely rational." Often they will SCREAM that claim at you, for extra emphasis.  Maybe they need to be marked down on their IQ scores, eh?

 

At least the average religious person will admit that their belief is not based on reason, but is rather a product of "faith" or "intuition."  In that sense, they seem to be smarter than atheists.

Edited March 17, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Communists allow religion in society they are not neccesarily atheist. 

 

@ Moronium, what is your definition of god, that people seem to be getting on your case about? There appear to be lots of different non related versions of what gods are. The Pope thinks he speaks for god, do you believe that? Would you obey the Pope if he told you to do something?  

 

Although communist regimes "allow" religion (kinda) you can't join the party unless you are an atheist.  You must first renounce all religion before you can even participate, let alone hold office.  How's that for the 'discrimination" which you object to?

 

I've already said that I don't not belong to any revealed religion, although, as usual, Monty ignores that.

 

Definition of God?  I don't have one.  I don't pretend to know what God is.  That said, I find it impossible to believe that there is not some kind of "intelligence" immanent in the universe.  You'll never get intelligence from an inanimate rock.  It has to be there before hand, as we kinda discussed in the "emergent space" thread.  

 

If you want to call intelligence "God," then I guess that would be my definition.  I don't, however, pretend to "know" that there is a God in that form or any other, or even what is means to talk about "intelligence" in that context  Maybe "information" is a better word.

Edited March 19, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

The purpose of religion in society as I have already stated is to control human minds. It runs amock when people fail to recognize as they grow up that it has no scientific basis.

 

 

Traditional religion generally serves a number of positive purposes in society.  By and large it teaches you "right from wrong," and it guarantees that you will be held accountable if you ignore the difference.  By positing an omniscient God, it effectively puts a cop on every corner, thereby deterring crime and other anti-social behavior.  God will always know what you did, even if no one else does.

 

A "god-fearing" man is much less likely to be a criminal than an atheist, I figure.

 

As I understand it, religions like catholicism have a ritual of confession.  Generally the "penance" imposed by the priest includes undoing the sin where possible, such as returning stolen property and sincerely apologizing for stealing the **** to begin with.

Edited March 17, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

BULLSHIT.  

 

The bible belt is in the southern states, how do you explain away they have the highjest murder rates. https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/murder-capital-of-the-us-states-with-the-most-murders.html

 

Hmm, that's funny.  I don't see any information about murder rates at that link.  I do, however, see this:

 

California, Texas, Florida, and Illinois Have the Most Murders. 

 

 

Following them are, in order, the next 8 are: 

 

5. Pennsylvania 

6 Georgia 615

7 New York 609

8 Michigan 571

9 North Carolina 517

10 Maryland 516

11 Missouri 502

12 Ohio

 

Very few "southern" states in there, but what difference would it make?  Do you think you can just throw out the words "Bible Belt," and "Bullshit," and make any kind of coherent point about how many religiounists  versus atheists commit murder?

Edited March 17, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Although America  "allows" Atheism (kinda) you can't join the Republican party unless you are an religious.  You must first renounce all atheism before you can even participate, let alone hold office.  How's that for the 'discrimination" which you object to?

 

 

Do you actually believe that?  I suspect you do.

[montgomery]

What's the motive behind that Adam sitcom schtick anyway? How silly! This because of my suggestion on how to improve an IQ test to a small degree. Or maybe not so small? That would have to be determined.

 

Could it be that intelligence among Americans is dropping and is unusually low for some reason, and it has to be refuted?

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201506/anti-intellectualism-is-killing-america

 

That link is a quick introduction to the idea I've suggested. The little Adam clip seems to reinforce the idea. How witty!

 

You have to note how Adam sticks to the shtick of just ruining rather than going deeply into the modern version of what's being talked about...

Edited March 17, 2019 by montgomery

[montgomery]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence

 

What they seem to be saying here is that intuitive thinking, as opposed to analytical or "reflective" thinking, is more predominant in both theistic and atheistic theologies.  But don't EVER try to tell a militant atheist that, eh?  They'll always insist that they are "entirely rational." Often they will SCREAM that claim at you, for extra emphasis.  Maybe they need to be marked down on their IQ scores, eh?

 

At least the average religious person will admit that their belief is not based on reason, but is rather a product of "faith" or "intuition."  In that sense, they seem to be smarter than atheists.

Refer back to the question I suggested be added to IQ tests. How would you answer the question? Would you choose the 10,000 year old earth and sacrifice a few (or several) points for the sake of your faith?

 

There's an ever increasing tactic among believers to just ignore the hard questions put to them that would force them to betray their faith. They would just rather not have to think about it.

 

And on second thought, I think that IQ tests should perhaps have a special section specifically on religious beliefs and indoctrination. Maybe ten questions that dealt with the topic. If I was hiring somebody I would be interested in knowing if he is a clear thinker who has escaped from the childhood indoctrination. Or maybe never did receive it intensely enough to cause him to be saddled with it for the rest of his life.

 

Flummoxed's little sunday school story tells us a lot about why he's able to be a clear thinking atheist. And fwiw, I myself didn't receive a concentrated enough religious brainwashing to hold me to the faith.

 

How about you Moronium? Did you receive a very big dose of it? Be honest now.

[montgomery]

You have to note how Adam sticks to the shtick of just ruining rather than going deeply into the modern version of what's being talked about...

 

Peterson is a great contrast to the Adam nonsense! But I'm not completely sold on Peterson because he's always in the habit of asking questions in his lectures which he always answers for himself. However, there's nothing I could disagree with in that lecture, other than he does the class's thinking for them. 

[montgomery]

Do you actually believe that?  I suspect you do.

It's easy to find links for rebuttals of that notion that Republicans can't be atheists. But that makes it conspicuous on why there is a need for denial. So basically it isn't true, but there's still some truth in the fact that atheists aren't welcomed as easily as sky fairy believers.