Theology Overrides Science

[Moronium]

And on second thought, I think that IQ tests should perhaps have a special section specifically on religious beliefs and indoctrination. 

 

You have apparently missed the entire point of the Harvard study I cited.  Your "special section" would have to be applied to ALL theological positions, including atheism.  

 

Question:  Are you an atheist?

 

Answer:  Yes.

 

OK, then we're marking your score down because you're thinking intuitively rather than analytically.

 

Read it again:

 

...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.

Edited March 17, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.” (Bertrand Russell).

 

[Moronium]

Peterson is a great contrast to the Adam nonsense!... there's nothing I could disagree with in that lecture...

 

Peterson was using the example of graduating college as the "target" for which correlations were being sought.  Using that standard, atheists seem to be lagging, eh?

 

A 2016 Pew Center global study on religion and education around the world ranked Jews as the most educated (13.4 years of schooling) followed by Christians (9.3 years of schooling). The religiously unaffiliated—a category which includes atheists, agnostics and those who describe their religion as “nothing in particular”—ranked overall as the third most educated religious group (8.8 years of schooling)

 

 

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

Edited March 17, 2019 by Moronium

[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.

Well Moronium, rejecting reason allows the religious believer to believe!  How deep do you want to bury yourself in your bullshit before you back out graciously? 

 

Rational religious believers know better than to even start trying to argue their sky fairy beliefs against Darwinian evolution and today's science. You must be an entertainer of some sort, you silly as-hole.

 

Keep the comedy routine coming and I'll give you lots of reasons to dislike atheists.

[montgomery]

You have apparently missed the entire point of the Harvard study I cited.  Your "special section" would have to be applied to ALL theological positions, including atheism.  

 

Question:  Are you an atheist?

 

Answer:  Yes.

 

OK, then we're marking your score down because you're thinking intuitively rather than analytically.

 

Read it again:

If the atheist came out and admitted he was an atheist then he should be rewarded for his analytical thinking. But how do you suppose that could be saying that he wasn't also capable of intuitive thinking? I think the atheist would usually be capable of appying the right sort of thinking as is dictated by the question. 

 

And you've already said you reject rational thinking when it comes to questions on religion! 

Oh, I know! Trust your intuition! That'll do it, eh?

[montgomery]

 

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.” (Bertrand Russell).

 

 

That's counter-intuitive. I would say the wiser person would be full of confidence. And you would too if you would start to be honest with yourself.

[Moronium]

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?

 

Can religion help reduce violent crime?

 

Two studies suggest the answer is yes, both by creating a moral climate that fosters respect among neighbors and by helping to form individual consciences of young adults.

 

Communities with high levels of active participation in congregations may be particularly effective in reducing assaults, rapes and murders in some poor areas that are most likely to suffer from violent crimes, the research indicates

 

A Baylor University study of more than 15,000 people ages 18 to 28 found that while young adults who considered themselves religious were less likely than others to commit violent or property crimes, those who claimed to be spiritual but set apart from organized religion were more likely to engage in both types of criminal activity.

 

A separate study analyzing crime and religion data from 182 counties in three states found violent crime decreased as greater numbers of people were religiously active in a community.

 

“In the big picture, religious presence seems to matter to the amount of violence and crime in a community,” says Jeffery Ulmer, a professor of sociology and crime, law and justice at Pennsylvania State University who led the county-level study. “It matters to blacks, whites and Latinos.”

 

 

http://blogs.thearda.com/trend/featured/studies-religion-linked-to-fewer-violent-crimes-being-%E2%80%98spiritual-but-not-religious%E2%80%99-tied-to-increased-risk/

 

"...those who claimed to be spiritual but set apart from organized religion were more likely to engage in both types of criminal activity."

 

I just read a story about how a convict who brutally killed a 3 year-old girl was trying to change his legal name to "Eternal Love."  Sounds very "spiritual," eh?

Edited March 17, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Oh, I know! Trust your intuition! That'll do it, eh?

 

 

For the atheist, apparently so, yeah.

[Moronium]

That's counter-intuitive. I would say the wiser person would be full of confidence. 

 

Based on your intuition, and your inflated sense of your own abilities, I'm sure you would "say" a lot of things, eh, Monty?

 

"Education, n.: That which discloses to the wise and disguises from the foolish their lack of understanding."  (Ambrose Bierce)

 

 

Not anything that you would understand, of course.

Edited March 17, 2019 by Moronium

[montgomery]

Based on your intuition, and your inflated sense of your own abilities, I'm sure you would "say" a lot of things, eh, Monty?

 

 

Not anything that you would understand, of course.

I'm tired of fighting with you Moronium. Mainly because I'm sure you are capable of saying something worthwhile. 

 

That is, if you can rise above your shi-ty attitude, eh?

 

You seem to do quite well in the other sections of this science forum, but in this lounge section and in the social science section you are a complete dropout.

Edited March 17, 2019 by montgomery

[Moronium]

I'm tired of fighting with you Moronium. Mainly because I'm sure you are capable of saying something worthwhile. 

 

 

If you said things that were worthwhile, Monty, you might get better responses.  Your "tactic" of presenting raw, opinionated assertions, unaccompanied by any semblance of fact, evidence, or rational argument, as though they were indubitable fact is hardly worth responding to.

 

Monty:  Trump is Hitler!!!!!

 

Yeah, right, eh?

Edited March 18, 2019 by Moronium

[fahrquad]

I personally take exception to the notion that an atheist is automatically unethical and immoral. All too often it is the self proclaimed beacons of piety that are involved in ethically, morally, and legally reprehensible behavior.

Edited March 18, 2019 by fahrquad

[fahrquad]

Getting back to the topic before everyone went off on a tangent, theology is the domain of faith while science deals with facts that can be proven.  I know that is an oversimplification, but why does such a straight-forward matter NEED to be complicated? 

[A-wal]

I'm tired of fighting with you Moronium. Mainly because I'm sure you are capable of saying something worthwhile. 

 

That is, if you can rise above your shi-ty attitude, eh?

 

You seem to do quite well in the other sections of this science forum, but in this lounge section and in the social science section you are a complete dropout.

He doesn't, not at all. Really no. I can't stress this enough. So very bad.

 

I personally take exception to the notion that an atheist is automatically unethical and immoral. All too often it is the self proclaimed beacons of piety that are involved in ethically, morally, and legally reprehensible behavior.

Atheists inherently immoral? :) God worshipers are the most disgustingly immoral people around, look at some of what their bs scripture promotes.

[montgomery]

He doesn't, not at all. Really no. I can't stress this enough. So very bad.

 

 

O.k., for me he makes himself look informed but some of the other topics he takes part in are definitely not my forte. 

 

 

 

Atheists inherently immoral?  :) God worshipers are the most disgustingly immoral people around, look at some of what their bs scripture promotes.

 

Anything an angry Christian such as Moronium says can be taken with a grain of salt. It's their pain they have to suffer when they promote that whcih the modern world now understands as foolish superstitious beliefs. 

 

The more they're kept harping on defending their nonsense, the more pain they have to bear. I'm interested in keeping him going!

[montgomery]

Getting back to the topic before everyone went off on a tangent, theology is the domain of faith while science deals with facts that can be proven.  I know that is an oversimplification, but why does such a straight-forward matter NEED to be complicated? 

I'll give you one chance to straighten up and join in the conversations on this board. No more warnings!

[fahrquad]

I'll give you one chance to straighten up and join in the conversations on this board. No more warnings!

 

I promise to be less sane and rational in the future.    :hammer: