# A Meta-Analysis: Negative Relation of Religiosity and IQ



## Bliss (Aug 13, 2013)

An analysis of studies, some running for decades, has found a 'significant negative association between intelligence and religiosity' (includes a link to the study). It goes on to explain possible reasons for this, which include:


More intelligent people are less likely to conform (though for religious belief rather than behaviour the findings were more pronounced) 
Irrationality/intuitiveness of religious belief is an anathema to analytical intelligence 
Intelligence 'provides whatever functions religion does to believers': compensatory control, self-regulation, self-enhancement, secure attachment, _et cetera_ 
Most of the participants were from Western nations; the US, the UK and Canada made up for more than 87 per cent of them. So, for now, the results are most trustworthy in relation to American Protestantism.

May we have a nice, civil discussion about any possible implications of the study. :U


----------



## Recel (Aug 13, 2013)

You want a civil discussion, about religion, and especially while the discussion at hand is that religious folks are more stupid? With CC around? On FAF?

Uhhmm...

Good luck Lizzie!


----------



## Bliss (Aug 13, 2013)

Recel said:


> You want a civil discussion, about religion, and especially while the discussion at hand is that religious folks are more stupid?


It is a correlation. But, yes, the more analytically gifted one is the lower is one's level of faith.



> With CC around? On FAF?


_Le Capitaine_ might be too busy drinking champagne. :3c


----------



## Machine (Aug 13, 2013)

This reeks of r/atheism. :I


----------



## Bliss (Aug 13, 2013)

Machine said:


> This reeks of r/atheism. :I


I do not know what that is, so I have to trust your judgement.

Would you prefer to swipe this under the carpet for a greater good?


----------



## Kalmor (Aug 13, 2013)

Machine said:


> This reeks of r/atheism. :I


I had a look, and it was on there. XD http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1k7h8j/researchers_aggregate_63_studies_and_find/


----------



## Furcade (Aug 13, 2013)

There is a positive association between ice-cream sales and heat strokes, yo. There are confounding variables and stuff which may have been ignored in the pursuit of simple analysis. Even if the correlation is legitimate, it isn't to say that religious people can't be intelligent, or that less religious people are more intelligent. Or especially that abandoning religion will make you smarter, or adopting it will make you dumber. For example, I am an intelligent person. If tomorrow I decided that I believed in God and dedicated my life to repairing my relationship with Him or whatever, I would still be an intelligent person.

I think as I was flicking through the links I found that r=-0.24, so the correlation is pretty weak anyway. Essentially, be _very_ wary of statistics, especially in "meta-analyses"/compilation studies or where psychologists are involved.

_EDIT: Yeah that r value (the correlation coefficient) means that (iirc) 5.76% of the variance of intelligence is explainable by religiosity. I'm gonna read the full article tomorrow, but I find it hard to see why they've gone ahead and fabricated hypotheses to explain what is, as far as I can tell (though I'm not a statistician) really weak data._


----------



## Bliss (Aug 13, 2013)

Furcade said:


> There is a positive association between ice-cream sales and heat strokes, yo.


I dare say the guys behind the study are aware of that. :F



> Even if the correlation is legitimate, it isn't to say that religious people can't be intelligent, or that less religious people are more intelligent. Or especially that abandoning religion will make you smarter, or adopting it will make you dumber. For example, I am an intelligent person. If tomorrow I decided that I believed in God and dedicated my life to repairing my relationship with Him or whatever, I would still be an intelligent person.


Very true. It only means that people of higher intelligence have a consistent _tendency_ to give up faith for reasons yet to be fully understood.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 13, 2013)

As prejudiced as this may sound, I have to admit that I'm not surprised about this average. 

I haven't read the study in detail, but I am wondering if this has something to do with the Flynn effect, because each generation has been less religious than the last, and there is a general trend for increasing IQ with respect to time.


----------



## Hewge (Aug 13, 2013)

Well they are always saying that "Ignorance is bliss".


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Aug 13, 2013)

Hewge said:


> Well they are always saying that "Ignorance is bliss".



"Blessed is the mind too small for doubt."


----------



## Furcade (Aug 13, 2013)

Okay, having skimmed the study:
a) Most of the samples involved appear  to be from the United States and parts of Europe, introducing a definite element of bias (what about countries where religions other than Christianity dominate? Is the same correlation seen there?).
b) The correlations themselves are "heterogenous." Their _magnitude_ relies largely on which part of the population you survey and what you actually ask them.
c) The correlations are very small in magnitude until they're "college-corrected," and even then they are miniscule.
d) I'm getting atheist biased-study vibes from the language that they employ in places.

I'm pretty cynical about this. I mean, yeah there's definitely a  negative correlation in the data taken, but it's incredibly weak and there are  plenty of confounding factors that get in the way of really making this a  concrete study. As such, it's hard to draw implications from it.


----------



## Aetius (Aug 13, 2013)

Machine said:


> This reeks of r/atheism. :I



"YOU KNOW WHO IS DUMB????? EVERYONE BUT US!!!!!"


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Aug 13, 2013)

I'm not surprised, although I don't think the message we should take away is "religion makes people stupid" like we're on r/atheism or something. It's more than likely a byproduct of the more religious areas being the poorest, meaning no money for education and an increased desire to utilize faith as a means of moral support. After all, it's not secret most colleges are insufferably liberal and "progressive".


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 13, 2013)

Did the study isolate for income, pastry?

"So *after controlling for other factors*, they can only confidently show  strong negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity among  American Protestants."


----------



## CannonFodder (Aug 13, 2013)

Lizzie said:


> May we have a nice, civil discussion about any possible implications of the study. :U


That's cause as nations become more modernized the less religious it becomes and that people in higher education are more likely to become become less religious and non-religious.  It's not so much as "derr hurr them chrustions r teh stupid" so much as the standard of living in a country increases and as people become more educated it causes most people to become less religious.


Fallowfox said:


> Did the study isolate for income, pastry?


Actually most religions on average their members make about the same amount of money(in the usa at least, not sure about in the uk), and the only denominations that make less money are those that traditionally have high numbers of african american members.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Aug 13, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Did the study isolate for income, pastry?
> 
> "So *after controlling for other factors*, they can only confidently show  strong negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity among  American Protestants."



I don't entirely buy that since I can't see how you can magically control something that's so intertwined like that. Of course that's but one factor, and you could also point to some of the rampant anti-intellectualism among the more fundamentalist Christians namely the insistence on creationist young Earth theories, alongside a general distrust of the public school system.


----------



## Artillery Spam (Aug 13, 2013)

Can't wait to see how many people are going to bring this up in next month's FAF Religion Thread.


----------



## CannonFodder (Aug 13, 2013)

Artillery Spam said:


> Can't wait to see how many people are going to bring this up in next month's FAF Religion Thread.


That's like asking how many COD games a five year old has.  We're probably going to see people reference this thread for months and even several threads on the topic of this thread talking about this thread all while discussing this thread and what was already said in this thread.


----------



## Troj (Aug 13, 2013)

As I told some friends, the study, of course, is just looking at averages. Of course, when you dig down, you'll always find intra-group variability---so, I know some highly intelligent and/or extremely thoughtful religious people, and I know some dumb-dumb atheists. (Interestingly, I also know some highly-intelligent-but-NOT-thoughtful religious people, who use their high intelligence to rationalize their beliefs in creative ways.)

What smart religious people and standard atheists have in common, I think, is that they've had to swim against the popular current in order to get where they are. Actively going against the grain usually requires character qualities that are associated more with intelligence than stupidity.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 13, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> I don't entirely buy that since I can't see how you can magically control something that's so intertwined like that. Of course that's but one factor, and you could also point to some of the rampant anti-intellectualism among the more fundamentalist Christians namely the insistence on creationist young Earth theories, alongside a general distrust of the public school system.



You examine the influence that socioeconomic status has on a cohort who are all religious or all non religious in order to ascertain its influence and make sure it is consistant between those groups. The effect of socioeconomic status the results can then be subtracted from the overall trend of religiosity and IQ in order to determine the relationship between IQ and religiosity without the economic influences. 

If being religious decreases or increases the effects of poverty this can still be isolated from the study by weighting the subtraction appropriately in accordance with degree to which religion influences the effects of poverty.

Anti intellectualism in the form of extreme religious views _isn't_ an independent factor though, just like atheists who work in the scientific industries aren't an independent factor on the other side of the scale. 



There are some other interesting things I'd like to bring into this discussion. Would we be surprised if belief in ghosts negatively correlated with intelligence? Would we dispute or excuse it under the influence of other factors such as consumption of hallucinogenic drugs in a certain culture, even if the test accounted for those factors?

Probably not. But more interesting still, the strength of belief in ghosts among intellectuals- such as people who have been to college, isn't uniformly lower than that of the rest of the population. It is lower on average but it is also polarised, which means some people become more likely to believe in the paranormal even if they're smart enough to go to college.

There might be a similar factor operating here too. We spend most of our time trying not to view the religious as homogenised, but I think some attention to the exceedingly intelligent, whether or not they're religious, is also justified- because the differences in that group might be very weird like they are in the case of belief in ghosts.



Troj said:


> As I told some friends, the study, of course, is  just looking at averages. Of course, when you dig down, you'll always  find intra-group variability---so, I know some highly intelligent and/or  extremely thoughtful religious people, and I know some dumb-dumb  atheists. *(Interestingly, I also know some  highly-intelligent-but-NOT-thoughtful religious people, who use their  high intelligence to rationalize their beliefs in creative ways.*)
> 
> What smart religious people and standard atheists have in common, I  think, is that they've had to swim against the popular current in order  to get where they are. Actively going against the grain usually requires  character qualities that are associated more with intelligence than  stupidity.




Funnily enough that is the favoured mechanism for why some college students become more and more likely to believe in ghosts which each year spent in education.


----------



## CannonFodder (Aug 13, 2013)

Here's my takes on it.  There's a ton of factors that go into why this is.  It's probably not just one factor or such, but rather multiple factors that go into why this is.

It could be partially be because of the high rates of people losing their faith when in higher education.  It could be partially because of anti-intellectualism of the more extreme denominations.  It could be partially because of the fact that here in the usa at least there is a massive economic disparity inbetween african americans and everyone else and thus as a result people that aren't actually less intelligent can't afford college now and thus dooming them for the rest of their lives.

However there is one thing we can all agree on though.  This problem can be fixed just by better outreach to encourage people to seek higher education and making it easier for them to do so and enacting legislation to help them.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 13, 2013)

The social and economic factors you mention were isolated from the study, cannon fodder. Whilst they're important too and increasing the uptake of higher education could benefit a lot of people that's not what the findings concern.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Aug 13, 2013)

Religion is full of bigots and idiots that attack someone for being different. Especially if your sexuality is involved.
So yeah its smart to leave a religion when its doing you more bad than good. Simple as that. You don't have to be a philosopher or scholar to get that.


----------



## Troj (Aug 13, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Funnily enough that is the favoured mechanism for why some college students become more and more likely to believe in ghosts which each year spent in education.



Oh, yes indeed.

Having a high IQ doesn't mean you're more logical or more discriminating, necessarily--it just means that you have a higher bandwidth and more hard drive space, mentally speaking, so you can generally pick things up faster, and are able to store more data than the strictly average bear.

But, if the stuff that's getting uploaded is Pure Bugfuck Insanity, then you'll just have a person who is more skilled than average at rationalizing and building upon their Pure Bugfuck Insanity.


----------



## CannonFodder (Aug 13, 2013)

Batsy said:


> Religion is full of bigots and idiots that attack someone for being different. Especially if your sexuality is involved.
> So yeah its smart to leave a religion when its doing you more bad than good. Simple as that. You don't have to be a philosopher or scholar to get that.


And thus any sort of discussion of why religions are so anti-intellectual give way to the generic "fuck religion" posts.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 13, 2013)

Troj said:


> Oh, yes indeed.
> 
> Having a high IQ doesn't mean you're more logical or more discriminating, necessarily--it just means that you have a higher bandwidth and more hard drive space, mentally speaking, so you can generally pick things up faster, and are able to store more data than the strictly average bear.
> 
> But, if the stuff that's getting uploaded is Pure Bugfuck Insanity, then you'll just have a person who is more skilled than average at rationalizing and building upon their Pure Bugfuck Insanity.



Maybe IQ tests or a similar test could test for the capacity to rationalise wrong answers/confirmation bias and see whether the same pattern emerges for religiosity.



CannonFodder said:


> And thus any sort of discussion of why  religions are so anti-intellectual give way to the generic "fuck  religion" posts.



Religions are anti intellectual because intellectuals keep telling them to go fuck themselves. :V


----------



## Seekrit (Aug 13, 2013)

This thread beings me much joy. I look forward to the inevitable shitstorm when more of the regular users log in :3c


----------



## Troj (Aug 13, 2013)

Fallow, off the top of my head, maybe some of the sub-tests on the Johnson-O'Connor test might be able to tap that ability, since there is, I recall, a word test that gauges your tendency to evaluate things objectively vs. subjectively.


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 13, 2013)

Batsy said:


> Religion is full of bigots and idiots that attack someone for being different. Especially if your sexuality is involved.
> So yeah its smart to leave a religion when its doing you more bad than good. Simple as that. You don't have to be a philosopher or scholar to get that.



Being one of the more open minded Christians, sadly this is true. Even when a church declares "All who believe in Jesus will be saved!" they still even attack _other christian religions_. Why is there this disunity? Someone needs to smack these people around like Jesus did to his apostles. Well, verbally. 

The part I'm referencing is in the Gospels. Most of them have a situation where Jesus' apostles approach him and say "Hey, we found this guy casting out demons and doing good works in your name, but he wasn't with us, so we told him to stop it." Jesus, in response basically says "Ummm....why? He was, basically, on our side. Anyone not against us, is with us [that is, working for the same goal]." More churches need to apply this thinking. Sure not all churches might not _PRAY_ the same way as you do, but you're all on God's side right? Then why the difference? 

Anyways, Batsy, yeah there's the whole thing about sexuality too. And the bigots and idiots. That's pretty much why I stopped going to church, because it was only going to be a matter of time before they started knocking around everything that I do. It was bad enough people would look at my iPod and go "You need more *Christian* songs on here". 

What, so something like Boston's "To Be A Man" isn't a good enough song 'cause he's not praising God in every chorus?

In relation to the study, I just want to throw out something I learned in American Government: Correlation might not necessarily equal causation. So anyone even _thinking_ of using this to say "RELIGION MAKES YOU STUPIDER! THIS STUDY HERE..." might want to take that little bit of info into account.


----------



## Aetius (Aug 13, 2013)

The circlejerk is strong in this thread.


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 13, 2013)

Serbia Strong said:


> The circlejerk is strong in this thread.



It's better than the Yahoo Comments section for this article, full of people going "Well of course more intelligence people aren't religious! Because Intelligence!" And comments like "Well of course we [more intelligent people] knew. Didn't have to tell us something we already knew".


----------



## Trpdwarf (Aug 13, 2013)

Lizzie said:


> Very true. It only means that people of higher intelligence have a consistent _tendency_ to give up faith for reasons yet to be fully understood.



I want to specifically make mention on this. One of the reasons brought up as a possibility is that those "Gifted" with higher intelligent tend to be better able to provide for themselves. Now growing up in a military family I went to many different churches and have experienced different denominations. So this struck a chord with me as one of the common things I saw in these various churches is that people turn to them when they need something and often cannot provide it for themselves. They turn to faith and to the church community. Now in no way, shape, or form will I condone this(some of them do help people). I still remember when my mom was well...on her own with myself and my older brother and due to reverse racism the only people who gave us any sort of real aid when we struggled were churches.

However that said I saw a lot of people not being proactive about their situation and it always bugged me growing up. It was lazy, it was stupid...there is this saying give a man a fish and he eats for a day, give him a fishing pole and he will fish for his food. Too often people fall into this trap of receiving, and then turn around and pray/depend upon faith to get them through. More intelligent people are less likely to do this as they will understand no matter how much you "pray" to some deity...it doesn't fix your situation.

I don't think the reasons here are entirely misunderstood. People however feel uncomfortable with the fact that that choosing to be complacent and put your live into he hands of a deity simply isn't smart. It's not something truly intelligent people do. Now my reverse experience with atheists and agnostics growing up and online is that they were doers. They don't sit around and wait to be "helped". They help themselves and use their intelligence and options to figure out what they need to do. There was this clear contrast...and I know this doesn't prove anything. It is however my experience.


----------



## Ozriel (Aug 13, 2013)

My thoughts on this whole thread.

I only ask that it remain civil.

But if people are that stupid to be lulled in complacency with religion, then I laugh at them. :V


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 13, 2013)

It would be interesting to know whether the age non religious people stopped believing in a religion [if they ever did] varies with respect to intelligence.


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 13, 2013)

Trpdwarf said:


> However that said I saw a lot of people not being proactive about their situation and it always bugged me growing up. It was lazy, it was stupid...there is this saying give a man a fish and he eats for a day, give him a fishing pole and he will fish for his food. Too often people fall into this trap of receiving, and then turn around and pray/depend upon faith to get them through. More intelligent people are less likely to do this as they will understand no matter how much you "pray" to some deity...it doesn't fix your situation.
> 
> I don't think the reasons here are entirely misunderstood. People however feel uncomfortable with the fact that that choosing to be complacent and put your live into he hands of a deity simply isn't smart. It's not something truly intelligent people do. Now my reverse experience with atheists and agnostics growing up and online is that they were doers. They don't sit around and wait to be "helped". They help themselves and use their intelligence and options to figure out what they need to do. There was this clear contrast...and I know this doesn't prove anything. It is however my experience.



This was something I always had an issue with when it comes to religious people. I know in the bible it says not to worry, God will provide, ask and you will receive and all that...but just sitting around waiting for God to help? Nah, I don't think that's how the Big Man intended it. I think he meant for us to go out, work hard, do what it took, all the while asking and putting faith that with God, in the end it will turn out good. Not just sitting around not worrying about your money because "The Good Lord will provide for you!"

Like with me, I feel the need to go out and do things, achieve things, get things. But I don't factor out God. I hope that he'll help me get through it, or either Him or Lady Luck will bless me with good fortune. 

Though to me, God's really been more of someone I can consult with or seek moral support from, and not really someone to ask to obtain or provide for me. But then again, I'm a little uncomfortable asking people for things anyways for my own personal reasons, so that probably has something to do with it.


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Aug 13, 2013)

FAF Atheists: Religion is terrible and every religious person (indirectly talking about Christians only) hates other people's sexuality, therefore all conservatives and Christians are bad people and have nothing good about them.

FAF Christians: I'm an open minded Christian and not like any other, therefore I am doing what god wants me to do, even though the bible states it is specifically against homosexuality, but that was written by goat herders, so it's not accurate, but the rest of it is okay. Those other Christians are just evil bigots and are not of god.


Typical argument. 


I hate corny rehashed bullshit. Come up with a new argument please.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Aug 13, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> FAF Atheists: Religion is terrible and every religious person (indirectly talking about Christians only) hates other people's sexuality, therefore all conservatives and Christians are bad people and have nothing good about them.
> 
> FAF Christians: I'm an open minded Christian and not like any other, therefore I am doing what god wants me to do, even though the bible states it is specifically against homosexuality, but that was written by goat herders, so it's not accurate, but the rest of it is okay. Those other Christians are just evil bigots and are not of god.
> 
> ...



1/10 , not very edgy. You want to see something better? Post it yourself instead of shit posting.


----------



## Percy (Aug 13, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> FAF Atheists: Religion is terrible and every religious person (indirectly talking about Christians only) hates other people's sexuality, therefore all conservatives and Christians are bad people and have nothing good about them.
> 
> FAF Christians: I'm an open minded Christian and not like any other, therefore I am doing what god wants me to do, even though the bible states it is specifically against homosexuality, but that was written by goat herders, so it's not accurate, but the rest of it is okay. Those other Christians are just evil bigots and are not of god.
> 
> ...


Way to generalize.


----------



## Azure (Aug 13, 2013)

dammit woman, i LOVE YOU

also i am fairly sure that the words "smart" and "religious" shouldnt show up together too often. because lets face it, a creative delusion remains such, even if it is creative, and despite its usefulness. an interesting though i had, even if something is useful on a personal level, when it graduates to a group level and becomes harmful, is that evil for the individual to perpetuate it even if their original intention is good?


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 13, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> FAF Atheists: Religion is terrible and every religious person (indirectly talking about Christians only) hates other people's sexuality, therefore all conservatives and Christians are bad people and have nothing good about them.
> 
> FAF Christians: I'm an open minded Christian and not like any other, therefore I am doing what god wants me to do, even though the bible states it is specifically against homosexuality, but that was written by goat herders, so it's not accurate, but the rest of it is okay. Those other Christians are just evil bigots and are not of god.
> 
> ...




Objection

I don't feel that I'm "Not like any other" christian, or somehow some kind of unique snowflake. I'm sure there are others out there who are open minded more towards alternate interpretations and meanings to things. Anyways...

The bible does mention that it's against homosexuality, but mainly in the Old Testament, where all the Mosaic Laws were written in. And if you follow the book, Jesus' Death freed all people from having to follow and maintain the law in order to gain salvation; that is, it was granted by grace, by acceptance of Jesus' gift, not by some adherence to the Mosaic Laws. Now he did mention that you should keep the commandments, which refers specifically to the Ten Commandments, and any other commandments from the Old Testament (I would think specifically loving god with all your heart, mind and soul,and loving your neighbor as yourself, since these were the two Jesus quoted). 

Now if we get over to Paul's writings, that's a whole debatable thing altogether, since people talk about different translations, if he really meant it in reference to pagan practices, and son on. 

I don't do the Goat Herders argument though. I realize that some things may have been left out, or there might be translation errors, but I'm not going to use that to invalidate what others are saying unless they bring up "Thou shall not kill" from the King James Version (it was supposed to be "Shall not murder", which is why you see that and variations of it appear in literally almost every other translation). And for God's sake, I don't do the whole "Well paul wasn't even with Jesus so nuts to what he has to say!"

As for being certain for what God wants me to do, I still question it. Don't believe me? Email around sometime, specifically Perri since I've actually had lots of conversations where I'm concerned with if I'm doing the right thing or am on "the right path" or not (She keeps assuring me that I am, since I'm a nice, good person who seeks to emulate the stuff that Jesus preached about). 

I also don't play the No True Scotsman game. The only reason I'd say someone wasn't a "True Christian" Is if there were only in it for some superfical reason, and not for spiritual growth/healing/enlightenment/learning/etc. 

So sir, your stereotype seem to  Not really fit me as much as you said, or is too rehashed. Perhaps you meant someone else in this thread?


----------



## Kitsune Cross (Aug 13, 2013)

I'm an atheist, I think religious people are dumb :S, but I think god as a possibility, I don't think it exist but since I can't prove it, I'll just stick with "maybe"


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 13, 2013)

Kitsune Cross said:


> I'm an atheist, I think religious people are dumb :S, but I think god as a possibility, I don't think it exist but since I can't prove it, I'll just stick with "maybe"



Not sure if serious...or satirical...


----------



## Willow (Aug 13, 2013)

Kitsune Cross said:


> I'm an atheist, I think religious people are dumb :S, but I think god as a possibility, I don't think it exist but since I can't prove it, I'll just stick with "maybe"


You're agnostic then. Not atheist.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Aug 13, 2013)

I don't link religion to stupidity, only fear. They're not stupid, they're just scared. Regular people, that is.

Can't deny that one. People are terrified of death and it's implications, so they cling to religion and it's promised fantasy of living happily ever after with your loved ones or whatever after death.
I'm naturally pretty scared of death too, but I can't bring myself to rely on a fairy tale to bring me comfort.

But extremists of any sort? People who kill in name of god? They can turn into gummy bears for all I care. There are those in Saudi who would have my head lopped off for the thoughts I express here.


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Aug 13, 2013)

Willow said:


> You're agnostic then. Not atheist.


 Agnostic means you don't have the knowledge to prove or disprove god. He doesn't believe in god, nor can he prove if it exists or not. So, he's an agnostic-atheist. I guess I am a mono-theist or agnostic-theist.


----------



## MochiElZorro (Aug 13, 2013)

Correlation does not imply causation. Did you know a large majority of gamers have air conditioning? It seems games cause air conditioning! :O

But seriously, if this is legit, I am an exception. I'm Ã¼ber-religioso-desu over here, and yet I'm super-smart science guy who wants to learn every language and every possible subject. Except maybe French. Those guys are dicks...


----------



## Artillery Spam (Aug 13, 2013)

I'm shocked how this thread hasn't attracted CC yet.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Aug 14, 2013)

Artillery Spam said:


> I'm shocked how this thread hasn't attracted CC yet.



Oh go on, call it a circle-jerk anyway.


----------



## Bliss (Aug 14, 2013)

Hinalle K. said:


> I don't link religion to stupidity, only fear. They're not stupid, they're just scared. Regular people, that is.
> 
> Can't deny that one. People are terrified of death and it's implications, so they cling to religion and it's promised fantasy of living happily ever after with your loved ones or whatever after death.
> I'm naturally pretty scared of death too, but I can't bring myself to rely on a fairy tale to bring me comfort.


What comfort does intelligence bring before death, then?


----------



## Khaki (Aug 14, 2013)

Lizzie said:


> What comfort does intelligence bring before death, then?



No more taxes?


----------



## MochiElZorro (Aug 14, 2013)

Lizzie said:


> What comfort does intelligence bring before death, then?



An escape route...? Hell if I know. Never really got that. I generally feel like atheists (only applies to atheists... duh) rationalize death by saying things like they won't feel being dead or anything anyways, but when they're dying, they're terrified of disappearing, despite all their previously 'accepting' their inevitable death. Probably. Not a clue if it's true, just speculation from what I've heard some atheists say about death.


----------



## Neon Poi (Aug 14, 2013)

I don't understand why there's some weird comfort vs. intelligence thing going on. Can't we just acknowledge that they both add things to a person's life? It's not about one being better or worse than the other, they're just both facets of a person. 

Looks like other people already covered the correllation does not equal causation thing. I'm unimpressed by this study. It's not bad, but it isn't groundbreaking either. It's one of those kinds of things that just raises questions, not answers. With this, there are possible directions to go with future research, but as is it is impossible to make anything out of it. The article itself did a nice job of explaining these constraints.


----------



## Furcade (Aug 14, 2013)

Neon Poi said:


> It's one of those kinds of things that just  raises questions, not answers...there are possible directions to go with  future research...



"Are religious people less intelligent?" is not exactly the most  pressing question facing the scientific community. Like you said,  they're both just facets of a person that add things to a person's life,  so why should we want to connect them? What do we gain from knowing that there is some correlation between intelligence and religion? Like, I wouldn't think that there'd be some neurological reason that intelligent people are less religious. Sure, you note a pattern in behaviour but I really can't see that leading to anything significant.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 14, 2013)

Lizzie said:


> What comfort does intelligence bring before death, then?



A successful and rich life. In the words of Leonardo da vinci "As a well-spent day brings happy sleep, so a life well spent brings happy death,"



Furcade said:


> "Are religious people less intelligent?" is not  exactly the most  pressing question facing the scientific community.  Like you said,  they're both just facets of a person that add things to a  person's life,  so why should we want to connect them? What do we gain  from knowing that there is some correlation between intelligence and  religion? Like, I wouldn't think that there'd be some neurological  reason that intelligent people are less religious. Sure, you note a  pattern in behaviour but I really can't see that leading to anything  significant.



This is, in essence, the most often repeated argument structure against blue sky science. 'My imagination isn't good enough to see what implications this study has, therefore it's not very useful,'. 

Now that a trend has been established, the establishment of a mechanism- if there is one- presents itself. Learning how to process meta data in this way has far reaching implications.


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 14, 2013)

Lizzie said:


> _Le Capitaine_ might be too busy drinking champagne. :3c



Indeed I was! I like champagne, it tickles :3
But now I am gonna hit this bitch head on! 


I see it like this: If someone believes in nonsense like creationism instead of evolution and abiogenesis that person is too stupid to grasp the most basic scientific facts. End of story.


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 14, 2013)

Lizzie said:


> What comfort does intelligence bring before death, then?



Simple. If you are an intelligent and rational person you see death as something natural. Something that is part of life.

And to answer it with another question as well: What comfort does something offer that is simply not true? Is it healthy to rely on a fairy tale to comfort yourself?


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 14, 2013)

On the subject, are people really contrasting comfort with intelligence as '_neither being better than the other_'. If a large study indicates that magical comforts tend to be at odds with intelligence, that is precisely the point brought up. 

We do not however need this study of intelligence to realise this. Political demagoguery designed to appeal to magical comforts we might have already provides a strong platform to criticise deriving our inner peace from holy texts. 

This is outlined in terror management theory which has a mechanism. Whether or not intelligence is indicated, the manipulation of people by threatening their magical comforts serves as a stark reminder that religious beliefs are not isolated from our reasoning capabilities. 

For instance, Christians will tend to perceive Jewish and Christian individuals' personalities [who are otherwise exactly equal] as equally good individuals when asked to rate them. However, if you mention death before undertaking the study the Christian group rates the outsider, the Jew, significantly more negatively. 

Denying death is the purpose of religious comfort, and the mention of death alone is enough to set about constructing monoculture.


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 14, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Denying death is the purpose of religious comfort, and the mention of death alone is enough to set about constructing monoculture.



Exactly.
Religious people aren't stupid in general. There are tons of brilliant people out there who happen to believein fairytales. Their beliefs are just irrational. And irrational beliefs can lend to irrational behavior and opinions.


----------



## CannonFodder (Aug 14, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Simple. If you are an intelligent and rational person you see death as something natural. Something that is part of life.


As someone who has nearly died before let me just say this:  Everyone is fucking terrified of dying, we just bullshit ourselves to death making ourselves believe that we're not actually pissing our pants in fear of the thought of dying.


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 14, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> As someone who has nearly died before let me just say this:  Everyone is fucking terrified of dying, we just bullshit ourselves to death making ourselves believe that we're not actually pissing our pants in fear of the thought of dying.



I am terrified about _how_ I'm gonna die. I'd be perfectly happy with dying of old age in my sleep or something like that. But the idea that some loonatic could potentially end my life in the most brutal and painful way at any moment or that I could get some nasty deadly disease is an awful thought.
But death in itself? Yeah, I am cool with that.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 14, 2013)

Death in itself frightens me. Arguments of symmetry, that death will be identical to the billions of years before my life- in which I was never hurt at all- don't make me any less repulsed by the thought of non existence.


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 14, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Death in itself frightens me. Arguments of symmetry, that death will be identical to the billions of years before my life- in which I was never hurt at all- don't make me any less repulsed by the thought of non existence.



I see it like this:
Not existing is still better than existing forever. Because if you did live forever you are gonna run out of stuff to do and at some point your life will be so boring that you wish you could die.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 14, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> I see it like this:
> Not existing is still better than existing forever. Because if you did live forever you are gonna run out of stuff to do and at some point your life will be so boring that you wish you could die.



And when they were stranded in the desert, they made a religion to worship thirst.


----------



## Neon Poi (Aug 14, 2013)

Furcade said:


> "Are religious people less intelligent?" is not exactly the most  pressing question facing the scientific community. Like you said,  they're both just facets of a person that add things to a person's life,  so why should we want to connect them? What do we gain from knowing that there is some correlation between intelligence and religion? Like, I wouldn't think that there'd be some neurological reason that intelligent people are less religious. Sure, you note a pattern in behaviour but I really can't see that leading to anything significant.


Yeah, honestly, the research seems a little too close to... What's the word for it? It's like how research on marijuana has only focused on the harm of it rather than the medical benefits. It's letting a prejudice guide research. It ends up generating useless or even harmful information more than helping.


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 14, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> And when they were stranded in the desert, they made a religion to worship thirst.



I am genuinely afraid of something completely different.
I am afraid of ever being in a situation like that and starting to believe in supernatural nonsense because of it. Because that would be the day I lost my ability to think critically, it would be the day I've gone insane.



Neon Poi said:


> Yeah, honestly, the research seems a little too close to... What's the word for it? It's like how research on marijuana has only focused on the harm of it rather than the medical benefits. It's letting a prejudice guide research. It ends up generating useless or even harmful information more than helping.



Religious people are more prone to reject scientific facts like evolution though. But in that case you would still have to check whether their religion is making them unreasonable or if they really are too stupid to grasp simple scientific concepts.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 14, 2013)

Neon Poi said:


> Yeah, honestly, the research seems a little too close to... What's the word for it? It's like how research on marijuana has only focused on the harm of it rather than the medical benefits. It's letting a prejudice guide research. It ends up generating useless or even harmful information more than helping.



If the results had shown a _positive _correlation or no difference this concern wouldn't exist; your interpretation is entirely contingent on the data, rather than the question which was asked.


----------



## Seekrit (Aug 14, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Religious people are more prone to reject scientific facts like evolution though. But in that case you would still have to check whether their religion is making them unreasonable or if they really are too stupid to grasp simple scientific concepts.



This is my biggest annoyance when arguing with religious types. They reject fact and assault me with 'why do you _believe_ in evolution?' and the like. I _dont_ believe in evolution; I accept it as fact. Oddly enough whenever I threaten to drop a glass on the floor to demonstrate another 'theory' no one lets me. That's usually followed by a quick definition of how science works motherfucker >:O

The hopeful part of me wants to believe in something though, namely that these people aren't actually stupid but just raised with superstitious beliefs. It takes a while to shake off indoctrination.


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 14, 2013)

Seekrit said:


> This is my biggest annoyance when arguing with religious types. They reject fact and assault me with 'why do you _believe_ in evolution?' and the like. I _dont_ believe in evolution; I accept it as fact. Oddly enough whenever I threaten to drop a glass on the floor to demonstrate another 'theory' no one lets me. That's usually followed by a quick definition of how science works motherfucker >:O
> 
> The hopeful part of me wants to believe in something though, namely that these people aren't actually stupid but just raised with superstitious beliefs. It takes a while to shake off indoctrination.



I once had an interesting talk with one of those loonies.
He was all like "No it's not a fact! There is no way random chance can create life!"
After he couldn't answer some simple questions like "What does ATP stand for and what is it's function?" I had demonstrated to him that he has NO BLOODY IDEA ABOUT BIOLOGY AT ALL and asked him how a moron like him has the audacity to say anything about evolution.
Unsurprisingly he had never heard about Richard Lenski's experiments as well which do demonstrate that evolution has nothing to do with random chance at all.


----------



## Seekrit (Aug 14, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> I once had an interesting talk with one of those loonies.
> He was all like "No it's not a fact! There is no way random chance can create life!"
> After he couldn't answer some simple questions like "What does ATP stand for and what is it's function?" I had demonstrated to him that he has NO BLOODY IDEA ABOUT BIOLOGY AT ALL and asked him how a moron like him has the audacity to say anything about evolution.
> Unsurprisingly he had never heard about Richard Lenski's experiments as well which do demonstrate that evolution has nothing to do with random chance at all.



I tried using that approach too, but it always ends with 'look at you using your big words'. Then it dawns that I could just make up any old shite; even if I smacked their face in with a basic biology textbook no amount of verifiable evidence is enough to convince an idiot he's wrong. This thread is making me hate people again.

It is amazing though. Some people are willing to accept religion without a shred of evidence, yet reject science without even looking at the evidence so easily obtainable to study.


----------



## Bliss (Aug 14, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> And to answer it with another question as well: What comfort does something offer that is simply not true? Is it healthy to rely on a fairy tale to comfort yourself?


If one is dying, it would not really matter. :U


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 14, 2013)

Seekrit said:


> I tried using that approach too, but it always ends with 'look at you using your big words'. Then it dawns that I could just make up any old shite; even if I smacked their face in with a basic biology textbook no amount of verifiable evidence is enough to convince an idiot he's wrong. This thread is making me hate people again.
> 
> It is amazing though. Some people are willing to accept religion without a shred of evidence, yet reject science without even looking at the evidence so easily obtainable to study.



I think it's remarkable that some people reject perfectly logical scientific ideas and instead believe that we were created from dust! 



Lizzie said:


> If one is dying, it would not really matter. :U



I am talking about clinging to a lie for all your life. Not just when you are close to death.


----------



## MochiElZorro (Aug 14, 2013)

On the subject of disproving religion...

" Religion is not about facts or realities. It is about beliefï»¿ and emotion. Which is why it frustrates many people when they try to use logic to disprove it, and the believers don't care, listen, or argue against it. Sure the evidence can be totally against the belief's truthfulness but that really doesn't matter to the faith. Just look at the flat earth society. Arguing against belief with logic is a futile and waste of energy, especially on the internet where there is no weight to words. "

(Would you believe a comment like this came from Youtube, of all places?)


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 14, 2013)

MochiElZorro said:


> On the subject of disproving religion...
> 
> " Religion is not about facts or realities. It is about beliefï»¿ and emotion. Which is why it frustrates many people when they try to use logic to disprove it, and the believers don't care, listen, or argue against it. Sure the evidence can be totally against the belief's truthfulness but that really doesn't matter to the faith. Just look at the flat earth society. Arguing against belief with logic is a futile and waste of energy, especially on the internet where there is no weight to words. "
> 
> (Would you believe a comment like this came from Youtube, of all places?)



This is a nice explanation why the concept of faith is a load of shit.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Aug 14, 2013)

MochiElZorro said:


> On the subject of disproving religion...
> 
> " Religion is not about facts or realities. It is about beliefï»¿ and emotion. Which is why it frustrates many people when they try to use logic to disprove it, and the believers don't care, listen, or argue against it. Sure the evidence can be totally against the belief's truthfulness but that really doesn't matter to the faith. Just look at the flat earth society. Arguing against belief with logic is a futile and waste of energy, especially on the internet where there is no weight to words. "



Trying to use logic to refute religion is infinitely retarded though. You can't disprove (or prove) something that is inherently unprovable. The whole concept of a god or a deity is designed in a way that we can never be able to 100% know if it exists or not. Sure you can disprove certain elements of a religion (creationism, young earth, etc.), but how do you know that's truly the word of god as opposed to the babbling of some random asshole 2,000 years ago? The whole argument is stupid because it's an argument in which literally no one can ever hope to win.


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 14, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> Trying to use logic to refute religion is infinitely retarded though. You can't disprove (or prove) something that is inherently unprovable. The whole concept of a god or a deity is designed in a way that we can never be able to 100% know if it exists or not. Sure you can disprove certain elements of a religion (creationism, young earth, etc.), but how do you know that's truly the word of god as opposed to the babbling of some random asshole 2,000 years ago? The whole argument is stupid because it's an argument in which literally no one can ever hope to win.



The whole thing is nothing but an argument from ignorance. So you are exactly right, you can't prove or disprove the claim of a logical fallicy. You can only prove that it really _is_ a logical fallicy.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Aug 14, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> The whole thing is nothing but an argument from ignorance. So you are exactly right, you can't prove or disprove the claim of a logical fallicy. You can only prove that it really _is_ a logical fallicy.



If believing their is a god of some kind is a logical fallacy than believing 100% their isn't one must also be a logical fallacy. It's a two way street, believing something is completely true without any evidence is silly. Believing something is completely untrue without any proof is also really silly.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Aug 14, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> If believing their is a god of some kind is a logical fallacy than believing 100% their isn't one must also be a logical fallacy. It's a two way street, believing something is completely true without any evidence is silly. Believing something is completely untrue without any proof is also really silly.


there*

And how often do you see magicians on your daily life?


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 14, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> If believing their is a god of some kind is a logical fallacy than believing 100% their isn't one must also be a logical fallacy. It's a two way street, believing something is completely true without any evidence is silly. Believing something is completely untrue without any proof is also really silly.



I never ever said that there is no higher power at all. There _could_ be a higher power. I don't believe that's the case but since this is entirely unkowable for us right now it would be silly to say it can't exist just like it is silly to say that it does definitely exist.

But what I do know is that the gods of all those religions that humanity came up with definitely don't exist. And that position is perfectly valid. These people are making a claim and I am rejecting it. There is no evidence that any of those gods exist and the fairytales that they are tied to are riddled with logical fallicies and contradictions.


----------



## Artillery Spam (Aug 14, 2013)

Hinalle K. said:


> there*
> 
> And how often do you see magicians on your daily life?



Often, actually.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Aug 14, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> But what I do know is that the gods of all those religions that humanity came up with definitely don't exist. And that position is perfectly valid. These people are making a claim and I am rejecting it. There is no evidence that any of those gods exist and the fairytales that they are tied to are riddled with logical fallicies and contradictions.



How do you know those "fairy tales" have any true connection to whether or not Yaweh, Allah, or whatever god you can think of exist? It's pretty easy to disprove many of the stories in the Bible or the Qur'an, however it's entirely possible that a God similar to what they purport may still exist despite these stories being full of shit. You can have one without the other (just ask your average American protestant if they think the biblical flood with Noah actually happened, or any other Bible story).


----------



## MochiElZorro (Aug 14, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> How do you know those "fairy tales" have any true connection to whether or not Yaweh, Allah, or whatever god you can think of exist? It's pretty easy to disprove many of the stories in the Bible or the Qur'an, however it's entirely possible that a God similar to what they purport may still exist despite these stories being full of shit. You can have one without the other (just ask your average American protestant if they think the biblical flood with Noah actually happened, or any other Bible story).



A common one I've heard to explain it goes something like (and don't quote me on this): "When you talk to your child, who knows next to nothing about the world, about something they can't understand, what do you tell him? Stories. Same with the Bible: if God indeed exists and is omniscient (or at least compared to us he is), then telling a primitive species who can barely work with metal who he is, why they are there, et cetera would probably be infinitely difficult without resorting to parables and moral stories. Even Jesus resorts to parables when teaching about heaven: when he gives the straight dope he is ousted and called blasphemous..." or something along those lines, it goes on for a while. Again, don't quote me or anything, I've only heard it twice and I have a terrible memory.


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 14, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> How do you know those "fairy tales" have any true connection to whether or not Yaweh, Allah, or whatever god you can think of exist? It's pretty easy to disprove many of the stories in the Bible or the Qur'an, however it's entirely possible that a God similar to what they purport may still exist despite these stories being full of shit. You can have one without the other (just ask your average American protestant if they think the biblical flood with Noah actually happened, or any other Bible story).



The stories are nonsense. That much is obvious. They don't have any conncetion to anything, they are just a primitive way to try explaining the world. That is a given.
But the existence of these higher powers that they talk about? That is still completely unknowable. Again, sure there could be some sort of higher power! But as long as it's existence is unknowable I just don't see why I should care about it.
I like to focus on what I actually can know.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Aug 14, 2013)

MochiElZorro said:


> A common one I've heard to explain it goes something like (and don't quote me on this): "When you talk to your child, who knows next to nothing about the world, about something they can't understand, what do you tell him? Stories. Same with the Bible: if God indeed exists and is omniscient (or at least compared to us he is), then telling a primitive species who can barely work with metal who he is, why they are there, et cetera would probably be infinitely difficult without resorting to parables and moral stories. Even Jesus resorts to parables when teaching about heaven: when he gives the straight dope he is ousted and called blasphemous..." or something along those lines, it goes on for a while. Again, don't quote me or anything, I've only heard it twice and I have a terrible memory.


And that fits in with the whole concept of gods and other similar things being beyond our comprehension, adding to the notion that we can never truly prove or disprove their existence. 




CaptainCool said:


> The stories are nonsense. That much is  obvious. They don't have any conncetion to anything, they are just a  primitive way to try explaining the world. That is a given.
> But the existence of these higher powers that they talk about? That is  still completely unknowable. Again, sure there could be some sort of  higher power! But as long as it's existence is unknowable I just don't  see why I should care about it.
> I like to focus on what I actually can know.



And with that we find something we both can agree on.


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 14, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> The stories are nonsense. That much is obvious. They don't have any conncetion to anything, they are just a primitive way to try explaining the world. That is a given.
> But the existence of these higher powers that they talk about? That is still completely unknowable. Again, sure there could be some sort of higher power! But as long as it's existence is unknowable I just don't see why I should care about it.
> I like to focus on what I actually can know.



So wait a minute. 

Nothing Jesus said has any connection to anything? No relevance to even a secular life? Really? 

Methinks you need to do something that my Interpersonal Communications teacher said to do, and think about the stories not literally, but metaphorically. Now I'm not sure what religion he is, but my friend Perri, who's agonistic mind you, had the same ideas. To actually study the bible means more than knowing who said this, who did that, and why David's family had issues. It's to study the words, the meanings, the ideas within. It's like claiming Dream Parallax (If anything were written for it) or Spectral Shadows has no connection to anything, and are just stories. Maybe if you just read the story but to study it...that's how you unlock the meanings; and it'll either be the author's intended meaning, or your own. Take it from someone who thinks about song lyrics and the things they might mean.


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 14, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> So wait a minute.
> 
> Nothing Jesus said has any connection to anything? No relevance to even a secular life? Really?
> 
> Methinks you need to do something that my Interpersonal Communications teacher said to do, and think about the stories not literally, but metaphorically. Now I'm not sure what religion he is, but my friend Perri, who's agonistic mind you, had the same ideas. To actually study the bible means more than knowing who said this, who did that, and why David's family had issues. It's to study the words, the meanings, the ideas within. It's like claiming Dream Parallax (If anything were written for it) or Spectral Shadows has no connection to anything, and are just stories. Maybe if you just read the story but to study it...that's how you unlock the meanings; and it'll either be the author's intended meaning, or your own. Take it from someone who thinks about song lyrics and the things they might mean.



Yes, really. Because all this metaphotical nonsense means that I can interprete it any way I see fit.


----------



## Seekrit (Aug 14, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Yes, really. Because all this metaphotical nonsense means that I can interprete it any way I see fit.



You need only look at the last thousand years or so to see why this is a _bad _thing.


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 14, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Yes, really. Because all this metaphotical nonsense means that I can interprete it any way I see fit.



If you're reading it as just a piece of literature and not some be all end all book of morality like lots of religious people do, then why is this a bad thing?

Seriously, this is like if I brought up thinking about "The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway" metaphorically and you it me with that interpret it however I want argument.


----------



## Azure (Aug 14, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> So wait a minute.
> 
> Nothing Jesus said has any connection to anything? No relevance to even a secular life? Really?
> 
> Methinks you need to do something that my Interpersonal Communications teacher said to do, and think about the stories not literally, but metaphorically. Now I'm not sure what religion he is, but my friend Perri, who's agonistic mind you, had the same ideas. To actually study the bible means more than knowing who said this, who did that, and why David's family had issues. It's to study the words, the meanings, the ideas within. It's like claiming Dream Parallax (If anything were written for it) or Spectral Shadows has no connection to anything, and are just stories. Maybe if you just read the story but to study it...that's how you unlock the meanings; and it'll either be the author's intended meaning, or your own. Take it from someone who thinks about song lyrics and the things they might mean.


so are you going to take the good metaphorical nonsense with the bad? or are you just going to cherry pick like everyone else?

if the bible was purely metaphorical, then why the fuck do billions TAKE IT LITERALLY? oh, i forgot, they are low intelligence, fear filled, tradition bound, socially pressured golems. man, that was CLOSE.

i mean, hell, the histroicity of jesus is really spotty at best, especially when compared to other very minor prophets, and the biblical accounts of his teaching and sayings are written decades if not centuries after his death, with none of the writers having been present for any of that stuff. they had to rely on what was passed down orally or what rare literature they came across. so really, nobody knows what the fuck jesus said, or if he even existed. the strongest argument even well versed scholars specific to the subject is that there may or may not have been a dude named jesus around that time. cool. i know a jesus, he works at auto zone, but he aint no miracle worker.


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 14, 2013)

Azure said:


> so are you going to take the good metaphorical nonsense with the bad? or are you just going to cherry pick like everyone else?
> 
> if the bible was purely metaphorical, then why the fuck do billions TAKE IT LITERALLY?



I'm not claiming that it was written purely metephorical, I'm saying that you can look at it from a metephorical point of view and get various meanings from it. 

Jeez guys, calm down. I'm not accounting for every religious or non religius person, juuust putting fourth an idea for consideration.


----------



## Seekrit (Aug 14, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> I'm not claiming that it was written purely metephorical, I'm saying that you can look at it from a metephorical point of view and get various meanings from it.
> 
> Jeez guys, calm down. I'm not accounting for every religious or non religius person, juuust putting fourth an idea for consideration.



If you want to take meaning from metaphor and allegory, there's plenty of philosophy to read. Equally as worthless, but people don't fight holy wars over Spinoza.


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 14, 2013)

Seekrit said:


> If you want to take meaning from metaphor and allegory, there's plenty of philosophy to read. Equally as worthless, but people don't fight holy wars over Spinoza.



I'll read and take meaning from whatever I like thank you very much. I think music and stories provide plenty of ideas for me as is.


----------



## Seekrit (Aug 14, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> I'll read and take meaning from whatever I like thank you very much. I think music and stories provide plenty of ideas for me as is.



Just remember there's plenty of other things to draw meaning from. You don't _have_ to rely on the Bible.


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 14, 2013)

Seekrit said:


> Just remember there's plenty of other things to draw meaning from. You don't _have_ to rely on the Bible.



You're talking to a captialist that is willing to read the communist manifesto to see 1)Things from Marx's perspective and 2)To see what he can learn from it. 

In other words, don't worry sir, I already don't rely solely on the bible.

Also Azure? Linking to evil bible? Really? You might as well linked to Joy of Satan if you're going to go that route. Ironically, that site is a prime example of how anyone can interpret anything in the bible and twist it to their own agenda. In that site's case, making the bible seem as horrible and as evil as possible in order to bring the sword against people who are Christians. 

For example, the site claims that Jesus came here with the purpose to destroy families. Objection, Jesus simply _knew_ that his messages would not bring peace, but conflict. Not because his message advocates violence, or his followers (at the time) were violent, but because he knew of the violent reactions from the opposition that his message would bring. Like with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Wherever he went he was met with trouble not because he advocated violence, but because his message of peace and love was hated by those who benefited from the then current broken system. 

The passages they "quote" are so butchered it's like when you splice together unreleated soundbytes to make it sound like a politician you don't like supports beheading homosexuals.

That site's so pathetic I feel sorry for people who still take it as seriously as you do. Maybe if you chose to study the bible for yourself as I seek to do, perhaps then you'd actually understand it a bit more.


----------



## Seekrit (Aug 14, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> You're talking to a captialist that is willing to read the communist manifesto to see 1)Things from Marx's perspective and 2)To see what he can learn from it.
> 
> In other words, don't worry sir, I already don't rely solely on the bible.



Don't take it personally, I'm just used to Christians being very uncool to me about where _I _draw meaning from. Sorry I took it out on you.


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 14, 2013)

Seekrit said:


> Don't take it personally, I'm just used to Christians being very uncool to me about where _I _draw meaning from. Sorry I took it out on you.



It's alright. No harm no foul.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Aug 14, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> If believing their is a god of some kind is a logical fallacy than believing 100% their isn't one must also be a logical fallacy. It's a two way street, believing something is completely true without any evidence is silly. Believing something is completely untrue without any proof is also really silly.



Do you realize how rediculous that sounds?

So...I just made up Ogar the One Eyed Invisible Green Fradderwack. He created all of existence. It is a logical fallacy to say I am full of horseshit? No it is not. Because it is not on the burden of others to give credience or thought to what someone claims is real. That's up to claimant to prove. Just because you make something up doesn't mean I have to at least be agnostic about it.


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Aug 14, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> Believing something is completely untrue without any proof is also really silly.


 Proof of non-existence, LOL. I can see what you mean, but you don't say it that way.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 14, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> If believing their is a god of some kind is a logical fallacy than believing 100% their isn't one must also be a logical fallacy. It's a two way street, believing something is completely true without any evidence is silly. Believing something is completely untrue without any proof is also really silly.



My bum is full of invisible magic hedgehogs. It is equally as unreasonable to call me wrong as it is to agree with me. :V



MochiElZorro said:


> A common one I've heard to explain it goes  something like (and don't quote me on this): "When you talk to your  child, who knows next to nothing about the world, about something they  can't understand, what do you tell him? Stories. Same with the Bible: if  God indeed exists and is omniscient (or at least compared to us he is),  then telling a primitive species who can barely work with metal who he  is, why they are there, et cetera would probably be infinitely difficult  without resorting to parables and moral stories. Even Jesus resorts to  parables when teaching about heaven: when he gives the straight dope he  is ousted and called blasphemous..." or something along those lines, it  goes on for a while. Again, don't quote me or anything, I've only heard  it twice and I have a terrible memory.




Or, rather than using stories which are indistinguishable from myths which humans regularly create by themselves anyway [any real god must acknowledge humans will have already invented their own make believe gods] an all knowing all powerful being could...

-Appear physically in person for everyone, rather than appearing in dreams and legends.
-If he or she were to appear in dreams, legends and books chucking in 'by the way, f=ma you can thank me when you invent space travel,' 

I there is a God, he or she obviously doesn't _want_ to be observed and must therefore be one of schroedinger's cats. 

There is absolutely no realistic reason that any deity would want people to 'believe in me without seeing me', because a large number of humans will end up believing in complete nonsense.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Aug 14, 2013)

Man, I wish so bad that the ancient Greek or Norse mythology hadn't died out and opened way for the lame-ass ones today.

Their gods were way more METAL. 
What do we got now? Some long haired hippie for the westerners and a bearded camel-loving old man for the easties.

*Booooooring!!!!*



Funny thing is, I'm pretty sure most people would think you're crazy if you told them you believed in those mythologies of old!
What makes your personal fairy tale more real than mine? :c


----------



## Cain (Aug 14, 2013)

Ain't like it doesn't make sense.

Intelligence causes people to question and actually think, rather than follow blindly. Why must the intelligent person follow under guidelines set by a foreign entity which nobody knows anything about, but yet said entity is attributed to almost everything?

People should read more Nietzsche.


----------



## Fernin (Aug 15, 2013)

Cain said:


> Ain't like it doesn't make sense.
> 
> Intelligence causes people to question and actually think, rather than follow blindly. Why must the intelligent person follow under guidelines set by a foreign entity which nobody knows anything about, but yet said entity is attributed to almost everything?
> 
> People should read more Nietzsche.



I can't condone any references to looking into Nietzsche at anything more than face value since the man would have refuted the existence of air if he could have gotten away with it. (That is to say in my opinion unless he was slapped in the face with the very thing itself, he didn't believe it).

The rest of your post however I fully agree with.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Aug 15, 2013)

Trpdwarf said:


> Do you realize how rediculous that sounds?
> 
> So...I just made up Ogar the One Eyed Invisible Green Fradderwack. He created all of existence. It is a logical fallacy to say I am full of horseshit? No it is not. Because it is not on the burden of others to give credience or thought to what someone claims is real. That's up to claimant to prove. Just because you make something up doesn't mean I have to at least be agnostic about it.



It's as valid as any other religious belief system. The only difference between your example and say Christianity is that Christianity has a 2,000+ year history and millions of followers and Ogar is replaced with God. Most things are able to disproven, religious deities by their very nature aren't.





Fallowfox said:


> My bum is full of invisible magic hedgehogs. It  is equally as unreasonable to call me wrong as it is to agree with me.  :V


"Hey guys if I come with increasingly silly example am I cool yet XDDD"


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 15, 2013)

Hinalle K. said:


> Man, I wish so bad that the ancient Greek or Norse mythology hadn't died out and opened way for the lame-ass ones today.
> 
> Their gods were way more METAL.
> What do we got now? Some long haired hippie for the westerners and a bearded camel-loving old man for the easties.
> ...



I used to know a fur on facebook that no lie, I think he followed Anubis, or maybe someone else from the egyptian mythology. 

I thought it was awesome. Because really, how many people do you know that legit say "I worship Ra. No, not _that_ Ra, the egyptian one!"

Though I agree, people would probably give the guy worshipping Anubis more weird looks than the Christian, and he'd probably get less hate on the nets too. I mean, I don't really imagine someone going "Why do you worship Ra? You know he's not real right? Obligatory anti-religious compulsory post!"


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Aug 15, 2013)

As an added bonus, the Ra-worshipper probably doesn't have a few million buddies with him that lets him ban me wearing green hats on Tuesdays.


----------



## Artillery Spam (Aug 15, 2013)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> As an added bonus, the Ra-worshipper probably doesn't have a few million buddies with him that lets him ban me wearing green hats on Tuesdays.



What?


----------



## Saga (Aug 15, 2013)

I'm waiting for it to happen.


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 15, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> It's as valid as any other religious belief system. The only difference between your example and say Christianity is that Christianity has a 2,000+ year history and millions of followers and Ogar is replaced with God. Most things are able to disproven, religious deities by their very nature aren't.
> 
> 
> "Hey guys if I come with increasingly silly example am I cool yet XDDD"



Surely you meant to say they are just as invalid.
That difference is also completely irrelevant. Both a 2000+ year history and millions of followers don't make it any more valid or true. It just makes it a bigger problem because people do tend to give things with a long history and lot's of followers more attention. Add the whole "you are gonna go to heaven after you die! " thing and you have a deal that many people are gonna fall for.

Also, I don't think the examples are getting increasingly silly because one of the silliest examples was made up 2000+ years ago


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 15, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Surely you meant to say they are just as invalid.
> That difference is also completely irrelevant. Both a 2000+ year history and millions of followers don't make it any more valid or true. It just makes it a bigger problem because people do tend to give things with a long history and lot's of followers more attention. Add the whole "you are gonna go to heaven after you die! " thing and you have a deal that many people are gonna fall for.
> 
> Also, I don't think the examples are getting increasingly silly because one of the silliest examples was made up 2000+ years ago



So...a God creating the earth is silly? My my my....if that's the case, then plenty of religions older than 2000+ years old are sillier than even this one. Because as you should know...there's been hundreds of religions before Christianity.

And of course heaven is a better deal that people would go for. I mean even with religions that HAD some sort of nice set up, there was usually some kind of heavy requirement. Take the Norse religion for example. The only way to get to Valhalla was to die in battle in a moment of glory...even if you are a soldier, dying outside of battle meant you would go to the same place everyone else did. Either that, or it was some kind of common, dreary place, like Hades.

So is it any wonder that people would follow Christianity, especially when all you need to do is believe essentially in order to get to paradise?


----------



## Fernin (Aug 15, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> So...a God creating the earth is silly? My my my....if that's the case, then plenty of religions older than 2000+ years old are sillier than even this one. Because as you should know...there's been hundreds of religions before Christianity.



God didn't just create the Earth! He created the universe too! A volume of space so great it's literally beyond human comprehension! All for the sake of one planet! And one perfect species made in HIS perfect image! Get it right you vapid halfwit!


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 15, 2013)

Fernin said:


> God didn't just create the Earth! He created the universe too! A volume of space so great it's literally beyond human comprehension! All for the sake of one planet! And one perfect species made in HIS perfect image! Get it right you vapid halfwit!



Objection

The bible never actually states what God's purpose with the Galaxy is...it's only the _followers_ who keep asserting that there's no life elsewhere, simply because the bible never said anything. But the main message of the bible seems to be Christianity/Judaism's history (Via the Old Testament) and the rise of the Savior and the spreading of the Gospel, and a vision about God's plans for us coming to a close (Via the New Testament). Seeing as the bible never says anything regarding life on other planets...it would be silly to say "No! We're the only ones!" simply because think about this: Knowing about life on other planets sure would increase our worldly knowledge, but I think aliens and where they are does nothing for one's soul, especially when the message is believing and being forgiven.

As Reverend Able would say, "He who rejects the possibilities demonstrates what a small mind he has".


----------



## Mayfurr (Aug 15, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> The bible never actually states what God's purpose with the Galaxy is...it's only the _followers_ who keep asserting that there's no life elsewhere, simply because the bible never said anything.



I've come across Christians who have used the absence of things from the bible as some sort of "proof" of their pet theological theories - my favourite one was the fellow who claimed that the non-mention of a US-like entity in Revelations meant that the United States was destined to fall and be erased from history. The fact that the bible was written many centuries before the US was even thought of didn't seem to make any difference... :roll:


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 15, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> So...a God creating the earth is silly? My my my....if that's the case, then plenty of religions older than 2000+ years old are sillier than even this one. Because as you should know...there's been hundreds of religions before Christianity.
> 
> And of course heaven is a better deal that people would go for. I mean even with religions that HAD some sort of nice set up, there was usually some kind of heavy requirement. Take the Norse religion for example. The only way to get to Valhalla was to die in battle in a moment of glory...even if you are a soldier, dying outside of battle meant you would go to the same place everyone else did. Either that, or it was some kind of common, dreary place, like Hades.
> 
> So is it any wonder that people would follow Christianity, especially when all you need to do is believe essentially in order to get to paradise?



-Yes, it is silly. Because it isn't supported by ANY evidence and because there is a shitload of evidence that proves the opposite.
-Yes, people like to go the easiest way. That still doesn't make the easiest way true.



Nikolinni said:


> As Reverend Able would say, "He who rejects the possibilities demonstrates what a small mind he has".



I don't reject possibilities, I reject nonsense that isn't supported by evidence. I don't just blindly follow something because it makes me feel good.


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 15, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> I don't reject possibilities, I reject nonsense that isn't supported by evidence. I don't just blindly follow something because it makes me feel good.



I honestly don't know why I felt the need to quote the good Reverend there at that point. I just felt like attaching that at the end. Maybe it was for anyone that feels they should constrain themselves to just the bible? 

But on topic, what you said here reminds me of something Buddha supposedly said: Test everything. Never blindly belive in something...he said this even of his own teachings. Don't just accept them because they're my teachings, go out and test them. The Bible has something like this, where Paul writes to one of the churches, telling them to test everything that's taught to you, even if it's in church. Of course, it has a christian twist to it, so it's testing it against "what's written" [most christians seem to apply this to the entire bible but then again, the books that compose it now weren't written with the idea of putting them into one volume in mind-- here I think he's most likely referring to anything passed down that Christ said or the scriptures Christ referred to], but again even with what people tell you in church.


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 15, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> I honestly don't know why I felt the need to quote the good Reverend there at that point. I just felt like attaching that at the end. Maybe it was for anyone that feels they should constrain themselves to just the bible?
> 
> But on topic, what you said here reminds me of something Buddha supposedly said: Test everything. Never blindly belive in something...he said this even of his own teachings. Don't just accept them because they're my teachings, go out and test them. The Bible has something like this, where Paul writes to one of the churches, telling them to test everything that's taught to you, even if it's in church. Of course, it has a christian twist to it, so it's testing it against "what's written" [most christians seem to apply this to the entire bible but then again, the books that compose it now weren't written with the idea of putting them into one volume in mind-- here I think he's most likely referring to anything passed down that Christ said or the scriptures Christ referred to], but again even with what people tell you in church.



People really should take that advice then. Because I am convinced that most believers would stop following their religion if they would just think critically about it for 5 minutes.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Aug 15, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Surely you meant to say they are just as invalid.
> That difference is also completely irrelevant. Both a 2000+ year history and millions of followers don't make it any more valid or true. It just makes it a bigger problem because people do tend to give things with a long history and lot's of followers more attention. Add the whole "you are gonna go to heaven after you die!" thing and you have a deal that many people are gonna fall for.



Never said it made it was anymore valid, I actually said it was just as valid (or invalid, whatever) as the example he pulled out of his ass on the spot. Point is believe whatever the fuck you want since you have just as much a chance at being "right" as the next asshole, don't be a dick, and stop arguing about stupid shit.


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 15, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> Never said it made it was anymore valid, I actually said it was just as valid (or invalid, whatever) as the example he pulled out of his ass on the spot. Point is believe whatever the fuck you want since you have just as much a chance at being "right" as the next asshole, don't be a dick, and stop arguing about stupid shit.



I ain't got no problem with personal beliefs. What rubs me the wrong is just when people are starting to spread lies based on their beliefs or when they are judging others based on it. That really is my problem that I have with it.
It also makes me said that less inteligent people tend to gravitate towards this stuff. I think it is sad that our educational systems re not capable of teaching simple scientific facts to everyone. And I am convinced that things like evolution can indeed be tought to everyone.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 15, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> It's as valid as any other religious belief system. The only difference between your example and say Christianity is that Christianity has a 2,000+ year history and millions of followers and Ogar is replaced with God. Most things are able to disproven, religious deities by their very nature aren't.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Unfortunately I didn't realise others had replied to you already. However the example is not silly, because any all powerful god would- if they so wished- be able to fill my bum up with invisible magic hedgehogs. 

The reason that your initial claim, that it is equally silly to reject them as wrong until proven right as accept them until proven wrong, is because the burden of proof is on the claimant. Newtonian physics was not accepted just because Newton postulated that the moon falls to earth like an apple does, it was because his proposal detailed a mechanism and was proven correct with the accurate prediction of the path of Haley's comet. 

If any religion _can_ do that then they deserve the same status as Sir Isaac.

The burden of proof is illustrated by a thought experiment called Russel's teapot. Bert Russel suggests there is a teapot floating in space just beyond the range of your best telescopes. If you invent a better telescope he moves the goalposts- perhaps the teapot is just beyond the range of that telescope too.
It would be impossible to prove the teapot is not there but it would be possible to find the teapot if it does exist.

Therefore the burden of proof is on Russel, who is making the claim. If he wants us to believe in the Teapot it is reasonable for him to substantiate the claim first. He are, until then, justified to be skeptics.


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 15, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Unfortunately I didn't realise others had replied to you already. However the example is not silly, because any all powerful god would- if they so wished- be able to fill my bum up with invisible magic hedgehogs.
> 
> The reason that your initial claim, that it is equally silly to reject them as wrong until proven right as accept them until proven wrong, is because the burden of proof is on the claimant. Newtonian physics was not accepted just because Newton postulated that the moon falls to earth like an apple does, it was because his proposal detailed a mechanism and was proven correct with the accurate prediction of the path of Haley's comet.
> 
> ...



"But people are entitled to have their opinion!" :V


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Aug 15, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> I ain't got no problem with personal beliefs.  What rubs me the wrong is just when people are starting to spread lies  based on their beliefs or when they are judging others based on it. That  really is my problem that I have with it.
> It also makes me said that less inteligent people tend to gravitate  towards this stuff. I think it is sad that our educational systems re  not capable of teaching simple scientific facts to everyone. And I am  convinced that things like evolution can indeed be tought to  everyone.



Oh yeah, I totally agree. Shit like creationism can be  scientifically disproven and as such should not be treated with any kind  of legitimacy. Although I would say that the problem is not that they  can't teach it, it's just that many of the more "conservative" districts  and areas (i.e places like Texas and the United States Bible Belt in  general) are more pressured by certain fundamentalist lobbies or are  more willing to allow certain psuedo-sciences in since they personally  believe in them or that it would be politically advantageous.



Fallowfox said:


> Unfortunately I didn't realise others had replied to you already. However the example is not silly, because any all powerful god would- if they so wished- be able to fill my bum up with invisible magic hedgehogs.
> 
> The reason that your initial claim, that it is equally silly to reject them as wrong until proven right as accept them until proven wrong, is because the burden of proof is on the claimant. Newtonian physics was not accepted just because Newton postulated that the moon falls to earth like an apple does, it was because his proposal detailed a mechanism and was proven correct with the accurate prediction of the path of Haley's comet.
> 
> ...



Never said you were wrong to be skeptical, hell I'd pissed if you weren't I also never said that you need to accept something until proven wrong. I simply said that you cannot say with 100% certainty one way or the other. That's it.


----------



## MPF.C18-UNION.04.249 (Aug 15, 2013)

Insert snark here.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Aug 15, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> It's as valid as any other religious belief system. The only difference between your example and say Christianity is that Christianity has a 2,000+ year history and millions of followers and Ogar is replaced with God. Most things are able to disproven, religious deities by their very nature aren't.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You don't appear to have a good understanding of this topic dude. Really, learn some history in the near future about the evolution of religion, and how different things branched out. Christianity is nothing more than a melting pot of multiple other already existing religions (and Islam and Christianity actually come from the same common ground having it's roots in the same damn thing). It's flood story was borrowed from the Epic of Gilgamesh. It's laws and rules are derived straight from the Code of Hammurabi that is known even today from the Steele of Hammurabi.

It's countless stories have already been archaeologically disproven, leaving you with a tattered raiment that is okay for some good lessons, but not to be taken "literally". The resurrection story already existed before Christianity in Egyptian Religion. Why is it that today we pay no heed to the Egyptian Pantheon, and scoff at the revival of the Greek Gods, but when things like Islam and Christianity come up we're suddenly illogical to say "Oh um, about that? Not taking it seriously and not going to waste time pandering to the idea of it existing". This is stupid. 

I don't personally care if a person believes a Cuckoo Clock Of Doom is our lord and savior. Unless you came come up with some sort of evidence or proof, I"m not illogical for going "No I don't believe it". Burden is on you bro when you make the claim. There are many other religions much older than Christianity and it's equally absurd. At least with this concept that rejection is a fallacy.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Aug 15, 2013)

Trpdwarf said:


> Words words words words words words words


 
What the fuck does any of this have to do with what I said? Do you just want to show off how good you are at using Wikipedia and put words in my mouth or something? I'm not debating the fucking history of Christianity here. The only things that are remotely relevant are the last two sentences and I already addressed that if you actually read the thread. I don't care if you're a mod, don't be stupid.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Aug 15, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> What the fuck does any of this have to do with what I said? Do you just want to show off how good you are at using Wikipedia and put words in my mouth or something? I'm not debating the fucking history of Christianity here. The only things that are remotely relevant are the last two sentences and I already addressed that if you actually read the thread. I don't care if you're a mod, don't be stupid.



You are sitting here claiming that a person is engaging in a logical fallacy when they decide that these things don't exist. You are sitting here discreditting my example with "Oh well this one is older". You don't understand history and I don't use Wikipedia. I've been a educated atheist for the last 10 years and I know my shit. Before I was a mod here, I was the only active mod of a group of atheists and agnostics that number over the 1000's. 

You don't understand what you are talking about. It's silly to sit here and go "Well it's a logical fallacy to say 100 percent for sure it's not real!" If you understand real history, and how things actually evolve you will understand why your words are ignorant, and unintelligent.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Aug 15, 2013)

Trpdwarf said:


> You are sitting here claiming that a person is engaging in a logical fallacy when they decide that these things don't exist. *You are sitting here discreditting my example with "Oh well this one is older".* You don't understand history and I don't use Wikipedia. I've been a educated atheist for the last 10 years and I know my shit. Before I was a mod here, I was the only active mod of a group of atheists and agnostics that number over the 1000's.
> 
> You don't understand what you are talking about. It's silly to sit here and go "Well it's a logical fallacy to say 100 percent for sure it's not real!" If you understand real history, and how things actually evolve you will understand why your words are ignorant, and unintelligent.



Horseshit. Complete and utter horseshit. I was simply pointing that the only difference was their age, and that *both* where just as legitimate in despite one being thousands of years older. The fact that you lack such a basic reading comprehension and are attempting to pin beliefs that I don't actual have on me is completely absurd and proves how much an idiot you actually are. At no point was this discussion about any specific faith, or a particular belief-system, just a concept. Of course Mr. "Educated Atheist" over here has to show off how much random religious trivia he knows despite it not having any relevance to anything I was saying. I can't believe you can be this fucking dense, there's no way. 

By the way if we're insulting each other now, go fuck yourself you pretentious, pseudo-intellectual shithead.


----------



## Seekrit (Aug 15, 2013)

Trpdwarf said:


> I don't personally care if a person believes a Cuckoo Clock Of Doom is our lord and savior.



THE CLOCK WILL STRIKE MIDNIGHT ON YOU SOON, HEATHEN


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 15, 2013)

"It's as valid as any other religious belief system. The only difference  between your example and say Christianity is that Christianity has a  2,000+ year history and millions of followers and Ogar is replaced with  God. Most things are able to disproven, religious deities by their very  nature aren't."

In fairness, you did imply that the history of the religion is irrelevant. 

I would however say that it's not irrelevant, because if history shows you that a religion was quite literally made up like a piece of fiction, showing beyond a shadow of a doubt that the provenance is not divine, then this is grounds to say the religion is made up- because it is proof that it is.


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 15, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> What the fuck does any of this have to do with what I said? Do you just want to show off how good you are at using Wikipedia and put words in my mouth or something? I'm not debating the fucking history of Christianity here. The only things that are remotely relevant are the last two sentences and I already addressed that if you actually read the thread. I don't care if you're a mod, don't be stupid.



Well that was unreasonably harsh.

Not to mention that Trpdwarf definitely was on topic since you mentioned the 2000 years of history that christianity supposedly has.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 15, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Well that was unreasonably harsh.
> 
> Not to mention that Trpdwarf definitely was on topic since you mentioned the 2000 years of history that christianity supposedly has.



He said that the history was irrelevant, so his comment _was_ taken out of context.


----------



## Volkodav (Aug 15, 2013)

Religious people tend to be dumber.... what's news about that? Is there something I missed?


----------



## Mentova (Aug 15, 2013)

Guys keep this shit civil and mature please.


----------



## Volkodav (Aug 15, 2013)

I don't get it, is someone saying that religious deities aren't false?
....
Wha? Really?
Is there someone here that believes there actually lived a man with a peregrine falcon head?


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Aug 15, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> "It's as valid as any other religious belief system. The only difference  between your example and say Christianity is that Christianity has a  2,000+ year history and millions of followers and Ogar is replaced with  God. Most things are able to disproven, religious deities by their very  nature aren't."
> 
> In fairness, you did imply that the history of the religion is irrelevant.
> 
> I would however say that it's not irrelevant, because if history shows you that a religion was quite literally made up like a piece of fiction, showing beyond a shadow of a doubt that the provenance is not divine, then this is grounds to say the religion is made up- because it is proof that it is.



I was trying to argue on a conceptual level as opposed to arguing about the validity of a specific religion. If I came off otherwise it was my mistake. 



CaptainCool said:


> Well that was unreasonably harsh.
> 
> Not to mention that Trpdwarf definitely was on topic since you mentioned  the 2000 years of history that christianity supposedly has.



I mentioned it in the most passing way possible. You could have  taken it out completely and the point would still stand. In retrospect I  should haven't mentioned anything since I guess even referencing the  fact that a religion has history is enough to cause what's his face to  go on a fucking diatribe about how much smarter he is than you. 

Also  I felt it was harsh enough. There are very few things in life that fill me  with anger more than pseudo-intellectual elitists. He completely  deserved it.


----------



## Fernin (Aug 15, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> -Snipped for space-



I SINCERELY hope you didn't miss the the sarcasm my post was basted in. X3


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Aug 15, 2013)

Mentova said:


> Guys keep this shit civil and mature please.


 This is why I hate religious discussions. Nobody acts fucking mature and it's the same damn debates over and over.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Aug 15, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> This is why I hate religious discussions. Nobody acts fucking mature and it's the same damn debates over and over.



And it's always the other side's fault.


----------



## Kitsune Cross (Aug 15, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> This is why I hate religious discussions. Nobody acts fucking mature and it's the same damn debates over and over.



Lol no, I'm right, you are wrong, fuck you :V


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 15, 2013)

Trpdwarf said:


> It's countless stories have already been archaeologically disproven, leaving you with a tattered raiment that is okay for some good lessons, but not to be taken "literally". The resurrection story already existed before Christianity in Egyptian Religion.



Oh yeah? And what resurrection story are you alleging that they rip off? 

Because so help me God, if you say it was Horus...



Fallowfox said:


> I would however say that it's not irrelevant, because if history shows you that a religion was quite literally made up like a piece of fiction, showing beyond a shadow of a doubt that the provenance is not divine, then this is grounds to say the religion is made up- because it is proof that it is.



This is pretty much why I have no tolerance for Joy of Satan. Because here we have a religion you can actually disprove, as well as its many accusations. 

For example, it claims that "Father Enki" is the true creator, but was slandered by Those Evil Jewish People with the name Satan. So wait...if Enki is Satan's real name, and Satan is a slanderous name....why not call it "The Joy of Enki"? Or is that not as marketable as "Joy of Satan"?

It attacks almost exclusively Judasim and Christianity. I seriosly can't find anything attacking Islamic religions. Why is this important? Because the site claims that Enki is the one true God...so why not light Muslims up too? Also, it makes all these absurd claims, such as each letter in Jesus' name standing for each of the five elements (Fire, Water, Earth, Air, and one other one, I forgot). However, this is taking into account his translated _English_ name. Apparently our conspirators missed his name in the Hebrew Texts (Yahsua).

Furthermore, it believes in false ideas like "Jesus ripped off Horus!" Do some research; there's no academic evidence that Horus was born from a virgin in a cave -- this is false against the original legends because Isis _brought Osiris back from the dead and gave him a new phallic, did whoppee and out came Horus_; that Horus had Disciples or Apostles; That he was visited by three wise men (again, the conspirators seem to not be good at reading; the bible never said how many wise men visited Jesus when he was born; most people just use three). About the only thing in common between these two guys was that they each defeated an evil in their religion: Jesus defeats the plans of Satan, that is leading God's children away into sin, by dying on the cross and providing salvation by grace, allowing all to be forgiven for their sins; Horus kills Set, who is the god of Chaos (might want to fact check me there) and had killed Osiris. 

LaVeyan Satanists, Pagans, and (of course) Christians have debunked this sad excuse for a religion. And we didn't even get to where the "founders" of the religion came from and what their ideals were.

Returning back to what Trpdwarf said....

Why is it always the epic of Gilgamesh that people say Christianity ripped off? Do you not know How many other religions have a flood myth? I'd offer my own viewpoints on why religion has so many flood myths (And I don't mean explicitly Christianity), but one time I offered the idea that powers yet unexplored (Magic, PSI, Telekinesis, etc) could actually be a science that was undiscovered and the atheists I said that too acted in predictable fashion. 

Also, just because you're "An Educated Atheist" doesn't mean I or anyone here should take what you're saying until you _prove_ that you know what you're talking about. Besides, I had someone who often liked the whole "Oh atheists know more about the bible than christians!"

....they couldn't tell me what was important about Mt. Sinai in the bible.


----------



## Bliss (Aug 15, 2013)

Hinalle K. said:


> Man, I wish so bad that the ancient Greek or  Norse mythology hadn't died out and opened way for the lame-ass ones  today.


The undeniable truth is that the world came to be from an egg a goldeneye laid on the knee of a wise man, who was the child of an air goddess and seawater.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 15, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> snippy snip.



In regards to the flood myth I think they_ all_ ripped off an average rise in sea levels occurring at the end of Pleistocene glacial. 






http://www.ancient-code.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/2.gif

[of course, some land has actually risen out of the sea too, mostly the areas which were squashed under ice sheets, but the net effect of releasing all that water was to submerge large areas of land that were probably inhabited and traversed by humans, such as the doggerland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland]


----------



## Volkodav (Aug 15, 2013)

Here's something that everybody will enjoy. It's from Facebook.


"On her radio show, Dr.Laura said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Schlesinger, written by a US man, and posted on the internet. It's funny, as well as quite informative:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the alter of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev. 24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan, 

James M. Kauffman,

Ed.D. Professor Emeritus,

Dept. of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia

P.S. (It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a Canadian.)"


----------



## Azure (Aug 15, 2013)

shit i smite the fuck out of all my friends when they violate gods laws, no matter how minor or controversial. i just roll up on any barbershop and i start unloading on those sinners with my fully automatic JK-47 (the jk is for jesus krist)


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Aug 15, 2013)

I could hear my brain cell's cries of terror as they died by the millions reading that repost, Clayton. Anyone who would take these baboonish 'laws' seriously may as well blow themselves up in a daycare center.
Scratch that, they belong in a zoo, that their moral and intellectual superiors may ridicule them until their final, rancid breath.


----------



## Khaki (Aug 16, 2013)

Clayton said:


> Is there someone here that believes there actually lived a man with a peregrine falcon head?



The bloke really liked his falcons, he used to hang out with a group of like minded people with an interest in animals.


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 16, 2013)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> I could hear my brain cell's cries of terror as they died by the millions reading that repost, Clayton. Anyone who would take these baboonish 'laws' seriously may as well blow themselves up in a daycare center.
> Scratch that, they belong in a zoo, that their moral and intellectual superiors may ridicule them until their final, rancid breath.



Well suffice to say there was a _reason_ why Jesus made it so people didn't have to follow them anymore -- to say nothing about how the Pharisees were abusing the Laws already.

I also found that copypasta hilarious. I do believe that Paul, when writing to one of the churches (forgot which one) made some statement like if you follow part of the law, you will be held accountable for _the whole thing_. So in other words, all those people cherry picking the Mosaic Laws are held accountable for not following whatever laws they choose to disregard. 

Man, I really need to read the NT again so I can roll out quotes more efficiently.


----------



## Seekrit (Aug 16, 2013)

Khaki said:


> The bloke really liked his falcons, he used to hang out with a group of like minded people with an interest in animals.



I see what you did there and it made me smile.


----------



## Volkodav (Aug 16, 2013)

I like how Jesus backpedaled into the new testament ahhahaha
No, sorry, people won't forget your dickery.


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 16, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Well suffice to say there was a _reason_ why Jesus made it so people didn't have to follow them anymore -- to say nothing about how the Pharisees were abusing the Laws already.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Man, I really need to read the NT again so I can roll out quotes more efficiently.



Jesus didn't do anything because he didn't freaking exist! The bible supposedly says that you don't have to follow those laws anymore (it doesn't by the way but that's a different story) because people are lazy and want to eat shellfish. So they created a loophole to get rid of the whole OT. End of story. And in the process they forgot that the ten commandments are still part of the OT so it is irrelevant but not really. It is also still "the word of gawd" so it's not irrelevant but it still kind of is.
What the bloody fuck...

And no, please don't :c


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 16, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Jesus didn't do anything because he didn't freaking exist! The bible supposedly says that you don't have to follow those laws anymore (it doesn't by the way but that's a different story) because people are lazy and want to eat shellfish. So they created a loophole to get rid of the whole OT. End of story. And in the process they forgot that the ten commandments are still part of the OT so it is irrelevant but not really. It is also still "the word of gawd" so it's not irrelevant but it still kind of is.
> What the bloody fuck...
> 
> And no, please don't :c



Okay look. Please stop saying "HE DIDN'T EXIST! POINT MOOT!" Because it's really starting to piss me off. Not just with you though. I'll legit see someone post an honest question about the bible and some idiot comes in like "God doesn't exit lolololol", as if it's some grand argument that renders the entire discussion moot. Seriously, these are the Atheists (With a capital A) that scares good people like Perri away from your group. 

So whenever I offer an argument about the bible, how about we either just assume the events happened for the sake of argument, or assume we're arguing it as if it were just a story, regardless of if the events therein happened in reality or not. Because honestly, Jesus' existence is irrlelevant when I'm arguing _about what's written in the book_. This is like if I argued something from a CS Lewis book and you told me "Aslan didn't do anything because he didn't exist!". 

All that aside, people got lazy and wanted shellfish? Are you kidding me? Have you actually read and studied the bible or are you just that dim when it comes to biblical events? Or wait, did some atheist page like Evil Bible or Skeptics' Bible tell you to think that? Aren't atheists supposed to think for themselves and not let others tell them what to think? 

As stated in my last post, one of the main reasons was 1)To offer people an easier path to salvation and 2)Because the Pharisees were abusing the Law of Moses and working around it or abusing it towards others. If you actually read the story, or hell even read a plot summary, you'd get that. Jesus rattled off plenty of woes at them for a reason. 

Also, how could they "forget" about the 10 commandments, _when Jesus referenced them himself?_ Or wait, I know! In version 4.5 of the gospels they went, "Uh Oh! We fucked up! We forgot about the 10 commandments! Quick, we'll just add a quote here and there and there we go!"

In each of the gospels he quotes the ten commandments here and there, as well as the love God with all your heart line and the Love Thy Neighbor line, BOTH of which were commandments. 

And the OT is relevant, because as I stated before, it shows where God's people were, and the things that happened. Also serves as a reference for what NOT to do. It's also kinda needed because hey, again, people in the NT quoted the OT. So by having both books together, it makes it easier to research and look up what they were saying. I mean even if you look at it from a story standpoint, they're two parts of one huge, big story with an overarching concept. Not smart to keep one and omit the other. 

The Commandments are still relevant because they are _commandments_ not _laws_. Seriously, are you trying to troll me? 

I know you don't care about the bible much, but educate yourself before making arguments like that. It's honestly almost as frustrating as fighting all the Pain Elementals Doom II kept throwing at me. And God, I hate those damn things.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 16, 2013)

This is giving me a headache. Holy texts have in my view, throughout the most influential times of history, been tugged in all directions to suit the whims of their worshipers.

The Spanish exploited evangelical instructions in the Bible in order to justify their massacre of kingdoms in the Americas. 
Buddhists on Sri lanka exploited Buddhist teachings in order to justify the murder of the island's other occupants because, not being Buddhist they were 'just animals'. 
Manifest Destiny in the United States.
The Christianisation of Europe.
and in the modern day calls of lesser Jihad and the vague concept of shari'ah law used to establish authoritarian states and satellite terrorist organisations. 

Clearly many worshipers decide what conclusion they will reach and then search their texts to justify it. In the cases mentioned all these cultures stood to benefit from conquest, and despite all these religions having instructions to be peaceful, empathic and to avoid killing they looked to their holy texts and justified conquest _anyway_. 

One could imaging swapping holy texts among different cultures, or even giving them fictions such as Beowulf, and the only things that would change would be the colours of their ritualistic clothing.


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 16, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> This is giving me a headache. Holy texts have in my view, throughout the most influential times of history, been tugged in all directions to suit the whims of their worshipers.
> 
> The Spanish exploited evangelical instructions in the Bible in order to justify their massacre of kingdoms in the Americas.
> Buddhists on Sri lanka exploited Buddhist teachings in order to justify the murder of the island's other occupants because, not being Buddhist they were 'just animals'.
> ...



Yeah, that is an issue. I just see myself as arguing to do what the book says, and my findings on what it says seems to contradict what a lot of atheists claim it says to do or not do. But this has brought me into conflict with other churches too. My whole "Jesus and the law" arguments weren't actually in response to atheists claiming we were bound by the law, but arguments against religious people on the internet and my Ex's church (They were that Spanish Apolsolic thing) where they seemed to arbirarily pick and choose what laws to follow. Apparently girls wearing pants was sinful, you couldn't wear jewelry or tatoos, no dancing (seriously) but...it's okay to eat shellfish. 

And don't even get me started on the whole speaking in tongues thing.

Also for what you're post, what are you getting at? I get the idea about how a text can be abused to fit what the person desires, but does that mean the text is at fault, or the people are at fault?


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 16, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Yeah, that is an issue. I just see myself as arguing to do what the book says, and my findings on what it says seems to contradict what a lot of atheists claim it says to do or not do. But this has brought me into conflict with other churches too. My whole "Jesus and the law" arguments weren't actually in response to atheists claiming we were bound by the law, but arguments against religious people on the internet and my Ex's church (They were that Spanish Apolsolic thing) where they seemed to arbirarily pick and choose what laws to follow. Apparently girls wearing pants was sinful, you couldn't wear jewelry or tatoos, no dancing (seriously) but...it's okay to eat shellfish.
> 
> And don't even get me started on the whole speaking in tongues thing.



When a book which has been translated and mistranslated numerous times is subjectively interpreted it is, I'm afraid, inevitable that everyone will be picking and choosing. Even if the narrative one group creates is self-consistent it's possible to extract several different narratives by translating to a different language. 

This is probably why, if there really was a god, the ambiguous language of the written word would not be their chosen method to communicate with humanity, especially since it is only recently that much of the world has become literate. 

But what does stand true, I think, is that if something written in a holy text is truly wise and truly helpful that it would be just as wide and helpful if it were written in any other book. When religious people argue, so much effort is put into deciphering the true intentions of the book's authors, but that time might be spent much more effectively discussing whether, if the quote was assumed to have been found in a standard book, it deserves to be in a holy one. 

That's much more transparent and it eliminates people resorting to arguments of authority to tell women they can't wear trousers.


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 16, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Okay look. Please stop saying "HE DIDN'T EXIST! POINT MOOT!" Because it's really starting to piss me off. Not just with you though. I'll legit see someone post an honest question about the bible and some idiot comes in like "God doesn't exit lolololol", as if it's some grand argument that renders the entire discussion moot. Seriously, these are the Atheists (With a capital A) that scares good people like Perri away from your group.
> 
> So whenever I offer an argument about the bible, how about we either just assume the events happened for the sake of argument, or assume we're arguing it as if it were just a story, regardless of if the events therein happened in reality or not. Because honestly, Jesus' existence is irrlelevant when I'm arguing _about what's written in the book_. This is like if I argued something from a CS Lewis book and you told me "Aslan didn't do anything because he didn't exist!".
> 
> ...



The fact that Jesus didn't exist wasn't my main point. My main point is that people are always looking for and creating new loopholes to water down the bible and to bend the texts so that they can say anything they want with it.

And no, I am not gonna assume that the events in there happened "for the sake of the argument". If your argument is based on a book of fairy tales I am not going to let you make that point period. I simply don't accept arguments that are specifically fabricated to make your position look better.

No, I am not kidding you. I am serious, I just exaggerated. Jesus is nothing but a loophole to bridge the old and the new testament so that the "unchanging god" can _change_ from a brutal asshole into a loving hippie.

Sure, he quotes the ten commandments. Now what? They were still intruduced on the OT and it's rules were supposedly abolished.

I am fully aware that people wanted an "easier pass to salvation" and that others were abusing it. Which is exactly my point! They watered it down. And people today are still abusing it.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 16, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> The fact that Jesus didn't exist wasn't my main point. My main point is that people are always looking for and creating new loopholes to water down the bible and to bend the texts so that they can say anything they want with it.
> 
> And no, I am not gonna assume that the events in there happened "for the sake of the argument". If your argument is based on a book of fairy tales I am not going to let you make that point period. I simply don't accept arguments that are specifically fabricated to make your position look better.
> 
> ...



I think you're missing the point on 'assume it's correct'. 

If I was discussing the true meaning of Alice in Wonderland I would entertain the notion of the characters and story without actually being forced to believe they exist somewhere.


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 16, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Sure, he quotes the ten commandments. Now what? They were still intruduced on the OT and it's rules were supposedly abolished.
> 
> I am fully aware that people wanted an "easier pass to salvation" and that others were abusing it. Which is exactly my point! They watered it down. And people today are still abusing it.



Its _laws _were abolished. Commandment=/=Law.


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 16, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> I think you're missing the point on 'assume it's correct'.
> 
> If I was discussing the true meaning of Alice in Wonderland I would entertain the notion of the characters and story without actually being forced to believe they exist somewhere.



From my own experience this doesn't go anywhere though. 
It goes from "let's assume the flood happened" to "let's assume god is real".
It let's them build an argument on something that has yet to be proven by them which makes arguing for and against it pretty much pointless.



Nikolinni said:


> Its _laws _were abolished. Commandment=/=Law.



What exactly is the difference between "thou shalt have no other gods" and "don't eat shellfish"? Aren't commandments like that laws as well?


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 16, 2013)

Oh I wouldn't go that far. Id at least settle for just arguing the events as if it were just a story. I just get tired of people trying to hand wave good arguments I make with "doesn't matter, never happened".

And yeah, you are to follow the commandments just as you do the laws, but these were commandments from God, not laws that moses created or penned. 

Besides, if the commandments were laws, why not just call them laws? Why not Gods Laws instead of God Commandments?


----------



## Mike Lobo (Aug 16, 2013)

All of this stuff goes way over my head. I'll just stick to video games.


----------



## Mayfurr (Aug 16, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> And yeah, you are to follow the commandments just as you do the laws, but these were commandments from God, not laws that moses created or penned.



It's funny how 40% of the "Ten Commandments" are basically saying "Worship me and me alone you puny mortals!", while an actual useful commandment along the lines of "Thou shalt not *rape*" is conspicuously absent. Apparently God thinks that rape isn't as bad as killing or lying...


----------



## Neon Poi (Aug 16, 2013)

Mayfurr said:


> It's funny how 40% of the "Ten Commandments" are basically saying "Worship me and me alone you puny mortals!", while an actual useful commandment along the lines of "Thou shalt not *rape*" is conspicuously absent. Apparently God thinks that rape isn't as bad as killing or lying...



I love how in the ten commandments, you are compelled to respect your parents, but nowhere is it said that you should respect and cherish your children. It's like he forgot to write in half a commandment.


----------



## Seekrit (Aug 16, 2013)

Mike Lobo said:


> All of this stuff goes way over my head. I'll just stick to video games.



This makes you wiser than the rest of us, you know. Live life instead of discussing the implications religion has on it.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 16, 2013)

Mayfurr said:


> It's funny how 40% of the "Ten Commandments" are basically saying "Worship me and me alone you puny mortals!", while an actual useful commandment along the lines of "Thou shalt not *rape*" is conspicuously absent. Apparently God thinks that rape isn't as bad as killing or lying...



On the subject of repeating commandments, it sounds like a degenerate code to me, like DNA. Why have all those commandments, or unnecessary codons, which say the same thing? Because a mutation in one commandment wouldn't corrupt the information. 

Religions which only had one commandment for worship may have died out for this reason.


----------



## Mayfurr (Aug 16, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> On the subject of repeating commandments, it sounds like a degenerate code to me, like DNA. Why have all those commandments, or unnecessary codons, which say the same thing? Because a mutation in one commandment wouldn't corrupt the information.
> 
> Religions which only had one commandment for worship may have died out for this reason.



Which says a lot about the priorities of religion. "Keep the faith" trumps "Don't be a dick", so as long as you're keeping the faith being a dick isn't so bad...


----------



## MochiElZorro (Aug 16, 2013)

You know, if the bible had outlined exactly how not to be a dick and everything NOT to do, it would've taken a whole anthology of books as thick as dictionaries. Just a thought I had while reading.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 16, 2013)

MochiElZorro said:


> You know, if the bible had outlined exactly how not to be a dick and everything NOT to do, it would've taken a whole anthology of books as thick as dictionaries. Just a thought I had while reading.



Oh I don't know; if I had the intellect of a God at my disposal I think I could have a crack at it. Firstly I wouldn't put my creations on a planet where the majority of species are parasites, because they're not very good role models. x3


----------



## MochiElZorro (Aug 16, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Oh I don't know; if I had the intellect of a God at my disposal I think I could have a crack at it. Firstly I wouldn't put my creations on a planet where the majority of species are parasites, because they're not very good role models. x3



But considering how ignorant, stubborn, and selfish humans naturally are, we'd still find some way to fuck it all up.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 16, 2013)

MochiElZorro said:


> But considering how ignorant, stubborn, and selfish humans *naturally are*, we'd still find some way to fuck it all up.



and, if one is a believer, who is responsible for this? 

One might say satan, but that suffers the same problem because satan was created by god. 

Inevitably arguments of free will will be invoked, because we'd just be lifeless automatons if we didn't have in-built desires to murder rape and pillage, but it's still the same problem. 

If you were God, would you not create a universe in which free will existed, but suffering did not? We already live in a universe where free will exists but zhurgging does not. 

Apparently, God instead chooses to create universes mostly full of interstellar hydrogen and deadly radiation
... and on the one planet that there is life that life mostly parasitises and is not even aware of its own existence
...and of the few species that _are_ aware of their existence most are not aware of the God's existence
...and of the one species which _is_ aware of the God's existence most believe in the wrong God by no fault of their own
...and these different religions spend much of their history slaughtering each other over this trivial disagreement. 

...and in order to solve this problem a book was made telling humans which God was the real one, but the truth of its claims are indistinguishable from a thousand other books about false Gods which do not exist.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Aug 17, 2013)

Mayfurr said:


> It's funny how 40% of the "Ten Commandments" are basically saying "Worship me and me alone you puny mortals!", while an actual useful commandment along the lines of "Thou shalt not *rape*" is conspicuously absent. Apparently God thinks that rape isn't as bad as killing or lying...



It's almost as if it was a truncated list of commandments taken from somewhere else.


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 17, 2013)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> It's almost as if it was a truncated list of commandments taken from somewhere else.



God I really should stop posting from my phone. It's just blegh. 

What I was trying to say was: We've already had someone assert that Christians ripped off the Code of Hammurabi. So...now we have someone saying we ripped off Egyptians. So I guess we ripped off both people? Jeez, when you think about it, we rip off a lot of people. But what if we find a religion has commandments that are similar to any before it? Does that mean they've ripped off other people before them? 

Or, what if ideas like taking God's name in vain not being good (Whether you mean "--- Damnit" or saying that you're speaking for your God), not bearing false witness being good, and not coveting are just basic ideas that any person or God drumming up some commandments for would include?



Mayfurr said:


> It's funny how 40% of the "Ten Commandments" are basically saying "Worship me and me alone you puny mortals!", while an actual useful commandment along the lines of "Thou shalt not *rape*" is conspicuously absent. Apparently God thinks that rape isn't as bad as killing or lying...



What do you think "You shall not covet" means? Y'know...you can covet a _person_ too; in fact the commandment even says not to covet someone's wife. Rape would pretty much be acting on that coveting, wouldn't you think? Or do you need it to say "Thou shalt not covet (yea, verily this doth include rape)".


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 17, 2013)

Apparently I mis-fired and quoted myself in addition to Mayfurr. Apologies.


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 17, 2013)

MochiElZorro said:


> You know, if the bible had outlined exactly how not to be a dick and everything NOT to do, it would've taken a whole anthology of books as thick as dictionaries. Just a thought I had while reading.



But why use a book to outline how not to be a dick? Why use a method that can easily corrupted over the years through misstranslations and people adding new stuff to it?


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 17, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> But why use a book to outline how not to be a dick? Why use a method that can easily corrupted over the years through misstranslations and people adding new stuff to it?



Well then, pray tell enlighten us how we would outline how not to be a dick in a non-corruptible format? Because word-of-mouth won't fare any better, really.


----------



## Mayfurr (Aug 17, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> What do you think "You shall not covet" means?



Actually, "coveting" isn't about actions, it's about _desire_. In other words, "coveting" is thoughtcrime - not the actual deed.



Nikolinni said:


> Y'know...you can covet a _person_ too; in fact the commandment even says not to covet someone's wife. Rape would pretty much be acting on that coveting, wouldn't you think?



No, it doesn't - because as I said, "coveting" is about having the desire or lust for something. The commandment is basically saying "Don't even _think_ about it."

But even allowing for "desire leads to actions, therefore banning the desire is the same as banning the action", "coveting" also relates to _things_ as well as people - and there's a direct commandment against stealing as well as "coveting". Even if your argument that "Thou shalt not covet..." covers rape is true, the "Ten Commandments" still place _stealing _as something twice as bad as *rape.* Nice one.

And by the way, it's nice how that commandment classifies wives as about the same level as servants and _livestock_, eh? That'll be because when the "Ten Commandments" came out women were pretty much viewed as men's property.



Nikolinni said:


> Or do you need it to say "Thou shalt not covet (yea, verily this doth include rape)".



Damn right it should have. I wonder why it doesn't, given _stealing _is essentially prohibited twice. I guess God couldn't spare one of his four self-glorifying commandments for sex crimes, gotta keep that ego stoked up...


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 17, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Well then, pray tell enlighten us how we would outline how not to be a dick in a non-corruptible format? Because word-of-mouth won't fare any better, really.



How about actually coming down here and personally telling people not to be dicks instead of cryptic nonsense that can be interpreted any way you see fit?


----------



## Mayfurr (Aug 17, 2013)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> It's almost as if it was a truncated list of commandments taken from somewhere else.



Five out of 42 Egyptian commandments relate to God - that's 88% of the commandments for the people.
Four out of 10 Abrahamic commandments relate to God - so that's only 60% the commandments for the people.

It appears that the Egyptians had a more rounded view of what's important for society than the Abrahamic religions.


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 17, 2013)

I think I should just stop arguing religion on FAF. It gets tiring being the only one actually trying to argue in favor of this stuff. Seriously. 

I mean, I get how people want to not be bothered by religion, and I'm very much the same way: Respect me and I'll respect you. You don't have to respect my beliefs, and if you detest them, then at least show some self control (IE don't always post "GOD ISN'T REAL LOLOLOLOL" whenever religion is brought up). If I can control myself not to knock on other peoples' ways of life, even when I disagree with it, I'm sure others can. 

So yeah, consider this my "Quitting while I still can" message.


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 17, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> I think I should just stop arguing religion on FAF. It gets tiring being the only one actually trying to argue in favor of this stuff. Seriously.
> 
> I mean, I get how people want to not be bothered by religion, and I'm very much the same way: Respect me and I'll respect you. You don't have to respect my beliefs, and if you detest them, then at least show some self control (IE don't always post "GOD ISN'T REAL LOLOLOLOL" whenever religion is brought up). If I can control myself not to knock on other peoples' ways of life, even when I disagree with it, I'm sure others can.
> 
> So yeah, consider this my "Quitting while I still can" message.



It is tough to argue in favor of something that makes no sense at all no matter how you look at it. It's not just that I don't want to be bothered by it, I think it is dangerous and should disappear completely.

Also, no I don't respect you or your beliefs. I tolerate you as a person, you didn't do anything to earn my respect as far as I know.
I can't tolerate your beliefs though because I think they are nonsensical and dangerous.
But I don't have a general problem with personal beliefs that are kept personal. There is nothing I can do about those anyway.


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 17, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> It is tough to argue in favor of something that makes no sense at all no matter how you look at it. It's not just that I don't want to be bothered by it, I think it is dangerous and should disappear completely.
> 
> Also, no I don't respect you or your beliefs. I tolerate you as a person, you didn't do anything to earn my respect as far as I know.
> I can't tolerate your beliefs though because I think they are nonsensical and dangerous.
> But I don't have a general problem with personal beliefs that are kept personal. There is nothing I can do about those anyway.



Well I just mean respect in the sense that we act civil towards each other -- that is refrain from disrespectful behavior (which I think of as patronizing, name calling, talking down to, trying to act superior, etc). Kind of a "Give respect get respect" type thing. 

Though I'm fine with people not respecting me. Just don't resort to low blows and we'll be fine.

Anyways, sorry for derailing this topic so much with the "I give up" posts.


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 17, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Well I just mean respect in the sense that we act civil towards each other -- that is refrain from disrespectful behavior (which I think of as patronizing, name calling, talking down to, trying to act superior, etc). Kind of a "Give respect get respect" type thing.
> 
> Though I'm fine with people not respecting me. Just don't resort to low blows and we'll be fine.



But respect in itself is something that you have to earn. You are talking about acceptance and tolerance.
For example, I tolerate almost everyone, no matter what views they have. Then there are people whom I show acceptance towards, like trans people and the entire LGBT community.
There are also some worldviews that I tolerate and accept. Views that have at least a little substance to them and don't hurt anyone or that don't cause any problems but that I personally don't agree with I can tolerate. But things like most religions that are based on nothing but fairytales and that cause a LOT of bigotry, hate and even wars (just look at what's going on in Egypt right now!) I can't even show tolerance for.

But respect is something that you earn. People who actively work to make all our lives better deserve respect for example.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 17, 2013)

It has been mentioned that Christianity, like many other religions, imported teachings and stories from previous religions. Doubt however was cast on this conclusion because many religions share the same teachings, so it is improbable that Christianity imported its teachings from _all of them_. 

Quite simply the fact that many previous religions shared Christianity's teachings and stories massively improves the probability that Christianity imported them, because these teachings and stories have already obviously spread successfully between many religions in the past; that's why so many religions share them in common. 

It is vastly more probable that memes which were already successful in jumping between religions did so again to Christianity, rather than being introduced by divinity.


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Aug 17, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> It has been mentioned that Christianity, like many other religions, imported teachings and stories from previous religions. Doubt however was cast on this conclusion because many religions share the same teachings, so it is improbable that Christianity imported its teachings from _all of them_.
> 
> Quite simply the fact that many previous religions shared Christianity's teachings and stories massively improves the probability that Christianity imported them, because these teachings and stories have already obviously spread successfully between many religions in the past; that's why so many religions share them in common.
> 
> It is vastly more probable that memes which were already successful in jumping between religions did so again to Christianity, rather than being introduced by divinity.


 Or, they could have just shared the similar opinions, which is why varies religions teach similar things. Kind of like how people in general religious or not will teach similar things. For instance, an atheist might teach people the same things jesus supposedly taught. I hear people saying nowadays "Love everyone equally" "don't judge others" etc.. and come from people who aren't very religious.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 17, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> Or, they could have just shared the similar opinions, which is why varies religions teach similar things. Kind of like how people in general religious or not will teach similar things. For instance, an atheist might teach people the same things jesus supposedly taught. I hear people saying nowadays "Love everyone equally" "don't judge others" etc.. and come from people who aren't very religious.



The close geographic location and the shared mythological elements probably make it likely that they shared the same views because they read the same texts. 

That's why a lot of religions which are monotheistic with a heaven and hell model emerged around the middle east. But I get your point.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Aug 17, 2013)

The sharing of beliefs is a complicated mixture of politics, culture, economics, and everything else.  Roman Catholicism is full of Pagan ideas and beliefs (the date for Christmas, the use of 'saints' [i.e. minor deities], burning incense, etc.) because the incorporation of such things made it more palatable for the largely Pagan masses to switch over to the new order, for example.  A conquering empire has good reason to get everybody on the same page when it comes to religion; religion is one of the biggest sources of contention between and amongst people, clearly, so fractured religious beliefs means a fractured empire, which cannot stand for long.  But cultures are still different, so different cultures use their old beliefs to interpret the new ones, retain some old practices, and so on.  Extrapolate from the time most of the Biblical canon was written to the modern day and you've got a whole lot of diffusion going on.
The argument that 'maybe some beliefs are just universal' is sort of smoothing over all those other factors, and hence seems a bit naive to me.  Maybe that's the case, but I think at this stage it's almost impossible to tell.  And then certain things that are clearly not universal but are common anyway (deity being sacrificed then rising from the dead three days later, which shows up both in the story of Jesus and the story of Osiris, as I recall) are almost certainly borrowed, so there is some evidence that religious beliefs do intermingle.


Anyway, back to the study for a bit... I don't know if anyone mentioned this (I'm not reading this whole thread), but I find it interesting that, while the authors found a mild anti-correlation between religious 'beliefs' and intelligence, the anti-correlation was much weaker/was non-existent between religious practice and intelligence.  In other words, going to church wasn't apparently related to intelligence for any of the groups, except maybe college-educated people (but then to a rather low degree).  They pin this on the idea that people can go to church for a lot of secular reasons (mainly as a social event), but in my experience most atheists don't go to church for any reason (from experience, it's rather uncomfortable listening to a sermon when you don't buy a word the preacher is saying).  I wonder if there's some way to take into account the rather smooth distribution of the degree of religious belief (i.e. those folks who attend church and claim belief in God, but otherwise don't put much thought into it).  It's a meta-study, so who knows how many of the studies tried to account for subtle things like that.  It might just be a problem endemic to the topic; after all, 'intelligence' and 'religious belief' are notoriously hard to pin down quantitatively.
I also get concerned when I see 'mean correlation = -0.14 (SD = 0.15)', and then the authors only quote the 95 confidence interval.  Basically this means it's a 1-sigma result.  In astronomy that's usually okay, but I don't know about the social sciences (anyone familiar enough with that to indicate whether or not it's a concern?).  Also, what does the distribution actually look like?  Means and medians appeared roughly similar, so maybe it's Gaussian, but there's no way to tell from the study, so it's hard to pin how much confidence you can put on 'the mean correlation' as being an actual representative number.  Presumably they took this stuff into account?
So there's a few things that could use some clarification before the result could be interpreted to any degree of confidence.  Obviously it's not good enough to say 'religious people are stupider than atheists'.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 17, 2013)

I'm not sure whether the study indicated religious practice without belief was common. It might be rare, so your anecdote about most atheists not going to church and there being little relation between religious practice and belief could both be correct. 

In the UK however it's reasonably common for non believers to go to church at christmas and large numbers of people without any religious beliefs baptise their children [I was baptised even though my parents don't believe]


----------



## Khaki (Aug 17, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> But respect in itself is something that you have to earn. You are talking about acceptance and tolerance.
> For example, I tolerate almost everyone, no matter what views they have. Then there are people whom I show acceptance towards, like trans people and the entire LGBT community.
> There are also some worldviews that I tolerate and accept. Views that have at least a little substance to them and don't hurt anyone or that don't cause any problems but that I personally don't agree with I can tolerate. But things like most religions that are based on nothing but fairytales and that cause a LOT of bigotry, hate and even wars (just look at what's going on in Egypt right now!) I can't even show tolerance for.
> 
> But respect is something that you earn. People who actively work to make all our lives better deserve respect for example.



Would you respect a religious person who volunteers their time helping others?


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Aug 17, 2013)

Khaki said:


> Would you respect a religious person who volunteers their time helping others?


 I do.


----------



## Azure (Aug 17, 2013)

fuck the 10 commandments


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 17, 2013)

Khaki said:


> Would you respect a religious person who volunteers their time helping others?



If you help others that's really cool but that doesn't have anything to do with being religious. 
It really depends in my opinion. If you help others like that because you think it's the right thing to do that definitely deserves some respect. If you do it because you think it will get you into heaven and you don't really care about those who you are helping you are a scumbag.



Azure said:


> fuck the 10 commandments



That guy is a genuis.


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Aug 17, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> If you help others that's really cool but that doesn't have anything to do with being religious.
> It really depends in my opinion. If you help others like that because you think it's the right thing to do that definitely deserves some respect. If you do it because you think it will get you into heaven and you don't really care about those who you are helping you are a scumbag.


 Well technically, believing in god encourages them to wanna help others. So, it's kind of both. It's not really black and white from my experience.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Aug 17, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> Well technically, believing in god encourages them to wanna help others. So, it's kind of both. It's not really black and white from my experience.


Are they helping because they're afraid god will smite them otherwise, or simply out of the good of their hearts?
If you absolutely NEED the encouragement to even behave like a good person, that some being will make you suffer for eternity if you do otherwise, I wouldn't really call that being a genuinely good person. 

Religion has nothing to do [or at least shouldn't] with one's capacity of being benevolent.


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 17, 2013)

Hinalle K. said:


> Are they helping because they're afraid god will smite them otherwise, or simply out of the good of their hearts?
> If you absolutely NEED the encouragement to even behave like a good person, that some being will make you suffer for eternity if you do otherwise, I wouldn't really call that being a genuinely good person.
> 
> Religion has nothing to do [or at least shouldn't] with one's capacity of being benevolent.



My point exactly.


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 17, 2013)

Hinalle K. said:


> Are they helping because they're afraid god will smite them otherwise, or simply out of the good of their hearts?
> If you absolutely NEED the encouragement to even behave like a good person, that some being will make you suffer for eternity if you do otherwise, I wouldn't really call that being a genuinely good person.
> 
> Religion has nothing to do [or at least shouldn't] with one's capacity of being benevolent.



I think it might maybe have to do with "Oh hey, I'm this kind of person, so I should be like X". For example, Perri often says that if you're a "Christian" you should strive to be like Christ (Makes sense, the darn religion is _named_ after him). 

But I see what you're getting at. You shouldn't need a religion to force you into doing just basic good things like helping out people, not stealing, etc. That's why I never really favored the whole "If we didn't have God's laws we'd all be killing each other" because it essentially says that yes, there are tons of religious people that appear to be good only because God will smite them. Often provoked with an opponent asking that same question ("So do you mean you'd/Christians would be a killer without God?").

For me though, it's mainly moral support, and I feel that some form of guidance does come from some kind of higher power, though I have no evidence for it. It's honestly usually odd coincidences like the answer to something I was wondering coming from someone else, or a tv show, song, something like that. 

I've even had some pretty dang odd encounters with fortune cookies too 0.o not with what's happened, but just with what's been said. 

Also, I agree with Cool's notion about motive. A religious person, or at least a Christian, should help people because again, that's what Christ did, because it was the right thing to do. If you're doing it because you think it'll get you a bigger lot in heaven, you're in the wrong religion my friend. It should be because you want to, not because you want some crown or recognition or whatever. 

Besides, if you're Christian, God knows your motives. So if someone thinks they're being slick with their good deeds well...I guess they've another thing coming.

Yes I realize I said I would stop arguing religion, but I see this more or less as a "My two cents on this" post. So I don't really view it as arguing for or against x:


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 17, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> For me though, it's mainly moral support, and I feel that some form of guidance does come from some kind of higher power, though I have no evidence for it. It's honestly usually odd coincidences like the answer to something I was wondering coming from someone else, or a tv show, song, something like that.
> 
> I've even had some pretty dang odd encounters with fortune cookies too 0.o not with what's happened, but just with what's been said.



I think the only reason why you are religions is because you are very easily impressed


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 17, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> I think the only reason why you are religions is because you are very easily impressed



Well what do you expect? I actually play and enjoy Call of Duty. 

</selfdeprecatinghumor>


----------



## Azure (Aug 17, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Well what do you expect? *I actually play and enjoy Call of Duty*.
> 
> </selfdeprecatinghumor>


i have lost so much respect for you just now :V


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 17, 2013)

Azure said:


> i have lost so much respect for you just now :V



Well to be honest the farthest I got was Modern Warfare 2. 

Though I started playing this little game called Counter Strike and, my God. I totally now understand why people say CoD has no skill involved.


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 17, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Well what do you expect? I actually play and enjoy Call of Duty.
> 
> </selfdeprecatinghumor>



It judst really concerns me that coincidences and fortune cookies are having such an effect on you!
Coincidences are just that. And fortune cookies are designed to screw with you.
Our mind is a pretty powerful thing and we are very susceptible to fooling ourselves. Sometimes it just takes a little critical thinking to figure that out.


----------



## Seekrit (Aug 17, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> I think it might maybe have to do with "Oh hey, I'm this kind of person, so I should be like X". For example, Perri often says that if you're a "Christian" you should strive to be like Christ (Makes sense, the darn religion is _named_ after him).
> 
> But I see what you're getting at. You shouldn't need a religion to force you into doing just basic good things like helping out people, not stealing, etc. That's why I never really favored the whole "If we didn't have God's laws we'd all be killing each other" because it essentially says that yes, there are tons of religious people that appear to be good only because God will smite them. Often provoked with an opponent asking that same question ("So do you mean you'd/Christians would be a killer without God?").



It's kinda funny actually, the most 'Christian' people I know don't even believe in God.


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Aug 17, 2013)

Hinalle K. said:


> Are they helping because they're afraid god will smite them otherwise, or simply out of the good of their hearts?
> If you absolutely NEED the encouragement to even behave like a good person, that some being will make you suffer for eternity if you do otherwise, I wouldn't really call that being a genuinely good person.
> 
> Religion has nothing to do [or at least shouldn't] with one's capacity of being benevolent.


 I think Christians, while you may think they be doing good so that they don't go to hell, I believe they do it out of good will as well. I see them very passionate on helping others. You know, most of them aren't like the westboro baptist church, really anyone can hate those people, including the crazy everyday Christians. Also again, I don't think it's black and white. I think it could be both. They might not be genuinely good human beings to your standards of what you interpret as good, but I don't think they are genuinely bad human beings either, knowing that other people commit worse things then they do. Some people even defend the people who do worse, it's just how the world works. Everyone has different standards. People do good in different ways, people do bad in others.


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 18, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> I think Christians, while you may think they be doing good so that they don't go to hell, I believe they do it out of good will as well. I see them very passionate on helping others. You know, most of them aren't like the westboro baptist church, really anyone can hate those people, including the crazy everyday Christians. Also again, I don't think it's black and white. I think it could be both. They might not be genuinely good human beings to your standards of what you interpret as good, but I don't think they are genuinely bad human beings either, knowing that other people commit worse things then they do. Some people even defend the people who do worse, it's just how the world works. Everyone has different standards. People do good in different ways, people do bad in others.



The problem that I see is that religion doesn't _encourage_ you to be good, it threatens you. And naturally people who are part of that religion are gonna take that threat seriously.
And since many religious people are completely logic-proof they aren't even capable of seeing the threats in the bible.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Aug 18, 2013)

CaptainCool said:
			
		

> The problem that I see is that religion doesn't encourage you to be good, it threatens you.


Well... I mean, you could say that about secular laws, too.  I'll freely admit that as an atheist, the major thing keeping me in line is the threat of retribution should I do something to hurt somebody (both legal and vigilante).  And actually, I tend to take fewer risks than a lot of people because those threats are very real to me; I bet it's much easier to justify circumventing various laws when the only punishment you're threatened with is some vague notion that something bad will happen to your disembodied soul after you're dead.  You'll note that even in religious societies, there are earthly laws and people there to enforce them.  If only God actually struck people with lightning when they stepped out of line.


----------



## Troj (Aug 18, 2013)

I'm one of those weird churchgoing atheists . I sometimes attend a local Lutheran church in my area, and I even served on its board for a year, because I like and value the people, and because they were very loyal to me at a difficult time in my life.



> It might just be a problem endemic to the topic; after all,  'intelligence' and 'religious belief' are notoriously hard to pin down  quantitatively.
> I also get concerned when I see 'mean correlation = -0.14 (SD = 0.15)',  and then the authors only quote the 95 confidence interval.  Basically  this means it's a 1-sigma result.  In astronomy that's usually okay, but  I don't know about the social sciences (anyone familiar enough with  that to indicate whether or not it's a concern?).  Also, what does the  distribution actually look like?  Means and medians appeared roughly  similar, so maybe it's Gaussian, but there's no way to tell from the  study, so it's hard to pin how much confidence you can put on 'the mean  correlation' as being an actual representative number.  Presumably they  took this stuff into account?
> So there's a few things that could use some clarification before the  result could be interpreted to any degree of confidence.  Obviously it's  not good enough to say 'religious people are stupider than atheists'.



Good analysis, Reynard. No, I don't know what the distribution looks like (though I can try to look it up) and yes, "intelligence" and "religiosity" are potentially loosey-goosey variables which could be defined and measured in a number of ways. 

For example, is "religiosity" defined by behaviors, or beliefs, or a combination? I've seen it defined all of those ways, by different social scientists. 

I was going to do my dissertation on some facet of religiosity, and decided against it, because it wasn't a construct I was ready to tackle at this level, or that any dissertation committee was going to even _allow_ me to tackle. 

I'd have to go back and read the paper to see how they did it in this case. 

90 and 95 confidence intervals are considered fine in the social sciences, if I understood you at this time in the morning .


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Aug 18, 2013)

M. LeRenard said:


> Well... I mean, you could say that about secular laws, too. I'll freely admit that as an atheist, the major thing keeping me in line is the threat of retribution should I do something to hurt somebody (both legal and vigilante).


 For me, it's because I know how it would affect others around me. I don't need laws to know not to do something wrong or if it hurts other people. Maybe the laws will make me realize the mistakes to better myself, but I mean c'mon. You're telling me you need laws to keep you from doing bad shit, and you try to obey them for the sake of your own punishment? You sound just like a typical Christian. For any atheist who thinks this way, I don't see how you're anymore just than the religious people you bitch about who do good onto others for the sake of their own punishment. At least there are Christians who are passionate about helping others and getting them saved, not saying saying that there aren't atheists who do it, but I am trying to say that you shouldn't simply label them as bad people or "not good" just because you simply see them do something you don't like. Don't try to make yourself look better than others, because you are just as human as they are.


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 18, 2013)

M. LeRenard said:


> I'll freely admit that as an atheist, the major thing keeping me in line is the threat of retribution should I do something to hurt somebody (both legal and vigilante).



I think we are talking about different things now. Sure, laws "threaten" you to stay in line or otherwise you will be punished. That is pretty obvious.
But I am talking about doing good on your own. Like helping little old ladies over the street, or helping them get their wheeled walker up some stairs.
I do that because I think it is the right thing to do. So if I am in a position where I can help others who genuinly need my assitance I just do it. One could argue that the satisfaction you get from that is the same kind of reward that religious people get because they think they are gonna go to heaven for helping others. But I disagree with that. I am helping for the sake of helping others, not for my own personal gain. And when I can I really do help others as much as possible. At work I even help people who have troubles with phones from other networks! My colleagues either don't do that at all or demand a fee for that. I mean, what am I supposed to do in that situation? Throw out an old lady or an old man because their problem technically doesn't have anything to do with the company I work for even though I am perfectly capable of helping them and even though I don't have anything else to do at the moment?


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Aug 18, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> I think we are talking about different things now. Sure, laws "threaten" you to stay in line or otherwise you will be punished. That is pretty obvious.
> But I am talking about doing good on your own. Like helping little old ladies over the street, or helping them get their wheeled walker up some stairs.
> I do that because I think it is the right thing to do. So if I am in a position where I can help others who genuinly need my assitance I just do it. One could argue that the satisfaction you get from that is the same kind of reward that religious people get because they think they are gonna go to heaven for helping others. But I disagree with that. I am helping for the sake of helping others, not for my own personal gain. And when I can I really do help others as much as possible. At work I even help people who have troubles with phones from other networks! My colleagues either don't do that at all or demand a fee for that. I mean, what am I supposed to do in that situation? Throw out an old lady or an old man because their problem technically doesn't have anything to do with the company I work for even though I am perfectly capable of helping them and even though I don't have anything else to do at the moment?


 This is my point.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Aug 18, 2013)

Troj said:


> Good analysis, Reynard. No, I don't know what the distribution looks like (though I can try to look it up) and yes, "intelligence" and "religiosity" are potentially loosey-goosey variables which could be defined and measured in a number of ways.
> 
> For example, is "religiosity" defined by behaviors, or beliefs, or a combination? I've seen it defined all of those ways, by different social scientists.
> 
> ...



People might be misunderstanding, but I did read through the paper (not the conclusions section, which is the bulk of it and contains a whole lot of speculation).  They don't indicate what the distributions were (that I could see), and they treat 'religious belief' separate from 'religious practice'.  The paper actually showed that the correlation shows up for belief, but not for practice so much, which is what I was talking about.  In fact, most of the paper is talking about how the results change if you take this or that facet of the data, and trying to justify why they still believe an anti-correlation exists despite the apparent sensitivity of the result to their selection.



			
				TheMetalVelocity said:
			
		

> For any atheist who thinks this way, I don't see how you're anymore just than the religious people you bitch about who do good onto others for the sake of their own punishment.


I don't know if you noticed, but I wasn't bitching about anybody.  I was just making the statement that the 'punishment versus reward' argument CC was making wasn't entirely fair.
Anyway, you can always argue that doing good deeds is mostly a selfish act.  That's not to say that it is, but can you honestly ever tell if a person is, to use CC's example, helping an old lady cross the street because he is just a genuinely good person, or is it because he knows the old lady will remember it and maybe do something good for him later?  Or even the baser instinct that seeing the old lady smile makes him feel good?  I don't think it's possible to distinguish those from an outside perspective, and sometimes it's even difficult to do it from an inside perspective, so this whole line of argument strikes me as maybe a little self-serving.
I will state, though, for the record, that when I say 'the major thing keeping me in line is the threat of retribution', I don't mean that without laws I would go around stealing and killing people and burning down houses.  I have no innate desire to do those things; for whatever reason (most likely biological), offending people or hurting people makes me feel extremely uncomfortable.  But what I won't do is sit here and grandstand about how moral and loving a person I am; I have had the inclination to punch people in the face, but held myself back because I knew what the consequences would be if I did, and not out of some grand sense of spiritual enlightenment.


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 18, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> I think we are talking about different things now. Sure, laws "threaten" you to stay in line or otherwise you will be punished. That is pretty obvious.
> But I am talking about doing good on your own. Like helping little old ladies over the street, or helping them get their wheeled walker up some stairs.
> I do that because I think it is the right thing to do. So if I am in a position where I can help others who genuinly need my assitance I just do it. One could argue that the satisfaction you get from that is the same kind of reward that religious people get because they think they are gonna go to heaven for helping others. But I disagree with that. I am helping for the sake of helping others, not for my own personal gain. And when I can I really do help others as much as possible. At work I even help people who have troubles with phones from other networks! My colleagues either don't do that at all or demand a fee for that. I mean, what am I supposed to do in that situation? Throw out an old lady or an old man because their problem technically doesn't have anything to do with the company I work for even though I am perfectly capable of helping them and even though I don't have anything else to do at the moment?



All I have to say is...there are religious people who do help people because they just want to help people. Not because they think it'll get them into heaven. And I know, they don't need religion to be a good person but the truth is, people need religion for various reasons. What are they? I don't know; it depends on the person. 

For me, it's not because I'm "easily impressed" because of coincidences. I've always felt that there's some kind of higher power out there, and I suppose you can attach the fact that I've read mostly Christian writings to the fact that a lot of my religious ideas are Christian. Though I have wanted to get books on other religions, like Buddhism for instance, and see what they're about and see what there is to learn from them (Some people even claim that Jesus might have had a run in with him, but that's in "Outside the bible speculation" zone). 

The reason why I keep holding onto the idea of a higher power is because it hasn't been disproven. Maybe we've punched a few holes in the idea that the Christian God is real, but to me, there's still a possibility, so as long as it's not impossible, I'll continue to be open about its existence.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 18, 2013)

Does the fallacy of entertaining ideas 'because they haven't been dis-proven' need to be pointed out?

Anyway, back to the study. The study said it focused mainly on western English speaking nations. I wonder whether the differences could be more or less pronounced in other types of nations. Certainly an overall trend of religiosity with observed IQ exists for nations around the world, but the degree of polarisation within a country might be different depending on how religious it is overall.


----------



## Azure (Aug 18, 2013)

what does that mean, being open to its existence? not trying to bash you, but it seems like a bit of bet hedging, and i assure you omnipotent beings can detect the difference, if the claims of the bible are even remotely true. also, sure, fine, people are allowed to have a religion, but the moment it becomes harmful to somebody else is the moment i disapprove of it. and that is where the majority of my theism bashing comes from. it may be useful to the individual, but it is harmful to the group. thankfully, religion is dying off as a whole, or at least in the western world where education and higher living standards have weaned people off of needing group enforced fantasy in order to make life tolerable for themselves. thats the most curious thing about religion to me, it requires everyone else to indulge to make the individual feel better. what sort of game is that?


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 18, 2013)

Azure said:


> what does that mean, being open to its existence? not trying to bash you, but it seems like a bit of bet hedging, and i assure you omnipotent beings can detect the difference, if the claims of the bible are even remotely true. also, sure, fine, people are allowed to have a religion, but the moment it becomes harmful to somebody else is the moment i disapprove of it. and that is where the majority of my theism bashing comes from. it may be useful to the individual, but it is harmful to the group. thankfully, religion is dying off as a whole, or at least in the western world where education and higher living standards have weaned people off of needing group enforced fantasy in order to make life tolerable for themselves. thats the most curious thing about religion to me, it requires everyone else to indulge to make the individual feel better. what sort of game is that?



"Being open" means that I'm still considering the existence of a god a possibility. And it doesn't have to only be the Christian God; this is just about higher powers in general. 

But the whole "Okay with it until it does harm" is something I can agree on. Christ taught to be peaceful with others and helpful even to those who weren't Christian...and you see the complete opposite in some churches that claim to be "on fire" for God. You see people accusing others, "Oh this is not of God, that's not of God, you're going to hell, he's going to hell, yadaydayada...." The classic legalism game that churches play (Ironically, both Paul and Christ seemed to be against legalism, that is, follow all these rituals, standards, laws and commands to gain salvation/keep it). That's mainly why I don't go to church anymore. That and I consider a lot of my ideas to be out there as far as what's accepted by mainstream Christianity, and I don't feel like having to knock on a church because they're doing something that's obviously against the bible (Like cherry picking old testament laws, for instance).


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 18, 2013)

The similarity of old religions was mentioned, so perhaps this will be of interest: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23744554


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Aug 18, 2013)

Whether you guys believe in god or not, do you think that near death experiences could possibly be real? I mean people's stories are very similar and consistent. Most of them come out of their body during clinical death and they observe their body from above, go to this bright light in a dark tunnel and are told that they have to go back. Sometimes they see the doctor's working on their body from above. People who have these experiences also say in that state of consciousness, they can think much clearer and they can remember every moment of their life in an instant. I also hear them say they have the perception that time has stopped. The people who have these experiences also state that "it's more real than the life we live now", and their senses are more enhanced, etc... Also, I heard that atheists have these experiences too. I suggest you guys, religious or not to look into this.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 18, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> Whether you guys believe in god or not, do you think that near death experiences could possibly be real? I mean people's stories are very similar and consistent. Most of them come out of their body during clinical death and they observe their body from above. Sometimes they see the doctor's working on their body from above. People who have these experiences also say in that state of consciousness, they can think much clearer and they can remember every moment of their life in an instant. I also hear them say they have the perception that time has stopped. The people who have these experiences also state that "it's more real than the life we live now", and their senses are more enhanced, etc...



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23672150

Current evidence indicates experiences are similar because processes in the dying brain are similar. 

People have also been made to have out of body experiences in the lab with camera tricks [which fooled people into thinking they were standing behind themselves] 

An experiment with secret messages placed on top of cabinets that patients 'floating' above the operating theater would be able to see has been undertaken but so far none of the subjects have had out of body experiences.


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 18, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> The reason why I keep holding onto the idea of a higher power is because it hasn't been disproven.





Nikolinni said:


> "Being open" means that I'm still considering the existence of a god a possibility. And it doesn't have to only be the Christian God; this is just about higher powers in general.



See, this is the part where your argument and your entire position are completely based on a logical fallicy :T You can't disprove something that can't be proven either.


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 18, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> Whether you guys believe in god or not, do you think that near death experiences could possibly be real? I mean people's stories are very similar and consistent. Most of them come out of their body during clinical death and they observe their body from above. Sometimes they see the doctor's working on their body from above. People who have these experiences also say in that state of consciousness, they can think much clearer and they can remember every moment of their life in an instant. I also hear them say they have the perception that time has stopped. The people who have these experiences also state that "it's more real than the life we live now", and their senses are more enhanced, etc... Also, I heard that atheists have these experiences too. I suggest you guys, religious or not to look into this.



No, they are not real. Period.
They are simply very complex halucinations that are caused by your dying brain. It's as simple as that.
I have read about an experiment where they placed an object directly over patients in critical medical condition. When they were reanimated they were asked about their near death experiences and none of the patients were able to say what kind of object was put above them.
It is probably a very complicated process that's causing these experiences but one thing is for certain, they are entirely natural and have nothing to do with souls or stuff like that.


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 18, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> See, this is the part where your argument and your entire position are completely based on a logical fallicy :T You can't disprove something that can't be proven either.



But see the thing is, what I feel is proof to something existing (experiences, coincidences, dreams, other unexplained strange things) will probably be written off somehow. I mean sure, these hit more towards feelings and not actual hard, scientific evidence, which is probably why they can be written off. It's like when someone goes "How do you know God's actually there?" and the believer in question goes "Because I can just feel it. Like he's there." Some people just have that feeling or inclination towards a spiritual figure, for whatever reason. Like with me, in the back of my head the idea of some higher power out there just seems to ring true with me for whatever unexplained reason. 

And to be honest, I don't feel like diving into my mind and dismantling what that reason is for the sake of going "see, it was all because of reason x". Someone already tried that by trying to discover the point at which I was "indoctrinated" with the idea of God (My parents weren't highly religious, but my stepfather did believe in God, though again he wasn't too outward about it. Though they'd make references to God, usually with phrases like "If God gave you a brain you'd take it out and play with it")...I found the process to be quite annoying.



Fallowfox said:


> The similarity of old religions was mentioned, so perhaps this will be of interest: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23744554



Talk about keeping the faith.


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Aug 18, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> No, they are not real. Period.


 Keep in mind, you should also look at the varies accounts that people have and listen to what they experience and what they say. Also, I don't think you've listened to all the things I have said about this. I think the whole "it's not real. Period" is rather ignorant, don't ya think?



There is also people who came out of their body and witnessed objects in the environment. The people that are told the story discover those objects that they never seen until the person who left their body said it. For instance, I heard a story of a person who found a shoe on top of the hospital building when the person was out of his body and then the people at the hospital I guess went there and actually found it.


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 18, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> Keep in mind, you should also look at the varies accounts that people have and listen to what they experience and what they say. Also, I don't think you've listened to all the things I have said about this. I think the whole "it's not real. Period" is rather ignorant, don't ya think?



I don't think so. Especially since there are easier and more logical explanations for these things.
We are talking about a dying brain here afterall! What makes more sense? That a lack of oxygen is causing halucinations? Or that something mythical is going on?


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 18, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> I don't think so. Especially since there are easier and more logical explanations for these things.
> We are talking about a dying brain here afterall! What makes more sense? That a lack of oxygen is causing halucinations? Or that something mythical is going on?



I'd say it depends. I mean, most people yes, agree that lack of oxygen can factor into it. But some people might venture to say there is something mythical going on. Though why all of a sudden these creatures decided to reveal their presence to someone in their dying moments is beyond me. 

Even Lord Death waits until the creature in question is, y'know, dead before taking their soul and sending it off to who-knows-where [/reference].


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 18, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> I'd say it depends. I mean, most people yes, agree that lack of oxygen can factor into it. But some people might venture to say there is something mythical going on. Though why all of a sudden these creatures decided to reveal their presence to someone in their dying moments is beyond me.
> 
> Even Lord Death waits until the creature in question is, y'know, dead before taking their soul and sending it off to who-knows-where [/reference].



For any of this to be true you first have to prove that souls or some sort of internal mythical energy actually exist though. If that doesn't exist then the whole discussion of near deat experiences seems a little pointless to me.


----------



## Troj (Aug 18, 2013)

M. LeRenard said:


> They don't indicate what the distributions were (that I could see), and they treat 'religious belief' separate from 'religious practice'.  The paper actually showed that the correlation shows up for belief, but not for practice so much, which is what I was talking about.  In fact, most of the paper is talking about how the results change if you take this or that facet of the data, and trying to justify why they still believe an anti-correlation exists despite the apparent sensitivity of the result to their selection.



Aha!

Thanks for clarifying.

That the correlation shifts depending on which facets (are they talking about mediators here?) indicates that it's not cut-and-dry, at least to me.

Important for me to read the paper, then.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 18, 2013)

Do you have to pay to read the paper?

and seriously guys discussing near death experiences. No, it's not real, okay? It's like werewolves and aliens; anecdotes are not sufficient.


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 18, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Do you have to pay to read the paper?
> 
> and seriously guys discussing near death experiences. No, it's not real, okay? It's like werewolves and *aliens*; anecdotes are not sufficient.



Relevant: http://www.zoophobiacomic.com/Zoophobia/comics/2012-09-17-aliens.png

Aliens are a good comparison though. I do believe it is possibel that life outside of earth exists. There is life on earth, the universe is sort of infinite, so it is very probable that there are indeed some sort of aliens out there. 
BUT! Do I believe that aliens have ever made contact with us or that a human has ever observed them or got abducted by them? No. For that we also have just the anecdotes.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Aug 18, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Do you have to pay to read the paper?


I don't because I can use VPN to make my computer recognized as being affiliated with my university, hence why I read the paper.



> and seriously guys discussing near death experiences. No, it's not real, okay? It's like werewolves and aliens; anecdotes are not sufficient.


The experiences themselves are real.  But the fact that they can be induced in the lab with cameras or mirrors or whatever kind of indicates that it's just another one of those stupid things the brain does when it gets confused, like optical illusions.
So far as 'keeping an open mind', I certainly do that, but I tend to lean more heavily toward things that make sense and aren't overly convenient.  It's not that hard to tell apart things that humans made up from things that humans discovered are really in nature.  Like, I don't think a human would have just spontaneously made up a concept like a neutron star, but the idea of a powerful humanoid who created the universe is pretty fucking obviously a human invention.  I might be more willing to believe in gods if they didn't all look exactly like us except for maybe one or two mild differences.  Or more generally, if they didn't all look like Earth creatures.  Like, you watch Star Trek and laugh at how every alien just looks like people with weirder foreheads or noses, but we don't laugh that all of our gods don't even have that level of decoration?


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 18, 2013)

On the subject, when my school asked us to draw God [we were around age 7] I was the only child not to draw an anthropomorphic God. Mine was a miasma of golden happy symbols, whereas the majority of other gods were bearded old men with halos.


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Aug 18, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23672150
> 
> Current evidence indicates experiences are similar because processes in the dying brain are similar.
> 
> ...


 My problem here, is how you guys are saying "Nope, it's not real" just because a lab did a test. Saying "this experience could be replicated with this test", does not prove the actual experience a fake. It doesn't prove nothing other than telling us that we have the ability to trick our brains with machines.


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 18, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> My problem here, is how you guys are saying "Nope, it's not real" just because a lab did a test. Saying "this experience could be replicated with this test", does not prove the actual experience a fake. It doesn't prove nothing other than telling us that we have the ability to trick our brains with machines.



The issue with that is that a single experience of a single person is not evidence that something is true. They can't be replicated.
The only thing that we can replicate are similarities in these experiences. But that can easily be explained because as Fallow posted, we all have the same organ in our heads. There are differences in our brains that are caused through genetic variations and different experiences throughout our lifes (memories, etc.) but the basic makeup is pretty much identical.
Now again, what makes more sense? Hallucinations caused by a dying brain that are explainable through science? Or some sort of devine thing that's going on but that can't be explained at all? If you ask me, I'd put my money on science.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Aug 18, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> My problem here, is how you guys are saying "Nope, it's not real" just because a lab did a test. Saying "this experience could be replicated with this test", does not prove the actual experience a fake. It doesn't prove nothing other than telling us that we have the ability to trick our brains with machines.



I suppose if you want to get pedantic about it, then no, it's doesn't 'prove' that they aren't caused by a magical construct called a soul going up to a mystical wonderland known as Heaven.  And if that turns out to be the truth, then great, but right now it just doesn't seem particularly likely.  Especially when there's a perfectly acceptable alternative explanation available that doesn't require circumventing everything the human race has learned about the universe in the past 500 years.



			
				Fallowfox said:
			
		

> On the subject, when my school asked us to draw God [we were around age 7] I was the only child not to draw an anthropomorphic God. Mine was a miasma of golden happy symbols, whereas the majority of other gods were bearded old men with halos.


I sure hope there weren't any Muslims in your class.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 18, 2013)

M. LeRenard said:


> I suppose if you want to get pedantic about it, then no, it's doesn't 'prove' that they aren't caused by a magical construct called a soul going up to a mystical wonderland known as Heaven.  And if that turns out to be the truth, then great, but right now it just doesn't seem particularly likely.  Especially when there's a perfectly acceptable alternative explanation available that doesn't require circumventing everything the human race has learned about the universe in the past 500 years.
> 
> 
> I sure hope there weren't any Muslims in your class.



There was a guy called Ahad but I can't remember if he was in my specific class. 

Furthermore ThatMetalVelocity, nobody is entitled to assume that in the absence of a full understanding of death experiences that they have magical explanations. The current evidence indicates that erroneous brain activity, or malfunction, that is known to happen at death is responsible for the hallucination like descriptions people provide. 

We may as well insist that you cannot prove flying saucers don't visit Gatwick airport, but are only visible to the eyes of drunkards. It's a moving the goal posts fallacy.
If you want to support a magical explanation it requires its own justification, rather than arguments from ignorance- that anything we cannot know or test currently is a possible place for magic to reside. That's where magic has always been thought to lie throughout history, and every time it hasn't been.


----------



## Azure (Aug 18, 2013)

dear religious people

what you "feel" has no fucking relevance to actual scientific evidence

that is all


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 18, 2013)

Azure said:


> dear religious people
> 
> what you "feel" has no fucking relevance to actual scientific evidence
> 
> that is all



But how can you say that without a conclusive study? Here; let me draw you a version of the solar system that is geocentric.


----------



## Azure (Aug 18, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> But how can you say that without a conclusive study? Here; let me draw you a version of the solar system that is geocentric.


and ill draw you the flat earth

remember gaiz, we are falling through space at the same rate as the sun, and the oceans are kept in by a giant wall of ice. chew on that, science!


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 19, 2013)

Azure said:


> and ill draw you the flat earth
> 
> remember gaiz, we are falling through space at the same rate as the sun, and the oceans are kept in by a giant wall of ice. chew on that, science!



Not true! The earth flies UP through space, not down. There is no gravity, there is just universal acceleration. When you jump you don't fall back down, the earth just catches up with you!
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Universal_Acceleration

WAT DID I JUST READ :V


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 19, 2013)

I think the flat earth society is a joke actually aimed at showing how silly trying to reinvent old models to reconcile them with modern science, or renaissance science, is.


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 19, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> I think the flat earth society is a joke actually aimed at showing how silly trying to reinvent old models to reconcile them with modern science, or renaissance science, is.



It is a very real society that was founded in 1956 and is the successor of the "Universal Zetetic Society" that was founded in the 19th century.
It just faced a strong decline in members in the 80s. 
They recently resurrected but I do not know how serious they are about it today. They may have turned it into a massive practical joke.
However, since there are so many loonies out there it really wouldn't surprise me if this was a real thing.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Aug 19, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Not true! The earth flies UP through space, not down. There is no gravity, there is just universal acceleration. When you jump you don't fall back down, the earth just catches up with you!
> http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Universal_Acceleration
> 
> WAT DID I JUST READ :V



But... galaxies... star formation in molecular clouds... Virgocentric flow... landing spacecraft on other planets...
My brain is shriveling up and dying.


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 19, 2013)

M. LeRenard said:


> But... galaxies... star formation in molecular clouds... Virgocentric flow... landing spacecraft on other planets...
> My brain is shriveling up and dying.



Don't ask. If you do they just come up with more nonsense to "answer" those questions! XD


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 19, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Don't ask. If you do they just come up with more nonsense to "answer" those questions! XD



I read the first sentence in the link that you posted. I stopped at "They don't believe in gravity".


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 19, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> I read the first sentence in the link that you posted. I stopped at "They don't believe in gravity".



But how is that different from people who don't believe in abiogenesis, evolution or the big bang?^^


----------



## Seekrit (Aug 19, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> But how is that different from people who don't believe in abiogenesis, evolution or the big bang?^^



HANG ON GERMAN ATHEIST FELLOW

IT ISN'T


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 19, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> But how is that different from people who don't believe in abiogenesis, evolution or the big bang?^^



It's different because there's solid, indisputable proof that gravity exists. There's no "missing links" or "unanswered questions" or "putting faith in the people who write the textbooks" (as a biology student in one video admitted he did). We've proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that gravity exists. The others, well not so much.


----------



## Seekrit (Aug 19, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> It's different because there's solid, indisputable proof that gravity exists. There's no "missing links" or "unanswered questions" or "putting faith in the people who write the textbooks" (as a biology student in one video admitted he did). We've proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that gravity exists. The others, well not so much.



Oh dear Niko, you have opened Pandora's Box.


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 19, 2013)

Seekrit said:


> Oh dear Niko, you have opened Pandora's Box.



Well I know there's evidence for it, but as a friend of mine just said: 

"The scientific method is a method of learning based on performing repeatable experiments with isolated variables, experiments which always produce identical results.

Gravity's existence can be proven with the Scientific method, and rather easily at that:
1. Pick up object.
2. Suspend above a surface
3. Release object.
Result: Object falls to the surface.


So, how do you test Abiogenesis in a way that satisfies the scientific method?
What about any "change in kind" part of evolution [the one part that Christians disagree with]?
Or the Big Bang?
Answer is, you can't test any of those.
Abiogenesis and the Big Bang cannot be tested because we honestly don't know what the conditions were which set off those events, nor can we find out due to not having a time machine.
And "change in kind" evolution takes millions of years, which is much longer than human lifespan and is unobservable in any form of repeatable, scientific experiment.
Maybe I don't represent the average Christian here, but I don't believe in abiogenesis, "change in kind" evolution, or the big bang because these "scientific" theories cannot be tested in any way by the scientific method.  And because of this, I consider them to be unscientific by default."


----------



## Aleu (Aug 19, 2013)

Niko, bro as someone who is also a "delusional idiot" I at least acknowledge that YES evolution has been proven.

Also, isn't the story of Creation BASICALLY abiogenesis?


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 19, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Niko, bro as someone who is also a "delusional idiot" I at least acknowledge that YES evolution has been proven.



Really? 

Then fine. Show me irrefutable proof that evolution has been proven. The kind that religious people tend to disagree with (Macroevolution).


----------



## Kalmor (Aug 19, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Really?
> 
> Then fine. Show me irrefutable proof that evolution has been proven. The kind that religious people tend to disagree with (Macroevolution).


Is this the "god of the gaps" argument I hear coming?


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 19, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Well I know there's evidence for it, but as a friend of mine just said:
> 
> "The scientific method is a method of learning based on performing repeatable experiments with isolated variables, experiments which always produce identical results.
> 
> ...



Please, stop talking about science.

To answer your questions:

-An example for testing abiogenesis is the mIller-Urey experiment.
-"Change in kind" is not the central aspect of evolution, it is "change over time through genetic variations". The Lenski experiments prove it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUhYGgtwNkE
-The cosmic background radiation proves the big bang.

Instead of saying "they can't be tested" you might want to look at some credible sources instead that cite more than enough tests that show that yes, abiogenesis, evolution and the big bang ARE facts, just like gravity.


----------



## Seekrit (Aug 19, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> And "change in kind" evolution takes millions of years, which is much longer than human lifespan and is unobservable in any form of repeatable, scientific experiment.
> Maybe I don't represent the average Christian here, but I don't believe in abiogenesis, "change in kind" evolution, or the big bang because these "scientific" theories cannot be tested in any way by the scientific method.  And because of this, I consider them to be unscientific by default."



As a scientist at heart (and a friggin' biological anthropologist by trade) this post gives me a sad :c


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 19, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> (Macroevolution).



SHUT UP ALREADY! You know *NOTHING* about evolution!
Macroevolution is a term that has been invented by CREATIONISTS! Not a single credible biologist would EVER use that term! It doesn't exist! Neither does "microevolution"!


----------



## Aleu (Aug 19, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Really?
> 
> Then fine. Show me irrefutable proof that evolution has been proven. The kind that religious people tend to disagree with (Macroevolution).


The fact that subspecies exists. Things evolve to adapt. Shit, that's why we have to get different vaccines for the fucking flu.


----------



## Seekrit (Aug 19, 2013)

Aleu said:


> The fact that subspecies exists. Things evolve to adapt. Shit, that's why we have to get different vaccines for the fucking flu.



My favourite examples are Ring species :3

Mostly because burds.


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 19, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Please, stop talking about science.
> 
> To answer your questions:
> 
> ...



Objection. 

The Lenski Experiments were on bacteria. Proof in e-coli bacteria is not proof in anything but ecoli bacteria, which is an asexually reproducing organism. 

As far as cosmic radiation, you'll have to explain _how_ that's proof of the big bang, and cannot be the result of any other process, known or unknown.

It seems that becuase I have expressed skepticism over what I use the term macroevolution to describe, a clear and present change-in-kind as a result of uncountable minute changes I refer to as microevolution, you believe that I reject evolution in its entirety.  This is not true.  What all of you are doing is a mix of strawman and fallacy of composition, and does not in any way contribute to any form of reasonable discussion, unless you elect to redefine reasonable discussion to mean gangbanging people you disagree with.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 19, 2013)

By now the reason for the study's results have become abundantly clear.


----------



## Aleu (Aug 19, 2013)

Not really. If something as simple as a single-cell organism can evolve then something that requires parents with different genetic make-up can certainly evolve since that's pretty much the simplest definition of evolution.


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 19, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Objection.
> 
> The Lenski Experiments were on bacteria. Proof in e-coli bacteria is not proof in anything but ecoli bacteria, which is an asexually reproducing organism.
> 
> As far as cosmic radiation, you'll have to explain _how_ that's proof of the big bang, and cannot be the result of any other process, known or unknown.



Before you make any assumptions about bacteria, please explain the difference between prokaryotes and eukaryotes (on a cellular level) and how this has an effect on the process of evolution.

The CMB is the afterglow of the big bang.
"The CMB essentially confirms the Big Bang theory. In the late 1940s Alpher and Herman reasoned that if there was a big bang, the expansion of the Universe would have stretched and cooled the high-energy radiation of the very early Universe into the microwave region and down to a temperature of about 5 K. They were slightly off with their estimate, but they had exactly the right idea. They predicted the CMB. It took another 15 years for Penzias and Wilson to stumble into discovering that the microwave background was actually there."


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 19, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> By now the reason for the study's results have become abundantly clear.



Yes.  The reason is that those who accept religion are treated with complete mocking and scorn from those who are smart, instead of being educated by the smarter people in a calm and respectful way which clearly demonstrates on exactly what and exactly why they are wrong.  A clear example of this is Captain Cool's post (http://forums.furaffinity.net/threa...osity-and-IQ?p=3301776&viewfull=1#post3301776) where he told me, the religious guy, to just shut up, rather than explaining calmly and respectfully exactly why and how I am wrong.


----------



## Aleu (Aug 19, 2013)

It has nothing to do with your religious views. It's more or less your willful ignorance.


----------



## Seekrit (Aug 19, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Yes.  The reason is that those who accept religion are treated with complete mocking and scorn from those who are smart, instead of being educated by the smarter people in a calm and respectful way which clearly demonstrates on exactly what and exactly why they are wrong.  A clear example of this is Captain Cool's post (http://forums.furaffinity.net/threa...osity-and-IQ?p=3301776&viewfull=1#post3301776) where he told me, the religious guy, to just shut up, rather than explaining calmly and respectfully exactly why and how I am wrong.



Do not attack KapitÃ¤n's person. He bites.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 19, 2013)

If you don't think there is sufficient evidence that life evolves or that the universe was produced in a big bang event, it's because you haven't read enough. The evidence is compelling and it's _not_ difficult to find. The only people who can't seem to find it usually have religious reasons to feel threatened by these sciences. 

Abiogenesis is a slightly different matter, because there is the possibility of panspermia. However there's also compelling evidence that early earth was a suitable platform for the development of indigenous life. 

Before this discussion is taken further, which I feel it inevitably will be, please read around these subjects. I've previously argued with creationists who did not understand that chemicals have reasons for reacting with one another rather than sticking together purely at random, so if you have any embarrassing skeletons in the closet like that it would be best to banish them yourself rather than discover them in the middle of a raging argument.



Nikolinni said:


> Yes.  The reason is that those who accept  religion are treated with complete mocking and scorn from those who are  smart, instead of being educated by the smarter people in a calm and  respectful way which clearly demonstrates on exactly what and exactly  why they are wrong.  A clear example of this is Captain Cool's post (http://forums.furaffinity.net/threa...osity-and-IQ?p=3301776&viewfull=1#post3301776)  where he told me, the religious guy, to just shut up, rather than  explaining calmly and respectfully exactly why and how I am  wrong.



I'm prepared to explain this science to you to the best of my ability, but I've heard all this stuff about kinds and missing links before. You should understand that to many of us this is tedious and repetitive territory which is much the same as arguing with geocentrists or flat-earthers.


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 19, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Yes.  The reason is that those who accept religion are treated with complete mocking and scorn from those who are smart, instead of being educated by the smarter people in a calm and respectful way which clearly demonstrates on exactly what and exactly why they are wrong.  A clear example of this is Captain Cool's post (http://forums.furaffinity.net/threa...osity-and-IQ?p=3301776&viewfull=1#post3301776) where he told me, the religious guy, to just shut up, rather than explaining calmly and respectfully exactly why and how I am wrong.



When you talk about nonsense like "macroevolution" and when you are showing that you clearly know nothing about accepted scientific facts in your arguments against them I do get pissed. Not just because of you but because I have had that discussion multiple times aleady and it is starting to really tick me off.
How would you feel if you constantly get corrected by people who know nothing about the subject that you studied on university level...?


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 19, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Before you make any assumptions about bacteria, please explain the difference between prokaryotes and eukaryotes (on a cellular level) and how this has an effect on the process of evolution.
> 
> The CMB is the afterglow of the big bang.
> "The CMB essentially confirms the Big Bang theory. In the late 1940s Alpher and Herman reasoned that if there was a big bang, the expansion of the Universe would have stretched and cooled the high-energy radiation of the very early Universe into the microwave region and down to a temperature of about 5 K. They were slightly off with their estimate, but they had exactly the right idea. They predicted the CMB. It took another 15 years for Penzias and Wilson to stumble into discovering that the microwave background was actually there."



Objection. There's a clear flaw in your logic. 

Think about this: "If the Big Bang happened, then there exists CMB."

What you are saying is "If CMB Exists, then the big bang happened". 

One thing to know is an "If Statement" won't work backwards. If you try to reverse an If Statement on a computer, something that LITERALLY runs off of logic, it won't work.

This is also known as  Affirming the Consequent.

In addition, I've been an apologetic many times for things, like the bible for example. You don't think I get tired of people saying that "Oh God supports giving your daughter up to a mob of people in order to save angels!" when that's devoid of context? (God never ordered Lot to give his daughter up to the mob in Sodom so that the angels may be spared. He did that of his own accord). 

Or Christians who keep affirming God destroyed that place because of all the sodomy going on? (It was because it was exceedingly sinful). 

Or people saying God manipulated Pharaoh's Heart, going against free will? (He knew Pharaoh's heart and knew how he would react to what Moses would try to do). 

Or that Jesus Ripped off Horus? (Don't get me started on this one)

I see these a lot, and at the most, I get midly sarcastic. But I try to remain polite, because I wish others to remain polite when they offer counter arguments. As Christ himself said, " So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." (Matthew 7:12, NIV)


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 19, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Objection. There's a clear flaw in your logic.
> 
> Think about this: "If the Big Bang happened, then there exists CMB."
> 
> ...




The mathematical description of the big bang hypothesis predicted that there should be a constant radiation of a few Kelvin [or microwave]

This was later confirmed with the advent of radio telescopes when a temperature of 2.7K was originally detected by accident. 

The prediction was made before the measurement, and that's why the measurement lent such weight to the big bang hypothesis and ultimately turned it into a theory.

 Ironically many physicists beforehand did not like the idea of the big bang because they thought it had been dreamt up by creationists, but after the evidence appeared they had to eat humble pie and agree that it really happened.


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 19, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Objection. There's a clear flaw in your logic.
> 
> Think about this: "If the Big Bang happened, then there exists CMB."
> 
> ...



No. Nein. Non. Niet.
What did I tell you? You know nothing about science.
The big bang was a hypothesis. This hypothesis dictated that there has to be a measurable "afterglow" of the big bang and it had to have a certain wavelength and temperature level, in this case around 3K. It was a prediction, that prediction turned out to be true, thus confirming the hypothesis and upgrading it to theory status, which means it's an accepted scientific fact.

And what about prokaryotes and eukaryotes? Still googling?


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 19, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> No. Nein. Non. Niet.
> What did I tell you? You know nothing about science.
> The big bang was a hypothesis. This hypothesis dictated that there has to be a measurable "afterglow" of the big bang and it had to have a certain wavelength and temperature level, in this case around 3K. It was a prediction, that prediction turned out to be true, thus confirming the hypothesis and upgrading it to theory status, which means it's an accepted scientific fact.
> 
> And what about prokaryotes and eukaryotes? Still googling?



No, I'm not going to bother. Again, I don't know why I decided to drag myself into this. Must be the human trying to get me to do things again. I have better uses for my creative energies. Besides, it's not like we're going to change any minds. You and I both know that at the end of this, I will still be religious, albeit with a modified outlook on things, and you will still be atheist, just the same as you were, ever so condemning of those who dare to believe. 

So, again, I'm waving the white "I surrender" flag. And this time I'll try to stay away from this topic.


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 19, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> No, I'm not going to bother. Again, I don't know why I decided to drag myself into this. Must be the human trying to get me to do things again. I have better uses for my creative energies than to piddle around in debates that are essentially "Everyone Vs This One Guy".
> 
> So, again, I'm waving the white "I surrender" flag. And this time I'll try to stay away from this topic.



The "everyone vs. this one guy" part should make you think a little because you are the only one here who is having the position that neither of those things that we talked about here (abiogenesis, evolution and the big bang) are facts...
And when I do point out what you should look up you stop right away because it might actually be a good argument against your position?
Please, don't make me say something mean to you in regard to the thread's original topic! >__>


----------



## Aleu (Aug 19, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> In addition, I've been an apologetic many times for things, like the bible for example. You don't think I get tired of people saying that "Oh God supports giving your daughter up to a mob of people in order to save angels!" when that's devoid of context? (God never ordered* Cain to give his daughter up to the mob in Sodom so that the angels may be spared. He did that of his own accord). *


-headdesks- I really hope you mean Lot or else I'd have to smack you with my bible.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 19, 2013)

This is why arguing with creationists is no fun. 

They never actually read anything and the moment somebody doesn't agree with them it's the 'I have better uses for these creative juices' act.


----------



## Kalmor (Aug 19, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> This is why arguing with creationists is no fun.
> 
> They never actually read anything and the moment somebody doesn't agree with them it's the 'I have better uses for these creative juices' act.


It also makes it funny when Christians are arguing amongst themselves about this.


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 19, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> This is why arguing with creationists is no fun.
> 
> They never actually read anything and the moment somebody doesn't agree with them it's the 'I have better uses for these creative juices' act.



But WE are the ones who are ignorant and don't consider any evidence they show us!



Raptros said:


> It also makes it funny when Christians are arguing amongst themselves about this.



I have to admit, that's always hilarious...


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 19, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> The "everyone vs. this one guy" part should make you think a little because you are the only one here who is having the position that neither of those things that we talked about here (abiogenesis, evolution and the big bang) are facts...
> And when I do point out what you should look up you stop right away because it might actually be a good argument against your position?
> Please, don't make me say something mean to you in regard to the thread's original topic! >__>



No, it's me realizing that I do have better things to do. I've effectively killed almost an hour on here for what? Nothing. I've accomplished nothing, gained nothing, felt nothing. All it has done for me is drained me of my time. 

Finding out about whatever it is you wanted me to look up again, would perhaps lead me to a modified position, but I'd still believe in a higher power. Especially when I read something like Spectral Shadows that had abiogenisis in it that, and still had a creator figure in there. 

And besides, I think I know what your end objective is here. You want to show me that my beliefs in the higher powers are illogical and irrational, to be cast aside. All I'm trying to say is "Here's why it can be logical and not irrational. Now leave us [religious people] alone in regards to that".



Fallowfox said:


> This is why arguing with creationists is no fun.
> 
> They never actually read anything and the moment somebody doesn't agree with them it's the 'I have better uses for these creative juices' act.



Objection. 

I've actually argued with people over things like this. It's just that with those cases, we've actually gotten somewhere. I've argued for example, with Perri loads of times over biblical meanings, science, and a whole myriad of other things that's led to me having greater understandings or newer looks on things. And she's agnostic and very much believes that the bible is just a collection of campfire stories.



CaptainCool said:


> But WE are the ones who are ignorant and don't consider any evidence they show us!



Sometime, but not always, this is true. I've actually debunked "The problem of evil" one time in a religious debate. You want to know what the other person told me? That I was full of shit and I should fuck off.


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 19, 2013)

Forgot I had a last post. Sorry about the double post again.


----------



## Aleu (Aug 19, 2013)

Raptros said:


> It also makes it funny when Christians are arguing amongst themselves about this.


Even funnier when the Christian siding with science is ignored :v


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 19, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> No, it's me realizing that I do have better things to do. I've effectively killed almost an hour on here for what? Nothing. I've accomplished nothing, gained nothing, felt nothing. All it has done for me is drained me of my time.
> 
> Finding out about whatever it is you wanted me to look up again, would perhaps lead me to a modified position, but I'd still believe in a higher power. Especially when I read something like Spectral Shadows that had abiogenisis in it that, and still had a creator figure in there.
> 
> And besides, I think I know what your end objective is here. You want to show me that my beliefs in the higher powers are illogical and irrational, to be cast aside. All I'm trying to say is "Here's why it can be logical and not irrational. Now leave us [religious people] alone in regards to that".



If you had actually bothered looking all those things up you could have gained some knowledge :T

Also, that wasn't my intention. Your belief in a "higher power", as irrational as it is, doesn't concern me. What does concern me is that you have no idea about science and that you are making outrageous claims about scientific facts anyway. That it is painfully obvious that you know jack about evolution but that you are still trying to defend your position based on absolute garbage like macro- and microevolution.



Aleu said:


> Even funnier when the Christian siding with science is ignored :v



I didn't ignore you. I liked your posts.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 19, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Objection.
> 
> I've actually argued with people over things like this. It's just that with those cases, we've actually gotten somewhere. I've argued for example, with Perri loads of times over biblical meanings, science, and a whole myriad of other things that's led to me having greater understandings or newer looks on things. And she's agnostic and very much believes that the bible is just a collection of campfire stories.



Then indulge us; what is insufficient with the prediction made by the maths of the big bang theory matching later experimental evidence? 
Predicting a specific and esoteric result to an experiment is the function of hypotheses, so doesn't the big bang deserve some credit?

Not that this is the only clincher for the big bang theory. For example there is also red shift.


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 19, 2013)

Aleu said:


> -headdesks- I really hope you mean Lot or else I'd have to smack you with my bible.



Sorry, don't know why I had Cain on the brain. Hey that rhymes. I'm a poet, and I even didn't know it.


----------



## Seekrit (Aug 19, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> No, it's me realizing that I do have better things to do. I've effectively killed almost an hour on here for what? Nothing. I've accomplished nothing, gained nothing, felt nothing. All it has done for me is drained me of my time.



If you have taken nothing from all this, then you've been wasting everyone else's time. You have been presented over and over with opportunities to learn and gain understanding, but have chosen not to. The biggest shame here is it would have been so _easy_ to do so.


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 19, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Not that this is the only clincher for the big bang theory. For example there is also red shift.



Indeed. Most people think the big bang was just a massive explosion when it really was just the start of the expansion of space itself. 
Ask a random person on the street what "red shifting" is. I bet almost no one could answer that.


----------



## Inciatus (Aug 19, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Indeed. Most people think the big bang was just a massive explosion when it really was just the start of the expansion of space itself.
> Ask a random person on the street what "red shifting" is. I bet almost no one could answer that.


I have tested it. The person knew it. Though it seems I likely got lucky as the fellow happened to be a professor for a nearby university.


----------



## MochiElZorro (Aug 19, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Indeed. Most people think the big bang was just a massive explosion when it really was just the start of the expansion of space itself.
> Ask a random person on the street what "red shifting" is. I bet almost no one could answer that.



Red shifting? You mean like stars being red-shifted if they're flying away from us due to the rapid expansion of space-time caused by dark energy?

And I know it wasn't a bang. It was a small, hot, dense thing that quickly expanded outward due to close-quarters gravity (which works kinda backwards), eventually spreading out far enough for it to cool down and for particles to form and, evenutally, the galaxies to form. Then it started speeding up again recently because of dark energy (the energy of empty space supposedly). Most things about the BB are still a mystery, though.

Then again, normal people don't have my brand of studiousness or interest. So I suppose most people just suck up Misinformation like it's chocolate milk or something.


----------



## Azure (Aug 19, 2013)

oh religion threads, you never cease to amaze and disappoint me at the same time. what would i do without you?


----------



## Inciatus (Aug 19, 2013)

Azure said:


> oh religion threads, you never cease to amaze and disappoint me at the same time. what would i do without you?


likely be bored and fap more


----------



## Bliss (Aug 19, 2013)

I never thought we would get to the point of somebody denying evolution. :3c



Fallowfox said:


> Abiogenesis is a slightly different matter, because there is the possibility of panspermia.


Abiogenesis and panspermia are not mutually exclusive. They are hypotheses concerning different matters; namely the origin of life and its distribution through space.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 19, 2013)

Lizzie said:


> I never thought we would get to the point of somebody denying evolution. :3c
> 
> Abiogenesis and panspermia are not mutually exclusive. They are hypotheses concerning different matters; namely the origin of life and its distribution through space.



I understand they're not exclusive hypotheses. The question I was hinting at was whether earth life is indigenous or not to indicate that the history of life's origins are not as well refined as the history of its evolution for example.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Aug 19, 2013)

I don't know much about evolution, honestly, but I do know about the Big Bang theory.
So, basically, back in the day the more popular idea was that the universe was static.  Basically this arose because this debate took place before people knew that galaxies were external objects, very massive and distant, rather than nebulous objects in our own galaxy.  When you look at the local volume of stars, the motions with respect to the solar system are more or less random: static universe.

So this Catholic priest comes along and comes up with this wild and crazy theory that if the universe weren't static, and were instead expanding (which is allowed by the laws that govern cosmology, such as the Friedmann equation, depending on the geometry of space and whatnot), that implies that if you extrapolate backward in time everything must have come from the same spot.  Good ol' headstrong Fred Hoyle (who believed in a static universe) thought this was the stupidest idea ever and made up the term 'big bang' to poke fun at it.  Einstein wasn't fond of it either; he also bought the whole 'stars move randomly' argument, to the point that when he was deriving the general relativistic form of the Friedmann equation and realized that the only way to get a static universe was to have no energy density (i.e. the universe has nothing in it... which is apparently not the case), he stuck a 'cosmological constant' in there to cancel out the density term and make the universe static.  You might have heard of the whole 'my greatest blunder' story, which he may or may not have actually said.

Then all of the sudden Edwin Hubble makes some observations that basically clinch the idea that 'spiral nebulae' are external to our galaxy.  He also found, oddly enough, that the farther away a galaxy is from us, the faster it seems to be receding from us.  This was a natural result, derived years earlier, of an expanding universe.  So holy shit, it looks like the Catholic priest was onto something.

So people investigated farther.  If you think about it, if all matter starts in the same spot, as the universe expands it will go from being extremely hot (lots of things in a tight space have high pressure, which means high temperature) to cooling down.  We know that at roughly 3000K, hydrogen atoms tend to go from being ionized to being not ionized; this means that at roughly that temperature, the photons that were bouncing around off of the free electrons before are now free to stream onward to other points in space (because the energy levels are quantized, only certain energies of photons are allowed to interact with the newly bound electrons; the rest go away).  Those photons will stretch out with space (between photons do that.. it's called 'following the null geodesic', and has been verified a bajillion times in experiment) as space expands, so that means they go down in energy (longer wavelength=lower frequency=lower energy).  We know that hot things radiate in a particular way (look up 'blackbody radiation'), so if the photons go streaming off at 3000K, we know what peak energies they would have.  Then if you extrapolate backwards given the current rate of expansion, you can figure out how much they've expanded since then, meaning you can get their equivalent 'temperature' today.  That turns out to be around 3K, and there's this omnipresent microwave emission in the universe that's sitting around 3K.  So boom, that works.  Incidentally, this also implies an age for the universe of about 14 billion years.

You want a different method of estimating the age of the universe, though, to compare.  We know low-mass stars pretty much live forever, so they're a good marker.  We go out and find the oldest objects we can see and get an age for.  Globular clusters are pretty good, and lo' and behold, we measure their ages to be about 14 billion years.  That one's pretty uncertain, but it's a fair guess and it agrees with the other one, so okay, that works too.

We also know that the universe's behavior is governed by things like matter density, photon density, and so on.  These things we measure from observation (take a volume of stuff and count up how much matter is in it, basically).  You plug those numbers into your equations and it tells you, again, things like whether the universe is expanding or contracting, how old it is, and so on.  Again, doing this comes up with a big bang type model and an age of ~13-14 Gyr.

You can get even more esoteric and confusing by delving into things like the cosmic microwave background power spectrum (which, with a little fluid mechanics and thermodynamics, can tell you a whole lot about the parameters that govern the evolution of the universe), big bang nucleosynthesis (given what we know about nuclear reactions, what abundances of elements should we see today in a big bang model: incidentally, you would get a lot of hydrogen, some helium, and trace amounts of other elements, which is precisely what we see), baryon acoustic oscillations (it's complicated, so I won't go into it here, but essentially it's another bit of proof about the expansion of the universe starting from a big bang scenario), and so on and so forth.  


Oddly enough, every single one of these pieces of evidence seems to be pointing to a big bang cosmology.  This is why most physicists and astronomers thus find the Big Bang theory a pretty fucking good theory.  There are problems with it (the fact that the geometry appears to be almost completely flat, the fact that the CMB is homogeneous on scales larger than causality would suggest it should be, etc.), so it's not perfect, but there's absolutely no reason to just scrap it and start over.
I imagine that evolution is basically the same way; not a perfect theory, but damn good given what we know.  So it's okay to argue certain aspects of both of these, but just saying that because there are some holes in them they must not be true is plain old fashioned ignorant and bull-headed.  Just like you can't join a professional-league football team without extensive training and pushing yourself through the ranks, you can't make grand sweeping statements about accepted scientific theories without first learning all there is to know about them.  In other words, get a PhD or shut up.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 19, 2013)

Evolution is probably even stronger than big bang theory. It definitely is the mechanism of the diversification of life, the evidence for that is so overwhelming that it's pretty much accepted as fact. Most of the contentious ground left in evolution is over finer details such as whether birds have a daughter or sister relationship to dinosaurs on the tree of life [increasingly appears to be daughter when I asked a palaeontologist] and by what possible mechanisms traits can evolve- such as whether they evolve slowly or in fits and starts [increasingly appears to be fits and starts].


----------



## MochiElZorro (Aug 19, 2013)

True, evolution IS pretty solid, so much so that even the most hard-boiled Christian will, assuming s/he went through school, admit (for example) that organisms like dogs, wolves, and foxes all probably came from a common ancestor. The real problem they have is that if we evolved from homo [science-name-here], that means there may not be a God, meaning all morality is is some bull shit created by our brains and that in reality there is neither good nor bad, just a bunch of random shit that has no meaning or purpose. And that terrifies them... Hell, it terrifies me, too.


----------



## Troj (Aug 19, 2013)

Well, what if God (or some other higher intelligence)  laid down the scaffolding to allow for the planets to form and evolution to take place?

What if we're all living in a simulation created by some higher intelligence--whether artificial, supernatural, extraterrestrial, or otherwise?

What if we're all just figments of the imagination of an autistic boy?

What if atoms possess consciousness, so that they self-organized after the Big Bang?

What if the universe is contained in a snow globe owned by a being whose universe is also contained in a snow globe?

What if we're microorganisms on the scalp of a larger being, who also has dandruff?

What if you're a butterfly, dreaming of being a furry?

What if the planet was seeded by extraterrestrials?

What if the planet was seeded by meteorites?

What if we've evolved particular moral instincts and inclinations because those are the ones which best help us to build families and societies, and get along with one another?

 What if finding your own purpose and meaning in life--as opposed to having it predestined---is actually a great and fruitful opportunity for personal growth and awakening?

What if "God" exists, and _he/she/it isn't Jehovah/Yhwh? _What if God is completely unlike every deity we've dreamt up so far?

Yer makin'  a lot of assumptions, sonny .


----------



## Seekrit (Aug 19, 2013)

MochiElZorro said:


> True, evolution IS pretty solid, so much so that even the most hard-boiled Christian will, assuming s/he went through school, admit (for example) that organisms like dogs, wolves, and foxes all probably came from a common ancestor. The real problem they have is that if we evolved from homo [science-name-here], that means there may not be a God, meaning all morality is is some bull shit created by our brains and that in reality there is neither good nor bad, just a bunch of random shit that has no meaning or purpose. And that terrifies them... Hell, it terrifies me, too.



I never understood this reaction, evolution says nothing about the _origin_ of life, or who/what did/didn't create it. Hell, if the Catholic Church can accept evolution as incontrovertible fact then so can any Christian.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 19, 2013)

Seekrit said:


> I never understood this reaction, evolution says nothing about the _origin_ of life, or who/what did/didn't create it. Hell, if the Catholic Church can accept evolution as incontrovertible fact then so can any Christian.



Since species don't appear spontaneously in monogamous pairs it proves that there was no Adam and Eve, therefore no original sin and no need of a saviour. Unless you decide to say 'religion is metaphorical and will be right however wrong it might appear to be' of course.


----------



## Seekrit (Aug 19, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Since species don't appear spontaneously in monogamous pairs it proves that there was no Adam and Eve, therefore no original sin and no need of a saviour. Unless you decide to say 'religion is metaphorical and will be right however wrong it might appear to be' of course.



I'm too real a dude to say that (u N u)

My point was mainly if an organisation as conservative and backwards as the Catholic Church accepts something it can't ignore for the sheer amount of evidence in its favour, then why can't the average Christian?


----------



## M. LeRenard (Aug 19, 2013)

Fallowfox said:
			
		

> Evolution is probably even stronger than big bang theory. It definitely is the mechanism of the diversification of life, the evidence for that is so overwhelming that it's pretty much accepted as fact. Most of the contentious ground left in evolution is over finer details such as whether birds have a daughter or sister relationship to dinosaurs on the tree of life [increasingly appears to be daughter when I asked a palaeontologist] and by what possible mechanisms traits can evolve- such as whether they evolve slowly or in fits and starts [increasingly appears to be fits and starts].


I admit I'm woefully ignorant when it comes to the topic of evolution.  I should remedy this some day.  But I guess from what I've heard it doesn't require any kind of 'inflation theory' equivalent to fill in any of its holes, so that would make it more successful yet than the big bang idea.
In either case, it's astounding how successful both theories are given what kind of evidence is actually available to us.  When it comes to evolution, living tissue does not actually make a habit of fossilizing; it only does that under very special conditions.  The rest just decays and turns into soil or coal or whatever.  So the fact that evolution is holding up just fine with the <<1% sample of all living beings we've got available to work with is a pretty spectacular testament to its veracity.

Anyway, maybe the funniest thing about this whole current discussion is that neither evolution nor the big bang theory preclude the idea of a deity.  They contradict some of the specific theologies around the world, sure, but the big bang starts with the expansion of the universe, and evolution starts with life already existing.  Obviously I'm not saying it's a good idea to fill in the gaps with a deity, but you certainly can if you want to and you won't be saying anything about either theory.  People like Niko are picking at the most solid aspects of the foundation, when there's these currently extremely weak aspects just below.


----------



## MochiElZorro (Aug 19, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Since species don't appear spontaneously in monogamous pairs it proves that there was no Adam and Eve, therefore no original sin and no need of a saviour. Unless you decide to say 'religion is metaphorical and will be right however wrong it might appear to be' of course.



Pretty much. It's also about fear of not knowing. If the God we know doesn't exist, is there one at all? And even so, is there an afterlife? How do we get there if we don't know this God's will? What if we don't matter to this God? Et cetera. It's easier to follow visible rules and beliefs than invisible, possibly nonexistent ones.

... I spend my spare time looking at things from different perspectives and over-analyzing them. I think it's called psychology. Or insanity. Or something.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Aug 20, 2013)

Ah, if only more believers would scrutinize their own faith as much as they do science.


----------



## Bambi (Aug 20, 2013)

Warning: trolling.

I get the feeling that some of the people in here, who have a desperate need to swat at the religious with a near constant insistence even without provocation, are really just desperate to get it or it's experiences back. However for whatever reason, they feel a continued insecurity as people like them are either apparently castigated, or ignored, or they would frame it, and instead, liaison on the edges of tipping right over back into faith using science, not ever really understanding it, as a way to buffer themselves from further psychological injury.

Warning: trolling has ended.


----------



## Khaki (Aug 20, 2013)

Bambi said:


> Warning: trolling.
> 
> I get the feeling that some of the people in here, who have a desperate need to swat at the religious with a near constant insistence even without provocation, are really just desperate to get it or it's experiences back. However for whatever reason, they feel a continued insecurity as people like them are either apparently castigated, or ignored, or they would frame it, and instead, liaison on the edges of tipping right over back into faith using science, not ever really understanding it, as a way to buffer themselves from further psychological injury.
> 
> Warning: trolling has ended.



Pardon?


----------



## Bambi (Aug 20, 2013)

Troj said:


> What if we're all living in a simulation created by some higher intelligence--whether artificial, supernatural, extraterrestrial, or otherwise?


Here's a feather for your hat (an answer for your question, rather):

Holographic Principle


----------



## powderhound (Aug 20, 2013)

The topic of this thread is how I used to perceive things but that recently changed. 

I studied Evolution and Ecology. At the time my graduate program was ranked #1 in the country by US N&WR. It was a real dog and pony show. Religious groups would bus in hundreds of people in an attempt to occupy 500+ person lecture halls. Other times they would filibuster or heckle classes. The professors were wildly gregarious and would call out/ challenge religious people in the audience in every class.  F-bombs left and right. The energy was amazing and it was a good show. On the weekends the grad students would debate these groups, the fire department would have to kick people out of these huge lecture halls.  

This topic brings out such visceral emotions in people. 

Evolution, while outwardly a simple concept, is extremely complicated. It takes years of upper division coursework to wrap your head around the details. You can’t really cover anything substantive in these creation vs. evolution arguments therefore neither side ever experiences a paradigm shift. They are really just for entertainment purposes. 

I was competitive and there was a guy I ran neck and neck with through the program. We became good friends and ended up living together at a research station in the middle of NOWHERE. Shortly after moving in I come back to the dorm and the place is stocked with home cooked food, furniture and swag. I’m like “where did all this come from?” The answer was the local church. I knew him well and had no idea. Don’t ask don’t tell. I still have never brought myself to ask him if it creates any internal conflict for him. Although I do wonder given the environment we were brought up in. He’s now finishing his PhD in Evolution and Ecology. He kicks ass at it and I doubt anyone in the lab knows he’s very religious. 

Religion’s not all that popular in California compared to the rest of the country. I recently spent a year at a university in the Midwest and boy was that a shocker. I was surrounded by some of the smartest people in the country, all widely published with the highest degree’s possible in their respective fields. Shortly after being introduced to anyone the next question was about what church I was going to join. Everyone’s casual conversations revolved around church activities. People actually became ‘suspicious’ of me because I would change the subject and dodge their questions. 

My brother, bless his heart, as a joke told me to tell them I belonged to a non-denominational mega church in California and was attending online mega mass. It worked. Sooo well. The response was usually “Wow. Kids these days. Amazing.” Then it was back to work as usual. 

There’s less to do in the Midwest compared to California. Religion performed more of a social function but it was very pervasive. At first I had a very difficult time rationalizing how such intelligent people could be so obsessed with religion. 

*In the end I decided it had much more to do with environmental factors than inelegance. *

If it was the culture of the region and the environment they were raised in then it’s not difficult to see how selection bias would be very difficult to control for in such a meta analysis.


----------



## Bambi (Aug 20, 2013)

powderhound said:


> Evolution, while outwardly a simple concept, is extremely complicated. It takes years of upper division coursework to wrap your head around the details. You canâ€™t really cover anything substantive in these creation vs. evolution arguments therefore neither side ever experiences a paradigm shift. They are really just for entertainment purposes.


Also, this.

Most people come armed with the side they want to argue, and some will even lie frequently about giving one side or another the chance to convince them, but all of this is really a hat trick to draw someone else either into impatience, or non-sequitur's. As you've stated more or less, really, it winds up being who can intellectually flex the hardest or push the most brazen attempts to insult the personal knowledge that someone else has acquired the most, or at least ignore it in the most comedic way possible. It's entertaining to see when real thinkers exchange ideas, but the common lot is more scared and excited; the big secret for them, and most people, no matter which side, is that it feels good to argue.

Dopamine and such.


powderhound said:


> If it was the culture of the region and the environment they were raised in then itâ€™s not difficult to see how selection bias would be very difficult to control for in such a meta analysis.


Yep.

It's very interesting watch people rationalize every study, every report, every piece of research given as practically an infallible truth that nobody can confront, even sabotage from within. We're animals, and we're bound to take risks; some of us take that risk with our research if it means shaping the world to our own fortune. And we'll say to ourselves it's to confront a greater evil, and naturally the world will suffer for it. Thank you for your perspectives.


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 20, 2013)

powderhound said:


> Evolution, while outwardly a simple concept, is extremely complicated. It takes years of upper division coursework to wrap your head around the details. You canâ€™t really cover anything substantive in these creation vs. evolution arguments therefore neither side ever experiences a paradigm shift. They are really just for entertainment purposes.



That is very true! The concept itself is rather easy to grasp though. "Change over time through small variations" is a pretty simple concept to grasp and in my opinion it could be taught as early as late elementary school. Like 4th or 5th grade.
But then there are the more complicated aspects and I am sure that is what's causing problems and misconceptions.


----------



## powderhound (Aug 20, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> That is very true! The concept itself is rather easy to grasp though. "Change over time through small variations" is a pretty simple concept to grasp and in my opinion it could be taught as early as late elementary school. Like 4th or 5th grade.
> But then there are the more complicated aspects and I am sure that is what's causing problems and misconceptions.



Well, not really in the way you might think. People believe what they want to believe. The basic evidence upon which the simple concepts of evolution are based should be easy enough for even 5th graders to grasp as you said. However if someone isn't receptive to the information it doesn't matter how easy it is to grasp. 

The complicated aspects present more of a problem for the people who really want or need to understand it in detail like advanced undergrad or grad students. It degenerates from a broad conceptual endeavor and balloons into a complicated mathematical one quite rapidly. The genetics get ugly, the math gets horrendous. The complexity involved actually undermined my confidence to an extent. Internally I begin to question science that seems to be unnecessarily complicated. I must admit that 90% of the undergrads who work out the problems don't really understand the proofs because of the language barrier created by the mathematics. Bio people do better with concepts. 

I feel like clarifying that based on the experience outlined in my above post I do feel 'believing in evolution' and being religious can be two separate issues and I think more and more people are beginning to accept that.


----------



## Azure (Aug 20, 2013)

Bambi said:


> Warning: trolling.
> 
> I get the feeling that some of the people in here, who have a desperate need to swat at the religious with a near constant insistence even without provocation, are really just desperate to get it or it's experiences back. However for whatever reason, they feel a continued insecurity as people like them are either apparently castigated, or ignored, or they would frame it, and instead, liaison on the edges of tipping right over back into faith using science, not ever really understanding it, as a way to buffer themselves from further psychological injury.
> 
> Warning: trolling has ended.


you went full retard with this

good thing you added a warning



powderhound said:


> The topic of this thread is how I used to perceive things but that recently changed.
> 
> I studied Evolution and Ecology. At the time my graduate program was ranked #1 in the country by US N&WR. It was a real dog and pony show. Religious groups would bus in hundreds of people in an attempt to occupy 500+ person lecture halls. Other times they would filibuster or heckle classes. The professors were wildly gregarious and would call out/ challenge religious people in the audience in every class. F-bombs left and right. The energy was amazing and it was a good show. On the weekends the grad students would debate these groups, the fire department would have to kick people out of these huge lecture halls.
> 
> ...


so basically, religious people are bored and have no stimulation or means to a community beyond the church? though i think what you meant to say is that the midwest is a shithole bereft of culture and vigor.


----------



## Inciatus (Aug 21, 2013)

powderhound said:


> *In the end I decided it had much more to do with environmental factors than inelegance. *


Those damned elegant people.

But the point as to environment does make sense.


----------

