Jon Stewart: "Polls are still showing the African American support for Mitt Romney is zero percent. That poll, you my friend are the margin of error. How? What is going on?"
Herman Cain: "..I am not a zero. I know a lot of black conservatives that are going to vote for Mitt Romney. The polls are inaccurate in my opinion based upon anecdotal, based upon people that I know..."
Jon Setwart: "...From what I understand, that's why they do polls."
Nice way to try to drag politics into this, I'm not even going to respond to that segment, I know exactly how the Daily Show treats its guests, especially political ones, lol.
Anyways, I still disagree that being religious makes one more likely to be dumb. Shutting your mind off to the possibility of being wrong is what makes one dumb. This is how you get the truly ignorant people, regardless of what their field is. All I'm asking is to quit making such broad statements, if there are outliers might be wise to mention them. Can't go assuming we know you put a particular statement into statistical form and know about the outliers you were thinking about. Or, as an amusing thought, could attach graphs with your paragraphs. No I'm not really expecting you to make graphs about how valid your statements are, would be pretty funny though. More important things to graph anyways...
I only dragged in Jon Stewart because of his poll statement and the statement you made about knowing someone and how someone else could interpret your personal experience to invalidate a properly conducted poll (if the poll was properly conducted). Unfortunately, the majority of religious people tend to view their own doctrines as the only truth, which makes them close-minded to other possibilities/explanations. It would be nice to drag in graphs and data tables for people to see, but you'd have to browse through the research archives to find the correct journal. It's tough to find an archive where you don't need to have a subscription account.
"You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being. "
- Albert Einstein
Religion sucks because it prevents already-smart people from reaching their full potential and becoming doctors, lawyers and scientists, which we need.
Anyways, I still disagree that being religious makes one more likely to be dumb. Shutting your mind off to the possibility of being wrong is what makes one dumb.
You have it backwards.
Smart people are more likely to realise the evidenceless nonsense that Christianity is.
Have to disagree. Case in point: Preston Jones. He seems smarter than any outspoken atheist I've talked to.
Smartness has nothing to do with it. Causation =/= correlation. The reason theists are not as favored on such studies/polls is because doing well on those polls in the first place is not something that theists even value. When we change this, we will have a better world.
Does listening to Lil Wayne make you dumb? No, it's just that the people who could give less of a damn about their SAT score are exactly the ones you'll find listening to his music.
I also noticed that gospel music is at the bottom of the barrel, but hey, I'll let you be the judge. :P
On a mildly related note, did no one check out the series I linked in a previous post? :( It talks about this stuff.
I actually have been looking at that today, the video at was particularly amusing. Is a pretty well known chain of events, born again Christian meets college, has doubts, then decides to go atheist. Guess my little brother is ahead of the curve that way, decided to be Atheist before even going to college. No, I SERIOUSLY doubt it is his brilliance that came to this conclusion, knowing him fairly well.
Found it pretty amusing that he put the Sephiroth music into the video as well. Overall it is a pretty well thought out set of videos to watch over, but too many of his important conclusions came from the professor. Of course an old professor like that would trample the crap out of the arguments of some 21 year old kid. Age differences aside, some people just naturally argue better, with or without facts. Anyways, it is a very interesting series, worth a watch I'd say.
Like any scientist, the great Albert Einstein is capable of misconceptions, misperceptions, and misunderstandings. Honestly, if lacking a "crusading spirit" is what caused him to shy away from being called an atheist, then he didn't understand what atheism is. Atheism is not so political. Do you believe in God? If yes, you are theistic. If no, you are atheistic. It's that simple. Agnosticism has nothing to do with it.
Yeah, I just went there. I said Albert Einstein was wrong. I can do that.
What does it matter that the professor was capable of trampling his argument? That's what's supposed to happen to flawed arguments. What does it matter that "too many" of his conclusions came from the professor. It could simply be that the professor was THAT correct. If you're trying to insinuate some kind of intellectual indoctrination, you'll have to elaborate. It was not a rhetoric debate, it was a logic debate. The professor used the very same reason that he had embraced before deconverting. He was wrong, and had no choice but to accept it, because that is what reason forces you to do when you are wrong.
At the risk of sounding just as zealous as everybody else here, Einstein just ran with the only logical conclusion that comes out of examining our current data: that we cannot know whether god exists or not. His point was that atheists are more often the backwards stuck up 'rebels' than the theists they 'war' against.
Like any scientist, the great Albert Einstein is capable of
misconceptions, misperceptions, and misunderstandings. Honestly, if
lacking a "crusading spirit" is what caused him to shy away from being
called an atheist, then he didn't understand what atheism is. Atheism is
not so political. Do you believe in God? If yes, you are theistic. If
no, you are atheistic. It's that simple. Agnosticism has nothing to do
with it.
The point of that quote was not about semantics or the definition of atheism, which I'm sure Einstein knew pretty well. Rather, he didn't want to be associated with "professional atheistic crusaders" because not only are they just as zealous as their religious counterparts, but Einstein's view was that if you could not admire the universe in a religious way, then you were already as good as dead. Even though I feel very strongly about my non-belief, militant atheism is something I try my best to avoid. The people at that extreme are pompous, lifeless, and devoid of creativity.
You misunderstand me. The problem is that most atheists, the vast majority of atheists, are NOT crusaders or militant in any way. "atheists are more often the backwards stuck up 'rebels' than the theists they 'war' against" Is the EXACT point I'm saying he's wrong about. Atheists are almost never like that.
Well, I would say they are based on observations, but in Mozared's case I'd say the observations are more misinformed and ignorant than subjective. Anyone who would say that most atheists are the militant, crusading variety is simply wrong. That assertion is incongruous with reality.
Again, how is what you're saying any different? In my observations, which are subjective for us all, I generally see people denouncing theism more than atheism. Which suggests they're more violent than theists, and you can see where I'm going with that. But I'm not going to state a fact such as, "Atheists are more violent than theists." Because like I said, its based on MY logic and MY observations which vary from person to person. So how is it different for you? I'm looking for statistics, facts, etc.
Logic is not subjective. There is no such thing as "MY logic".
Okay, here's two statistics:
Number of violent crimes motivated by atheism: zero
Number of wars started by atheists: zero
Sources? I don't need sources. This should be obvious. No war ever began without God or gods or spirits being on the aggressor's side, and you can't be motivated by a lack of a belief. You don't need a study to determine these things.
Your "I generally see people denouncing theism more than atheism. Which suggests they're more violent than theists" is absolutely preposterous. What is the logical underpinning of that assertion? First off, the vast majority of people are raised in a religious household. To denounce something you believed, you have to believe it in the first place. Second, you know that you don't have to denounce atheism, right? Atheism is not a belief system, it is the lack of one. To attach "-ism" to it does it an injustice because it gives it a resemblance to any religion, but it is not one. "Denouncing atheism" is like resigning from a job you never worked at.
You misunderstand me. The problem is that most atheists, the vast majority of atheists, are NOT crusaders or militant in any way. "atheists are more often the backwards stuck up 'rebels' than the theists they 'war' against" Is the EXACT point I'm saying he's wrong about. Atheists are almost never like that.
We've got Richard Dawkins & Bill Maher who outright insult people in public. We've got atheists making fools out of all of us by protesting Christmas. I've even seen posts on facebook asking for prayers for a loved one who is in the hospital, only for some asshole to come in and say "lerl, prayers are meaningless, god does not exist". I can't really bring myself to subscribe to that.
Well, I did say almost never, didn't I? I'm not one to exclude possibilities if they are plausible. With those examples, you're bearing witness to a common plague of humanity, regardless of the subject matter: vocal minorities. Just like how I don't let people who bomb abortion clinics, or protest the removal of religious symbols from government buildings, stain my perception of Christianity in general, don't let the more ignorant atheists stain your perception of them in general.
As for the likes of Maher and Dawkins, they are of the belief that they only way to argue with Christians anymore is through ridicule, because every sound reasoning presented to their opponents throughout the years has been rejected with blanket statements that have never stood firm in the face of scrutiny. Many Christian apologists flat-out close their eyes and plug their ears when their own argument is attacked.
Logic is subjective, it can be different for different people. But that discussion can be overlooked for this.
I don't know what you mean by those statistics. Its entirely possible someone thought, "well, I can commit this crime and never be held accountable for it [assuming I know I won't be caught] because I'm an atheist." That could easily be the same motivation as a religious one. But religious motivation could be both good and bad. That's entirely possible so your statistics can't be cited by common sense.
Anyway, I don't really like this whole "religion has caused war" belief because in reality, it detracts from the fact that people cause wars. And you could easily say religion has possibly prevented more wars than its caused. Also because I don't advocate all religions, just one, and so its kind of irrelevant if they've caused wars. And if there's a God, what does it matter? Wars really don't have anything to do with proving/disproving theism.
"No war ever began without God or gods or spirits being on the aggressor's side." What...?
Your last paragraph is kind of just a bunch of philosophical mumbo-jumbo and terminology, incorrect as well. Really has no place in an argument, other than for clarification purposes, which wasn't your intent (which was really to insult me).
I don't like being involved in debates and discussions with people, frankly, like you. So I won't reply (to you) anymore, take it as a victory if you'd like. Studies show people who are nicer (that is, not trying to make people feel dumb and insulting them) are generally happier on the inside as well. Take that into consideration :)
By the way, about my "I generally see people denouncing theism more than atheism. Which suggests they're more violent than theists" being preposterous... You, purposefully I suspect, missed my point that it was what you were doing.
@Deadzergling: Go
I didn't say all religious people were ALWAYS dumb; they have a tendency to be dumb; everything has outliers and anomalies. http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/28/nation/la-na-religion-survey-20100928
Jon Stewart: "Polls are still showing the African American support for Mitt Romney is zero percent. That poll, you my friend are the margin of error. How? What is going on?"
Herman Cain: "..I am not a zero. I know a lot of black conservatives that are going to vote for Mitt Romney. The polls are inaccurate in my opinion based upon anecdotal, based upon people that I know..."
Jon Setwart: "...From what I understand, that's why they do polls."
@FDFederation: Go
Nice way to try to drag politics into this, I'm not even going to respond to that segment, I know exactly how the Daily Show treats its guests, especially political ones, lol.
Anyways, I still disagree that being religious makes one more likely to be dumb. Shutting your mind off to the possibility of being wrong is what makes one dumb. This is how you get the truly ignorant people, regardless of what their field is. All I'm asking is to quit making such broad statements, if there are outliers might be wise to mention them. Can't go assuming we know you put a particular statement into statistical form and know about the outliers you were thinking about. Or, as an amusing thought, could attach graphs with your paragraphs. No I'm not really expecting you to make graphs about how valid your statements are, would be pretty funny though. More important things to graph anyways...
@Deadzergling: Go
I only dragged in Jon Stewart because of his poll statement and the statement you made about knowing someone and how someone else could interpret your personal experience to invalidate a properly conducted poll (if the poll was properly conducted). Unfortunately, the majority of religious people tend to view their own doctrines as the only truth, which makes them close-minded to other possibilities/explanations. It would be nice to drag in graphs and data tables for people to see, but you'd have to browse through the research archives to find the correct journal. It's tough to find an archive where you don't need to have a subscription account.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse Premium"You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being. "
- Albert Einstein
Religion sucks because it prevents already-smart people from reaching their full potential and becoming doctors, lawyers and scientists, which we need.
@Gradius12: Go
Have to disagree. Case in point: Preston Jones. He seems smarter than any outspoken atheist I've talked to.
You have it backwards.
Smart people are more likely to realise the evidenceless nonsense that Christianity is.
Smart people just tend to be atheistic.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumSmartness has nothing to do with it. Causation =/= correlation. The reason theists are not as favored on such studies/polls is because doing well on those polls in the first place is not something that theists even value. When we change this, we will have a better world.
For example, here is a poll of SAT scores vs. type of music you listen to: http://musicthatmakesyoudumb.virgil.gr/
Does listening to Lil Wayne make you dumb? No, it's just that the people who could give less of a damn about their SAT score are exactly the ones you'll find listening to his music.
I also noticed that gospel music is at the bottom of the barrel, but hey, I'll let you be the judge. :P
I actually have been looking at that today, the video at was particularly amusing. Is a pretty well known chain of events, born again Christian meets college, has doubts, then decides to go atheist. Guess my little brother is ahead of the curve that way, decided to be Atheist before even going to college. No, I SERIOUSLY doubt it is his brilliance that came to this conclusion, knowing him fairly well.
Found it pretty amusing that he put the Sephiroth music into the video as well. Overall it is a pretty well thought out set of videos to watch over, but too many of his important conclusions came from the professor. Of course an old professor like that would trample the crap out of the arguments of some 21 year old kid. Age differences aside, some people just naturally argue better, with or without facts. Anyways, it is a very interesting series, worth a watch I'd say.
@Gradius12: Go
Like any scientist, the great Albert Einstein is capable of misconceptions, misperceptions, and misunderstandings. Honestly, if lacking a "crusading spirit" is what caused him to shy away from being called an atheist, then he didn't understand what atheism is. Atheism is not so political. Do you believe in God? If yes, you are theistic. If no, you are atheistic. It's that simple. Agnosticism has nothing to do with it.
Yeah, I just went there. I said Albert Einstein was wrong. I can do that.
@Deadzergling: Go
What does it matter that the professor was capable of trampling his argument? That's what's supposed to happen to flawed arguments. What does it matter that "too many" of his conclusions came from the professor. It could simply be that the professor was THAT correct. If you're trying to insinuate some kind of intellectual indoctrination, you'll have to elaborate. It was not a rhetoric debate, it was a logic debate. The professor used the very same reason that he had embraced before deconverting. He was wrong, and had no choice but to accept it, because that is what reason forces you to do when you are wrong.
@Saltpeter: Go
At the risk of sounding just as zealous as everybody else here, Einstein just ran with the only logical conclusion that comes out of examining our current data: that we cannot know whether god exists or not. His point was that atheists are more often the backwards stuck up 'rebels' than the theists they 'war' against.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumThe point of that quote was not about semantics or the definition of atheism, which I'm sure Einstein knew pretty well. Rather, he didn't want to be associated with "professional atheistic crusaders" because not only are they just as zealous as their religious counterparts, but Einstein's view was that if you could not admire the universe in a religious way, then you were already as good as dead. Even though I feel very strongly about my non-belief, militant atheism is something I try my best to avoid. The people at that extreme are pompous, lifeless, and devoid of creativity.
He was wrong about much more crucial matters than this. :P
But I agree wholeheartedly with his stance on these issues. It's another reason why I admire him so much.
@Gradius12: Go
"The people at that extreme are arrogant, lifeless, and devoid of creativity." <- Hipsters?
@Mozared: Go
@Gradius12: Go
You misunderstand me. The problem is that most atheists, the vast majority of atheists, are NOT crusaders or militant in any way. "atheists are more often the backwards stuck up 'rebels' than the theists they 'war' against" Is the EXACT point I'm saying he's wrong about. Atheists are almost never like that.
I've already made this point in the topic.
http://www.sc2mapster.com/forums/general/off-topic/42073-do-you-consider-yourself-part-of-an-organized-religion/?page=12#p240
@Saltpeter: Go
Both yours and the opinion your replying to contain logic based on subjective observations?
@Charysmatic: Go
Well, I would say they are based on observations, but in Mozared's case I'd say the observations are more misinformed and ignorant than subjective. Anyone who would say that most atheists are the militant, crusading variety is simply wrong. That assertion is incongruous with reality.
@Saltpeter: Go
Again, how is what you're saying any different? In my observations, which are subjective for us all, I generally see people denouncing theism more than atheism. Which suggests they're more violent than theists, and you can see where I'm going with that. But I'm not going to state a fact such as, "Atheists are more violent than theists." Because like I said, its based on MY logic and MY observations which vary from person to person. So how is it different for you? I'm looking for statistics, facts, etc.
@Charysmatic: Go
Logic is not subjective. There is no such thing as "MY logic".
Okay, here's two statistics:
Number of violent crimes motivated by atheism: zero
Number of wars started by atheists: zero
Sources? I don't need sources. This should be obvious. No war ever began without God or gods or spirits being on the aggressor's side, and you can't be motivated by a lack of a belief. You don't need a study to determine these things.
Your "I generally see people denouncing theism more than atheism. Which suggests they're more violent than theists" is absolutely preposterous. What is the logical underpinning of that assertion? First off, the vast majority of people are raised in a religious household. To denounce something you believed, you have to believe it in the first place. Second, you know that you don't have to denounce atheism, right? Atheism is not a belief system, it is the lack of one. To attach "-ism" to it does it an injustice because it gives it a resemblance to any religion, but it is not one. "Denouncing atheism" is like resigning from a job you never worked at.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumYou don't think there are militant atheists?
We've got Richard Dawkins & Bill Maher who outright insult people in public. We've got atheists making fools out of all of us by protesting Christmas. I've even seen posts on facebook asking for prayers for a loved one who is in the hospital, only for some asshole to come in and say "lerl, prayers are meaningless, god does not exist". I can't really bring myself to subscribe to that.
@Gradius12: Go
Well, I did say almost never, didn't I? I'm not one to exclude possibilities if they are plausible. With those examples, you're bearing witness to a common plague of humanity, regardless of the subject matter: vocal minorities. Just like how I don't let people who bomb abortion clinics, or protest the removal of religious symbols from government buildings, stain my perception of Christianity in general, don't let the more ignorant atheists stain your perception of them in general.
As for the likes of Maher and Dawkins, they are of the belief that they only way to argue with Christians anymore is through ridicule, because every sound reasoning presented to their opponents throughout the years has been rejected with blanket statements that have never stood firm in the face of scrutiny. Many Christian apologists flat-out close their eyes and plug their ears when their own argument is attacked.
@Saltpeter: Go
Logic is subjective, it can be different for different people. But that discussion can be overlooked for this.
I don't know what you mean by those statistics. Its entirely possible someone thought, "well, I can commit this crime and never be held accountable for it [assuming I know I won't be caught] because I'm an atheist." That could easily be the same motivation as a religious one. But religious motivation could be both good and bad. That's entirely possible so your statistics can't be cited by common sense.
Anyway, I don't really like this whole "religion has caused war" belief because in reality, it detracts from the fact that people cause wars. And you could easily say religion has possibly prevented more wars than its caused. Also because I don't advocate all religions, just one, and so its kind of irrelevant if they've caused wars. And if there's a God, what does it matter? Wars really don't have anything to do with proving/disproving theism.
"No war ever began without God or gods or spirits being on the aggressor's side." What...?
Your last paragraph is kind of just a bunch of philosophical mumbo-jumbo and terminology, incorrect as well. Really has no place in an argument, other than for clarification purposes, which wasn't your intent (which was really to insult me).
I don't like being involved in debates and discussions with people, frankly, like you. So I won't reply (to you) anymore, take it as a victory if you'd like. Studies show people who are nicer (that is, not trying to make people feel dumb and insulting them) are generally happier on the inside as well. Take that into consideration :)
By the way, about my "I generally see people denouncing theism more than atheism. Which suggests they're more violent than theists" being preposterous... You, purposefully I suspect, missed my point that it was what you were doing.