|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 19 2015 03:34 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2015 03:27 farvacola wrote:On September 19 2015 03:14 Gorsameth wrote:
Here is an idea. Obama is a 'Christian' because the political culture in America requires it.
The guy is smart enough to know God is not real and the bible is a work of fiction.
Sadly America is not ready to accept an atheist as President so he has to pretend to be a Christian. Here's an idea: there are multitudes of highly intelligent individuals who believe in God, and you are in no position to question the faith of another person. This discussion is as vulgar as it is stupid. Do you think being an Atheist makes it less likely to be elected compared to being Christian?
We all know the answer to that question, but that doesn't' mean this is going to be a productive discussion. It is a fact that being an atheist or religious has not baring on how intelligent a person is. Just because you know Obama is intelligent does not automatically make him an atheist.
|
On September 19 2015 03:34 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2015 03:27 farvacola wrote:On September 19 2015 03:14 Gorsameth wrote:
Here is an idea. Obama is a 'Christian' because the political culture in America requires it.
The guy is smart enough to know God is not real and the bible is a work of fiction.
Sadly America is not ready to accept an atheist as President so he has to pretend to be a Christian. Here's an idea: there are multitudes of highly intelligent individuals who believe in God, and you are in no position to question the faith of another person. This discussion is as vulgar as it is stupid. Do you think being an Atheist makes it less likely to be elected compared to being Christian?
An affirmative answer to that question does not substantiate your first post as a meaningful thing to say. Yes, running as an atheist is a presidential death sentence, but Obama's intelligence does not suggest that he's pretending. His writings allude to a deeply held belief system that looks very much like Christianity, but the sufficiency of that framework is not a topic for public debate.
|
My bad, I was responding because of comments about Obama saying he gos to church while he wife doesnt and the "dont know what happens after you die" ect. Did not mean to offend anyone.
|
On September 19 2015 03:27 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2015 02:55 Eliezar wrote:On September 19 2015 02:50 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 19 2015 02:39 Eliezar wrote:On September 19 2015 02:23 Slaughter wrote:
If you link vaccines to autism in anyway you are being ignorant. The scientific community wasted so much money/time/energy to showing that this link does not exist. But I guess its like climate change, people just don't give a fuck what science says. This is a serious problem in discussion. I have actually read through the vaccine case studies that showed that there was a higher percentage of people who got poison ivy (or something weird like that) after getting a vaccine than ended up with Autism (I'm talking like 500 page case study). However, if you are involved in the medical community then you know that we haven't tested everything. Here is an example for you: Say you are taking medicines A, B, C, and D. Every 2 medicine combination has been tested out of them, 99% of the time every 3 combination has been tested. However, when someone has a crazy response and you look...you are almost never going to have all 4 tested together. So the Pharmacist can't even help advice you...there hasn't been testing done. Also, I was going along with the 97% of scientists agree that global warming is man made (although I think this entire sentence is stupid and not accurate at all). Then I read THIS WEEK an article from the Wall Street Journal that showed that the 97% figure seems to have no basis (I think it was from August of last year or something). As they dug it up they were finding numbers like around 60%. But all of that is meaningless like the original sentence. 1) We know the earth will naturally get way warmer than it is now (we are in a cooler period). 2) We need to prepare for the earth to be a warmer place 3) We can look at Venus and see what happened there 4) We need to work for solutions that will help us deal with the warming earth and make sure we aren't accelerating the problem. I think there is a problem of people being brainwashed by repeated statements and then trying to bully others to accept them when they are not necessarily fact. For instance, can someone point to a study that examined the autism rate of children who were given the combo vaccines vs children that had them spread out? Has that study even been done? That is how science works...we have to keep asking and keep looking. For the record on autism, the strongest correlation in the US is days of rain fall to autism rate per the study I read in 2008. The researchers were suggesting that if there is something in the environment that causes it, that it might have something related to that and proposed studies on things like lack of sunlight, tv watching, etc that would be more common for children who couldn't go outside as much. Just an interesting thought. This whole claim that the 97% statistic is false has been debunked. As to your ridiculous vaccine argument, that's actually NOT how science works. Here's how it works. 1) Vaccines were first created. Rigorous scientific testing went into seeing if 1) they worked and 2) they were safe. They do and are. 2) Because the science is established, the burden of proof is on the anti-vax crowd to come up with science that disputes the well-established literature on the efficacy and safety of vaccines. 3) Some hack comes up with a terrible study that is then widely discredited. 4) The burden of proof is still on anti-vaxxers. It isn't the responsibility of reasonable individuals to waste precious time and money on creating MORE studies on vaccines when there are 1) plenty of them out there and 2) there isn't a damn shred of evidence that vaccines cause autism. It's the responsibility of anti-vaxxers to bring real evidence, which they never have. Here is the challenge on you. Link a study done on vaccine safety and the use of 5-6 vaccines at once. Here is another challenge to you. Where is the article that debunked this? http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136Both are mostly meaningless to me as I believe in going Green and if my kid's doctor says there haven't been studies done on the safety of grouped vaccines then I'm simply not going to do it unless I see otherwise (and don't have more kids coming through so it is a moot point). The point is that there is NO evidence that autism is caused by vaccines. I am sure there are about a million-and-one things that haven't been tested (and I'm sure that if you look hard enough, spurious correlations will even make it look SUPERFICIALLY like there might be a causal link to what you're searching for). I claim the moon is made of cheese. You tell me NASA went to the moon, brought back moon rock, and they showed conclusively that there is no cheese in there. I then say: ah, but the Apollo missions landed in the wrong spot. If you look 100km to the west, THAT bit of the moon is definitely made of cheese. You are moving the goal posts, in order to be able to hold onto your beliefs. That is NOT how science works. What you are doing is constructing unfalsifiable hypotheses. To make your hypothesis worth testing, you have to come up with a reason why 5 vaccines would cause autism. I might as well say we should test that getting 5 vaccines together causes Alzheimers. Is that a valid scientific experiment to do? NO. It is not, because there is absolutely NO reason to believe there is any causal effect between Alzheimers and vaccination. Just as there is absolutely NO reason to believe there is any causal effect between Autism and vaccination.
Basically... this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
|
On September 19 2015 03:38 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2015 03:34 Gorsameth wrote:On September 19 2015 03:27 farvacola wrote:On September 19 2015 03:14 Gorsameth wrote:
Here is an idea. Obama is a 'Christian' because the political culture in America requires it.
The guy is smart enough to know God is not real and the bible is a work of fiction.
Sadly America is not ready to accept an atheist as President so he has to pretend to be a Christian. Here's an idea: there are multitudes of highly intelligent individuals who believe in God, and you are in no position to question the faith of another person. This discussion is as vulgar as it is stupid. Do you think being an Atheist makes it less likely to be elected compared to being Christian? We all know the answer to that question, but that doesn't' mean this is going to be a productive discussion. It is a fact that being an atheist or religious has not baring on how intelligent a person is. Just because you know Obama is intelligent does not automatically make him an atheist.
I absolutely agree that Obama is a Christian because of his faith, and the fact that he's intelligent doesn't mean he *can't* be a Christian or that he's *secretly* an atheist, which is what Gorsameth was saying.
That being said, there have been multiple studies that have shown a negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence. Not causal, of course. Merely an association, but something to stir the pot if people think that there's no correlation whatsoever (or no studies done at all about these two factors). Wikipedia has a good compilation of some of them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence
Here are some relevant quotes from the studies in the above link:
"the authors investigated the link between religiosity and intelligence on a country level. Among the sample of 137 countries, only 23 (17%) had more than 20% of atheists, which constituted “virtually all... higher IQ countries.” The authors reported a correlation of 0.60 between atheism rates and level of intelligence, which was determined to be “highly statistically significant”.[4]"
"The idea that analytical thinking makes one less likely to be religious is an idea supported by other early studies on this issue[19] including a report from Harvard University.[15] ... Furthermore, the Harvard study found that participants who tended to think more reflectively were less likely to believe in a god.[15]"
"In a 2013 meta-analysis, led by Professor Miron Zuckerman, of 63 scientific studies about IQ and religiosity, a negative relation between intelligence and religiosity was found in 53, and a positive relation in the remaining ten. Controlling for other factors, they can only confidently show strong negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity among American Protestants.[1][2]"
"Most of the recent scientific studies have found a negative correlation between I.Q. and religiosity.[1][2]"
"Studies have shown a strong link between national average IQ and atheism in society."
There exist many other studies out there too, which tend to be either inconclusive, show a very weak correlation, or show a moderately negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity.
But all this being said- yet again- being religious (or nonreligious) does not necessarily imply that you are particularly dumb (or smart), and there is no causal link between the two.
|
I cannot fully express with words my lack of interest in an internet debate on religion vs atheism and all related topics. My only addition to any such debate will be shamelessly mocking all those involved.
Seriously, I don't give a fuck. I was responding to the stupid claim that Obama is Muslim, which continues to be stupid.
|
United States41992 Posts
There is probably correlation between IQ and questioning the default assumptions of society. In a society of mostly atheists it's entirely possible religious people would be more intelligent, simply because the people who never question anything they are told or think about their own assumptions bring the average down for the atheists.
|
Jimmy Carter, Dag Hammarskjold. Two ethical, intelligent, religious, philosophical statesmen.
|
On September 19 2015 04:21 KwarK wrote:
There is probably correlation between IQ and questioning the default assumptions of society. In a society of mostly atheists it's entirely possible religious people would be more intelligent, simply because the people who never question anything they are told or think about their own assumptions bring the average down for the atheists.
Yes I think being "more analytical" described in one of those just seems to be a self serving way to justify questioning ='s intelligence. Which like he said is more stirring the pot than anything else.
|
On September 19 2015 04:21 KwarK wrote:
There is probably correlation between IQ and questioning the default assumptions of society. In a society of mostly atheists it's entirely possible religious people would be more intelligent, simply because the people who never question anything they are told or think about their own assumptions bring the average down for the atheists.
Yep. Iranians here in Germany for example for a relatively small minority group(about 100k) but perform way above the average in terms of education with 50% having finished tertiary education compared to the 20% average. Clashing with 'mainstream' society on occasion is a good tool of preventing mob-like mentalities which isn't very beneficial for intellectual development to say the least.
|
On September 19 2015 03:27 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2015 03:14 Gorsameth wrote:
Here is an idea. Obama is a 'Christian' because the political culture in America requires it.
The guy is smart enough to know God is not real and the bible is a work of fiction.
Sadly America is not ready to accept an atheist as President so he has to pretend to be a Christian. Here's an idea: there are multitudes of highly intelligent individuals who believe in God, and you are in no position to question the faith of another person. This discussion is as vulgar as it is stupid. As much as politics today revolves around identity groups and victim groups, I can see why the discussion keeps on coming up. I'm focused on policy positions and track record of action on them. If nothing's moonbeam crazy in self-identification, I'm typically fine.
|
On September 19 2015 05:45 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2015 04:21 KwarK wrote:
There is probably correlation between IQ and questioning the default assumptions of society. In a society of mostly atheists it's entirely possible religious people would be more intelligent, simply because the people who never question anything they are told or think about their own assumptions bring the average down for the atheists. Yep. Iranians here in Germany for example for a relatively small minority group(about 100k) but perform way above the average in terms of education with 50% having finished tertiary education compared to the 20% average. Clashing with 'mainstream' society on occasion is a good tool of preventing mob-like mentalities which isn't very beneficial for intellectual development to say the least.
Iranian and German are not religious affiliations though. I think one outshines the other through cultural differences, not religious/ antireligious ones. Unless all Germans are atheists and all Iranians are religious?
|
On September 19 2015 05:45 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2015 04:21 KwarK wrote:
There is probably correlation between IQ and questioning the default assumptions of society. In a society of mostly atheists it's entirely possible religious people would be more intelligent, simply because the people who never question anything they are told or think about their own assumptions bring the average down for the atheists. Yep. Iranians here in Germany for example for a relatively small minority group(about 100k) but perform way above the average in terms of education with 50% having finished tertiary education compared to the 20% average. Clashing with 'mainstream' society on occasion is a good tool of preventing mob-like mentalities which isn't very beneficial for intellectual development to say the least.
Those are probably not a representative sample of Iranians. That they left indicates they were probably already more secular and more educated than the average Iranian. This would also (statistically) mean their progeny also would be so whether in Iran or Germany.
|
On September 19 2015 05:14 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2015 04:21 KwarK wrote:
There is probably correlation between IQ and questioning the default assumptions of society. In a society of mostly atheists it's entirely possible religious people would be more intelligent, simply because the people who never question anything they are told or think about their own assumptions bring the average down for the atheists. Yes I think being "more analytical" described in one of those just seems to be a self serving way to justify questioning ='s intelligence. Which like he said is more stirring the pot than anything else.
I don't know if it goes both ways though, purely based on percentage. There is a level of (supernatural) dogma that exists for many religious people that doesn't exist for atheists, and so I don't think that being in a majority or minority would change that about people. Atheists aren't going to become more dogmatic/ less analytical than religious people merely because they may become a majority. Or if that's the claim, I wonder if there's any evidence for that, or if it's just speculation.
|
On September 19 2015 06:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Unless all Germans are atheists and all Iranians are religious?
That's actually pretty accurate, Germany is a pretty godless place  . At least if you compare the average 'ethnic German' to Muslim or Jewish immigrants. Bringing your political beliefs into public debate like during the GOP debates pretty much no one ever does.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
anyway
the pope is coming over soon. he's said some good things but what's the u.s. catholic view on him?
|
On September 19 2015 07:56 oneofthem wrote:
anyway
the pope is coming over soon. he's said some good things but what's the u.s. catholic view on him?
From what I've seen, the reasonable ones like and agree with him while the people on the more extreme end are pretty unhappy with him.
So more or less what you'd expect.
|
On September 19 2015 08:16 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2015 07:56 oneofthem wrote:
anyway
the pope is coming over soon. he's said some good things but what's the u.s. catholic view on him? From what I've seen, the reasonable ones like and agree with him while the people on the more extreme end are pretty unhappy with him. So more or less what you'd expect.
Even the American atheists appreciate this Pope... Less anti-science, focused on actually helping people, more progressive, etc.
|
I don't understand why it's Trump's responsibility to correct someone at his speech, but Obama didn't have to repudiate the pastor at his church who said things like: "God damn America" and made multiple anti-Semitic statements over a 20 year period.
+ Show Spoiler +full disclosure: I took that talking point from Rush Limbaugh. Make of that what you will.
|
On September 19 2015 08:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2015 08:16 jcarlsoniv wrote:On September 19 2015 07:56 oneofthem wrote:
anyway
the pope is coming over soon. he's said some good things but what's the u.s. catholic view on him? From what I've seen, the reasonable ones like and agree with him while the people on the more extreme end are pretty unhappy with him. So more or less what you'd expect. Even the American atheists appreciate this Pope... Less anti-science, focused on actually helping people, more progressive, etc.
Isn´t it especially the American atheists appreciate this Pope? What I understood of the more conservative Catholics is that this Pope is a fucking hippy and they don´t like him?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
