Can't wait to see the reactions to this...
-
God makes you stupid, researchers claim[^]. Given all of the religious godbots that inhabit this space and their oft times hilarious ignorance this really has the strong odour of truth. Okay, not all of you but one or two of you, certainly, display an abject ignorance of virtually everything in the realm of reality and couple it with a fevered display of religious fanatacism. If the cap fits your shrunken, IQ depleted heads...
article says; "Why should fewer academics believe in God than the general population? I believe it is simply a matter of the IQ. Academics have higher IQs than the general population." --- Following that logic then we could also draw the conclusion that most "smart" people are Marxists (since many in academia are way way left of center), therefore if you are a Marxist you are smart. Annecdotally, having spoke to quite a few Marxists/Socialists I can say that many are not smart. They also seem to suck at the government tit in the form of grants, student aid subsidies, so I can also make the assumption that they are lazy... just following logic pattern of article. oh by the way at the bottom of the article it says; Next week: exclusive Reg research reveals the link between obesity and love of cake
MrPlankton
-
Rob Graham wrote:
Michael Behe for the single counter-example needed to prove the above statement false (he is a professor of Biochemistry)
"Professor" in the loosest sense. It's no secret Behe is a nutcase and doesn't deserve his title or position.
I'm the ocean. I'm a giant undertow.
Agreed. I just think Digitalman's post (and subsequent remarks as well) were neither particularly humorous, nor a proper way to make any case against religious bigotry. In fact, his remarks, along with his thought that they were funny, reflect significant atheistic bigotry on his part. I personally could care less, not being of the religious persuasion myself, but don't feel a need to attack or make light of those who choose to be believers. The post was just plain bad taste, IMO.
-
article says; "Why should fewer academics believe in God than the general population? I believe it is simply a matter of the IQ. Academics have higher IQs than the general population." --- Following that logic then we could also draw the conclusion that most "smart" people are Marxists (since many in academia are way way left of center), therefore if you are a Marxist you are smart. Annecdotally, having spoke to quite a few Marxists/Socialists I can say that many are not smart. They also seem to suck at the government tit in the form of grants, student aid subsidies, so I can also make the assumption that they are lazy... just following logic pattern of article. oh by the way at the bottom of the article it says; Next week: exclusive Reg research reveals the link between obesity and love of cake
MrPlankton
MrPlankton wrote:
Next week: exclusive Reg research reveals the link between obesity and love of cake
:laugh:
-
digital man wrote:
The report does state that there a small proprortion of academics who do believe in a supreme entity. They all work in social science.
That is a convenient fiction that calls the accuracy of the entire report into question. This is the brand of sweeping generalization and half-truth that one normally would associate with nutters like the Scientologists or other religious extremists and brings no credit to atheists as a group, and most particularly no credit to you for being so delighted to find it... Look up Michael Behe for the single counter-example needed to prove the above statement false (he is a professor of Biochemistry). Nice Troll, though.
Rob Graham wrote:
Look up Michael Behe for the single counter-example needed to prove the above statement false (he is a professor of Biochemistry).
Rob Graham wrote:
brings no credit to atheists as a group, and most particularly no credit to you for being so delighted to find it...
i dont know if one single solitary example "proves" any statements false. or true. so this brings no credit to you as a poster, and most particularly no credit to you for being so undelighted about reading it.
----------------------------------------------------------- "When I first saw it, I just thought that you really, really enjoyed programming in java." - Leslie Sanford
-
article says; "Why should fewer academics believe in God than the general population? I believe it is simply a matter of the IQ. Academics have higher IQs than the general population." --- Following that logic then we could also draw the conclusion that most "smart" people are Marxists (since many in academia are way way left of center), therefore if you are a Marxist you are smart. Annecdotally, having spoke to quite a few Marxists/Socialists I can say that many are not smart. They also seem to suck at the government tit in the form of grants, student aid subsidies, so I can also make the assumption that they are lazy... just following logic pattern of article. oh by the way at the bottom of the article it says; Next week: exclusive Reg research reveals the link between obesity and love of cake
MrPlankton
it just cannot be true :((
----------------------------------------------------------- "When I first saw it, I just thought that you really, really enjoyed programming in java." - Leslie Sanford
-
Rob Graham wrote:
Look up Michael Behe for the single counter-example needed to prove the above statement false (he is a professor of Biochemistry).
Rob Graham wrote:
brings no credit to atheists as a group, and most particularly no credit to you for being so delighted to find it...
i dont know if one single solitary example "proves" any statements false. or true. so this brings no credit to you as a poster, and most particularly no credit to you for being so undelighted about reading it.
----------------------------------------------------------- "When I first saw it, I just thought that you really, really enjoyed programming in java." - Leslie Sanford
jgasm wrote:
i dont know if one single solitary example "proves" any statements false. or true.
Digitalman wrote:
They all work in social science.
Only a single counterexample is required to prove that statement false...
jgasm wrote:
so this brings no credit to you as a poster, and most particularly no credit to you for being so undelighted about reading it.
That makes about as much sense as one of Ilion's typical retorts. It's missing the asterisks for emphasis though.
-
Its what you'd hope but not what you get. People mostly see what they want, so what you really want is both a religious and a non-religious person to give their views on the data and form your own conclusion.
My current favourite word is: I'm starting to run out of fav. words!
-SK Genius
SK Genius wrote:
so what you really want is both a religious and a non-religious person to give their views on the data and form your own conclusion.
So, let some people spin the data their way and then figure out yourself who is spinning least?
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:
At least he achieved immortality for a few years.
-
jgasm wrote:
i dont know if one single solitary example "proves" any statements false. or true.
Digitalman wrote:
They all work in social science.
Only a single counterexample is required to prove that statement false...
jgasm wrote:
so this brings no credit to you as a poster, and most particularly no credit to you for being so undelighted about reading it.
That makes about as much sense as one of Ilion's typical retorts. It's missing the asterisks for emphasis though.
Rob Graham wrote:
That makes about as much sense as one of Ilion's typical retorts. It's missing the asterisks for emphasis though.
it's the same thing you said.
Rob Graham wrote:
Only a single counterexample is required to prove that statement false...
you mean digital man's joke? damn those inflamatory jokes getting people like you all twisted up. are you sure you don't believe...
----------------------------------------------------------- "When I first saw it, I just thought that you really, really enjoyed programming in java." - Leslie Sanford
-
One would hope that they reported the facts as found so it should be of no consequence but it might be interesting to know.
Yes, but if they were religious than the conclusions are suspect based upon the conclusions themselves, and if they are atheists than their objectivity is in question.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Agreed. I just think Digitalman's post (and subsequent remarks as well) were neither particularly humorous, nor a proper way to make any case against religious bigotry. In fact, his remarks, along with his thought that they were funny, reflect significant atheistic bigotry on his part. I personally could care less, not being of the religious persuasion myself, but don't feel a need to attack or make light of those who choose to be believers. The post was just plain bad taste, IMO.
The initial post was not meant to be funny: my subsequent response was. It is a pity that you fail to see that and that you feel I am an atheistic bigot. I've been called many things but that is new. I kinda like it even though it is completely untrue. I am more than happy for anyone to believe whatever they want, even you.
Rob Graham wrote:
but don't feel a need to attack or make light of those who choose to be believers
Lighten up: you're taking yourself far too seriously.
Rob Graham wrote:
The post was just plain bad taste, IMO
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion but I'd like you to explain it. I fail to see anything in poor taste at all. The research, by all accounts, is genuine and the findings do, apparently, stand up to scrutiny. So, what, exactly, is your problem with it? Are you saying that it shouldn't be disseminated becuase it might offend someone? I find that offensive: facts are facts.
-
Yes, but if they were religious than the conclusions are suspect based upon the conclusions themselves, and if they are atheists than their objectivity is in question.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yes, but if they were religious than the conclusions are suspect based upon the conclusions themselves, and if they are atheists than their objectivity is in question.
You do realise that neither might be true and that these may be honest people interpreting data in an honest way regardless of their beliefs. You do realise that some people are able to put objectivity and the truth ahead of themselves and their beliefs/non-beliefs? And I'm pretty sure you'd be the first to crow if the results had been the other way around.
-
Yes, but if they were religious than the conclusions are suspect based upon the conclusions themselves, and if they are atheists than their objectivity is in question.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
f they are atheists than their objectivity is in question.
Maybe you'd like to apply that principle to organized religion and see what you come up with.
I'm the ocean. I'm a giant undertow.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
f they are atheists than their objectivity is in question.
Maybe you'd like to apply that principle to organized religion and see what you come up with.
I'm the ocean. I'm a giant undertow.
73Zeppelin wrote:
Maybe you'd like to apply that principle to organized religion and see what you come up with.
Why? I have no problem with questioning the objectivity of religion, organized or baptists.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yes, but if they were religious than the conclusions are suspect based upon the conclusions themselves, and if they are atheists than their objectivity is in question.
You do realise that neither might be true and that these may be honest people interpreting data in an honest way regardless of their beliefs. You do realise that some people are able to put objectivity and the truth ahead of themselves and their beliefs/non-beliefs? And I'm pretty sure you'd be the first to crow if the results had been the other way around.
digital man wrote:
You do realise that neither might be true and that these may be honest people interpreting data in an honest way regardless of their beliefs. You do realise that some people are able to put objectivity and the truth ahead of themselves and their beliefs/non-beliefs?
And some aren't.
digital man wrote:
And I'm pretty sure you'd be the first to crow if the results had been the other way around.
Actually, I wouldn't, but I'm pretty sure you'd be the first to point out the obvious flaw in the study. (Frankly, I think it probably is true that religion is less common among people with high IQs simply because religion is not really an intellectual exercise, but appeals to those psychological concerns we all possess, smart and stupid alike)
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Maybe you'd like to apply that principle to organized religion and see what you come up with.
Why? I have no problem with questioning the objectivity of religion, organized or baptists.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Why? I have no problem with questioning the objectivity of religion, organized or baptists.
I meant a parallel rather than exact association. The point was that if you believe atheists may have a biased opinion regarding something, then you should be willing to apply that criteria towards those who believe in god, for example. If you think the study may be biased, then you have to be prepared to accept the same line of reasoning for the religious with, say, Christian ideology.
I'm the ocean. I'm a giant undertow.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Why? I have no problem with questioning the objectivity of religion, organized or baptists.
I meant a parallel rather than exact association. The point was that if you believe atheists may have a biased opinion regarding something, then you should be willing to apply that criteria towards those who believe in god, for example. If you think the study may be biased, then you have to be prepared to accept the same line of reasoning for the religious with, say, Christian ideology.
I'm the ocean. I'm a giant undertow.
73Zeppelin wrote:
If you think the study may be biased, then you have to be prepared to accept the same line of reasoning for the religious with, say, Christian ideology.
I may be vague on the concept, but I'm pretty sure that religion is sort of based upon non-objectivity, and is it under no obligation to be so.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
If you think the study may be biased, then you have to be prepared to accept the same line of reasoning for the religious with, say, Christian ideology.
I may be vague on the concept, but I'm pretty sure that religion is sort of based upon non-objectivity, and is it under no obligation to be so.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
religion is sort of based upon non-objectivity, and is it under no obligation to be so.
We're on the same page, but what I don't understand is why that's allowed.
I'm the ocean. I'm a giant undertow.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
religion is sort of based upon non-objectivity, and is it under no obligation to be so.
We're on the same page, but what I don't understand is why that's allowed.
I'm the ocean. I'm a giant undertow.
Freedom of religion?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
SK Genius wrote:
so what you really want is both a religious and a non-religious person to give their views on the data and form your own conclusion.
So, let some people spin the data their way and then figure out yourself who is spinning least?
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:
At least he achieved immortality for a few years.
-
Freedom of religion?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Yeah, that's the political reason - and I really don't have an objection to religious freedom. I just wonder why it's culturally taboo to suggest that God (in any one of his forms) is non-existent. I suppose it offends sensibilities. In that case I'm not sure - other than tradition - why elements of religion need to be incorporated into modern society.
I'm the ocean. I'm a giant undertow.