Skip to main content

I observe human interaction. I can comment when I want to.

 

You misunderstood my statement. When I said you could 'hide' if you wanted to, I was not implying that you should. I was merely saying that you can choose not to have to have a confrontation with a Bible thumper by simply walking on by or not responding on a forum. As I said, people feel threatened by something or someone different.  Your way of looking at religion is different from 80% of the population. By stating, 'I think religion is silly or superstition', that makes you a target of that 80%. In other countries, by not agreeing with the majority religion, you get hanged.  Better here, I think.

 

There is nothing wrong with you or atheism. It's just different. People born with birth defects are also different, but they don't have the luxury to 'hide' in public when the attacks become too much. (and before you say it, no, I am not comparing atheism to a birth defect)

 

So yes, speak up and state your case. But don't succumb to petty attacks on the other side when logic and facts are your best ammunition.

 

Hardwiring comes from generations of experience and a little bit of genetics, my best guess.

Originally Posted by A. Robustus:
Originally Posted by SistahToldYa:

I seem to remember learning the word atheist long before I attended Deshler high school. I'm not sure what grade, but it was on a spelling list, along with the definition, as it was with all words on the list. And A. Robustus, you didn't know what it meant until 12 years ago? Hmmmm.

==
Yup. Having not been indoctrinated with mythical silliness in the first place, the word "atheist" was not part of my vocabulary until relatively recently. It wasn't necessary. I'll let Sam explain:

In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist." We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs. - Sam Harris

Hopefully

there is a debate between Sam Harris and

superman

Kyle Butt

in the making. Sam agreed initially but is trying to back out.

and substitute someone else

but

Butt

says no Sam no debate.

so

we

shall

see.

 


 

Originally Posted by Seven:

DF, there is nothing fun about watching a man who is obviously very sick in the head at work on these forums all the time. One stupid mind game after another. From what I understand he is/was a business man in the Florence area in the woodworking industry and is out on the streets free to mingle with society. That's a frightening concept. That he isn't getting some help for his mental defect(s). He is a man who loves continuous attention but should receive nothing but our pity. 

 

vega is indeed Rramm and so is the 6 packk character. It's very obvious. He slips up every now and then and starts posting in that incoherent language only he knows with the grammar of that of a 1st grader. 

Thanks for that, seven.  I do try to ignore Rram every chance I get, for reasons you understand.  I'll do better, now, for your input.

 

All kidding aside, it's my understanding he owns guns.  Someone should do something.

 

DF

Originally Posted by A. Robustus:


"...It wasn’t long ago when statements made in a pulpit were simply assumed to be true. Now, a child with an iPhone in the pew can find ample evidence contradicting whatever the men of God are saying. That “true story” your pastor is telling? Snopes.com debunked it long ago. Gay marriage is destructive, he says? Thousands of YouTube videos made by gays and lesbians in love — as well as other Christians — can attest otherwise. Evolution is a liberal conspiracy? TalkOrigins.org will show you how to respond to every argument on the Creationist side. Abstinence-only sex education is working? Not according to the new scientific study you just read..."

"...This is why atheists love the Internet. We can tell Christians the emperor’s not wearing any clothes. We can question the dogma they’ve simply accepted all their lives. We can expose religious frauds. We can explain the many unfortunate consequences of unquestioned belief. The Internet is blind faith’s worst nightmare..."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...gJQAMHgLnU_blog.html

Adot, you've probably seen this:  http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US.../UPI-70741337638728/

 

They're right.  Unfettered information does kill religion.  Religion depends on ignorance and trust in people who have a vested interest in fraud.

 

I'm not picking on the Jews here.  It's the same for all religions.

 

DF

Originally Posted by vega:

Actually seven I hope you wake up in a better mood tomorrow. You have been the Meany to me today.

Yeah, the truth hurts when you have been running from it so hard for so long. One of these days though you are going to have to face it and get some help. That help will not be found on an internet forum though. 

Originally Posted by vega:

Tsk tsk seven what will zazu think about that human interaction?

That it was funny, actually. You seem to have ticked off a large group of people here and apparently you have gone through many screen names. That would indicate a troll, but so far, I am still not sure.

Originally Posted by Not Shallow Not Slim:
Originally Posted by A. Robustus:


"...It wasn’t long ago when statements made in a pulpit were simply assumed to be true. Now, a child with an iPhone in the pew can find ample evidence contradicting whatever the men of God are saying. That “true story” your pastor is telling? Snopes.com debunked it long ago. Gay marriage is destructive, he says? Thousands of YouTube videos made by gays and lesbians in love — as well as other Christians — can attest otherwise. Evolution is a liberal conspiracy? TalkOrigins.org will show you how to respond to every argument on the Creationist side. Abstinence-only sex education is working? Not according to the new scientific study you just read..."

"...This is why atheists love the Internet. We can tell Christians the emperor’s not wearing any clothes. We can question the dogma they’ve simply accepted all their lives. We can expose religious frauds. We can explain the many unfortunate consequences of unquestioned belief. The Internet is blind faith’s worst nightmare..."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...gJQAMHgLnU_blog.html

Adot, you've probably seen this:  http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US.../UPI-70741337638728/

 

They're right.  Unfettered information does kill religion.  Religion depends on ignorance and trust in people who have a vested interest in fraud.

 

I'm not picking on the Jews here.  It's the same for all religions.

 

DF

==
Yup. There was a link for that story at the bottom of the original Washington Post piece. It's basically the same for all religions. They've always tried to put a lid on new information and the natural advancement of culture. It threatens their monopoly on mystical "truth" and dangerously prompts followers to do one of the most human of all acts: ask questions. It's hard to demand obedience when you have no natural authority over a free-thinking person. It's simply a desperate time for faith anywhere within the internet's reach.

The rally's organizer, a rabbinical group called Ichud Hakehillos L'tohar Hamachane -- the Union of Communities for the Purity of the Camp -- said Internet use can lead to ****ography, child abuse and other immorality.

Women were not among those at the stadiums because of separation of the sexes, and 15,000 Hasidic women watched speeches at six sites in the New York metropolitan area through a live-stream on the Internet, the News said.

The group's spokesman, Eytan Kobre, who operates a Jewish family weekly magazine in Brooklyn, said the group is not urging a ban on Internet use but wants filters.



Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US...38728/#ixzz1wHfsWRCR


----------------------

Funny stuff. I wonder what he thinks lead to all those bad things before the internet? And how lovely, women weren't allowed to be there with the men.

Originally Posted by vega:

Zaz, a few years ago I took this murder of crows on as a study. It’s been enjoyable but not without disappointments.  They are all “A” type personalities, paranoid, chapped easily  knowledge resistant and very predictable.

   They propel themselves about with “swarming behavior”. The basic rule is to ridicule first then attack without regard to consequence due to what seems to be pheromone driven. Perhaps we can share notes.

An interesting phrase you used. A "murder of crows". Always did like the archaic ways of naming things. BTW, crows are highly intelligent and one of the most advanced species of birds.

 

I would think "A" types would be the most prevalent groups on a forum, since the "B" types wouldn't care and the "C" types are hiding in the dark.

 

The basic rule on MOST forums seems to be attack first, ask questions later. Swarming only occurs after one individual has shown themselves to be one of the following or a combination: obnoxious, narcissistic, childish, crude/rude, or purposely antagonistic (troll).

 

I have noticed that forums with moderation work the most successfully, and those associated with a newspaper or particular item also succeed. (car, gun, war, etc)

Private forums or 'friend' forums usually end up being just chat rooms, not a bad thing, but not much discussion going on.

 

Since it seems that you have a past of being in the troll/obnoxious category, did you purposely antagonize to study the reaction?

Originally Posted by Bill Gray:
... I am still grappling with your purpose for beginning this discussion...

==
That's because you need to be told what to think.

As usual, most of the others (whether they agree or disagree) can get it quite easily by just being presented information to contemplate and react however they want to.

Originally Posted by A. Robustus:
Originally Posted by Bill Gray:
... I am still grappling with your purpose for beginning this discussion...

==
That's because you need to be told what to think.

As usual, most of the others (whether they agree or disagree) can get it quite easily by just being presented information to contemplate and react however they want to.

----------------------

Funny that he'd ask that since none of his threads have a purpose. They're just "spam".

Originally Posted by A. Robustus:
Originally Posted by Bill Gray:
... I am still grappling with your purpose for beginning this discussion...

==
That's because you need to be told what to think.

As usual, most of the others (whether they agree or disagree) can get it quite easily by just being presented information to contemplate and react however they want to.

Exactly! I love your response. 

Originally Posted by Zazu:
Originally Posted by DarkAngel:
Originally Posted by Zazu:
I think it might be a bit of both. I know many atheist that have just recently come out but have been atheist for most of their lives. Then I know many that have been introduced to more information and then began to loose their faith. After a while and with much anguish they had to admit they were living a lie and could no longer believe in the myths of religion.

.....................................................................................................................................
There are probably a lot who found faith by linking with others through the net. I don't see how any extra information would cause someone to lose faith, but I'm sure it happens.

______________________________________________

 

Many people simply believed what they had always been taught in church. Sometimes things didn't add up, but they really didn't have a lot of resources to argue against the church. They were also told that they just had to have faith and to not question. When they were exposed to the internet and had so much information at their finger tips, they educated themselves and realized that many things the church had told them was not accurate or flat out lies. This helped them move on from religion.

The web made things easier but there has always been the information counter to any religion. I have never been one to follow something just because someone tells me to. If I have questions, I ask, usually to the point of becoming annoying. LOL

I'm not sure that people 'move on' from religion as much as they do self reflection. It may be they move to another form of gregarious activity where they feel part of the group. Or they find that a chosen faith is not welcomed  in certain groups.

Do you think that  being educated would tend to make one move away from religion? While statistics show a higher prevalence of religion in what we would consider the uneducated regions of the world,  people of faith exist in even the most advanced areas of modern technology. So I don't think that ignorant=religious nor do I believe that educated=atheism or agnosticism.

Remember that back during the times of Christianity's beginnings, the most educated people were the religious leaders

___________________________________________

 

No, I would not say it was that black and white. Francis Collins is a good example of a very educated yet religious man. However there does seem to be some evidence that more intelligent people are atheist. There was a recent study of IQ and religious belief and it was found that the atheist scored almost 6 points higher than fundamentalist believers.

 

Once again I don't want to come across as me saying that ALL atheist are smarter than those that believe in a god. To me there are examples of both on each side. Yet it does seem that study after study leans in the direction (or outright concludes) that the more education a person has the more likely they are atheist.

 

As for those that were religious leaders back in the days of early Christianity...I think you also have to remember that they believed the earth was flat and the sun orbited the earth. Among other archaic beliefs. Women were not allowed to have an education and in many places that still holds true. You find that in extremely religious countries. I think with education came power and with power, control...religion is a good vehicle to control the masses. Also, it could have been that intelligent people are driven to have answers to the big questions. At the time religion was the answer to those questions. God did it, ya know.

That's what I thought LJ. 

 

Do the people who work at Jaynes Millwork Inc. know you are suffering from schizophrenia? Maybe someone should fill them in. It's only fair.  Your family should also be made aware of who you are really. 

 

I'm sure it would prove to be an eye opening experience. 

Last edited by Seven

Two points:

 

Interestingly, when correlating religious belief with formal education, those with advanced degrees are more apt to have such beliefs than those with less education. Some note that this doesn't reflect IQ, but a work ethic in certain segments of the population. Feel free to jump in here, Skippy, because you certainly know the subject of one such study; however, more than those of Mormon faith have been quizzed and the results were the same. Can the two studies jive, so to speak? I predict more funding for more studies that will continue to yield polar results.

 

Schizophrenia, Seven? I'm going with Pick's Disease.

Originally Posted by FirenzeVeritas:

Two points:

 

Interestingly, when correlating religious belief with formal education, those with advanced degrees are more apt to have such beliefs than those with less education. Some note that this doesn't reflect IQ, but a work ethic in certain segments of the population. Feel free to jump in here, Skippy, because you certainly know the subject of one such study; however, more than those of Mormon faith have been quizzed and the results were the same. Can the two studies jive, so to speak? I predict more funding for more studies that will continue to yield polar results.

 

Schizophrenia, Seven? I'm going with Pick's Disease.

_________________________________

 

How do we explain that only 7% of the members of the American National Academy of Sciences believe in God? A survey of fellows of the Royal Society found that only 3.3% believed in God, when the general population is somewhere around 80% belief in a god?

 

These are the numbers, how do we not draw a line of conclusion from this huge difference between the highly educated and the average educated person?

 

I recently read a study that found for every year of higher learning a person becomes 4% more likely to be atheist. I can't find the link now....I will keep looking and post it when I do.

 

Its interesting to say the least.

Originally Posted by DarkAngel:

 

No, I would not say it was that black and white. Francis Collins is a good example of a very educated yet religious man. However there does seem to be some evidence that more intelligent people are atheist. There was a recent study of IQ and religious belief and it was found that the atheist scored almost 6 points higher than fundamentalist believers.

 

Once again I don't want to come across as me saying that ALL atheist are smarter than those that believe in a god. To me there are examples of both on each side. Yet it does seem that study after study leans in the direction (or outright concludes) that the more education a person has the more likely they are atheist.

 

As for those that were religious leaders back in the days of early Christianity...I think you also have to remember that they believed the earth was flat and the sun orbited the earth. Among other archaic beliefs. Women were not allowed to have an education and in many places that still holds true. You find that in extremely religious countries. I think with education came power and with power, control...religion is a good vehicle to control the masses. Also, it could have been that intelligent people are driven to have answers to the big questions. At the time religion was the answer to those questions. God did it, ya know.

You must also remember that many of the scientists of the past were Holy men.

See the list here at wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L..._thinkers_in_science

A few of the most famous:

Galileo Galilei
Nicolaus Copernicus
Isaac Newton
Carolus Linnaeus
Michael Faraday
Louis Pasteur

 

Religion is a good control over the masses. It's easy for the snake oil salesman to promise the Elysian Fields while demanding complete obedience to his every whim. But there are always though who see through the scam and turn against him.

I think religion gives a 'bonding' to people. Whether there really is a great spirit in the sky or the brain simply creates one, it seems necessary for most folks to have him. As long as they are happy and do not commit murder or sacrifice to please this deity, I have no problem with their belief.

If someone wishes me a blessed day, it would be the same as a Star Wars fan saying 'May the force be with you!'.

Now, you are not offended by Star Wars are you?  LOL

Dark, I too will have to look up the studies I've read. I do remember that one, as I mentioned, was in Utah. That may or may not be relevant. Like Mormons or not, many are high achievers. I also recall that one study noted the correlation only for Western countries and not Eastern. From what little I know of Eastern religions, many are loosely held together, and perhaps Western religions promote the work/education ethic more--see Mormonism again.

 

RP, you know, it could be the glue...

Originally Posted by Zazu:
Originally Posted by DarkAngel:

 

No, I would not say it was that black and white. Francis Collins is a good example of a very educated yet religious man. However there does seem to be some evidence that more intelligent people are atheist. There was a recent study of IQ and religious belief and it was found that the atheist scored almost 6 points higher than fundamentalist believers.

 

Once again I don't want to come across as me saying that ALL atheist are smarter than those that believe in a god. To me there are examples of both on each side. Yet it does seem that study after study leans in the direction (or outright concludes) that the more education a person has the more likely they are atheist.

 

As for those that were religious leaders back in the days of early Christianity...I think you also have to remember that they believed the earth was flat and the sun orbited the earth. Among other archaic beliefs. Women were not allowed to have an education and in many places that still holds true. You find that in extremely religious countries. I think with education came power and with power, control...religion is a good vehicle to control the masses. Also, it could have been that intelligent people are driven to have answers to the big questions. At the time religion was the answer to those questions. God did it, ya know.

You must also remember that many of the scientists of the past were Holy men.

See the list here at wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L..._thinkers_in_science

A few of the most famous:

Galileo Galilei
Nicolaus Copernicus
Isaac Newton
Carolus Linnaeus
Michael Faraday
Louis Pasteur

 

Religion is a good control over the masses. It's easy for the snake oil salesman to promise the Elysian Fields while demanding complete obedience to his every whim. But there are always though who see through the scam and turn against him.

I think religion gives a 'bonding' to people. Whether there really is a great spirit in the sky or the brain simply creates one, it seems necessary for most folks to have him. As long as they are happy and do not commit murder or sacrifice to please this deity, I have no problem with their belief.

If someone wishes me a blessed day, it would be the same as a Star Wars fan saying 'May the force be with you!'.

Now, you are not offended by Star Wars are you?  LOL

---------------------------------------------------------

 

No I am not "offended" by either. I was just giving you an example of how religion touches my life on a daily basis. I too believe that there are many people that need to have a belief in a god. I know several personally that rely on this belief just to get through life. However, it rarely stays a personal choice with many religious people. It soon becomes the mission or goal to convert all to their way of believing. Or they feel it necessary to make laws or challenge laws for ALL of society based on their personal religious belief. Therein lies the problem.

 

As I posted up there to FV the great scientist and minds of our time are very rarely religious. With time has come more knowledge of the natural world and with that less belief.

 

It really didn't do Galileo much good being religious, did it? LOL

Intellectual superiority usually only exists in the mind of the person claiming it.

 

It's a measure of my boredom that I chanced coming here, but I see that unfortunately nothing has changed.  I am not superior to those who do not believe and they are not superior to me.  If someone says that my faith is based on ignorance, you've just proven your ignorance to me.

Originally Posted by _Joy_:

Intellectual superiority usually only exists in the mind of the person claiming it.

 

It's a measure of my boredom that I chanced coming here, but I see that unfortunately nothing has changed.  I am not superior to those who do not believe and they are not superior to me.  If someone says that my faith is based on ignorance, you've just proven your ignorance to me.

____________________________________

 

No one said any such thing Joy..

This has been a pretty nice discussion we have been having. I have not seen anyone claim to be superior. Since you have decided to comment, what are your thoughts on the many studies done on the topic of education and religious belief? Do you think the internet has had a negative effect on religion?  Do you have anything to add to that or were you just hoping to take a shot and move on?

Originally Posted by FirenzeVeritas:

Dark, I too will have to look up the studies I've read. I do remember that one, as I mentioned, was in Utah. That may or may not be relevant. Like Mormons or not, many are high achievers. I also recall that one study noted the correlation only for Western countries and not Eastern. From what little I know of Eastern religions, many are loosely held together, and perhaps Western religions promote the work/education ethic more--see Mormonism again.

 

RP, you know, it could be the glue...

_______________________________

 

I would like to see a study on the children raised in atheist households. As far as I know this has not been done. Honestly I can see where it would benefit a child to be raised in a family that does things together and has a good support system. Most practicing religious people that I know are very involved in their children's lives. I can also say the same thing about my atheist friends. They all spend a great deal of time with their children and teach them to be good moral citizens. Every atheist that I know personally, have children that do very well in school and/or attend college.

 

Could it be that religion has no bearing on work ethic, desire to reach a high degree of education? Maybe it is the family network and support that really matters.

 

I still can't find that study I was looking for, but I did see the one (I think) that you are referring to. There was also mention of children that were raised in homes where the parents were believers yet the didn't take their children to church. Those children whose parents were believers yet did very little to incorporate it into their childrens lives on a daily/weekly basis are the least likely to go to college. That is why I would like to see a study on atheist with children, I bet we would see that neither belief or non belief have much to do with work ethic and going to college. It is more than likely the time and attention a child receives from their parents and having a good support system.

 

Now after attending college do more people hold on to their religion or let it go?

Originally Posted by FirenzeVeritas:

Schizophrenia, Seven? I'm going with Pick's Disease.

I had never heard of that until your post but it sure does fit. Thanks for the info. 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pick's_disease

 

Pick's disease is a rare neurodegenerative disease that causes progressive destruction ofnerve cells in the brain. Symptoms include loss of speech (aphasia), and dementia. While some of the symptoms can initially be alleviated, the disease progresses and patients often die within two to ten years. [1] A defining characteristic of the disease is build up oftau proteins in neurons, accumulating into silver-staining, spherical aggregations known as "Pick bodies".[2]

While the term Pick's disease was once used to represent a class of clinical syndromes with symptoms attributable to frontal and temporal lobe dysfunction, it is now used among professionals to mean a specific pathology that is just one of the causes of frontotemporal lobar degeneration. Some people still use the term Pick's disease to mean the more general clinical syndrome of frontotemporal lobar degeneration, but this has previously led to confusion among both professionals and patients and so its use should be restricted to the specific pathological subtype described below. It is also known as Pick disease andPiD (not to be confused with Pelvic Inflammatory Disease (PID) or Parkinson's Disease (PD)).

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×