Originally posted by Digi
lol
I know it seems harsh but consider that our (Mormons) strongest critics are Christian Evangelicals and you'll see why I see them as so dumb.
If you run into a highly educated and rational Christian evangelical...a quick way to make them turn into an idiot is say you are Mormon and invite them to "talk you out of it."
Originally posted by Digi
I hate this topic though. it's impossible to deal with without somehow sounding elitist, despite knowing that I'd be just as analytical and honest about this if it were the opposite and atheists were, on average, dumb-dumbs who ate paste as a replacement for Jesus.
It always does come off as elitist.
"By their fruits shall ye know them." When is the last time you heard about a high-level figure, who is atheist/agnostic, having a sex scandal? Crime? Hmm?
Anything?
Add in the recent study that foundd a statistical significance to a negative impact to prayer (even when the people were not aware they were being prayed for) and that makes a strong case for atheism being God's preferred choice of "belief"*. 😐
KAAAAPPOWWW!
😆 😆 😆
*So does that mean the God argument has been settled? I jest...but that makes a good case for a pragmatist, imo. lol
The low number of atheists means they won't really be heard from in all kinds of things, crime included. And I'm not sure "agnostic" would even make the news if someone had a scandal or committed a crime, so we might not have the data for that sort of thing.
I'd like to think atheists would commit less crimes, and there does exist a lot of evidence that they tend to be more moral than the religious in nearly all definable and testable ways. But we can't say for certain.
And the statistical irrelevance of prayer is well-documented. Your claim of negative impact is amusing, but likely just an aberrant result from a study or two. I have never seen such results, though I don't doubt that they exist.
{edit} http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=479017 A thread I made a while back. The OP has some good info on atheism and morality.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Woah, really?That's like...the exact opposite of what you would expect...even from "conservatives".
For the first part, the higher belief in the paranormal and such, it is explained like this:
Most degrees are not science degrees, and you can get a non-science degree without even the most cursory understanding of scientific principles. Modern education is also more about fostering individuals ideas than about challenging their conclusions, especially outside of science. Because of this, people are taught to be open to new things and rarely have meaningful criticism of how they interpret them. Additionally, in teaching students to define their own beliefs in this way, they are able to convince themselves of things they already believed to a stronger degree (intelligent people are known to have issues with convincing themselves they are right largely because being convincing is related to being intelligent; they can make the argument they know will convince themselves of what they want to be true). So, students are largely taught to be open to new ideas, not to challenge themselves or others, and how to convince themselves of what they want to be true. Hence, when controlling for education, belief in the paranormal goes up.
For conservatives it is similar, except it is a sort of direct response to science itself. Much of what they are educated in becomes the rhetoric of why not to trust science. Again, outside of a science degree, you really need know nothing about it, and it is easy to convince yourself that you are right when the system isn't set up to challenge you.
That's actually interesting as all get out, in. I may just steal that whole post there, because it's a good distillation of that phenomenon.
It also made me have the knee-jerk reaction of thinking that the best way to foster an intelligent child is to instill in them a skepticism about others and the world around them. They're natural desire to have answers and respond to others' ideas, combined with the skeptical faculties you instill in them, will lead them to discover and research things on their own so that they can provide answers. Because the alternative system, as described in your post there, seems downright repugnant to me in all but a few circumstances.
God trolling the entire Universe.
Originally posted by Digi
The low number of atheists means they won't really be heard from in all kinds of things, crime included. And I'm not sure "agnostic" would even make the news if someone had a scandal or committed a crime, so we might not have the data for that sort of thing.I'd like to think atheists would commit less crimes, and there does exist a lot of evidence that they tend to be more moral than the religious in nearly all definable and testable ways. But we can't say for certain.
And the statistical irrelevance of prayer is well-documented. Your claim of negative impact is amusing, but likely just an aberrant result from a study or two. I have never seen such results, though I don't doubt that they exist.
{edit} http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=479017 A thread I made a while back. The OP has some good info on atheism and morality.
You mean you didn't hear/read about the largest prayer study ever conducted?
Good stuff.
I believe it was inimalist who said, of this study, that those that performed worse, when they knew they were being prayed for did so because of the pressure to get better: higher stress.
I am not as familiar with the medical science when it comes to Coronary Heart Disease and recovery to know how stress directly affects recovery and mortality. I do know that stress can go both ways (that hussy): sometimes it can help recovery and sometimes it can harm. I know it is involved, in multiple fronts, with the immune system. The immune system is directly responsible for repair and recovery (i.e. macrophage presence) and can also be considered a stress response, depending on how medical you want to define these things.
Anyway, thought the study was great. Made me lulz.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1439192812/ref=pe_113430_23752450_pd_re_dt_dt1
A somewhat new book from Dawkins, elucidating the wonders of reality.
Of course Dawkins has an agenda when it comes to religion, but do you think this book will get any media coverage? I hate how he's marginalized into some irrational heathen by even liberal media sources, because he's actually not a bad figurehead for atheism. Like 95% of what he does is informative and ground-breaking and eloquent, and not the least bit "angry."
Anyway, I'll be picking up this book soon.
...
P.S. in, that is a LONG video. Cliffs notes?
Originally posted by Digi
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1439192812/ref=pe_113430_23752450_pd_re_dt_dt1A somewhat new book from Dawkins, elucidating the wonders of reality.
Of course Dawkins has an agenda when it comes to religion, but do you think this book will get any media coverage? I hate how he's marginalized into some irrational heathen by even liberal media sources, because he's actually not a bad figurehead for atheism. Like 95% of what he does is informative and ground-breaking and eloquent, and not the least bit "angry."
Anyway, I'll be picking up this book soon.
...
P.S. in, that is a LONG video. Cliffs notes?
Kinda the pope of atheism? 😄
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Kinda the pope of atheism? 😄
No, not really. It seems convenient, and I realize this was in jest, but I deliberately try to avoid painting religion and irreligion in similar terms. Because it implies consistency to the approach to knowledge, as though they are simply different sides of the same coin. They are not, and the systematic, empirical march of science, that can and does change its stance, is nothing like the dogma of most religions.
Originally posted by Digi
No, not really. It seems convenient, and I realize this was in jest, but I deliberately try to avoid painting religion and irreligion in similar terms. Because it implies consistency to the approach to knowledge, as though they are simply different sides of the same coin. They are not, and the systematic, empirical march of science, that can and does change its stance, is nothing like the dogma of most religions.
Atheism is not science.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Atheism is not science.
No, it isn't, but most of the time Dawkins is just talking about science, not about religion.
Also, the vast majority of atheists get to where they are because of some kind of scientific worldview. You can't really remove science from atheism. Obviously some atheists are going to be irrational dogmatists. Dawkins is not among them.
Again, it deliberately confuses things to use religious terms to describe atheism or a scientific worldview. Especially when there are other large differences between them, besides what I already talked about.
Originally posted by Digi
No, but most of the time Dawkins is just talking about science, not about religion.Also, the vast majority of atheists get to where they are because of some kind of scientific worldview. You can't really remove science from atheism. Obviously some atheists are going to be irrational dogmatists. Dawkins is not among them.
Dawkins aside...
Science is nether atheistic or theistic.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Dawkins aside...Science is nether atheistic or theistic.
Well, I've had this conversation before. The idea of God and religion isn't subject to scientific scrutiny. But many religious claims are. The most obvious are evangelical claims like Young Earth or creationism, but even progressive monotheistic sects tend to have God interacting in some way with the world.
This also becomes very applicable to paranormal claims that aren't specifically religious but fall into the same realm of belief.
So, in a vacuum, no, science isn't atheistic or theistic. In practice, it actually has a lot to say about modern religions. So it isn't and never will be atheistic, but it is at times very anti-theistic depending on the belief being discussed.
So we're not in disagreement, but I just want to remember that science does have a place in the discussion.
Originally posted by Digi
P.S. in, that is a LONG video. Cliffs notes?
a discussion about Harris' idea that science can inform morality, basically the same type of argument I've made in the past about objective vs absolute vs subjective morality.
He uses an example that I really like, that I think demonstrates the sort of inherent connection between suffering and morality: Imagine a universe in which every sentient creature suffered to the maximal degree. The "most-possible-suffering" universe. Would you not call this "bad"? Harris concludes with something like, "For the word bad to mean anything at all, surely this universe is it, and if you can't call the most-possible-suffering universe bad, I don't know what you are talking about, and I don't think you do either".
Originally posted by inimalist
a discussion about Harris' idea that science can inform morality, basically the same type of argument I've made in the past about objective vs absolute vs subjective morality.He uses an example that I really like, that I think demonstrates the sort of inherent connection between suffering and morality: Imagine a universe in which every sentient creature suffered to the maximal degree. The "most-possible-suffering" universe. Would you not call this "bad"? Harris concludes with something like, "For the word bad to mean anything at all, surely this universe is it, and if you can't call the most-possible-suffering universe bad, I don't know what you are talking about, and I don't think you do either".
Just a side note: In Buddhism, this universe is the world of suffering. This universe is the "most-possible-suffering" universe. Is this universe bad?
BTW I didn't see the video.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Just a side note: In Buddhism, this universe is the world of suffering. This universe is the "most-possible-suffering" universe. Is this universe bad?
well, yes. If the word "bad" has any meaning at all, the most-possible-suffering-universe is bad. iirc, the purpose of Buddhism is to escape the suffering, wouldn't that suggest they see it as a negative of some type?
the only argument I could see against that would be in terms of definitions, ie: "bad has no meaning" or "human suffering isn't related to bad" (though, with the latter, that just moves the relative definition onto "suffering" or "morality" or whatever).
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
BTW I didn't see the video.
its good, check it if you get time, its also really long
Originally posted by inimalist
well, yes. If the word "bad" has any meaning at all, the most-possible-suffering-universe is bad. iirc, the purpose of Buddhism is to escape the suffering, wouldn't that suggest they see it as a negative of some type?the only argument I could see against that would be in terms of definitions, ie: "bad has no meaning" or "human suffering isn't related to bad" (though, with the latter, that just moves the relative definition onto "suffering" or "morality" or whatever).
its good, check it if you get time, its also really long
Yes, Buddhism would agree with the connection between bad and suffering.
The only difference is when you apply the ten worlds to good or bad. It splits the concept in an unusual way. Each world has both good and bad, but I digress.