• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Religion diminishes intellect[W:114,1607]

I wouldn't know about defeat except second hand from watching you fail time and again. Trying to make yourself the centre of attention is definitely a personality disorder. You related to Chump?

So you are saying I have a personality disorder?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Hollow Platitude.
The Links/posts I made previous in the string (wiki, etc) do offer some explanation as well as the correlations.
It's hard to make Einstein (or grad students) believe, or give credence to voodoo, or Astrology, or ghosts, (holy or not), than it is a bunch of 80 IQers.
Religion, especially literal beliefs like YEC, are demonstrably wrong, and akin to other Conspiracy theories and 'gods' of more Primitive man.
It's like Santa Claus and the tooth fairy.

I asked you a simple question and you gave me this? Let's try again:

Does correlation = causation?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
So you are saying I have a personality disorder?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

:lamo It is all about you isn't it? Oh! Look! Over there! Someone who never heard of BJ50 made a comment completely unrelated to religion. Surely they must be singllng BJ50 out for special attention.
 
:lamo It is all about you isn't it? Oh! Look! Over there! Someone who never heard of BJ50 made a comment completely unrelated to religion. Surely they must be singllng BJ50 out for special attention.

Are you saying I have a personality disorder?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
First, religion is NOT a mental illness. Religion is a belief. If by your standard this belief is a mental illness then why not say marriage is a mental illness, or homosexuality is a mental illness or atheism is a mental illness. Believing in something doesn't make you stupid or impact your intellectual development. In fact, understanding the religions of the world, how they developed, what facts they are derived from makes you very enlightened. Choosing how you feel about anything is the very foundation of our country (freedom to believe or not to believe) so why do you insult those who do? I agree that religion has also been used as a means to control people (governments to control their people) and also that most conflicts occur because of religion. That is a different point than religion being a mental illness or people who are religious are less intelligent. Religion also has a good purpose. Religion helps teach people values we consider good over values most consider to be bad. For those who deeply believe in God or have religious beliefs, the hope is that their lives will be lived in a manner which holds them accountable to that God. It is not unlike having a law of the land or laws that all citizens must abide by. Civilization needs laws to exist. So perhaps religion is needed for humanity to exist.

You should watch the movies GOD's not dead and God's not dead 2. Honestly, it opened my mind about the existence of God and what our lives would be like if in the deepest darkest corners of our existence we didn't have a belief that one day we would all be held accountable to a higher being. Maybe you believe that's hog wash - your choice. But please don't call someone mentally ill or less intelligent because they disagree with you.

No, thinking there is a god is a belief. Religion is a grand system structured and built upon that belief. Religion is the topic of this thread, not a simple belief in god. It is religion which poses polar opposite ideas relative to rationally derived scientific explanations.
 
<snicker> Where I post is a matter of what my superficial interest at the moment is.

In my entire life, I've never much cared about my IQ or academic credentials, but because of this thread, I Googled a few days ago just to see. By the first measure, I'm part of 2.2% of the population, and by the second, I'm part of 1.68%. And I don't give a rat's ass about climate crap.

That's like the fish in the tank not caring if the owner doesn't change the filter for months at a time. Not very brilliant, but at least fish have an excuse...they're fish.
 
That's like the fish in the tank not caring if the owner doesn't change the filter for months at a time. Not very brilliant, but at least fish have an excuse...they're fish.

lol...yeah, I was trying to reconcile how someone can remark that they are top 2% in the brains department while also saying that they are choosing to remain ignorant on an issue as vitally important as climate change. :lol:
 
lol...yeah, I was trying to reconcile how someone can remark that they are top 2% in the brains department while also saying that they are choosing to remain ignorant on an issue as vitally important as climate change. :lol:

Who said anything about choosing to remain ignorant? How does not being interested in participating in the climate subforum at DP translate into ignorance on this “vitally important” issue? :lol:
 
Who said anything about choosing to remain ignorant? How does not being interested in participating in the climate subforum at DP translate into ignorance on this “vitally important” issue? :lol:

You wrote: "I don't give a rat's ass about climate crap."

There is no other way to read that than, "I prefer to remain willfully ignorant of all things climate."
 
Marriage, homosexuality and atheism are not beliefs. Unlike religious beliefs, they are real. Your ignorance of the origins of your country are on display as religion was not a factor except in it's exclusion. You need to do a little studying on historical sources not influenced by religious nutbars. Believing in imaginary being and events which never happened is a classic sign of mental illness. We have institutions for such people, some are hospitals, some are churches, temples mosques etc.

Before you ridicule me on my knowledge of the founding of this country let me show you some specific information: The colonists settled North America for different reasons that included primarily profit and religious freedom. And clearly you've decided in your own mind the definition of belief. For the record be·lief
bəˈlēf/
noun
1.
an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his belief in the value of hard work"
2.
trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
"a belief in democratic politics"
synonyms: faith, trust, reliance, confidence, credence
"belief in the value of hard work"

Therefore it is reasonable to believe that marriage or the sanctity of marriage is nothing more than a belief. And, homosexuality, the belief by many that a person is born this way is just that - a belief. Atheism is simply a belief that a God does not exist. Are you sure you want me to go on because your response shows your own (I'll use your words) ignorance of the concept of a belief.
 
Your other thread is irrelevant to this one and nothing but another of your deflections. Why are you so frightened to address what you've said in THIS thread? I've confronted you several times on your lack of logic and all you've done is ignore, ad hom, be impolite, and divert. Everything but address them.

You made a claim my thread denies that claim and all you can do about it is once again whinge about an irrelevancy,
You complain i am generalising and then attempt to justify that claim by generalising yourself. Only in your case you give us a good example of a bad use of generalising by claiming that a lot of good are also done by theists. It is not necessary to have a god in order to do good things where as it is necessary to have a god in order to believe in or try to push on others the many stupid things done in the name of a god.
And as i said there is no polite way of telling a theist they are full of **** in their belief a god actually exists. And seeing as theists have no problem bothering me with their door knocking selling of god i can not see why i should care if it upsets a theist to say to their face that their god is in fact a bit of crap.

You have failed. Completely and it didn't require much effort on my part. All you can do is be insulting... because you have nothing else. The lack of logic and reason, and the staggering self-righteous hypocrisy by you and other atheists in this thread has been quite amusing to watch. You had nothing, and needed to resort to insults and ad homs when this was exposed. You humiliated yourself. I'm sure you came around here thinking, "I'm an atheist... I'l beat up on these theists"... and then you got the e-crap kicked out of you. Good. Maybe now you'll learn some logic and do better next time.

And all you manage is to hide your religion so that it cannot be attacked and then claim this kind of victory. It really is a pathetic and obvious debate trick and nothing more.

All you do is repeat yourself not debate and i am now getting of your merry go round.
 
You wrote: "I don't give a rat's ass about climate crap."

There is no other way to read that than, "I prefer to remain willfully ignorant of all things climate."

Sure there is. Perhaps you should reflect on the Serenity Prayer. I'm not going to worry even a little bit about what I cannot control. And all I can control is being, to quote from the Book of Common Prayer (Episcopalian), a "faithful steward of God's bounty."

This doesn't mean that I haven't attended a climate lecture or two or that I don't keep up. I just don't give a rat's ass about it. You choose what you want to worry about and also keep up with here at DP, and I'll do the same.
 
No, thinking there is a god is a belief. Religion is a grand system structured and built upon that belief. Religion is the topic of this thread, not a simple belief in god. It is religion which poses polar opposite ideas relative to rationally derived scientific explanations.

re·li·gion
rəˈlijən/
noun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
"ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
synonyms: faith, belief, worship, creed; More
a particular system of faith and worship.
plural noun: religions
"the world's great religions"
a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
"consumerism is the new religion"

THERE YOU GO - religion is a belief.
 
The higher one goes in edu, the less likely to believe in god.
Same with IQ.
The highest atheism rate is among the smartest and most educated.
As I previously posted (Unanswered): The NAS/National Academy of Sciences, and UK's Royal Society, have Believer rates of 7% and 3.5% respectively. 10x-20x Less likely to believe in god than the general public.
And I recommend a fair sampling from a Google topical search:
https://www.google.com/webhp?source...v=2&ie=UTF-8#q=religiosity+and+intelligence&*

As to believers in this string? I see no indication here of 'exceptionalism' in debate quality.
Nor that much interest in science.
The two most frequent pro-religion posters having combined Science/Env-Climate posting rates of .25% and .07% respectively.
And some of that minute amount perhaps on official business rather than interest.
Mine is just under 8%... 30x and 100x more frequent than either.
If one wants to include 'philosophy,' where I post alot of science too, the percent edge probably blunts some, but you get the idea.
I think where you post is an indication of interest/knowledge/intelligence, if definitely Not the be-all end-all of it.



I've heard that statement before but I'd like to add

"the higher one goes in age the more likely the belief of a God"
 
I asked you a simple question and you gave me this? Let's try again:

Does correlation = causation?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Correlation doesn't equal causation in the way that two plus two always equals four. However, if you observe that a certain group of people seem especially prone to making ignorant statements, then it's a fair place to start. The phrase "correlation doesn't equal causation" is not a get out of dumb free card. Just because every theist isn't dumb doesn't mean you're not.
 
re·li·gion
rəˈlijən/
noun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
"ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
synonyms: faith, belief, worship, creed; More
a particular system of faith and worship.
plural noun: religions
"the world's great religions"
a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
"consumerism is the new religion"

THERE YOU GO - religion is a belief.

For the purpose of and as pertains to this thread I look at religion as something which is practised. Religion is a system of ideas and associated behaviours usually involving dogma, the truth and ritualized behaviours. Yes, there is a fundamental underlying belief upon which it all stands. A totally irrational one.

I believe in another system of thought and associated behaviours. One which is based upon finding evidence in support of ideas, which is flexible in it's findings and lacks any pretence of being absolutely correct. Nothing is worshipped. I believe in it because it is demonstrably successful in enhancing the human experience.
 
Last edited:
I've heard that statement before but I'd like to add

"the higher one goes in age the more likely the belief of a God"

Now there is a weird correlation.

please tell me this is not something as silly as the closer to death the more you want to believe crap. That really is nothing more than a theist argument meant to make themselves feel better than a reflection of atheism.
 
I've heard that statement before but I'd like to add

"the higher one goes in age the more likely the belief of a God"

I have gone the other way. The older I have become, the more I have wanted to believe as many true things as possible (I am using those words informally). What has become apparent to me is that believing things that can be shown to work or exist rather than things that I want to work or exist has helped give me peace of mind. A good mental model of reality that accords with reality is worth it's weight in Unobtanium.
 
The higher one goes in edu, the less likely to believe in god.
Same with IQ.
The highest atheism rate is among the smartest and most educated.

And a full quart low on Godly wisdom.

You won't find God in a test tube or on a slide rule.

One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a
long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and
tell Him that they were done with Him. The scientist walked up to God and
said, "God, we've decided that we no longer need you. We're to the point
that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don't you just
go on and get lost."

God listened very patiently and kindly to the man and after the scientist was
done talking, God said, "Very well, how about this, let's say we have a man
making contest." to which the scientist replied, "OK, great!" but God added,
"Now, we're going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam."
the scientist said, "sure, no problem" and bent down and grabbed himself a
handful of dirt. God just looked at him and said, "No, no, no. You go make
your own dirt!"
 
I'm still shaking my head about posting about climate change proving one is "smart" about science.

The irony of trying to prove one's logic by making a statement like that is quite amusing.
 
You made a claim my thread denies that claim and all you can do about it is once again whinge about an irrelevancy,

Your thread had nothing to do with what we were discussing. It was a diversion. I exposed plenty of your generalizations. Instead of addressing them... or taking responsibility for them, you diverted. Weak.

You complain i am generalising and then attempt to justify that claim by generalising yourself.

Since that didn't happen, I must conclude that you are either being dishonest or diverting. Again.

Only in your case you give us a good example of a bad use of generalising by claiming that a lot of good are also done by theists.

A lot of good has been done by theists. Prove me wrong. Btw... a lot of good has also been done by atheists. I see your problem. You don't understand the meaning of the word "overgeneralizing".

It is not necessary to have a god in order to do good things

Correct. I have never said different.

where as it is necessary to have a god in order to believe in or try to push on others the many stupid things done in the name of a god.

This is not true. Any belief can be used in this purpose. Theism... or as we've seen in this thread, atheism.

And as i said there is no polite way of telling a theist they are full of **** in their belief a god actually exists. And seeing as theists have no problem bothering me with their door knocking selling of god i can not see why i should care if it upsets a theist to say to their face that their god is in fact a bit of crap.

I really don't care who knocks at your door. That's not my problem or my responsibility. In THIS thread, you are not talking to people who knock at your door. If you want to be rude, be prepared to have it shoved back in your face, four-fold. From your complaining, it seems to me that not only are you incapable of taking responsibility for your behavior, but also incapable of handling it when you get it thrown back at you.

And all you manage is to hide your religion so that it cannot be attacked and then claim this kind of victory. It really is a pathetic and obvious debate trick and nothing more.

You are incapable of debating this topic without making attacks, making strawman arguments, and without falling into a multitude of logical fallacies. You've shown yourself to be totally inept at discussing this topic.

All you do is repeat yourself not debate and i am now getting of your merry go round.

You've shown us nothing other than cowardly and ineffectual debate tactics. And when this is pointed out, all you do is complain. Probably a good idea for you to vacate this topic. I doubt you could stand any more humiliation.
 
And a full quart low on Godly wisdom.
Your wisdom score only matters when youre playing Dungeons and Dragons anyway. :2razz:
 
Your thread had nothing to do with what we were discussing. It was a diversion. I exposed plenty of your generalizations. Instead of addressing them... or taking responsibility for them, you diverted. Weak.

.

You made a claim my thread denies it . Your attempting to ignore it is your fail. You said;
Nah, if the atheist speaks first, the onus is on them... and usually if the atheist speaks first, they are the one speaking stupidly.
I spoke first and you have failed to back your claim. Pretending that the topic is irrelevant is again your fail to prove that it was speaking stupidly.

Since that didn't happen, I must conclude that you are either being dishonest or diverting. Again.
Once again it is not easy to deny your own words when i can easily copy and paste them'.
Basic overgeneralization and plenty of evidence that many who are intelligent, completely sane, and who do not abuse children, are religious.
You generalise about theists also being good. A bad use of a generalisation because a god is not necessary to achieve these things where as a god is necessary to do an evil in his name.

A lot of good has been done by theists. Prove me wrong. Btw... a lot of good has also been done by atheists. I see your problem. You don't understand the meaning of the word "overgeneralizing".
Just did read above
Correct. I have never said different.
This is not true. Any belief can be used in this purpose. Theism... or as we've seen in this thread, atheism.
Incorrect, atheist are quite capable of behaving badly but it is not done in the name of athesim. Theists who act badly in the name of their god have no such excuse.

I really don't care who knocks at your door. That's not my problem or my responsibility. In THIS thread, you are not talking to people who knock at your door. If you want to be rude, be prepared to have it shoved back in your face, four-fold. From your complaining, it seems to me that not only are you incapable of taking responsibility for your behavior, but also incapable of handling it when you get it thrown back at you.
Considering that you refuse to debate your own beliefs then you are talking for other theists. Including those who knock on doors. It is a dishonest debate trick to talk in general about theism so as to avoid talking about your own personal beliefs and then complain when something is said that has nothing to do with your belief.

You are incapable of debating this topic without making attacks, making strawman arguments, and without falling into a multitude of logical fallacies. You've shown yourself to be totally inept at discussing this topic.
And this is all you are capable of. Whinging about attitude because you have no real defense for the subject itself


You've shown us nothing other than cowardly and ineffectual debate tactics. And when this is pointed out, all you do is complain. Probably a good idea for you to vacate this topic. I doubt you could stand any more humiliation
You only find it such because you disagree with what is said rather than what is said is as you describe.

You are a moderator i take it. With the power to censure people who are rude to others and yet i receive no infractions. Tells me your pissing into the wind rather than making a legitimate complaint.
 
You made a claim my thread denies it . Your attempting to ignore it is your fail. You said;

I spoke first and you have failed to back your claim. Pretending that the topic is irrelevant is again your fail to prove that it was speaking stupidly.

I see. Reading comprehension is your issue. I said that if the atheist speaks first, then it is up to the atheist to prove his position. So, in that thread, it is up to the atheist to prove his position. Also, if you note, I said USUALLY if the atheist speaks first it is they who are speaking stupidly. Firstly, notice the word USUALLY. That offers an exception, negating the generalization, and reminding you that just because one speaks first, it doesn't mean that what that person said was stupid. Secondly, in the context of which we were discussing, it is up to the first person who speaks to prove their position whether or not if what they say is stupid.

So, you failed again. I did not make an overgeneralization. Your bringing up your thread is irrelevant to the discussion. You said something first, there, so it is up to you to prove it. That's all the bearing your thread has. You both screwed up, AGAIN, on reading comprehension and, because of that, made an irrelevant claim. You have now been corrected. Make a note of it.

Once again it is not easy to deny your own words when i can easily copy and paste them'.

You generalise about theists also being good. A bad use of a generalisation because a god is not necessary to achieve these things where as a god is necessary to do an evil in his name.

Again, I wonder if it is poor reading comprehension or basic dishonesty on your part that causes you to make these kinds of errors. Firstly, I didn't generalize about theists being good. Firstly, I called you out on your overgeneralization, something that you, of course, have refused to address. Secondly, what I said is accurate. There are plenty of theists who are good people. But the important matter is that I never claimed a causational relationship between the two. That is YOUR strawman, your error, and why your comments about me overgeneralizing have no validity whatsoever. I am curious, though. Are ALL atheists incapable of understanding the difference between correlation and causation (and btw... I claimed neither) or just the one's in this thread.

So, that's 2 attempts, and two failures. Good job.

Just did read above

Actually, you completely failed as I proved.

Continued...
 
Incorrect, atheist are quite capable of behaving badly but it is not done in the name of athesim. Theists who act badly in the name of their god have no such excuse.


Incorrect. We see atheists behaving badly in the name of atheism right in this thread. And again, I never said that there aren't theists who act badly because of their theism.

Considering that you refuse to debate your own beliefs then you are talking for other theists. Including those who knock on doors. It is a dishonest debate trick to talk in general about theism so as to avoid talking about your own personal beliefs and then complain when something is said that has nothing to do with your belief.


I know that it upsets you that I won't fall into your stawman argument. I've told you clearly that my beliefs are irrelevant to what we are discussing and the focus of this thread. I'm sure you want to discuss my beliefs because you are incapable, as we've seen, of discussing the topic. You are also incapable of defending your own lack of logic, and your penchant for logical fallacies, attacks, and dishonesty. So, no, I'm not switching the thread topic just because you are incapable of debating this one.


And this is all you are capable of. Whinging about attitude because you have no real defense for the subject itself


All you're capable of it exactly what I pointed out you are capable of. You can't debate the topic, so you degenerate into logical fallacies, attacks, and complete ineptitude. Please tell me that you have more ability than what you've shown in this thread, because if this is it, you really have nothing to offer in the way of a challenge.


You only find it such because you disagree with what is said rather than what is said is as you describe.


I find it such because it's what you've shown. I've debated atheists who are quite adept at discussing this topic. You are not one of them.


You are a moderator i take it. With the power to censure people who are rude to others and yet i receive no infractions. Tells me your pissing into the wind rather than making a legitimate complaint.


Just because you've been rude and attacking doesn't mean that you've broken any rules. There's a difference. I have no issue, personally, with someone debating, rudely. I just like to point it out because it's weak... and because I have no problem with throwing it right back at someone. As long as no rules are broken, aggressive debating is fine.
 
Back
Top Bottom