Religious people less intelligent than atheists?

[daveman]

Did I say there was no such thing. I asked who on the board here was being militant? You have a very dishonest debate style. Is it the only way you can communicate?

Good Gaea's gargantuan gazongas.

I never said anyone on this board, you raging imbecile.

Now stop with the strawman. I know it makes you feel better about yourself, but it's dishonest.

I was stating my original question. I never once said that there was no such thing as a militant atheist which you accused me of in post # 260. Your comprehension skills are lacking.

Until you improve yours -- and we may be waiting a very long time -- you might not want to criticize anyone else's.

 

[YWN666]

When people are sick and when they bury their dead people want dearly held beliefs to be made apparent and should be allowed to do so. I am so sick of certain factions trying to rid this country of any religious symbol whatsoever.

I don't see anyone trying to do such a thing. Individual practice of religion is OK, Government practice of religion is not.

 

[YWN666]

Except that it is possible to prove things do not exist.

Then prove that leprechauns don't exist.

One of the great things about logic, you can prove anything.

1. I have never seen a leprechaun.
2. I have seen everything that exists.

1. Therefore leprechauns do not exist.

Which is exactly why it is gobbledegook.

You have seen everything that exists? LOL nice try.

 

[YWN666]

Absolutely not! A Star and Crescent, a statue of Buddha and any other symbol of faith representing the beliefs of those interred there, BELONG there. As usual, you don't get the concept.
It is freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

They belong ion the individual headstones, not at the entrance as a representation of the entire cemetery.
Oh, and you can't have freedom OF religion without freedom FROM religion.

Point out what law keeps me from knocking on your door and telling you about my religion.

Hint, don't waste your time, only an idiot that uses bold font would think one exists.

I never said that you as an individual can't express your religious beliefs. Are you even reading what I am posting?

Maybe if I stop using bold font, you'll have nothing left to whine about and finally address the points I AM making.

 

[YWN666]

Except that is not true. They were not forbidden from saying Merry Christmas. They were asked to use a generic Happy Holidays if they did not know the religious beliefs of the customer to avoid alienating customers because as we know, the christmas season is all about money. If they DID know the customer or the customer said MC first, they could say it back.

Funny, I followed your lonks, and actually had to put a little effort into it, but Haniity never said that was the policy, nor did he complain that employees were asked not to offend customers. What he pointed out is that it is stupid for a store to have "Happy Holiday" advertisements that were all about Christmas.

Frankly, the only people who would have a problem with anyone pointing that out are idiots that use bold font.

My "lonks" referred to O'Reilly. I didn't see any mention of Hannity.

 

[YWN666]

Except that was not the problem. I think their ‘war on Christmas’ was bullshit but you are confusing the actual complaint. It was not that some random employee stated ‘happy holidays.’ It was that the store policy specifically disallowed ‘marry Christmas’ because it might ‘offend’ someone that was not Christian. The complaint was valid that it is asinine to ask employees not to use the actual official name of the damn holiday. That is asinine in the extreme.


Funny that you make this statement because I can guarantee that you cannot post what specific right is violated with a religious display that is located on public land. That is because you do not actually have a right to not be exposed to religion. That does not exist.

No rights are violated by allowing people to have free exercise of their own religion even when they are on public land.

The Supreme Court in their interpretation of the Constitution has said that the state cannot endorse one religion by erecting a religious display on government property. There have been exceptions allowed when many religions were allowed to put up a display but when the one display was allowed and not the others, it is forbidden. That has been made crystal clear a number of times. We have a right not to have religion forced in us by our government.

Really?

Texas won a case where the 10 Commandments are displayed on the grounds of the capital in 2005.

The court ruled that displaying the nativity scene on public property was legal in Pawtucket in 1984.

Every single piece of US currency has the words "In God we Trust" on it.

Care to explain all of that given your declaration that all of those are illegal under any circumstances?

Maybe you should stop using bold font, it has rotter your brain.

By the way, care to tell me again that I only resort to insulting bold font when I cannot address the issues? Because I can clearly do both, unlike people who use bold font.

You're really wetting your panties over this, aren't you? Why don't you join Ernie S-hole in his war against the evil bold font. He is threatening to come back to the board every 48 hours to give me negative rep until he can again sleep knowing that the evil font has been defeated. The silly thing is that you are both alleged adults who are having a major meltdown over something as trivial as a FONT? REALLY? I think you 2 have control issues.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Then prove that leprechauns don't exist.

One of the great things about logic, you can prove anything.

1. I have never seen a leprechaun.
2. I have seen everything that exists.

1. Therefore leprechauns do not exist.

Which is exactly why it is gobbledegook.

You have seen everything that exists? LOL nice try.

It is not a nice try, it is a perfectly valid logical argument. The fact that the premise itself may, or may not, be false does not make a logical conclusion invalid. Therefore, I have deductively proven that leprechauns do not exist.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They belong ion the individual headstones, not at the entrance as a representation of the entire cemetery.
Oh, and you can't have freedom OF religion without freedom FROM religion.

Point out what law keeps me from knocking on your door and telling you about my religion.

Hint, don't waste your time, only an idiot that uses bold font would think one exists.

I never said that you as an individual can't express your religious beliefs. Are you even reading what I am posting?

Maybe if I stop using bold font, you'll have nothing left to whine about and finally address the points I AM making.

You didn't say that you cannot have freedom of religion unless you have freedom from religion? How can you have freedom from religion if I can follow you around telling you about religion?

Maybe if you stop using bold font in a lame attempt to look smart you will realize that I am addressing your points.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Except that is not true. They were not forbidden from saying Merry Christmas. They were asked to use a generic Happy Holidays if they did not know the religious beliefs of the customer to avoid alienating customers because as we know, the christmas season is all about money. If they DID know the customer or the customer said MC first, they could say it back.

Funny, I followed your lonks, and actually had to put a little effort into it, but Haniity never said post on the internet.that was the policy, nor did he complain that employees were asked not to offend customers. What he pointed out is that it is stupid for a store to have "Happy Holiday" advertisements that were all about Christmas.

Frankly, the only people who would have a problem with anyone pointing that out are idiots that use bold font.

My "lonks" referred to O'Reilly. I didn't see any mention of Hannity.

Idiots are idiots, and all talking heads are idiots. I wouldn't be surprised if they both use bold font when they post on the internet.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Supreme Court in their interpretation of the Constitution has said that the state cannot endorse one religion by erecting a religious display on government property. There have been exceptions allowed when many religions were allowed to put up a display but when the one display was allowed and not the others, it is forbidden. That has been made crystal clear a number of times. We have a right not to have religion forced in us by our government.

Really?

Texas won a case where the 10 Commandments are displayed on the grounds of the capital in 2005.

The court ruled that displaying the nativity scene on public property was legal in Pawtucket in 1984.

Every single piece of US currency has the words "In God we Trust" on it.

Care to explain all of that given your declaration that all of those are illegal under any circumstances?

Maybe you should stop using bold font, it has rotter your brain.

By the way, care to tell me again that I only resort to insulting bold font when I cannot address the issues? Because I can clearly do both, unlike people who use bold font.

You're really wetting your panties over this, aren't you? Why don't you join Ernie S-hole in his war against the evil bold font. He is threatening to come back to the board every 48 hours to give me negative rep until he can again sleep knowing that the evil font has been defeated. The silly thing is that you are both alleged adults who are having a major meltdown over something as trivial as a FONT? REALLY? I think you 2 have control issues.

Your use of bold font has rotted your brain.

You claimed that all religious displays on government property are unconstitutional unless they allow all religions to get into the act. I provided two of the many examples I know of to prove you wrong, and you ignored the facts.

Seriously, you should try thinking instead of trying to look like you are thinking.

 

[Avatar4321]

Then prove that leprechauns don't exist.

One of the great things about logic, you can prove anything.

1. I have never seen a leprechaun.
2. I have seen everything that exists.

1. Therefore leprechauns do not exist.

Which is exactly why it is gobbledegook.

You have seen everything that exists? LOL nice try.

Not very familiar with syllogism logic are you?

 

[Surfer]

If only you could prove such a thing

It is not up to me to prove squat. God said this in His Living Word, The Bible. I believe Him. In fact, I know that I know that I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that I am going to Heaven to be with Jesus Christ/God the *second* I die. I don't just believe: I know.

Godless punk atheists are all talk until they're dying and then they're BEGGING/PLEADING with Jesus Christ/God to be spared eternal damnation. You go right ahead and laugh all you want. I don't give a fck.

 

[whitehall]

Religious People Are Less Intelligent Than Atheists, Concludes New Study

A review of 63 scientific studies dating back to 1928 has concluded that religious people are less intelligent than non-believers.

Only 10 of the 63 studies showed a positive correlation between intelligence and religiosity.

The paper, entitled The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity: A Meta-Analysis and Some Proposed Explanations, was led by Professor Miron Zuckerman of the University of Rochester, and was published in the academic journal Personality and Social Psychology Review on 6 August. ...

... Zuckerman’s team studied decades worth of analysis, noting many atheism and intellect studies “share one central theme – the premise that religious beliefs are irrational, not anchored in science, not testable, and therefore unappealing to intelligent people who ‘know better’.”

...Religiosity is defined as involvement in some (or all) facets of religion, which includes belief in the supernatural, offering gifts to this supernatural, and performing rituals affirming their beliefs.

Before you use the lame excuse that it was published in HuffPo (as opposed to dredge, blaze, etc), note that it was first published in Sage:

Sign In

“Intelligent people typically spend more time in school—a form of self-regulation that may yield long-term benefits… More intelligent people get higher level jobs [which] may lead to higher self-esteem, and encourage personal control beliefs… more intelligent people are more likely to get and stay married… though for intelligent people, that too comes later in life. We therefore suggest that as intelligent people move from young adulthood to adulthood and then to middle age, the benefits of intelligence may continue to accrue.”

Whatever, it still seems a little too pat, too easy.

But, well worth reading the entire article.

What is this? Inside out logic? Actually the "study" proves that left leaning agnostics are willing to believe anything the alleged "scientific" community throws at them if it reinforces their hatred against organized religion. If only ten scientific studies show a positive correlation between intelligence and religiosity (that's an awkward word isn't it) does it indicate that the 53 scientific studies that show no correlation between intelligence and religiosity is proof that agnostics are more intelligent than people of faith? The comparison is not only unsound but it is as bigoted as the junk democrats used to manufacture during the early and mid 20th century that "proved" that Blacks were incapable of intelligent thinking.

 

[daveman]

Religious People Are Less Intelligent Than Atheists, Concludes New Study

A review of 63 scientific studies dating back to 1928 has concluded that religious people are less intelligent than non-believers.

Only 10 of the 63 studies showed a positive correlation between intelligence and religiosity.

The paper, entitled The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity: A Meta-Analysis and Some Proposed Explanations, was led by Professor Miron Zuckerman of the University of Rochester, and was published in the academic journal Personality and Social Psychology Review on 6 August. ...

... Zuckerman’s team studied decades worth of analysis, noting many atheism and intellect studies “share one central theme – the premise that religious beliefs are irrational, not anchored in science, not testable, and therefore unappealing to intelligent people who ‘know better’.”

...Religiosity is defined as involvement in some (or all) facets of religion, which includes belief in the supernatural, offering gifts to this supernatural, and performing rituals affirming their beliefs.

Before you use the lame excuse that it was published in HuffPo (as opposed to dredge, blaze, etc), note that it was first published in Sage:

Sign In

“Intelligent people typically spend more time in school—a form of self-regulation that may yield long-term benefits… More intelligent people get higher level jobs [which] may lead to higher self-esteem, and encourage personal control beliefs… more intelligent people are more likely to get and stay married… though for intelligent people, that too comes later in life. We therefore suggest that as intelligent people move from young adulthood to adulthood and then to middle age, the benefits of intelligence may continue to accrue.”

Whatever, it still seems a little too pat, too easy.

But, well worth reading the entire article.

What is this? Inside out logic? Actually the "study" proves that left leaning agnostics are willing to believe anything the alleged "scientific" community throws at them if it reinforces their hatred against organized religion. If only ten scientific studies show a positive correlation between intelligence and religiosity (that's an awkward word isn't it) does it indicate that the 53 scientific studies that show no correlation between intelligence and religiosity is proof that agnostics are more intelligent than people of faith? The comparison is not only unsound but it is as bigoted as the junk democrats used to manufacture during the early and mid 20th century that "proved" that Blacks were incapable of intelligent thinking.

But it FEELS right -- and to people who operate solely on emotion, that's proof enough.

 

[FA_Q2]

One of the great things about logic, you can prove anything.

1. I have never seen a leprechaun.
2. I have seen everything that exists.

1. Therefore leprechauns do not exist.

Which is exactly why it is gobbledegook.

You have seen everything that exists? LOL nice try.

It is not a nice try, it is a perfectly valid logical argument. The fact that the premise itself may, or may not, be false does not make a logical conclusion invalid. Therefore, I have deductively proven that leprechauns do not exist.

Your conclusion is not valid given that your premise is flawed. I am not really sure where you are going with this line of thought as it is the height of asshattery to claim that logic is gobbledygook. You are abusing the shit out of logic in that statement as you are knowingly presenting a falsehood.

Yes, garbage in garbage out. When you base your logical argument on falsehoods then you are going to get gobbledygook. When used properly, you don’t.

 

[FA_Q2]

WARNING: the following response is in bold so you might want to look away if your sensibilities will be harmed.

Wow, lots of inaccuracies in your response so I will address them point by point.

War on christmas - we are not claiming to be offended when someone wishes us a Merry Christmas. The problem is when idiots like Bill O'Reilly claim that christians are being offended when a store employee says Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas. In other words, he wants all business to address every customer with the christian greeting. It's selfish and pure bullshit.

Except that was not the problem. I think their ‘war on Christmas’ was bullshit but you are confusing the actual complaint. It was not that some random employee stated ‘happy holidays.’ It was that the store policy specifically disallowed ‘marry Christmas’ because it might ‘offend’ someone that was not Christian. The complaint was valid that it is asinine to ask employees not to use the actual official name of the damn holiday. That is asinine in the extreme.

Except that is not true. They were not forbidden from saying Merry Christmas. They were asked to use a generic Happy Holidays if they did not know the religious beliefs of the customer to avoid alienating customers because as we know, the christmas season is all about money. If they DID know the customer or the customer said MC first, they could say it back.

So, you essentially just restated what I said. All you added was that knowing the customer made things a little different as though that mattered at all. The statement still stands; it was against store policy to use the actual holidays name in greeting customers.

If you don’t see how asinine such a policy is then I really can’t help you in that regard. It is blatantly easy to recognize that PC has gone way too far in that instance and it is shown even further by the fact that the policies were changed VERY quickly. They did not even make it through a single Christmas season.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

When people are sick and when they bury their dead people want dearly held beliefs to be made apparent and should be allowed to do so. I am so sick of certain factions trying to rid this country of any religious symbol whatsoever.

I don't see anyone trying to do such a thing. Individual practice of religion is OK, Government practice of religion is not.

Correct.

No one is advocating any law be passed restricting or prohibiting religious practice.

And enforcing Establishment Clause jurisprudence does not disallow dearly held beliefs to be made apparent, provided such beliefs are not inappropriately conjoined with government.

 

[FA_Q2]

WARNING: the following response is in bold so you might want to look away if your sensibilities will be harmed.

Wow, lots of inaccuracies in your response so I will address them point by point.

War on christmas - we are not claiming to be offended when someone wishes us a Merry Christmas. The problem is when idiots like Bill O'Reilly claim that christians are being offended when a store employee says Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas. In other words, he wants all business to address every customer with the christian greeting. It's selfish and pure bullshit.

Except that was not the problem. I think their ‘war on Christmas’ was bullshit but you are confusing the actual complaint. It was not that some random employee stated ‘happy holidays.’ It was that the store policy specifically disallowed ‘marry Christmas’ because it might ‘offend’ someone that was not Christian. The complaint was valid that it is asinine to ask employees not to use the actual official name of the damn holiday. That is asinine in the extreme.

Religious displays on government property should not be allowed, regardless of whether the government or a private individual provides the display because it implies government endorsement over other religions. The only exception is if the government allows ALL religions to put up a display. Allow all or allow none. If a christian display is allowed to the exclusion of others, then harm IS done and it is a violation. Prohibiting that is not violating anyone's freedom of religion. As we said in another thread, there are reasonable limits on our freedoms when exercising them violates someone else's rights.

Atheism is not a "belief system"

Funny that you make this statement because I can guarantee that you cannot post what specific right is violated with a religious display that is located on public land. That is because you do not actually have a right to not be exposed to religion. That does not exist.

No rights are violated by allowing people to have free exercise of their own religion even when they are on public land.

The Supreme Court in their interpretation of the Constitution has said that the state cannot endorse one religion by erecting a religious display on government property. There have been exceptions allowed when many religions were allowed to put up a display but when the one display was allowed and not the others, it is forbidden. That has been made crystal clear a number of times. We have a right not to have religion forced in us by our government.

Government is not forcing anything on you when someone erects a religious display on government property. QW has already shown you where this has occurred. Again, you are focusing on other religions being forbidden even though we already established that they are not and none of the Christians here have an issue with that. You are the only one that falls back into that point. Just because you feel the need to limit the free exercise of religion does not mean that is what everyone else is trying to accomplish. That is in the sole court of people like you that want to repress religious exposure.

I find it interesting that you are trying to invalidate other arguments using the logic that you are supporting your argument with. IOW, you are invalidating your own arguments.

 

[FA_Q2]

When people are sick and when they bury their dead people want dearly held beliefs to be made apparent and should be allowed to do so. I am so sick of certain factions trying to rid this country of any religious symbol whatsoever.

I don't see anyone trying to do such a thing. Individual practice of religion is OK, Government practice of religion is not.

YOU are trying to do such a thing (or advocating the idea of it) and that is asinine. Government land does NOT equal government endorsement. When will you figure that out?

 

[FA_Q2]

Just because an atheist does not have faith at the moment does not mean they are not open to the existence of God should some form of proof through personal experience comes along.

.

... does not mean they are not open to the existence of God should some form of proof through personal experience comes along.


that would also prove there is no need for Christianity ... and that simple beliefs are enough.

.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. What is your point?