The Mainstream Media and Drinking: How did they agree on this particular lie???

[tertius]

The world is clearly driven by random events has no inherent meaning, and the universe is absurdly huge and disinterested.

This was obvious to me by the time I was a teenager, and without having read a bunch of philosophy on the matter. It's just the way things are, if you actually look at them.

So I find it kind of strange that anyone could genuinely believe that we are the special creation of a kind and all-loving creator.

I recognize, however, that I may be somewhat atypical in that I appear to lack the mental machinery required to believe in that sort of thing.

[George Christiansen]

Wikipedia link on to studies, and is easy to read and access, so if Wikipedia isn't good enough for you, go fuck yourself:
IQ: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religio...d_intelligence
Education: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_education
Crime: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correla...crime#Religion
Wealth: http://atheism.about.com/b/2008/04/0...re-wealthy.htm

Did you KNOW what these studies claim to prove before you read them?

Have you examined the methodology of the study and the raw data or do you just accept the conclusions on the authority of the scientists involved? Do you even know who they are and how reliable their previous work has been?

If you did then you are part of an extremely small subgroup of those who hold the same beliefs as you and that submits their beliefs to any amount of scrutiny and THAT is the issue that was matters. The vast majority of people who believe anything that people argue about have done absolutely nothing to examine their own beliefs and accept them either because they trust someone as an authority or because they suit their needs.

The people on the right side of an argument that are there for the wrong reasons are just as dangerous to knowledge as the ones on the wrong side. They just got lucky this time.

[Pluripotent]

The world is clearly driven by random events has no inherent meaning, and the universe is absurdly huge and disinterested.

This was obvious to me by the time I was a teenager, and without having read a bunch of philosophy on the matter. It's just the way things are, if you actually look at them.

So I find it kind of strange that anyone could genuinely believe that we are the special creation of a kind and all-loving creator.

I recognize, however, that I may be somewhat atypical in that I appear to lack the mental machinery required to believe in that sort of thing.

You know, it's fine if you don't believe in God. I'm not much of a religious person myself. But the way you state it is religious in itself. You have about as much proof for your point of view as anyone else (i.e. none), and yet you present it as though you possess some sort of special knowledge about the universe that the benighted religious lack. This behavior is every bit as religious as those you criticize, and every bit as arrogant as a TV evangelist trying to convert the nonbelievers.

And what does this have to do with whether alcohol is bad for you?

[quikky]

I thought you were talking about the real world. You know, the one where MOST people of every stripe are pretty narrow-minded and believe whatever suits them.

You don't seem to know the difference between believing and knowing. You also seem to be one of the very many people who, in spite of all the evidence otherwise, thinks people's actions are consistent with their beliefs anyway.

For every moron who says they know something because of the authority of their religion you can easily find a moron accepting a scientific "fact" solely on the authority of some scientist.

You're stating the obvious and missing the point. Again I ask you: how can the pursuit of knowledge on a societal level not be adversely affected when a percentage of the population considers some old stories the truth behind the universe?

[ecj]

You know, it's fine if you don't believe in God. I'm not much of a religious person myself. But the way you state it is religious in itself. You have about as much proof for your point of view as anyone else (i.e. none), and yet you present it as though you possess some sort of special knowledge about the universe that the benighted religious lack. This behavior is every bit as religious as those you criticize, and every bit as arrogant as a TV evangelist trying to convert the nonbelievers.

I don't think this is true. A believer is asserting the existence of an invisible entity who controls all creation that we have no ability to see, hear, touch, smell, feel or in any way verify through empirical measurement. Tertius is arguing that if you look around there's no particular rational reason to think that there's anything more than random interaction of particles going on based on everything that we can measure or study.

Those are not similar claims. If I argue that unicorns are real, and you ask me to show you a unicorn to prove it, your skepticism of unicorns is not rooted in faith.

[kidcolin]

There's your problem. Old Parr is blended whisky. People should not drink blended whisky.

I enjoy Monkey Shoulder.

[perman]

Did you KNOW what these studies claim to prove before you read them?

I have not read any of these studies properly if I'm gonna be honest. I've just seen references to tons of articles and links about this subject matter before, and this has just confirmed my impression that religion in general is a tool for ignorance (which indeed might make me extremely susceptible to confirmation bias here I'll be honest enough to admit). Given that this is apparently obvious on an individual level, that it's reflected on statistical levels just seems common sense enough that I see no point properly analyzing these studies merely to prove a point on the internet.

Have you examined the methodology of the study and the raw data or do you just accept the conclusions on the authority of the scientists involved? Do you even know who they are and how reliable their previous work has been?

Nope, the conclusions fit with my common sense. I have no idea how reliable this is. But fact of the matter is, the other side of the argument will struggle to find anything to refute this, that religious dogma is more common among less educated people and less common among more educated people is something I'm sure most educated people have ample experience with. Similarly, any non-believer who has debated the common discussions surrounding theism/atheism will have observed less reliance on logic among the religious, which is another common sense truthism supporting religion being correlated with lower IQ.

Point being that anyone who feels these studies should receive extra scrutiny and criticism can do so themselves. I have no need to scrutinize studies that IMO reach equivalent conclusions to water being wet.

If you did then you are part of an extremely small subgroup of those who hold the same beliefs as you and that submits their beliefs to any amount of scrutiny and THAT is the issue that was matters. The vast majority of people who believe anything that people argue about have done absolutely nothing to examine their own beliefs and accept them either because they trust someone as an authority or because they suit their needs.

The people on the right side of an argument that are there for the wrong reasons are just as dangerous to knowledge as the ones on the wrong side. They just got lucky this time.

Hey, I'm willing to say something without being an expert even if I might be wrong. But I'm not willing to partake in statistical analysis to win an argument on the internet. If you have problems with my links, go ahead and dismantle them yourself.

[Rob Waskis]

Wikipedia link on to studies, and is easy to read and access, so if Wikipedia isn't good enough for you, go fuck yourself:
IQ: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religio...d_intelligence
Education: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_education
Crime: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correla...crime#Religion
Wealth: http://atheism.about.com/b/2008/04/0...re-wealthy.htm

I have no objection to Wikipedia (no need to fuck myself, thank goodness). I just don't see why you would link to articles that don't support your position. The crime one in particular states the exact opposite of what you are claiming.

[tertius]

You know, it's fine if you don't believe in God. I'm not much of a religious person myself. But the way you state it is religious in itself. You have about as much proof for your point of view as anyone else (i.e. none), and yet you present it as though you possess some sort of special knowledge about the universe that the benighted religious lack. This behavior is every bit as religious as those you criticize, and every bit as arrogant as a TV evangelist trying to convert the nonbelievers.

Er, no.

I am most certainly not claiming special knowledge of the universe. I am pointing out that there is clearly no empirical evidence to suggest than any of the thousands of myths about the special creation of the world and humanity are remotely plausible. There is no available evidence to suggest that any deity is real. And the claim that an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent being that exists outside of all natural created the universe especially for a mostly hairless ape with questionable moral character is what you might call an "extraordinary claim".

Failing to believe in extraordinary claims that lack even the most minuscule scrap of evidence is not "religion".
The term you're looking for is "common sense".

And from a Bayesian perspective, the fact that there is no evidence that ANY of the myriad human religious/mythical entities are real generates a very strong prior for use in evaluating the possible correctness of any new explanation of that sort.

Following from that, logically, there's pretty much no other realistic option than for the universe to be empty of inherent meaning.

That people believe there is inherent meaning in the universe and that God exists is thus kind of weird to me. I recognize that people derive useful things from their religious beliefs, nor do I desire that they stop believing in whatever they believe in. I simply do not have any personal experience of the "faith" that sustains their belief. I appear to be incapable of it, for better or worse. I'm often somewhat envious of the emotional security that people seem to get out of having religious faith, honestly. Seems like it would be nice.

I have experienced a "spiritual" sense of awe, wonder, and connection to the world (all that requires is a good dark night sky, or contemplating my deep physical connection to the lives of stars, the earth, etc). And I was raised in a relatively religious environment; I went to a religious school when I was little, and went to Sunday School, have read the Bible, and my mother is a very devout Christian. None of it seems to have stuck, however, and all that failed to generate any feelings of belief in the supernatural or faith in any sort of religious belief system. I can clearly remember as a small child being kind of bewildered by how other people processed the same information I was getting.

So, anyway, I think it's pretty pointless to argue about religious belief. The chances of anyone changing their mind are minimal at best, and I try not to interfere too much in the inner lives of others.

I just mind a lot when they try to make other people behave according to their religious mores. Can't say I care for that.

And what does this have to do with whether alcohol is bad for you?

I dunno. I was just bored with the last many pages of talk about religious stuff, so I thought I'd spice it up a bit by pointing out the meaningless of existence.

[Simon Rest]

Do you think you can lift this?

When you see a barbel on the floor loaded, you have a choice, lift it or leave it, same for the gospel, you either accept or reject it, you either take up the challenge or walk away, what is your decision?

WWJD: What Would Jesus Deadlift