Reply
Thu 31 Jan, 2013 02:41 pm
In an atheist vs non-believer debate, probably which included Pro. Dawkins or Hitchines, one of the atheists quoted research that showed that Roman Catholics made up a third of the U.S. population, yet made up two thirds of the U.S. prison population. Also, atheists made up about about a third of the U.S. population yet were a very low percentage of the prison population. The atheists were said to out perform believers by a considerable margin in educational fields. Do you know who made this research - I believe it came from a respected research body? I know that a leading, American born, scientist said that the U.S. needed to import leading brains, as America was lacking the brightest brains from within.
@Germanicus,
we have to pay 200$ an oz for british brains. You know how many Brits brains it takes to make an ounce?
@Germanicus,
The typical athiest, Germ, may be smarter. However I like to think that the
most intelligent nonbelievers eventually have second thoughts
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&q=athiest+or+believer+higher+iq&oq=athiest+or+believer+higher+iq&gs_l=hp.3...509566.516174.18.516596.29.29.0.0.0.1.408.5085.0j20j8j0j1.29.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.WN4Sxh_GoYY&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.41642243,d.cGE&fp=a9017c0373b80654&biw=1398&bih=781
Quote:…..as America was lacking the brightest brains from within.
Afraid we might be deteriorating, evidenced by recent proposals to grant citizenship to the "illegal" immigrant of advanced degree
Wait a minute . . .
Quote:Also, atheists made up about about a third of the U.S. population yet were a very low percentage of the prison population.
More than one hudred million atheists in the U.S. ? ! ? ! ? What the hell have you been smoking? I want some of that sh*t.
Also, what the hell distinction do you think you're making when you talk about atheists and non-believers as though they were necessarily different categories? I"m going to fail you on this one. You need to rework this, and introduce some sense as well a a sense of proportion.
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:
The typical athiest, Germ, may be smarter. However I like to think that the most intelligent nonbelievers eventually have second thoughts
I'm curious to hear why you'd think they should have second thoughts? Also, if you were one, what would make you have second thoughts?
Just curious...
I suggest to you that the best source for information on organized religions and atheists is Religioustolerance-dot-org. In my experience, they are neutral and source their data very well. Anyone who claims that a third of the population of the United States are atheist is jut a loon.
According to Religious Tolerance, the population of atheists in North America is one half of one percent--about 1 and a half million. They make this good point: "Most estimates of the numbers of Atheists are hopelessly inaccurate and essentially meaningless:" I recommend that you read
their article on atheists.
@igm,
Quote:I'm curious to hear why you'd think they should have second thoughts?
The followers of Zen advise against preferences that discourage exploration. Also Ig I've noted the the typical atheist seems angry, compared with others of looser affiliation, suggesting a subliminal uncertainty
Quote:Also, if you were one, what would make you have second thoughts?
In my younger life I was a militant atheist. Meantime however it has become increasingly apparent that there's more to The World than the meaningless random bouncing of objects off one another, culminating in a huge number of various-sized particles mutually accelerating apart forever whilst approaching absolute zero, an even more senseless exercise without our brief participation
It's purely intuitional, I can't defend it. But I'm not alone, billions of us entertaining the same sort of perception; while even agnostics concede the power of Intuition. The devout call Her God while the few of us who admit not being entirely certain, convey our most unsparing permission to call Her anything you wish
Jesus, this "he's angry" bullshit gets tedious . . . i've known a handful of angry atheists in my life, and i've known literally hundreds of atheists. Far and away, they were not angry, they didn't preach--they didn't care--which is pretty much the point. This is squeaky wheel bullshit, and it's a rather shallow intellect that can't grasp that, about any belief set. Most atheists have nothing to say to you, it's just the loud-mouths you hear from, so it's foolish to assume that they represent all atheists. Most Christians have nothing to say to you, it's the loud mouths that you hear from, and it's foolish to assume that they represent all Christians.
If i had never come online, i very likely would have gone from year's end to year's end never discussing religion and the concept of god, except perhaps for the occasional, quiet conversation with another atheist. But because we don't believe, it's very rarely, at best, a topic of conversation. I avoid the so-called strong atheists like the plague, which is what they, and pushy, evangelizing Christians, truly are. When the god botherers come to the door, i quickly and politely get rid of them. There is one significant difference, though . . . i've never had an atheist come to the door.
@Germanicus,
Quote:Also, atheists made up about about a third of the U.S. population yet were a very low percentage of the prison population.
Even if this were true, it is a pretty meaningless factoid.
@dalehileman,
Ok, I see more clearly where you are coming from now.
Zen, as I understand it, is atheist because it’s a branch of Buddhism and therefore, there is an absence of belief in a ‘creator god’ but, as you say, Buddhism encourages exploration. This means, I believe, that if one is an atheist, then one must be confident in that stance because one has investigated the other options available and one comes to the conclusion that one feels less confident in those other alternatives and also one believes one’s life is enriched to some degree by the worldview, that lives a life untroubled by the notion of a ‘creator god’… so literally ‘without god’.
As you’ve said you can’t defend your position, I’ll leave it there… thanks for explaining your intuitive worldview.
If you do have more to say on the subject please continue and also if you have any further questions arising from my reply, please ask.
@igm,
Buddhism is a religion. It is a world view that is based on "truths" that are accepted without being proven. And these "truths" effect how adherents explain their actions. This is the same as any other religion.
Whether an atheist is religious or not depends on the atheist. But Buddhism, with its quirky world view and pressure to a specific lifestyle, is a religion.
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
Buddhism is a religion.
You are somewhat correct; some (but not all) people say Buddhism is a religion. As you point out whether it is a religion or not it is atheist.
maxdancona wrote:
It is a world view that is based on "truths" that are accepted without being proven.
In my opinion, the goal of Buddhism is to understand that there is no such thing as conceptual ‘absolute truth’, because believing there is such a thing, is a fundamental source of suffering. Conventionally the Buddha taught ‘provisional conventional truths’ to undermine beliefs in grosser forms of belief but they were stepping-stones to refuting the belief that there is such a thing as a conceptual absolute truth.
It is understandable that you as a non-Buddhist would believe your statements are correct as do many others, even many Buddhists who have not studied the philosophical texts which deal with such things.
So, you have every reason to say what you’ve said but ultimately it is incorrect… IMHO.
@igm,
You have stated that you believe that reincarnation occurs. That is gross superstition. You have absolutely no basis upon which to adopt a pose of intellectual or philosophical superiority to other religions.
@Setanta,
As I said above (previous post) I believe:
Conventionally the Buddha taught ‘provisional conventional truths’ to undermine beliefs in grosser forms of belief but they were stepping-stones to refuting the belief that there is such a thing as a conceptual absolute truth.
Your post is understandable, my opinion now is what I've said in the post above. If I was unclear in the past then I apologise for any misunderstanding.
@igm,
What an accomplished dancer! Are you saying now that you do not believe that reincarnation occurs?
@igm,
Quote:The goal of Buddhism is to understand that there is no such thing as conceptual ‘absolute truth’, because believing there is such a thing, is a fundamental source of suffering.
Quote:It is understandable that you as a non-Buddhist would believe your statements are correct as do many others, even many Buddhists who have not studied the philosophical texts which deal with such things.
So, you have every reason to say what you’ve said but ultimately it is incorrect…
These two quotes are contradictory.
@Setanta,
Set, I stand by my reply to Max above and only by that reply; everything I said last year or in previous years is superseded by that reply. So, that would make teachings on reincarnation a ‘provisional conventional truth’ in my opinion. Reincarnation would not be a ‘conceptual absolute truth’ because the Buddha taught that there is no such truth and to believe that there is, can be extremely problematic. At least, that is how I now understand it. I don’t speak for other Buddhists; I am only speaking about my personal understanding of the Buddha’s teachings.
@igm,
It is a very simple question, for which the answer should be yes or no. You are basically saying that your point of view is superior to that of other religionists, and that you know it's superior, because you have realized from your study that your point of view is superior. In other, fewer words, you now know that your point of view is superior because you've learned that it is superior--you've said nothing, in essence.
I can see why you would want to avoid answering the question. Not providing a simple answer to a simple question, however, torpedoes your credibility.
By the way, are you now saying that Siddhartha Gautama's (i don't use phony honorifics) teachings are so vague that it is reasonable for you to "have an understanding," without being able to know if others will understand them in the same way?
@igm,
Quote:Ok, I see more clearly where you are coming from now.
Coming out from under
Quote: I understand it, is atheist because it’s a branch of Buddhism
Not so much one doesn't believe but that She's unnecessary
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&q=is+zen+buddhism+atheist&oq=is+zen+arhiest&gs_l=serp.1.0.0i8i13i30.95.2435.2.5357.8.8.0.0.0.0.864.2583.1j4j1j6-2.8.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.2.serp.fXPfn6PgILg&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=34c5107451d36073&biw=1398&bih=733
Quote:…….. ……exploration…...if one is an atheist, then one must be confident in that stance because…….one feels less confident in those other alternatives
Not exactly as I understand it. I'd suppose he'd be wide open to them, which become more attractive with maturity
Quote:…..life is enriched…...untroubled by the notion of a ‘creator god’… so literally ‘without god’.
I don't know, I'm still reading up. My own notion however, is that Her existence or non- depends on what you mean by the term. First I'd describe Her as a natural phenom and I'd dispatch the notion of creation, so full of contradictions and paradox, by asserting the more reasonable contention that She's always existed. Why not after all
Quote:As you’ve said you can’t defend your position, I’ll leave it there… thanks for explaining your intuitive worldview.
Anytime Ig, at the drop of an abstractionist hat
Quote:If you do have more to say on the subject please continue
Oh but don't get me started
But thanks anyhow for your interest
Quote:and also if you have any further questions arising from my reply, please ask.
Oh most certainly
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace