Scientific studies: Religious people are less intelligent than atheists

@Romeo Fabulini,

ha, an amusing take Smile

my friend I know who Pilate is, and I have studied him before. Setanta however puts forward a case for the question of his job title that I have never looked into, so out of intrigue, I've gone digging

1 Reply

@Smileyrius,

Leaving aside that what you present is ipse dixit claims by the two persons in the dialogue, no evidence is presented that Augustus called for a "census" to "tax the whole world" at the appropriate time, nor that Joseph would have been a part of the head count of a lustrum. What is even more suspicious is that one of these jokers writes: "Luke, a very, very, very reliable historian SAYS SO!" There is absolutely no reason to consider Luke to have been an historian of any description, let alone a reliable one. Essentially, you've got a christian here who is trying to establish his point of view by intellectual bullying--making claims about Augustus and the practice of the lustrum which he has not substantiated, just in order to attempt to establish his claim. Basdically, his authority is of the "because i say so" variety.

2 Replies

@Smileyrius,

Quoting scripture in order to substantiate scripture is a bullshit method. Romeo is a bullshit artist, and a troll.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

. Basically, his authority is of the "because i say so" variety.

Same as that post. It's Luke v Setanta.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

Romeo is a bullshit artist, and a troll.

It's quite funny really. Setanta gives the ipse dixit fallacy a stuffing and uses it himself in his next post.

0 Replies

By the way, the whole point of the census story was a means to place the birth of "Jesus" in Bethlehem and therefore establish a connection to an alleged prophecy, and to "legitimize" the claim that he was "the kind of the Jews." As with much of (arguably most of) the gospels, the text is carefully constructed to support the messianic message and character of your boy Jeebus.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

More ipse dixit.

0 Replies

@JimmyJ,

JimmyJ wrote:

Quote:

Where and when did I do all this?

(Hint: I never did it.)

Throughout this entire argument that has been your viewpoint.

Are you now going to change positions and say that is not your viewpoint? Perhaps I misunderstood you and you can explain your true viewpoint to me now.

That has not been my position EVER. You simply are too dense to get it, Jimmy...and too self-absorbed to listen to my explanations.

Quote:

Quote:
If it makes you feel better about yourself to think you have won something here, Jimmy, by all means do it. Please excuse the sound of me laughing at the notion.

It hardly brings me joy to defeat an old man without much left to live for.

I am a very content individual who enjoys life very much. If that bothers you...or if you feel a need to declare victory to make your life seem better, Jimmy, by all means do so.

Quote:

Quote:
Really. But I said I do NOT believe it exists...and I do NOT believe is does not exist.

Try to keep up, Jimmy. Lagging will only get you into trouble.

So you believe it neither exists nor does not exist. That is a belief.

Try not to bs.

Not sure how my lack of belief is considered a belief by you...but you have got to live with your nonsense...I do not.

Quote:

Quote:
I said NOT believing...and you are pretending that I said believing and not believing are the same thing.

You are being silly and desperate now. Try to get back under control and make some sense.

You said that they were both forms of belief. For example, "I believe god exists" and "I believe god does not exist" are the same to you. One is a disbelief and one is a belief, but you say the "disbelief" is also a "belief".

I most assuredly did say that "I believe god exists: and "I believe gods do not exist"...ARE BOTH BELIEFS. Look at the wording...they both are expressing beliefs.

Your problem is you do not understand or appreciate the difference between "I believe gods do not exist"...and "I do not believe gods exist."

There is a huge difference...which apparently you do not have the intelligence to see.

The first: "I believe gods do not exist" IS EXPRESSING A BELIEF.

The second: "I do not believe gods exist" IS NOT EXPRESSING A BELIEF...it is expressing a lack of belief.

After the first, it would be illogical to add: "And I also believe gods do exist."

After the second, you could easily logically add: "And I also do not believe gods do not exist." You would simply be acknowledging that you do not do any "believing" on the issue.

Try to get someone to help you with this concept...and maybe you will be able to see that you have been wrong throughout this discussion when this item has come up.

Quote:

Please, try to understand yourself before you post such nonsense.

I do not post nonsense...you do.

1 Reply

Quote:

Setanta said: Quoting scripture in order to substantiate scripture is a bullshit method....
There is absolutely no reason to consider Luke to have been an historian of any description, let alone a reliable one...
As with much of (arguably most of) the gospels, the text is carefully constructed to support the messianic message and character of your boy Jeebus.

1- If we buy a book about science, we'd certainly quote from it during discussions, so why shouldn't we also quote from the Bible?.. Wink

2- As for Luke, he was a DOCTOR who used his education and writing skills to write a gospel.. Smile

3- After the gospels were published, NOBODY ever came forward to say "Hey, I was alive in Jesus's time and that's not the way it happened!".
In other words the gospels are so chock-full of a wealth of tiny detail that it's impossible for them to have been faked.. Smile

1 Reply

If i buy a book about science, and the authors make claims which are not substantiated by anything more than "because i say so," i cease to consider it a work about science. There is a methodology to science which cannot be ascribed to the "scripture" of Christianity.

Not only do you have no basis to claim that Luke was a doctor, modern scholars, both secular and religious, have not found any evidence to point to who the author of the so-called "gospel of Luke," nor the "Acts of the Apostles" actually was. You're just making **** up, as usual.

Ha, that last one is really hilarious. After it was published? Did your boy Luke go around to do book signings for a rapturous public? The only copies of the so-called gospels were in the hands of people who wanted to believe in the first place. There are no copies which exist to this day which are any older than the early 4th century of this era. Three hundred years is a long time to f*ck around with the text. Having a wealth of details doesn't mean squat. Tolkien provided a wealth of details about his Middle Earth--does that mean that you consider it "gospel truth?" As i've already said, you're a bullshit artist.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

You'll be relieved to know that I don't buy into ipse dixit claims either Set, and yes the guy was intellectually bullying his opponent and posturing his ego. I see a lot of it here too, though not usually driven by a theist.

I am not convinced that Luke created a story from nothing, nor do I understand the benefit he would gain by doing so. Formulating a false census to convince people of Jesus birthplace in a time that plenty of people would be able to prove him wrong would be a huge risk. That no one came forth at the time allows for more plausibility

I do not know for certain that Luke was right, however I do see plausible case for it, as do I see the possibility that I am wrong. But plausibility allows for perceptual interpretation, perception is often driven by preconceived bias.

2 Replies

@ Jimmy Jams and Frankie

Quote:

I believe X

Quote:

no you believe Y

Quote:

you're stupid

Quote:

you're stupider

Quote:

NO U

Its a draw, you're clearly as intelligent as one another. Keep going tho, I'm having fun.

2 Replies

Guys, guys, Buddha lived 500 years before Jesus and never wrote a book, the Buddhist scriptures were all written by people who knew him, or had his teachings passed on to them, yet nobody today says "Buddha never existed...the writings were all faked".
Yet that's exactly what atheists say about Jesus, so we can only assume that Jesus terrifies atheists because he upsets the demons within them, whereas Buddha doesn't terrify them at all because they know he was just an ordinary human and not the Son of God.. Smile

Demons in a man cried out through his mouth saying "Let us alone; what have we to do with you Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? We know who you are, the Holy One of God" (Mark 1:24)
"Believe in God, the demons also believe and tremble" (James 2:19)
"Whole lotta shakin' goin' on" (Jerry Lee Lewis)

0 Replies

You're so full of **** i'll bet your eyes are brown.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

The only copies of the so-called gospels were in the hands of people who wanted to believe in the first place.

But why did they want to believe? That they wanted to believe was caused by an entirely pragmatic strategy which eventually succeeded and as a result Setanta enjoys the facilities of western culture.

Just as the Founding Fathers wanted to believe in the Constitution they composed because they thought, after much debate, it would serve the purpose they intended.

There is a different methodology in science because its subject matter is dirt and non-human life. Dealing with human behaviour in regard to best outcome is a completely different matter.

The idea that because they wanted to believe somehow undermines the policy they were introducing is a manifestation of your little infant Setanta's precocious brain power.

0 Replies

People hosting a demon can be anybody such as politicians, journalists, TV people and film makers, teachers, neighbours, family members, forum debaters etc.
Unlike Ripley's alien, demons don't show up on x-rays or anything else because they're invisible "mind-parasites", but we can easily tell who's hosting one because we can hear it speaking through their victim's mouths, using them like ventriloquist's dummies to spout anti-christian propaganda.. Smile

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/rip-xrayB.jpg

0 Replies

@Calamity Dal,

Quote:

Its a draw, you're clearly as intelligent as one another. Keep going tho, I'm having fun.

I trust you are aware Cal that the fun is due mainly to snow in NJ closing the golf course.

0 Replies

@Smileyrius,

Dagnabbit, Smiley! You know how I hate to read. I'll be all day at it.

0 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

Highlighting the difference between one who gives a serious answer and one who resorts to buffoonery.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

You're so full of **** i'll bet your eyes are brown.

HA! Another oculism from the resident fur face.

0 Replies

Scientific studies: Religious people are less intelligent than atheists

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know