Scientific studies: Religious people are less intelligent than atheists

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

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.

You're changing positions now?
Good for you! You've EVOLVED!!

Quote:

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.

Did you not assert earlier that my disbelief in god was the same as "believing he does not exist"???

Really, you should try not to contradict yourself so much, Frank.

Quote:

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.

Don't try to change the wording now, Frank. You're too deep in the argument.

Just accept that you were wrong and move forward.

Quote:

I do not post nonsense...you do.

You clearly post nonsense. I'm proud of you, though. You've changed your position to a more reasonable one during the course of our discussion. Good work, Frank! You've proven senior citizens everywhere that it's never too late to learn.

1 Reply

@Romeo Fabulini,

Quote:

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?..

Because science is based on evidence. When we're trying to validate a statement in a science book, we look at EVIDENCE. We don't go to an earlier page in that same book and use it to validate itself.

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

It's hard to take an idiot like you seriously after you copy/pasted that entire article..

0 Replies

@neologist,

"If . . . "

(That's always been my position, and i've never equivocated about it.)

0 Replies

I see Jehovah's Witness Neologist is still looking for trouble, so i'm happy to oblige.. Smile

Re the threads title 'Scientific studies: Religious people are less intelligent than atheists', that's certainly true where cults such as the Jehovah's Witnessses are concerned.
For example Neologist once admitted he'd rather let his kids die than have a life-saving blood transfusion.
I bet no atheist would let their kids die, so that certainly makes atheists waaaaaay more intelligent than JW's.. Wink

1 Reply

Quote:

Setanta said: Maybe your boy Saul of Tarsus wasn't clever enough to have profited from Christianity, although i suspect he lead a pretty good life, without being obliged to labor for his daily bread

You gotta be jivin' us boy.. Smile

Saul was making very good money as a bounty hunter rounding up christians for trial and punishment, then became a christian himself and changed his name to Paul and went through some serious hassle, let him tell you himself-
2 Cor 11 - "I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again.
Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one.
Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea,
I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my own countrymen, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false brothers.
I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked.
Besides everything else, I face daily the pressure of my concern for all the churches.
Who is weak, and I do not feel weak?"

Incidentally Paul was once in the tent-making business, and i'm sure he'd have been proud of the Occupy London protesters who camped outside the great cathedral that bears his name.
Paul said- "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil" (Eph 6:12).

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/st-pauls-tentsB_zpsff0c2ce5.jpg~original

0 Replies

Quote:

Setanta said: the church in Europe cornered all the wealth they could, and lived very well indeed..The people like Jimmy Swaggart or Robert Schuller made themselves multi-millionaires off the gullibility of the faithful.

Which brings us back to this threads title 'Scientific studies: Religious people are less intelligent than atheists'
Yes, most organised religions and cults and TV evangelists are corrupt, and the people who donate money to them are halfwits.
Atheists don't donate money to them, so that makes atheists waaaay more intelligent than most religionists.. Smile

0 Replies

@JimmyJ,

JimmyJ wrote:

Quote:
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.

You're changing positions now?
Good for you! You've EVOLVED!!

I haven't changed. You have no logical argument against what I am saying...so you are resorting to this kind of stuff.

I love it. You are a bit too easy, but I love it anyway.

Quote:

Quote:
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.

Did you not assert earlier that my disbelief in god was the same as "believing he does not exist"???

Really, you should try not to contradict yourself so much, Frank.

No contradiction there. You still cannot grasp the difference between "I do not believe gods exist" and "I believe gods do not exist."

Perhaps this discussion is a bit advanced for you. You ought to start with one of the easier threads.

Quote:

Quote:
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.

Don't try to change the wording now, Frank. You're too deep in the argument.

Oh, I would never change the wording, Jimmy. That is what you do...like you did with the link for "atheist" and "atheism." In any case, you just are not able to grasp what has been said.

Like I suggested up above, perhaps you ought swim in the shallow end for a while...and leave the deep end until after you grow up a bit.

Quote:

Just accept that you were wrong and move forward.

When I am wrong, I acknowledge that I am wrong. You ought to give that a try yourself.

Quote:

Quote:
I do not post nonsense...you do.

You clearly post nonsense. I'm proud of you, though. You've changed your position to a more reasonable one during the course of our discussion. Good work, Frank! You've proven senior citizens everywhere that it's never too late to learn.

I have not changed my position, but it is a gas watching you squirm and pretend that I have so you don't have to acknowledge how wrong you have been in this thread.

By the way, you ought to stick with just one persona, Jimmy.

I'm here for ya no matter what persona you come up with, Jimmy.

1 Reply

Quote:

Romeo proclaimed: 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?..
JimmyJ replied: Because science is based on evidence. When we're trying to validate a statement in a science book, we look at EVIDENCE.

How much eyewitness evidence do you need mate? The entire population of Israel plus the Roman garrison saw Jesus, he was almost as big as Elvis.. Smile

"Large crowds from Galilee, the Ten Cities, Jerusalem, Judea and the region across the Jordan followed him" (Matt 4:25)
And he pulled crowds of over 4000 and 5000 at two gigs alone (Matt 15:32, Matt 14:13)
Right Elv?

"Uh-huh"

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/elvis1.jpg

1 Reply

@Romeo Fabulini,

Quote:

4000 and 5000 at two gigs alone

In the pub after one gig, with the roadies and backstage passes, He castigated and damned those in the audience who had been chattering and not paying attention.

0 Replies

Quote:

Spendius said: In the pub after one gig, with the roadies and backstage passes, He castigated and damned those in the audience who had been chattering and not paying attention.

Nah mate, if a gig wasn't going too well, Jesus and his mates would just pile in the van and move on to the next venue like he said-
"If any place will not welcome you or listen to you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave, as a testimony against them" (Mark 6:11)

1 Reply

@Romeo Fabulini,

when are you going to shake the dust from your feet?

1 Reply

Quote:

Calamity said: @RF- when are you going to shake the dust from your feet?

Aha you fell into my trap and left yourself wide open for a sucker punch!
Here it comes-
I said organised religion is corrupt and that its followers are halfwits, and that atheists are far more intelligent than them.
Which part of that seems to have upset you?.. Wink

0 Replies

@Calamity Dal,

Amazing that he considers that "a trap"...and that you "fell into it."

He is pretty far out there!

0 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

Romeo Fabulini wrote:

I see Jehovah's Witness Neologist is still looking for trouble, so i'm happy to oblige..
Re the threads title 'Scientific studies: Religious people are less intelligent than atheists', that's certainly true where cults such as the Jehovah's Witnessses are concerned.
For example Neologist once admitted he'd rather let his kids die than have a life-saving blood transfusion.
I bet no atheist would let their kids die, so that certainly makes atheists waaaaaay more intelligent than JW's..

In Rwanda, ethnic Hutus who were Jehovah's Witnesses risked their lives to protect ethnic Tutsis. Pretty stupid, eh? In WWII, German Witnesses died in concentration camps rather than help the Nazis in any way to make war against your country. Criminy! How dumb can you get?

0 Replies

Quote:

Neologist swung with: In Rwanda, ethnic Hutus who were Jehovah's Witnesses risked their lives to protect ethnic Tutsis. Pretty stupid, eh? In WWII, German Witnesses died in concentration camps rather than help the Nazis in any way to make war against your country. Criminy! How dumb can you get?

1- What the hell has Rwanda got to do with anything? Nearer home, JW's refused to fight Japan and Hitler, so it's lucky not everybody was a JW or Yamamoto and Hitler would have been sipping tea together in the White House and Buckingham Palace completely unopposed!
2- Anyway, where on earth did JW's get the notion that blood transfusions are evil? Surely God gave humans the gift of medical knowledge and it should be used?
Would the Good Samaritan have refused to transfuse the beaten-up victim?

Stills from the "Memphis Belle" WW2 documentary;
a B-17 crewman is given a transfusion after returning to England from a mission over Germany-

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/mb1_zps4ce14a4d.jpg~original

1 Reply

@Romeo Fabulini,

Romeo Fabulini wrote:

1- What the hell has Rwanda got to do with anything?

Oh, sorry. I forgot the truth is inconvenient for you.

0 Replies

Quote:

Romeo said: What the hell has Rwanda got to do with anything?
Neologist came back with: Oh, sorry. I forgot the truth is inconvenient for you

Well explain to us the Biblical "truth" that makes JW's think transfusions are evil?

1 Reply

@Romeo Fabulini,

Romeo Fabulini wrote:

Well explain to us the Biblical "truth" that makes JW's think transfusions are evil?

Blood is sacred: For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, (Leviticus 17:11)

Sacred and you must not eat: Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for YOU. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to YOU. 4 Only flesh with its soul—its blood—YOU must not eat. (Genesis 9:3,4)

And, you must abstain: . . . .keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!” (Acts 15:20)

Notice: a matter of good health. the number of fatalities that have been caused by conaminated blood must surely exceed the number of JWs who supposedly have died from not accepting transfusion

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Notice: a matter of good health. the number of fatalities that have been caused by conaminated blood must surely exceed the number of JWs who supposedly have died from not accepting transfusion

The number of people killed in car crashes exceeds the number of people killed by Charles Manson too, but that doesn't mean we should let him keep killing.

1 Reply

Scientific studies: Religious people are less intelligent than atheists

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know