By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - This is why I don't like debating religion

Kantor on 15 December 2012
hatmoza said:
Kantor said:
hatmoza said:
God's fanclub?

Followers of an organised religion. It's a somewhat peculiar way of putting it, but it's not inaccurate or insulting.


I disagree. That's all I'll say. Comparing belief in God to a fan club is absurd and offensive. And coming from a mod's mouth is all I need to hear to see where this website really stands on religion.

A fan club is a group of people who are fans of something.

Surely if you worship God, you are a fan of God. I don't mean this in an insulting way at all.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

Around the Network
hatmoza on 15 December 2012
Kantor said:
hatmoza said:
Kantor said:
hatmoza said:
God's fanclub?

Followers of an organised religion. It's a somewhat peculiar way of putting it, but it's not inaccurate or insulting.


I disagree. That's all I'll say. Comparing belief in God to a fan club is absurd and offensive. And coming from a mod's mouth is all I need to hear to see where this website really stands on religion.

A fan club is a group of people who are fans of something.

Surely if you worship God, you are a fan of God. I don't mean this in an insulting way at all.

Don't do this Kantor. Don't be a spinner. You know damn well there's a difference between what I'm saying and what your saying. We're not talking about being fans, we're talking about believing. If you want to keep referring to it as being a fan, don't even argue with me because it's obvious with those choice of words that you are belittling theist in general.

And fyi it is insulting and I'm telling you it's insulting. Just because you intentions are not there doesn't make it any better.

 



I am the black sheep     "of course I'm crazy, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong."-Robert Anton Wilson

mrstickball on 15 December 2012
Alara317 said:
mrstickball said:

This, exactly.

You can't use scientific method to explain a philosophical concept. God is not empirical, therefore cannot be validated by the scientific method.

Some of the OPs arguments are rather weak. We know that Jesus existed. We know that the Bible is real, and all evidence points to a document that agrees with the vast majority of translations and copies that are available (moreso than any other document from the time period by huge margins).

The real question is simply that of faith: Do you believe that Jesus was, or was not the Son of God? That isn't a scientific argument, but spiritual. Applying science to it doesn't do the argument justice at all. Its comparing an apple to musical note. They're different concepts. You can try to use one to explain the other, but they're different realms of discussion.

If god is not empirical and cannot be observed, he should be treated as the non-entity he is.  IE: his fanclub should stay far away from any issue involving REAL people doing REAL things.  not fictional beings doing fictional things.  

Yeah, they should just shy away from those great commandments such as "Treating others the way you want to be treated" and "Helping the poor", right?



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Kantor on 15 December 2012
hatmoza said:
Kantor said:
hatmoza said:


I disagree. That's all I'll say. Comparing belief in God to a fan club is absurd and offensive. And coming from a mod's mouth is all I need to hear to see where this website really stands on religion.

A fan club is a group of people who are fans of something.

Surely if you worship God, you are a fan of God. I don't mean this in an insulting way at all.

Don't do this Kantor. Don't be a spinner. You know damn well there's a difference between what I'm saying and what your saying. We're not talking about being fans, we're talking about believing. If you want to keep referring to it as being a fan, don't even argue with me because it's obvious with those choice of words that you are belittling theist in general.

And fyi it is insulting and I'm telling you it's insulting. Just because you intentions are not there doesn't make it any better.

 

I'm going to drop this because it isn't worth continuing, but I may as well add that my views are my own, and I don't represent the site's views because the site has no views beyond the forum rules.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

Alara317 on 15 December 2012

Well, I've been 'warned' for calling a delusional person delusional. This is yet another case of religion being handled with kid gloves, censoring those who point out it's little more than a fairy tale that people take way too seriously.

so with that, I bid you adieu. could have been a fun discussion, but criticism isn't welcome here. enjoy your hugbox.



Around the Network
mrstickball on 15 December 2012
Alara317 said:
Well, I've been 'warned' for calling a delusional person delusional. This is yet another case of religion being handled with kid gloves, censoring those who point out it's little more than a fairy tale that people take way too seriously.

so with that, I bid you adieu. could have been a fun discussion, but criticism isn't welcome here. enjoy your hugbox.


Actually, criticism is welcome. Namecalling is not. Acting like a jerk isn't the best way of discussing an argument.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Bong Lover on 15 December 2012
Alara317 said:
Well, I've been 'warned' for calling a delusional person delusional. This is yet another case of religion being handled with kid gloves, censoring those who point out it's little more than a fairy tale that people take way too seriously.

so with that, I bid you adieu. could have been a fun discussion, but criticism isn't welcome here. enjoy your hugbox.


Be on your way then, soldier of reason and rationaility. I was hoping you'd stick around, but alas. Just a parting piece of advice. As long as you keep reducing religion to a fairytale people take too seriously you are not really bringing anythign to the discussion. There are much deeper aspects to this kind of thinking than wether God is a man in the sky or not that you don't seem to take into consideration.



__XBrawlX__ on 15 December 2012

Monkey Space Lord Andross fully supports this thread.



 

 

 

Guitar Hero 3/ Smash Hits
JWeinCom on 15 December 2012

Bottom line is you can't reason someone out of a position they weren't reasoned into.



GameOver22 on 15 December 2012
dsgrue3 said:

 

Again, religious people can be defined by the Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

"The data for the national IQs and percentages asserting disbelief in God for the 137 countries are given in the

Appendix A. It will be seen that in only 17% of the countries (23 out of 137) does the proportion of the population whodisbelieve in God rise above 20%. 

 

These are virtually all the higher IQ countries. The correlations between the national IQs and religious

disbelief are given in Table 3. Row 1 gives the correlation of 0.60 for the total sample and is highly statistically significant (pb.001). To examine whether this relationship holds across the whole range of national IQs we have divided the nations into two groups of those with IQs between 64–86 and those with IQs between 87–108. Row 2 gives the data for the 69 countries with IQs between 64–86. In this group only 1.95% of the population

are non-believers. There is a range between b1% and 40%, and the correlation between the two variables is only 0.16. Row 3 gives the data for the 68 countries with IQs between 87–108. In this group 19.99% of the population disbelieve in God. There is a range between b1% and 81%, and the correlation between the two variables is only 0.54 (pb.001). Thus, most of the variation in religious disbelief is among the higher IQ nations"

http://www.midus.wisc.edu/findings/pdfs/1197.pdf

 

Do you have the wrong study? I mean the article is interesting, but its not discussing anything you typed. Its looking at individuals within the US....not different countries.

"The current study sought to address each of these limitations.We utilized a large sample of mature US adults contacted by the MacArthur Foundation Survey of Midlife Development in the United States."

Edit: I'll also say that it would be interesting to see how their models perform if they controlled for fundamentalism in the other models (excluding the fundamentalists model). I would think that non-fundamentalist would be significantly different from other followers in terms of intelligence. I mean....when you just look at the fundamentalist model, there's  a significantly negative correlation between both IQ and education....a trait none of the other models exhibit when both variables are included in the model.

I'm pretty sure its been discussed to death too, but I have serious reservations about using IQ as a proxy for intelligence.