Your web-browser is very outdated, and as such, this website may not display properly. Please consider upgrading to a modern, faster and more secure browser. Click here to do so.
Contrary to what you like to tell yourself, I was talking about those studies out of objectivity.
No you weren’t. You introduced A CONCLUSION (an “opinion”) on an alleged “study” in response to me, thinking you were countering/refuting something that I said. The only “Study” cited was by me, and it did NOT support your claims.
Honestly, do I need to tell you this? It’s not something you would notice on your own?
There’s nothing the least bit OBJECTIVE in MAKING A CLAIM about THE CONCLUSION (an “opinion”) drawn on uncited studies!
(It’s not reasonable, rational or the least bit empirical)
You made unsubstantiated claims which, even if true, would have amounted to no more than opinions… and yet you uphold these unsubstantiated claims as fact.
Dude, you are a textbook example of precisely what I was complaining about!
I don’t think I am the only one who is jumpting to conclusions. When i said “non-religious” people, that would include people who are agnostic, or otherwise not involved in religious practices. I made no mention of atheists when I mentioned that study. There are definitely intellectual differences between religious and non religious people.
Okay, so you clearly have a low opinion of theists, and believe that by calling yourself atheists/non-religious you are somehow making yourself superior.
Dude, I knew that already! Previously I was talking about the symptom, here you expose the underlying cause…
The problem isn’t religion or theism or anything else, the problem is people. Some people have a mentality that lends itself to excessive religious “Vigor,” so to speak. But the exact same mentality often manifests itself outside of religion, and even within the minds of the non religious.
Seeing yourself as superior, is nothing more than the secular take on being “Chosen.”
Political partisan are the equal to any religious nutter.
Anyhow, I have to go and I’m already bored…
Studies do show that non-religious people tend to be more intelligent and much better critical thinkers. But does not go for all people, just a good majority.
"Studies" are interpreted.
As a rule, any study tells your exactly what the person conducting the study either believes or wants you to believe (or both).
In this example, for this “Study,” the term “Atheist” isn’t even defined. How on earth can someone make a determination about “Atheists” when they haven’t decided what an atheist is? Yet they want to claim that “atheists” are more intelligent…
For example, a not insignificant number of “Atheists” reported believing in a God or universal spirit, while more than TWICE AS MANY people who say that they don’t believe in any god(s) or universal spirit say they are NOT atheists than say that they are!
Thus, taken literally, one way you can interpret such studies would be to say that the majority of atheists are so goddamn stupid that they don’t even know what an atheist is…
See the problem now?
You are correct to say abiogenesis has not been observed. But, one would not be correct in saying it is impossible. I’m no biology major, I couldn’t discuss its possibilities, that would prolly be a question better suited for the user Biologweeps. But I can say that it is not unfounded. Take a look at the Miller-Urey experiment.
You’re making my point. Aboigenesis has never been observed, there is no “Proof” that it has ever happened and every last scientific test of the theory has failed miserably. But your belief is unswayed.
"After all, a Wiki article written & maintained by rank amateurs doesn’t get in the way of my beliefs, so they must be facts!"
While science makes guesses an assumptions, and “believe” certain outcomes are more possible than others, it is do to a presence of factual evidence that can be used to determine such validity, and not to to “blind faith” that is rampantly present withing religious and otherkin groups. Though there are individuals who get overzealous of their empirical standpoints and get careless wi th their fact checking.
We’re not talking about “Science.” We’re talking about people. There is a not-so-subtle difference.
Science is a process. People are idiots. Label something “Science” and idiots will cling to it like a drowning man to a life preserver. Feed them highly dubious interpretations and, so long as it’s an answer they like or always believed in anyway, their faith in it will endure all threats and challenges…
You are an idiot to compare science to religion in that manner
Well, speaking of “Idiots,” I was comparing PEOPLE. I was comparing religious PEOPLE to those who claim to not be religious. I was demonstrating by way of example, one which you confirmed (thanks for not noticing), that we all believe things without evidence, let alone proof.
So much for reading comprehension, huh?
Page 1 of 930