• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Meta-study: atheists are smarter than religious people

nekkid

nekkid

It doesn't matter who we are, what matters is our plan.
commedieu said:
You can't use the term fact if you can't adhere to evidence. Facts are reserved for logic and science.

Use "magic feelings based on a game of telephone that king James edited and excluded women because reasons" instead. or an archaic rule book that people cherry pick to start wars and punish homosexuals. While no one can live by the universal message of love.

Any outcome, there is no fact that relies on lack of evidence as anything that should be deemed as reasonable evidence.


"I know there is no boogeyman" is grounded in reality and is abundantly more reliable vs "yeah but maybe there's a boogeyman because I believe it."
Click to expand...

The difference is that proof of the boogeyman's existence would need to be found or disproved within a reasonably well-known quantity - i.e. the Earth. The proof or disproof of a God (I'm not getting bogged down in the religion-specific forms) exists in a universe, nay existence of possibilities that we've barely scratched the surface of and can't ever dream of comprehending.

It's like saying "I know everything there is to know about the ecosystem in this Petri dish, therefore I know everything about all life on Earth".
 
C

Count Dookkake

Member
ISee said:
It worked. Even flat-earthers are still out there. I wonder if we could find some atheists there or among the 'the moon landing was fake' crowd. Certainly not.
Click to expand...

I'm sure there are some. People can be right be right about one thing, for the wrong reasons, and thus predisposed to be wrong about other things.

The broken clock that is right once (or twice) a day isn't really right.
 
N

Not

Banned
Wanace said:
So that means people who decide not to have children are also more intelligent, as they've risen above instinct.
Click to expand...

Maybe that means there was a race way smarter than us millions of years ago that just died out because they were too smart to fuck anymore
 
I

Intheflorsh

Banned
AoM said:
Worth noting that the graphic leaves out the distinction between deist and theist.
Click to expand...

There is a distinction, however the graph is using a broad (but not incorrect) definition of theism that does incorporate deism.

I'm actually interested if anyone here is a deist, that seems like a rare thing these days.
 
S

Seventy70

Member
Count Dookkake said:
Perhaps, but equating "There is no compelling evidence for any god as described by any religion known to man" with "I know there's nothing" is pretty dumb.
Click to expand...
As far as I know, most big religions don't describe physical gods. How do you prove or disprove something that is an abstract concept?

If you want to make an argument against something, make it against the superstitious side of religions. That is the only side that holds the burden of proof.
Plumbob said:
burden of proof efc.

just because there's two possibilities that does not mean both are equally likely

but anyhoo
Click to expand...
Again, who are you speaking to? If it's superstitious people, then I agree. Religious people as a whole aren't superstitious though.
 
B

BladeoftheImmortal

Member
MGrant said:
I'm not religious at all and some of my most thoughtful, intelligent friends include a Church-every-Sunday Methodist, a Church of Christ pastor, a Daoist who makes offerings at temples, and a Buddhist who goes to a fortune teller every year. Most people are idiots. Most people are religious. That does not mean that we can deduce that non-religious people are not idiots. They're just non-religious idiots.
Click to expand...
The study doesn't say you can't be smart if you are religious or that you can't be stupid if you are an atheist. It just states that more often than not intelligence does have a correlation with whether you are religious or not.

The findings aren't surprising, honestly.
 
C

Count Dookkake

Member
Seventy70 said:
As far as I know, most big religions don't describe physical gods. How do you prove or disprove something that is an abstract concept?

If you want to make an argument against something, make it against the superstitious side of religions. That is the only side that holds the burden of proof.
Click to expand...

You should just carefully reread what I wrote.

I'm not getting roped into a game of moving goalposts.
 
C

commedieu

Banned
nekkid said:
The difference is that proof of the boogeyman's existence would need to be found or disproved within a reasonably well-known quantity - i.e. the Earth. The proof or disproof of a God (I'm not getting bogged down in the religion-specific forms) exists in a universe, nay existence of possibilities that we've barely scratched the surface of and can't ever dream of comprehending.

It's like saying "I know everything there is to know about the ecosystem in this Petri dish, therefore I know everything about all life on Earth".
Click to expand...

Only a moron would say I know everything there is to know about all life on earth because of a petri dish. There is a myriad of scientific fields that study life from micro to macro. It wouldn't be sane to make such a claim as the terrible metaphor suggested. The argument about made up gods, isn't the same as making that declaration. However you can test theories on the petri dish, and apply them to larger ecosystems.

The same can't be said about all religion.

The proof of God is based on gut feeling and bad translations of an ancient text taken literally. People reserve the right to act on the reality of the world versus a no evidence of a "God" that can be reproduced in a objective way.

As I've said. Science doesn't work with made up feelings. It can't be used to discuss made up feelings. Made up feelings are just that. They share nothing with the world of logic and science because it's trying to claim make belive as tangible. Its impossible to discuss religious belief with logic and science. The two are separate for very good reason. One is tested and refuted often. Which creates a peer reviewed base of universal knowledge that can be applied across a sea of experiments, and predictions that drive humanity forward with technological, agricultural and other benifits for man kind.

The other says women are second class citizens because a book said so, maybe if translated correctly.

Religion in moderation, is fine for plenty of people. It just has no leg to stand on when it comes to discussing reality which is based on cause and effect, observation, and the scientific method. It can't participate in that realm, by its own definition and lack of the need of proof for anything.

I guess since we have no proof that spaghetti man didn't make the universe, it should be respected as a scientific topic to be discussed? Right.
 
N

Nexus Zero

Member
Karsticles said:
I'm an atheist, and I just don't think this is true. Many of history's noteworthy intellects were religious. Isaac Newton was way smarter than me. Charles Darwin was studying to be a pastor when he came up with the theory of evolution. A Catholic Priest came up with the Big Bang Theory.
Click to expand...

You're using specific examples to talk about something (allegedly) statistically true. You might be the dumbest atheist who ever lived and you might be comparing yourself to the smartest theists who ever lived. That's an extreme example but illustrates why your examples aren't relevant to the outcomes of this study.
 
S

Septic360

Banned
The study states IF religion is an evolved domain. I know a lot of people who are atheists because their instincts line up with their disbelief. I don't see many examples of my atheist mates "rising up" over any such instinct; only complying because their desires align with the lifestyle of an atheist as opposed to a prohibitive religion.

I wouldn't take this on face value at all but then again, I'm most likely biased because I'm religious.
 
nekkid

nekkid

It doesn't matter who we are, what matters is our plan.
commedieu said:
Only a moron would say I know everything there is to know about all life on earth because of a petri dish. There is a myriad of scientific fields that study life from micro to macro. It wouldn't be sane to make such a claim as the terrible metaphor suggested. The argument about made up gods, isn't the same as making that declaration. However you can test theories on the petri dish, and apply them to larger ecosystems.

The same can't be said about all religion.

The proof of God is based on gut feeling and bad translations of an ancient text taken literally. People reserve the right to act on the reality of the world versus a no evidence of a "God" that can be reproduced in a objective way.

As I've said. Science doesn't work with made up feelings. It can't be used to discuss made up feelings. Made up feelings are just that. They share nothing with the world of logic and science because it's trying to claim make belive as tangible. Its impossible to discuss religious belief with logic and science. The two are separate for very good reason. One is tested and refuted often. Which creates a peer reviewed base of universal knowledge that can be applied across a sea of experiments, and predictions that drive humanity forward with technological, agricultural and other benifits for man kind.

The other says women are second class citizens because a book said so, maybe if translated correctly.

Religion in moderation, is fine for plenty of people. It just has no leg to stand on when it comes to discussing reality which is based on cause and effect, observation, and the scientific method. It can't participate in that realm, by its own definition and lack of the need of proof for anything.

I guess since we have no proof that spaghetti man didn't make the universe, it should be respected as a scientific topic to be discussed? Right.
Click to expand...

It took you a lot of time and a lot of words to just attempt to be plain insulting. Good work.
 
F

FiggyCal

Banned
Intheflorsh said:
Let's shut down this line of discussion early for once. Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive positions to take.

Gnostic_Agnostic_Atheist.png.72b579449ee7fceb26d0632e19e1e13b.png
Click to expand...

I always found this chart dumb. Who cares if you're not sure, but you believe in it anyway? It's an unecessary distinction. You either believe in a thing or you do not, or you're not sure.
 
D

daviyoung

Banned
FiggyCal said:
I always found this chart dumb. Who cares if you're not sure, but you believe in it anyway? It's an unecessary distinction. You either believe in a thing or you do not, or you're not sure.
Click to expand...

You either believe in a thing or you do not. If you are not sure you do not believe in a thing.
 
M

MGrant

Member
Nexus Zero said:
You're using specific examples to talk about something (allegedly) statistically true. You might be the dumbest atheist who ever lived and you might be comparing yourself to the smartest theists who ever lived. That's an extreme example but illustrates why your examples aren't relevant to the outcomes of this study.
Click to expand...

But when examples contrary to the claim of the meta-study are so easily found, what is even the point of the meta-study? What applications does this study have other than to let the type of crypto-eugenicists who eat up the shit on IFLS pat themselves on the back yet again? There's nothing scientific about the claims made in this paper; it's bad philosophy dressed up in a lab coat.
 
H

Haly

One day I realized that sadness is just another word for not enough coffee.
FiggyCal said:
I always found this chart dumb. Who cares if you're not sure, but you believe in it anyway? It's an unecessary distinction. You either believe in a thing or you do not, or you're not sure.
Click to expand...

One is a measure of belief/non-belief. One is a measure of confidence. It is the difference between, for example being far left, moderate left, or centrist left.
 
C

commedieu

Banned
nekkid said:
It took you a lot of time and a lot of words to just attempt to be plain insulting. Good work.
Click to expand...

These are old arguments that stand the test of time. I didn't come up with them. But as I said in my post, Religion is fine for folks, in moderation. It just can't be discussed in factual terms because of the nature of religion. It is outside of facts. Yes a story was told about people who existed, and that's where it sort of stops with the facts.

It is a belief. I believe something kick-started the known universe. But I doubt it has control issues over women. I cant prove it. So I can't discuss it in terms of facts, just belief. It is made up. It is based on nothing. It's the truth. Until there is evidence that suggests a higher intelligence or force kickstarted the universe, I'm left at this point.
 
S

Septic360

Banned
commedieu said:
Only a moron would say I know everything there is to know about all life on earth because of a petri dish. There is a myriad of scientific fields that study life from micro to macro. It wouldn't be sane to make such a claim as the terrible metaphor suggested. The argument about made up gods, isn't the same as making that declaration. However you can test theories on the petri dish, and apply them to larger ecosystems.

The same can't be said about all religion.

The proof of God is based on gut feeling and bad translations of an ancient text taken literally. People reserve the right to act on the reality of the world versus a no evidence of a "God" that can be reproduced in a objective way.

As I've said. Science doesn't work with made up feelings. It can't be used to discuss made up feelings. Made up feelings are just that. They share nothing with the world of logic and science because it's trying to claim make belive as tangible. Its impossible to discuss religious belief with logic and science. The two are separate for very good reason. One is tested and refuted often. Which creates a peer reviewed base of universal knowledge that can be applied across a sea of experiments, and predictions that drive humanity forward with technological, agricultural and other benifits for man kind.

The other says women are second class citizens because a book said so, maybe if translated correctly.

Religion in moderation, is fine for plenty of people. It just has no leg to stand on when it comes to discussing reality which is based on cause and effect, observation, and the scientific method. It can't participate in that realm, by its own definition and lack of the need of proof for anything.

I guess since we have no proof that spaghetti man didn't make the universe, it should be respected as a scientific topic to be discussed? Right.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, there's a lot of subjective waffle there for someone championing the so called objectivity of science or what atheism enables.

"People reserve the right"? What right? How many persons does it take to constitute people and what "realities of the world" are you alluding To?

You referenced women being second class citizens in holy scripture. What 'right' does an atheist have to plug questions of morality from? Which standards are you pulling? Why is your standard one others should adhere to ? There's no objective right or wrong in your moral assessments. Why have you mixed scientific discovery with morality?

Religion in moderation is "fine"? Fine by whom? The council of atheists with superiority complexes chaired by Richard Dawkins? Religion has no leg to stand on when discussing reality?? So religious people live in an alternate dimension? It cannot participate in this realm because all this realm is defined by is cause and effect? Well then that's a harsh stance to take but similarly, stick to your own standards and when questions like morality come in, make sure you adopt a similar clinical stance of cause and effect when making your statements and assessments.

When science can fundamentally replace the existence of God when talking about the origin of the universe (hint: the Big Bang or pre Big Bang theories arent sufficient) then we can start to entertain your one sided notion.
 
F

FiggyCal

Banned
commedieu said:
These are old arguments that stand the test of time. I didn't come up with them. But as I said in my post, Religion is fine for folks, in moderation. It just can't be discussed in factual terms because of the nature of religion. It is outside of facts. Yes a story was told about people who existed, and that's where it sort of stops with the facts.

It is a belief. I believe something kick-started the known universe. But I doubt it has control issues over women. I cant prove it. So I can't discuss it in terms of facts, just belief. It is made up. It is based on nothing. It's the truth. Until there is evidence that suggests a higher intelligence or force kickstarted the universe, I'm left at this point.
Click to expand...

Are you familiar with any theist philosophers at all because the subject seems to be a lot less clear than you're letting on.

daviyoung said:
You either believe in a thing or you do not. If you are not sure you do not believe in a thing.
Click to expand...
I think people can genuinely not be sure one way or the other.

I also get that it's a level of confidence thing, but I'm not sure what that adds to the conversation. If someone says they're an atheist, I already know that means that they don't believe in God. I don't need to know that they're 43% percent sure about their position being right. you can just say you're not sure without confusing the definitions for "atheist"/"theist" or "gnostic" and "agnostic" for that matter.
 
I

Intheflorsh

Banned
FiggyCal said:
I always found this chart dumb. Who cares if you're not sure, but you believe in it anyway? It's an unecessary distinction. You either believe in a thing or you do not, or you're not sure.
Click to expand...

Maybe agnosticism/gnosticism is not a big issue on the religious side of things, but there have been arguments between "atheists" and "agnostics" for years when really the vast majority of people who subscribe to either of those labels are actually in the same camp. The graph is useful for making that point.
 
I

ibyea

Banned
Some of you guys are really patting yourselves in the back for being "more intelligent" while lacking complete nuance over the concept of intelligence.
 
F

FiggyCal

Banned
Intheflorsh said:
Maybe agnosticism/gnosticism is not a big issue on the religious side of things, but there have been arguments between "atheists" and "agnostics" for years when really the vast majority of people who subscribe to either of those labels are actually in the same camp. The graph is useful for making that point.
Click to expand...

I guess when you put it like that (it's more important for the atheists and agnostics to differentiate themselves than it is for the religious) I can kind of see the point.

Edit: also the word "Gnosticism" (as far as theology goes) also has a pretty weird and negative history
 
C

commedieu

Banned
Septic360 said:
With all due respect, there's a lot of subjective waffle there for someone championing the so called objectivity of science or what atheism enables.

"People reserve the right"? What right? How many persons does it take to constitute people and what "realities of the world" are you alluding To?

You referenced women being second class citizens in holy scripture. What 'right' does an atheist have to plug questions of morality from? Which standards are you pulling? Why is your standard one others should adhere to ? There's no objective right or wrong in your moral assessments. Why have you mixed scientific discovery with morality?

Religion in moderation is "fine"? Fine by whom? The council of atheists with superiority complexes chaired by Richard Dawkins? Religion has no leg to stand on when discussing reality?? So religious people live in an alternate dimension? It cannot participate in this realm because all this realm is defined by is cause and effect? Well then that's a harsh stance to take but similarly, stick to your own standards and when questions like morality come in, make sure you adopt a similar clinical stance of cause and effect when making your statements and assessments.

When science can fundamentally replace the existence of God when talking about the origin of the universe (hint: the Big Bang or pre Big Bang theories arent sufficient) then we can start to entertain your one sided notion.
Click to expand...

You don't need religion for morality. It isn't a prerequisite. Rights to discuss morality are included in those standards that democracy affords us.

I'm no Richard Dawkins fan, he's up there with Bill Maher as far as I'm concerned. People that have some beyond bizzare hate for religion, God killed my dog types.

No, religious people don't live in an alternative dimension. Religion just can't be debated in a factual way. It circumvents those "realities of the world" because it's based on belief alone. Which facts aren't, and neither is science, based on gut feelings that can't be predicted or reproduced. This is where most of religions red herrings come from. When it tries to legitimize itself with tangible logic. To equate itself as real in the physical world which has rules. It fails a every opportunity because it hasn't anything to merit legitimacy in that arena.

Beliefs are fine, moderation is the opposite of the crusades or its modern day counterparts of extremist beliefs. When religious beliefs become a burden to other non believers, thats the line that I personally draw for moderation. Maybe that's old fashioned.

The big bang theory is a theory that will be updated and replaced as better evidence comes along. And has already been in some ways. Folks over at the haldron collider are trying to get to the bottom of that very theory, and other things. That's science. It evolves with knowledge, it doesn't suppress it. Nor does it try to redifine itself due to belief.

Edit:

One day, maybe there will be proof to back up religious beliefs in gods. Until then, I'm not really saying anything new. Open to pms about the subject though.
 
C

CHC

Member
This is absolutely one of those threads where earnestness, parody, and memes have completed folded in on one another.
 
ZehDon

ZehDon

Gold Member
ibyea said:
Some of you guys are really patting yourselves in the back for being "more intelligent" while lacking complete nuance over the concept of intelligence.
Click to expand...
Average person reads title: Hmmm sounds weird, wonder why they think that?
Internet atheist reads title: I can confirm this is 100% accurate.
Religious person reads title: That doesn't sound right.
Educated person reads title: Sounds like correlation rather than causation, though the terms used are far from specific enough to take away anything meaningful.
 
T

typist

Member
Wouldn't classify religion as an instinct personally, religion is more like a set of beliefs or a cultural phenomenon. Now the predisposition for children to be gullible and trust their parents/communities are correct about their pet religions being true... maybe that's an instinct. Wanting to be happy is also an instinct which can be satisfied by religion. There might be a connection between intelligence and atheism but according to some random internet source I never really checked (didn't feel a need to) atheism is also connected with depression and depression is also connected with intelligence

ZehDon said:
Average person reads title: Hmmm sounds weird, wonder why they think that?
Internet atheist reads title: I can confirm this is 100% accurate.
Religious person reads title: That doesn't sound right.
Educated person reads title: Sounds like correlation rather than causation, though the terms used are far from specific enough to take away anything meaningful.
Click to expand...

In most countries the majority of people (and thus the average person) would identify as a religious person. Thinking something sounds weird and questioning it is probably more the domain of the educated person xP
 
A

azyless

Member
Do they explain why they consider religion/faith (I'm unsure which one is concerned here) an evolved domain ?
The whole study seems to rely on this and it just falls flat with me, religion/faith has never been something I had to "rise up against" on a personal level.
 
F

FiggyCal

Banned
commedieu said:
You don't need religion for morality. It isn't a prerequisite. Rights to discuss morality are included in those standards that democracy affords us.

I'm no Richard Dawkins fan, he's up there with Bill Maher as far as I'm concerned. People that have some beyond bizzare hate for religion, God killed my dog types.

No, religious people don't live in an alternative dimension. Religion just can't be debated in a factual way. It circumvents those "realities of the world" because it's based on belief alone. Which facts aren't, and neither is science, based on gut feelings that can't be predicted or reproduced. This is where most of religions red herrings come from. When it tries to legitimize itself with tangible logic. To equate itself as real in the physical world which has rules. It fails a every opportunity because it hasn't anything to merit legitimacy in that arena.

Beliefs are fine, moderation is the opposite of the crusades or its modern day counterparts of extremist beliefs. When religious beliefs become a burden to other non believers, thats the line that I personally draw for moderation. Maybe that's old fashioned.

The big bang theory is a theory that will be updated and replaced as better evidence comes along. And has already been in some ways. Folks over at the haldron collider are trying to get to the bottom of that very theory, and other things. That's science. It evolves with knowledge, it doesn't suppress it. Nor does it try to redifine itself due to belief.
Click to expand...

It just seems like you're making a ton of assertions without backing anything up. Like when you say this:

When it tries to legitimize itself with tangible logic. To equate itself as real in the physical world which has rules. It fails a every opportunity because it hasn't anything to merit legitimacy in that arena.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what specifically you're referring to. Maybe that would help clear up the confusion if you specified what arguments you're not convinced by, why they fail, or why you think logic loses its validity with regards to religion?
 
A

A Fish Aficionado

I am going to make it through this year if it kills me
I call BS because of A) being evolutionary psychology. it is the Austrian School of Economics of psychology. The guys and gals who do science based evo psych hate the field. And B) a meta study of 63 is a little low. It screams of cherry-picking.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0059202 based on Cochrane Reviews, which the journal that study is publishes is not. And there have many Cochrane reviews that are questionable
 
C

commedieu

Banned
FiggyCal said:
It just seems like you're making a ton of assertions without backing anything up. Like when you say this:



I have no idea what specifically you're referring to. Maybe that would help clear up the confusion if you specified what arguments you're not convinced by, why they fail, or why you think logic loses its validity with regards to religion?
Click to expand...

Proof of god fails 10 out of 10 times. The rest sort of follows suit with the main idea being fruitless. Mainly, it's because the world of belief doesn't rely on proof. So the game is rigged against(benefits?) religion when it comes to this. That's all I'm really saying.

Beliefs are fine, but they don't do well when they encounter a system that doesn't entertain them or equate them with substance.
 
S

spekkeh

Banned
ZehDon said:
Average person reads title: Hmmm sounds weird, wonder why they think that?
Internet atheist reads title: I can confirm this is 100% accurate.
Religious person reads title: That doesn't sound right.
Educated person reads title: Sounds like correlation rather than causation, though the terms used are far from specific enough to take away anything meaningful.
Click to expand...
Let me guess, you're a religious person.

I think an actually educated person would look at the article, see that the initial meta-analysis was published in Personality and Social Psychology Review, and immediately refrain from saying anything that would go against the conclusions. Only if it really rubs her the wrong way, she would engage in a thorough research of the original experiments to see if the conclusions are valid.
 
A

A Fish Aficionado

I am going to make it through this year if it kills me
spekkeh said:
Let me guess, you're a religious person.

I think an actually educated person would look at the article, see that the initial meta-analysis was published in Personality and Social Psychology Review, and immediately refrain from saying anything that would go against the conclusions. Only if it really rubs her the wrong way, she would engage in a thorough research of the original experiments to see if the conclusions are valid.
Click to expand...

w o w
 
S

spekkeh

Banned
A Fish Aficionado said:
I call BS because of A) being evolutionary psychology. it is the Austrian School of Economics of psychology. The guys and gals who do science based evo psych hate the field. And B) a meta study of 63 is a little low. It screams of cherry-picking.
Click to expand...
They're two different papers brought together. The meta analysis doesn't have anything to do with evolutionary psychology. The new paper that IFLS highlights just tries to give an explanation based on evo psychology. It's published in a rather nothing journal (though still Springer), the meta analysis is published in one of the most reputable journals in psychology. 63 is also not little.
 
Mister Wolf

Mister Wolf

Member
Septic360 said:
With all due respect, there's a lot of subjective waffle there for someone championing the so called objectivity of science or what atheism enables.

"People reserve the right"? What right? How many persons does it take to constitute people and what "realities of the world" are you alluding To?

You referenced women being second class citizens in holy scripture. What 'right' does an atheist have to plug questions of morality from? Which standards are you pulling? Why is your standard one others should adhere to ? There's no objective right or wrong in your moral assessments. Why have you mixed scientific discovery with morality?

Religion in moderation is "fine"? Fine by whom? The council of atheists with superiority complexes chaired by Richard Dawkins? Religion has no leg to stand on when discussing reality?? So religious people live in an alternate dimension? It cannot participate in this realm because all this realm is defined by is cause and effect? Well then that's a harsh stance to take but similarly, stick to your own standards and when questions like morality come in, make sure you adopt a similar clinical stance of cause and effect when making your statements and assessments.

When science can fundamentally replace the existence of God when talking about the origin of the universe (hint: the Big Bang or pre Big Bang theories arent sufficient) then we can start to entertain your one sided notion.
Click to expand...

And we're done.
 
F

Funyarinpa

Member
Karsticles said:
I'm an atheist, and I just don't think this is true. Many of history's noteworthy intellects were religious. Isaac Newton was way smarter than me. Charles Darwin was studying to be a pastor when he came up with the theory of evolution. A Catholic Priest came up with the Big Bang Theory.
Click to expand...

You're comparing yourself, an average atheist, to the very best the Christian world has to offer.
 
Z

Zaru

Member
Machina said:
Is this seriously the caricature of Atheists that western religious people run with now?

Well, I guess it's better than, you know, getting executed in certain middle eastern countries.
Click to expand...

This is, and I say this with a completely straight face, a religious meme war.
Edgy internet atheists vs. contrarian internet christians. Both are mostly teenagers with too much time on their computers who want to feel superior about something.
 
A

A Fish Aficionado

I am going to make it through this year if it kills me
spekkeh said:
They're two different papers brought together. The meta analysis doesn't have anything to do with evolutionary psychology. The new paper that IFLS highlights just tries to give an explanation based on evo psychology. It's published in a rather nothing journal (though still Springer), the meta analysis is published in one of the most reputable journals in psychology. 63 is also not little.
Click to expand...

Meta analysis are held to much greater scruple than RCTs.
63 is a very low number when, as that PLOS article reports are in the hundreds.
 
T

Timedog

good credit (by proxy)
Machina said:
Is this seriously the caricature of Atheists that western religious people run with now?

Well, I guess it's better than, you know, getting executed in certain middle eastern countries.
Click to expand...
A not insignificant number of younger atheists that define themselves by their atheism are actually like that. It's about as bad as people that self identify as "gamers".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

[Reuters] More than a billion people worldwide are obese, WHO study finds
News 2 3
125
4K
Mistake replied
Vegans 43% more likely to suffer broken bones than meat eaters, Oxford study finds
2 3
101
6K
EverydayBeast replied
[Atlantic] America Has a Drinking Problem
2 3
149
18K
Hawking Radiation replied
You Are Already Having Sex With Robots
0
2K
Bullet Club replied
Stanislaw Lem - GOLEM XIV
8
2K
Porcile replied
Top Bottom