Jump to content

Atheist Are Brain Damaged


Recommended Posts

I am merely repeating a Boston University study that found that people with faulty brain wiring are more likely to be atheist.Which means atheism is linked to faulty thinking.Which we already knew of course, but now we have science to prove it.
If you're going to actually pretend to believe in scientific studies and analysis, you're doing it wrong. What you should have said is, "Autism is linked to rational thinking, which is linked to atheism."
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If you're going to actually pretend to believe in scientific studies and analysis, you're doing it wrong. What you should have said is, "Autism is linked to rational thinking, which is linked to atheism."
Glad you are trying to embrace your brain defects.Good for you buddy.Good for you.
Link to post
Share on other sites
It's ok, you can say it. I know it hurts, but go ahead. Say, "You win this round."
I get it...your faulty brain is giving you equally faulty scoring results.The story clearly shows that your brains are more likely to be broken to arrive at the position you are holding. I am trying my hardest to make my brain not work right so I can sit in your shoes and see your point, but it is hard...cause my brain works normal and stuff.Anyway, hows that schooling to learn how and why to insert your entire arm deep into a cow's rectum that you are paying 6 figures for going Mr. There's-nothing-wrong-with-my-logic?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for piling on, but this story is also somewhat damaging for your guys side.

A study conducted by Daniel Bartels, Columbia Business School, Marketing, and David Pizarro, Cornell University, Psychology found that people who endorse actions consistent with an ethic of utilitarianism—the view that what is the morally right thing to do is whatever produces the best overall consequences—tend to possess psychopathic and Machiavellian personality traits.... Bartels and Pizarro found a strong link between utilitarian responses to these dilemmas (e.g., approving the killing of an innocent person to save the others) and personality styles that were psychopathic, Machiavellian or tended to view life as meaningless.
I am anticipating great efforts to twist these results to make yourselves win this round also.Make sure you bring in Sam Harris, since his recent book about morality would place him firmly in this 'more likely to be a psychopath' camp.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry for piling on, but this story is also somewhat damaging for your guys side.I am anticipating great efforts to twist these results to make yourselves win this round also.Make sure you bring in Sam Harris, since his recent book about morality would place him firmly in this 'more likely to be a psychopath' camp.
From the same article, in the concluding paragraph
While some might be tempted to conclude that these findings undermine utilitarianism as an ethical theory, Prof. Bartels explained that he and his co-author have a different interpretation: "Although the study does not resolve the ethical debate, it points to a flaw in the widely-adopted use of sacrificial dilemmas to identify optimal moral judgment. These methods fail to distinguish between people who endorse utilitarian moral choices because of underlying emotional deficits (like those captured by our measures of psychopathy and Machiavellianism) and those who endorse them out of genuine concern for the welfare of others." In short, if scientists' methods cannot identify a difference between the morality of a utilitarian philosopher who sacrifices her own interest for the sake of others, and a manipulative con artist who cares little about the feelings and welfare of anyone but himself, then perhaps better methods are needed.
All this study says is: "Based on the questions we asked in the experiment we designed, we are unable to tell if a respondent that chooses to push one man in front of a train is doing it because (a) he is trying to save 5 lives OR (b) he just really likes pushing people in front of trains." Seriously. Read the text of the article. You can see how easy it would for that to be true, right?Let's use as an example the passengers on board the 4th plane on 9/11. They fought back against the terrorists, and very likely attempted to kill them, knowing full well it would mean their own deaths. Maybe one of those guys just really likes fighting and killing. Or maybe one of them was excited about getting to the controls and crashing the plane into the ground. How can you distinguish between an act of genuine heroism and an act of wanton violence?The examples often used to illustrate optimal moral behavior -- the "kill one to save ten?" hypotheticals -- are, according to this study, flawed.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I LOVE the powerpoint linked in BalloonGuy's signature, especially slide 14, which is an attempt to dispel the myth that:ATHEISTS ARE VERY INTELLIGENTAverage IQRetards: 70Average: 100Atheist: 103Mensa: 132Genius: 140The point is supposed to be something like "Atheists aren't, like, geniuses or anything, and therefore aren't even smart."But what those numbers really say is: "Atheists are 3% smarter than average." Let's add one more category, shall we?Non-Atheists: <100Average: 100Atheists: 103Now, a new conclusion: "non-Atheists are of below-average intelligence."Am I missing something here? Isn't that exactly the opposite of what BalloonGuy and VoxDay are trying to say?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, I LOVE the powerpoint linked in BalloonGuy's signature, especially slide 14, which is an attempt to dispel the myth that:ATHEISTS ARE VERY INTELLIGENTAverage IQRetards: 70Average: 100Atheist: 103Mensa: 132Genius: 140The point is supposed to be something like "Atheists aren't, like, geniuses or anything, and therefore aren't even smart."But what those numbers really say is: "Atheists are 3% smarter than average." Let's add one more category, shall we?Non-Atheists: <100Average: 100Atheists: 103Now, a new conclusion: "non-Atheists are of below-average intelligence."Am I missing something here? Isn't that exactly the opposite of what BalloonGuy and VoxDay are trying to say?
So you are saying atheist are within the margin for error on most IQ test with average people? And that making up numbers and applying them arbitrarily is a valid method to make your point?I guess I can grant you this. I think you are going to end up arguing with VB though, but I am more open minded than most lefties... besides I rated high than mensa, which is why I believe in God.
Link to post
Share on other sites
From the same article, in the concluding paragraphAll this study says is: "Based on the questions we asked in the experiment we designed, we are unable to tell if a respondent that chooses to push one man in front of a train is doing it because (a) he is trying to save 5 lives OR (b) he just really likes pushing people in front of trains." Seriously. Read the text of the article. You can see how easy it would for that to be true, right?Let's use as an example the passengers on board the 4th plane on 9/11. They fought back against the terrorists, and very likely attempted to kill them, knowing full well it would mean their own deaths. Maybe one of those guys just really likes fighting and killing. Or maybe one of them was excited about getting to the controls and crashing the plane into the ground. How can you distinguish between an act of genuine heroism and an act of wanton violence?The examples often used to illustrate optimal moral behavior -- the "kill one to save ten?" hypotheticals -- are, according to this study, flawed.
Curious...If you went to a funeral of your friend's sister and saw a woman that you think may be the perfect woman for you...but she left before you could meet her, what would you do?
Link to post
Share on other sites
I get it...your faulty brain is giving you equally faulty scoring results.The story clearly shows that your brains are more likely to be broken to arrive at the position you are holding. I am trying my hardest to make my brain not work right so I can sit in your shoes and see your point, but it is hard...cause my brain works normal and stuff.
Say it, BG. Say that this thread was a disaster for you.
Anyway, hows that schooling to learn how and why to insert your entire arm deep into a cow's rectum that you are paying 6 figures for going Mr. There's-nothing-wrong-with-my-logic?
Well, the good news is that, despite my 6 figure debt, I'll never go broke. So, you know, I guess I could be doing less logical things with my life.
The point is supposed to be something like "Atheists aren't, like, geniuses or anything, and therefore aren't even smart."But what those numbers really say is: "Atheists are 3% smarter than average." Let's add one more category, shall we?Non-Atheists: <100Average: 100Atheists: 103Now, a new conclusion: "non-Atheists are of below-average intelligence."
Haha. I kind of can't believe you bothered clicking on that link though.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Curious...If you went to a funeral of your friend's sister and saw a woman that you think may be the perfect woman for you...but she left before you could meet her, what would you do?
Go back to his babymama and cry himself to sleep?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Say it, BG. Say that this thread was a disaster for you.
Are you kidding?I have a thread I can link too anytime VB starts those fault ridden 'studies' done by atheist trying to discount the incredible contributions throughout history that Christianity has made to civilization.That's all the thread was meant to be. ( Also I didn't actually read the link, just the title, but that's good enough for most of my investigations, so its good enough here )
Well, the good news is that, despite my 6 figure debt, I'll never go broke. So, you know, I guess I could be doing less logical things with my life.
Haha..that's one way of looking at it. Wait till the democrats start up ObamaDoggieCare.
Haha. I kind of can't believe you bothered clicking on that link though.
He was open minded enough to not fear reading something to challenge his beliefs. I never would fault a man for that.
Link to post
Share on other sites
So you are saying atheist are within the margin for error on most IQ test with average people? And that making up numbers and applying them arbitrarily is a valid method to make your point?I guess I can grant you this. I think you are going to end up arguing with VB though, but I am more open minded than most lefties... besides I rated high than mensa, which is why I believe in God.
I suppose my point is: "What is VoxDay trying to say?" The way he framed his point was disingenuous -- the "MENSA" and "GENIUS" bars were meant to make the difference between 103 (atheist) and 100 (average) look trifling. He was also offering evidence that atheists are smarter than theists, which just seems... I don't know, backwards? Silly? Perhaps the point was, "There is not a statistically significant difference between the IQs of Theists and Atheists." But I don't think so. I don't think you do either, BG. If that really was his point, why didn't he include the Theist IQ? Or some error bars? It was a clumsy attempt to reject a null hypothesis that reflected poorly on VoxDay.I'm really not sure if Atheists are smarter than Theists -- gun to my head, I'd say yes, but I can't prove that, and even if I could it wouldn't mean anything -- but that slide was both misleading AND backwards.
Curious...If you went to a funeral of your friend's sister and saw a woman that you think may be the perfect woman for you...but she left before you could meet her, what would you do?
I'm also curious (about whether I'm walking into a trap/joke, and also about relevance), but I'd ask around. I'd start on the periphery, asking the least grief-stricken about the woman, attempting to ascertain who she was, her relationship to my friend and his sister, and go from there. Funerals are grave affairs, but if I thought I met a woman who was perfect for me, the gravity of the situation wouldn't stop me in my tracks or anything. I'd do my best to not seem like a tail-chasing slut-hound, but I'd learn about her. If she seemed perfect for me, I'd pursue her. Who wouldn't?
Haha. I kind of can't believe you bothered clicking on that link though.
I expected to see about what I saw, but seeing it has value. I never would have clicked it if I hadn't been in the religion forum in the first place. It would've been imprudent to discuss religion with BG without reading the anti-atheist powerpoint presentation in his signature...
Link to post
Share on other sites
You know I don't have a kid, right?
Next you'll say you're not in jail either. There are so many different ways to be smart. Boiling down all the various ways the mind can excel into IQ is fairly futile. Many christians are smart -- including BG. I mean the thing he does on here, whatever it is, is pretty masterful. But there is a certain kind of reasoning ability that is ultimately incompatible with formal religion (by which I mean the specific tenets of fundamentalist christianity, judaism, islam, etc. as distinguished from the varieties of pantheistic/mysterious/god-is-the-universe spiritualities). People who have that ability either 1) reject formal religion or 2) suppress this aspect of their mind temporarily or permanently. This guy is a good example of the conflict that occurs when that kind of suppression has taken place. This is the kind of reasoning that happens to be good for science -- the practice of figuring out the truth -- which is why we get such a different breakdown of religious belief among scientists compared with the general population: Scientists%20and%20Belief%201.gif
Link to post
Share on other sites
( Also I didn't actually read the link, just the title, but that's good enough for most of my investigations, so its good enough here )
Well, at least you admitted something in here.
You know I don't have a kid, right?
How would I know that?
Link to post
Share on other sites
I suppose my point is: "What is VoxDay trying to say?" The way he framed his point was disingenuous -- the "MENSA" and "GENIUS" bars were meant to make the difference between 103 (atheist) and 100 (average) look trifling. He was also offering evidence that atheists are smarter than theists, which just seems... I don't know, backwards? Silly? Perhaps the point was, "There is not a statistically significant difference between the IQs of Theists and Atheists." But I don't think so. I don't think you do either, BG. If that really was his point, why didn't he include the Theist IQ? Or some error bars? It was a clumsy attempt to reject a null hypothesis that reflected poorly on VoxDay.I'm really not sure if Atheists are smarter than Theists -- gun to my head, I'd say yes, but I can't prove that, and even if I could it wouldn't mean anything -- but that slide was both misleading AND backwards.
The point was to counter the claim made by many that atheist are smart.
I'm also curious (about whether I'm walking into a trap/joke, and also about relevance), but I'd ask around. I'd start on the periphery, asking the least grief-stricken about the woman, attempting to ascertain who she was, her relationship to my friend and his sister, and go from there. Funerals are grave affairs, but if I thought I met a woman who was perfect for me, the gravity of the situation wouldn't stop me in my tracks or anything. I'd do my best to not seem like a tail-chasing slut-hound, but I'd learn about her. If she seemed perfect for me, I'd pursue her. Who wouldn't?
This was more of a joke than a question because the question was invented by psychologist to determine if a person is a psychopath.The correct psychopath response is to kill his friend so there will be another funeral with similar people coming.
I expected to see about what I saw, but seeing it has value. I never would have clicked it if I hadn't been in the religion forum in the first place. It would've been imprudent to discuss religion with BG without reading the anti-atheist powerpoint presentation in his signature...
I wouldn't say anti-atheist.It is a response to the current atheist 'best selling' books, it was defensive, not offensive.
Link to post
Share on other sites
This was more of a joke than a question because the question was invented by psychologist to determine if a person is a psychopath.The correct psychopath response is to kill his friend so there will be another funeral with similar people coming.
I feel like even psychopaths are aware enough of social norms to not give that answer, even if he was thinking it.Edit: http://www.allofthecrap.com/22/the-psychopath-test/Oh, well that's stupid. They don't have to come up with the answer themselves, they just have to recognize the logic presented. And I feel like the answer would be obvious to most people, not just psychopaths. Maybe that means I'm a psychopath. I'm hungry.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The point was to counter the claim made by many that atheist are smart.
It was a poor attempt to refute that claim, then.
This was more of a joke than a question because the question was invented by psychologist to determine if a person is a psychopath.The correct psychopath response is to kill his friend so there will be another funeral with similar people coming.
Holy shit, who falls for that? Worst. Psychopath. Ever.
I wouldn't say anti-atheist.It is a response to the current atheist 'best selling' books, it was defensive, not offensive.
I'm pretty sure Vox is anti- a lot of things. From the little I've read -- and please keep in mind, I've read very little -- he's hostile towards science (or at least professional science), among other things. I rarely take part in these discussions, because both sides have developed, and use casually, language that is designed to be dismissive and inflammatory. Nobody, not Vox not Dawkins not Ben Stein not anyone in the public eye, does anything except preach to the listeners already on his side of the aisle. Everyone involved in the public debate is simply rallying his base. Some are worse than others, and I want to be perfectly clear that I am in no way excluding those on my side: atheists can be incredibly smug and self-congratulatory. I would love to talk about stuff like this without everyone attaching so much pride to the discussion. Everyone is so concerned with winning that actual discourse is rejected in favor of pithy insults and circle-jerking or auto-fellatio. There are so many situations where I see an argument presented and think to myself, "There is no way he honestly believes that. He's just trying to be clever!" Everyone is so terrified of giving up any ground at all -- of conceding even a single point or admitting, "Hmmm, I don't know" -- that we end up digging trenches and fighting a war of attrition. But that's true of everything. If you give an inch, there will always be someone there to take it and proclaim victory.But Science, though: Science is good.PS: The original point I made regarding the utilitarianism = psychopathy link posted by BG still stands. Wanna take a crack at it, BG?
Link to post
Share on other sites
I never talked about what happened with that? I would have sworn...
I dunno, I don't think so. Unless cryptic hints count as talking about it.Maybe I'm wrong and JJJ can point me to the story.I'm coming off as somewhat confrontational, I think. Which is accurate...I enjoyed reading stories about your life, and am bitter about my loss of that occasional amusement. It maybe unfair, but, you know, that's the way I feel about it, Mister.
Link to post
Share on other sites
PS: The original point I made regarding the utilitarianism = psychopathy link posted by BG still stands. Wanna take a crack at it, BG?
Your post:
From the same article, in the concluding paragraph
While some might be tempted to conclude that these findings undermine utilitarianism as an ethical theory, Prof. Bartels explained that he and his co-author have a different interpretation: "Although the study does not resolve the ethical debate, it points to a flaw in the widely-adopted use of sacrificial dilemmas to identify optimal moral judgment. These methods fail to distinguish between people who endorse utilitarian moral choices because of underlying emotional deficits (like those captured by our measures of psychopathy and Machiavellianism) and those who endorse them out of genuine concern for the welfare of others." In short, if scientists' methods cannot identify a difference between the morality of a utilitarian philosopher who sacrifices her own interest for the sake of others, and a manipulative con artist who cares little about the feelings and welfare of anyone but himself, then perhaps better methods are needed.
All this study says is: "Based on the questions we asked in the experiment we designed, we are unable to tell if a respondent that chooses to push one man in front of a train is doing it because (a) he is trying to save 5 lives OR (b) he just really likes pushing people in front of trains." Seriously. Read the text of the article. You can see how easy it would for that to be true, right?Let's use as an example the passengers on board the 4th plane on 9/11. They fought back against the terrorists, and very likely attempted to kill them, knowing full well it would mean their own deaths. Maybe one of those guys just really likes fighting and killing. Or maybe one of them was excited about getting to the controls and crashing the plane into the ground. How can you distinguish between an act of genuine heroism and an act of wanton violence?The examples often used to illustrate optimal moral behavior -- the "kill one to save ten?" hypotheticals -- are, according to this study, flawed.
I kind of lean towards your previous contention that these types of studies are kind of dumb, that generally people on both sides are roughly the same.Given that your home life, your school professor, your drug use etc can all contribute much more than your IQ any of these studies used by either side are just blatant attempts to use propaganda techniques to further an agenda.I admit I have an agenda with regards to promoting my beliefs; the salvation of another person's soul. My motivation for posting this link was honestly exactly what I pointed to Speedz, a place to store a silly story/study that favors my side for the next time I get linked to one that favors the other side and I am supposed to hide my head in shame for being associated with stupid people.I question the agenda of the other side. Especially the ones like crow ( who no longer posts here) who had over 2,000 posts 99% in religion just to tell anyone who posted anything positive about Christianity that they were wrong. As I find their agenda offensive to anyone with a brain, I go out of my way to keep them busy reading things and never read any of their links more than a title to keep them busy with their agenda, looking for openings to bring light to their dark way of thinking.So I don't know that I can really argue with your conclusion, unless it was to say that the circumstances would answer these questions enough to fill in any questions most of the time?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...