Reply With QuoteGood news for proteastantsOriginally Posted by Taunton Blue Genie
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
In a universe that is currently assessed as having a diameter of 23 trilion light years there's probably a star cluster somewhere that resembles a teapot from a certain angle. The suspension of logic by someone in this thread is, ironically, beyond belief.
Good news for proteastants
I just went from sexy knickers and a boob job for an 80 year old mother to a barney about how old the earth is.
Memo to self never skip 11 pages on an internet forum.
It's a rare case of the debate being raised along the way
P. S. Barney is my nickname.
There is. It's part of a constellation that someone thought was shaped like a mythical archer.
https://earthsky.org/favorite-star-p...lactic-center/
One group has had three days to produce their evidence and are still scratching their heads
I’m certainly scratching my head, not in my pursuit of evidence though....One group has had three days to produce their evidence and are still scratching their heads
Leprosy?
I heard there’s a bloke that can cure that
Such treatment would be no skin off my nose.
Very wise, why search for something that doesn't actually exist.
Irony is not dead. It is born again!
Dead in trespasses and sins, is the tragic irony.Irony is not dead. It is born again!
I'll be more than happy to provide reasons why I side with God's Account. But first it is important that the false certainty that has produced the attitude that sporns > "the big bang is widely accepted in science to be absolutely ****ing true" is exposed as being the empty faith based section of 'science' that it really is; and the silence we've witnessed for half a week (and counting) re ACTUAL evidence is loud
People like Dawkins and Hitchings spend a great deal of time tearing the religious lot to bits
The religious lot wriggle their way out of it and keep coming up for air
I admire their persistence
My view is if there is a god and I have no belief there is , that he let's me in and I am fed grapes by women dressed in silk
Thank you God
Dawkins has even been declared an embarrassment to atheists by atheists, and he's now too scared to debate most Biblical apologists. As for the "religious lot" (I won't bother explaining again why they are not religious) - they have nothing to wriggle away from; in fact they welcome ANY discussion on the issue because they have the confidence of knowing they have something reliable; rather than the shambles that is scientific speculation that seems to require another major guess every few years. Of course the majority will accept each guess as perfect and reliable, mainly because science has done amazing things in other fields - yet some are waking up to the fact that if each former guess was wrong, then why would the current version be any different?
You clearly believe you’re on a roll now
Rolls full of magic mushroomsYou clearly believe you’re on a roll now
What is reliable about something that has no basis in fact ?
Nothing
At least you don't have to look into a galaxy far far away anymore for proof
https://metro.co.uk/2021/12/07/cruci...rman-15732294/
A massive HAM roll given the supply on offer hereYou clearly believe you’re on a roll now
The higher you go up the intelligence ladder .....doctors , scientists ......the smaller the amount of that group believe in God
It's because through simple self actualisation it's realised it's almost certainly cobblers
'Almost certainly' - be careful you're showing a bit of doubt 😄
*Wrong! But if it helps you sleep better then you go for it
*Another comfort seeking thought without a single reference.
https://emilkirkegaard.dk//en/wp-con...planations.pdf*Wrong! But if it helps you sleep better then you go for it
*Another comfort seeking thought without a single reference.
https://revisesociology.com/2018/10/...-social-class/*Wrong! But if it helps you sleep better then you go for it
*Another comfort seeking thought without a single reference.
Religious belief and social class
- A 2016 YouGov Survey revealed that 48% of those in social grades ABC1 described themselves as ‘Atheist’ compared to 42% of those in social grades C2ED.
- A 2013 review of >60 research studies on the relationship between IQ and religiosity found that people with higher IQs are more likely to be atheists. (High IQs are correlated with higher levels of education and higher social class).
- Lawes (2009) found that ‘lifelong theists’ disproportionately come from unskilled and semi-skilled manual backgrounds, and were less likely to have academic qualifications. Conversely, lifelong atheists disproportionately come from higher professional and managerial backgrounds, and are more likely to have experienced higher education.
https://emilkirkegaard.dk//en/wp-con...planations.pdf
This one is 30 pages long so happy reading. I’ll leave the abstract here:
Abstract
A meta-analysis of 63 studies showed a significant negative association between intelligence and religiosity. The association was stronger for college students and the general population than for participants younger than college age; it was also stronger for religious beliefs than religious behavior. For college students and the general population, means of weighted and unweighted correlations between intelligence and the strength of religious beliefs ranged from −.20 to −.25 (mean r = −.24). Three possible interpretations were discussed. First, intelligent people are less likely to conform and, thus, are more likely to resist religious dogma. Second, intelligent people tend to adopt an analytic (as opposed to intuitive) thinking style, which has been shown to undermine religious beliefs. Third, several functions of religiosity, including compensatory control, self-regulation, self-enhancement, and secure attachment, are also conferred by intelligence. Intelligent people may therefore have less need for religious beliefs and practices.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles...017.02191/full
Daws and Hampshire. The Computational, Cognitive and Clinical Neuroimaging Laboratory (C3NL), Imperial College London.
Daws and Hampshire surveyed more than 63,000 people online, and had them complete a 30-minute set of 12 cognitive tasks that measured planning, reasoning, attention and working memory. The participants also indicated whether they were religious, agnostic or atheist.
Atheists performed better overall than the religious participants, even after controlling for demographic factors like age and education. Agnostics tended to place between atheists and believers on all tasks. In fact, strength of religious conviction correlated with poorer cognitive performance.
Posting Permissions
