/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3816781
If you are an agnostic atheist, you're bring all of us down asking stupid questions like this.

>>3816799
>you are bring

Nope. Due to the fact that most people that define themselves as agnostic atheists are still the same assholes that claim everything religion does is wrong, the smartest theistic philosophy is either Ignosticism, Apathetic Agnosticism, or Apatheism.

>>3816804
Lolled at my own temporary idiocy

I do not think so, I think social environment has a far greater impact.

I am curious as to whether or not being more intelligent makes you more likely to dissent from the belief system of your upbringing. My observations in life indicate that this is true, would be great to get some data on it.

>>3816868

All it would require would be a descent sample, IQ tests and a short survey.

ever met a vegan athiest?

>>3816819

>Nope. Due to the fact that most people that define themselves as agnostic atheists are still the same assholes that claim everything religion does is wrong, the smartest theistic philosophy is either Ignosticism, Apathetic Agnosticism, or Apatheism.

Cool bare assertion, bro.

>>3816781
No. There are people who believe in religion and are intelligent as fuck. believing in religion or not doesn't determine intelligence.

>>3816868

>I do not think so, I think social environment has a far greater impact.

Actually I have in my possession mountains of data to the effect that atheists are on average smarter than theists. Every measure of intelligence is employed, many walks of life are sampled from, yet the results are consistent. Two or three studies were inconclusive, the rest of the studies shared the same result; that atheists tend to be more intelligent, academically accomplished, etc.

>>3816888

>No. There are people who believe in religion and are intelligent as fuck. believing in religion or not doesn't determine intelligence.

That's true, but being intelligent does provably incline one towards atheism and against religiosity, on average. The existence of intelligent religious people doesn't invalidate that fact, they are what's called "statistical outliers".

Well, we beat the religious at knowing what their religions are about, so I'm pretty sure we can beat them at other stuff too

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39397251/ns/us_news-life/t/survey-americans-dont-know-much-about-religio
n/

But this isn't really supposed to be a competition

>>3816890
You often study athiest rats and whatnot?

>>3816916

>You often study athiest rats and whatnot?

It's "atheist", and no, just gathered every study into intelligence and religiosity carried out over the past century.

>>3816943
Those tests are usually carried out by atheists with the specific intent of proving themselves more intelligent. What a suprise...

>>3816961

>Those tests are usually carried out by atheists with the specific intent of proving themselves more intelligent. What a suprise...

I can understand why one might assume that if the idea of atheists actually being more intelligent is repulsive to them, but I'll bet you can't name any of these studies or the researchers involved off the top of your head. You know nothing about their beliefs. What you've done is assume dishonesty on their part because you find that more palateable than the alternative.

>>3816901
Most American's aren't religious or Christians. They're Protestants

>>3817002
>protestants
>not christians

You probably meant, not catholics

>Atheists and agnostics scored highest, with an average of 21 correct answers, while Jews and Mormons followed with about 20 accurate responses.
>On questions about Christianity, Mormons scored the highest

Nice, good to be Mormon. We're also the most educated and the most scientific religion in the US.

I've also read that Mormons have lower than average IQ which probably has to do a lot with our globalization especially in Africa and 3rd world countries in South America where our population is now higher.

>>3817020

>We're also the most educated and the most scientific religion in the US

But even the most basic genetic and archaeological studies prove your religion wrong. What can you possibly mean by "most scientific"?

>>3817026
>he doesn't know how to take the Bible with a grain of salt

>Mormon
>Most scientific religion

Fuck did I ever get a laugh out of that. Yeah, a religion based around writings on supposed magic gold plates that disappeared after the book was written has got to be pretty scientific.

Mormons are just as retarded as scientoligists. Have fun with your magic underwear, you fag.

>>3817045
Oh god what? Someone seriously claimed that?

Fuck no.
Fuck mormons.
They're so fucking deluded it hurts to admit I was raised in a mormon community.

>>3817047

Yeah. I grew up in an area with a lot of Mormons too. Other retarded shit they believe includes:

1. God is a real, physical person who lives on another planet
2. When they die, if they were good enough, they become Gods of their own planets

I was going to list more, but you get the picture. Retarded. Hence my epic lol at the 'Most scientific religion' thing. That's like saying the dryest water in the world.

>>3817010
Catholic = Christian
Christian = Catholic

For a board about science, y'all spend a lot of time talking about religion.

>>3817045
>>3817047
Enjoy losing your argument faggots
http://www.lds-mormon.com/scientistsborninutah.shtml

I win

>>3817060
>Christian = Catholic

That's like saying
>English speaker = American

America is the most populated English speaking country but it doesn't mean there aren't other English speaking nations out there.

>>3817059
I know, it really is fucking laughable.
All of the normal superstitious magical bullshit that's endemic to all religions aside, mormons are STILL so unbelievably full of shit that it boggles the mind.

They sincerely believe that a bunch of jews got in a magic submarine five hundred years before christ and colonized the americas, forming vast city-state kingdoms and waging epic wars with iron working and horses, before wiping themselves out and leaving those fucking golden plates for J. Smith to discover on the east coast... but fuck, that's a whole other story itself.
The south park episode handles that pretty well.

Anyways, their fucking book contradicts the most BASIC facts of history, archaeology, genetics... even GEOGRAPHY. It is fucking ASTOUNDING that any of them can make it through fucking MIDDLE SCHOOL with their faith intact, let alone fucking university.
>Of course, they manage that because they've got their very own, church-run university to go to and receive an "education" from.
>I swear on my mother's grave, professors at BYU open fucking physics classes with prayers.
How the fuck can any educated person believe this nonsense?

It is SUCH an ignorant fucking fabrication. Some stupid fucking 19th century farm boy/con-man (convicted con-man, mind you) made up a ridiculous story that flagrantly contradicts every single pertinent fact, and somehow two hundred years later thirteen million people believe it with all their hearts and minds.
My.
Fucking.
Face.
When.

>>3817092
>>3817092
...did you... did you even fucking look at your link?
>Contrary to LDS assertions and claims, all statistical metrics studied in this report show Utah lagging well behind the leading states [in per capita production of scientists].

gonna quote some more from that link in the next post.

>>3817133
LDS critics, on the other hand, point out that the Mormon Church is hopelessly inconsistent with science, with key LDS doctrines and scriptures directly contradicted by scientific evidence and studies.

For example, the Book of Mormon claims to be a literal history of the ancient Americans, saying they were Hebrews from Jerusalem via trans-oceanic voyage roughly 2600 years ago, bringing with them numerous Old World plants and animals. It describes these immigrants growing into huge nations that covered the land from sea to sea, smelted steel swords, domesticated cattle, swine, and goats, and used horses to pull their chariots. It’s hardly possible to imagine a description of ancient American that is more inconsistent with known scientific evidence than the Book of Mormon. Indeed, Michael D. Coe, professor of anthropology at Yale University has said of the Book of Mormon:

"Let me now state uncategorically that as far as I know there is not one professionally trained archaeologist, who is not a Mormon, who sees any scientific justification for believing the foregoing to be true [i.e., that the Book of Mormon is an authentic document describing a New World civilization], and I would like to state that there are quite a few Mormon archaeologists who join this group … The bare facts of the matter are that nothing, absolutely nothing, has ever shown up in any New World excavation which would suggest to a dispassionate observer that the Book of Mormon, as claimed by Joseph Smith, is a historical document relating to the history of early migrants to our hemisphere." [As quoted in Stan Larson, Quest for the Gold Plates, Freethinker Press, Salt Lake, page 69. The reference in Larson is Coe, "Archaeology," 42, 46.]

>>3817139
here are also the serious problems of the Book of Abraham – a book Joseph Smith claimed to have translated by the gift and power of God, and which the LDS Church accepts as Holy Scripture. The problem is, the opinions of Egyptologists on the meaning of the papyri from which Smith supposedly "translated" the book, as well as the meaning of the various Egyptian characters copied into the Book of Abraham itself, are all at hopeless odds with Smith’s fanciful "translation." [See, for example, Charles M. Larson, by his own hand upon papyrus, Institute for Religious Research, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1992.]

There are also problems with specific LDS doctrines. For example, the Pearl of Great Price (official LDS scripture) says that our sun gets its light from a distant star called Kolob. As a result of this doctrine, some LDS scientists have argued in favor of an accretion model for the sun’s energy (Cook, M., Science and Mormonism, Deseret News Press, 1967, see chapter 4). For example, regarding the second Facsimile in the Book of Abraham, Joseph Smith said:

"…. Enish-go-on-dosh; this is one of the governing planets also, and is said by the Egyptians to be the Sun, and to borrow its light from Kolob through the medium of Kae-e-vanrash, which is the Grand Key, or, in other words, the governing power, which governs fifteen other fixed planets or stars … (all) receiving light from the revolutions of Kolob." [This is one of the figures Joseph Smith copied into the Book of Abraham, from a piece of Egyptian papyrus that some people in the Church bought. You can see a copy of it at the official LDS Internet site at http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/fac_2, along with the above quoted explanation.]

>>3817141
There are also specific LDS doctrines that the earth’s temporal existence is only 7,000 years (see D&C 77, and for an on-line copy go to http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/77/6#6).). The LDS also believe in a literal, universal flood, which was the earth’s baptism. And, the Mormons adhere to a literal doctrine of a special creation and a literal Adam and Eve (http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,11-1-13-9,00.html, and http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,11-1-13-10,00.html.)

>>3817139
>>3817141
>>3817145
Are you just gonna copy and paste the whole article? Because it's far too early for a wall of text.

>>3817116
Oh yeah, that submarine crossed the PACIFIC ocean, not even the Atlantic, to get to the new world, and the current native populations originate from a tribe of evil, hedonistic jews that broke off from the main group of jews and god cursed them with dark skin as punishment for their wicked ways, in the same manner he had previously cursed the descendants of Cain.

That's why brown people couldn't hold priesthood positions (a prerequisite for getting into mormon heaven [women aren't allowed in unless they're married to a man who does hold the priesthood, btw]) until the 1970's when the church leaders realized that they couldn't have their heads THAT far up their own asses.

Did you know the mormons went to war with the US once?

>>3817146
Nah, just those three sections that most strongly condemned the position he was using that link to attempt to uphold.

>>3817116

10/10 fucking post. Well done.