These countries have a state sanctioned religion called evolution. Its called indoctrination. Example test question for standardized test recently. If a bus goes 30 mph down the road, how long till the polar ice caps melt. Education now is overrun by liberal ideology. Shoving the religion of evolution and global warming down the students. Its just indoctrination. Just cause the state says something is true does not mean it is true. So there is definitely a link between communist ideology and evolution. The commies like to have their czars or "experts" These experts will tell you how to think, and what to learn. The experts get their education at the same schools. Its just a racket. Private schools are the best avenue for education.

Confirmed troll

Private schools are no safe bet. They could have secret commie evolutionists corrupting and indoctrination your kids!! Id go with homeschooling to be safe.

Ok. I have a happy and productive and meaningful life. Plus I get to sleep in on Sundays.

Do you believe in moral absolutism despite being an atheist?

I'm very interested in learning how you can justify it.

A) Doesn't matter.
B) Yes. No.

The hive comment was on the value of bringing people together. People naturally settle into groups and the larger the groups the better.

I only have so many years left to live, and my reading list is pretty full already.

No need to be paranoid. Your sentence structure is sound.

#4 is incorrect. Most people are capable of education and critical reading.

Simply incorrect. I use the DSM to define what is craziness. Being religious is rather average, therefore not "verging on insanity."

Take it how you will. You are very emotional about the topic and aren't taking the great strides we have made into perspective.

The trend is towards secularism. Enjoy the trend. The war is already effectively over. The next step is to get the unwashed masses to be more secular, and the only way to get there is to be very very nice and very very accomodating and let them find their way in their own time.

It was directive. You should be striving to be convincing. If a particular argument / line of reasoning / rant of yours isn't convincing, then you should drop it from your repetroire.

Funny. I do have similarly quaffed hair. The similarities end there.

Sunday isn't the only day of religious worship nor a visit to church the only action that religions might require of you as a follower, you're betraying your Christian influences there and in a small way perhaps justifying my opinion of the effect that Christianity has as an environmental pressure.

I might even think that you've been Primed....


I'd never considered it until you brought it up and since it's a new concept to me I should probably consider it more, and will. My first reaction though is that Moral Absolutism and Atheism are not mutually exclusive and that yes, I think I lean toward it. I don't believe that the end justifies the means, I think.

I think it does matter. Religions don't sell religious schooling as 'save your children from damnation' do they, they sell it as 'this is the right thing to believe and the right way to live' and since they could be wrong, in a hugely impactful way, I think it's wrong to urge their beliefs on children. It makes much more sense to wait till they're older and more capable of understanding what they're being taught anyway but that can't happen as religions woudl more often lose that follower than gain one. France doesn't allow religion in schools and is 37% Atheist, one of the most Atheist countries in the world in fact. I don't know if that pattern is repeated elswhere (except in the inverse), I might look into it.

How can children damn themselves? Why can't they be left till they're adults to decide for themslves?


Shame, if you asked to recommend just one author of the thousands whose books I've read it would be Stephen Baxter, his world view changed my perspective on life.


Glad to hear that, I am.


On what are you basing that? I'm going to need some authoritative assurance if you don't mind. Whilst waiting, I'll look something up to back my view that most people are in fact non-bright.

EDIT: Quickly looked up the average IQ score globally and it's about 90 (and dropping actually) (Source) which is 'average/normal' so I could get pedantic and say that the average IQ is 'non-bright' since the 'bright' range starts at 115 but it depends what you meant by that I guess. I'll give you an opportunity to change your wording otherwise I'm going to sya that the figures show that the majority of the world population is non-bright and therefore Indoctrination is effective.


You don't think hearing voices and talking to someone who isn't there would be considered as symptoms of pyschological issues in any other context?

That religiosity is 'average' (I'd say a lot more than average actually) doesn't change that and is in fact somewhat worrying as a reflection of the sanity of the species as a whole.


Working on it. I'm doing the Coursera 'Think again' course and can see changes in my thinking already.

The trend is towards secularism I don't disagree, yesterday I was reading the Religiosity study that was released in August, Atheism is up 9% globally since 2005. There's also a noteable decline in the USA and the far right christian fundamentalists seem to be losing their grip on political power.

Or perhaps I should strive to present it more effectively.


I'm glad to hear it, he does your country a disservice.

I don't know why you're saying stuff like that - it comes across as little more than troll bait. There are a whole host of issues here, many of which I'm sure you're aware of.

- not very many christians claim that they're actually "hearing" voices. In fact, if some audible voice was answering their prayers, most would freak out. If you were referring to prayer, the response (as you could've learned in the "conversion"-thread of tame-deuces[?]) is often experienced as being of a more intuitive, non-verbal nature.
- "talking to someone who isn't there" is a statement who's veracity is dependent on your view of a number of other issues (some of them epistemologic).
- Even if they were talking to someone who isn't there - that's the same as a kid writing a letter to santa claus. Are kids insane?
- Psychological symptoms - as I'm sure you are actuely aware - of anything are viewed, examined and treated within an appreciation of other factors, such as ability to lead a sucessful life, emotional stability and maturity etc. If someone is a "normal guy" and has some weird ideas, we say he has weird ideas, not he's insane.
- etc. etc. You know all this stuff...

You said above that perhaps your arguments are good but your presentation may be lacking. Backing yourself into silly corners on anciliary issues is a way in which a presentation of an overall reasonable point can be severely lacking.

Let's say that in the last couple of weeks I've become 'consciously incompetent' but simply haven't had the time or opportunity to review all my views in light of what I'm learning and even within the limits of what I'm capable of learning there's still a tremendous amount to learn and so I can't know how I'll feel about them in the future.

I've been continuing my conversation with Brian in much the same vein as before since I'm learning 'on the job' and using the same terminology, perhaps I should wait but in the meantime by all means pull me up on this stuff, our recent interactions have been very useful. Danke schoen.

You're very welcome.

Brian was a clinical psychologist, and I'm a psychiatry resident, so I hope you can trust us when we say that the religious are not crazy in a clinical sense. I'm not saying not to question us to understand this further, but realize that determining 'craziness' is what we're trained to do.

I made a thread here in RGT a year ago or so titled something like 'Psychiatry and Religion.' I can't search for it on my phone, and I don't remember exactly what we discussed, but you may find it interesting and relevant to this side discussion.

Now that I'm home, here's the thread: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/13...igion-1066521/

Ok, if I came to see you convinced that I could feel a presence, that the presence directed me in my life and that I could communicate with it and demonstrated ways in which the presence had communicated with through things that might be classed as frequency illusions and Apophenia/Pareidolia (for example the plastic bag that blew against my window too many times the other night for it to be coincidence, and the face I saw a cloud the other day that appeared to be smiling at me), and religion were not the context, what would be your first impression?

I'm not trying to convince you that it's a form of insanity, it's a genuine question. Might you wonder if I were deluded, for example? I don't even really know how to ask the question.

EDIT: Thanks for linking the thread, I read it and the overall impression I had was summed up by something TD said "when religion stops and insanity begins" which I'm quoting out of context somewhat but only because it highlights my view which that the possibility of gods being real seems to be excusing a certain level of behaviour that if there are no gods, would surely be labelled as deluded? I'm an Atheist, so when I read about exorcisms, and people praying and relying on god to save them, it ALL seems deluded/manic/insane, I don't have a threshold that has to be exceeded before I'll consider it a problem.

As a Psychiatric resident, does a tolerance of religion ever influence your diagnosis?

That's a fair point but I would guess you're overstating it a bit. If a kid writes a letter to santa, you wouldn't find it a problem but rather exceedingly cute. If someone knocks on wood before throwing the dice you'd smile. Etc. In short, not every action that betokens (learned new word yay) someone's belief in some parallel reality or w/e we consider automatically a problem.

Usually, we consider it a problem when it becomes a problem. Such as someone trying an exorcism in a situation where an ambulance would be called for etc.

I'd be worried if they were still doing it as an adult though plus I'm not a fan of the comparison because one is harmless IMO and the other isn't.

Actually I find that pretty irritating and constantly have to bite my lip when playing poker with people who have lucky charms or who think that they have a 'lucky seat' or some such rubbish. Luck is another type of delusion IMO, it can also be quite harmful.

But you accept that actually I might? From my perspective I'm not overstating it, it's a vastly understated problem aznd I'm wondering why more people can't see that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes.

The fact that vast numbers of people on our little ball of rock believe in a version of an invisible creator is a huge problem IMO because of passive effects as well as the more obvious and visible problems but that is a whole other discusssion and frankly one I'd like to avoid for a while as I examine my views.

Sure.

I think I'm a Materialistic, monistic anti-theist, a scientific skeptic and probably a bunch of other names for concepts that I'm not aware of yet. I simply can't find any spiritual beliefs credible or acceptable and within that broad outlook there are a range of beliefs that I consider harmless and those I consdier harmful, to one degree or another.

If given the choice, I'd rather have my king wear invisible clothes.

At least that would mean I have a King that is not parading his tiny wiener in front of everyone...

So would I...

I repeat: Momentum. We have it.

There is a small actual point to this analogy, though. To me, the question of religion and belief is to a significant degree a question of aesthetics. If it's all the same to you, I'd rather live in a world where my king is not parading his Schniepel for the whole world to see. Likewise, I'd rather live in a world where "what science can tell us" is not the end of all knowledge as I would find this world simply boring.

And, fwiw, there are other philosophical discourses, where a similar sentiment can be observed as a kind of backlash against a more rationalistic and teleologic approach that was prevalent in the early to mid-20th century. For example, philosophy of action was, for a large portion of the 20th century, heavily influenced by people like Davidson and Quine (analytical philosophers). Pragmatism seeks to (a) establish that approach as hopelessly narrow and idealized and (b) re-establish the importance of the experiential nature of action within a theoretical account of action. Essentially they're saying: "Trying to reason your way to a coherent account of action is bound to fail."

Overall, I personally feel that the best arguments for religion are indeed aesthetic ones. All this arguing about facts and epistemology, to me, is mostly just a glass bead game. I think I can hold my own, but I don't think it shows anything either way.

it strikes me that most of why I am religious is also probably aesthetic in some fashion. The other stuff are rationalizations after the fact.

It brings to mind the fact that one the most famous collection of monastic writings in the eastern orthodox church is called the Philokalia (love of the beautiful) rather than being called Philosophia

Culture exists. We are social animals.

My influences include loads of stuff. There isn't any way around that. I learned how the innuit required wife stealing for survival, and how humanists believe that we "should" aim to better ourselves and not engage in wife stealing (and probably treat women as actual people, fwiw).

I am definitely influenced, but I've managed to educate myself on the various views.

I'm unfamiliar with the term...

There are mutually exclusive. There are things that we all can mostly agree is wrong though. All culturally based agreement though, which doesn't count as moral absolutism.

As a side note, it is wise to avoid moral absolutism, just because it is never brought up except where there is disagreement. Disagreement implies that there are no moral absolutes.

They believe that the non-believers will go to hell and that the believers are going somewhere better.

That they focus on catchy tunes is not particularly important.

To you, this makes sense. To them, you might as well be speaking French.

As I've said, there is no point in making an argument at someone that is ineffective.

As soon as I like your perspective on life, I will add it to my reading list.

Please think about that for a bit. I remain stubbornly out of concordance with you despite my being a very reasonable person willing to read nearly any old book. Convince me to read a particular book of his and I will.

The average IQ score is 100 by definition. Any source that states that the average is less than 100 is incorrect. You will have to trust me on this to avoid unnecessary and silly argument. My research was all on psychometrics.

Add to that that the raw scores have been increasing steadily over time and people are getting more educated the world over.

Any near average person is quite capable of learning. I did not mean "bright" as anything approaching special. Just not stupid.

See gangstaman's post.

Learning is good.

Yes.

It is a two-fold thing. Figure out where you might be wrong along side of figuring out how to present effectively.

No point in presenting effectively if you are wrong on the details.

Most of the pundits do my country a disservice. Out of curiousity, is he what you think is representative of what american's believe?

Sorry, I'm too tired to read it all carefully, but I think this is the answer I would give anyway. When deciding if a certain supernatural belief is a delusion or not, we have to take into account the culture the person is in. If a certain belief is culturally sanctioned, then we don't consider it a delusion if it's not causing them impairments in functioning. Without knowing if this is true or not, I would imagine that it takes different processes in the brain to develop such a strong belief in something if everyone around you believes it and it is taught to you as a child vs if you come up with it on your own. We respect that people can have different beliefs.

Some of the things you described, however, sound like delusions of reference, which basically get you a diagnosis of schizophrenia.

Well, sort of. I mean, if there were strong and convincing evidence to the contrary, and one held onto that belief strongly despite being aware of this contrary evidence, then it fits the definition of delusion. But there isn't such evidence against religions as far as I'm aware. I would be tempted to say that creationists that aren't ignorant (and seriously, this isn't a big crowd) are delusional.

Not yet that I can recall. The psychiatrists I've worked with seem to be aware of this issue and do try to respect culture instead of just labeling everything as a symptom.

Interestingly, according to this, psychiatrists are the least religious of all medical specialties: http://www.uchospitals.edu/news/2007...hiatrists.html

Orthodoxy is way better anyhoo. They have the worlds best bass singers. That alone will get them in heaven.

Interesting. Could you toss out a few phrases I should google to learn more about this?

My point was that you defaulted to the Christian practice of Sunday worship when making the joke about getting to stay in bed on Sunday. Perhaps you assumed that would be a more familiar frame of reference for me and I'd get the joke more easily, did it occur to you to use a practice from a different religion as the joke? For example, that you're glad you don't have a beard the length of your closed fists and can fly kites when you choose to.

Priming - religions use this cognitive bias all the time.

"Many secular philosophies also take a morally absolutist stance, arguing that absolute laws of morality are inherent in the nature of human beings, the nature of life in general, or the universe itself" Source

I'm going to withdraw from any debate that touches on children and religion for a while, I need to clarify my beliefs in light of recent exposure to more complex concepts and see if my views survive that contact.

You've actually very little idea of my perspective on life, this discussion hasn't been broad enough in scope to achieve that and anyway, we could share tastes even eif we don't agree about religion.

I couldn't choose just one.

And yet the source I linked appears to show something different. That measured against the IQ scale, the average global IQ is below 100 and that score is dropping. It's possible that I don't understand the meaning of IQ or some facet of the scale and I'm misinterpreting that info as a result. If that's the case, I'd be obliged if you'd explain it to me.

See above.

Our discussion on this particular issue is dependent on us both agreeing the definition of whatever term you settle on. The choices seem to be 'near average', 'stupid', 'non-bright', which would you like to use in your premise?

I retract any reference to insanity but until we get past the issue of how a lack of evidence that no gods exist means that behaviour that would otherwise possibly be viewed as deluded, is given a pass in the context of religion, I reserve the right to consider it deluded. It seems to me that it's an argument from ignorance to justify deluded behaviour by saying 'god might exist'.


Always.


Working on that.


No, I think he represents what some very powerful people want Americans to think. Bill O'Reilly is an well practiced exponent of the Straw man and Ad Hominen methods of argument.

It seems to be more common, to my perception, in right wing fundamentalism than in left wing fundamentalism, why is that?

The reason why average IQ is defined to be 100 for most tests is because the scoring system in which results are usually presented is normalized after a large enough population has taken the test. That is, the test is defined, a bunch of people take it, and then they take the average performance (measured with some other absolute scoring) and define that level of performance as an IQ score of 100, and then set the scaling based on the measured standard deviation of results. (Or something close to that anyway, I'm inferring the method a bit based on what I've read about the scoring being defined to scale with 1 std dev being 15 points)

^^ That's how I've understood it and footnotes on the wiki page seem to confirm I'm not way off in left field