SA Footy

Interesting survey results published in the Daily Mail:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... acist.html

that is actually pretty interesting. it makes sense from an evolutionary point of view. also how religion started too, to try to provide and explanation for things to make people feel safe

Less intelligent people read the Daily Mail because it has nice pictures

I've always been inclined to the view that the unintelligent tend to embrace, heavily and obsessionally, faiths of one sort or another to give themselves a sense of direction, whether that faith is religious, political, philosophical, or whatever. And, of course there is more to intelligence than performance in an IQ test.

I was once professionally involved with dealing with problems generated by a guy who was a member of Mensa but who couldn't see the connection between his being the national secretary of the Australian Nazi party and his inability to get a lecturing job at a university anywhere in Oz despite his Ph.D. from ANU. He kept going back to, "But it shouldn't make any difference!"

My main "-ism" has always been individualism...
(But with a heart to some degree - the degree depending on the point of view of the observer, of course.)

The southern United States is a prime example.

Good post again psyber. That is probably the main difference between the left and right. Collectivism vs individualism. I would say in economic terms I am somewhat individualistic on some things, but I still believe that the role of government is to provide infrastructure for us. I am definitely socially collectivist though.

And it definitely makes sense people of lower intelligence gravitate to the right mostly for social reasons - they are unable to think about society as a whole, just about themselves.

They are the scourge of the right, just as the militant greens are the scourge of the left, and are equally as stupid haha

I think the inability to keep an open mind and change opinions is also more a function of conservatism, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. (See religion and climate change skeptics)

Psyber wrote:I've always been inclined to the view that the unintelligent tend to embrace, heavily and obsessionally, faiths of one sort or another to give themselves a sense of direction, whether that faith is religious, political, philosophical, or whatever. And, of course there is more to intelligence than performance in an IQ test.

I was once professionally involved with dealing with problems generated by a guy who was a member of Mensa but who couldn't see the connection between his being the national secretary of the Australian Nazi party and his inability to get a lecturing job at a university anywhere in Oz despite his Ph.D. from ANU. He kept going back to, "But it shouldn't make any difference!"

My main "-ism" has always been individualism...
(But with a heart to some degree - the degree depending on the point of view of the observer, of course.)

I don't think it is fair to say that those who embrace religion are unintelligent. The alternative is that everything simply happened by random chance. I would love to know where intelligence, emotions, the ability to procreate etc. came from if it was all by random chance. Over 70% of Australians still class themselves as belonging to a religion. Does that mean that we have an incredibly unintelligent population?? Have you considered, as many have, that science has enlightened us to some of the processes God has used (e.g. evolution) but it has never been able to fully disprove the existence of God.

Cheers

Fair point, but the conventional Christian god strictly as written in the bible is incompatible with science. Most Christians like yourself and most others in Australia obviously have a somewhat weaker view of things like evolution and the creation of the earth etc, but I was more talking about the beginnings of religion - which was created to try and make sense of the world, before there was science to do that.

Was just referring to the fact that it makes people feel safe in the knowledge that things can't be random. In my opinion that's rubbish but to some it's not.

And you are right, science doesn't preclude some creator. Just zombies that are born without sex, walk on water, then come back from the dead and float into the clouds

bulldogproud2 wrote:
I don't think it is fair to say that those who embrace religion are unintelligent. The alternative is that everything simply happened by random chance. I would love to know where intelligence, emotions, the ability to procreate etc. came from if it was all by random chance. Over 70% of Australians still class themselves as belonging to a religion. Does that mean that we have an incredibly unintelligent population?? Have you considered, as many have, that science has enlightened us to some of the processes God has used (e.g. evolution) but it has never been able to fully disprove the existence of God.

Cheers

Science has proved many things. Religion has proved nothing. Religion is the community that has to prove God exists.

I find religious people unintelligent, scared and ignorant. Unable to accept other peoples opinions, unable to let people live as they choose and unable to accept people living outside the hive mind.

p.s. Love this part of your post. "Have you considered, as many have, that science has enlightened us to some of the processes God has used (e.g. evolution)". That's enough random internet posts for me tonight. Staggering.

for the record i would have identified as christian until my early 20s, and even tried to go to some meetings of the adelaide university christians club or whatever it was called, but the more i thought about it the more I realised it was all rubbish.

especially when someone tried to claim that god could have created the earth because he didnt break the second law of thermodynamics. i was like hang on a second, what about all of these other things... deaf ears.

most christians these days keep the faith by either moulding it around science so that their view of their god is still compatible, or they outright refute the science even though it is abundantly clear (creationists).

not if you want to get on the topic of is there a god at all it is something that i find quite interesting, and maybe that is for another thread, but christians since the time of copernicus have been backtracking faster than you can imagine.

bennymacca wrote:for the record i would have identified as christian until my early 20s, and even tried to go to some meetings of the adelaide university christians club or whatever it was called, but the more i thought about it the more I realised it was all rubbish.

especially when someone tried to claim that god could have created the earth because he didnt break the second law of thermodynamics. i was like hang on a second, what about all of these other things... deaf ears.

most christians these days keep the faith by either moulding it around science so that their view of their god is still compatible, or they outright refute the science even though it is abundantly clear (creationists).

not if you want to get on the topic of is there a god at all it is something that i find quite interesting, and maybe that is for another thread, but christians since the time of copernicus have been backtracking faster than you can imagine.

Mind you, so have scientists. So many theories have had to be remodelled over time as new knowledge has been gained.

Yep of course, but you and I both know that is very different and that theology doesn't change like that.

The Sleeping Giant wrote:

bulldogproud2 wrote:
I don't think it is fair to say that those who embrace religion are unintelligent. The alternative is that everything simply happened by random chance. I would love to know where intelligence, emotions, the ability to procreate etc. came from if it was all by random chance. Over 70% of Australians still class themselves as belonging to a religion. Does that mean that we have an incredibly unintelligent population?? Have you considered, as many have, that science has enlightened us to some of the processes God has used (e.g. evolution) but it has never been able to fully disprove the existence of God.

Cheers

Science has proved many things. Religion has proved nothing. Religion is the community that has to prove God exists.

I find religious people unintelligent, scared and ignorant. Unable to accept other peoples opinions, unable to let people live as they choose and unable to accept people living outside the hive mind.

p.s. Love this part of your post. "Have you considered, as many have, that science has enlightened us to some of the processes God has used (e.g. evolution)". That's enough random internet posts for me tonight. Staggering.

Do you find it interesting that what you are saying about religious people you actually practice yourself?? You are unable to accept the opinions of people who have faith yet you criticise them for not accepting yours *winks*
By the way, the vast majority of scientists believe in God. According to a recent study, 69% of social scientists and 62% of natural scientists believe in God. Science and Religion are very very compatible.

http://www.livescience.com/379-scientis ... pline.html

Cheers

bennymacca wrote:Yep of course, but you and I both know that is very different and that theology doesn't change like that.

Theology does. It is not a static subject. As time goes on, our understanding of how God works develops, just like happens in science. The only thing that doesn't change is the belief that there is indeed a creator.

Cheers

Bennymacca and others,
I think that you will find the following article quite interesting:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/what-is- ... d-religion

Additionally, the thought that religion and science are incompatible is quite dated. The common viewpoint amongst the vast majority of scientists is that they actually support one another. The more time goes on and discoveries are made, the more this point strengthens.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/ne ... eofgod.htm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/2 ... 74116.html

Cheers

bennymacca wrote:Fair point, but the conventional Christian god strictly as written in the bible is incompatible with science. Most Christians like yourself and most others in Australia obviously have a somewhat weaker view of things like evolution and the creation of the earth etc, but I was more talking about the beginnings of religion - which was created to try and make sense of the world, before there was science to do that.

Was just referring to the fact that it makes people feel safe in the knowledge that things can't be random. In my opinion that's rubbish but to some it's not.

And you are right, science doesn't preclude some creator. Just zombies that are born without sex, walk on water, then come back from the dead and float into the clouds

Benny,,
Whilst the floating into the clouds is just poetic imagery, what you say about it being impossible for birth without sex to occur is actually false. It occurs with a number of creatures, as you can see from this:

http://www.examiner.com/article/virgin- ... out-mating

Cheers

We are not a snake or a shark. Claiming that a Virgin birth for a human is compatible with science is utterly ridiculous

bulldogproud2 wrote:
Do you find it interesting that what you are saying about religious people you actually practice yourself?? You are unable to accept the opinions of people who have faith yet you criticise them for not accepting yours *winks*

Science isn't a faith, it just is. Science doesn't require you to believe in it, it carries on quite happily regardless. It is also not opinion.

Faith, by definition, requires you to accept things that cannot be proven or are completely false.