Posts by DJS

41

Does Believing in God Make You Dumb?

by Brokeback Watchtower in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzqaeusdmtk.

http://jdc.jefferson.edu/jmbcimfp/5/.

abstract.

DJS

The study referenced in the OP is similar to many other very good studies that suggest, for large populations, there is a correlation to a strong negative correlation between IQ and religiosity (the higher one's IQ the less likely they are to be religious). This isn't anything new. Having said that, academic studies rarely draw conclusions that show direct correlations/cause and effect.

These studies show correlations. Of course there are intelligent and brilliant religious people and of course there are brain dead atheists (probably not but I'm saying that just to make a point). It should not come as a surprise. Let's put aside the evidence that IQ and religiosity show a negative correlation for a moment.

Let's focus on the very religious. Anyone who allows someone else to do their thinking and has given up all analytical rigor, swallowing the tepid confirmationally biased nonsense spewed by their leaders and relying on their feelings and beliefs for many years as do so many very religious people, is not using a vital muscle - their brain. It isn't any different than a couch potato. Unused muscles atrophy.

Look at the Dubs over the past few decades. Deep study and analysis, which was encouraged for a while, rose up and bit the Dark Lords square on their fat asses. To mitigate this they have dumbed down the cult, discouraged deep study and began appealing to emotions and feelings in order to keep the rank and file in line.

This isn't rocket science.

62

Richard Carrier debunks Christianity using Science and History.

by Island Man in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez2kgjk4jo4

DJS

Thanks Vidiot. Part Deux:

Justifying beliefs is what the irrationals, the religious and the feeler/perceivers do. I don't care a wit about anyone's belief, as they are almost always grounded in Emotions. That's why I try to never have any Beliefs.

All we should consider when debating is the evidence presented and the findings or conclusions drawn from the evidence. That's it. Feelings, Beliefs, Thoughts, Personal Experiences, Observations and Anecdotal Accounts and Confirmationally Biased tripe mean nothing in debates - they are used to stir those driven or led by their emotions to action and keep them trapped in their belief system. They are debating tactics used by those on the losing side of an argument; they only succeed because we are a pathetic species.

The argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam) also appeal to authority, is a common argument form which can be fallacious, such as when an authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise, or when the authority cited is not a true expert. Cofty has not claimed to be the authority; he is citing data from those who have obtained the evidence, all of whom appear to be experts in their field, so use of this term as a debating tactic is improper. The only proper use of this term in this OP is to present evidence showing that those scientists and researchers Cofty references are NOT experts. No one has yet to attempt this.

Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four.

Appealing to the evidence is rational and logical. It is the only legitimate debating strategy. One is free - even required - to evaluate the evidence presented, how and by whom it was obtained (are they experts, do they have axes to grind or personal gain to be made from findings, did they employ scientific methods in obtaining and evaluating the evidence, etc.) and any findings, conclusions, correlations, etc. made regarding the evidence.

Cofty is presenting evidence; those who would seek to disprove him need to disprove the evidence, the manner in which it was obtained, or the findings or conclusions drawn from it in order to be an argument from ignorance (appeal to evidence) and meet SBF's use of the term. If you have other viable options as to the conclusions that can be drawn from the evidence cited by Cofty, please present them.

121

Hey ya'll! My first post. Please help. In need of advice/comfort.

by Stepford Wife in

jw
friends

hey ya'll!

i have been lurking for years on this site and others but never had the courage to post anything.

actually i was afraid of posting on an apostate site in the event i was wrong.

DJS

Stepford Wife,

Do you care whether your husband is removed as an elder? If you do, and if you two can agree on it, he can spin the same stories about why you aren't attending the meetings 'right now.' He can tell them you have some personal health/emotional issues un-related to the Dark Tower, the BOE or the congregation that you are working on.

That will likely keep them from removing him for a while. My experience in that dreaded cult is not recent, but I can't imagine they will act with such haste to have him step aside. Of course that depends on the mood and 'loving kindness' of the BOE (excuse me, but I have to throw up again).

Others with more recent knowledge are better suited to respond to this. I'm just more than a bit dubious that they will move with certainty and speed in getting rid of him - unless of course you or he blows your cover.

121

Hey ya'll! My first post. Please help. In need of advice/comfort.

by Stepford Wife in

jw
friends

hey ya'll!

i have been lurking for years on this site and others but never had the courage to post anything.

actually i was afraid of posting on an apostate site in the event i was wrong.

DJS

Stepford Wife,

Your sister is correct; I would also suggest hiring a lawyer and understanding your rights and developing a strategy. Whatever you divulge to your husband MAY be kept between the two of you. Now. But if you leave him, based on what you tell us, he is l likely to spill his guts to the BOE about what you have said about the Dark Lords just to hurt you back.

You should assume that he will. Tell him nothing negative about the Dark Lords or the Dark Tower.

121

Hey ya'll! My first post. Please help. In need of advice/comfort.

by Stepford Wife in

jw
friends

hey ya'll!

i have been lurking for years on this site and others but never had the courage to post anything.

actually i was afraid of posting on an apostate site in the event i was wrong.

DJS

Stepford Wife,

Every shepherding call is also an information gathering/potential investigation 'call.' Your husband can verify that; if he doesn't he isn't being honest with you.

I agree with the others; do not meet with the elders. Ever. Continue giving excuses and fading until they leave you alone. If your husband is using your inactivity as leverage or as a weapon against you, he cares more about his place in the organization than he does you. Be positive about the elders, the congregation and the Dark Lords. Say nothing negative. As others have said, make up something about your own health/condition/etc. and thank the BOE profusely for their loving attention. Now I have to go throw up.

33

whats so bad about believing people go to heaven?

by sowhatnow in

it occurred to me today, that so often, my mother will make the comment that .

"those false religions teach that everyone is going to heaven when they die, oh sure, .

all you have to do is be a good person, and off you go to heaven.

DJS

Based on a number of studies, belief in heaven is evidently bad for society. Belief in hell, OTOH, seems to be a deterrent to bad behavior. From the world wide web:

In a 2012 study (Shariff and Rhemtulla) examined national rates of belief in heaven and hell for 67 countries, as measured by five waves of the World Values Surveys and the European Values Surveys between 1981 and 2007. Shariff and Rhemtulla then drew crime statistics from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), which provided data on a litany of nasty things people can do to each other: homicides, robbery, rape, kidnapping, assault, theft, drug crime, automobile theft, burglary, and human trafficking.

With other factors controlled for – including national GDP and Gini coefficient, which measures income inequality – countries where more people believed in hell showed significantly lower levels of crime. The effect sizes were big:

Controlling for the effect of belief in heaven, a 1-[standard deviation] increase in belief in hell resulted in an almost 2 SD decrease in national crime rate; conversely, controlling for the effect of hell, a 1 SD increase in belief in heaven resulted in an almost 2 SD increase in national crime rate.

Fearing the imminent wrath of a judging God, it seems, makes you a lot less likely to steal, cheat, or murder – whereas a friendly, forgiving God (apparently) may inspire you to go easy on yourself, and possibly do bad things with the expectation of being forgiven.

Shariff, together with Lara B. Aknin, explored this possibility in a second study, published in 2014 in PLOSOne, in which they looked at the effect of heaven and hell beliefs on personal happiness.

At the societal level, belief in hell seems to perform some important behavioral corralling – by infusing the culture with a sort of generalized ambience of supernatural punishment, it inspires (or frightens) people into shaping up, toeing the line, and playing by the rules. But this fear of God isn’t so great for people at the individual level. Plenty of other research, particularly in religion and mental health, has shown that a loving, forgiving God is psychologically better for you than belief in a punitive and angry one. But that same forgiving God may give people a subconscious license to do less-than-honorable things, because, hey – God forgives!

17

Red or Green Flags....

by The Rebel in

jw
friends

it seems everybody is doing it, and giving green or red flags.

and personally what a difference it makes to my " ego" when i get a green flag and feel my opinion is respected.

my green flags totally convince me what i say is " brilliant.

DJS

The Rebel,

We all like being "Liked," Sally. But my mission is to teach - being a dad and a college professor are two of my most fulfilling and rewarding roles. That is why I am here, as I believe the only gift I have to share on this site is to teach my former ex-dubs to think and act more rationally and analytically. My style is to hopefully make you smile or laugh, make you think and sometimes make you uncomfortable (because without that a lot of people never move from ground zero). No pain. No gain.

It's fairly clear that the only thing that has changed with my posting style since Simon created the "Like" and "Dislike" buttons is that I put more attention to details and walk maybe just a tad bit farther away from the Line. But not much.

Sometimes I'm trying to get "Dislikes," but you should already know that. As long as I make people think, maybe make them smile - hopefully both at the same time - mission accomplished.

62

Richard Carrier debunks Christianity using Science and History.

by Island Man in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez2kgjk4jo4

DJS

Screen clutter. Bertrand doesn't speak for anyone but himself and certainly not me. Empirical evidence is the best we have to follow. Thinking that it is the final unchanging word is what religionists feel and believe. They won't change their minds regardless.

I will. Just give me better numbers. So will all empiricists. Russell is confusing religion and feelings with rational and evidence.

Thanks for the Dislike Clammy. Geesh, ANOTHER stalker. Take a number and queue up CB.

62

Richard Carrier debunks Christianity using Science and History.

by Island Man in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez2kgjk4jo4

DJS

SBF,

There certainly can be multiple sources of knowledge. As an empiricist I follow the evidence regardless of where it comes from. When such is presented for the divine, other than via philosophical musings and questionings, I will believe.

I'm not a religious atheist.

62

Richard Carrier debunks Christianity using Science and History.

by Island Man in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez2kgjk4jo4

DJS

SBF,

I rarely comment on your musings. You often make a lot of sense. I see rationals and those who are striving to live an evidence based life, regardless of the topic, rather than militant atheists with an agenda.

A very few concentrate on these subjects. I typically just read and rarely participate. It isn't a strength of mine nor a particular interest.

Where we always divide is between the evidence based and those ruled by their emotions. On every topic.

Clammy is clearly in the emotional camp. Thanks for the Dislike CB.