4 Mistakes You Make When You Talk About Islam (And Religion in General)

[Type Username Here]

You generalized. I specified. Oh, and he's not just a religious scholar. He's also a biomedical scientist and psychiatrist......things you are not.​

If you believe that's what they believe, you have no clue what you're talking about and are delusional.​

Without religion, you'd have no 'rights', science or education.

Keep being a bigot, brehs.​

Laughable reply at best.

1) He's a religious scholar first and foremost. I'll be glad to see peer reviewed and replicated studies by others if you have it.

2) You're outlandishly lying if you think a bulk of Christians don't believe that Jesus IS God.

3) You have never proven you statement that everything is derived from religion. When confronted about it, you mentioned that you had something in your head that you don't know how to explain to people. Hardly concrete proof.

4) If calling someone who believes that God impregnated a woman with himself in human form so he himself can die to stop himself from punishing people for being bad a delusional and mentally ill person is grounds for being a bigot, so be it. Only religion is afforded such luxury from criticism.

Here are some more studies:


Spiritual and religious beliefs as risk factors for the onset of major depression: an international cohort study
http://journals.cambridge.org/actio...6658&fulltextType=RA&fileId=S0033291712003066

PARTICIPATING IN RELIGION MAY MAKE ADOLESCENTS FROM CERTAIN RACES MORE DEPRESSED
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/racerelig.htm

The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity: A Meta-Analysis and Some Proposed Explanations
http://psr.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/08/02/1088868313497266.full.pdf html


Plenty more of where that came from friend.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Laughable reply at best.

Same to you.​

1) He's a religious scholar first and foremost. I'll be glad to see peer reviewed and replicated studies by others if you have it.

Dr. Levin holds an A.B. in religion and in sociology from Duke University, an M.P.H. from the University of North Carolina School of Public Health, and a Ph.D. in Preventive Medicine and Community Health from the Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences at the University of Texas Medical Branch. He completed a postdoctoral research fellowship at the University of Michigan’s Institute of Gerontology.

It takes a lot more education to attain a Ph.D./M.P.H. than an A.B. so his primary focus is in Medicine, not religion.​

2) You're outlandishly lying if you think a bulk of Christians don't believe that Jesus IS God.

That's not what I think, but not what you stated.​

3) You have never proven you statement that everything is derived from religion. When confronted about it, you mentioned that you had something in your head that you don't know how to explain to people. Hardly concrete proof.

I didn't prove it because I didn't say it. I answered all questions regarding my assertions to the best of my ability at the time and as completely as I could.​

4) If calling someone who believes that God impregnated a woman with himself in human form so he himself can die to stop himself from punishing people for being bad a delusional and mentally ill person is grounds for being a bigot, so be it. Only religion is afforded such luxury from criticism.

You have to specify exactly which group you're talking about since there are about 31,000 different groups in this country alone and they all believe differently. So, which Christian group are you critiquing and using that critique to base your opinion of all Christians unfairly........like racist Caucasians do to minorities?​

The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity: A Meta-Analysis and Some Proposed Explanations
http://psr.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/08/02/1088868313497266.full.pdf html

Ahhh, that analysis is full of shyt just like the meta-analysis about fluoride and lowered IQ. Let me show you why:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...ple-thats-sciencism-at-its-worst-8759526.html
​

As everyone who has looked at attempts to compare the intelligence of different groups knows such studies are fraught with methodological difficulty. Intelligence itself is a contested concept and it is far from evident what is measured in these studies. Attitudes towards cultural values are mediated through a variety of influences that are relational, context specific and whose meaning becomes lost if it becomes quantified and reduced to numbers. Any attempt to establish a causal relationship between personal belief and raw intelligence is likely to be an exercise in forced abstraction.

At most what the majority of papers reviewed in this analysis show is that because smart people spend more time in education and because high schools and especially universities tend to be secular institutions they will produce proportionally more atheists people than those who drop out. Secularism and atheism is part of the cultural script of higher education to which a significant minority readily conform. Smart kids who don’t go to university are more likely to retain their religious affiliation because they are expected to conform to different values. And secular researchers are likely to discover what they already suspect which is a co-relation between their values and high levels of intelligence.

The polemical use of science – called scientism- has nothing to with real science, which is the disinterested pursuit of the truth. It uses the authority of science to invalidate the moral status of groups and individuals and their practices on the ground of their natural inferiority. It is the 21st century equivalent of 19th century craniology.

Regrettably the mantra “research shows” has become a substitute for a critical engagement of views. Devaluing the intelligence of your opponents is what children do when they call one another stupid. It absolves its practitioners from taking the arguments of their opponents seriously.

As an atheist I take an exception to the claim that my views are the product of my intelligence. Like many others I exercised my capacity for moral autonomy and made an existential choice. I believe that I made an intelligent choice not to believe. But I don’t think that atheism can be equated with intelligence any more than religion with stupidity. Why? Because the experience of life shows that the ranks of atheists have their fair share idiots. If you doubt my words – launch a research study that does a content analysis of their tweets.

Plenty more of where that came from friend.

More atheist propaganda from a deist.....LOL.​

 

[Type Username Here]

​

Dr. Levin holds an A.B. in religion and in sociology from Duke University, an M.P.H. from the University of North Carolina School of Public Health, and a Ph.D. in Preventive Medicine and Community Health from the Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences at the University of Texas Medical Branch. He completed a postdoctoral research fellowship at the University of Michigan’s Institute of Gerontology.

It takes a lot more education to attain a Ph.D./M.P.H. than an A.B. so his primary focus is in Medicine, not religion.

​

​

I was merely stating that this gentlemen deals with issues involving Religion. Do you have a link to shows that his findings passed peer reviewed guidelines and was replicated elsewhere?
It seems that there are a multitude of studies directly contradicting some of his claims.

That's not what I think, but not what you stated.

​

This is exactly what I said:

Anyone that believes God impregnated a woman with himself only to kill himself to save people is delusional.

I​

You have to specify exactly which group you're talking about since there are about 31,000 different groups in this country alone and they all believe differently. So, which Christian group are you critiquing and using that critique to base your opinion of a whole group of 'believers' unfairly........like racist Caucasians do to minorities?

Damn, you stooped to this level? Are you equating a philosophical position someone holds to being born with a physical difference relative to the person doing the discriminating? Religion, like some other mental disorders are products not of birth but of environment. You are raised or converted to that particular mental afflication, but it can be overcome with rationality and reason.

Ahhh, that analysis is full of shyt just like the meta-analysis about fluoride and lowered IQ. Let me show you why:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...ple-thats-sciencism-at-its-worst-8759526.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...ple-thats-sciencism-at-its-worst-8759526.html
​

So let me get this straight, the study I linked was bullshyt because a sociology professor claimed that there was biasedness and prejudice in conducting the study, but the man who is a religious scholar is exempt in that study you linked? Are we willing to admit that bias played a part in both probably?

More atheist propaganda from a deist.....LOL.

Call it whatever you want, you're holding on to one study by a religious scholar while claiming studies I link are propaganda and baised.

Also, I'm a deist but have always been upfront about being an anti-theist. Don't even see the point of your childish argument towards the end.

At the end of the day, no matter what study each of us links, a grown person that believes that the supreme being impregnated a woman with himself, to later on die so he can save humanity from being punished by him, surely would qualify as insanity if it wasn't shrouded as "sacred".

Is that what you believe? Is that why your feelings are hurt? Do you think the sky daddy had to be born in human form to save us from his punishment?

Please.

 

[The Real]

Without religion, you'd have no 'rights', science or education.

You've made some formidable points in this thread, but that right there is beyond general and beyond proof, to boot. Let's not get carried away while defending religion's modest benefits.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

I was merely stating that this gentlemen deals with issues involving Religion.​

No, you went a tad bit further than that and attempted to portray his research as biased due to his other scholarly interests.​

This is exactly what I said:

Right. Which Christian group were you referring to? Both my parents are Born-Again and they don't believe that.
​

Damn, you stooped to this level? Are you equating a philosophical position someone holds to being born with a physical difference relative to the person doing the discriminating? Religion, like some other mental disorders are products not of birth but of environment. You are raised or converted to that particular mental afflication, but it can be overcome with rationality and reason.

No, I'm comparing this statement :
​

Religion is a mental condition in which people suffer from.

To someone calling ALL people with brown skin 'savages'. Neither one is in any way a philosophical position no matter how you try and spin it. Also, someone raised in a religious environment isn't suffering from any type of mental disorder. That's just another atheistic/anti-theistic logical fallacy that reveals your inability to use rationality or reason due to bigotry.
​

So let me get this straight, the study I linked was bullshyt because a sociology professor claimed that there was biasedness and prejudice in conducting the study, but the man who is a religious scholar is exempt in that study you linked? Are we willing to admit that bias played a part in both probably?

No, the meta-analysis you linked wasn't total bullshyt, but the spin on the data was. When you use ethnic groups, financial groups, and several other controls, the data doesn't conclude any significant differences in intelligence whatsoever based on religiosity. Since many atheists/anti-theists like using it to make themselves feel superior, I thought I'd destroy that talking point once and for all.
​

Call it whatever you want, you're holding on to one study by a religious scholar while claiming studies I link are propaganda and baised.

I'm using a peer-reviewed scientific study to show your biased opinion is wrong.​

Also, I'm a deist but have always been upfront about being an anti-theist. Don't even see the point of your childish argument towards the end.

Of course you don't, because you're bigoted.​

At the end of the day, no matter what study each of us links, a grown person that believes that the supreme being impregnated a woman with himself, to later on die so he can save humanity from being punished by him, surely would qualify as insanity if it wasn't shrouded as "sacred".

That's a total misrepresentation and misunderstanding of their view.​

Is that what you believe? Is that why your feelings are hurt? Do you think the sky daddy had to be born in human form to save us from his punishment?

Not at all. I'm a Theological Noncognitivist. You believe more in a 'sky daddy' (another misunderstanding/misrepresentation) than I am able to at this point in time.​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

You've made some formidable points in this thread, but that right there is beyond general and beyond proof, to boot. Let's not get carried away while defending religion's modest benefits.

It isn't beyond 'proof' according to history & archaeology. I'd also submit that religion's benefits are enormously beneficial to humanity just like any tool invented by us has the potential to be.​

 

[Type Username Here]

No, you went a tad bit further than that and attempted to portray his research as biased due to his other scholarly interests.

​

It obviously is according to your logic in regards to three scientific studies I presented.
​

Right. Which Christian group were you referring to? Both my parents are Born-Again and they don't believe that.

Your parents are Born-Again what? Buddhists? All Christians I've come in contact with believe that Christ is God.​

To someone calling ALL people with brown skin 'savages'. Neither one is in any way a philosophical position no matter how you try and spin it. Also, someone raised in a religious environment isn't suffering from any type of mental disorder. That's just another atheistic/anti-theistic logical fallacy that reveals your inability to use rationality or reason due to bigotry

.

Again, if I was criticizing marxism, objectivism, nihilism, or said that someone who thinks a shoe can make magical rainbows, I probably wouldn't be called a bigot. Only when religion is introduced to philosophical debates people start to throw words like that around. No thank you. I'll wear the label of bigot with pride if it means believing that a person who is clearly delusional has mental issues. All day, everyday.​

No, the meta-analysis you linked wasn't total bullshyt, but the spin on the data was. When you use ethnic groups, financial groups, and several other controls, the data doesn't conclude any significant differences in intelligence whatsoever based on religiosity. Since many atheists/anti-theists like using it to make themselves feel superior, I thought I'd destroy that talking point once and for all.

Yet this does not apply to the study you linked? I see. Nonsense.

I'm using a peer-reviewed scientific study to show your biased opinion is wrong.

I've used three to counter it and you replied with an opinion .

Of course you don't, because you're bigoted

.​

Again, only religion and the delusion that comes from it is hands off on a philosophical debate. If being a bigot means that I think all people who believe that god helps them get jobs while letting children die are delusional, than so be it.

That's a total misrepresentation and misunderstanding of their view.

No, it isn't. It's a simplification. When you simplify it down and strip the poetic nonsense, that is exactly what it is.

Not at all. I'm a Theological Noncognitivist. You believe more in a 'sky daddy' (another misunderstanding/misrepresentation) than I am able to at this point in time.

I doubt it. You present yourself as anything but theist, when you clearly are one. At least have some pride in your ideals. Lying to me to distance yourself from a theistic position is bad sport.

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

Both my parents are Born-Again

Now we know where your immense amount of comes from

 

[The Real]

It isn't beyond 'proof' according to history & archaeology. I'd also submit that religion's benefits are enormously beneficial to humanity just like any tool invented by us has the potential to be.​

I mean, it's beyond proof both that religion was directly responsible for those things, and even that those things appeared later than religion, however we're defining either religion or any of those 3.

At most, we can say 2 things:

1. Many people who made progress in those fields were religious in the past. This doesn't entail that religion was a direct contributor to those advancements, though.

2. Religions have almost certainly been part of the causal chain that led to some advancements in those categories, but that in itself doesn't necessarily lend religion any positive value, since many horrible things have been part of that same causal chain.

I personally find the potential benefits of religion modest, at best, in keeping with that article you posted. None of its positive effects are exclusive to it, though, since they all derive from concrete practices and beliefs that don't need inherently religious elements, so I personally see no need to combine those positive effects with a significant amount of unempirical or often directly false belief, or to attribute to religion in general a special class of benefits or special degree of any particular benefits it offers, while I do see potential downsides to religion that are not attached to secular traditions that could incorporate all of religion's potential benefits.

In short, I think religion does offer some non-exclusive benefits, but that it also offers exclusive potential negatives.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

It obviously is according to your logic in regards to three scientific studies I presented.​

A peer-reviewed study cannot be biased. If it is found to be, then it is pulled from circulation.
​

Your parents are Born-Again what? Buddhists? All Christians I've come in contact with believe that Christ is God.

There's no such thing as a Born-Again Buddhist and not all Christians believe J is 'divine'.​

Again, if I was criticizing marxism, objectivism, nihilism, or said that someone who thinks a shoe can make magical rainbows, I probably wouldn't be called a bigot. Only when religion is introduced to philosophical debates people start to throw words like that around. No thank you. I'll wear the label of bigot with pride if it means believing that a person who is clearly delusional has mental issues. All day, everyday.

You didn't criticize any of those, though. So that argument is moot. Those who believe in some sort of 'diety' aren't any more delusional or fraught with mental issues than those who don't.
​

Yet this does not apply to the study you linked? I see. Nonsense.

You are more than able to look through the data yourself and make your own conclusions. That's what I did. Apparently, those who use the intelligence study for their arguments don't. That's why it keeps getting held up as some sort of indicator when it actually doesn't indicate anything.
​

I've used three to counter it and you replied with an opinion .

I replied with facts based on evidence.
​

Again, only religion and the delusion that comes from it is hands off on a philosophical debate. If being a bigot means that I think all people who believe that god helps them get jobs while letting children die are delusional, than so be it.

Religion isn't 'hands-off' by any stretch of the imagination and you're still misrepresenting and misunderstanding the majority view.
​

No, it isn't. It's a simplification. When you simplify it down and strip the poetic nonsense, that is exactly what it is.

Except, it isn't. You'd benefit from a religious studies course or at least speaking with those who know what they're talking about in-regards to this subject.
​

I doubt it. You present yourself as anything but theist, when you clearly are one. At least have some pride in your ideals. Lying to me to distance yourself from a theistic position is bad sport.

LOL, since I'm not a theist, you can't attack me like you would @Chris.B or @Mr. Somebody or @rapbeats or @lini... or @50CentStan , etc. My interest in religion is based solely on my immediate family's involvement and my wish to understand their beliefs. Anything beyond that is pure speculation.
​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Now we know where your immense amount of comes from

Must be the fact that I haven't been able to smoke weed since the heart attack, but I KNOW I've stated that on more than one occasion. Why you have difficulty remembering it is beyond me.

Must not be important. AFAIK, I'm the only person on this entire forum with my view so I figured I'd stick out. Evidently not.​

 

[tru_m.a.c]

@Type Username Here you're a deist???

I've gotta go back and look at our old "what do you believe in" threads. Never knew that

 

[tru_m.a.c]

Must be the fact that I haven't been able to smoke weed since the heart attack, but I KNOW I've stated that on more than one occasion. Why you have difficulty remembering it is beyond me.

Must not be important. AFAIK, I'm the only person on this entire forum with my view so I figured I'd stick out. Evidently not.​

you had a heart attack

I dont even know you muhfukkas anymore

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

I mean, it's beyond proof both that religion was directly responsible for those things and even that those things appeared later than religion, however we're defining either religion or any of those 3.

Actually, it isn't. For instance, religion is directly responsible for 'natural/human rights'........


​

 

[SumBlackguyz]

Religion is a mental condition in which people suffer from. We should do our best to try to help our fellow human beings who are afflicted with this disorder, not advocate indiscriminately killing all of them. It's best to attempt to shine light in the nonsense they believe, and have them make progress through reason. Violence should be only the last possible outcome.

you get out what you put in