Feed on Posts or Comments 21 October 2014

Christianity &Islam &Judaism &Rationals Thomas on 30 Apr 2012 12:53 am

New Study Shows that Thinking Helps Eliminate Religion

A New Study Shows that Thinking Helps Eliminate Religion. Here is a description of the study:

Religion and Reason – Analytic thinking decreases religious belief.

Your answer to the following riddle can predict whether you are a believer in religion or a disbeliever:

Q: If a baseball and bat cost $110, and the bat costs $100 more than the ball, how much does the ball cost?

A: If you answered $10 you are inclined to believe in religion. If you answered $5 you are inclined to disbelieve.

Why? Because, according to new research reported in tomorrow’s issue of the journal Science, the $10 answer indicates that you are an intuitive thinker, and the $5 answer indicates that you solve problems analytically, rather than following your gut instinct.

Why?

Cognitive theory of decision making supports the hypothesis that there are two independent processes involved in decision making. The first process is based on gut instinct, and this process is shared by other animals. The second cognitive process is an evolutionarily recent development, exclusive to humans, which utilizes logical reasoning to make decisions. Their study of 179 Canadian undergraduate students showed that people who tend to solve problems more analytically also tended to be religious disbelievers. This was demonstrated by giving the students a series of questions like the one above and then scoring them on the basis of whether they used intuition or analytic logic to reach the answers. Afterward, the researchers surveyed the students on whether or not they held religious beliefs. The results showed that the intuitive thinkers were much more likely to believe in religion.

So how do we help to eliminate religion? We get more people to think more analytically. The last sentence in this paragraph is key:

Three other interventions to boost analytic thinking had the same effect on increasing religious disbelief. This included asking subjects to arrange a collection of words into a meaningful sequence. If the words used for the subconscious prime related to analytic thinking, such as “think, reason, analyze, ponder, rational,” rather than control words “hammer, shoes, jump, retrace, brown,” subjects scored higher on tests of analytic thinking given immediately afterward, and they were also much more likely to be disbelievers in religion. This demonstrates that increasing critical thinking also increases religious disbelief.

When a religious person increases his or her critical thinking skills, it would help in many other parts of life.

84 Responses to “New Study Shows that Thinking Helps Eliminate Religion”

  1. on 30 Apr 2012 at 7:10 pm 1.Allen said …

    Actually is you look at the 5000 people who registered their answers, the math problem is no more than a riddle and that almost an equal number of atheist and religious answered the problem incorrectly.

    http://www.sync-blog.com/sync/2012/04/simple-math-problem-could-indicate-your-religious-beliefs.html

  2. on 30 Apr 2012 at 8:30 pm 2.Lou (DFW) said …

    http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/27/study-analytic-thinking-can-decrease-religious-belief/?hpt=hp_c2

  3. on 30 Apr 2012 at 11:44 pm 3.A said …

    Allen

    Isn’t amazing that all the delusional scientist of the past were capable of achieving such great advances?

  4. on 01 May 2012 at 12:19 am 4.John said …

    Again, refer to the Atheist Tapes with Dawkins… You guys have been saying this for years now…

  5. on 01 May 2012 at 1:41 am 5.Slapnuts McGee said …

    Um…tax???

  6. on 01 May 2012 at 10:21 am 6.Veronica said …

    So in other words, you’re saying kindly that religous people are brain-dead, don’t question things, don’t think about things and just go with their instinct? I’d like to say that the religious people in my life, including myself, are constantly searching for answers. We question our religions all the time and hunt for answers. Religious people don’t disregard scientific explanations and “facts”. We learn it and try to understand it, just as we do with our own religions. It simply comes down to not being satisfied with the answer science provides us.

    While it may be “logical” and “rational” to some, the average person who believes in things such as the big bang theory is likely to have little knowledge about the actual process of it as the average person is not a molecular scientist. So, in that sense, this average person is the one that doesn’t think analytically. After all, how can one believe dumbed-down explanations of the big bang without undertaking the scientific research that lead to the development of the theory? I am not criticising scientists and people with knowledge; they have a basis for their beliefs. I am criticising the average person who calls themself an atheist and who has not the slightest clue an understanding of the universe.

  7. on 01 May 2012 at 11:17 am 7.Anonymous said …

    Veronica, Do you pray to your god, and do you believe your god answers prayers?

  8. on 01 May 2012 at 11:45 am 8.Lou (DFW) said …

    6.Veronica said …

    This must be one of the most ridiculous, self serving comments that I ever read here. Your description of religion and atheist is nothing but a rationalization.

    “So in other words, you’re saying kindly that religous [sic] people are brain-dead, don’t question things, don’t think about things and just go with their instinct?”

    Most people throughout the world are.

    “We question our religions all the time and hunt for answers.”

    No, by definition, religion itself isn’t questioned. It may be modified to fit a particular interpretation or lifestyle, but it isn’t questioned “all the time,” if at all. Religion is a set of beliefs by which people define themselves and the universe. Throughout history religion has STIFLED scientific progress. What you described more accurately defines science than it does religion.

    “Religious people don’t disregard scientific explanations and “facts”. We learn it and try to understand it, just as we do with our own religions. It simply comes down to not being satisfied with the answer science provides us.”

    Exactly! That’s what theists do here (and everywhere else all the time. They reject science when it conflicts with their religious fantasy (not scientific) and interferes with the idea of their imaginary god (not scientific). But when they need it, they go to the doctor (scientific) and use it to spew religious nonsense to the public via the internet (scientific).

    “I am criticising the average person who calls themself an atheist and who has not the slightest clue an [sic] understanding of the universe.”

    That’s because you are mistaken about atheists. Being an atheist isn’t about understanding the universe – it’s about understanding GOD. Understanding the universe is a function of science and an “analytical mind” – NOT RELIGION.

    When I was ten years old and decided that god was not real, I never heard of Big Bang, and I had very little knowledge of evolution. I was at church and Sunday school every weekend, and at VBS every summer when the “analytical” part of me decided that god and xtainity was just so much nonsense.

    Critical thinking increases religious disbelief.

  9. on 01 May 2012 at 11:53 am 9.Lou (DFW) said …

    6.Veronica said …

    “I am criticising [sic] the average person who calls themself [sic] an atheist and who has not the slightest clue an [sic] understanding of the universe.”

    P.S. You don’t get to redefine religion and what an atheist is in order to justify your religious delusion.

  10. on 01 May 2012 at 2:10 pm 10.WillyNilly said …

    Lou, I normally enjoy your comments, but quoting Veronica and intentionally pointing out all of their spelling mistakes is just childish.

    Plus, “criticising” isn’t misspelled – it’s the English spelling.

  11. on 01 May 2012 at 4:06 pm 11.Lou (DFW) said …

    10.WillyNilly said …

    “Lou, I normally enjoy your comments, but quoting Veronica and intentionally pointing out all of their spelling mistakes is just childish.”

    I understand what you mean, but when a theist calls-out and criticizes atheists for “not [having] the slightest clue an understanding of the universe,” then they better have their ducks in a row. This isn’t Sunday school bible class where theists get a free ride.

  12. on 01 May 2012 at 4:14 pm 12.Doug Fo said …

    Veronica:

    “So in other words, you’re saying kindly that religous people are brain-dead, don’t question things, don’t think about things and just go with their instinct?”

    That is a classic rhetorical technique you’ve done there. Not once did this article use “brain dead” and it talked about tendencies, not absolutes. If anything your response only further demonstrated that you didn’t approach what the article said with analysis. You just went with your instinct to be affronted. Thank you for being another example of this tendency.

    “I’d like to say that the religious people in my life, including myself, are constantly searching for answers. We question our religions all the time and hunt for answers.”

    Really? Have you ever, ever questioned why people are extremely likely to adopt the religion most prevalent amongst the geographical region and time period that they were born in? Questioned why these religions that ARE contradictory all claim to hold the eternal truth? That why you are, in all likelyhood, following the religion most popular in the time period and geographic region you were born in as correct and these other religions incorrect?

    I kind of doubt it.

    “Religious people don’t disregard scientific explanations and “facts”.”

    Really? Then you are disreagarding the FACT that religious people do that all the time, from ancient Judiasm thinking Demons were the cause of disease, to modern 21rst century young eatrth creationists.

    You only prove the point of this article further. I am actually quite amused at your inability to dispute it in any other fashion but to “disregard scientific explanations and “facts”” as presented within the article.

    ” It simply comes down to not being satisfied with the answer science provides us.”

    So you make up stuff, or accept things other people have made up, rather than face reality.

  13. on 01 May 2012 at 4:14 pm 13.Godless Monkey said …

    And as an atheist I have a very good understanding of the big bang, as probably most atheists do, as I undertook the study of such to help further inform myself of its reality…to help further parse out reality from mythology.

    Further, I did’t try to force the science to conform to Genesis, as most big bang believing theists do.

  14. on 01 May 2012 at 5:09 pm 14.John said …

    Godless, how you think theists force the Big Bang in Genesis rather than it fitting the mold of Genesis? Is that your perception or do you have a specific verse?

  15. on 01 May 2012 at 6:22 pm 15.Prime said …

    14.John said …

    “Godless, how you think theists force the Big Bang in Genesis rather than it fitting the mold of Genesis?”

    Look! You just did it (in your head)!

    What’s the mold of Genesis, exactly, and how does the Big Bang fit into it?

    Answer my question and do it for us in black and white now.

  16. on 01 May 2012 at 6:27 pm 16.A said …

    “And as an atheist I have a very good understanding of the big bang, as probably most atheists do”

    Godless Monkey,

    That is a very interesting claim. I’m just a little curious, which model of the Big Bang do you personally ascribe to?

    Willy Nilly,

    Lou(DFW) is only doing what we expect. You can’t teach a duck not to be a duck.

  17. on 01 May 2012 at 6:49 pm 17.Godless Monkey said …

    I ascribe to the model of the big bang that does not include the verbiage, “In the beginning…”

  18. on 01 May 2012 at 7:30 pm 18.A said …

    Godless Monkey,

    Oh, so you don’t know. I figured as much. You are one of great faith.

  19. on 01 May 2012 at 7:35 pm 19.40 year Atheist said …

    The multiuniverse theories get a lot of play these days, as string theory gains intellectual traction and unanswerable questions within our limited physical domain require outside-da-box speculations.

    Maverick cosmologist Max Tegmark contributes another model of the multiuniverse concept, number 4 below. Tegmark’s concepts are somewhat compelling from a logic standpoint.

    Not to be outdone by these genius types, I contribute my own multiuniverse concept, number 5 below, for which I have rented a tux to receive my Nobel prize in Lala Physics.

    Here are some Multiuniverse Theories:

    1. The universe we know is spatially infinite, therefore infinite possible universes like ours can exist out there in the same space.

    2. String Theory Multiverses: Branes, which are parallel existences that cannot communcate except possibly through the modulation of open ended strings, specifically gravity. Other possibilities are created by the same big bang but moving such that communication is not possible.

    3. Hugh Everett’s Measurement split. Every time a measurement is made, a universe splits off: if we see result A, then result B is seen in a parallel universe. Schroedinger’s equation doesn’t collapse. We exist in parallel with ourselves on every branch off. This is possible in the abstract Hilbert Space.

    4. In the article in Discover on-line, Tegmark claims that all reality is math. The underlying foundation for this is:

    Tegmark:
    THE EXTERNAL REALITY HYPOTHESIS:
    “…the assumption that there is a reality out there that is independent of us. I think most physicists would agree with this idea.” (Tegmark) “If a reality exists independently of us, it must be free from the language that we use to describe it. There should be no human baggage.”

    Interviewer:
    “Without these descriptors, we’re left with only math.

    Tegmark:
    “The physicist Eugene Wigner wrote a famous essay in the 1960s called “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences.” In that essay he asked why nature is so accurately described by mathematics. The question did not start with him. As far back as Pythagoras in the ancient Greek era, there was the idea that the universe was built on mathematics. In the 17th century Galileo eloquently wrote that nature is a “grand book” that is “written in the language of mathematics.” Then, of course, there was the great Greek philosopher Plato, who said the objects of mathematics really exist.”

    “Stephen Hawking once asked it this way: “What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?” If I am right and the cosmos is just mathematics, then no fire-breathing is required. A mathematical structure doesn’t describe a universe, it is a universe.”

    “John Wheeler put it this way: Even if we found equations that describe our universe perfectly, then why these particular equations and not others? The answer is that the other equations govern other, parallel universes, and that our universe has these particular equations because they are just statistically likely, given the distribution of mathematical structures that can support observers like us.”

    5. But guess what? I have my own MMM to contribute. What if the Big Bang were really more like a Big Faucet? Hang on now, I’ll ‘splain.

    We exist in a flow of time. In fact all mass/energy exists only at one point in time, which flows inexorably outward like the crest of a wave, from which we cannot extricate ourselves (OK a just little bit according to Relativity).

    So it is possible, prove me wrong if you can, that there was another entity just before us and another just before that and so on. Plus there could be another one just after us, and another just after that, etc. Like this: an infinite series, where we are Un0 (universe number zero).

    ….Un-2, Un-1, Un0, Un+1, Un+2…..

    We generally think of our universe possibly existing in physical-parallel with other universes, why do we not consider time-sequential as well? So the Big Bang would not be a single event, it would be a perpetual spewing of time-sequential universes, like unto a faucet.

    I modestly call this “Stan Time”, a complement to Hilbert Space.

    But let’s conclude all this with a hugely panoramic overview. If all these universes exist, and why not, then the question remains – untouched – whence? If it is not “what is the source of the fire breated into the equations”, then back off one Godel level: “what is the source of the equations?”

    Being “timeless abstract constructs”, they still require a source, do they not? So the First Cause issue remains, unscathed by human rumination. Perhaps for clarity and to remove the time issue with “cause and effect”, it should be referred to as the “First Source”:

    Whence the First Source?

  20. on 01 May 2012 at 7:40 pm 20.Lou(DFW) said …

    16.A said …

    “Lou(DFW) is only doing what we expect. You can’t teach a duck not to be a duck.”

    Actually, what anyone here who regularly reads this blog expects from me is to ask you to dispense with all the diversions and tangents, like the one you just posted, and provide some evidence for your imaginary god. Of you you know what to expect from me next because I repeatedly ask it and you repeatedly respond in the same way – you NEVER, EVER provide evidence for your imaginary god. In other words, instead of evidence we get quack, quack, quack from you and your ilk.

  21. on 01 May 2012 at 7:45 pm 21.Godless Monkey said …

    A, you’re just being argumentative.

    What I have learned in the few months since I found this blog is that theists are not looking for real answers that do not confirm their already made-up minds. They are smug in their delusions. There is nothing I could write here to change your mind. You know it. I know it.

    You could be present at a TED presentation where every Nobel prize winning scientist that’s ever contributed to our understanding of the big bang were to take you A through B into that understanding, and you’d still reject it for theocratic reasons.

    And for these reasons I will not play your game. Be complacent and smug in your delusion. I could care less if you live your life in ignorance.

  22. on 01 May 2012 at 7:53 pm 22.Lou(DFW) said …

    21.Godless Monkey said …

    “A, you’re just being argumentative.”

    That and/or he didn’t understand the comment.

  23. on 01 May 2012 at 7:56 pm 23.A said …

    Lou(dfw)

    “Of you you know what to expect from me next because”

    First you do not need multiple “you” in this incoherent sentence. You You actually correct the grammar of others?

    Godless Monkey,

    You copped out. You make a bold statement then you cannot back it up. No problem its all good.

  24. on 01 May 2012 at 7:57 pm 24.Lou(DFW) said …

    19.40 year Atheist said …

    “I modestly call this “Stan Time”, a complement to Hilbert Space.”

    You? Modestly? And I thought belief in god was absurd.

    Cue 40YA fluffer A…

  25. on 01 May 2012 at 8:04 pm 25.Lou(DFW) said …

    23.A said …

    “First you do not need multiple “you” in this incoherent sentence. You You actually correct the grammar of others?”

    Let’s see, even though I made a C&P error you still can’t comprehend “Of [course] you know what to expect from me next because I repeatedly ask it and you repeatedly respond in the same way – you NEVER, EVER provide evidence for your imaginary god.”

    The meaning of that sentence is perfectly clear. But instead of reply to it, you engage in yet ANOTHER diversion to avoid the inevitable reply – you have no evidence for your imaginary god.

    To quote you: “You can’t teach a duck not to be a duck” – a duck who can’t provide evidence for his imaginary god, but instead only more quacking.

  26. on 01 May 2012 at 8:04 pm 26.Godless Monkey said …

    And, of course, here comes 40YA, looking for validation and pats on the back.

  27. on 01 May 2012 at 8:12 pm 27.MegaByte said …

    “THE EXTERNAL REALITY HYPOTHESIS:
    “…the assumption that there is a reality out there that is independent of us.”

    40 year

    I agree with Tagmark. It would seem science is indeed acknowledging God and the reality of a nonmaterial existence but they do realize they must rename this reality in terms that are not considered religious. I understand their predicament and the reality that is PC.

    A,

    Alas, struck with own baton!

  28. on 01 May 2012 at 8:24 pm 28.Godless Monkey said …

    A, you are exhausting. You know you are playing games…so let’s play.

    How do you and your apologetic and/or xtian “scientists” explain that god created — and keeping this really simple for you — the sun and the moon after he created the plants? This should be interesting.

    P.S. Lou could accidently type “you” 100 times in his posts and still be credible — while “ewe” are just an ignorant sheep who mindnumbingly sings “baa baa” to any moronic thing confirming your belief, such as the BS posited by your guru, 40YA.

  29. on 01 May 2012 at 8:51 pm 29.A said …

    Godless Monkey

    Now you resort to the Red Herring fallacy? Quite while you still have dignity.

  30. on 01 May 2012 at 8:52 pm 30.Lou(DFW) said …

    26.Godless Monkey said …

    “And, of course, here comes 40YA, looking for validation and pats on the back.”

    And here come his fluffers. Don’t you guys realize how transparent you are? Who do you think you’re fooling?

    27.MegaByte said …

    “40 year

    I agree with Tagmark”

  31. on 01 May 2012 at 8:54 pm 31.Lou(DFW) said …

    29.A said …

    “Godless Monkey

    Now you resort to the Red Herring fallacy?”

    As opposed to the NEVER, EVER provide evidence for your imaginary god fallacy?

    “Quite while you still have dignity.”

    Yes, be “quite.”

  32. on 01 May 2012 at 9:10 pm 32.Lou(DFW) said …

    27.MegaByte said …

    “A,

    Alas, struck with own baton!”

    No doubt while performing “Broadway In The Basement.”

  33. on 01 May 2012 at 9:29 pm 33.Godless Monkey said …

    Seems Stan, 40YA, has lifted his theory, at least in part, from the TV show “Lost.”

  34. on 01 May 2012 at 9:40 pm 34.Godless Monkey said …

    A,

    Like the dignity you display in believing in fairy tales?

  35. on 01 May 2012 at 10:15 pm 35.Anonymous said …

    Why does it seem like A, 40YA, and Megabyte talk without ever disagreeing with each other, in the same tone, the same grammar, the same vocabulary?

    None the less I’ve heard the “External Existence” called God before by theist. It was mind bogglingly wrong then as it is now. That “there is some sort of reality that our senses perceive and had certain laws that we can attempt to approximate” is not even remotely similar to “There’s a magic man who made everything and revealed his existence in demonstrable ways to ancient tribal leaders, but cannot be demonstrated to exist now, that has a certain set of proscribed and promoted behaviors laid out in a book full of tales that nobody can agree on what it really say, except that their particular interpretation is the right one, just take their word for it.”

    The “external existence” theory is kind of similar to the theory that granite is hard.

  36. on 01 May 2012 at 10:25 pm 36.Lou(DFW) said …

    35.Anonymous said …

    “Why does it seem like A, 40YA, and Megabyte talk without ever disagreeing with each other, in the same tone, the same grammar, the same vocabulary?”

    Perhaps you notice that the sock-puppets come in small waves. This is because the sock-puppeteer is less likely to confuse his IDs and make mistakes in his replies if he doesn’t have too many sock-puppets performing for him, thus reducing the chance to expose himself. This happened before. He learned his lesson.

  37. on 01 May 2012 at 10:28 pm 37.Lou(DFW) said …

    35.Anonymous said …

    “The “external existence” theory is kind of similar to the theory that granite is hard.”

    40YA once appeared on TV to explain one of his rants that he C&P on this blog. Watch it here:

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

  38. on 01 May 2012 at 10:57 pm 38.Prime said …

    Someone wants to play math. That’s where I come in. PS: I’m actually a mathematician, not a hack philosopher like 40YA. A little point first, though: this is all a distraction from the topic, which is what we expect from theists, repeatedly.

    First, you’ve not addressed the inflationary universe model that is the champion of the cosmological world. Instead, you relied upon sources that leave open your God of the Gaps hopes from some years ago.

    Now, let’s talk straight math, since you want to abuse it. Your “complement to Hilbert Space” comment doesn’t really make much sense, does it? Instead of pointing out how you fail there, though, how about you come in here and elaborate how you mean “complement to Hilbert Space” except as a bit of blinding-by-science fluff.

    Now, the “why does mathematics work so well?” trope. Because we built it to work. Math isn’t “out there” matching up with the universe. Math is a set of ideas constructed by humans that we use to describe the universe. This isn’t the least bit confusing. Numbers are for counting things. Algebraic symbols represent unknowns and give us a technology for manipulating them. Geometric figures are simplifications of real-life shapes. Calculus (and everything built from it) is designed specifically to account for how quantities change in relationship to one another. There is absolutely nothing mysterious about this.

    Why do so many people think there is something mysterious about this? Well, my best guess is because they were raised in a Neoplatonist (read: Christian-influenced) society that believes that all ideas are real and out there somewhere to be discovered (like God is the Neoplatonist ideal for perfect goodness). That’s simply an idiotic way to think about things. Abstract concepts, like goodness, mathematics, rates of change, and numbers, are constructions of human minds made specifically for the purpose of describing certain phenomena, classes of phenomena, or things. It isn’t the least bit mysterious when you drop this whole “are abstract ideas discovered or invented?” line of questioning, which really serves to do nothing more than confuse the matter.

    Most importantly to take home from this are two ideas:
    1. Math works => God exists is idiotic.
    2. If you want to say God exists, then you’re either saying he exists in physical reality and that you can therefore provide proof of him (which you can’t) or that he exists as an abstract idea in the exact same way that the number seven exists (hint: it doesn’t).

  39. on 01 May 2012 at 11:07 pm 39.Prime said …

    “Why these equations and not others?”
    Because those are the ones we derived. Often, the reason comes down to little more than how we’ve defined the various concepts, like a derivative as a rate of change, or an integral as a generalized sum. A lot of “why these equations and not others?” can be explained by that alone: the definitions of the concepts which were developed in the first place to describe the phenomenon we were witnessing and wanting to describe in finer and finer detail. The rest of it comes from observations.

    There may be fundamental physical reasons for some of those observationally derived components, but if you want to put God behind the scenes as those reasons, you had better hope the addition of a God hypothesis (a) answers the question, (b) satisfies necessity, (c) satisfies parsimony, and (d) has better predictive power than every other possible answer (since having a wrong answer that is believed to be true blocks, instead of encourages, further inquiry that might reveal the real answer).

    It cannot be understated, though, that this tactic is weak and disingenuous anyway. You, theists, want to establish the existence of a personal God that is described by some particular branch of some particular religion (typically here: Christianity). That God is a long, long way, across many non sequitur chasms, from “the first cause that makes mathematics make sense.” It’s a pathetic attempt by apologists to try to construct necessity of some ultimate explanation for phenomena like mathematics or existence, call the gap there God, and then use the power of an unfortunately chosen name to try to establish the veracity of religious claims that most unindoctrinated pre-teens can see straight through.

  40. on 01 May 2012 at 11:33 pm 40.A said …

    “That’s where I come in. PS: I’m actually a mathematician, not a hack philosopher like 40YA”

    Now this is great. Prime comes in pimping his credentials. Prime, just stop. You are a mathematician is as likely as Lou having an AS degree.

    Second, even if I believed, your appeal to authority is fallacious.

    I thank you for the claim that I sound much like 40ya although I don’t have the grasp of philosophy as he does. He seems to have no need to pimp his credentials.

    PS, this is where I come in. I am an Astrophysicist not a hack mathematician like Prime.

    Now, it is time for Lou(DFW) to come with his predictable Hor claim. Lou(DFW), you find this guy sexy do you? Frankly I am very relieved not be HO. You are rather creepy.

    Godless Monkey, figured out which Big Bang model you are going with? Indubitably you have done a google search and could not find much.

    Hint” if you can get into the UC Boulder system, there you will find the models there in plenty.

  41. on 01 May 2012 at 11:41 pm 41.Godless Monkey said …

    Wow, hard to believe an astrophysicist can be so easily duped.

  42. on 01 May 2012 at 11:45 pm 42.Godless Monkey said …

    And thanks for the suggestion there, A. But given your proclivity to believe in fairy tales I am going to pass on any recommended reading offered by you, astrophysicist or not:)

  43. on 02 May 2012 at 12:46 am 43.Prime said …

    …except I really am a mathematician. I’m not sure what I’d have to type in this box to make you believe it, but I’m stunned that you’re skeptical of my claim since it’s true and you believe in magic sky daddies that grant wishes and make people live forever.

  44. on 02 May 2012 at 1:07 am 44.Godless Monkey said …

    And whom should I believe??? A, a creation-believing astrophysicist who most likely can, through his xtian-tained glasses, explain the errors in the Genesis story, among other things, and whose science is probably as tainted in his field as the great xtian scientist Behe is tainted in his own?

    Or should I believe any number of real scientists not tainted by mythology, you know, someone like Krauss, for instance, among many others?

    I’m no astrophysicist, or any kind of physicist, so what’s a girl to believe? :)

  45. on 02 May 2012 at 1:14 am 45.Godless Monkey said …

    And a correction from last post as I have seen how A, exhibiting his great xtian morals, delights in pointing out typing errors.

    Should be “xtian-stained” not “tained.”

  46. on 02 May 2012 at 1:42 am 46.A said …

    “Or should I believe any number of real scientists”

    So what is a real scientist? Here is a better study, is Francis Collins, Stephen Barr, Jennifer Wiseman and Simon Morris “REAL” scientist? Yes you may google them.

    You failed the Big Bang test by claiming to be well versed in the theory. I hope you can do better here.

    As far as what is a girl to do? Well, how about doing some real thinking rather resorting to silly “verbiage”(your word)

    Prime,

    You can claim any career you like even an architect. We had a guy here once who claimed to teach college level biology. He got outted.

  47. on 02 May 2012 at 1:43 am 47.A said …

    “delights in pointing out typing errors.”

    I do, I really do but only when it is Lou(DFW)! Sort of ironic knocking off the grammar cop.

  48. on 02 May 2012 at 1:46 am 48.Prime said …

    A.
    1. http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

    2. You don’t have to believe me about what I do. I’m glad to see your sense of skepticism isn’t totally dead. It just seems to be broken: you’re skeptical of things you don’t want to hear and credulous of things you do.

    Just for s**ts and giggles, what evidence on my part would I have to present for you to believe that I am actually a PhD-level mathematician?

  49. on 02 May 2012 at 1:52 am 49.Lou(DFW) said …

    40.A said …

    “I am an Astrophysicist not a hack mathematician like Prime.”

    And that’s an “Astrophysicist” with a capital A, not a “hack mathematician like Prime” with a lower-case m. Therefore, it must be true – after all, it was capitalized.

    That’s why he does by A, not a.

  50. on 02 May 2012 at 1:54 am 50.Lou(DFW) said …

    49.Lou(DFW) said …

    “That’s why he does by A, not a.”

    Correction: “goes,” not “does,” just in case capital A confuses a typo with a grammar mistake.

  51. on 02 May 2012 at 1:58 am 51.Prime said …

    And I go by Prime because prime numbers are cool… and Optimus Prime, but I think I covered that before.

    Did you know there are infinitely many prime numbers, and that there are a number of interesting ways to prove that (perhaps one of the harder being that the series of the reciprocals of all of the primes diverges). Euclid is famous for coming up with what might be the most elegant of them some 300 years before Jesus might have lived. He used reductio ad absurdum, and it’s stunning that he was able to do this feat almost 1400 years before the Muslims in Baghdad would invent the algebra that makes it tractable.

    Suppose that there are finitely many primes, and so there is an exhaustive list of primes, say p_1, p_2, … , p_k, for some integer k>0.
    Then we can construct the integer
    M=p_1 x p_2 x … x p_k.
    Then M(>1) is divisible by all of p_1, …, p_k, and M+1 is divisible by none of them since it leaves a remainder of 1 in all cases.
    By the fundamental theorem of arithmetic, M+1 is prime or a product of prime numbers, none of which is p_1, …, p_k.
    Then the list of primes p_1, …, p_k is not exhaustive.
    This is a contradiction.
    There are infinitely many primes.
    Qed.

  52. on 02 May 2012 at 1:59 am 52.Lou(DFW) said …

    46.A said …

    “You failed the Big Bang test by claiming to be well versed in the theory. I hope you can do better here.”

    And you failed the god is real test by NEVER, EVER presenting evidence for your claim. We hope for better, but never expect it.

  53. on 02 May 2012 at 2:06 am 53.Lou(DFW) said …

    40.A said …

    “PS, this is where I come in. I am an Astrophysicist not a hack mathematician like Prime.”

    Just like Mr. Sulu on Star Trek!

    I’ll bet you performed together in Hor’s “Broadway In The Basement.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ynb20P898k

    GO CAPITAL A, GO!

  54. on 02 May 2012 at 2:12 am 54.Godless Monkey said …

    Dear smug A,

    Just because you feel I failed your bb inquiry does not make it true, but if you get off that way, have at it? I trust your interpretations of anything as much as I would any priest, pastor, iman or witch doctor, astrophysicist or not.

    You really seem to have a fascination with Google, as does John. If that also makes you feel superior to believe that most only glean their knowledge via Google, then pat your deluded self on the back in delight. Who cares.

    You derided Prime for citing his bona fides, prasied 40YA for his humility in not doing so, went on to then cite your own bona fides — and then called Prime a liar. You seem like just the kind of guy one would run away from at a cocktail party — caddy, pompous, yet ignorant. Great combo there.

    Enjoy that drink all alone in the corner :)

  55. on 02 May 2012 at 2:33 am 55.Godless Monkey said …

    A: “There’s no business like the astrophysicist business like no business I know…” (Upstage right, top hat in right hand, left hand on cane.)

    Hor: “Everything about it is exciting…” (Downstage middle, tapping soft shoe, end with buffalo kick.)

    Where can I buy tickets?

  56. on 02 May 2012 at 3:03 am 56.Doug Fo said …

    So Smug A, and his various sock puppets still seem to delight in sidetracking and throwing various red herrings but never really addressing the subject at hand, for all the extremely obvious faults of Veronica’s response, it least had the minimum intellectual honesty to actually do that much.

    As to the term real scientist…Godless Monkey you should know better than to provide an opening of a “No True Scotsman.” The unfortunate thing that there are false scientists out there , particularly with creationist diploma mills out there to give them accreditation. Plus there are countless scientist with PHDs from accredited colleges who are able to compartmentalize the cognitive dissonance that deity belief requires, not to mention the Deists and Pantheists that gnostic theists are quick to quote mine and claim as there own when it suits there purposes.

    The simple fact is, no scientist, staying within the confines of scientific method can present any evidence that the God of Christendom exists. There might be some vague and complex appeals to ignorance for a Deist God, but an interventionist personal one like described in Deuteronomy? No, not even remotely. An appeals to ignorance no more lead me to the conclusion of the God of Christendom than it leads me to believe in the Greek God interfering in the Trojan war as laid out in the Iliad.

  57. on 02 May 2012 at 3:23 am 57.Godless Monkey said …

    My bad, Doug Fo, for opening that door :(

    I was simply trying to distinguish that which you describe in paragraph two @56.

    And with that I am out for the night.

    Sweet dreams, all :)

  58. on 02 May 2012 at 4:35 am 58.DPK said …

    Hopefully, “A” will give credence to his claim of being a capital “A” Astrophysicist and a real scientist and theist, by providing us a link to his published and peer reviewed papers in which he demonstrates god is the cause of the big bang, os if that is not his “S”peciality as an “A”strophysicist, then any published paper in which he describes “then god stepped in” or even a more generic, “then a miracle happened” as a portion of his hypothesis.

    This should be very interesting.

  59. on 02 May 2012 at 5:19 am 59.Spherical Basterd said …

    A said:
    “PS, this is where I come in. I am an Astrophysicist not a hack mathematician like Prime.”

    “And I’m Al Gore and I invented the internet”.

    A, please provide access to your published, peer reviewed papers.

    For the life of me folks, I can’t understand why you continue to respond to these religiotards. Coming here and spewing their idiocy is like porn to them and you’re just enabling their mental masturbation. Like my grandmother always said; “boy, don’t bother arguing with stupid people, they’ll just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

  60. on 02 May 2012 at 6:42 am 60.Severin said …

    40 A
    “Godless Monkey, figured out which Big Bang model you are going with?”

    And which god you are going with?
    As an astrophysicist you can’t be a Christian and hang on the Bible, because you MUST know that nothing in the Bible fits reality.

    So, please, give us a hint, define your religion.
    Which god you believe in, and what your god has to do with Christianity (Islam, Ra-ism, Odin-ism, …).

    Does YOUR god answer prayers?

  61. on 02 May 2012 at 6:13 pm 61.sid said …

    Atheists point of view:
    #1 In the beginning there was nothing. Then BANG! Nothing blew up and created everything!
    From nothing, came Laws and order. (Laws: physics, natural, logic etc.).

    Or

    #2 The universe always existed. NO “Science” proved it had beginning as galaxies move apart.
    Back to statement #1.

    Or

    #3 According to Hawkins. Gravity fields created the Universe. What created gravity in the first place?
    Back to #1.

    Or

    #4 Lots of Time and lots of chances: 10 x 10 to the 1,000,000,000,000,000 power chances + billions upon billion of years “created” all that is seen. Mathamatically impossible. Even if there were the most remote chance of being true, then why hasn’t anyting suddenly appeared? Time and chance still marches on. Darn Back to #1.

    Or

    #5 They must be intellictually honest with themselves (and they’re not) how does one go from non-life to life?
    There were no scientists around to witness creation, it cannot be measured or recreated in a lab. So you have
    “Theory, Conjecture, Extrapulation you know down right good home made science a/k/a guess work.
    Or
    They really hate this one:
    In the beginning, GOD created the heavens and the earth Genisis 1:1.

  62. on 02 May 2012 at 6:15 pm 62.sid said …

    Good thoughts, Veronica.

    The secularist fairy-tale of Darwinism, trying to pass off the obvious miracle of Creation as “a random event of statistical trial-and-error,” is so statistically impossible that by contrast it makes almost credible the concept of a billion chimpanzees typing the complete works of Shakespeare in a billion years — which is also abjectly impossible from the standpoint of statistics, probability, logic, or any other mathematical approach you care to apply.

    The Greek scholars suggested those that could not imagine a God simply lacked knowledge and I tend to agree with them.

  63. on 02 May 2012 at 6:21 pm 63.Doug Fo said …

    sid; you neglected to mention the other 10000 varieties of creation myths and only listed yours; why is that?

    I am not completely sure how the universe began. Am am sure that it wasn’t created magic man described by a bunch of bronze age goat herders in a self contradictory book that does, as a matter of fact, states hundreds of things that do not match with testable evidence.

    Play your strawman games, appeals to ridicule, complete conflagration of abiogensis and the origin of the universe, circular definitions, and appeals to ignorance all you want….but you cannot escape the fact science has been reliable in it efforts to seek truth and the Bible has been unreliable in its efforts to assert truth.

  64. on 02 May 2012 at 6:29 pm 64.Lou(DFW) said …

    61.sid said …

    “…to pass off the obvious miracle of Creation as “a random event of statistical trial-and-error,” is so statistically impossible that by contrast it makes almost credible…”

    sid,

    The next time you have time to waste writing comments such as those that you posted, try calculating the odds that you, the individual person called “sid,” was ever born. To do this you must consider how many people have ever been born on the earth and that by chance your parents met and conceived a child. Next consider how many eggs and sperm your parents created, but out of those only one of each combined to create you.

    When you get finished, please report back to us with the odds that you, sid, were ever born. I think you will find it makes it “so statistically impossible that by contrast it makes almost credible the concept of a billion chimpanzees typing the complete works of Shakespeare in a billion years — which is also abjectly impossible from the standpoint of statistics, probability, logic, or any other mathematical approach you care to apply.”

  65. on 02 May 2012 at 6:40 pm 65.DPK said …

    1. Nothing exists without a cause.
    2. The universe exists.
    3. The universe had a cause.
    4. That cause is god.
    5. God exists without a cause.
    6. See #1.

    See how when you start with an unsupported contention, and then proceed to make unsupported jumps, it ends up biting you in the ass?
    Just because you don’t fully understand something, doesn’t mean it is not understandable. You don’t “know” that the universe that we know hasn’t “always” existed in some form or another. You don’t know it required a god to create it. If this is mandatory, then god must also have a creator… you can’t have it both ways.
    Then, you make the impossible leap from an uncreated creator (an un-caused cause) to a personal god who hears your thoughts, answers your prayers, judges you for your behavior… judges you even for your thoughts, and will reward or punish you for all eternity for them. And oh yeah, he wants you to eat his body and drink his blood… and he could use some cash while you’re at it.
    How big of an idiot do you have to be to buy into that?
    Why don’t y’all just admit that all you have is faith and stop trying to justify your crazy-ass ideas to others who don’t buy into your snake oil. If faith in ridiculous, primitive superstitions is enough for you… ok, well, you’re an idiot, but that’s your business. But trying to justify your delusions to non-delusional people only makes you sound even more bat-shit crazy than you actually are. Give it up already.
    If ANY of you had an actual evidence for your imaginary gods, you would have proven it by now. Instead all we see is the same old recycled, discredited nonsense and endless diversions.

  66. on 02 May 2012 at 6:40 pm 66.Doug Fo said …

    Yes Lou, I’ve seen the “statical probability” argument put out by theists faily often, the say the same things with seemingly random numbers thrown about, but when these use numbers, actual specific discrete numbers…where’s the math? My guess it that they are so used to supporting unsupported assertions with other unsupported assertion that they have no basis, they just copied it from somewhere without questioning it. If the are theists they just find things to support their argument without thinking of whether or not it is actually valid. That, or they are a Poe/Troll

  67. on 02 May 2012 at 6:44 pm 67.Lou(DFW) said …

    60.sid said …

    It doesn’t matter if any of the six scenarios you listed are true or not, because, as you wrote – “They really hate this one:” you have have absolutely no evidence for your imaginary god. That’s why people like you waste so much time and effort here posting EVERYTHING EXCEPT that evidence while making themselves look desperate and stupid.

  68. on 02 May 2012 at 6:50 pm 68.Doug Fo said …

    Prime; we are all more skeptical of things we don’t wnat to hear and more credulous of those that we do want to hear. It is a universal fault.

    None the less the extent that a person has it depends on how emotionally invested a person is in the subject. A theist was there whole emotion well being riding on the line and is apt to take it to a delusional level when it comes to an argument over the existence of their particular deity, the currently popular model being the modified Yahweh.

    Since the Atheist has generally arrived to their conclusion generally via rational, rather than emotional, means will result in less of a bias. When you see an emotional “hating god” atheist, they have every bit the bias that the theist does. Thankfully, they seem to be pretty rare above the age of 20.

  69. on 02 May 2012 at 9:10 pm 69.Severin said …

    60 said

    It is interesting how you disparage science and scientists when they talk big bang, but trust them when you go to doctors, travel by planes, use electricity, use your Blackberry and GPS, and tape your idiocies on the computer.

    Idiocies, yes (sorry to say so), because your “math” is unrealistic and has nothing to do with science.
    In your “10×10^1,000,000,000,000,000″ idiocy forget simple chemistry:
    if molecules of certain chemical compounds come close enough to each other under advantageous conditions (pressure, temperature, possibly also catalyst), they WILL REACT WITH 100% CERTAINTY. Their reaction will NEVER FAIL.
    No need to wait for “chances” to get complex molecules from simpler ones, if those molecules have mutual natural affinity to react and are present under the proper conditions.
    Now, if you know that under some conditions some molecules WILL ALWAYS AND UNCONDITIONALLY REACT (100 % probability, no waiting for “chances”), and that trillions upon trillions upon trillions such molecules were present in a single puddle, probably one of billions on earth, we probably could not expect to have a dinosaurs within few hours, but could realistically expect to have a complex protein after some 500 million years (probably much, much sooner) and the first cell after next billion years.

    Where did you hear for such numbers? from your priest, who has no clue about both math and chemistry?
    Why don’t you go to your priest to heal you when you have health problems?

  70. on 02 May 2012 at 9:26 pm 70.Severin said …

    60 said
    IF science is “science” for you, what are you doing when your child needs medical help?

    Being such an expert, it must be that you, in such a case, make your own conclusions, give your own diagnosis and make the healing plan, including determining the curatives?

    You don’t?
    WHY?

  71. on 02 May 2012 at 9:33 pm 71.Severin said …

    60 said
    “1 In the beginning there was nothing. Then BANG! Nothing blew up and created everything!”

    No one ever claimed (except theists) that everything was created from nothing.
    The idea was that matter/energy always existed, so big bang did NOT “explode” from nothing, but from matter/energy that already existed in different form.

    Now I have 2 essential questions for you:
    1. Even if matter/energy really “exploded” from nothing why would a god be necessary for it? In one moment there was nothing, then nothing exploded to give something, where a god fits in this equation and why is he (she? it?) necessary in this story?

    If god created something from nothing, who/what created god?

  72. on 03 May 2012 at 10:33 am 72.Anonymous said …

    What a surprise! Rather than answer anything, and certainly rather than answer something as an “Astrophysicist” Hor’s sock puppet has bravely run away. Again.

    It must be a sad existence when the only way someone can hang on to their belief in their imaginary friend sky daddy is to not think about their belief in sky daddy.

  73. on 03 May 2012 at 12:30 pm 73.Lou(DFW) said …

    72.Anonymous said …

    “What a surprise! Rather than answer anything, and certainly rather than answer something as an “Astrophysicist” Hor’s sock puppet has bravely run away. Again.”

    To “Broadway In The Basement.”

  74. on 03 May 2012 at 8:01 pm 74.DPK said …

    I would just once like to see any one of them actually defend their positions after they are challenged. They never, ever do. 40yr just lurks back in the shadows and trolls for keywords that in any way, no matter how vaguely, relate to something he wrote in his manifesto so he can puke it all over the screen and wait for some other idiot to tell him how brilliant he is. That’s what seems to get him off.
    Hor, et al. simply disappears only to resurface in a day or two under a new alias hoping no one will notice the complete failure of his argument. Now we have “astrophysicist” Mr. A. I wish one of these evolution denying, genesis defending “scientists” would actually show us ANY reputable theistic scientist who has ever published a peer reviewed paper or presented an actual hypothesis with “then god steps in and works a miracle” as a step in their proposed idea. I wonder why that NEVER happens?

  75. on 03 May 2012 at 9:18 pm 75.Lou(DFW) said …

    74.DPK said …

    “Now we have “astrophysicist”

    That would be Astrophysicist with a capital A to you!

    Really, what kind of idiot would make such a claim here? Oh yea…”Broadway In The Basement.”

  76. on 03 May 2012 at 11:02 pm 76.Biff said …

    “I wish one of these evolution denying,”

    See there is more hypocrisy from atheists. We don’t need to deny macorevolution, the burden of proof has been on you to prove it. To quote Lou YOU NEVER EVER DO!. Did I quote Lou correctly?

  77. on 03 May 2012 at 11:26 pm 77.Lou (DFW) said …

    76.Biff said …

    “See[,] there is more hypocrisy from atheists. We don’t need to deny macorevolution, the burden of proof has been on you to prove it. To quote Lou[,] YOU NEVER[,] EVER DO!. [sic]

    Macroevolution is not the topic for discussion on this blog anymore than is Santa Claus. But the evidence was presented.

    “Did I quote Lou correctly?”

    No, you can’t even handle that simple task.

  78. on 04 May 2012 at 12:28 am 78.DPK said …

    Oh Biff, “there are none so blind as those that will not see…”
    Lou is right, evolution is not the topic of this blog, but just to once again show the rest of the educated world what a total idiot you are… here you are… again:

    http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/02/macroevolution-examples-and-evidence.html

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2004.tb01604.x/abstract

    That should keep you busy for a while. Get back to us when you can scientifically refute every one of them, and I’ll point you to 1,000 more or so. Of course, some bullshit you read on an evangelical website by some silver haired televangelist in between him begging for money doesn’t really count there, Biffer! Whoops, there goes your sources. Sorry about that, dude!

    And well, yeah, asking if you “quoted [someone] correctly” when you apparently have no idea how to use quotation marks is really either begging for it or you really are even more stupid than we had thought. Ouch. Seems you walked into a buzz saw on that one.

  79. on 06 May 2012 at 2:35 pm 79.Doug Fo said …

    Macro vs Micro evolution: the theory that a person could,t possible walk 40 miles in a year because you’ve only seen them walk to the elevator.

  80. on 06 May 2012 at 2:36 pm 80.Doug Fo said …

    Macro vs Micro evolution: the theory that a person couldn’t possibly walk 40 miles in a year because you’ve only seen them walk to the elevator.

  81. on 06 May 2012 at 2:40 pm 81.Prime said …

    You mean “Macro vs Micro evolution, proof that the person bringing it up that way doesn’t understand science.”

  82. on 06 May 2012 at 2:51 pm 82.Lou(DFW) said …

    78.DPK said …

    “And well, yeah, asking if you “quoted [someone] correctly” when you apparently have no idea how to use quotation marks is really either begging for it or you really are even more stupid than we had thought.”

    I know Ben-Hor has many problems with punctuation, but I honestly think that he’s been drinking when he posts here.

  83. on 17 May 2012 at 2:54 pm 83.CALL ON JESUS said …

    The time is near, the lies are great,
    The love is false, and the time is hate,
    I fear the pride,
    has served to hide,
    the wisdom needed,
    to see what you denied.

    Atheist Professor from Berkeley gets a glimpse of hell
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vj0qKthCgg&sns=em

  84. on 23 May 2012 at 12:52 am 84.InvincibleIronyMan said …

    “If you answered $10 you are inclined to believe in religion. If you answered $5 you are inclined to disbelieve”.

    No, no, no, no, no! That is totally incorrect. It means you are statistically more likely to be inclined to believe in religion. That is *not* the same. Maybe you were tired, or you didn’t read the question properly. You may still be entirely less inclined to believe in religion than a randomly selected person who answered differently.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply