Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
CA renter
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=scaredyclassic]to say on average that atheists are smarter than believers is the same as saying on average religious people are dumber than atheists. the data does seem to support that religious people have statistically significant less iq points, on average…
but individuals obviously vary for all kinds of reasons. theres plenty of very smart believers. my wife, for instance is very smart, and was a very devout catholic for many years. lots of reasons. tradition. strong family indoctrination. devastating losses int he family. ritual comforts. others…i would never mock anyone personally for believing. on the other hand, some believers in my exerience have no problem pitying nonbelievers, which to me feels like a form of mockery.
i do think it plausible that smart people ar emore likey to lose the faith with age. need data on that.[/quote]
Scaredy is right again.
Why do non believers have to be pitied and guided to God?
An old lady I met recently actually told me “it’s ok as long as you believe in God.”[/quote]
You’re talking about the extremes in religion, the ones who wear their religion on the lapels. Many religious people keep it to themselves and acknowledge, even if it’s somewhere deep inside, that they just don’t know anything for a fact so they ought not to push their beliefs onto others and have no right to judge others.
You notice the loud, obnoxious religious people precisely because they are loud and obnoxious. Many religious people are not like that, and will only discuss their beliefs if specifically asked about them.
Participant[quote=zk]http://www.salon.com/2014/12/21/religions_smart_people_problem_the_shaky_intellectual_foundations_of_absolute_faith/
Here’s a fascinating article that talks about the dearth of religious beliefs among scientists and philosophers.
“Surveys of the members of the National Academy of Sciences, composed of the most prestigious scientists in the world, show that religious belief among them is practically nonexistent, about 7 percent.”
And it gives some reasons why those 7 percent might believe (none of them having to do with evidence – mostly for reasons having to do with emotions overcoming their rationality).
It also brings up another reason why scientists might try to sell the “science and religion are compatible” line.
“Second, the proclamations of educated believers are not always to be taken at face value. Many don’t believe religious claims but think them useful. They fear that in their absence others will lose a basis for hope, morality or meaning. These educated believers may believe that ordinary folks can’t handle the truth. They may feel it heartless to tell parents of a dying child that their little one doesn’t go to a better place. They may want to give bread to the masses, like Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor.”
And, it mentions that someone like CA renter with her high IQ and (what appear to be) her beliefs would be relatively rare:
“But we shouldn’t be deceived. Although there are many educated religious believers, including some philosophers and scientists, religious belief declines with educational attainment, particularly with scientific education. Studies also show that religious belief declines among those with higher IQs. Hawking, Dennett and Dawkins are not outliers, and neither is Bill Gates or Warren Buffett.“[/quote]
Of course, the opposite of what you suggest could be equally true. It’s pretty well known that many atheists are every bit as dogmatic and insistent regarding their beliefs as other religious people are. Many atheists are incredibly zealous about their beliefs and try desperately to discredit anyone who believes differently than they do…no different at all from what many religious people do. I have no doubt that scientists get a LOT of pressure from the atheists in the scientific community, so they go along to get along.
Many atheists are drawn to science because that is their religion, but science does not support atheism any more than it supports Christianity or Buddhism or Judaism or Islam, etc. That is where atheists fall flat on their faces. They believe that the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Participant[quote=zk][quote=Blogstar]What does “science and religion are compatible” really mean anyway?
[/quote]
I think it means that science can’t prove absolutely there’s no god. Of course, science can’t prove absolutely there’s no santa claus, either. But you never hear anybody say, “santa claus and science are compatible,” because nobody over the age of 10 or 11 really cares all that much whether santa claus is real.
So, what “science and religion are compatible” really means, is, “god, while it is an absurd proposition, can’t be proven absolutely not to exist. And we don’t want all the believers out there to hate us, so rather than pointing out the absence of scientific evidence for god, we’ll just say “science and religion are compatible.” Because it’s technically true, and therefore we’re maintaining our standing in the community while not technically lying.[/quote]
No, it means that things like the scientific explanation of the origin of the universe and the Biblical explanation are not incompatible. If you could set aside your biases for a moment, read the Biblical version, and then compare it to the scientific version. For many Christians, the Bible is not the actual “word of God” but the telling of the stories of God. Not everything is to be taken literally (such as the earth/universe being created in six Earth days), but if you look at the series of events, they are not out of line with one another. Many people believe that the “days” noted in religious texts simply refer to a period of time.
What you seem to miss, zk, is that your belief in the absence of a god/higher power is no different than another person’s belief in the existence of a god/higher power. We DO NOT KNOW what exists outside of our very tiny window of knowledge. To claim that we know, one way or another, is ludicrous.
Our differences seem to lie in the way we think. You seem to think more in terms of black and white, which is why your statements sound more absolute — whether about religion or vaccines, etc. I tend to think much more about all the grey, which is why I so often use terms like “IMHO/IMO,” “it seems,” “I believe,” etc. I will almost never speak in absolutes unless I know something for a fact. This is where you and I differ.
For the record, I am not religious at all. My kids have never stepped foot in a church except for their grandmother’s funeral (not saying that’s either right or wrong). Personally, I’m agnostic and anti-religious because I hate how religion is used to control the masses (which, IMO, is why religion is so dogmatic…it keeps people fighting against one another and creates an easy way for those in power to get people to do what they want). Like scaredy, I acknowledge the benefits of religion in giving people something to help them with their fear of dying or by setting up incentives/disincentives to do the right thing and not do the wrong thing.
But to claim that you KNOW that people who have a different belief system believe in a fantasy — assuming that a lack of evidence is what constitutes a fantasy — then you’re just as guilty as they are. There are so many things about the universe that we don’t understand — our knowledge is infinitesimally small — we cannot claim one way or another without sounding foolish.
Are there other intelligent life forms in the universe? Statistically speaking, probably so. Could they be so much more intelligent than we are that if early humans have had contact with them, they might refer to them as a sort of god? As you probably know, there are many examples around the world where primitive people seemed to indicate visitors from space.
The options are endless. None of us knows anything for a fact, so we all believe in a fantasy of some sort unless we just acknowledge all the possibilities and admit that we do not know. The fact that we do not know is the only fact that exists.
ParticipantDaily, I take:
-5,000-10,000 IU of Vitamin D3
-1 multivitamin
-1 Ultimate Eye Formula from Sprouts (it works!)I take the following about 2-5 times per week:
-1000 mg Fish Oil
-IP6, which has the potential to prevent, reduce or reverse tumor growthParticipant[quote=Blogstar]I eat a fish oil capsule or two a few times a week , a multi-vite and magnesium zinc supplement but not everyday. I don’t believe in any of them.
I run and do other exercise quite a bit and was having calf cramps a lot maybe the magnesium helps, My calf muscles have been great. I doubt it did the trick because I also started running more intelligently, more but more intelligently.
I have a pretty healthy diet. Going to drink Iced green tea this summer with the best honey I can get.
Do you still lift weights , scaredy?[/quote]
Have you tried eating bananas for cramps, Russ? They’ve worked amazingly well for me. I believe it’s the potassium.
ParticipantWe got additional policies last year and got a term life policy for $1MM for DH and $300K for me, but the term is only 10 years. This is in addition to our other $500K and $300K 20-year policies that we got over 10 years ago. All of these policies will expire around the same time, but we should be able to get all of the kids through college by then. We also have other assets that are dedicated to college costs, retirement, etc.
I don’t think this is too much for you, scaredy, but I tend to over-insure. Best to listen to others on this.
Sorry about your friend’s passing. That totally sucks. Hope his/her family is dealing with it as well as possible.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]maybe im not expressing myself well. i want police to fight crime.
EXAMPLE
true story; my brother was walking in NYC in the early 90s where we lived and was chased by 3 guys who he later found out were cops. they were yelling it to him but he thought he was gonna be mugged so he ran like hell. Im sure he looked superguilty at that time from running. they chased him and tackled him because he fit the description of a perp in the area. they roughed him up a little but not too bad. he was innocent, cops realized that after a couple hour investigation and detention.
that is OK in my book. they had a reasonable basis for the chase and stop and they didnt beat the living shit out of him, just tackled and subdued, probably a little rougher than necessary because my brothers not a big fighter. . they had a valid police purpose.
CONTRAST THAT TO;
cop pulls up on some kids on the corner. talks to them. they tell him to go fuck himself. cop pulls a gun and other squad cars pull upand search everyone.finds drug contraband on one of them, a weapon onanother arrests them all. a few lose their jobs from the detention. others have records that preclude financial aid due to federal laws. cop lies in police report about stop, claims search was “consensual.
NOT OK..
i would say the 2nd incident is normal. the first incident is our fantasy of police work and rare, but constitutionally valid. it was a reasonable search and seizure….
the 2nd grossly erodes the social contract.
you can stop people for “suspicious” activity, but you ahve to havefacts to support it. nowadays everyone is suspicious of everything, including a brown indian gramapa walking down the street. when we are too suspicious, and th e net is cast too wide, we are not safer. we are ensnared ina polic e state.[/quote]
I fully respect your perspective, scaredy, and appreciate the work that you do. We just come from two different sides of this issue. I will ALWAYS side with victims before criminals. Non-violent criminals whose crimes don’t affect other people are in another category for me, of course. But violent criminals? I have absolutely no mercy for them.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=CA renter] And many of those criminals who jet jail time for drugs are really there for bigger crimes, but the cops might not have been able to get them on those crimes because of technicalities, lack of evidence, luck, etc., so they take what they can get.
[/quote]Err, no. Quite the contrary. Many dealers just deal for income and spending money. There are good at what they do (well qualified for the job) so we should let them work. Supply and demand.
Trying to stop drugs is just the government/soccer moms misunderstanding the market place.[quote=CA renter]
As for the story about your wife’s carjacker,
[/quote]Sacaredy married a saint.
[quote=CA renter]
it’s more about making sure they are apprehended. Cops really don’t like to let criminals get away, and I applaud them for this, as do most law-abiding citizens. [/quote]Errr, no. Cops don’t care.
If you get burglarized and have a video. They cops don’t even bother to investigate.Cops have a billy badass mentality. They want the chase. 1/2 the cops are physically unfit for a chase anyway… but that’s another story.
Cops like to stop guys who hang out and say “yo boy, whachat doin’ here?” Makes them feel important. Of course, those dudes and the cops all have a thing about getting dissed, so escalation ensues.[/quote]
You’re wrong on the first item, Brian. Many cops know that certain criminals are guilty of certain crimes. Cops often know, on a very intimate level, the truly bad guys/gals in the neighborhoods. They often know the parents, grandparents, siblings, romantic partners, friends, enemies, etc. and might have talked to all of them over the years, often in great detail. But knowing that someone is guilty of committing a crime and being able to produce evidence that could convict them are two separate things.
Cops most definitely use drug charges to nab criminals who are guilty of other crimes.
As for the decriminalization of drugs, though, I’m all for it. Cops have more important things to do.
Also agree that cops need to focus more on solving the crimes that should be solved…like flu’s case where the criminal was recorded and they had some kind of identifying information on him. That’s happened to me, too. I knew exactly who had committed a crime in my case (stolen credit card number), but the cops didn’t do a thing; they couldn’t have seemed less interested.
Yes, some cops have a bad-ass mentality, and that can cause problems. But it’s also what keeps many of them alive. Yes, they should try to de-escalate whenever possible, but you have to understand that’s not always possible. You really need to have some experience with truly violent thugs before you can comment on this, Brian. You sound like someone who has never been the victim of a violent crime (talking about being a random victim of a violent criminal, not a fight with friends or acquaintances, or people you’ve pissed off, etc.).
This is what they have to deal with, sometimes on a regular basis. What would you do?
It’s like when people complain that a thug who was beaten or killed while resisting arrest or mouthing off to cops was “unarmed,” without acknowledging that a cop has absolutely NO WAY of knowing that someone is unarmed until they have been physically searched.
Easy to opine while siting in front of your computer screen. Very different to be out the on the streets with a target on your back…this is their real life.
Participant[quote=Blogstar][quote=scaredyclassic][quote=Blogstar]Scaredy, surely what I have been saying on this thread comes across as unkind to you. It just feels hysterical to me. Not high level. Not philosophical at all. I am used to way better from you. Nothing wrong with raw emotion but this is an area that call for cooler heads. There are a lot of crazies out there imagining that every thing that doesn’t go the way they want it is a huge travesty of justice. There are enough dirtbags working these folks already.
Much of the back drop to these conversation is bizarre, riots and looting in Ferguson. Eyewitness lying through the teeth and the media making a big circus out this stuff. Even your thread title looks to be on the crazy train to me. Which sentient human being doesn’t know that cops lie? Just my sensibilities at play I guess.[/quote]
i personally think a good chunk of the nation has for a very long time believed that the overwhelming majority of police officers always tell the whole truth and would only shade the truth possibly to get a bad guy.
I think we need nonstop body cameras on all police officers immediately …[/quote]
Maybe you are right, I find it hard to fathom. I think I have known or suspected that police lie since I was very young , before memory, like 3 or 4 years old. Could be from coming from a hard life. I knew of gangs that were sworn to kill certain cops too.
Still, IF the only people who would be cops are monsters we have to get philosophical. The way I see the pendulum swinging the candidate pool will get worse. How did it get to be that way in the good ole USA? Maybe it is all just part of the “Fall of the Empire”. Dystopia here we come.
I agree with California renter, and not because she has a higher IQ than me. Most people, or most people who are most vocal now, have no idea how vulnerable cops are , how dehumanized they are by criminals who dehumanize old ladies, babies you name it. general hatred from any anti-authoritarian crack pot, threat factor of deadly retaliation to themselves that they live with in big cities or even small violent ones like where I grew up.
Then on top of that , it is extremely hard to make a case against the bad guy, and even if there is one , politics, low budgets, technicalities make it so only a sliver of them even go to the circus. I mean court. How does anyone keep morale …the paycheck and benefits will not do it.[/quote]
Agree with Russ, and not because his IQ is higher than mine, either. 😉 I’ve never thought that cops were 100% honest when giving testimony. My guess would be that most people understand that cops will have to lie occasionally in order to get some really bad guys off the streets…and most of us are probably okay with that.
The difference between one school of thought and the other is that one group is more concerned about the rights of victims, while the other is more concerned about the rights of criminals. It’s doubtful that these two sides will be able to meet in the middle, as they are totally opposed to one another.
Of course, nobody wants to see truly innocent people jailed or beaten, etc. We need to do as much as we can to prevent that. But let’s not pretend that the majority of people who are hauled into court are innocent folks who are picked on by cops because of their skin color, clothing style, etc. Cops are pretty good at what they do, and if they are profiling, there’s usually a very good reason for it.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. B. Franklin.
we could do all sorts of things to catch more criminals. We could strip search anyone who looks shady on the street. Hell, at this point I’m sure gramps would’ve greatly preferred a vigorous anal cavity search in broad daylight than the treatment he got. He’d probably give all his money to wind back the clock and just be subjected to that.
You can call the police. You can watch out. But you can’t detain someone just because a crime might occur and you have a bad feeling about someone. And definitely please don’t slam that person on the ground if they try to walk away when they’ve done nothing wrong and you have no cause to stop them.
Thank goodness for the dashcam.[/quote]
Yes, I totally get that — it’s a great quote that often pops into my head, especially when discussing the Patriot Act, the militarization of our police departments, etc.
But we do need to try prevent crimes before they occur, IMHO. What would you suggest we do? Or, as queried before, should we rely on police departments to simply take notes after the crimes have been committed?
If we don’t profile in some way, and that includes reporting “suspicious persons,” what do you think we should do?
If cops can’t detain people and question them, how do you think that would affect crime rates?
Like it or not, Three Strikes has reduced crime in almost every category. And many of those criminals who jet jail time for drugs are really there for bigger crimes, but the cops might not have been able to get them on those crimes because of technicalities, lack of evidence, luck, etc., so they take what they can get.
——–
As for the story about your wife’s carjacker, I don’t think that criminals are beat up because cops are trying to get revenge; it’s more about making sure they are apprehended. Cops really don’t like to let criminals get away, and I applaud them for this, as do most law-abiding citizens. Most criminals are not beaten up if they calmly surrender. If anyone is beaten up, it’s almost always because they try to resist and/or assault the officer(s). Big difference between that and revenge.
April 25, 2015 at 3:04 AM in reply to: The cost of an Ivy League undergrad degree next year…. #785293Participant[quote=rockingtime]Well said CAR. I kind of falls in this category at least I think I do
The info overload because of the explosion of all kinds of media makes people worry more and more.
Not sure if it is for better or worse.I’d rather live a simple/just having-enough life worry-less than a life full of abundance of material wealth.[/quote]
The introduction of non-stop electronic media probably adds a LOT to our stress levels. That just adds to the regular old stress that people had before the 24/7 negative news feeds. Good post rockingtime. Enjoy your life! 🙂
Participant[quote=applejack]Update: We decided to move forward with the house, despite the low appraisal. Our mortgage broker helped us appeal the original appraisal, and the new appraisal was was only 30k below our agreed upon price. These are the reasons:
1. The PITI is equivalent to the rent we are paying, but the house is nicer than our rental. Monthly expenses will actually go down due to solar panels on new house.
2. We think the stock market and housing market are BOTH over valued right now. If we keep renting, we do not want to put the down payment money into the stock market. Bonds are also a bad option right now, and I don’t want to hold that amount of money as cash. The downpayment is 20% of our net worth. It makes sense to diversify where we are holding our money.
3. We like the house and think we will stay there at least 5 years.
4. If they had multiple offers at list price, it seems like the price we are paying is actually the true market value. (or the market is too heated, not sure about this one.)
5. My husband wouldn’t let me not buy it. He really likes it. I actually wanted to walk away from the deal and wait until the market cools, but he was pretty upset about that idea. All of the upgrades and style choices are exactly what we would have chosen.
So there you have it — a case study on the fools that pay inflated prices for their house! Haha!! I hope it works out![/quote]
Great news, applejack! These are all excellent reasons for making the move to buy. As you’ve noted, even if the housing market is overvalued (and I think it is), there’s still a risk holding any other assets, including cash. At least with a house, you’re getting a roof over your head. Having lower payments than then rental, along with a superior property, makes it an excellent choice.
Hope you have a smooth escrow and transition to your new home! 🙂
Participant[quote=ocrenter]http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/apr/21/commission-backs-utilities-on-bills/
SDGE states the 4 tier system is “unfair” to the heavy users.
LOL!!! The real reason is based on the current tiered system it is an absolute no-brainer for anyone in tier 4 range to change over to solar. They are losing the battle over these heavy users who use to subsidize the masses. So suddenly they realize the 4 tiered system is unfair. Too funny![/quote]
Exactly! I’ve been harping on this for awhile, too.
Just posted this above in this thread.
[quote=CA renter][quote=AN][quote=Clifford]AN,
I’m in Tier 2 most of the year (I rarely go into Tier 3). Financially, would it be worth it to install solar panels ?[/quote]I would say no. It’s only worthwhile if you’re constantly in Tier 4. Solar is getting cheaper and better, so it might be worthwhile to just want, since you’re not paying very much to SDG&E. The general number is, if your electricity bill is >$150/month, that’s when the number really make sense.[/quote]Also take into consideration the fact that
SDG&E is trying to flatten the tiered pricing structure, going from four tiers back to two, like we had before the “energy crisis” in the early 2000s.This will change the calculations for many people. With the 4-tier pricing, solar is an absolute no-brainer for people who are consistently in the 3rd and 4th tiers (we were almost always deep into tier 4 in this house). After flattening the tiers, the once higher-paying customers won’t benefit as much as under the 4-tier structure (still a good idea to go solar, though), but it might start to make even more sense for those in the lower tiers to go solar.
http://www.sdge.com/tiered-rates
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/feb/28/fixed-electricity-fee-coming/
They claim that they are doing this to make the pricing “fairer” for the higher-paying customers, but the real reason is because those VERY profitable customers are fleeing to solar in relatively large numbers. They are trying to recoup some of that lost money and slow/stop the bleeding.[/quote]
Participant[quote=zk][quote=CA renter]
I think that agnosticism covers that definition with the understanding that this would include a spectrum of beliefs that range from “I don’t know anything for a fact but believe strongly that there could be a god/higher power” to “I don’t know anything for a fact but am strongly convinced there is no god/higher power.”
[/quote]
Yes, agnosticism covers that the same way that the word “mammal” covers both mice and cows. I think we need a word for that particular type of agnosticism. Because that kind of agnosticism is much, much farther from “I don’t know anything for a fact but believe strongly that there could be a god/higher power” than a mouse is from a cow.
[quote=CA renter]And there are many people who were/are not having delusions or seeing hallucinations, either.
[/quote]
What makes you think they’re not having delusions?
[quote=CA renter]You can’t claim to know about what you haven’t seen/experienced yourself.
[/quote]
I can’t claim to know what other people’s delusions felt like to them. I can claim that they’ve shown no evidence of god.
[quote=CA renter]What many have seen/experienced is no less real than what you’ve seen or experienced. (Just so you know, I’m not talking about seeing Jesus Christ in a potato chip or a rainbow.)
[/quote]
No less real than what I’ve experienced? What do you mean by “real?” Do you mean real to them (“real” in their own mind), or do you mean real in reality, real in some way that there is evidence (besides their delusions) of?[quote=CA renter]
And, no, having spiritual beliefs does not make someone intellectually inferior to their atheist peers.
[/quote]
And I didn’t say it did. I said they were inferior in their ability to see reality for what it is, rather than for what they want it to be. If you want to call that intellectually inferior, then go right ahead.
[quote=CA renter]Science has never proven that god or a higher power doesn’t exist, so I’m not sure why you think that it has.
[/quote]
Did you even read my post? Show me where I said science has proven god doesn’t exist.That’s twice you’ve said or implied that I said something I didn’t say. I might as well be debating bearishwitch. Do you make stuff up because you feel like it helps you keep up with me? All it does is make you look like you don’t know what you’re talking about. It makes you look like you can’t read and comprehend very well. It makes you look like you’re desperate to make valid points, but can’t do it without making stuff up. It makes you look pathetic. So, for your own sake, knock it off.
Science hasn’t proven god doesn’t exist. That lack of evidence is not evidence that there is a god.[/quote]
You’ve stated and/or implied that anyone who believes in a god/higher power is delusional, that they don’t live in “reality” because if their experiences and opinions don’t jive with yours. You’ve said that they are intellectually inferior, suffer delusions, see hallucinations, and can’t accept scientific proof of something…whatever that’s supposed to be, I’m not sure.
I’m not making anything up. You’re implying these things in your posts, if not stating them directly. See here, too…
If this is not what you’re trying to say, then what, exactly, are you trying to say or imply?
[bold is mine]
[quote=zk]
Sad that our nation (and our species in general) is reluctant to accept people because they don’t live their life according to a fantasy. A fantasy that originated before humans had the ability to explain the sun and the moon, but which has persisted among the unable-to-accept-reality crowd (most humans) since. A fantasy which most christians (and probably lots of other religious people) only favor their particular flavor of because a hundred and fifty or a thousand or two thousand years ago somebody coerced or tricked or forced their ancestors to at least pretend they favored that flavor. A fantasy that, while it generally claims to be informed by an omnipotent being, does, in most cases, change over time.
There must have been some evolutionary advantage to believing what you want to believe, rather than believing what the evidence tells you. And there was a rather obvious evolutionary advantage to not accepting people different from you. Add those two up, and I guess you get modern humans. Religious, and not willing to accept the non-religious. But just because that’s the way humans are, doesn’t mean it’s good.[/quote]
Evidence of what, exactly? Evolution? Many Christians believe in evolution. Read the book that I posted about above that explains how science and religion actually back each other up. Do you honestly believe that all spiritual/religious/spiritual-agnostic people think that Earth/the universe were created in six Earth days? Most Christians and Jews that I know don’t believe that at all.
Specifically, what evidence are you referring to that would make spiritual people delusional or unwilling to accept scientific facts? I hope you realize that spiritualism includes ideas and beliefs that go far beyond theories about the origin of the universe.
Perhaps you and I don’t have the same ideas about what spiritualism/religion/belief in a higher power means. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you appear to be claiming that God/a higher power doesn’t exist, and that anyone who believes in a god/higher power can’t accept that science somehow contradicts their beliefs (please explain how it contradicts a person’s belief in a higher power/god, as I have yet to read about any scientific studies that would claim to do so).
And when I talk about people’s experiences and knowledge, I’m talking about very REAL, physical experiences, often with multiple witnesses. They are not delusional, nor are they experiencing hallucinations. It’s sad that you think that people who don’t believe as you do have something wrong with them, or that they are intellectually inferior (you made a similar statement on the vaccination thread which appeared to be aimed at me, too, which is why I had to mention the IQ thing in response to your ridiculous assertion — something I do not like to do). Many people who are far, far more intelligent than you (not claiming to be one of those people, though that’s entirely possible, too) will have different opinions than you do. It’s neither good nor bad; just a fact. It doesn’t make them any less intelligent or accepting of facts than you.
I’m not making anything up, and I would never have to do anything of the sort to “help me keep up with you.” I do just fine as it is. Perhaps you’re not making yourself clear enough regarding your assertion that religious/spiritual people are delusional and ignorant when it comes to science. You’ve used no facts, evidence, or logic to back up your claims, just name-called. You’re not making a compelling argument.
Instead of trying to make personal attacks, why not specify and define the differences of opinions and use evidence (not just claiming that people are foolish or delusional…that’s no more scientific or factual than claiming that the earth was created in six days) to support your position(s) and/or refute the other debater’s position(s). That would be more productive.
-
AuthorPosts
