kumquatq3

Selective membership? Then they would be part of Mensa or the big three religions Skepticism is all well and good. Especially if it is declaring an absolute. However, eventually you have to ask yourself if something is likely correct or incorrect or you get nowhere. Like those Royal Bank of Scotland commercials. Just so were clearly, if these studies are correct or incorrect, I'm not arguing that I am more intelligent (or less) than individuals that do believe. I'm not saying, look at me, I'm so smart for not believing. I was defending points raised by the article.

yes, the zombies were amazingly polite.

However, they are not all college based studies, that just the first section of what I posted. Obviously there is almost always another way to take the data. There will always be that 1-10% uncertainty of correlation. Of course, if thats the case, then why don't those things appeal to religious people. What is the difference between the two. Obviously unsupported, but worth asking.

So you mean ZERO actions taken in the name of ignorance, all talk? Then the "racist remarks" is where we differ, it seems. If I got it right, you think people should be able to say such comments with impunity. It's other peoples problem now. Let them adjust if they don't like it. Is that right?

I disagree. If you're running off reason, then you are "open" by definition, it's whatever makes the most sense (obviously, to the amount humanity allows). I don't dispute there is no chance that god exists, however the odds are VERY low imo, and there for I don't believe. As, to me, that's blind belief. I'm open to peoples ideas, just don't expect blind faith. Obviously though, if someone is combative and dismissive, then they are not open. This is far different than someone who questions.

Not really. " That is not the only reason. Probably the biggest yes, but not the only. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The article touches apon this (not Dawkins, they interview 4 people):

100% correct. Did anyone argue that? Actually, there was studies comparing ivy league to state schools and you are correct. At those schools religious beliefs were much more common than at Harvard. However, that was the point. The studies, while they all could be biased or wrong, aren't "selective" as a whole. Anymore than any statistic study.

I'm not sure your getting what I'm trying to say. Let them be racist all they want. Hell, I won't have it any other way. BUT when they act on their beliefs to hurt others, intentionally or not, they violate their Liberty. Hence all the "their problems" stuff.

Hit youtube, the comment needs context You're in a elite club

You're going to literal with it. He mean your "atheistic" towards other gods. There isn't much to it other than he wants you to remember that. I think he sees it as helping to disarm the argument and make it less personal. After all, if you don't belief in someone else's gods, how offended can you be when someone doesn't believe in yours?

As Dawkins pointed on on his Colbert show appearance, we're all Atheist. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Do you believe in Zeus?

Well, the "tanning easy" part doesn't help with the not burning, it just means your cells don't take damage as easy. I'm the same way.

As Dawkins pointed on on his Colbert show appearance, we're all Atheist.

I'm not sure he disagrees with this, but I don't think he says this in the article. He might argue that the "open mindedness" is due to respecting reason and not having a set of predefined virtues. Also, he isn't advocating war or anything:

The articles author concludes the article by disagreeing with Dawkins and the other people in it. Dawkins is simply stating that if you want to believe in God you are going on pure faith, nothing else. In that regard, he says, it's just as easy to believe if Thor or faeries. As for the intelligence argument, well, you disagreeing doesn't mean you're right. For what it's worth, the author disagrees with Dawkins and doesn't dispute his statement of intelligence here. So one can assume the opinion isn't unjustifiable. It could be wrong, but it's not outright crazy.

He doesn't, Moth didn't read it

Glass ceiling anyone? Not true, my rights extend past that, you just are arguing you wish they didn't. Not upset, just wanted to make sure this point is clear. Yes, modern litigation is meant to stop making their problem my problem and make it their problem again. As it should be. So it's ok for the ignorant to make their beliefs the problems of others? By acting on racism and ignorance you are suppressing their freedom of Liberty. The term "slavery" comes to mind

Never says that, but if you don't want to read the article, sweet. Just don't post. He isn't saying people are idiots for believing, he admits that there is a TINY chance god may exist, but he admits that there is a TINY chance Thor may exist. He makes fun of the argument that you can't "disprove" God

LOL. What an idiot. Atheism: the new inquisition. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> In the US it has widely been studied: STUDIES OF STUDENTS 1. Thomas Howells, 1927 Study of 461 students showed religiously conservative students "are, in general, relatively inferior in intellectual ability." 2. Hilding Carlsojn, 1933 Study of 215 students showed that "there is a tendency for the more intelligent undergraduate to be sympathetic toward

The "Kind" of reason? :D What part of his arguement is not the normal kind of reason?

Dawkins isn't asking you to believe in anything, he's asking you to to use reason. He's not asking you to stone believers either. Just not to coddle them. I Dawkins

Your idea works if a company is openly racist. You can avoid it them. (of course, I'm not in agreement with you here either, but for arguments sake) What happens when it's real but subtle? Sure, you can leave, but what if you're throwing away years of work because of lies? Among other losses. Also, if someone is incapable of overcoming their ignorance, guess what, that's THEIR problem. Defending the ignorant because of their name sake is silly.

Ash Angels!

http://www.wired.com/news/wiredmag/0,71985...ml?tw=rss.index ^read before posting " First page, if you're lazy:

Constant refutation with myself I'm a vicitm of a catch 22 I have no belief But I believe I'm a walking contradiction And I ain't got no right