Er enkelte religiøse grupper intolerante?

[SonicDragon]

jeg synes det er første klasses underholdning at alle prøver å overbevise hverandre om at deres tro er korrekt

[тurbonєℓℓo]

jeg synes det er første klasses underholdning at alle prøver å overbevise hverandre om at deres tro er korrekt

Men nå er det vel snakk om hva som er rasjonelt og irrasjonelt.

Ikke om hvilken "tro" som er "korrekt". =)

[SonicDragon]

Men nå er det vel snakk om hva som er rasjonelt og irrasjonelt.

Ikke om hvilken "tro" som er "korrekt". =)

 

Det var det jeg mente

[jjkoggan]

And how does the relgiousness in people with higher education compare to the rest of the population?

There are a few 10% percent of the American population that does not believe in a personal god.

For academics with an higher education, this number is 60%.

And if you only look at the top elite of scientists in the US 85% does not believe in a personal god.

 

What does this tell you? Let me help: The more educated people become, the less they believe in fairytales.

Actually the data suggests that it is not education that changes perceptions on religion, it is that those who were not raised in a religious environment are attracted to science.

 

It is true that scientists believe less in the existence of God than the general population of the United States. However, the recent study by Ecklund, and Scheitle reveals that the most important factors in belief were related to upbringing and family status, and not area of expertise. The fact that social scientists as well as those in the natural sciences expressed nearly the same disbelief in God suggests that rejection of God's existence is not a result of knowledge in any particular area of expertise. It is likely that those who have rejected religious morality (i.e., those who were cohabiting) wanted to justify their behavior by saying that there was very little truth in any religion.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/why_are_scientists_atheists.html

 

 

 

Firstly, beleif in a higher beeing, moves the responsibility for your action sup one level. Your bad moral is not YOUR fault, it is your gods. You are doing gods work. "He told me to!"

 

Secondly, lack of belief is just as much a belief as baldness is a hair color.

I have never said i belive there is no god, i just dont belive there is one

Believing in the existence of a supernatural god does not necessarily mean anything other than that. It does not imply anything else necessarily other than one may believe in its existence. Many religions believe different things about what their god is like etc.. but one can simply belive that a god exists and nothing more.

 

One can also believe that the supernatural does not exist and never think or care about why. In that case there is no belief system involved. These atheists are rare indeed! As soon as someone begins to think about why there is no god and attempts to justify this assertion it becomes a belief system in which theistic questions are answered with alternative solutions, usually that only science has or will answer theistic questions.

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

Say what? Have you read any history at all? Not to mention he dark ages the entire middle east conflict is between two large religious groups, Jews, and muslims. Tou also have 9/11 terrorism, war in Lebanon and Bosnia, and the list goes on and on

The core reasons for most so called religious battles are and have been more about resources, power, influence and tribalism than religion. Religion is just a catalyst, an excuse. Were the Israelis actually muslims, there would still be great conflict between their muslim brothers and themselves.

 

 

Religion and Communism have never been god friends. Marx stated this pretty clearly: "The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness." And Marxism/Communism/Leninism is as i said, politics, not atheism.

 

Atheism is a component of communism, it is a belief that religion is evil and conflicts with communism and therefore needs to be purged. THis belief led to mass murders and persecution. If the ideology of communism did not believe everyone should be atheist the murders would not have happened simply because one professed their faith.

 

 

.

 

 

 

Replace few with, none. There have never been, and will never be violence wehre atheism is the trigger factor. This is simply because atheims, is "nothing" and cant trigger anything

Belief that religion is evil will and has led some to commit violence. As you say, all atheists believe religion is evil.

 

 

That is not, and have never been the point. Profiling can, and should e used to work more effectivly agianst crime. Young ethnic norwegian males are over represented in traffic crime, focus the preventive work on them. Immigrants are over represented in assault rape, focus on them if you want to prevent it. Similar statistics can be collected on many types of crimes, and the work can be alot more effective.

If you want to reduce crime more effectively, you target the group that committs the most crime, not as a percentage, but in absolute terms. Ethnic norwegians committ more crimes in all areas except one and a 5% reduction in ethnic norwegian crime would have a much larger effect than a 5% reduction in immigrant crime since over 80% of crimes are committed by ethnic norwegians.

[jjkoggan]

Men nå er det vel snakk om hva som er rasjonelt og irrasjonelt.

Ikke om hvilken "tro" som er "korrekt". =)

It's only irrational based on what we know today. Science may someday reveal a supernatural god and become rational tomorrow. Einstein expected and discovered elegant and ordered answers to the laws of nature making it not too unreasonable even on a scientific basis to posit that a powerful supernatural force created the laws of nature.

[RWS]

It's only irrational based on what we know today. Science may someday reveal a supernatural god and become rational tomorrow.

So? We can only know what we know and respond to that, but it do not give us any gods, or means to belive in them... in front of that discovery we MIGHT have in the future...

 

 

Einstein expected and discovered elegant and ordered answers to the laws of nature making it not too unreasonable even on a scientific basis to posit that a powerful supernatural force created the laws of nature.

And he can't be wrong? Or is it just a argument of autority, "He was so smart and he believed in gods and so ought you to do too, dumbass!", sort of way...

[Zepticon]

Actually the data suggests that it is not education that changes perceptions on religion, it is that those who were not raised in a religious environment are attracted to science.

I would like to see this research.

 

It is true that scientists believe less in the existence of God than the general population of the United States. However, the recent study by Ecklund, and Scheitle reveals that the most important factors in belief were related to upbringing and family status, and not area of expertise.

This is a powerfull argument against god. If god was real, then there would be a universal understanding amongst all the believers about that god. The same information would have been given to everyone. But the fact that your biggest influence on your religion, is where in the world you live, is a major argumenst against any god.

 

The fact that social scientists as well as those in the natural sciences expressed nearly the same disbelief in God suggests that rejection of God's existence is not a result of knowledge in any particular area of expertise. It is likely that those who have rejected religious morality (i.e., those who were cohabiting) wanted to justify their behavior by saying that there was very little truth in any religion.

http://www.godandsci...s_atheists.html

It is not a result in a general area of expertise, and i have never said so. It is a result of education. This researchers have a mind for facts, and if you ask for facts, god does not come out on top.

 

Believing in the existence of a supernatural god does not necessarily mean anything other than that. It does not imply anything else necessarily other than one may believe in its existence. Many religions believe different things about what their god is like etc.. but one can simply belive that a god exists and nothing more.

It means alot. For instance, it means that you are able to belive things without a shred of evidence. It also means you are not able to reason well, adn that you are bad at critical thinking. It is also often a sign of intellectual dishonesty and ignorance.

 

Science even tells us why we are so prone to believe in god. Explains how our minds work, and why this let us fabricate gods to believe in.

 

 

One can also believe that the supernatural does not exist and never think or care about why. In that case there is no belief system involved. These atheists are rare indeed! As soon as someone begins to think about why there is no god and attempts to justify this assertion it becomes a belief system in which theistic questions are answered with alternative solutions, usually that only science has or will answer theistic questions.

 

Did you not read what i posted at all. Not believing is god is NOT a belief. In the same way as baldness is NOT a hair color. A few atheists belive that there is no god, but that is not the truth for most of us. And that is also the most use fallacy used by religious people to argument that atheist are no god.

 

Atheism does not state anything about what you belive, it just states that you DONT belive in a god. If you believe god does not exist, that is something different entierly, and is called anti-theist, or gnostic atheist.

Most atheist are agnostic atheists, saying i dont believe, but i am not sure.

 

You say that god exists, i say "I hear you say that, but i am not convinced, and here is why". I can argument against your statement, wihtout having to hold the oposite true.

 

The core reasons for most so called religious battles are and have been more about resources, power, influence and tribalism than religion. Religion is just a catalyst, an excuse. Were the Israelis actually muslims, there would still be great conflict between their muslim brothers and themselves.

And why would it be that? I dont see Egypt or pakistan attacking Saudi for oil. but i see Israel and Muslims fighitng over "the promised land" a land whos only purpose is religious.

 

Atheism is a component of communism, it is a belief that religion is evil and conflicts with communism and therefore needs to be purged. THis belief led to mass murders and persecution. If the ideology of communism did not believe everyone should be atheist the murders would not have happened simply because one professed their faith.

Atheis is not a belief that religion is evil. It is no belief in a god. And nothing more. Nothing. That is the definition of the word. a-theism. Theism is belief in god, a-theism is no belief in god. It does not say anything about what you think of religion. Anti-religion is a part of communism, and that means they have to be atheists. But atheism was never a triggering factor, communism and anti-religion was.

 

Belief that religion is evil will and has led some to commit violence. As you say, all atheists believe religion is evil.

I never said that. And claiming that i do, is at best a straw man. I said many ahtiests find religion to be a bad thing.

 

 

If you want to reduce crime more effectively, you target the group that committs the most crime, not as a percentage, but in absolute terms.

No you dont, you target the group where you will have the best effect.

If 2% of the population comitt 40% of the crime, and the other 98% comitt 60% of the crimes, the most effective way to spend your limited resources is to focus on those 2%

 

Ethnic norwegians committ more crimes in all areas except one and a 5% reduction in ethnic norwegian crime would have a much larger effect than a 5% reduction in immigrant crime since over 80% of crimes are committed by ethnic norwegians.

 

Of course, but the way you formulate your statement is directly to favor your opinion, and has several big flaws. First you say that a 5% reduction in crime is more effective in a big population goes without saying. Your problem is that you dont factor in the cost of this. 5% of the ethnic norwegian population is 250 000 people, while 5% of the immigrants are 12 000 people.

 

You also aim at keeping the 5% as the benchmark, and like i said, it is a major flaw since there are 20 times as much people in one, than in the other population.

 

The variable we should meassure from is money spendt. We have x milion kr, and need to spend them in the most effective way. This means that if we have a larg group, who does most of the crimes, and one small group who does less crime, we need to look at crime/person.

 

Let me show you how it works in real life:

 

Lets say we have a population of 10 000 people, and 1000 crimes comitted. We have 1 000 000kr to spend on crime preventing work. Every person we work with costs in total 1000kr, and this makes him a non criminal if he was a criminal. This means we can in total talk to 1000 potential criminals.

• Group A, consists of 90% of the people, and does 80% of the crime. This means 800/9000 is 0,088 crimes pers person, or that every 11,25 person is a criminal.
  
• Group B is the last 10% of the people, and they do 20% of the crime. This means 200/1000 is 0,200 crimes pers person, meaning every 5th person is a criminal.
  

• If we spend all our money in group A, and talk to 1000 people, we will prevent in total 1000/11,25=89 crimes.
  
• If we spend all our money in group B, and talk to 1000 people, we will prevent in total 1000/5=200 crimes.
  

 

So, focusing on group A, reduce the total crimes from 1000, to 911, a redction of 8,9%.

Focusing on group B, prevents 200 crimes, a reduction of 20%.

 

This shows that even with Group A comitting most of the crimes, focusing on the smaller group with higher crime rate, will give you the most effect, because you get a bigger crime reduction per money spendt.

[тurbonєℓℓo]

Det var det jeg mente

[тurbonєℓℓo]

It's only irrational based on what we know today.

No. It isn't only irrational based on what we can know today... It have always been irrational.

And will always be. It isn't any rational about it...

 

I want you to look at this American philosopher, he is one of my favorite philosophers out there:

http://youtu.be/Yzbt6QY6NuY

http://youtu.be/G8YC30DbIh8

http://youtu.be/viM4cKQkADY

 

Science may someday reveal a supernatural god and become rational tomorrow.

If it exist, Yes... But it is not rational to believe in a such God... It is very unlikely that science would reveal a supernatural God.

And if it does, It is very unlikely that this God is the Christian-Jewish God (...)

 

A supernatural explanation, isn't any explanation at all..

 

Einstein expected and discovered elegant and ordered answers to the laws of nature making it not too unreasonable even on a scientific basis to posit that a powerful supernatural force created the laws of nature.

But why would a God create the rules? What is the point? What is this God? How did he make the laws of nature? Why should we believe in a God, and why should we link this God to the God of the Jews, Christians and Muslims? Why? ...

It could be Osiris, the God of the Egyptians.

It could be Zevs (...)

 

The bible have borrowed from older religions, and inserted their dogmas (and their own) into the writings you can se in the bible (it is a mixture of their own thoughts and ideas of other mythologies).

 

The same are true for the Old Testament. It is full of myths from older religions, that had other gods and such. In the bible it is not only one God either, but later translators translated all the different names of the gods, with "God", and did make different meanings to the names, so that it would seem like it was same God throughout the whole bible (described as "the names of God").

 

But that isn't true...

 

There was many Gods (in the heads of the believers) at this time, that people believed in. Not only one. The monotheistic view came later. That was a later invention.

 

To believe that this later invention is the true God, IS extremely irrational!

Endret 4. juni 2013 av turbonello

[jjkoggan]

 

I would like to see this research.

 

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.1525/sp.2007.54.2.289?uid=2460338175&uid=2460337855&uid=3739256&uid=2&uid=4&uid=83&uid=63&sid=21102282694491

 

The best predictor of a scientist's religious perspective was upbringing, according to the study. It appears that religious beliefs were not a result of education as you suggest, but their relationship with religion before they became educated was more influential. One can also infer that those with little religious upbringing are attracted to science, not so much that science and education altered their view of religion

 

This is a powerfull argument against god. If god was real, then there would be a universal understanding amongst all the believers about that god. The same information would have been given to everyone. But the fact that your biggest influence on your religion, is where in the world you live, is a major argumenst against any god.

You presuppose that a god would have the same plan for everyone and that we who live in the mortal world could discern the motives of a being who is all knowing and all powerful. Our brains lack this capacity

 

It is not a result in a general area of expertise, and i have never said so. It is a result of education. This researchers have a mind for facts, and if you ask for facts, god does not come out on top.

The study shown above refutes your claim

 

It means alot. For instance, it means that you are able to belive things without a shred of evidence. It also means you are not able to reason well, adn that you are bad at critical thinking. It is also often a sign of intellectual dishonesty and ignorance.

Believing that an all knowing all powerful god could construct the world we live in is not irrational or show lack of critical thinking Science may not be able to prove it or disprove it, but there is no break of logic to suspect it may be true

 

Science even tells us why we are so prone to believe in god. Explains how our minds work, and why this let us fabricate gods to believe in.

. Science cannot disprove it either or know whether biochemical changes in our brains are initiated by a predetermined plan

[тurbonєℓℓo]

Believing that an all knowing all powerful god could construct the world we live in is not irrational or show lack of critical thinking Science may not be able to prove it or disprove it, but there is no break of logic to suspect it may be true

What is it that is rational about that?

What do you mean by "God" ? What does it mean to be "all powerfull" ?

If you look at the world, it does not look like it have been created by a supernatural being. We do not need a God to explain how life came to be (...) And it surly is a break of logic to suspect that would be true.

 

Read about the omnipotence paradox:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox

[тurbonєℓℓo]

When it comes to proving or disproving a God; It is obvious that it isn't possible to prove or disprove a negative.

 

Read about Russell's teapot:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

[Zepticon]

Science cannot disprove it either or know whether biochemical changes in our brains are initiated by a predetermined plan

 

And here is the basis where you are so so wrong. That something can not be disproven, does not make it right. It is impossible to disprove something that does not exists.

 

You make a statement: "There is a God". Then YOU must prove it RIGHT. The burden of proof is on you.

[jjkoggan]

 

 

And here is the basis where you are so so wrong. That something can not be disproven, does not make it right. It is impossible to disprove something that does not exists.

 

You make a statement: "There is a God". Then YOU must prove it RIGHT. The burden of proof is on you.

 

I have never asserted that I could prove it nor do I care that I can't prove it. It is you who desperately wants to disprove it and discredit those that are believers, which include highly educated, well informed people. To claim or intimate that only ignorant fools are believers ignores provable facts We have only scratched the surface of understanding life and the universe, to think that only idiots ponder the possibility of larger forces at work that we cannot comprehend seems pretty ignorant itself

[jjkoggan]

When it comes to proving or disproving a God; It is obvious that it isn't possible to prove or disprove a negative.

 

Read about Russell's teapot:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

Of course, and never have I said otherwise. Ian not trying to prove a positive either

[Zepticon]

I have never asserted that I could prove it nor do I care that I can't prove it.

So you believe in things that can not be proven. Do you believe in unicorns, pixies and elves?

 

It is you who desperately wants to disprove it and discredit those that are believers,

Because their belief affects me in a negative way. If they sat at home and didnt care to talk about it, or show of their religion to anyone, then nobody would bother them.

 

which include highly educated, well informed people.

Statistics says otherwise. And it is also an appeal to authority argument, and thus invalid.

 

To claim or intimate that only ignorant fools are believers ignores provable facts.

Believing things that cant be proven are both ignorant and foolish.

 

We have only scratched the surface of understanding life and the universe, to think that only idiots ponder the possibility of larger forces at work that we cannot comprehend seems pretty ignorant itself

That is 100% correct, and yet, 2000 years ago, people with only a tiny miniscule fraction of our knowledge, claimed there was a "god" ruling and creating.

 

The idea of god came to humans in a time where humans where incredible uneducated. And as we have come to know more about the universe, the god idea is more and more challenged.

 

2000 years ago, we believed in god, and we had not even found the surface of understanding life. Today, 2000 years later, we have only scratched it, and most claims about god in the bible have been disproven, and god is reduced to a silent watcher by the believers.

 

God is nothing more a god of the gaps, and religious people will still continue to fill the holes left by science, with god, and sceince will continue to disprove every statement made, as it has for the last 2000 years.

[jjkoggan]

So you believe in things that can not be proven. Do you believe in unicorns, pixies and elves?

 

I get paid to believe in things that are currently unproven. Many of my scientific ideas are currently unprovable but they are not considered insane or ridiculous because they are currently unprovable. Einstein was a great scientist because he conceived of the unimaginable, and was lucky enough to have many of his ideas proven. Otherwise you would likely consider him ignorant and foolish as did many at the time.

 

Taking some provable facts- E=MC² (elegant and well ordered) and forming a hypothesis that this elegance and order could be a result of supernatural forces is neither ignorant nor foolish.

 

 

 

Statistics says otherwise. And it is also an appeal to authority argument, and thus invalid.

No, statistics support my thesis- many intellgent, well educated people support the idea of a supernatural god. It is therefore not an appeal to authority for this thesis.

 

We saw from the Ecklund study that the greatest predictor of supporting religion was exposure to religion before being fully educated, not the reverse. The fact that there are more athiests in higher education does not negate the fact that there are still many who do.

 

 

Believing things that cant be proven are both ignorant and foolish

The greatest minds often thought things considered ignorant and foolish before they were proven. In fact, this is most often the case with big breakthroughs. One cannot today say with absolute certainty that believing in a god will never be proven.

 

 

That is 100% correct, and yet, 2000 years ago, people with only a tiny miniscule fraction of our knowledge, claimed there was a "god" ruling and creating.

 

The idea of god came to humans in a time where humans where incredible uneducated. And as we have come to know more about the universe, the god idea is more and more challenged.

 

2000 years ago, we believed in god, and we had not even found the surface of understanding life. Today, 2000 years later, we have only scratched it, and most claims about god in the bible have been disproven, and god is reduced to a silent watcher by the believers.

 

God is nothing more a god of the gaps, and religious people will still continue to fill the holes left by science, with god, and sceince will continue to disprove every statement made, as it has for the last 2000 years.

 

I agree, most literal interpretations of events described in the bible have been disproven. The idea of a supernatural god has not though and I am not sure that we are capable of understanding this with our limited intelligence if we only rely on logic and limit ourselves to only accepting what we can prove.

 

Science, though supports the notion that the laws of nature appear to be elegant and well ordered, not so random. I agree with Einstein that it is as if wondrous powers have set up a system in motion that transcends time and space. THis notion is not ignorant or foolish but is an extension of provable facts, just unprovable at this time.

[jjkoggan]

What is it that is rational about that?

What do you mean by "God" ? What does it mean to be "all powerfull" ?

If you look at the world, it does not look like it have been created by a supernatural being. We do not need a God to explain how life came to be (...) And it surly is a break of logic to suspect that would be true.

 

 

 

You take a very narrow view that reality is as we see it, that other dimensions, other tremendously different perspectives (do we live in a gigantic fish bowl?) are impossible. I see possiblities, other reasons for our existence and limitations in our knowledge that don't give us tools to understand. This I believe because it seems very limiting to think that we are put on this earth by a random series of events, especially when some fundamental laws of nature don't appear very random. I feel as Einstein said- that some atheists still feel the shackles and miss the wonderment by limiting themselves to only what we know and not exploring and imagining what we don't know.

[jjkoggan]

Let me show you how it works in real life:

 

 

 

Here's the way it works in real life: (thought I would use your condescending tone), and yes, I do understand basic 5th grade math.

 

 

Law enforcement officers stopped Black, Latino, and American Indian drivers at greater rates

 

than White drivers, searched Blacks, Latinos, and American Indians at greater rates than White

 

drivers, and found contraband as a result of searches of Blacks, Latinos, and American Indians at

 

lower rates than in searches of White drivers. Conversely, law enforcement officers stopped and

 

searched White drivers at lower rates than drivers of color and found contraband in searches of

 

White drivers at a greater rate than in searches of drivers of color.

 

http://www.law.umn.edu/uploads/cb/94/cb94cf65dc50826424729d214a1f6b82/27-Racial-Profiling-Aggregate-Report.pdf

 

 

In other words, racial profiling was ineffective as a tool. They pulled more minority drivers over and found fewer problems with them than they did when they pulled white drivers over, which they pulled over at much lower rates. This is likely a function of the fact that most people are law abiding and the differences in criminal rates between majority and minority races is not significant enough to justify random searches by race alone. It is a waste of time. I suspect that there was more probable cause from good police work when pulling over whites than "fishing expeditions" with minorities.

Endret 5. juni 2013 av jjkoggan

[Zepticon]

Here's the way it works in real life: (thought I would use your condescending tone), and yes, I do understand basic 5th grade math.

 

 

Law enforcement officers stopped Black, Latino, and American Indian drivers at greater rates

 

than White drivers, searched Blacks, Latinos, and American Indians at greater rates than White

 

drivers, and found contraband as a result of searches of Blacks, Latinos, and American Indians at

 

lower rates than in searches of White drivers. Conversely, law enforcement officers stopped and

 

searched White drivers at lower rates than drivers of color and found contraband in searches of

 

White drivers at a greater rate than in searches of drivers of color.

 

http://www.law.umn.e...gate-Report.pdf

 

 

In other words, racial profiling was ineffective as a tool. They pulled more minority drivers over and found fewer problems with them than they did when they pulled white drivers over, which they pulled over at much lower rates. This is likely a function of the fact that most people are law abiding and the differences in criminal rates between majority and minority races is not significant enough to justify random searches by race alone. It is a waste of time. I suspect that there was more probable cause from good police work when pulling over whites than "fishing expeditions" with minorities.

 

And your point is?

 

My point is NOT to pull over more imigrants, but to focus on the group with the highest criminal rates. In the example you are making they should pull over more white drivers, since the white drivers had a higher crime rate.

 

Also, profiling should not be done unless there is a clear statistical difference in the two groups.