ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, December 23, 2017

Genetically inferior

More scientific evidence in support of my original hypothesis that atheism is a form of mental abnormality that results in spiritual insensitivity is accumulating:
Left-handed people are more likely to be atheists, a study has found, as it says belief is passed on genetically.  The study suggests that religious people have fewer genetic mutations and are therefore less likely to be left handed or have conditions such as autism or schizophrenia.

British academic Edward Dutton, a professor at Oulu University, Finland, said that in pre-industrial times religiosity was passed on like other genetic attributes because it was associated with greater stability, mental health and better social behaviour. But modern science means many people who would not previously have survived are making it to adulthood and reproducing - leading to a greater incidence of atheism.

Lack of belief in God is connected to genetic mutations which cause attributes such as left-handedness or autism, the paper argues.
This would also put Bruce Charlton's Mouse Utopia observations into context, as atheism appears to be one aspect of the nihilistic despair that is a consequence of the increased prevalence of genetic inferiority that results from easier circumstances.

Labels: ,

228 Comments:

1 – 200 of 228 Newer› Newest»
Anonymous The Other Donald December 23, 2017 11:41 AM  

I have noticed that many homosexuals are left handed; both ones I know, and ones I don't know (like Barack Obama for example). Very curious.

Blogger haus frau December 23, 2017 11:49 AM  

"that atheism is a form of mental abnormality that results in spiritual insensitivity"

I had a friendly acquaintance a few years ago who was an adamant atheist. She was in her late 60's or early 70's and I met her while working on Ron Paul's election bid. Her biological fathered denied paternity and demanded an annulment from her mother as a condition of giving her a divorce. Neither she nor her half sister ever had children (two abortions but no live children). One day we were talking about historical reenactments and she went off on how she just couldn't see the point in all the make believe. She told me that as a young child she had been playing make-believe dress up with her friends but then just realized like an epiphany that none of it was real and never played dress up after that again because it all seemed so entirely pointless. I found this striking. I have no doubt that the resident atheists will interpret this as an act of superiority but it certainly didn't appear to make her happier. There was an ability to connect with people that was missing. Now I know this is an anecdote but all the common elements are there as VD has listed before.

Anonymous vfm December 23, 2017 11:56 AM  

"But modern science means many people who would not previously have survived are making it to adulthood and reproducing - leading to a greater incidence of atheism."

That selfsame scientific achievement started and developed by Christian scientists has inadvertently spawned an atheist crop, Christian scientists will have to isolate and destroy the atheist gene.

Blogger pyrrhus December 23, 2017 12:00 PM  

I have long noticed a correlation between sperginess and atheism, general lack of spirituality, and lack of imagination in people I know. One can but sympathize with these poor benighted folks..The Mouse Utopia theory of cumulative mutation load, put forth by Charlton and Michael Woodley of Menie, is obviously right. It accounts for many other phenomena, such as the greater life expectancy of intelligent people, and of attractive (therefore symmetrical) people.

Blogger pyrrhus December 23, 2017 12:02 PM  

I forgot to mention that there is considerable evidence that intelligence reflects a lower than normal mutation load.

Anonymous S.J., Esquire December 23, 2017 12:04 PM  

Charlton's "mouse utopia" theory is something everyone should be familiar with, and I tie all of this in with a perennial favourite question of mine, which goes something like this:

In our present society, *today* (we lack firm data for previous eras), intelligence correlates with irreligion. But, intelligence also correlates with "future time orientation" - viz., the ability to foresee consequences and plan for the future generally.

So, if intelligence correlates with future time-orientation, why does it also correlate with lack of religious faith? In other words, why are people who are *better* able to plan for the future simultaneously *less* likely to plan for the most important event of all, which is the question of what happens to a person after he dies?

It's not as easy of a question to answer as it might seem at first glance, and I suppose I say that because I personally have an extremely high future time-orientation, so I know what it's like to be a person who plans and ruminates over every eventuality, ten, twenty, thirty years down the road. It baffles me why other intelligent people would fail to plan for Death, and I don't think the answer is as simple as the usual reasons why intelligent people are irreligious (e.g. they're more materially successful, don't "need" God as much, etc., etc.). I'm certain that there's something here related to genes and our modern environment, but I haven't puzzled it out.

Blogger Shimshon December 23, 2017 12:08 PM  

Interesting. I believe the minyan I attend on the Sabbath has a majority of southpaws, including me. But being a "Yekke" minyan (following the old Ashkenazi German liturgy) we are very atypical and not mainstream at all. There are some autistic tendencies on display (not by me of course; perish the thought).

Blogger Michael Maier December 23, 2017 12:10 PM  

Vox, between this and the brain tendencies of SJWs you mentioned (used to / addicted to brain pain), you are REALLY not helping my spirits stay positive this season.

But God bless you and yours anyway.

Blogger L' Aristokrato December 23, 2017 12:12 PM  

Spiritual colorblindness.

Blogger Michael Maier December 23, 2017 12:16 PM  

In the hopes of giving hope, I will say I felt spiritually-colourblind for 35 years. I still see dimly, I suppose.

But swallow your pride and knock on God's door anyway. He will answer.

Merry Christmas, everyone.

Blogger JohnR219 December 23, 2017 12:20 PM  

Left-handed Christian here...I always knew I was a secret king....kneel peasants...

Blogger pyrrhus December 23, 2017 12:28 PM  

Come to think of it, having seen a picture of the land whale who canceled Trump's Twitter account, I suspect that gross obesity would be another signal of defective genes and lack of spirituality. You could probably throw in the fact that, in my experience, most atheists (especially female) having very attenuated senses of humor.

Anonymous Looking Glass December 23, 2017 12:29 PM  

@3 vfm

Did I hear someone call for some helicopters?

Merry Christmas, all!


@6 S.J., Esquire

IQ is variant with general health until about 115 IQ, I believe it was. The issue isn't too hard to explain after that, though it takes understanding that the Mind has multiple axis on which is operates. (A lot more than people realize.) Those axes have to be generally aligned or you end up with over-utilization along certain functions. Thus, Autistic tendencies.

So it's not the generally more intelligent that have the issue. It's a range within the top ~10% or so that are much more likely to have the problem. However, since they tend to rise to the top in "smart people spaces", you hear about it a lot more. It's a high visibility vs reality issue.

Blogger Metric December 23, 2017 12:31 PM  

It's totally plausible there is a genetic predisposition to being a worshiper, for social reasons linked to survival in the distant past, much like there was an advantage in having unquestioned loyalty to the local strong-man. Neither are traits I'm proud of, in humanity. In fact, I don't see many Christians bragging about their extreme, innate need to worship something, either.

Blogger Cubby8126 December 23, 2017 12:33 PM  

I was never particularly into religion due to the qay my parents raised me. Othet than a few times as a kid I never really went to church. Recently, since early this year,i have periodically dug into bits about religion and things revolvinf around god. He is fascinating, as is the history of religion. If nothing else god is something to endlessly research for fun.the more i look into him the more i thinj He is the greatest father imaginable. May his blessings be upon all of you, Merry Christmas everyone.

Anonymous Looking Glass December 23, 2017 12:34 PM  

@12 pyrrhus

The eating is self-medication, yes, but it's also a sign of general health issues. You eat to get energy, and if you lack energy to repair or overcome some issue, you keep eating. And eating.

Most people with a lot of problems have a broken physiology. Lost in the current age among Christians is that fasting is a physically beneficial activity. It really helps.

Related to that, Depression is a neuro-protective state the body goes into. It's not a failure of the person, it's actually the body defending itself, however it causes a large dysfunction in the normal activities of life. That's why we respond to it the way we do.

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein December 23, 2017 12:35 PM  

S.J., Esquire wrote:Charlton's "mouse utopia" theory is something everyone should be familiar with, and I tie all of this in with a perennial favourite question of mine, which goes something like this:

In our present society, *today* (we lack firm data for previous eras), intelligence correlates with irreligion. But, intelligence also correlates with "future time orientation" - viz., the ability to foresee consequences and plan for the future generally.

So, if intelligence correlates with future time-orientation, why does it also correlate with lack of religious faith? In other words, why are people who are *better* able to plan for the future simultaneously *less* likely to plan for the most important event of all, which is the question of what happens to a person after he dies?




Because to atheists "What happens after you die?" is not even a valid question, much less an important one.

To put it another way: Religious people "know" that *something* will happen after death. Agnostics [Yours Truly] don't know for sure either way and Athiests "know" that nothing happens.

Anonymous Looking Glass December 23, 2017 12:45 PM  

@17 TontoBubbaGoldstein

Atheists have an amazing amount of Faith in something they have no ability to actually Know. It's part of the reason people instinctively have issues with them.

Blogger Felix Bellator December 23, 2017 12:45 PM  

"These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God." - Genesis 6:9

Hmmmm, mutations can be caused by disease organisms. Maybe Stephenson's bits in Snow Crash about religion having a factor in avoiding temple prostitutes and such for purity is a bit more plausible? We know viruses can effect behavioral change, syphilitics have increased libidos, so what other behavior abnormalities might be viral or viral-genetic? The sins of the father literally visited about the sons because of the father's bad decisions.

@14 Metric - "In fact, I don't see many Christians bragging about their extreme, innate need to worship something, either."

Why would we brag on our design in particular other than to praise the Creator? Even the American Philosopher, Bob Dylan, recognized that you gotta serve somebody.

Anonymous Grunkle December 23, 2017 12:49 PM  

My only issue with the idea that atheism arise from a genetic sensory deficiency is, why did Jesus and Paul talk so much about faith?

Anonymous Albionic American December 23, 2017 12:51 PM  

Christianity still makes no sense and solves no problems. What keeps Vox from rebelling against God when he goes to heaven? What keeps C.S. Lewis from rebelling and becoming another Screwtape?

Christians don't want to answer these questions because they have no real explanation for why Satan could rebel, nor what keeps this from happening again and again.

Anonymous Brick Hardslab December 23, 2017 12:56 PM  

Vox, is there another cruelty artist award you're vying for? The title of this post is grand master level artistry.

Blogger Matt Davis December 23, 2017 12:58 PM  

Albionic American wrote:Christianity still makes no sense and solves no problems. What keeps Vox from rebelling against God when he goes to heaven? What keeps C.S. Lewis from rebelling and becoming another Screwtape?

Christians don't want to answer these questions because they have no real explanation for why Satan could rebel, nor what keeps this from happening again and again.


It solves a lot of problems.

Blogger Not a lefty December 23, 2017 12:58 PM  

Aaaaaannnnnddd in related news...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3119063/Can-scientists-spot-pedophile-Study-claims-likely-physical-deformities-left-handed.html

Anonymous DeplorableCodeMonkey December 23, 2017 1:00 PM  

Atheists have an amazing amount of Faith in something they have no ability to actually Know. It's part of the reason people instinctively have issues with them.

They instinctively despise atheists because they're defectives who brag about kicking crutches out from under people they call emotional cripples. Then, ironically, many of them will (without any sense of irony) call for safe spaces and trigger warnings lest some person who is a random sampling of the DSM feel triggered.

Anonymous David of One December 23, 2017 1:03 PM  

As for me ... I'm none to quick to play into self-identity thinking like "I was born this way", "We are the X-Men", "We are the evolution of Man" ...

T'would seem to challenge "free-will", individual responsibility and encourage perverted self-declared identity politics.

Blogger Admiral James December 23, 2017 1:07 PM  

Lol
Ditto!

Blogger Felix Bellator December 23, 2017 1:08 PM  

@21 Albionic American - "Christianity still makes no sense and solves no problems."

Okay, will you please name twelve alcoholics who were turned around and saved by the saving power of atheism? Will you please name twelve thieves who were turned around and saved by the saving power of atheism?

Blogger Nate73 December 23, 2017 1:08 PM  

As far as genetics go, I'm not sure what to make of many religions that prioritize monogamy, because there is some evidence that polygamy (or at least serial monogamy) is genetically advantageous. This is due to a study(*) in beetles which showed male competition for mates improved genetic health by allowing only the fittest males to pass on their genes. In essence the purpose of males and females in nature seems to be for one group (females) to select for the best genes from a second group (males), whether that selection is explicitly done by female choice or else implicitly through male-on-male violence. This keep populations healthy and from perishing due to in-breeding. It's not hard to make the leap that polygamy could be a good thing in some circumstances despite its drawbacks.

When did Christendom in particular settle on the idea that only lifelong monogamy is acceptable?

(*)https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150518111547.htm

Blogger Admiral James December 23, 2017 1:09 PM  

Wow
That is deep
Well said

Anonymous Didas Kalos December 23, 2017 1:13 PM  

Albionic A.: Try to actually read the Bible, Christianity's handbook and get a basic understanding before letting everyone know you are clueless. As an above poster wrote, Knock in God's door, he will answer if you are honest.

Blogger Felix Bellator December 23, 2017 1:14 PM  

@29 Nate73 - "When did Christendom in particular settle on the idea that only lifelong monogamy is acceptable?"

Christendom did not settle on this, God did, from the beginning.

Anonymous BBGKB December 23, 2017 1:15 PM  

What about people who are ambidextrous?

Anonymous Just another commenter December 23, 2017 1:19 PM  

@29 - While not the only reason, it highly motivates maximum productivity by all males in an attempt to attract / support a mate.

Anonymous a deplorable rubberducky December 23, 2017 1:20 PM  

Well the Romans were onto this. The Latin word for left hand is "sinister", as opposed to the right hand which was "dexter". Old Romans used to even practice infanticide upon their left-handed babies, just in case. That's food for thought when firing up the next Inquisition.

Anonymous Cassie December 23, 2017 1:21 PM  

Re: Albionic American

Your complaint is nonsensical. You might as well whine that a 747 passenger guide doesn't tell you what to do if the pilot has to make an emergency landing on the Moon.

Christians have, in fact, considered that exact question. If you were really interested, you would have found the answers already, or are you too dim to Google it?

Blogger S1AL December 23, 2017 1:22 PM  

"When did Christendom in particular settle on the idea that only lifelong monogamy is acceptable?"

It didn't. Polygamy is not strictly forbidden, but rather forbidden by Christian tradition (little t). There are circumstances that have arisen in various Christian areas that have led to the temporary reinstatement of polygamy.

Anonymous Free bird December 23, 2017 1:23 PM  

However, the need for faith to describe the unknown isn’t nearly as necessary today since truth and knowledge via science has replaced the need for magical explanations.

Blogger S1AL December 23, 2017 1:24 PM  

That said, the generally eucivic practicalities of monogamy have been demonstrated empirically and rationally. It's not as if this question hasn't been considered before.

Blogger S1AL December 23, 2017 1:25 PM  

"However, the need for faith to describe the unknown isn’t nearly as necessary today since truth and knowledge via science has replaced the need for magical explanations."

You are mistaking mysticism for faith. Faith is practiced belief. Everyone has faith in something.

Blogger Steampunk Koala December 23, 2017 1:37 PM  

Michael Maier wrote:Vox, between this and the brain tendencies of SJWs you mentioned (used to / addicted to brain pain), you are REALLY not helping my spirits stay positive this season.

But God bless you and yours anyway.


For me it's helped give a mechanism to the problems I have in dealing with people. I am left-handed, and although I managed to make my way from agnostic/atheist to Christian on my own (it's amazing how good a tool science can be for finding error when you don't worship it), I have always struggled with people. Findings like this give me another critical piece of the puzzle in figuring out how to overcome it. If nothing else, rejoice that all these things can be overcome through the Lord.

Albionic American wrote:Christianity still makes no sense and solves no problems. What keeps Vox from rebelling against God when he goes to heaven? What keeps C.S. Lewis from rebelling and becoming another Screwtape?

Christians don't want to answer these questions because they have no real explanation for why Satan could rebel, nor what keeps this from happening again and again.


There are lots of explanations. The trouble you're going to have is that they are all speculation. However, if you are asserting that Christianity solves nothing, something that is objectively false, you will never be satisfied with any explanation for anything to do with what comes after this life.

Anonymous vfm December 23, 2017 1:37 PM  

Noah was "perfect" in his generations. Alot of bible commentators believe this refers to Noah's genetic wholeness which would make sense since sine God at that time was starting over again, goodbye atheists. Oh yeah Mendel, a Christian founded the science of genetics which the atheists will deny of course.

Anonymous JX December 23, 2017 1:39 PM  

Why do so many atheists have (((similar last names)))?

Blogger JohnR219 December 23, 2017 1:40 PM  

@33: Sir, is there no perversion you won't embrace???

Blogger Koanic December 23, 2017 1:40 PM  

> Christendom did not settle on this, God did, from the beginning.

Liar.

Blogger Koanic December 23, 2017 1:42 PM  

The fact that Churchians are interested in banning polygamy but not stoning adulteresses demonstrates that they worship the Goddess, not Jehovah.

Anonymous JT Anderson December 23, 2017 1:45 PM  

@Nate73, This book might have the answer you're looking for:

https://www.amazon.com/After-Polygamy-Was-Made-Sin/dp/0710077300

Haven't read it yet. But looked like one of the more interesting forgotten books of Christendom.

Anonymous Yann December 23, 2017 1:47 PM  

VD, you don't wanna go down that road. Atheism can correlate with higher incidence of mental disorders, but so it does with higher IQ.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence

Anonymous GM December 23, 2017 1:48 PM  

This clearly inspired some heady theological talk. All I know is that I'm left-handed, but I like flush toilets.

Please don't send me back.

Blogger tublecane December 23, 2017 1:50 PM  

Bruce Charlton in his book on political correctness, Thought Prison, talked at one point about how progressives (that's what I'm calling them; I don't remember his terminology) fetishize certain ideals to the detriment of others. For instance, they fetishize Truth over its fellow transcendentals Beauty and the Good. (Their conception of Truth, that is.) The attitude is somewhat like "I must uphold Truth though the heavens may fall," but it usually leads to nothing more than anti-social running around calling everyone else a liar.

More balanced minds might see that they shouldn't pursue Truth, or anything for that matter, exclusively. What does it benefit us, for instance, to have a perfectly honest society if it's ugly?

It hardly needs be said they fail to get at the Truth, anyway. I don't just mean their beliefs are inaccurate. I mean they produce the most dishonest societies ever. See humoring sick people about sexual identity, for instance. Or the charade of representative democracy. Or the impossible god Equality.

Anonymous vfm December 23, 2017 1:51 PM  

Saint Matthew chapter 1 and Saint Luke chapter 3 detail the lineage of Jesus very carefully. God made sure Christ's ancestors were people of faith. No atheists there.

Anonymous Blastmaster December 23, 2017 1:52 PM  

I dont believe that this used to be the case with individuals of higher intelligence. Possibly what changed is the level of Marxist, secular, Darwinian indoctrination imposed upon society's "Leaders" at college. They take the enlightened wisdom post 1960s and spread it through the institutions like a fungus.

Blogger Mom December 23, 2017 1:52 PM  

Christ certainly solved my biggest problem. I was lost, full, of sin, without hope, and going to hell; I asked Jesus to come into my life, repented of my sins, and was born-again. I wouldn't turn away from Him ever because He loves me; he's given me comfort when our baby died, gave me hope when our marriage almost failed, and speaks to my heart daily.
The argument that my husband doesn't exist would be ludicrous because I KNOW him. The fact that YOU don't know him doesn't make him less real.

Anonymous Blastmaster December 23, 2017 1:54 PM  

You was Kangz and sheeet!

Anonymous vfm December 23, 2017 1:57 PM  

It's no surprise that one of the most infernal and nefarious organizations on earth manipulates food via genetic engineering, the atheists favorite company Monsanto.

Anonymous vfm December 23, 2017 2:03 PM  

"VD, you don't wanna go down that road. Atheism can correlate with higher incidence of mental disorders, but so it does with higher IQ."

Lets...


"Euler remained a Christian all of his life and often read to his family from the Bible. One story about his religion during his stay in Russia involved the atheistic philosopher Diderot. Diderot had been invited to the court by Catherine the Great, but then annoyed her by trying to convert everyone to atheism. Catherine asked Euler for help, and he informed Diderot, who was ignorant of mathematics, that he would present in court an algebraic proof of the existence of God, if Diderot wanted to hear it. Diderot was interested, and, according to De Morgan, Euler advanced toward Diderot, and said gravely, and in a tone of perfect conviction: “Sir, (a + bn) / n = x , hence God exists; reply! ” Diderot had no reply, and the court broke into laughter. Diderot immediately returned to France."

Anonymous Dave December 23, 2017 2:05 PM  

I used to ask my mother if Santa Claus was real, and she said, "Santa Claus is a legend." Which totally didn't answer the question -- King Arthur is a legend too, and we still don't know if he really existed.

Finally around age 8-10, I realized I'd been lied to, that Santa was fake, and that God was just Santa for grown-ups.

My wife and our kids are atheist spergs like me, but our seven-year-old son often asks e.g. "Why did God create mice?", "What are people for?", "Does God care if we do X?", questions I never heard from his older siblings. Unless he picked it up in public school, there must be a recessive gene for religious thinking.

I'm a Darwinian, so I'd be very happy if my kids married into e.g. the Quiverfull movement and had lots of Christian babies. Who cares if their doctrine is true, what matters is passing on your genes.

Anonymous Blastmaster December 23, 2017 2:07 PM  

Satan rebelled because he had free will. We, like the angels, are given a choice.

Anonymous vfm December 23, 2017 2:10 PM  

"Nikola Tesla was born in 1856 in Smiljan, Croatia, then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. His father was a priest in the Serbian Orthodox church...

Could do this all day are you sure the atheist tards want to go there?

Blogger Koanic December 23, 2017 2:14 PM  

> Finally around age 8-10, I realized I'd been lied to, that Santa was fake, and that God was just Santa for grown-ups.

The fact that you are descended from liars does little to disprove the Bible's premise of original sin. One might say you've committed two genetic fallacies for the price of one.

Anonymous vfm December 23, 2017 2:15 PM  

Stupid AND damned is no way to go through life.

Anonymous Charlie Baud December 23, 2017 2:30 PM  

"Finally around age 8-10, I realized I'd been lied to, that Santa was fake, and that God was just Santa for grown-ups."

Amazing how so many atheists base their worldview on childhood epiphanies. It's almost as if atheism is based on arrested development.

Anonymous Killua December 23, 2017 2:50 PM  

VD, you don't wanna go down that road. Atheism can correlate with higher incidence of mental disorders, but so it does with higher IQ

It has been discussed many times:

https://voxday.blogspot.de/2014/01/mailvox-distribution-of-atheist.html

The thing is that atheist are such a small proportion of the overall population that "average IQ" is skewed. The term "atheist" includes self described atheist (what Vox calls "high church" atheists) but ignores the dumb guys in jail who don't even think about religion.

In Mensa, theist outnumber atheist by a HUGE margin:

"Atheists are not smart enough for Mensa:"

http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=55654

Anonymous catscradle December 23, 2017 2:54 PM  

I've wondered about this. My entire family are high IQ (I was tested at 135, and I suspect my elder siblings are higher), and all of them except for me are atheists...the women, liberal, the men, libertarian-left-leaning. It seems to be that high IQ is good up to a certain point, but at that point, wherever it may be, it hinders the social and emotional connections necessary to find any meaning.

While one of my elder siblings is basically a small-time Bill Gates, in that he has an established business, lots of actual, legit friends and tons of social connections. He still seems to be missing something, a sort of void in his life. We talked about it once, but he thinks the Bible is just a collection of stories. My elder sister is a completely lost soul and prone to all sorts of weird feminist stuff that requires more suspension of logic than anything in the bible. She's very successful professionally, but completely empty in everything else.

I came to Christ many years ago and have dedicated my life to him, despite having read and been exposed to every atheist argument and author. I am successful, married, "traditional" and happy--with seven kids.

Btw, both my brother and I were ambidextrous growing up, both of us switching to deominant right hand around the age of 10, in both our own personal timelines. We are also all musicians, something else I have found has a high proportion of atheists. I don't get it.

Blogger Steampunk Koala December 23, 2017 2:59 PM  

@Charlie Baud

Made me think of 1 Corinthians 13:11:
"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."

It's also such a ridiculous leap of logic. Having a tradition of wonderment that requires a small amount of deception does not translate to 'everything is a lie'. That's not even shallow thinking, that's swan diving into an empty pool.

Anonymous ZhukovG December 23, 2017 3:25 PM  

I wonder if atheists only seem more intelligent because their minds have fewer processing paths. Like a blind person, whose functioning senses become more powerful, the atheists existing processing paths strengthen in an attempt to compensate for what is missing.

If so, we may have to alter the way in which we as Christians try to reach atheists. Perhaps we have been trying to talk about color to the blind.

Anonymous Rkkr December 23, 2017 3:41 PM  

"as atheism appears to be one aspect of the nihilistic despair that is a consequence of the increased prevalence of genetic inferiority that results from easier circumstances"

What makes this statement interesting, if true, is that it does not really matter. The truth is often times hard to take. But, upon finding it we tend to find ways to cope.

The folks who found the truth about the absurdity of the Christian religion, yet have no other answer for what happened before the Big Bang generally just come to accept that absence of knowledge and find a myriad of ways to assign meaning to their lives and life in general.

Anonymous Looking Glass December 23, 2017 3:50 PM  

@64 catscradle

Huge chunks of your personality is genetic, thus it's a blend of your father & mother. What you're seeing is the results of that and the decision everyone has to make. You come from a family of hard workers, which means you come from lines of hard workers. Certain traits that favor hard work & survival also can end up twisted to being numb to the spiritual life.

But, since choosing to follow, you've also optimized your choices to being far more valuable to everyone around you. 7 well-raised children is far more valuable than pretty much anything your siblings will do.


@63 Killua

If we tracked religious faith up the IQ chart, you're going to see the dip down around the +1 to +2 SD range. The problem with the Midwit is that they don't understand enough about the world to grasp most things, so they can run into problems keeping their hubris in check. The atheist ends up being applying the midwit problem to questions that are far, far beyond them.

@66 ZhukovG

The Blind know they're blind, not that everyone is lying to them about there being this thing called "light". The atheist gets extremely angry at you for even considering that light might exit.

Blogger Tatooine Sharpshooters' Club December 23, 2017 3:54 PM  

"But modern science means many people who would not previously have survived are making it to adulthood and reproducing - leading to a greater incidence of (all sorts of problems)."

This simple, observable fact is one that really sets off the REEEEEE! bomb, even (shockingly!) among the vehemently pro-abortion, I 69 SCIENCE! crowd.

Anonymous Tsalal December 23, 2017 3:55 PM  

@The Other Donald

My gay nephew and transgender niece are both right-handed. Interesting.... I wonder if child rape also re-wires manual nerves. (They were never raped/molested as children as far as we know).

Anonymous Tsalal December 23, 2017 4:04 PM  

@Looking Glass

That makes ENORMOUS amounts of sense. Virtually all people seeking God Christian or Non both say the same thing, FAST regularly, take in nothing but water for at least three days when you do.

Blogger Anchorman December 23, 2017 4:22 PM  

Oprah did the same thing with her audience.

Except she used "blue eyes" and "brown eyes."

Blogger Anchorman December 23, 2017 4:25 PM  

Oprah link

Blogger dc.sunsets December 23, 2017 4:49 PM  

Missing in this (and nearly every) discussion touching on intelligence is the question of personality.

The 140+ IQ people you "meet" at Colloquy Society seem to fall into two categories: SJW's who read as "sensing," i.e., they obtain much of their worldview by absorbing what's popular, who are the loudmouths, or people who read as "intuitive," i.e., they figure things out for themselves, who tended to be silent lurkers.

We appear to be born with filters that screen inputs to our minds, eliminating those that conflict with the preexisting template.

People herd. But some people herd far more than others. Some people have a greater mastery of their own impulses, others are slaves to them. None is free of the baleful influence of the impulsive mind.

I suggest that the degree of impulsive mindedness is more relevant to someone being a good neighbor than is their religious devotion, but I have left-handed privilege so I'm biased.

Anonymous Looking Glass December 23, 2017 4:54 PM  

@71 Tsalal

Ketones put you closer to God. Or something.

I can give a long, long explanation for many of the reasons, but the main benefit is to de-stress the nervous system. Further, if your health isn't in a good place, you can't fast, which is another sign of other issues.


@74 dc.sunsets

The Input Filters can be changed, but the instincts they hit cannot.

Anonymous Allan December 23, 2017 5:07 PM  

Simply labelling someone as "inferior" because you happen to disagree with their opinions is SJW-tier invective; left-handers are in any case not "inferior" at anything other than using right-handed can openers. Whenever someone tells me, in place of reasoned argument, that I am somehow a lesser human being for not subscribing to their particular philosophy, I know I am being sold a bill of goods.

Blogger SirHamster December 23, 2017 5:08 PM  

Rkkr wrote:What makes this statement interesting, if true, is that it does not really matter. The truth is often times hard to take. But, upon finding it we tend to find ways to cope.

The folks who found the truth about the absurdity of the Christian religion, yet have no other answer for what happened before the Big Bang generally just come to accept that absence of knowledge and find a myriad of ways to assign meaning to their lives and life in general.


Genetic defect wants to use bad logic to dismiss the observed evidence and all knowledge as irrelevant.

Absurd things can be true. For example, atheists as a class love to present as intelligent and rational, while using emotionally charged and irrational arguments. It's absurd - but it is so and it happens all the time.

God became man to die on a cross? One can certainly find that absurd - yet it has become the defining event in human history.

All absurdity means is that you didn't expect it. Unexpected truth is still true.

Blogger Koanic December 23, 2017 5:17 PM  

> Whenever someone tells me, in place of reasoned argument, that I am somehow a lesser human being for not subscribing to their particular philosophy, I know I am being sold a bill of goods.

Is there now equality in atheism, as well as in Jesus Christ? Tis a Christmas miracle!

Blogger Silly but True December 23, 2017 5:32 PM  

So left handed people are scientific deformities and supernaturally evil.

Blogger pnq8787 December 23, 2017 5:48 PM  

I'm missing something about the mouse utopia mutation accumulation theory. If some of the mice had mutations that reduced their effective fertility, is that not in fact natural selection against those mice in the mouse utopia? The longer lifespan of the mice seems irrelevant because the utopia had effectively infinite resources. It still doesn't explain why the mice without the bad mutations didn't continue to breed and produce a new generation of reproductively and socially healthy mice.

Anonymous Stickwick December 23, 2017 5:48 PM  

VD, you don't wanna go down that road. Atheism can correlate with higher incidence of mental disorders, but so it does with higher IQ.

Gee, we've never heard that one before. It's not like anyone literally wrote the book on that and every other atheist argument.

-----

I'm more than a little amused at the turnabout here. How many times have we heard the argument that religiosity is a byproduct of evolution? Not surprisingly, it looks like the opposite is true.

Blogger Gospace December 23, 2017 6:01 PM  


Nate73 December 23, 2017 1:08 PM



When did Christendom in particular settle on the idea that only lifelong monogamy is acceptable?


Polygamy may (or may not be) better for a non-intelligent species. However, if you take a good look at history, it appears monogamy is better for a human culture. And probably for any intelligent species. Human polygamous cultures seem to adopt cousin marriages and have inbreeding problems. And the unmarried men with no partner have no particular reason to work hard and achieve- so they don't.

Monogamous cultures outstrip polygamous cultures in science and innovation. First cousin marriage is discouraged, if not outright banned in most Western, that is, Christian cultures. In history, the Catholic Church has in some areas prohibited cousin marriage out to 5th or 6th cousins. So to find a mate you had to venture to further than the next town. It's possible this is what created a national identify in France and Germany, as suddenly you had relationships everywhere instead of just in the village or amongst your tribe or clan.

Blogger Koanic December 23, 2017 6:07 PM  

> However, if you take a good look at history, it appears monogamy is better for a human culture.

No, it appears that core Europeans have a high altruistic Neanderthal admixture that comes with a high regard for women, a regard that tends to overspill into degenerate decline during resource abundance. Correlation is not causation. Mandatory monogamy is degenerate and anti-Biblical.

Blogger Anchorman December 23, 2017 6:25 PM  

Monogamous cultures outstrip polygamous cultures in science and innovation.

Since we're in navel-gazing territory, why do you presume that is a good thing? Considering how those inventions are easily corrupted and manipulated, drawing a populace further from The Truth?

Anonymous Tsalal December 23, 2017 6:28 PM  

@Looking Glass

The Atkins Low-Carbers are on to something....

Blogger Koanic December 23, 2017 6:28 PM  

And before anybody complains about alpha wife hoarding, I don't support legalizing polygamy until land is rationed per man, as the Bible prescribes.

Anonymous Tsalal December 23, 2017 6:31 PM  

@Gospace

Like the Hajnal-line.

https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2014/03/10/big-summary-post-on-the-hajnal-line/amp/

Anonymous Jack December 23, 2017 6:43 PM  

@57 Dave

"Who cares if their doctrine is true, what matters is passing on your genes."

But if your existence is only the result of chance, then passing on your genes doesn't matter at all.

The religion of Scientism, which has largely replaced Christianity in the West, replaces God with "evolution" and the soul with "genes." So now, it's not God who directs history but evolution (many people speak of it as though it were a person with a will) and it's not one's soul that matters but one's genes.

Nor is this new. It's basically what the Greeks believed before Christianity. They revered the genos - the genetic line - and considered individual destiny a matter of Fate.

There's some truth in this worldview, but ultimately it makes you as depressed as Hesiod or Theognis. Which is why Christianity supplanted it, while retaining its best elements.

Merry Christmas everyone!

Blogger Stilicho December 23, 2017 6:45 PM  

Or, as my Drill Instructors used to say, left-handers are "genetic retards".

Anonymous A Texan December 23, 2017 7:07 PM  

As a person who leans heavily toward an INTJ personality type, I could never find anything interesting about listening to a boring lecture on Sunday.

Being charitable to people and such is great; society needs some altruism to function.

However, most churches these days are churchianity, a term I may have learned at this blog. That's a perfect description.

Anonymous vfm December 23, 2017 7:14 PM  

Bayes Theorem...

"Thomas Bayes was the son of London Presbyterian minister Joshua Bayes,[5] and was possibly born in Hertfordshire.[6] He came from a prominent nonconformist family from Sheffield. In 1719, he enrolled at the University of Edinburgh to study logic and theology. On his return around 1722, he assisted his father at the latter's chapel in London before moving to Tunbridge Wells, Kent, around 1734. There he was minister of the Mount Sion chapel, until 1752.[7]

He is known to have published two works in his lifetime, one theological and one mathematical:
1.Divine Benevolence, or an Attempt to Prove That the Principal End of the Divine Providence and Government is the Happiness of His Creatures (1731)
2.An Introduction to the Doctrine of Fluxions, and a Defence of the Mathematicians Against the Objections of the Author of The Analyst (published anonymously in 1736), in which he defended the logical foundation of Isaac Newton's calculus ("fluxions") against the criticism of George Berkeley, author of The Analyst

"Bayesian" has been used in this sense since about 1950. Since its rebirth in the 1950s, advancements in computing technology have allowed scientists from many disciplines to pair traditional Bayesian statistics with random walk techniques. The use of the Bayes theorem has been extended in science and in other fields.[13] - Wiki

Blogger VD December 23, 2017 7:20 PM  

Simply labelling someone as "inferior" because you happen to disagree with their opinions is SJW-tier invective; left-handers are in any case not "inferior" at anything other than using right-handed can openers. Whenever someone tells me, in place of reasoned argument, that I am somehow a lesser human being for not subscribing to their particular philosophy, I know I am being sold a bill of goods.

You're not inferior for not subscribing to a particular philosophy. You're genetically inferior as a result of being born in a time of excess resources and very low culling rates, which manifests in a number of different ways, one of which happens to be a disinclination to subscribe to a particular philosophy.

And in place of reasoned argument telling you that, it is science. Now, why do you hate science?

Blogger Rashadjin December 23, 2017 7:24 PM  

Oh, the pet genetic theories we spin.

I've been given the sense that there's a lot of two-faced theorizing going on whenever the subject comes up. From the 'hybrid-vigor'/'( Caucasian which is Homo Sap + Thal and Asian which is Homo Sap + Thal + Denisovan )' via ((( bob kek mando ))) on one side to the general stance that interbreeding is an abomination on the other. From the idea that evolution via genetic mutations has made some humans that are very good at civilization and some other humans that are not good at civilization on one side to the idea that mutations and 'mutation load' is simply bad on the other. From civilization not having had a significant impact on the species' genetics on one side (because time scale or somesuch) to mousetopia very quickly destroying a population via rapid negative mutations not being culled from the species' genetics (the bad sort of evolutionary scenario) on the other.

It'd be nice if you guys could unify your theories here. The flip-flopping via your pet frame for your pet issue is getting old.

Here's an idea: Let's say the history of human survival has been a very right-hand/left-brain dominated enterprise for most of recorded history. And let's say that civilization has recently developed to the point where left-hand/right-brain dominate people not only have an easier time of finding success but also have increasingly important and numerous roles in perpetuating and advancing said civilization. And let's say this turn of events is new enough that genetics haven't caught up yet, so lots of experimentation and mistakes in trying to get good left-handed genes to fill these newer and expanding roles well.

So mayhaps the lefties are making a mess of things, but they may also be an underdeveloped aspect of the species, like a child compared to the grown and matured genetic template for the righties.

Something worth considering.

Which doesn't answer the original question of why the left-handed types are more prone to atheism (as mutation load is a low-resolution, weaksauce answer in my book). The sperginess/autism issue is definitely a factor since the experience of Christianity is a community effort by and large, although not necessarily or restrictively so.

I want to say it's more about how the right brain-dominated mind analyzes the world. The left-brain answers do not work for them like they work for you, so an appropriate approach for the audience may be a bit lacking. It may also be about pushing the boundaries and thinking outside the status-quo. Combined with how soft Christianity has gotten in the West. You people in the know with your long history of Christian thought and apologetics forget how Sunday School, Churchian thought has ruled for decades now. You forget how a small cabal of academics have turned education and pop culture into a propaganda factory that strawmans Christianity from both angles. (Left-handers are less concrete in thinking too, I believe, so swimming in propaganda works better on them.)

Do I need to bring up Occam's Razor again?

But yes, I'm one of those evil lefties.

*Glances at VD's 92* Oh. I was wondering when we were going to have this dance...

Anonymous vfm December 23, 2017 7:33 PM  

"But yes, I'm one of those evil lefties."

We would have never guessed.

Blogger Dire Badger December 23, 2017 7:45 PM  

@Rashadjin-

Unlike lefties, we do not submerge our minds into group theories without evidence. Many of us approach problems from different angles, with different theories and different models. We welcome the time it will take to come at the 'Correct' answer rather than revelling in our submission to groupthink.

No, not all of us are right. We argue, we each have our own mind, our own opinion, and our own approach. Someday enough evidence will be present to tell us which is right, but for now we approach a problem or a question from ALL angles, rather than the politically-appointed commissar's selection of the day.

You may call think tanking 'flip flopping' if you wish, but the Dissident right is making amazing strides in regaining cultural freedom in this country... For us, being individuals with different strengths and weaknesses, theories and opinions, works far better than your antlike hive mind.

Anonymous C2G December 23, 2017 7:46 PM  

Lol...VD just said knowing the truth makes one genetically inferior. That’s funny.

Blogger cheddarman December 23, 2017 7:46 PM  

I am left handed and have ADD, high IQ but not genius. I seem to have an undiagnosed metabolic disorder that predisposes me to inflammatory diseases (joint degradation and asthma) I keep the inflammation under control with large doses of omega-3's and it also seems to have increased my IQ over time. Omega-3's are part of God's vast arsenal of safe and effective natural medicines.

Anonymous Mr. Rational December 23, 2017 7:48 PM  

When someone who is always picking at science, deeming its results unreproducible and its practitioners corrupt, suddenly gushes uncritically over a social-science paper deeming atheists to be genetic defectives you know where it hit him.

Right in the feelz.  Because when 93% of the elite National Academy of Sciences is avowedly non-believing, there's more than a little cause for insecurity on the part of the gamma Secret King who is convinced he has The Truth because History (and his popular success as an author in political philosophy... never mind the fallacy behind that one).  Strike back he will!  Avenged his pride will be!  His pareidolia is REAL!

Here's the thing:  evolution works relatively slowly, and we haven't had science long enough to do much except enable new methods of eugenic and dysgenic selection.  So far we've come down mostly on the dysgenic side, though PIGD works to weed out known defects.  But IVF is the basic technology behind PIGD, and guess who opposes IVF because it results in discarded ("murdered") embryos?  Mostly the most devout Christians.

We've barely gotten to the point where assortative mating of scientists and atheists can sort out anything like a "type".  It took a few hundred years of intense selection (largely by differential mating success and what the Amish call "boiling off") to fix the characteristics which make the Ashkenazim so distinct.  But we already know what top scientists tend to be:  high-IQ, highly conscientious yet non-believers.

None of us are going to live long enough to see the end of this play, but the opening act is riveting, isn't it?

@4  You can hardly accuse top-flight scientists of lacking imagination.  Nor someone with multiple patents to their name.

@5  Which makes the association of top scientific achievement and atheism problematic for the hypothesis.  However, it's entirely possible that the distribution is multi-modal, with religiosity peaking in the midwits and falling off at both tails.

@6  It's because the religious stories of that outcome stop being compelling when looked at really closely, especially the epistemology which they use to back their claims.  Following their prescriptions looks more and more like mere herding behavior, and the incessant "witnessing" looks like attempts to stay convinced themselves.  We all know the metaphor about herding cats.

And now to test a hypothesis....

Anonymous Criminalist December 23, 2017 7:49 PM  

@Dire Badger

Rashadjin wins.

Blogger Dire Badger December 23, 2017 7:49 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Dire Badger December 23, 2017 7:51 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Looking Glass December 23, 2017 7:54 PM  

@97 cheddarman

Try a decent creatine blend. It might help with the lungs. It's not 100%, but if you have lung inflammation problems, the saturation of extract energy normally helps.

And, yes, Omega 3s are really really valuable.

Anonymous Criminalist December 23, 2017 7:55 PM  

Ah...Badger. It’ll be ok. Get well soon.

Blogger Rashadjin December 23, 2017 7:57 PM  

@Dire Badger

*Snrks* I meant left-handed, as in dexter. I'm something like 90-99% Alt-Right/Alt-West as far as worldview goes.

It was a lovely sentiment though.

Anonymous Tom Sawyer December 23, 2017 7:57 PM  

The poop wants to be (unsurprisingly) touched, which leads to a disease vector.

Blogger Koanic December 23, 2017 8:03 PM  

> I'm something like 90-99% Alt-Right/Alt-West as far as worldview goes.

"Humans and chimps share a surprising 98.8 percent of their DNA."

Blogger Dire Badger December 23, 2017 8:13 PM  

Rashadjin wrote:@Dire Badger

*Snrks* I meant left-handed, as in dexter. I'm something like 90-99% Alt-Right/Alt-West as far as worldview goes.

It was a lovely sentiment though.


ahh, hehe. I kneejerked a little. I tend to fade out after the first paragraph and, to be sure, the first paragraph sounded an awful lot like a trolling attempt. That's why I responded to it alone.

Blogger Rashadjin December 23, 2017 8:13 PM  

@106 Koanic (second from right)

Oh, Koanic, and here I was looking forward to you not reading me anymore. You Indian Giver, you.

Blogger Dire Badger December 23, 2017 8:15 PM  

and sincere apologies, Rashadjin, for the second comment. I deleted it. I have been in 'fighting mode' for half the day (It's what I do for fun on my day off) and Criminalist was being a dick.

Blogger S1AL December 23, 2017 8:21 PM  

"We've barely gotten to the point where assortative mating of scientists and atheists can sort out anything like a "type". It took a few hundred years of intense selection (largely by differential mating success and what the Amish call "boiling off") to fix the characteristics which make the Ashkenazim so distinct. But we already know what top scientists tend to be: high-IQ, highly conscientious yet non-believers."

This is false on... so, so many counts.

First: Scientists, on average, are still >50% religious. This is even more true outside Europe specifically and the West generally.

Second, there's no meaningful sorting effect because scientists tend to have a dramatically sub-par number of children (unlike the Ashkenazim).

Third, the Ashkenazim actually had most of those traits long ago - the behavioral stereotypes have not shifted (and generally *can't*) because of the mating trends of those who still maintain that identity.

Blogger Rashadjin December 23, 2017 8:24 PM  

@Dire Badger

Apology accepted. I'd already let the comment slide, so is all good. And yah, Fighting Mode will do that to you.

Blogger S1AL December 23, 2017 8:25 PM  

And I forgot to mention that the specification of "scientist" is extremely narrow and deceptive. Engineers tend to be significantly more religious - and more conservative politically. And have more children.

Then there's the unmentioned fact that education, generally, correlates with increasing strength of belief more consistently than with general religious identification. This is actually true across all forms of belief (recent study showed that trust/distrust of "global warming" was significantly stronger with greater education, regardless of the view taken).

So in reality, it's more accurate to say that education turns otherwise harmless agnostics into militant atheists.

Heh.

Blogger Koanic December 23, 2017 8:26 PM  

Oh I skip over your tryhard babble, Rashy.

Anonymous observer December 23, 2017 8:32 PM  

And yah, Fighting Mode will do that to you.

Oh "Fighting Mode" starts back up on December 26th when the world that atheists love goes back to "normal".

Blogger Madame Ringading December 23, 2017 8:47 PM  

Spergy southpaw? I'll admit to being one.

But somehow, Lord be thanked, I missed the "get your atheism and SJW tendencies here" lineup. Yay me.

Anonymous Avalanche December 23, 2017 8:49 PM  

@67 "yet have no other answer for what happened before the Big Bang"

OR do some research into the Electric Universe and find "the better answer" in plasma-cosmology. (Hint: there WAS no Big Bang, nor any need for one!)

Try these:

Wallace Thornhill: The Elegant Simplicity of the Electric Universe EU2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mINsiT70OHE

Wal Thornhill: Stars in an Electric Universe NPA/EU 2011
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Usz28nAYdT0

Don Scott - The Electric Sun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poaYnOl-7Q8

David Talbott: Exposing the Myths of "Settled Science" NPA19
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aLCWwLdelo

Steve Crothers: General Relativity -- A Case in Numerology EU2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBorBKDnE3U

Blogger Dave December 23, 2017 8:56 PM  

Tom Sawyer wrote:The poop wants to be (unsurprisingly) touched, which leads to a disease vector.

The poop was granted a reprieve?

Anonymous Mr. Rational December 23, 2017 9:13 PM  

S1AL wrote:This is false on... so, so many counts.
Which you're not doing so well on.

First: Scientists, on average, are still >50% religious.
I said top scientists, at the NAS level.  Suppose someday the average scientist has this level of ability, and has to in order to accomplish anything novel and useful.  What's the right tail going to look like then?  The 93% figure is probably going to be statistically indistinguishable from 100%.

there's no meaningful sorting effect because scientists tend to have a dramatically sub-par number of children (unlike the Ashkenazim).
We're just getting started at this.  We haven't tried to make better scientists by mating scientists.  Until we're 2-3 generations into such an effort we won't have any results to report.  I'll be long gone by then.

the Ashkenazim actually had most of those traits long ago
I'd have to dig through "The 10,000 Year Explosion" to get the details for you (read it!), but Cochran and Harpending bookended the era in which the Ashkenazim fixed those traits.  As I recall it was after 1000 AD but ended sometime before or in the 17th century.

S1AL wrote:I forgot to mention that the specification of "scientist" is extremely narrow and deceptive. Engineers tend to be significantly more religious - and more conservative politically. And have more children.
Lots of people with engineering degrees have little or no ability to think creatively.  They use cookbook formulas which they don't understand deeply enough to use beyond the ways they were trained.  I've seen this too often.  I've seen mixes too; brilliance on one end with ignorance on the other, and I got to sort things out.

Contrast this to Nikola Tesla:  he understood Maxwell's equations deeply enough to visualize totally new machines and systems from them.  Tesla left a permanent imprint on Western society.  There should be statues to him.

it's more accurate to say that education turns otherwise harmless agnostics into militant atheists.
More likely that irritating Christian apologists turn agnostics into militant opposition.

Blogger Jail Cussox December 23, 2017 9:20 PM  

I have had an interesting journey:

- Grew up in a mixed spiritual household.. mom was a non-practicing Catholic as was my grandmother. My grandmother was a medium
- Experience with Christianity and acceptance of Christ as lord and saviour
- I rejected these beliefs early into my adult years. Christian apologetics wasn't working for me and deism did not stand to scrutiny. I felt free.
- I lived as a nihilist... I reasoned that it was not possible to prove or disprove claims of the afterlife and if there was nothing it raised it stakes for us making our lives mean something. It was our responsability to stand for others. Only we could save ourselves.
- Recently I have moved back to deism. My brother is converting to catholism. I wear his gifted rosary and go with him to prayer chapel when he requests. I keep this to myself but I do not hide it either.
- I have returned full circle
- Cultural Marxisism and the destruction of traditional cultural values is dangerous and damaging. I stand for those traditional values. Names and identities matter.

Blogger Dire Badger December 23, 2017 9:29 PM  

"Lots of people with engineering degrees have little or no ability to think creatively."

Yup. I have said it before and I will say it again. Mr. Rational is a well-educated retard.

Blogger Lazarus December 23, 2017 9:33 PM  

@ 106 Koanic "Humans and chimps share a surprising 98.8 percent of their DNA."

For decades, scientists have agreed that human and chimpanzee DNA is 98.5 percent identical. A recent study suggests that number may need to be revised. Using a new, more sophisticated method to measure the similarities between human and chimp DNA, the two species may share only 95 percent genetic material.

Do try to keep up.

Anonymous Avalanche December 23, 2017 9:37 PM  

Oh, here's a short intro: The Electric Universe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q4fecFbYBg

Anonymous Avalanche December 23, 2017 9:42 PM  

@79 "So left handed people are scientific deformities and supernaturally evil."

Are we supposed to join a union or something? A horde?

Blogger Koanic December 23, 2017 9:47 PM  

> Do try to keep up.

#1 It's a quote used for a joke, not a truth claim.
#2 The percentage varies depending on how the comparison is done.

"A fool's proud talk becomes a rod that beats him."

Blogger Felix Bellator December 23, 2017 9:48 PM  

#45 Koanic - "Liar."

Sometimes, and sometimes just wrong. In this case, neither:
Genesis 2:22-24
Matthew 19:3-6
Mark 10:6-9
1 Corinthians 7:2-4
Ephesians 5:22-33
1 Timothy 3:2
1 Timothy 3:12
Titus 1:6

Blogger Koanic December 23, 2017 10:32 PM  

No, you are a liar. You said:

>> the idea that only lifelong monogamy is acceptable?

> Christendom did not settle on this, God did, from the beginning.

You are holier than Jesus, making pronouncements he did not. I suggest you be crucified and we check your grave in three days.

Blogger S1AL December 23, 2017 10:36 PM  

Mr. Rational wrote:I said top scientists, at the NAS level.  Suppose someday the average scientist has this level of ability, and has to in order to accomplish anything novel and useful.  What's the right tail going to look like then?  The 93% figure is probably going to be statistically indistinguishable from 100%.

Ah, the infamous study designed and worded to produce the desired result. Of course.

But even if it's accurate, the NAS is a self-selecting organization. Such organizations have a tendency to skew in just such a way, regardless of whether the trait has anything to do with the theoretical criteria.

I would be willing to wager that a survey on the family life of members would return similarly non-representative results.

Mr. Rational wrote:We're just getting started at this.  We haven't tried to make better scientists by mating scientists.  Until we're 2-3 generations into such an effort we won't have any results to report.  I'll be long gone by then.



Oh, goody. Social engineering of that kind *never* goes wrong.

Mr. Rational wrote:Lots of people with engineering degrees have little or no ability to think creatively.  They use cookbook formulas which they don't understand deeply enough to use beyond the ways they were trained.  I've seen this too often.  I've seen mixes too; brilliance on one end with ignorance on the other, and I got to sort things out.



You say this like it's specific to engineers and doesn't extend to other professionals... such as scientists.

Though, granted, my experience was that the the scientists had a much greater tendency to simply be so absolutely consumed with their own intellectual superiority that they managed to hold absolutely insane opinions. Which is a nice segue into...

Mr. Rational wrote:Contrast this to Nikola Tesla:  he understood Maxwell's equations deeply enough to visualize totally new machines and systems from them.  Tesla left a permanent imprint on Western society.  There should be statues to him.

Look, there's a lot to like about Tesla. He was brilliant, dedicated, passionate. He was also an absolute fruitcake on a whole bunch of issues, including atomic theory and "ether". He was *utterly* convinced of his own mental superiority to such an extent that he made himself guilty of the accusations he so frequently leveled at others (wrt sloppiness and lack of equation use).

Besides, Euler and Newton are a lot more fundamentally relevant. But I suppose they don't fit into the archetype you're trying to advocate.

Mr. Rational wrote:More likely that irritating Christian apologists turn agnostics into militant opposition.

I note the general lack of atheists for the first 1950 years Anno Domini and find your argument wanting.




Dire Badger wrote:Yup. I have said it before and I will say it again. Mr. Rational is a well-educated retard.

Now that's not fair. He's really more the physical incarnation of RatWiki's eyeroll-inducing superiority complex.

Anonymous Stickwick December 23, 2017 10:41 PM  

Mr. Rational: I said top scientists, at the NAS level.  Suppose someday the average scientist has this level of ability, and has to in order to accomplish anything novel and useful.  What's the right tail going to look like then?  The 93% figure is probably going to be statistically indistinguishable from 100%.

Doubt it.

First, the NAS is a self-selecting group of scientists, which means what, kids? Yes, sample bias. Until you sort that out, you can't reliably infer anything from that statistic.

Second, those NAS guys are old. Why does that matter? Well, according to a 2009 Pew survey, the old guys are maxed out in terms of non-belief. Each generation after is increasingly believing, to the point that the rate of belief for the youngest generation of scientists is 50% higher than for the old farts. Which means, all things being equal, the NAS is likely to become more religious with time.

Blogger Rashadjin December 23, 2017 10:48 PM  

@125 Felix Bellator

It's best to ignore Koanic (second from right). He's a polygamist that blunders through the Bible as it suits him.

The initial pattern of Adam and Eve in monogamy that continues until a random human greedily takes a second wife makes monogamy the obvious ideal, so this discussion on polygamy within a Christian context is mostly about pointing and laughing at Koanic.

Because the truth is that Koanic is a disciple of Lamech and not Jehovah, God or Jesus. Everything else is projection on his part.

Which should clarify the situation very neatly for you.

Blogger Meng Greenleaf December 23, 2017 11:15 PM  

It is an interesting argument:

"We argue that religion is a selected trait that would be highly sensitive to mutational load. We further argue that a specific form of religiousness was selected for in complex societies up until industrialization based around the collective worship of moral gods."

I wonder why they don't consider deviation in IQ from 100 (relative to the pre-industrial age) as additional evidence of mutational load? Of course, if this is true, then one wonders if multiculturalism isn't inadvertently 'saving' Western populations (though not societies) by providing genomes that are less mutated from the optimum (though, lower in IQ on average)?

I'd love to see an analysis of Chinese - given they've gone through multiple rise and collapse events. Also, while Christianity is expanding in China, for the most part, they're Atheist. Though not strong Atheist; they're very superstitious, they also have a lot of belief in peculiar 'energy' sources like qi, and of course have a lot of faith in the State in the absence of Religion.

Anyway, I loved rereading Mouse Utopia, I had forgotten about the golden nugget. A lot of wisdom and insight went into that study.

Blogger Lazarus December 23, 2017 11:16 PM  

Koanic wrote:> Do try to keep up.

#1 It's a quote used for a joke, not a truth claim.

#2 The percentage varies depending on how the comparison is done.

"A fool's proud talk becomes a rod that beats him."


"Quote used for joke" ..... gamma tell

"#2 The percentage varies depending on how the comparison is done." .....which is exactly what I pointed out.

"A fool's proud talk becomes a rod that beats him."....... projection.




Blogger Koanic December 23, 2017 11:20 PM  

The first joke was that 1% is a big gap. The second joke was that percentages are a deceptive and inappropriate measure in the case of belief distance and genetic distance. You then fag one-upped by saying "nuh uh your percentage is wrong". I picked the first quote that came up on Google. Stop being an idiot.

Blogger Lazarus December 23, 2017 11:22 PM  

Koanic wrote:Stop being an idiot.

Let the people decide.

Anonymous Rocklea December 23, 2017 11:23 PM  

The Culture War is a Mean War.

Blogger rumpole5 December 23, 2017 11:30 PM  

Analyzing faith in Jesus Christ in the context of the characteristics of this fallen world, be it genetics, or anything else is a mistake. While this world was created by God, and therefore a study of mathematics, art, music and nature can give us a rough appreciation of the glory and perfection of God, these cannot give us the whole picture. That faith can only be discerned spiritually with confession and prayer.

Anonymous vfm December 24, 2017 12:01 AM  

"Contrast this to Nikola Tesla: he understood Maxwell's equations deeply enough to visualize totally new machines and systems from them."

"At eight(James Maxwell) he could recite long passages of Milton and the whole of the 119th psalm (176 verses). Indeed his knowledge of scripture was already very detailed; he could give chapter and verse for almost any quotation from the psalms. Clearly, from this early age, a devout Christian faith and demanding mental discipline were, for Maxwell, part of the same experience.

http://silas.psfc.mit.edu/maxwell/

Blogger Dire Badger December 24, 2017 12:02 AM  

Rocklea wrote:The Culture War is a Mean War.
The Culture War is a Meme war.

Anonymous vfm December 24, 2017 12:10 AM  

The truth cant be denied atheist thieves and liars...

A partial list

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

Blogger Dire Badger December 24, 2017 12:28 AM  

I don't think Atheism is really correlated with intellect. It seems to be more correlated with Arrogance.

I don't like speaking in 'big words' as linguistics was never my interest, but I have a reasonably High IQ when I choose to apply it, paired with (unfortunately) a learning disability that makes it very difficult to apply it outside of certain narrow spectrum.

Yes, I am one of those 'Autistics' that many people rant and rave about constantly, and I am generally amused at the complete lack of any sort of comprehension of what ASD really is, and how it differs from the 'social handicaps' of nerds, which are not so much social handicaps as they are a display of arrogance and refusal to LEARN how to 'be social'.

No, the 'autistics' most of you rant about are not even remotely autistic... They are simply so self-centered that they get 'offended' when someone suggests that they learn how to be social with others... They, much like feminist fathags, expect to be loved 'for who they are' without putting any effort whatsoever into becoming a loveable person.

They are arrogance personified, and have existed throughout history... It's simply that the spread of global communications has given them vastly more 'voice', since in a low-communications period their inability and unwillingness to learn any charisma would have, by necessity, limited their ability to communicate their ideas enormously. No one wants to listen to a jerkoff that acts like you owe him for listening to his drivel.

That 'high atheism among intellectuals' pap is the direct result of their arrogance, not their intellect... They gravitate towards fields where impressionable young minds are FORCED to listen to their self-serving crap, The more arrogantly sure of their 'lack of need for god' and their superiority complex demands an outlet where they are not required to bother to learn anything about social interaction or pleasing others. Of COURSE they are overrepresented among the Intelligencia... They are never forced to learn to be successful to be successful.

As far as autistics are concerned, however, I know from personal experience (I work with local ASD kids and adults a LOT, they are MY 'community') 'religiousness' is actually very high among the functional ones... because when they go into 'full logic mode' the necessity for a creator becomes absolutely Clear.

They do not handle it the way others do, but while we are terrible about giving 'blind faith' and believing in something without evidence, the evidence is so constant and pervasive (overwhelmingly so for many of us) that those that manage to live long enough almost invariably become strong proponents of religion. We may not 'feel the spirit' or have 'faith', but where others cannot SEE the evidence all around us, it is clear as day to many on the spectrum.


Is it wrong, or a denial of faith to believe because you have clear and uncompromising evidence without the ability to 'connect to the spirit'?

Blogger Dire Badger December 24, 2017 12:30 AM  

Atheism is, by it's very nature, Megalomania. You are so superior to everything that you cannot even CONCEIVE of something greater than yourself.

Stupid Nerd.

Anonymous Yann December 24, 2017 12:44 AM  

@56 vfm

So, tell me, does that mean that the individual case of Thomas Sewell being so bloody smart means that the low IQ average from the black community is fake news?

Don't get me wrong. I get along very well with religious people, even better than with atheist people (on average), but as I said: don't go down this road.

Anonymous Yann December 24, 2017 1:02 AM  

@63 Killua

The thing is that atheist are such a small proportion of the overall population that "average IQ" is skewed. The term "atheist" includes self described atheist (what Vox calls "high church" atheists) but ignores the dumb guys in jail who don't even think about religion.

Fine. That's a good point. The problem is that it can be applied too to this article. Either it applies to both or it applies to neither.

I can accept that the sample is skewed and not representative. But in that case, the sample is not valid no matter we're talking about IQ or we're talking about incidence of mental disorders. What you CAN'T do is to accept it when you're talking about mental disorders because it fits your view, and then deny it when it comes to IQ. It's both or neither. Otherwise it's wishful thinking.

Anonymous vfm December 24, 2017 1:07 AM  

"So, tell me, does that mean that the individual case of Thomas Sewell being so bloody smart means that the low IQ average from the black community is fake news?"

Can't stay on topic no surprise, who said anything about that! The thread topic is atheist genetic inferiority. BTW most blacks worship the false god of government like you clowns but anywaaayy no correlation there right?

Don't get me wrong. I get along very well with religious people, even better than with atheist people (on average),

Suuuure you do that's why I just go ahead and call you guys liars from the get go because its ALWAYS true.

"but as I said: don't go down this road."

Your petty threats are laughable so-called "easy going guy". Take your best shot.

Anonymous vfm December 24, 2017 1:11 AM  

I can accept that the sample is skewed and not representative.

Yet you can't accept all the examples of Christian scientific achievement I gave? Just go ahead and dismiss it like leftard atheists are wont to do.

Blogger Dire Badger December 24, 2017 1:20 AM  

Maybe we should put Atheists in zoos.

"Look at that funny guy that hates god because... His parents didn't tell him about Santa Claus."

Anonymous vfm December 24, 2017 1:23 AM  

"Is it wrong, or a denial of faith to believe because you have clear and uncompromising evidence without the ability to 'connect to the spirit'?"

God bless you this Christmas Badger, I'll pray you'll feel the spirit though you'll find its not really that important. And you sound strong in your faith.

Anonymous vfm December 24, 2017 1:27 AM  

God bless you this Christmas Dire Badger,

Anonymous Killua December 24, 2017 1:55 AM  

Because when 93% of the elite National Academy of Sciences is avowedly non-believing, there's more than a little cause for insecurity on the part of the gamma Secret King who is convinced he has The Truth because History

Unlike what many people seem to think, scientists are not the intellectual elite of society. The entrepeneurs and high level CEO's are probably smarter on average. And as it has been pointed pout before, the theists in Mensa outnumber atheists by a huge margin.

Anonymous Yann December 24, 2017 2:28 AM  

Can't stay on topic no surprise, who said anything about that!

I stayed on topic and I said about that, because it's relevant. If you're telling me that one individual case (Euler) proves wrong average statistics, the same reasoning could be applied in other cases, like Sewell.

To make it clearer, in case it's necessary: individual cases don't matter when we're talking the average of a group.

Blogger M Cephas December 24, 2017 3:10 AM  

I'm left-handed, at least when it comes to writing, agnostic, but leaning towards Christianity, and suffer from OCD. But my OCD didn't manifest until I was in my early twenties, after I suffered some throat infection, which was the sickest I'd ever been. Uncontrollable coughing, trouble breathing, very sick, lasted several weeks.

Maybe whatever caused my left-handedness, didn't specifically cause my OCD, but left me with a genetic susceptibility that was triggered by the infection.

It could also be why some children are reported to become autistic after a vaccine. They are more susceptible or sensitive to the damage caused by the vaccine. An earlier commenter mentioned how there are a higher percentage of homosexuals who are left-handed. If they were sexually abused, or traumatized some other way, perhaps that, combined with their genetic susceptibility/sensitivity, would trigger homosexual behavior.

So left-handedness could be a sign that one is mentally sensitive/fragile, susceptible to odd neurological behaviors, that manifest depending on the triggering event(s).

Blogger VD December 24, 2017 5:07 AM  

Don't get me wrong. I get along very well with religious people, even better than with atheist people (on average), but as I said: don't go down this road.

That's a useless warning. I already own the entire road.

Atheists are not more intelligent than theists on average. Only self-identified atheists who call themselves atheists are more intelligent. And they are very modestly more intelligent; the difference is more akin to the difference between men and women than the difference between blacks and whites.

Furthermore, there are more than 10x more theists in the highest IQ quintile than self-identified atheists due to the fact that theism is normal and self-identified atheism is not.

The reason your whole line of argument is ridiculous is that it's not even remotely unlikely that self-identified atheists would be both a) more intelligent and b) more mentally unstable because intelligence and mental instability are positively correlated. Like most midwits, you vastly overestimate the importance of high intelligence.

Anonymous Mr. Rational December 24, 2017 6:48 AM  

tublecane wrote:More balanced minds might see that they shouldn't pursue Truth, or anything for that matter, exclusively. What does it benefit us, for instance, to have a perfectly honest society if it's ugly?
The pursuit of a totally egalitarian society is a pursuit of one concept of beauty.  It stands directly opposed to truth and honesty.  How much ugliness and pain has it produced?  Looked at Detroit ruin porn lately?

Dire Badger wrote:"Lots of people with engineering degrees have little or no ability to think creatively."

Yup. I have said it before and I will say it again. Mr. Rational is a well-educated retard.

I could refute you with a point-by-point detailing of just one of my insights which resulted in a patent of which I am sole inventor, but I'll settle for laughing at you.  I went where many people had been before, and saw something nobody had seen before.  The USPTO agrees, and not just once either.

S1AL wrote:You say this like it's specific to engineers and doesn't extend to other professionals... such as scientists.
Not being a scientist, I don't get to see the spectrum.  Engineers... ah, I wish I could tell you all about one of my experiences with diversity.  Cookbook conformity, check.  Insight, zip.  And dumped the results on us immediately before a meeting with the customer in which the customer noticed the design flaw which had come from his lack of insight.  Not as quickly as I did, but before our side had any opportunity to straighten things out and not embarrass us.  I had to school the wonderful little diversity in how to apply algebra to the problem, which I did in front of the customer so that they could be assured they had competent people in charge.  (Wonder why I have no use for diversities?)

Dire Badger wrote:Atheism is, by it's very nature, Megalomania. You are so superior to everything that you cannot even CONCEIVE of something greater than yourself.
Whereas I marvel at how tiny I am compared to a merging pair of neutron stars which can generate a Jupiter-sized quantity of gold.  This would probably annihilate life on Earth if it happened anywhere nearby, but I relish living in a universe with such wonders in it.

vfm wrote:Yet you can't accept all the examples of Christian scientific achievement I gave?
All those examples were products of their respective times and their available knowledge.  The question is what is tenable now, not then.

Anonymous daniel December 24, 2017 8:04 AM  

Too bad that atheism is actually true.

Anonymous Anon Swede December 24, 2017 8:07 AM  

Problem with atheists: they lack a sense of Wonder.

Problem with theists: they talk in non-Wittgensteinian syntax that does not parse in modern brain.

Solution: go the mystic route, see for yourself, exit "psychicism", see theology as symbolic cristallization not the thing itself (thus resolving the syntax divide). Finger pointing at moon, etc.

I've pitched "religion" to atheists this way before. Ie see beyond the non-parsable (per Wittgenstein) signals of theists and see the moon directly.

Anonymous Anon Swede December 24, 2017 8:11 AM  

Psychicism is a reference from the Gnostic framework. Meaning being of the mind, conceptual understanding of things. Many parallels to Buddhist notion of enlightenment as well.

Anonymous Anon Swede December 24, 2017 8:18 AM  

True only in the sense of being an unprovable claim in the realm of science. But, awareness itself can never be proven / explained by empiricism, thus giving you a clue that Wittgenstein's syntax demarcation of what constitutes valid speech (logic, empiricism) isn't the whole of reality. Ie atheists presume all is matter yet ignore prima facie evidence that says otherwise.

Anonymous Anon Swede December 24, 2017 8:19 AM  

* sense of God

Anonymous Anon Swede December 24, 2017 8:34 AM  

The root of the divide lies in two things: qualia and syntax. Ie atheists commit two fallacies:

- they do not admit that qualia (self-awareness) indicate that the universe is not just material. If they admit that there is something spiritual then that adds enough "strangeness entropy" to the ontological model to make God's existence parsable.

- they transpose theist language into Wittgenstein's syntax rules, thus making them nonparsable by default. Thus giving rise to FSM and other nonsense. (Besides, they often try to sneak metaphysics back in, via ideology, which makes their syntax transposition even more disingenuous).

I believe the CTMU talks about these sorts of things as well.

Anonymous From the "yeah, riiiight" department December 24, 2017 8:35 AM  

Quotes without comment:

Mr. Rational wrote:I marvel at how tiny I am compared to a merging pair of neutron stars which can generate a Jupiter-sized quantity of gold.  This would probably annihilate life on Earth if it happened anywhere nearby, but I relish living in a universe with such wonders in it.

Anon Swede wrote:Problem with atheists: they lack a sense of Wonder.

Blogger VD December 24, 2017 8:35 AM  

Too bad that atheism is actually true.

It is not. Take your atheist sperging elsewhere, you are far too short for this ride.

Blogger szopen December 24, 2017 8:40 AM  

Dire Badger wrote:Atheism is, by it's very nature, Megalomania. You are so superior to everything that you cannot even CONCEIVE of something greater than yourself.

That's wrong. Maybe you have met atheists who left you with that impression, but atheism is not megalomania in itself. In fact, my atheism left me as feeling frustrated, powerless and unimportant in the world who doesn't care a slightest bit about my existence; or even worse, because there isn't actually anything which could "care" or "not care" about my feelings about the universe, world or anything else.

@142 Yann
Well said.

@17
"To put it another way: Religious people "know" that *something* will happen after death. Agnostics [Yours Truly] don't know for sure either way and Athiests "know" that nothing happens."
Theoretically it's true that from the logical point of view it would be better to be agnostic. However, that position always struck me as being somewhat undecided. Fromt he logical point of view, I am unable to prove anyone of you actually exist, yet I prefer to think you do exist. Stating "I am agnostic on whether you exist or not" seems, well ... hard to think ways in which I could put it politely. Therefore, I prefer to choose one position and declare myself openly on some side, even if I admit that more logical would be to admit "I don't know".

Anonymous Anon Swede December 24, 2017 8:52 AM  

Yeah but you don't see reality as something out of the ordinary- you take the strangeness of there being something rather than nothing for granted simply because you exist. You do not Wonder at the basic notion of "I am", the feeling of self-awareness, which is and always will be a mystery outside the reach of empirical proofs. *That's* what I mean, not that you lack the capacity for wonder.

"I am" / qualia is a fundamental strange notion. If that is admitted, we are outside of Wittgenstein's language box and suddenly God is a possible symbol.

Blogger szopen December 24, 2017 9:26 AM  

It's interesting that autism and atheism might be linked. In recent readers' poll made by Scott Alexander (from slatestarcodex) I did a test on autism and I got score 27, which supposedly means "have some autistic traits".

However, the idea that "mental deficiency causes atheism" does not mean atheism is false. A complete idiot can, by a pure coincidence, came upon true idea; and the fact that idiot says something does not automatically make thing he says false.

A diggression, since I've met many people thinking "autistic" meaning "devoid of emotions": I've heard that psychopats and aspies are two opposite extremes. Psychopaths can detect other people emotions, but they lack empathy and they don't care about others. Aspies can't detect other people's emotions, but they care about others and they have empathy.

Blogger Koanic December 24, 2017 9:37 AM  

> Only self-identified atheists who call themselves atheists are more intelligent.

"Theist" and "atheist" are equivalently g-loaded vocabulary words. I bet the gap would narrow to nothing if one compared "theists" to "atheists".

> Let the people decide.

MPAI. There is no "correct" percentage difference between chimp and human genes. I could just as easily say they are 100% similar because they use all the same base pairs. Or I could say they are 0% similar on a scale calibrated to 100% at identical twins and 0% at Bushman-Englishman. What percentage is Dallas from New York? Whether you stay at the superficial semantic level or dive deep into the mechanics of the various genetic comparison tests used, it's meaningless and deceptive without context. And they will never ever contextualize genetic distance between humans and chimps because that would expose the gradient upon which sub-Saharans sit.

Anonymous Marc December 24, 2017 9:41 AM  

I downloaded the paper from here: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40806-017-0133-5

On page 9, second column, it reads:

"There is a large body of evidence indicating that religiousness is weakly negatively associated with intelligence"

On page 7 of the paper we learn that the study comprised 16 atheists. Wow. Good luck getting useful stats out of that.

Anonymous Haroldish December 24, 2017 9:47 AM  

"Too bad that atheism is actually true."

"It is not."

Atheism and Theism are simply two sides of the same coin: "I believe there is, I believe there is not".

The question of whether one is "normal" and the other not is interesting, but inconsequential. What is interesting is that theism is an answer to an important question: What is creation. In this respect, the two positions are different insofar as atheism really doesn't posit a response to that question, though the atheist may have a response, it's just not inherent in the atheist position on faith.

What neither position answers, however, is what happened before creation? The Christian response to question is as unsatisfactory as their embrace of the entirely childish and simple embrace of the Christian story.

Anonymous vfm December 24, 2017 9:48 AM  

Maybe you have met atheists who left you with that impression...

Uhhh yeah that might have something to do with the hundreds of spergy atheists that have posted on VP over the years and just above your post.

"In fact, my atheism left me as feeling frustrated, powerless and unimportant in the world who doesn't care a slightest bit about my existence;"

Again where are these elusive atheists that are in touch with and communicate from a position of nihilistic despair? There aren't any, so people are naturally dealing with them by what they see here all the time which is a toxic compound of disingenuousness, overweening arrogance mixed with midwittery.

Anonymous vfm December 24, 2017 9:51 AM  

"Their embrace of the entirely childish and simple embrace of the Christian story."

Gee that didn't take long and soooo predictable.

Anonymous Anon Swede December 24, 2017 10:12 AM  

What and when are mental categories enforced by our mind circuitry. Just as we have trouble with logic during sleep (when the circuits for that are turned off) - there may be cognitive modes we cannot fathom with our baseline waking consciousness. Expecting the universe to operate at our level of 4D predicates is just an assumption. Nothing says there has to be a "before the Big Bang" - it is just an artefact of our mental circuitry.

Blogger szopen December 24, 2017 10:16 AM  

vfm wrote:
Again where are these elusive atheists that are in touch with and communicate from a position of nihilistic despair? There aren't any, so people are naturally dealing with them by what they see here all the time which is a toxic compound of disingenuousness, overweening arrogance mixed with midwittery.
I am atheist, I am posting on vox popoli for a long time; have I ever struck you as arrogant? I can't say about midwittery, since I can't speak for that.
Moreover, I have also written at least once on this blog, and maybe even more times, that in my case atheism have actually led to a very dark feelings and I am far from feeling superior. My children are catholic, just as my wife, and - again, as I have already written on this very blog - I do not intend to "convert" them to atheism. What for? I would gain nothing, they would gain nothing. Even if I think they believe in fiction, I also think that their belief will made them happier and will provide them with an anchor and armor to held against all the storms which are inevitably coming towards them.

I think your impression has a lot to do with the fact that about 2/3 of atheists are left from the center, and those usually are not the most pleasant folks to associate with. In fact, quite a lot of them is outright toxic.

Blogger szopen December 24, 2017 10:27 AM  

Here is a link for "autism spectrum quotient". If you wonder how high you would score on this test, go there and - just for fun - post your score and whether you are firm believer/believer/agnostic/atheist.

I am atheist, my score was 27. That would explain a lot :D. Though I wonder, whether introvertism does not influence the scores.


https://psychology-tools.com/autism-spectrum-quotient/

"
0-11 low result – indicating no tendency at all towards autistic traits.
11-21 is the average result that people get (many women average around 15 and men around 17)
22-25 shows autistic tendencies slightly above the population average
26-31 gives a borderline indication of an autism spectrum disorder. It is also possible to have aspergers or mild autism within this range.
32-50 indicates a strong likelihood of Asperger syndrome or autism.
"

Anonymous Stickwick December 24, 2017 10:28 AM  

Mr. Rational: Whereas I marvel at how tiny I am compared to a merging pair of neutron stars which can generate a Jupiter-sized quantity of gold.  This would probably annihilate life on Earth if it happened anywhere nearby, but I relish living in a universe with such wonders in it.

An event like this did happen nearby, at a time when it was of maximum benefit to human development, or we would have neither gold nor humans on Earth.

I don't think atheists have an inability to feel awe. But unlike normal people, they tend to only feel awed by impersonal things, and that awe doesn't lead them to think about a personal origin to any of it.

All those examples were products of their respective times and their available knowledge.  The question is what is tenable now, not then.

Atheists like you put on a show of intellectual curiosity, but you really just play at it. There's a reason for this -- too much knowledge is fatal to your beliefs.

Just a little bit of research would reveal to you that, contra atheist propagandizing, science is a direct product of the Christian faith. The possibility of a civilization developing science depends on its attitude toward the natural world. Only Christians had the right combination of assumptions and attitudes about the natural world for modern science to ever be a possibility. There is effectively zero chance that any other society would develop modern science on its own.

Haroldish: What neither position answers, however, is what happened before creation? The Christian response to question is as unsatisfactory as their embrace of the entirely childish and simple embrace of the Christian story.

Abrahamic theists have a very clear answer to this, and given that there are more Abrahamic people in the world than every other religion combined, it clearly is a satisfactory answer.

Anonymous Anon Swede December 24, 2017 10:37 AM  

Try meditation, eg Culadasa. No theist language to trip you up. Find out for yourself.

Even in Catholicism there is a tradition of this- see eg Theresa of Avila, Unio Mystica, Meister Eckhart, others.

Blogger Anchorman December 24, 2017 10:49 AM  

Score is 13. Firm believer.

Anonymous vfm December 24, 2017 10:53 AM  

"I think your impression has a lot to do with the fact that about 2/3 of atheists are left from the center, and those usually are not the most pleasant folks to associate with. In fact, quite a lot of them is outright toxic.

Ok fair enough szopen. You are a rare bird when it comes to atheists. Merry Christmas to you and yours.

Blogger szopen December 24, 2017 10:58 AM  

vfm wrote:"I think your impression has a lot to do with the fact that about 2/3 of atheists are left from the center, and those usually are not the most pleasant folks to associate with. In fact, quite a lot of them is outright toxic.

Ok fair enough szopen. You are a rare bird when it comes to atheists. Merry Christmas to you and yours.

Thanks. Merry Christmas.

Blogger Rashadjin December 24, 2017 11:05 AM  

All the interesting discussion aside, I think Vox owes his atheist guests an apology on this one.

It wasn't so long ago that he accused militant atheists of being vicious little creatures for declaring religion a crutch and then kicking that crutch out from under people. Turning around and saying that atheism is a response to genetic deficiencies and then lording it over all the genetically defectives is only a difference in degree.

And I could wade through a few more details on why it's an overly simplistic, low-resolution read of the present state of affairs if need be.

Blogger S1AL December 24, 2017 11:18 AM  

"And I could wade through a few more details on why it's an overly simplistic, low-resolution read of the present state of affairs if need be."

I'm sure you said the same thing in response to Dawkin's assertion that religiosity is the result of a literal mental illness.

Right?

Blogger szopen December 24, 2017 11:21 AM  

Rashadjin wrote:All the interesting discussion aside, I think Vox owes his atheist guests an apology on this one.


That should be good :D :D :D (takes the popcorn).

(You are new to this blog, right?)

Anonymous Haroldish December 24, 2017 11:22 AM  

"Abrahamic theists have a very clear answer to this, and given that there are more Abrahamic people in the world than every other religion combined, it clearly is a satisfactory answer."

Intellectually, the answer is unsatisfactory. Whether it soothes the soul or allows the believer to walk away from the question of what occurred before creation, is beside the point. These are fairy tales.

Still, there is no question there was a creation of this world. This is undeniable. What happened before, however, can't be answered but is the real question. Embrace of an absurd fairy tale is just intellectual laziness

Blogger szopen December 24, 2017 11:24 AM  

Can a time be created? Can we imagine a being without a time? Those are interesting questions. "What existed before the world creation" are quite trivial addendums.

Anonymous Haroldish December 24, 2017 11:24 AM  

"And I could wade through a few more details on why it's an overly simplistic, low-resolution read of the present state of affairs if need be."

You should not be disappointed or surprised. The whole christian faith is overly simplistic, low resolution...from an intellectual point of view and certainly is low on the honesty scale.

Blogger Koanic December 24, 2017 11:26 AM  

Vox has already written a book apologizing to atheists. He is an appallingly apologetic fellow.

Anonymous Haroldish December 24, 2017 11:26 AM  

"What existed before the world creation" are quite trivial addendums."

Not if curiosity and honesty are to be combined.

Blogger S1AL December 24, 2017 11:28 AM  

"You should not be disappointed or surprised. The whole christian faith is overly simplistic, low resolution...from an intellectual point of view and certainly is low on the honesty scale."

Says someone whose entire philosophy is "all of existence is an inexplicable accident".

The irony, it kills.

Blogger szopen December 24, 2017 11:28 AM  

Haroldish wrote:"What existed before the world creation" are quite trivial addendums."

Not if curiosity and honesty are to be combined.

I am atheist, mind you. However, just a simple question: do you believe I exist? Why?

Anonymous Haroldish December 24, 2017 11:33 AM  

"Says someone whose entire philosophy is "all of existence is an inexplicable accident"."

No one said anything about creation of this world being inexplicable, nor an accident. But this universe did not appear out of nothing, nor could "god" appear out of nothing. So, please don't be so slapstick in your response.

Anonymous Haroldish December 24, 2017 11:35 AM  

"I am atheist, mind you. However, just a simple question: do you believe I exist? Why?"

I can test the theory you exist against theories and laws that prove reliable every time they are deployed. And when the results come back, "yes", then there is no good reason (nor a useful reason) to deny it.

Blogger S1AL December 24, 2017 11:40 AM  

"But this universe did not appear out of nothing, nor could "god" appear out of nothing."

Objection: assumes facts not in evidence

Objection: assumes characteristics of The Divine not held by Christians

"So, please don't be so slapstick in your response."

You presented insults and no substance.

So, let's give you the chance to correct that.

Given that you claim Christianity is "simplistic and low resolution", explain the following:

The paradox of faith and works

The paradox of losing one's life to save it

The paradox of Divine sovereignty and free will

The predictive power of the warnings found in Christian Scripture

Anonymous Stickwick December 24, 2017 11:53 AM  

Haroldish: Still, there is no question there was a creation of this world. This is undeniable. What happened before, however, can't be answered but is the real question. Embrace of an absurd fairy tale is just intellectual laziness

If there was a creation, then logically there is a creative entity of some sort. It is either conscious or unconscious. Those are the only two choices.

If the question is fundamentally unanswerable in a definitive way, we can still explore the question from the side of reason and evidence and decide which answer is more likely.

So, by what rational process have you decided that a conscious creative entity is "absurd"?

Anonymous Haroldish December 24, 2017 12:12 PM  

"So, by what rational process have you decided that a conscious creative entity is "absurd"?"

I don't rule this out. I rule out the absurdity of the Christian creation story. It's such a crude and childish rendering for its use as a coping vehicle masquerading as an explanation for something far more monumental than simple death.

Anonymous Stickwick December 24, 2017 12:20 PM  

Haroldish, what is absurd about the Christian creation story? Specifically, on what basis do you rule it out?

Blogger szopen December 24, 2017 12:39 PM  

Haroldish wrote:"I am atheist, mind you. However, just a simple question: do you believe I exist? Why?"

I can test the theory you exist against theories and laws that prove reliable every time they are deployed. And when the results come back, "yes", then there is no good reason (nor a useful reason) to deny it.


Except in that case there is no way to test this theory. Seems you had no understand my question. There is no way you can be sure anything exist at all. How you can say you can test that I exist, if you cannot be sure any tool you could possibly use exists? How can you be sure anything except you exists at all?

As st. Agustin discovered, there is only one thing you can be sure: "dubito, ergo sum" (if I doubt the reality, there is still something which doubts and that something exists).

Blogger Dire Badger December 24, 2017 1:02 PM  

Mr. Rational wrote

The pursuit of a totally egalitarian society is a pursuit of one concept of beauty. It stands directly opposed to truth and honesty. How much ugliness and pain has it produced? Looked at Detroit ruin porn lately?

Yep. Tublecane says "Balance" and you immediately hide under 'extreme'. Typical intellectual dishonesty.

I could refute you with a point-by-point detailing of just one of my insights which resulted in a patent of which I am sole inventor, but I'll settle for laughing at you. I went where many people had been before, and saw something nobody had seen before. The USPTO agrees, and not just once either.

You could refute me with a point-by-point detailing of how exceptional you are for doing something a million other americans have done before, including me, and including probably half the people posting on this board? 'Patents' as a measure of creativity, are nothing more than absurd bragging. And then 'proof by authority' of the USPTO? Really? Have you ever LOOKED at a random selection of the list of patents? I have... For comedy purposes, more than once.

Not being a scientist, I don't get to see the spectrum. Engineers... ah, I wish I could tell you all about one of my experiences with diversity. Cookbook conformity, check. Insight, zip. And dumped the results on us immediately before a meeting with the customer in which the customer noticed the design flaw which had come from his lack of insight. Not as quickly as I did, but before our side had any opportunity to straighten things out and not embarrass us. I had to school the wonderful little diversity in how to apply algebra to the problem, which I did in front of the customer so that they could be assured they had competent people in charge. (Wonder why I have no use for diversities?)

"All Indians walk in single file. I saw one once. and then I saw another.

Whereas I marvel at how tiny I am compared to a merging pair of neutron stars which can generate a Jupiter-sized quantity of gold. This would probably annihilate life on Earth if it happened anywhere nearby, but I relish living in a universe with such wonders in it.

Really, You really cannot understand the difference beteen 'Bigger' than yourself and 'Greater' than yourself? Do you feel like those Neutron stars are smarter than you are? More creative? More innovative? Of course not. In fact, right NOW you are patting yourself on the back for your brilliance at coming up with a cleverly meaningless misunderstanding and your illusionary spirituality for using the word 'wonders' in a sentence.

vfm wrote:Yet you can't accept all the examples of Christian scientific achievement I gave?

All those examples were products of their respective times and their available knowledge. The question is what is tenable now, not then.

Dumbest evasion I have ever heard, "Those were in the past, so they don't count."

Seriously, Dude... have you gotten High for the Holidays? Usually your lies, evasions, misstatements, and strawmen are much cleverer than this. I am really disappointed.

Blogger Blastman December 24, 2017 1:18 PM  

Haroldish wrote:
What neither position answers, however, is what happened before creation? The Christian response to question is as unsatisfactory as their embrace of the entirely childish and simple embrace of the Christian story.

No one said anything about creation of this world being inexplicable, nor an accident. But this universe did not appear out of nothing, nor could "god" appear out of nothing. So, please don't be so slapstick in your response.


I don't think you fully understand the nature of the creation problem and its explanation. The Christian explanation of creation from a philosophical POV is not only satisfactory, it is the only tenable logical position. W. L. Craig has been a proponent of the Kalam cosmological argument, which I will use (even though Kalam was Islamic), the proof illustrates the main points I want to clarify.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
2. The universe began to exist;
3. Therefore; The universe has a cause.

What most people miss in this first part of W. L. Craig's proof is that the corollary to … Whatever begins to exist has a cause … is that something that exists eternally does not have a cause of its existence. In fact, something that exists eternally logically cannot have a cause of its existence or it wouldn't be eternal -- it would at some point have begun to exist.

The important takeaway from this is that there are logically 2 ways to explain why something exists;

1) Created (caused)
2) Eternal (uncaused)

Logically, everything that exists has to fall into one of these 2 categories of existence -- it can either exist created-caused, or, it can have an eternal-uncaused existence. An eternal God cannot have a cause of his existence or he would not be eternal -- he would at some point have begun to exist.

Since it is not logical that nothing can be the cause of anything -- the starting point for existence in the universe cannot be nothing. You can't start with nothing -- and then have the universe pop into existence from a nothing. Something has to exist eternally for there to exist anything at all. So it's either an eternal God who created a non-eternal universe, or, the universe is eternal -- one of them has to exist eternally to explain existence.

Since the universe is observed to have a beginning (created), then there must exist an eternal God who created it. That's the only logical way to explain existence.

In the Kalam cosmological argument, the term used for created is begins to exist. Something that has a beginning cannot be eternal. Something that is eternal cannot have a beginning, or it wouldn't be eternal. Same basic concepts just expressed using different terms.

Blogger szopen December 24, 2017 1:22 PM  

"then there must exist an eternal God who created it"

Not really. Your argument shows that there must be an eternal cause, not that that cause must come from God.

Blogger szopen December 24, 2017 1:26 PM  

"it is not logical that nothing can be the cause of anything"
In our universe, yes, as it would contradict laws of our universe. However I don't know why insists that this has to be true outside our universe.

Blogger Dire Badger December 24, 2017 1:29 PM  

It's kind of amusing. In the 70's and early 80's, there was this movement called EST (I don't remember what it stood for, I was only 8 at the time) which was an outgrowth of the new 'hippy atheism'.

It failed, however, because it tried to pair Post Humanism with observable reality, and then screwed that up by pointing out that reality was an illusion of your senses.



As an anecdote: If I make the mistake of eating hot dogs (Nitrates) with certain kinds of chili (MSG) while a concert is going on (Country music festival) I invariably get a migraine. That migraine is prefaced by a sort of blobby, sparkly hallucination at the edge of my vision.
This is utterly consistent and utterly reproduceable. Does that mean that that sparkly blob is 'really there'? Of course not. Despite the fact that I can 'create' it whenever I want to (which is never) It is an artifact of my sensory network.

Every perception is an artifact of my sensory network. And yet, I have faith in those artifacts, and behave as if those artifacts are 'real'... because experience has taught me that those artifacts can affect me, strongly... If I walk in front of a car going 90mph I 'see' and 'hear', I have unshakeable faith that I will be splattered. Even though I have never been HIT by a car going 90, it makes logical sense based on my sensory network and the evidence of my OTHER senses (My ability to read possibly-false accounts of people being hit by cars) That it would be stupid to step in front of said car.


Atheists, in the most extreme sense, basically refuse to have faith in that thing which they have never experienced, despite the evidence of their own senses, not because there is no evidence... but because that evidence, to them, does not add up to 'irrefutable proof'. And yet... oddly enough they still don't step in front of that car.

That's why it is simple arrogance. That is why the sin of 'pride' is so emphasized among Christians... because Pride alone blinds you to anything outside of yourself, and especially intellectual pride inhibits you from making the logical leap that there are things you just are NOT capable of understanding.

Blogger S1AL December 24, 2017 1:30 PM  

I'm beginning to wonder if Haroldish is a neopagan.

Blogger Rashadjin December 24, 2017 1:32 PM  

@178 S1AL

I'm sure you said the same thing in response to Dawkin's assertion that religiosity is the result of a literal mental illness.

Right?


I've never spoken with Dawkin nor have wandered into any blog or forum or somesuch of his, so haven't had the opportunity. Why? Does he have a blog or forum or somesuch I should check out?

Although thanks for comparing Vox's position to Dawkin's. I would never have the temerity.

@179 szopen

I do try to entertain. So no. I have a fair idea of the mountain I'm asking to move.

1 – 200 of 228 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts