Jump to content


Atheist Are Brain Damaged


  • Please log in to reply
115 replies to this topic

#21 timwakefield

timwakefield

    I haven't got the time time

  • Members
  • 14,413 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Boston
  • Favorite Poker Game:Boxmaha

Posted 29 September 2011 - 04:05 PM

View PostLongLiveYorke, on Thursday, September 29th, 2011, 9:44 AM, said:

Let's say that there are 100 people. 30 of them are wearing red pants, 70 of them are wearing blue pants.Some 20 of them are also wearing hats. Of those wearing hats, 8 are wearing red pants, and 12 are wearing blue pants.A guy goes around studying the people who wear hats. He says that the majority of people who wear hats have blue pants. And he's right. The percentages are:Probability of blue pants based on having a hat = 12/20 = 60%Probability of red pants based on having a hat = 8/20 = 40%However, another guys looks at the total population. He finds that people with red pants are MORE likely to be wearing a hat than a person with blue pants:Probability of hat based on red pants = 8/30 = ~27%Probability of hat based on blue pants = 12/70 = ~17%
But BG suggested that ALL atheists are brain-damaged, based on the fact that some of them are. Your scenario is interesting when we think about how statistics are created, but neither of your guys are suggesting that ALL blue or red panted people wear hats, or that all hatted people wear blue pants, because that would be ludicrous. Perhaps you can explain further. Also, you should use pants for most of your examples, because "pants" is a mildly funny word (in England it means underpants). Also also, I'm pretty sure you're at a Radiohead concert at this very moment. That's totally unrelated, but awesome for you.
Karl: She was a bit -- what's the word that you can use, cuz I don't wanna offend anyone?
Steve: Was she a homeless person?
Karl: Yeah but sort of mental homeless.

#22 Tactical Bear

Tactical Bear

    Happy Hallowang

  • Members
  • 4,220 posts
  • Location:Hiding

Posted 30 September 2011 - 02:10 AM

View Posttimwakefield, on Thursday, September 29th, 2011, 3:51 AM, said:

I was talking to you, regarding the ridiculous title of this thread, because that is very plainly not the conclusion made by the people who undertook this study. People with mild autism are more likely to be atheists than people without mild autism is so plainly not the same thing as People who are atheists have mild autism, which is what your thread title essentially says. I find it impossible to believe that you don't understand this discrepancy.

View PostLongLiveYorke, on Thursday, September 29th, 2011, 9:44 AM, said:

Let's say that there are 100 people. 30 of them are wearing red pants, 70 of them are wearing blue pants.Some 20 of them are also wearing hats. Of those wearing hats, 8 are wearing red pants, and 12 are wearing blue pants.A guy goes around studying the people who wear hats. He says that the majority of people who wear hats have blue pants. And he's right. The percentages are:Probability of blue pants based on having a hat = 12/20 = 60%Probability of red pants based on having a hat = 8/20 = 40%However, another guys looks at the total population. He finds that people with red pants are MORE likely to be wearing a hat than a person with blue pants:Probability of hat based on red pants = 8/30 = ~27%Probability of hat based on blue pants = 12/70 = ~17%

View Posttimwakefield, on Thursday, September 29th, 2011, 8:05 PM, said:

But BG suggested that ALL atheists are brain-damaged, based on the fact that some of them are. Your scenario is interesting when we think about how statistics are created, but neither of your guys are suggesting that ALL blue or red panted people wear hats, or that all hatted people wear blue pants, because that would be ludicrous. Perhaps you can explain further.

View Posttimwakefield but actually me SHIMMERING WANG using the words of timwakefield against him (because he is stupid), on Thursday, September 29th, 2011, 3:51 AM, said:

I find it impossible to believe that you don't understand this
EDIT: Also something about Bayes Theorem!
Quack, Qua-...

I mean, RAAAAAAWWWR!

#23 Balloon guy

Balloon guy

    Deplorable Lives Matter

  • Members
  • 24,409 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Interests:Cigars, Flying, Golf, Bible
  • Favorite Poker Game:Golf

Posted 30 September 2011 - 09:25 AM

View Posttimwakefield, on Thursday, September 29th, 2011, 12:51 AM, said:

I was talking to you, regarding the ridiculous title of this thread, because that is very plainly not the conclusion made by the people who undertook this study. People with mild autism are more likely to be atheists than people without mild autism is so plainly not the same thing as People who are atheists have mild autism, which is what your thread title essentially says. I find it impossible to believe that you don't understand this discrepancy.
I am merely repeating a Boston University study that found that people with faulty brain wiring are more likely to be atheist.Which means atheism is linked to faulty thinking.Which we already knew of course, but now we have science to prove it.I do not get why you cannot embrace this like the others here who are blindly pointing to a pulled out of context sentence and pretending it means something contrary to what it actually is saying.
I use my cigar smoke as idiot repellent

Most bad government has come out of too much government. Thomas Jefferson

#24 SuitedAces21

SuitedAces21

    once and future king

  • Members
  • 24,852 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 30 September 2011 - 07:23 PM

View PostBalloon guy, on Friday, September 30th, 2011, 12:25 PM, said:

I do not get why you cannot embrace this like the others here who are blindly pointing to a pulled out of context sentence and pretending it means something contrary to what it actually is saying.
haha, this is so sad.
Spoiler

#25 timwakefield

timwakefield

    I haven't got the time time

  • Members
  • 14,413 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Boston
  • Favorite Poker Game:Boxmaha

Posted 30 September 2011 - 11:37 PM

View PostTactical Bear, on Friday, September 30th, 2011, 6:10 AM, said:

timwakefield but actually me SHIMMERING WANG using the words of timwakefield against him (because he is stupid)
Posted ImageYou've made 11 posts this week. 8 of them have had no purpose but to berate me. Nice life, etc.
Karl: She was a bit -- what's the word that you can use, cuz I don't wanna offend anyone?
Steve: Was she a homeless person?
Karl: Yeah but sort of mental homeless.

#26 speedz99

speedz99

    It don't matter to Jesus.

  • Members
  • 28,085 posts
  • Location:North Hollywood

Posted 01 October 2011 - 09:38 AM

View PostBalloon guy, on Friday, September 30th, 2011, 10:25 AM, said:

I am merely repeating a Boston University study that found that people with faulty brain wiring are more likely to be atheist.Which means atheism is linked to faulty thinking.Which we already knew of course, but now we have science to prove it.
If you're going to actually pretend to believe in scientific studies and analysis, you're doing it wrong. What you should have said is, "Autism is linked to rational thinking, which is linked to atheism."
You got a date Wednesday, baby!

#27 Balloon guy

Balloon guy

    Deplorable Lives Matter

  • Members
  • 24,409 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Interests:Cigars, Flying, Golf, Bible
  • Favorite Poker Game:Golf

Posted 01 October 2011 - 04:47 PM

View Postspeedz99, on Saturday, October 1st, 2011, 10:38 AM, said:

If you're going to actually pretend to believe in scientific studies and analysis, you're doing it wrong. What you should have said is, "Autism is linked to rational thinking, which is linked to atheism."
Glad you are trying to embrace your brain defects.Good for you buddy.Good for you.
I use my cigar smoke as idiot repellent

Most bad government has come out of too much government. Thomas Jefferson

#28 LimbaughGod

LimbaughGod

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 123 posts
  • Favorite Poker Game:5 card draw

Posted 01 October 2011 - 06:50 PM

An even more striking correlation, men are 90% more likely to be autistic than women. So according to the reasoning in this thread my wife is correct: all men are retarded.

#29 speedz99

speedz99

    It don't matter to Jesus.

  • Members
  • 28,085 posts
  • Location:North Hollywood

Posted 02 October 2011 - 11:39 AM

View PostBalloon guy, on Saturday, October 1st, 2011, 5:47 PM, said:

Glad you are trying to embrace your brain defects.Good for you buddy.Good for you.
It's ok, you can say it. I know it hurts, but go ahead. Say, "You win this round."
You got a date Wednesday, baby!

#30 Balloon guy

Balloon guy

    Deplorable Lives Matter

  • Members
  • 24,409 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Interests:Cigars, Flying, Golf, Bible
  • Favorite Poker Game:Golf

Posted 02 October 2011 - 11:59 AM

View Postspeedz99, on Sunday, October 2nd, 2011, 12:39 PM, said:

It's ok, you can say it. I know it hurts, but go ahead. Say, "You win this round."
I get it...your faulty brain is giving you equally faulty scoring results.The story clearly shows that your brains are more likely to be broken to arrive at the position you are holding. I am trying my hardest to make my brain not work right so I can sit in your shoes and see your point, but it is hard...cause my brain works normal and stuff.Anyway, hows that schooling to learn how and why to insert your entire arm deep into a cow's rectum that you are paying 6 figures for going Mr. There's-nothing-wrong-with-my-logic?
I use my cigar smoke as idiot repellent

Most bad government has come out of too much government. Thomas Jefferson

#31 Balloon guy

Balloon guy

    Deplorable Lives Matter

  • Members
  • 24,409 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Interests:Cigars, Flying, Golf, Bible
  • Favorite Poker Game:Golf

Posted 02 October 2011 - 12:38 PM

Sorry for piling on, but this story is also somewhat damaging for your guys side.

Quote

A study conducted by Daniel Bartels, Columbia Business School, Marketing, and David Pizarro, Cornell University, Psychology found that people who endorse actions consistent with an ethic of utilitarianism—the view that what is the morally right thing to do is whatever produces the best overall consequences—tend to possess psychopathic and Machiavellian personality traits.... Bartels and Pizarro found a strong link between utilitarian responses to these dilemmas (e.g., approving the killing of an innocent person to save the others) and personality styles that were psychopathic, Machiavellian or tended to view life as meaningless.
I am anticipating great efforts to twist these results to make yourselves win this round also.Make sure you bring in Sam Harris, since his recent book about morality would place him firmly in this 'more likely to be a psychopath' camp.
I use my cigar smoke as idiot repellent

Most bad government has come out of too much government. Thomas Jefferson

#32 Tactical Bear

Tactical Bear

    Happy Hallowang

  • Members
  • 4,220 posts
  • Location:Hiding

Posted 02 October 2011 - 01:45 PM

View PostBalloon guy, on Sunday, October 2nd, 2011, 4:38 PM, said:

Sorry for piling on, but this story is also somewhat damaging for your guys side.I am anticipating great efforts to twist these results to make yourselves win this round also.Make sure you bring in Sam Harris, since his recent book about morality would place him firmly in this 'more likely to be a psychopath' camp.
From the same article, in the concluding paragraph

Quote

While some might be tempted to conclude that these findings undermine utilitarianism as an ethical theory, Prof. Bartels explained that he and his co-author have a different interpretation: "Although the study does not resolve the ethical debate, it points to a flaw in the widely-adopted use of sacrificial dilemmas to identify optimal moral judgment. These methods fail to distinguish between people who endorse utilitarian moral choices because of underlying emotional deficits (like those captured by our measures of psychopathy and Machiavellianism) and those who endorse them out of genuine concern for the welfare of others." In short, if scientists' methods cannot identify a difference between the morality of a utilitarian philosopher who sacrifices her own interest for the sake of others, and a manipulative con artist who cares little about the feelings and welfare of anyone but himself, then perhaps better methods are needed.
All this study says is: "Based on the questions we asked in the experiment we designed, we are unable to tell if a respondent that chooses to push one man in front of a train is doing it because (a) he is trying to save 5 lives OR (b) he just really likes pushing people in front of trains." Seriously. Read the text of the article. You can see how easy it would for that to be true, right?Let's use as an example the passengers on board the 4th plane on 9/11. They fought back against the terrorists, and very likely attempted to kill them, knowing full well it would mean their own deaths. Maybe one of those guys just really likes fighting and killing. Or maybe one of them was excited about getting to the controls and crashing the plane into the ground. How can you distinguish between an act of genuine heroism and an act of wanton violence?The examples often used to illustrate optimal moral behavior -- the "kill one to save ten?" hypotheticals -- are, according to this study, flawed.
Quack, Qua-...

I mean, RAAAAAAWWWR!

#33 Tactical Bear

Tactical Bear

    Happy Hallowang

  • Members
  • 4,220 posts
  • Location:Hiding

Posted 02 October 2011 - 01:54 PM

Also, I LOVE the powerpoint linked in BalloonGuy's signature, especially slide 14, which is an attempt to dispel the myth that:ATHEISTS ARE VERY INTELLIGENTAverage IQRetards: 70Average: 100Atheist: 103Mensa: 132Genius: 140The point is supposed to be something like "Atheists aren't, like, geniuses or anything, and therefore aren't even smart."But what those numbers really say is: "Atheists are 3% smarter than average." Let's add one more category, shall we?Non-Atheists: <100Average: 100Atheists: 103Now, a new conclusion: "non-Atheists are of below-average intelligence."Am I missing something here? Isn't that exactly the opposite of what BalloonGuy and VoxDay are trying to say?
Quack, Qua-...

I mean, RAAAAAAWWWR!

#34 Balloon guy

Balloon guy

    Deplorable Lives Matter

  • Members
  • 24,409 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Interests:Cigars, Flying, Golf, Bible
  • Favorite Poker Game:Golf

Posted 02 October 2011 - 03:22 PM

View PostTactical Bear, on Sunday, October 2nd, 2011, 2:54 PM, said:

Also, I LOVE the powerpoint linked in BalloonGuy's signature, especially slide 14, which is an attempt to dispel the myth that:ATHEISTS ARE VERY INTELLIGENTAverage IQRetards: 70Average: 100Atheist: 103Mensa: 132Genius: 140The point is supposed to be something like "Atheists aren't, like, geniuses or anything, and therefore aren't even smart."But what those numbers really say is: "Atheists are 3% smarter than average." Let's add one more category, shall we?Non-Atheists: <100Average: 100Atheists: 103Now, a new conclusion: "non-Atheists are of below-average intelligence."Am I missing something here? Isn't that exactly the opposite of what BalloonGuy and VoxDay are trying to say?
So you are saying atheist are within the margin for error on most IQ test with average people? And that making up numbers and applying them arbitrarily is a valid method to make your point?I guess I can grant you this. I think you are going to end up arguing with VB though, but I am more open minded than most lefties... besides I rated high than mensa, which is why I believe in God.
I use my cigar smoke as idiot repellent

Most bad government has come out of too much government. Thomas Jefferson

#35 Balloon guy

Balloon guy

    Deplorable Lives Matter

  • Members
  • 24,409 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Interests:Cigars, Flying, Golf, Bible
  • Favorite Poker Game:Golf

Posted 02 October 2011 - 03:24 PM

View PostTactical Bear, on Sunday, October 2nd, 2011, 2:45 PM, said:

From the same article, in the concluding paragraphAll this study says is: "Based on the questions we asked in the experiment we designed, we are unable to tell if a respondent that chooses to push one man in front of a train is doing it because (a) he is trying to save 5 lives OR (b) he just really likes pushing people in front of trains." Seriously. Read the text of the article. You can see how easy it would for that to be true, right?Let's use as an example the passengers on board the 4th plane on 9/11. They fought back against the terrorists, and very likely attempted to kill them, knowing full well it would mean their own deaths. Maybe one of those guys just really likes fighting and killing. Or maybe one of them was excited about getting to the controls and crashing the plane into the ground. How can you distinguish between an act of genuine heroism and an act of wanton violence?The examples often used to illustrate optimal moral behavior -- the "kill one to save ten?" hypotheticals -- are, according to this study, flawed.
Curious...If you went to a funeral of your friend's sister and saw a woman that you think may be the perfect woman for you...but she left before you could meet her, what would you do?
I use my cigar smoke as idiot repellent

Most bad government has come out of too much government. Thomas Jefferson

#36 speedz99

speedz99

    It don't matter to Jesus.

  • Members
  • 28,085 posts
  • Location:North Hollywood

Posted 02 October 2011 - 04:46 PM

View PostBalloon guy, on Sunday, October 2nd, 2011, 12:59 PM, said:

I get it...your faulty brain is giving you equally faulty scoring results.The story clearly shows that your brains are more likely to be broken to arrive at the position you are holding. I am trying my hardest to make my brain not work right so I can sit in your shoes and see your point, but it is hard...cause my brain works normal and stuff.
Say it, BG. Say that this thread was a disaster for you.

View PostBalloon guy, on Sunday, October 2nd, 2011, 12:59 PM, said:

Anyway, hows that schooling to learn how and why to insert your entire arm deep into a cow's rectum that you are paying 6 figures for going Mr. There's-nothing-wrong-with-my-logic?
Well, the good news is that, despite my 6 figure debt, I'll never go broke. So, you know, I guess I could be doing less logical things with my life.

View PostTactical Bear, on Sunday, October 2nd, 2011, 2:54 PM, said:

The point is supposed to be something like "Atheists aren't, like, geniuses or anything, and therefore aren't even smart."But what those numbers really say is: "Atheists are 3% smarter than average." Let's add one more category, shall we?Non-Atheists: <100Average: 100Atheists: 103Now, a new conclusion: "non-Atheists are of below-average intelligence."
Haha. I kind of can't believe you bothered clicking on that link though.
You got a date Wednesday, baby!

#37 speedz99

speedz99

    It don't matter to Jesus.

  • Members
  • 28,085 posts
  • Location:North Hollywood

Posted 02 October 2011 - 04:47 PM

View PostBalloon guy, on Sunday, October 2nd, 2011, 4:24 PM, said:

Curious...If you went to a funeral of your friend's sister and saw a woman that you think may be the perfect woman for you...but she left before you could meet her, what would you do?
Go back to his babymama and cry himself to sleep?
You got a date Wednesday, baby!

#38 Balloon guy

Balloon guy

    Deplorable Lives Matter

  • Members
  • 24,409 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Interests:Cigars, Flying, Golf, Bible
  • Favorite Poker Game:Golf

Posted 02 October 2011 - 07:00 PM

View Postspeedz99, on Sunday, October 2nd, 2011, 5:46 PM, said:

Say it, BG. Say that this thread was a disaster for you.
Are you kidding?I have a thread I can link too anytime VB starts those fault ridden 'studies' done by atheist trying to discount the incredible contributions throughout history that Christianity has made to civilization.That's all the thread was meant to be. ( Also I didn't actually read the link, just the title, but that's good enough for most of my investigations, so its good enough here )

Quote

Well, the good news is that, despite my 6 figure debt, I'll never go broke. So, you know, I guess I could be doing less logical things with my life.
Haha..that's one way of looking at it. Wait till the democrats start up ObamaDoggieCare.

Quote

Haha. I kind of can't believe you bothered clicking on that link though.
He was open minded enough to not fear reading something to challenge his beliefs. I never would fault a man for that.
I use my cigar smoke as idiot repellent

Most bad government has come out of too much government. Thomas Jefferson

#39 Tactical Bear

Tactical Bear

    Happy Hallowang

  • Members
  • 4,220 posts
  • Location:Hiding

Posted 02 October 2011 - 08:31 PM

View PostBalloon guy, on Sunday, October 2nd, 2011, 7:22 PM, said:

So you are saying atheist are within the margin for error on most IQ test with average people? And that making up numbers and applying them arbitrarily is a valid method to make your point?I guess I can grant you this. I think you are going to end up arguing with VB though, but I am more open minded than most lefties... besides I rated high than mensa, which is why I believe in God.
I suppose my point is: "What is VoxDay trying to say?" The way he framed his point was disingenuous -- the "MENSA" and "GENIUS" bars were meant to make the difference between 103 (atheist) and 100 (average) look trifling. He was also offering evidence that atheists are smarter than theists, which just seems... I don't know, backwards? Silly? Perhaps the point was, "There is not a statistically significant difference between the IQs of Theists and Atheists." But I don't think so. I don't think you do either, BG. If that really was his point, why didn't he include the Theist IQ? Or some error bars? It was a clumsy attempt to reject a null hypothesis that reflected poorly on VoxDay.I'm really not sure if Atheists are smarter than Theists -- gun to my head, I'd say yes, but I can't prove that, and even if I could it wouldn't mean anything -- but that slide was both misleading AND backwards.

View PostBalloon guy, on Sunday, October 2nd, 2011, 7:24 PM, said:

Curious...If you went to a funeral of your friend's sister and saw a woman that you think may be the perfect woman for you...but she left before you could meet her, what would you do?
I'm also curious (about whether I'm walking into a trap/joke, and also about relevance), but I'd ask around. I'd start on the periphery, asking the least grief-stricken about the woman, attempting to ascertain who she was, her relationship to my friend and his sister, and go from there. Funerals are grave affairs, but if I thought I met a woman who was perfect for me, the gravity of the situation wouldn't stop me in my tracks or anything. I'd do my best to not seem like a tail-chasing slut-hound, but I'd learn about her. If she seemed perfect for me, I'd pursue her. Who wouldn't?

View Postspeedz99, on Sunday, October 2nd, 2011, 8:46 PM, said:

Haha. I kind of can't believe you bothered clicking on that link though.
I expected to see about what I saw, but seeing it has value. I never would have clicked it if I hadn't been in the religion forum in the first place. It would've been imprudent to discuss religion with BG without reading the anti-atheist powerpoint presentation in his signature...
Quack, Qua-...

I mean, RAAAAAAWWWR!

#40 Tactical Bear

Tactical Bear

    Happy Hallowang

  • Members
  • 4,220 posts
  • Location:Hiding

Posted 02 October 2011 - 08:38 PM

View Postspeedz99, on Sunday, October 2nd, 2011, 8:47 PM, said:

Go back to his babymama and cry himself to sleep?
You know I don't have a kid, right?
Quack, Qua-...

I mean, RAAAAAAWWWR!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users