Still, the world would actually be a far better place if people knew what they were talking about before they made decisions that can effect other people and world we live in.

Meh, that is doubtful. For one, I think that in most cases we already got relatively intelligent people running the planet. Say what you want about a Ted Cruz, but you can't deny that the guy is intelligent. He got the academic credentials to back that up. And despite his apparent intelligence, the guy does not belong in government, not as a politician. Bill O'Reilly is another example of someone who has the brains, but so far chooses to spread stupidity because it pays well.

And as I said before, when it comes to designing policy, there is not one optimal way of doing things. Everything comes with upsides and downsides. Even if you are highly intelligent its difficult to know which option works best for the future.

And it shows. Extremely intelligent people have nearly caused the end of the world, and trust me, those people knew what they were doing. The only reason we are not dead is because those intelligent people chose the apparently irrational option, the option that basically contradicts what International Relations theory suggests should be done.

As McNamara says, rationality will not save us.

So Ted Cruz, Bill O'Reilly, and McNamara are running the planet?

Way!


edit:
..and they all get their marching orders from Micky Mouse...

---

Yes!

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

So Ted Cruz, Bill O'Reilly, and McNamara are running the planet?

I did not know that!

Well, McNamara is dead now, but if you look at his career you can't really deny that he was one of the most powerful men on the planet.

And Ted Cruz holds a position in Congress and he is running for president. Bill O'Reilly hosts a popular tv show. Can you deny their influence or the fact that they are in positions of significant power?

Are we saying that anyone into religion is one sandwich short of a picnic?

To this atheist of both Religion and Ideology:

Please include both.

That is the intelligent way.

& u must be "psychiatric doctor" 2 make such a claims?!

...
3. gay sex is all about dominance & submission - analog 2 animal kind...even in old Greek a small boy would give himself 2 older man, but when he grows up he would dominate other boys...so nothing has changed!
also, all faiths says we r all equal...
;)

Well this is bizarre..I have never heard this claim before...i take it you don't know many gay people and you are also ignorant of how heterosexual intercourse has been used to dominate people?

This is probably one of the strangest claims I have seen written on this forum and that is saying something.

well, yes...heterosexual sex can also be dominant & submissive...but both sexes can play it's part, either way...I know many couples in which female is dominant...
but they stay "naturally reproductive cell"!

gay sex is always made as a substitution of 1 part of sex...but both sex stay d same, only mindset is of 1 is made dominant & other submissive...so gay sex is just a "mind game", nothing to do with DNA or birth...

but this is not a topic 4 that! ;)

Being well informed is not much of an advantage in life.

Oh it is around here!!! How many times do people say evidence, give me evidence for your point of view. If you are not well informed you can't do that.

how come nobody commented about a S.Hawking research of "God playing dice"?

---

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU

Obviously, if it has anything to do with GOD, it must be related to Cruz/O'Reilly.

Do you get paid by the word, or the post?

What are you talking about? I'm just saying that intelligent people can still make the world a horrible place, as opposed to the idea that not enough intelligent people are in positions of power therefor causing the world to be a horrible place. Ted Cruz and O'Reilly simply serve as examples of intelligent people who are at best irresponsible with the kind of power they have.

Obviously, if it has anything to do with GOD, it must be related to Cruz/O'Reilly.

Do you get paid by the word, or the post?

What are you talking about? I'm just saying that intelligent people can still make the world a horrible place, as opposed to the idea that not enough intelligent people are in positions of power therefor causing the world to be a horrible place. Ted Cruz and O'Reilly simply serve as examples of intelligent people who are at best irresponsible with the kind of power they have.

Perhaps I should have included emotional intelligence in that as well.

You've cited examples of people that most likely have some sort of personality disorder based on how they treat other people and how they will do anything to get into those positions of power and influence.

Being intelligent will just help those people serve their purpose. However, most people are not narcissists or psychopaths, so in general I think my point holds.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Perhaps I should have included emotional intelligence in that as well.

You've cited examples of people that most likely have some sort of personality disorder based on how they treat other people and how they will do anything to get into those positions of power and influence.

Both treat people no different than how other healthy people do. Having a different view on abortion or gay rights does not mean you a personality disorder. Just a supporter of the patriarchy, institutionalized sexism and possibly an a**hole.

Being intelligent will just help those people serve their purpose. However, most people are not narcissists or psychopaths, so in general I think my point holds.

Don't use mental disorders and the negative stereotypes associated with them as a way to attack people for their political views. You have no proof that those people have an actual disorder, and even if you did, its far from clear that their disorder is relevant to the discussion. So its in essence little more than an ad hominem.

As I said in the thread about Greece, its perfectly possible to disagree with peoples political views without suggesting that those political views are the result of some sort of mental disorder. Its insulting. You are essentially claiming that everyone who doesn't agree with you is either stupid or has a personality defect that basically makes them act with purely malicious intent, they know its bad on an intellectual level but they go for it anyways.

Do you even realize that you are displaying the exact same sort of behavior you give religions a hard time for? Dehumanization of the out group? Your argument implies they are either stupid or sick, which also implies that everyone who agrees with your view is healthy and intelligent. By doing so you focus on differences between groups of people and ignore the similarities.

Well, I guess you did just demonstrate my point perfectly. People don't need religion to be mean towards other people.

Perhaps I should have included emotional intelligence in that as well.

You've cited examples of people that most likely have some sort of personality disorder based on how they treat other people and how they will do anything to get into those positions of power and influence.

Both treat people no different than how other healthy people do. Having a different view on abortion or gay rights does not mean you a personality disorder. Just a supporter of the patriarchy, institutionalized sexism and possibly an a**hole.

Being intelligent will just help those people serve their purpose. However, most people are not narcissists or psychopaths, so in general I think my point holds.

Don't use mental disorders and the negative stereotypes associated with them as a way to attack people for their political views. You have no proof that those people have an actual disorder, and even if you did, its far from clear that their disorder is relevant to the discussion. So its in essence little more than an ad hominem.

As I said in the thread about Greece, its perfectly possible to disagree with peoples political views without suggesting that those political views are the result of some sort of mental disorder. Its insulting. You are essentially claiming that everyone who doesn't agree with you is either stupid or has a personality defect that basically makes them act with purely malicious intent, they know its bad on an intellectual level but they go for it anyways.

Do you even realize that you are displaying the exact same sort of behavior you give religions a hard time for? Dehumanization of the out group? Your argument implies they are either stupid or sick, which also implies that everyone who agrees with your view is healthy and intelligent. By doing so you focus on differences between groups of people and ignore the similarities.

Well, I guess you did just demonstrate my point perfectly. People don't need religion to be mean towards other people.

Perhaps you aren't aware of the views and behaviour of your examples if you think I am merely making a personal attack. I genuinely think they are examples of people with personality disorders. Maybe pick different examples.

---

Reality Internet Personality

I suspect a few of you aren't going to like this ...

Is Organized Religion a Bully?

Bullies expect to be the only person allowed to speak at any function.
Bullies expect to be the only person allowed to run for their chosen office.
Bullies like to rationalize hatred and prejudice.
Bullies control their atmosphere.
Bullies don't want new members unless the new members are just like them.
Bullies seem to have all the answers.
Bullies cast blame on others without evidence or concern for their fellow humans.
Bullies don't allow debate.
Bullies are always right.
Bullies demand others march in lockstep, dress just like them, and will punish anyone who resists.
Bullies demand adherence to set methods of behavior.
Bullies assume religious and moralistic superiority over every other member.
Bullies have an agenda no longer relevant to humanity, and solely based upon their own needs.
Bullies lust for power without end or rationality.
Bullies punish others for having an opinion.
Bullies threaten individuals for anything they see as new or different.
Bullies want constant recognition but are the first to deny it for others.
Bullies see the world as one-dimensional.
Bullies know their own pain, misery, heartache, but deny the same in others.
Bullies have difficult times thinking without involving themselves in the center of all things.
Bullies are essential only to themselves.
Bullies threaten others rather than search for solutions.
Bullies surround themselves with gangs of followers who no longer question.

Well, If it looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck …

Therefore Gods of organized religions are one of the tools of a bully!
Mind you so much of this applies to the Tea Party, but that belongs in a different thread.
Could this be the explanation for why there are so few atheists and agnostics in prison?

---

Wow, religious
"Ditto Heads!"


edit:
Now that would be American....
re-edit:
Cardinal Rush!

---

this zany debate could go on forever.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

this zany debate could go on forever.

As has God.......

---

"Time is simply the mechanism that keeps everything from happening all at once."

this zany debate could go on forever.

As has [the] God.......

... that never was.

this zany debate could go on forever.

As has [the] God.......

... that never was.

"Follow the God that failed"?

Perhaps you aren't aware of the views and behaviour of your examples if you think I am merely making a personal attack. I genuinely think they are examples of people with personality disorders. Maybe pick different examples.

You think that people who genuinely believe in God are a bit delusional because they believe in something for which they have no evidence. Do you have evidence that my examples have a personality disorder?

I suspect a few of you aren't going to like this ...

Is Organized Religion a Bully?

Bullies expect to be the only person allowed to speak at any function.
Bullies expect to be the only person allowed to run for their chosen office.
Bullies like to rationalize hatred and prejudice.
Bullies control their atmosphere.
Bullies don't want new members unless the new members are just like them.
Bullies seem to have all the answers.
Bullies cast blame on others without evidence or concern for their fellow humans.
Bullies don't allow debate.
Bullies are always right.
Bullies demand others march in lockstep, dress just like them, and will punish anyone who resists.
Bullies demand adherence to set methods of behavior.
Bullies assume religious and moralistic superiority over every other member.
Bullies have an agenda no longer relevant to humanity, and solely based upon their own needs.
Bullies lust for power without end or rationality.
Bullies punish others for having an opinion.
Bullies threaten individuals for anything they see as new or different.
Bullies want constant recognition but are the first to deny it for others.
Bullies see the world as one-dimensional.
Bullies know their own pain, misery, heartache, but deny the same in others.
Bullies have difficult times thinking without involving themselves in the center of all things.
Bullies are essential only to themselves.
Bullies threaten others rather than search for solutions.
Bullies surround themselves with gangs of followers who no longer question.

Could this be the explanation for why there are so few atheists and agnostics in prison?

Doubtful, given that I've met plenty of Atheists who fit that description just as well.

–––Infinity.
A Fable by David L. Nelson

Two beings, unknown too each other, sat on a bench on planet Earth, each in deep thought. For hours in silence they thought. Then one broke the silence. Why is there something rather than nothing he asked? I think, she replied that we will never know the answer to that question. They parted, never too meet again.

Billions of years passed. The Sun became a red giant and vaporized the Earth, went super nova and destroyed the solar system. The Milky Way evaporated. The Universe took no notice.

In a trillion years or so, in a galaxy very much like the Milky Way, out of a huge cloud of dust, perhaps containing some molecules from the old Milky Way, a new solar system formed. Under the force of gravity the cloud collapsed and a new star came into being. Wisps of dust that escaped the initial collapse took up orbits around the star and evolved into planets. On one of these, perhaps the third from the star, the laws of nature allowed evolution, guided by natural selection, to bring forth life. In time this life evolved into an intelligent species.

And two beings, unknown too each other, sat on a bench···

---

Dave Nelson

–––Infinity.
A Fable by David L. Nelson

Two beings, unknown too each other, sat on a bench on planet Earth, each in deep thought. For hours in silence they thought. Then one broke the silence. Why is there something rather than nothing he asked? I think, she replied that we will never know the answer to that question. They parted, never too meet again.

Billions of years passed. The Sun became a red giant and vaporized the Earth, went super nova and destroyed the solar system. The Milky Way evaporated. The Universe took no notice.

In a trillion years or so, in a galaxy very much like the Milky Way, out of a huge cloud of dust, perhaps containing some molecules from the old Milky Way, a new solar system formed. Under the force of gravity the cloud collapsed and a new star came into being. Wisps of dust that escaped the initial collapse took up orbits around the star and evolved into planets. On one of these, perhaps the third from the star, the laws of nature allowed evolution, guided by natural selection, to bring forth life. In time this life evolved into an intelligent species.

And two beings, unknown too each other, sat on a bench···

That seems reasonable.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

–––Infinity.
A Fable by David L. Nelson

Two beings, unknown too each other, sat on a bench on planet Earth, each in deep thought. For hours in silence they thought. Then one broke the silence. Why is there something rather than nothing he asked? I think, she replied that we will never know the answer to that question. They parted, never too meet again.

Billions of years passed. The Sun became a red giant and vaporized the Earth, went super nova and destroyed the solar system. The Milky Way evaporated. The Universe took no notice.

In a trillion years or so, in a galaxy very much like the Milky Way, out of a huge cloud of dust, perhaps containing some molecules from the old Milky Way, a new solar system formed. Under the force of gravity the cloud collapsed and a new star came into being. Wisps of dust that escaped the initial collapse took up orbits around the star and evolved into planets. On one of these, perhaps the third from the star, the laws of nature allowed evolution, guided by natural selection, to bring forth life. In time this life evolved into an intelligent species.

And two beings, unknown too each other, sat on a bench···

That seems reasonable.

Seems a requirement actually. We know we exist, therefore the probability of our universe must be a positive number. Multiply a positive number by an infinite amount of time and your result is infinity. An infinite numbers of times our universe will exist. Every universe that has a positive probability will exist an infinite number of times!

---