Non believers who love Brokeback Mountain

[desertrat]

A lot of people do lump anything paranormal into the "supernatural" realm and then dismiss it.

correct me, because my english might not be good enough - what's the difference between paranormal and supernatural? i would use both words alternatively for events that we can not explain with our current level of knowledge and technology...?

[Jer009]

(snip)

Terrible catastrophes inevitably encourage appeals to God. We who are, at present, unfairly luckier, whether believers or not, might reflect on the almost invariably uncharitable history of theodicy, and on the reality that in this context no invocation of God beyond a desperate appeal for help makes much theological sense. For either God is punitive and interventionist (the Robertson view), or as capricious as nature and so absent as to be effectively nonexistent (the Obama view). Unfortunately, the Bible, which frequently uses God’s power over earth and seas as the sign of his majesty and intervening power, supports the first view; and the history of humanity’s lonely suffering decisively suggests the second.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/opinion/24wood.html?pagewanted=2

[Marge_Innavera]

correct me, because my english might not be good enough - what's the difference between paranormal and supernatural? i would use both words alternatively for events that we can not explain with our current level of knowledge and technology...?

The words are often used interchangeably, but generally "paranormal" refers to phenomena that the speaker presumes have a natural cause, although it might be difficult to pin down with standard investigation.  That would include most forms of ESP, including telekinesis (the ability to move objects via mental activity) or clairvoyance.  "Supernatural" would mean something connected to a deity or demonic being.

Of course, one person's "paranormal" could be another's "supernatural" and vice versa, such as UFO's.  And as we all know, some people would classify things like psychic ability as being caused by the devil they believe in.  The use you cited -- 'events that we can not explain with our current level of knowledge and technology' -- I guess that could apply to either.

I trust I have made myself totally confusing!  

[Marge_Innavera]

(snip)

Terrible catastrophes inevitably encourage appeals to God. We who are, at present, unfairly luckier, whether believers or not, might reflect on the almost invariably uncharitable history of theodicy, and on the reality that in this context no invocation of God beyond a desperate appeal for help makes much theological sense. For either God is punitive and interventionist (the Robertson view), or as capricious as nature and so absent as to be effectively nonexistent (the Obama view). Unfortunately, the Bible, which frequently uses God’s power over earth and seas as the sign of his majesty and intervening power, supports the first view; and the history of humanity’s lonely suffering decisively suggests the second.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/opinion/24wood.html?pagewanted=2

I'm not sure what Obama thinks of God, but the phrasing seems to suggest deism.

A problem with the interventionist view, of course, is that you have to explain God supposedly playing favorites.  If someone employed on the top floor of the World Trade Center happened to be home sick on September 11, 2001 they might claim that God was protecting them, but that raises the question of why that same god didn't protect everyone else.  It's a standard question in what's loosely termed "Holocaust theology."

Whatever the answer is, going by the Bible would be questionable.  After all, in the book of Job, Yahweh allows a man's life and health to be ruined for no loftier reason than a bet he's made with the Adversary out of sheer vanity.  And when Job finally demands an explanation, Yahweh dodges it by some distinctly adolescent boasting about his power and accomplishments.  Perhaps Yahweh made the mistake of thinking he was God.  

[Petrus Christus]

<snip>
  And when Job finally demands an explanation, Yahweh dodges it by some distinctly adolescent boasting about his power and accomplishments.  Perhaps Yahweh made the mistake of thinking he was God.  

    .....precious, and very funny!!

 PC/zad

[oilgun]

Meet the Flintstones

Nearly a third of Texans believe humans and dinosaurs roamed the earth at the same time, and more than half disagree with the theory that humans developed from earlier species of animals, according to the University of Texas/Texas Tribune Poll.

The differences in beliefs about evolution and the length of time that living things have existed on earth are reflected in the political and religious preference of our respondents, who were asked four questions about biological history and God:

• 38 percent said human beings developed over millions of years with God guiding the process and another 12 percent said that development happened without God having any part of the process. Another 38 percent agreed with the statement "God created human beings pretty much in their present form about 10,000 years ago."

• Asked about the origin and development of life on earth without injecting humans into the discussion, and 53 percent said it evolved over time, "with a guiding hand from God." They were joined by 15 percent who agreed on the evolution part, but "with no guidance from God." About a fifth — 22 percent — said life has existed in its present form since the beginning of time.

• Most of the Texans in the survey — 51 percent — disagree with the statement, "human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals." Thirty-five percent agreed with that statement, and 15 percent said they don't know.

• Did humans live at the same time as the dinosaurs? Three in ten Texas voters agree with that statement; 41 percent disagree, and 30 percent don't know.

More: http://www.texastribune.org/stories/2010/feb/17/meet-flintstones/

[desertrat]

I trust I have made myself totally confusing!  

 

no, i think i understand! thanks for the explanation!

[Petrus Christus]

• Did humans live at the same time as the dinosaurs? Three in ten Texas voters agree with that statement; 41 percent disagree, and 30 percent don't know.[/color]

  They should have asked, and I doubt whether they did, if the poll participants were familiar with the carbon dating system....
  
  PC/zad

[Jer009]

(snip)

At an Intelligence Squared debate in London, openly gay British author, actor, and director Stephen Fry delivered a brutal twenty minute evisceration of the Catholic Church that should be played on American television once a day for the next year. Fry touches on the Church's appalling wealth, its direct responsibility for uncountable AIDS deaths, and Pope Ratzinger's repulsive child molestation cover-ups. This clip is long. Make time for it sometime today.

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/02/stephen-fry-on-catholic-church.html

[Jer009]

(snip)

It is time for atheists to stop trying to prove what there is no need to prove: that they are as good as people whose religion began with a father's willingness to kill his only son at God's behest or with the crucifixion of a man-God. For goodness sake, let us look to the only real evidence of good and evil in the world--our behavior and its consequences. And I hope I never encounter any people in that 3 percent who would let a child drown in a pond in order to preserve their dry clothes.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/spirited_atheist/2010/02/atheism_and_the_silly_goodness_competition.html#more

[oilgun]

Intelligent people have 'unnatural' preferences and values that are novel in human evolution
by PHYSORG.com

More intelligent people are significantly more likely to exhibit social values and religious and political preferences that are novel to the human species in evolutionary history. Specifically, liberalism and atheism, and for men (but not women), preference for sexual exclusivity correlate with higher intelligence, a new study finds.

The study, published in the March 2010 issue of the peer-reviewed scientific journal Social Psychology Quarterly, advances a new theory to explain why people form particular preferences and values. The theory suggests that more intelligent people are more likely than less intelligent people to adopt evolutionarily novel preferences and values, but intelligence does not correlate with preferences and values that are old enough to have been shaped by evolution over millions of years."

"Evolutionarily novel" preferences and values are those that humans are not biologically designed to have and our ancestors probably did not possess. In contrast, those that our ancestors had for millions of years are "evolutionarily familiar."

"General intelligence, the ability to think and reason, endowed our ancestors with advantages in solving evolutionarily novel problems for which they did not have innate solutions," says Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics and Political Science. "As a result, more intelligent people are more likely to recognize and understand such novel entities and situations than less intelligent people, and some of these entities and situations are preferences, values, and lifestyles."

An earlier study by Kanazawa found that more intelligent individuals were more nocturnal, waking up and staying up later than less intelligent individuals. Because our ancestors lacked artificial light, they tended to wake up shortly before dawn and go to sleep shortly after dusk. Being nocturnal is evolutionarily novel.

In the current study, Kanazawa argues that humans are evolutionarily designed to be conservative, caring mostly about their family and friends, and being liberal, caring about an indefinite number of genetically unrelated strangers they never meet or interact with, is evolutionarily novel. So more intelligent children may be more likely to grow up to be liberals.

Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) support Kanazawa's hypothesis. Young adults who subjectively identify themselves as "very liberal" have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence while those who identify themselves as "very conservative" have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.

Similarly, religion is a byproduct of humans' tendency to perceive agency and intention as causes of events, to see "the hands of God" at work behind otherwise natural phenomena. "Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid," says Kanazawa. This innate bias toward paranoia served humans well when self-preservation and protection of their families and clans depended on extreme vigilance to all potential dangers. "So, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to go against their natural evolutionary tendency to believe in God, and they become atheists."

Young adults who identify themselves as "not at all religious" have an average IQ of 103 during adolescence, while those who identify themselves as "very religious" have an average IQ of 97 during adolescence.

In addition, humans have always been mildly polygynous in evolutionary history. Men in polygynous marriages were not expected to be sexually exclusive to one mate, whereas men in monogamous marriages were. In sharp contrast, whether they are in a monogamous or polygynous marriage, women were always expected to be sexually exclusive to one mate. So being sexually exclusive is evolutionarily novel for men, but not for women. And the theory predicts that more intelligent men are more likely to value sexual exclusivity than less intelligent men, but general intelligence makes no difference for women's value on sexual exclusivity. Kanazawa's analysis of Add Health data supports these sex-specific predictions as well.

One intriguing but theoretically predicted finding of the study is that more intelligent people are no more or no less likely to value such evolutionarily familiar entities as marriage, family, children, and friends.


http://www.physorg.com/news186236813.html

[oilgun]

Here's something on Homeopathy:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/besttreatments/2010/feb/26/mps-criticised-homeopathy-this-week-whats-their-evidence

Basically, Homeopathy is a crock, so I doubt it would cause possession by demons, lol!  I suppose people who believe that homeopathy works would be more likely to believe in demon possession. 

[Jer009]

Intelligent people have 'unnatural' preferences and values that are novel in human evolution
by PHYSORG.com

More intelligent people are significantly more likely to exhibit social values and religious and political preferences that are novel to the human species in evolutionary history. Specifically, liberalism and atheism, and for men (but not women), preference for sexual exclusivity correlate with higher intelligence, a new study finds.

The study, published in the March 2010 issue of the peer-reviewed scientific journal Social Psychology Quarterly, advances a new theory to explain why people form particular preferences and values. The theory suggests that more intelligent people are more likely than less intelligent people to adopt evolutionarily novel preferences and values, but intelligence does not correlate with preferences and values that are old enough to have been shaped by evolution over millions of years."

"Evolutionarily novel" preferences and values are those that humans are not biologically designed to have and our ancestors probably did not possess. In contrast, those that our ancestors had for millions of years are "evolutionarily familiar."

"General intelligence, the ability to think and reason, endowed our ancestors with advantages in solving evolutionarily novel problems for which they did not have innate solutions," says Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics and Political Science. "As a result, more intelligent people are more likely to recognize and understand such novel entities and situations than less intelligent people, and some of these entities and situations are preferences, values, and lifestyles."

An earlier study by Kanazawa found that more intelligent individuals were more nocturnal, waking up and staying up later than less intelligent individuals. Because our ancestors lacked artificial light, they tended to wake up shortly before dawn and go to sleep shortly after dusk. Being nocturnal is evolutionarily novel.

In the current study, Kanazawa argues that humans are evolutionarily designed to be conservative, caring mostly about their family and friends, and being liberal, caring about an indefinite number of genetically unrelated strangers they never meet or interact with, is evolutionarily novel. So more intelligent children may be more likely to grow up to be liberals.

Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) support Kanazawa's hypothesis. Young adults who subjectively identify themselves as "very liberal" have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence while those who identify themselves as "very conservative" have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.

Similarly, religion is a byproduct of humans' tendency to perceive agency and intention as causes of events, to see "the hands of God" at work behind otherwise natural phenomena. "Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid," says Kanazawa. This innate bias toward paranoia served humans well when self-preservation and protection of their families and clans depended on extreme vigilance to all potential dangers. "So, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to go against their natural evolutionary tendency to believe in God, and they become atheists."

Young adults who identify themselves as "not at all religious" have an average IQ of 103 during adolescence, while those who identify themselves as "very religious" have an average IQ of 97 during adolescence.

In addition, humans have always been mildly polygynous in evolutionary history. Men in polygynous marriages were not expected to be sexually exclusive to one mate, whereas men in monogamous marriages were. In sharp contrast, whether they are in a monogamous or polygynous marriage, women were always expected to be sexually exclusive to one mate. So being sexually exclusive is evolutionarily novel for men, but not for women. And the theory predicts that more intelligent men are more likely to value sexual exclusivity than less intelligent men, but general intelligence makes no difference for women's value on sexual exclusivity. Kanazawa's analysis of Add Health data supports these sex-specific predictions as well.

One intriguing but theoretically predicted finding of the study is that more intelligent people are no more or no less likely to value such evolutionarily familiar entities as marriage, family, children, and friends.


http://www.physorg.com/news186236813.html

"Young adults who subjectively identify themselves as "very liberal" have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence while those who identify themselves as "very conservative" have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence."

Ha! That would put Bill O'Reily, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and the rest of that loony bunch at an IQ of 95 at the highest. Sounds about right. The tea-baggers? Too low to calculate.

[Jer009]

Completely off topic, but please indulge me:

Who's The King Of Late Nite? Craig Ferguson

(snip)
The puppets, the musical lip-syncing numbers that sometimes open the show, the end of show moment where he rambles about what we've learned on the show that night, all of it is loose and silly enough to create an air of potential anarchy when of course he works like the devil to prepare so he can relax during the taping and let things happen. Like Letterman, he enjoys himself and is very funny. Like Cavett, he can speak intelligently about almost anything. Like Paar, he can dive into a serious monologue and do genuine soul-searching (about the death of his father, out of control pop stars, Rush Limnaugh and Haiti) that is absolutely riveting. Like Johnny, he allows his guests to shine; nothing gives him more pleasure than an entertaining guest. He is, indeed, the new king of late night.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-giltz/whos-the-king-of-late-nit_b_474420.html

[oilgun]

Completely off topic, but please indulge me:

Who's The King Of Late Nite? Craig Ferguson

(snip)
The puppets, the musical lip-syncing numbers that sometimes open the show, the end of show moment where he rambles about what we've learned on the show that night, all of it is loose and silly enough to create an air of potential anarchy when of course he works like the devil to prepare so he can relax during the taping and let things happen. Like Letterman, he enjoys himself and is very funny. Like Cavett, he can speak intelligently about almost anything. Like Paar, he can dive into a serious monologue and do genuine soul-searching (about the death of his father, out of control pop stars, Rush Limnaugh and Haiti) that is absolutely riveting. Like Johnny, he allows his guests to shine; nothing gives him more pleasure than an entertaining guest. He is, indeed, the new king of late night.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-giltz/whos-the-king-of-late-nit_b_474420.html

Craig Ferguson rules!!  He is easily my favourite!