Autonemesis

If your ability was supernatural, it would have a much higher rate of failure. In fact, your success rate would be indistinguishable from random chance, if your ability was of supernatural origin.

On that count alone, your ability cannot be supernatural.

xian

lol! funny one. he he. got me there


but i can make my comments better.....by rewording my statement:

i would be very disturbed, if the majority of those who are in the top 2% of the wealthiest people in the US were professing born-again christians.


there...i hope thats better!

Bill Snedden

Better educated: I'm not too sure about this one. There have been numerous studies that demonstrate that there is a negative correlation between religious belief and level of education. In other words, the more educated one is, the less likely it is that one will be religious. However, the definitions of "religious" are likely rather slippery. As for sources, I'm not sure. One study was done by Gallup. I'm also aware of an ecomonics paper that references the negative correlation, and a Free Inquiry article that references it as well.

There's also a well-known study, referenced in Scientific American, that demonstrated that among leading scientists (obviously highly educated individuals), religious belief was a very low percentage (about 20%?). I have the issue at home, but can't remember what month/year and can't find it online right now.

Better paid & more highly intelligent: Not sure about these. There are definite positive correlations between intelligence & education, and between education and income. However, I've never seen any specific studies relating religiosity or god-belief to income. I have, however, seen plenty of anecdotal information from various High-IQ societies that suggest that their membership is non-religious or at least non-traditionally religious at a level far higher than that found in the general population. That, however, is not evidence that the religious are generally less intelligent.

Divorce less often: a recent Barna group poll revealed that the highest rate of divorce in the U.S. was among born-again Christians. Atheists and non-religious had a rate lower than that of the general population. Unfortunately, I can't locate a link right now, but I believe the survey dates from either 2000 or 2001.

I hope that helps.

One final comment on the OP: I think you (xian) may want to stop and reflect on what this thread says about you rather than us. You're tilting at windmills here; no one has ever claimed that atheists have nothing in common, merely that atheism entails no necessary commonality. Your "survey" merely identifies areas where the liberality of one's religious belief might increase the probability of a particular answer. The totality of all answers thereby allow you to identify, with a reasonable degree of accuracy I should think, where an individual stands in terms of religious "liberality" with the understandable assumption that an individual at the extreme of liberality would in all likelihood be an atheist or agnostic.

No supernatural powers here, right? Surely you knew this. Doesn't that make your opening post disengenuous at least?

Regards,

Bill Snedden

P.S. I see that I crossposted with Rhea, but that she added links to support the divorce and income studies.

Autonemesis

That's a "Do you believe in God?" question. Your test is not what you claimed.

Autonemesis

Well, that's right. You finally understand what the words mean. Congratulations. Now would you care to actually talk about something that utilizes these concepts, or should we continue to congratulate you for your stunning achievement of elementary comprehension?

Goliath

xian,

Nope. Only five of your statements applied to me.

Sincerely,

Goliath

xian

which 10 do not apply to yoU?

also, the test is not absolute. there will be the occasional atheist that will disagree with things like evolution, etc.

please tell me the ones that did not apply.

xian

if you enjoy congratulating me for stunning achievements and that is what you want to post, go ahead. i have no desire to tell people what to post. you are the one who clicked "reply"...i didn't ask you to.

Paul2

I could explain how a cell is formed, then i could explain how what formed the cell was formed, and then i could explain how that was formed, but would that be enough for you? I assume not, as you would find it to incredible to believe, thus it can't be true.


Do you believe that a molecule has the free will to choose between bonding with another chemical or not? I surely hope you don't.

Do you think chemicals sit around and discuss the philosophical aspects of bonding to each other? I doubt it.

I have faith in the laws of chemestry, whoopty doo.


I have supernatural powers myself, i just looked into your mind and found out that your problem stems from a lack of understanding science.

yeesh.
:banghead:

Bill Snedden

Actually, no. There are atheists who believe in objective moral values (Ayn Rand was one notable example). In fact, many of the questions on that survey could be answered in a "theistic" manner by atheists. I'll expand by demonstrating or giving the names of prominent atheists or theists who would or do answer differently than xian might guess.

1. evolution of life from non-life is a likely or certainly a fact of history

There are atheist scientists who believe that life on this planet was "seeded" by extra-terrestrials.

2. science and religion are inherently incompatible

Stephen Jay Gould

3. I am familiar with and rapidly recognize the acronym "IPU"

This is a joke, right? I'm sure that there are atheists with limited or no internet access who've never heard of the IPU...

4. I lack belief in an absolute moral law and absolute right and wrong.

Ayn Rand

5. I am inclined to think that advanced alien life exists somewhere in our universe beyond earth.

Both yes and no are compatible with atheism.

6. uncaused events regularly effect themselves

The question is somewhat ambiguous, but sophisticated knowledge of quantum physics is not ubiquitous. Denial is certainly compatible with atheism.

7. the 6 senses (if you count the vomeronasal organ- 5 if you do not) is all that is needed to know truth.

Buddhism, Taoism, New-Age (pronounced to rhyme with sewage) mysticism, etc., etc.

8. I think landoverbaptist.com is a funny website.

I personally know Christians who would agree.

9. I agree with a womans right to choose to abort her foetus.

I believe Nat Hentoff would disagree. I know that many Christians would agree.

10. It is inappropriate and/or unscientific to call a foetus a "human being"

Again, Nat Hentoff as well as some Christians.

11. Organized religion is responsible for the majority of human atrocities throughout history

Not sure about this one. I think it's obvious that many Christians would answer in the affirmative and many atheists would answer "I don't know".

12. When I die, I fully expect my consciousness and awareness to cease existing, so that the only existence I have after my death is merely the natural particles that once made up my physical body- returned to the natural universe

Again, Buddhism (in that consciousness and awareness do not continue after death) or Taoism.

13. The idea that the universe began to exist uncaused from an inflationary quantum fluctuation is reasonable and/or possible.

This is pretty close to "are you an atheist?" Of course, the key word is "uncaused." If a Christian adheres to a standard definition of "cause", which requires the existence of time, even she could answer yes to this. However, the question is ambiguously worded, at best.

14 is omitted

15. The Judeo-Christian God, as described in the King James Bible, could logically be called a tyrant, a maniac, and/or a murderer.

Many Christians, some of my acquaintance, would doubtless agree.

16. Faith and rational thought are inherently incompatible.

Kierkegaard (as I read him).

17. Atheists cannot be classified beyond simply "lack of belief in god(s)"

Of course, I've never heard anyone claim this. Wouldn't it be as patently fallacious as "theists cannot be classified..." I'd certainly answer "no".

18. Xians are, for the most part, irrational individuals (if you do not know what a XIAN is, please answer "UNKNOWN - XIAN").

Although some atheists would answer yes, many would not.

19. Humans are, ultimately, nothing more than a bag of mostly water- a proteinous, carbon-based mass of stimulated chemicals reacting to each other, having no objective value beyond what the individual or the society places on such masses. The bipedal anthropodic masses of organic matter called "homosapiens" have no special purpose beyond that which each bag of chemicals assigns to themselves of that which a societal group of chemical bags assign to them.

This is a "poison the well" type question and should be omitted if the surveyor hopes to eliminate bias. The idea that humans should be equated to "bags" of anything is perjorative.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I know Christians who would answer this in the affirmative, but who simply don't believe Christianity involves any extraordinary claims. C. S. Lewis, I believe, wrote a couple essays on the reasonableness of Christian belief.

George Bush calling for a national day of prayer and thanking God while giving public addresses

Barry Lynn, a protestant minister, as well as millions of other religious Americans finds this just as unconstitutional as I.

Carl Sagan & SETI

There are literally hundreds of Christians who participate in the SETI program. Carl Sagan was a gifted writer and popularizer of science whose books could not have sold as well as they did had they only appealed to the non-religious.

Loaded questions, loaded dice, it's all the same...

Regards,

Bill Snedden