Behaviour report by the London school of economics

baileysbattlebus

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'm an aethiest, and quite possibly, the most liberal on these boards

Aah - but are you a vegetarian?

treliac

The_White_Horse wrote: »

if i was in power I would legalise all drugs for a start. as long as you don't hurt someone else (without their consent!!), I think people should be allowed to do whatever they like with zero govt interference.

And what about the huge cost to the country of medical treatment to those who destroy their health and the benefits payments to addicts who can't work or have no motivation to work as a consequence of their addiction.

And then theres the cost to the country of the crime needed to fund the drug habit....... Or are you proposing to give them out for free - courtesy of the tax payer?

Malcolm.

fc123 wrote: »

So, this means if you don't believe in a 'god' of some sort you may be cleverer than your fellow man?
I like that. Religion is a form of social control for those who need a guidebook to life....like 'Thou shalt not kill' .....a lot of us don't need to be told that.

I would have thought agnostics would be more intelligent than atheists.
It's stupid to dicsount the possibility of a god without sufficent evidence.

I think everyone could do with a guide in life, whether it's parents, friends, loved ones or written words in a book.

treliac

Malcolm. wrote: »

I would have thought agnostics would be more intelligent than atheists.
It's stupid to dicsount the possibility of a god without sufficent evidence.

I think everyone could do with a guide in life, whether it's parents, friends, loved ones or written words in a book.

Very true words Malcolm. Showing a great deal of insight and intelligence. :A

Graham_Devon

baileysbattlebus wrote: »

Aah - but are you a vegetarian?

I do eat vegetables.

I also eat meat though, so obviously I win on that score, what with eating 2 things instead of limiting to just one

lostinrates

Malcolm. wrote: »

I would have thought agnostics would be more intelligent than atheists.
It's stupid to dicsount the possibility of a god without sufficent evidence.

I think everyone could do with a guide in life, whether it's parents, friends, loved ones or written words in a book.

I just love this post.


I agree the church, religions can be very controling, and unhealthy. I also think for some people they provide a ....control, wen self control, family imposed ontrol and hope etc are not available. I am not a believer in a mainstream religion, but i was christened into one, and I am respectful of it and love the good about it. That I am able to see the good while admitting the bad pleases me. I find that the ability to be ''spiritual'' or indulge my taste for the ritualistic is no longer something to fight but rather to indulge in, so long as I take it for what it is..


They used to say religion is one o the things that set us apart from the other animals. Some species challenge this.

ninky_2

Malcolm. wrote: »

I would have thought agnostics would be more intelligent than atheists.
It's stupid to dicsount the possibility of a god without sufficent evidence.

I think everyone could do with a guide in life, whether it's parents, friends, loved ones or written words in a book.

atheism suggest you don't believe in things until there is evidence of their existence or a rational theory as to why they are likely to exist.

angosticism suggests you are open to believe in anything unless it is completely and irrevocably proven not to exist.

you can't prove the loch ness monster, father christmas or the tooth fairy don't exist. do you believe in them?

atheism is a more intelligent position.

reason is enough of a guide in life for me. far better than some made up nonsense in a book.

jim83

Malcolm. wrote: »

I would have thought agnostics would be more intelligent than atheists.
It's stupid to dicsount the possibility of a god without sufficent evidence.

Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god; Agnosticism meaning "without knowledge" is to state that something (usually god's existence) is unknowable -- Contrary to popular belief, they are not mutually exclusive terms.

An agnostic atheist would recognise that it is not possible to know for sure whether a god exists, but does not believe that any god exists.

Similarly, an agnostic theist would believe in a god, but recognise that it is not possible to know for sure whether that god exists or not.

ninky_2

lostinrates wrote: »

I agree the church, religions can be very controling, and unhealthy. I also think for some people they provide a ....control, wen self control, family imposed ontrol and hope etc are not available.

i think it is possible that a predisposition to superstition / religious belief may confer some evolutionary benefits - binding a group together, justifying self-sacrifice of some for the many, justifying violence and war against enemies etc to name a few.

that's not to say i think it is a good thing. however, very few world leaders (other than communist) have been self-declared atheists.

many people who are not religious happily believe other nonsense such as crystal healing and horoscopes. this is equally bizarre and must serve some deep seated need.

Malcolm.

jim83 wrote: »

Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god; Agnosticism meaning "without knowledge" is to state that something (usually god's existence) is unknowable -- Contrary to popular belief, they are not mutually exclusive terms.

An agnostic atheist would recognise that it is not possible to know for sure whether a god exists, but does not believe that any god exists.

Similarly, an agnostic theist would believe in a god, but recognise that it is not possible to know for sure whether that god exists or not.

I was talking about groups as a whole, the groups needn't be mutually exclusive, they can overlap.

I hope that clarifies matters.