Are you an atheist? (6 Viewers)

[Mike375]

so if you plotted education levels against intelligence, would you expect a correlation?

Yes, as well as something else.

The "something else" is important. People with tertiary education are far more inclined to look to the future and especially if that requires some sacrifice and that goes hand in hand with getting the education in the first place.

More educated people take on information more easily and especially in areas they are not familiar with. They also rely less on empirical evidence to form opinions. People with very low levels of education can rely almost solely on empirical evidence to form opinions.

With the exception of medical specialists (at least in Australia and the US) people with very high education levels usually do not earn extremely high incomes. This occurs because such people tend be less risk takers and in addition their education has given them a secure position so they see more to lose. Also, the person with a high level of formal education is more likely to rigid in their ideas and tend to dismiss things from left field. in Australia it takes from 6 to 10 years for a doctor to get from GP qualifications to specialist. I have yet to see any extemely high earning medical specialist who has got there in 6 or 7 years. They tend to be in the 8 or 9 year bracket. Perhaps this is because they are not quite as good as following a rigid system but that fault is an adantage once they qualify into private practice and in fact they will dominate the others.

One other thing.....people with higher levels of formal education tend to disclose all when completing applications for disability insurance and similar and any clains they make are virtually always genuine. That in turn is reflected by premium rates and policy wording available to them as compared to someone doing exactly the same job but without formal education.

 

[Alisa]

More educated people take on information more easily and especially in areas they are not familiar with. They also rely less on empirical evidence to form opinions. People with very low levels of education can rely almost solely on empirical evidence to form opinions.

I think you got that backwards. There IS no empirical evidence of god. Therefore, going by your argument, we would expect that people with LESS education would be LESS religous.

Good point Mike, I have called these people Atheistic Zealot in the past. They believe to their very core that you should not believe in anything. And they would, if they could, force you not to believe.
Funny how the balance is kept.

I hope you are not refering to me as a zealot. I agree that people who selected option 1 or 5 on this poll ARE zealots - they believe based on faith, not on evidence. But those of us who picked option 2 are not zealots. We believe whatever the evidence shows us to be true, and we are willing to reevaluate our beliefs when new evidence appears. I don't "believe to my very core" that people should not believe anything. I just have not seen one speck of evidence that would indicate that there is a god. So why should I bother believing that there is one? As my poll states, if god appeared before me tomorrow (or some other compelling peice of evidence of his existence appeared), I would happily change my mind. This is the exact opposite of being rigid in my beliefs.

 

[Rabbie]

I think you got that backwards. There IS no empirical evidence of god. Therefore, going by your argument, we would expect that people with LESS education would be LESS religous.



I hope you are not refering to me as a zealot. I agree that people who selected option 1 or 5 on this poll ARE zealots - they believe based on faith, not on evidence. But those of us who picked option 2 are not zealots. We believe whatever the evidence shows us to be true, and we are willing to reevaluate our beliefs when new evidence appears. I don't "believe to my very core" that people should not believe anything. I just have not seen one speck of evidence that would indicate that there is a god. So why should I bother believing that there is one? As my poll states, if god appeared before me tomorrow (or some other compelling peice of evidence of his existence appeared), I would happily change my mind. This is the exact opposite of being rigid in my beliefs.

As a non Zealot I think you are being a little harsh on those who selected 5 in the poll. Option 4 is basically a non option. I have never met anyone who would come into that category. Reading the thread it is quite clear that many of the people who selected 5 are in fact the religious equivalents of those of us who selected 2. For me a Zealot in this context is someone who feels the need to convert others to their way of thinking and I don't think this is the case for many who selected 5.

 

[Darth Vodka]

With the exception of medical specialists (at least in Australia and the US) people with very high education levels usually do not earn extremely high incomes

really?

you're saying there is a reverse correlation between education and income?

and that investment bankers, hedge fund guys and CEOs have little education?

 

[KenHigg]

... There IS no empirical evidence of god..

Have you ever held a newborn child, especially one of your own? That's all I need prove there's something else bigger than me going on.

 

[Mike375]

I think you got that backwards. There IS no empirical evidence of god. Therefore, going by your argument, we would expect that people with LESS education would be LESS religous.

I am not referring to empirical evidence for God or a god.

The less educated person is more likely to base an opinion on an experience they have had and have difficulty coming to grips that a single experience (or two) might not mean much. They don't factor as many other things into the equation so as to establish if their experience would continue to be repeated.

 

[Alisa]

Have you ever held a newborn child, especially one of your own? That's all I need prove there's something else bigger than me going on.

Yes, holding a newborn child is a wonderful and emotional experience. But it does not provide evidence of god. It provides evidence of reproduction.

 

[Alisa]

As a non Zealot I think you are being a little harsh on those who selected 5 in the poll. Option 4 is basically a non option. I have never met anyone who would come into that category. Reading the thread it is quite clear that many of the people who selected 5 are in fact the religious equivalents of those of us who selected 2. For me a Zealot in this context is someone who feels the need to convert others to their way of thinking and I don't think this is the case for many who selected 5.

I agree, there are many who selected 5 that only picked it for lack of another viable option. However, I have actually met people that subscribe to option 4 in real life, so I don't think it is a total non-option. Someone criticized my choice of wording on the two options for believers a long long time ago in the thread, I can't remember who it was though. I asked what they would have liked instead and they never responded.

 

[KenHigg]

Yes, holding a newborn child is a wonderful and emotional experience. But it does not provide evidence of god. It provides evidence of reproduction.

Sorry, didn't mean to butt-in, just my thoughts -

 

[Mike375]

really?

you're saying there is a reverse correlation between education and income?

and that investment bankers, hedge fund guys and CEOs have little education?

No I said that very high levels of formal education don't usually go with extremely high incomes. However, the average income of those with formal education is higher.

There are exceptions and the CEOs of life insurance companies would be one notable exception (simiar to those you noted) as they are often actuaries and of course the medical specialists. However, the average actuary and other people with a similar level of qualification in the financial area are not real high income earners. Their income is very high compared to the average income but it is not at the real high level.

 

[Mike375]

As my poll states, if god appeared before me tomorrow

Which god are you referring to

 

[Rabbie]

I agree, there are many who selected 5 that only picked it for lack of another viable option. However, I have actually met people that subscribe to option 4 in real life, so I don't think it is a total non-option. Someone criticized my choice of wording on the two options for believers a long long time ago in the thread, I can't remember who it was though. I asked what they would have liked instead and they never responded.

I think the fact that only 1 person has voted for 4 says it is basically a non-option.

For the wording I would have preferred some thing like
4. I believe in God
5. I believe in God and everyone else should as well.

 

[Rabbie]

Which god are you referring to

In my case it would have to be a real god or gods. To name one now would be begging the question since I don't believe god/gods exist.

 

[Alisa]

I think the fact that only 1 person has voted for 4 says it is basically a non-option.

For the wording I would have preferred some thing like
4. I believe in God
5. I believe in God and everyone else should as well.

I agree, it appears to not be too popular I was just explaining why I originally thought to include it. In any case, maybe those who did not feel comfortable selecting either of the two original options for believers could pick one of your two options.

 

[Mike375]

In my case it would have to be a real god or gods. To name one now would be begging the question since I don't believe god/gods exist.

In English God will refer to the god portrayed in the Bible. You don't say such things as......if god appears etc....that should be....if a god appears...

Using "christian" for Christians is the same as using bill, john or mary etc.

 

[dan-cat]

I agree that people who selected option 1 or 5 on this poll ARE zealots - they believe based on faith, not on evidence.

Are you saying that believing in something without empirical evidence for it defines one as a zealot? If so, I'm not quite sure you have an adequate grasp of the term.

 

[Rabbie]

In English God will refer to the god portrayed in the Bible. You don't say such things as......if god appears etc....that should be....if a god appears...

Using "christian" for Christians is the same as using bill, john or mary etc.

Mike, once again you are misquoting me indirectly. I did not use the word appears. For your benefit I said In my case it would have to be a real god or gods. To name one now would be begging the question since I don't believe god/gods exist. when I said a real god I was not specifically referring to the Christian God merely to a hypothetical deity.

 

[Mike375]

Mike, once again you are misquoting me indirectly. I did not use the word appears. For your benefit I said In my case it would have to be a real god or gods. To name one now would be begging the question since I don't believe god/gods exist. when I said a real god I was not specifically referring to the Christian God merely to a hypothetical deity.

I must confusing you with Alisa

 

[Rabbie]

I must confusing you with Alisa

In that case you probably owe her an apology

 

[KenHigg]

In that case you probably owe her an apology

Good -'un