Wilders Trial: Not A Hater Say the Judges

[Simon_Jester]

What would you propose, Metahivemind? If some flying Dutchmen want to believe in Jewsus, so? Who gives a shit if they don't conform to some proscribed set of things to believe in or not believe in? Their society is more liberal and progressive than America, so there isn't much religulous bullshit that's holding them back aside from some fringe assholes.

I agree with Shroomy. Again, I cannot grasp why people would regard the very existence of religious beliefs as some sort of personal affront. Or why people would think that a religion which, like it or not, was a huge part of the collective experience of a culture for a thousand years and more is being "mollycoddled" if anyone refers back to it.

Why is it a problem that people believe things that don't make sense to you? Why is it a problem if not everyone in the country wants to cast away the historical place of a religion that played a huge role in the art, politics, and philosophy of their society?

There's this angry drive I see sometimes when someone decides that the existence of religion is so unforgivable that it must be purged from the culture, and that any positive memories of it need to be written out of history. And I've never understood it, it strikes me as almost contemptible- is it that poisonous to just sit back and let people live their damn lives without you telling them what to think? in the case of the Dutch, they're not harming the society to any meaningful degree; if they were the Netherlands wouldn't be a country with strong civil rights and a tolerant culture, which it is and has been for a long time (at least in relative terms).

Is religion so dangerous that it must be attacked and scoured away, rather than simply left alone?

[Shroom Man 777]

They'd say yes, and regard Dutch bad-whore-loving-prostitution-friendly-Christians in the same regard as Talibanis, and they'd run screaming at Buddhist temples and tell the monks there to stop practicing tai chi or whatever the hell it is they do, because they are stupid ninnies being molly coddled or something, and they'd drag the monks kicking and screaming from the Himalayas and bring them to godless secular civilization and let them watch Richard Dawkins while melting down their prayer wheels and using them for hubcaps for their electric cars and replacing Tibetan kendo clubs with engineering universities to honor their tools and keep them rigid.

[Metahive]

What would you propose, Metahivemind? If some flying Dutchmen want to believe in Jewsus, so? Who gives a shit if they don't conform to some proscribed set of things to believe in or not believe in? Their society is more liberal and progressive than America, so there isn't much religulous bullshit that's holding them back aside from some fringe assholes.

So you agree with me that the Dutch are not in need of christian methadone for "identity building", as proposed by Mung Beans, thank you.

Is religion so dangerous that it must be attacked and scoured away, rather than simply left alone?

Why don't you ask the people who were in the WTC on 9/11? O right, they are dead, killed by religiously motivated dickheads, and that's by no means the only time religion incited murderous violence. What also about all the people raped and abused with the tacit approval of the RCC? Really, was that a serious question?

There are peaceful buddhist monks and there're frothing crusaders bent on enforcing divine love at the tip of a gun. If getting rid of the latter entails also getting rid of the former I consider this to be an acceptable price. Religion belongs in the closet. That's my opinion.

[Metahive]

Just to preempt any further thread derailing into a discussion of my own personal views of religion, I remind people that this is all about Mung Beans proposing a combination of Christianity and humanism for dutch identity building and my objection to that specific proposal (namely that they make a pair of unfitting shoes). If people want to further inquire me about what I think about religion as a whole they can send me PMs because I won't pursue this tangent within this thread any further.

[Shroom Man 777]

Well, just the same, the Dutch probably give as much shit about Dung Beans' Christohumanoidism proposal as they do your ideas. Who the hell would want Dung Beans to propose to them, anyways?

[Metahive]

The Dutch have already lost me for serving me rotten food on my one stay there so they can all become couch-hopping scientologists for all I care. That however won't stop me from arguing with Mung about his advocacy of christian humanism as a useful avenue for national identity building and his apologetics for Karl Lueger, um... Geert Wilders.

The only serious proposal I have for the Dutch comes from the tip of a hungarian goulash cannon. At least they knew how to treat guests.

[General Mung Beans]

As far as I can see, Mr. Wilders is simply advocating this for Dutch society to maintain cohesion and order (actually that's why many agnostics or atheists are supportive of religious ethics or even pretend to be religious) and he believes Islam to be a threat and Christianity not due to modern history-there has been no Christian-inspired terrorism in the Netherlands but some Islam-inspired terrorism (ie assassination of Theo Van Gogh)

The idea that you can defend "supress freedom of religion" with "simply advocating for cohesion and order" is a veritable invitation for Godwin's Law. Christ, it's fucking perfumed and plays a song when I open it up. Here goes:

If as he argues, the Koran can be proven to be comparable to Mein Kampf
, than it would be only being consistent to ban the former book (of course that means the Old Testament probably gets banned too....)

BTW, I can't see how you think I actually support Mr. Wilders' views in that regard. I'm just trying to say what he believes.

[Simon_Jester]

Why don't you ask the people who were in the WTC on 9/11? O right, they are dead, killed by religiously motivated dickheads, and that's by no means the only time religion incited murderous violence. What also about all the people raped and abused with the tacit approval of the RCC? Really, was that a serious question?

Yes. If I were to ask those people, a lot of them would probably say "no, religion doesn't need to be scoured from the face of the Earth." They had religions of their own, which they were no doubt satisfied with. Desiring to avoid dying in a collapsing skyscraper or getting sodomized by a priest doesn't necessary make you an atheist. It certainly doesn't make you an atheist who thinks he should be able to tell everyone else what to think.

[Metahive]

Yes. If I were to ask those people, a lot of them would probably say "no, religion doesn't need to be scoured from the face of the Earth." They had religions of their own, which they were no doubt satisfied with. Desiring to avoid dying in a collapsing skyscraper or getting sodomized by a priest doesn't necessary make you an atheist. It certainly doesn't make you an atheist who thinks he should be able to tell everyone else what to think.

Sophistry. You ask me if religion is dangerous enough to demand counter-action, I give you concrete examples of religion threatening the lives and well-being of people and now I'm the bad guy? Hey, if I could have dissuaded Atta & co. from carrying through with their murderous plot by deconverting them, I would have without hesitation. Saving lives goes over religious tolerance on my scale. I do not consider religion worth the tithe in blood and tears it demands every year to be kept around. Maybe you do, but that's your brand of beer. This however is mine and I won't further discuss this with you. My last word on this.

If you however plan to debate the merits and demerits of combining humanism and Christianity I'll take you up on that.

[That NOS Guy]

If as he argues, the Koran can be proven to be comparable to Mein Kampf
, than it would be only being consistent to ban the former book (of course that means the Old Testament probably gets banned too....)

What about the Book of Revelation? Forget that part? Ban the Bible in totality, it's comparable to Mein Kampf!

Wait. Hold on. Christianity's text is comparable to Mien Kampf. Christianity is a basis of the Dutch culture. THE DUTCH ARE HITLER. SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE.

BTW, I can't see how you think I actually support Mr. Wilders' views in that regard. I'm just trying to say what he believes.

I don't think you seriously grasp what he's proposing. I could give two shits what you believe, but your defense of the man is haphazard and ill-thought out.

[Simon_Jester]

Sophistry. You ask me if religion is dangerous enough to demand counter-action, I give you concrete examples of religion threatening the lives and well-being of people and now I'm the bad guy? Hey, if I could have dissuaded Atta & co. from carrying through with their murderous plot by deconverting them, I would have without hesitation. Saving lives goes over religious tolerance on my scale. I do not consider religion worth the tithe in blood and tears it demands every year to be kept around. Maybe you do, but that's your brand of beer. This however is mine and I won't further discuss this with you. My last word on this.

Your "last word" is that the highest level of thinking you're willing to involve your mind in is very closely on par with:

"Stalin was an atheist. Stalin committed terrible atrocities against his own people. Therefore, atheism is evil!"

See the analogy?

If you can't hold yourself to a better standard than that, that's sad. It's worse when you refuse to try, when you pronounce that such muddled thinking is your "last word on this," and try to use the board's general disdain for religion to hide from the fact that you're staking out an indefensible position.

So I'd like to ask a yes or no question.

Do you view "religion" as a single monobloc, such that all religion everywhere is responsible for the crimes committed by any religious person anywhere?

If the answer to that question is "no" or "not really" or "it's more complicated than that," then I have another question.

How does the notion of abolishing religion to get rid of crimes committed in the name of religion make sense? It's totally indiscriminate- on par with trying to indoctrinate away atheism to save the world from Stalinism.

[Metahive]

Your "last word" is that the highest level of thinking you're willing to involve your mind in is very closely on par with:

"Stalin was an atheist. Stalin committed terrible atrocities against his own people. Therefore, atheism is evil!"

See the analogy?

Nope.

I only see your parents didn't teach you that no means no. Which part of "I'm not going to further humor your derail" did you not comprehend? Also, funny that you took "I don't think there's merit on mixing humanism and Christianity" and "I don't think there's merit in accommodating religious delusions" as "I want to force my atheism on everyone". That strawman is all yours. I also noticed your false dichotomy of offering either leaving religion all alone OR erasing it completely. I'm not going to subject myself to this level of bad faith.

Goodbye.

[Metahive]

To make something clear here, these are the opinions I actually expressed in this thread:

"I don't see merit in mixing humanism and Christianity"

Question, why dilute and burden humanism with any sort of religious baggage? Instead of going for a severely watered-down version of Christianity it'd be easier to just give up on it altogether.

"I don't see merit in accommodating religious delusions"

Eventually children have to be told that Santa isn't real and be allowed to grow up. Religion with its promotion of infantile magical thinking is there only a hindrance.

"I don't think religion is something that needs to be preserved no matter the cost"

There are peaceful buddhist monks and there're frothing crusaders bent on enforcing divine love at the tip of a gun. If getting rid of the latter entails also getting rid of the former I consider this to be an acceptable price.

I do not consider religion worth the tithe in blood and tears it demands every year to be kept around.

What I did not say but Simon keeps harping about:

"I want to force my atheism on everyone"
Never once even implied. I'd of course be happy if that happened, but I'm not so delusional to think it's going to happen in my lifetime

"Everyone must think like me"
That's why every statement above is about me and my own opinions, huh?

"All religions are the same"
Nowhere said that, the quote about peaceful monks and frothing crusaders even contradicts it directly

"All religious people are bad because of muslim terrorism/catholic child abuse"
I mentioned those in answer of Simon professing disbelief that religion could ever be dangerous. I recognize now that he set that up to trap me with false dichotomy. Well plaid, sir. Dishonest, but well plaid nonetheless

[Siege]

At this juncture I just like to say that I'm Dutch, and I have not the slightest fucking inkling where this Christian humanism tangent came from. It's not just not a discussion over here, it's not even an issue in the vaguest sense of the word. The only Christians of any relevance in today's Dutch politics are the Christian-Democrats who are hardcore centrists by our standards but would probably qualify as flamin' die-hard libruls by an American's; the second-largest Christian party is way to the left of the centrists, so much so in fact that they might as well be Labour except they toss in a bunch of references in the vein of What Would Jesus Do every now and then.

Meanwhile Mr. Wilders does like to yap on about Judeo-Christanity etc. but it mostly appears to be a way to convince the electorate that he's not against all religion but just against Islam. This appeases his crypto-racist voters but, somewhat amusingly, makes the two aforementioned Christian parties squirm uncomfortably because they really don't like being associated with that kind of rhetoric. Meanwhile everybody else, from Wilders' nominal right-wing allies (who are really his competitors for the same electoral subset) to the left-wing opposition just roll their eyes and ignore him because this particular discussion is simply a no-win situation for any politician. The joys of a multi-party system!

My point, then, is that religion is simply not an issue in Dutch politics (unless it's the typical ZOMG islamism nonsense, but even that appears to be fading quickly because I haven't really heard this as a major soundbite for months. I guess the economic crisis is good for something after all, hey?) You can drag in stuff like "religion threatening the lives and well-being of people" and I do get your point in an abstract kind of way but politically, here, it's an absolute non-issue. We're just not the USA or Uganda, religion does not play a significant role in politics.

[Metahive]

At this juncture I just like to say that I'm Dutch, and I have not the slightest fucking inkling where this Christian humanism tangent came from.

It comes from Mung Beans' idea that this is what the Dutch should try out and Simon's desire to derail this thread into a general discussion of what I ought to think about religions. Don't worry about having missed most of it.

[Zinegata]

Metahive is merely showing that he's an intolerant fuckwit who cannot understand the very simple concept that human beings do, in fact, allow themselves to hold contradictory beliefs without turning into some evil genocidal maniac.

Children may have to someday admit that Santa doesn't exist. But they'd often choose to hold on to that belief anyway because of a variety of self-justified reasons (i.e. "Santa personifies the spirit of charity"), and doing that doesn't make them bad people. Only somewhat irrational maybe, but Meta hasn't exactly shown that he's not full of irrational intolerance anyway - proving yet again that secularism and rationality do not always go hand-in-hand.

[Metahive]

And now you will show where I said that holding irrational beliefs automatically makes you a genocidal maniac. Either this or I demand a groveling apology, you shithead.

Here, for your delectation:

by Metahive » 25 Jun 2011, 23:26

To make something clear here, these are the opinions I actually expressed in this thread:

"I don't see merit in mixing humanism and Christianity"
Question, why dilute and burden humanism with any sort of religious baggage? Instead of going for a severely watered-down version of Christianity it'd be easier to just give up on it altogether.


"I don't see merit in accommodating religious delusions"
Eventually children have to be told that Santa isn't real and be allowed to grow up. Religion with its promotion of infantile magical thinking is there only a hindrance.


"I don't think religion is something that needs to be preserved no matter the cost"
There are peaceful buddhist monks and there're frothing crusaders bent on enforcing divine love at the tip of a gun. If getting rid of the latter entails also getting rid of the former I consider this to be an acceptable price.

I do not consider religion worth the tithe in blood and tears it demands every year to be kept around.

What I did not say but Simon keeps harping about:

"I want to force my atheism on everyone"
Never once even implied. I'd of course be happy if that happened, but I'm not so delusional to think it's going to happen in my lifetime

"Everyone must think like me"
That's why every statement above is about me and my own opinions, huh?

"All religions are the same"
Nowhere said that, the quote about peaceful monks and frothing crusaders even contradicts it directly

"All religious people are bad because of muslim terrorism/catholic child abuse"
I mentioned those in answer of Simon professing disbelief that religion could ever be dangerous. I recognize now that he set that up to trap me with false dichotomy. Well plaid, sir. Dishonest, but well plaid nonetheless

O yeah, and as a bonus you will also show all my past instances of "irrational intolerance". Don't think I haven't noticed that poisoning the well and ad-homs aren't your main tools of debate, you mental midget.

[Zinegata]

Okay, Metahive's being a dishonest shit now. You're gonna focus on the "genocide" angle? Really? You want to turn this into a literal semantic debate when your fuckwit intolerance and willful stupidity is here for all to see?

Sorry, but your blatant attempts at misdirection ain't gonna work.

See, "Metahive is a fuckwit who thinks religion makes you a genocidal maniac" isn't the main argument. Rather, it's this, which you conveniently ignored:

Children may have to someday admit that Santa doesn't exist. But they'd often choose to hold on to that belief anyway because of a variety of self-justified reasons (i.e. "Santa personifies the spirit of charity"), and doing that doesn't make them bad people. Only somewhat irrational maybe, but Meta hasn't exactly shown that he's not full of irrational intolerance anyway - proving yet again that secularism and rationality do not always go hand-in-hand.

Which, in fact, is a direct answer to one Metahive's fuckwit intolerant statements:

That's frankly none of my concern. Eventually children have to be told that Santa isn't real and be allowed to grow up.

It's no fucking accident I used Santa as an example.

So, again, let's review:

Whether or not Metahive believes that being religious turns you into a genocidal maniac doesn't matter. He probably does, because he's an intolerant fuckwit and a crybaby, and it is useful to remind people of Metahive being an intolerant fuckwit to understand where he's coming from. (And I'm ignoring his protests of me calling him an intolerant fuckwit. He should instead grow a fucking spine, or better yet some brains, instead)

What does matter is this: Can you have normal, functioning human adults even if they hold some contradictory/irrational beliefs? Can you believe in Santa and yet still be a functioning member of society? The answer is overwhelmingly yes.

Don't believe me? Well, there are several billion people on this planet. Only a tiny minority - around 5% - do not subscribe to religion. Is society falling apart? Is civilization collapsing? By and large - no.

So this idea that you can't grow up until you're told that Santa doesn't exist is a sham. Simon Jester (correctly) showed that this was a sham. And now we have Metahive being a crybaby because his position was shown to be a sham.

Boo-fucking-hoo.

Again, secularism does not equate to rationality. All you need to do is to read Metahive desperate attempts to claw at excuses and playing the victim card to avoid having to admit that he made an intolerant fuckwit argument - and you can see how supposedly secular people can cling to irrational asshatery.

[SilverWingedSeraph]

Whether or not Metahive believes that being religious turns you into a genocidal maniac doesn't matter. He probably does, because he's an intolerant fuckwit and a crybaby, and it is useful to remind people of Metahive being an intolerant fuckwit to understand where he's coming from. (And I'm ignoring his protests of me calling him an intolerant fuckwit. He should instead grow a fucking spine, or better yet some brains, instead)

Your strawmen and character attacks are tiresome.

What does matter is this: Can you have normal, functioning human adults even if they hold some contradictory/irrational beliefs? Can you believe in Santa and yet still be a functioning member of society? The answer is overwhelmingly yes.

And so because it's possible that means it's also ideal? Obviously not. Irrational thinking is by definition not a good thing. Nobody is arguing that it's impossible to be a functioning member of society while having irrational beliefs, but it's obviously an inherently bad thing

Don't believe me? Well, there are several billion people on this planet. Only a tiny minority - around 5% - do not subscribe to religion. Is society falling apart? Is civilization collapsing? By and large - no.

Compare it to the percentage of scientists who do not subscribe to religion. I know correlation doesn't equal causation but when you're best and brightest are overwhelmingly non-religious it obviously demonstrates that there is something inherently flawed with religious thinking. Those who grasp at the irrational by definition have diminished judgement.

So this idea that you can't grow up until you're told that Santa doesn't exist is a sham. Simon Jester (correctly) showed that this was a sham. And now we have Metahive being a crybaby because his position was shown to be a sham.

All you've shown is that you're capable of yelling "YOU'RE AN INTOLERANT BIGOT!" because someone rightly points out that religion is the equivalent of believing in Santa Claus.

Again, secularism does not equate to rationality. All you need to do is to read Metahive desperate attempts to claw at excuses and playing the victim card to avoid having to admit that he made an intolerant fuckwit argument.

Secularism may not default to rationality. It's obvious you can have irrational secularists. But secularism is superior to any sort of religious institution since they're all irrational by default.

[Metahive]

You're gonna focus on the "genocide" angle? Really? You want to turn this into a literal semantic debate when your fuckwit intolerance and willful stupidity is here for all to see?

That's rich. Caught you leaning yourself way too far out of the window, haven't I?

Sorry, but your blatant attempts at misdirection ain't gonna work.

See, "Metahive is a fuckwit who thinks religion makes you a genocidal maniac" isn't the main argument. Rather, it's this, which you conveniently ignored:

"Metahive is merely showing that he's an intolerant fuckwit who cannot understand the very simple concept that human beings do, in fact, allow themselves to hold contradictory beliefs without turning into some evil genocidal maniac".

So I'm an intolerant fuckwit because I supposedly don't understand that "contradictory" beliefs (where did that one come from anyway) don't necessarily turn you into a genocidal maniac by default. How's that different from "Metahive is a fuckwit who thinks religion makes you a genocidal maniac"?
Are you under the mistaken impression that people just can't scroll up a few inches to read what you've actually written? Misdirection? A plenty, but not from me, Zinegutter.

Whether or not Metahive believes that being religious turns you into a genocidal maniac doesn't matter. He probably does, because he's an intolerant fuckwit and a crybaby, and it is useful to remind people of Metahive being an intolerant fuckwit to understand where he's coming from. (And I'm ignoring his protests of me calling him an intolerant fuckwit. He should instead grow a fucking spine, or better yet some brains, instead)

OK, so no evidence, just a repeat of your accusations that I'm full of irrational intolerance, got it.

What's also your obsession with Santa here? Guess that analogy also flew over your tiny pinhead. That was brought up by me as an example of people needing to put childish delusions behind them eventually. That you somehow managed to spun that into me asserting that "Everyone who believes in Santa is a bad person" is not my responsibility, that's all your dishonesty at work.

[Zinegata]

So I'm an intolerant fuckwit because I supposedly don't understand that "contradictory" beliefs (where did that one come from anyway) don't necessarily turn you into a genocidal maniac by default.

No, you're an intolerant fuckwit because of your arguments. And because of the words that you say aside from those arguments.

Such as:

The Dutch have already lost me for serving me rotten food on my one stay there so they can all become couch-hopping scientologists for all I care. That however won't stop me from arguing with Mung about his advocacy of christian humanism as a useful avenue for national identity building and his apologetics for Karl Lueger, um... Geert Wilders.

The only serious proposal I have for the Dutch comes from the tip of a hungarian goulash cannon. At least they knew how to treat guests.

For the crime of serving you rotten food once... you have condemend the entire Dutch people. Wow. That's mind-boggling amount of intolerant fuckwittery even aside from your intolerant fuckwit arguments.

By the way, you have also, again, completely ignored my counter-argument yet again. So really, you are an intolerant fuckwit, AND you're now violating the rules of debate by deliberately ignoring an argument multiple times to cover up the fact that your argument is shit.

-------------------

SilverWinged Seraph->

You are an ignorant, lying fuckwit.

I know correlation doesn't equal causation but when you're best and brightest are overwhelmingly non-religious

Survey says....

http://www.livescience.com/379-scientis ... pline.html

Two thirds of scientists believe in God or a higher power. That's not an overwhelmingly non-religious. That not even a majority being non-religious.

Want to complain about the study? No problem! I have another:

http://pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethi ... elief.aspx

Which says 51% of scientists believe in God or a higher power. Which is still NOT an overwhelming majority. And not even a fucking majority *at all*.

This is the ONLY real argument you ever presented. The rest is BS opinion resting on this one "fact"... which proved to be untrue.

So go grow a fucking brain too, fucking dickwit. You're as retarded as Metahive and it's your stupidity which is tiresome.

[Metahive]

For the crime of serving you rotten food once... you have condemend the entire Dutch people. Wow. That's mind-boggling amount of intolerant fuckwittery even aside from your intolerant fuckwit arguments.

But serving me rotten food is a heinous atrocity, don't you agree? I mean I should sue the Dutch before the ICC for warcrimes, that's how bad it is! Only the worst persecutors of culinary pleasure could possibly disagree! You're not one of those, are you?!?

By the way, you have also, again, completely ignored my counter-argument yet again. So really, you are an intolerant fuckwit, AND you're now violating the rules of debate by deliberately ignoring an argument multiple times to cover up the fact that your argument is shit.

You mean your clumsy distortion of my Santa Claus analogy? Something I did in fact already reply to?

"What's also your obsession with Santa here? Guess that analogy also flew over your tiny pinhead. That was brought up by me as an example of people needing to put childish delusions behind them eventually. That you somehow managed to spun[sic] that into me asserting that "Everyone who believes in Santa is a bad person" is not my responsibility, that's all your dishonesty at work."

So take your pick, you're either a lying shithead, blind or severely reading impaired. Your failed attempt to backseat mod-bully me is noted BTW.

[SilverWingedSeraph]

51% is a whole lot fucking more than the 5% of the rest of the world you dishonest fuck. It means... oh, the most intelligent people are up to ten times more likely to be atheistic.

And here's a study to counter your own: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.htm Which say up to 70% of scientists are non-religious.

But hey, nice of you to seize on one part of my argument and use it to dismiss my entire post! A perfect example of irrational thinking. You wouldn't happen to be religious would you?

The rest is BS opinion resting on this one "fact"... which proved to be untrue.

Are you stating that a willingness to believe IRRATIONAL THINGS is not a INHERENTLY FLAWED thing? Irrationality is, by definition, a bad thing.

–adjective
1.
without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason.
2.
without or deprived of normal mental clarity or sound judgment.
3.
not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical: irrational arguments.

If people choose to believe irrational things they are inherently diminishing their judgement.

Seriously, is this all you can do? Cherry-pick arguments and scream and hurl insults?

[Zinegata]

Ah-hah! And look who's name calling now? Can we stop with the lies and can't you losers just admit that you're a bunch of idiots with chips on their shoulders, instead of the rational, shining examples of humanity?

51% is a whole lot fucking more than the 5% of the rest of the world you dishonest fuck.

First of all, 51% are religious, not non-religious. Religious being defined as "subscribe to God or a higher power". Get your numbers right.

Secondly, you did not say "there are more scientists who are atheists than the general public", which is a correct statement. What you said is this:

Compare it to the percentage of scientists who do not subscribe to religion. I know correlation doesn't equal causation but when you're best and brightest are overwhelmingly non-religious

Emphasis mine.

You are saying that from the population of scientists, they are overwhelmingly non-religious.

This has been disproven. Resoundingly. The majority of scientists are in fact religious - prolly somewhere between 51% to 66%. And since you used these very figures yourself, you're acknowledging this as fact.

So you lose. Resoundingly. Because you debate by speaking out of your ass instead of getting some hard numbers first.

------

Moreover - for the confused - why is this distinction important?

Because by Metahive's definition, the 51% of scientists who believe in God/Higher Power believe in irrational things. Therefore, they are part of the group of people who Metahive describes as "believing in Santa".

Really? Half the scientists in the world aren't grown ups? They aren't our best and brightest? What kind of fucking moron willfully ignores that people can, in fact, function as responsible adults even when they believe in some irrational things? Even if they believe in things (God) that is supposedly contradictory to their chosen profession?

Morons like Metahive and SWS, that's who.

---------

One final note, because idiots here tend not to check:

The 70% figure SWS is citing? It leads to a non-existent link. Therefore no need to address that "argument" (most likely an outright lie), although if it does exist it's likely because they interviewed only a specific type of scientist - check out the Live Science article for details - apparently different kinds of scientists have different levels of religiosity.

[Duckie]

Are you stating that a willingness to believe IRRATIONAL THINGS is not a INHERENTLY FLAWED thing? Irrationality is, by definition, a bad thing.

Can you cite that for me please