I've never met a smart religious person

They are always:

>High School dropout
>Can't do math
>Scientifically illiterate
>Don't understand astronomy or cosmology
>Don't understand how evolution by natural selection works
>Don't read books
>Never even read the Bible except random verses
>Don't know how the Bible was made
>Barely understand how computers work

Why is that?

CRIME Shirt $21.68

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

CRIME Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >why are people who believe in ancient fairy tales made up by schizophrenic inbred israelites moronic?
    I dunno anon, you must just have bad lucm

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      luck**

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Is picrel stupid in your eyes?

    I don't even agree with everything he believed in, but I acknowledge he was unusually smart

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Don't respond to bait.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It's not bait. I genuinely think you're an uneducated moron.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >*rapes your son because you made an offhand comment about satyrs being degenerate sex pests in greek mythology*
      nothin' personnel, john

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      He was an english professor, so he still didn't know how reality worked, that's why his magical-thinking was so good for creating fictional fantasy stories, just like the authors of the Bible.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >he still didn't know how reality worked
        There's plenty of STEM majors in the world, if that's your concern

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          He knew how fictional books and languages worked. He didn't know science. So he was not smart when it came to knowing things that are important for making progress in the world.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >we don't need literary works and record keeping
            Black person.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      LOTR are vastly overrated
      midwit literature

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Okay, what's great literature to you?

        >he still didn't know how reality worked
        There's plenty of STEM majors in the world, if that's your concern

        There are religious scientists as well, I am just wondering why you think humanities majors are inherently stupid

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Because all the smart ones go into STEM

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            So, you opened this thread to say "STEM majors rock" in a roundabout way?
            What makes you think the cheerleading was needed, I wonder?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Smart ones actually control the world. STEM is but a serv class that makes what the Controllers roll out as "new technology".

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Is picrel stupid in your eyes?
      yes. people in humanities are stupid. only STEM requires intelligence.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        t. pajeet

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >only STEM requires intelligence.
        You can graduate from STEM without accomplishing any kind of independent thinking too.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      There really didn't seem to be anything compelling to his apologetic except it being a good read for people already on their way to being a christian, or already were.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Religious "people" are low IQ. Science like physics and biology are too complex for them to understand, so they think its magic, and magic must require a sky wizard. Even though scientists have know how it really works for the past hundred years.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You're outing yourself as never having studied science beyond highschool, maybe even middleschool.

      > israeli fairy tales
      > israeli
      Antisemitism - no wonder you didn’t go to an elite school.

      Christianity has been anti-semitic since the 2nd century, arguably earlier.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I can run circles around you when it comes to science and the Bible. I'm the smartest person in this thread.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Why did you make such an incredibly stupid post then?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      isn't IQ pseudoscience?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Definitely not. IQ explains much of the social order of the world today. IQ should never be used to judge people is a better criticism.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Only when it comes to correlation with religiosity and political leanings.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    greentext is unironically me but i'm still an athiest.
    meaning, some borderline morons can unlearn religious indoctrination, so i wouldn't give up on them.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    That is only a recent phenomenom.
    Religion became lax enough in the secular world to allow you to reject it without social consequences and you weren't condiotioned into it as hard as your forefathers.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >High School dropout
    I have my degree
    >Can't do math
    In math & physics
    >Scientifically illiterate
    It’s a B.Sc.
    >Don't understand astronomy or cosmology
    My cosmology professor was a Harvard PHD
    >Don't understand how evolution by natural selection works
    Pretty easy compared to physics
    >Don't read books
    I’m reading a book on Torah Judaism right now
    >Never even read the Bible except random verses
    False
    >Don't know how the Bible was made
    Semitic literature
    >Barely understand how computers work
    Neither do you

    t. Catholic

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >undergrad thinks he's some kind of genius
      Come back when you have at least master's degree brainlet. Getting a BSc isn't impressive nor is it indicative of you being smart when most of the world can get a BSc easy

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Going to an elite university humbles you, it doesn’t make you feel more like a genius. I’m just showing that OP is literally wrong.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Yes, you're a Christcuck who will be humbled by your ignorance of how the world truly works.
          >evolution is pretty easy lol
          Brainlet undergrad arrogance on full display. The origin of species isn't the holy babble of evolution

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Imagine listening to a Harvard PhD lecture on Big Bang cosmology and thinking, "Rabbi Yeshua second person of the Trinity created all of that."

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >most of the world can get a BSc easy
        That's because we lowered the standards to a ridiculous extent.
        If most of the world could get a specific university degree, that degree is probably worthless

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >le lowered standards
          No, the pool of graduates increased because of increased literacy and access to education. You're probably some arrogant moron who thinks he can learn everything about a certain scientific field in three years

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >the standards are not lower than they used to be
            Maybe you went to some elite school, I am happy for you in that case

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Of course I went to an elite school, I went to the oldest and most traditional private school in my county where I also (surprise, surprise) was instilled with Christian values and taught the beauty of theology.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Okay, meanwhile in the rest of the academic world standards are clearly lower than they used to be and university is just high school 2.0.
            That's why companies don't dare hire graduates with zero experience, because they know that the real learning is done outside of university

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Okay, meanwhile in the rest of the academic world standards are clearly lower than they used to be and university is just high school 2.0.
            That's why companies don't dare hire graduates with zero experience, because they know that the real learning is done outside of university

            Kek. That's not me anon. He's a troll fishing for (you)s

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        In what fricking ways is admitting you meet/exceed very mild explicitly mocking standards claiming to be
        >"Some kind of Genius"
        ???
        As you correctly state,
        ANY undergraduate can meet or excede these standards.
        Why then is it surprising when one does and is also religious?
        Did you or OP not think ANYONE with a 4 year degree was religious??

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The poster I replied to was huffing his own farts about how hes a big shot undergrad who comprehends the intricacies of evolution when in reality they're baby tier in their understanding.

          https://i.imgur.com/DsQKHam.jpeg

          Lmao how do you not understand my point. Since our argument has been mutually agreed to be over, I bet you’re dyel and short too. You’re a seething loser trying to make up for your own shortcomings by making hasty generalizations about billions of people on IQfy. You don’t get to lord your intelligence over anyone you pathetic twat.

          [...]
          The only criteria he actually cares about is whether or not someone is religious. He will cope about everything else as it is disproven one by one. Someone could’ve come in here posting a Harvard doctorate in mathematics and he still would’ve found a way to say that he is intellectually superior because it would hurt his ego to admit otherwise. Pride is the largest handicap to learning.

          Religiosity is on its way out. Smarter societies abandon faith in flying israelites in favor of actually flying people through scientific innovation

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Going to an elite university humbles you, it doesn’t make you feel more like a genius. I’m just showing that OP is literally wrong.

      Notice how he's a Catholic. That's because Catholics allow you to believe in evolution and basically anything science says (even if it contradicts the Bible) AND believe in magic flying israelites in space at the same time. Only a true imbecile could believe both at once. You are not smart, you're an absolute idiot. My point still stands, I have never met a smart religious person.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Evolution doesn’t press on the Genesis account at all, it’s the story of humanity outside the Garden. What science and history show us is that there were evolved humans outside the Garden when Adam fell. And 6 day creation is poetry. I suspect the Garden was somewhere close to Armenia.

        Imagine listening to a Harvard PhD lecture on Big Bang cosmology and thinking, "Rabbi Yeshua second person of the Trinity created all of that."

        > Imagine listening to a Harvard PhD lecture on Big Bang cosmology and thinking, "Rabbi Yeshua second person of the Trinity created all of that."
        This particular professor was also spiritual insofar as his studies concerning the origin yielded only a profound unsearchable mystery. I remember him saying that.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >it’s the story of humanity outside the Garden

          Absolute fricking moron

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What is moronic about that? Even Judaism includes accounts of native populations outside the Garden. It’s the only way to make sense of certain passages.

            6000 years is the perfect amount of time for Adam to be the genealogical ancestor of all of humanity circa the time of Christ.

            Do you believe a virgin gave birth to a israelite with magic powers?

            Jesus, yeah

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            israeli fairy tales about garden paradises aren't real you fricking moron.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > israeli fairy tales
            > israeli
            Antisemitism - no wonder you didn’t go to an elite school.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            They are fairy tales, written by israelites. Going to an elite school didn't seem to do you any good, as you're still a complete idiot.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Your evil israeli sky wizard let millions of hominids "outside the garden" toil in misery for millions of years, infected with parasites, fighting over resources, dying in child birth. Then he suddenly decided to create a garden paradise and put two upgraded hominids inside? You'd have to be a complete fricking jackass for this to be your worldview.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That’s the Biblical account combined with what we know from science & history.

            They are fairy tales, written by israelites. Going to an elite school didn't seem to do you any good, as you're still a complete idiot.

            Why is the “israeli” aspect material?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Because you're a israelite worshiping piece of shit that makes the world a worse place to live in. The Bible is fiction.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Christians make the world a worse place to live in
            LMAO. Yeah Christians are the ones pushing all the social ills that are currently destroying our youth. Not atheists who hate high trust societies and embrace Satan, and certainly not israelites, the people who brag about inventing pornography because they hate Jesus. Not the israelites that teach their kids that Jesus boils in shit and spit on Christian missionaries and nuns. It's definitely the Christians.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, Christians offer children a belief system that is not compatible with reality. The kids grow up to learn the truth, that they've been lied to by everyone they trust, then they dive into degeneracy and throw out morals out of spite. If only someone had told them the truth from the beginning and given them a moral system that had grounding in reality. We are living in the final result of the Christian system of lies and deceit that went on for 2,000 years.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Kids raised Catholic will always have it on their conscience, regardless of muh science, because science doesn’t negate the fact that God is still an eminently plausible hypothesis (see

            https://i.imgur.com/pWIwK84.jpeg

            Evolution doesn’t press on the Genesis account at all, it’s the story of humanity outside the Garden. What science and history show us is that there were evolved humans outside the Garden when Adam fell. And 6 day creation is poetry. I suspect the Garden was somewhere close to Armenia.

            [...]
            > Imagine listening to a Harvard PhD lecture on Big Bang cosmology and thinking, "Rabbi Yeshua second person of the Trinity created all of that."
            This particular professor was also spiritual insofar as his studies concerning the origin yielded only a profound unsearchable mystery. I remember him saying that.

            and

            What is moronic about that? Even Judaism includes accounts of native populations outside the Garden. It’s the only way to make sense of certain passages.

            6000 years is the perfect amount of time for Adam to be the genealogical ancestor of all of humanity circa the time of Christ.

            [...]
            Jesus, yeah

            ). It makes better people from the get-go.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >god is still an eminently plausible hypothesis
            and apparently that god instructed israelites to commit genocide and have slaves
            and that god sacrificed himself to himself

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >and apparently that god instructed israelites to commit genocide and have slaves
            >and that god sacrificed himself to himself

            This is what happens when you read a dogmatic version of the religion instead of proper esoteric texts on how the reality actually operate.

            Funny enough, those who push atheism in the masses, know about the Absolute and what Christ spirit mission was, and for what reason it was initiated.

            Like I said, I used to be a naive atheist, until I realized that the Controllers of this world dont consume the same goy-slop of religions... They have something entirely different. And when you consume that, THEN all of those biblical stories begin to make sense. You dont have to believe them, but at least they are not self-contradictory.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Kids raised Catholic get molested by their priests. Frick your shitty false religion and holy book written by goat frickers. Science alone is the ONLY way to get close to truth.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > Science alone is the ONLY way to get close to truth
            Take high school level epistemology before leaving a comment Anon

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Do curse words help us get to the truth?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Wow. Triggered. Did the bad priest touch you on your no-no parts?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I've never been a Christian or gone to one of your pedo ring churches, so no. But many kids are and your worthless Jesus does nothing about it. I bet you even help cover it up.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You should probably be aware you are more likely to be abused by a female public school teacher than a Catholic priest. And on a per capita basis too.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Some anon posted here that he was the source of that information and when he tried to show his math, it was off lol.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Okay, well let’s do some back of the envelope. If you want more rigorous, do it yourself. USCCB says 7,002 credible claims of sexual misconduct from start of records to 2019. Hard to say if that captures every case, but on the other side, not every credible case can be certain, so we will assume those wash. And that number includes both adults and children, so we’ll just use 7,002, but assume half are children giving us 3,501 (it’s probably a lot less than half children, but I’m giving credit to nay sayers). I forget if that number goes back before 1960 or not, but let’s use 1960, understanding I think those records actually go back to the 1920s. Population of US Catholic priests 1960-2019 I estimate at 105,000 priests. So per capita, 33 per 1000 are bad priests.
            Now DOE says 11.7 of all students experience sexual misconduct in their most recent survey. If we assume the sexual misconduct was open and in front of a classroom, then as many as 25 children were abused by a single teacher the year of that survey (2015-2016 school year). Putting it all together, during a k-12 tenure, 23,500 discrete sexual abuse incidents occurred by singular teachers, including any overlap, which comes out to 75 abuses per 1000 teachers.
            However, one more caveat, as the case was supposed to be female teachers, who only account for 12% of all misconduct cases, thus 9 per 1000. Thus Catholic priests do abuse children more often if you strawman the clergy and iron man the female teachers to a ridiculous degree.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Now DOE says 11.7 of all students experience sexual misconduct in their most recent survey.
            I looked it up and this figure is from a survey of university students (i.e. not underage) and included ALL sexual misconduct, not just sexual misconduct from teachers. Direct quote:
            >Most (95.5%) sexual violence incidents occurred when the victim was incapacitated due to alcohol, substance, or asleep. An acquaintance, peer, or colleague was the most frequently reported perpetrator.
            Every time you try to argue this point, you post bullshit.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > A new large-scale, multistate survey of recent high school graduates about the nature and scope of educator sexual misconduct in Grades K-12
            Nice try, no dice for your lying ass
            And fine on your second point, but I guess I was using female teacher as a proxy for “female educators”
            Enjoy your victory lap moron.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Post link to your study. The study I got the 11.7% figure from is this https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5878971/.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/10790632221096421

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >11.7% of the 6632 participants reported having experienced at least one form of educator sexual misconduct during Grades K-12, with 11% reporting sexual comments and less than 1% reporting other forms of sexual misconduct (e.g., receiving sexual photos/messages, being kissed, touched sexually, or engaging in sexual intercourse/oral sex).
            You got a similar breakdown for Catholic priests?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Unfortunately, no. As I said before, I’m doing this back of the envelope. You want better, I expect you to do it, or find someone who already did.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If your work is trash, I have no reason to accept it in the first place. You also haven't provided the math that you used to arrive at the final per capita figure for teachers.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Well, good thing for me your internet opinion is trash. Sit on it and spin for all I care. You can inform yourself, or stay on a third rate image board for all it matters. I was hoping to have a survey level argument, which is all this site is good for, but your worthless ass got in the way. Goodbye.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yep, when you can't support your claim, you throw a hissy fit and flee. Every time.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Btw I just looked up the 7002 figure regarding Catholics priests and it's not a number of cases of sexual abuse, but it's the number of priests who have been credibly accused of sexually abusing minors. The number of cases is 20,052 and the percentage of Catholic priests credibly accused of sexual abuse according to the study is 5.9%.
            Get fricked, nonce.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Well, that’s a much better line of argument. I just used Google to get the 7,002 figure. I didn’t misrepresent what I was doing; I clearly said back of the envelope. You’re the one who went autistic because you don’t like the results.
            I didn’t even know this document existed.
            https://www.bishop-accountability.org/usccb/implementation/report_on_2017_07_01_through_2018_06_30.pdf#page=70
            We can compare this to female teachers. I rather like my 9/1000 for female educators, so let’s keep that and run the numbers for the most recent year in that report. Keep in mind 5.9% is for all years 1950 onward when accountability was lacking. More recent years have been much less tolerant of such behavior. Using the data from that reports found at www.bishop-accountability.org (and still keeping this shallow, you want in depth, do it yourself), I estimate 35 cases of sex abuse in 2016. I get that by assuming 3 cases of abuse were reported each year from 2016-2020, 2 cases were reported each year from 2021-2026, and 1 case/year reported 2027-2036. In practice to date, it seems this is still an over estimate as my model predicts 21-22 reported cases, but we might expect a spike in accusations as the statute of limitations in the various states runs out. If we take all 35 estimated cases and find the per capita among all 35,815 priests in 2016, that is almost exactly 1 sexual abusive priest per 1,000.
            So, using recent data we do indeed find priests are far less likely to abuse children than female educators by about a factor of 10.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Your math is once again wrong.
            >Using the data from that reports found at www.bishop-accountability.org (and still keeping this shallow, you want in depth, do it yourself), I estimate 35 cases of sex abuse in 2016. I get that by assuming 3 cases of abuse were reported each year from 2016-2020, 2 cases were reported each year from 2021-2026, and 1 case/year reported 2027-2036.
            Nice bullshit math, but the site lists actual numbers per each year. For instance, 2015 through 2016 shows 193 newly accused clerics and 914 new abuse accusations. And that's just from that year - the total stats remain 5.9% of all US Catholic priests being credibly accused of sexually abusing children.
            Furthermore, only 12% of all cases are verbal sexual abuse. Showing pornographic pictures or videos are 5% and 3% respectively, touching over cleric's clothes is 9.2%, touching over victim's clothes is 38.6%, touching under victim's clothes is 39.2%, cleric disrobed is 9.9%, victim disrobed is 16.9%, cleric performing oral sex is 15.9%, victim performing oral sex is 6.4%, manual penetration is 10.9%, penile penetration is 11.9% etc. (some acts overlap in cases of multiple abuses and so on). In contrast, less than 10% of all reported sexual misconduct in the K-12 study are anything else than verbal abuse. Furthermore, the K-12 study is based on an anonymous survey that doesn't distinguish between credible and non-credible accusations.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, that’s 914 new cases from 1950 to 2018. I’m trying to compare 2016 to 2016. How many cases happened in 2016? The report has 9 “new” cases for the reporting period 2017, lumped within years 2015-2017. Thus I split the reported number equally among those years. Use your brain and please make an effort to actually understand the data. My effort was to understand what happened in 2016, and only 2016, not all years leading to 2018. I did this because I had data for schools in 2016.
            Now on your second point, you’re never going to get both data sets broken evenly along every mode of sexual abuse. You’re welcome to try, and I’d be interested to know how the teachers break down too, but don’t get bogged down in the weeds unless you are willing to do the leg work.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Yes, that’s 914 new cases from 1950 to 2018.
            No, that's 914 new cases from 2015 to 2016. See picrel.
            >Now on your second point, you’re never going to get both data sets broken evenly along every mode of sexual abuse. You’re welcome to try, and I’d be interested to know how the teachers break down too, but don’t get bogged down in the weeds unless you are willing to do the leg work.
            I literally read both relevant studies, that's where I got the data from. Teacher abuse is more than 90% verbal abuse, cleric abuse is ~90% physical abuse.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No, that is the new report of abuse 1950-2018 not reports of abuse that happened in 2015-2016. You’re confusing the date a report was made with the date an abuse happened. That’s actually one of the main themes of that report. Look at figure 7, pic rel.
            Also, on your second point, I didn’t do that so I could take 4% of the teacher total, because then the abuse could happen to an entire class of students. If you want actual sexual activity, we would have to take the DOE report and find which types of abuse were of a serious sexual nature and use that % instead. If we use your 9% instead of my 4%, we get 20/1000.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Yes, that’s 914 new cases from 1950 to 2018.
            No, that's 914 new cases from 2015 to 2016.

            https://i.imgur.com/iMtmTi0.png

            No, that is the new report of abuse 1950-2018 not reports of abuse that happened in 2015-2016. You’re confusing the date a report was made with the date an abuse happened. That’s actually one of the main themes of that report. Look at figure 7, pic rel.
            Also, on your second point, I didn’t do that so I could take 4% of the teacher total, because then the abuse could happen to an entire class of students. If you want actual sexual activity, we would have to take the DOE report and find which types of abuse were of a serious sexual nature and use that % instead. If we use your 9% instead of my 4%, we get 20/1000.

            >You’re confusing the date a report was made with the date an abuse happened.
            You're right, my bad. You're still left with 5.9% of all US Catholic priests being accused of child sexual abuse though.
            >If you want actual sexual activity, we would have to take the DOE report and find which types of abuse were of a serious sexual nature and use that % instead.
            We already know that. 10.7% of all students anonymously reported verbal sexual misconduct (which can be something like telling a female student that her skirt is too short) while 1% reported other kinds of sexual misconduct.
            >If we use your 9% instead of my 4%, we get 20/1000.
            You can't get a per capita figure like that, there's far too many unknowns. You don't know how many teachers an average kid comes into contact with, you don't know whether teachers who sexually abuse minors are more likely to be serial abusers than priests, and so on. Your methodology is completely inadequate here.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Ignore>
            >

            Yes, that’s 914 new cases from 1950 to 2018. I’m trying to compare 2016 to 2016. How many cases happened in 2016? The report has 9 “new” cases for the reporting period 2017, lumped within years 2015-2017. Thus I split the reported number equally among those years. Use your brain and please make an effort to actually understand the data. My effort was to understand what happened in 2016, and only 2016, not all years leading to 2018. I did this because I had data for schools in 2016.


            Now on your second point, you’re never going to get both data sets broken evenly along every mode of sexual abuse. You’re welcome to try, and I’d be interested to know how the teachers break down too, but don’t get bogged down in the weeds unless you are willing to do the leg work. #
            >>Yes, that’s 914 new cases from 1950 to 2018.
            >No, that's 914 new cases from 2015 to 2016.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >still left with 5.9%
            Fair enough, but I just wanted to point out that that number is unfair to clergy when female educators have an equal or greater rate of abuse among minors. I wanted to show that using that argument was lacking context sufficient to show it is a strawman argument against the institutions as they exist today. What percentage of teachers do you feel committed serious sexual abuse, such as penetrative sex down to say, touching genitalia through clothing for sexual purposes? I can run that to determine the per capita teacher rate. You tell me, what rate should it be based on your interpretation of the DOE report?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >What percentage of teachers do you feel committed serious sexual abuse, such as penetrative sex down to say, touching genitalia through clothing for sexual purposes?
            There's absolutely no way to know without additional data. If you want to claim that teachers are more likely to abuse a child than priests, you will have to dig up that data.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Well, your estimate is a good as mine. Think laterally, perhaps. Maybe we can take a representative month and see how many news reports show a female teacher accused of sexual abuse? We know it’s not zero, and if the DOE report is remotely accurate, I think it’s pretty high, especially in high schools and junior high, grades 6-12. Tell you what, I’ve spent enough time here, I’ll see if I can at least find something through Google better than what I found up until now. Maybe I can use an AI. If I find something I’ll come back, but I don’t think this discussion can advance if you won’t even guess what an accurate number for female teachers is. I won’t tear a guess to pieces just with some faint critical analysis. We can talk again later if relevant.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I don’t think this discussion can advance if you won’t even guess what an accurate number for female teachers is.
            The problem is that there are so many different factors and moving pieces that I don't have any basis upon which to make a guess.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I'm back. Using Google I was able to focus in on "A descriptive analysis of public school educators arrested for sex offenses", by Ratliff and Watson, 2014
            I was unable to get an open copy of the paper, but from citations I found they examined a few hundred cases in the SE USA which lead to creation of a sex offender registration. They found 26% of the offenders were female. The actual number of women was 118 who offended from 2007-2011. Unfortunately, I would like to know which states so I could do a more direct per capita, but using an AI, it reference to a study of Texas in 2016 which examined 429 cases of "inappropriate educator-student relationships". Were those relationships sexual? I don't know. What is the name of that study? I still don't know. I'm done for now until my energy is back. Texas.gov reports 359,327 teachers in the 2016-2017 year. 429/359,327= 1.2 per 1000 potential sex abusers among all teachers. 26% of that results in potentially 0.3 abusers per 1000 female teachers. So with that, USA priests in 2016 abuse rate is three times Texas female teacher rate. And I have not verified yet there is a difference in this data of "educator" vs "teacher", but suffice to say, I find that to be a reasonable floor for the rate of abuse of female teachers, while the clergy per capita rate I give is likely overestimated. If I had to put error bars on all this, there is no statistical difference in abuse rates per capita.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >26% of that results in potentially 0.3 abusers per 1000 female teachers. So with that, USA priests in 2016 abuse rate is three times Texas female teacher rate.
            Anon the priest abuser rate is 5.9% or 59 per 1000.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Please read the discussion. I'm trying to do apple to apples in 2016, not 1950 to 2018

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            For the last time, you can't do an apples to apples comparison because you don't have the appropriate data. For instance, source quoted here

            I dug around a bit and found this:
            >A miniscule percentage of educators engage in sexual misconduct of one form or another with students. In Washington State, the percentage of certificated employees who are removed from the profession yearly was around the .0003% level in 2006, or 20 that year. After board policies and “professional boundary” trainings became routine in Washington, the number of teachers being reported to the state Office of Professional Practices dropped to .00004% in 2014-15. This small number of people do disproportionate harm to students, schools, and the teaching profession. A 2004 study by Dr. Charol Shakeshaft found that up to 9.6% of students experience some kind of sexually inappropriate talk or conduct from educators at some point between kindergarten and graduation from high school.
            Source: What We Have Learned About K-12 Sex Abuse Claims Since the Letourneau Case (Mike Patterson and Don Austin, Patterson Buchanan Fobes & Leitch, Seattle, WA)

            suggests that offending teachers are superpredators who stack a large number of offenses rather than there being a large number of one and done offenders.
            In other words, you need to differentiate between abuse rate, abuseR rate, abuse rate per year, number of lifetime abuses etc.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I can do 2016 to 2016 which at least eliminates one confounding factor of temporal relevance. My entire goal started as just a quick and dirty comparison. I didn't have to do all that extra work for free for you. Some Anon said female teachers abuse children less than catholic priests. So I found some google vomit and saw if that passed a sniff test. The point was simply to compare abuseR rates, because that was the focus. In the case of teachers I originally had to work backwards from abuseD students, which is the only reason I brought them up. The original premise was not so specific we need to account for abuse rates or number of abuses, etc. I interpreted the problem as "what is the per capita occurrence any member of these groups is a child predator withing the same time frame, and how do those two compare?"
            Now, some hours later, I find no statistical difference. You can complain all you want, and demand I provide the occurrence of super predators and multiple offenders. That's fine. You can interpret the question that way too. But that is not the work I did here, and I am not getting paid for this.
            So yes, I did do a small effort here that did show a relationship between catholic priests and female teachers. You want more, get to it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            But the problem is that you did absolutely nothing to show the abuser rates! If each abuser commits 1 lifetime abuse, the abuser rate will be 10x higher than if each abuser commits 10 lifetime abuses assuming identical abuse rates.
            And I literally showed you evidence that the abuser rates in teachers are extremely low (see

            I dug around a bit and found this:
            >A miniscule percentage of educators engage in sexual misconduct of one form or another with students. In Washington State, the percentage of certificated employees who are removed from the profession yearly was around the .0003% level in 2006, or 20 that year. After board policies and “professional boundary” trainings became routine in Washington, the number of teachers being reported to the state Office of Professional Practices dropped to .00004% in 2014-15. This small number of people do disproportionate harm to students, schools, and the teaching profession. A 2004 study by Dr. Charol Shakeshaft found that up to 9.6% of students experience some kind of sexually inappropriate talk or conduct from educators at some point between kindergarten and graduation from high school.
            Source: What We Have Learned About K-12 Sex Abuse Claims Since the Letourneau Case (Mike Patterson and Don Austin, Patterson Buchanan Fobes & Leitch, Seattle, WA)

            ). If that's not enough for you, do your own work. For now I think I showed that Catholic priests clearly have higher abuser rates than teachers.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Matthew 23

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Unlike catholic priests, I don't frick kids.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >But the problem is that you did absolutely nothing to show the abuser rates
            You say that is a problem. I didn’t care if my analysis captured that. If the question is which profession has a higher concentration of abusers, my analysis is appropriate. You want to find out where a population of children is more endangered, i.e. the abused per capita. I understand your position, but I am very serious I’m not doing any more right now. I did my piece. Now you can do the other part by yourself.
            >And I literally showed you evidence that the abuser rates in teachers are extremely low
            Well, I didn’t want to argue too much on your evidence, but will say now since you seem so keen on it, that’s not the best way to measure the number of abused students or the abuse rate. Counting how many teachers have a teaching license revoked doesn’t track well to how often the teacher was abusing students, IMO.
            >For now I think I showed that Catholic priests clearly have higher abuser rates than teachers.
            I’m going to disagree. Your 5.9% requires you limit your data selection to bias the data set toward 1950-1980. Last I checked, USA has had priests in its boarders for over 500 years. It is very important you limit your data selection to the same time period, or else everyone is allowed to arbitrary choose any time period they want. I still don’t think your data shows what you think it does, but you should limit your analysis of the priests to 2006, same as the teachers who had their teaching license revoked. In fact, you should limit the same to the priests who were removed from priesthood, same as the teachers who were removed from teaching. In fact there is nearly a direct correlation in both professions. If you want to count teachers who retired early due to abuse allegations, you must count priests who retired early due to the same. If you want to exclude teachers who retired, you must do the same for priests. Same for this administration action analyzed.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            (myself)
            And I just want to say, there is one more factor I would have accounted for if I could in my analysis of 2016 data. Ideally, I should have limited myself to the sex abuse cases only in Texas in 2016, since that’s where the teachers I used were located. Problem is there are no cases in Texas for that year. It would be disingenuous of me to say the priest sex abuser rate is therefore zero. But that is one more case where I was giving the best circumstances to the teachers and the worst to the priests. Ideally, since the abuse cases seem concentrated in NY, according to that USCCB report, the teachers should be scrutinized there as well, but then the situation doesn’t cover all USA cases, which I felt was important to this discussion.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Sorry, I just realized what I wrote was not clear.
            > Problem is there are no cases in Texas for that year.
            I meant to say there were not priest abuse cases that year. Apologies for the confusion

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >If the question is which profession has a higher concentration of abusers, my analysis is appropriate. You want to find out where a population of children is more endangered, i.e. the abused per capita.
            It's the other way around. I want to find out which population has more abusers per capita, and you can't find that out with your methods.
            >that’s not the best way to measure the number of abused students or the abuse rate
            Don't care. As I said above, what I care about is the abuseR rate, not the abuse or abuseD rate.
            >I’m going to disagree. Your 5.9% requires you limit your data selection to bias the data set toward 1950-1980.
            Looking at a single year can never give you an abuser rate, it will always give you an abuse rate or abused rate.
            A priest who serves for 50 years and rapes one boy over the course of his whole career is still a nonce even though he statistically contributes only 0.02 rapes per year. That is what you're not accounting for.
            >Ideally, I should have limited myself to the sex abuse cases only in Texas in 2016, since that’s where the teachers I used were located.
            That would actually be cherrypicking. You got the Texas data from articles which specifically say that Texas has a huge problem in this area compared to other states.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > I want to find out which population has more abusers per capita.
            Well then I don’t understand how my analysis didn’t find an abuser per capita concentration. I did an analysis that found how many people in two populations committed the abuse using what data I could find. The counted number of individuals who had credible cases against them was divided into the populations. Technically, I used a model to extrapolate future cases against priests since there might be a delay in reporting, but I did not extrapolate against the female teachers, which I could have done. If I limit myself to only actually reported cases in the USCCB report, both groups have the same abuse rates 0.3 per capita per year. That seems likely to indicate what you want to know. Now, I did extrapolate that rate in TX to the country as a whole, but I’m just using the data I have. I can’t magic data for the whole country. And no that’s not cherry picking on my part. It’s the data set I had convenient to me. Maybe I will use whatever 2016-ish data you want, just provide and maybe later I will get on it. Or, you can do your own analysis on 2016-ish data and you can choose how to analyze it. You don’t need my okay. Worst I can do is do my own analysis on the data and find a different answer from yours.
            > As I said above, what I care about is the abuseR rate
            Okay, you are going to have to define what you mean by abuser rate then. I had interpreted it as the occurrence of abusers within a population, hence my focus on the per capita metrics. Are you saying you want to know the count of abuses over time? Why have you arbitrarily started counting in 1950? Using that as a start date seems like cherry picking, since that date objectively selects when the abuse increased to a maximum. Why would it not be okay to do the same for teachers then? You see, your entire analysis relies on the premise the abuse rate is the same in every year, but your own data set shows that is false.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >both groups have the same abuse rates 0.3 per capita per year. That seems likely to indicate what you want to know.
            Incorrect. Objections to your math aside, two groups can have the same abuse rate but wildly different abuser rates.
            Let me give you a random example. Let's say that cobblers have an abuse rate of 0.5 per capita per year while truck drivers have an abuse rate of 0.05 per capita per year. Does that mean cobblers have 10 times the abuseR rate? Not necessarily! If each truck driver who happens to be an abuser abuses 10 times as many children as each cobbler who happens to be an abuser, the abuseR rate is equal for both even though the abuse rate of cobblers is ten times the abuse rate of truck drivers.
            This is why your data is completely inadequate.
            >I had interpreted it as the occurrence of abusers within a population
            Yes, that's exactly what I mean.
            >Why would it not be okay to do the same for teachers then?
            If you can find the stats for what percentage of teachers teaching since 1950 have diddled a kid, I'd be delighted.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > If each truck driver who happens to be an abuser abuses 10 times as many children as each cobbler who happens to be an abuser, the abuseR rate is equal for both even though the abuse rate of cobblers is ten times the abuse rate of truck drivers.
            I see what has been confused now. You want the count of abuses over a specific period of time, which is fine, but I wanted a count of the occurrence rate within a population, not a time rate. I was just counting what the occurrence of abusers is in each population. We are not in disagreement, I just didn’t do what you wanted. In our particular case you want to count every instance of abuse (which you never established and may be unknowable with the time period you want to use, I agree with you on that), and divide that by the time period. My take was if I throw a rock at a priest or teacher, what is the probability I hit a pedophile? For the last time, I wanted a per capita population of pedophiles in the total populations, not a time rate. It’s the same as TFR or CDR. Those don’t measure births per year or deaths per year. Those metrics actually count babies born inside a time period and divide by the population of females or count deaths divided by the total living population inside a time period, respectively. The rate comes because you limit yourself to a specific time period, not because you measure across time, hence my emphasis that limiting data to the same time period in all cases is very important. My analysis is only inadequate for your narrow interest. My narrow interest is perfectly fine with the analysis and your claims otherwise are pointless.
            > Yes, that's exactly what I mean.
            Fine. This contradicts what you just said, but whatever. It occurs to me (pun intentional) that I could be more specific in my language. When I say “occurrence of abusers”, I can be more accurate by saying “population of abusers”. I was using those as synonyms.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Anon, you are still completely confused and I'm starting to think that you won't be able to understand this at all. My interest is "What percentage of priests/teachers have sexually abused children?" You can express this in terms of a per capita statistic or in terms of percentages, it really doesn't matter. The crux of the issue is that I'm interested in how likely it is that any given priest or teacher that you run into is a nonce.
            I'll try a really really simple example to show why your method doesn't work.
            There are two islands and each has 1000 adults. The child abuse rate on both islands is 100 per 1000 adults per year. If we used your method, we could extrapolate that the abuseR rate, the probability that you'll throw a rock and hit a nonce etc. etc. is the same on both islands.
            The problem is that in reality, island A has 1 nonce who abused 100 children in a year while island B has 100 nonces who each abused 1 child in a year. How does your methodology deal with that? The answer is that it can't. There's nothing in your math that deals with frequency of abuses per abuser, and therefore any extrapolation you make from abuse rate to abuseR rate is necessarily worthless.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I know what your interest is. I didn’t care what your interest is when I did my analysis. My analysis answers the question in a way that satisfies me. I’m not here to serve you. If you want the analysis done a different way, get at it, for the last time.
            >how does your methodology deal with that?
            My methodology say island A has one person per 1000 is a problem and island B has 100 people per 1000 who are the problem. It doesn’t deal with those other details. This is because there is a practical side this issue, such that if there really was an island with 100 pedophiles, why would they abuse only one child? That’s not a practical example of how the problem actually occurs. Here in the real world, when a pedophile loses access to their victim, they begin to groom a new victim or multiple victims. They don’t limit to one child unless forced by circumstances, and they probably don’t abuse 100 children either, except maybe some rare cases.
            My analysis lets me compare a problem across populations. In your island model, I can say both islands have a problem, and island B has 100 times the rate of people causing the problem.
            This other side you keep harping on is a valid line of questioning, but I refer you to this

            I can do 2016 to 2016 which at least eliminates one confounding factor of temporal relevance. My entire goal started as just a quick and dirty comparison. I didn't have to do all that extra work for free for you. Some Anon said female teachers abuse children less than catholic priests. So I found some google vomit and saw if that passed a sniff test. The point was simply to compare abuseR rates, because that was the focus. In the case of teachers I originally had to work backwards from abuseD students, which is the only reason I brought them up. The original premise was not so specific we need to account for abuse rates or number of abuses, etc. I interpreted the problem as "what is the per capita occurrence any member of these groups is a child predator withing the same time frame, and how do those two compare?"
            Now, some hours later, I find no statistical difference. You can complain all you want, and demand I provide the occurrence of super predators and multiple offenders. That's fine. You can interpret the question that way too. But that is not the work I did here, and I am not getting paid for this.
            So yes, I did do a small effort here that did show a relationship between catholic priests and female teachers. You want more, get to it.

            Where I explained what you likely wanted to know was the per capita of abused children. That is doable. I just chose not to do that to keep the size and scope of this effort manageable. I’m sorry you don’t like those limitations. But I sound like a broken record because I don’t care to answer the question that way right now. You can absolutely find the abused per capita rate of children yourself and you’ll have your answer. You’ll have two numbers for both populations and can compare both, discuss it to your heart’s content. You’ll have an abuser rate and an abused rate. You can then know what the rate of occurrence in each population is, and you’ll know what the danger is to the general population of children

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Anon, are you just trolling me right now? I want to know exactly the same thing you want to know (abuser rate - i.e. what percentage of priests/teachers are nonces), all I'm telling you is that your methodology is crap.
            >My methodology say island A has one person per 1000 is a problem and island B has 100 people per 1000 who are the problem.
            Your methodology doesn't do that. You never presented a study which shows the abuser rate for teachers, only the abuse rate.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I don’t need the study to do it for me if I’m willing to make reasonable estimates with limited data sets. It’s possible for me to do the math myself. I agree, though, I never presented that Texas study because I never looked it up. I took the one piece of data I needed and assumed the investigation rate of Texas teachers approximated the credible accused rate of priests. Fine, criticize that assumption all you want in any way you want, but that seems like a reasonable thing to do to me, and I’m not budging because you want an original data study. The two scenarios parallel very well. Priest is accused —> investigation conducted matches teacher is accused —> investigation conducted. I have to assume ceterus paribus, but I’m not crazy to think using those numbers will give comparable results which allows me to compare both, which is the whole point of the exercise. There are indeed more domains you can compare. I’m just not doing them.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Well, I already showed that your assumptions are unreasonable with the two islands example. You cannot extrapolate the abuser rate from the abuse rate, so at this point all you have is a study you haven't even seen coupled with a methodology that in principle cannot work.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            And btw the reason why I like the studies that look at catholic nonces since the 50s is that they do straight up give abuseR numbers. The timeframe is good for eliminating all kinds of noise, reporting discrepancies etc., but the main point is that you get the number of abusers.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I agree. The Catholic data is excellent and fun to work with. All my difficulties seem to come from pinning down the teacher data

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Well, “fun” outside the specific context.
            An autist was clearly in charge.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            And no, I do not have data from 1950 onwards. I’m fairly certain such data does not exist and I’m not sure why you think I would have access to such data or expect me to provide it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I dug around a bit and found this:
            >A miniscule percentage of educators engage in sexual misconduct of one form or another with students. In Washington State, the percentage of certificated employees who are removed from the profession yearly was around the .0003% level in 2006, or 20 that year. After board policies and “professional boundary” trainings became routine in Washington, the number of teachers being reported to the state Office of Professional Practices dropped to .00004% in 2014-15. This small number of people do disproportionate harm to students, schools, and the teaching profession. A 2004 study by Dr. Charol Shakeshaft found that up to 9.6% of students experience some kind of sexually inappropriate talk or conduct from educators at some point between kindergarten and graduation from high school.
            Source: What We Have Learned About K-12 Sex Abuse Claims Since the Letourneau Case (Mike Patterson and Don Austin, Patterson Buchanan Fobes & Leitch, Seattle, WA)

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            BTW, that’s an excellent point on the teacher survey not breaking out credible and non-credible, but if I had to guess, the ~75% rule would hold, thus 4 cases were reported and 3 were found credible. But I’m not sure that would affect the outcome, since my estimate came from a model that likely wildly overestimates the number of cases already. I would actually be surprised if there were 35 cases of sex abuse in 2016.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            BTW, I I don’t actually care to carry water for Catholic clergy, and I’m not defending pedophilia, I’m just trying to force the discussion along quantifiable lines.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Look, what makes Catholicism interesting is that their leadership knew, and decided to cover it up, and "solve the issues internally"
            There's no coming back from that

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >moral system that had grounding in reality
            Explain this system. Does it exist?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The Christcuck Moral System:
            >You better be a good boi and do what rabbi Jesus in outer space says or he's going to fry your ass in the magic lava under the earth! But you can also just do anything and ask for forgiveness later. Ir you can just not ask for forgiveness because he died for your sins. Once saved always saved.

            The Moral System Grounded in Reality
            >We are just evolved animals with high intelligence. There is no God looking out for you. Sin isn't real, but your actions can have consequences that can last forever, and the people affected by them might not forgive you. This is your only life, we should all put effort into making this world better so we can live the best life possible, because there is not another one waiting for us after we die. If you make the wrong choices in this life and end up in prison or a drug addict, you are fricked forever with no hope of redemption. Good luck.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Only a pagan would situate God in outer space. God is not situated some place in the universe, the universe is situated in God.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            At the end of the Gospels, Jesus literally flies off into outer space.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            In Luke 24:51 it mentions that Jesus was lifted up and a cloud took him out of sight. Acts 1:9-11 describes Jesus as being taken up before the disciples' eyes and a cloud hiding him from their view.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            He went up into the sky, the "heavens". Christian thought outer space was heaven and that's where God lived.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Abrahamic canon used to be God sits on a throne above seven heavens.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Secular Humanism will never work. A purely utilitarian outlook on morality, and living for this world alone, is bound to result in the kind of permissiveness we see today

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            All problems in this world are the result of Abrahamism. Even the Orthodox church embraces Putin's war.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            And how could they not? Look at the west, fully doused in immorality. Why would they support its expansion to their border, knowing it actively exports its sexual deviances to its client states?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            not bad

            >consequences that can last FOREVER?
            forever has connotations of religion

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It can last forever. Your actions can affect things a billion years from now, even until the universe ends. So almost forever.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Christians offer children a belief system that is not compatible with reality
            This is the anti-christ Anon. Jesus christ is the fundamental way, the fundamental truth, and the fundamental life. To say that "Christianity" is not compatible with reality requires you to completely ignore how these words were origionally defined.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >atheists who embrace Satan
            You believe in satan not us
            no atheist believe in satan you do realize that right?
            and it's you who believe in a modified version of judaism not us

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >no atheist believe in satan you do realize that right
            But Ahraman (aka Satan) was instrumental in creating that movement. It doesnt matter what you think about it.

            You are rarely happy, and always degenerately arrogant. Funny enough, you turned science into a dogmatic religion because despite your patting on the back, you still need a belief system.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >two ages in history books dedicated to anti christian or pagan thought
            >both of them are still considered golden ages
            The renaissance and the enlightenment as well as their spirit put a halt to christcuck extremism. Otherwise you'd still be muslim tier savages

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Source?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The modern world not being a theocratic shithole

            Secular Humanism will never work. A purely utilitarian outlook on morality, and living for this world alone, is bound to result in the kind of permissiveness we see today

            >it will never work
            Still works. The founders of your nation would spit on you for your theocratic asskissing

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The Christians on this site are the exact kind that would put you on the torture wheel for believing the wrong way. They are mentally diseased parasites. Be glad they no longer have any power over you. I guess their god wasn't strong enough to hold onto it for them.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Torture & suffering being immoral is a modern invention
            It's through pain that we learn

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            See, this guy is a mentally diseased psychopath. Frick Jesus and frick you. Enjoy your demise fricker.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Your emotional response is misguided, if you knew of Jesus Christ and his salvation you'd wish to be at his place on the cross with the same crown of thorns.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Frick you

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            May you find salvation through christ

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Shove the cross up your ass, scumbag

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Wash your mouth out with soap
            Potty mouth

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It doesn't work, as is obvious in plain sight. Secular society has led to unimaginable moral decay.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Jesus and the Bible aren't real, so there is no other choice going forward.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            They are tho, moral decay in secular society further shows that

            That's what the enlightenment philosophers thought about your israeli religion. Atheism is on the rise because of better access to education and prosperity. Majority of risin birthrates are in third world shitholes where your children are the retirement plan. You lost the free market of ideas. Cope

            >prosperity
            Cheap oil. We talked about this already

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >cheap oil
            Facilitated by scientific invention and capitalism. Not christcuckery. Capitalism is inherently wrong by Christian standards since it promotes usury. The world doesn't need your desert religion to prosper

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Industry has played a major part in this, yes. And yes, Capitalism is wrong, allowing businesses to become too big and placing a global emphasis on economics does contribute to the decay we see.
            You keep hinging on the current state of the world to be seen as 'good' for some reason. Unless you support rampant degeneracy and the destruction of families and communities, I can't see how that is the case.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >le degeneracy
            >le destruction of families and communities
            You morons have been harping on about degeneracy since your israelite was crucified. You didn't stop during the medieval age when christcuckery was at it's ideological height. Go outside. The world isn't some on the apocalyptic brink shithole like your tradlarper discord makes it out to be

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Many societies have collapsed before due to rampant sin, what's your point? This one is heading the same way.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Societies like?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The ancient Romans have left no genetic imprint. Such fate awaits atheists

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That's what the enlightenment philosophers thought about your israeli religion. Atheism is on the rise because of better access to education and prosperity. Majority of risin birthrates are in third world shitholes where your children are the retirement plan. You lost the free market of ideas. Cope

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >It's not the christians, it's the israelites that christians worship and support!
            kek

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            BIBLE

            Basic
            Instructions
            Before
            Leaving
            Earth

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            We from Neptune and sheeit.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            See, this is the Christcuck mindset and moral system. "Why bother improving this world when Jesus has a magic fairy castle waiting for me in the clouds after I die?"

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The primary Christian commandment is charity and to love God and OTHERS with your entire being (heart/mind/soul), whereas natural man is primarily concerned with himself and his own self-interest and carnal pleasures (if you don’t believe me on that last one, study Jannah).

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No Christian does that. All Christians are evil greedy scumbags. That's why Christianity is such a money making business.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Erm, the religion may teach good things but…no Christian actually practices it!!
            Cope

            You respect the commandment because...? You want a place in heaven and avoid sin to avoid hell. You want a reward for your actions, you are an egoist.
            You are no different from humanists, you may function even more on "carrot & stick" mentality than they do.

            I respect the commandments because it makes me happy and joyful to be a good person, simple as.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Holding and living through personal & shared values has nothing to do with the existence or not of a God. It's something people do and have been doing before christianity was even heard of and across the globe

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > It's something people do and have been doing before christianity was even heard of and across the globe
            Maybe they were connecting with the God in their own way by doing that.

            1 Corinthians 15:32
            If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”

            He went up into the sky, the "heavens". Christian thought outer space was heaven and that's where God lived.

            Ok. Intellectuals and theologically, God is not a man in the sky, but the creator of the entire cosmos.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Christianity teaches people to let evil win

            >Matthew 5
            38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > Christianity teaches people to let evil win
            So does the Old Testament, because the victory belongs to God on the cross.

            Deuteronomy 32:35
            35 Vengeance is Mine, and recompense;
            Their foot shall slip in due time;
            For the day of their calamity is at hand,
            And the things to come hasten upon them.

            Please repent and accept the goodness of Jesus before it’s too late.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Christcuckery is a mental illness.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            When you can’t win with reason, use insult. Atheist logic.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Atheism has won with reason every step of the way.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            In one brief sentence, name the reason has been theism false or even remotely cast into doubt.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Snakes don't talk.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Miracles are *by definition* violations of the natural order. In other words, the existence of scientific laws and natural regularity was implied by the Bible thousands of years before Sir Francis Bacon. Otherwise talking snakes, virgin births, etc. wouldn’t have been seen in the Biblical worldview as “signs”.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Is the snake a miracle? Did god miraculously introduce a sinful agent into his world in order to deceive his creations?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No evidence for God, the Bible is provable false and corrupted, the universe and life is not intelligent design but natural selection, and Science can explain how everything came to be from natural causes without a God.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > the Bible is provable false
            Which part? Evolution doesn’t disprove Eden, they are parallel accounts.
            > the universe and life is not intelligent design but natural selection
            Natural selection is a beautiful theory, but a naturalistic explanation for life has nothing to do with how unlikely life is, how beautiful life is, and this is not to speak about abiogenesis which science will likely never uncover.
            > Science can explain how everything came to be from natural causes without a God
            Except the totality of the cosmos itself. So science does away with idolatrous gods, but not capital G God.
            > No evidence for God
            See if you still feel that way on your deathbed.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >See if you still feel that way on your deathbed.
            Nta but that's an argument from cope. You're just telling him that he'll believe any old bullshit to cope with death.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Salvation
            Duh

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Cope
            Duh

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You're just describing a cope in different words.
            >I value my life more now, so it's more likely that I will not lose it :*~~

            I think I now believe in talking snakes and flying israelites now that I know I will one day die

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Cope
            Yes
            Matthew 11:28-30
            Coping is a part
            Duh

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Jesus sounds like a cult leader

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The Pharisees and Sadducees may have thought the same.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It’s not about coping, it’s about imminent death putting the value of life into perspective. You don’t know what you got til it’s almost gone.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You're just describing a cope in different words.
            >I value my life more now, so it's more likely that I will not lose it :*~~

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It is tho? The more care you put into something the least likely it will degrade.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You're so fricking stupid you contradicted yourself right away. First you say evolution is real, then you say natural selection is fake. Evolution works through natural selection. Don't ever speak on subjects of science again.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Reading comprehension.

            You're just describing a cope in different words.
            >I value my life more now, so it's more likely that I will not lose it :*~~

            If you say you hate your mommy, and it just so happens that a thug puts a gun to her head and threatens to kill her the next day, and you relent and realize you actually love her, are you coping? Same with God.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            God isn't real. It's something stupid people believe in to fill gaps.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > fill gaps
            I can’t overemphasize how idolatrous your understanding of the israeli God is. God is the author of all, not a character in the book.

            Actually the more accurate analogy would be that you don't believe in Superman, and it just so happens that a thug puts a gun to your mommy's head and threatens to kill her the next day, and you relent and realize you actually believe in Superman because you want him to save your mommy.

            No, the analogy is correct. God is your parent, and you are ungrateful.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Nope, my analogy is correct. God is your cope just like superman is a cope in the analogy.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Is Superman the source of your life/existence/blessings/mommy in your analogy?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Superman is the imaginary savior character that you convince yourself is real as a cope with the imminent loss of the thing you love. Your example is disanalogous because it only presence a change in your relationship with the thing that you're about to lose - it would be a correct analogy if you thought you hated life, but upon your death bed you realized that you love life.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I am not speaking of God in the capacity of saviour or redeemer. I am speaking of God in the capacity of creator and sustainer and parent. You are in relationship with Him right now but don’t care to acknowledge it. When you are about to lose Him, you might care. Not saying you will. But it will increase your chances.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Cope. People who convert on their death bed aren't converting because they are afraid of losing god, they convert because they are afraid of losing their life.
            And in any case, I've been in situations where I was on the brink of death and the thought of god didn't even cross my mind.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >situations...on the brink of death
            OK, Black ops
            OK, Stunt man
            OK, Logger
            OK, undercover cop who infiltrated a 1% biker gang
            OK, Mexican cartel soldier

            A Le'Danger IQfy poster just flew over my neighbors sister's house.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I don't believe you! My pastor said there are no atheists in trenches!
            kek

            https://i.imgur.com/BWgP6YP.png

            > People who convert on their death bed aren't converting because they are afraid of losing god, they convert because they are afraid of losing their life. And in any case, I've been in situations where I was on the brink of death and the thought of god didn't even cross my mind.

            >no argument
            >starts playing dolls with wojaks

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            There is no fruitful clash when we have landed on just different presuppositions. You deny that the love of life=the love of God and brag about not caring about God, because muh mean priests and muh Darwin disproves Eden (it doesn’t). That’s pretty lame, dude.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You deny that the love of life=the love of God
            Why would an atheist (i.e. the subject of death bed conversion) presuppose that the love of life = the love of god? Are you moronic?
            >brag about not caring about God, because muh mean priests and muh Darwin disproves Eden
            Where did I say that? Give me a direct quote or apologize for bearing false witness.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > Why would an atheist (i.e. the subject of death bed conversion) presuppose that the love of life = the love of god?
            Why would someone not?
            > Where did I say that? Give me a direct quote or apologize for bearing false witness
            Sorry, I assumed you were in line with the other atheists in the thread. Considering how natural belief in God is, what reason would you have for not believing?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Why would someone not?
            Because that person is an atheist. How could an atheist possibly presuppose that love of life is love of god?
            >Considering how natural belief in God is, what reason would you have for not believing?
            I see no good reason to believe in god.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            So someone looks at the flowers in the field and believes God, and someone else looks at the night sky and doesn’t. There isn’t much more to say, other than maybe the words of God Himself: blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see [Me]. Remember that if you don’t have faith, but you ask God for it in sincerity, He will happily furnish it. It just takes faith the size of a mustard seed to get started. Jesus loves you. Hope to see every Anon here in heaven.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You still haven't given me any reason why an atheist would presuppose that love of life is love of god.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Cope. Seriously.
            Does the idea trouble you so, that you must wave it away?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > People who convert on their death bed aren't converting because they are afraid of losing god, they convert because they are afraid of losing their life. And in any case, I've been in situations where I was on the brink of death and the thought of god didn't even cross my mind.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >on the brink of death
            One time at band camp...

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I was on the brink of death
            I was playing vidya in the basement and mom opened the door and yelled out " Do you want some microwaved chicken tenddies!?"
            "I'll be up in a minute!" The smell of the tenddies drifted down stairs and left me inebriated, my feeble mind couldn't decide what would be my choice of dipping sauce, mental images of a bottle of ranch dressing and a bottle of Cholula, a jar of strawberry Goober presented themselves
            In my haste to get to the paper plate that held the chicken tenddies, I didn't consider the socks I was wearing and the slippery kitchen floor. Grabbing for the plate with one hand and the jar of strawberry Goober with the other my balance escaped me. My feet tried to regain my equilibrium but the socks I was wearing exacerbated the impending problem. I fell on my haunches. The tenddies scattered underneath the kitchen table as if they were again trying to escape the albatross for the second time. The jar of strawberry Goober shattered, a trace of Goober landed on my forearm, I licked it off. Mom ran in , "What, what happened, Anon. What's wrong with you. My kitchen!" "Mom I was just on the brink of death. Is there anymore tenddies?"

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >the idea of an atheist not converting when he's dying is so lethal to his entire worldview that he chooses to believe that it never happened

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Situations (multiple) where I was on the brink of death

            I find that statement hilarious and it made my day. Simple as.
            double KEK imagining a shitposter in those situations, like what is a IQfyner involved in that puts him "on the brink of death" hahaha my sides.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >like what is a IQfyner involved in that puts him "on the brink of death" hahaha my sides.
            For me? It was severe physical illness, going in and out of surgery, while being hospitalized for half a year

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Sorry to hear that, Anon.
            That's nothing to laugh at. Glad you made it

            Why is that so unlikely to you? Do you never leave your house?
            I got stuck underwater in a heavy current after I fricked up canoeing over a weir and barely got pulled back out, I tripped and hit a sharp branch while running through a forest at night and had to be airlifted due to heavy bleeding, I almost choked to death...
            I really didn't expect christians to go bananas over this. Did you guys really thing that EVERYONE starts believing in god when they're about to die?

            Check
            Glad you survived
            >everyone starts to believe
            No it's clear that some non believers will continue in their unbelief.
            Parable of the sower comes to mind in the book of Mathew. The seed doesn't take for whatever reason.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Why is that so unlikely to you? Do you never leave your house?
            I got stuck underwater in a heavy current after I fricked up canoeing over a weir and barely got pulled back out, I tripped and hit a sharp branch while running through a forest at night and had to be airlifted due to heavy bleeding, I almost choked to death...
            I really didn't expect christians to go bananas over this. Did you guys really thing that EVERYONE starts believing in god when they're about to die?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Brink of Deathbros' tip your Fedora with pride.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I spit on the name of Jesus and his shitty creation

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Actually the more accurate analogy would be that you don't believe in Superman, and it just so happens that a thug puts a gun to your mommy's head and threatens to kill her the next day, and you relent and realize you actually believe in Superman because you want him to save your mommy.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >they are parallel accounts

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You respect the commandment because...? You want a place in heaven and avoid sin to avoid hell. You want a reward for your actions, you are an egoist.
            You are no different from humanists, you may function even more on "carrot & stick" mentality than they do.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            So why are you on IQfy instead of selling your computer and working until death as a pauper like jesus commanded?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It just means "Book".
            God is semanitcs, logic, and perception.
            Jesus is living by the will of God, and defining Good from the perspective of the entire symbiotic ecosystem, not yourself.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >I hate Catholicism because they solve contradictions in ways that make sense

        >le lowered standards
        No, the pool of graduates increased because of increased literacy and access to education. You're probably some arrogant moron who thinks he can learn everything about a certain scientific field in three years

        >baseless ad hom about intelligence
        You’re probably the idiot here anon.

        >undergrad thinks he's some kind of genius
        Come back when you have at least master's degree brainlet. Getting a BSc isn't impressive nor is it indicative of you being smart when most of the world can get a BSc easy

        >why are people X always uneducated?
        >well, here are my academic credentials
        >OH WOW GUESS YOU THINK YOU’RE SOME KIND OF GENIUS HUH
        This is why I dislike arguments involving level of education or credentials. It just turns into shitflinging about how certifications simultaneously make you smart but also don’t matter and you’re stupid for mentioning them when specifically asked.

        t. Doctoral program on full scholarship

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >t. Doctoral program on full scholarship

          Notice how every gay in here that thinks he's smart has not graduated or accomplished anything but is still working on some program. LMAO go frick yourself Christcuck loser.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Moving the goalposts. People on IQfy are much more likely to be young and students. Believe it or not IQfy isn’t filled with a bunch of professors working full-time and shitposting in their 40s-60s.

            Doctoral studies in what discipline?
            [...]
            Most of the christian kingdoms desperately tried to ape Rome. The west owes it's entire legal system to the foundation laid by the Romans. The renaissance, one of the greatest ages of Europe was a return to classical ideas and art

            Moving the goalposts, but a field that requires significantly better grades than the make-work philosophy degrees most people who are just trying to get a doctorate go for.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >le moving the goalposts
            >won't tell what discipline
            Let me guess, gender studies or psychology

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >critiques others’ credentials but won’t say his own.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Doctoral studies in what discipline?

          The ancient Romans have left no genetic imprint. Such fate awaits atheists

          Most of the christian kingdoms desperately tried to ape Rome. The west owes it's entire legal system to the foundation laid by the Romans. The renaissance, one of the greatest ages of Europe was a return to classical ideas and art

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The Roman Catholic Church is the prostitute of Babylon.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Jack Chick, is that you?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            HE HAS RISEN
            >Verification not required.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >comes into thread about atheism vs theism and still tries to derail the thread with anti-catholicism
            Catholicism must be the right church considering how much it makes all the right kinds of both bible thumpers, “trad”bros, and liberal atheists seethe.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >You are not smart, you're an absolute idiot.
        And yet he surpasses all the catagories you set down as meaningful criteria for intelligence.
        Why then if you still se him as unintelligent regardless did you list those criteria?
        We're you unaware such people as him could exist??
        What was the point of the post if you were aware???
        Why make a statement you know from the get go is bullshit?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Do you believe a virgin gave birth to a israelite with magic powers?

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Why is that?
    Because a true Scotsman is hard to find. There can be only one.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >>Don't understand how evolution by natural selection works
    Atheists must have skipped that one either since they're going to be extinct by the next 100 years.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      If the truth is on your side, why lie?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yes, social contagion also led to a rise in LGBTQIA+++ people. But when you don't reproduce naturally, your whole existence is on a timer. Atheist TFR is akin to that of South Korea, while the more devoutly religious you are, the higher your TFR is. Atheists will be extinct in 100 years.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >religiosity is plummeting
          >but atheists are the ones going extinct
          It's desperate.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, just like sexual deviants will plummet back, atheists will plummet back. This period is an aberration brought about by an abundance of cheap hydrocarbons. Thankfully they are a finite source and alternative sources are all duds.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            uranium

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            religions are actually picking up. Atheism is an abberation, and as an ex-atheist, I can def agree with that phrase.

            It makes you spiritually dull, arrogant and unhappy. Frick that shit.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >God exists because I'd be really sad if he didn't

            My point still stands. I have never met a smart religious person and never will. They are all as stupid as this.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Religious people have lower IQs and the more religious the less intelligent they tend to be. There's a handful of intelligent Christians like George Coyne but they tend to be religiously liberal. Fundies are real fricking morons.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      A.i. will be smarter than humans soon. Your worth is not your intelligence, but your heart. Everyone with a hard hart will be eliminated as a parasite of the superior intelligence.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Low IQ religtard countries are the biggest crime and rape shitholes.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I'd rather be dead than a slave.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Devout religious people are all intellectually Somalian.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      China is at 1.02 TFR btw

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I don't understand how people took Hitchens seriously. Like all "public intellectuals", he had nothing new to bring to the table.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I've never met a smart religious person, they're all worthless, good for nothing idiots that die by the millions and no one even notices because they never offered any value.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
  14. 1 month ago
    Radiochan

    I've met loads of smart, well educated religious people.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Christianity has got to go! And we are close, Atheist brothers and sisters! This mind virus is almost defeated!

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Atheist brothers and sisters
      funny how you are not showing 2021, 22, 23 and 24... Almost like the numbers flipped....

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Atheism skyrockets in the US after 2000
      Did 9/11 really have that much of an impact on the American psyche?

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >I've never met a smart religious person
    What are we supposed to do about that? I mean seriously. What am I supposed to do with that information?

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I said what I had to say. I've never met a smart religious person. They're all mentally ill and terrible "people", if you can even consider them that, they're more like zombies.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      And...

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        And now you can put that in your pipe and smoke it

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >never met a smart religious person
      Do you have a social life?

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    *name the reason theism has been cast into doubt

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah bud, you're super clever and well accomplished. Most superior indeed.

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You’re probably going about it the wrong way then. You probably are meeting people who are religious and expecting to find scientists, when you’ll have much better luck going to a group of scientists and finding some who are religious.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      No respected scientist is religious in modern times

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Von Neumann, smartest scientist of last century.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Was an agnostic atheist for pretty much the entirety of his life and converted on his deathbed out of fear

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            He was baptised in his late 20s.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >In 1929, he was offered a job at Princeton. Upon marrying his fiancee, Mariette, Neumann moved to the U.S. (Agnostic most of his life, Von Neumann accepted his wife's Catholic faith for the marriage, though not taking it very seriously.)
            If you want to count that as a win, I guess go ahead

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What's your source for this?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/courses/soco/projects/1998-99/game-theory/neumann.html

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Given that it's from Stanford I guess I'll accept it, but it doesn't seem to cite any primary sources for that particular claim.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Fair enough

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Also here
            https://catholicscientists.org/scientists-of-the-past/john-von-neumann/
            >israeli by birth, he accepted Catholic baptism in 1930 in order to marry, though he did not practice the faith and some of his colleagues saw him as “completely agnostic.”

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Some explained this as the act of a desperate man who was known to have an unusually great horror of death. On the other hand, that he had some belief is indicated by the fact that he once confided to his mother, “There probably has to be a God. Many things are easier to explain if there is than if there isn’t.”

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If Neumann didn't take Catholicism very seriously, would that be a problem for your faith?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No, but converting out of fear is valid. I don’t see why it negates the story. The man wanted a connection to God, and got it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >converting out of fear is valid
            What does this have to do with Neumann being a smart guy?
            Bunch of people convert because they are afraid of not living forever.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yes and OP’s claim was that all such are unscientific morons. Smartest scientist on earth is a decent counter example.

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >Read Epictetus, assuming you somehow haven’t already.
    Not an argument. If you can't address what I said, I will accept your concession.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I posted an author and a quote from that author directly discussing the nature of God, in response to your own post about how you think Theists view God. You have entirely missed the point and by hastily claiming a concession have actually just made yourself look like an idiot. The argument itself was over the intelligence of religious people, and since you so helpfully demonstrated that you are an idiot, you have undermined the idea that Theists are inherently less intelligent than Atheists.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Wow, you really have a terminally low IQ. I wasn't making an argument about the intelligence of theists, I was making an argument about the motived of atheists who convert on their death bed. If you didn't understand that much, you're illiterate and there's no point in continuing this conversation.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Lmao how do you not understand my point. Since our argument has been mutually agreed to be over, I bet you’re dyel and short too. You’re a seething loser trying to make up for your own shortcomings by making hasty generalizations about billions of people on IQfy. You don’t get to lord your intelligence over anyone you pathetic twat.

          https://i.imgur.com/LIR2iDi.png

          >You are not smart, you're an absolute idiot.
          And yet he surpasses all the catagories you set down as meaningful criteria for intelligence.
          Why then if you still se him as unintelligent regardless did you list those criteria?
          We're you unaware such people as him could exist??
          What was the point of the post if you were aware???
          Why make a statement you know from the get go is bullshit?

          The only criteria he actually cares about is whether or not someone is religious. He will cope about everything else as it is disproven one by one. Someone could’ve come in here posting a Harvard doctorate in mathematics and he still would’ve found a way to say that he is intellectually superior because it would hurt his ego to admit otherwise. Pride is the largest handicap to learning.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            True, our argument is over. Now I'll just ask you to quote where I've made an argument about the intelligence of religious people or apologize for bearing false witness against me.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >The only criteria he actually cares about is whether or not someone is religious. He will cope about everything else as it is disproven one by one. Someone could’ve come in here posting a Harvard doctorate in mathematics and he still would’ve found a way to say that he is intellectually superior because it would hurt his ego to admit otherwise.
            This
            The guy who made this thread is an actual moron

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >christians are so immensely upset by someone not having a death bed conversion that they convince themselves that the person is lying
    Looks like we've uncovered another major christian insecurity, lads.

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Do you people never get tired of this back and forth?
    For frick’s sake it’s the most masturbatory thing.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      IQfy has become my least favorite board that I use because every thread turns into people intentionally misreading each other’s posts, or unintentionally doing so because the lack of post ids make discussions get so tangled no one can tell what anyone is even arguing for.

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They unironically believe one or two examples of smart religious people makes them literal geniuses because of the midwit meme. They fail to realise most of the people they pick are dead and just happen to religious because of the time they lived in. They also like to throw around the word midwit for this reason but again fail to realise they are the morons in the meme.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This meme has done more damage to online discourse than anything else in the past decade. Every moron with stupid opinions now thinks he's an enlightened post-rational philosopher with secret esoteric knowledge.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Correct. It’s why so many e-religion people embrace esoteric shit like Hermetics without even having read any of its texts or any sources on it beyond schizoposts. You’ll have people for example screaming about hidden messages in the Bible that only they understand that say all Catholics secretly worship Baphomet, and nothing can dissuade them because they are le bellcurve genius and you are le midwit. The other common one is neo-pagans, who often act like the right-wing male equivalent of new wave hippie chicks with hinduism in the 70s. People like this gravitate towards niche stuff that makes them feel specially intelligent. For that reason, many of the fedora tippers are now pagans because Atheism became too lame and mainstream.

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Fedora tippers got cause and effect confused. Their premise was that religion was the source of irrational dogmatism for people. When in fact it was always people who were always the source of it and religion was just another means to an ends. Remove religion and that aspect of human nature is still there, and will still manifest itself.

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Christopher Hitchens was not the kind of atheist to say that religious people are stupid (although some certainly can be) and enjoyed the company of theologians. He resisted the attempt by Richard Dawkins to relabel atheists as "Brights" (ugh) because it implied some higher-ranking intelligence.

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Is being on the brink of death to an atheist a sort of initiation or baptism?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      According to Christians, it's supposed to be a initiation to Christianity.

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    weird, i know tons of them
    try meeting more people

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I'll do you one better. I've never met a smart person.

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    No, but seriously. The Catholic church will never shake this off.

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Okay. Don't you think that's a little cruel? Yes. All of that is true I'd agree—but the one thing that's basically true on their part is eternal rest. If you're possibly an atheist remember what you know is who you are.

    "Education is an arduous journey." - ???

    I understand that many of them are uneducated but a smart person would know how to be a good soul by personality as well.

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    How the frick is a female teacher supposed to abuse anyone? lol

  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine coming on to a box weaving forum and telling the world you are bad at making friends and have little to no experience with people. Why would you do that? Why didn't your parents socialize you properly as a child?

  34. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Why this moron simping for Catholics priests who diddled children?

  35. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    /tips fedora

  36. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Christcucks are the biggest losers in the world

  37. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Razor of Penitence
    >Every "argument" against the existence of God can be countered or explained with the word "repent."
    All atheism can be boiled down to impenitence.
    Repent!

  38. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    meh.

    Atheism has an impossible task of trying to prove that God doesnt exist. It is an impossibility, and having "cant prove a negative" mantra doesnt help.

  39. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Has it ever occurred to you that you just don't live somewhere with many smart people?
    Go to a congregation in the middle of Oxford or Cambridge and you'll see that most of them are academic staff or students at two of the top universities in the world.

  40. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Atheists are the biggest midwits to ever walk on earth.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Whenever someone posts any variation of this meme, I know the poster is a shitwit.

  41. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The word 'smart' originally meant 'to be hurt'. It's often a curse. Smart people are more easily deceived by complex lies and prone to arrogance. In the Bible it says that those who are like children will be saved.

  42. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >academic Success is high int
    It isn't

  43. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    because they don't exist

  44. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >>High School dropout
    except this one my friend hits all the points.
    funny thing is he could understand how Bible was compiled, he forgot everything that I told him after he watched some weird apolegetics movie on "divine origins of Bible"

  45. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    400 posts in. Not 1 smart reply from a religoid.

  46. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's weird how even though you're complaining that they don't worship the Science like you, a majority of atheists fail to comprehend the basic biological fact that men cannot become women, while no Christians do.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >TRANNIES!!!
      Christian apologetic morons have literally one line and it isn't even relevant anymore as biologists and secular medical organizations have been banning transitioning for minors, banning them from sports and putting out official statements that biological sex is real and binary and determined by gamete.
      Can you make any arguments at all that isn't just seething about trannies?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *