# Do religious people lie more than atheists?

Speaking of fear of snakes. There's a great documentary (which must be a work of fiction according to RB) on the number of human actions that have been handed down through the millenia. Stuff like shuddering to a wakened state when snoozing is a throwback to us sleeping in trees and the inherent dangers of falling or chicken rising our hair/fur to make us appear bigger when threatened by predators.

Quite fascinating, but of course, all a bunch of scientific fiction, so let's get back to humans intrinsically being religious... It's just so fun!

Ridgeback -
pulsar -

Speaking of fear of snakes. There's a great documentary (which must be a work of fiction according to RB) on the number of human actions that have been handed down through the millenia. Stuff like shuddering to a wakened state when snoozing is a throwback to us sleeping in trees and the inherent dangers of falling or chicken rising our hair/fur to make us appear bigger when threatened by predators.

Quite fascinating, but of course, all a bunch of scientific fiction, so let's get back to humans intrinsically being religious... It's just so fun!

Your post doesn't make sense.  I am the only one on here that mentioned science.  Even the OP just posted a link for a study we can't access instead of summarizing the study as if he actually read it himself.

You seem to have confused me with your fundamentalist grandmother.  You forget that science was invented by Christians in a Christian culture, not atheists.

Science was created by Christians???? Bwahahahaha. Wow!

Ridgeback -

AI,

Are you claiming that atheism is not only the absence of a belief in a deity, but an absence of any knowledge of a concept of a deity and a concept of a self that could not be aware of a deity such that it was possible to deny a belief in the existence of such a deity?  Is there any value in claiming a kinship with those who don't even know what a deity is?  You seem to be valuing the same ignorance that would make being dickless not a matter of having no penis, but of having no concept of a penis or concept of a body that could have one.  Babies are born dickless until some asshole adult tells them about their wee wees.

Meanwhile, I am talking about the actual studies of children when it is possible to figure out what they believe and the studies of brain development in modern humans and other hominids.  In those cases all the evidence points to humans taking to God beliefs like pieces in a puzzle.

No.  We have hashed out those so called studies before and have concluded that the don't support your claim and actually contradict it.

Reset button in full effect I see.

Ridgeback -
pulsar -

Speaking of fear of snakes. There's a great documentary (which must be a work of fiction according to RB) on the number of human actions that have been handed down through the millenia. Stuff like shuddering to a wakened state when snoozing is a throwback to us sleeping in trees and the inherent dangers of falling or chicken rising our hair/fur to make us appear bigger when threatened by predators.

Quite fascinating, but of course, all a bunch of scientific fiction, so let's get back to humans intrinsically being religious... It's just so fun!

Your post doesn't make sense.  I am the only one on here that mentioned science.  Even the OP just posted a link for a study we can't access instead of summarizing the study as if he actually read it himself.

You seem to have confused me with your fundamentalist grandmother.  You forget that science was invented by Christians in a Christian culture, not atheists.

lol...and now we're back to your claim that early Egyptians were christians.   lmao

Ridgeback -
pulsar -

Speaking of fear of snakes. There's a great documentary (which must be a work of fiction according to RB) on the number of human actions that have been handed down through the millenia. Stuff like shuddering to a wakened state when snoozing is a throwback to us sleeping in trees and the inherent dangers of falling or chicken rising our hair/fur to make us appear bigger when threatened by predators.

Quite fascinating, but of course, all a bunch of scientific fiction, so let's get back to humans intrinsically being religious... It's just so fun!

Your post doesn't make sense.  I am the only one on here that mentioned science.  Even the OP just posted a link for a study we can't access instead of summarizing the study as if he actually read it himself.

You seem to have confused me with your fundamentalist grandmother.  You forget that science was invented by Christians in a Christian culture, not atheists.

I love it when you lose the facade and just post off the cuff in the way you truly want to - I post for those moments.

Sure, Christians helped promote science (INVENT?! LMAO) - and then attempted to shut it down when started directly refuting the bible... Gallileo anyone?

You're foolish, but in an entertaining way.

And my post makes sense because I was talking about things that tuly are intrinsic to humans. Traits developed over millions of years, as opposed to you making up fiction based on infants 'knowing' about God.

Bring on the laughs, Friday is coming up and some weekend gag and share with friends material is a tradition of mine.

Ridgeback -
jimbonice -

Just if they want money.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165176513004126

The link you gave requires purchasing the article to see the results.  Can you actually post the results here or elaborate?

"The importance of a subject’s religion increases the likelihood of lying (3.7% per point of importance, p<!--Loading Mathjax-->-value 0.061). This is surprising as the Abrahamic religions most common at the University of Regina4 promote honesty as a virtue. It may be that subjects for whom religion was important feel separate from other students at this largely secular university. The impact of group membership and religion’s impact on lying warrant further investigation."

Ridgeback -

Speaking of forum atheists and their ham-handed understanding of science (I actually think all of the anti-religious forum atheists are into scientism more than real science) the OP never did actually post results from the study that he started this thread with.  This whole thread has been a study in anti-religion atheists and their typical habits of making claims without supporting those claims.

LOL, where exactly did you study science again Ridge? Whats you current field of research?

Ridgeback -
angryinch -
Ridgeback -
pulsar -

Speaking of fear of snakes. There's a great documentary (which must be a work of fiction according to RB) on the number of human actions that have been handed down through the millenia. Stuff like shuddering to a wakened state when snoozing is a throwback to us sleeping in trees and the inherent dangers of falling or chicken rising our hair/fur to make us appear bigger when threatened by predators.

Quite fascinating, but of course, all a bunch of scientific fiction, so let's get back to humans intrinsically being religious... It's just so fun!

Your post doesn't make sense.  I am the only one on here that mentioned science.  Even the OP just posted a link for a study we can't access instead of summarizing the study as if he actually read it himself.

You seem to have confused me with your fundamentalist grandmother.  You forget that science was invented by Christians in a Christian culture, not atheists.

lol...and now we're back to your claim that early Egyptians were christians.   lmao

If you want to take the tact that science was invented by pre-historic humans then you are just using a tactic that has no bearing on our conversation.  We don't care about the ways that humans figured things out in various places and times.  What matters is the modern scientific method, which was a very conscious method designed to produce predictable results and build knowledge upon established knowledge.  That method was invented by Christians.  I swear that you would embrace dirt eating if eating normal food was somehow associated with Christians.

You are confusing the description of the scientific method for the process being described.

The scientific method was not "invented" by anyone. The modern codification of the scientific method was laid out by Christians, but the method, itself, was simply the natural refinement of epistemic principles as old as logic.

Pre-Christians such as Archimedes and Galen were utilizing processes similar to the scientific method more than a thousand years before it was codified. Arabic astronomers, Hindu number theorists, and Chinese geometers all used similar processes, as well, completely independent of any Christian theology.

Hell, ancient Chinese board-game players used processes similar to the scientific method in developing Weiqi theory.

Claiming that the scientific method is uniquely Christian is absolutely absurd.

blas4ublasphemy - Something I have noticed is that women who cheat on their husbands are strangely much more likely to be avid church goers. Just a small sample size of Long Island women but enough to cause me to see it as a trend.
No the problem is Long Island is full of guido shitheads and whores

Ridgeback -
angryinch -
Ridgeback -
pulsar -

Speaking of fear of snakes. There's a great documentary (which must be a work of fiction according to RB) on the number of human actions that have been handed down through the millenia. Stuff like shuddering to a wakened state when snoozing is a throwback to us sleeping in trees and the inherent dangers of falling or chicken rising our hair/fur to make us appear bigger when threatened by predators.

Quite fascinating, but of course, all a bunch of scientific fiction, so let's get back to humans intrinsically being religious... It's just so fun!

Your post doesn't make sense.  I am the only one on here that mentioned science.  Even the OP just posted a link for a study we can't access instead of summarizing the study as if he actually read it himself.

You seem to have confused me with your fundamentalist grandmother.  You forget that science was invented by Christians in a Christian culture, not atheists.

lol...and now we're back to your claim that early Egyptians were christians.   lmao

If you want to take the tact that science was invented by pre-historic humans then you are just using a tactic that has no bearing on our conversation.  We don't care about the ways that humans figured things out in various places and times.  What matters is the modern scientific method, which was a very conscious method designed to produce predictable results and build knowledge upon established knowledge.  That method was invented by Christians.  I swear that you would embrace dirt eating if eating normal food was somehow associated with Christians.

actually, the modern experimental scientific method was largely invented by muslims such as al-Birani and al-Haytham, during the Islamic Golden Age. Hundreds of years later, guys like Bacon, Decartes, and Galileo would refine the method, but they did not invent it wholecloth.

Ridgeback -
Misedukatd -
Ridgeback -
angryinch -
Ridgeback -
pulsar -

Speaking of fear of snakes. There's a great documentary (which must be a work of fiction according to RB) on the number of human actions that have been handed down through the millenia. Stuff like shuddering to a wakened state when snoozing is a throwback to us sleeping in trees and the inherent dangers of falling or chicken rising our hair/fur to make us appear bigger when threatened by predators.

Quite fascinating, but of course, all a bunch of scientific fiction, so let's get back to humans intrinsically being religious... It's just so fun!

Your post doesn't make sense.  I am the only one on here that mentioned science.  Even the OP just posted a link for a study we can't access instead of summarizing the study as if he actually read it himself.

You seem to have confused me with your fundamentalist grandmother.  You forget that science was invented by Christians in a Christian culture, not atheists.

lol...and now we're back to your claim that early Egyptians were christians.   lmao

If you want to take the tact that science was invented by pre-historic humans then you are just using a tactic that has no bearing on our conversation.  We don't care about the ways that humans figured things out in various places and times.  What matters is the modern scientific method, which was a very conscious method designed to produce predictable results and build knowledge upon established knowledge.  That method was invented by Christians.  I swear that you would embrace dirt eating if eating normal food was somehow associated with Christians.

actually, the modern experimental scientific method was largely invented by muslims such as al-Birani and al-Haytham, during the Islamic Golden Age. Hundreds of years later, guys like Bacon, Decartes, and Galileo would refine the method, but they did not invent it wholecloth.

Sure, and they stole everything from the Byzantines.  But in terms of what has actually produced the most fruit we rightly place the start of a revolution in human knowledge with Bacon, Descartes, Galileo, and Newton.  If we want to call science any event where a brain works to figure the world out systematically then it started among higher primates or possibly the smarter birds like crows and ravens.  If we are talking about the systematic attempts to figure out how the whole universe works because we assume the universe is rational, it was made by a rational Creator, and the mind of humans are rational such that they can perceive it, then we go with the gentlemen I mentioned.

Now you're just being dishonest.

Once again, the Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Hindus, Chinese, and others were all making "systematic attempts to figure out how the whole universe works because [they assumed] the universe is rational." And they all did so long before the men you mentioned. In fact, the men you mentioned were only able to make the discoveries they had made BECAUSE they were building off of the systematic attempts to figure out the universe which were made by the Greeks, Romans, Arabs, and Hindus.

You are absurd to claim that the scientific method is uniquely Christian.

"Please don't twist my words.  I did not call the scientific method uniquely Christian.  I did claim that the modern scientific method as it is practiced in our own time was invented by Christians.  This is a fact of history, even though you dismiss all history that was composed more than five years after the actual events and therefore don't believe in most of it."

Let's assume for the sake of argument that you are correct (which you're not, but let's proceed as if you were) - of what relevance would that be?  The people who invented the modern scientific method also likely wore pants.  They also probably had hairy assholes.    Should we pay homage to people who wear pants and have hairy assholes and thank them for giving us the scientific method?

Your argument is not only specious and incorrect but completely irrelevant to anything being discussed.

Ridgeback -

KungFuJoe,

Do you join your atheist brothers in claiming that humans are born atheists?

Depends on how we're defining "atheists;" but if we are simply talking about "those who lack a belief in gods," then I would have to say that I agree: humans have no belief in gods until they are introduced to the concept of gods.

Ridgeback -
BrocksSwockRanTrane_onShane -
Ridgeback -

Speaking of forum atheists and their ham-handed understanding of science (I actually think all of the anti-religious forum atheists are into scientism more than real science) the OP never did actually post results from the study that he started this thread with.  This whole thread has been a study in anti-religion atheists and their typical habits of making claims without supporting those claims.

LOL, where exactly did you study science again Ridge? Whats you current field of research?

Why would this be relevant?  A layperson with some understanding of the method can read journals like Nature and keep up with the latest developments.  I see no evidence that the anti-religious atheists on this board do any such thing.

Here is the relevance... I am clearly an anti religious atheist, therefore i presume you were including me as one of those that you feel has a "ham-handed understanding of science".

But the fact of the matter is this, all i do is science. I have a BSc(Hons), an MSc (Distinction), i have worked at the top university in my country in my field as a researcher, and i am doing a PhD right now at the same uni. In fact pretty much all i do all day right now is read scientific papers, so i can assure you my understanding of science is not "ham-handed" and it laughable that you as a self admited layperson would insinuate that you have a deeper understanding of science than i do.

Ridgeback -
BrocksSwockRanTrane_onShane -
Ridgeback -

Speaking of forum atheists and their ham-handed understanding of science (I actually think all of the anti-religious forum atheists are into scientism more than real science) the OP never did actually post results from the study that he started this thread with.  This whole thread has been a study in anti-religion atheists and their typical habits of making claims without supporting those claims.

        <br />
<p>
LOL, where exactly did you study science again Ridge? Whats you current field of research?</p>
</blockquote>
<br />
<p>
Why would this be relevant? &nbsp;A layperson with some understanding of the method can read journals like Nature and keep up with the latest developments. &nbsp;I see no evidence that the anti-religious atheists on this board do any such thing.&nbsp;</p>
</blockquote>
<br />
didn't read the post that got this all started but after reading this 3rd page, it's one of the only times i've agreed with ridgeback.<br />
<br />
so, brock, you have to be an active research scientist with a phd to discuss science? lol. and yes you're twisting his words all over</blockquote>


How exactly did i twist his words? I am one of the anti-religious atheists he is referring to, therefore he is implying that i have a ham-handed understanding of science. I am simply pointing out that its pretty obtuse and ironic for him to claim that a professional scientist has a "ham-handed understanding of science" when he is a self admited layman and he actually does have a ham-handed understanding of science.

MMAdotCOM - also, do active research scientists refute other active research scientists by saying, "when did you get your nobel prize or national academy of science membership?"

Jesus you are lost.

Ridge isn't making a scientific arguement, he is calling into question my understanding of the subject. When someone calls into question your understanding of an area you are well with in your rights to present your credentials and ask for theirs. LOL i mean thats the WHOLE fucking point of them...

Credential

1.
a qualification, achievement, quality, or aspect of a person's background, especially when used to indicate their suitability for something.

"recruitment is based mainly on academic credentials"

Please stop this nonsense your are starting to look as silly as Ridge.