TexasRaceLady
Active Member
Amen, Brother. Have a cold one on me.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Professur again.
Poll: 1/3 of Youths Can't Find La. on Map
- Thread starter Professur
- Start date
Amen, Brother. Have a cold one on me.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Professur again.
Altron
Well-Known Member
Glad we reached an agreement.
Hate it when people who don't know anything about politics vote just because it's 'cool' to vote one way, or their parents voted a certain way, or whatnot.
And since something like 30% of Americans vote, that third that can't find Louisiana is probably in the 70% that doesn't.
Hate it when people who don't know anything about politics vote just because it's 'cool' to vote one way, or their parents voted a certain way, or whatnot.
And since something like 30% of Americans vote, that third that can't find Louisiana is probably in the 70% that doesn't.
Slim Pickens
New Member
The Miss. River delta is not nearly as far South as it used to be, but still quite a ways from NO...that having been said, the HIGHEST point in LA is only 542 ft. above sea level, and it is in NW LA...Baton Rouge is only between 5 and 10 feet above sea level
2minkey
bootlicker
Gato_Solo said:
i didn't say having a belief system categorically makes people dumb. and of course i don't think ALL religious folks are dumb or uneducated. but i do think that certain belief systems don't prepare adherents for the future as well as other belief systems may. i also think that certain belief systems that take things literally instead of symbolically tend toward weird ideas. unrealistic, weird ideas that are inconsistent with critical thinking and breed simple acceptance of dogma. again, my opinion.
but if you dig around i'm sure you'll find that most statistical studies do roughly correlate religious attendance inversely with education levels. income levels too, for that matter. and you will find the most athiests in the most educated and highest income areas.
i don't know what's going on in kansas... some educational debate?
i'm not sure if the kiddies need to spend much time learning about alternative lifestyles either. maybe any emphasis on that shit is because public school teachers and administrators are often the stereotypical "pussy liberals?" now i'm pro-fag ("some of my best friends are...") but that doesn't mean i think school time should be spent talking about that kinda stuff. school should be for the three R's. parents can teach kids about religion, lifestyles, and whatever else.
and yeah, i'd agree, the article is most certainly written from a particular point of view. shit, all "science" is as well...
and my opinion is not ex nihilo either.
nobody's is.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
2minkey said:
Even your source backpedalled from that one. Once again, I'll point to the site I linked to from UC Davis...Getting a bit clearer, is it?
2minkey said:
Being liberal has less to do with it than changing the curriculum to advocate a way of thinking, rather than teaching. We're talking basics that are swept away, like Geography, so students know their states, basic English, so students know the correct way to frame a sentence, Mathematics, Science, and, yes, even Phys-Ed. What's happening now is a de-emphasis on those concrete things, being replaced by a regimin of social changes that have nothing to do with education. Those ideas are for parents to discuss, not teachers. My opinion is that the public education system doesn't want educated people. They want indoctrinated people.
2minkey said:
It's a recruiting tool for UC Davis, nothing more. They want to attract a certain type of person to their campus, but they fail to grasp, on a visceral level, that they are a public institution, and must accept anybody who passes muster, regardless of their personal beliefs. The whole article is two-faced, and should be looked at as such...strip away the nonsense, and you get the following..."Religious people may not be dumb, but we're smarter than they are..."
2minkey
bootlicker
"Religious people may not be dumb, but we're smarter than they are..."
sure there's an agenda. but i doubt those with the opposite point of view would be any more objective.
someone like me might say - as i have - that certain forms of religion are inconsistent with an economically competitive future america.
someone on the other side of the aisle may say that people like me are turning the place into an immoral shit sack.
and maybe they're right, cuz i'd rather look at nudie pics than go to church any day.
yeeeehah.
and you'll still find that less education, lower incomes, and higher church attendance go together... how about snake handlers? now there's some religious folk that trend toward less education and being piss poor.
sure there's an agenda. but i doubt those with the opposite point of view would be any more objective.
someone like me might say - as i have - that certain forms of religion are inconsistent with an economically competitive future america.
someone on the other side of the aisle may say that people like me are turning the place into an immoral shit sack.
and maybe they're right, cuz i'd rather look at nudie pics than go to church any day.
yeeeehah.
and you'll still find that less education, lower incomes, and higher church attendance go together... how about snake handlers? now there's some religious folk that trend toward less education and being piss poor.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
2minkey said:
Is that really true, or are the statistics skewed? The majority of people worldwide are poor, and uneducated. Most of the middle class is in Western society. Therefor, by sheer weight of numbers, I can safely say that the world outside of the West is a backwards, uneducated wasteland. This is the same thing that the study is saying about people who are religious.
How about this to stir your pot...
More education, higher income, and low church attendance are a direct result of criminal activity. One only has to look at a Frat party to see drunken binges and "date rape" to prove my point...Not all religious people are poor, and not all 'educated' people have higher incomes...
SouthernN'Proud
Southern Discomfort
*Has forgotten more about snake handlers than most on here will ever know...*
2minkey
bootlicker
Gato_Solo said:
as to your first point: sure, much of the world is fairly uneducated. but china is getting much stronger in areas like science, where they don't have other, competing schemes about the way things work or where things came from to get in their way. not that i'm advocating their form of gubmint, or much else, of course. at the same time, what i'm talking about is pretty much the western world - the US and europe. and there i think all the maps and colored statstical overlays i've seen are appropriate, since it's apples to apples.
part two. good point. i'm sure you could correlate a lot of that stuff to degree of urbanization. then it's a question of sorting and deciding what the meaningful correlations are - which is ALWAYS arbitrary.
backing up a certain interpretation of the stats, for me, is my experience in traveling around america. i've been to maybe 150 different households in the past 18 months. in major markets across the country. i have a full demographic workup on each household before i show up. typically the more overt the religion in the home, the lesser the education. and income. with exceptions, of course. but the general trend strongly points in that direction. the more educated and higher income households trend toward less-overt religion, and secular viewpoints. they also eat less chee-tos.
unclehobart
New Member
I still say it is important to know basic geography if for nothing more than knowing what direction Mecca is so one can raise a big meaty middle finger towards it five times a day.
chcr
Too cute for words
I disagree, Luis. I'll bet there are a lot more scientists who espouse a religion than there are that do not. Certain religions screw science, to be sure. You know how I feel about religion, but that does not make religion and science mutually exclusive. Hard to reconcile at times, but hardly mutually exclusive.Luis G said:C'mon gato, religion screws science. It sure screwed the arabs
Professur
Well-Known Member
Debate it all you want. Look back at 8000 years of human history. Who were the first leaders? Who did all the writing? What drew people out of their fields, and away from their flocks, to form cities?
You can, and certainly will debate, dispute and needlessly beat the subject to uselessness, and more power to you all. But start with the (to me) obvious first question. What was the point of recognizing the first god(s) to begin with? Animals for millions of years existed on earth without creating, fearing, or worshipping gods. So why did men do it?
You can, and certainly will debate, dispute and needlessly beat the subject to uselessness, and more power to you all. But start with the (to me) obvious first question. What was the point of recognizing the first god(s) to begin with? Animals for millions of years existed on earth without creating, fearing, or worshipping gods. So why did men do it?
MrBishop
Well-Known Member
Professur said:
First leaders - the physically strongest and/or most violent.
Most writing - Philosophers if you're talking about original works. Monks if you're counting copying by rote.
What drew people together? - trade, barter and specialization of skills
So why did men do it? - fear of the unknown and a desire to explain it. What causes lightning, thunder and rain?
A god of storms. How do you stop rain from flooding your fields? 
...pray to that god and hope for the best. *Religion as the original security blanket*Ad hoc ergo proctor hoc - a false statement that say that because something happened before something else, that it was the cause of it.
*
Far better thinkers than us have debated what would've happened if religion had never existed. We can't split the threads of our timeline and see what really would've happened.