[quote]this is a free “peer-reviewed journal” that seems to have no traction anywhere on earth other than on the web site of moses.creighton.edu, which is some kind of entity self-described as “The Virtual World Project”; “Exploring the Ancient World Through Virtual Reality”. Do you suppose Moses Creighton is next on the list of applicants, after Harvard, Princeton, and Yale?

You’re an educated guy, Scottie. Do you know anyone who graduated from Moses Creighton U? Hmmm?[/quote]

There actually [i]is[/i] a Creighton University, and you have identified a subdomain of its web presence. This latest revelation of yours merely adds to the weight of testimony that you have already given as to just what the limits of your universe really are. However, your creation of the fictional character Moses Creighton is a work of comic genius.

“Its raining outside and I don’t believe it.” Hardly strikes me as a paradox or the basis of an epistemic or doxastic analysis whether omisive or commissive?

I just don’t see any paradox at all. If you are inside, talking about outside, you have no basis to form any belief.

Most of philosophy is complete BS wrapped in a long explanation with footnotes and commentary.

It’s always good to question stuff like this. I admit it’s certainly controversial. However, the article comes up on a Google Scholar search. And, the journal is listed as a refereed academic journal on Journal Seek.

If you choose to discount it in its entirety, that’s fine. However, did you actually look at the data? If nothing else, it shows how far the U.S. is from other developed democratic nations in a variety of ways.

Thanks Noel. I’ll take a look at that book.

You have that backwards. You can know something without believing it, because knowledge is not certain. You cannot believe something without knowing it as belief is a type of knowledge. At least that is the epistemological consensus as I understand it.

That is not true at all. Censuses are recored the world over on a regular basis, and more than a few scholarly papers have been written. The book I recommended earlier (Cambridge Companion to Atheism) is a good start. The internet is obviously not the best place to go looking for information about religion or the lack thereof, because there are so many nuts about. Have you been to your local public library yet?

That’s is a pretty darn good definition. Knowledge implies that you believe something is true. To say that ‘I know something exists but I don’t believe it’ is contradictory. This is known as Moore’s Paradox.

I checked and Wikipedia has a pretty good article on this. I’d read it to understand the difference between the ommissive and commissive forms of the paradox. If you figure that out then you’ll figure out why Mustard, Ketchup, and Scott all argue with each other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_paradox

Scottie, let’s not get too carried away with the “peer reviewed” thing, hm? It’s not like this is Science, or Nature, or even Il Nuovo Cimento.

This is a free “peer-reviewed journal” that seems to have no traction anywhere on earth other than on the web site of moses.creighton.edu, which is some kind of entity self-described as “The Virtual World Project”; “Exploring the Ancient World Through Virtual Reality”. Do you suppose Moses Creighton is next on the list of applicants, after Harvard, Princeton, and Yale?

You’re an educated guy, Scottie. Do you know anyone who graduated from Moses Creighton U? Hmmm?

Give it a rest. Your link from that web site was an opinion piece, my link from that web site was an opinion piece. They’re all opinion pieces.

If you have a link to something that’s at least as credible as USA Today, let’s have it.

Otherwise, just accept that this isn’t the kind of thing people do scholarly studies about, unless they’re looking for brownie points at a diploma mill.

>>The link you cite appears to be a blog post.

It’s a link on a web site, just like your “peer-reviewed” article was a link on the same web site. So there’s a difference? Are you saying that religious beliefs are fair game for “peer review”?

Yes. I’m saying that a 17 page sociological study in a peer reviewed journal carries a bit more weight than a one paragraph statement by Joe Dork. Do you really disagree? Careful now, you may end up in a class with the climate change deniers. I know you don’t want that. Find a real publication with a conflicting sociological study or drop the argument.

It’s a link on a web site, just like your “peer-reviewed” article was a link on the same web site. So there’s a difference? Are you saying that religious beliefs are fair game for “peer review”?

Har.

I don’t know musty the article I cited is a peer reviewed article that explicitly does tie religiosity, not “holy rollerness”, to violent crime and a number of other social ills.

The link you cite appears to be a blog post. That a blog or similar site may also have a copy of a peer reviewed article is irrelevant. The point is that one is a peer reviewed article with pages of data. The other is some guys opinion.

I’m a little surprised at you equating the two. Did I miss something? Post a deeper link if there was something else peer reviewed there that contradicts the first.

For statistics, go to you local public library and check out a copy of the Cambridge Companion to Atheism. Preferably the latest copy you can get our hands on.

Your cited site has a link to another interesting article, decrying people who are militant in the name of faith, whether it be Jesus Camp or worshipers at the altar of Dawkins.

http://www.virtue-politics.net/?p=159

>>Statistics show that atheists are more
>>peaceful than the religious.

Link?

Sorry Mister Mustard, but you asked.

Link: Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health
with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies from Journal of Religion & Society (17 page PDF, peer reviewed, check pages 9-11 for nice graphical representation of religion and violence in society.)