Notices
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 201 to 258 of 258

Thread: Why is Atheism nearly always linked to high intelligence

  1. #201  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    I live in Bertrand Russells teapot!
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by DrCWho
    What's more, why would encrypted messages be placed there depicting events that occurred before these decryption processes were discovered?
    When the Bible was written, especially the torah, those messages were in the future. The program wasn't developed till they were in the past. In reality that seeming paradox provides a good system of check and reproof. The trick is knowing what name or words to use as a base reference. If we put Barack Obama in the program, what would we find?


    You can run the same program on any writing in any language and come up with similar encrypted messages.
    Can you prove that? I've seen a Moby Dick code that was a programmer's hoax. Harry Potter code would likely be a similar hoax.

    Dr. CWho
    The human mind is such a bizarre tool.
    That it is often the paradoxical case that on the moment we wonder if such a thing exists, the very question can cause it's birth.

    Scientists are beginning to learn this phenomena with the idea of the actual scientists being part of the experiment and the observer influencing the result simply through observation and it's possible manipulation through the observers bias.

    Atoms change when we look at them. They also display a random and chaotic nature in the quantum field.
    Or do they?
    Perhaps they are simply waiting for perception to bring them into existence and define them?

    And perhaps this could be the same for 'codes'
    They only exist when we look for them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #202  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    122
    Interesting, Selene, but very unlikely. The uncertainty principle is based largely upon data capacity. Consider the posts I've made in some other threads concerning infinity and wormholes. There are so many cases of unexplained phenomena that one is tempted to believe in magic. I assure you, the only magic I believe in is that in my brain and hands. (Of course I've been in a situation more than once in this town where I've had to deliver a snap kick to a pit bull's nose. It doesn't take a lot of force for the animal to get the message that if it continues death will swoop swiftly from above...)

    Try living as an assassin in love with life.


    BTW, in latin (I'm poor at it) would your dichotomy be complemented by Christos Christos invocatum?

    Teacher, teach...

    (I hope I didn't embarrass you in another thread. If I did I apologize. My words often can have two meanings. Dich auch?)
    Darwin's Law
    Nature will tell us a lie if she can.

    Bloch's extension to Darwin's Law:
    So will Darwinists

    http://groups.msn.com/JUSTOUTOFTHEBOX
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #203  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    DrCWho, ever heard of double-blind experiments? It is not linked to QM, but to the results of our experiments being influenced by what we want the results to be.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #204  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    122
    DrCWho, ever heard of double-blind experiments? It is not linked to QM, but to the results of our experiments being influenced by what we want the results to be.
    Absolutely. Double blind tests are often used in clinical trials where both the Dr. and the test subject have no idea of whether they are testing with medicine or placebo.

    In Analytical Chemistry, the double blind scenario is replaced by the comparison of multiple tests against the standard deviation. For instance, we take five samples in a graduated pipette, but we acount for the human error by comparing against what someone else has found, then do five more comparing against what we have found. This way we can be reasonably certain our molar quantities of product in solution or suspension in solution, say after washing, is compared to the standard. This is why the scientific warehouses, like Baxter, have various reagents, then a standard solution to use for verification.

    Comprende?


    It's impossible with present technology to craete true standard models of the universe, because there is nothing we can absolutely compare it against. We have no idea what exists outside that which we can detect within the sphere of luminal velocity. The one thing we are sure of is that gravity exists everywhere at the same time. This is why we identify it with the weak force. It has infinite range.


    Dr. CWho
    Darwin's Law
    Nature will tell us a lie if she can.

    Bloch's extension to Darwin's Law:
    So will Darwinists

    http://groups.msn.com/JUSTOUTOFTHEBOX
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #205  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Si, Comprende. I made the point because it looked like you misinterpreted Selene's post. It still does.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #206  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    122
    Then how do you interpret her point? You asked if I knew about such experiments, I gave you an example of double blind and single blind within two different scientific spheres.

    If we are discussing an invention I'm prototyping, being vague should be understandable. If we are discussing a generalized subject, then obfuscation is only a road to inveigling. I haven't viewed either of you two as such.

    ...but I'm a poor judge of character...


    Sometimes...
    Darwin's Law
    Nature will tell us a lie if she can.

    Bloch's extension to Darwin's Law:
    So will Darwinists

    http://groups.msn.com/JUSTOUTOFTHEBOX
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #207  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Selene said:
    Scientists are beginning to learn this phenomena with the idea of the actual scientists being part of the experiment and the observer influencing the result simply through observation and it's possible manipulation through the observers bias.
    After this she talked about quantum effects linked to observation (shroedinger's cat, etc.) and your response was to that. I took it that you misinterpreted the quoted part here as part of her quantum effect argument. No obfuscation intended. It was simply yet another misunderstanding. If I want to comment on your free energy thread, I'll go and do it over there.

    So where were we?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #208  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Drwho wrote:

    Can you prove that? I've seen a Moby Dick code that was a programmer's hoax. Harry Potter code would likely be a similar hoax.
    How can you have a code hoax? These codes merely pick out letters as they appear at regular intervals and highlight them. For example, every fifth letter or every eighth letter. They then put them on a grid and look for words

    Are you suggesting such a program cannot be run on any piece of literature from any language? Or are you saying that messages found in other pieces of literature are hoaxes while those found in Bible text are the "real" messages.

    No one needs any "special knowledge" to understand the message of the Bible which is:

    1. Each one of us has offended God and become estranged from Him and deserve to face his wrath.
    2. God sent his Son, Jesus, who lived a life perfectly attuned to doing God's will.
    3. Jesus then sacrificed his life, being executed for claiming to be the Messiah. God accepted that sacrifice as the ultimate atonement for sin under His law. He was buried (entombed) and on the third day arose as proof of his victory over death and procurment of eternal life.
    4. Anyone who trusts in Jesus as Savior can share eternal life with him and will receive God's mercy rather than his wrath.


    The message comes through loud and clear in any language in any age, no special codes required.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #209  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    122
    So where were we?
    Hopefully forgiving one another in harmless error.


    I have little time today. I just let someone have the mirror of their mind in my "intro" thread.

    I wish folks would stop calling it a "free" energy device. I'm not Otis Carr, or Norman Dean, Brown, Walace, etc., but there was an experiment that proved "zero point energy" and the Casimir effect as well.

    I come in truth, love and peace. I am that way always. If I ever embellish the truth it is for the dire good of a good person...

    Peace,

    DrCWho (or perhap Klaatu...) (I will always provide some mystery for u :wink: )
    Darwin's Law
    Nature will tell us a lie if she can.

    Bloch's extension to Darwin's Law:
    So will Darwinists

    http://groups.msn.com/JUSTOUTOFTHEBOX
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #210  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Hopefully forgiving one another in harmless error
    Nothing to forgive. It happens from time to time :wink:
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #211  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    122
    Hi Kal,
    I find out so often, to my dismay, that I really do think differently than most. I started out a Christian and I took it in blind faith, but I was a scientist as a child, so science preceded faith in God and the Bible. A friend told me Revelation was like SF. In the army I had completed my 2nd degree black in Chinese Karate, being readied to rip the faces off every viet cong in existence... quite literally, we were gearing up for genocide. The cong got wind and the war ended. We were too close to China to use nukes...

    Around the time that training was over, I picked up a Gideons and read the last book. I was hooked. Then Chick tracks and the Book of Joel. That sent me studying that star we worship... I concluded something different than the SM. I was right. SOHO proved it.

    The biggest problem is instead of being celebrated for that genius, I'm kicked around, cheated, driven to homelessness and in general oppressed. I'll rise above it or sooner or later a bullet will find me because I look for and promote change... Obama's and my fate may be similar. I hope not.

    I think we should get McCain in. Keep the wars going because the wars over there mean they aren't coming here. Besides that, the rise in gas prices will force new fuel designs, like my HG, perhaps. The rise in food costs will depromote beef and meat. Less methane; less GW.

    It will mean more jobs. Grow turnips. They are the primary ingredient for rocket fuel. I was trying to design and build a multi-fuel burner/kiln/barbeque in my back yard that would utilize tetrafuran and guanidine along with grass clippings, garbage, etc. in an H2SO4, etc. emulsion. Now it will be difficult because they've (a church behind it all) have driven me out of my home. Luckily I have a vacation place in need of dire repairs, but the TARDIS has storm damage and I was forced to abandon it. (TARDIS is my lab building. It was inspired because when I built it I noticed the distorted perspective of the design (an old magicians' trick) made the inside look bigger than the outside. I capitalized on that, made it even bigger and painted a tromp l'oeil painting that left only the doors in relief looking like an English Police box. Cool, huh?)

    If you want more of that, go back to my AT&T thread... gather my children and ye shall hear of a vast corporation that's spreading the fear...

    First Hitler had a "thingy" like a big tantrum weapon,
    Now Lucent may follow and teach us a lesson... or too many.

    I didn't think Hitler's device would work. Lucent's a lot smarter now and we have Nazis galore here in America and around the planet... the Son of the Beast...

    I believe in prophecy, but I believe if we change the present, so the future, the Bible's writings will change before our eyes. If the Revelation was averted, the prophets would have no such future image to be revealed to them.


    Dayton...

    Let's just agree to disagree. I think the code is cool. You don't. 'kay?


    DrCWho
    Darwin's Law
    Nature will tell us a lie if she can.

    Bloch's extension to Darwin's Law:
    So will Darwinists

    http://groups.msn.com/JUSTOUTOFTHEBOX
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #212 Re: Why is Atheism nearly always linked to high intelligence 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Mars
    A question for the believers out there...
    How come the VAST majority of higher intelligent, the educated elite tend to be atheist? There are many polls and studies showing that for example university professors out of maybe 200 there would be 190 atheists...
    Rhetorically,
    Barry
    It is the intelligent and the educated elite that not only desire to advance our existence but the very ones who actually push forward to do it. They understand we cannot advance ourselves if we answer every question we have by saying it is (or is like) magic (or God did it) and leaving it at that. Leaving it to faith is absurd. They know we must strive to find the truth, the veracity, the certainty, the integrity behind the mysteries of all existence, or we all will dwell in ignorance and stagnation forever.
    .................................................. ...............
    The truth is difficult to obtain.
    They conceal it in books.
    *************************************
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #213  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    ajg246 said:

    It is the intelligent and the educated elite that not only desire to advance our existence but the very ones who actually push forward to do it. They understand we cannot advance ourselves if we answer every question we have by saying it is (or is like) magic (or God did it) and leaving it at that. Leaving it to faith is absurd. They know we must strive to find the truth, the veracity, the certainty, the integrity behind the mysteries of all existence, or we all will dwell in ignorance and stagnation forever.
    Well, that is a pretty good example of backward ignorance all by itself. Most of the scientific advances of mankind are credited to religious people. I think a better question than the OP would be "Why are so many atheists found to be alcoholic bar denizens, prostitutes and homosexuals?"
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #214  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    Mudslinging-Round 2
    If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism
    -Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #215  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    I live in Bertrand Russells teapot!
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    ajg246 said:

    It is the intelligent and the educated elite that not only desire to advance our existence but the very ones who actually push forward to do it. They understand we cannot advance ourselves if we answer every question we have by saying it is (or is like) magic (or God did it) and leaving it at that. Leaving it to faith is absurd. They know we must strive to find the truth, the veracity, the certainty, the integrity behind the mysteries of all existence, or we all will dwell in ignorance and stagnation forever.
    Well, that is a pretty good example of backward ignorance all by itself. Most of the scientific advances of mankind are credited to religious people. I think a better question than the OP would be "Why are so many atheists found to be alcoholic bar denizens, prostitutes and homosexuals?"


    The ignorance and prejudice displayed on this forum is astounding!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #216  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Well, that is a pretty good example of backward ignorance all by itself. Most of the scientific advances of mankind are credited to religious people. I think a better question than the OP would be "Why are so many atheists found to be alcoholic bar denizens, prostitutes and homosexuals?"
    In what way would that be "better"? Because it is a different person/group indulging in self-deluding fantasies and calling it "truth"? As a Christian, I thought is was much better when it was the atheist who was spouting ridiculous nonsense, or do you unlike the OP actually have some statistics to back up this fantastic claim?
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #217  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Well, I am shocked that no one seemed to figure out I was merely trying to show how stupid the OP was along with ajr's stupid attempt to give it some flesh. ajr could have seen that this hypothesis had been shot down early in the thread.

    The studies discussed have clearly shown that two thirds of scientists in the U.S. are believers and that of the people who claim atheism, more of them obtain higher education than those who are not atheists. It is only elitist thinking that attempts to set up a cause and effect relationship between atheism and intelligence.

    I think, using this paradigm, one could build a case that Mormons and Seventh Day Adventist are linked to "high intelligence." Those groups also have high percentages of their young people who obtain higher education, perhaps even greater percentages than atheists.

    We have no reason to believe these people are "more intelligent" than any other group, only that as a group, they emphasize higher education more than some other groups. It is no more valid to claim these people as "more intelligent" because they emphasize academia than for atheists to claim greater "intelligence" based on their emphasis of academics.

    I did, however, look around but found no statistical analyses on the religous preferences of alcoholics, bar denizens, prostitutes or homosexuals, although it does seem unlikely that you would find many practicing religous people in those groups. Where are Gallup and Harris when you need them.

    A study that might be interesting would be an analysis of the religious preferences of academic standouts such as valedictorians and salutatorians and other academic award winners at the high school and collegiate levels.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #218  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    122
    Einstein is not always right
    But he was right enough. I succeeded in creating a circular reference to infinity.

    BTW: My Doctorate was just honored by a circuit court judge yesterday.

    Today is one of those days when time moves too slow for everyone else and too fast for me.

    A question for the nasty ones: Can you talk backwards instead of merely talking back? !maD doG !nug ylno s'ti


    Forward and backwards it reads the same thing,
    But saying it backwards has difference of ring.


    Dr. CWho
    Darwin's Law
    Nature will tell us a lie if she can.

    Bloch's extension to Darwin's Law:
    So will Darwinists

    http://groups.msn.com/JUSTOUTOFTHEBOX
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #219  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Drwho said:

    Can you talk backwards instead of merely talking back? !maD doG !nug ylno s'ti

    Forward and backwards it reads the same thing,
    Is this another example of Bible code? This is certainly not a palendrome nor even close.

    How can "mad dog nug ylno s'ti" be the same as "it's only gun god dam?"

    "Able was I ere I saw Elba," is a palendrome which is the same foreward and backward.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #220  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    122
    I didn't say palendrome...

    Your straw man sidestepped the point, but that's typical...
    Darwin's Law
    Nature will tell us a lie if she can.

    Bloch's extension to Darwin's Law:
    So will Darwinists

    http://groups.msn.com/JUSTOUTOFTHEBOX
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #221  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    My take on bible code is that anything random can be used as a predicting device. It's possible that the human mind is able to determine parts of its own reality, which is what I use instead of God as an explanation.

    Of course, the jury is still out on God. I'm agnostic more than athiest.

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    ajg246 said:

    It is the intelligent and the educated elite that not only desire to advance our existence but the very ones who actually push forward to do it. They understand we cannot advance ourselves if we answer every question we have by saying it is (or is like) magic (or God did it) and leaving it at that. Leaving it to faith is absurd. They know we must strive to find the truth, the veracity, the certainty, the integrity behind the mysteries of all existence, or we all will dwell in ignorance and stagnation forever.
    Well, that is a pretty good example of backward ignorance all by itself. Most of the scientific advances of mankind are credited to religious people. I think a better question than the OP would be "Why are so many atheists found to be alcoholic bar denizens, prostitutes and homosexuals?"
    I find raging acoholism to be at least as common among protestants. Prostitution a little less, but a whole lot of prostitutes grew up and were abused in protestant homes.

    I'd be surprised, however, if the sum total of all those three groups even accounted for 10% of the total atheist population.

    I think that many intellectuals find that saying "God did it" instead of looking for a real answer is such a temptation that they're better off simply taking God out of the picture before they begin. If they weren't really committed to the idea, then it's no loss to them, but the gain from removing that temptation is substantial.

    Part of the problem is that religion doesn't offer any advantages to people of greater than average intellect. It's just as easy for a dumb person to understand the core issues. People like to do what they're good at.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #222  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    DrCWho wrote:
    Quote:
    Einstein is not always right

    But he was right enough. I succeeded in creating a circular reference to infinity.
    Let me quote Einstein on the subject of religion

    It was, of course, lie what you read about my religious convictions. a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in person God and I have never denied this but expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

    I am deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion.

    I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.

    The idea of personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive.

    ...But I prefer not to call myself religious because it is misleading. It is destructively misleading because, for the vast majority of people, 'religion' implies 'supernatural'.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #223  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    122
    Prasit,

    Einstein, like many of us, vacilate on our religious experiences over the years. I'll have to do more research on him to prove thiis, but in his latter days he claimed to believe in God. What god, I'm not certain, but he finally did concede to the supernatural.

    I'm real busy at the time, so finding all that in a book or on the net will take some time. Maybe you can do more easier than I at the moment.


    For the record in here, I believe in Jesus the Christ. The Bible is chronologically accurate. Science can explain the seeming contradictions.


    Dr CWho
    Darwin's Law
    Nature will tell us a lie if she can.

    Bloch's extension to Darwin's Law:
    So will Darwinists

    http://groups.msn.com/JUSTOUTOFTHEBOX
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #224  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    kojax said:

    Part of the problem is that religion doesn't offer any advantages to people of greater than average intellect.
    Assuming that many people of greater than average intellect are attracted to professions in the sciences and coupling that with the statistic that two-thirds of such people are believers, one must consider this claim by kojax may be little more than hot air which has been emitted from the anterior end of the alimentary canal.

    Many people of greater than averate intellect post on this forum and exercise their intellect by commenting pro an con on religion.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #225  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    England
    Posts
    60
    sorry I havent read all the replies (15 pages!) so this may have been said

    but I would like to make it clear that I dont agree that Atheism is linked with high inteligence (oh and I am an athiest myself), i think it is ignorant to say so.

    sure there may be a slight corrilation because athiests may be more likely to become scientists and therefore be seen as 'inteligent'.
    'if one man beleaves in fairies its called madness
    if one million men beleave in faries its called religion'- Richard Dawkings
    (but i think he was quoting someone when he said it...but who cares)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #226  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    122
    I've always thought atheism is linked with lack of imagination. Most Abecedareans are more intelligent than most atheists.


    DARWIN'S LAW:
    Nature will tell you a direct lie if she can.

    BLOCHE'S EXTENSION:
    So will Darwinists.



    Dr. CWho
    Darwin's Law
    Nature will tell us a lie if she can.

    Bloch's extension to Darwin's Law:
    So will Darwinists

    http://groups.msn.com/JUSTOUTOFTHEBOX
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #227  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by DrCWho
    Prasit,

    Einstein, like many of us, vacilate on our religious experiences over the years. I'll have to do more research on him to prove thiis, but in his latter days he claimed to believe in God. What god, I'm not certain, but he finally did concede to the supernatural.
    No, he didn't. Einstein was and remained an atheist his entire life.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #228  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by DrCWho
    I've always thought atheism is linked with lack of imagination.
    Most, if not all atheists could stretch their imaginations far beyond the limit you might think, but that doesn't mean they accept what they imagine as real.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #229  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    (Q) said:

    Einstein was and remained an atheist his entire life.

    Wrong! Of all the things one could say about Einstein and his religious status, this is one of the few things that could be said which was completely and totally inaccurate. About the only thing equally as inaccurate would be to claim he was religious. He was probably a quasi-deistic agnostic.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #230  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    Since Einstien is not religious and religious is linked to theism, then he must be quasi-atheist-deist-agnostic.
    __________________________________________________ ______
    If God did do all this, he would be a great inventor (in term of scope)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #231  
    Forum Sophomore BioHazard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    St. Marks, Portland, Liberty City
    Posts
    109
    more knowledge, less need for mystical explanations; parsimony.
    "When man contemplates his future death, it is as if, by thinking of it, he renders it immediate. His defence is to deny it. He cannot deny that his body will die and rot - the evidence is too strong for that; so he solves the problem by the invention of the immortal soul" Desmond Morris
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #232  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Well, if Desmond Morris is wrong, he will not be able to write back and correct the error. Now about 80, Desmond is probably much nearer that moment of truth than when he penned this bon mot.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #233  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Well, if Desmond Morris is wrong, he will not be able to write back and correct the error. Now about 80, Desmond is probably much nearer that moment of truth than when he penned this bon mot.
    Ho hum....

    Well as dayton already knows, I despise talk like this and disagree with it too. He feels compelled to warn the non-believer of impending doom, while that seems like intellectual blackmail to me.

    Perhaps we shall all have a last dream on our death bed that seems to last very different amounts of time, fullfilling whatever expectations we might have. But what does it matter if it only SEEMS like an eternity, and what does it really matter if it is only a "dream"? The question I have is, what do we want to dream about?
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #234  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    122
    He feels compelled to warn the non-believer of impending doom, while that seems like intellectual blackmail to me.

    Satisfy the equation of state in stellar bodies with fusion generated by gravitational compression, then refute the "Book of Joel." Prove to me the planet will be destroyed beyond habitability within the next millenium, then refute the "Book of Isaiah."

    We, referring to bonafide physicists of whom the control room of an accelerator is know new thing, want things to be our way. It satisfies the paranoia in our minds that there is a possibility Sol is not stable. We who know there is no proof either way believe in preparing for the worst case scenario. A prepared civilization could survive a nova.

    We [scientists as before] rally around Stephen Hawking and Paul Davies and Kip Thorne (very imaginative fellow), yet most don't really believe what they and even Einstein really say. They all say time travel is possible, so why do the disbelievers put an end in their paranoid minds to time travel where prophecy and dreams and deja vu's are concerned?

    Why? Because they may have a steady job, but they are very poor scientists. They are truly the pseudo-scientists because they are partisan to their team. If you are part of a team, larger than a trio, you are part of a diatribe.


    Dr. CWho
    Darwin's Law
    Nature will tell us a lie if she can.

    Bloch's extension to Darwin's Law:
    So will Darwinists

    http://groups.msn.com/JUSTOUTOFTHEBOX
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #235  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Mitchell said:

    Well as dayton already knows, I despise talk like this and disagree with it too. He feels compelled to warn the non-believer of impending doom, while that seems like intellectual blackmail to me.

    And as Mitchell already knows, I am not fond of his "don't-warn-them-lest-you-offend-them" approach.

    Nor do I think telling people there is a heaven and a hell and that they are different is a form of blackmail. The act of turning to God involves both avoiding His wrath and receiving His lovingkindness. I hardly see how telling someone how to avoid harm and seek safety is a form of blackmail.

    I am thinking of a local peak which I have scaled. One route up climbs through a lot of loose shale which can slide out from under you. Another route skirts the shale and crosses over to a much more solid ridge. The one route is difficult and dangerous and could result in a fall and serious injury.

    If I see someone at the point where you have to make a decision and he starts up the shale, shoud I just let him go? (No need to offend him by telling him he has selected the wrong path.) Or should I call out and say, "Hey, wait! That is the dangerous path, there is a better way."? I could, of course, merely say, without explanation, the route goes this way, but he would always wonder why the route up through the shale looks so well traveled.

    I have taken both routes up that peak and I can attest from experience that one route is much safer and better than the other. Still, there is evidence that most people take the route up through the shale because it is the most obvious and appears the most traveled.

    It is not like we are telling people that the only reason we should choose God is to avoid hell. We have chosen God because we have recognized His presense in the universe and wish to commune with Him. Jesus consistently taught the benefits of repentance and the dangers of neglecting it. One does not go without the other.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #236  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    122
    It seems that today we've all been forced to take the roads we would rather not. We are cultivated to believe they are the best route. From the earliest childhood we can remember, we've been taught to lie and smooth over the lie. In adult life we are taught to deceive if we want to get ahead, to push the other guy off the carousel so we can get the golden ring.

    Mammon is society's favorite god...
    Darwin's Law
    Nature will tell us a lie if she can.

    Bloch's extension to Darwin's Law:
    So will Darwinists

    http://groups.msn.com/JUSTOUTOFTHEBOX
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #237  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    kojax said:

    Part of the problem is that religion doesn't offer any advantages to people of greater than average intellect.
    Assuming that many people of greater than average intellect are attracted to professions in the sciences and coupling that with the statistic that two-thirds of such people are believers, one must consider this claim by kojax may be little more than hot air which has been emitted from the anterior end of the alimentary canal.

    Many people of greater than averate intellect post on this forum and exercise their intellect by commenting pro an con on religion.
    People don't always make their decisions on the pure basis of advantage. Some very smart people have the humility to accept that there are other things in life than just being intelligent.

    Also, some intelligent people have other talents than just being intelligent, talents that might offer them other advantages through religion.

    I'm just saying that, if you want to account for the tendency, it's a sensible possibility. Religion really doesn't appreciate intellect, and people like to go where they're appreciated.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #238  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    kojax said:

    I'm just saying that, if you want to account for the tendency, it's a sensible possibility. Religion really doesn't appreciate intellect, and people like to go where they're appreciated.
    My experience in the various churches I have attended would tend to show just the opposite. The small (approximately 150) congregation with which I now fellowship includes a general surgeon, two attorneys, a college professor, a college administrator, several public school teachers and a grade school principal who sit among people who may not have even completed high school. I find this to have been typical of the small churches I have always attended. The thing that draws us together is not our intellect but our love for our Lord Jesus Christ and the desire to fellowship with others who love the Lord. Their intellectual prowess is of no concern.

    If those who consider themselves to be of high intellect choose to isolate themselves with others of similar intellect and away from those of lesser intellect, it is they who suffer by their elitist isolationism, not those who they have isolated themselves from.

    Even if you "want to account for the tendency" you are howling at the moon because there is no such tendency other than in the minds of a few elitist intellectual morons.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #239  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    ireland and uk
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf
    I'm curious how one determines the intelligence of another...

    More so, I'm curious how it is determined that someone who believes in God (or any deity) is less intelligent than one who doesn't.

    Third, I'm curious as to what defines a theist, vs an atheist in this exploration.


    Lastly, don't say "The statistics show clearly" without giving some links to the sources!

    Hi wolf, and others,
    Good questions. I have never really understood or found a reason why, mostly, pseudo intellectuals, hone in on trying to destroy other peoples faith other than to masturbate their flimsy little ego's.

    Given that one cannot choose to believe or choose not to believe, this includes the pseudo intellectuals.

    I also cannot understand how they can measure a quantity of intelligence given the following.

    *What is intelligence ?

    Any information received via the senses should be considered as experience.
    Human beings have the wherewithal to experience as well as to hold memory of experience, it is this which facilitates learning, anything learned becomes knowledge. The skill and success with which this learning is used is indicative of intelligence.
    Knowledge is no more than the result of experience.

    All creatures have, to a greater or lesser degree, the wherewithal to experience as well as to hold memory of experience, it is this which facilitates learning, anything learned becomes knowledge. The skill and success with which this learning is used is indicative of intelligence. This applies to all creatures from microbes, fruit flies and elephants.
    Given that such creatures as maggots, crabs and apes have intelligence what is it that makes them different from you and I?
    * What is the difference?



    Also for those who have never experienced faith how they are so willing to argue about something they have no experience of.

    javascript:emoticon(':wink:')
    Wink


    arthur webb
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #240  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the circuitous haze of my mind
    Posts
    1,028
    I have allot to say about this topic....but I'm too lazy to read 17 pages of posts and do not want to randomly come in so late in the argument. *sigh* maybe next time.
    Of all the wonders in the universe, none is likely more fascinating and complicated than human nature.

    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

    "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence"

    -Einstein

    http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php

    Use your computing strength for science!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #241  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    122
    The small (approximately 150) congregation with which I now fellowship includes a general surgeon, two attorneys, a college professor, a college administrator, several public school teachers

    Have you asked them whether they are "real" Christians (those who believe in prophecy and Christ's teachings), "phoney" Christians (those who believe in mankind and commerce)or even Christians at all (visiting Muslims perhaps...)?
    Darwin's Law
    Nature will tell us a lie if she can.

    Bloch's extension to Darwin's Law:
    So will Darwinists

    http://groups.msn.com/JUSTOUTOFTHEBOX
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #242 Re: Why is Atheism nearly always linked to high intelligence 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Mars
    A question for the believers out there...

    How come the VAST majority of higher intelligent, the educated elite tend to be atheist? There are many polls and studies showing that for example university professors out of maybe 200 there would be 190 atheists...

    Rhetorically,

    Barry
    Well, I thouight of another way to show how they are deluding themselves.

    Practically all of them believe in the 'big bang theory' of the universe.

    But my knowledge of this theory says it is a 'creation out of nothing'!
    So I say the BBT is CosmoGONY. So whether they believe it or not, they had better provide a creator for their BBT.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #243  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Religions are essentially cults. And, those who belong to these cults have been indoctrinated from birth, which is child abuse.

    Those who realize that they've been abused throughout their childhood and indoctrinated into these cults will begin to understand the fairy tales being told, the doctrines of the cult, are complete nonsense.

    The question is do these individuals who break this vicious cycle of abuse have more intelligence than the rest?

    Perhaps it's more along the lines of identifying snakeoil.
    Absolutely spot on.

    I think it certainly takes a lot of intelligent thought and understanding to break free from being enslaved to indoctrinated illusions. It does NOT make the person intelligent in all areas but certainly the person must be commended for breaking free of the cycle.

    Maybe the parents have no choice than to pass on their beliefs to their children but intelligence comes in when the child has enough intellectual stamina to overcome and challenge the massive cycle of fear and guilt imposed on by the indoctrination. It is then unfortunate how many today do not do so.

    In simple terms, "seeing through the murky sh*t" and making a decision based on logic and reason is enough grounds to be recommended as "intelligent" rather than following the pack thumping a book and living in a state of make-believe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #244  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    So how does this kind of innane asinine drivel spread by ignoramuses account for people who come from atheist families and become believers? This is the kind of crap that shows just how ignorant atheists can be.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #245  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Well, there's religious murky sh*t, and there's irreligious murky sh*t.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #246  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Thats right, and on majority both sides of the pond think they are superior to the other. Thats why I keep my mouth shut these days, there's no compromise in religion and no greater outcome of the debate, which isn't really a debate, especially where Q is concerned, its just bashing of other peoples beliefs, and sorry Q if you take offense to that.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #247  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    213
    I believe there was a creater, but some relegious teachings may be inaccurate. I know what you mean when you say break from the crowd, which I feel I have, but I still believe in God. Logically there had to be a creater. This creater's form or existance or way of creation may not be reachable by our minds.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #248  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    "Why is Atheism nearly always linked to high intelligence"

    how about

    "Why is tolerance nearly always linked to high intelligence"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #249  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    I live in Bertrand Russells teapot!
    Posts
    902
    Intelligent people are 'intelligent' because they tend to use their brains more than the not so intelligent.

    Organized religions are renowned to attract people that don't think.

    The whole success of religious institutions is based on the principle that some enlightened being connected to God receives instructions which is fed back to the masses as laws or commandments on what Gods instructions are as to how to behave and what to think.

    Another aspect religious institutions feed off is the insecurity and lack of confidence of thinking and coming to conclusions and decisions by ones self.

    It's a fear of this existential reality that ultimately consciousness is subjective and only we as individuals can make our own minds up. It's a lonely path and only too easy to hand the reigns over to somebody else, and there is always 'someone else' who claims to know better than you (what a great way to make slaves and an easy buck!)

    People feel a sense of well-being and safety in numbers, especially when they are under the illusion that a particular way of thinking or acting must be right if everyone else is doing it as well.

    Which is how certain horrific and inhumane acts throughout history have succeeded in large numbers with groups of any sort, not just religious.

    If everyone else is doing it, it must be ok.

    It's the person that thinks further and separately from the group that goes 'now, just wait a minute, are you sure you've got this right?"

    That's what makes 'intelligent' and thank 'God' for that!

    Because if it wasn't for the intelligent that pushed the boundaries how on earth would we ever have managed to evolve into bigger brained beings capable of a conscious and a conscience?

    Theists will argue that contemplating God has brought about the conscious and conscience, but so has contemplating that it might also be possible there isn't a God. The problem with religion is that it deters people from even thinking about this possibility. Therefore it prevents real thinking and seeks to imprison the mind within its own constraints.

    Religions don't have all the answers, but it sure likes to think it does, and that's basically all the thinking it does do, and that's its down-fall.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #250  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    122
    Selene,

    Intelligence goes where it is best suited for its own religious belief. It doesn't matter whether that religion is believing in Christ Jesus or believing in Christ Darwin or Christ Muhamed, etc., an intelligent person also wants to belong. Intelligent people who don't find like minds tend to eventually turn on society. This would be disasterous in certain cases.

    Look at the NCIS character Abby: She says "she is a forensic scientist and if they mess with her she'll put something in their bodies to turn them to goo." Abby seems into Goth. A curious, super intelligent, though somewhat socially naive person.

    I wonder what she believes.


    Dr. CWho
    Darwin's Law
    Nature will tell us a lie if she can.

    Bloch's extension to Darwin's Law:
    So will Darwinists

    http://groups.msn.com/JUSTOUTOFTHEBOX
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #251  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    I live in Bertrand Russells teapot!
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by DrCWho
    Selene,

    Intelligence goes where it is best suited for its own religious belief. It doesn't matter whether that religion is believing in Christ Jesus or believing in Christ Darwin or Christ Muhamed, etc., an intelligent person also wants to belong. Intelligent people who don't find like minds tend to eventually turn on society. This would be disasterous in certain cases.

    Look at the NCIS character Abby: She says "she is a forensic scientist and if they mess with her she'll put something in their bodies to turn them to goo." Abby seems into Goth. A curious, super intelligent, though somewhat socially naive person.

    I wonder what she believes.


    Dr. CWho
    What's NCIS? Abby??

    You got me confused here now Doc!

    regarding sociability, i do believe that's important, vital actually to well-being. But it's also more vital for an individual to be able to stand up to it's group and challenge their ideas and opinions.

    In a lot of social groups, religious or otherwise, this isn't always acceptable or easy to do. People get 'scapegoated' and ostracized. The group often feels threatened.

    That's the trouble with any kind of group mentality.

    Intelligent individuals often link up with others the same and often this isn't an issue in these kinds of groups, on the contrary it is often positively welcomed and encouraged because each memebr of this type of group wants to learn and progress and aren't afraid to shun old ideas if they don't work.

    That's what makes 'intelligence'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #252  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Selene said:

    Intelligent people are 'intelligent' because they tend to use their brains more than the not so intelligent.
    Selene has not exemplified this claim at all. Use of the brain cuuld be a small factor but -


    Science Creative Quarterly points out: (http://www.scq.ubc.ca/the-genetic-ba...-intelligence/)

    Intelligence can be divided into various subcategories such as reasoning, problem solving, and memory, and so creating a consistent scale by which one can measure intelligence is quite difficult.

    * * *

    To determine whether scores such as IQs are of genetic or environmental origin, scientific validation is required. Arthur Jensen points to the statistical and biological realities of the g factor. The correlation of g with the overall size of brain, its glucose metabolic rate during problem solving, the complexity and speed of brain waves, as well as estimates of heritability point towards genetic influence.
    It appears that “intelligence” is based on amount of brain and how well it functions, not on how much it is used. A small, malfunctioning brain is not going to become super intelligent through use.

    Just about every sentence of Selene’s post reeks of misunderstanding, misinformation and dis-information such that it seems highly unlikely she has become intelligent through use of her brain. GIGO seems to have found an appropriate home.

    Selene says:

    It's the person that thinks further and separately from the group that goes 'now, just wait a minute, are you sure you've got this right?"
    So how do you feel about those who question, say evolution’s claims concerning macro-evolution? That is exactly what they are saying: “Wait a minute, are you sure you’ve got that right?” What do you think of people like say, Michael Behe, a scientist who says, “Wait a minute, science is not explaining how such complex systems developed.” What about some idiot standing on the top of a 40-story building saying, “Wait a minute, are you sure gravity will make me go splat on the street below if I jump?”

    Neither conformity nor non-conformity is a sign of intelligence. Knowing what to conform to and what not to conform to is a better measurement. Knowing what is questionable and what is well settled is a better sign of intelligence.

    Selene concludes:


    Religions don't have all the answers, but it sure likes to think it does, and that's basically all the thinking it does do, and that's its down-fall.
    Here again, Selene is way off base. While I cannot speak for other religions, Christianity does not even claim to deal with all the subjects of scientific investigation and experience – only with those matters of relationships between the individual and his/her God, other people, the environment and himself/herself.

    Scientismics think that by ignoring the spiritual they will still be able to find ALL the answers – and that is their downfall. Sadly, this error, left uncorrected, effects them for all eternity.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #253  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    I live in Bertrand Russells teapot!
    Posts
    902
    You seem to have issues Dayton and a thorough expert at concocting arguments out of thin air!

    I can only wonder at the reasons why you have to work so hard to prove your self, or why you have to be so angry, inflamed and insulting?

    It's a shame because it's the waste of a potentially intelligent mind that could apply itself more constructively instead of misconstruing, embellishing and exaggerating statements made by other members with bias in order to justify your temper and opinion.

    The irony is that you are trying so hard to appear 'intellectual' yet you simply end up looking foolish

    Thinking is good exercise and so is debate, but the wrong kind of thinking is just a waste of time and energy.

    I'm sure the other forum members are intelligent enough to make their own minds up and fill in the gaps i just haven't got the time, the energy or inclination to fill.


    'Scuze me...i have some potatoes to scrub and peas to shell..........and lives that need re-fueling
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #254  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    I'm intelligent so intelligent I came up with a very sound theory of time travel and the GUT. However when I tried to advance it furthure beyond using algebra, I forgot that that is the most advanced maths I know . Yet although I can do that, I lack some common sense so my family and friends say, or maybe like everyone else they are just winding me up. Why do people like doing that to me?
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #255  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Well, Selene, it seems to me that you fail to recognize the limitations of many of your own statements. To limit the measure of intelligence to one factor, as you did, shows that you just blurted something out without actually thinking it through. You are then, in effect, standing on thin air.

    Intelligence is a very complex part of humanity. Measuring it is, in some respects, impossible because we are unable to come to universal agreement as to what factors are the most important.

    Savants, for example, can do miraculous things mentally, but I am not sure we consider them intelligent from an overall standpoint as their fantastic abilities do not often contribute substance to society.

    When someone makes a flat statement, one should consider all the implications to such a statement. Surely, it is true that we can benefit from people who look beyond the box. But there is also development available within the box as well as potential danger outside of it.

    I remember years ago, someone challenged me to write a 26 word poem starting with the letter a and each subsequent word starting with the next letter of the alphabet. One of the lines in my poem was, "Men need other people questioning rational solutions."

    My objection to your post was not that it was especially "wrong" but that it was shortsighted and narrowly focused, seemingly without recognition of the many caveats within it.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #256  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    So how does this kind of innane asinine drivel spread by ignoramuses account for people who come from atheist families and become believers? This is the kind of crap that shows just how ignorant atheists can be.
    Those are few and far in between, Dayton. Of course, you are free to provide us with a huge list of "converts" if you think those odds are overwhelming significant to compare with the billions of indoctrinated.

    Or, you can simply hurl ad homs.

    I'm betting on the latter.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #257  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    All people who believe are converts, (Q). No one is born believing anything.

    Both Mitchell and I who post here were not brought up in what would be considered traditonal Christian homes. Josh McDowell, a leading apologist, set out to prove just how wrong the Bible is and ended up as a believer. But I am not aware of any comprehensive statistical compilation of the pre-conversion details of many Christians' lives.

    It does not take a large list to refute your claim that people become Christians only because they are indoctrinated by their family or society or to refute your elitist claims that only the smart are able to avoid such indoctrination.

    Such claims are so insipidly erroneous, that only one exception to your claimed rule is adequate refutation.

    Furthermore, it is really you who consistently uses ad homonem attacks against the person rather than providing any substantial information to support your prejudicial. outrageous, irrational, illogical, unfounded opinions.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #258  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    All people who believe are converts, (Q). No one is born believing anything.
    And, just how are billions "converted" to their parents religion? Coincidence?

    Both Mitchell and I who post here were not brought up in what would be considered traditonal Christian homes.

    Josh McDowell, a leading apologist, set out to prove just how wrong the Bible is and ended up as a believer.
    Truly staggering statistics those. It completely makes the indoctrinated billions seem utterly insignificant in comparison.

    It does not take a large list to refute your claim that people become Christians only because they are indoctrinated by their family or society or to refute your elitist claims that only the smart are able to avoid such indoctrination.
    Perhaps, but having a list of billions that do conform to the theory merely precludes the conclusion the theory might constitute law.

    Such claims are so insipidly erroneous, that only one exception to your claimed rule is adequate refutation.
    Can I use the same guideline for your claims to gods existence?

    Furthermore, it is really you who consistently uses ad homonem attacks against the person rather than providing any substantial information to support your prejudicial. outrageous, irrational, illogical, unfounded opinions.
    I am delighted you are able to acknowledge the content of your posts, however comparison you wish to submit.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •