Intelligent people have 'unnatural' preferences

reply to post by Jezus

You can certainly believe something is possible without believing it is true.

Here's a perfect case in point of the article.

Someone who just argues for the sake of arguing whilst arguing the same point I've made as if he thinks he's arguing against me to prove a separate point.

Learn to read before you post my friend.

You can believe either way and still maintain open mindedness to the other possibility that is contrary to your belief.

-sirnex

reply to post by sirnex




I can believe both possibilities are possible without believing either is true.

In other words, I'm agnostic

reply to post by Benji1999

you're smarter than 95% of other human beings...

Damn right I am. Don't you ever forget that either.

Feels god-damned great to not blindly believe in invisible naked sky daddies or not having to perform symbolic acts of ritualistic cannibalism.

But hey, maybe your right and that truly is real intelligence and I'm just as dumb as they come because I'm bound for this magical fiery lake called hell for all of eternity because I don't believe in invisible naked sky daddies.

Originally posted by Jezus
reply to post by sirnex

 

I can believe both possibilities are possible without believing either is true.

In other words, I'm agnostic

Again, perfect example. Thank you!

I suppose one could be a Nazi and a Jew at the same time too?

[edit on 27-2-2010 by sirnex]

reply to post by sirnex


That is an ignorant and illogical comparison...

Originally posted by Jezus
reply to post by sirnex

 

That is an ignorant and illogical comparison...

Wonderfully well thought out and intelligent rebuttal. I'm in literal awe!

Originally posted by sirnex

Originally posted by Jezus
reply to post by sirnex

 

That is an ignorant and illogical comparison...

Wonderfully well thought out and intelligent rebuttal. I'm in literal awe!

Not many ways to respond to such an ignorant and illogical comment...

Are you just looking for attention?

Originally posted by Jezus
Not many ways to respond to such an ignorant and illogical comment...

Considering your response, one can readily understand where the true ignorance lays.

You can't claim a thing to be possible while holding disbelief in it being possible. Just as you can't be a Nazi and a Jew at the same time. Since you were a perfect example, it's no wonder you failed to make that distinction. Please don't argue for the sake of arguing you twit.

Despite all the howling, the results of this study are clearly valid.

Originally posted by sirnex

Originally posted by Jezus
Not many ways to respond to such an ignorant and illogical comment...

Considering your response, one can readily understand where the true ignorance lays.

You can't claim a thing to be possible while holding disbelief in it being possible. Just as you can't be a Nazi and a Jew at the same time. Since you were a perfect example, it's no wonder you failed to make that distinction. Please don't argue for the sake of arguing you twit.

I actually knew a Jewish Skinhead, does that count? However, of course one can hold something possible while not believing. Belief does not = reality. Acknowledging the possibility of something is not adhering to it's ideology.

For example: In the morning: It is possible I will be contacted and offered a job. Do I believe that will happen? No. It is Sunday and I am in Utah.

It is possible I will fall down the stairs and break my neck. Do I believe it will happen? No.

Etc. etc.

Agnosticism is more of "can be either way". In a similar way that: while digging through laundry pockets before tossing in the washer: I doubt I will find money in the pockets, but I could. Does it affect me either way? Not really. I am still doing Laundry.

reply to post by lordtyp0


I realize what I said isn't the exact definition of liberalism, but to the average person, it's pretty accurate. To vote liberal is to vote for more freedoms. To desire more freedom is to think you can do better than your superiors.

Originally posted by lordtyp0

Originally posted by truthquest
reply to post by constantwonder

 

The idea doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Atheism is unreasonable and liberalism is immoral. So, why would "smart" people subscribe to such theories? Perhaps their brain is excessively wired for logic, and it has been short-changed in the emotional reasoning / common sense / gut instinct department.

Ah, thank you for that, truly hilarious

I love the arguments which the Pot calls the tree a metal container. It makes my day. Up until the 70's all political parties ascribed to liberal philosophy. All that happened in the decades before were all from a liberal bent.

Suppose everything in the 1900's was immoral.

This is not even to mention Atheism is based 100% off of Reason. You know: Things you can interact with, see, touch, taste: Instead of what one feels.

Awesome argument though, still reeks of Poe's law to me, I honestly hope it isn't. It is far more entertaining to know people actually believe stuff like that.

I'm glad you have evidence for how our universe was created, and that the evidence shows an unintelligent design source. Its nice to know you know more than I do about the creation of our universe. Please outline all your evidence showing how are universe was created so I can see how unintelligent the process was.

Also, please describe a form of government that is "liberal" and yet not immoral. You deserve a nobel peace prize for that. Or maybe even a real peace prize of some sort. All of the self-described liberals I know are vigorous fans of extreme levels of violence (not that many conservatives are also not also big fans of violence).

Originally posted by billybob

Originally posted by truthquest
Atheism is unreasonable and liberalism is immoral.

you said it all, right there. except you said it backwards and upside down.
faith is unreasonable, and religion is immoral.

that said, i have faith in "something higher" gained from observation of life. first i had faith in christ, then realised the bible was heavily edited by men according to their own wants and desires for control and believing what they want to believe, and had faith in nothing.
and then i learned the wonder of the perfection of the unfolding of life and systems according to mathematical formulas, and was awed back into a realisation that coincidence is an unlikely explanation for all that is. i have no "proof/reason" to "believe" that there is a great consciousness guiding the development of life and the cosmos, but i find the odds that a never ending string of happy coincidence has led to the perfection of life on earth.
for example, the sun and moon are EXACTLY the same "size" as viewed from earth, but the moon is actually tiny, and the sun is actually gargantuan. it is just a "coincidence" that these heavenly bodies appear to be equals from our perspective?
crop circles? coincidence? (i don't buy that they are ALL manmade. i believe that "team satan" (the "proof" that they are man-made) is the work of the vatican to quash the backlash against the church that naturally follows knowing that they are miraculous).
or, a moth that looks like snake to scare away predators. or an octopus that can change it's colouring to match it's background. an "evolutionary coincidence"? maybe. i find that hard to swallow. there are hundreds of examples that i know of, and probably millions that i don't.

the history of religion is the history of war, oppression, famine, hierarchy, suppression of knowledge, torture, authoritarianism, propaganda, subterfuge, control, and, basically, EVIL.

so, i happily repeat:
faith is irrational, religion is immoral.

[edit on 26-2-2010 by billybob]

I could copy many of your very own ATS postings and tell people they should live their life based on them. I'd call it the "Billybob Bible". Then, you would be an immoral person by your own definition seeing how you'd be the most devout follower of your own religion. Religion can encompass any possible believe and lifestyle you can write down on paper. So, you may as well say all possible beliefs and lifestyles are immoral if you say religion is immoral.

I couldn't agree with you more that faith is irrational. One of the most ridiculous faiths out there is atheism. Atheism is the faith that the universe was created during a random unintelligent process, when there is no evidence of a random nor unintelligent creation process. There simply is no evidence for the root source of our universe.

reply to post by truthquest


Wait, have I missed something here? Since when was equality and individual freedom considered immoral? Man, the way some people think is just scary!

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
...atheism is not a set of beliefs but rather a lack of belief in only 1 category - God...

Agnostics also believe that. An agnostic believes God may or may not exist. Atheists believe God does not exist. Therefore, if someone suspects that God may exist more than not, they cannot claim to be an atheist.

From what I read you only covered economic, and I wouldn't say it is inherently evil or immoral, although I disagree with the lion's share of it's ideas on a large scale.

The social side of liberalism is often shared by conservatives. For example, Republicans are known to have lead the civil rights movement. Another quote from Wikipedia:
"Social liberalism is often called modern liberalism.[11] The Liberal International is the main international organisation of liberal parties, which include, among other liberal variants, social liberal parties. It affirms the following principles: human rights, free and fair elections and multiparty-democracy, social justice, tolerance, social market economy, free trade, environmental sustainability and a strong sense of international solidarity.[12] These ideals are described in further detail in the various manifestos of the LI."

Conservatives would also claim issues important to them are human rights, free and fair elections, multi-party democracy, social justice, and free trade. Where they would differ are "tolerance" (conservatives would likely claim otherwise but define it differently), "environmental sustainability" (though again if quizzed, conservatives would likely say they want a sustainable environment), and finally where they would definitely differ on is international solidarity. Conservatives are very much into national sovereignty as vastly more important than international solidarity (one world government). And on that point on the scope of government is where I admit I can't stand the liberal viewpoint one bit (even more so than liberal economic policies).

I strongly challenge your comment that liberal economics is moral. Do you disagree that liberal economics involves extortion and kidnapping? Is taxes taking without asking? Is taking without asking stealing? Modern taxes is extortion. Furthermore, to put someone in prison for not paying money to another party for any reason is kidnapping. Money is never a good reason to destroy someone's life. And I think you would agree that liberal economics requires high tax rates and/or a lot of fines/fees. Yet liberal economics requires those who chose to spend their own money as they please for their lives to be essentially ruined for as long as they don't cooperate... all that over some green paper. That is something that is an extreme immorality from my perspective.

On social issues the point where liberalism is also immoral would be in forcing governance upon a population that does not consent to be governed by an outside body. For example, if the US wants to pull out of the UN that is their vote to take from a democratic perspective. In other words, liberalism is immoral because democracy and world government are conflicting values. Except in matters of self-defense, one is not right to govern another without consent.

reply to post by die_another_day


I mildly disagree that once your IQ is 135+ that you hate everyone. I believe that you hate a single group. You hate average people who don't try. In addition, you have less respect for smart people who give up. And you gain a great respect for below average people who work their butt off.

You could probably make the same correlation in any area. Someone who is a 9+ in attractiveness might greatly disrespect average looking people who don't try to bump themselves up a couple points with good hygene, nice clothes, and a unique appeal. They probably respect ugly people who work their butt off to appear beautiful, even if they are just plain unattractive. And they probably lose respect for those other extremely attractive people who let themselves go when they have such a gift.

However, in the current world, you can be "too smart," but you can't be "too beautiful."

As an aside, Mensa has groups for people that don't enjoy their intelligence:
Example: DENSA

DENSA
Densa is a Mensa SIG for those Ms who do not particularly care if they match the popular perception of "intelligent". (And frankly, that pretty much means all Ms.) We're not here to throw our brains around; after all, that would get messy. We just want a place online where we can have a pleasant chat about anything or nothing at all. In short, you don't have to act intelligent to be part of our circle, you just have to be intelligent. (Now that I think about it, acting intelligent is probably a bad idea around our campfire. Hey, who allowed us to play with fire? That was NOT a good idea...) This is a forum based SIG w/ a semi-annual electronic newsletter.

Originally posted by sirnex
You can't claim a thing to be possible while holding disbelief in it being possible.

You CAN claim a thing to be possible while holding disbelief in it being true.

I believe God is possible but I don't KNOW "he" exists.

Originally posted by sirnex
Please don't argue for the sake of arguing you twit.

You don't believe a person can be agnostic.

All people are agnostic, including you.

reply to post by Jezus

You CAN claim a thing to be possible while holding disbelief in it being true.

I believe God is possible but I don't KNOW "he" exists.

disbelief in something existing and conceding to not knowing if such exists are two separate things my >SNIP< friend.

You really have a lot of trouble with distinguishing different concepts accurately. You should work on that one.

Mod edit: Courtesy is Mandatory. Please review.


[edit on 3/1/2010 by yeahright]

reply to post by truthquest

I'm glad you have evidence for how our universe was created, and that the evidence shows an unintelligent design source. Its nice to know you know more than I do about the creation of our universe. Please outline all your evidence showing how are universe was created so I can see how unintelligent the process was.

Also, please describe a form of government that is "liberal" and yet not immoral. You deserve a nobel peace prize for that. Or maybe even a real peace prize of some sort. All of the self-described liberals I know are vigorous fans of extreme levels of violence (not that many conservatives are also not also big fans of violence).

Woot! now on to straw men. I like your style.
The origin of the universe: Reason would say "We are still looking" non-reason would say "I feel some supernatural power did it, lets sacrifice sheep! THEN: Lets chop off body parts to give promises! YAYYYY".
Of course, all I said was atheism was based on reason, I mentioned nothing about the origin of anything which you, yourself are incapable of providing real evidence for. Still: Great straw man, no beating around the bush there.

As for the liberal government, another straw man, this one weaker. I was describing the philosophy. I would challenge you to show ANY government that EVER existed that was not immoral by todays standards.

After all, the closest the U.S. was to a liberal government was between the 40's and 60's. Just before the rise of conservatism. Liberalism shifted long ago to become the Libertarian movement. Take a look at the mission statements and philosophical belief if you do not believe me.

reply to post by lordtyp0


Call a argument a strawman argument then in the same paragraph make a strawman argument, specifically your rather silly misrepresentation of arguments you disagree with.... Oh the hypocracy.