Intelligent people have 'unnatural' preferences

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
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.

Examples please? I thought I was responding directly and aptly.

reply to post by lordtyp0

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".

But also it's worth noting that Atheism doesn't say "we are still looking", instead say "well i know what it couldn't be" thusly not rational.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by lordtyp0

 

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".

But also it's worth noting that Atheism doesn't say "we are still looking", instead say "well i know what it couldn't be" thusly not rational.

And that is neither strawman nor hypocracy. It was responding to statements demanding "The origin of the Universe" because I said atheism is based on Reason. Given your moniker is it possible it was a 'forest for the trees' scenario?

EDIT:
Also seems like you are confusing Reason with Rationale. Reason is a cause and effect. Not knowing the cause while observing an effect is one thing. Inventing scenarios on what caused it is the Rationalization/Rationale.

Last EDIT:
I think you also missed the point of me saying "REASON would say". I did not say "Atheists assert". Or anything close. This section was in response to him implying faith is Reason oriented. It comes to conclusion without evidence. It is not Reason based in the remotest form of the concept.
[edit on 28-2-2010 by lordtyp0]

[edit on 28-2-2010 by lordtyp0]

Originally posted by sirnex
disbelief in something existing and conceding to not knowing if such exists are two separate things my simple minded friend.

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

That is nothing but semantics...

I am agnostic because I don't believe/know/think that God exists or doesn't exist.

Also, calling me a twit and simple minded doesn't make you seem smart; it makes you seem insecure...

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by lordtyp0

 

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".

But also it's worth noting that Atheism doesn't say "we are still looking", instead say "well i know what it couldn't be" thusly not rational.

Perhaps you have a skewed opinionated view of the rationality behind atheism then?

Which is a more rational train of thought?

To blindly claim and believe in invisible naked sky daddies who magically shat everything into existence in one massive bowel movement?

-OR-

To understand that the creativity and inventiveness and desire to have answers will invariably lead fallible man to concoct fanciful fairy tale's to serve his own purposes and greeds?

Atheism isn't so much a "I know what it couldn't be" point of view, but more of rationally looking at the fictitious stories invented by man and understanding that these thousands of various religions and deities are all bunk BS, each created for very specific reasons and goals through out history and which are still being newly created to this very modern day and age.

Maybe you need a lesson on rationality?

[edit on 28-2-2010 by sirnex]

[edit on 28-2-2010 by sirnex]

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by sirnex
disbelief in something existing and conceding to not knowing if such exists are two separate things my simple minded friend.

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

That is nothing but semantics...

I am agnostic because I don't believe/know/think that God exists or doesn't exist.

Also, calling me a twit and simple minded doesn't make you seem smart; it makes you seem insecure...

No, that's not semantics my simple minded friend, please learn what semantics is before you use the word in an argument, it'll save you the effort of having to type it.

Claiming something to not exist and claiming lack of knowledge are two different concepts, and yet your going to try and argue that they are not whilst demanding I refrain from calling you a twit and simple minded? Perhaps mentally challenged is more up your ally then? No, this is not a sign of insecurity, this is a way of emoting how I feel about you based upon your ill conceived and ill thought out posts. I shouldn't be surprised given previous dealings with your personal short comings.

To those claiming that race iq's are proven...

I believe you're referring to Rushton's studies. If you know much about it you'll know that he was heavily biased. He was funded by the Pioneer Fund (who supported EUGENICS.)

He did measure the IQ's of race, but he also measured the average size of each brain to determine who was more intelligent.

There were also a few factors that affected his study. He believed that Africans were the lowest on the scale (however he only used people in America.) The problem here is the fact that intelligence is genetic AND environmental. At the time of the study Africans were discriminated against and lived in poorer conditions. His results were not a matter of race but a matter of living conditions, poor education, and other factors associated with poverty.

Also... A lot of you are citing statistics without thinking critically about them. Keep in mind that a correlation in statistics does NOT mean causation. There are hundreds of different explanations for the results of a study.

Originally posted by sirnex
Claiming something to not exist and claiming lack of knowledge are two different concepts, and yet your going to try and argue that they are not whilst demanding I refrain from calling you a twit and simple minded?

I never said they were the same concept.

Your discussion of that in this context is an argument of semantics.

It doesn't change the fact that someone can be agnostic.

Originally posted by sirnex
Perhaps mentally challenged is more up your ally then? No, this is not a sign of insecurity, this is a way of emoting how I feel about you based upon your ill conceived and ill thought out posts. I shouldn't be surprised given previous dealings with your personal short comings.

Also, I never demanded you "refrain" from anything.

But your bizarrely confrontational attitude IS a very strong sign of your insecurity.

Relax a little, this isn’t that serious…

reply to post by Jaegernaut


Good points on race and IQ. And, there are lots of questions about what IQ tests are really testing as well. How culturally biased they are, how well they actually predict performance, and whether or not what you are really testing is test taking ability in addition to IQ.

I personally would not get too worked up over whether or not I belonged to a group that had higher or lower average scores. You dont benefit much from being in a group with the highest average, (Asians perhaps) if your individual IQ is only 70. Nor does the fact that your "group" does poorly on average hurt you if you are a black with an IQ of 160.

What your "group's" average is says nothing about you, individually.

reply to post by Jezus

But your bizarrely confrontational attitude IS a very strong sign of your insecurity.

Noodle for brains, you came in responding to me for the sake of arguing whilst arguing the same exact thing I had already said. Then you go on a tangent about semantics while applying the argument wrongly in an attempt to argue two different concepts as equatable to one another in some ill conceived notion of what agnosticism is about.

Either your not clearly articulating your thoughts in your posts, or your still a prime example. Which again, given previous dealings with you, I'm more prone to believing the latter to be true.

reply to post by sirnex


I responded because your statement here is wrong.

Originally posted by sirnex
Again, there is no half-way point in belief. You either believe in a deity or you don't. You can believe either way and still maintain open mindedness to the other possibility that is contrary to your belief. There is nothing 'black or white' about that line of thinking, that's just being realistic. You either do or you don't. Same thing as there is no such thing as 'trying'. You don't try to be good, you don't try to do better. You either do or you don't. There is no half way of doing something or believing something. It's do or don't and that's just realism at it's finest.

"You either believe in a deity or you don't"

Now that is simple minded...

reply to post by lordtyp0


Once again, I said YOUR EXAMPLE FOR BELIEFS YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH IS A STRAWMAN. There, can you see it now? Specifically this *I thought underlining it would make it clear shows what I guess for assuming someone can pay attention*:

non-reason would say "I feel some supernatural power did it, lets sacrifice sheep! THEN: Lets chop off body parts to give promises! YAYYYY".

And that my friend is very definition of hypocracy to condemn and accuse another of something while doing it yourself. Despite your hollow claims otherwise.

And not that I have any delusions you are really paying attention to what I am saying, this is what reason means:

Main Entry: 1rea·son
Pronunciation: \ˈrē-zən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English resoun, from Anglo-French raisun, from Latin ration-, ratio reason, computation, from reri to calculate, think; probably akin to Gothic rathjo account, explanation
Date: 13th century
1 a : a statement offered in explanation or justification b : a rational ground or motive c : a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; especially : something (as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


I think you forgot to include the definition of "Strawman", I made no strawman arguments. I made arguments you found offensive.

"
A straw man is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic."

Examples are not straw men. Demanding the origin of the universe was a strawman. Demanding an example of a moral argument... Strawman.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Since the previous post-I hope, though I doubt: Prove I utilized no straw men and was undeserving of your flippant branding of "Hypocrit" I would like to spend some time answering the rest of the drivel.

The basis of Atheism is the Philosophy of Reason.

Reason is a human mental faculty that is able to generate conclusions from assumptions or premises. The meaning of the word "reason" in this sense overlaps to a large extent with "rationality" and the adjective of "reason" in philosophical contexts is normally "rational", rather than "reasoned" or "reasonable". The concept of 'reason' is closely related to the concepts of language and logic, as reflected in the multiple meanings of the Greek word "logos", the root of logic, which translated into Latin became "ratio" and then in French "raison", from which the English word "reason" was derived. Reason is often contrasted with authority, intuition, emotion, mysticism, superstition, and faith, and is thought by rationalists to be more reliable than these in discovering what is true or what is best. The precise way in which reason differs from emotion, faith, and tradition is controversial, because all three are considered to be both potentially rational, and in potential conflict with reason.

That basis is built upon by the concepts that all things are natural. That there is a natural explanation for everything. This is bolstered by the concept of Scientific Methodology.

The "Rationale" I was referring to was blind rationalization which oft times stem from Apologetics.

Again "My Friend" I used no strawmen.

Originally posted by ANOK
The smartest people very rarely follow the mainstream version of politics and religion simply because WE can see it's all lies and the agenda behind it. You have fallen for the control, you are not a threat to the PTB, you let them control and exploit you, and you don't even realise your point of view, and life, isn't your own but the product of your social conditioning.

Questions:

1. How do you get your "own" life?

2. Isn't everyone affected by social conditioning to some extent?

3. If on truly had their own point of view, it would not necessarily match up with all of "liberalism" or something -- indeed, to have a truly "own" point of view it should be unconstrained by ideologies of any sort.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Lack of evidence is just that......lack of evidence. It isnt grounds for a positive belief that something does not exist.

That's true, but I am not compelled to believe in things without some inkling of evidence. I don't feel a NEED to. So, when I say I don't believe it God, that's just what I mean. If the question is "Do you believe in God"? My answer is "No. I don't believe there is a thing called God." There's a slight possibility that there is, same as the possibility of invisible bok choy. But that doesn't make me agnostic on invisible bok choy.

But that's not what he's talking about. He's not talking about merely not believing, but about believing the negative. There is a difference between "I don't believe God exists" and "I believe God does not exist". The latter is what he is referring to, not the former.

Edit to add: Based STRICTLY on evidence, the chances of God's existence are equal to that of His non-existence. There is no evidence for either. But my position isn't based STRICTLY on evidence. It's based on evidence PLUS the totality of my experience and education in this life. In other words, my context of life, my "belief system", my tendencies, my personality, etc. That is why I'm so open to people who DO believe in God I and support them having their position, while not agreeing with it. Because I understand that they have different experiences, judgments about those experiences and a different education than I have.

So then what sort of experiences, etc. lead you to assigning high probability to God's non-existence?


[edit on 1-3-2010 by mike3]

Galadofwarthethird,thank you for your perspective,have you ever considered what we would do if we didnt have our visual capability?for math I mean.

How would you concieve of mathematical theory if you didnt see like we do,how would you develope math in a different dynamic with different physical abilities,is this the best way to find the key to communicating with other intelligent lifeforms?do we need to strip our senses down one by one and figure out how to maintain mathematices through these dynamics,it seems like math or numbers may be universal,but only if we can find at least one way or dynamic to understand math if for example we were blind,the very concepts I mean.And I mean born blind.

reply to post by Jezus


No, simple minded is not being able to make a conclusive observation of reality given many various variables. If you lack the mental acuity to make a reasoned observation of reality, that doesn't make you 'agnostic'. Which deity or deities are you agnostic towards? Which deity or deities do you believe have more or less chances of existing as depicted by thousands of various religions worshiped through out history. Are you agnostic towards Scientology teachings and their version of reality? At which point do you stop lying to me and begin to understand your a tool to your own words?

reply to post by sirnex


Those are all just social constructs of what a God might be...

I am agnostic to a God in general...

The idea that you must specifically believe or not believe in anyone of those is simple minded...

reply to post by lordtyp0


Why is it people who claim to have and get off on their supposed high intelligence lose the ability for context?
Third time now, your failure to apply reason properly and twisting of it in a effort to apply it to your "side" of the silly debate is not what I was calling a strawman and thusly you a hypocrite. I am sorry to inform you.
And where is youf citation for the quoted text that suposedly refutes my other claim?