Intelligent people have 'unnatural' preferences

reply to post by lordtyp0


Which of the following alternatives is most reasonable:
1. In the absence of evidence for God’s existence, it is still more reasonable to hold that
God exists (theism).
2. In the absence of evidence for God’s existence, it is more reasonable to conclude that
God does not exist (atheism).
3. In the absence of evidence for God’s existence, it is more reasonable to conclude that we
do not know if God exists (agnosticism).


Both Atheism and Theism rely on the Ad ignorantium fallacy, unless you want to somehow shoehorn the term atheism to mean "not a theist". In which case you are blatantly ignoring the fact that you actively disbelieve as opposed to passively disbelieving such as a newborn or severely mentally handicapped person.

reply to post by constantwonder


Thats a load of twaddle really ofcourse inteligent folk are more open minded, unless they have been over educated in only one 'major'which often makes folk narrow mindednor totally nuts! However not everyone belives the victorian theory of evolution, many thinking people prefer the more common sense 'intelligent design' concept or creation. I know for one I never decended from an ape!
CHARLES DARWIN HIMSELF SAID HIS RECENTLY PUBLISHED GRNDFATHERS (ARAZAMIS) THEORY ''WAS MINDLESS SPECULATION UNTILL THE 'MISSING LINKS WERE FOUND'' They never were so his grandads theory remains as he said himself 'Mindless speculation'

Adaptation of the species is a different thing altogether and clearly makes some sense, ie the girraffes with the longer necks reach the higher leaves and will survive droughts etc. however there are gentic throwbacks for instance if your White family had a single negro in your ancestory 20-30 generations ago that you knew nothing about there is a risk one of your kids or grandchildren etc could be a full blooded negro.

reply to post by lordtyp0


Could an atheist also believe the intelligent design theory that an intelligent being, such as called God, created the universe? I believe atheism does make claims about the origins or our universe.

If liberals are against involuntary forms of taxes, then maybe I'm on their side and I'd gladly consider being a liberal too. But I've never met someone who claimed to be a liberal didn't want taxes to be 50% or so at least for the rich if not for the middle class too. When I start meeting those tax-hating liberals, maybe I'll join the bandwagon. Until then I believe that the definition of liberal has changed from its original meaning to include pro-slavery positions. What you call "liberal" I'd consider old-school liberal but not the modern liberal position.

I didn't realize just how wide the difference is in what people consider liberal.

reply to post by Jezus

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

Not really. Some of the deities of old were considered real living entities like you and I. Some were considered supernatural. Some religions even claim their deities come from other planets.

Those aren't social constructs of the one same type of deity, those are distinct characteristics worshiped of various deities.

I am agnostic to a God in general...

Define what God is to you and in what way your explicitly agnostic towards that personal definition of yours.

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

Your personal shortcomings are of no consequence to myself. If you lack the mental acuity to make an informed and reasoned decision, that is your issue not my own.

We can take this even further with different ideologies.

Which of the following is more reasonable to yourself?

Evolution, creation by the supernatural, or creation by intervention of an alien race?

If you can't look at the evidence around you in regards to these different concepts and are incapable of being decisive on which is more accurate, then you truly are simple minded. Your inability to reason does not make you agnostic. It's that simple my friend.

Originally posted by sirnex

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.

This is precisely my point, though. You think you're more intelligent than 95% of the population only because of a insecure need for one-upmanship over your fellow man.
There is absolutely no basis to your claim that atheists are more intelligent than believers in God, but just wishful thinking on your part.
Have you ever had your 'intelligence' independently verified ?
Or do you just tell yourself that you're 'intelligent' ?

Originally posted by sirnex
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

Sirnex, mate, calm down !
This appears to be a case that you personally can't fathom how someone can entertain the possibilty of two incompatible scenarios without favouring one. Just because you mightn't be able to do this doesn't mean most other people can't. You shouldn't project your viewpoint on to everyone else and assume that it applies to all, then get frustrated and angry when they don't see things the same way as you; that's where all intolerance stems from.
Some may say it's a particularily unintelligent trait.


ps.

news.bbc.co.uk...



[edit on 1-3-2010 by Benji1999]

Originally posted by sirnex
Define what God is to you and in what way your explicitly agnostic towards that personal definition of yours.

I am agnostic towards any type of God-like entity.

Anywhere from an all powerful sentient being to a supernatural divine force to something beyond my comprehension.

Originally posted by sirnex

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

Your personal shortcomings are of no consequence to myself. If you lack the mental acuity to make an informed and reasoned decision, that is your issue not my own.

So you stand by the statement that someone must believe or not believe in God?

No one can be agnostic.

You really believe that?

Originally posted by sirnex
We can take this even further with different ideologies.

Which of the following is more reasonable to yourself?

Evolution, creation by the supernatural, or creation by intervention of an alien race?

Evolution could be paired with both of the other options.

Also, an alien race could be so beyond our comprehension it might seem God-like.

Originally posted by Solomons
But i also think that the religious have a sort of split personality, they can be very rational, logical and intelligent UNTIL it comes to religion/God. That's when they throw all those traits on the ground and stamp repeatedly.

Or maybe they have a different perspective on things than you, and their beliefs are perfectly rational - or at least no less than yours or anyone elses.
Your above comment is a perfect example of how many people think on things:
You think a certain way; because it's you, it must be rational, logical and intelligent; because someone has an alternative perspective to you they must be irrational, illogical and unintelligent.
Have you ever had your levels of rationality, logic and intelligence independently verified ? Or are you just basing it on the enormous and egotisical assumption that your rationale, logic and intelligence is better than most other people ?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Not necessarily. There could be other explanations. Nature, for one. A corroboration of "designers" for another. A third possibility is that, as humans, we are not capable of understanding the nexus of our beginnings. Maybe one day we WILL be able to understand it, but we aren't yet. Or perhaps we ARE capable of understanding it, but haven't figured it out yet. Like a person in 1800 not understanding radio waves. Or it could be chance.

You're stuck on "God or Chance" when there are other possibilities.

You are correct, as it was an oversimplification on my part. As your third option is a possibility that I've often mused over, as it is highly presumptious to assume that we must have all the necessary mental ( or other ) capabilities to understand the true origins and nature of the universe and existence.
Although I would say that 'nature' would fall largely into either the 'God' or 'chance' camp, depending on how you'd define it.

Originally posted by Benevolent HereticNo I don't.

OK, I'll rephrase; You have to believe in chance or some other vague explanation that has absolutely no more or less evidence for it than God.
Therefore, agnostic on everything seems, to me, the most valid view on the origins of existence.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The Big Bang explanation as to HOW the Universe began carries scientific evidence so I think that's probably right. It could be wrong, but the evidence leans toward that. So for now, that's what I think happened.

But the Big Bang only tells us the mechanics, we have no real knowledge of the deeper 'how' it was possible, not to mention an explantion of everything that happened before the big bang happened - if there even was a before.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
There is no explanation as to WHY we are here. People have been in search of the answer to that question since our beginning (which is, incidentally, where I think religion and a "belief" in God came from: People thinking that there HAD to be an explanation that they could wrap their minds around, verbalize and understand, even if it was a fantasy.) There are theories as to why we're here, but no evidence. And I'm comfortable with not knowing.

In fact, I don't really care WHY we're here. We're here and that's good enough for me.
I totally agree and would never ask a person for evidence or proof for their beliefs.

I also don't put them down for holding their beliefs.
Perhaps "many atheists" feel that way, but not this one.

My statement would be more like: ''I have no idea what is or isn't required for the universe to exist, so I don't hold a belief about it. All explanations people might give, whether it's God, Thermogopolis, or the FSM, hold the same weight with me, so I don't believe in any of them."

A very fair, understanding and reasonable set of comments.

Also, having seen your subsequent posts and explaining your position it appears we were at cross-purposes, my apology. I thought your position was based entirely on a scientific perspective, but it was my false assumption.

[edit on 1-3-2010 by Benji1999]

[edit on 1-3-2010 by Benji1999]

[edit on 1-3-2010 by Benji1999]

Originally posted by davesidious
To believe in something undemonstrable is delusional.

And what if something exists that by its very nature is undemonstrable ?
It cannot be delusional, as there is no eveidence to the contradict someone's belief.

Originally posted by Jaegernaut
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.

Yes, it's laughable how many people have come on this thread assuming the premise of this study is true because it massages their own ego, yet not even looking into the study or how it was conducted.
Yet, the main premise is measuring the intelligence of the subject's IQ and basing the result on that, yet there are many studies that draw the same conclusion that white people are more intelligent than blacks ( Not just Rushton )
Of course, as you say, there are numerous other environmental and socio-economic factors as to why this is true, but it's just funny how many people will just look at the basic outcome the study is attempting to 'prove' and endorse it without realising they're also endorsing theories of genetic and 'scientific' racial superiority.

[edit on 1-3-2010 by Benji1999]

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
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?

Not sure what you're talking about spanky, I never asserted anything about high intelligence.

What I previously stated was in response to someone else, which I gave examples. That person then responded with strawmen statements.

I believe past chatter stands.

Originally posted by DeathShield
reply to post by lordtyp0

 

Which of the following alternatives is most reasonable:
1. In the absence of evidence for God’s existence, it is still more reasonable to hold that
God exists (theism).
2. In the absence of evidence for God’s existence, it is more reasonable to conclude that
God does not exist (atheism).
3. In the absence of evidence for God’s existence, it is more reasonable to conclude that we
do not know if God exists (agnosticism).


Both Atheism and Theism rely on the Ad ignorantium fallacy, unless you want to somehow shoehorn the term atheism to mean "not a theist". In which case you are blatantly ignoring the fact that you actively disbelieve as opposed to passively disbelieving such as a newborn or severely mentally handicapped person.

I like option 4: In the absence of direct proof. Any statement should be held as possible. But the world should not revolve around it until incontrovertible proof is provided.

I am not an atheist. I am not agnostic. I believe there is something out there, I just don't know what or if it cares. Suppose the best explanation is I am a pagan Deist.

I see equal evidence of all the religions that spring up, from native american to hindu to tao and zororastrianism and even scientology. Though admittedly I am biased on plausibility on some.

I intellectually agree with atheists because: There is no proof. But then, that is the heart of faith is it not? Not needing proof. If there was proof it would be knowledge and not faith.

Not sure if that made sense... Vodka Screwdrivers FTW!

Originally posted by truthquest
reply to post by lordtyp0

 

Could an atheist also believe the intelligent design theory that an intelligent being, such as called God, created the universe? I believe atheism does make claims about the origins or our universe.

If liberals are against involuntary forms of taxes, then maybe I'm on their side and I'd gladly consider being a liberal too. But I've never met someone who claimed to be a liberal didn't want taxes to be 50% or so at least for the rich if not for the middle class too. When I start meeting those tax-hating liberals, maybe I'll join the bandwagon. Until then I believe that the definition of liberal has changed from its original meaning to include pro-slavery positions. What you call "liberal" I'd consider old-school liberal but not the modern liberal position.

I didn't realize just how wide the difference is in what people consider liberal.

Eh, SCIENCE makes claims about the origin of the universe, and all atheists I know of are adherents to science and thus espouse those statements. The irony is the concept of "Causation" has not really been proven. It is presumed that every reaction has a cause because that is what we observe. It is very possible that some things do not need a cause to occur. Possible... just not likely.


As for 'tax hating liberal'... I am one.

I believe income taxes are an abomination and unconstitutional. I believe all taxation should be done via sales tax which would admittedly, automatically shift the greater tax burden onto those who spend more. Otherwise, the core of liberalism is personal freedom for all and progression of the melting pot. ie: Skin doesn't matter nor creed etc..Both sides of the government were liberal pre 70's when the neo-con movement came out of the shadows to eat babies

It was liberal ideology that led to the emancipation... Both sides were liberal at that time, they just disputed economics and the likes. If that makes sense. Im on my 3rd screwdriver so I feel like I am reciting shakespear when I might be burbling crazy instead

reply to post by tgidkp


Interesting.... Not that I agree with this theory at all.. butttt, I think i'll point a few things out for you.

so, in response to the poster that says that we should expect to find intelligent conservatives, i say "no"

There's actually nothing in spiral dynamics about individual intelligence. There's something about collective intelligence. But that doesn't really matter since the theory states that cultures are a mix of the stages.

in order to be truly GREEN, you must have completed your BLUE stage.

False... Spiral dynamics isn't a linear model. Also, if I remember correctly, as the theory goes, no stage is better than another.

i buck conventional belief systems all to hell, and i have a fun time doing it.

Yettttt..... You believe this model?


Personally, I don't believe in this model. But I just thought it was funny that you'd quote it, then use it out of context.

reply to post by lordtyp0


Gave an example that was in it's self a strawman. Which is what you are continually attempting to deflect attention from by applying comments to another claim I made that wasn't dependant on the first one as if it was.

reply to post by lordtyp0


Yet you bend and twist the parameters of anything into the favor of Atheism as you are continually doing. Particularly by adding a nonsense number four to the three options given. Then of course there is the earlier twisting and bending of the definition of reason to benefit atheism earlier.

[edit on 1-3-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by one4all


We have different senses sight, hearing, logic, pain, plesure,love,hate etc. Math is perspective on all these what we bellive to be true will be true eventually. This universe perceives all things. Bats are blind yet there brain can detect with sound, an insect in total darkness, our best sonar tech cant do what they do. Bats know math but that is there only sense they have no words. They live in darkness therefore there math is instinct to them. If we were in a universe without light math would still be only it would not percieve light our world would be one of sound. There would be no planets and stars, not because they dont exist but because without light we wouldent perceive of them. When everyone believe's the world is flat, then world is flat, If all belive the world is round then world is round. Math is a language and like all languages it changes with knowledge and time.

reply to post by one4all


Err that dident really answer your question. I belive that if we were blind, no we couldn't concieve of math like we do only like a blind man would, and since i'm not blind i wouldn't know. hmm I never seen a study of what a man blind from birth would say abouth math, if we could explain the concepts of numbers to him and try to teach him what would he say. In fact i'm more intrested if such a man would belive in light, or how does he survive in a world of light, when he lives in darkness, If I were somehow transporeted to a universe without light I dont think Ill survive long there. I would be bumping into everything. lol I know why now why things go bump in the night, because they cant see shient.

As it stands I dont think math is much use, at least for me it has no relevance in daily life.

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

 

Gave an example that was in it's self a strawman. Which is what you are continually attempting to deflect attention from by applying comments to another claim I made that wasn't dependant on the first one as if it was.

This was the start of it.

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.

This was my initial response:

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.

AND THIS: Since you seem to have skipped the entire discussion without reading is the strawmen stacked up:

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).

I simply stated Atheism was based from reason: The response was "Proove the creation of the Universe!" This is a strawman as it is a divergent topic meant to claim victory. It has nothing to do with Atheism which simply denies the existence of the supernatural. The Origin of it all is better seated with Cosmology or similar branches of science. Not whether one believes God exists or not.

As for the second paragraph: it is not only a strawman but a logical fallacy. Projecting strange ideology onto a group of people "not that many conservatives are also not also big fans of violence" This can be read a few ways because it is a double negative. It could be said Football, Hockey and the likes are "Extreme Violence", that being said more conservatives I know are major hans of Mixed Martial Arts fights, and not to mention "bomb bomb bomb Iran". The reason it is a strawman is government form has nothing to do with the core philosophy. By the same token, the only true 'conservative' governments in the world today are ruled by Sharia. I think many outside of Islam would be hard pressed to call that 'moral'.

Lastly: How many times have you heard or seen it uttered "Well.. He is not a TRUE conservative!".

These are the items that you have deigned to crusade for and call me a hipocrit. Yet have not shown any deserving factors for said title. Only presumption and combativeness.

Do you actually add anything to Threads aside from hostility?

EDIT

Actually... "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. "

the: 'Thusly you a hypocrite' part.

You realize a Hypocrite is someone who does the opposite that they profess, right? "Twisting logic" -even if I were somehow in crazyland and guilty of that: does not make a strawman and thus does not make a hypocrite.

A strawman is a "HEY! LOOK OVER THERE! I WIN!" argument. When things are tossed in out of the blue in an effort to sabotage a discussion/debate.

Anyway, I am sure everyone who has skimmed over this... thing can agree that this part of the discussion is old and it's time to move on.

[edit on 2-3-2010 by lordtyp0]