Atheism & Intelligence

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by garbonzo, May 21, 2013.

  1. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    This is a place of science. We are under no obligation to make them feel at home. They have the world's other seven zillion websites. This one is ours.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,088
    Plus the several Religion threads.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,430
    Not exclusively, not in Chinese ideographs, not where metaphor and suchlike are involved, and so forth.
    Irrelevant as well as false, meaningless (you don't know what the word "differential" means) as well as ignorant.

    Yep.
    Meaningless.
    That's not completely true, overlooks other near-universals such as tone of voice, overlooks such linguistic areas as hand signals and sign language and so forth.

    Abandon that website that has humiliated you so frequently here, go get a real education.

    1) That's a cartoon - the details of the connection are critical. No one is suggesting the two sides of the brain don't communicate with each other. 2) Both ears don't do that
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    If you are citing science as a foundational basis for atheism, you just lost the argument regarding intelligence.
    :shrug:
     
  8. Saturnine Pariah Hell is other people Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,072
    Please, elaborate why one would make a provocative statement like this. Is this perhaps another expunging of your own views on the scientific method? Is it a philosophical paradigm that disconnects you with the methodology of science which ties in empiricism? Which is merely just a method of knowledge acquisition that you have displayed in numerous cases abhorrence to acknowledging it’s practical application. Perhaps this is a futile and shallow defense of NOMA utilizing the “God of the Gaps” ideology in regards to science. Tell me, honestly, if there is no use of science as the bases of intelligent or logical arguments for atheism...Then how can in turn say the opposition (religious apologist) utilizes the very system that you always criticize as ineffective by its very nature? :shrug:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRLR9jhP_DM
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HooeZrC76s0
     
  9. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    i disagree.
    yes, this is a place of science, but it's also about the people.
    whether you like it or not society has a very real need for "religion".
     
  10. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Any argument that relies on an absence of evidence is weak at best, political at worst.

    Its ironic you should talk about the "god of the gaps" argument, when any so-called scientific basis for atheism relies on exactly the same general principles.

    :shrug:
     
  11. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Science plays a huge role in atheism. You seem to be perpetuating the myth that the only basis for theism or atheism is evidence of divinity. This is simply untrue. But I don't need to tell you that, do I?
     
  12. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    As I said, Any argument that relies on an absence of evidence is weak at best, political at worst..

    :shrug:
     
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,430
    So states the theist, thereby making it impossible for them to argue that there is no elephant in their bathtub.

    The intelligence of these folks is not the central question. Their integrity and good faith is more at issue.

    Unfortunately the religions available don't seem to meet the needs of the societies currently deprived. Crippling up a modern industrial society to fit the Procrustean beds of the traditional religions while the newly created or altered religious needs of that society go unmet seems a dubious approach.
     
  14. andy1033 Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,048
    The title of this thread is an oxymoron or what.

    All the atheists have is richard dawkins debating style, calling people names. You see it here already in this thread.

    Ants have no idea we exist even though we know they exist. That shows everything richard dawkins claims, and you people copy is wrong. He claims man is the biggest of the biggest, while ants probably think the same.

    If your an atheist good for you, but do not claim your any smarter than any theist as you have your lens of hate.

    The stupidity of atheists knows no bounds, just like it does for theists.

    The title for this thread reminds me of this quote
    "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity." by Robert A. Heinlein

    Oh no atheists have mega brains, that why they call people names like little children in the playground as they have nout to back up there theories.
    Oh yes we will listen to people whom claim the big bang started it all, when the big bang just came from male ejaculation. Thats the sort of stuff atheists proclaim as science, lol. Man there intellect is so enormous. The thought of the big bang is so overwhelmingly over powering to the human mind, that humans so called intellectual elite came up with it. Atheists super brains came up with big bang from male ejaculation as thats what science does.

    Like today i said someone would claim summer weather in uk was weird as the science people have gotten people into thinking normal weather and disasters that have always happened are a thing of high strangeness. Imagine science claiming that summer weather in summer is strange, and someone actually calls this science. Oh what about how the science for manmade global warming was in 6 years ago, while claiming no effects from the sun effect our weather. While sun cycles control earths weather, science came out with a report claiming mankind is changing the weather using co2, lol. They stood there and said no weather changes where down to the sun which infact controls our weather system. Morons.
    The intelligence from science and atheists is so overwhelmingly to any any brain, lol. Science actually tried to tell us the sun does not have an effect on the weather systems of the earth, lol.
    That just says it all about science and atheists.

    If atheists are that smart, you can keep atheists intelligence or what ever they think they have.
     
  15. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    actually that argument of elephants doesn't rely on an absence of evidence ... hopefully you have the intelligence to understand why
    :shrug:

    as I said, any argument that relies on an absence of evidence is weak at best, political at worst.

    :shrug:
     
  16. andy1033 Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,048
    Richard dawkins never addresses the fact that ants have no idea we are here. Most people probably do not know either. But everything dawkins claims with his name calling is rubbish, as ants have no idea we exist. If ants cannot know we exist, then how can we say with any certainity that there is not something here that is higher than us?
    Ants prove that beings can live on the same planet and not know that the other exists.

    That says it all, and you would think someone whom claims to be clever(lol), would know that.

    His whole proclamation is that nothing is bigger than humans.

    Shame to work out the universe, mankind will have to answer what christmas day is, but they never will. Dawkins wants you to believe that nothing exists higher than us, but science cannot explain why christmas day happens. There is a real reason you worship christmas day, but people like dawkins cannot stand it.
     
  17. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    do you actually believe religions cannot be propagandized?
     
  18. Saturnine Pariah Hell is other people Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,072
    So the stance of ignorance renders any argument moot? Right, then by that logic not knowing the information (ignorance) in the existing gaps of science and attributing them to the supernatural is a far superior form of evidence than simply stating that one doesn’t know or does not know yet? Falsifying or debunking previously held ideas is the process of science. The entire premise of the absence of evidence is not a so nuanced a statement like “the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”. A lack of evidence cannot truly falsify an idea; however on the flip side a lack of evidence cannot support the idea in tandem as well. That which can asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Stating that the lack of scientific evidence or knowledge in the gaps of our understandings is a perfect place for the supernatural to occur is a fickle point at best. When in reality those present gaps shown are only a form of finite ignorance. The difference that is paramount is that science is not actively ignorant which would put as always standing in the camp that says it doesn’t know nor does it have any incentive to find out what it doesn’t know. If one asks why but does not investigate than one is mentally lazy and will remain ignorant to what one doesn’t know but fully know the extent of what they don’t know.
    Furthermore you didn’t answer my question from the previous post: “Tell me, honestly, if there is no use of science as the bases of intelligent or logical arguments for atheism...Then how can in turn say the opposition (religious apologist) utilizes the very system that you always criticize as ineffective by its very nature?”
    Perhaps I could get an answer from: Phillip Johnson, Ravi Zacharias, J. P. Moreland, William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas or Michael Behe?:shrug:
     
  19. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    what bit of science says "there is no god"?
    remember, i said science, so please spare me your opinion.
     
  20. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Let me say it for the third or so time now :

    Any argument that relies on an absence of evidence is weak at best, political at worst..


    If that's how you in particular decide to approach the topic of god, so be it .... but you should realize that attributing gaps of science to the non-existence of god operates out of the exact same general principles

    yet this doesn't stop you since there is no evidence the discipline of science could even hope to approach the question of god (outside of the imagination of atheists who have a political agenda to assert of course) , much less evidence it .... so clearly something else is at play here

    Once again, If that's how you in particular decide to approach the topic of god, so be it .... but you should realize that attributing gaps of science to the non-existence of god operates out of the exact same general principles

    As far as empiricism is concerned, ignorance is infinite.

    I think you made a typo in this sentence.
    Its not clear.

    Technically speaking, You don't get "why" answers from science. You get "what" answers (within the parameters of sensory observation/analysis and associated methodologies ... which basically means a great majority of your daily activities are not orchestrated, defined or outlayed by the discipline of science unless the aperture of your existence is narrower than a bunny with myxomatosis) .

    as I said "Any argument that relies on an absence of evidence is weak at best, political at worst.."

    (IOW what you actually get from any person talking about religion and science - regardless whether they are for or against - is an explanation of how their ideas about god/religion are not jeopardized by science. There is a whole bunch of stuff that ultimately leads one to a conclusion about god- none of it is intrinsically scientific however .... barring the exception of myxomatosic bunnies and wotnot )

    :shrug:

    For your education:

    At the beginning of the twenty first century the situation remains very similar: for every atheistic scientist who supposes that science supports (or does not undermine) their atheism, there is a religiously inclined scientist who supposes that science supports (or does not undermine) their theism. Thus the atheist simplifies the very complicated and much contended question of the relationship between science and atheism/religion if they suppose that the evidence provided by the scientific study of the natural and social world unequivocally points to atheism. This is evident in each of the main branches of science, both natural and social, which have some relevance to the issue of the truth or falsity of atheism/religion.

    :shrug:
     
  21. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    What fortune cookie did you read that from???

    It's a fundamental principle in the scientific method that the negative always prevails until the positive is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This is usually stated: "There is no obligation to prove a negative." Again, as with the Rule of Laplace, this principle prevents the finite resources of science from being dissipated in the respectful testing of every crackpot hypothesis brought to the door of the Academy with zero evidence. It's up to the crackpots to find at least one shred of respectable evidence before anyone is obliged to treat them with respect.

    And yes, as the Linguistics Moderator I'm well aware of the fact that a negative can easily be turned into a positive grammatically. That has absolutely no effect on the logic. A negative is still a negative, and a positive is still a positive, and only the positive is required to be proven true beyond a reasonable doubt.

    It's covered above. Until someone provides respectable evidence for the existence of a god, the negative remains in effect.

    And since the existence of a god, who emerges from his invisible, illogical supernatural universe at random intervals for the purpose of perturbing the behavior of the natural universe, would disprove science itself, which is predicated on the principle that the natural universe is a closed system whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived from observation of its present and past behavior, it becomes an extraordinary assertion covered by the Rule of Laplace:

    Extraordinary assertions must be supported by extraordinary evidence before we are obliged to treat them with respect.​

    That tortilla with a scorch mark you swear is a likeness of Jesus, even though you haven't got any portraits of Jesus against which to compare it, just ain't gonna do the trick.
     
  22. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,927
    The part that says you have to define something in meaningful terms before we can even address the question.
     
  23. VRAZE Registered Member

    Messages:
    31
    what will do you rong to believe in God if in end God doesn't exist you won't loose anything but for you to gain is a chance to believe and so a chance to gain
    well even if don't believe in the super natural ask your self a few questions
    what exists beyonde atoms and rock?
    (my answer I don't know but until I can be shown materical prof of it not existing I have nothing to loose and other resons to believe.)
    where did every thing start?
    How did every thing start?
    What sate the start into motion?
    My opinion on why people don't believe in God is a fear of them not bieng able to prove that God exist because no one has to prove any thing of/or to God because God is the one in end to prove all. thats my opinion and well the thing about intelligence is it is actualy on how logic you can think and the intelligence we recall to is actuly knowledge we have of what we learnd.
     

Share This Page