Recent Studies: Atheists have, on average, higher IQs than religious people.

[Booharv]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-less-likely-to-believe-in-God.html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4M-4SD1KNR-1&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F29%2F2008&_alid=759868596&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=6546&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=1&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=bdb3ca48b21fdb2959f6f8ce4b6001de

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4M-4TFV93D-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=db2ee09bae0195cc1ecbd026da77245c

[Wifebeater]

This is why I make my wife go to church every week. Dumb her down a little bit. I don't need her smart, figuring things out and shit.

[ashbeeigh]

There is a one liner about low IQ and faith out there but I cannot think of it. Maybe it's because I'm religious and I have a low IQ.

[Sisk]

lol implicationthread

[angrydude]

obvious enough reason why. people who think they are god don't like the competition.

[MiamiHeat]

atheists everywhere don't need a research grant to know this already.

[thedong]

This is why I make my wife go to church every week. Dumb her down a little bit. I don't need her smart, figuring things out and shit.



lol :lol :downspin:

[WHOTTALAMEPOSTER]

According to those links Agnostics finished with the second highest IQs, followed by moderately religious people, and finally highly religious people came in last. That should be telling me something but I'm too busy playing fantasy sports and pretending I know shit to look into it.

[symple19]

yup, atheists all have to see something to believe it

great screen name :lol

[BadOdor]

lol stupid christians.

[Solid D]

That all goes out the window when an engine flames out on the 767 airliner you are flying in....or when bullets are sailing over your head.

[MiamiHeat]

That all goes out the window when an engine flames out on the 767 airliner you are flying in....or when bullets are sailing over your head.

When someone is poor, they play the lottery. It doesn't mean they believe they will win, but they try it anyway out of desperation.

Even IF a percentage of atheists get scared and try anything to survive, it's a psychological response, not an actual belief. It is rooted in desperation to try anything in the toolbox, not in faith.

[BlackSwordsMan]

I believe it. People who believe a cloud man is sitting above them passing judgment aren't too bright

[Solid D]

I believe it. People who believe a cloud man is sitting above them passing judgment aren't too bright

:lol Somehow, I think DaVinci, Copernicus, Galileo and Luis Pasteur might have something to say about that...but then again, they didn't exactly call Him "cloud man".

[Solid D]

When someone is poor, they play the lottery. It doesn't mean they believe they will win, but they try it anyway out of desperation.

Even IF a percentage of atheists get scared and try anything to survive, it's a psychological response, not an actual belief. It is rooted in desperation to try anything in the toolbox, not in faith.

Whether by psychological or emotional response, many people have come to believe in the possibility of something more via desperation. Many have arrived at a belief through faith, including those who believe that antimatter and matter came from nothing or that it has always existed. Some people have faith that neutrons and positrons came from something and some believe they have always existed and so the search for real truth continues, but all of these have some element of faith to them.

[MiamiHeat]

Whether by psychological or emotional response, many people have come to believe in the possibility of something more via desperation. Many have arrived at a belief through faith, including those who believe that antimatter and matter came from nothing or that it has always existed. Some people have faith that neutrons and positrons came from something and some believe they have always existed and so the search for real truth continues, but all of these have some element of faith to them.

It's not faith if it's desperation for only a second.

Once they survive the plane trauma, they go back to never praying again.

and again, you made a ridiculous claim that has no evidence. I just humored you that IF a percentage of atheists do pray in a life or death situation, it's a psychological response to survive, not because they believe in your religion.


and btw, brush up on your history, it seems you have no idea about Galileo, DaVinci, etc.

[bigzak25]

When someone is poor, they play the lottery. It doesn't mean they believe they will win, but they try it anyway out of desperation.

Even IF a percentage of atheists get scared and try anything to survive, it's a psychological response, not an actual belief. It is rooted in desperation to try anything in the toolbox, not in faith.


true atheist wouldn't have it in the toolbox.

[Solid D]

It's not faith if it's desperation for only a second.

Once they survive the plane trauma, they go back to never praying again.

and again, you made a ridiculous claim that has no evidence. I just humored you that IF a percentage of atheists do pray in a life or death situation, it's a psychological response to survive, not because they believe in your religion.


and btw, brush up on your history, it seems you have no idea about Galileo, DaVinci, etc.

Well, Galileo was certainly at odds with the Catholic church but so was Luther. That doesn't mean that he did not believe in a creator. Here are a couple of quotes from Galileo: "To me the works of nature and of God are miraculous."

Also:
"God could have made birds with bones of massive gold, with veins full of molten silver, with flesh heavier than lead and with tiny wings. He could have made fish heavier than lead and thus twelve times heavier than water, but he has wished to make the former of bone, flesh and feathers that are light enough and the latter as heavier than water, to teach us that He rejoices in simplicity and facility."

[Solid D]

Vasari describes Leonardo's final months, no doubt from details given to him when he visited Melzi many years later, probably in 1566: "Finally, being old, he lay sick for many months. When he found himself near death he made every effort to acquaint himself with the doctrine of Catholic ritual." Notwithstanding his belief in God and in the existence of the soul, it was a ritual -- and indeed an entire formalized religion -- from which he had in general kept himself separated, "holding lightly by other men's beliefs, seeing philosophy above Christianity," as Pater put it. No wonder he needed to "acquaint himself with the doctrine," as the end of his life approached.

http://www.adherents.com/people/pd/Leonardo_DaVinci.html

[MiamiHeat]

lol

So your examples are Galileo, who feared for his life and was on trial for it, who lived in a time where you could be tortured and killed for not falling in line with Christianity,

and DaVinci, who was a man of reason and science his whole life, and only on his death bed, did he try to acquaint himself with religion LOL


and on top of all this, I only humor you, because showing a small handful of intelligent men who may or may not believe in religion, does not dispute the topic at hand.

that most of the population of higher IQ does not believe in a religion.

[Solid D]

GALILEO: “To the Lord; whom I worship and thank; That governs the heavens with His eyelid. To Him I return tired, but full of living.” (Chiari, A. Galileo Galilei, Scritti Letterari. Florence: Felice Le Monnier, 1970, 321.)

[Solid D]

LEONARDO DA VINCI:“I obey Thee, Lord, first for the love I, in all reason, owe Thee; secondly, because Thou can shorten or prolong the lives of men.” (Richter, J. , The Literary Works of Leonardo Da Vinci, Vol. II, Phaidon Press, 1970, 237).

[Solid D]

DESCARTES: "The existence of God is the first and the most eternal of all truths that exist and the only one from which proceed all others." (Descartes, R. Oevres Philosophiques (Tome1), Paris, Editions Garnier Freres, 1963, 265.)

[Solid D]

BACON: "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy brings about man's mind to religion:" (Bacon, F. The Essays of Lord Bacon. London: Longman and Green, Co., 1875, 64.)

[Solid D]

NEWTON: “From His true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent and powerful being; and from His other perfections, that He is supreme, or most perfect." (Burtt, E. A. The Methaphysical Foundations of Modern Science. New York: The Humanities Press Inc., 1951, 257.)

[Solid D]

TOLSTOY: “For life is life, only when it is the carrying out of God's purpose. ." (Tolstoy, L., "Patriotism, Slavery of Our Times," in The Complete Work of L. Tolstoy. New York: T.Y. Crowell Co., 1927, 165.)

[MiamiHeat]

and on top of all this, I only humor you, because showing a small handful of intelligent men who may or may not believe in religion, does not dispute the topic at hand.

that most of the population of higher IQ does not believe in a religion.

By the way, a lot of men use the word "God" and it does not pertain to a religion.

Some people use it to describe the awe and wonder of the world, or many other things.

For instance, Einstein used the word God many times, but expressed rejection of any notion of religion.

[Solid D]

It is becoming more clear to me that you are the one that, in deed, has some historical brushing-up to do. All I have done is give concrete examples to support the premise that men of great intelligence who have had great impacts on science, math, art and philosophy were believers in God and a Creator. I do not doubt that many people of intelligence are athiests. Being somewhat of a historian and educator myself, I do know of many men and women of high intellect and influence who have lived a life based on a belief in a divine creator of matter and mankind.

[Solid D]

Louis Pasteur, developer of the germ theory of disease, pioneer in immunology, the first to describe scientific basis of fermentation, and inventor of pasterurization had this to say: "a bit of science distances one from God, but much science nears one to Him."
and...
"the more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator."

[sabar]

Averages are averages. The top xx% of deeply religious people are still smarter than the average athiest or person and the bottom xx% of athiests are retards compared to the average.

Higher IQ just gives one more reasons to dismiss religion. Religiousness does not determine IQ, IQ determines the chance of rejecting religion. That chance isn't 100%. Descartes is smarter than anyone who has ever visited this board yet was a religious nut (relative to our standards today, probably average in his day).

[Veterinarian]

Wow, according to one of those links only 7% of scientists believe in God.

[Bigzax]

good stuff Solid D, glad to see you around.

don't let the miami heat troll hook you...he's just a schmuck with too much god damn time on his hands...if you'll excuse my language...

laters!

[ididnotnothat]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-less-likely-to-believe-in-God.html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4M-4SD1KNR-1&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F29%2F2008&_alid=759868596&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=6546&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=1&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=bdb3ca48b21fdb2959f6f8ce4b6001de

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4M-4TFV93D-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=db2ee09bae0195cc1ecbd026da77245c

Well, GWB is proof of this theory.

[ididnotnothat]

tbh these days calling yourself an atheist is becoming a fashion trend more than anything. It's what all the cool kids are doing. It's like carrying a chihuahua in your purse, in a month or two Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan will talk about how they're atheists.

Don't forget being gay.

[MookieCrew]

yeah i'm going to sit and watch a 4 minute long video

awwwwwww i thought it gonbe he-mannnnnnnn :depressed

[Veterinarian]

tbh these days calling yourself an atheist is becoming a fashion trend more than anything. It's what all the cool kids are doing. It's like carrying a chihuahua in your purse, in a month or two Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan will talk about how they're atheists.


Wow, according to one of those links only 7% of scientists believe in God.

So scientists are just trend followers? Yeah, okay Mono.

[MiamiHeat]

Averages are averages. The top xx% of deeply religious people are still smarter than the average athiest or person and the bottom xx% of athiests are retards compared to the average.

Proof to these links? what? you have none?




Religiousness does not determine IQ, IQ determines the chance of rejecting religion. That chance isn't 100%. Descartes is smarter than anyone who has ever visited this board yet was a religious nut (relative to our standards today, probably average in his day).

Descartes was not religious. He was an atheist living in a time when the Church could kill you for not accepting the religion. It only took SUSPICION and an accusation, and you were fucked and sent to trial. You had to confess that Jesus is Lord or you die.

Descartes, in his time, was known as a secret atheist. His religion is debated to this very day, so you cannot use him.

[MiamiHeat]

It is becoming more clear to me that you are the one that, in deed, has some historical brushing-up to do. All I have done is give concrete examples to support the premise that men of great intelligence who have had great impacts on science, math, art and philosophy were believers in God and a Creator. I do not doubt that many people of intelligence are athiests. Being somewhat of a historian and educator myself, I do know of many men and women of high intellect and influence who have lived a life based on a belief in a divine creator of matter and mankind.

and again, you fail to comprehend.

I humored you, but the reality is, giving a small handful of men does not dispute the topic at hand - that the majority of intelligent men do not believe in a religion.

[MiamiHeat]

Louis Pasteur, developer of the germ theory of disease, pioneer in immunology, the first to describe scientific basis of fermentation, and inventor of pasterurization had this to say: "a bit of science distances one from God, but much science nears one to Him."
and...
"the more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator."

His family has recorded that he never went to mass, and never practiced the religion. He was a "Catholic" in name only.

and, you should really brush up on your history, as I told you before, instead of quoting christian books.

PASTEUR'S TAKE ON GOD


I see everywhere the inevitable expression of the Infinite in the world; through it the supernatural is at the bottom of every heart. The idea of God is a form of the idea of the Infinite. As long as the mystery of the infinite weighs on human thought, temples will be erected for the worship of the Infinite, whether God is called Brahma, Allah, Jehovah, or Jesus; and on the pavement of these temples, men will be seen kneeling, prostrated, annihilated by the thought of the Infinite.


----

He did not believe in a God like you did.

As I said before, many men, Einstein and Pasteur, all used the word "God" to mean something else entirely. A unifying wonder of the universe, that created everything.

Not a God of religion.

[MiamiHeat]

GALILEO: “To the Lord; whom I worship and thank; That governs the heavens with His eyelid. To Him I return tired, but full of living.” (Chiari, A. Galileo Galilei, Scritti Letterari. Florence: Felice Le Monnier, 1970, 321.)

Galileo could not practice his beliefs freely. He couldn't even practice SCIENCE freely.

He was persecuted and went to trial in front of the damn INQUISITION!

They were ready to burn him and torture him if he did not confess that Christianity is his religion, and say all the right things.

So you can't use Galileo.

[MiamiHeat]

LEONARDO DA VINCI:“I obey Thee, Lord, first for the love I, in all reason, owe Thee; secondly, because Thou can shorten or prolong the lives of men.” (Richter, J. , The Literary Works of Leonardo Da Vinci, Vol. II, Phaidon Press, 1970, 237).

Again, using another man who lived in a time where if he said he was an atheist, or even a goddamn Buddhist, he would be tortured and killed.

If he didn't say he was Catholic, he would be killed. Fairly simple.


Let's use some of his other quotes.

DA VINCI's QUOTES

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory."

"I see Christ once more being sold and crucified and his saints martyred."



Try again.

[Veterinarian]

Especially in the scientist community. Express any sort of belief in a God, or try to find proof of Intelligent Design, and you're blackballed.

Yeah, that's what it is another conspiracy. Couldn't have anything to do with the fact that nothing at all in science even remotely points to a divine creator.

[Veterinarian]

:tu cool story, Lindsay.

Explain to me how that's funny.

[Veterinarian]

Lmao, at Mono insulting the intelligence of atheists in a thread with scientific proof that atheists are smarter than religious people.

[MiamiHeat]

DESCARTES: "The existence of God is the first and the most eternal of all truths that exist and the only one from which proceed all others." (Descartes, R. Oevres Philosophiques (Tome1), Paris, Editions Garnier Freres, 1963, 265.)


Another one who lived in a time where he had no choice but to say he was a Christian.

His religion is debated even to this day, because many people believe he was an atheist in secret.

It is very telling though, that he refused to publish his work LeMonde, because he was scared of what would happen to him via persecution from religion.

[Veterinarian]

:tu I don't doubt the results, but it is pretty shocking that a bunch of atheist scientists have found proof that atheists are smarter. I'm sure Phillip Morris would love for those scientists to do some cigarette testing for them.

This is you second newly discovered conspiracy in this thread alone. The study was rigged by atheists and atheists blackball everyone in the scientific community.

Mono's headgear:

http://blog.chewxy.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/tinfoil-hat.jpg

[Veterinarian]

"All the atheists we studied were from uptown Manhattan, and all the religious people tested were from Southeast Arkansas. That seems fair :tu"


Title of the second link:

"Average intelligence predicts atheism rates across 137 nations"

[MiamiHeat]

BACON: "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy brings about man's mind to religion:" (Bacon, F. The Essays of Lord Bacon. London: Longman and Green, Co., 1875, 64.)

Why do you keep posting this?

Another man who lived in the 1500's and had to declare himself a Catholic or be killed.


By the way, Bacon is said to have been part of several underground intellectual movements in his day.

copy paste :

1)Bacon could see that the only knowledge of importance to man was empirically rooted in the natural world;

2) and that a clear system of scientific inquiry would assure man's mastery over the world.


3) 'I had rather believe all the fables in the legends and the Talmud and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind.'"

[MiamiHeat]

Especially in the scientist community. Express any sort of belief in a God, or try to find proof of Intelligent Design, and you're blackballed.

If I was a devout believer that a black unicorn was God, and I pray to it every day, and worship horse hair.

Would you take me seriously? Obviously you wouldn't.

so then, is religion only OK when x amount of people believe in it?

[Solid D]

The articles posted by the OP are saying that recent studies indicate that intelligent people are 'less likely to believe in God'. That "People with higher IQs are less likely to believe in God". I am not debating the findings. I have been saying that when people get into situations where they are confronted by death or seemingly hopeless situations, God or a diety often becomes an option. Atheism means "a disbelief in, or the denial of, the existence of a god' (Oxford English Diction), or one who believes there is no diety" (Websters).

I have also pointed out that throughout history, people of great intelligence who have heavily influenced the world we live in today, in thought and in deed, have believed in a diety or God.

It is you, who have twisted the premise to wherever you are going with this, MiamiHeat. By the way, the reference you use for Pasteur assumes a creator. In his quote "whether God is called Brahma, Allah, Jehovah..", he is obviously referring to what people have called the Creator without injecting his own name for Him in that sentence.

Descartes was clearly a believer in a diety or creator...in fact, "God".

Here is a link to a resource with staff from academia (with peer review and editor at Universities from North America to Europe to Oceana). The Internet version of the Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://www.iep.utm.edu/descarte/

"Once this principle is established, Descartes looks for an idea of which he could not be the cause. Based on this principle, he can be the cause of the objective reality of any idea that he has either formally or eminently. He is formally a finite substance, and so he can be the cause of any idea with the objective reality of a finite substance. Moreover, since finite substances require only God’s concurrence to exist and modes require a finite substance and God, finite substances are more real than modes. Accordingly, a finite substance is not formally but eminently a mode, and so he can be the cause of all his ideas of modes. But the idea of God is the idea of an infinite substance. Since a finite substance is less real than an infinite substance by virtue of the latter’s absolute independence, it follows that Descartes, a finite substance, cannot be the cause of his idea of an infinite substance. This is because a finite substance does not have enough reality to be the cause of this idea, for if a finite substance were the cause of this idea, then where would it have gotten the extra reality? But the idea must have come from something. So something that is actually an infinite substance, namely God, must be the cause of the idea of an infinite substance. Therefore, God exists as the only possible cause of this idea.

Notice that in this argument Descartes makes a direct inference from having the idea of an infinite substance to the actual existence of God."

I am sure you will try to twist this further than what I have tried to say last night and today but I'm sure the others reading this will see the clarity with which I have expressed myself. Your twisting of the facts regarding Pasteur's belief in God...in a diety, are careless.

Good day to you and I hope you have a happy Memorial Day.

[MiamiHeat]

I have been saying that when people get into situations where they are confronted by death or seemingly hopeless situations, God or a diety often becomes an option.

and what is your explanation for that?

Are you preying on the desperation of a human who wants to live, to try and say they aren't really atheists?







I have also pointed out that throughout history, people of great intelligence who have heavily influenced the world we live in today, in thought and in deed, have believed in a diety or God.

No, you haven't. I debunked most of your posts, Galileo, Descartes, Bacon, DaVinci, etc.

and secondly, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, there are exceptions to everything. Hitler was a Christian. So what?

The large majority do not believe in a god, no matter if Newton did. There are many others who don't.





By the way, the reference you use for Pasteur assumes a creator. In his quote "whether God is called Brahma, Allah, Jehovah..", he is obviously referring to what people have called the Creator without injecting his own name for Him in that sentence.

Pasteur didn't practice religion like you do. His idea of a God was much more abstract and not specifically oriented.



Descartes was clearly a believer in a diety or creator...in fact, "God".

quote http://www.gradesaver.com/the-philosophical-writings-of-descartes/wikipedia/religious-beliefs/

"The religious beliefs of René Descartes have been rigorously debated within scholarly circles. He claimed to be a devout Roman Catholic, claiming that one of the purposes of the Meditations was to defend the Christian faith. However, in his own era, Descartes was accused of harboring secret deist or atheist beliefs. Contemporary Blaise Pascal said that "I cannot forgive Descartes; in all his philosophy, Descartes did his best to dispense with God. But Descartes could not avoid prodding God to set the world in motion with a snap of his lordly fingers; after that, he had no more use for God."




Using Descartes as definitive proof of an intelligent man who believed in a God is dishonest.

Many men of his time had to play by the rules, or be killed by the Church.

[phyzik]

w4IEqnM5GaI

[ploto]

Shall we go back to the first article posted-- this is its claim:


Professor Lynn, who has provoked controversy in the past with research linking intelligence to race and sex, said university academics were less likely to believe in God than almost anyone else...

He told Times Higher Education magazine: "Why should fewer academics believe in God than the general population? I believe it is simply a matter of the IQ. Academics have higher IQs than the general population.

First, I would like to see the data that indicates that academic professors indeed have higher IQ's than not only the general public, but also other groups, such as physicians or attorneys. If those other groups have higher IQ's, then what is their status of belief?

Next, if statistically true, one would then have to prove that this factor and this factor alone is what drives them to have less faith and not for example, the academic community itself.

[ploto]

About two-thirds of scientists believe in God, according to a new survey that uncovered stark differences based on the type of research they do.

The study, along with another one released in June, would appear to debunk the oft-held notion that science is incompatible with religion.

Those in the social sciences are more likely to believe in God and attend religious services than researchers in the natural sciences, the study found.

Nearly 38 percent of natural scientists -- people in disciplines like physics, chemistry and biology -- said they do not believe in God. Only 31 percent of the social scientists do not believe.

In the new study, Rice University sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund surveyed 1,646 faculty members at elite research universities, asking 36 questions about belief and spiritual practices...

In separate work at the University of Chicago, released in June, 76 percent of doctors said they believed in God and 59 percent believe in some sort of afterlife...

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/050811_scientists_god.html

Even if a greater percentage of "more intelligent" people are atheists than the general public, it is still a far cry from most of them being atheists. The majority are still people of faith in God.

[baseline bum]

About two-thirds of scientists believe in God, according to a new survey that uncovered stark differences based on the type of research they do.

The study, along with another one released in June, would appear to debunk the oft-held notion that science is incompatible with religion.

Those in the social sciences are more likely to believe in God and attend religious services than researchers in the natural sciences, the study found.

Nearly 38 percent of natural scientists -- people in disciplines like physics, chemistry and biology -- said they do not believe in God. Only 31 percent of the social scientists do not believe.

In the new study, Rice University sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund surveyed 1,646 faculty members at elite research universities, asking 36 questions about belief and spiritual practices...

In separate work at the University of Chicago, released in June, 76 percent of doctors said they believed in God and 59 percent believe in some sort of afterlife...

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/050811_scientists_god.html

LOL @ calling sociologists scientists.

[ploto]

LOL @ calling sociologists scientists.
The original poster cited an article about academicians- not scientists.

And, yes, they included social sciences and natural sciences, and the data are not that far off between the two. Both groups still show a minority (1/3) who do not believe in God.

[Veterinarian]

Yeah, the seven percent of Scientists was my misreading. But here are some other quotes from the first article ploto left out:

"A separate poll in the 90s found only seven per cent of members of the American National Academy of Sciences believed in God."

"A survey of Royal Society fellows found that only 3.3 per cent believed in God - at a time when 68.5 per cent of the general UK population described themselves as believers."

[Veterinarian]

From the last study:

"It is suggested that IQ makes an individual likely to gravitate toward a denomination and level of achievement that best fit his or hers particular level of cognitive complexity."

http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo200/religion/baptist.gif

[xellos88330]

durrrrrrrrr...................

Ateists r dum.

[howbouthemspurs]

The smartest people ever documented were believers of God. This seems to be a very unintelligent and extremely bias study.

[ALVAREZ6]

Why was this study even necessary, this phenomenon is very obvious...

[rjv]

someone actually paid for this study ? people with higher IQ's also tend to be more educated and secular.

the implication that there is some physiological correlation between faith and reason is in itself a metaphysical assertion. why this study decided to take a leap back in time to the days of logical positivism is beyond me.

another unecessary and repetitive study in the halls of the psychology/pseudo-science department.

by the way, there have been studies using fMRI imaging that have actually indicated people who claim to be agnostic have more belief than they suggest in surveys.

[Fpoonsie]

w4IEqnM5GaI

:lol

I always loved this clip. "Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawd."

[Spurminator]

I would bet that, out of all athiests, a higher percentage of them are "converted" athiests (i.e. they were not raised athiest) than the percentage of religious people who came from a non-religious upbringing.

And of those athiests who were raised in athiest households, I would bet a significant portion of them are only 2nd-generation athiests.

Here's what I'm getting at... I believe it takes a certain amount of mental fortitude to question and/or reject the assumptions you were raised on. The pool of religious people is watered down with people who subscribe to their religion simply because it's what they've always believed and have never really questioned it. Unintelligent people are more likely to do this, and because there are MORE religious people than not, those people are more LIKELY to be religious than not.

I would be (more, but still not very) interested to see this study examine the average IQ's of athiests vs. "converted" religious people... people who became religious after being raised in non-religious households (or households of another religion).

[rjv]

I would bet that, out of all athiests, a higher percentage of them are "converted" athiests (i.e. they were not raised athiest) than the percentage of religious people who came from a non-religious upbringing.

And of those athiests who were raised in athiest households, I would bet a significant portion of them are only 2nd-generation athiests.

Here's what I'm getting at... I believe it takes a certain amount of mental fortitude to question and/or reject the assumptions you were raised on. The pool of religious people is watered down with people who subscribe to their religion simply because it's what they've always believed and have never really questioned it. Unintelligent people are more likely to do this, and because there are MORE religious people than not, those people are more LIKELY to be religious than not.

I would be (more, but still not very) interested to see this study examine the average IQ's of athiests vs. "converted" religious people... people who became religious after being raised in non-religious households (or households of another religion).

this sounds like an argument based on faith. j/k.

[Phenomanul]

No, you haven't. I debunked most of your posts, Galileo, Descartes, Bacon, DaVinci, etc.


Well then go on... don't stop there.

Nicolaus Copernicus - just because he was persecuted by the Vatican does not mean he wasn't a believer.

Johannes Kepler - One of the Fathers of Modern Astronomy

Louis Pasteur - Father of Microbiology

Gregor Mendel - Father of Modern Genetics

Michael Faraday - Distinguished Physicist

Blaise Pascal - Distinguished Mathematician

Sir Isaac Newton - Father of Calculus and Physics (without him the modern scientific era doesn't unfold)

Carolus Linnaeus - Father of Taxonomy

Leonhard Euler - Distinguished Mathematician and Physicist

Niels Bohr – The Atom, need I say more...

John Dalton – Distinguished Chemist

James Clerk Maxwell - Father of Electromagnetism

William Thomson "Lord" Kelvin - Father of Thermodynamics - Distinguished Physicist

Linus Pauling – Revolutionized the World of Chemistry

Werner Heisenberg – Father of Quantum Theory

Max Planck - Distinguished Physicist – Co-father of Quantum Theory

Enrico Fermi - Distinguished Physicist

John Ambrose Fleming - Distinguished Mathematician and Physicist

J. Robert Oppenheimer – Distinguished Physicist

Alexander Fleming – Discovery of Penicillin

Sir Robert Boyd - Distinguished Astrophysicist

Albert Einstein - Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." Much like Isaac Newton (more on him below), this belief actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed… My favorite quote of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

I think that what really bothers many of you is having to admit that ‘science’ and what we now know as the ‘scientific process’ were largely invented by ‘religious’ people (and especially Christians)… Most branches of science were developed by Christians, even if schoolbooks abstain from mentioning such details… Furthermore, you all seem to strongly gravitate away from the idea that scientists can in fact be believers (this thread wreaks of it). But you all wouldn’t have such a hard time reconciling the two positions if you would only accept the fact that numerous professors and scientific leaders worldwide today are Christians... Either way, these facts make the statements that claim that science and Christianity are enemies as being absolutely false and extremely unfair distortions of history and the present.

It is also a fact that Christian scientists often publish in respected journals, but if they write about ‘creation’ or something ‘religious,’ even if it’s rigorously testable scientifically, it’s almost always censored and banned from publication just like those who think of alternative theories to the Big Bang (even if not Christian) are censored and usually not allowed much freedom to publish. We never think of our free press being censored, but it is in several areas and especially in reference to the relationship between science and faith...

Unfortunately, some Christians have reacted to this ridicule with ridicule of their own. This has just hardened each camp in its position and greatly hindered progress and true scientific knowledge. I am trying hard to avoid this because I know and have met many very sincere atheists and evolutionists who want to understand what is true and accurate and follow it. There are many atheists and evolutionists who have contributed important things to science and they are dedicated and want to do good things for human beings. But, they have serious philosophical questions that make belief in God difficult for them and this should be respected and everyone should be allowed the freedom to theorize and try to prove their theories. So, I have much respect for those who search for truth and really try to be objective even if that means giving up a worldview or theory that they have held for a long time. This deserves much respect.

That said, it cannot help the truth to intentionally distort history and posit the idea that Christians are intellectually inferior, simply because of their Christian beliefs...



and secondly, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, there are exceptions to everything. Hitler was a Christian. So what?

He most definitely was not... FAIL. Or are you trying to make a Bill Maher-like argument here? Maher recently suggested that Stalin established a “state religion” while building his case against ‘religion’ only to conveniently lambast Christians for it? Talk about blinders… and revisionism… Stalin pushed one of the most devastating atheistic movements in the history of mankind. And as I stated in another thread, more than 40 million people lost their lives in opposition.



The large majority do not believe in a god, no matter if Newton did. There are many others who don't.

Except that you are conveniently minimizing who Newton was and what he represented… Isaac Newton is arguably one of the 10 most influential people of all time.

As an aside, in today’s age, scientists who openly embrace faith are blackballed by academic publishers… For that reason alone, I will always doubt the validity of such surveys/studies… if you can even call them that… these surveys do nothing more than propagate the notion that belief in GOD is tantamount to idiocy. Ironically these ‘studies’ do a great disservice to the virtues of scientific process they are trying to endorse…



Pasteur didn't practice religion like you do. His idea of a God was much more abstract and not specifically oriented.

So then you are saying he wasn’t a believer? Either he was or he wasn’t… clearly his writings show that he was. He just happened to take the position that many other great Deists, including Einstein, chose to follow. They believed in GOD regardless.



quote http://www.gradesaver.com/the-philosophical-writings-of-descartes/wikipedia/religious-beliefs/

"The religious beliefs of René Descartes have been rigorously debated within scholarly circles. He claimed to be a devout Roman Catholic, claiming that one of the purposes of the Meditations was to defend the Christian faith. However, in his own era, Descartes was accused of harboring secret deist or atheist beliefs. Contemporary Blaise Pascal said that "I cannot forgive Descartes; in all his philosophy, Descartes did his best to dispense with God. But Descartes could not avoid prodding God to set the world in motion with a snap of his lordly fingers; after that, he had no more use for God."

Using Descartes as definitive proof of an intelligent man who believed in a God is dishonest.
And using this as an argument against the supposed lack of intelligence in believers is a reach… and you know it. :wakeup

now attack ad infinitum... you've never been one to concede on anything, much less admit to erring.

[Phenomanul]

.

[ploto]

I find it ironic that these articles seem to have such little actual proof to support their conclusions.


I believe it is simply a matter of the IQ.


It is suggested that IQ makes an individual likely to...

[Leetonidas]

So some famous smart guys believed in God...whooptee doo...they also lived in a time where technology was archaic by today's standards. If they had all the knowledge and resources we do now, I guarantee every single one of them would be an atheist.

And Descartes argument that God exists solely on the basis that he is a conceivable idea is fucking stupid.

[admiralsnackbar]

So some famous smart guys believed in God...whooptee doo...they also lived in a time where technology was archaic by today's standards. If they had all the knowledge and resources we do now, I guarantee every single one of them would be an atheist.

And Descartes argument that God exists solely on the basis that he is a conceivable idea is fucking stupid.

Technology, knowledge, and resources only do so much. You can understand and take as sound that the mechanism of evolution works, and each day seems to bring us closer to understanding how it works, but that doesn't explain why it works. Why do forces allow matter to cohere, to provide conditions for life, for that life to propagate?

I'm not saying this to suggest that atheists don't confront these questions just as much as religious people do, but more that these questions haven't gone away despite quantum leaps in our understanding of the how of the world.

[rjv]

So some famous smart guys believed in God...whooptee doo...they also lived in a time where technology was archaic by today's standards. If they had all the knowledge and resources we do now, I guarantee every single one of them would be an atheist.

And Descartes argument that God exists solely on the basis that he is a conceivable idea is fucking stupid.

if your argument is that all conceivable ideas are essentially precarious assertions, then you have reduced all truth to mere tautology (admiral referred to this in his post as well) and even then such truth would be categorical, at best, since it would be dependent upon cognizant perception. so, you have essentially handicapped such natural sciences as theoretical physics and math in the process.

as to your first premise, the glaringly obvious weakness is that it would take just one contrarian to render the premise invalid and any following conclusions unsound. or perhaps i just confused a mere opinion as a poor syllogism.

[DarkReign]

I would bet that, out of all athiests, a higher percentage of them are "converted" athiests (i.e. they were not raised athiest) than the percentage of religious people who came from a non-religious upbringing.

And of those athiests who were raised in athiest households, I would bet a significant portion of them are only 2nd-generation athiests.

Here's what I'm getting at... I believe it takes a certain amount of mental fortitude to question and/or reject the assumptions you were raised on. The pool of religious people is watered down with people who subscribe to their religion simply because it's what they've always believed and have never really questioned it. Unintelligent people are more likely to do this, and because there are MORE religious people than not, those people are more LIKELY to be religious than not.

I would be (more, but still not very) interested to see this study examine the average IQ's of athiests vs. "converted" religious people... people who became religious after being raised in non-religious households (or households of another religion).

The only interesting thing in this thread. :tu

My father was agnostic, so all the self-confidence Ive built over the years regarding my contrarian nature towards organized religion and God Himself just got tossed out the window.

I am now a hollow follower where I once believed otherwise, if your theory stands the test.

Fuck you, Spurm.

[Leetonidas]

if your argument is that all conceivable ideas are essentially precarious assertions, then you have reduced all truth to mere tautology (admiral referred to this in his post as well) and even then such truth would be categorical, at best, since it would be dependent upon cognizant perception. so, you have essentially handicapped such natural sciences as theoretical physics and math in the process.

as to your first premise, the glaringly obvious weakness is that it would take just one contrarian to render the premise invalid and any following conclusions unsound. or perhaps i just confused a mere opinion as a poor syllogism.

Translation: I'm trying to sound really smart while not dismissing anything you posted in the first place. :lol

Nah I'm jerkin ya, that was a very well put together response, though I don't feel like you particularly addressed anything.

1. I'm not making an argument that "all conceivable ideas are essentially precarious assertions." Have you looked at Descartes argument for why he believes in God? Because it is a conceivable idea that couldn't have come from nowhere, so therefore God must exist because he can be personified or conceived. That is completely stupid. I can envision and comprehend the idea of a magical monster made of spaghetti and whatnot, but that doesn't make it real.

My original point was that these geniuses didn't have the understanding of things like we do now. It's not a coincidence that the vast majority of scientists/physicists/whatever are atheists and the big bang is pretty much accepted as fact in the scientific world. You cannot argue the conditions of today wouldn't affect their understanding or perception of reality and it would probably tip their faith into the favor of atheism. That's all I'm sayin.

[TDMVPDPOY]

it depends on what you believe in n lvl of tolerance willing to listen and learn the different aspects from different cultures and nationalities in what they believe in.

[rjv]

Translation: I'm trying to sound really smart while not dismissing anything you posted in the first place. :lol

Nah I'm jerkin ya, that was a very well put together response, though I don't feel like you particularly addressed anything.

1. I'm not making an argument that "all conceivable ideas are essentially precarious assertions." Have you looked at Descartes argument for why he believes in God? Because it is a conceivable idea that couldn't have come from nowhere, so therefore God must exist because he can be personified or conceived. That is completely stupid. I can envision and comprehend the idea of a magical monster made of spaghetti and whatnot, but that doesn't make it real.

My original point was that these geniuses didn't have the understanding of things like we do now. It's not a coincidence that the vast majority of scientists/physicists/whatever are atheists and the big bang is pretty much accepted as fact in the scientific world. You cannot argue the conditions of today wouldn't affect their understanding or perception of reality and it would probably tip their faith into the favor of atheism. That's all I'm sayin.

descartes was a rationalist who did not trust the senses and was more inclined to argue on the behalf of an idea based on reason. your idea of a spaghetti monster is not necessarily the best analogy because it does not meet the definition of a perfect being but if your point is that god is a subjective entity then that is more valid. however, as the logical positivists found out, presupposing that empirically and/or analytically verifiable assertions are the only meaningful ones is in itself a metaphysical assertion. of course that leaves us with the senses as the sole measure of verifiability but then even that runs into issues, both philosophically (berkeley for instance) and scientifically (heisenberg uncertainty principle).

as to the old big bang theory, that is running into a lot of issues these days. ergo, the emergence of such wild cosmological notions as multiverses or even the notion that this universe emerged from the worm hole of a larger "mother" universe. the fact that the universe is expanding at a faster rate than the big bang predicted it should is one of the reasons that scientists are so intrigued by dark matter. of course one can not just postulate that the universe is indeed "fine tuned" because that would be unscientific. it just seems that the more one finds the more mystery one discovers.

also, one should not dismiss the more abstract notions of the past merely because they lacked the technology of our times. leibniz and spinoza are not only prevalent in the world of math today but are also being utilized, conceptually speaking, in the world of theoretical physics as well. and the mayan calendar, created almost 500 years before that of the computer based calendar of NASA, was far more accurate than any european model that had to use tricks such as the leap year in order to work.

but i do get the gist that the scientific community tends to be less religious than it was centuries ago. they also tend to be far less philosophical and pragmatic. does this mean practicality was a recent development of the intellect or that philosophy is an atavistic trait of the scientific mind?

[Bigzax]

bottom line?

i'll see alot of you smart bastards in hell!

[Blake]

your idea of a spaghetti monster is not necessarily the best analogy because it does not meet the definition of a perfect being but if your point is that god is a subjective entity then that is more valid.

what is the objective definition of a "perfect being"?

[rjv]

what is the objective definition of a "perfect being"?

there is no "objective" definition, so the definition has to be taken in context as if would be in the construct of the rationalist argument posited by descartes. descartes would have not attributed the same attributes to a spaghetti monster. my point was that i understood leetonidas to be speaking of descartes' 'god' as a completely subjective and unverifiable entity or 'idea'.

[Spurminator]

The only interesting thing in this thread. :tu

My father was agnostic, so all the self-confidence Ive built over the years regarding my contrarian nature towards organized religion and God Himself just got tossed out the window.

I am now a hollow follower where I once believed otherwise, if your theory stands the test.

Fuck you, Spurm.

Thanks? :lol

To clarify, I think intelligent people can determine that the way they were raised is the worldview they want to live under. While I believe the intelligent question their upbringing, they don't always necessarily reject it.

Regardless, it's not the only litmus, and I'd consider you an intelligent person, DR, regardless of your religion or lack thereof.

[Blake]

there is no "objective" definition, so the definition has to be taken in context as if would be in the construct of the rationalist argument posited by descartes.

just checking

[Veterinarian]

Tbh all of this talk about any great thinkers who came around before Darwin is a waste of time. They only knew half the story. The Darwin Theory is a crushing blow to the Bible because with one stroke it turned the whole thing from fact to metaphor. Plus all the scientific research, carbon dating, dinosaur fossils, etc. there's no way they would think the same way today imo.

[BadOdor]

tbh back in the day being anything other than religious was unhealthy. If they lived today, I'd bet they would be atheist, like smart folks should be.

[mingus]

guys, it's true. i just decided to become an athiest, and i took one of those online IQ tests, and it went up five points from what i got on an IQ test i took when i was a believer.

[mingus]

i hope to God i don't get relgiious enlightenment before by next exam.

[xellos88330]

The main problem that I have with atheists is they generally tend to have a feeling that they are better than people just because of religious preference.

I have a few atheist aqcuaintances that constantly badger me about my religious preference. They ask me questions to which there is no scientific answer. Basically it was the chicken or the egg question. My response to this is of course... "I can't really say. I wasn't here at the time." Then they start going into evolution theory and stuff like that. So then I ask them, "Which came first? The chicken or the egg? Science doesn't know either does it?"

I prefer to leave things as is. Faith is a matter of taste. Some people like to believe that there is something bigger than themselves in this universe. Others only believe what they see. So basically what this boils down to is... WHO GIVES A SHIT!

[Blake]

The main problem that I have with atheists is they generally tend to have a feeling that they are better than people just because of religious preference.

eh, it goes both ways


So basically what this boils down to is... WHO GIVES A SHIT!

pretty much

[Re-Animator]

Albert Einstein was considered to be retarded when he took twice as many years to talk then the average child.

Steve Jobs smoked weed couldn't spell Apple and would have scored very low on that test back in 1980.

So I have to question the results coming from a single source.

[Veterinarian]

Albert Einstein was considered to be retarded when he took twice as many years to talk then the average child.

Steve Jobs smoked weed couldn't spell Apple and would have scored very low on that test back in 1980.

So I have to question the results coming from a single source.

From what I can tell, the study in the second link was conducted by two independent groups; one with two professors in a college in the UK and the other by a professor in Denmark.

The third link is just by the professor in Denmark.

[Bukefal]

This is why I make my wife go to church every week. Dumb her down a little bit. I don't need her smart, figuring things out and shit.

:lol

[LnGrrrR]

Look, all the people arguing that some smart people believe in God... so what? What does that have to do with the OP? I don't think the point was that NO smart person believes. Just that, on average, non-believers have higher IQs than believers. :lol

No one's saying it's a hard line and there are no outliers.

[Phenomanul]

Look, all the people arguing that some smart people believe in God... so what? What does that have to do with the OP? I don't think the point was that NO smart person believes. Just that, on average, non-believers have higher IQs than believers. :lol

No one's saying it's a hard line and there are no outliers.

It's a 'fair' take... but, I think you among others here missed the point.

Such studies are biased from the get-go - a complete slap-in-the-face to the scientific process they are supposedly trying to uphold (have you seen their methods, their sample pools? laughable really). Its assertions are without merit. Yet, you all have gleefully taken them to heart as if they helped justify the lack of belief amongst those here.

The scientific movement was largely born out of people who wished to understand the world around them... because they inherently understood that we were gifted the capacity to reason and comprehend the 'workings' of our world and our place in it (unlike the other creatures around us)... more specifically, they understood their unique place among 'creation'. Hasn't anyone here ever questioned the philosophical implications of being situated in the one zone in the galaxy that allows us to 'safely' study the universe to begin with? Most other zones in our galaxy are a haven for biodestructive cosmic forces, and aren't as conducive to providing the stability required for life to flourish, much less for that life to 'develop' the cognitive ability to question their place in the universe and the means to understand it.

Anyways, it's disingenous to continually distort history to the point where you all fail to admit that Believers, by and large, propelled the scientific movement. All those people I listed (out of a much larger list) revolutionized their fields and helped usher in the modern technological era. It's also rather disingenous to presume that they would be athiests in today's world...

Ask yourself this question... Why wasn't the scientific movement born out of other world philosophies (Islam, Shintoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, or even Atheism since you all tout its virtues so much)??? NOW, I'm not saying that their adherents lacked the intellectual capacity to do so... simply that they weren't gifted with the perspective to put it together, or to seek out Truth. Nowadays everyone shares in the benefit of all past contributions, and embraces the scientific process... but many (as exemplified in this thread) believe it to be a product of secularism, and the pre-requisite rejection of faith. Nothing can be further from the truth...

If some of the brightest minds ever have come to the realization that our universe was created, how is it you all can nonchalantly ignore the significance of their realization? Sure, go ahead and think for yourselves... ultimately matters of faith are entirely up to you all... but don't for a second believe you completely grasp the nuances of the physical laws that govern our universe, or the implications of the subatomic world which has unfolded before us... If you all think that being 'smart' is to accept only that which can be seen and measured then IMO you all aren't very smart at all. As I've said many times before... Science isn't the catch-all, be-all, end-all tool you all wish it to be... it's only a tool, not a world view.

As an aside, Atheism these days is becoming rather religious... except that many of its adherents can't even see, much less admit to this irony...

[doobs]

I wonder what percentage of people with an IQ over 120 believe in God. I bet it's a majority.

[Leetonidas]

I wonder what percentage of people with an IQ over 120 believe in God. I bet it's a majority.

lol no

[ploto]

I personally believe that it takes higher intellect to reconcile faith in what one can not see with scientific proof that can be found in things that one can see. A simpler mind can only fathom that one or the other must be trusted, whereas greater insight allows a person to believe in the merits and contributions of both.

I would be curious as to the belief systems of those with the absolute highest IQ's.

[Blake]

I wonder what percentage of people with an IQ over 120 believe in God. I bet it's a majority.


In 2008, intelligence researcher Helmuth Nyborg examined whether IQ relates to denomination and income, using representative data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth, which includes intelligence tests on a representative selection of American youth, where they have also replied to questions about religious belief. His results, published in the scientific journal Intelligence demonstrated that on average, Atheists scored 1.95 IQ points higher than Agnostics, 3.82 points higher than Liberal persuasions, and 5.89 IQ points higher than Dogmatic persuasions. [4] "I'm not saying that believing in God makes you dumber. My hypothesis is that people with a low intelligence are more easily drawn toward religions, which give answers that are certain, while people with a high intelligence are more skeptical," says the professor.[5]


The relationship between countries' belief in a god and average Intelligence Quotient, measured by Lynn, Harvey & Nyborg.[6]Nyborg also co-authored a study with Richard Lynn, emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Ulster, which compared religious belief and average national IQs in 137 countries. [6] The study analysed the issue from several viewpoints. Firstly, using data from a U.S. study of 6,825 adolescents, the authors found that atheists scored 6 g-IQ points higher than those adhering to a religion.

Secondly, the authors investigated the link between religiosity and intelligence on a country level. Among the sample of 137 countries, only 23 (17%) had more than 20% of atheists, which constituted “virtually all the higher IQ countries.” The authors reported a correlation of 0.60 between atheism rates and level of intelligence, which is “highly statistically significant.” This portion of the study uses the same data set as Lynn's work IQ and the Wealth of Nations.

Commenting on the study in The Daily Telegraph, Lynn said "Why should fewer academics believe in God than the general population? I believe it is simply a matter of the IQ. Academics have higher IQs than the general population. Several Gallup poll studies of the general population have shown that those with higher IQs tend not to believe in God," [7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence

[Darrin]

Intelligence doesn't make us happier. This shows the upside of self-delusion. All of this connects. Like the fact we perform better at a task after we try it initially and think we do well. We delude ourselves and that leads to being happier. Perspective is all that we have and if we want to live a happy life and not one based in fact, we can do so.

To clarify, I am atheist.

[z0sa]

I don't follow a religion. I do believe in God. This entire universe has order and something put it that way. Order, on the grand scale of the universe, occurring by chance seems impossible. Some don't see it the same way.

As for an afterlife, I'm not sure. What exists beyond this universe, no one alive shall ever know. I found out a long time ago focusing on what's after this life is futile, anyway. Death occurs so quickly and for no reason. We'll all find ourselves traveling towards the light soon enough.

[phyzik]

The problem I have with religious people is that they label EVERYONE who doesnt believe in a "set religion" an athiest.

I dont believe in any organized religion. In fact, the idea of organized religion, in my mind, is what is wrong with this world.

I dont believe in a god the way any religion depicts him/her/it. You want to constantly praise "the word" and force it on other people..... nevermind that "the word" was fabricated off of even more ancient beliefs that most people dismiss today.... Take your kids and indoctrinate them into your belief system..... then have the fucking gall to say your not trying to force beliefs on anyone?

Here's a thought. Ask your kids if they want to go to church or not. Why force it on them? Ohhh, thats right.... They will go to hell if they dont. :rolleyes

I believe in the power of the human race and what we are capable of. You preech Man was made in your gods image, then turn around and attack those very same people made in his image for discovering things that might have the slightest chance of shattering your fantasy?

Just because of those statements, most people would label me an Athiest.

Here's the catch though.....

I DO believe in a higher power. Just not YOUR higher power. Is it some cosmic being beyond all comprehension? Was the Earth seeded by some ancient alien race? Are we just some cosmic accident?

I dont know....

And thats the difference between me and a religious person.

I accept the unknown..... you... the sheep (by the bible's own words).... insist on unquestionably believing in some magical being creating everything just to comfort yourselves in the face of death.... Me? I honestly dont know whats going to happen when I die and I am perfectly fine with that. I feel I've lived a good enough life to accept any judgement from any being that may be out there. For all I know I could end up on some other plane of existence fighting alongside Drizzt Do'Urden or going to some utopia with smurfs running around everywhere or some shit.

Bottom line.... Not following a religion and not believing in a God in the mystical sense that religion places him, doesnt make me a bad person. Just imagine how much better this world would be without religious factions fighting across the globe.

[phyzik]

I don't follow a religion. I do believe in God. This entire universe has order and something put it that way. Order, on the grand scale of the universe, occurring by chance seems impossible. Some don't see it the same way.

As for an afterlife, I'm not sure. What exists beyond this universe, no one alive shall ever know. I found out a long time ago focusing on what's after this life is futile, anyway. Death occurs so quickly and for no reason. We'll all find ourselves traveling towards the light soon enough.

I got news for you.... the universe is anything but orderly.

Black holes swallowing galaxies... even our own galaxy has a super-massive black hole at the center.

Supernova stars....

entire galaxies colliding with eachother....

God is a pretty messy dude for being omnipotent.

The universe is just as orderly as giving a 2 years old a crayon and expect that 2 year old to color inside the lines.

[z0sa]

God is a pretty messy dude for being omnipotent.

I thought you didn't assume to know who God was, like those evil religions?

[phyzik]

I thought you didn't assume to know who God was, like those evil religions?

It's an observation based off of your opinion.... nothing more.

my main point still stands...

The universe is anything but orderly..

Of course, I expect the obligitory response of "we cant possibly comprehend the mind of a God".

[z0sa]

It's an observation based off of your opinion.... nothing more.

Like I said, some don't see things the same way.

Besides, my statement was not specific in any fashion. I mean, are there not 365 days a year, except every 4th year? Do we not revolve around the sun? These facts imply order.

[phyzik]

It's funny how people praise God when good things happen though.

Seriously, Im not being sarcastic or condescending.

Why do people do that? But yet when bad things happen, you hear no mention of God?

Was it Gods will that you lost? Or was it Satan? Why this person and not that person?

Was one more devout than the other?

[phyzik]

Like I said, some don't see things the same way.

Besides, my statement was not specific in any fashion. I mean, are there not 365 days a year, except every 4th year? Do we not revolve around the sun? These facts imply order.

They imply physics.

They imply gravity.

Its not some magical force holding them there.

[phyzik]

z0sa, Im not attacking you. In fact, I think this is a great discussion!

If I'm coming across as condescending, I'm sorry, I have 2 beers left from an 18 pack, so forgive me if I came across that way. :lol

damn, I really didnt realize I drank that much tonight until I went to get this next beer. :wow

[z0sa]

They imply physics.

They imply gravity.

"Implies physics"? Perhaps you should pherase.

How does the existence of gravity prove the universe is disorderly? It seems to play a key part of the universe's order.

[z0sa]

Nah man, I'm drinking too. Which si why I said early on, some peeps don't see it the same way. That's cool.

[phyzik]

Like I said, some don't see things the same way.

Besides, my statement was not specific in any fashion. I mean, are there not 365 days a year, except every 4th year? Do we not revolve around the sun? These facts imply order.

Question though...

If it was so orderly.... why not have 365 days a year every year?

True, its our human made calander thats part of the problem.... but still.

[phyzik]

"Implies physics"? Perhaps you should pherase.

How does the existence of gravity prove the universe is disorderly? It seems to play a key part of the universe's order.

When it comes to the size of galaxies you would think an omnipotent being would take a minor thing (to such a being) like gravity into account and not have entire galaxies coliding with eachother.... just saying, from what I have read he is infallible. Evidence seems to point out otherwise.

[z0sa]

Question though...

If it was so orderly.... why not have 365 days a year every year?

True, its our human made calander thats part of the problem.... but still.

you answered. The mayans had a more accurate calendar than the Europeans hundreds of years before them. And that fact, that ancient peoples could simply study the skies and seasons and discover these things, implies order, at least for me. There's a system, that while filled with a lot of factors with random values, still exists.

[phyzik]

you answered. The mayans had a more accurate calendar than the Europeans hundreds of years before them. And that fact, that ancient peoples could simply study the skies and seasons and discover these things, implies order, at least for me. There's a system, that while filled with a lot of factors with random values, still exists.

Oh, I know all about the Mayan calander.... Are you really expecting the earth to end in 2012 though?

That calander is a miniscule sampling of the goings on of the universe. It's like 1 grain of sand compared to all of the beaches of the Earth and more. They looked at the stars from our planets prospective. Are you saying they knew that there where 10's of billions of stars in our galaxy and that we are just 1 of billions of other galaxies?

If so, who gave them that knowledge? Im not saying that aliens or anything gave them that knowledge, its just conjecture on my part.

[phyzik]

I see order in the universe as well, but to me it can almost all be explained mathematically. Sure there are things that science doesnt know yet but not even several hundred years ago people thought the earth was flat.... Hell, people STILL think so to this day!!!

http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/


To think, todays cell phone is 15 times faster than the Cray super computer from 1979! Think about that for a minute..... We are accellerating our understanding of things at an unprecidented rate... Science gets things wrong all the time, but thats the beauty of science.... it admits that its wrong and continues on looking for the truth.

You could look at any of the old Star Trek episodes and actually laugh at some of the tech they have compared to today, and thats supposed to be in the 24th century!!!!

Touch screens....

automatic sliding doors...

plasma engines...

hell, even teleportation is starting to come out, although its just at the single photon level at this point and it was only across just over 3 feet. That was done back in 1998 and over coaxle cable mind you. They are now experimenting with lasers and shit.

[Summers]

You are just begging someone to post ICP's Miracles.

[Phenomanul]

phyzik, 35 (thus far known) finely tuned physical constants which govern the entire universe imply order...

At least 15 of these constants are so sensitive (at infintessimal values) that the probability that all of their values would be set to cater to a universe with matter, atoms, stars and enough carbon and oxygen to sustain life is for all intents and purposes zero... that implies purpose...

As I've stated on many occasions... this observation was a major driving factor in steering Albert Einstein towards a Deist position...

You may imply that universal dynamics are "messy"... but that in itself is a subjective take. The way I see it, black holes are required to keep galaxies together. So while you may consider them to be destructive forces, their gravitational influence makes the galaxies go round. :toast

[DAF86]

Atheism these days is becoming rather religious... except that many of its adherents can't even see, much less admit to this irony...

How is Atheism becoming religious?

[rjv]

I got news for you.... the universe is anything but orderly.

Black holes swallowing galaxies... even our own galaxy has a super-massive black hole at the center.

Supernova stars....

entire galaxies colliding with eachother....

God is a pretty messy dude for being omnipotent.

The universe is just as orderly as giving a 2 years old a crayon and expect that 2 year old to color inside the lines.

for one, we have no idea what the correlation of any apparent disorder has with any apparent order in the universe in any particular environment. this is the general idea behind chaos theory. secondly, not all theological assertions directly assign the mechanics of the universe as being under the domain of God.

[rjv]

How is Atheism becoming religious?

perhaps it would have been more accurate for him to have said 'metaphysical'.

[rjv]

Oh, I know all about the Mayan calander.... Are you really expecting the earth to end in 2012 though?

That calander is a miniscule sampling of the goings on of the universe. It's like 1 grain of sand compared to all of the beaches of the Earth and more. They looked at the stars from our planets prospective. Are you saying they knew that there where 10's of billions of stars in our galaxy and that we are just 1 of billions of other galaxies?

If so, who gave them that knowledge? Im not saying that aliens or anything gave them that knowledge, its just conjecture on my part.

i'm not even sure that the mayans believed the year 2012 to be the end all year. they did believe in other catalcysmic events and also believed this 5th sun to be the last one for earth. their mythology is fascinating. it would be really cool to see a jungian analysis of their principle motifs.

[RandomGuy]

i'm not even sure that the mayans believed the year 2012 to be the end all year. they did believe in other catalcysmic events and also believed this 5th sun to be the last one for earth. their mythology is fascinating. it would be really cool to see a jungian analysis of their principle motifs.

I seem to remember reading that the mayan calandar did indeed extend beyond 2012, and it was just one particular interpretation of their calendar that stopped in 2012.

Their modern decendents, when asked, certainly don't consider 2012 to be the End Of Time.

Basically the thing appears to be overblown hysterical bullshit. Fun in a fashion, but fertilizer nonetheless.

[RandomGuy]

I got news for you.... the universe is anything but orderly.

Black holes swallowing galaxies... even our own galaxy has a super-massive black hole at the center.

Supernova stars....

entire galaxies colliding with eachother....

God is a pretty messy dude for being omnipotent.

The universe is just as orderly as giving a 2 years old a crayon and expect that 2 year old to color inside the lines.

Indeed. It is quite... random.

HA!

[rjv]

I seem to remember reading that the mayan calandar did indeed extend beyond 2012, and it was just one particular interpretation of their calendar that stopped in 2012.

Their modern decendents, when asked, certainly don't consider 2012 to be the End Of Time.

Basically the thing appears to be overblown hysterical bullshit. Fun in a fashion, but fertilizer nonetheless.

it is also a solid foundation for really bad hollywood movies.

[ploto]

You preach Man was made in your gods image, then turn around and attack those very same people made in his image for discovering things that might have the slightest chance of shattering your fantasy?


You seem to me to be basing your views of all people of religious faith upon the actions and beliefs of only a portion.

[rjv]

You seem to me to be basing your views of all people of religious faith upon the actions and beliefs of only a portion.

it does appear to be an argument of an exclusive nature and not at all categorical .

[RandomGuy]

Naturalism alone cannot account for the inception of life.

This is an argument from ignorance.

If we don't know what caused X, you don't get to fill it in with your favored theory.


We haven't yet figured out exactly how life sprang from non-life therefore God did it, is an argument from ignorance.

It has the same logical form as "We haven't yet figured out exactly how life sprang from non-life therefore Bigfoot did it".

2,000 years ago, we hadn't yet figure out what the sun was, so the prevailing theories of the time were sun-chariots of some sort.

This argument has already been pretty thoroughly debunked as spurious, decades ago when it was fist made.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html

This assertion is dismissed.

Next fallacy?

[RandomGuy]

If some of the brightest minds ever have come to the realization that our universe was created, how is it you all can nonchalantly ignore the significance of their realization?

Appeal to popularity.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html

I can non-chalantly dismiss any logical fallacy, no matter how seemingly significant you might think it is. Someone in the future might discover some evidence that God exists, but people like you have yet to show any. Your claim, your burden of proof.

also debunked as spurious
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA112.html

[RandomGuy]

As an aside, Atheism these days is becoming rather religious... except that many of its adherents can't even see, much less admit to this irony...

The fundamental question is whether your claim about the existance of a God is proven.

The fundamental question about the existance of Bigfoot is whether it has been proven.


The logical rejection of something until it has been proven to exist does not require any faith at all.

That is simply the default position, not any kind of faith.

[RandomGuy]

Oh, I know all about the Mayan calander.... Are you really expecting the earth to end in 2012 though?

That calander is a miniscule sampling of the goings on of the universe. It's like 1 grain of sand compared to all of the beaches of the Earth and more. They looked at the stars from our planets prospective. Are you saying they knew that there where 10's of billions of stars in our galaxy and that we are just 1 of billions of other galaxies?

If so, who gave them that knowledge? Im not saying that aliens or anything gave them that knowledge, its just conjecture on my part.

There is also more than one "mayan calandar". Others found in other cities to not arbitrarily end in 2012.

[Avante]

I do know this, the last thing I'd want in my foxhole with the bad guys closing it and it's over are a bunch of atheists. They'd be screaming like a bunch of little bitches.

[RandomGuy]

ah crap.. wrong thread.

[Wild Cobra]

If we don't know what caused X, you don't get to fill it in with your favored theory.
So why do you do just that on so many other topics?

[RandomGuy]

So why do you do just that on so many other topics?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :lmao

[mouse]

This is an argument from ignorance.

If we don't know what caused X, you don't get to fill it in with your favored theory.


I thought Science knows exactly what happened 12 billion years ago it's in the text books.

[Blake]

I do know this, the last thing I'd want in my foxhole with the bad guys closing it and it's over are a bunch of atheists. They'd be screaming like a bunch of little bitches.

If the info in this thread is accurate, then atheists are too smart to be in a fox hole with dumb fucks like you.

[Blake]

I thought Science knows exactly what happened 12 billion years ago it's in the text books.

Why are you always so bitter towards science?

Did some science thugs beat on you when you were a kid? Hold you down in the sun and put a magnifying glass over your balls? Pour some lab chemicals in the toilet before giving you a swirly?

sharing your story might do you some good, tbh

[mingus]

One of my favorite quotes is the one by Einstein that goes "Religion without science is blind, science without religion is lame".

He was a pretty smart guy. So were the hundreds of theist scientists that are dead and the ones that are still alive.

This is a funny thread because it divides people, which is one of the things that many atheists claim they despise about religion.

[Blake]

This is a funny thread because it divides people, which is one of the things that many atheists claim they despise about religion.

I've never heard any atheist make that claim

[mingus]

I've never heard any atheist make that claim

That's because you hear what you want to hear. You proved this in the thread you started about being a cuckhold. In that thread, you said you should have picked up on the fact that she was cuckholding you, but you didn't. You didn't because you hear only what you want to hear.

[mouse]

But you didn't. You didn't because you hear only what you want to hear.

That is true if Blake would read my comments he would know I love Science.
I always said Science is cool mixing baking soda with vinegar trying to create an artificial liver all that is great.


It's when Science tell us we evolved from an ape and there is no such thing as creation or intelligent design. That's not science that's agenda driven religion.

[Blake]

That's because you hear what you want to hear.

name one atheist that's made that claim.

Source and exact quote.


You proved this in the thread you started about being a cuckhold. In that thread, you said you should have picked up on the fact that she was cuckholding you, but you didn't. You didn't because you hear only what you want to hear.

you proved in this quote you're ignorant.

[Blake]

That is true if Blake would read my comments he would know I love Science.
I always said Science is cool mixing baking soda with vinegar trying to create an artificial liver all that is great.

That's not science


It's when Science tell us we evolved from an ape and there is no such thing as creation or intelligent design. That's not science that's agenda driven religion.

ID is not science. You don't know what science is.

[mouse]

That's not science

Creating an artificial liver is not medical science?




ID is not science.

So when scientist create a seedless tomato that is purple inside and taste like passion fruit that is not intelligent design?


Or when they create a human ear on the back of a lab rat that is not intelligent science?



You don't know what science is.


I know what it's not and when it tries to bullshit us into thinking we evolved from a snail.

[Jacob1983]

Why does questioning science mean that you don't believe in science? A lot of people question God but that doesn't equate disbelief.

[BradLohaus]

I've heard many atheists say this. I've heard many leftists say this vs. the right.

If you ever want to actually feel cognitive dissonance pour out of somebody bring up race and IQ scores.

[mouse]

When someone claims they found a flaw in the bible the whole concept of creation is a lie.

When science claims asbestos is good for you and later we find out it's a lie the excuse is science is always reviving itself and making changes that's what science is all about.

Talk about unfair bias.

[Woo Bum-kon]

Are you claiming that scientists were purposefully providing false information to people by claiming that asbestos was good for them? I don't even know if what you claim is true or not, but I'll assume that it is for the sake of the question.

[mouse]

http://api.ning.com/files/pdc3LfdugbcQrNHRrOvUaNNo9GtRi5a5kH1qYp0L-5EvgVViv2Vqshs9y4q6aWsfKNG7q9DivS97XgCsVzNyhC1NMzL xDcqn/3182820661_587884b1a6_b.jpg

[mouse]

At one time doctors used to claim cigarette were good for you and would willing be part of the advertisement https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-Vr-onuR_kf4/TW9-yKxk8tI/AAAAAAAAAlw/r9e_-jc2xls/image003.jpg



You see doctors and scientists can lie and say well that is what we knew back then and get a pass. The bible thumpers can't afford to fuck up just once or they lose all credibillity.

Does that sound rational to you?

[Avante]

The most misearable people I know are atheists.

I think there is also a study proving that.

[redzero]

:lol Avante fails on every level when he tries to discuss religion. I haven't seem a single compelling point from him on this matter.

[Avante]

:lol Avante fails on every level when he tries to discuss religion. I haven't seem a single compelling point from him on this matter.

Show me one compelling point that anyone has made talking religion. That is a challenge, go ahead prove your point. I want to see a compelling point. Show me.

[redzero]

Answer my question about the Invisible Pink Unicorn first. I'm not about to abide by you unless you show me the same courtesy, which you haven't yet.

[Avante]

Answer my question about the Invisible Pink Unicorn first. I'm not about to abide by you unless you show me the same courtesy, which you haven't yet.

If one person believes in an Invisible Pink Unicorn, no he doesn't exist.

If humanity has been worshipping an Invisible Pink Unicorn (similiar invisible beasts) for eons then yes there is an Invisible Pink Unicorn.

Now show me something somebody said that was comnpelling trying to talk religion.

[redzero]

How does that make any kind of sense? How does believing in something make it true?

Many people believe in Shiva. Does that mean that he exists?

[Avante]

How does that make any kind of sense? How does believing in something make it true?

Many people believe in Shiva. Does that mean that he exists?

That's where faith comes in.

Now show me what somebody said that was compelling. I'm still waiting. Prove yourself for once.

[redzero]

That is not a matter of faith. You just claimed that a lot of people believing something for a long time AUTOMATICALLY means that that something exists.

Explain how Shiva doesn't exist, then.

[Avante]

That is not a matter of faith. You just claimed that a lot of people believing something for a long time AUTOMATICALLY means that that something exists.

Explain how Shiva doesn't exist, then.

You totally and competely missed the point as usual.

I'll go slow....

Those who do believe in God see Him as very real. They have that faith that yes He does exist. As we know far more people do believe He is very real. So like in most things the majority rule.

Now I answered your question, it's time to answer mine.

Show me something compelling somebodyy said about religion. Until you do I won't be responding. I'm tired of you lying. Prove yourself something you have never done.

A compelling statement was.................????????

[redzero]

You totally and competely missed the point as usual.

I'll go slow....

Those who do believe in God see Him as very real. They have that faith that yes He does exist. As we know far more people do believe He is very real. So like in most things the majority rule.

Explain yourself. Does a lot of people believing in something make that something ACTUALLY exist? Yes or no? I'm talking about facts, not faith.


Now I answered your question, it's time to answer mine.

Show me something compelling somebodyy said about religion. Until you do I won't be responding. I'm tired of you lying. Prove yourself something you have never done.

A compelling statement was.................????????

What's compelling is a matter of opinion. I can provide you a quote, and you will, of course, disagree.

I'll do it anyway:

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." — George Bernard Shaw

Now stop trying to change the subject and answer my question.

[Avante]

Explain yourself. Does a lot of people believing in something make that something ACTUALLY exist? Yes or no? I'm talking about facts, not faith.



What's compelling is a matter of opinion. I can provide you a quote, and you will, of course, disagree.

I'll do it anyway:

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." — George Bernard Shaw

Now stop trying to change the subject and answer my question.


Are you totally brain dead? Do you honestly think I was talking about a quote from George Bernard Shaw? Show me what somebody .."HERE"...said that was compelling, were you actually comparing me to GBS, of course not. So cool the lying and prove yourself. Done with you until you do.

[redzero]

How am I lying on a matter of opinion, you moron? What one finds compelling is entirely based on opinion, so how can I lie about what I find compelling? Do you think before you make these retarded posts?

And answer my question about belief.

[Avante]

How am I lying on a matter of opinion, you moron? What one finds compelling is entirely based on opinion, so how can I lie about what I find compelling? Do you think before you make these retarded posts?

And answer my question about belief.

Ok cool, so show me something somebody..."HERE"...said that you found compelling. Until you do I'm calling you a liar, there is nothing compelling. Prove me wrong.

What a tool, hahahaha!!!!!!!

[redzero]

:lmao How am I lying about an opinion? You sound retarded.

[Avante]

:lmao How am I lying about an opinion? You sound retarded.

What opinion? You mentioned I never said anything compelling about religion, ok then in your opinion who did? What do you consider compelling, go ahead show me something compelling in your opinion.

You know you fucked up don't you, so all we see now is an idiot trying to get out of it. Dude, prove yourself just once, can you do it?


In "your" opinion what did a fellow poster say about religion "you" found compelling. Stop shuckin' n' jivin', cool the tap dance bullshit. Show me compelling or shut the fuck up.

[redzero]

You cannot trap somebody when something is a matter of opinion, moron.

Here's a post that I find compelling.


This is shifting the burden of proof.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html


The claim that requires validating is:

There is a God.



The position that there is no God is presumed true, until proven otherwise to a reasonable degree.

Logic 101.

It isn't up to an Atheist to prove a negative. It is up to someone who claims God exists to prove that positive claim.

There. The completely asinine point you were trying to make is invalid.

[mouse]

Redzero vs Avante is epic!

:corn:

[Avante]

You cannot trap somebody when something is a matter of opinion, moron.

Here's a post that I find compelling.



There. The completely asinine point you were trying to make is invalid.

Ok cool.

In my opinion there is a God. As we know it's just a matter of opinion...right?

[redzero]

No, it is not. God either does or does not exist, and based on the lack of evidence, it is reasonable to assume that he doesn't exist.

I guess I am done with you tonight. You lied and deflected again, and you honestly tried to call opinions lies.

:lol Let that sink in for a moment. You basically claimed that I was trying to deceive people by claiming that I don't find your posts compelling. You clearly don't know what "lie" means as were just using it because I called you a liar.

[Avante]

No, it is not. God either does or does not exist based on the lack of evidence, it is reasonable to assume that he doesn't exist.

I guess I am done with you tonight. You lied and deflected again, and you honestly tried to call opinions lies.

:lol Let that sink in for a moment. You basically claimed that I was trying to deceive people by claiming that I don't find your posts compelling. You clearly don't know what "lie" means as were just using it because I called you a liar.

Now it isn't about opinions, hahahahaha!!!!!!!!! What a fucking dork, sheesh~~~~~~~~ I didn't lie about anything, you made a stupid comment as you always do and I called you on it, you did all you could to back out, funny watching it.

Nothing you have ever said needs to sink it, it has never been that important. You are a little joke, not unlike a clown in a box.

[redzero]

:lol What was that stupid comment? And how is what I find compelling NOT a matter of opinion? Are there things that are objectively compelling? No.

[Avante]

:lol What was that stupid comment? And how is what I find compelling NOT a matter of opinion? Are there things that are objectively compelling? No.

Little man, you work so hard at trying and hide the fact you are an idiot. You have no communication skills at all, lack common sense and have no class. A total waste of time. Why I even bother with you...??? Ok man you flaked out on our deal about my pictures, but I let that slide, you are just too fucked up to waste anymore time on. I'm going to have to cut you loose son, you are too negative, you lie, you don't have anything interesting to say. So what bother with you?

Adios~~~~~~~~~

[redzero]

:lol This guy is trying to tell me I have no communication skills while DEFLECTING AND COMPLETELY IGNORING MY ARGUMENT. The irony is so thick right now.

And I did not welsh on that bet because you did not accept the terms of the bet. Period. I asked you to accept the rules of the bet and you refused to do so. It's not a bet unless both people agree to the terms.

You are also a welsher, so you have no room.

[Wild Cobra]

You must be bored...

[redzero]

So, here's a quick summary of our argument:

• Avante uses a logical fallacy (argument ad populum) as proof of God's existence.
• I apply his same reasoning to The Invisible Pink Unicorn.
• He completely misses the point and dodges my questions several times, like the child he is.
• Avante lies and claims that I asserted that there is no God.
• I say that he hasn't provided a single compelling argument on Religion.
• He thinks he can trap me on this matter of opinion, so keeps asking me what I find compelling as if there is a wrong answer. He also calls me a liar, too, but has refused to reveal how expressing my opinion makes me a liar.
• Wild Cobra comes in without actually reading our discussion and claims that I have been the one who has been trolling.
• An Avante-Wild Cobra circlejerk commences.
• I ask Avante how I lied.
• He completely ignores my question while calling me childish, unaware of how ironic his actions are.

[Wild Cobra]

Little man, you work so hard at trying and hide the fact you are an idiot. You have no communication skills at all, lack common sense and have no class. A total waste of time. Why I even bother with you...??? Ok man you flaked out on our deal about my pictures, but I let that slide, you are just too fucked up to waste anymore time on. I'm going to have to cut you loose son, you are too negative, you lie, you don't have anything interesting to say. So what bother with you?

Adios~~~~~~~~~
LOL...

Yes he tries hard, and fails miserably.

Relating the documented text and faith about a pink unicorn to the documented text and faith of religion. I see no comparison. He seems to think its the same.

[Avante]

So, here's a quick summary of our argument:

• Avante uses a logical fallacy (argument ad populum) as proof of God's existence.
• I apply his same reasoning to The Invisible Pink Unicorn.
• He completely misses the point and dodges my questions several times, like the child he is.
• Avante lies and claims that I asserted that there is no God.
• I say that he hasn't provided a single compelling argument on Religion.
• He thinks he can trap me on this matter of opinion, so keeps asking me what I find compelling as if there is a wrong answer. He also calls me a liar, too, but has refused to reveal how expressing my opinion makes me a liar.
• Wild Cobra comes in without actually reading our discussion and claims that I have been the one who has been trolling.
• An Avante-Wild Cobra circlejerk commences.
• I ask Avante how I lied.
• He completely ignores my question while calling me childish, unaware of how ironic his actions are.

translation

I have never learned that you do not argue religion. Everyone has their own idea and nobody will be changing their mind. Why I waste my time on that topic is stupid and I should know better. Avante totally kicked my little ass, he knows I lack communication skills so he slapped me around pretty good. It hurt.

[Avante]

LOL...

Yes he tries hard, and fails miserably.

Relating the documented text and faith about a pink unicorn to the documented text and faith of religion. I see no comparison. He seems to think its the same.

That was priceless...

redzero..ok there is this Invisible Pink Unicorn you see and...

Hahahahahaha!!!!!!!.....what a moron:rolleyes

[Wild Cobra]

translation

I have never learned that you do not argue religion. Everyone has their own idea and nobody will be changing their mind. Why I waste my time on that topic is stupid and I should know better. Avante totally kicked my little ass, he knows I lack communication skills so he slapped me around pretty good. It hurt.
Wow...

You are being too generous!

[redzero]

:lmao Avante, you have been arguing religion with me. I like how you try to use this as an excuse for making lies and logical fallacies.


LOL...

Yes he tries hard, and fails miserably.

Relating the documented text and faith about a pink unicorn to the documented text and faith of religion. I see no comparison. He seems to think its the same.

It's not the same. You also missed the point.

Avante tried to claim that millions of people BELIEVING in something in and of itself makes that something real. I am trying to explain to him how nonsensical that remark is.

Here is what I am talking about, so you can't lie and claim that you can't find it.



If one person believes in an Invisible Pink Unicorn, no he doesn't exist.

If humanity has been worshipping an Invisible Pink Unicorn (similiar invisible beasts) for eons then yes there is an Invisible Pink Unicorn.

Now show me something somebody said that was comnpelling trying to talk religion.


How does that make any kind of sense? How does believing in something make it true?

Many people believe in Shiva. Does that mean that he exists?

Now how will you distort this? You and Avante are incapable of responding honestly.

[mouse]

Ok cool.

In my opinion there is a God. As we know it's just a matter of opinion...right?

No points but you didn't lose any either.

[mouse]

No, it is not. God either does or does not exist, and based on the lack of evidence, it is reasonable to assume that he doesn't exist.

I guess I am done with you tonight. You lied and deflected again, and you honestly tried to call opinions lies.

:lol Let that sink in for a moment. You basically claimed that I was trying to deceive people by claiming that I don't find your posts compelling. You clearly don't know what "lie" means as were just using it because I called you a liar.

1 1/2 points

[mouse]

Now it isn't about opinions, hahahahaha!!!!!!!!! What a fucking dork, sheesh~~~~~~~~ I didn't lie about anything, you made a stupid comment as you always do and I called you on it, you did all you could to back out, funny watching it.

Nothing you have ever said needs to sink it, it has never been that important. You are a little joke, not unlike a clown in a box.

1 point

[mouse]

Little man, you work so hard at trying and hide the fact you are an idiot. You have no communication skills at all, lack common sense and have no class. A total waste of time. Why I even bother with you...??? Ok man you flaked out on our deal about my pictures, but I let that slide, you are just too fucked up to waste anymore time on. I'm going to have to cut you loose son, you are too negative, you lie, you don't have anything interesting to say. So what bother with you?

Adios~~~~~~~~~

2 points and 1/2 a point for pulling out the "little man" card.

[mouse]

:lol This guy is trying to tell me I have no communication skills while DEFLECTING AND COMPLETELY IGNORING MY ARGUMENT. The irony is so thick right now.

And I did not welsh on that bet because you did not accept the terms of the bet. Period. I asked you to accept the rules of the bet and you refused to do so. It's not a bet unless both people agree to the terms.

You are also a welsher, so you have no room.

1 point and a 1/2 for the Irony card.

[mouse]

So, here's a quick summary of our argument:

• Avante uses a logical fallacy (argument ad populum) as proof of God's existence.
• I apply his same reasoning to The Invisible Pink Unicorn.
• He completely misses the point and dodges my questions several times, like the child he is.
• Avante lies and claims that I asserted that there is no God.
• I say that he hasn't provided a single compelling argument on Religion.
• He thinks he can trap me on this matter of opinion, so keeps asking me what I find compelling as if there is a wrong answer. He also calls me a liar, too, but has refused to reveal how expressing my opinion makes me a liar.
• Wild Cobra comes in without actually reading our discussion and claims that I have been the one who has been trolling.
• An Avante-Wild Cobra circlejerk commences.
• I ask Avante how I lied.
• He completely ignores my question while calling me childish, unaware of how ironic his actions are.

4 and 1/2 points for multiple points and the use of the dark black spot.

[mouse]

LOL...

Yes he tries hard, and fails miserably.

Relating the documented text and faith about a pink unicorn to the documented text and faith of religion. I see no comparison. He seems to think its the same.

2 points.

[mouse]

translation

I have never learned that you do not argue religion. Everyone has their own idea and nobody will be changing their mind. Why I waste my time on that topic is stupid and I should know better. Avante totally kicked my little ass, he knows I lack communication skills so he slapped me around pretty good. It hurt.

1 point and 1/2 a point for the "Translation" card.

[mouse]

That was priceless...

redzero..ok there is this Invisible Pink Unicorn you see and...

Hahahahahaha!!!!!!!.....what a moron:rolleyes

1 point

[Avante]

mouse, are you having fun?

[Wild Cobra]

mouse, are you having fun?
I think he gave me ten points in one thread recently. Maybe I should look for it. I think he was surprised however, I find a YouTube that helps his OP, then later, blow it out of the water.


LOL...

In the same thread:

Avante 6

Redzero 8

Wild Cobra 10

He hasn't admitted it, but I don't think he liked how the thread progressed.

[Avante]

I think he gave me ten points in one thread recently. Maybe I should look for it. I think he was surprised however, I find a YouTube that helps his OP, then later, blow it out of the water.


LOL...

In the same thread:



He hasn't admitted it, but I don't think he liked how the thread progressed.

I spent my first few months here being a mouse troll, hahahaha!!!!!!!!!

[Wild Cobra]

I spent my first few months here being a mouse troll, hahahaha!!!!!!!!!
You lost me there.

[mouse]

mouse, are you having fun?

- 1/2 a point.

now I am.

Bitch just be lucky you have points with your lame ass outdated comebacks.

Finish that Monster energy drink and put this redzero vato to bed already esse.

[Blake]

When someone claims they found a flaw in the bible the whole concept of creation is a lie.

When science claims asbestos is good for you and later we find out it's a lie the excuse is science is always reviving itself and making changes that's what science is all about.

Talk about unfair bias.

You're stupid. No bias.

[Blake]

If one person believes in an Invisible Pink Unicorn, no he doesn't exist.

If humanity has been worshipping an Invisible Pink Unicorn (similiar invisible beasts) for eons then yes there is an Invisible Pink Unicorn.

Now show me something somebody said that was comnpelling trying to talk religion.

So you just follow the majority.

Sheep.

[Blake]

Little man, you work so hard at trying and hide the fact you are an idiot. You have no communication skills at all, lack common sense and have no class. A total waste of time. Why I even bother with you...??? Ok man you flaked out on our deal about my pictures, but I let that slide, you are just too fucked up to waste anymore time on. I'm going to have to cut you loose son, you are too negative, you lie, you don't have anything interesting to say. So what bother with you?

Adios~~~~~~~~~

Just a matter of time before you're pinked again and/or banned.

[xellos88330]

Answer my question about the Invisible Pink Unicorn first. I'm not about to abide by you unless you show me the same courtesy, which you haven't yet.

Ok, how do you know that the unicorn is pink if it is invisible? Actually, how do you even know if it is even a unicorn or if anything is even there?

Atheists are quick to bash religion for any reason. It actually irritates me. I have issues with religion as do most people nowadays but to deny the fact that there is always a possibility of something like a supreme force/intelligence or whatever you want to call it, is just ludicrous. Is there any definitive proof that something like that doesn't exist? If you ask me, atheists are just as retarded as religious folk. One says it does, and the other says it doesn't. Both have ZERO proof.

[redzero]

The same retarded argument yet again.

Do you believe in the tooth fairy, xellos?

[xellos88330]

The same retarded argument yet again.

Do you believe in the tooth fairy, xellos?

Of course I do. The tooth fairy were my parents. Sure they were my parents, but it doesn't mean they weren't tooth fairies. It may not have been how I imagined it, but somehow my tooth still disappeared and there was money left in its place. It is still the concept of a tooth fairy.

[baseline bum]

So you don't believe in the real tooth fairy because the real tooth fairy never left money under your pillow?

[redzero]

No. I am asking you whether or not you believe that an actual fairy who comes at night to take teeth and replace them with cash, exists?

Do tooth fairies exist?

[cantthinkofanything]

Of course I do. The tooth fairy were my parents. Sure they were my parents, but it doesn't mean they weren't tooth fairies. It may not have been how I imagined it, but somehow my tooth still disappeared and there was money left in its place. It is still the concept of a tooth fairy.

Intro to Philosophy from University of Phoenix

[xellos88330]

No. I am asking you whether or not you believe that an actual fairy who comes at night to take teeth and replace them with cash, exists?

Do tooth fairies exist?

Yes they do. They just aren't quite what I expected them to be. How can I actually say "no" without any proof that they don't. Regardless of what your concept of what a tooth fairy is, doesn't necessarily mean that your way is correct. The FACT remains... my tooth was gone and money was left in its place. How do you explain that those AREN'T the actions of a tooth fairy?

To ignore that FACT is to ignore any logical possibility that the tooth fairy does exist and that in fact, your preconceptions of what a tooth fairy is were wrong.

[redzero]

How come none of you can give me a straight answer?

I asked you if the tooth fairy actually exists. Do tooth fairies exist? Humans aren't fairies, so your parents don't count.

[z0sa]

Blacks and Hispanics are very low on the IQ testing compared to whites and asians. That alone is enough reason for most impartial researchers to complete discredit IQ testing.

I believe in a higher being(s) but I'm not religious, so I wonder where deists like myself find themselves IQ wise.

[xellos88330]

Why can't our parents be fairies? Because it doesn't satisfy your premise?

How do you know that we aren't fairies in the first place? What if we find out that there is intelligent life on another planet and they consider us to be fairies from their folklore? Their civilization is ages older than ours so they get first dibbs on what to call us I guess? Does that make us fairies, or are we still humans?

[cantthinkofanything]

Why can't our parents be fairies?

your dads are fairies

[xellos88330]

How come none of you can give me a straight answer?

I asked you if the tooth fairy actually exists. Do tooth fairies exist? Humans aren't fairies, so your parents don't count.

I HAVE been giving you a straight answer. I have been saying that yes they do exist. Just because it isn't what you believe the tooth fairy to be, doesn't change the fact that my tooth was gone and there was money left in its place.

[redzero]

Why can't our parents be fairies? Because it doesn't satisfy your premise?

No. It's because humans aren't fairies.


How do you know that we aren't fairies in the first place? What if we find out that there is intelligent life on another planet and they consider us to be fairies from their folklore? Their civilization is ages older than ours so they get first dibbs on what to call us I guess? Does that make us fairies, or are we still humans?

There is no evdience to suggest this, which is why I don't believe it. It's that simple.

There is no evidence to suggest that God exists, so why should any objective person come to the conclusion that God exists? Just like you don't believe in Zeus, Ares, Apollo, Poseidon, etc., I don't believe in the Judeo Christian God.

[baseline bum]

OK, do you believe in the Soul Tooth Fairy who flies in and leaves malt liquor under your pillow?

[baseline bum]

Does the Soul Tooth Fairy exist?

[xellos88330]

No. It's because humans aren't fairies.



There is no evdience to suggest this, which is why I don't believe it. It's that simple.

There is no evidence to suggest that God exists, so why should any objective person come to the conclusion that God exists? Just like you don't believe in Zeus, Ares, Apollo, Poseidon, etc., I don't believe in the Judeo Christian God.

What about UFO's? Do you know what they are? There is evidence that is currently unexplained, by science. Does that mean that there wasn't a photo or video taken of something that was beyond our understanding? There are literary works that could be likened to such instances for example "the bible". Can they truly be explained? Not with our current knowledge.

Atheism itself is a leap of faith. They put their eggs into one basket saying that there couldn't be a god because their is no evidence to back it up when there is evidence, just not the type of evidence they are willing to accept.

In the end Athiests are doing the same thing religious people do. It is just using different words to describe their search for the ultimate truth.

[baseline bum]

Atheism isn't the statement that there can't be a god; only that one doesn't believe in a god.

[xellos88330]

Atheism isn't the statement that there can't be a god; only that one doesn't believe in a god.

Then why are so many of them saying that there isn't one in this thread? Why the need to convince everyone else that there isn't a God? All FACTS written in this thread point to the logical explanation that the majority of athiests are trying to spread atheism by bringing down everything else that doesn't go along with their beliefs. If you ask me it sounds awefully familiar to other historical incidents of "religious" nature.

[cantthinkofanything]

What about UFO's? Do you know what they are? There is evidence that is currently unexplained, by science. Does that mean that there wasn't a photo or video taken of something that was beyond our understanding? There are literary works that could be likened to such instances for example "the bible". Can they truly be explained? Not with our current knowledge.

Atheism itself is a leap of faith. They put their eggs into one basket saying that there couldn't be a god because their is no evidence to back it up when there is evidence, just not the type of evidence they are willing to accept.

In the end Athiests are doing the same thing religious people do. It is just using different words to describe their search for the ultimate truth.

Atheists putting all their eggs in one basket is a crappy idiom. Putting all your eggs in one basket implies that you are choosing to do so. You can't simply just believe there's a god because you want to cover both sides on the possibility that you might go to hell.

[redzero]

What about UFO's? Do you know what they are?

Unidentified flying objects.


There is evidence that is currently unexplained, by science.

Evidence of what? That there are flying objects that have not been identified? So what?


Does that mean that there wasn't a photo or video taken of something that was beyond our understanding?

I wouldn't say that these objects are beyond our understanding. It would be far simpler to say that the people who identify flying objects did not have enough information available to come to a definitive conclusion.


There are literary works that could be likened to such instances for example "the bible". Can they truly be explained? Not with our current knowledge.

Explained how?


Atheism itself is a leap of faith.

No matter how many times theists claim this, it will never be true.


They put their eggs into one basket saying that there couldn't be a god because their is no evidence to back it up when there is evidence, just not the type of evidence they are willing to accept.

How is it a leap of faith to not believe in something that has no evidence of existing? Human experience tells us that if something exists, there will be some kind of signs of its existence. If I look into a box and see nothing in it, it doesn't take a leap of faith to believe that there is nothing in the box.

[redzero]

Then why are so many of them saying that there isn't one in this thread?

Show me all of these people who claim that there is no God in this thread.

[xellos88330]

So a person doesn't choose to be athiest or spiritual?

[xellos88330]

.

How is it a leap of faith to not believe in something that has no evidence of existing? Human experience tells us that if something exists, there will be some kind of signs of its existence. If I look into a box and see nothing in it, it doesn't take a leap of faith to believe that there is nothing in the box.

It does require a leap of faith to say that there is nothing in the box. The reality is that there is something in the box.

An atheist says the box is empty.

A religious person says that there is something in it. Air. You may not see it... but it is there.

[redzero]

Do not be a pedant. Atheists believe in air, too. You know that that wasn't the point I was making, so don't act obtuse like Avante.

[cantthinkofanything]

So a person doesn't choose to be athiest or spiritual?

No, I don't think a non-biased person chooses to be atheist. Like rz said, if you look in a box and there's nothing there, then you believe there's nothing there. In fact, most are so positive that they would say, they KNOW nothing is in there. And most could not choose to make themselves believe something is in there no matter what any repercussions there may be.

[cantthinkofanything]

It does require a leap of faith to say that there is nothing in the box. The reality is that there is something in the box.

An atheist says the box is empty.

A religious person says that there is something in it. Air. You may not see it... but it is there.

bitch...you MUST be trolling

[xellos88330]

Do not be a pedant. Atheists believe in air, too. You know that that wasn't the point I was making, so don't act obtuse like Avante.

I am not trying to be. I am just saying that there isn't enough data to prove that one side is right and the other is wrong.

To completely side one way or the other is just ridiculous. What I choose to believe has zero bearing on my intelligence or any other matter. I just see things differently than an athiest does.

There is no right or wrong. There is just existence. And you know what? I am fine with that.

[redzero]

I am not trying to be. I am just saying that there isn't enough data to prove that one side is right and the other is wrong.

There is enough data to come to a reasonable conclusion that there is no higher being. As I stated before, if there is absolutely nothing--nothing that can be seen, measured, or detected in any way whatsoever--to suggest that something exists, it doesn't take faith to not believe in it.

Either a god exists or it does not. Anything else would be a paradox.

[HeatChamps]

This is why I make my wife go to church every week. Dumb her down a little bit. I don't need her smart, figuring things out and shit.
:lmao

[xellos88330]

Existence itself is a paradox that we won't really ever have an answer to if everything has to have a beginning.

For example.... many scientists say that the big bang started off as a singularity. Well what created the singularity? What created (insert answer to the singularity)? So on and so forth.

[cantthinkofanything]

Well what created the singularity? What created (insert answer to the singularity)?

IDK...maybe some kind of super being or something.

[DisAsTerBot]

So a person doesn't choose to be athiest or spiritual?

we're all born atheist.

you're an atheist too whom believes in one more god than I do.

when you understand why you don't believe in other Gods, you will understand why i don't believe in yours.

[xellos88330]

There is enough data to come to a reasonable conclusion that there is no higher being. As I stated before, if there is absolutely nothing--nothing that can be seen, measured, or detected in any way whatsoever--to suggest that something exists, it doesn't take faith to not believe in it.

Either a god exists or it does not. Anything else would be a paradox.

Neutrinos were once believed to not exist. People figured out a way to detect them. Dark matter was just a pipe dream, but people figured out how to detect it. Life was supposed to be unique to the earth, now we aren't so sure.

Existence itself is a paradox that will run infinitely. The premise of right or wrong is based upon the finite. There is no such thing as sufficient data to form a perfect answer. If there was, then there wouldn't be an atheist or religious person. Everyone would believe the same thing because it would be the absolute truth.

[Blake]

There is no right or wrong. There is just existence. And you know what? I am fine with that.

There is wrong when religious nuts try to push bible morals and bible science into the public domain.

[xellos88330]

There is wrong when religious nuts try to push bible morals and bible science into the public domain.

What is wrong to you is right to them. Therefore there is no right or wrong. There is just ones existence.

[xellos88330]

we're all born atheist.

you're an atheist too whom believes in one more god than I do.

when you understand why you don't believe in other Gods, you will understand why i don't believe in yours.

I believe in existence. I define what god is, and what god isn't. Existence is the only real answer.

[Wild Cobra]

A unique perspective:

Religious people aren’t necessarily stupid…and atheists aren’t necessarily smart (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/29/religious-people-arent-necessa/)

Part of link:


The difference is not in intelligence. It’s on the foundation of their education. Intelligent people who are indoctrinated into a faith can build marvelously intricate palaces of rationalization atop the shoddy vapor of their beliefs about gods and the supernatural; what scientists and atheists must do is build their logic on top of a more solid basis of empirical evidence and relentless self-examination. The difference isn’t their ability to reason, it is what they are reasoning about.

[Blake]

What is wrong to you is right to them. Therefore there is no right or wrong. There is just ones existence.

Morals and ideals that hold our society back are wrong....

....unless you want to argue that something like slavery is neither right nor wrong.

[Proxy]

Morals and ideals that hold our society back are wrong....

....unless you want to argue that something like slavery is neither right nor wrong.

checkmate

[Ginobilly]

Morals and ideals that hold our society back are wrong....

....unless you want to argue that something like slavery is neither right nor wrong.

but where do you get the idea that something like slavery and killing is wrong?

If I just base myself in scientific thinking then killing and enslaving is okay because isn't survival of the fittest? Then you could use the bodies of the captured for research to further develop the Human race.

[xellos88330]

Morals and ideals that hold our society back are wrong....

....unless you want to argue that something like slavery is neither right nor wrong.

All great nations were built on the backs of slaves. Where would we be now without slavery? Was it really wrong now that we see the outcome of it? Was it wrong to enslave people? Was it right to enslave people? All that really matters is that slavery existed.

[DisAsTerBot]

but where do you get the idea that something like slavery and killing is wrong?

If I just base myself in scientific thinking then killing and enslaving is okay because isn't survival of the fittest? Then you could use the bodies of the captured for research to further develop the Human race.

it's called living, experience. Many species work together amongst themselves or even with other species for mutual benefit. Morals don't come from a book, they come from experience.

[DisAsTerBot]

All great nations were built on the backs of slaves. Where would we be now without slavery? Was it really wrong now that we see the outcome of it? Was it wrong to enslave people? Was it right to enslave people? All that really matters is that slavery existed.

wow. Talk about a waste of existence. You sound like Lisa turtle when she tries to be smart to impress that smart kid.

is art art?
are we art?

yes slavery is bad. you can indeed build a nation without slaves.

[xellos88330]

wow. Talk about a waste of existence. You sound like Lisa turtle when she tries to be smart to impress that smart kid.

is art art?
are we art?

yes slavery is bad. you can indeed build a nation without slaves.

England, built by slaves.

USA, built by slaves.

Russia, built by slaves.

Persia, built by slaves.

Athens, built by slaves.

Sparta, built by slaves.

Egypt, built by slaves.

China, built by slaves.

Japan built by slaves.

[xellos88330]

wow. Talk about a waste of existence. You sound like Lisa turtle when she tries to be smart to impress that smart kid.

is art art?
are we art?

yes slavery is bad. you can indeed build a nation without slaves.

Slavery exists today. It may not be what you expect it to be, but it is there. For example, you don't work, you don't get paid, you starve. You are forced to work. A slave to money, yet this is accepted. Why?

[DisAsTerBot]

Slavery exists today. It may not be what you expect it to be, but it is there. For example, you don't work, you don't get paid, you starve. You are forced to work. A slave to money, yet this is accepted. Why?

There are millions of people in the US who are not in the work force. Not starving to death. Are they slaves too?

[DisAsTerBot]

slave labor and needing money to pay bills are not remotely the same thing.

[Blake]

but where do you get the idea that something like slavery and killing is wrong?

If I just base myself in scientific thinking then killing and enslaving is okay because isn't survival of the fittest? Then you could use the bodies of the captured for research to further develop the Human race.

I don't know anyone that believes that line of reasoning would make for a great society to be a part of.

[Blake]

Slavery exists today. It may not be what you expect it to be, but it is there. For example, you don't work, you don't get paid, you starve. You are forced to work. A slave to money, yet this is accepted. Why?

who said we currently live in a perfect world?

Wal Mart was built on the backs of slaves, in that sense, but they still had the option to work at HEB.

[Ginobilly]

it's called living, experience. Many species work together amongst themselves or even with other species for mutual benefit. Morals don't come from a book, they come from experience.


experience?:lmao:lmao

But you haven't answered the question. Why is killing bad?? Wouldn't it benefit the earth if a couple of billion people died? Aren't we overpopulated as it is?

[Ginobilly]

I don't know anyone that believes that line of reasoning would make for a great society to be a part of.

why not? You could do whatever you feel like it and believe whatever you want.

[Wild Cobra]

experience?:lmao:lmao

But you haven't answered the question. Why is killing bad?? Wouldn't it benefit the earth if a couple of billion people died? Aren't we overpopulated as it is?
Spoken like a true Hitler.

[step up to the mike]

experience?:lmao:lmao

But you haven't answered the question. Why is killing bad?? Wouldn't it benefit the earth if a couple of billion people died? Aren't we overpopulated as it is?

The world is not over populated. It is that the world doesn't share it's wealth amongst the people.

[Ginobilly]

Spoken like a true Hitler.

Well, this is the way true atheists speak and think. I'm pretty sure all atheists believe in equal rights for illegal immigrants, are out to cure world hunger and disease, donate money to charity, save the babies from Haiti:cry, etc.

[Ginobilly]

The world is not over populated. It is that the world doesn't share it's wealth amongst the people.

and how did that wealth come about?

people got fucked over in the past for that wealth to be accumulated. We kicked out all the Indians from all the fertile lands and used slaves to make money off those lands.

[Blake]

why not? You could do whatever you feel like it and believe whatever you want.

I would probably kill you in your society.