Study: Liberals, atheists, have higher IQs

[Uriel]

Political and religious behaviors may be reflections of intelligence, a new study finds.

Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa at the the London School of Economics and Political Science correlated data on these behaviors with IQ from a large national U.S. sample and found that, on average, people who identified as liberal and atheist had higher IQs. The findings will be published in the March 2010 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly.

The IQ differences, while statistically significant, are not stunning -- on the order of 6 to 11 points -- and the data should not be used to stereotype or make assumptions about people, experts say. But they show how certain patterns of identifying with particular ideologies develop, and how some people's behaviors come to be.

The reasoning is that liberalism and atheism both go against what would be expected given humans' evolutionary past. In other words, none of these traits would have benefited our early human ancestors, but higher intelligence may be associated with them.

"The adoption of some evolutionarily novel ideas makes some sense in terms of moving the species forward," said George Washington University leadership professor James Bailey, who was not involved in the study. "It also makes perfect sense that more intelligent people -- people with, sort of, more intellectual firepower -- are likely to be the ones to do that."

Bailey also said that these preferences may stem from a desire to show superiority or elitism, which also has to do with IQ. In fact, aligning oneself with "unconventional" philosophies such as liberalism or atheism may be "ways to communicate to everyone that you're pretty smart," he said.

The study looked at a large sample from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), which began with adolescents in grades 7-12 in the United States during the 1994-95 school year. The participants were interviewed as 18- to 28-year-olds from 2001 to 2002. The study also looked at the General Social Survey, another cross-national data collection source.

Religion, the current theory goes, did not help people survive or reproduce necessarily, but goes along the lines of helping people to be paranoid, Kanazawa said. Assuming that, for example, a noise in the distance is a signal of a threat helped early humans to prepare in case of danger.

"It helps life to be paranoid, and because humans are paranoid, they become more religious, and they see the hands of God everywhere," Kanazawa said.

Participants who said they were atheists had an average IQ of 103 in adolescence, while adults who said they were religious averaged 97, the study found. Atheism "allows someone to move forward and speculate on life without any concern for the dogmatic structure of a religion," Bailey said.

"Historically, anything that's new and different can be seen as a threat in terms of the religious beliefs; almost all religious systems are about permanence," he noted.

The study takes the American view of liberal vs. conservative. It defines "liberal" in terms of concern for genetically nonrelated people and support for private resources that help those people. It does not look at other factors that play into American political beliefs, such as abortion, gun control and gay rights.

"Liberals are more likely to be concerned about total strangers; conservatives are likely to be concerned with people they associate with," he said.

Given that human ancestors had a keen interest in the survival of their offspring and nearest kin, the conservative approach -- looking out for the people around you first -- fits with the evolutionary picture more than liberalism, Kanazawa said. "It's unnatural for humans to be concerned about total strangers." he said.

The study found that young adults who said they were "very conservative" had an average adolescent IQ of 95, whereas those who said they were "very liberal" averaged 106.

It also makes sense that "conservatism" as a worldview of keeping things stable would be a safer approach than venturing toward the unfamiliar, Bailey said.

Neither Bailey nor Kanazawa identify themselves as liberal; Bailey is conservative and Kanazawa is "a strong libertarian."

Vegetarianism, while not strongly associated with IQ in this study, has been shown to be related to intelligence in previous research, Kanazawa said. This also fits into Bailey's idea that unconventional preferences appeal to people with higher intelligence, and can also be a means of showing superiority.

None of this means that the human species is evolving toward a future where these traits are the default, Kanazawa said.

"More intelligent people don't have more children, so moving away from the trajectory is not going to happen," he said.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence/
:wakeup

[spurraider21]

what's with your fascination with IQ? :lol

im guessing you took an IQ test at some point in the near past, scored well, and are basking in your glory. or i'm just a presumptive ass. probably that one

while im not necessarily rejecting the findings, i think there is some experimenter bias. a european (likely liberal) evolutionary psychologist (likely atheist) has put forth a study that says liberals and atheists are smarter. while they dont identify as liberal, that's by european standards, where the entire spectrum is shifted a few units to the left

[Aztecfan03]

:wakeup

Another study from a liberal source a couple years ago found the exact opposite results.

[unforeseen]

Another study from a liberal source a couple years ago found the exact opposite results.

Link?

[Uriel]

what's with your fascination with IQ? :lol

im guessing you took an IQ test at some point in the near past, scored well, and are basking in your glory. or i'm just a presumptive ass. probably that one
Both.

[Uriel]

Another study from a liberal source a couple years ago found the exact opposite results.
This study was conducted by academics from the London School of Economics and Political Science. And their findings were published in Social Psychology Quarterly. This is as high quality a study as you're going to find.

[spurraider21]

Both.
nailed it

[Chinook]

Not surprising. Atheism appeals to intellectuals, not because it's more rational or whatever, but because it makes them feel better about themselves. I think it was Freud who said that a strong disbelief in god was the best way to balance out the warring impulses in the mind (by taking out the super ego or whatever). Marx said religion made lower-class folk complacent and that throwing off the yolk of faith would help end subjugation. Neither or those arguments are based on the inherent rightness of atheism. They're both just humanistic arguments, which appeal more to intellectuals than faith-based arguments (the "healing the soul" kind, not the epistemological kind).

As far as the liberal/conservative split, I don't think that needs a ton of explanation.

[Uriel]

Not surprising. Atheism appeals to intellectuals, not because it's more rational or whatever, but because it makes them feel better about themselves.
Au contraire, atheism appeals to intellectuals precisely because it's regarded as the more rational position to hold. Religious beliefs, by virtue of their being untestable, unverifiable, and not being anchored in science, are unappealing to more intelligent people who "know better."

[Aztecfan03]

Link?

I'll look when I get a chance later.


As far as the liberal/conservative split, I don't think that needs a ton of explanation.

If you are twenty and not a liberal you don't have a heart. If you are forty and not a conservative, you don't have a brain.

[Uriel]

If you are twenty and not a liberal you don't have a heart. If you are forty and not a conservative, you don't have a brain.
This is a common myth that's been bandied around incessantly. In reality, studies have shown that, although it is true that an individual generally becomes more conservative as he or she ages, the difference is not by much, and people who generally identify as liberal in their youth will do so for life.

[mouse]

I don't put much faith in IQ tests considering Albert Einstein often needed help tying his own shoes.

There are many worthless douche bags with high IQs

Ted Bundy
http://25.media.tumblr.com/eace28bb62430e50bb9265ad4859d59d/tumblr_mr8ihuS8eC1sx6ud4o1_500.jpg

Why people who boast about their IQ are (generally) losers

http://www.thepolemicalmedic.com/2012/11/why-people-who-boast-about-their-iq-are-generally-losers/

[RD2191]

Sometimes I use big words to make myself seem more photosynthesis.

[Blake]

I don't put much faith in IQ tests considering Albert Einstein often needed help tying his own shoes.

There are many worthless douche bags with high IQs

Ted Bundy
http://25.media.tumblr.com/eace28bb62430e50bb9265ad4859d59d/tumblr_mr8ihuS8eC1sx6ud4o1_500.jpg

Why people who boast about their IQ are (generally) losers

http://www.thepolemicalmedic.com/2012/11/why-people-who-boast-about-their-iq-are-generally-losers/

Whatever helps you cope with your low IQ

[Chinook]

Au contraire, atheism appeals to intellectuals precisely because it's regarded as the more rational position to hold. Religious beliefs, by virtue of their being untestable, unverifiable, and not being anchored in science, are unappealing to more intelligent people who "know better."

:rolleyes fancy way of saying that it makes intellectuals feel better about themselves.

[spurraider21]

Sometimes I use big words to make myself seem more photosynthesis.
:lol

[mouse]

Whatever helps you cope with your low IQ

Knowing you read my postings is much more important to me than any IQ grade.

[m>s]

My iq has been professionally tested around 140, right on par for most of the senior nazi leadership.

[RandomGuy]

Au contraire, atheism appeals to intellectuals precisely because it's regarded as the more rational position to hold. Religious beliefs, by virtue of their being untestable, unverifiable, and not being anchored in science, are unappealing to more intelligent people who "know better."

It is provably a more rational position to hold.

[RandomGuy]

My iq has been professionally tested around 140, right on par for most of the senior nazi leadership.

As has mine.

Yet you appear to be hobbled by some really flawed thinking when it comes to a lot of subjects, as well as devotion to some bizarre nazi meme.

It is possible to be intelligent, and have no critical thinking skills.

[DarrinS]

So this is going to be published in the March 2010 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly? Can't wait.

[Uriel]

I don't put much faith in IQ tests considering Albert Einstein often needed help tying his own shoes.
Actually, Einstein's IQ is estimated to be at around 160, which would put him in the genius category--which isn't really all that surprising, considering he's one of the most accomplished physicists who's ever lived. And you can ridicule him for his inability to tie his shoes all you want, but the fact of the matter is, IQ tests measure higher order thinking skills like "the ability to reason, plan, think abstractly, solve problems, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn from experience." Not motor skills like tying one's shoes.

Also, Einstein was, unsurprisingly, an atheist. He said, "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

[Brazil]

another no shit ? sherlock study tbh :lol

[Uriel]

:rolleyes fancy way of saying that it makes intellectuals feel better about themselves.
There are plenty of strong philosophical arguments from the atheist camp. The Problem of Evil, the Argument from Inconsistent Revelations, and the Argument from Nonbelief are but a few examples of this.

More importantly, a recent survey of the most well-renowned philosophers in their field showed that an overwhelming majority, 72.8%, identify as atheist, and only 14.6% identify as theist (12.6% identify as Other, which presumably means agnostic).

http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

[Uriel]

It is possible to be intelligent, and have no critical thinking skills.
Exactly. This is the crucial distinction many people miss. There are many high IQ people who hold irrational beliefs precisely because of their lack of critical thinking. The only thing their heightened intelligence does is make them more eloquent at defending these irrational beliefs.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Not surprising. Atheism appeals to intellectuals, not because it's more rational or whatever, but because it makes them feel better about themselves. I think it was Freud who said that a strong disbelief in god was the best way to balance out the warring impulses in the mind (by taking out the super ego or whatever). Marx said religion made lower-class folk complacent and that throwing off the yolk of faith would help end subjugation. Neither or those arguments are based on the inherent rightness of atheism. They're both just humanistic arguments, which appeal more to intellectuals than faith-based arguments (the "healing the soul" kind, not the epistemological kind).

As far as the liberal/conservative split, I don't think that needs a ton of explanation.

This is why i am hostile to theists.

I have read your shitty pima causus arguments and your end around on trying to prove a negative. Freud was a hack and his categorizations have been repudiated quite thoroughly for all of his intentions. Who gives a fuck about Marx?

You can try to drag us back to the 19th century with excuses for zero empirical or logical basis for your diety but there is no reason whatsoever to believe in any diety much less your preferred magic, angry sky man turned forgiven for all yet eternal and infinite except when shitty arguments are needed to be made.

[spurraider21]

Fuzzy with the bads. You claim to have read chinooks views and yet you horribly misrepresented them. I don't agree with his view but at least I know what it is :lol

[silverblk mystix]

Pretty much anyone that "labels" themselves has already taken the "stupid" path and their IQ score becomes irrelevant.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuzzy with the bads. You claim to have read chinooks views and yet you horribly misrepresented them. I don't agree with his view but at least I know what it is :lol

Then by all means regale us with them in your own words. If you are going to front this shit then you need to demonstrate it. People that are going to be swayed by such arguments are fools. I argued the semantics of the word universe and then he gave up and left. Nietzsche was ridiculing his approach back in the 19th century in Beyond Good and Evil

He needs the universe to be finite so he can deduce the existence of God because he knows very well that there is no empirical basis to induce his assertion. He cannot prove the universe is actually a singular for all of his handwaving at the etymology of the word.

But please try and do more than front next time.

[spurraider21]

Then by all means regale us with them in your own words. If you are going to front this shit then you need to demonstrate it. People that are going to be swayed by such arguments are fools. I argued the semantics of the word universe and then he gave up and left. Nietzsche was ridiculing his approach back in the 19th century in Beyond Good and Evil

He needs the universe to be finite so he can deduce the existence of God because he knows very well that there is no empirical basis to induce his assertion. He cannot prove the universe is actually a singular for all of his handwaving at the etymology of the word.

But please try and do more than front next time.
Once you started talking about the angry sky man and foregiveness you dropped the ball. Chinook isn't religious. Your long winded rants don't impress anybody

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Once you started talking about the angry sky man and foregiveness you dropped the ball. Chinook isn't religious. Your long winded rants don't impress anybody

So he is not a christian? He uses the exact same arguments that Christian scholars used in the 19th century. prima causa and natural law are old hat.

I grant that I may have been unfair in my assumption as to a particular monotheistic order.

[TeyshaBlue]

Pretty much anyone that "labels" themselves has already taken the "stupid" path and their IQ score becomes irrelevant.

My Vitamin I allowance was exceeded by this post.

[xmas1997]

Pretty much anyone that "labels" themselves has already taken the "stupid" path and their IQ score becomes irrelevant.

:lmao

So true!

[spurraider21]

Pretty much anyone that "labels" themselves has already taken the "stupid" path and their IQ score becomes irrelevant.
So just to be clear, you don't believe in the bible, in Jesus, etc?

[Chinook]

There are plenty of strong philosophical arguments from the atheist camp. The Problem of Evil, the Argument from Inconsistent Revelations, and the Argument from Nonbelief are but a few examples of this.

Dunno the last argument. The other two seem like anti-relgious arguments, though.


More importantly, a recent survey of the most well-renowned philosophers in their field showed that an overwhelming majority, 72.8%, identify as atheist, and only 14.6% identify as theist (12.6% identify as Other, which presumably means agnostic).

http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

That's also not surprising to me. Theists have their philosophy already.

I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying. Atheism appeals to intellectuals, that we can agree on. But it appeals to them because it lines up with their views, not because it is inherently more reasonable.

[Chinook]

This is why i am hostile to theists.

I have read your shitty pima causus arguments and your end around on trying to prove a negative. Freud was a hack and his categorizations have been repudiated quite thoroughly for all of his intentions. Who gives a fuck about Marx?

You can try to drag us back to the 19th century with excuses for zero empirical or logical basis for your diety but there is no reason whatsoever to believe in any diety much less your preferred magic, angry sky man turned forgiven for all yet eternal and infinite except when shitty arguments are needed to be made.

:lol So you're one of them there "non-intellectual atheists" I hear about from time to time.

[Chinook]

So he is not a christian? He uses the exact same arguments that Christian scholars used in the 19th century. prima causa and natural law are old hat.

Those arguments are much older than that, just like the arguments from empiricism. We've been in a standstill on the theism/atheism question for forever man, and no one's brought anything new to the table.

[xmas1997]

:lol So you're one of them there "non-intellectual atheists" I hear about from time to time.

Actually it is a well known fact around here that he is what is known as a "pseudo-intellectual". :lol

[spurraider21]

Those arguments are much older than that, just like the arguments from empiricism. We've been in a standstill on the theism/atheism question for forever man, and no one's brought anything new to the table.
well, the only way for atheism to bring anything new to the table would essentially be to prove a negative. its unfair to put the onus on both sides in that regard

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol So you're one of them there "non-intellectual atheists" I hear about from time to time.

Skeptic. I don't bluster certainty.

[Chinook]

well, the only way for atheism to bring anything new to the table would essentially be to prove a negative. its unfair to put the onus on both sides in that regard

I'm not talking about from an empiricist angle. I mean from an rationalist angle. There aren't any new lines of reasoning. Atheists have empricism/humanism, and theists have dogma/spirituality. Sure, some of us have more-nuanced things to say, but they aren't unique. My view isn't typical for theist, but I didn't invent it, and most folks have already seen it. I accept that; I just don't think it makes sense to call my view dated.

[Chinook]

Skeptic. I don't bluster certainty.

Skeptics tend to learn about things before they form opinions about them. You mischaracterizing my viewpoint so badly is absolutely not how a true skeptic goes about making evaluations.

[The Reckoning]

I think I had a dog named Bluster

[Cry Havoc]

Actually, Einstein's IQ is estimated to be at around 160, which would put him in the genius category--which isn't really all that surprising, considering he's one of the most accomplished physicists who's ever lived. And you can ridicule him for his inability to tie his shoes all you want, but the fact of the matter is, IQ tests measure higher order thinking skills like "the ability to reason, plan, think abstractly, solve problems, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn from experience." Not motor skills like tying one's shoes.

Also, Einstein was, unsurprisingly, an atheist. He said, "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

IQ tests are largely disregarded by Psychologists anymore. They have been shown to have severe cultural bias, and furthermore have been shown to be too focused on a few small variables in higher order thinking rather than providing a comprehensive concept of the intellect of an individual.


Sources (more if need be):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/iq-tests-are-fundamentally-flawed-and-using-them-alone-to-measure-intelligence-is-a-fallacy-study-finds-8425911.html

[silverblk mystix]

So just to be clear, you don't believe in the bible, in Jesus, etc?


I believe in everything...the universe...this moment...god...non-god....reality....unreality...

No exclusions to anything...inside and outside of you...no conclusions...no hardening of the senses and acceptance to every single thing in and around you and being sensitive to every single thing.

That is pretty clear.

[spurraider21]

excellent way to avoid the question :tu

except i was kidding about the excellent part

[pgardn]

IQ measures what?

This again... Jesus Fn ...

I will go with Lumpkins view on Marx.
Simplistic crap. And they made us read it to find out for ourselves.
Absolutley the easiest stuff to write a paper on. This should be disturbing.

[Avante]

What really is intelligence? I was blessed with a fantastic memory, I see anything once and if the interest is there it's locked away forever, I can't change my own oil.

One of my grandpa's couldn't read, what he could do was fix any and everything, grow the best garden in the county and cook better than any woman I've ever known.

I wonder what Ray Charles IQ was?

I know people with that college degree who have the great $$$$ job who don't have a lick of common sense.

What really is intelligence?

[Chinook]

I will go with Lumpkins view on Marx.
Simplistic crap. And they made us read it to find out for ourselves.
Absolutley the easiest stuff to write a paper on. This should be disturbing.

Not a huge fan of Marx, and I believe his work didn't age well at all, but I don't think it's an appropriate criticism to call him simplistic. Much of his writing was for the laity, and so it is supposed to not be complicated. He actually does go into deeper German Modern Philosophy in other works when he's actually trying to justify his view.

[Uriel]

IQ tests are largely disregarded by Psychologists anymore. They have been shown to have severe cultural bias, and furthermore have been shown to be too focused on a few small variables in higher order thinking rather than providing a comprehensive concept of the intellect of an individual.


Sources (more if need be):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/iq-tests-are-fundamentally-flawed-and-using-them-alone-to-measure-intelligence-is-a-fallacy-study-finds-8425911.html
I find it ironic that you would link to a Wikipedia article (not exactly the most scholarly source) on the Flynn Effect, when James Flynn, the researcher this phenomenon was named after, has spent virtually his entire life researching intelligence and IQ tests. If these tests have been so throughly disregarded, why is this well-renowned academic still dedicating his life to it?

Moreover, I read the article on the 2nd link, and it said that IQ tests per se are not sufficient to properly measure intelligence, because there are multiple kinds of intelligence. No one has ever denied this. For instance, Jason Kidd, an NBA superstar, would have very high Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence. But despite this, he has a very low Verbal / Mathematical intelligence (around 70), as measured by IQ tests. This is the kind of intelligence that most people generally refer to when they talk about IQ in the first place.

[Uriel]

What really is intelligence? I was blessed with a fantastic memory, I see anything once and if the interest is there it's locked away forever, I can't change my own oil.

One of my grandpa's couldn't read, what he could do was fix any and everything, grow the best garden in the county and cook better than any woman I've ever known.

I wonder what Ray Charles IQ was?

I know people with that college degree who have the great $$$$ job who don't have a lick of common sense.

What really is intelligence?
Intelligence, in this sense, is defined as higher order thinking skills--the ability to plan, reason, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, and learn from experience. Not "street smarts" or "common sense."

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Skeptics tend to learn about things before they form opinions about them. You mischaracterizing my viewpoint so badly is absolutely not how a true skeptic goes about making evaluations.

I stand by my description of your proofs on god. You can claim foul all you like but prima causa and natural law arguments are what they are. Your word play to try and force a finite universe is what it is as well.

If you are not a Jesus worshiper then I was mistaken. I assumed since you used the arguments of christian philosophers that you were a christian yourself.

Helps to point out how I mischaracterized. There is no rational basis for a diety, Jesus or otherwise.

[Chinook]

I stand by my description of your proofs on god. You can claim foul all you like but prima causa and natural law arguments are what they are. Your word play to try and force a finite universe is what it is as well.

If you are not a Jesus worshiper then I was mistaken. I assumed since you used the arguments of christian philosophers that you were a christian yourself.

Helps to point out how I mischaracterized. There is no rational basis for a diety, Jesus or otherwise.

We've had threads of debate already (not you and me but in general) to talk about my view. I'll continue to think atheists are irrational, and you're free to continue thinking that of me. It's not a big deal.

[Uriel]

I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying. Atheism appeals to intellectuals, that we can agree on. But it appeals to them because it lines up with their views, not because it is inherently more reasonable.
I do understand what you're saying. You're saying that, on the subject of the nature and origin of the universe, you occupy the same philosophical position as the less intelligent people in the world population.

[Chinook]

I do understand what you're saying. You're saying that, on the subject of the nature and origin of the universe, you occupy the same philosophical position as the less intelligent people in the world population.

I'm saying that I don't have nearly as much at stake as the average intellectual. So I don't feel a need to force atheism in my life. Obviously, that isn't to insult atheists. But atheism/theism may as well be a sports team or a brand of coffee. I'm sure there would be some trends about those types of preferences as they relate to IQ scores, though I doubt anyone would be toting those around as validation of their choice.

[RandomGuy]

Exactly. This is the crucial distinction many people miss. There are many high IQ people who hold irrational beliefs precisely because of their lack of critical thinking. The only thing their heightened intelligence does is make them more eloquent at defending these irrational beliefs.

Eyup. It also allows them to be particularly adept at rationalization and the very human tendency towards confirmation bias.

[RandomGuy]

I'm saying that I don't have nearly as much at stake as the average intellectual. So I don't feel a need to force atheism in my life. Obviously, that isn't to insult atheists. But atheism/theism may as well be a sports team or a brand of coffee. I'm sure there would be some trends about those types of preferences as they relate to IQ scores, though I doubt anyone would be toting those around as validation of their choice.

I sort of muddled around in the same place you are for most of my life actually. Eventually I took the time to put some thought to it, and realized I was already pretty much an atheist, and just decided to be completely honest with myself about that. It was liberating to finally shed the last vestiges of the indoctrination.

[RandomGuy]

Sometimes I use big words to make myself seem more photosynthesis.

:lmao

props.

[silverblk mystix]

excellent way to avoid the question :tu

except i was kidding about the excellent part



You revealed so much about your IQ by not being able to understand or grasp my short paragraph and furthermore you distorted and twisted and misinterpreted the treasure of truth I gave you.


Not surprised tbh.

[Blake]

... the treasure of truth I gave you.


lololololol

[mrsmaalox]

My Vitamin I allowance was exceeded by this post.

:lol

You'd better stock up!

[Chinook]

I sort of muddled around in the same place you are for most of my life actually. Eventually I took the time to put some thought to it, and realized I was already pretty much an atheist, and just decided to be completely honest with myself about that. It was liberating to finally shed the last vestiges of the indoctrination.

Nifty. I'll put that right up next to Xmas' professed transformation from atheism to theism in my file of why humans are different. I am not going to compare myself with you as far as my level of critical reasoning goes, since I probably don't know you in real life. And I am not going to act like I will never have a change of heart on this issue one way or the other. Life's the longest thing we do, after all.

But I got to where I was by thinking critically. I think that most atheists are where they are from a lack of reasoning -- rather, they recite lazy empiricist conventions and hide behind their conceptions of science. It's just a difference of opinion on our parts between who's irrational and whose view is the null a rational mind will eventually slip into. I'm okay with that.

[ChumpDumper]

the treasure of truth I gave you.:lol

[z0sa]

I am a deist, which in all practical applications, equates to an atheist who hopes he is wrong and there's an afterlife. :lol

[spurraider21]

I believe in unreality


treasure of truth
:lmao

[Avante]

Only a dummy would gamble spending an eternity burning.

[spurraider21]

Only a dummy would gamble spending an eternity burning.
you are gambling with hell too... by believing in magic jesus you are violating one of the 10 commandments of judaism and are gambling spending an eternity in jewish hell

[Avante]

you are gambling with hell too... by believing in magic jesus you are violating one of the 10 commandments of judaism and are gambling spending an eternity in jewish hell

I take the...

Hey You, I have no idea what's going on here but I do believe in You. I know this didn't just happen. Sorry but that's the best I can do. Hopefully that will work. I sure in hell don't take the idiot approach like you do.

[spurraider21]

I take the...

Hey You, I have no idea what's going on here but I do believe in You. I know this didn't just happen. Sorry but that's the best I can do. Hopefully that will work. I sure in hell don't take the idiot approach like you do.
lol if i die and actually experience an afterlife that would surely alter my beliefs too. then i can just say im sorry and i'm in

[Avante]

lol if i die and actually experience an afterlife that would surely alter my beliefs too. then i can just say im sorry and i'm in

So you've never noticed...

A player gets seriously hurt and there he lays. The next thing we see is all his teammates on a knee in prayer. Dude, only dummies play this stupid...."there is no God". I bet there are those in your family who believe in God, right? Where you work, right? How far can you drive without seeing a church?

Who wants a life with no hope or faith in anything? Yep, dummies like you.

[xmas1997]

You revealed so much about your IQ by not being able to understand or grasp my short paragraph and furthermore you distorted and twisted and misinterpreted the treasure of truth I gave you.
Not surprised tbh.

Too many here such as anaghka, benefaggor, ohmwracked, and clumpy dumpy prefer to live their lies, sociopaths are like that.
:lmao

[anakha]

:lmao sad old man still butthurt
:lmao trying to bury the fact that he faked his death because Avante hurt his feelings

[anakha]

I mean, lying about graduating from an Ivy League school is one thing. Hell, people applying for jobs make up worse things everyday.

Even getting duped by Twitter parody accounts is relatively tame compared to NBA players getting catfished.

Getting so upset by being put on blast by a poster whose figurative cock you guzzled on this board that you faked your own death and threatened lawsuits? That's going beyond 'socially awkward person on the Internet' and into 'potential psycho'. No wonder nobody wants to see you at GTGs anymore. :lmao :lmao :lmao

[RandomGuy]

But I got to where I was by thinking critically. I think that most atheists are where they are from a lack of reasoning -- rather, they recite lazy empiricist conventions and hide behind their conceptions of science.

I can't speak for "most atheists", I can only speak for myself. I spent quite a bit of time on it, and am far from lazy about it.

I haven't found any arguments for the existence of some supreme being that have stood up to even a modest amount of scrutiny or critical thinking. It always seems to boil down to fallacious thinking of one sort or another.

That said, there are fully some atheists who believe other stupid shit, like magic crystals and so forth. It isn't some shield against flawed thinking, and people can be rational in some areas, and irrational in others. I would put most religious people in the latter category, of course.

[RandomGuy]

So you've never noticed...

A player gets seriously hurt and there he lays. The next thing we see is all his teammates on a knee in prayer. Dude, only dummies play this stupid...."there is no God". I bet there are those in your family who believe in God, right? Where you work, right? How far can you drive without seeing a church?

Who wants a life with no hope or faith in anything? Yep, dummies like you.

http://allamericanblogger.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/popularity1.jpg



So many logical fallacies, so little time. I skipped the strawman/appeal to ridicule.

9 sentences, three logical fallacies.

An idea's ultimate truth is not determined by how many people believe it.

Atheists have a lot of hope actually, and I think faith is, well, stupid. Humans are better off without it, IMO.

[RandomGuy]

I am a deist, which in all practical applications, equates to an atheist who hopes he is wrong and there's an afterlife. :lol

heh, I hope I am wrong too.

I just am not going to let worrying about it run my life. Live with honesty and respect for others, care for those who need help, raise decent children to live on after me.

In those choices I am comfortable with having very Christian friends who fully agree with the last part of that philosophy. Hell, I even let one of them talk me into listening to "mere christianity" by C.S. Lewis once or twice. What a load of self-congratulatory bilge, yuck.

[Avante]

http://allamericanblogger.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/popularity1.jpg



So many logical fallacies, so little time. I skipped the strawman/appeal to ridicule.

9 sentences, three logical fallacies.

An idea's ultimate truth is not determined by how many people believe it.

Atheists have a lot of hope actually, and I think faith is, well, stupid. Humans are better off without it, IMO.

I pity you dude.

[Uriel]

So you've never noticed...

A player gets seriously hurt and there he lays. The next thing we see is all his teammates on a knee in prayer. Dude, only dummies play this stupid...."there is no God". I bet there are those in your family who believe in God, right? Where you work, right? How far can you drive without seeing a church?

Who wants a life with no hope or faith in anything? Yep, dummies like you.

http://allamericanblogger.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/popularity1.jpg



So many logical fallacies, so little time. I skipped the strawman/appeal to ridicule.

9 sentences, three logical fallacies.

An idea's ultimate truth is not determined by how many people believe it.

Atheists have a lot of hope actually, and I think faith is, well, stupid. Humans are better off without it, IMO.
Owned. :lol

The fact that atheists are the ones constantly pointing out the fallacies in religious peoples' thinking truly suggests that they're more intelligent.

[xellos88330]

People are fallible. Atheists are no different. A high IQ doesn't mean that you are always right or your opinion holds more weight than that of another.

Could belief in a deity be right? Of course it could. When looked at from a scientific viewpoint, it is impossible to deny that possibility. People cannot claim to know the depths and intricacies of the universe without actually exploring all of the possibilities it holds. Think about it logically. How in the hell are we supposed to know for FACT that there isn't something in the universe that is beyond our comprehension when we can't even find out how many different species of living creature are on our own damn planet? Humans haven't fully explored the depths of the oceans, or even the jungles of the Amazon and yet, we are supposed to know all the answers to the universe?

To me, denying the possibility of a being greater than my own understanding is very close-minded and arrogant. If you are indeed smarter.... give everyone the answers they seek with your proofs of infallibility. If you can't do it, then shut your trap about those who are searching for those same answers in their own way.

[Uriel]

People are fallible. Atheists are no different. A high IQ doesn't mean that you are always right or your opinion holds more weight than that of another.

Could belief in a deity be right? Of course it could. When looked at from a scientific viewpoint, it is impossible to deny that possibility. People cannot claim to know the depths and intricacies of the universe without actually exploring all of the possibilities it holds. Think about it logically. How in the hell are we supposed to know for FACT that there isn't something in the universe that is beyond our comprehension when we can't even find out how many different species of living creature are on our own damn planet? Humans haven't fully explored the depths of the oceans, or even the jungles of the Amazon and yet, we are supposed to know all the answers to the universe?

To me, denying the possibility of a being greater than my own understanding is very close-minded and arrogant. If you are indeed smarter.... give everyone the answers they seek with your proofs of infallibility. If you can't do it, then shut your trap about those who are searching for those same answers in their own way.
I don't know of any atheist that denies the existence of God. Not even Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens--the leaders of the New Atheist movement today, who are among the most outspoken non-believers in the world--deny the existence of God. They merely point out that there is no evidence for His existence, and hence, posit that there is no good reason to believe in Him.

Science cannot disprove the existence of God. But that's because it's impossible to prove a negative. Science cannot disprove the existence of fairies or unicorns either. It just makes more sense to assume that they don't exist, because there really is no reason to think that they do.

[xellos88330]

I don't know of any atheist that denies the existence of God. Not even Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens--the leaders of the New Atheist movement today, who are among the most outspoken non-believers in the world--deny the existence of God. They merely point out that there is no evidence for His existence, and hence, posit that there is no good reason to believe in Him.

Science cannot disprove the existence of God. But that's because it's impossible to prove a negative. Science cannot disprove the existence of fairies or unicorns either. It just makes more sense to assume that they don't exist, because there really is no reason to think that they do.

So why call out people on a major issue based purely on assumption? Are you not basing the argument on an assumption (that science can explain everything) the same exact way as the believer assumes (based on the holy books etc.) that a deity does exist?

One can claim that it is only logical to assume it based on pure intelligence of the person, but that person would be ignoring the fact that numerous times in recorded history the logical choice that was made based upon the current knowledge was proven illogical in hindsight due to knowledge that wasn't currently known.

[xellos88330]

One more thing. Science isn't perfect, nor are the methods to improving it. There are even some places in the universe where mathematics don't function properly.

[Uriel]

So why call out people on a major issue based purely on assumption? Are you not basing the argument on an assumption (that science can explain everything) the same exact way as the believer assumes (based on the holy books etc.) that a deity does exist?
First of all, I didn't say that science can explain everything, nor will I pretend that it can. Obviously, there are still questions about which science still has yet no answers on. But just because it doesn't have them now doesn't mean it never will.

Second, that doesn't detract from the fact that science--not religion--is the single most effective means humanity has today of obtaining knowledge about the nature of the universe. Why is that? Because the former produces knowledge based on evidence, whose veracity can then be verified empirically by third-party observers. The latter, on the other, makes use of no evidence whatsoever, and relies purely on faith and the passage of time. This is antithetical to critical thinking, because it encourages people not to think, not to probe, and not to question, but to merely accept that this is the way things are because their religion says so.

Third, you're making a false equivalency here about the assumptions atheists and theists make. Atheists assume that God doesn't exist because there is no good reason to believe in his existence. For atheists, this is the default position to take. There are no good reasons to believe that Big Foot or the Loch Ness Monster exist either, so the default position is to assume they don't exist. Hence, the onus is on the believers of God--or Big Foot / the Loch Ness Monster--to prove that he exists. And using a holy book to make that case just doesn't cut it, because it is only religious believers themselves who subscribe to their authenticity in the first place. That's circular reasoning--a logical fallacy.

http://rationalwiki.org/w/images/thumb/7/78/Bible_cycle.jpg/400px-Bible_cycle.jpg

[silverblk mystix]

I mean, lying about graduating from an Ivy League school is one thing. Hell, people applying for jobs make up worse things everyday.

Even getting duped by Twitter parody accounts is relatively tame compared to NBA players getting catfished.

Getting so upset by being put on blast by a poster whose figurative cock you guzzled on this board that you faked your own death and threatened lawsuits? That's going beyond 'socially awkward person on the Internet' and into 'potential psycho'. No wonder nobody wants to see you at GTGs anymore. :lmao :lmao :lmao



Brief & accurate translation:

"I am truthfully just a scared chicken-shit pussy who is terrified to attend a gtg because - well I am a pussy"

[spurraider21]

Brief & accurate translation:

"I am truthfully just a scared chicken-shit pussy who is terrified to attend a gtg because - well I am a pussy"
lol coming from the scared chicken-shit pussy who is terrified of revealing his beliefs

peter denied jeebus 3 times, how many times will you?

[silverblk mystix]

lol coming from the scared chicken-shit pussy who is terrified of revealing his beliefs

peter denied jeebus 3 times, how many times will you?


Why would I bind myself to beliefs?

Why would anyone with half a brain - limit themselves this way?


Don't seek the truth - just drop your opinions, drop your theories, drop your concepts,labels,conventions.

Put on a brand new mind.


You won't. You won't appreciate or understand the wisdom I freely gave you.

Go back to sleep again - this is all you've ever known.

[ChumpDumper]

Brief & accurate translation:

"I am truthfully just a scared chicken-shit pussy who is terrified to attend a gtg because - well I am a pussy"You've never been to a gtg.

Pussy

[anakha]

Brief & accurate translation:

"I am truthfully just a scared chicken-shit pussy who is terrified to attend a gtg because - well I am a pussy"

:lmao sbm proves he can't read for shit again.
:lmao accusing someone who lives on the other side of the world of not wanting to go to GTGs
:lmao no wonder the old man likes you - you operate on the same intellectual level

[silverblk mystix]

:lmao sbm proves he can't read for shit again.
:lmao accusing someone who lives on the other side of the world of not wanting to go to GTGs
:lmao no wonder the old man likes you - you operate on the same intellectual level



:lol bakla

[xmas1997]

:lol bakla

:lmao

Oh, you mean anaghkla is a he/she?

That explains everything.

I wonder how he/she is going to try to get out of this.

:lmao

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao

Oh, you mean anaghkla is a he/she?

That explains everything.

I wonder how he/she is going to try to get out of this.

:lmaoGet out of what?

Europe?

lol geography

[anakha]

:lol bakla

:lmao trying to deflect from the fact that he can't read for shit


:lmao

Oh, you mean anaghkla is a he/she?

That explains everything.

I wonder how he/she is going to try to get out of this.

:lmao

:lmao old man still has no answer for this:


I mean, lying about graduating from an Ivy League school is one thing. Hell, people applying for jobs make up worse things everyday.

Even getting duped by Twitter parody accounts is relatively tame compared to NBA players getting catfished.

Getting so upset by being put on blast by a poster whose figurative cock you guzzled on this board that you faked your own death and threatened lawsuits? That's going beyond 'socially awkward person on the Internet' and into 'potential psycho'. No wonder nobody wants to see you at GTGs anymore. :lmao :lmao :lmao

[anakha]

:lol abandoned by his ally so fakes his death
:lol lawyer
:lol Victor
:lol meltdown of all meltdowns
:lol ultimate bitch move
:lol still gets pissed when reminded of it

[xellos88330]

First of all, I didn't say that science can explain everything, nor will I pretend that it can. Obviously, there are still questions about which science still has yet no answers on. But just because it doesn't have them now doesn't mean it never will.

Second, that doesn't detract from the fact that science--not religion--is the single most effective means humanity has today of obtaining knowledge about the nature of the universe. Why is that? Because the former produces knowledge based on evidence, whose veracity can then be verified empirically by third-party observers. The latter, on the other, makes use of no evidence whatsoever, and relies purely on faith and the passage of time. This is antithetical to critical thinking, because it encourages people not to think, not to probe, and not to question, but to merely accept that this is the way things are because their religion says so.

Third, you're making a false equivalency here about the assumptions atheists and theists make. Atheists assume that God doesn't exist because there is no good reason to believe in his existence. For atheists, this is the default position to take. There are no good reasons to believe that Big Foot or the Loch Ness Monster exist either, so the default position is to assume they don't exist. Hence, the onus is on the believers of God--or Big Foot / the Loch Ness Monster--to prove that he exists. And using a holy book to make that case just doesn't cut it, because it is only religious believers themselves who subscribe to their authenticity in the first place. That's circular reasoning--a logical fallacy.

http://rationalwiki.org/w/images/thumb/7/78/Bible_cycle.jpg/400px-Bible_cycle.jpg

In your first paragraph, you state that perhaps science will one day find the answer. That is a statement of faith. Science could in theory find out that "God(s)" do indeed exist. You are once again treading into the unknown. Everyone knows that religion has always been used as a way to reason and cope with natural phenomena beyond our logical/scientific understanding. This leads to my response to your second paragraph.

Religion has long been used to reason or cope with natural phenomena. Whether or not it was correct was always a question which advanced the sciences further. Religion once stated that the Earth was the center of the universe. One person sought to see if that was really how it worked. Religion does not hamper critical thinking, but instead inspires it. The proof is in this thread in front of you. You also seem to completely misunderstand the holy books as well. You say that it isn't a good example of proof of a deity. I am actually inclined to agree. The book isn't meant to be a proof of existence in my eyes. The books are meant to teach for the betterment of mankind. They tell stories and within those stories are messages of awe and wonder. How do we know that the characters in the stories did not in fact exist? In many cases the subjects of the bible have been found to have existed from archeological finds having nothing to do with religion. The plagues were explained. Sodom and Gomorrah were found. The walls of Jericho from the Bible timeline were found. The Sea of Galilee still exists today as does the foundation of temple of Solomon and the city of Jerusalem. Proof has been uncovered by science that these phenomena could have existed. Can you without a shadow of a doubt still say that the Bible has no truth to it whatsoever although your science has found it to be possible?

How could I possibly be making a false equivalency between an assumption and another assumption? They are BOTH assumptions. An assumption is something that is accepted as being true without any proof otherwise. How can you say something is false based on an assumption? If you ask me, you are being just as deluded and blind as those people whom you are looking as deluded and blind. In reality, we ALL are deluded and blind because we cannot figure it all out.

You bring up the legend of bigfoot and the loch ness monster to assist your argument, but that is also a ridiculous thing to bring up. There is a scientific concept in paleontology called Lazarus taxon. The concept itself was named this due to something thought to have been extinct or missing resurfacing. Just like Lazarus being brought back from the dead by Jesus. Can you still say that bigfoot or Nessie couldn't exist?

[spurraider21]

You bring up the legend of bigfoot and the loch ness monster to assist your argument, but that is also a ridiculous thing to bring up. There is a scientific concept in paleontology called Lazarus taxon. The concept itself was named this due to something thought to have been extinct or missing resurfacing. Just like Lazarus being brought back from the dead by Jesus. Can you still say that bigfoot or Nessie doesn't exist?
i think you missed the point. he never made the claim that bigfoot and nessie don't exist. as there is no evidence to their existence, the the default position is to assume they don't exist. same with unicorns, leprechauns, etc.

[xellos88330]

i think you missed the point. he never made the claim that bigfoot and nessie don't exist. as there is no evidence to their existence, the the default position is to assume they don't exist. same with unicorns, leprechauns, etc.

Whoops!!! Lol!! Meant to say "couldn't". Thanks for the catch.

I was trying to make the point that the default position shouldn't be that it doesn't exist, but only one that states that one cannot confirm or deny their existence based upon current knowledge and unknown possibilities.

[xmas1997]

Whoops!!! Lol!! Meant to say "couldn't". Thanks for the catch.

I was trying to make the point that the default position shouldn't be that it doesn't exist, but only one that states that one cannot confirm or deny their existence based upon current knowledge and unknown possibilities.

A point I agree with.

And what SBM has been saying all along.

But then there are a couple of flakes above (see clumpussy and anagloser) who rather make this and every thread about me rather than the topic, they need to grow up.

[anakha]

:lmao old man meltdown in progress

Wonder which thread he'll take his bitching to next.

[ChumpDumper]

A point I agree with.

And what SBM has been saying all along.

But then there are a couple of flakes above (see clumpussy and anagloser) who rather make this and every thread about me rather than the topic, they need to grow up.Hey, you said you came back from the dead after Avante made you kill yourself.

That's noteworthy.

[spurraider21]

Whoops!!! Lol!! Meant to say "couldn't". Thanks for the catch.

I was trying to make the point that the default position shouldn't be that it doesn't exist, but only one that states that one cannot confirm or deny their existence based upon current knowledge and unknown possibilities.
but then that same thing extends to the flying spaghetti monster, or any other entity than anybody can conjure up in their imagination.

[xmas1997]

Case in point. :lmao Fools. :lmao

[ChumpDumper]

Case in point. :lmao Fools. :lmaoWhat was it like after you killed yourself?

[anakha]

:lmao old man reply fail :lmao

Keep up the meltdown, old man.

E: :lmao old man editing his fuckup :lmao

[xmas1997]

but then that same thing extends to the flying spaghetti monster, or any other entity than anybody can conjure up in their imagination.

This is true and maybe one of the most profound things you have ever said, the imagination is one of mankinds most powerful and creative mechanisms.

[xmas1997]

Notice the two fools? Yes, :lol you know who you are. I have them totally obsessed with me!

Talk about trolling! I am their Troll God. :lmao

And saddest of all: they have absolutely zero to say! :lol

[ChumpDumper]

Notice the two fools? I have them totally obsessed with me!

Talk about trolling! I am their Troll God. :lmao^^^ derailing ^^^

[xmas1997]

:owned

[xellos88330]

but then that same thing extends to the flying spaghetti monster, or any other entity than anybody can conjure up in their imagination.

That is absolutely correct. Even the most ridiculous things have the possibility of existing based upon our current knowledge. An intelligent decision cannot be made under any circumstance with the small amount of knowledge we as a species have gathered. It is pointless to conclude that believers and non-believers are right or wrong. The answer to every question beyond our knowledge should ALWAYS be undeniable truth. We just don't know.

[ChumpDumper]

:ownedThat's three.

Try for at least two more.

That will confirm your meltdown.

[xmas1997]

That is absolutely correct. Even the most ridiculous things have the possibility of existing based upon our current knowledge. An intelligent decision cannot be made under any circumstance with the small amount of knowledge we as a species have gathered. It is pointless to conclude that believers and non-believers are right or wrong. The answer to every question beyond our knowledge should ALWAYS be undeniable truth. We just don't know.

Which takes us back to that most powerful and creative mechanism called imagination.

[anakha]

This is true and maybe one of the most profound things you have ever said, the imagination is one of mankinds most powerful and creative mechanisms.

:lmao old man sucking up to a poster that owned him in the past :lmao


Glad to see you do know some science, and some logic, as well as the Raiders.


wish i could say the same

:lmao :lmao :lmao

[xmas1997]

^^^ :owned ^^^

[xellos88330]

Which takes us back to that most powerful and creative mechanism called imagination.

Perhaps even a persons imagination could be considered a deity. After all, science fiction can become science fact. You just have to try to figure it out. Then again, the Bible states that God has made us in his own image. Perhaps all of us could be considered a god because we can make the impossible, possible.

[anakha]

Yes, old man, congratulations on discovering the master emotes list on ST.

This is the online equivalent of watching a special needs baby take its first steps. :lmao

[ChumpDumper]

^^^ :owned ^^^That's four.

One more and we have confirmed meltdown.

[xmas1997]

I own both those two fools, they follow me everywhere, even while I have them on ignore, fools! :lmao

[ChumpDumper]

I own both those two fools, they follow me everywhere! :lmaoClose enough.

You got shamed into refraining from the emoticon.

lol ignore

[anakha]

Old man spamming threads, flinging emotes, constantly insulting posters.

This meltdown is certainly a sight to see.

[ChumpDumper]

I can't wait to see his retort.

Probably something about owning something!

[xmas1997]

Perhaps even a persons imagination could be considered a deity. After all, science fiction can become science fact. You just have to try to figure it out. Then again, the Bible states that God has made us in his own image. Perhaps all of us could be considered a god because we can make the impossible, possible.

I have felt this way for a long time. Like you said, "created in His image", and Christ also said "we would do these things and greater", so my contention is we are creating as God creates and not merely because He said we would, or because He is within all of us, but because our imaginations, channeled properly, is such a strong misunderstood mechanism.

[anakha]

Maybe something about being a Troll God.

Or something about ignoring people.

Either way, the only reason this hasn't reached epic status is because he hasn't faked his death again so far.

E :lmao, yup, the pathetic old man could help himself:


:lmao
I own you stupid stupid morons!
This is too fuuny.
Be my guests, you have no choice, you must post after me, I own you thoroughly and there is nothing either of you can do about it. :lmao
Please, don't stop, this is too good.
:lmao

[ChumpDumper]

lol shamed into perfunctory on topic post

He'll turn soon enough.

[xmas1997]

:lmao
I own you stupid stupid morons!
This is too fuuny.
Be my guests, you have no choice, you must post after me, I own you thoroughly and there is nothing either of you can do about it. :lmao
Please, don't stop, this is too good.
:lmao

[Uriel]

You know what xellos88330 (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7622960#post7622960), your post epitomizes the idea that high intelligence doesn't necessarily lead to critical thinking. You're obviously very intelligent; it's evident in the eloquence with which you defend your ideas. But the mental gymnastics you have to go through just to arrive at your position betrays its intrinsic irrationality. Since you've taken the time to type out a thoughtful reply, I will extend you the courtesy of doing the same by responding to your points piece by piece.


In your first paragraph, you state that perhaps science will one day find the answer. That is a statement of faith. Science could in theory find out that "God(s)" do indeed exist. You are once again treading into the unknown. Everyone knows that religion has always been used as a way to reason and cope with natural phenomena beyond our logical/scientific understanding. This leads to my response to your second paragraph.
You seem to be confusing the semantics of the word "faith" here. There is a clear distinction between the conventional sense of the word faith (i.e. I have faith that the waiter who served me food in the restaurant did not put food poisoning in it) and its religious connotations (i.e. I believe that Jesus was born of a virgin because the Bible says so). In fact, if you look up the word "faith" in the Oxford English Dictionary, you'll see clearly that it's been broken down into two separate definitions.


Religion has long been used to reason or cope with natural phenomena. Whether or not it was correct was always a question which advanced the sciences further. Religion once stated that the Earth was the center of the universe. One person sought to see if that was really how it worked. Religion does not hamper critical thinking, but instead inspires it. The proof is in this thread in front of you.
The Catholic Church actively suppressed Galilieo's heliocentrism, and did not officially recognize its error until late into the 20th century. And if you want a more recent example, you need only see the gigantic "Evolution...?" thread here in the Club, where people brainwashed by religious dogma are now actively denying the very bedrock upon which modern biology is built. A bedrock, by the way, which has been definitely established by the scientific community to be true beyond the shadow of a doubt. America has become the laughingstock of the world for its denial of evolution. Is this not a direct consequence of religion's capacity to suppress critical thinking?


You also seem to completely misunderstand the holy books as well. You say that it isn't a good example of proof of a deity. I am actually inclined to agree. The book isn't meant to be a proof of existence in my eyes. The books are meant to teach for the betterment of mankind. They tell stories and within those stories are messages of awe and wonder.
The Bible is meant to teach for the betterment of mankind? Have you even read this book? This is just a short list of some among many of the repugnant things God did in the Bible:

1. Commit genocide (1 Samuel 15:3)
2. Murder innocent babies (Numbers 16: 41-49)
3. Sanction slavery (Exodus 21)
4. Hate ugly people (Leviticus 21: 17-24)
5. Send bears to kill children (4 Kings 2: 23-24)
6. Order his underlings to kill their own children (Genesis 22: 1-12)
7. Kill someone for not procreating (Genesis 38: 1-10)
8. Kill people who complain (Numbers 16: 1-49)

Needless to say, if God still operated today, he would be convicted for being the biggest instigator of human rights violations in all of history.

And if you're going to say that these were all written in the Old Testament and that the New Testament does away with them, remember that Jesus said, "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:34) Is this really your idea of teaching for the betterment of mankind?


How do we know that the characters in the stories did not in fact exist? In many cases the subjects of the bible have been found to have existed from archeological finds having nothing to do with religion. The plagues were explained. Sodom and Gomorrah were found. The walls of Jericho from the Bible timeline were found. The Sea of Galilee still exists today as does the foundation of temple of Solomon and the city of Jerusalem. Proof has been uncovered by science that these phenomena could have existed. Can you without a shadow of a doubt still say that the Bible has no truth to it whatsoever although your science has found it to be possible?
Certainly, the Bible has historical references to it that even a secular historian would not dispute. I have never denied this. But so what? The fact that the Bible mentions a few places that really existed is nothing spectacular. The Twilight series has allusions to the existence of Phoenix, Arizona. That doesn't mean vampires are real. Now, if these same scientists can uncover DNA samples that proves Jesus was born of a virgin, or that He rose from the dead, then we'd be talking.


How could I possibly be making a false equivalency between an assumption and another assumption? They are BOTH assumptions. An assumption is something that is accepted as being true without any proof otherwise. How can you say something is false based on an assumption? If you ask me, you are being just as deluded and blind as those people whom you are looking as deluded and blind. In reality, we ALL are deluded and blind because we cannot figure it all out.
It's a false equivalency because one assumption is made on the basis of evidence (or lack thereof), while the other is made on the basis of faith. Those are two totally different things. The former is empirically verifiable and scientifically testable, while the latter is not. Please don't drag us into the same boat, when we're clearly standing on unequal footing here.


You bring up the legend of bigfoot and the loch ness monster to assist your argument, but that is also a ridiculous thing to bring up. There is a scientific concept in paleontology called Lazarus taxon. The concept itself was named this due to something thought to have been extinct or missing resurfacing. Just like Lazarus being brought back from the dead by Jesus. Can you still say that bigfoot or Nessie couldn't exist?
You're missing the point. I never said that they couldn't exist. Maybe they do; I don't know with 100% certainty. Same way that I can't say that God doesn't exist with 100% certainty. But come on, let's be realistic. No sane, rational person living in the 21st century would believe in the existence of Bigfoot; there's just no good reason to do so. The same holds true for God.

[silverblk mystix]

:lol abandoned by his ally so fakes his death
:lol lawyer
:lol Victor
:lol meltdown of all meltdowns
:lol ultimate bitch move
:lol still gets pissed when reminded of it




:loldidn't deny he is a bakla
:lolmabaho puwett
:lolladyboy
:lolthird world country

[anakha]

:loldidn't deny he is a bakla
:lolmabaho puwett
:lolladyboy
:lolthird world country

:lmao forgot how to read and is frantically trying to deflect attention from it
:lmao can't spell for shit either
:lmao has to resort to country smack in defense of the old man

[Bill_Brasky]

another thread ruined by the usual shitbags.

Ah well, not like this topic was very new or interesting anyway.

[Blizzardwizard]

Damn that must be US specific Liberals, ain't nobody dumber than a British Liberal.

[Franklin]

If Libtards have better IQs why did they vote for Obola in the presidential election? Obola has caused more damage to humanity than any virus has ever done tbh.

[Chinook]

The xellos/Uriel exchange is an example of how off-topic the debate gets really quickly.

[xellos88330]

Uriel, I believe you are missing my point completely.

You are dismissing important evidence because you haven't researched enough yet. They found that Sodom and Gomorrah were indeed destroyed by intense heat and fire. What could possibly generate enough heat to leave glass in the sand?

1. Nuclear Blast
2. Asteroid impact

Well, nuclear blast could possibly be written off (unless you subscribe to the ancient astronaut theory). That leaves the asteroid impact. However, there is no crater. Perhaps it was an airburst impact such as the one that occurred over Siberia.

The Bible recorded that the cities were destroyed by fire and brimstone falling from the sky. Could an airburst asteroid debris falling on those cities be interpreted as such? Indeed it could. How would a person in that time presume to interpret such an event based on their current scientific knowledge?

The Bible was written thousands of years ago and who knows how long the stories within it were passed down orally over many generations? You are completely ignoring the timeline altogether when it comes to the Bible. People did not live the same way we do now. Customs change, civilizations change, and societies change. That is how things were done and were not looked down upon. It was normal, logical and rational thinking for the time.

It is the way of thinking of both Atheists and Theists that I am debating. Not the existence or non-existence of a deity. Neither side can claim that they are right and base all their arguments on acts of faith. Yes, atheists do indeed use faith. They place their faith in the knowledge that scientific principle brings us. The way I see it, science is the "god" of atheism. You believe that science can and will provide you all the answers you seek. How are you any different from those that believe in God and put their faith that God will provide the answer and vice versa.

[Blake]

Only a dummy would gamble spending an eternity burning.

You said you don't believe in the Bible

You're just flat retarded

[Chinook]

It is the way of thinking of both Atheists and Theists that I am debating. Not the existence or non-existence of a deity. Neither side can claim that they are right and base all their arguments on acts of faith. Yes, atheists do indeed use faith. They place their faith in the knowledge that scientific principle brings us. The way I see it, science is the "god" of atheism. You believe that science can and will provide you all the answers you seek. How are you any different from those that believe in God and put their faith that God will provide the answer and vice versa.

No...

Atheists aren't basing their stance on faith; they're basing it on convention. They don't have faith god doesn't exist and that science will provide all the answers. They simply dismiss the prudence of believing in god and push for the continuation of a scientific pursuit of knowledge. Science is a convention by which we test beliefs and form consensus, and it works really well. But it doesn't give truths to the universe any more than a calculator gives truths about math. You're right that some people like Uriel put too much faith in the current scientific view, but that's not the true nature of the atheist constructive.

Science allows humans to find out answers for themselves. As far as we know, simply praying to god doesn't do the same thing. Science isn't a theistic/atheistic thing. Don't concede it to them.

[Chinook]

You said you don't believe in the Bible

You're just flat retarded

I'm surprised you didn't jump on Avante talking about gambling.

[Leetonidas]

Do you chodes ever get tired of arguing about the exact same shit every fucking day online? Get off the computer tbh

[rogues]

Do you chodes ever get tired of arguing about the exact same shit every fucking day online? Get off the computer tbh
:loltbh..

The OP reminds me of some faggy liberal poster just having took an intro to philosophy course..

[Blake]

I'm surprised you didn't jump on Avante talking about gambling.

he's welching on his own bet with himself

[Uriel]

:loltbh..

The OP reminds me of some faggy liberal poster just having took an intro to philosophy course..
And you remind me of the dumb, fat kid who sat at the back of the class, and couldn't understand the lesson, so he resorted to bullying the kids who were smarter than him because he needed an outlet to unleash his feelings of frsutration, emanating from a lack of self-worth.

[Uriel]

Uriel, I believe you are missing my point completely.

You are dismissing important evidence because you haven't researched enough yet. They found that Sodom and Gomorrah were indeed destroyed by intense heat and fire. What could possibly generate enough heat to leave glass in the sand?

1. Nuclear Blast
2. Asteroid impact

Well, nuclear blast could possibly be written off (unless you subscribe to the ancient astronaut theory). That leaves the asteroid impact. However, there is no crater. Perhaps it was an airburst impact such as the one that occurred over Siberia.

The Bible recorded that the cities were destroyed by fire and brimstone falling from the sky. Could an airburst asteroid debris falling on those cities be interpreted as such? Indeed it could. How would a person in that time presume to interpret such an event based on their current scientific knowledge?

The Bible was written thousands of years ago and who knows how long the stories within it were passed down orally over many generations? You are completely ignoring the timeline altogether when it comes to the Bible. People did not live the same way we do now. Customs change, civilizations change, and societies change. That is how things were done and were not looked down upon. It was normal, logical and rational thinking for the time.

It is the way of thinking of both Atheists and Theists that I am debating. Not the existence or non-existence of a deity. Neither side can claim that they are right and base all their arguments on acts of faith. Yes, atheists do indeed use faith. They place their faith in the knowledge that scientific principle brings us. The way I see it, science is the "god" of atheism. You believe that science can and will provide you all the answers you seek. How are you any different from those that believe in God and put their faith that God will provide the answer and vice versa.
The Bible also says that the Earth is the center of the solar system, that the universe was created in 7 days, that the Earth is 6,000 years old, that all the living creatures on Earth were created as is (with no new life form spontaneously coming into being through evolution by natural selection), and that the value of pi is 3.00. If you seriously believe that the Bible is a repository of comprehensive scientific and historical knowledge, then I'm very sorry tell you that you've been thoroughly misled.

Besides, let me ask you this: even if we were to assume that God does exist, why are you so confident that it is the God of the Bible? Why don't you think it's Allah, or Yahweh, or Brahman, or Buddha? Does it maybe have to do with the fact that you happen to have been born into a Christian family in a Christian-dominated country? If so, isn't it the epitome of arrogance to declare your religion the one true religion (and by extension, all other religions mistaken), simply due to the accident of birth?

[spurraider21]

the bible never actually said pi = 3.00

that's a misconception. but yeah i wouldn't use it as a science/history book :lol

[Uriel]

the bible never actually said pi = 3.00

that's a misconception. but yeah i wouldn't use it as a science/history book :lol
"Then he made the sea of cast metal. It was round, ten cubits from brim to brim, and five cubits high, and a line of thirty cubits measured its circumference." 1 Kings (7:23)

C = 2(pi)r
C = 30; r= 5
30 = (2)(pi)(5)
3 = pi

[rogues]

And you remind me of the dumb, fat kid who sat at the back of the class, and couldn't understand the lesson, so he resorted to bullying the kids who were smarter than him because he needed an outlet to unleash his feelings of frsutration, emanating from a lack of self-worth.
:lol BD guessed correctly..& learn to spell if you're going to front a run-down age old opinion on a topic that's been beaten to death by internet athiests and liberals waaaay before you found out what the internet was..your kind are garden variety nowadays..typical undergrad scrub academic fronting his views as better than others..if you want to truly make a difference get the fuck off this messageboard and go do something that benefits humanity you piece of shit..

[RD2191]

:lol BD guessed correctly..& learn to spell if you're going to front a run-down age old opinion on a topic that's been beaten to death by internet athiests and liberals waaaay before you found out what the internet was..your kind are garden variety nowadays..typical undergrad scrub academic fronting his views as better than others..if you want to truly make a difference get the fuck off this messageboard and go do something that benefits humanity you piece of shit..
Truth nuke, tbh.

[rogues]

:lol reading this thread from the start and holy fucking shit..Fuzzy and Uriel's posts can give somebody cancer, tbh..someone give those worthless fucks some radiation treatment..

[Clipper Nation]

Urinel is proof positive that libtards don't actually have higher IQ's :lol

[DMC]

Not surprising. Atheism appeals to intellectuals, not because it's more rational or whatever, but because it makes them feel better about themselves. I think it was Freud who said that a strong disbelief in god was the best way to balance out the warring impulses in the mind (by taking out the super ego or whatever). Marx said religion made lower-class folk complacent and that throwing off the yolk of faith would help end subjugation. Neither or those arguments are based on the inherent rightness of atheism. They're both just humanistic arguments, which appeal more to intellectuals than faith-based arguments (the "healing the soul" kind, not the epistemological kind).

As far as the liberal/conservative split, I don't think that needs a ton of explanation.

Wait... what? Religion is the opiate of the masses, but atheism makes people feel better about themselves than adopting the notion that they are the sole reason the entire universe was created, and that they will live on forever in Honalee with Puff? I suppose me not believing ghosts exist makes me feel better about myself as well.

[DMC]

To xellos,

Don't capitalize "atheist" or "theist". You seem to not have a problem with "astronaut" so why do you think "atheist" or "theist" is somehow a proper noun? Do you capitalize "runner" or "bassist"?

Sounds pedantic eh? The capitalization of the word "atheist" is the precursor to then insisting atheism is a religion, which it's not.

Atheism is the default position for any claim made of any god. If I tell you there's this god you need to meet, you're instantly atheistic toward that god. That's a natural reaction, it's why we are still alive on this planet, the ability to discriminate based on probability of a claim being factual. So to paint atheism as anything other than the innate sense of skepticism regarding god claims is at best wrong and at worst completely dishonest. All the verbal gymnastics in the world won't shunt that fact.

So although I don't subscribe to the entire IQ debate (people with IQ's over 140 are often boring and self absorbed, or so I'm told), the tendency of the ignorant (not meaning stupid) is to take what they consider the safer route, herd mentality, and growing up in a religious environment means you claim to be a god believer yourself, and though you might have questions internally about it, you don't pursue them since they might cause you harm. What if hell is real after all? Gambler's fallacy is probably the most utilized tool in the Southern US where religion is concerned.

[rogues]

Urinel is proof positive that libtards don't actually have higher IQ's :lol
:lol :cry "We strive for a egalitarian society!" :cry

[spurraider21]

"Then he made the sea of cast metal. It was round, ten cubits from brim to brim, and five cubits high, and a line of thirty cubits measured its circumference." 1 Kings (7:23)

C = 2(pi)r
C = 30; r= 5
30 = (2)(pi)(5)
3 = pi
I'm aware of this and this is the misconception I referred to. Nowhere does it claim to be a perfect circle. Not to mention, cubit was an informal unit of measurement at the time, so it was often an approximate distance rather than a standardized one

[Chinook]

Wait... what? Religion is the opiate of the masses, but atheism makes people feel better about themselves than adopting the notion that they are the sole reason the entire universe was created, and that they will live on forever in Honalee with Puff?

Don't get what's hard to understand about that.


I suppose me not believing ghosts exist makes me feel better about myself as well.

Probably does.

[Chinook]

I'm aware of this and this is the misconception I referred to. Nowhere does it claim to be a perfect circle. Not to mention, cubit was an informal unit of measurement at the time, so it was often an approximate distance rather than a standardized one

And who wants to read about a guy making the sea 31.4159.... cubits long anyway? It's a book, not a schematic. Out of all the things to pick apart in the bible, this seems like one of the more benign ones.

[Avante]

My wife Judy is very bright, and she wouldn't be caught dead doing this messageboard trip. She'll...."what's the deal there, it would bore me".

Hmmmm?

[spurraider21]

My wife Judy is very bright, and she wouldn't be caught dead doing this messageboard trip. She'll...."what's the deal there, it would bore me".

Hmmmm?
A) what are you suggesting?

b) what is the standard for "bright"

[Avante]

A) what are you suggesting?

b) what is the standard for "bright"

Judy has her degree in Child Development, very smart lady, very together. Very well read.

As we can see this place has a lot of obvious young and dumb posters here, most still....SEX!!!!!!!!!!!.....ha~~~ So why do those with the smarts/high IQ want to be around that?

[silverblk mystix]

My wife Judy is very bright, and she wouldn't be caught dead doing this messageboard trip. She'll...."what's the deal there, it would bore me".

Hmmmm?



Same way with my wife.


But that fat whore maalox has no fucking class or manners and she belongs in here with the rest of us scum.


:lmao:lmao:lmao


What a lady.

[DMC]

Don't get what's hard to understand about that.

Why do you think there are hundreds of god beliefs but only one atheism?


Probably does.
Are you saying atheists feel better about themselves than theists feel about themselves? Why would that be the case?

Do you think that better feeling is the motive for belief, or is it a byproduct? If it's a byproduct, why refer to it as if it's a motive? How can you believe something just because it makes you feel better? Don't get into a wishy washy bullshit answer.

[Avante]

Same way with my wife.


But that fat whore maalox has no fucking class or manners and she belongs in here with the rest of us scum.


:lmao:lmao:lmao


What a lady.

I have three older sisters and Judy has a sister and none of them would ever do this.

[silverblk mystix]

I have three older sisters and Judy has a sister and none of them would ever do this.

[DMC]

And who wants to read about a guy making the sea 31.4159.... cubits long anyway? It's a book, not a schematic. Out of all the things to pick apart in the bible, this seems like one of the more benign ones.

Your response is a common "have your cake and eat it too" type. If it's just a book, why treat it like it's more?

[spurraider21]

Judy has her degree in Child Development, very smart lady, very together. Very well read.

As we can see this place has a lot of obvious young and dumb posters here, most still....SEX!!!!!!!!!!!.....ha~~~ So why do those with the smarts/high IQ want to be around that?
That's cool. But if having a BA/BS is your baseline for being bright, than a lot of us here qualify as well. It wouldn't surprise anybody if a woman in her 60's/70's isn't interested in online message boards. Of course there are morons here as well but this is primarily a sports forum, not an intellectual one

[Biernutz]

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb270/systime/smart_zps4802ddaf.jpg

[Avante]

That's cool. But if having a BA/BS is your baseline for being bright, than a lot of us here qualify as well. It wouldn't surprise anybody if a woman in her 60's/70's isn't interested in online message boards. Of course there are morons here as well but this is primarily a sports forum, not an intellectual one

Judy is in her early 50's, and extremely bright using any barometer you need. An example would be if you ran all this evoution/BIG BANG her way she'd..."fine with me, why would I care?"

This forum isn't about sport talk.

[Chinook]

Why do you think there are hundreds of god beliefs but only one atheism?

I don't know where you're going with that. You resist the view that atheism is a belief system (and I agree with you on that). So in that way, there's really only one theism, and one atheism. Now, atheists don't have all the same world-views, and some even have their own religions. But they take one stance on the issue, while the theists take the other stance.


Are you saying atheists feel better about themselves than theists feel about themselves? Why would that be the case?

I didn't say that. I said that people who are smart tend to want to be atheists, because that path is more rewarding to smart people. Not to mention there is a lot of peer pressure toward atheism if one has atheistic friends. Groupthink is not reserved for theists. Also, smart people tend to believe in empiricism, so they are sympathetic toward the main atheist argument. Comparatively few look at the science behind philosophy, which is where I think most atheists go astray.


Do you think that better feeling is the motive for belief, or is it a byproduct? If it's a byproduct, why refer to it as if it's a motive? How can you believe something just because it makes you feel better? Don't get into a wishy washy bullshit answer.

I do think feeling is a motivation for directing thought, which in turn leads to what type of beliefs one forms. You brought the same thing up when talking to xellos, I believe. Just as you may think theists don't leave their mental caves because they are afraid of the consequences laid out in their religions, I think atheists don't get all the way out, because they like the "freedom" atheism grants them and don't wish to return to theism, especially the non-religious kind that has no benefits for believing in it.


Your response is a common "have your cake and eat it too" type. If it's just a book, why treat it like it's more?

First, I treat the bible as a book. You know that.

Second, some religious folks treat it as a moral metaphor, which means most of the text doesn't matter. I doubt the actual dimensions of the sea were important to the moral of the story.

[spurraider21]

Judy is in her early 50's, and extremely bright using any barometer you need. An example would be if you ran all this evoution/BIG BANG her way she'd..."fine with me, why would I care?"

This forum isn't about sport talk.
That's fine. She's apathetic towards the science vs religion stuff. Some people are passionate about sports, some people just don't care. Some people go crazy over politics, some are less emotionally invested. Some people are fascinated by science and others aren't. I don't think intelligence necessarily correlates to one's passion or lack thereof in a certain branch of conversation.

[Avante]

That's fine. She's apathetic towards the science vs religion stuff. Some people are passionate about sports, some people just don't care. Some people go crazy over politics, some are less emotionally invested. Some people are fascinated by science and others aren't. I don't think intelligence necessarily correlates to one's passion or lack thereof in a certain branch of conversation.

Dude, why do you work so damn hard at trying to paint everyone as being dumb? Judy owns her own business, has a college degree, extremely well read and bright....ok? And unlike you she'd never ever get in any of these silly debates. She'd..."whatever you need to make you happy is cool with me".

[ChumpDumper]

Dude, why do you work so damn hard at trying to paint everyone as being dumb? Judy owns her own business, has a college degree, extremely well read and bright....ok? And unlike you she'd never ever get in any of these silly debates. She'd..."whatever you need to make you happy is cool with me".So you're saying you're an idiot.

[spurraider21]

Dude, why do you work so damn hard at trying to paint everyone as being dumb? Judy owns her own business, has a college degree, extremely well read and bright....ok? And unlike you she'd never ever get in any of these silly debates. She'd..."whatever you need to make you happy is cool with me".
woah woah woah... where did i ever call judy dumb? heck in the post you quoted i didn't call anybody dumb or even infer it. you need to stop putting words in my mouth, its something you do pretty frequently.

im just saying being more or less passionate about something doesn't make anybody more or less intelligent. judy is educated, well read, and doesn't get into these sorts of debates. i'm also educated and well read, but i DO get into these debates. so it doesn't really matter

[Avante]

I agree, it really doesn't matter.

[xellos88330]

The Bible also says that the Earth is the center of the solar system, that the universe was created in 7 days, that the Earth is 6,000 years old, that all the living creatures on Earth were created as is (with no new life form spontaneously coming into being through evolution by natural selection), and that the value of pi is 3.00. If you seriously believe that the Bible is a repository of comprehensive scientific and historical knowledge, then I'm very sorry tell you that you've been thoroughly misled.

Besides, let me ask you this: even if we were to assume that God does exist, why are you so confident that it is the God of the Bible? Why don't you think it's Allah, or Yahweh, or Brahman, or Buddha? Does it maybe have to do with the fact that you happen to have been born into a Christian family in a Christian-dominated country? If so, isn't it the epitome of arrogance to declare your religion the one true religion (and by extension, all other religions mistaken), simply due to the accident of birth?

I don't recall ever stating a certain religion is greater than another. I also never said it was the God of the Bible. I used the Bible because it is simply the most common where I am from. Who am I to say they are wrong or right to begin with?

You are completely missing my point and are too busy trying to debunk the Bible without even trying to understand what I am explaining. Let me try another way. Imagine this. You were to go back in time at the time of Genesis with a machine gun that never ran out of ammunition. You would easily be the most powerful person on the planet and could possibly be declared a "god". Simply because the weapon you are wielding is unknown. That is the difference between the times. Since those times, society and culture have become more refined and actions based upon the LITERAL meaning of the Bible are considered archaic and barbaric. If you are taking what the Bible states in a LITERAL sense, you are already fucking up and have no basis to quote anything it says. You are using outdated customs, rituals and knowledge of an outdated culture to base your entire argument on. By bringing up the story of Sodom and Gomorrah I was attempting to show you the difference in the knowledge between our times and how history has indeed been recorded within the Bible. It doesn't mean that the Bible itself is without LITERAL fallacy. How would a person of that time explain your machine gun? They would probably call it a sword that spits out fire and flame and harnesses the power of thunder. You should be grateful that people do not take the Bible LITERALLY anymore, otherwise you would have been stoned for blasphemy. People are smarter, religious or not, than you give them credit for.

[xellos88330]

No...

Atheists aren't basing their stance on faith; they're basing it on convention. They don't have faith god doesn't exist and that science will provide all the answers. They simply dismiss the prudence of believing in god and push for the continuation of a scientific pursuit of knowledge. Science is a convention by which we test beliefs and form consensus, and it works really well. But it doesn't give truths to the universe any more than a calculator gives truths about math. You're right that some people like Uriel put too much faith in the current scientific view, but that's not the true nature of the atheist constructive.

Science allows humans to find out answers for themselves. As far as we know, simply praying to god doesn't do the same thing. Science isn't a theistic/atheistic thing. Don't concede it to them.

Well said. :toast

I will say that prayer does have an effect on people. Prayer inspires the courage to face the unknown.

[Uriel]

:lol reading this thread from the start and holy fucking shit..Fuzzy and Uriel's posts can give somebody cancer, tbh..someone give those worthless fucks some radiation treatment..

Urinel is proof positive that libtards don't actually have higher IQ's :lol
http://c3e308.medialib.glogster.com/godoliyas/media/ca/cabd572199dfc06d17d35183f541990d8710d9cc/633741565677956260-adhominem-1.jpg

[rogues]

Cute..liberals usually go with one of the two options when shit on:

1.) Claim logical fallacy
2.) Or, go ad hominem on a poster that shits on their views and takes

As expected, tbh..

[rogues]

Also, you don't know what a fucking ad homenim is..I addressed your shill views, they can give somebody cancer when being fronted:lol..

[spurraider21]

i like how uriel committed the ad hominem fallacy in the same post where he called the very same thing out

[Chinook]

http://c3e308.medialib.glogster.com/godoliyas/media/ca/cabd572199dfc06d17d35183f541990d8710d9cc/633741565677956260-adhominem-1.jpg

Damn it, that's not what an ad hominem fallacy is. It's when a person attacks an opponent personally IN ORDER TO attack their points. Like if you made a statement, "You're a christian, so I'm not going to take your argument against evolution seriously," then that's an ad homenim fallacy. Simply insulting someone is not a fallacy at all.

[Clipper Nation]

http://c3e308.medialib.glogster.com/godoliyas/media/ca/cabd572199dfc06d17d35183f541990d8710d9cc/633741565677956260-adhominem-1.jpg
You live in fucking Australia :lol

Tell you what: when your country becomes relevant for anything other than Crocodile Hunter and "shrimp on the barbee," then you can lecture Americans on our views :lol

[Uriel]

I don't recall ever stating a certain religion is greater than another. I also never said it was the God of the Bible. I used the Bible because it is simply the most common where I am from. Who am I to say they are wrong or right to begin with?
Then what are you saying? Let me guess: that the Holy Books of different people from different religions are all expressions of the same God revealing Himself in diverse ways to various cultures? If so, then I have to admit, I too once subscribed to that idea; it was an appealing way to reconcile people from various creeds with conflicting beliefs. But alas:

“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)


You are completely missing my point and are too busy trying to debunk the Bible without even trying to understand what I am explaining. Let me try another way. Imagine this. You were to go back in time at the time of Genesis with a machine gun that never ran out of ammunition. You would easily be the most powerful person on the planet and could possibly be declared a "god". Simply because the weapon you are wielding is unknown. That is the difference between the times. Since those times, society and culture have become more refined and actions based upon the LITERAL meaning of the Bible are considered archaic and barbaric. If you are taking what the Bible states in a LITERAL sense, you are already fucking up and have no basis to quote anything it says. You are using outdated customs, rituals and knowledge of an outdated culture to base your entire argument on. By bringing up the story of Sodom and Gomorrah I was attempting to show you the difference in the knowledge between our times and how history has indeed been recorded within the Bible. It doesn't mean that the Bible itself is without LITERAL fallacy. How would a person of that time explain your machine gun? They would probably call it a sword that spits out fire and flame and harnesses the power of thunder.
Thank you for your explanation.

I'm glad that you're concede that the Bible consists of "outdated customs, rituals and knowledge of an outdated culture" and that its content is "archaic and barbaric." I hope you relay that message to the people in your country (including many in this thread) who advocate for the teaching of Creationism instead of Evolution in schools, who think gay marriage is an abomination, who think the Earth is 6,000 years old, and who believe dinosaurs walked among humans. They certainly seem to have missed your point.

Also, please allow me to point out that you've actually contradicted yourself just now. Because in an earlier post, you wrote:

The books are meant to teach for the betterment of mankind. They tell stories and within those stories are messages of awe and wonder.
By saying that "the books are meant to teach for the betterment of mankind," you seem to be implying that people derive their morality from the Bible. But you suddenly seem to have changed your mind, and are now saying that people no longer get their morals from the Bible, because they no longer, among other things, stone others for blasphemy. In other words, you are conceding that there is a third-party source from which people derive their morals.


You should be grateful that people do not take the Bible LITERALLY anymore
According to a recent Gallup poll, 28% of Americans still take the Bible as the literal word of God. That's 88,760,000 people. I would hardly say that people do not take the Bible literally anymore.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/170834/three-four-bible-word-god.aspx

[rogues]

You live in fucking Australia :lol

Tell you what: when your country becomes relevant for anything other than Crocodile Hunter and "shrimp on the barbee," then you can lecture Americans on our views :lol
He's a phillipino going to a third world country university..he's also a political science major:lol..

[Uriel]

i like how uriel committed the ad hominem fallacy in the same post where he called the very same thing out
If you're talking about the Obama-Biden "idiot pair" thing, then no, that wasn't my intention. It was just a happy coincidence that it worked out that way. :lol

[Uriel]

Damn it, that's not what an ad hominem fallacy is. It's when a person attacks an opponent personally IN ORDER TO attack their points. Like if you made a statement, "You're a christian, so I'm not going to take your argument against evolution seriously," then that's an ad homenim fallacy. Simply insulting someone is not a fallacy at all.
Technically, they were discrediting my views by virtue of the fact that I was a liberal. So that is ad hominem.

[Chinook]

Technically, they were discrediting my views by virtue of the fact that I was a liberal. So that is ad hominem.

No. They were just insulting you. They didn't even try to debate your point. For all you know, they may agree with your OP's premise, but just not your wording or apparent personality. They never said they were taking the other side (and in fact, CN is often critical of theists, especially christians).

Again, an ad homenim is a very clear fallacy, just like a strawman is.

[DMC]

I don't know where you're going with that. You resist the view that atheism is a belief system (and I agree with you on that). So in that way, there's really only one theism, and one atheism. Now, atheists don't have all the same world-views, and some even have their own religions. But they take one stance on the issue, while the theists take the other stance.

Not true. Some theists like you believe there was a god. Others believe there is a god. Still others believe there are multiple gods. Those god beliefs are not all the same thing, and they cannot be whittled down into one god belief. However, not believing there is a god can be whittled down into one lack of a god belief. It's not a lack of belief in multiple gods, or an apathetic god, or a "was" god. It's a lack of belief in god, all and any of them.

I don't know where you're going with the religion thing. What religion do atheists have?


I didn't say that. I said that people who are smart tend to want to be atheists, because that path is more rewarding to smart people. Not to mention there is a lot of peer pressure toward atheism if one has atheistic friends. Groupthink is not reserved for theists. Also, smart people tend to believe in empiricism, so they are sympathetic toward the main atheist argument. Comparatively few look at the science behind philosophy, which is where I think most atheists go astray.

You're wrong again. People who are smart realize there's no evidence to support a god, and they've often learned reasoning skills that enable critical thinking. Lack of evidence and critical thinking often can result in lack of belief for something. Still, you said high IQ people are atheist because it feels better. That's simply not true. Doing what we feel is right always feels better, but it doesn't necessarily result from chasing the feeling at the cost of truth.

" If you ask a mathematician, a mineralogist, a historian, or any other man of learning, what definite body of truths has been ascertained by his science, his answer will last as long as you are willing to listen. But if you put the same question to a philosopher, he will, if he is candid, have to confess that his study has not achieved positive results such as have been achieved by other sciences." - Bertrand Russell

I understand the need to suppose, but I don't see the benefit. When supposing leads to believing, that's a negative outcome, in my opinion, where evidence is absent.


I do think feeling is a motivation for directing thought, which in turn leads to what type of beliefs one forms. You brought the same thing up when talking to xellos, I believe. Just as you may think theists don't leave their mental caves because they are afraid of the consequences laid out in their religions, I think atheists don't get all the way out, because they like the "freedom" atheism grants them and don't wish to return to theism, especially the non-religious kind that has no benefits for believing in it.


This is the wishy washy bullshit I was referring to. It's like saying no one does anything against their will, because they have to command themselves to do it, ergo if I put a gun to your head and make you kill your pet, you wanted to kill your pet because it made you feel better (better than the alternative). It's basically saying "there is no spoon".

The only way an atheist could become theist is to find evidence in the existence of a god. To want to be theist is as problematic as to want to be atheist. Speaking for only myself, I am atheist because I've never been able to convince myself that a god exists, and as I've grown older I've found that time away from theists enables critical thought processes to grow, and eventually the guilty feeling of not believing in a god subsides. I imagine it's like a person realizing they are gay, even if they've always been that way. They have to get away from their gay hating family to ever think it's ok to pursue the feeling and eventually they find it's who they are. It's not that they wanted to be gay. If they suddenly had sexual attraction to women, that would change, but it's not based on what makes them most socially comfortable.


First, I treat the bible as a book. You know that.

Then you must understand that there's no reason to bring it up when referring to god/s. If the Bible is brought into play in discussions about atheism vs theism, it is almost always because theists have tied it to their god, and they struggle to sever the tie when criticism comes around.


Second, some religious folks treat it as a moral metaphor, which means most of the text doesn't matter. I doubt the actual dimensions of the sea were important to the moral of the story.
Many stories have morals, that doesn't make them any more or less important than the Bible, but somehow it's the Bible that always comes into the discussion, never "The Chronicles of Narnia".

[DMC]

Technically, they were discrediting my views by virtue of the fact that I was a liberal. So that is ad hominem.
If anything, they were poisoning the well, not using ad homs, but even then I don't believe they were doing that either.

[Uriel]

You live in fucking Australia :lol

Tell you what: when your country becomes relevant for anything other than Crocodile Hunter and "shrimp on the barbee," then you can lecture Americans on our views :lol

Also, you don't know what a fucking ad homenim is..I addressed your shill views, they can give somebody cancer when being fronted:lol..
All you people have done is hurl insults without providing even a single coherent argument against my assertions. The very purpose of this thread was to debate the study that liberals and atheists have higher IQs. Considering that the people in thread who are actually engaging in intellectually honest and sophisticated debate are either liberal (Chinook, xellos88330) or atheist (spurraider21, DMC, FuzzyLumpkins), while all you two have done is engage in personal attacks, seems to prove the very premise of this thread.

[Clipper Nation]

All you people have done is hurl insults without providing even a single coherent argument against my assertions. The very purpose of this thread was to debate the study that liberals and atheists have higher IQs. Considering that the people in thread who are actually engaging in intellectually honest and sophisticated debate are either liberal (Chinook, xellos88330) or atheist (spurraider21, DMC), while all you two have done is engage in personal attacks, seems to prove the very premise of this thread.
Faux-intellectual shills such as yourself don't deserve to be taken seriously, tbh....

I'm an atheist, by the way....

[Uriel]

Faux-intellectual shills such as yourself don't deserve to be taken seriously, tbh....

I'm an atheist, by the way....
Faux-intellectual? Oh, please. I'm a member of Mensa Australia (and Mensa Philippines). My IQ falls within the top 2% of the world population.

[Chinook]

Not true. Some theists like you believe there was a god. Others believe there is a god. Still others believe there are multiple gods. Those god beliefs are not all the same thing, and they cannot be whittled down into one god belief. However, not believing there is a god can be whittled down into one lack of a god belief. It's not a lack of belief in multiple gods, or an apathetic god, or a "was" god. It's a lack of belief in god, all and any of them.

I don't know where you're going with the religion thing. What religion do atheists have?

Yes, they can. They all share the same common thread, which is what atheism is rejecting.

Most atheists are non-religious (though they still maintain their own belief systems), but some are. Just look up atheist religion on Google. You'll get some examples.


You're wrong again. People are are smart realize there's no evidence to support a god, and they've often learned reasoning skills that enable critical thinking.

Again, you believe that's there's an actual connection. "There's no evidence" isn't the only type of critical thinking. The fact that you seem to boil it down to that is why say atheists don't go far enough in their thoughts.


This is the wishy washy bullshit I was referring to. It's like saying no one does anything against their will, because they have to command themselves to do it, ergo if I put a gun to your head and make you kill your pet, you wanted to kill your pet because it made you feel better (better than the alternative). It's basically saying "there is no spoon".

It's not like that at all. You argued that religious folks don't think critically because they're scared of facing god's wrath. I argued the same is true for atheists (that they don't want to lose their freedom that atheism grants them). You can disagree with the conclusion I reach, but not the form. It's possible to form beliefs prematurely due to a stunted thought process. I don't think atheists think enough, since they seem stuck on empiricism.


The only way an atheist could become theist is to find evidence in the existence of a god. To want to be theist is as problematic as to want to be atheist. Speaking for only myself, I am atheist because I've never been able to convince myself that a god exists, and as I've grown older I've found that time away from theists enables critical thought processes to grow, and eventually the guilty feeling of not believing in a god subsides. I imagine it's like a person realizing they are gay, even if they've always been that way. They have to get away from their gay hating family to ever think it's ok to pursue the feeling and eventually they find it's who they are. It's not that they wanted to be gay. If they suddenly had sexual attraction to women, that would change, but it's not based on what makes them most socially comfortable.

That just confirms what I said. You think the idea of atheism comes from the liberation of the mind. Therefore, you think theism is a constraint. So you'll never go back to it even if free thought leads there.


Then you must understand that there's no reason to bring it up when referring to god/s. If the Bible is brought into play in discussions about atheism vs theism, it is almost always because theists have tied it to their god, and they struggle to sever the tie when criticism comes around.

You trolling again? I didn't bring the bible up. I merely said that of all the criticisms levied at the bible, that the pi=3 critique is a poor one.


Many stories have morals, that doesn't make them any more or less important than the Bible, but somehow it's the Bible that always comes into the discussion, never "The Chronicles of Narnia".

Yeah, trolling again. Didn't even suggest that the bible was more important.

[Clipper Nation]

Faux-intellectual? Oh, please. I'm a member of Mensa Australia (and Mensa Philippines). My IQ falls within the top 2% of the world population.
:lol Mensa is a scam, all that proves is that you have $30 to waste on taking a test....

You are a pretentious, faux-intellectual liberal shill, that's it and that's all.

[Chinook]

Plus, being smart and being intellectual are not the same thing. That's especially true if you're measuring "smarts" by an IQ test.

[spurraider21]

people with IQ's over 140 are often boring and self absorbed, or so I'm told


Faux-intellectual? Oh, please. I'm a member of Mensa Australia (and Mensa Philippines). My IQ falls within the top 2% of the world population.

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/198/010/tysonreaction.gif

[spurraider21]

:lol i bet uriel had that bottled up and was waiting for a good time to brag about his IQ test result

[Uriel]

:lol Mensa is a scam, all that proves is that you have $30 to waste on taking a test....

You are a pretentious, faux-intellectual liberal shill, that's it and that's all.
You do not possess the requisite mental aptitude to engage in intellectually honest debate, and so resort to hurling personal attacks on people to compensate for your deficiencies.

That's it and that's all.

[DMC]

Yes, they can. They all share the same common thread, which is what atheism is rejecting.

Argument by repetition doesn't solve anything.


Most atheists are non-religious (though they still maintain their own belief systems), but some are. Just look up atheist religion on Google. You'll get some examples.

I don't want to look it up. You made the claim.


Again, you believe that's there's an actual connection. "There's no evidence" isn't the only type of critical thinking. The fact that you seem to boil it down to that is why say atheists don't go far enough in their thoughts.

According to you, they won't be far enough until they arrive at theism. Claims made casually can be dismissed casually. God claims are casual claims, made without evidence. At most a person should consider what is, and in doing so should not need to invent deities to explain them. Thousands of years later and people still invent deities. Thousands of years later, people much more intelligent than I will ever be never found evidence for the existence of a god. It drove some of them mad. Much of the searching has turned inward, and that's unhealthy.


It's not like that at all. You argued that religious folks don't think critically because they're scared of facing god's wrath. I argued the same is true for atheists (that they don't want to lose their freedom that atheism grants them). You can disagree with the conclusion I reach, but not the form. It's possible to form beliefs prematurely due to a stunted thought process. I don't think atheists think enough, since they seem stuck on empiricism.

No, I argued that they haven't pursued the nagging voice that says "this is bullshit" because of Gambler's fallacy. It's not all inclusive of course, so if you want to take the fringe and run with it, knock yourself out.


That just confirms what I said. You think the idea of atheism comes from the liberation of the mind. Therefore, you think theism is a constraint. So you'll never go back to it even if free thought leads there.

Atheism grants no freedom. It exists before the guilt ties are severed, so it's a shackle more than a freedom. It's not a finish line where people say "finally I am atheist". It's an awakening and conscious effort where people say "I am tired of pretending to believe just to appease others".

Do you have a freedom when you disbelieve in the deity of Jesus Christ?


You trolling again? I didn't bring the bible up. I merely said that of all the criticisms levied at the bible, that the pi=3 critique is a poor one.

No, but it's not a poor one. Pi isn't 3. God should know that. If the Bible isn't the word of god, it's useless in discussion about the existence of god.


Yeah, trolling again. Didn't even suggest that the bible was more important.
No, it's a side note that the Bible is mentioned in discussions regarding theism. We never discuss the Qu'ran or Bhagavad Gita.

[DMC]

Plus, being smart and being intellectual are not the same thing. That's especially true if you're measuring "smarts" by an IQ test.
Truer words were never spoken. I know plenty high IQ folks at major universities who are dumb as a box of rocks where application is concerned. They can correct your terminology, but they cannot understand why things don't work as designed.

[spurraider21]

You do not possess the requisite mental aptitude to engage in intellectually honest debate, and so resort to hurling personal attacks on people to compensate for your deficiencies.

That's it and that's all.
it doesn't require a high standard of mental aptitude to be intellectually honest

[Chinook]

Argument by repetition doesn't solve anything.

And neither does saying "argument by repetition".


I don't want to look it up. You made the claim.

And I told you where to find them. If you don't want to look it up, that's fine by me.


According to you, they won't be far enough until they arrive at theism. Claims made casually can be dismissed casually. God claims are casual claims, made without evidence. At most a person should consider what is, and in doing so should not need to invent deities to explain them. Thousands of years later and people still invent deities. Thousands of years later, people much more intelligent than I will ever be never found evidence for the existence of a god. It drove some of them mad. Much of the searching has turned inward, and that's unhealthy.

Just a convention. The god claim is not empirical, so it's not supposed to be tested empirically.


No, I argued that they haven't pursued the nagging voice that says "this is bullshit" because of Gambler's fallacy. It's not all inclusive of course, so if you want to take the fringe and run with it, knock yourself out.


That's not the gambler's fallacy. You were saying people don't want to risk burning in hell for blasphemy. That has nothing to do with using recent results to predict new results of something that has a fix probability.


Atheism grants no freedom. It exists before the guilt ties are severed, so it's a shackle more than a freedom. It's not a finish line where people say "finally I am atheist". It's an awakening and conscious effort where people say "I am tired of pretending to believe just to appease others".

Same thing.


No, but it's not a poor one. Pi isn't 3. God should know that. If the Bible isn't the word of god, it's useless in discussion about the existence of god.

No, it's a side note that the Bible is mentioned in discussions regarding theism. We never discuss the Qu'ran or Bhagavad Gita.

:rolleyes Again, didn't bring it up. Just agreed with Spurraider's opinion on Uriel's critique.

[Chinook]

Truer words were never spoken. I know plenty high IQ folks at major universities who are dumb as a box of rocks where application is concerned. They can correct your terminology, but they cannot understand why things don't work as designed.

Indeed. Also, being intellectual is a personality type more than it is an innate attribute. You can read all the time and be totally into science and philosophy and still suck at intelligence tests. And you can have an IQ of 170 and hate academia.

[Clipper Nation]

You do not possess the requisite mental aptitude to engage in intellectually honest debate, and so resort to hurling personal attacks on people to compensate for your deficiencies.

That's it and that's all.
Your posting style alone is extremely pretentious.... lots of big words and nothing to say :lol

As soon as you get beyond the superficial partisan talking points, then you'll be worthy of an honest debate.

[Uriel]

Indeed. Also, being intellectual is a personality type more than it is an innate attribute. You can read all the time and be totally into science and philosophy and still suck at intelligence tests. And you can have an IQ of 170 and hate academia.
I don't mean to sound narcissistic; that never really was my intention. And to the extent that I've been provoked into reacting negatively as a result of the personal attacks being hurled against me, I do sincerely apologize for it.

But in my case, I do "read all the time" and "am totally into science and philosophy." At the same time, I also do well in intelligence tests.


:lol i bet uriel had that bottled up and was waiting for a good time to brag about his IQ test result
Not really. It made me cringe to even have to type that. The only reason I did so was because I was provoked. I detest having to resort to such measures.


Your posting style alone is extremely pretentious.... lots of big words and nothing to say :lol
It isn't pretentious because those really are the words that flow directly from my thoughts. I'm not looking through the thesaurus to make a conscious effort to effect an aura of intelligence; I merely type what I think. If anything, it's "dumbing down" my writing that would be forcing me to deliberately alter my writing style.

[Bill_Brasky]

anybody who identifies themselves as "liberal", "conservative", "atheist", etc is a fucking idiot who still hasnt realized that the world isnt black and white. Its all gray areas and life is too damn short to be arguing over this useless shit.

[spurraider21]

yeah lets all be lazy when it comes to thinking and just sing kumbaya

much better

[Chinook]

yeah lets all be lazy when it comes to thinking and just sing kumbaya

much better

I'm game. I'll even bring my banjolele.

http://www.dukeofuke.co.uk/images/ozark-2037-closed-banjolele.jpg

[RD2191]

Same way with my wife.


But that fat whore maalox has no fucking class or manners and she belongs in here with the rest of us scum.


:lmao:lmao:lmao


What a lady.
:lmao

[xellos88330]

Then what are you saying? Let me guess: that the Holy Books of different people from different religions are all expressions of the same God revealing Himself in diverse ways to various cultures? If so, then I have to admit, I too once subscribed to that idea; it was an appealing way to reconcile people from various creeds with conflicting beliefs. But alas:

“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)


Thank you for your explanation.

I'm glad that you're concede that the Bible consists of "outdated customs, rituals and knowledge of an outdated culture" and that its content is "archaic and barbaric." I hope you relay that message to the people in your country (including many in this thread) who advocate for the teaching of Creationism instead of Evolution in schools, who think gay marriage is an abomination, who think the Earth is 6,000 years old, and who believe dinosaurs walked among humans. They certainly seem to have missed your point.

Also, please allow me to point out that you've actually contradicted yourself just now. Because in an earlier post, you wrote:


By saying that "the books are meant to teach for the betterment of mankind," you seem to be implying that people derive their morality from the Bible. But you suddenly seem to have changed your mind, and are now saying that people no longer get their morals from the Bible, because they no longer, among other things, stone others for blasphemy. In other words, you are conceding that there is a third-party source from which people derive their morals.


According to a recent Gallup poll, 28% of Americans still take the Bible as the literal word of God. That's 88,760,000 people. I would hardly say that people do not take the Bible literally anymore.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/170834/three-four-bible-word-god.aspx

The Bible is full of contradictions, but it doesn't mean that there isn't a message to be had. Take some of the commandments for example.

Thou shalt not kill.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not bear false witness.
Thou shalt not covet.
Honor your father and mother.

Are those not guidelines for the betterment of society and mankind? Some of those still hold true to this day with laws passed based on them. I certainly don't want anyone killing me, fucking my wife, robbing me, lying to me, etc. I am quite positive that you don't either.

According to that poll 28% of people believe that the Bible is the literal word of God. Why aren't they stoning the hell out of people. Freedom to practice religion is one of the foundations that this nation was built on. The commandment says that you shouldn't kill. Perhaps this is why most people aren't running amok slaughtering people for their lack of faith in the one true God? Or could it be that perhaps only 518 people questioned isn't enough to speak for everyone?

You also quoted a bible passage stating that there is only one God using the Bible.

The Quran
"He is the One GOD; the Creator, the Initiator, the Designer. To Him belong the most beautiful names. Glorifying Him is everything in the heavens and the earth. He is the Almighty, Most Wise." (Quran, 59:24 )

The Torah also has a similar passage.
"Yahweh, He is God; there is no other besides Him." Deuteronomy 4:35

Which of these is correct? They both mean the same thing. There is one God. You can call him whatever name you want, but in the end, aren't they all worshipping only one God?

[xellos88330]

To xellos,

Don't capitalize "atheist" or "theist". You seem to not have a problem with "astronaut" so why do you think "atheist" or "theist" is somehow a proper noun? Do you capitalize "runner" or "bassist"?

Sounds pedantic eh? The capitalization of the word "atheist" is the precursor to then insisting atheism is a religion, which it's not.

Atheism is the default position for any claim made of any god. If I tell you there's this god you need to meet, you're instantly atheistic toward that god. That's a natural reaction, it's why we are still alive on this planet, the ability to discriminate based on probability of a claim being factual. So to paint atheism as anything other than the innate sense of skepticism regarding god claims is at best wrong and at worst completely dishonest. All the verbal gymnastics in the world won't shunt that fact.

So although I don't subscribe to the entire IQ debate (people with IQ's over 140 are often boring and self absorbed, or so I'm told), the tendency of the ignorant (not meaning stupid) is to take what they consider the safer route, herd mentality, and growing up in a religious environment means you claim to be a god believer yourself, and though you might have questions internally about it, you don't pursue them since they might cause you harm. What if hell is real after all? Gambler's fallacy is probably the most utilized tool in the Southern US where religion is concerned.

Heh... didn't realize I capitalized them.

[Uriel]

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/198/010/tysonreaction.gif
You do realize Neil deGrasse Tyson is a liberal atheist, right? :lol

[Bill_Brasky]

yeah lets all be lazy when it comes to thinking and just sing kumbaya

much better

Might as well. It would accomplish more than these riveting edgy spurstalk debates that everyone takes so seriously. If you care about it so much then go outside and do something about it. Otherwise, shut the fuck up. You posting your opinion on here isnt changing anyones mind either way. Its literally useless.

[Bill_Brasky]

You do realize Neil deGrasse Tyson is a liberal atheist, right? :lol
Omg what!!!! theres no way he realized that when he posted it you dumb fuck.

[TeyshaBlue]

:lol

[mouse]

What good is a IQ score when you act immature online?


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/MIT-on-Evolution/th_Evolution-checkmate.mp4 (http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/MIT-on-Evolution/Evolution-checkmate.mp4)

[DMC]

The Bible is full of contradictions, but it doesn't mean that there isn't a message to be had. Take some of the commandments for example.

Thou shalt not kill.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not bear false witness.
Thou shalt not covet.
Honor your father and mother.

Are those not guidelines for the betterment of society and mankind? Some of those still hold true to this day with laws passed based on them. I certainly don't want anyone killing me, fucking my wife, robbing me, lying to me, etc. I am quite positive that you don't either.

According to that poll 28% of people believe that the Bible is the literal word of God. Why aren't they stoning the hell out of people. Freedom to practice religion is one of the foundations that this nation was built on. The commandment says that you shouldn't kill. Perhaps this is why most people aren't running amok slaughtering people for their lack of faith in the one true God? Or could it be that perhaps only 518 people questioned isn't enough to speak for everyone?

You also quoted a bible passage stating that there is only one God using the Bible.

The Quran
"He is the One GOD; the Creator, the Initiator, the Designer. To Him belong the most beautiful names. Glorifying Him is everything in the heavens and the earth. He is the Almighty, Most Wise." (Quran, 59:24 )

The Torah also has a similar passage.
"Yahweh, He is God; there is no other besides Him." Deuteronomy 4:35

Which of these is correct? They both mean the same thing. There is one God. You can call him whatever name you want, but in the end, aren't they all worshipping only one God?

Do you think it was ok to do any of that before those commandments? Do you think other religions didn't have tenets very similar to those even before Christianity, Judaism? How about remembering the sabbath? How about God being a jealous god? Those are right in there with murder and adultery.

[spurraider21]

You do realize Neil deGrasse Tyson is a liberal atheist, right? :lol
That has nothing to do with why I posted it

[xellos88330]

Do you think it was ok to do any of that before those commandments? Do you think other religions didn't have tenets very similar to those even before Christianity, Judaism? How about remembering the sabbath? How about God being a jealous god? Those are right in there with murder and adultery.

I was using those few commandments as an example because I was showing that the Bible does have some bearing on teaching morality in response to the claim Uriel presented. Whether or not you follow all of the commandments in their entirety is your personal choice. We all have free will whether it was bestowed by a supreme being or not. I do not put my stock into a single religion, but feel that they all have their high and low points. I do however make it a point to argue when I feel that one is claiming to be better than another simply because a study concluded with an assumption. I don't recall receiving an intelligence test on this subject.

Religion existed long before Christianity, Judaism etc. There was paganism before Christianity and they had their gods of peace such as Pax or Eirene. I am simply stating that ALL religions do help teach morality and basic guidelines regardless of the timeline. Religion has its uses, and no one can deny it.... God existing or not. Why argue the existence of a supreme being when there are good lessons to be learned to begin with regardless of a persons beliefs?

[Chinook]

That has nothing to do with why I posted it

I'm not sure if he's really following this discussion properly. He definitely doesn't seem like a very experienced debater, though he's eager.

[spurraider21]

I'm not sure if he's really following this discussion properly. He definitely doesn't seem like a very experienced debater, though he's eager.

i have a high IQ, and high IQ people tend to be good debaters. your intellectual inferiority is triggering this defense mechanism of yours

[FuzzyLumpkins]

All you people have done is hurl insults without providing even a single coherent argument against my assertions. The very purpose of this thread was to debate the study that liberals and atheists have higher IQs. Considering that the people in thread who are actually engaging in intellectually honest and sophisticated debate are either liberal (Chinook, xellos88330) or atheist (spurraider21, DMC, FuzzyLumpkins), while all you two have done is engage in personal attacks, seems to prove the very premise of this thread.

I'm not an atheist. Just because I reject the logical proofs on God and have no empirical basis for a diety doesn't mean that I don't believe. My state of mind is outside of belief

[RD2191]

http://i.imgur.com/SxudW.jpg

[RD2191]

http://i.imgur.com/XZJDBUO.jpg

[RD2191]

http://i.imgur.com/LvKYT.jpg

[RD2191]

http://trolledbot.net/pix/6856.jpg

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So we have Rob fantasizing about what the people he disagrees with look like and CN glorifying appearing "not smart."

Bravo.

[silverblk mystix]

http://i.imgur.com/SxudW.jpg






:lmao:lmao:lmao


DMC

[ChumpDumper]

lol Bertie with the angry ad hominem tsunami

[DMC]

And neither does saying "argument by repetition".



And I told you where to find them. If you don't want to look it up, that's fine by me.

Two examples of you making a claim and expecting me to do the leg work to either disprove it or look it up. Do your own work.


Just a convention. The god claim is not empirical, so it's not supposed to be tested empirically.

Who decides what ought to be here? Wouldn't that be an epistemology issue, not a rule issue? Also, while you're at it, what exactly is the god claim or do I need to go look that up as well?


That's not the gambler's fallacy. You were saying people don't want to risk burning in hell for blasphemy. That has nothing to do with using recent results to predict new results of something that has a fix probability.

Yeah I meant Pascal's Wager but I think you knew that. I do appreciate the 10 cent philosophy terminology lessons though.


Same thing.

You could call anything a freedom from something else but that's not what you meant. He was rich, but after being scammed of all his money, is now free from it, ergo he was scammed to find freedom. Same thing.. right?


:rolleyes Again, didn't bring it up. Just agreed with Spurraider's opinion on Uriel's critique.
For a reason.

[DMC]

I was using those few commandments as an example because I was showing that the Bible does have some bearing on teaching morality in response to the claim Uriel presented. Whether or not you follow all of the commandments in their entirety is your personal choice. We all have free will whether it was bestowed by a supreme being or not. I do not put my stock into a single religion, but feel that they all have their high and low points. I do however make it a point to argue when I feel that one is claiming to be better than another simply because a study concluded with an assumption. I don't recall receiving an intelligence test on this subject.

You're wrong, and I just showed you that. The Bible didn't teach those things, it plagiarized them from society. Like I said, those tenets existed prior to the 10 commandments. Even though I posed that question to you, you still think somehow that the Bible invented morality, that murder was allowed before the OT and that people were fucking each others' wives until someone said stop. But wait, how did marriage come about if it existed prior to the commandments? Isn't it a religious institution? Odd that all cultures recognize marriage (for the most part).


Religion existed long before Christianity, Judaism etc. There was paganism before Christianity and they had their gods of peace such as Pax or Eirene. I am simply stating that ALL religions do help teach morality and basic guidelines regardless of the timeline. Religion has its uses, and no one can deny it.... God existing or not. Why argue the existence of a supreme being when there are good lessons to be learned to begin with regardless of a persons beliefs?
Why do you make a claim then say "no one can deny it"? I can deny it. Religion has done more harm than good. Even today, the wars of the world are fought in the name of some non-existent god. Believing you have an edict from the creator of the universe cannot ever be good, ever. History has shown that to be true.

[DMC]

:lmao:lmao:lmao


DMC
http://cinesnark.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/internet-fight.jpg

[spurraider21]

http://trolledbot.net/pix/6856.jpg
umm, this dude is wearing a cross. he's one of yours :lol

[Chinook]

Two examples of you making a claim and expecting me to do the leg work to either disprove it or look it up. Do your own work.

I did my own work, which I why I made the claim. I just didn't do your work.


Who decides what ought to be here? Wouldn't that be an epistemology issue, not a rule issue? Also, while you're at it, what exactly is the god claim or do I need to go look that up as well?

Weren't you the person who just said "causal claims can be rejected causally"? I was just combating your 'like dissolves like' reasoning.

Anyway, my god claim is: We should assume god exists. That's not the same as saying: God exists.


Yeah I meant Pascal's Wager but I think you knew that. I do appreciate the 10 cent philosophy terminology lessons though.

Nope. You seem to have meant to concatenate the two. Gambler's fallacy is an actual logical issue. Pascal's Wager is just an argument that some people have attacked. By no means is it an illogical argument.


You could call anything a freedom from something else but that's not what you meant. He was rich, but after being scammed of all his money, is now free from it, ergo he was scammed to find freedom. Same thing.. right?

Indeed, I didn't mean freedom in the sense of not having something. Rather I meant it more in the 'no longer having to pretend to believe to appease others' type of way.


For a reason.

Yeah, because making petty arguments against something delegitimizes stronger arguments.

[xellos88330]

You're wrong, and I just showed you that. The Bible didn't teach those things, it plagiarized them from society. Like I said, those tenets existed prior to the 10 commandments. Even though I posed that question to you, you still think somehow that the Bible invented morality, that murder was allowed before the OT and that people were fucking each others' wives until someone said stop. But wait, how did marriage come about if it existed prior to the commandments? Isn't it a religious institution? Odd that all cultures recognize marriage (for the most part).

Did I say that religion invented morality? I said nothing of the sort. You are making up things and creating an illusion to further your point in this debate. All that I am saying is that religion does teach basic moralities. I understand that it is harmful to your argument, but to say that it doesn't exist entirely us utterly ridiculous. You are picking and choosing snippets to attack instead of looking at the whole picture. You claim that evidence is required to have a definite answer. I have provided the evidence on the subject of morality being taught by the Bible, and you are completely ignoring it. You are acting just like the blind religious people that you believe from your statement below and acting solely on your own convictions. I have stated that there are definitely contradictions within religious institutions, but there is also good to be found as well. I cover both sides of the spectrum and can see results both bad and good.


Why do you make a claim then say "no one can deny it"? I can deny it. Religion has done more harm than good. Even today, the wars of the world are fought in the name of some non-existent god. Believing you have an edict from the creator of the universe cannot ever be good, ever. History has shown that to be true.

True that wars are fought and people die believing in ancient teachings, but how is that any different than killing people for oil in modern times? How about committing genocide for land? People die all the time for things that they need or believe in. It isn't confined to just religion alone. The world wars weren't fought over religion, but politics, greed and pride. How many people died in fighting those wars? The crusades were also fought over control of the spice trade by corrupt officials using religion as a way to keep their purses fat. It had as much to do with greed and economics as it did with religion. Religion didn't start it by itself. Research the Crusades and you will find the REAL truth. Not just one based on an assumption that is plain as day to see. History is the same as a great painting. There are always dark colors mixed in.

[xellos88330]

Accidentally quoted myself. LOL!!!

[DMC]

Did I say that religion invented morality? I said nothing of the sort. You are making up things and creating an illusion to further your point in this debate. All that I am saying is that religion does teach basic moralities. I understand that it is harmful to your argument, but to say that it doesn't exist entirely us utterly ridiculous. You are picking and choosing snippets to attack instead of looking at the whole picture. You claim that evidence is required to have a definite answer. I have provided the evidence on the subject of morality being taught by the Bible, and you are completely ignoring it. You are acting just like the blind religious people that you believe from your statement below and acting solely on your own convictions. I have stated that there are definitely contradictions within religious institutions, but there is also good to be found as well. I cover both sides of the spectrum and can see results both bad and good.



True that wars are fought and people die believing in ancient teachings, but how is that any different than killing people for oil in modern times? How about committing genocide for land? People die all the time for things that they need or believe in. It isn't confined to just religion alone. The world wars weren't fought over religion, but politics, greed and pride. How many people died in fighting those wars? The crusades were also fought over control of the spice trade by corrupt officials using religion as a way to keep their purses fat. It had as much to do with greed and economics as it did with religion. Religion didn't start it by itself. Research the Crusades and you will find the REAL truth. Not just one based on an assumption that is plain as day to see. History is the same as a great painting. There are always dark colors mixed in.

You said the Bible teaches morality. It certainly does not unless you think raping your enemies daughters and killing children is moral.

[DMC]

I did my own work, which I why I made the claim. I just didn't do your work.

Weren't you the person who just said "causal claims can be rejected causally"? I was just combating your 'like dissolves like' reasoning.

Anyway, my god claim is: We should assume god exists. That's not the same as saying: God exists.

Nope. You seem to have meant to concatenate the two. Gambler's fallacy is an actual logical issue. Pascal's Wager is just an argument that some people have attacked. By no means is it an illogical argument.

Indeed, I didn't mean freedom in the sense of not having something. Rather I meant it more in the 'no longer having to pretend to believe to appease others' type of way.

Yeah, because making petty arguments against something delegitimizes stronger arguments.

"Atheism appeals to intellectuals, not because it's more rational or whatever, but because it makes them feel better about themselves."

Stick to this.

You are insinuating above that intellectuals' motive for belief (if that makes sense) is that it makes them feel better about themselves, so it's an ego thing, not epistemology related. How do you know that intellectuals who are atheist aren't atheist because they haven't seen evidence to support the god claim? How do you know it's an ego boost thing, Freud?

[RD2191]

DMC getting owned per par.

[xellos88330]

You said the Bible teaches morality. It certainly does not unless you think raping your enemies daughters and killing children is moral.

Ok. How do you make sense of these statements within the Bible.

Thou shalt not kill.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Thou shalt not covet.

Are those immoral?

[Clipper Nation]

So we have Rob fantasizing about what the people he disagrees with look like and CN glorifying appearing "not smart."

Bravo.

I'm not glorifying anything... Urinel's schtick is just the rich man's Avante, he tries so hard to look smarter, cooler, and superior to everybody else and can't handle the fact that nobody sees him that way....

[Uriel]

Ok. How do you make sense of these statements within the Bible.

Thou shalt not kill.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Thou shalt not covet.

Are those immoral?
The point DMC and I have been trying to make is that that the basis people have for claiming the morality of these statements predates the Bible. Various cultures from various societies recognize intrinsically that things like murder and theft are wrong; they didn't need the Bible to tell them that.

[Chinook]

"Atheism appeals to intellectuals, not because it's more rational or whatever, but because it makes them feel better about themselves."

Stick to this.

You are insinuating above that intellectuals' motive for belief (if that makes sense) is that it makes them feel better about themselves, so it's an ego thing, not epistemology related. How do you know that intellectuals who are atheist aren't atheist because they haven't seen evidence to support the god claim? How do you know it's an ego boost thing, Freud?

Ironically, Freud's atheist constructive was very much about their ego boost.

Anyways, people can be atheists for different reasons. I don't want to look like I'm saying they get painted with a broad brush. But in terms of why there's a correlation between "intellectuals" and atheism, it makes sense that people who value their particular method of reasoning shut their mind off to other ways. You're an example of that, regurgitating empiricist axioms rather than using real critical thinking.

As we both agreed, "intellectuals" is more of a social group than it is a selection of the smartest people. Therefore, the group is under the same social pressures to think alike as other groups. People say, "I'm smart, so I am not going to be shackled by this god belief any longer," and it sticks with folks, especially when most vocal theists are sticking their heads in the sands about basic scientific findings. They also (as I have said multiple times by now) use science without understanding its true place in epistemology, which encourages them to apply empiricist maxims inappropriately.

So why does being atheist make intellectuals feel better about themselves? It helps them identify with their group and it allows them to seem smart while taking the easy road out of actual thinking.

[Uriel]

That has nothing to do with why I posted it
I know; I was just point out the irony in you're using him to rebuff me in a debate where he would unequivocally be taking my side.


I'm not sure if he's really following this discussion properly. He definitely doesn't seem like a very experienced debater, though he's eager.
That's a fairly presumptuous statement to make, given that you've done nothing but misunderstand the assertions I've been making (and then subsequently act in a condescending manner, as if to demonstrate your superiority).

[DMC]

Ok. How do you make sense of these statements within the Bible.

Thou shalt not kill.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Thou shalt not covet.

Are those immoral?

What does "adultery" mean? Fucking. Fucking is therefore immoral. I don't think so. It might be dishonest if you're lying about it, but married people have open relationships, they swing, are they immoral?

Wanting what someone else has is immoral? I don't think so. Odd that the Lord is a jealous god, yet coveting is immoral.

I see 4 commandments of 10 and you say the Bible teaches morality. According to the Bible, it's just as immoral to work on the Sabbath as to kill someone.

[Uriel]

The Bible is full of contradictions, but it doesn't mean that there isn't a message to be had. Take some of the commandments for example.

Thou shalt not kill.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not bear false witness.
Thou shalt not covet.
Honor your father and mother.

Are those not guidelines for the betterment of society and mankind? Some of those still hold true to this day with laws passed based on them. I certainly don't want anyone killing me, fucking my wife, robbing me, lying to me, etc. I am quite positive that you don't either.

According to that poll 28% of people believe that the Bible is the literal word of God. Why aren't they stoning the hell out of people. Freedom to practice religion is one of the foundations that this nation was built on. The commandment says that you shouldn't kill. Perhaps this is why most people aren't running amok slaughtering people for their lack of faith in the one true God? Or could it be that perhaps only 518 people questioned isn't enough to speak for everyone?

You also quoted a bible passage stating that there is only one God using the Bible.

The Quran
"He is the One GOD; the Creator, the Initiator, the Designer. To Him belong the most beautiful names. Glorifying Him is everything in the heavens and the earth. He is the Almighty, Most Wise." (Quran, 59:24 )

The Torah also has a similar passage.
"Yahweh, He is God; there is no other besides Him." Deuteronomy 4:35

Which of these is correct? They both mean the same thing. There is one God. You can call him whatever name you want, but in the end, aren't they all worshipping only one God?
Up to this point in the debate, you have made the following concessions:

1. The Bible is full of contradictions.
2. The Bible's content is archaic and barbaric.
3. The Bible consists of outdated customs, rituals, and knowledge of an outdated culture.

Taken together, the fact that you acknowledge all this and still continue to hold the Bible up as a paragon of literature is beyond me. If the Almighty Creator of the Universe were truly to have written this book (or at least inspired the people who wrote it), I'm sure he could have done much better than write a book replete with errors and mutual contradictions.

[Clipper Nation]

If the Almighty Creator of the Universe were truly to have written this book
"God" didn't, dumbass, it was stitched together by 4 sources....

:lol Mensa member
:lol "Paying $30 for a test makes me smart!!!"

[DMC]

Ironically, Freud's atheist constructive was very much about their ego boost.

Anyways, people can be atheists for different reasons. I don't want to look like I'm saying they get painted with a broad brush. But in terms of why there's a correlation between "intellectuals" and atheism, it makes sense that people who value their particular method of reasoning shut their mind off to other ways. You're an example of that, regurgitating empiricist axioms rather than using real critical thinking.

And what are you doing besides making your way of thinking the standard by saying "real critical thinking"? So god did it and left, that's real critical thinking?


As we both agreed, "intellectuals" is more of a social group than it is a selection of the smartest people. Therefore, the group is under the same social pressures to think alike as other groups. People say, "I'm smart, so I am not going to be shackled by this god belief any longer," and it sticks with folks, especially when most vocal theists are sticking their heads in the sands about basic scientific findings. They also (as I have said multiple times by now) use science without understanding its true place in epistemology, which encourages them to apply empiricist maxims inappropriately.

That's just you stereotyping a group. Just admit that you don't know why people are atheist, since you're not atheist. "I don't know" is something you learn to say as you get older.


So why does being atheist make intellectuals feel better about themselves? It helps them identify with their group and it allows them to seem smart while taking the easy road out of actual thinking.
Circular reasoning.. intellectuals claim to be atheist because it helps them identify with intellectuals, who claim to be atheists.

The god answer is the easy route. I can illustrate that quite easily. Just ask me anything.

[Chinook]

That's a fairly presumptuous statement to make, given that you've done nothing but misunderstand the assertions I've been making (and then subsequently act in a condescending manner, as if to demonstrate your superiority).

:rolleyes First off, my lack of certainty in you having followed the debate is not an assumption. I didn't assume you haven't; I just didn't see enough evidence to assert that you have.

Secondly, you have to get off your superiority/inferiority thing. No one is playing that angle more than you are. You keep going on and on about your intelligence (or everyone else's in comparison to yours), yet you continue to make mistakes in terms of improper argumentative form and in terms of completely misunderstanding what people are saying. Meanwhile, you haven't said much at all, especially anything beyond entry-level arguments.

Take this, for example:


I know; I was just point out the irony in you're using him to rebuff me in a debate where he would unequivocally be taking my side.

Essentially, SR was voicing his disgust at your demeanor with a .gif which fit the situation, and you try to turn it into a political thing. NDT supposedly hates the idea of being put into the "atheist" label, claiming to be agnostic instead. So you simultaneously missed two people's points (SR essentially saying you were being a jackass and NDT saying that his beliefs haven't driven him to atheism, and especially not to the type of arrogant atheism you support).

Intelligence isn't about what a test says or what groups you join. It means little in the interpersonal world if you struggle to process what other people are saying and to express yourself in a manner that effectively gets your point across. The atheist constructive is a legitimate one, and most in this thread subscribe to it. The fact that you've caught so much flack in this thread despite that should tell you it has a lot more to do with your attitude than it does with your contention.

[Chinook]

And what are you doing besides making your way of thinking the standard by saying "real critical thinking"? So god did it and left, that's real critical thinking?

First, that's no different that you thinking atheism is the natural end to critical thinking on the god subject. Of course, I feel like I'm thinking correctly and so my conclusions would be the result of correct thinking by anyone. That's not really an issue.

Secondly, you haven't demonstrated any actual thought process. You just used an empiricist axiom. That took about as much thinking as posting a Commandment would have.


That's just you stereotyping a group. Just admit that you don't know why people are atheist, since you're not atheist. "I don't know" is something you learn to say as you get older.

:rolleyes An actual ad homenim fallacy right there. Surprised you didn't point it out.


Circular reasoning.. intellectuals claim to be atheist because it helps them identify with intellectuals, who claim to be atheists.

Perhaps if you didn't split my response in half, you'd get why it's not circular.


The god answer is the easy route. I can illustrate that quite easily. Just ask me anything.

It's not easier than finishing the process. It doesn't have the benefit of making a person feel smart.

[xellos88330]

The point DMC and I have been trying to make is that that the basis people have for claiming the morality of these statements predates the Bible. Various cultures from various societies recognize intrinsically that things like murder and theft are wrong; they didn't need the Bible to tell them that.

Why is it so difficult for you all to comprehend simple English.

Once again... I did not state that the Bible created morality, but teaches it. Do not make me repeat this again. It is a FACT that the Bible does indeed try to teach morality. I didn't invent mathematics, but I can teach math to my daughter. It is the same damn principle.

[xellos88330]

What does "adultery" mean? Fucking. Fucking is therefore immoral. I don't think so. It might be dishonest if you're lying about it, but married people have open relationships, they swing, are they immoral?

Wanting what someone else has is immoral? I don't think so. Odd that the Lord is a jealous god, yet coveting is immoral.

I see 4 commandments of 10 and you say the Bible teaches morality. According to the Bible, it's just as immoral to work on the Sabbath as to kill someone.

I figured since you didn't believe in God, you wouldn't listen to the others since it doesn't apply to your belief structure. I just used the ones that could directly apply to an atheist like yourself. Is it really that painful to admit that the Bible does include moral statements that you agree with? Why can you not answer such a simple question? Don't let your pride get in the way of truth. Only religious people should be doing that.

[DMC]

Why is it so difficult for you all to comprehend simple English.

Once again... I did not state that the Bible created morality, but teaches it. Do not make me repeat this again. It is a FACT that the Bible does indeed try to teach morality. I didn't invent mathematics, but I can teach math to my daughter. It is the same damn principle.

To say the Bible teaches morality is to say the overall message of the Bible is a message of morality, not that you can find some bits and pieces of it that you feel are rooting in morality.

[DMC]

I figured since you didn't believe in God, you wouldn't listen to the others since it doesn't apply to your belief structure. I just used the ones that could directly apply to an atheist like yourself. Is it really that painful to admit that the Bible does include moral statements that you agree with? Why can you not answer such a simple question? Don't let your pride get in the way of truth. Only religious people should be doing that.

See my answer above.

[Uriel]

Why is it so difficult for you all to comprehend simple English.

Once again... I did not state that the Bible created morality, but teaches it. Do not make me repeat this again. It is a FACT that the Bible does indeed try to teach morality. I didn't invent mathematics, but I can teach math to my daughter. It is the same damn principle.
We've already been through this. If the Bible teaches morality, then it does a horrible job at doing so. Any sane, rational person living in the 21st century (including you) can come up with a list of 10 commandments that immediately surprasses the quality of that which is found in the Bible.

[Uriel]

:rolleyes First off, my lack of certainty in you having followed the debate is not an assumption. I didn't assume you haven't; I just didn't see enough evidence to assert that you have.

Secondly, you have to get off your superiority/inferiority thing. No one is playing that angle more than you are. You keep going on and on about your intelligence (or everyone else's in comparison to yours), yet you continue to make mistakes in terms of improper argumentative form and in terms of completely misunderstanding what people are saying. Meanwhile, you haven't said much at all, especially anything beyond entry-level arguments.

Take this, for example:



Essentially, SR was voicing his disgust at your demeanor with a .gif which fit the situation, and you try to turn it into a political thing. NDT supposedly hates the idea of being put into the "atheist" label, claiming to be agnostic instead. So you simultaneously missed two people's points (SR essentially saying you were being a jackass and NDT saying that his beliefs haven't driven him to atheism, and especially not to the type of arrogant atheism you support).

Intelligence isn't about what a test says or what groups you join. It means little in the interpersonal world if you struggle to process what other people are saying and to express yourself in a manner that effectively gets your point across. The atheist constructive is a legitimate one, and most in this thread subscribe to it. The fact that you've caught so much flack in this thread despite that should tell you it has a lot more to do with your attitude than it does with your contention.
So you're discrediting my atheist views because you think I'm an arrogant jackass? :lol Isn't that ad hominem?