Study: Liberals, atheists, have higher IQs

[DMC]

DMC

[spurraider21]

umm, this dude is wearing a cross. he's one of yours

[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 ing 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 ins ution? 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 ins utions, 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 e 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 ins utions, 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 e 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? ing. ing 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, ing 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 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 s ched together by 4 sources....

Mensa member
"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).

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 at ude 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.

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? ing. ing 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]

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 at ude than it does with your contention.

So you're discrediting my atheist views because you think I'm an arrogant jackass? Isn't that ad hominem?