Study: Liberals, atheists, have higher IQs

[spurraider21]

lol all this because wrecker tried to make a funny

[DAF86]

First, theism and evolution aren't incompatible. I believe in both with no reservations. Second, catchy phrases like the one you used are why I said what I said. I think atheists are so caught up in empiricism (the thing that got us away from religious thinking), that they ignore other aspects of critical reasoning. I am not trying to insult atheists when saying that. But I just feel most don't actually care to really think about the god issue anymore. That's fine by me, but it's not a validation of their stance.

Dude, stop to try to overanalyze it. I don't believe in God 'cause nobody has proven to me that he is real and the religious stories sound ridiculous to me. Not believing in God doesn't make me feel better, in fact it makes me feel worse 'cause I think that once I die that will be it for eternity, do you know how scary that thought is? I would love to think that when I die I will live hapily ever after on paradise but as an intelligent grown up man I can't force myself to believe that.

[Chinook]

Dude, stop to try to overanalyze it. I don't believe in God 'cause nobody has proven to me that he is real and the religious stories sound ridiculous to me. Not believing in God doesn't make me feel better, in fact it makes me feel worse 'cause I think that once I die that will be it for eternity, do you know how scary that thought is? I would love to think that when I die I will live hapily ever after on paradise but as an intelligent grown up man I can't force myself to believe that.

Dunno why you think you're unique. Anyone who's ever thought on these issue at all has had the same thoughts you've expressed. That's pretty much what this thread's been about. I don't really feel like repeating it when there's a whole thread of posts you can read if you want to. But the shorthand version is that you believe what you do because you value certain types of reasoning over others. Empiricism is NOT the only way people go about forming beliefs, but because that's the backbone of science, intellectuals tend to overvalue it.

Remember, I wasn't speaking to why people in general are atheists, but rather why intellectuals would be more prone to it than others. Atheism is the reasonable view when you apply only empiricism to the god question. Intellectuals favor empiricism, and so being atheists validates their system of reasoning (thus making them feel better about themselves).

[DMC]

Dude, stop to try to overanalyze it. I don't believe in God 'cause nobody has proven to me that he is real and the religious stories sound ridiculous to me. Not believing in God doesn't make me feel better, in fact it makes me feel worse 'cause I think that once I die that will be it for eternity, do you know how scary that thought is? I would love to think that when I die I will live hapily ever after on paradise but as an intelligent grown up man I can't force myself to believe that.

How scary were the billions of years before you were born?

[DMC]

I added another because I was not limited to the concept of only by the original statement. There will always be an egg you are not holding because you can't hold all the eggs.

I can hold all the eggs if I am all the things that hold eggs.

[z0sa]

How scary were the billions of years before you were born?

Mind= ed

[Blake]

now you can die happy?

that depends on what the creator offers after death.

If nothing, then no happier or sadder than before

actually you could have said so on page 3

I said so right away

[Blake]

You stated earlier that you cannot prove the non-existence of spaghetti monster. Now spaghetti monster is fiction?

spaghetti monster was never not fiction.

You're struggling with this burden of proof/proving a negative issue. I suggest using google or we can go round some more here. I'm colors either way.

[ohmwrecker]

I can hold all the eggs if I am all the things that hold eggs.

Possibly. However, you can never be completely certain that you are indeed holding all the eggs.

[Blake]

Possibly. However, you can never be completely certain that you are indeed holding all the eggs.

you can if you're omniscient.

The original question is can you force yourself to not know about other eggs out there and still be considered omniscient?

[DAF86]

How scary were the billions of years before you were born?

With all those dinosaurs and , it must have been pretty ing scary.

[ohmwrecker]

you can if you're omniscient.

The original question is can you force yourself to not know about other eggs out there and still be considered omniscient?

You only need enough eggs to make an omelette.

[xellos88330]

spaghetti monster was never not fiction.

You're struggling with this burden of proof/proving a negative issue. I suggest using google or we can go round some more here. I'm colors either way.

Spaghetti monster does indeed exist. I can make some spaghetti, fashion it into the shape of a monster, put it on a plane. Flying spaghetti monster. Negative issue my ass. You may think that this is just a smart ass comment. Look carefully, and you will see the faults of your logic.

I have already reached my conclusion in my own personal study conducted here. I also dislike using Google in a debate. It feels dirty.

[Blake]

Spaghetti monster does indeed exist. I can make some spaghetti, fashion it into the shape of a monster, put it on a plane. Flying spaghetti monster. Negative issue my ass. You may think that this is just a smart ass comment. Look carefully, and you will see the faults of your logic.

I have already reached my conclusion in my own personal study conducted here. I also dislike using Google in a debate. It feels dirty.

Do you believe your flying spaghetti monster creation created you first?

I love using google. It helps me make ass talkers look real silly real fast.

[spurraider21]

Spaghetti monster does indeed exist. I can make some spaghetti, fashion it into the shape of a monster, put it on a plane. Flying spaghetti monster. Negative issue my ass. You may think that this is just a smart ass comment. Look carefully, and you will see the faults of your logic.

I have already reached my conclusion in my own personal study conducted here. I also dislike using Google in a debate. It feels dirty.

putting something in the shape of a monster doesn't make it a monster. you are being purposely obtuse

[xellos88330]

Do you believe your flying spaghetti monster creation created you first?

Study the flying spaghetti monster and figure it out yourself. Or better yet, I suggest YOU use google to figure it out.

[xellos88330]

putting something in the shape of a monster doesn't make it a monster. you are being purposely obtuse

It isn't about that at all my man. It is about perception. I said it was a spaghetti monster, therefore, it is indeed a spaghetti monster.

[RandomGuy]

A misunderstanding of math in Zeno's paradox is the same as misunderstanding the God Paradox.

In the God paradox, a person is trying to understand God within the framework of our own physical reality. God transcends that. To ask true questions about God, one must be able to get past the confines of their dependence on the physical.

Please demonstrate that "God transcends physical reality".

Seems like a pretty straightforward claim, surely you can show me something that establishes that things can transcend our physical reality.

Thought can.

Until it is perceived or received by someone it doesn't exist.

Wrong again.

Thought is dependent on a physical mind conduct it.

No synapses, no thought.

And when you have a thought, what happens to it?

It remains in my brain for a period of time, dependent on my memory.

Again, requires a physical brain to conduct and retain. It is the ulation of states in the neural network in my skull, and the configuration and connections of those neurons.

You have yet to show anything that exists beyond our physical universe.

I can, however, show you brains, and how they work.

Can you show me thought without a brain to conduct it?

[RandomGuy]

that depends on what the creator offers after death.

If nothing, then no happier or sadder than before

I said so right away

If one wants to see what existing to praise a higher power is like for eternity, one merely has to visit North Korea. They spend their lives praising the dear leader.

Given: Perfect beings don't require worship.
They have no unfulfilled needs, otherwise they would not be perfect.

Bible God requires worship, therefore Bible God is not perfect. QED.

[xellos88330]

It remains in my brain for a period of time, dependent on my memory.

Again, requires a physical brain to conduct and retain. It is the ulation of states in the neural network in my skull, and the configuration and connections of those neurons.

You have yet to show anything that exists beyond our physical universe.

I can, however, show you brains, and how they work.

Can you show me thought without a brain to conduct it?

So, once the thought is created, and it is no longer stored in the memory, the thought no longer exists in the physical world. Does that mean that the thought never existed in the first place, or does the thought still exist only in a place with no physical reality?

[spurraider21]

It isn't about that at all my man. It is about perception. I said it was a spaghetti monster, therefore, it is indeed a spaghetti monster.

and that's why i said you are being purposely obtuse

[RandomGuy]

So, once the thought is created, and it is no longer stored in the memory, the thought no longer exists in the physical world. Does that mean that the thought never existed in the first place, or does the thought still exist only in a place with no physical reality?

No it does not. It was a physical wave form dependant on physical objects, i.e. matter in my brain.

Your question is akin to claiming that waves disappear from physical reality when they break on a shore. They represent a collection of matter moving in a certain pattern for a length of time. Once the wave breaks the water no longer has the specific pattern, but the water still exists.

I don't see how this is so hard to understand.

Now, can you show me a thought without a brain to conduct it or not?

[xellos88330]

and that's why i said you are being purposely obtuse

Ok, maybe a bit. LOL!!!

[xellos88330]

No it does not. It was a physical wave form dependant on physical objects, i.e. matter in my brain.

Your question is akin to claiming that waves disappear from physical reality when they break on a shore. They represent a collection of matter moving in a certain pattern for a length of time. Once the wave breaks the water no longer has the specific pattern, but the water still exists.

I don't see how this is so hard to understand.

Now, can you show me a thought without a brain to conduct it or not?

I will answer your question in a moment. Just bear with me.

So where does the thought exist?

[Blake]

Ok, maybe a bit. LOL!!!

yeah, it's good you ejected from that. It wasn't going anywhere.