Study: Liberals, atheists, have higher IQs

[spurraider21]

I'm just a spectator. A heckler in the stands

[xellos88330]

For the same reason we'd Tiruchirapalli somebody for making a claim that Martian life exists without any means to provide evidence

Yet you can provide no evidence of your own that it can't. In fact, there is evidence of underground water on Mars. Water is essential to life as we know it. Wouldn't an atheist choose to follow the evidence and not say anything until they found out for fact that it doesn't?

The answer is no. It is just too much fun and feeds their ego because they are "insignificant". It is a way for them to differentiate themselves and stand out from the crowd. Atheism just seems like a way to toss ones own salad.

[Blake]

1. In practicality, they shouldn't have to. In practicality, they should be respectful of others beliefs. In reality, that is not the case. If there is an attempt to ridicule another for their beliefs, should they not provide their own proofs to justify such an act? There are many proofs of atheists ridiculing religion and theism in general. Flying Spaghetti monster is an obvious slap in the face to those who believe in God. Atheists claim that they cannot trust a religion because of how religion can treat people. Are the atheists not doing the same? If theists can be held responsible for their actions by atheists, shouldn't atheists be held responsible for their actions by theists as well?

there are plenty of examples of Christians ridiculing atheists, but the ridicule is irrelevant.

What is relevant is when Christians try to push their Bible morals and beliefs into the public domain and the debate at "....because God says so".

That's a problem.

2. I already said that I am no expert in geometric time, or physics for that matter. The points I found were in the way the video explained it to me. If you have anything to add or respond in addition to the video, I would be more than willing to listen as I am not confident in my grasp of the subject.

So you don't really know what the good points are; only that they're somewhere in that hour and a half long YouTube.

K.

[spurraider21]

Yet you can provide no evidence of your own that it can't. In fact, there is evidence of underground water on Mars. Water is essential to life as we know it. Wouldn't an atheist choose to follow the evidence and not say anything until they found out for fact that it doesn't?

The answer is no. It is just too much fun and feeds their ego because they are "insignificant". It is a way for them to differentiate themselves and stand out from the crowd. Atheism just seems like a way to toss ones own salad.

Water doesn't guarantee life. It might be a necessary condition but that's different from being a sufficient condition

[xmas1997]

there are plenty of examples of Christians ridiculing atheists, but the ridicule is irrelevant.

What is relevant is when Christians try to push their Bible morals and beliefs into the public domain and the debate at "....because God says so".

That's a problem.

For who?

You?

You don't have to read it.

And no one is forcing you to believe it.

So what problem is there, really?

None.

[xellos88330]

there are plenty of examples of Christians ridiculing atheists, but the ridicule is irrelevant.

What is relevant is when Christians try to push their Bible morals and beliefs into the public domain and the debate at "....because God says so".

That's a problem.



So you don't really know what the good points are; only that they're somewhere in that hour and a half long YouTube.

K.

1. I have a school of 1000 kids. Of those kids only 5 are atheist. So 995 of the kids should do without their beliefs because of the beliefs of 5? In what universe does that make logical sense? Why don't the atheists instead make their own schools and learn within the environment that they see as acceptable. They are certainly free to do that.

2. I have provided you the paper and the video with the points of the person who DOES know the subject as he is more qualified than myself (it is also not my personal revalation so I take no credit from it). Apparently, my incapability to explain it myself makes the entire segment on geometric time irrelevant. Because logic my ass.

[xmas1997]

1. I have a school of 1000 kids. Of those kids only 5 are atheist. So 995 of the kids should do without their beliefs because of the beliefs of 5? In what universe does that make logical sense? Why don't the atheists instead make their own schools and learn within the environment that they see as acceptable. They are certainly free to do that.

2. I have provided you the paper and the video with the points of the person who DOES know the subject as he is more qualified than myself (it is also not my personal revalation so I take no credit from it). Apparently, my incapability to explain it myself makes the entire segment on geometric time irrelevant. Because logic my ass.

TRUTH BOMB for owning blake.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yet you can provide no evidence of your own that it can't. In fact, there is evidence of underground water on Mars. Water is essential to life as we know it. Wouldn't an atheist choose to follow the evidence and not say anything until they found out for fact that it doesn't?

The answer is no. It is just too much fun and feeds their ego because they are "insignificant". It is a way for them to differentiate themselves and stand out from the crowd. Atheism just seems like a way to toss ones own salad.

Could your God be a multidimensional being? Sure but that kinda misses the point of the last 300 years.

I don't know if there is a more perfect example of moving the goalposts.

I won't say negate with certainty but when it comes down to proselytizing and attempts at social control, I think that is a different matter.

If you are right though then I do think it likely that your god would not be the only one. Why would there only be one creature of light?

[xellos88330]

Could your God be a multidimensional being? Sure but that kinda misses the point of the last 300 years.

I don't know if there is a more perfect example of moving the goalposts.

I won't say negate with certainty but when it comes down to proselytizing and attempts at social control, I think that is a different matter.

If you are right though then I do think it likely that your god would not be the only one. Why would there only be one creature of light?

Christians believe in the existence of angels as well which also exist within the realm of God. There isn't one creature of light, but there is one greater than the others.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Christians believe in the existence of angels as well which also exist within the realm of God. There isn't one creature of light, but there is one greater than the others.

Yeah but that is not a limiting factor. If there are extradimensional beings influencing humans then I think it likely many of the other accounts of God from other regions of the world are equally as valid as yours.

What do I say to the Muslim or the Sikh? Both of your Gods make claims that are mutually exclusive.

If we are proxies then I don't know if I like that arrangement.

[xmas1997]

Christians believe in the existence of angels as well which also exist within the realm of God. There isn't one creature of light, but there is one greater than the others.

I guess you are aware you are talking to a stone wall.

And most of them are dumber than a bag of rocks when it comes to this subject.

[Chinook]

Well you have now joined Darrin in sophist piece of land. Winehole will be pleased.

You're the one who used fallacious methods. I said, "look it up" the whole time. Had you done so when I told you to, you would have been able to make this (poor) counterargument a lot sooner.

Let's recap this 'categorical' debate:

-You said that I had a categorical imperative, supposedly meaning that I had a mandate to put things in categories.
-I said that that's not what CI meant.

-You acted like a and didn't look it up, saying that 'categorical' meant "of categories" and that your idea of the CI was correct.
-I refuted that by demonstrating that a dictionary says that it means absolute, and that Kant's own words support that usage.

-You said that 'categorical' was translated from German, meaning that it was used in the way you think it was.
-I showed that the German word Kant used means, "absolute."

-You argued that Kant was borrowing from Aristotle, and that as a result, 'categorical' meant what it did back in Greek times.
-I showed categorical meant "absolute" even back then.

-You found a sub definition that says it can also mean "of categories" and are trying to claim victory.

Where did we start again? Does you sub definition mean that your original use of "categorical imperative" was correct? Does it mean that Kant was off his rocker to call his universal morality the "categorical imperative"?

No. no, even. I'll admit to trolling a bit by telling you to read a dictionary when I knew what the result would be. This might be a strange concept to you, but I don't tell someone to research a topic without me also researching it. I never sit there and exclude the possibility of me being wrong or off base. I knew 'categorical' had a sub definition just like I know Wikipedia says that mathematicians use infinity like a number. But I also knew what 'categorical's main definition was and the way Kant used it in the CI. And I knew that infinity is considered a concept even by mathematicians despite getting treated as a number. Funny thing happens when you do research: You see multiple sides to issues. But you were significantly less honest in that you are trying to change this around to make it fit your original stance. The CI has nothing to do with "boxes" (which is definitely the second most stupid rabbit hole you went down).

Your intellectual cowardice is impressive.

Anyway that quote there is to your rejoinder after you dodged for 5 days. Are you really going to strut with TSA and m>s? You're a bigger than I thought.

It's actually pretty funny, because everyone here seems to put you in the worst-poster category. I'm glad you're giving up the ghost on this one, though. You've more than run your course.

[xellos88330]

Yeah but that is not a limiting factor. If there are extradimensional beings influencing humans then I think it likely many of the other accounts of God from other regions of the world are equally as valid as yours.

What do I say to the Muslim or the Sikh? Both of your Gods make claims that are mutually exclusive.

If we are proxies then I don't know if I like that arrangement.

Unless I am mistaken, I do believe that the existence of angels is within the Qu'ran. I don't think this is true with Sikhism. Actually I think that Sikhism doesn't have a heaven or a thus giving God no place to reside except for the Earth.

It isn't that I reject the other faiths altogether. I like to think that there are kernels of truth in each one which could lead us to a better life. Compared to the other holy scriptures of other religions, the Bible has far more information. This could be a reason why Christianity is the most dominant faith.

[xmas1997]

Unless I am mistaken, I do believe that the existence of angels is within the Qu'ran. I don't think this is true with Sikhism. Actually I think that Sikhism doesn't have a heaven or a thus giving God no place to reside except for the Earth.

It isn't that I reject the other faiths altogether. I like to think that there are kernels of truth in each one which could lead us to a better life. Compared to the other holy scriptures of other religions, the Bible has far more information. This could be a reason why Christianity is the most dominant faith.

It is, and in the Bible and in the Torah among others

Even Wiccan believe in angels.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You're the one who used fallacious methods. I said, "look it up" the whole time. Had you done so when I told you to, you would have been able to make this (poor) counterargument a lot sooner.

Let's recap this 'categorical' debate:

-You said that I had a categorical imperative, supposedly meaning that I had a mandate to put things in categories.
-I said that that's not what CI meant.

-You acted like a and didn't look it up, saying that 'categorical' meant "of categories" and that your idea of the CI was correct.
-I refuted that by demonstrating that a dictionary says that it means absolute, and that Kant's own words support that usage.

-You said that 'categorical' was translated from German, meaning that it was used in the way you think it was.
-I showed that the German word Kant used means, "absolute."

-You argued that Kant was borrowing from Aristotle, and that as a result, 'categorical' meant what it did back in Greek times.
-I showed categorical meant "absolute" even back then.

-You found a sub definition that says it can also mean "of categories" and are trying to claim victory.

Where did we start again? Does you sub definition mean that your original use of "categorical imperative" was correct? Does it mean that Kant was off his rocker to call his universal morality the "categorical imperative"?

No. no, even. I'll admit to trolling a bit by telling you to read a dictionary when I knew what the result would be. This might be a strange concept to you, but I don't tell someone to research a topic without me also researching it. I never sit there and exclude the possibility of me being wrong or off base. I knew 'categorical' had a sub definition just like I know Wikipedia says that mathematicians use infinity like a number. But I also knew what 'categorical's main definition was and the way Kant used it in the CI. And I knew that infinity is considered a concept even by mathematicians despite getting treated as a number. Funny thing happens when you do research: You see multiple sides to issues. But you were significantly less honest in that you are trying to change this around to make it fit your original stance. The CI has nothing to do with "boxes" (which is definitely the second most stupid rabbit hole you went down).



It's actually pretty funny, because everyone here seems to put you in the worst-poster category. I'm glad you're giving up the ghost on this one, though. You've more than run your course.

Oh nice you came back for more.

bolded for cowardice

It's not my fault that you cannot keep up with the argument. I will now quote the same ing quote that I have been saying for two days now and that somehow is not considered in the above yet subsumes all of it.

You just are not on the level and can only say negations and google basic definitions. Google came up with "true regardless of cir stance" and to me that sounds just like "universal truth" which sounds an awful like Platonic forms and Aristotelian categories. It's in the ing name for 's sake. What do not mutually exclusive mean? Funny how things come full circle nonetheless your assertions.

Since you did the asinine line by line I can quote your direct rebuttal:

The ? So it turns out you did Google 'categorical', saw that it didn't mean, "of categories" and are now trying to claim that it's wrong and you're right because ... what? Kant argued that there is such a thing as objective morality, but his only example is so weak that no one even cites it. I'm sorry that you keep trying to revive it by incorrectly using the term 'categorical imperative', but it's never meant what you think it means.

You really are a piece of .

[xmas1997]

^^^ See what I mean? ^^^ His last sentence pretty much sums up the essence of his whole pseudo-debate tactics!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Unless I am mistaken, I do believe that the existence of angels is within the Qu'ran. I don't think this is true with Sikhism. Actually I think that Sikhism doesn't have a heaven or a thus giving God no place to reside except for the Earth.

It isn't that I reject the other faiths altogether. I like to think that there are kernels of truth in each one which could lead us to a better life. Compared to the other holy scriptures of other religions, the Bible has far more information. This could be a reason why Christianity is the most dominant faith.

Sharia law doesn't have the same live and let live at ude. That authoritarian nonsense from the monotheistic orders is often directly exclusionary. Muslims do not buy your notions of salvation through Jesus for example.

All you have done to this point is made the argument against atheism as a certainty. I agree with you there but you have not affirmed the positive. I am just entertaining the thought that you could be right.

I think the better question -because I personally think that religion has much more to do with the human will to power than it does with an extra-dimensional being- is 'From what does the authority of god derive?' Why should we listen you about what 'god' means and not the Levites or the Salafists?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This message is hidden because xmas1997 is on your ignore list.

You are going to have to get on another account if you want to talk to me.

[xmas1997]

I am quite content not to have to.

[Baam]

Sharia law doesn't have the same live and let live at ude. That authoritarian nonsense from the monotheistic orders is often directly exclusionary. Muslims do not buy your notions of salvation through Jesus for example.

All you have done to this point is made the argument against atheism as a certainty. I agree with you there but you have not affirmed the positive. I am just entertaining the thought that you could be right.

I think the better question -because I personally think that religion has much more to do with the human will to power than it does with an extra-dimensional being- is 'From what does the authority of god derive?' Why should we listen you about what 'god' means and not the Levites or the Salafists?

Muslims believe in Jesus as a prophet tho, so that's a load of people believing in Jesus...

[xellos88330]

Sharia law doesn't have the same live and let live at ude. That authoritarian nonsense from the monotheistic orders is often directly exclusionary. Muslims do not buy your notions of salvation through Jesus for example.

All you have done to this point is made the argument against atheism as a certainty. I agree with you there but you have not affirmed the positive. I am just entertaining the thought that you could be right.

I think the better question -because I personally think that religion has much more to do with the human will to power than it does with an extra-dimensional being- is 'From what does the authority of god derive?' Why should we listen you about what 'god' means and not the Levites or the Salafists?

To add onto the previous poster, Jesus seems to be mentioned more times than the Muhammed. It is also my understanding that they believe Muhammed to be the seal of all the prophets combined. I think they believe that Jesus was only meant to be a prophet to his own people. Mainly the Jews.

This however means that Muhammed did have some teachings of Christ. Because Jesus helped to indirectly teach Muhammed, he is owed reverence according to the Qu'ran because they are taught to love all the prophets. Take this with a grain of salt as I am in no way affiliated with the Muslim faith and could very well be wrong. It is simply my basic understanding.

[xmas1997]

To add onto the previous poster, Jesus seems to be mentioned more times than the Muhammed.

However Jesus preached love and forgiveness, not beheadings.

[xellos88330]

However Jesus preached love and forgiveness, not beheadings.

Jesus did. The Qu'ran also teaches those same things. The only reason why Christianity and Islam have trouble these days is because of the e trade in the time of the crusades. The greed of those in power wished to posses the wealth of the e trade. To hide their own greed, they used the Christian faith to incite the people to take up arms and die for their greed. We are still paying the price for it to this day. Had the crusades never happened, I do not doubt that there would be such animosity between the two religions. As far as the hatred for the Jews, the Islamic people were persecuted by them.

Osama Bin Laden was hailed as a hero of Islam as well as his Mujahadeen. When Saudi Arabia was threatened by Iraq, he offered his assistance to protect the land from the aggressor. The Saudi government turned him away and instead chose to use the Western coalition. This could easily have shamed Osama and he declared a jihaad inciting the people under religion to accomplish his own selfish goals.

[xmas1997]

Jesus did. The Qu'ran also teaches those same things. The only reason why Christianity and Islam have trouble these days is because of the e trade in the time of the crusades. The greed of those in power wished to posses the wealth of the e trade. To hide their own greed, they used the Christian faith to incite the people to take up arms and die for their greed. We are still paying the price for it to this day. Had the crusades never happened, I do not doubt that there would be such animosity between the two religions. As far as the hatred for the Jews, the Islamic people were persecuted by them.

And to think, even the Israelis were none other than another Arab tribe. And all of these Arab tribes have been at war over desert like land all through the ages under the guise of religion.

[xellos88330]

And to think, even the Israelis were none other than another Arab tribe. And all of these Arab tribes have been at war over desert like land all through the ages under the guise of religion.

Yep. It sucks, but the truth often does.