Study: Liberals, atheists, have higher IQs

[xellos88330]

I'm not reaching; I'm asking you to clarify because you've now got two conflicting posts.

No need. I have already answered it. You just don't like the answer and are wanting me to say more to find a different avenue to attack from. I won't let you have it. Until then, keep stretching yoga master.

Besides, you have are a "high IQ atheist". You should have easily seen the response in my answer.

[z0sa]

don't flatter yourself ... you're on the other end of the pissing contest, and on the losing end imo

You pretty much call chinook the winner in every thread

[xellos88330]

I also think it is hilarious that Blake can't argue something scientific so he jumps into a political arena to attempt to salvage his claims.

[Blake]

No need. I have already answered it. You just don't like the answer and are wanting me to say more to find a different avenue to attack from. I won't let you have it. Until then, keep stretching yoga master.

Besides, you have are a "high IQ atheist". You should have easily seen the response in my answer.

i think your answer as to why prayer was taken out of schools is correct.

It just doesn't jive with your "in what universe is it ok......995 vs 5......" comment.

[Blake]

I also think it is hilarious that Blake can't argue something scientific so he jumps into a political arena to attempt to salvage his claims.

what claims are you referring to?

Who are you talking to?

[rogues]

You pretty much call chinook the winner in every thread

I'm not a big fan of Chinook but he clearly owns Lumpkins ITT, tbh..it's real easy to own the pothead..just corner him into long paragraph takes..the take starts off by distorting the context of the argument or discussion, a jab of an ad hominem usually in the version of insulting someone's intelligence or lack thereof follows, then a looping of whatever person be it scientist or philosopher and using his credentials to bolster his argument..funny thing is 99% of the time, he'll try sooooooooooo hard to sound smart that he actually either misreads or misunderstands the established criteria he's quoting..probably a failed product of a college student who never got formal education and instead relies on wiki and Google to educate himself, tbh..

[z0sa]

Im not making a judgment on who "won" or lost.. I think both chinook and fuzzy have their moments.. im just trying to understand spurraiders prerogative to defend him in multiple threads in recent history, I admit I have a horse in this race cause he did the same thing whenever chinook and i argued in the global warming thread, but its apparently not an isolated incident. Im assuming its because theyre both relatively new posters who spend a lot of time here, nothing wrong with that I suppose

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Im not making a judgment on who "won" or lost.. I think both chinook and fuzzy have their moments.. im just trying to understand spurraiders prerogative to defend him in multiple threads in recent history, I admit I have a horse in this race cause he did the same thing whenever chinook and i argued in the global warming thread, but its apparently not an isolated incident. Im assuming its because theyre both relatively new posters who spend a lot of time here, nothing wrong with that I suppose

I'm guessing it's more of the typical ST subterfuge. Seeming is not reality.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm not a big fan of Chinook but he clearly owns Lumpkins ITT, tbh..it's real easy to own the pothead..just corner him into long paragraph takes..the take starts off by distorting the context of the argument or discussion, a jab of an ad hominem usually in the version of insulting someone's intelligence or lack thereof follows, then a looping of whatever person be it scientist or philosopher and using his credentials to bolster his argument..funny thing is 99% of the time, he'll try sooooooooooo hard to sound smart that he actually either misreads or misunderstands the established criteria he's quoting..probably a failed product of a college student who never got formal education and instead relies on wiki and Google to educate himself, tbh..

The peanut gallery is great. None of you guys ever have anything constructive to say. I get that I am cynic myself but you guys guys are a bunch of nihilist dimwits. Talk about guns or how minorities are responsible for crime then yeah but don't you dare try and talk smart. A true tribute to the stupid.

There are three of you lackwits that chimed in on the categories debate before I finally had to post the what was to me very obvious in the actual definition of the word. You people's reading skills suck.

When I was in kindergarten our teacher had these screw cabinets that they put all the various suffix's and prefix's into and that is how I learned how to learn words. That was the first time I remember learning about the specific subject at hand.

I'm just writing what comes to mind for the most part. I can talk about asymptotes and convolution all day too. I picked that up in college.

At the end, how can you really say that considering how you spend your time at the political forum? You are one to often cite articles that you don't understand or where the headline mislead you as to content as you spam your google/email/fb/rss.

You have the creativity of a toilet seat.

[spurraider21]

You pretty much call chinook the winner in every thread

Not really. I disagree with his main claim in all this... he's a theist and argues that theism is the null while atheism is the claim. Fuzzy has been off base since the start of this though, starting with calling chinook Christian a few times

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Not really. I disagree with his main claim in all this... he's a theist and argues that theism is the null while atheism is the claim. Fuzzy has been off base since the start of this though, starting with calling chinook Christian a few times

And I have since relented and said that I was misled because while he claims not to be a christian, he defends any theist arguments reflexively so it is what it is.

If he says he isn't a christian then fine it doesn't really matter. I am not being dishonest. He very obviously is.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Not really. I disagree with his main claim in all this... he's a theist and argues that theism is the null while atheism is the claim. Fuzzy has been off base since the start of this though, starting with calling chinook Christian a few times

And also he is not making that claim. You are putting it into the positive-negative whereas he is saying that the an hesis dichotomy is categorically true in and of itself. His alternate example is anaerobic and aerobic. If what you were saying is the case, then it would mean that biologists are arguing 'not oxygen' as the nul hypothesis.

I can see why you leave your to the peanut gallery. You seem to have a poor understanding of the argument. I mean maybe he argues your assertion as well; he does seem to take any convenient position regardless if it is true or not.

Read the Stanford entry above. It talks about how Kant divided judgments into categories. Chinook is doing the same thing: dividing belief into two categories and fitting everyone into that box. It's why the topological discussion came up: how to model phenomenon.

[spurraider21]

I don't care. It's football sunday

[TheSanityAnnex]

And also he is not making that claim. You are putting it into the positive-negative whereas he is saying that the an hesis dichotomy is categorically true in and of itself. His alternate example is anaerobic and aerobic. If what you were saying is the case, then it would mean that biologists are arguing 'not oxygen' as the nul hypothesis.

I can see why you leave your to the peanut gallery. You seem to have a poor understanding of the argument. I mean maybe he argues your assertion as well; he does seem to take any convenient position regardless if it is true or not.

Read the Stanford entry above. It talks about how Kant divided judgments into categories. Chinook is doing the same thing: dividing belief into two categories and fitting everyone into that box. It's why the topological discussion came up: how to model phenomenon.

Congratulations, you finally used categorically correct

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Congratulations, you finally used categorically correct

Anyway so zosa can see my original argument that started all this. That is my original position. Also note the concession that I made 4 days ago that spursraider/whoever he really is just plain ignores.

As for the categorical imperative, you wikied the definition and posted it. The wrote entry about moral obligation. My response which you ignored was that you are describing the conclusion as used by Kant found from google where as I was talking about the process by which the conclusion was drawn. I have been trying to talk about categories that don't have basis in the objective world as meaningless for inferring characteristics to anything else. It comes to the very crux of the a priori debate; you cannot even acknowledge it yet I am clueless?

I have cited Nietzshes arguments here but let Fred speak for himself; its like he is speaking through time to you:



What is the an hesis of a theist? What he says about things need to "have truth within themselves" and not of what we make of them goes directly to what I have been talking about objective semantics. All you do is make up words without meaning: your boxes, boxboy.

You don't even argue this you just say that I don't know what I am talking about or that I cannot read or other flailing. You are a coward.

If you don't want to reveal your religion that is fine but as long as you continue to cite your two proofs on god and the the threat made by christian philosophers then it is pretty obvious what is what.

And neither has yet to be acknowledged.

[rogues]

You have the creativity of a toilet seat.

It really isn't "creativity" when I'm dropping truth bombs about you, got..you seem sooooooooo mad that I call you out for what a loser you are on the internet and IRL..

Preparing for internet arguments

flunked out pothead loser

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Compare that with the Stanford Philosophy Encyclopedia:

In his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant arrives at his list of categories by first enumerating the forms of possible judgment (A70/B95-A93/B109). On this view, objective empirical judgments (i.e., empirical judgments which purport to refer to objects rather than merely subjective seemings or connections of sense impressions, and which purport to be universally valid for all judging subjects) are endowed with their objectivity and generality in virtue of the a priori concepts embodied in the relevant forms of judgment. If we can identify all of the possible forms of objective empirical judgment, we can then hope to use them as the basis to discover all of the most general concepts or categories that are employed in making such judgments, and thus that are employed in any cognition of objects (Körner 1955, 48–49).

Thus in distinguishing his categories, Kant begins from Aristotelian logic in outlining four respects in which one can classify any judgment: according to its quan y, quality, relation, or modality.

Now shouldn't you talk about how I 'prepare' or some such tripe?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It really isn't "creativity" when I'm dropping truth bombs about you, got..you seem sooooooooo mad that I call you out for what a loser you are on the internet and IRL..

Preparing for internet arguments

flunked out pothead loser

Well you certainly are telling stories about me. I have an engineering degree and am employed.

You really are angry aren't you, nihilist dimwit?

[rogues]

^ lib pothead got still trying to spin his way out if burying himself, tbh

[rogues]

Well you certainly are telling stories about me. I have an engineering degree and am employed.

You really are angry aren't you, nihilist dimwit?

Sure, I'd like for you to prove that to me..Until then keep feeding off gubamint handouts and mommeh daddeh's will money and properties..

Someone's maaaaaaaaaad as ..

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Sure, I'd like for you to prove that to me..Until then keep feeding off gubamint handouts and mommeh daddeh's will money and properties..

So let's be clear. chinook claims to have 3 degrees and brings it up as a basis for his argument. You don't give a .

I don't talk about my background and you call me out so I tell you and now you call me a liar?

Youre ed up man.

[rogues]

So let's be clear. chinook claims to have 3 degrees and brings it up as a basis for his argument. You don't give a .

I don't talk about my background and you call me out so I tell you and now you call me a liar?

Youre ed up man.

While Chinook sometimes flaunts his arguments, it's nowhere near the gotry displayed when you logon and spout nonsensical bull ..you've talked plenty about your background before..

I am definitely arrogant. I think I have reason to be. I understand multivariable calculus, PDEs, topology, stochastics, and harmonic analysis. Most people have difficulty beyond simple algebra and I have no issues in the highest of mathematics.

Simple logical proofs like application of laws or obvious causality are obvious.

I think the issue that people have is that I treat them with little respect. We have been posting here for a long time. By we I mean the ones that I am going back and forth with. Half of them are about two people that post on multiple accounts. Most of the reason why I give little respect though is because I see a methodology based on bias rather and logic and ideology as opposed to empiricism. And when people are intentionally misleading then I am hostile.

When I see it, I point it out and when people condescend me then I return it right back in kind.

All of that being said, I will admit when I am wrong. For example, elbamba was right and I was wrong as regards to self defense and presumption in the state of FL. There are all kinds of times I have been incorrect. That being said, I am not going to be persuaded by emotional appeal, bluster, or simpleminded bull . If that makes me an asshole then so be it.

..tbh, you're the biggest try-hard got I've ever seen..

[FuzzyLumpkins]

While Chinook sometimes flaunts his arguments, it's nowhere near the gotry displayed when you logon and spout nonsensical bull ..you've talked plenty about your background before..

..tbh, you're the biggest try-hard got I've ever seen..

Nah I think you are trying much harder here. You're just trying desperately to make me mad. I get why you don't like me: I am smarter than you and taunt you about it when you act stupid. Well, you're acting stupid right now.

Do you live in a trailer?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And you quote a post where I claim the same expertise as in the argument that I am in now.

I mean don't try and argue whether I really say about those subjects is accurate. Just do this general whine because you're too stupid to argue the point.

[rogues]

This is no argument, you effeminate try-hard pothead loser..I'm just taking a diarrhea like in your mouth..I'm basically finishing off what Chinook did, I'm just not being as nice about it, tbh..you deserve all of this..if it makes you mad, which it is, be a man about it..it's not my fault people such as myself are smarter and manlier than you..