The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you wanted to attack my position with unicorns, you probably should have mentioned the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Now the IPU would not, even if it existed, interact with the world in an observable manner, so we shouldn't expect any evidence of its existence either. Believing in the IPU would not then be "illogical" any more than it would be "logical."

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, THAT type of logic.
The IPC is just as likely to exist as god. I think I've got it.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]Not quite the fact that we can't see IPU is evidence of it's existence. The belief in God is only on par with the IPU in relation to if it is pink. As sure as IPU is pink, God exists.

You see there is the logical part, invisible. And the part not based on reason, faith that it is pink. So for david to make say that even smart people recognize that not everyone is a moron for taking issue with the pink part of IPU. There is a part of IPU the invisible part that only one with a character flaw would disagree with.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
You see there is the logical part, invisible. And the part not based on reason, faith that it is pink.

[/ QUOTE ]

oh. THAT logic.

I can't prove that it's invisible therefore it's invisible, via logic.
I can't prove that it's pink, therefore it is pink, via faith.

that cleared it up.

luckyme

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You see there is the logical part, invisible. And the part not based on reason, faith that it is pink.

[/ QUOTE ]

oh. THAT logic.

I can't prove that it's invisible therefore it's invisible, via logic.
I can't prove that it's pink, therefore it is pink, via faith.

that cleared it up.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
Q. How do you know that IPU is invisible.
A. Because we can't see it.
Q. Well then how do you know that it's pink, if you can't see it.
A. We take that on faith.

Reason and Faith are both important to IPU.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You see there is the logical part, invisible. And the part not based on reason, faith that it is pink.

[/ QUOTE ]

oh. THAT logic.

I can't prove that it's invisible therefore it's invisible, via logic.
I can't prove that it's pink, therefore it is pink, via faith.

that cleared it up.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
Q. How do you know that IPU is invisible.
A. Because we can't see it.
Q. Well then how do you know that it's pink, if you can't see it.
A. We take that on faith.

Reason and Faith are both important to IPU.

[/ QUOTE ]

The IPU's around here only come out when we're not looking. We can't see them, but we only take it on faith that they are also invisible. Since I take their word for their color, I take their word for their visibility. why not?

Similarly, if they claimed to be 50 pound weightless entities, I could take that on faith also, they look honest.

luckyme

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You see there is the logical part, invisible. And the part not based on reason, faith that it is pink.

[/ QUOTE ]

oh. THAT logic.

I can't prove that it's invisible therefore it's invisible, via logic.
I can't prove that it's pink, therefore it is pink, via faith.

that cleared it up.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
Q. How do you know that IPU is invisible.
A. Because we can't see it.
Q. Well then how do you know that it's pink, if you can't see it.
A. We take that on faith.

Reason and Faith are both important to IPU.

[/ QUOTE ]

The IPU's around here only come out when we're not looking. We can't see them, but we only take it on faith that they are also invisible. Since I take their word for their color, I take their word for their visibility. why not?

Similarly, if they claimed to be 50 pound weightless entities, I could take that on faith also, they look honest.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure they look honest, but more importantly, only a barbarous, shallow materialist would demonstrate the fundamental lack of faith necessary to DISBELIEVE in 50 lb weightless objects.

[cowboy2579]

I see the atheist, non-enlightened theist and enlightened theist on your scale of intellectual judgement but I don't see the agnostic. Where does the agnotstic fall in all of this?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I see the atheist, non-enlightened theist and enlightened theist on your scale of intellectual judgement but I don't see the agnostic. Where does the agnotstic fall in all of this?

[/ QUOTE ]

most atheists are agnostics.

luckyme

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You see there is the logical part, invisible. And the part not based on reason, faith that it is pink.

[/ QUOTE ]

oh. THAT logic.

I can't prove that it's invisible therefore it's invisible, via logic.
I can't prove that it's pink, therefore it is pink, via faith.

that cleared it up.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
Q. How do you know that IPU is invisible.
A. Because we can't see it.
Q. Well then how do you know that it's pink, if you can't see it.
A. We take that on faith.

Reason and Faith are both important to IPU.

[/ QUOTE ]

The IPU's around here only come out when we're not looking. We can't see them, but we only take it on faith that they are also invisible. Since I take their word for their color, I take their word for their visibility. why not?

Similarly, if they claimed to be 50 pound weightless entities, I could take that on faith also, they look honest.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure they look honest, but more importantly, only a barbarous, shallow materialist would demonstrate the fundamental lack of faith necessary to DISBELIEVE in 50 lb weightless objects.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I may quote
""Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiritual power. We know this because they are capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them." — Steve Eley Chief Advocate and Spokesguy of IPU"