Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is seriously an excellent litmus test, IMO. If you cant grasp the inherent flaw in talking about disproving God, you probably need some work.

[/ QUOTE ]

I most certainly do understand the problem with talking about disproving God. So why is it that there are so many that emphaticaly claim that there is no God?

[ QUOTE ]
Nothing is smart enough to disprove an infinite number of things because they cannot be disproven

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? So you believe that you are smart enough to make this claim and prove it?

pokervintage

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, God could. Thats it. You'd have to be infinite, and even then, I'm not sure how the math works out. Can an infinite being test an infinite number of cases?

And you misunderstand. When people say there is no God, they mean there is absolutely no reason to suspect there is a God. Same as when people say there are no ghosts or that we didnt cuddle last night.

You dont think we might have cuddled last night do you?

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
atheism - Disbelief in the existence of God or gods.

Come on give me a break. We now have atheists that do not deny the existence of god. Wow!

pokervintage

[/ QUOTE ]

Where'd you find that definition? I'd say its more aptly "lack of a belief in God." Especially since theism is defined as having a belief in God, only makes sense that a-theism should be the lack of that belief.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
atheism - Disbelief in the existence of God or gods.

Come on give me a break. We now have atheists that do not deny the existence of god. Wow!

pokervintage

[/ QUOTE ]

Where'd you find that definition? I'd say its more aptly "lack of a belief in God." Especially since theism is defined as having a belief in God, only makes sense that a-theism should be the lack of that belief.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is comical to me how these debates go though. You have an incorrect definition of what atheism is and what atheists believe, we point this out to you and explain what we actually believe, and you tell us we are lying. LOL. I mean, I get it, if you dont persist in misrepresenting our beliefs, its MUCH easier to find fault with them.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

God is sort of the ultimate complex thing. Even NotReady would admit this,


[/ QUOTE ]

No I wouldn't. Read about the theological doctrine of God's simplicity.

[/ QUOTE ]
So something complex came from something simple? UH OH!

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
disbelieve - 1. The act of not believing.

2. Actively denying a statement, opinion or perception.

I have heard this argument of yours before. The "weak" vs the strong" atheist usually acompanies the explanation. Disbelieving is denying plain and simple. Some guy making claims about how they don't mean the same thing doesnt change the fact that when you ask an atheist if there is a God or if God exists or if they believe in God, they say "no". They deny there is a God. They do not say I don't know. Disbelief is the same as denying when an atheist speaks of God.

pokervintage

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, ok. So the fact that you are discussing this with two atheists who are flat out contradicting everything you are saying has no impact on your ability to assert what atheists believe hmmm? Talk about hubris.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
disbelieve - 1. The act of not believing.

2. Actively denying a statement, opinion or perception.

I have heard this argument of yours before. The "weak" vs the strong" atheist usually acompanies the explanation. Disbelieving is denying plain and simple. Some guy making claims about how they don't mean the same thing doesnt change the fact that when you ask an atheist if there is a God or if God exists or if they believe in God, they say "no". They deny there is a God. They do not say I don't know. Disbelief is the same as denying when an atheist speaks of God.

pokervintage

[/ QUOTE ]

So you post two definitions, the first one being the one atheists use, but you say we have to use the second one because... Oh yeah, there is no "because."

Anyhow, you find me a group of atheists who agree with your claim. Go on, get out there and find them. Since all the "popular" atheists (Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Dennett), all the atheists organizations, and all the regular atheist posters on this forum agree with my view, I'm not too concerned with your claims of expertise on the matter.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
Personally? I think there probably are gods of some kind. However, I think it's impossible for human beings to learn anything about them, and therefore I proceed based on the practical assumption that they don't exist.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In terms of the "atheist" label, belief is important. While I consider the probability of a god or gods existing to be relatively high, I do not believe in God. This is a strange position, and I'd have to get into a massive tangle of semantics and philosophy to justify it, but the fact that I don't believe in God makes me an atheist (even though I think it's likely that there is a god).

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you think this is a rational position? What makes you think the probability of a god or gods existing is relatively high?

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

I have to run, I'll get to this.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

God is sort of the ultimate complex thing. Even NotReady would admit this,


[/ QUOTE ]

No I wouldn't. Read about the theological doctrine of God's simplicity.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is equivocation. When philosophers and theologians say "simple", they mean: "undifferentiated; undivided." Thus the "I" of the Self is simple, even though phenomenally the "I" refers to consciousness. And consciousness is an incredibly complex phenomenon---ask any linguist, neuroscientist, psychologist, cognitive scientist, AI researcher, etc.

I think Plantinga equivocated precisely like this in his review of God Delusion that NR posted a while back. Very embarrassing, just the absolute worst sort of pedantry.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think this is a rational position? What makes you think the probability of a god or gods existing is relatively high?

[/ QUOTE ]

Short answer: no. I think it's rationally consistent, but not logically demonstrable. It's arbitrary and intuitive to a large degree.

I'm combining my "sense of God" and the chance that it's valid, our sheer lack of knowledge about the universe (and the potential for god that exists as a result of that), the chance of a physical being reaching a level of power akin to godhood, the cluster of claims that are vast in scope but unfalsfiable, and the "odds-and-ends" arguments that aren't individually convincing but collectively deserve some consideration (the usual suspects go here - ontological argument, teleological argument, etc).