Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism
 

One thing I find interesting about this thread. Despite the fact that many appear to believe that science has shed greater light on this question (than we was known in the 1600s), I haven't seen any arguments based on modern empirical science in this thread that tend to disprove the existence of God. Instead, interestingly, DS cited two facts of modern science (the photon/slit experiment) and our lack of ability to produce computers with conciousness) as evidence that God may exist.

In fact, I would say that Zee Justin's argument/premise is an argument that probably could have been made in principle (though with far less statistical accuracy) by the ancient Greeks very efficiently. (Hell it probably WAS made by some ancient Greek Philosopher).

At its core this remains more a question of philosophy than science.

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't seen any arguments based on modern empirical science in this thread that tend to disprove the existence of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

how could it? all it can do is help refute arguments presented in support of the existence of god.

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism
 

[ QUOTE ]
One thing I find interesting about this thread. Despite the fact that many appear to believe that science has shed greater light on this question (than we was known in the 1600s), I haven't seen any arguments based on modern empirical science in this thread that tend to disprove the existence of God. Instead, interestingly, DS cited two facts of modern science (the photon/slit experiment) and our lack of ability to produce computers with conciousness) as evidence that God may exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Science says nothing about God. Period.

I think David is a sloppy thinker in this regard. He believes in a "God of the gaps." When something is unexplained, he considers God to be a rational explanation. That's why the double slit experiment is relevant to him, and why he thinks the justification for believing in God was greater in the past.

But whether or not a phenomenon has been explained has no bearing on the question of God.

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't seen any arguments based on modern empirical science in this thread that tend to disprove the existence of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Every popular definition of God has been refuted by science.

[ QUOTE ]
Instead, interestingly, DS cited two facts of modern science (the photon/slit experiment) and our lack of ability to produce computers with conciousness) as evidence that God may exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as I'm concerned, David is an atheist, even if he refuses to call himself one. He acknowledges the possibility of a non omnipotent creator, as do I. But that's more because of the simulation argument than being religious. In other words, if science progresses to the point where we can create universes, that does not make us Gods. We are still mortals.

Furthermore, citing two of the only scientific uncertainties out there as reason to believe in God is completely unfair. Going by past data, it's reasonable to assume we will figure those out within the next 15 years, and more importantly, the burden of proof is obviously on the theists.

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I haven't seen any arguments based on modern empirical science in this thread that tend to disprove the existence of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

how could it? all it can do is help refute arguments presented in support of the existence of god.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. I will grant the proving a negative is a much more difficult proposition. I suppose the "burden of persuasion" should be on those who say God exists.

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism
 

"I think David is a sloppy thinker in this regard. He believes in a "God of the gaps." When something is unexplained, he considers God to be a rational explanation. That's why the double slit experiment is relevant to him, and why he thinks the justification for believing in God was greater in the past."

I may have never spelled it out because I thought it was self evident. But you are totally wrong when you say that I think that God is a rational explanation for unexplained events. It is only very specific unexplained stuff that relates to the things that God is supposed to care about, that makes me wonder. The fact that we can't explain why the speed of light is a certain number of proton widths per second is also unexplained, as far as I know. Do you think I think that is evidence for God?

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism
 

Why do the results of the double-slit experiment represent any greater evidence of God than the values of the universal constants? If religious people had special healing powers, or if prayers had measurable effects, or if very specific religious prophecies came true, it would be another story.

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism
 

This is such a dumb argument.

First of all, people who are "highly intellignet" are many times almost socially deficient and lack much common sense. Also, many people who are theists are highly intelligent.

If 80% of americans believe in a supreme being, that in itself almost guarantees that the reults are skewed.

Also, belief in some knd of supreme being is such a wide range- this covers Christians, Muslims, and thousands of other religous and non-religous people.

Also, the people who talk about how atheists are smarter are atheists, which obvioulsy is a bias.

I know I see countless people in our country who are succcessful, intelligent and also believe in God.

I look at many of our leaders and they are theists.

I have been around people in my life who are "more intelligent" than me as far as IQ (ok, thats not true- a few though), but I have never met one who is "smarter". The ability to use common sense, relate to people socially, understand others' point of view, and the ability to admit when you are wrong seem to be traits such "highly intellignet' people lack. I was in Academically gifted classes with a kid who was unreal smart, but ended up working at Mickey D's because he was so socially and common sense defecient.

If there is a God, and i believe their is, I'm guessing he really doesnt care how smart u think u are.

And the bottom line here, as ive said before, is that none of us really know. We can believe all we want, but by the time we find out the truth, it will be too late.

The difference is, if Im wrong I dont lose anything.

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism
 

thesnowman22,

I think you just added a vote in favour of the atheists position [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Basically, each sentence contains something that is factually wrong or spurious at best. Your beliefs contain a lot of prejudices and assumptions that are not thought through in the spririt of science or philosophy.

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 

[ QUOTE ]

The difference is, if Im wrong I dont lose anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to adress just this part of your post.

If you wrong you lose a lot, as you could have lived this life another way (better way). You could have made better decisions, if you didn't think that you have an eternity in heavens.

Or to make an analogy.
Imagine that your belief requres that you doesn't move more than 100 km from the place of your birth. Are you really sure that you lose nothing if you follow such a rule?