|
Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
Our backgrounds are somewhat similar. I was also raised in a Catholic household and didn't question my beliefs until my late teens. However, unlike yourself, the problems I ran into led me to become a non-believer (I prefer this term to atheist).
So if I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that you are less troubled by having a god who always existed than by a universe that always existed. Or... By a god that sprang into being out of nowhere, than a universe which did so. Is this correct? |
Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
[ QUOTE ]
So if I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that you are less troubled by having a god who always existed than by a universe that always existed. Or... By a god that sprang into being out of nowhere, than a universe which did so. Is this correct? [/ QUOTE ] Yes that is correct. I do find both positions troubling though. |
Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
[ QUOTE ]
"You have been corrected about this premise of yours repeatedly on this Forum by countless spokespeople for Christianity, yet you persist in your mistaken notion. They tell you that something more goes on than logical evalulation of evidence. Why do you insist on ignoring their response and persist in misrepresenting their position?" You are completely confused. I never said that this is most Christian's position. In fact the only regular Christian poster who takes that position is txaq. In fact my OP is saying that most intelligent believers of any religion don't take that position. And I neve mentioned Christianity specifically at all. [ QUOTE ] This is important because lots of religious thoughts and actions can only be justified if believers can claim non believers are unreasonable. [/ QUOTE ] "Again, according to you. The rejection which they claim condemns the nonbeliever is not the rejection of reason." I didn't say it was. What I said was that those religious people who admit that their faith isn't clearly the most "reasonable" can't claim that non believers are automatically evil, lazy, or have ulterior motives. And if they can't claim that, most people would agree that it is wrong to ponounce others condemned. There was a time when you agreed with all that. [/ QUOTE ] Your last paragraph is a slippery convolution of the logic. [ QUOTE ] What I said was that those religious people who admit that their faith isn't clearly the most "reasonable" ... [/ QUOTE ] This is what you refer to above as the intelligent position. But it misrepresents that position. You then use that misrepresentation to infer what you want to later in the paragraph. The point of their position is that their faith is not arrived at by way of logic or by way of "reasonableness" of the objective evidence but by way of something beyond those concepts. Your hidden assumption is that your only responsibility in approaching their faith is to be reasonable. Their contention is that you are responsible for more than that. This is something you don't understand so you continue to ignore it and instead misrepresent their position as something you can understand and thereby apply sophmoric arguments to. I've never agreed with you on this issue. I've always encouraged you to expand your insight beyond the box of logic in which you seem so comfortably confined. That's not to say I agree with them either. But my disagreement with them is one of the spirit. And on that level there is a sense of the word whereby there must be a reasonableness to the spirit of the faith which involves both our intellect and that aspect of faith which goes beyond reason. This in fact is the foundation for a great deal of theological development. PairTheBoard |
Re: Put More Simply
[ QUOTE ]
There are some religions that don't state that their beliefs are so self evident that unbelievers must have something wrong with them. I think they are in the minority. But there are also, I think, many members of all religions, who in spite of being a member of a specific religion, fully accept the idea that non members are not automatically unreasonable. Let's call those people Enlightened Theists. It is my contention that the more intelligent you are, the more likely you are to be either an atheist or an Enlightened Theist. And that above a certain level of intelligence, the great majority of people are one of the two. And if I'm right, that IS strong evidence for the truth of something (that something being that no religion can lay claim to being logically self evident.) [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The point is that even an intelligent Christian who accepts what the bible says and therefore believes his religion is rational, should also accept that those who worship a different bible or set of beliefs are behaving in no less of a rationally manner than he is. [/ QUOTE ] Well I read his point as being that the more intelligent a person is the more likely he is enlightened theists (his term) or an atheist. Sklansky goes on to claim that because intelligent people believe one way that their way of thinking proves something. The fact is that no matter how intelligent a person is he has no known way of proving or disproving anything when it comes to religion. What they are good at is providing skepticism. Sklansky puts the horse before the cart when he makes his claim that something must be true because itelligent people say so. He does not consider the fact tht people not some God created religion and developed the laws of religion. Man attributed creation to a God and then created a religion to honor him. Which men of society did the developing? It certainly wasn't the dullards. It was the elite of society. It was the most intelligent. And what process did they use to develop their religious laws? They used logic. Religion was developed by the most intelligent of society and the more intelligent the scribe the better he was at developing religous beliefs. Some believe that the more intelligent a person the more they should be feared. pokervintage |
Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] the truth of their own beliefs is SELF EVIDENT, once the appropriate literature is studied. [/ QUOTE ] ie. [ QUOTE ] logically self evident. [/ QUOTE ] You have been corrected about this premise of yours repeatedly on this Forum by countless spokespeople for Christianity, yet you persist in your mistaken notion. They tell you that something more goes on than logical evalulation of evidence. Why do you insist on ignoring their response and persist in misrepresenting their position? [ QUOTE ] This is important because lots of religious thoughts and actions can only be justified if believers can claim non believers are unreasonable. [/ QUOTE ] Again, according to you. The rejection which they claim condemns the nonbeliever is not the rejection of reason. There's really not much point in Christians talking to you. You don't listen. PairTheBoard [/ QUOTE ] Umm I'm Christian yet I kinda think DS has a point. I haven't been around here long, but in what I've read thus far, I seem to agree with DS on a surprising number of points, considering he is an atheist and I am not. He seems to have great tolerance and understanding of the "Enlightened Theist," whereas others here seem to belittle even that position. I get angry when an atheist claims that he has some sort of proof that his position is correct, because it's not even possible to have such proof. Similarly though I don't like when my Christian friends seem to think that they have proof that Christianity is correct. I recognize that my stance requires faith, but that faith is not illogical as some claim. It may be illogical to believe in something in spite of evidence to the contrary, and logical to believe when there is evidence. However, in the absence of evidence, it's pretty much a logically neutral position. I don't know why some people have a hard time understanding this. [/ QUOTE ] Its not really that logical to believe 100% in the divinity of Christ and salvation through him "in the absence of evidence." Its arbitrary, not "logically neutral." |
Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
[ QUOTE ]
Its not really that logical to believe 100% in the divinity of Christ and salvation through him "in the absence of evidence." Its arbitrary, not "logically neutral." [/ QUOTE ] It is not even logical, it is illogical, from its foundations onward! |
Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I get angry when an atheist claims that he has some sort of proof that his position is correct, because it's not even possible to have such proof. [/ QUOTE ] What proof could he possibly need? His position is correct, it's the same one you use for alien abductions and elves and people walking through walls ... "until you have proof, your claim is unproven and I have no reason to treat it as true." Why would your claim be granted some special status and be accepted without evidence being presented. If you make specific physical claims, such as age-of-earth etc, then an atheist may say he has evidence you are wrong. luckyme [/ QUOTE ] I think the Earth is likely about 4.5 billion years old, though I'd be willing to modify that belief in light of new evidence. My religious beliefs do not contradict that. A lot of people don't know this, but Catholicism and the theory of evolution are not mutually exclusive. We do not have evidence that atheism is correct, nor do we have evidence that it is incorrect. As a result, some choose the route of agnosticism, and in some ways that is the most philosophically sound route to take. However, I choose to have faith in something that I do not have evidence for or against. Logically there is nothing wrong with that. Strong atheists are essentially doing the same thing; they have faith in nonexistence even though they have no proof. [/ QUOTE ] We do not have evidence that unicorns DONT exist (well, we have tons of evidence if you count the fact I've never seen one, but certainly no proof) and yet taking a tentative (technically) stance that unicorns don't exist is still correct. But ZOMG unicorns != God amirite? |
Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Your claim that atheism "has to be correct" doesn't make sense though, because you seem to be presupposing that you are correct in order to prove that you are correct. [/ QUOTE ] What choice do I have. If I don't believe in a god, I'm an atheist. ( that's what my "by definition" pointed out). When someone hasn't proven their claim, my non-belief is the only place I can stand. How can it not be correct? luckyme [/ QUOTE ] One can choose to believe something in the absence of proof, as long as it has not been disproven. Not only are laypeople allowed to do this, but even professional mathematicians sometimes do this, and theirs happens to be the discipline MOST concerned with proof. For example, most mathematicians that I know choose to believe the Axiom of Choice, even though we have no proof for it. In fact, not only do we not have proof for it, but it has been proven that it is NOT POSSIBLE TO PROVE IT. There happen to be a few troubling things about accepting the Axiom of Choice (like the Banach-Tarski paradox), but there are also some nice consequences (that every vector space has a basis, etc.). Actually that analogy worked much better than I expected it to... [/ QUOTE ] Do they Believe it or just believe it? |
Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I'm not angry because atheists can't prove their position; I get angry when an atheist thinks he CAN prove it though. [/ QUOTE ] Let's see... you claim you have an invisible friend. My position is " I don't think there is evidence to support that belief" ...and rest my case. Proven. What other evidence do I have to come up with... photographs of the invisible guy not being there? luckyme [/ QUOTE ] You are completely correct that there is no evidence to support that belief. However, the conclusion is not that he does not exist. Something can be true even without there being evidence for it. Before the invention of the telescope, was there any evidence that Pluto existed? I think not. That does not mean that Pluto does not exist? [/ QUOTE ] And it would have been illogical and arbitrary to simply imagine some possible planet and then believe in it. Even though you happened to turn out to be correct. |
Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
david, even though you are correct here, its really no problem for an unenlightened theist. especially since most religious texts have many admonishes about worldly knowledge, so much so that it almost seems like a vice. whatever the mind wants to believe, that stance can be reasonably supported by the bible.
|
Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
You can do a better job of attacking my position than mentioning unicorns. By the very nature of unicorns, we should expect there to be some sort of evidence of their existence if they were to exist. If they exist, presumably they are physical beings that, in existing, alter the world around them in some observable manner. However, many that believe in God believe that he does not interact with the world in a way that can be observed, thus not leaving evidence.
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." |
Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
[ 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 |
Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
[ 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. |
Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
[ 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 |
Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
[ 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. |
Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
[ 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 |
Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
[ QUOTE ]
You can do a better job of attacking my position than mentioning unicorns. By the very nature of unicorns, we should expect there to be some sort of evidence of their existence if they were to exist. If they exist, presumably they are physical beings that, in existing, alter the world around them in some observable manner. However, many that believe in God believe that he does not interact with the world in a way that can be observed, thus not leaving evidence. 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 ] It would certainly be illogical. And even general unicorns are very difficult to observe. You should do more reading about unicorns before you post about them since your ignorance of unicornism is showing. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] But yes, it is clearly wrong to believe in IPU because there are an INFINITE number of things, like invisible BLUE unicorns, and you simply cannot believe in them all. And they are all equally legitimate. So it is illogical to believe in some and not others. |
Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
[ 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. |
Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
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?
|
Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
[ 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 |
Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
No its not "Proven." How the f do you go from "I don't think there's evidence" to "I Have Proved That You Are Wrong". You haven't proven a damn thing.
|
Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
Atheism and Agnostism are mutually exclusive. Atheism is a belief: a belief that there is no higher power. Agnosticism is a belief: a belief that a person cannot know if there is a higher power or not. You can't both definitively state that x does or does not exist and then say that it is impossible to know whether x exists or not. The two statements are mutually exclusive.
|
Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
[ QUOTE ]
No its not "Proven." How the f do you go from "I don't think there's evidence" to "I Have Proved That You Are Wrong". You haven't proven a damn thing. [/ QUOTE ] huh? Atheism is a state-of-being report, it's not an process statement. Knowing someone is an atheist gives you no information about how they arrived at that state ( the state not believing your god exists). One common route is via agnosticism. There are other routes. luckyme |
Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
you've proven nothing except that you hold the belief that no higher power exists. nobody cares.
now, show your work and tell me how simply asking for proof of statement x disproves statement x. |
Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
[ QUOTE ]
Atheism and Agnostism are mutually exclusive. Atheism is a belief: a belief that there is no higher power. Agnosticism is a belief: a belief that a person cannot know if there is a higher power or not. [/ QUOTE ] They're not mutually exclusive until you start twisting definitions around. Even as written, they are obviously not mutually exclusive. I can believe there is no higher power and still believe I cannot know or PROVE this. |
Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
[ 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" |
Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
[ QUOTE ]
Atheism and Agnostism are mutually exclusive. Atheism is a belief: a belief that there is no higher power. Agnosticism is a belief: a belief that a person cannot know if there is a higher power or not. You can't both definitively state that x does or does not exist and then say that it is impossible to know whether x exists or not. The two statements are mutually exclusive. [/ QUOTE ] You sound home schooled so you may not have been exposed to some outside concepts - consider that you were born an atheist ( you didn't believe in Thor, Allah, Yawah, toothfairy ...) and it had nothing to do with you proving they didn't exist. You simply started out not believing and then changed over time as evidence arose .. tooth fairy being your first conversion. The others lack such evidence so some never take them on. luckyme |
Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Atheism and Agnostism are mutually exclusive. Atheism is a belief: a belief that there is no higher power. Agnosticism is a belief: a belief that a person cannot know if there is a higher power or not. [/ QUOTE ] They're not mutually exclusive until you start twisting definitions around. Even as written, they are obviously not mutually exclusive. I can believe there is no higher power and still believe I cannot know or PROVE this. [/ QUOTE ] If you hold that one cannot know whether statement x is true or not, how is it reasonable to then posit as to the validity of statement x? |
Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
[ QUOTE ]
Atheism and Agnostism are mutually exclusive. Atheism is a belief: a belief that there is no higher power. Agnosticism is a belief: a belief that a person cannot know if there is a higher power or not. You can't both definitively state that x does or does not exist and then say that it is impossible to know whether x exists or not. The two statements are mutually exclusive. [/ QUOTE ]This is a common confusion. I won't go into details, but you are wrong. You can find the answer on your own with minimal ammount of research into people who call themselves athiest, agnostics, athiest-agnositcs, or theists agnostics. |
Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Atheism and Agnostism are mutually exclusive. Atheism is a belief: a belief that there is no higher power. Agnosticism is a belief: a belief that a person cannot know if there is a higher power or not. You can't both definitively state that x does or does not exist and then say that it is impossible to know whether x exists or not. The two statements are mutually exclusive. [/ QUOTE ] You sound home schooled so you may not have been exposed to some outside concepts - consider that you were born an atheist ( you didn't believe in Thor, Allah, Yawah, toothfairy ...) and it had nothing to do with you proving they didn't exist. You simply started out not believing and then changed over time as evidence arose .. tooth fairy being your first conversion. The others lack such evidence so some never take them on. luckyme [/ QUOTE ] thanks for assuming to know stuff about my educational background chief. you've proven that i am homeschooled. |
Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Atheism and Agnostism are mutually exclusive. Atheism is a belief: a belief that there is no higher power. Agnosticism is a belief: a belief that a person cannot know if there is a higher power or not. [/ QUOTE ] They're not mutually exclusive until you start twisting definitions around. Even as written, they are obviously not mutually exclusive. I can believe there is no higher power and still believe I cannot know or PROVE this. [/ QUOTE ] If you hold that one cannot know whether statement x is true or not, how is it reasonable to then posit as to the validity of statement x? [/ QUOTE ]Because agnostic is about knowledge and atheist is about belief. You can hold that anyone who proclaims to have knowledge of God cannot actually have that knowledge. That's agnostism. And also be without the belief in any Gods. Atheism. |
Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Atheism and Agnostism are mutually exclusive. Atheism is a belief: a belief that there is no higher power. Agnosticism is a belief: a belief that a person cannot know if there is a higher power or not. You can't both definitively state that x does or does not exist and then say that it is impossible to know whether x exists or not. The two statements are mutually exclusive. [/ QUOTE ] You sound home schooled so you may not have been exposed to some outside concepts - consider that you were born an atheist ( you didn't believe in Thor, Allah, Yawah, toothfairy ...) and it had nothing to do with you proving they didn't exist. You simply started out not believing and then changed over time as evidence arose .. tooth fairy being your first conversion. The others lack such evidence so some never take them on. luckyme [/ QUOTE ] What's your petigree since your speculating into mine? High School Grad? Part of a Liberal Arts Major in college? Ivy League professor? |
Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Atheism and Agnostism are mutually exclusive. Atheism is a belief: a belief that there is no higher power. Agnosticism is a belief: a belief that a person cannot know if there is a higher power or not. [/ QUOTE ] They're not mutually exclusive until you start twisting definitions around. Even as written, they are obviously not mutually exclusive. I can believe there is no higher power and still believe I cannot know or PROVE this. [/ QUOTE ] If you hold that one cannot know whether statement x is true or not, how is it reasonable to then posit as to the validity of statement x? [/ QUOTE ]Because agnostic is about knowledge and atheist is about belief. You can hold that anyone who proclaims to have knowledge of God cannot actually have that knowledge. That's agnostism. And also be without the belief in any Gods. Atheism. [/ QUOTE ] So, a person can both believe that it is not possible to know something and believe that they do know it? |
Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Atheism and Agnostism are mutually exclusive. Atheism is a belief: a belief that there is no higher power. Agnosticism is a belief: a belief that a person cannot know if there is a higher power or not. You can't both definitively state that x does or does not exist and then say that it is impossible to know whether x exists or not. The two statements are mutually exclusive. [/ QUOTE ] You sound home schooled so you may not have been exposed to some outside concepts - consider that you were born an atheist ( you didn't believe in Thor, Allah, Yawah, toothfairy ...) and it had nothing to do with you proving they didn't exist. You simply started out not believing and then changed over time as evidence arose .. tooth fairy being your first conversion. The others lack such evidence so some never take them on. luckyme [/ QUOTE ] What's your petigree since your speculating into mine? High School Grad? Part of a Liberal Arts Major in college? Ivy League professor? [/ QUOTE ]I am your daddy. |
Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Atheism and Agnostism are mutually exclusive. Atheism is a belief: a belief that there is no higher power. Agnosticism is a belief: a belief that a person cannot know if there is a higher power or not. You can't both definitively state that x does or does not exist and then say that it is impossible to know whether x exists or not. The two statements are mutually exclusive. [/ QUOTE ] You sound home schooled so you may not have been exposed to some outside concepts - consider that you were born an atheist ( you didn't believe in Thor, Allah, Yawah, toothfairy ...) and it had nothing to do with you proving they didn't exist. You simply started out not believing and then changed over time as evidence arose .. tooth fairy being your first conversion. The others lack such evidence so some never take them on. luckyme [/ QUOTE ] What's your petigree since your speculating into mine? High School Grad? Part of a Liberal Arts Major in college? Ivy League professor? [/ QUOTE ]I am your daddy. [/ QUOTE ] High level response. |
Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Atheism and Agnostism are mutually exclusive. Atheism is a belief: a belief that there is no higher power. Agnosticism is a belief: a belief that a person cannot know if there is a higher power or not. [/ QUOTE ] They're not mutually exclusive until you start twisting definitions around. Even as written, they are obviously not mutually exclusive. I can believe there is no higher power and still believe I cannot know or PROVE this. [/ QUOTE ] If you hold that one cannot know whether statement x is true or not, how is it reasonable to then posit as to the validity of statement x? [/ QUOTE ]Because agnostic is about knowledge and atheist is about belief. You can hold that anyone who proclaims to have knowledge of God cannot actually have that knowledge. That's agnostism. And also be without the belief in any Gods. Atheism. [/ QUOTE ] So, a person can both believe that it is not possible to know something and believe that they do know it? [/ QUOTE ]So, a person can both believe that it is not possible to know something and have beliefs about it? Here is an example of a agnostic theist, man all this god stuff is so confusing, it';s just impossible to know about GOD, but I should believe he exists anyway just in case. Pascals wager you know. Why are you so addamnant about agnostic and atheism being mutually exclusive? |
Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
[ QUOTE ]
So, a person can both believe that it is not possible to know something and believe that they do know it? [/ QUOTE ] Slowly - A person believes it's not possible to know (agnostic), therefore they find it impossible to believe, therefore they are non-believers ..aka atheists ( when the topic is god/s ). luckyme |
Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Atheism and Agnostism are mutually exclusive. Atheism is a belief: a belief that there is no higher power. Agnosticism is a belief: a belief that a person cannot know if there is a higher power or not. You can't both definitively state that x does or does not exist and then say that it is impossible to know whether x exists or not. The two statements are mutually exclusive. [/ QUOTE ] You sound home schooled so you may not have been exposed to some outside concepts - consider that you were born an atheist ( you didn't believe in Thor, Allah, Yawah, toothfairy ...) and it had nothing to do with you proving they didn't exist. You simply started out not believing and then changed over time as evidence arose .. tooth fairy being your first conversion. The others lack such evidence so some never take them on. luckyme [/ QUOTE ] What's your petigree since your speculating into mine? High School Grad? Part of a Liberal Arts Major in college? Ivy League professor? [/ QUOTE ]I am your daddy. [/ QUOTE ] High level response. [/ QUOTE ]You have done zero research on agnostism or atheism. And you are trying to instruct people, that have done lots of study, on semantics. You might actually deserve a better response then "I am your daddy", i do doubt it. |
Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
Cowboy: Agnostic atheism is a well-known philosophical direction. Do some research. |
Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Atheism and Agnostism are mutually exclusive. Atheism is a belief: a belief that there is no higher power. Agnosticism is a belief: a belief that a person cannot know if there is a higher power or not. You can't both definitively state that x does or does not exist and then say that it is impossible to know whether x exists or not. The two statements are mutually exclusive. [/ QUOTE ] You sound home schooled so you may not have been exposed to some outside concepts - consider that you were born an atheist ( you didn't believe in Thor, Allah, Yawah, toothfairy ...) and it had nothing to do with you proving they didn't exist. You simply started out not believing and then changed over time as evidence arose .. tooth fairy being your first conversion. The others lack such evidence so some never take them on. luckyme [/ QUOTE ] What's your petigree since your speculating into mine? High School Grad? Part of a Liberal Arts Major in college? Ivy League professor? [/ QUOTE ]I am your daddy. [/ QUOTE ] High level response. [/ QUOTE ]You have done zero research on agnostism or atheism. And you are trying to instruct people, that have done lots of study, on semantics. You might actually deserve a better response then "I am your daddy", i do doubt it. [/ QUOTE ] what study? when? or are you just gonna fiat that crap? you ain't my daddy chief. my daddy can hold a conversation without being a condesending prick. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:58 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.