Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism

[David Sklansky]

I am not an atheist. I believe that it is highly unlikely that there exists an omnipotent god who is concerned specifically with humans. Specific religions are therefore more unlikely still.

A non omnipotent intelligent designer of some sort, who had something to do with the big bang, the laws of physics, and perhaps even the existence of consciousness, is reasonably likely in my mind. It will be less likely if conscious computers are ever made. Less likely still if the double slit experiment is ever explained better.

[Alex-db]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not an atheist. I believe that it is highly unlikely that there exists an omnipotent god who is concerned specifically with humans. Specific religions are therefore more unlikely still.

A non omnipotent intelligent designer of some sort, who had something to do with the big bang, the laws of physics, and perhaps even the existence of consciousness, is reasonably likely in my mind. It will be less likely if conscious computers are ever made. Less likely still if the double slit experiment is ever explained better.

[/ QUOTE ]

This sounds like atheism to me.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am not an atheist. I believe that it is highly unlikely that there exists an omnipotent god who is concerned specifically with humans. Specific religions are therefore more unlikely still.

A non omnipotent intelligent designer of some sort, who had something to do with the big bang, the laws of physics, and perhaps even the existence of consciousness, is reasonably likely in my mind. It will be less likely if conscious computers are ever made. Less likely still if the double slit experiment is ever explained better.

[/ QUOTE ]

This sounds like atheism to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, me too. It's clearly atheism about all culturally relevant gods...so I would just go ahead and call it "atheism."

[Splendour]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am not an atheist. I believe that it is highly unlikely that there exists an omnipotent god who is concerned specifically with humans. Specific religions are therefore more unlikely still.

A non omnipotent intelligent designer of some sort, who had something to do with the big bang, the laws of physics, and perhaps even the existence of consciousness, is reasonably likely in my mind. It will be less likely if conscious computers are ever made. Less likely still if the double slit experiment is ever explained better.

[/ QUOTE ]

This sounds like atheism to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, me too. It's clearly atheism about all culturally relevant gods...so I would just go ahead and call it "atheism."

[/ QUOTE ]

Alexdb and Subfallen,

You don't see any impertinence in insisting David Sklansky is an atheist. You think you can judge him on his posts?

He's an individual and has his own right to claim who he is. I doubt DS has posted all his thoughts in this forum, but anyways doesn't he have an individual right to determine his own identity?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't see any impertinence in insisting David Sklansky is an atheist. You think you can judge him on his posts?

He's an individual and has his own right to claim who he is. I doubt DS has posted all his thoughts in this forum, but anyways doesn't he have an individual right to determine his own identity?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, no we don't.
"I have red eyes" can be disputed by anyone looking at your eyes.
"I'm a jolly fellow" can be disputed.
"I'm a theist" or "I'm an atheist" have objective meanings also, otherwise a person may just as well say thehathuthuchih.
Does DS believe god(theistic) exists. If he does he's a theist. If he doesn't he's an atheist. He doesn't even have to know the meaning of those words to fit into one of the categories ( it's a X-notX situation).

So, we decide by what he states his belief is and don't worry if he gets the names wrong at times.

luckyme

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]

You don't see any impertinence in insisting David Sklansky is an atheist. You think you can judge him on his posts?
He's an individual and has his own right to claim who he is. I doubt DS has posted all his thoughts in this forum, but anyways doesn't he have an individual right to determine his own identity?

[/ QUOTE ]

Dearest -

Alex and I are just quibbling about semantics, we're not trying to misrepresent <font color="red">DS</font>. What's the point of having labels like "atheist" if we don't inform those labels according to the cultural zeitgeist?

Sklansky doesn't believe in the Christian God or the Muslim God or the Jewish God or the Theosophist God or the Mormon God or the Zoroastrian God. If this doesn't define "atheist" for you, then what does?

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not an atheist. I believe that it is highly unlikely that there exists an omnipotent god who is concerned specifically with humans. Specific religions are therefore more unlikely still.

A non omnipotent intelligent designer of some sort, who had something to do with the big bang, the laws of physics, and perhaps even the existence of consciousness, is reasonably likely in my mind. It will be less likely if conscious computers are ever made. Less likely still if the double slit experiment is ever explained better.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did not mean to imply you were or were not atheist. I have a bit of an understanding of your “philosophy” but was not trying to speak for you.

Oh, never mind, I got it, you were just pointing out there would be no need for a paternity test.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not an atheist. I believe that it is highly unlikely that there exists an omnipotent god who is concerned specifically with humans. Specific religions are therefore more unlikely still.

A non omnipotent intelligent designer of some sort, who had something to do with the big bang, the laws of physics, and perhaps even the existence of consciousness, is reasonably likely in my mind. It will be less likely if conscious computers are ever made. Less likely still if the double slit experiment is ever explained better.

[/ QUOTE ]

David, like you:
I am not an atheist. I believe that it is impossible that there exists an omni benevolent god. Specific religions positing such being are therefore more impossible still.

A non benevolent intelligent designer of some sort, who had something to do with the big bang, the laws of physics, and perhaps even the existence of consciousness, is possible in my mind. It will not even be less likely if conscious computers are ever made. No more or less likely either if the double slit experiment is ever explained better.


Sorry for the part plagiarism! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">A non omnipotent intelligent designer of some sort, who had something to do with the big bang, the laws of physics, and perhaps even the existence of consciousness, is reasonably likely in my mind. </font>

Did you really mean to say reasonably likely?


*It's reasonably likely you'll get through today without being involved in a fatal car crash.

*It's NOT reasonably likely that anyone you had lunch or differ with in the past week will flop two straight flushes in a row today.

**
How do you rate a non omnipotent intelligent designer of some sort with these two possibilities?

As someone who professes (and is looked up to) for his innate sense of math and probabilities, you should really be more careful in choosing your words when it comes to what is and is not reasonably likely.

I don't think I'm being a nit here. Had you said "within reason", I'd probably have no qualms. But there is no reason whatsoever for a rationally minded person who is well versed in probabilities to think that any sort of a supreme being is reasonably likely. It is still many times more likely to not be the case than it is to be true.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think I'm being a nit here. Had you said "within reason", I'd probably have no qualms. But there is no reason whatsoever for a rationally minded person who is well versed in probabilities to think that any sort of a supreme being is reasonably likely. It is still many times more likely to not be the case than it is to be true.

[/ QUOTE ]

On what basis? There is no way to probabilistically consider a basic abstraction. Any probabilistic claim is actually just subjectivity and intuition. You can talk about probabilities of specific gods, but not of general gods.