|
|
#51
11-11-2007, 01:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
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." 
|
|
#52
11-11-2007, 02:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
|
|
#53
11-11-2007, 04:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#54
11-11-2007, 04:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
|
|
#55
11-11-2007, 05:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#56
11-11-2007, 05:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
|
|
#57
11-11-2007, 05:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#58
11-11-2007, 05:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#59
11-11-2007, 06:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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?
|
|
#60
11-11-2007, 06:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
