- Joined
- 22 November 2010
- Posts
- 3,661
- Reactions
- 9
I was agreeing with you, that IQ doesn't measure what it is commonly thought to measure.
Lots of measurements are like that.
Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical
- Thread starter bellenuit
- Start date
I was agreeing with you, that IQ doesn't measure what it is commonly thought to measure.
Lots of measurements are like that.
- Joined
- 18 September 2008
- Posts
- 4,041
- Reactions
- 1,185
For the umpteenth time, there is no atheistic world view other than atheists are people who don't believe the evidence provided to support that there is a god or believe that there is no god. You don't seem to be able to appreciate that scientists have certain opinions because science led them to those conclusions rather than atheism led them to those conclusions. Atheism has no view on how the universe came into existence or life began, but atheists, like Christians and people of other faiths have opinions on such things. Atheists don't all have the same opinion on these issues, but neither do Christians and some atheists and some Christians may have the same view. Some atheists may have the view that the world started through the big bang, but so do many Christians (and it was first postulated by a priest). Some atheists may have the view that life on earth started through abiogenesis, as do some Christians, or perhaps life began on another planet and came here through a meteor crashing into the earth. As I said in an earlier post, as far as I am concerned, these postulations are just placeholders at the moment until further evidence adds support to these postulations or perhaps gives a different cause. Just because science haven't yet discovered how life came from non-life, doesn't mean that your god must be the answer. The god of the gaps has been in retreat since man first invented gods, so there is no reason to assume that this will be any different.
50 years ago you would have said give me an example of something that could be in two places at the same time, yet now they have sub-atomic particles that seem to act like that. The big bang may become the first example of something coming from nothing and the conditions for that to occur are obviously something that we are not going to see (they are pretty sure of what happened within seconds of the big bang). One other problem is what does "nothing" mean. That may seem obvious, like say you have a volume of 1 cubic meter and within it is a perfect vacuum and there is no energy of any sort passing though it (including dark matter and dark energy). But if space and time were created at the big bang as has been postulated, what does is a volume of 1 cubic meter mean then at just before the big bang when space didn't exist? When it comes to quantum physics, you cannot assume that things are the same as we can observe in our daily humdrum existence.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- 18 September 2008
- Posts
- 4,041
- Reactions
- 1,185
I don't know if this is supposed to be a response to my post that showed a high correlation between people of high intelligence and atheism. But if it is, you seemed to have ignored everything else but the first item which refers to IQ.
Again I am not sure if this is in reference to my response. But if it is, it is apparent that you are unaware that it was a rebuttal of Chris' claim, by implication, that all atheists are fools as by definition they would not consider "supernatural causes" for such healing events. So it does have significance to the discussion.
It is you that seems to be calling everyone ignorant that don't subscribe to your view. And again, if you want some more evidence that perhaps atheists aren't as foolish and ignorant as Christians seem to think, here are some further studies (again US). Oh, one item does mention IQ, so I guess you will dismiss everything because IQ isn't a perfect measure of intelligence:
Over 10% of American population are atheist: http://www.atheistempire.com/reference/stats/index.php
Less than 0.25% of prisoners are atheist: http://holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm
Majority of Nobel Prize winners atheist: The Religiosity and Religious Affiliation of Nobel Prize Winners (Beit-Hallahmi, 1989)
Majority of University professors atheist: Religion and Spirituality among University Scientists (Ecklund, 2007)
Majority of scientists atheist: http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Scientists_and_atheism
Atheist Intellectuals: http://brainz.org/50-most-brilliant-atheists-all-time/ http://www.celebatheists.com/?title=Category:Atheist
Atheist Celebrities: http://www.celebatheists.com/?title=Main_Page
Poverty rate lower among atheists: Society Without God (Zuckerman, 2008)
IQ higher among atheists: http://www.interfaith.org/2008/06/20/study-links-atheism-to-high-iq/
Illiteracy rate lower among atheists: United Nations Human Development Report (2004)
Average Income higher among atheists: United Nations Human Development Report (2004)
Divorce rate lower among atheists: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm
Teen pregnancy rate lower among atheists: http://www.americablog.com/2009/01/red-states-dominate-teen-pregnancy.html
Abortions lower among atheists: Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look (Paul, 2005): http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
STD infection lower among atheists: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article571206.ece
Crime rate lower among atheists: Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look (Paul, 2005): http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
Homicide rate lower among atheists: Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look (Paul, 2005): http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
http://coreysviews.wordpress.com/2012/03/30/imagine-if-all-atheists-left-america-5/
- Joined
- 22 November 2010
- Posts
- 3,661
- Reactions
- 9
Hi bellenuit,
I enjoyed that immensely, but I learnt nothing.
But then it is not aimed at an older evolutionist.
I fear though that a younger creationist will find a specious argument.
Then dismiss it all with a wave of the hand.
Last edited by a moderator:
wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,582
- Reactions
- 12,708
If
religion = dogma
and
religion = dumb
then
dogma = dumb?
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
or
Dogma has numerous manifestations.
</musing>
religion = dogma
and
religion = dumb
then
dogma = dumb?
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
or
Dogma has numerous manifestations.
</musing>
- Joined
- 24 May 2009
- Posts
- 3,252
- Reactions
- 255
Yes, thanks craft, enjoyed that, "we are all gifts".
Most of the visionaries are Christian Scientists, imo.
Most of the visionaries are Christian Scientists, imo.
- Joined
- 14 December 2010
- Posts
- 3,472
- Reactions
- 248
So much there. With limited time this morning I'll ask the question that interests me most.
Bellenut - as an atheist you are of the belief that there is not enough evidence for a god.
What is your belief in the origin?
What evidence is there for this?
And what evidence is there that a non-supernatural origin is even possible (I.e something from nothing)?
Bellenut - as an atheist you are of the belief that there is not enough evidence for a god.
What is your belief in the origin?
What evidence is there for this?
And what evidence is there that a non-supernatural origin is even possible (I.e something from nothing)?
Charles is certainly visionary but he is not Christian, spiritual yes - but definitely not religious.
....................
Christian Scientist
Isn’t that an oxymoron? Science requires the continual attempt to disprove a falsifiable hypothesis whilst Christianity requires blind faith in an un-falsifiable belief, no matter what the contradictory evidence.
- Joined
- 24 May 2009
- Posts
- 3,252
- Reactions
- 255
Thanks craft, my visionary comment was a general comment, not just pointing at him.
You mean to tell me that people that believe in God aren't Scientists?
You mean to tell me that people that believe in God aren't Scientists?
- Joined
- 14 December 2010
- Posts
- 3,472
- Reactions
- 248
Wrong.
Christianity requires philosophical, historic and scientific evidence to support the world view, which it certainly does.
Science points to a creator (whatever type that may be) and current scientific evidence does not support the naturalistic view. Take something as simple as question number 1.
The universe is not eternal as we know.
I am still yet to hear any naturalistic view that can account for it or provide even a reasonable suggestion without invalidating its own worldview.
Not hat it matters a great deal but I love how minds like Einstein acknowledged this after studying the universe. Not that it takes an Einstein to figure this out!
- Joined
- 22 November 2010
- Posts
- 3,661
- Reactions
- 9
Einstein allegedly plagiarised his wife's work.
I am sure there are Christians that are scientists and I am sure they can reconcile or more likely segregate the two.
God exists – God does not exist. Neither of these statements can be scientific hypothesis because neither are falsifiable. Science still leaves a lot unanswerable and nothing is ever proved – just not yet disproved – it’s an important distinction. This no doubt leaves a void that can be filled by religion if one wishes. But Christians trying to use science to prove their religion and calling it Christian Science is what I see as an oxymoron.
There would be an awful lot of thinking stimulus in the paradox between how one practices religion and science legitimately so that may be why you have noted some that practice the two are visionary – perhaps forced to be so, to accommodate their personal experiences.
- Joined
- 14 December 2010
- Posts
- 3,472
- Reactions
- 248
- Joined
- 14 December 2010
- Posts
- 3,472
- Reactions
- 248
Yes. You can't have a branch called Christian Science. That makes no sense and is silly. You can have a Christian who is a scientist though obviously. The same with any type of person who is a scientist.
Whether the two reconcile or not is another topic then. If science then validates someone's belief systems then great. If it doesn't then time to consider the belief system and whether it needs to be displaced or thrown out.
But science is science. Observable and repeatable. We use all the scientific evidence to reach an objective conclusion.
- Joined
- 18 September 2008
- Posts
- 4,041
- Reactions
- 1,185
Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham
(This debate was mentioned on one of the forums last month. It was held last night)
There is a 13 minute delay at the beginning. Just scroll forward to the starting point.
According to a "Christian Today" poll, at time of writing, this debate was won by Bill Nye 92% to 8% for the Creationist Ken Ham
http://www.christiantoday.com/artic....evolution.debate.here.start.tim e/35688.htm
(This debate was mentioned on one of the forums last month. It was held last night)
There is a 13 minute delay at the beginning. Just scroll forward to the starting point.
According to a "Christian Today" poll, at time of writing, this debate was won by Bill Nye 92% to 8% for the Creationist Ken Ham
http://www.christiantoday.com/artic....evolution.debate.here.start.tim e/35688.htm
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- 22 November 2010
- Posts
- 3,661
- Reactions
- 9
Hi craft,
There you have the nub of it.
I couldn't reconcile
It was tearing my head in two!
I gave up on religiosity!
Burglar, again it's great to be able to put a face to the name.
IQ tests attempt to measure problem solving ability.
The General IQ tests I've seen measure three aspects of intelligence, linguistic intelligence, mathematical intelligence, and visual-spatial intelligence. It's possible that crossword puzzles may improve your linguistic intelligence, but that's all.
Two people can have the same General IQ, but could have very different intellectual abilities.
Selective research quoted by an atheist to support his position ... value = 0.
:Have you heard of the term "Intelligent Idiot"?
High intelligence does not immunize against stupidity, but does facilitate arrogance.
Whether you like it or not, and despite your valiant attempt to plead the case for the more moderate atheist views, the message that atheists continually pump out is that they firmly believe THERE IS NO GOD, no ifs or buts!
Atheists do not believe in God and believe that no deities exist and are frequently strident in their ridicule of any notion of a God, or spiritual phenomena such as reincarnation. The reality is that the vast majority, if not all, of them believe that the Big Bang Theory and abiogenesis have answered ALL of the questions.
I reject any attempt to soften the definition of an atheist. Moderate atheists should reclassify themselves as Agnostics and oppose the hard-lined atheists as vehemently as they oppose the theists.
Christians believing in abiogenesis??? Who? Please quote your sources for that remarkable claim.
The Big Bang is not an example of something coming from nothing, it's most likely to be an example of energy becoming matter and antimatter, a well known process that has been frequently observed. What has happened to the antimatter is a known unknown, as is dark matter, but they may be connected.
Many scientists are atheists, but there is a long list of significant scientists who are theists. It is certainly possible to be a Christian AND a scientist. The two are NOT mutually exclusive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...science#2001.E2.80.93today_.2821st_century.29
Most of your "intelligent atheists" are probably non-scientific artists, literologists, etc. who are quite ignorant of current scientific thinking and research. Mention multiverses and higher dimensions and they would probably adopt an arrogantly superior and disdainful posture and dismiss the suggestions as absolutely ridiculous, because they wouldn't know what you were talking about. I'm guessing their limited scientific thinking is so tightly confined within their current tiny box of well established laws and beliefs, they could not even entertain any serious scientific ideas the least bit "supernatural" (ie. not currently existing in nature, or subject to explanation according to current natural laws) and would dismiss any such ideas as pure fictional nonsense, just as H. G. Wells' "Heat-Ray" was.
It's interesting that many "intelligent atheists" believe that life probably exists elsewhere in our universe ... life as we know it, that is. No doubt they would exclude the possibility of life, NOT as we know it, existing in other universes.
In the light of the mind bending new scientific ideas and discoveries that have emerged recently, and are slowly but surely gaining traction in the scientific community, anyone, atheist or otherwise, who rules out the possibility of supernatural influences which cannot be explained by our current natural laws, is either an arrogant "intelligent idiot" or an ignorant, narrow minded fool.
- Joined
- 22 November 2010
- Posts
- 3,661
- Reactions
- 9
Burglar, again it's great to be able to put a face to the name.
I'm glad you sorta agree, sort of!
Of the IQ tests I've seen, none are non-English!
Yet Aboriginals have proven "problem solving ability".
They require bushcraft to be the main aspect - and language to be, ... well, ... errrr, ... Aboriginal!!
Or Pictorial even!
- Joined
- 18 September 2008
- Posts
- 4,041
- Reactions
- 1,185
I actually think Bill Nye is appalling after watching up to the Q&A part. He introduces ideas/examples without explaining their relevance and without the audience having some background on the subject they too would not see the relevance. He is also a bad speaker lacking proper flow.
However, I can understand why he was winning 92% to 8% by Christian Today. Ham's position is so preposterous that any person with just common sense could win. Basically he can offer nothing better than the Bible says so, so it must be right.
- Joined
- 24 May 2009
- Posts
- 3,252
- Reactions
- 255
Excellent post, Chris 
Many scientists are atheists, but there is a long list of significant scientists who are theists. It is certainly possible to be a Christian AND a scientist. The two are NOT mutually exclusive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...1st_century.29
Agree.
Many scientists are atheists, but there is a long list of significant scientists who are theists. It is certainly possible to be a Christian AND a scientist. The two are NOT mutually exclusive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...1st_century.29
Agree.