 |
| |
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drachasor
You misunderstand.
If you grow up in America and don't question the basic beliefs of society, then you will be a theist. That's how society is. That's what the culture is.
On average more intelligent people question things more, and hence there are more atheists among the more intelligent people than among the less intelligent.
-Drachasor |
I'd back up Drachasor on this point. It seems pretty obvious to me as well. I think what also needs to be kept in mind is that people like Ben are a small minority too - probably even smaller than atheists. And by people like Ben, I mean people that have really examined their belief system and could give you a rigorous argument as to why they believe in God. I would think that Ben would, for example, question whether alot of self-identifying Christians really are Christians because they don't practice the religion in any meaningful way (eg: they don't really follow the teachings in the Bible, they don't pray, they don't really actively believe in God at all).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:21
|
|
Urban:
i'd be scared to be religous in France... muslims and jews get lynched over there.
and muslims in China... god damn that's some ill treatment...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:21
|
|
it's possible... if i will it so, it shall be... perspectivism and all that...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:21
|
|
quote:
They don't all ask the same questions, and you need to look at societal as a whole on the results (as I touched on).
|
How do you know this? I asked you to show me the questions quite a ways back in the thread.
quote:
Yes, it is a fact that currently in American the average Atheist is more intelligent than the average Theist.
Guess what? The average White is more intelligent than the average Black.
|
And that's a function of the IQ test. You can set tests up that show the reverse.
quote:
Why is this? Because of how society is set up and the inherent inequities within it. Blacks aren't incapable of learning just as much as whites, but their socio-economic position hinders them (if you balance studies based on socio-economic position, then whites in a similar socio-economic spot score similarly on I.Q. tests compared to blacks).
|
No, they have a different sort of intelligence than the one tested.
If they don't learn the same things that the test creator deems as intelligent, then they are not going to score high on a test.
Secondly, the test takers influence the selection process. If they can label some forms of intelligence as less valuable then others, then they can justify the validity of the test.
quote:
With atheist and theists there is an inherent bias in our culture towards religion.
|
What bias? I don't see any bias in the US that favours religion. Rather, I see the opposite.
quote:
That means that most people are going to be religious.
|
Not necessarily so. Do you see most of the people in the US as religious people?
quote:
The only people that are going to question it are going to generally have more intelligence than the average person, because that is simply how intelligence works. If the situation was reversed, and 90% of the population were atheists, then studies would show that theists were more intelligent than atheists (imho).
|
There's the problem with your reasoning. Just because the majority of the culture believes something does not mean that all those who reject these ideals are going to more intelligent.
Suppose the vast majority of the people are religious. You are going to see in a proper IQ test, a bell curve. So with a larger sample of the population being considered religious, you will naturally see a bell distribution.
That would tend to favour my hypothesis that religiousity does not affect IQ.
Also, if you have a smaller sample of people who call themselves Atheists, then you have to consider the sample. Is there a bell distribution in the intelligence? How large is the sample? Is the sample going to be representative, or is it too small, to sort into statistically relevant categories.
Finally, how does the test determine someone to be religious, or irreligious? The answers to all of these questions can have a profound effect on the final results.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:21
|
|
Ockham's Razor is just a null theory basically... it just says that when you have two hypotheses that could legitimately be true, the default is the simplest one. doesn't mean the simplest one is true, it's just likely more true.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:21
|
|
quote:
I would think that Ben would, for example, question whether alot of self-identifying Christians really are Christians because they don't practice the religion in any meaningful way (eg: they don't really follow the teachings in the Bible, they don't pray, they don't really actively believe in God at all).
|
And Kontiki makes my point for me. 
I don't consider many of these people to be religious, even if they say they believe in God. It doesn't have any effect on their actions, and their behaviour in life, so what really do they believe in?
Yet this test, is going to call them religious because they self-identify as such.
And this I think is the problem. Drachosor is talking about the sample of religious people, including all those who self-identify some belief in God, whereas I am only considering those who have an active faith.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:21
|
|
quote:
You can ask people questions that require them to learn new material and apply that material within the same test. That's what I.Q. tests do.
|
It's not that simple. A person who learns better visually, or has poor written comprehension, is not going to do as well as someone who is much more verbal, and has better written comprehension given these questions.
They may be very intelligent, but the test will consider them to be less so, without cause.
quote:
It only means that they hold on to that particular irrational belief. It doesn't inherently mean they are less intelligent, and so it certainly will never be a proof.
|
Thank you. So you believe that if you disposed of the faith of these Christians, that you would be doing them a favour and releasing them from their irrational fears?
Reason has limitations. It can only take you so far, and cannot solve everything.
quote:
It's illogical because there is no evidence for the existence of god.
|
Spock would say that the evidence is insufficient to establish a conclusion. He would not be able to justify the atheists who reject belief in God. If there is no evidence of God, then there is no evidence that there is no God.
quote:
It's that simple. To believe in go you must accept his existence on *faith*.
Faith is belief without evidence for something (or in spite of the evidence).
|
So you don't really believe that there is no evidence on God. You believe that there is evidence disproving God.
Please show me such evidence.
Granted, I can quote you Hebrews:
Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for.
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith he still speaks, even though he is dead.
By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death; he could not be found, because God had taken him away. For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God. And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
Yet, you should quote the whole passage, and not the part.
Faith is not believing in spite of the evidence, but believing in what is not seen. Believing that something is true, even though one cannot feel it, or touch it, or see it with one's own eyes.
You may think that this is difficult, but how many things do you believe on faith? Have you done the calculations on the lift capacity of elevators? Yet you trust them, without checking them, you trust them with your life.
Have you flown on a plane? Yet, even lacking understanding of the principles of lift and thrust, do you not also have faith in the plane?
How many scientific principles are based on concepts that cannot easily be understood on a physical basis? We look at things, like atomic physics, that consider the atoms, which we cannot see, yet we can manipulate them because of what we know of their workings.
We do not need to see these things in order to believe that they are true. Why believe in any of these things without a valid reason to do so?
quote:
When asked to rank the most important/influencial (in regards to science) members of their respective fields, the higher ranked members of the scientific community had a much higher chance of being non-believers than the average member of the community.
|
So the believers just do the work rather than soaking up the prestige. Influence is a subjective measure. I know many believers who are scientists, and who do very well in their field, even if they are considered less worldly. In fact, I would hope all these believers would be less worldly than their compatriots.
quote:
That's just how it is, I needn't explain why this is the case.
|
Sure you do. But the fact that you can't speaks volumes.
quote:
You get a similar result when you consider important papers published and the like.
|
And what do you consider important?
I just look at the discoveries made by Christians, and by Muslims over history, that speak for themselves.
quote:
As I said, the Supernatural is inherently something that can't be measured.
|
By the scientific tools available. That is not to say that it is inherently 'unknowable', but rather, requires different tools and methods not employed by science.
quote:
It is something that isn't part of nature, that isn't part of the observable universe.
|
And we observe everything in the universe?
quote:
It is something that if believed in, is believed in despite the lack of evidence for it. It is believed on faith.
|
And we take many things on faith without questioning the evidence provided.
quote:
One can distinguish between things that are believable and can be shown to be true, and those that cannot be shown to be true. (and then one can evaluate the general trustworthiness of the speaker as well).
|
So, do Christians provide truth claims of God that can be properly assessed?
quote:
As I have said, the people that don't question it automatically believe in god because of how our society is configured.
|
Kontiki's point comes into play here. How much can one be considered to have faith, if one merely accepts what others do?
If the society changes, then these people will do so, and that is hardly what we would call faithfulness.
quote:
Then they are confused, because there is no evidence for god; indeed, there cannot be.
|
Do you believe that the supernatural cannot manifest itself in the natural world?
quote:
Most people I know who believe that have thought about it, know that it is a belief based on faith. It is not based on reason.
|
Because of the limitations of reason.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:21
|
|
quote:
Thank you for that extraordinarily biased and baseless statement.
Atheists have smaller support networks because there are far fewer atheists in the general population and their beliefs are not well-respected/received by most.
|
Yet, go to China, and no Christian gets away without knowing of the others.
quote:
The environment is alienating, as you demonstrated by your lack of understanding atheism (and general human nature to form support networks).
|
Yes, but Atheism, as I said, contains no motivation to form social networks beyond those of human nature. Christians do. They have motivations not available to atheists.
quote:
To be clear when I say "support network" I mean the family, friends, teachers, etc that someone can go to for emotional support in times of stress.
|
Which is the same definition I use.
Will an atheist pray for another? Yet, I know there are others who pray for me, and I pray for others.
Are atheists encouraged to gather with one another to uplift themselves in their rejection of God?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
Elok, there are a number of issues being discussed here, which is why Occam's Razor comes up now and then.
1. There are the studies and what they mean.
2. What is it like being an atheist in America today.
3. Why am I an athiest (or more generally, reasons to be an atheist).
As part of this last thing, Occam's Razor has a point because it is part of my reasoning in not believing in god. I see no point in doing so, as it brings no benefit to describing how the universe works. By the principle of Occam's Razor, I do not want to needlessly complicate any internal theory with the concept of god.
Since I consider god to be impossible to prove (even if there was evidence of an extremely powerful entity, that doesn't mean it is god. To take a Star Trek analogy, it could be a Q-like entity that works a bit more discretely). Certainly the typical construction of a Christian God (all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good) is incompatible with the world we are in (earthquakes and other natural disasters cause evil).
Anyhow, the burden of proof is on those that believe in god. I do not believe things without evidence for them. There is no evidence for god, and no one has proposed any. One does not go through life assuming everything is true until proven false (purple unicorns, invisible elves*, and the like are examples of such things).
Proposing that I accept that elevators and other technological innovations work, or that I have some 'faith' that other humans will act in a certain way is something wholly different. I have evidence on how society works from direct experience. I know how humans tend to act, what they tend to do, based on direct experience. Hence, if elevators tended not to work, then there would be complaints, etc, etc and I would eventually hear about them. This trust in how things work is based on my direct experience and knowledge, and hence is not truly faith in them. I know there are various controls and guidelines in place to make them work, I know that I would have heard about them if they broke down. Now, technically, I think this and I might be wrong, but the point is that these beliefs are based on direct evidence I have (and the more experience I have with such devices, the more evidence I get that the system works).
There is no similar experience one can have that is clearly about god. Religious experiences do have scientific explanations. Reason is the only valid tool to determine truth from falsehood to me. Faith is merely one of the words used to describe some situations where you are not using that tool and believing anyway. The religious might disagree with me here and say it is a valuable tool, but they have no way to prove that it is in a way I will accept; for they cannot do it using reason.
One might call me closed-minded for only trusting reason and not trusting faith, but I do not think I am unduly closed-minded. Certainly, you cannot be so open-minded as to believe anything you here (well, you can, but it isn't wise).
-Drachasor
*I think Kuciwalker mentioned this; he and I seem to have some similar reading material. : )
PS. I will respond to more of Kenobi's points later. I am a bit busy this weekend.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
Kenobi, you are not getting off that easy.
There is no evidence for god, and if you think otherwise then PRESENT it. You continued hinting that it exists does not convince.
And it is on the burden of proof of the theist to prove god. The default is to not believe something exists, and the more extraordinary or unusual the claim, them more evidence is require to convincingly prove its existence. Spock would require a great deal of evidence to prove the existence of an omnipotent, omnicient, and all-good deity. Indeed, Spock would probably point out that the existence of unnecessary evils (such as earthquakes and disease) is evidence to the contrary.
And the burden is on the theist for the same reason the burden of proving invisible, intangible elves is on the elf-believer. Proposing that something exists is something one must necessarily prove. The theist proposes god exists, the elf-believer proposes elves exist; both must prove their claim.
Oh, and educated guessing is not the same as using unreason to solve problems. Educated guessing is based on reason and logic.
As for the surveys, I work on digging up a study. Many of them are a bit old, as you can tell, and are hard to dig up on the net. I have seen the results before and typically they show a greater correlation when the extend of religious practice (how often services are attended, prayer, etc) are taken into account. In other words, the more religious someone is, the more likely they are to be in a lower section of the I.Q. distribution. Some of the studies cited do claim this, if you read them, but I'll see if I can find the exact methodology used on them. (Clearly you are more interested in bashing potential problems in the studies than looking them up yourself though).
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-10-2004 01:55
What are you trying to say?
unlike the fagicorn who can go both ways true enough, just only one way at a time, threesomes aside.
|