Are athiests more intelligent than theists?

freezie · Post by **freezie** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 3:13 pm

Isn't saying that God is infinite, in itself, a kind of limitation and description of it?

Colossus · Post by **Colossus** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 3:15 pm

Absolutely. Talking about God, maybe even thinking about God is a limitation. Sucks, don't it? In my opinion, that doesn't mean we shouldn't still try to figure out what we can figure out. The least limiting way to talk about God that I've ever been able to think of is this

God is.

Insightful, huh? Interesting to note that when God tells his name as Yahweh, that translates roughly to 'I am what am' or rather if we want to conjugate our verbs properly for translation to english 'I am what is'. Not too different from 'God is'.

freezie · Post by **freezie** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 3:18 pm

Colossus wrote: This is a limitation of human analysis, not necessarily a limitation on God.

Ah, I see.

I seem to have missed the part that I quoted.

bradleybadly · Post by **bradleybadly** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 3:20 pm

The answer to the question is yes

Snorri1234 · Post by **Snorri1234** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 3:23 pm

Colossus wrote: Interesting to note that when God tells his name as Yahweh, that translates roughly to 'I am what am' or rather if we want to conjugate our verbs properly for translation to english 'I am what is'. Not to different from 'God is'.

Popeye is god.

freezie · Post by **freezie** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 3:24 pm

bradleybadly wrote:The answer to the question is yes

It's neither yes nor no...

Dancing Mustard · Post by **Dancing Mustard** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 3:29 pm

Colossus wrote:Dancing Mustard, I really enjoy intellectual exchange, so I'm more than willing to discuss these points with you, but sarcastic one-liners aren't going to advance the conversation.

Hi, my name is Dancing Mustard.

I don't believe we've met.

Colossus · Post by **Colossus** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 3:34 pm

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA....good point. my bad, man.

Guiscard · Post by **Guiscard** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 3:50 pm

Colossus wrote:HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

This needs to be removed from your internet posting repertoire.

Neoteny · Post by **Neoteny** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 3:55 pm

Colossus wrote:Here's a question out of left-field for you, neo. Why are you a scientist?

The short answer: because I enjoy it. I love the process, the definition, and the exchange of ideas associated with it.

EDIT: And I'm sad I missed this whole conversation.

Snorri1234 · Post by **Snorri1234** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 3:56 pm

Neoteny wrote:
Colossus wrote:Here's a question out of left-field for you, neo. Why are you a scientist?
The short answer: because I enjoy it. I love the process, the definition, and the exchange of ideas associated with it.

Not to mention all the chicks you get.

Neoteny · Post by **Neoteny** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 3:57 pm

Snorri1234 wrote:
Neoteny wrote:
Colossus wrote:Here's a question out of left-field for you, neo. Why are you a scientist?
The short answer: because I enjoy it. I love the process, the definition, and the exchange of ideas associated with it.
Not to mention all the chicks you get.

I'm easily comparable to Oppenheimer. I reached "playa" status my sophomore year.

Colossus · Post by **Colossus** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 4:01 pm

wow, lucky you, dude. I've never been a playa, and never had the chicks find 'I'm a biochemist' sexy. sorry, guis, I'll get that right out of my posts immediately. What's appropriate? LOL? I think that's the kind of thing a teenage girl uses. Maybe I should avail myself of the wondrous emoticons. Again, just can't bring myself there, I guess. I suppose I'll figure something out.

Neoteny · Post by **Neoteny** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 4:04 pm

Colossus wrote:wow, lucky you, dude. I've never been a playa, and never had the chicks find 'I'm a biochemist' sexy. sorry, guis, I'll get that right out of my posts immediately. What's appropriate? LOL? I think that's the kind of thing a teenage girl uses. Maybe I should avail myself of the wondrous emoticons. Again, just can't bring myself there, I guess. I suppose I'll figure something out.

I like:

::chuckle chuckle::

I don't know what it is, but I think all the girls who are attracted to biologists live in Georgia. It's wonderful.

Colossus · Post by **Colossus** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 4:05 pm

Ok, so, Neo, could you take the Dawkins reference a bit farther. please? I have not read much of his stuff because I find his attitude so off-putting that reading even a little bit of his stuff pisses me off unimaginably. I'm very, very curious to hear how you think statistics can be applied to the quantification of the leap of faith required to believe in God vs. that required to not believe in God. I'm not being remotely sarcastic here (since the internet sucks at communicating such things). I'm very curious to hear this.

Snorri1234 · Post by **Snorri1234** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 4:07 pm

I lurv Dawkins. Not because I agree with him, but because he doesn't put up with bullshit just because it's someone's belief.

Colossus · Post by **Colossus** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 4:10 pm

Dawkins is an egotistical prick, who masquerades as being a lot smarter than he is. He makes plenty of pseudoscientific claims about religion that have no basis in actual scientific fact. He is an irresponsible scientist who fuels the societal rift between science and religion. And he should be slapped. Hard. In my opinion.

Snorri1234 · Post by **Snorri1234** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 4:26 pm

Colossus wrote:Dawkins is an egotistical prick, who masquerades as being a lot smarter than he is. He makes plenty of pseudoscientific claims about religion that have no basis in actual scientific fact. He is an irresponsible scientist who fuels the societal rift between science and religion. And he should be slapped. Hard. In my opinion.

Maybe, but he is just reacting to the fundies. I think he sometimes goes to far, but that's only out of sheer anger and disbelief at some people.

Honestly, if you want to get rid of Dawkins you have to get rid of the fundies.

Colossus · Post by **Colossus** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 4:31 pm

You're right there is a long history of conflict between organized religions and scientific investigation, but Dawkins is a perfect example of one of the scientists who's thinking is still rooted in the physics of the 19th century. His assertions that science controverts the existence of God are scientifically false. And he purposely acts in incendiary ways (like naming a book The Blind Watchmaker) in order to fire up ratings and book sales. He's an opportunist who is in science for fame and fortune. I have no respect for that, personally. Dawkins acts like he has the intellectual high ground at the same time that he fails to be fully scientifically informed...pretty sad, if you ask me.

Neutrino · Post by **Neutrino** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 5:26 pm

Colossus wrote: Neutrino, your argument about eternity being essentially zero to an infinite god is circular because eternity would also be infinite to an infinite God. To an infinite God, time is meaningless, then to an infinite God, man always has been and always will be because each individual person came from what was before and will become something else. This is a philosophical argument, not a scientific one.

Well, yes. There isn't exactly a great deal of choice when dealing with infinity: it's either zero or infinity.
I admit, the fact that it is impossible to know God's intentions is a pretty major stumbling block. There could be come obscure use for entropy that I'm not taking into consideration. But you'll never get anywhere interesting with that line of reasoning, so let's discount it for now.
What I am arguing is that from what is said in the Bible, it makes no sense for God to include entropy in the universe.
For an infinite number of potential souls (I assume), each existing on this planet for a finite amount of time, it would take an infinite amount of time to process them all. Therefore killing off humanity after a mere few billion contradicts God's intention of saving/damning everyone.
Of course, this argument is based off the assumption that there is an infinite number of possible souls. If there's a direct contradiction in the Bible, please feel free to rip my arguments to shreads.

Colossus · Post by **Colossus** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 5:42 pm

I don't know anything about biblical arguments regarding the number of souls. What I do know is that entropy is a major mechanism driving life at the molecular level, so it seems to me to fit perfectly into the design of a universe in which man could evolve.

LYR · Post by **LYR** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 6:24 pm

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm, I think I'm just going to sit back and relax until this thread steers back onto a topic that I can remotely understand (pretty much ethics and philosophy) because all of these references to quantum anything is confusing me.

percy.com · Post by **percy.com** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 6:42 pm

Athiests (including myself) are not nessacerily more intelligent or less.
just because people hold mistaken beliefs about the nature of the world does not make them stupid. there are huge numbers of theorys about the nature of exsistense and only one can be entirely true. just because people have been brought up in a religious, athiest, agnostic or whatever society when onely one can be true(in this context it doesn't matter which!) it doesn't
make them stupid, just ignorant(I say this in a purely literall scence, not perjorative one) And finally, just saying intelligent people believe things doesn't make them true.(and by the way Einstien WAS NOT A THIEST)

percy.com · Post by **percy.com** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 6:56 pm

Err sorry perhaps I should have introduced myself before barging in on your
conversation. Hello I'm me.

I'm very interested in this subject so I couldn't help myself. on the subject of Dawkins I don't know about his bad science but I find his books extremely interesting and personally I like his no-shit attitude to ''offending'' theists. please tell me some examples of bad science in his books and I will get back to you. It is true though, unfortunatley, that his attitude does increase the rift between science and religion. n.b. I don't believe that the two are compatible, not because science can't know about religious matters but simply because I believe that there is just no god and no reason to believe in one.

OnlyAmbrose · Post by **OnlyAmbrose** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 7:16 pm

Guiscard wrote:
OnlyAmbrose wrote:Are you for real? I mean, there's validity in the whole "experience with age" thing, but I happen to think that the younger folks here add just as much to the conversation as anyone else, ESPECIALLY gt. Are you seriously going to discredit him as a quality guy to talk to about serious stuff like this just because he's 21?

yeah, there are older folks here, but they maybe number about half of the "debating population", as it were... and I think the got tonkaed, myself, muy thaiguy, and many other younger, high school and college aged folks have added just as much relevant and quality material to philosophy and physics discussions as anyone else. Oftentimes more.

Just sayin'... I'm sure the old guys will back me up on this for the most part, if for no other reason than to defend everyone's favorite poster, gt
Here here.

Startling arrogance from this newly-arrived 'webmaster of 50 sites' character. To be honest, boasting about experience managing websites in an argument about GT's apparent lack of real-world experience isn't the way to go. One of the glories of the internet is both its agelessness and anonymity.

That's why I think I learn so much here on the internet. People actually respond to my posts as if I'm older than I actually am. Sorta forces a guy to look at problems at a more adult level than they'd have to in school.

Are athiests more intelligent than theists?

are athiests.....?

sorry