Are athiests more intelligent than theists?

got tonkaed · Post by **got tonkaed** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 12:34 am

LYR wrote:Huh, so i guess I did contribute to the conversation

everyone does in their own way.

Neoteny · Post by **Neoteny** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 12:38 am

OnlyAmbrose wrote:
Neoteny wrote:
OnlyAmbrose wrote:I think the inherent flaw in the premise of this thread is that the EVERYONE, both the atheists and the theists, seem to be taking it for granted that Christians (or theists in general) believe in God because it gives them hope, or because it makes them feel good.

I'm Christian because I find it to be the most reasonable conclusion based on the evidence. This thread isn't specifically about that evidence, so I won't go into that, but I've done my best to demonstrate this evidence on a variety of occasions... heck, i think the first thread I really got involved with on CC was Jay's "logic dictates" thread, in which I endeavored to prove the fact that the universe has a beginning based on the second law of thermodynamics.

I think hope sprung up on page five, but I don't think it has completely dominated the thread. Before that it was faith, I believe. By the way, I disagree with you on the point of naming the eternal god. It's a misleading nomenclature that really serves no purpose.

Whatever, the point which i've made in several threads (and I've yet to see it rebutted) is that both atheists and theists believe in something beyond the laws of nature. This despite the fact that many atheists claim to be "naturalists."

I disagree again. I think we've had this discussion before...

LYR · Post by **LYR** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 12:40 am

got tonkaed, just take in mind (or not in mind, if you decide to read the book), that you are taking the rantings of one crazy-ass mother fucking 13 year-old seriously (but don't worry, you wouldn't be the first, when I've asked people how old they think I am over the internet, you'd be amused by the responses lol).

And what I meant that when I said I contributed to the conversation, go back to page four and look at my first post on this thread.

got tonkaed · Post by **got tonkaed** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 12:41 am

LYR wrote:got tonkaed, just take in mind (or not in mind, if you decide to read the book), that you are taking the rantings of one crazy-ass mother fucking 13 year-old seriously (but don't worry, you wouldn't be the first, when I've asked people how old they think I am over the internet, you'd be amused by the responses lol).

i try to take people for face value in general on the internet. Most things can have some positive value to them if your willing to be open enough about them going in. I wouldnt put yourself down just cause your a kid. Life is a bit of a process, and you can only be where you are and what you make of it, it would seem thus far.

OnlyAmbrose · Post by **OnlyAmbrose** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 12:44 am

Neoteny wrote:
OnlyAmbrose wrote:
Neoteny wrote:
OnlyAmbrose wrote:I think the inherent flaw in the premise of this thread is that the EVERYONE, both the atheists and the theists, seem to be taking it for granted that Christians (or theists in general) believe in God because it gives them hope, or because it makes them feel good.

I'm Christian because I find it to be the most reasonable conclusion based on the evidence. This thread isn't specifically about that evidence, so I won't go into that, but I've done my best to demonstrate this evidence on a variety of occasions... heck, i think the first thread I really got involved with on CC was Jay's "logic dictates" thread, in which I endeavored to prove the fact that the universe has a beginning based on the second law of thermodynamics.

I think hope sprung up on page five, but I don't think it has completely dominated the thread. Before that it was faith, I believe. By the way, I disagree with you on the point of naming the eternal god. It's a misleading nomenclature that really serves no purpose.

Whatever, the point which i've made in several threads (and I've yet to see it rebutted) is that both atheists and theists believe in something beyond the laws of nature. This despite the fact that many atheists claim to be "naturalists."

I disagree again. I think we've had this discussion before...

Have we? Are you one of the folks who argues that the appearance of something from nothing is explainable by the quantum theory? Or are you one of those other folks who says that we just don't know yet how something can come from nothing?

If you look at it the first way, then I'm going to just tell you that said part of the quantum theory is totally unsupported and comparable to a theist automatically asserting that God is behind something just because science can't explain it. Which would then lead us to the "we don't know yet but we will someday" idea. At which time I would argue that the appearance of something from nothing contradicts natural law to begin with (matter can neither be created nor destroyed, after all), so then even if you CAN explain it, you can only explain it by breaking natural law.

Or you could be one of those guys who says that the universe has always existed, at which time I would point to the second law of thermodynamics, and the fact that the universe is expanding from a fixed point. I think that the steady-state theory and the oscillation theory have been pretty well debunked by now, I'm fairly certain that the idea of a singularity is the only reputable theory at this point, but if you have others I'd be glad to hear them...

LYR · Post by **LYR** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 12:47 am

ooooooooooh, touching

You're not the first one to tell me that, but I've had some people just completely ignore me and call me a stupid kid just because I disagreed with them over the internet, other people agreed with me, I proved them wrong, and when I told them I was 13, they used that as an excuse to discredit everything I had said previously.

got tonkaed · Post by **got tonkaed** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 12:49 am

LYR wrote:ooooooooooh, touching

You're not the first one to tell me that, but I've had some people just completely ignore me and call me a stupid kid just because I disagreed with them over the internet, other people agreed with me, I proved them wrong, and when I told them I was 13, they used that as an excuse to discredit everything I had said previously.

eh stay around long enough and you will find out that most people think im pretty wicked awesome.

LYR · Post by **LYR** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 12:51 am

How old are you anyways? (if you don't mind me asking)

OnlyAmbrose · Post by **OnlyAmbrose** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 12:52 am

got tonkaed wrote:
LYR wrote:ooooooooooh, touching

You're not the first one to tell me that, but I've had some people just completely ignore me and call me a stupid kid just because I disagreed with them over the internet, other people agreed with me, I proved them wrong, and when I told them I was 13, they used that as an excuse to discredit everything I had said previously.

eh stay around long enough and you will find out that most people think im pretty wicked awesome.

Eh, I find that we young folk make perfectly worthy opponents (and allies) for the geezer-folk. I'm 17, I know tonkaed isn't much older, thaiguy is in college, etc etc.

luns101 · Post by **luns101** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 12:53 am

got tonkaed wrote:eh stay around long enough and you will find out that most people think im pretty wicked awesome.

If for no other reason than the fact that you promised me free jello once you guys get universal health care passed. We've still got a deal, right?

got tonkaed · Post by **got tonkaed** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 12:53 am

LYR wrote:How old are you anyways? (if you don't mind me asking)

just your run of the mill 21 year old.

got tonkaed · Post by **got tonkaed** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 12:54 am

luns101 wrote:
got tonkaed wrote:eh stay around long enough and you will find out that most people think im pretty wicked awesome.

If for no other reason than the fact that you promised me free jello once you guys get universal health care passed. We've still got a deal, right?

even if everything else falls apart because of the system....i will guarantee you jello.

LYR · Post by **LYR** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 12:56 am

got tonkaed, you are a senile old man! why oh why am I ever listening to you?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??! looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool

Neoteny · Post by **Neoteny** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 12:58 am

OnlyAmbrose wrote:Have we? Are you one of the folks who argues that the appearance of something from nothing is explainable by the quantum theory? Or are you one of those other folks who says that we just don't know yet how something can come from nothing?

If you look at it the first way, then I'm going to just tell you that said part of the quantum theory is totally unsupported and comparable to a theist automatically asserting that God is behind something just because science can't explain it. Which would then lead us to the "we don't know yet but we will someday" idea. At which time I would argue that the appearance of something from nothing contradicts natural law to begin with (matter can neither be created nor destroyed, after all), so then even if you CAN explain it, you can only explain it by breaking natural law.

Or you could be one of those guys who says that the universe has always existed, at which time I would point to the second law of thermodynamics, and the fact that the universe is expanding from a fixed point. I think that the steady-state theory and the oscillation theory have been pretty well debunked by now, I'm fairly certain that the idea of a singularity is the only reputable theory at this point, but if you have others I'd be glad to hear them...

Somewhere in between, I suppose. I think it's likely we'll never know, but I won't rule out our capabilities. Firstly, I don't see how a singularity requires any external output. Secondly, I do think the universe (as a general term for existence) is eternal, though ours may have begun at a singularity. The idea that something came from nothing would violate the second law of thermodynamics in the universe as we know it. But that is making the critical assumption that before there was something, there was nothing. Why does nothing have to come first? That would be a rather anthropomorphic assumption. All study of physics have led us to know that we can't expect to really understand the true nature of anything (if I were to just let my cynical nature hang out). Assumptions are notoriously proven wrong. Anyway, my point is that calling the "eternal" by the name of "god" is unnecessary.

Neoteny · Post by **Neoteny** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 12:59 am

got tonkaed wrote:
LYR wrote:ooooooooooh, touching

You're not the first one to tell me that, but I've had some people just completely ignore me and call me a stupid kid just because I disagreed with them over the internet, other people agreed with me, I proved them wrong, and when I told them I was 13, they used that as an excuse to discredit everything I had said previously.

eh stay around long enough and you will find out that most people think im pretty wicked awesome.

This is true. Few things are as wickedly awesome as the tonk.

got tonkaed · Post by **got tonkaed** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:03 am

LYR wrote:got tonkaed, you are a senile old man! why oh why am I ever listening to you?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??! looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool

i tell ya, i probably past my prime long ago already.

Neutrino · Post by **Neutrino** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:04 am

Actually, Ambrose, it wouldn't necessilary break a physical law. I kinda recall reading somewhere (don't quote me on this) that there is some evidence that the charge of an electron wasn't exactly the same as it was today, shortly after the Big Bang. If constants can change, why not laws? In fact, what makes you think that Conservation of Energy was a law in whatever meta-universe that came before/created our universe? It's not violating the laws of our universe if it didn't happen in our universe...

LYR · Post by **LYR** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:11 am

Well, I'm out for the night all, got school in about 5 hours. By the way neutrino, the only threat of dihydrogen monoxide in this world is that of polluting countries such china and india, and, course, that steady yellow stream that comes out of one of every man's appendage (hopefully, if not, go see a doctor).

Neutrino · Post by **Neutrino** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:11 am

Gregrios wrote:Just to back you up. Doesn't it say in the Bible that if God didn't cut the time of the end short, then man would cause their own exstinction. So your comments are fully confirmed by God's word itself.

I wasn't saying that humanity would cause it's own extinction (I left that out since it falls under the heading of "free will"), but that God's bad universe design would exterminate humanity no matter what.

brianm · Post by **brianm** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:31 am

got tonkaed wrote:
LYR wrote:How old are you anyways? (if you don't mind me asking)

just your run of the mill 21 year old.

I would think that you would try to at least fake out on this one....I didn't think that you would lie.

got tonkaed · Post by **got tonkaed** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:34 am

brianm wrote:
got tonkaed wrote:
LYR wrote:How old are you anyways? (if you don't mind me asking)

just your run of the mill 21 year old.

I would think that you would try to at least fake out on this one....I didn't think that you would lie.

i didnt lie, as far as i can tell everything in my statement is true enough.

Neoteny · Post by **Neoteny** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:35 am

got tonkaed wrote:
brianm wrote:
got tonkaed wrote:
LYR wrote:How old are you anyways? (if you don't mind me asking)

just your run of the mill 21 year old.

I would think that you would try to at least fake out on this one....I didn't think that you would lie.

i didnt lie, as far as i can tell everything in my statement is true enough.

Honestly, I'm not even sure what that statement meant.

got tonkaed · Post by **got tonkaed** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:35 am

i would assume it means im either not run of the mill or not 21.

Neoteny · Post by **Neoteny** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:37 am

got tonkaed wrote:i would assume it means im either not run of the mill or not 21.

I suppose. Now I just don't see the point.

brianm · Post by **brianm** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:43 am

I was thinking that GT was good at debate...until now.

at 21 there are many things that is you just don't know...