Are athiests more intelligent than theists?

[got tonkaed]

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

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

thats fair, i cant really argue against the fact that i dont have a whole lot of life experience. I can sort of only be what i am to a point i guess though, i cant exactly wind the clock forward.

Out of curiosity though, why does my age make me less of a debater (though id probably argue im not a very good one)

[Neoteny]

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

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

thats fair, i cant really argue against the fact that i dont have a whole lot of life experience. I can sort of only be what i am to a point i guess though, i cant exactly wind the clock forward.

Out of curiosity though, why does my age make me less of a debater (though id probably argue im not a very good one)

:/

You make me sad, tonk.

[got tonkaed]

eh, im not so worried about myself to be shaken all that much when someone thinks less of me. Im not that serious or important to have it be an issue i guess.

But as always i am usually pretty curious, so i ask to find out.

[Neoteny]

eh, im not so worried about myself to be shaken all that much when someone thinks less of me. Im not that serious or important to have it be an issue i guess.

But as always i am usually pretty curious, so i ask to find out.

I see. I think I just like conflict, so don't mind me.

[got tonkaed]

eh, im not so worried about myself to be shaken all that much when someone thinks less of me. Im not that serious or important to have it be an issue i guess.

But as always i am usually pretty curious, so i ask to find out.

I see. I think I just like conflict, so don't mind me.

i dont think lashing out in some kind of childish what do you mean you think less of me cause im only 21 would do much more than validate his point in some ways id think.

but yeah your a conflict guy, so i can see where it might have been the move. I cant help it, im not really so much the conflict guy.

[OnlyAmbrose]

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

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

thats fair, i cant really argue against the fact that i dont have a whole lot of life experience. I can sort of only be what i am to a point i guess though, i cant exactly wind the clock forward.

Out of curiosity though, why does my age make me less of a debater (though id probably argue im not a very good one)

Don't take that kinda sass GT!!!

edit- it's way too late to go into theoretical physics, so i'll get back to that tomorrow after school. Night all!

[Neoteny]

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

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

thats fair, i cant really argue against the fact that i dont have a whole lot of life experience. I can sort of only be what i am to a point i guess though, i cant exactly wind the clock forward.

Out of curiosity though, why does my age make me less of a debater (though id probably argue im not a very good one)

Don't take that kinda sass GT!!!

edit- it's way too late to go into theoretical physics, so i'll get back to that tomorrow after school. Night all!

I understand. I have the terror that is organic chemistry in six hours... on the upside, I've managed to complete two sections with (almost) full references on my senior project proposal this evening. I feel like I am an expert on yeast copper metabolism... which officially makes me a massive nerd. Good evening, all, and maybe I'll calm the hell down after some rest.

[brianm]

eh, im not so worried about myself to be shaken all that much when someone thinks less of me. Im not that serious or important to have it be an issue i guess.

But as always i am usually pretty curious, so i ask to find out.

I see. I think I just like conflict, so don't mind me.

i dont think lashing out in some kind of childish what do you mean you think less of me cause im only 21 would do much more than validate his point in some ways id think.

but yeah your a conflict guy, so i can see where it might have been the move. I cant help it, im not really so much the conflict guy.

Punctuation would be a good start...Just something you learn as you get older....

[got tonkaed]

interesting that someting like that would matter. I am all for credentializing ourselves in whatever way is necessary, but you only make the story more odd as we go. What exactly is it about me you dont like, since up until a few posts ago i thought we got by rather alright? It would seem something rather violent happened in the recent in your perception of me, which probably punctuation alone cant cause.

Did i not live up to your expectations some how? Am i supposed to be 14 or 40?

[brianm]

....looking at your many posts and how long you have been with this site.....you should probably leave this one alone.

I am a webmaster and run over 50 sites...Trust me, I have seen it all.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Just finished brushing my teeth... and i see this?

eh, im not so worried about myself to be shaken all that much when someone thinks less of me. Im not that serious or important to have it be an issue i guess.

But as always i am usually pretty curious, so i ask to find out.

I see. I think I just like conflict, so don't mind me.

i dont think lashing out in some kind of childish what do you mean you think less of me cause im only 21 would do much more than validate his point in some ways id think.

but yeah your a conflict guy, so i can see where it might have been the move. I cant help it, im not really so much the conflict guy.

Punctuation would be a good start...Just something you learn as you get older....

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

[got tonkaed]

i guess im just a little confused as to what exactly your driving at here...but im really not that interested in playing games with you about it. If your on some kind of superiority kick, thats all fine and good. If you have some kind of life lesson youd like to impart, thats fine as well.

at the very least i think ive at least played rather fair to leave the second remark about being webmaster alone when relating to experience.

thanks ambrose for the kind words.

[brianm]

I have seen alot worse...

[Skittles!]

I have seen alot worse...

Are you saying age is a bad thing? Just because most younger-people-than-25 are immature and such, does not mean all are. Believe it or not, many people under 25 have opinions concerning world matters as well.

[brianm]

I never said that age is a bad thing....lying is...what do you think?

[got tonkaed]

I never said that age is a bad thing....lying is...what do you think?

so wait you think this is all about me lying?

[muy_thaiguy]

I never said that age is a bad thing....lying is...what do you think?

Because someone does not capitalize a few words? For all you know, I could be from New York, 38 years old, High School drop out, that lives in my parent's basement, and have an unhealthy addiction to comic book conventions or Star Wars; even though I have said that I am 18, from Wyoming (possibly the only person on here from this state), in College, I DO live with my parents (don't have to worry about bills as much that way), and this site would probably be my only unhealthy obsession. Oh, and one more thing.

[got tonkaed]

eh i think on the whole id let it all slide...there was all kinds of odd things that dont really seem to add up.

[MeDeFe]

I'm wondering what brianm went on about as well, I really don't see where his problem with you came from.

[Neoteny]

That was seriously a whole lot of nothing.

[Colossus]

Well, since I missed much of the copious discussion of yesterday....

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.

In reading Grooveman's posts, I really didn't think they sounded particularly condescending. I think that confessed atheists take natural offense when a believer makes a statement implying that no one really knows what he believes until his faith is truly tested by dire circumstance. I think there is some truth to that statement, probably, but then I've never had dire circumstances under which to test the theory. I think that Grooveman is also driving at the social role that religion (not FAITH) has held throughout the history of mankind. Even many of the professed atheists here will agree that religion has been a fundamental and important piece of the social structure that has developed during the past 10,000 years or so. Religion taken to the extreme in fundamentalism, particularly violent fundamentalism, cannot logically be used to condemn the entirety of religion. LYR alluded very nicely to the role that religion plays in the individual's life and in society. Maslow's hierarchy of needs tells us basically that pondering the stuff that we are all pondering and debating right now is a massive luxury that most people can't afford because they are too busy putting food in their bellies or roofs over their heads. Religion, historically, has served to offer some rock on which such folks can rely. I think that LYR and Grooveman's points on faith are right, too. We all believe (have faith) in something. Even if that something is ourselves, in which case the self becomes effectively 'god'. Neo, I think your assertions that energy can be better spent than through dependency on formal religion is also very insightful. I agree that blind faith is no faith at all. That's why most believers who will take part in these kinds of discussions are people who have studied somehow and searched their souls, if you will, to reach the views that they have.

I think that OnlyAmbrose's posts regarding the origins of the universe are spot-on largely. The current scientific models for the origins of the universe, i.e. the big bang, do seem to require some early period in which the laws of physics as we know them must have not functioned as they do now. Neo, you may be willing to excuse away the fundamental problem of something coming from nothing, but science is ALL about causality, thus something for which the cause is not or cannot be defined is a MAJOR problem for a scientific view of the world. Even if you want to assume that there was something before the big bang, the lack of our ability to determine what that was is a HUGE hole in the scientific understanding of the universe. Neutrino's convenient route around the problem (i.e. that our universe in its earliest foundations wasn't really our universe, it was something else, so the rules being broken and constants changed for no apparent physical reason) is no solution at all! You guys keep talking about drawing conclusions based on science, but imagining other universes or simply being willing to accept that we're never going to understand it all because physics never really figures anything out anyway are not scientific arguments....they are FAITH arguments. You are both arguing faith in some explanation that remains undefined. Your acceptance of that explanation's lack of definition does not change the fact that it is an untestable, un-disprovable explanation. That's faith, fellas. The exact same kind of faith that many people choose instead to put into God. The foundations of your assertions are no different than the foundations of my assertions. Our explanations are just different, and those boil down to our own personal beliefs.

GT, I dig your posts man, and you and LYR both have added a lot to these discussions. And knowing that you don't know everything is the first step toward really learning anything. Sometimes older folks forget just how much more educated most younger folks are these days than we were when we were young. Forgive them, and keep on chiming in. Anyone who thinks that somebody is too young to offer useful commentary is deluding themselves, in my opinion. I run into that kind of retarded shit in the scientific community all the time, and it constantly hinders progress.

[Snorri1234]

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

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

thats fair, i cant really argue against the fact that i dont have a whole lot of life experience. I can sort of only be what i am to a point i guess though, i cant exactly wind the clock forward.

Out of curiosity though, why does my age make me less of a debater (though id probably argue im not a very good one)

[Dancing Mustard]

It is my belief that brianm is a simpleton.

[Neoteny]

In reading Grooveman's posts, I really didn't think they sounded particularly condescending. I think that confessed atheists take natural offense when a believer makes a statement implying that no one really knows what he believes until his faith is truly tested by dire circumstance. I think there is some truth to that statement, probably, but then I've never had dire circumstances under which to test the theory. I think that Grooveman is also driving at the social role that religion (not FAITH) has held throughout the history of mankind. Even many of the professed atheists here will agree that religion has been a fundamental and important piece of the social structure that has developed during the past 10,000 years or so. Religion taken to the extreme in fundamentalism, particularly violent fundamentalism, cannot logically be used to condemn the entirety of religion. LYR alluded very nicely to the role that religion plays in the individual's life and in society. Maslow's hierarchy of needs tells us basically that pondering the stuff that we are all pondering and debating right now is a massive luxury that most people can't afford because they are too busy putting food in their bellies or roofs over their heads. Religion, historically, has served to offer some rock on which such folks can rely. I think that LYR and Grooveman's points on faith are right, too. We all believe (have faith) in something. Even if that something is ourselves, in which case the self becomes effectively 'god'. Neo, I think your assertions that energy can be better spent than through dependency on formal religion is also very insightful. I agree that blind faith is no faith at all. That's why most believers who will take part in these kinds of discussions are people who have studied somehow and searched their souls, if you will, to reach the views that they have.

I think that OnlyAmbrose's posts regarding the origins of the universe are spot-on largely. The current scientific models for the origins of the universe, i.e. the big bang, do seem to require some early period in which the laws of physics as we know them must have not functioned as they do now. Neo, you may be willing to excuse away the fundamental problem of something coming from nothing, but science is ALL about causality, thus something for which the cause is not or cannot be defined is a MAJOR problem for a scientific view of the world. Even if you want to assume that there was something before the big bang, the lack of our ability to determine what that was is a HUGE hole in the scientific understanding of the universe. Neutrino's convenient route around the problem (i.e. that our universe in its earliest foundations wasn't really our universe, it was something else, so the rules being broken and constants changed for no apparent physical reason) is no solution at all! You guys keep talking about drawing conclusions based on science, but imagining other universes or simply being willing to accept that we're never going to understand it all because physics never really figures anything out anyway are not scientific arguments....they are FAITH arguments. You are both arguing faith in some explanation that remains undefined. Your acceptance of that explanation's lack of definition does not change the fact that it is an untestable, un-disprovable explanation. That's faith, fellas. The exact same kind of faith that many people choose instead to put into God. The foundations of your assertions are no different than the foundations of my assertions. Our explanations are just different, and those boil down to our own personal beliefs.

I still find Grooveman's post chafing. It would be the same if I were to say there were no religionists in foxholes. Not only is it not true (and I would say degrading to those religionists in foxholes), but it is asserting that my worldview is wrong, for no real reason other than "You just can't see it now. You would if you were in this situation." That's rather pretentious and slightly condescending.

As far as universal origins, I'm not proposing anything as a form of causality, and I'm not really sure that we need to. We might, but I'll leave that to the physicists. What religionists do that I don't is throw in an arbitrary cause without any evidence other than "there must be a cause." If there was a cause, then there must have been a cause for that cause. And a cause for that cause. Which one is god? Additionally, saying "there has to be a first cause, let's just call it 'god'" is both reckless and presumptive, as god has many connotations that, if there were indeed a first cause, I am certain would not be necessary (omniscience, for one). Finally, I've said several times in this forum, much to Nappy's chagrin, that I've found no convincing evidence, other than religious texts (which have been anything but convincing for me), for the existence of a god. And then we come full circle to the leap of faith. My leap of faith of "there may or may not have been a first cause, and if there was, I don't have a friggin' clue what it is" asks much less than "there was a first cause, that cause was god."

My assertion that there is no god could be supposed a comparable leap of faith, but it's one based on the assertion above that I have not seen any evidence to propose a god. It seems to me just a social construct, which, in reference to the rest of your post, no doubt has been an important factor throughout human history. And it makes for great conversation. But I also think that were the people who need that rock of religion to lean on given the tools to appreciate the more philosophical discussions that we're having, religion would be far less common than it is (worst sentence evar... bear with me). We're an adaptive species (at least short term), I have the utmost confidence that were that rock of comfort removed, another would take its place in a surprisingly short time. I don't think religion is necessary in that sense. And I don't intend to imply that religionists are stupid; I can see the last two sentences as implicative of that... I just can't think of a better way to word them...

[Neoteny]

It is my belief that brianm is a simpleton.

And possibly a bit of a tool.