# Tests confirm what we already knew



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 27, 2010)

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/li ... ml?hpt=Mid


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Feb 27, 2010)

Indeed. :mrgreen:


----------



## mf (Feb 27, 2010)

The problem with belief-related statistics is that they venture into generalities while completely disregarding that people are persons. By disregarding this essential fact, they are no longer talking about people. So, question: what are these statistics talking about? What is their subject matter? It's obviously not the person. Then perhaps they are talking about the behavior in itself, disjointed from the person, yes? If so, is it possible to isolate the behavior from the person? I really don't see how. So, me thinks, apparently they're not talking behaviors either. I'm sorry, but this study doesn't make any sense to me. In the first place, what is it about?


----------



## choc0thrax (Feb 27, 2010)

Heh, surprised atheists are smart. Seems like "knowing" there is no God is about as dumb as "knowing" there is one.


----------



## lux (Feb 27, 2010)

choc0thrax @ Sun Feb 28 said:


> Heh... Seems like "knowing" there is no God is about as dumb as "knowing" there is one.



completely agree with that.


----------



## midphase (Feb 28, 2010)

A lot of studies define atheist someone who is not religious...but this is not always correct. Just because someone doesn't conform to religion it doesn't necessarily imply that they don't believe in a higher power of some sort, even if such higher power is a particle.


----------



## C M Dess (Feb 28, 2010)

midphase @ Sun Feb 28 said:


> A lot of studies define atheist someone who is not religious...but this is not always correct. Just because someone doesn't conform to religion it doesn't necessarily imply that they don't believe in a higher power of some sort, even if such higher power is a particle.



Sounds agnostic? Agnostics are often confused with atheists? I don't think we got the decryption algorithm for god communication (I can't seem to get hans zimmer's number either??). I can imagine there are several built in protection faults (self-destruction, insanity, reality) to prevent this.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Feb 28, 2010)

choc0thrax @ Sun Feb 28 said:


> Heh, surprised atheists are smart. Seems like "knowing" there is no God is about as dumb as "knowing" there is one.



Really? Or are you just being polemic?

First of all, most athesist who know a little about science would never say that they know with 100% certainty that there is no God. In fact I reckon a good portion of believers would not claim to know that there is one either - hence the term faith. So many people who claim to "know" either of two, use the word "know" in the more everyday sense - “I know the sun will rise tomorrow”, “I know jumping off the Empire State Building will kill me” (although we could test it - we don't know it before hand). 

So with that out of the way, are both claims equal - or equally dumb as you put it?

If so, is it equally dumb to say "I know we descend from a common ancestor" as it to say "I know we are specially created"? Neither claim is knowable with 100% certainty but are they equally "dumb"? I don't think so. 

Just because two claims both are unknowable in the strictess sense, does not make them of equal likeliness or equally reasonable. 

[Edit] The numbers for beleiving in life after death, or in angels and demons are mindblowing. Here is the whole survey: http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=510


----------



## lux (Feb 28, 2010)

i think a creature who cannot decently divide 1 meter of pizza into 3 parts cant discern if a god exists or not


----------



## José Herring (Feb 28, 2010)

Only read the first 2 paragraphs before concluding that it's total bunk. 6 to 11 points above average is really nothing to be bragging about. So if the current average IQ is around 90. Then the average score of your sexually not active atheist liberal is around 100. 

Wow. :roll:

Ok. I read most of the article and found that the conclusions are misleading. Here's proof:

_Participants who said they were atheists had an average IQ of 103 in adolescence, while adults who said they were religious averaged 97, the study found_

They compared two different age groups. The data they left out is that generally people have a higher IQ in adolescence than they do as adults. On average someone at 12 to 13 has a quicker brighter mind than they would after college, drinking, crash test and drugs.

It always boggles my mind that someone would publish a misleading study like this. What do they have to gain?


----------



## chimuelo (Feb 28, 2010)

I always thought these overly educated elite types were excellent role models.
The way they faked the data at the IPCC was also brilliant................too bad they weren't smart enough to know the inherent weaknesses of a generic firewall.. 

Here's really what the media is trying to sidetrack you away from seeing.
Such a brilliant highly educated role model for women............what a waste.
But I hear these highly educated types always find God when they are in a foxhole, or even better, when they are in jail where she will finally get the education she missed in the real world.


Just looking at this Troll is a great way to teach abstinence.


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 28, 2010)

Atheists are getting religion. Soon , they will be tithing for good works, hating non-atheists, and worshiping each other and themselves.

I don't call myself an atheist, but I don't have any spiritual faith. I don't care what other people believe, long as they don't try to kill me or mine in the name of it, and they keep it out of my schools and my government. Unfortunately, people DO try to kill me and mine in the name of their religion or their cult, and constantly try to inject their beliefs into my schools and my government-hence the God problem.

I like a lot of what Bill Maher says and agree with him much of the time, but man, don't make me join some group with him. He seems like a self righteous, pompous ass, and I deeply resemble that.


----------



## choc0thrax (Feb 28, 2010)

Christian Marcussen @ Sun Feb 28 said:


> First of all, most athesist who know a little about science would never say that they know with 100% certainty that there is no God.



But then they wouldn't be atheist, they'd be: "a person who disbelieves in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism."

As far as I can tell Atheism seems to have some broad definitions. I prefer seeing atheists as those who believe absolutely there are no gods. Gives agnosticism some breathing room. So it's all perspective, kind of pointless to argue about. Though, I do hope Ed sees this thread.

"Philosophers such as Antony Flew,[33] Michael Martin,[25] and William L. Rowe[34] have contrasted strong (positive) atheism with weak (negative) atheism. Strong atheism is the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist. Weak atheism includes all other forms of non-theism."

I'm sure this study probably included a crap-load of people who I'd define as agnostic. This study was a waste of time anyways. Who doesn't already know that liberalism etc. is correlated with higher IQ? I've got a way higher IQ than 97, according to that online IQ test I took with the talking Einstein picture and the killer deals on Acai berry. This is why when I close my eyes at night I see married gay dudes frenching on a giant solar panel.


----------



## choc0thrax (Feb 28, 2010)

josejherring @ Sun Feb 28 said:


> Ok. I read most of the article and found that the conclusions are misleading. Here's proof:
> 
> _Participants who said they were atheists had an average IQ of 103 in adolescence, while adults who said they were religious averaged 97, the study found_
> 
> They compared two different age groups. The data they left out is that generally people have a higher IQ in adolescence than they do as adults.



"The study found that young adults who said they were "very conservative" had an average *adolescent* IQ of 95"


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Feb 28, 2010)

> As far as I can tell Atheism seems to have some broad definitions. I prefer seeing atheists as those who _believe_ absolutely there are no gods. Gives agnosticism some breathing room. So it's all perspective, kind of pointless to argue about. Though, I do hope Ed sees this thread.



Beleive being the keyword. I beleive absolutely that there are no gods. However hard pressed I would of course admit that I can't _know_ for certain, just like I can't know for certain that Thor does not exsist. However for all intents and purposes, and for all other discourses than that of a philosophy of science class, I'm sure there is no god - including Thor. 

So that brings it back to the central question. Becuase you can't absolutly know for certain if Thor (or any specific deity) does or does not exist- does that mean that both claims are equally dumb or reasonable?


----------



## choc0thrax (Feb 28, 2010)

Christian Marcussen @ Sun Feb 28 said:


> > As far as I can tell Atheism seems to have some broad definitions. I prefer seeing atheists as those who _believe_ absolutely there are no gods. Gives agnosticism some breathing room. So it's all perspective, kind of pointless to argue about. Though, I do hope Ed sees this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Beleive being the keyword. I beleive absolutely that there are no gods. However hard pressed I would of course admit that I can't _know_ for certain



That would make you an agnostic atheist in my eyes if you just admit you don't know for certain when hard-pressed. There's a lot of crazies out there who "know" that god does or does not exist.

One man's dumb is another man's reasonable.


----------



## David A (Feb 28, 2010)

How many of you know that the atheistic movement is actually controlled by the very same globalists who plan to destroy America and then the world?


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Feb 28, 2010)

David A @ Sun Feb 28 said:


> How many of you know that the atheistic movement is actually controlled by the very same globalists who plan to destroy America and then the world?



Oh David FFS!


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Feb 28, 2010)

choc0thrax @ Sun Feb 28 said:


> Christian Marcussen @ Sun Feb 28 said:
> 
> 
> > > As far as I can tell Atheism seems to have some broad definitions. I prefer seeing atheists as those who _believe_ absolutely there are no gods. Gives agnosticism some breathing room. So it's all perspective, kind of pointless to argue about. Though, I do hope Ed sees this thread.
> ...



Well, hard-pressed I would admit that I can't know for certain if unicorns exist :mrgreen:.


----------



## David A (Feb 28, 2010)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjD9M_URV3c

This interview was conducted in the 1970s by a 33rd degree freemason and ex-illuminatist who became a Christian and exposed the Satanic organization behind world events. I challenge you to listen to the videos and then try and refute his claims. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjD9M_URV3c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DerUFYME ... re=related


----------



## rgames (Feb 28, 2010)

That study is a good example of why the term "social science" is an oxymoron. Heavy on the moron.

I love the fact that the study grouped everyone into two categories: liberal or conservative. That's equivalent to studying light and grouping all observations into "red" or "blue". Totally bogus representation of reality.

I'm willing to bet that if they added a third category of "other" the average IQ would be much higher for them. Rather, I mean "us" 

I love how the mostly liberal media always find ways of explaining how smart they are. Just like the NPR fund drives: "our listeners are so smart." Sheesh. Somebody needs to tell these people that the harder they have to work to explain it, the less true it is.

rgames


----------



## Waywyn (Feb 28, 2010)

David A @ Sun Feb 28 said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjD9M_URV3c
> 
> This interview was conducted in the 1970s by a 33rd degree freemason and ex-illuminatist who became a Christian and exposed the Satanic organization behind world events. I challenge you to listen to the videos and then try and refute his claims.
> 
> ...



It gets even better, David.

In 2012 the moon will reveal as a spaceship where Aliens are and have been living for around a few million years. Together with Nibiru, the dark planet who should also hit earth in 2012 plus the Solar winds from the sun sucked towards earth into the black hole in the middle of our galaxy we are fucked anyway. So who cares what the Illuminati, Satanists or whoever does. They only have two years left to rule the world? Pretty shitty timing I would say ... I mean, ... if you believe all that crap!


----------



## David A (Feb 28, 2010)

LOL. I dont believe the recent Mayan thingy by all the Johnny come latelys who are probably the same people who say Y2K would be catastrophic. No this conspiracy I talk of is far deeper more insidious. 

It is the reason we have a European Union, a North American Union, the UN, and central banking throughout the world.

It is the reason behind the swift ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.

It is the reason JFK introduced executive order 11110 and was killed before he could do anything to prevent the Federal Reserve Bank from printing the US currency.

It is the reason president Thomas Jefferson feared banking institutions were more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. 

It is the reason Warren Buffet calls derivatives 'weapons of mass destruction'.

It is the reason Obama was elected as the new pawn in the whitehouse.

It is the reason the Copenhagen conference on climate change was introduced to tax the world and kill off a third of the world's population through a carbon tax bill that would cripple developing nations. 

This conspiracy is over 200 years old and the people behind are very evil, with wicked plans for the world. It is the reason Linsey Williams made this prediction of a 30-50% loss in the value of the dollar.

It is the reason why when you look to the reverse of a one dollar bill you will see Annuit Coeptis: Novus Ordo Seclorum- Latin for 'It is established. A New Order of the Ages'. The eye of providence (Satan) can be seen above the capstone of the pyramid on the $1 bill. This is because the freemasons/illumanati refer to 'God'-but their religion is Luciferian. Their god is the devil. The reason behind the latin is this 'New Order of the Ages' is the plan for a World Government and the destruction of all economies and national soverignty.

Now for those of you who don't believe in God or are agnostic-this is an organization that LITERALLY worships Satan-and they are behind the athiestic movement. I challenge you to research the organization of the illuminati-which is exactly what they DON'T want you to do. 

Alex Jones in particular may sound like a nutter who sensationalizes much-but I encourage all Americans on here to check out many of his videos. He has well respected economists on and this is unfiltered media which is alarmingly accurate.


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Feb 28, 2010)

No. This conspiracy theory bullshit is just that. I've watched various videos on all those conspiròœN   Ç9œN   Ç9œN   Ç9œN   Ç


----------



## rgames (Feb 28, 2010)

Here's another thought: who really cares about IQ, anyway? I have no idea what my IQ is and it hasn't seemed to affect me in any way.

When we judge composers, authors, scientists, athletes, whoever - do we ever care what their IQ is? The only place I have ever seen IQ mentioned is in the media and by the MENSA fan club. Hmmm.....

@Christian: sorry, my friend, but those of us trained in actual "S"cience have a hard time accepting the weak correlations that pass for advances in the social sciences  Think of it this way: a social scientist does a study and concludes that 70% of the people studied exhibit one behavior and the other 30% exhibit the opposite behavior. That gets published in the social science journals as a signifcant insight.

Consider applying the same standards to actual science: when you drop a ball, does it fall only 70% of the time? Of course not, because what constitutes significant understanding in actual science requires much more than weak correlations.

However, the social scientists stay funded precisely because they're never beholden to any strict set of standards. So they can constantly rewrite the "laws" and claim new advances worthy of more tax dollars 

rgames


----------



## choc0thrax (Feb 28, 2010)

Nathan Allen Pinard @ Sun Feb 28 said:


> choc0thrax @ Sun Feb 28 said:
> 
> 
> > josejherring @ Sun Feb 28 said:
> ...



That's actually pretty bad. 8) Internet tests are always easy so you'll do well and be more likely to buy your IQ test results.


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 28, 2010)

If there's one thing I truly enjoy, it's a hearty discussion of smart people, dumb people, politics and religion...and THAT'S why_ everyone_ needs to own a gun.


----------



## Imzadi (Feb 28, 2010)

Well, I doubt this study is accurate, but there's something to be said about all this:

Atheist/liberals aren't necessarily smarter than religious/conservatives, but it is harder to find ignorant Atheists/liberals than ignorant religious/conservatives. 

Like Bill Maher once said (related to Democrats vs Republicans): if you are a Republican you are not necessarily racist and intolerant, but if you are racist there's a big chance you are a Republican. Yes, this can offend a lot of people, but isn't it true?

I think this article is trying to generalize this and polarize the 2 groups, so that's wrong. But I can see how Atheist/Liberal folks have a better chance to be more studied than their counterpart. Most people fall into the middle, so I'm not sure how the study is valuable, though.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 28, 2010)

> I love how the mostly liberal media always find ways of explaining how smart they are.



I think that right there proves the study correct.


----------



## mf (Feb 28, 2010)

Correct about what? I still don't understand what this study is about. What does it say about what?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 28, 2010)

As I posted on Facebook, I'm just happy to have found an explantion for why I'm always right. This is an extremely valuable study.


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 1, 2010)

josejherring @ Sun Feb 28 said:


> Man trust me. I use to administer IQ test for a living. There is no real world difference between a 95 and a 103. Out of an IQ test with 100 questions it's the difference of about 2 correctly answered questions.



+1
At least you would need a very big study with very controlled circumstances. As I understood it Mr. Kanazawa did not carry out these test himself (or with his team) but re-used statistical data from elsewhere. If you see a result like this first thing to ask is how big the error margin actually is.

A Wikipedia search reveals that Mr. Kanazawa has based provoking claims and books on questionable interpretations of statistical data before:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satoshi_Kanazawa

One could assume that the act of stirring up discussions and watching how they turn out could be the relevant (and more interesting) part of the experiment, rather than the statistical study (see this thread for example). :D


----------



## NYC Composer (Mar 1, 2010)

Wow, so you think that Nick...no...really?? Wow!


----------



## George Caplan (Mar 1, 2010)

the london school of economics?


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 1, 2010)

> That's actually pretty bad. 8) Internet tests are always easy so you'll do well and be more likely to buy your IQ test results.



Don't worry about IQ tests too much.

An old man slowly walks down the street when a big Mercedes drives by, suddenly stops and out jumps a dynamic and obviously well situated guy that joyfully rushes towards his old teacher. After recognizing him the professor wonders how well he obviously does despite having been his worst mathematics pupil ever. "Well, that is easy" the younger man replies, "I am buying wooden cases for 1 USD the piece and sell them for 3 USD. And those two percent are what I make my living of!"

:D


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 1, 2010)

I wonder why most of you got this IQ thingy wrong or feel offended by that study?

Of course someone can have a high IQ and be totally dumb in life ... also someone can have a low IQ but very clever ... BUT this study is not about IQ itself, it is simply the term to measure the study.

What is wrong if someone does a study about penis sizes from all over the world and says, okay race X tends to have a smaller one than race Y ... then the bashing starts ... baabababa small dicks, big dicks  ... come on! It's just a logical study with a result. It is not what's right or wrong, it's just a result. You could also replace that with body size, shoe size, amounts of food being eaten by country x, y, u etc.

Yot got grades in school? Someone of you might got an F/6 in math. Does that mean you can't go shopping? Does that mean you can't calculate and estimate your tax and what's left to go to holiday?

Isn't that really not obvious? Religious people IN GENERAL believe, trust in and live for something which they believe in which happened and will happen and is simply true (disregarding if it is or not).

There is NO need to activate brain synapses in a general view. They trust!


If there are people who do NOT believe in God (or Gods) are MOSTLY attracted to science. Therefore you try to explore, discover and try to gather knowledge.

THIS on the other hand doesn't mean that someone doesn't study the bible or trying to explore god etc. ... BUT there is a general tendency and THEREFORE you need something to measure this.

THIS doesn't also mean that there are people who do both - religious scientiest, BUT, this is not about theologists nor about scientist, it is simply about a crowd who is religious compared to one who is not?

Come on, you guys are so clever, smart, talented writers, amazing human beings, what is that thing that someone sees religion, atheist, lower and higher IQ and instanly goes ramblin? I don't get it!?


----------



## lux (Mar 1, 2010)

Imzadi @ Sun Feb 28 said:


> ...I think this article is trying to generalize this and polarize the 2 groups, so that's wrong. But I can see how Atheist/Liberal folks have a better chance to be more studied than their counterpart. Most people fall into the middle, so I'm not sure how the study is valuable, though.



good point. Also, usually those studies pay the due to the fact they need a publishing, so most of the important weights appied to panels are...how to say...avoided to make the study sound as "innovative" it could. 

Who cares of a study who states that iq's are distributed on average between the parts. No news. No money.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 1, 2010)

Confession: I posted this because I thought it was one of the sillier things I'd read in a long time.

It's true that conservatives are wrong about every issue, however.


----------



## dcoscina (Mar 1, 2010)

I think it's in some study that more liberals have more post secondary education as compared to right wing conservatives. Whether this makes them smarter is questionable. More informed and able to see things from different viewpoints- I would say yes.


----------



## mf (Mar 1, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Mar 01 said:


> Confession: I posted this because I thought it was one of the sillier things I'd read in a long time.


 :mrgreen: 
Naughty. Naughty.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 1, 2010)

> More informed and able to see things from different viewpoints- I would say yes.



Given that the intellectual basis for at least the economic part of conservatism has failed every time it's been put into practice, I too say yes!

I'd go farther and say that almost all conservative viewpoints today are ideological rather than thought out, unlike more practical liberal ones. Being against "big government" is just stupid as a basic concept of how to run a huge modern country. It's that bumper sticker stuff that's so frustrating.

I mean, "big government" getting out of the way after decades of regulation is exactly what caused our economy to crash. It's exactly what stopped us from being in the middle of another Great Depression right now. Meanwhile Conservatives just say "look how bad it is in spite of that," which is totally stupid.

I could go on a separate rant about how conservatives are more "me me me" oriented, but the point is that liberals are using a lot more of the IQ they were dealt when it comes to how they vote.

Yes, I honestly believe that: conservative viewpoints are reactionary rather than thought out. Of course there are knee-jerk liberals too, but in my experience our positions are less so than conservative ones. That's especially true in our present climate where center-right is considered liberal.

And atheism? I suspect that IQ isn't related to religious/nonreligious orientation but rather to how deeply a person has thought things through. There are many levels of sophistication about religion, which of course is why it's still around after all these thousands of years. You can't really lump a serious religious scholar's beliefs into the same category with those of some halfwit who thinks God commanded everyone to be conservative.


----------



## José Herring (Mar 16, 2010)

Waywyn @ Sun Feb 28 said:


> Nathan Allen Pinard @ Sun Feb 28 said:
> 
> 
> > choc0thrax @ Sun Feb 28 said:
> ...



Found the Mensa test here: http://www.mensa.org/workout2.php

I took it and in 30 min got 22 out of 30 right. After submitting the answers I got a screen that said my score was really good and I would have a good chance of passing the real Mensa test. :lol: 

I thought the test was unbearably difficult so I'm not sure that I'll put myself through that again.

But it's interesting because I'm sure that with a little study I could get them all right. As with all these test I always wonder if it shows real ability or if you just need to figure out how to think like the test makers think. I'm sure that if I gave the Mensa people a "music" IQ test most of them would probably fail utterly.


----------



## mf (Mar 16, 2010)

Test what? What do those tests test?


----------



## José Herring (Mar 16, 2010)

mf @ Tue Mar 16 said:


> Test what? What do those tests test?



All valid IQ test test the same thing. The ability to solve basic problems with in a given period of time. If a person can go to a grocery store and figure out the price of 5 pounds of bananas if bananas are 67cents/pound in less than 30 seconds he stands a better chance of surviving in the world than somebody who would take 3 hours to figure out the same problem. In theory. 

So IQ test try to rate how fast a person can think. Basically. The more difficult the IQ question the longer it takes to figure it out, though eventually, I'm sure that even a moron could figure out all the problems on any test, but if it took him three weeks to do a test that the average person could do in 30 minutes then the average person would have more computing power at his command to figure out the basic decisions concerning life, career, ect....

Now what the test don't test are people's ambition, drive and personal power which I find way more critical to success than just the ability to compute.


----------



## choc0thrax (Mar 16, 2010)

Bleh, I got 23 right. Every single one I got wrong had to do with numbers. I've always been terrible at math. My old math teacher when I lived in Ontario had taught Bryan Adams math decades ago and she used to always tell me I was as bad as Bryan. I thought that was cool but she wasn't so psyched.


----------



## Evan Gamble (Mar 16, 2010)

Yeah I took an IQ test when I was young which turned out pretty high, and got in this so called "Gifted Program".

Of course when your in 2nd grade the problems consisted of things like "What's missing on the pencil?" A:"The Lead". And building various shapes with blocks, like legos.

And ever since than I've done everything in my power (it would appear) to remove any brain cells through various substances .

Point being, pretty sure the number doesn't mean dick in the real world.


----------



## mf (Mar 16, 2010)

Thanks Jose. So, I take it, those tests test the ability of a person to give the expected answers to certain questions, and within certain time constraints, right? Then, the "testers" probably assume the resulted numbers to say _something_ about the "tested" person's intelligence. Says what though? Imo, nothing more than: this person is intelligent. Which we already knew (as in: "Tests confirm what we already knew"  ). Using those numbers to estimate anything else about a person's intelligence, that's not a very good use of intelligence imo. That is why I never do this sort of tests, their premises and pretensions look dumb in the extreme to me.

We are all capable of observing, making connections, reasoning, understanding, learning - we are all intelligent individuals. Intelligence is not quantifiable. "X is less (or more) intelligent than Y" is old ladies small talk, nothing to do with science.



Evan Gamble @ Tue Mar 16 said:


> Point being, pretty sure the number doesn't mean dick in the real world.


Right. I'd say, those numbers don't say anything about anything in any world, real or imaginary.


----------



## Ed (Mar 16, 2010)

choc0thrax @ Sun Feb 28 said:


> Heh, surprised atheists are smart. Seems like "knowing" there is no God is about as dumb as "knowing" there is one.



Dont really know any atheist that says that though  

I'm not convinced we have any reason to believe in a deity, so I don't believe in one. Pretty simple.


----------



## Alex W (Mar 16, 2010)

Hannes_F @ Mon Mar 01 said:


> > That's actually pretty bad. 8) Internet tests are always easy so you'll do well and be more likely to buy your IQ test results.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



haha! Exactly.


----------



## mf (Mar 16, 2010)

Ed @ Tue Mar 16 said:


> choc0thrax @ Sun Feb 28 said:
> 
> 
> > Heh, surprised atheists are smart. Seems like "knowing" there is no God is about as dumb as "knowing" there is one.
> ...


You have no reason to believe in a deity, but do you have any reason to believe in a time? IS there a time? Where? Show it to me. See? You can't. There's no such thing as time, and no reason to believe in something that doesn't exist, is there? What? Your clock on the wall, perhaps? Well, then switch it with a picture of Shiva, so that DEITY will exist instead, and no more TIME. Or, maybe, time and deity can both exist, who knows? Why should two nonexisting things be mutually exclusive? Is there a reason for that?

It is reasonable to believe that time is a product of human imagination (yes, like deity) - so if you believe that time exists, it can only exist there, inside imagination. So, big question now: how come external objects can move? Without time, there could be no change and objects won't move, would just stay still like arses in the sun. Objects can only move in time, right? So, if time doesn't exist outside imagination, reason should tell you that the place where objects do move is: inside imagination. Right? Is there any reason to believe otherwise? What would that be?

It's pretty simple: there's no deity and no time. Never seen one. Seeing is believing - so, no reason to believe in them. I'm an atheist and an atimist.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Mar 17, 2010)

Mf.

Are you joking? I can't tell.


----------



## Alex W (Mar 17, 2010)

mf @ Wed Mar 17 said:


> Ed @ Tue Mar 16 said:
> 
> 
> > choc0thrax @ Sun Feb 28 said:
> ...




........

Isn't saying "time doesn't exist" pretty much the same as saying "height doesn't exist?"


----------



## Lex (Mar 17, 2010)

Folmann @ Wed Mar 17 said:


> Linguistic intelligence involves sensitivity to spoken and written language, the ability to learn languages, and the capacity to use language to accomplish certain goals. This intelligence includes the ability to effectively use language to express oneself rhetorically or poetically; and language as a means to remember information.
> 
> Logical-mathematical intelligence consists of the capacity to analyze problems logically, carry out mathematical operations, and investigate issues scientifically.
> 
> ...



..nice one..

You left out important one though...

Emotional intelligence - ability to identify, understand and manage the emotions of yourself, others and groups.


aLex


----------



## Ed (Mar 17, 2010)

mf @ Tue Mar 16 said:


> You have no reason to believe in a deity, but do you have any reason to believe in a time? IS there a time? Where? Show it to me. See? You can't. There's no such thing as time, and no reason to believe in something that doesn't exist, is there? What? Your clock on the wall, perhaps? Well, then switch it with a picture of Shiva, so that DEITY will exist instead, and no more TIME. Or, maybe, time and deity can both exist, who knows? Why should two nonexisting things be mutually exclusive? Is there a reason for that?



eh? 





> It is reasonable to believe that time is a product of human imagination (yes, like deity) - so if you believe that time exists, it can only exist there, inside imagination.



Human perception of time is subjective, time itself is objective. Its based on actual physical occurrences. IE. The rotation and orbit of the earth.



> So, big question now: how come external objects can move? Without time, there could be no change and objects won't move, would just stay still like arses in the sun.



Without physical objects in space there would be no way to *measure *time.

I'm sure some astrophysicist might pipe up and tell me that the expansion of space time can only happen with physical objects or at least dark matter so time can't exist without it, I'm no physicist, but from a human perspective my point still stands.



> It's pretty simple: there's no deity and no time. Never seen one. Seeing is believing - so, no reason to believe in them. I'm an atheist and an atimist.



Since time is based on something objective and what I did today can be differentiated to what I did yesterday or what I am doing now can be differentiated to what I did 5 minutes ago, then this is a lousy comparison.

When Christians usually ask if someone believes in a god, they usually mean their own conception of the Judeo-Christian god. But first you need to start with the principle that there is a god in the first place. This requires a basic definition of what this deity is meant to be, so what's your definition of a god that is reasonable to believe in? Now what reason do we have to think there is such a deity? There's no need to move onto any specific religion if that can't even be demonstrated.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 17, 2010)

And even within those categories - and others - there are many facets to intelligence, and hopefully we have something from more than one of those categories!

But it's been proven that people who agree with me are highly intelligent.


----------



## mf (Mar 17, 2010)

Alex W @ Wed Mar 17 said:


> Isn't saying "time doesn't exist" pretty much the same as saying "height doesn't exist?"


No, not the same - dimensions can be perceived through our sense. I can observe the three dimensions of an object by seeing/touching it. I cannot see/touch time though. Actually, I can't observe it in any way. Is there reasonable to believe in the existence of something that cannot be observed?

Here's the fairy tale: Not too long ago, some people have invented a god, called him Chronos, assigned to him the responsibility for the change and movement that their senses seemed to observe, and from that day on we all take that god for granted. Now we call that god: Time. It doesn't exist in nature, it's just a product of our imagination. But we WANT to believe it exists, otherwise we'll look pretty dumb, for we won't be able to "explain" what we perceive as change and movement. Thing is, we don't explain shit - we're just talking nonsense about our ways of perceiving "stuff" through our senses. Is there a reason to believe that our senses are not delusional? What would that reason be? Could it be: our sense of self-respect will dramatically shrink? Probably yes. And rightfully so.

Here's another good question: is there a reason to believe that nothing exist? I can see no "nothing" out there. So, seems like "nothing" is TOO a product of our imagination. It is just as reasonable to believe in a deity as it is reasonable to believe in the existence of nothing, of infinity, eternity, time, etc. In order to attempt to make sense out of things and occurrences, we first have to believe in the existence of things that don't really exist - like deity and time.


----------



## Lex (Mar 17, 2010)

mf @ Wed Mar 17 said:


> Alex W @ Wed Mar 17 said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't saying "time doesn't exist" pretty much the same as saying "height doesn't exist?"
> ...



Seriously...you cant think of a single thing that puts you in position where you can observe the passing of time?

aLex


----------



## mf (Mar 17, 2010)

The passing of what? 

See? You just take the god Time for granted. You want to believe it exists, otherwise change and movement won't make any sense to you. But time, in itself, objectively, doesn't exist. If it doesn't exist, how can it pass? And how can you observe it? Maybe what you observe passing is something else, not time. Time is a belief. A belief can't move, like dogs.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Mar 17, 2010)

I'm a firm believer that the number of posts on a forum is a much better indicator of intelligence than any IQ test.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Mar 17, 2010)

mf,

god Time? Good Time? Good Tom? Where can I buy the best tom library?


----------



## mf (Mar 17, 2010)

No such thing as best tom library. Actually, "best" is something that doesn't exist, does it?


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 17, 2010)

I think mf is right in the sense that 'time itself' is an abstraction. It is a concept, not something that really exists 'per se' (on itself).

While thinking about these philosophical questions we get better along if we distinguish between abstractions and realities ... often we tend to take the one for the other.

However what really exist are durations. Every duration we experience can be brought into scale with other durations, like seconds, days, years etc.. How we perceive them is roughly scaled with our life span. For us half a year may be short in a way, for a butterfly it is already longer than its life span.

Durations bring rhythm to us and all the cycles that are a big part of our life. For us, individually, they are very real. 'Time', although it may be very similar, is essentially a theoretical construct.


----------



## Lex (Mar 17, 2010)

mf....Sorry, but it seems you simply don't know or understand what time is.

Time is MEASURING SYSTEM...used to measure and compare duration of EVENTS, and intervals between them...to sequence events...also part of systems used to quantify motions of objects, how ever small or big they are...

As such its not something you can touch, smell, lick or put your finger in to.
Same way you cant touch measuring systems for length, weight, pressure, etc...

View of time as dimension is more complicated and debatable, but as a measuring system its there, and very obvious...

aLex


----------



## Ed (Mar 17, 2010)

But mf, as I said time has an objective basis. 

I asked you how you can define a god reasonable enough to believe in? In what sense do we have any objective basis to believe in one? Why do you think religion relies on faith?

My grandmother also used to use a silly example to compare god to, the wind. No kidding.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Mar 17, 2010)

So true. This entire universe is only a dream I'm having.


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 17, 2010)

aLex, you are answering to me?

I have a diploma in physics and think I know what you mean by a measuring system. But I am not sure you got what I meant.


----------



## Lex (Mar 17, 2010)

Hannes_F @ Wed Mar 17 said:


> aLex, you are answering to me?
> 
> I have a diploma in physics and think I know what you mean by a measuring system. But I am not sure you got what I meant.




No Hannes...to mf...who is saying that if he cant touch it it doesn't exist.

aLex


----------



## Lex (Mar 17, 2010)

Ed @ Wed Mar 17 said:


> My grandmother also used to use a silly example to compare god to, the wind. No kidding.



So every time you broke wind you felt like messenger of God? 0oD 

aLex


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 17, 2010)

Lex @ Wed Mar 17 said:


> No Hannes...to mf...who is saying that if he cant touch it it doesn't exist.



aLex, I see. I am with you in that respect, there are lots of things we can not touch but they exist anyways, like radio waves. They have always been part of nature, even before they were discovered ... so it would be very narrow (actually wrong) to assume our senses tell us all. 

If there is one thing we know for sure then that we do not know all. This is the best validated fact of human knowledge.


----------



## Ed (Mar 17, 2010)

Lex @ Wed Mar 17 said:


> Hannes_F @ Wed Mar 17 said:
> 
> 
> > aLex, you are answering to me?
> ...



Actually I think he might be saying the opposite? Since he thinks its reasonable to believe in a god in the same way as we believe in time.


----------



## Ed (Mar 17, 2010)

Lex @ Wed Mar 17 said:


> Ed @ Wed Mar 17 said:
> 
> 
> > My grandmother also used to use a silly example to compare god to, the wind. No kidding.
> ...



I always feel like a messenger of god. 0oD


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 17, 2010)

Ed @ Wed Mar 17 said:


> Actually I think he might be saying the opposite? Since he thinks its reasonable to believe in a god in the same way as we believe in time.



Then this would be an abstractum, a concept.


----------



## Lex (Mar 17, 2010)

Ed @ Wed Mar 17 said:


> Lex @ Wed Mar 17 said:
> 
> 
> > Hannes_F @ Wed Mar 17 said:
> ...



I see....so in that case, considering we can clearly define time as a measure, God is a measure of......faith? religiousness?

Like.."I am 56.7Gds (Gods) religious" ?

aLex


----------



## mf (Mar 17, 2010)

Lex @ Wed Mar 17 said:


> mf....Sorry, but it seems you simply don't know or understand what time is.


I understand time in the same way Hannes does: as an intellectual construct. I also understand WHY such a construct is needed: to try to make sense out of things. But I don't understand time as most people take for granted: as something having objective existence, outside the human mind.



Lex @ Wed Mar 17 said:


> Time is MEASURING SYSTEM


Then, when you say "the passage of time" - you mean a measuring system is passing from here to there?
When you say "I don't have time" - you mean you don't have a measuring system?
When you say "this is time consuming" - you mean something is consuming the measuring system?

Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana. - Groucho Marx


----------



## Lex (Mar 17, 2010)

mf @ Wed Mar 17 said:


> Lex @ Wed Mar 17 said:
> 
> 
> > mf....Sorry, but it seems you simply don't know or understand what time is.
> ...



Well I hope Hannes will talk more about this and correct me if I'm wrong, but time can only be seen as a measuring system, or as forth dimension (spacetime, 3 measures of space one measure of time...) ?

And mf, thats exactly what I mean...a measuring system...your examples are perfect...

If you are 2m tall, you cant pass trough a 1.5m door without crouching...

If you are 100kg you cant sit on a chair that can hold 40kg

If you have ACTIONS that put together take 29 hours to do, you can't do them during one day.....cause you don't have enough time...

aLex


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 17, 2010)

Actually Einstein also viewed time as an illusion in one sense. And when you get down to the subatomic level it totally breaks down.

However I don't think your analogy is all that great, mf. Well, first of all the concept of God means different things to different people - it's not a very precise word. But even though you can use words to say that our experience of time is the same as peoples' experience of God, I see huge differences. Just because you can't touch either one doesn't mean they're both slam dunks.

For openers, there's no alternative to time - it's the stuff life's made of, as Benjamin Franklin said in a different context.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 17, 2010)

I agree with Ned.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 17, 2010)

I agree with Ned.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 17, 2010)

I agree with Ned.


----------



## Ed (Mar 17, 2010)

All this talk of time is silly, this is the only point that matters:




Ed @ Wed Mar 17 said:


> But mf, as I said time has an objective basis.
> 
> I asked you how you can define a god reasonable enough to believe in? In what sense do we have any objective basis to believe in one? Why do you think religion relies on faith?


----------



## Alex W (Mar 17, 2010)

mf @ Thu Mar 18 said:


> Alex W @ Wed Mar 17 said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't saying "time doesn't exist" pretty much the same as saying "height doesn't exist?"
> ...




Wow, you really don't get it. I tried to make it obvious that I was posing a rhetorical question.

Can you see and touch height? Of course not. It's a concept the same as time.


----------



## mf (Mar 17, 2010)

Height is an abstraction only if we take it abstractly, as a term. But we can talk about height as a distance between two physical points situated on a spatial axis. For example, I can stand in front of a rock and actually observe its height (bigger than this, smaller than that, etc.) With time, we have no physical points. It's pure abstraction.



Ed @ Wed Mar 17 said:


> But mf, as I said time has an objective basis.
> I asked you how you can define a god reasonable enough to believe in? In what sense do we have any objective basis to believe in one? Why do you think religion relies on faith?


What is the objective basis for time? The only "objective" basis for time that I can see is: our desire to explain the movements and changes we see. Nothing more.

Time is basically a possibility, an abstraction, and a premise for trying to explain why things change and move rather than remaining unchanged and immobile.
In the same way, deity is basically a possibility, an abstraction, and a premise for trying to explain why there is something rather than nothing.

It is as reasonable to say that changes and movements (which do objectively exist) are made possible by time (which does not objectively exist),
as it is reasonable to say that the existence of something, rather than nothing, is being made possible by a deity (which does not objectively exist).

Personally, I don't see any reason for planets being spherical rather than cubes or pyramids. Or for having ONLY one shape. How come they don't come in a wide variety of shapes? How come there are natural laws out there, rather than no laws? How come there is intelligence rather than no intelligence? How come there is life rather than no life? How come anything at all exists, rather than nothing at all? How come we want to figure out things rather than unquestioningly taking them for granted? How come we believe there must be a reason in everything there is? There must be a reason for all these, no? 

Enter deity, as a useful concept that, in the absence of a better one, should be accepted as valid - in the same way that time is a useful concept that, in the absence of a better one, should be accepted as valid for explaining movements and changes. That is, if you accept that something nonexistent can explain something existent. If you don't accept that, we can easily throw away time, deity, height, ideas, etc. and live happily like insects.


----------



## José Herring (Mar 17, 2010)

One has to view time in terms of motion. Time is dependent upon at least two objects. A motion of an object relative to another gives the perception of time. Time is a perception. It exist but it is dependent upon the perception of the observer. 

Space is a dimension. Physics usually defines time in terms of space. It can be viewed that way but leads to errors in thinking. If space is viewed as a viewpoint of dimension. Then it could be said that the dimensions of height, depth and width exist so that one can have objects. So space becomes a place that you can put things(objects) in. But you don't have to. So you can have space without time if that space houses no objects. Theoretically. 

Subatomically all objects are in motion. That motion produces existence (time). If space collapses in an object so tightly that it has no motion it becomes timeless. It exist for all times. (This is true of a black hole and has a parallel in the mental activities of mankind. It's the thought that is so persistent that you can't forget it. The death of someone you really love is such a shock and crashes in on the mind so hard that it strips it of all time. Thus you have people that can be sobbing in tears over the death of a loved one or loved pet decades after the event. This little known and understood factor of time is responsible for most of the long term sorrow (depression) in life. We've all heard the expression of people feeling pretty down that they feel like they've fallen into the abyss. Perhaps they have. Mentally.)

God is the idea of the infinite. To understand the idea one has to grasp the idea of something that has no time, no location in space and no motion. You immediately see that he can't exist. At least not in this universe. But I always try to remember. Remember what it was like when I was a kid and I could imagine and see all sorts of wonderful things that were not part of this universe. And, I never want to be so dim as to think that the universe we see, that of objects, time and motion, I never ever want to be so short sighted as to think that that is all there is. Because in the end, deep down I know that this universe isn't all that important. So for me God will always exist. He's in my thoughts. My thoughts may not be important to others. But they're important to me. And, I never seek approval from the masses as to what's appropriate for me to think about.

Which leads me to a verse in the Tao Te Ching:
_
Emptiness

We put thirty spokes together and call it a wheel;
But it is on the space where there is nothing that the usefulness of the wheel depends.
We turn clay to make a vessel;
But it is on the space where there is nothing that the usefulness of the vessel depends.
We pierce doors and windows to make a house;
And it is on these spaces where there is nothing that the usefulness of the house depends.
Therefore just as we take advantage of what is, we should recognize the usefulness of what is not.
_
Lao Tsi

So if you're looking for hard physical science of proof of God then forget about it. Sure he doesn't exist in a test tube or particle accelerator or what have you. But why would you want to look there? And, when did we as a species become so convinced of the absoluteness of these things? The scientific method has produced many wonderful discoveries about the physical universe. But, doesn't it say something that this method of "thinking" is only 5 lines long. Maybe just maybe there isn't much to discover in this universe. Maybe this universe isn't all there is. Maybe this universe is relatively simplistic compared to what else may lay beyond it. If anything does lay beyond it. Maybe what lays beyond is such a world of personal creative imagination that it could produce whole new works of art out of the imagination and organize the material in the physical universe to express those thoughts to others? Maybe that's what God is? Maybe that's what God does? Perhaps we all have that same ability? Perhaps we're all Gods? 

Worth thinking about anyway. :D 

Imagine about a great piece of music and produce it. 

José TZU


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 17, 2010)

As I posted above, mf, I disagree with your point. It would be unreasonable not to believe in time, in fact you're not going to escape it whether or not you believe in it.

However there are many reasonable ways to view the universe. It's not true that there is no better concept than God, because "better" is subjective.


----------



## mf (Mar 17, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Mar 17 said:


> It would be unreasonable not to believe in time, in fact you're not going to escape it whether or not you believe in it.


What I'm not going to escape is death, not time. Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.


----------

