Do you think less of theists intelligence?

Well duh . The thing is, i am playing said "sick game" to. Which is why i was so disappointed when you sided with Jumbuli initially, did you ever consider him as being serious!?

In fact, you told Jumbuli not to waste his time on me because he had already won in the eyes of intelligent people! I am surprised a troll worked you so well, i figured at first you were trolling together.

 

Sorry, man. That message was for Jumbuli, not you. If I put it in a reply to you, I apologize. No, I never considered him being serious. If you go back and read the earlier posts, that will be clear. But I've had enough of all this interpersonal crap. I think Hip Forums is a waste of my time.

 

Does anyone know the answer to this question:

Peace,
IANABIAP (I am NOT a believer in any prophet.)

 

Well, the thing is I didn't play "sick games" to begin with.

Was I taking debate on evolution cheerfully? Of course I did. And what serious, reasonable person, understanding futility of such argument, wouldn't do the same?

I clarified my views on the parallel thread (which Okiefreak allegedly opened for me to share my views , but which he later used to stalk me, call me names and tell lies to others about my intentions in arguing this topic).

It is indeed a silly thing to troll around, follow me from thread to thread and call me names merely because I suggested that Darwin's Religious Theory of Evolution may not be Scientifically Valid one after all.

It shows how insecure the proponents of theory are and that engaging in ad hominem attacks is the only recourse they have when challenged to rationally explain roots of their belief.

:cheers2:

 

What does genius sound like?

 

Yeah I was going to say I don't think less of theists because I know they are intelligent and I know that belief in God and religion is a genetically bred in trait that EVOLVED over millions of religiously selective murderous years. I also know that people have no control over their genetic traits so a genetic belief in God trumps intellect and common sense.

I was going to say all that and then I had to read a few posts in "Evolution is not a valid Scientific theory". So yeah I have to say I do think less theists to some extent but I am also fully aware that my mindset is the recessive one.

 

How could anyone possibly consider themselves to be an atheist and pass a judgement on theists while they have such a zealous Faith in Darwin's Religious Theory of Evolution without a shred of evidence and plausible argument to support it?

 

Because we wear many hats. One belongs to Mr. atheist, while quite another belongs to Mr. Judge. Their voices vie for ascendancy but they do not recognize each other.

 

Hi,

I hear about this sometimes: "intellect and common sense" (or something similar to that) but I never really understand what people mean when they say something like "intellect and common sense proves that there is no God." If that's what you're saying here, could you be so kind as to give a detailed explanation of what you mean...

I am NOT a believer in any prophet. (IANABIAP)

 

I hope that you don't think all people attacking evolution on that thread are theist or that all the people defending evolution are not. I'm the OP, but I've been arguing in favor of evolution; and as you know, I'm a Christian. The opponents of the theory on the thread consist of a teenage fundamentalist Christian who is trying her best and a fellow having fun. He seems to have contempt for theists and non-theists, alike. Some of his arguments against Darwin might seem stupid because they're meant to be so. Go figure!

 

Well it was confusing for both of us i think, because you qouted Jumbuli55 but used my name, oh well.

 

In spite of all the back and forth about "proof", logic, science and evidence, or beliefs are ultimately based on inference. The theory of evolution, for example, is based on inference from circumstantial evidence (Before anybody jumps me for dissing Darwin, I've been defending him for some time on two different sites as providing the most plausible explanation of speciation available to us). Inference is never a matter of pure logic, and evidence is usually subject to dispute and challenges that are not, strictly speaking, false. Take Santa, for example. At some point, we all decided that Santa wasn't real. What made us do that? Probably not proof, but our growing awareness of the implausibility of the myth as we gained more experience with the way the world works and began to reflect on things. We can't "prove" anything to a certainty. Even science and the criminal courts operated on the basis of evidence that convinces decision makers "beyond a reasonable doubt", but what is "reasonable doubt" is always a matter of judgment, and there will usually be holdouts who aren't convinced.

I must admit as a Christian that I sometimes have the same feelings as the OP when I hear people defending literal interpretations of the Bible. For example, Genesis strikes me as a myth with a message rather than a factual account of how it all happened. Why do I say this? It has less to do with "proof" than with judgment, based on evidence, experience and intuition, including familiarity with similar creation myths from other cultures and exposure to modern geology and evolutionary biology. But I've discovered there are plenty of reasonably intelligent folks who disagree. For example, in the Christian Sanctuary, I questioned the idea that the talking snake was real, only to be told that yes, indeed, a snake could talk, especially if he were Satan, because Satan has supernatural powers. Intuitively, that response seems to me to be similar to a child's defense of Santa, but I could be wrong. I can't disprove talking snakes, Satan or Santa, but I don't think my decision not to believe in them literally is arbitrary.

But I must say I've encountered arguments from atheists that strike me as similar to the talking snake. Recently, on another thread, I was challenging the contention by Stephen Jay Gould and others that intelligent life was simply a chance development that could have produced something else if the coin landed differently at several stages of the evolutionary process. In response, I was told that I had "made a typically homocentric fatal assumption" in failing to recognize that the fitness of the universe to support life assumes that only life as I know it can exist; and that
"the Universe appears to be geared toward creating complexity as it falls toward Chaos"; that there "is no reason to assume that orientation would change if probalistic events had turned out another way; and that "with respect to 'randomness', the Universe is probalistic in nature, (see Hiensberg), a fact easily demonstrated, so it IS random, but within certain parameters". That may sound very impressive at first glance, and may be too advanced for me to get my unintelligent Christian Okie mind around, but stripped of the pseudoscientific jargon, it seems to suggest that intelligent life may just be an epiphenomenon of the universe winding down. I find that as hard to believe as the idea that Santa goes down the chimney with presents to every child around the world on Christmas eve.

 

I second that.

 

I have the IQ of a genius and I'm not atheist.

Also, it's not a very intelligent assumption (which is an oxymoron in itself) that all people who aren't atheist follow the bible. And it definitely isn't intelligent to think all people who aren't atheist just want an afterlife to believe in.

 

Intelligent people can believe in a god but I do think less of a person's intelligence when they try to claim that god loves us.

 

It depends on what they mean. William James viewed God as a working hypothesis based on a sense that there's "something more", as opposed to the reductionists who believe there's "nothing but."I view "God" on three different of levels: first, as SBOT (Something Big OutThere)--an intriguing hypothesis to account for the complex orderliness of the universe and the phenomena of intelligent life and consciousness, anthromorphized as the "Creator" of religious lore; second, as a felt presence, the Spirit, which admittedly could be a product of psychological influences; and third, as a codeword for ultimate meaning or, as Tillich puts it,"the Ground of Being" (Dewey prefers "the summation of human idealism")--incarnated in the teachings and example of Jesus, the Logos. For conventional reasons, I tend to lump them all together, but I have no real proof that they are one and the same. Of course, in the latter sense, God is Love, so metaphorically (S)he loves us. Some people may take cold comfort in metaphorical love by an abstraction, but if we understand that it's really people (reflecting the Love of God as an ideal) who are doing the loving, it works. Materialists tend to dismiss ideals and metaphors, but ideals are what we live and die for, and metaphors point to fundamental realities behind surface appearances. And it's just possible that SBOT loves us too! You could also consider me to be an optimistic agnostic. Yes, Virginia. There really is a Santa Claus!

But let me quote for you the sentiments of a physicist and cosmologist, Paul Davies, winner of the Faraday Prize and the Templeton Prize: " I am convinced that human understanding of nature through sicnec, rational reasoning and mathematics points to a much deeper connection between life, mind and cosmos than emerges form the crude lottery of multiverse cosmology combined with the weak anthropic principle. In some manner 'life, mind and physicl laws are part of a common scheme, mutually supporting. Somehow the universe has engineered its own self-awareness." That's good enough for me in giving credence to a hypothesis of higher intelligence that could legitimately be called God.

 

We are all dumb.
All you need to prove that is watch the evening news...

So, if god made us like him, I conclude that god is dumb...
(and a little ugly on the side.)

'cause we are dumb all over and a little ugly on the side...
Frank Zappa (paraphrased)


ZW

 

But we're also smart--smart enough to develop logic, mathematics, Quantum Theory, string theory, the theories of Relativity, morality, ethics, philosophy, the music of Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, etc. So if God made us like him, we're at least a little smart, and beautiful on the side. If we were exactly like God, we would be God. Instead, we have a potential for perfection which is never fully realized but that we can aspire to. We all reflect some aspect of that perfection, which is God.

 

I don't think less of theists intelligence. I do think idiotic the notion that a real god would not be observable in a real world. God as I observe has a functional nature. God is our highest aspiration in each and every moment and every person finds themselves endlessly devoted. There is no one on this planet who can usurp the will of god. No one gos against themselves save they fall asleep or are otherwise caught dreaming. We feel ourselves sometimes far removed from our source and wonder if there is a god and then we are told there is a god but you got to clean yourself up before god will see you, but you are not allowed to see till you're dead regardless. We were taught to believe in god rather than find god. We are taught to believe in Santa Klaus instead of being instructed in the spirit and art of giving. It all ends up as an occult practice of sacrifice. Indoctrination of culture, indoctrination into the cult, occultism.