High IQ And World View

[Matt Collins]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence/index.html

[Nate-ForLiberty]

this reminds me of Idiocracy. is Mike Judge a prophet?

[Theocrat]

"Atheism" and liberalism makes one have a higher IQ? Wow. Now I've heard it all. Oh, wait a minute. We live in a time where people like AL Gore and Barack Obama can be awarded Nobel Peace Prizes, and all the while be wrong about their policies and beliefs. Yeah, IQ doesn't mean anything.

[A. Havnes]

So how the heck does that explain religious conservatives like Ron Paul? Sorry, but I see this as less fact reporting and more of promoting a mindset, namely, you have to be sexually exclusive (if you're a man), an atheist and a liberal, otherwise people will think you're stupid.

[TinCanToNA]

Oh, so that's what Bill Maher means when we're all idiots for not understanding "Health Care Reform" then? :rolleyes:

While Dr. Paul is not an intellectual powerhouse by himself and is neither liberal nor atheist, he is two things that so many others are not: honest and correct!

[JAlli41]

"Atheism" and liberalism makes one have a higher IQ? Wow. Now I've heard it all. Oh, wait a minute. We live in a time where people like AL Gore and Barack Obama can be awarded Nobel Peace Prizes, and all the while be wrong about their policies and beliefs. Yeah, IQ doesn't mean anything.

The article doesn't claim that one can become smarter by suddenly becoming an atheist. The point of the article is that people with higher IQ's tend to not be so bogged down with traditional norms and some with higher IQ's even prefer to be different from the bell-curve on these issues. Also, the article differentiates liberalism in the broader sense as Europeans would think of the word (we are all liberals and libertarianism is strong form of liberalism) from the American view of liberalism meaning being pro-choice, anti-gun ect... (I also think the article misuses the word liberalism and cosmopolitan would likely be a better choice for the point they are trying to make). I tend to think there are some problems with this survey being how large the population of religious people in America are vs. the about 10% (if that?) of atheists, and the way IQ is formulated anyway. Plus there are all sorts of different types of intelligence. As an atheist myself I would still have to give credit to a champion bible-scholar, even if I did think he was speaking nonsense.

[TinCanToNA]

The study takes the American view of liberal vs. conservative. It defines "liberal" in terms of concern for genetically nonrelated people and support for private resources that help those people. It does not look at other factors that play into American political beliefs, such as abortion, gun control and gay rights.
Well hell, under that definition, I think virtually everyone on the planet is a liberal... The only people who don't have concern for genetically nonrelated people and do not support private resources that help those people are assholes and tyrants.

[Fox McCloud]

While Dr. Paul is not an intellectual powerhouse by himself

Don't confuse a lack of majestic oratory skills as being non-intellectual; Jefferson was a terrible speaker, and yet I don't think many here would even begin to suggest that he was not an intellectual.

Another thing with Ron is that he's incredibly humble, and "intellectual powerhouses" who are humble generally aren't widely known for being incredibly intelligent since they aren't flaunting it.

[TinCanToNA]

Don't confuse a lack of majestic oratory skills as being non-intellectual; Jefferson was a terrible speaker, and yet I don't think many here would even begin to suggest that he was not an intellectual.

Another thing with Ron is that he's incredibly humble, and "intellectual powerhouses" who are humble generally aren't widely known for being incredibly intelligent since they aren't flaunting it.

I agree generally. I certainly didn't mean any offense.

[JAlli41]

Well hell, under that definition, I think virtually everyone on the planet is a liberal... The only people who don't have concern for genetically nonrelated people and do not support private resources that help those people are assholes and tyrants.

Many people do not support liberal policies for many reasons. The vast majority of established governments in history have been illiberal and mostly well supported because what they exchange in freedom they receive in stability. The US is actually an anomoly in human history for being for stable and so free for such a long time. Also, it should be noted that a lot of people are utilitarians in liberal clothing. Most of our current political leaders are hardcore utilitarians. "just give a few freedoms for the common good." "taxes go to the common good." These aren't exactly overtly liberal views.

[Vessol]

Well hell, under that definition, I think virtually everyone on the planet is a liberal... The only people who don't have concern for genetically nonrelated people and do not support private resources that help those people are assholes and tyrants.

This. They mean socially liberal really, not politically.

[dgr]

You keep forgeting that only the "enlightened" are intelligent enough to understand

[TheEvilDetector]

"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."

:)

[TinCanToNA]

Many people do not support liberal policies for many reasons. The vast majority of established governments in history have been illiberal and mostly well supported because what they exchange in freedom they receive in stability. The US is actually an anomoly in human history for being for stable and so free for such a long time. Also, it should be noted that a lot of people are utilitarians in liberal clothing. Most of our current political leaders are hardcore utilitarians. "just give a few freedoms for the common good." "taxes go to the common good." These aren't exactly overtly liberal views.I was referring exclusively to the overly-broad definition used by the website. When you say, "liberal policies" that is in contrast to the definition used by the website, which explicitly said that support for private resources to help nonrelations was considered a liberal mindset.

Again, it's just a ridiculous definition they are using.

[CountryboyRonPaul]

The study takes the American view of liberal vs. conservative. It defines "liberal" in terms of concern for genetically nonrelated people and support for private resources that help those people.

What's more puzzling is that if the "study" assumed this is the definition for liberal, then their conservative group was likely sought out for the opposite quality.

[Theocrat]

The article doesn't claim that one can become smarter by suddenly becoming an atheist. The point of the article is that people with higher IQ's tend to not be so bogged down with traditional norms and some with higher IQ's even prefer to be different from the bell-curve on these issues. Also, the article differentiates liberalism in the broader sense as Europeans would think of the word (we are all liberals and libertarianism is strong form of liberalism) from the American view of liberalism meaning being pro-choice, anti-gun ect... (I also think the article misuses the word liberalism and cosmopolitan would likely be a better choice for the point they are trying to make). I tend to think there are some problems with this survey being how large the population of religious people in America are vs. the about 10% (if that?) of atheists, and the way IQ is formulated anyway. Plus there are all sorts of different types of intelligence. As an atheist myself I would still have to give credit to a champion bible-scholar, even if I did think he was speaking nonsense.

I have to go with A. Havnes' earlier post (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/search.php?searchid=4681049) by saying the article seems to be implying that "atheists," liberals, and sexually exclusive males are more intelligent than most, if IQ is the standard. The article even states,

The reasoning is that sexual exclusivity in men, liberalism and atheism all go against what would be expected given humans' evolutionary past. In other words, none of these traits would have benefited our early human ancestors, but higher intelligence may be associated with them. [Emphasis mine]
The article goes on to say,

Religion, the current theory goes, did not help people survive or reproduce necessarily, but goes along the lines of helping people to be paranoid, Kanazawa said. Assuming that, for example, a noise in the distance is a signal of a threat helped early humans to prepare in case of danger...

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. Atheism "allows someone to move forward and speculate on life without any concern for the dogmatic structure of a religion," Bailey said. [Emphasis mine]
I know the article is not saying that one has to be an "atheist," liberal, or sexually exclusive male to be intelligent. However, its analysis from the "experts" who did the study certainly suggests that those particular mindsets/behaviors somehow show a strong connection to being the most intelligent people in a society, on an evolutionary scale. To me, that's hogwash.

[V4Vendetta]

I saw that today on Digg. I was not at all surprised to see that. Thats the same trick all governments and higher social classes like to use throughout history.

"See we know whats right and better for everyone, because you believe in God, and are a Conservative-Libertarian, that goes to show that your IQ is lower hence you can't possibly be right."

"It's ok, we're not telling you that you can't worship your God, we're just telling you not to do it in public, oh and that goes for the Bible too, we don't want our young with their impressionable minds seeing that."

[FunkBuddha]

Scary. Does this remind anyone else of Nazi propaganda?

[Epic]

correlation != causation

plus, libertarian vs. authoritarian is the real axis

[MelissaWV]

I have a fairly high IQ... so I skipped the article entirely.

[bunklocoempire]

I bet wisdom over "smarts" any day of the week.



Bunkloco

[AggieforPaul]

Ron Paul is definitely an intellectual powerhouse in my book. He chose the most difficult grad school category there is, and then attended an elite school in that field. I'll take a Duke medical degree over a Harvard political science degree or a Yale Law degree any day. And not only did he ascend to the top of his profession, he spent his spare time mastering economic theory and studying legal and governing theory to prepare himself for a Congressional run.

He's proven that basically any topic he sets his mind to, he's going to be among the top performers in that field.

[nate895]

When I took a do-it-yourself MENSA IQ test, I scored better than 98.7% of the population (it only gave you a percentile score), and I'm extremely religious.

My guess as to the reason why these stats are the case has more to do with the popularity of atheism/agnosticism. Those theological positions are outside of the mainstream of thought in today's society, and generally people who hold to minority positions like that have higher IQs because they are more curious than the average Joe. The default positions in today's society as far as religion goes is to be moderately religious. Most of the people who are moderately religious are there simply because that is the way to be. I guess if they actually did this study in a society where atheism is the default position, and religious conservatism is an extreme minority, the situation could easily be reversed.

[sofia]

Higher IQ people generally go to college....and Marxist college professors brainwash their impressionable students...


that's all this "study" means....


correlation is not causation

[sevin]

I know the article is not saying that one has to be an "atheist," liberal, or sexually exclusive male to be intelligent. However, its analysis from the "experts" who did the study certainly suggests that those particular mindsets/behaviors somehow show a strong connection to being the most intelligent people in a society, on an evolutionary scale. To me, that's hogwash.

You think they faked the results of the study?


I guess if they actually did this study in a society where atheism is the default position, and religious conservatism is an extreme minority, the situation could easily be reversed.

Good point!

[Vessol]

You think they faked the results of the study?

Nah, they just used bad terms.

nate895 made a wonderful explaination.

[nate895]

nate895 made a wonderful explaination.

Grazie

[PlzPeopleWakeUp]

I love Big Brother.

[silus]

If you're bound to a particular approach you are going to be limited in your success. If you believe you can vary your approach infinitely as problems arise through intellect and reason you will only see whats in front of you.

This is liberalism and conservatism. And as always, the ideal approach is shaping ones principles in light of applicability and sustainability, allowing that to guide the more flexible decision making and reasoning.

Highly religious folks and idealists both suck at this. But I would have to say that you have less factors limiting your potential if you did not have any strong religious belief.

[New2Libertarianism]

MSM trying to make everyone hate G-d again.

[Liberty Stud]

Religion correlates to lower IQ. That's a fact.

Atheism correlates to higher IQ. Liberals tend to be less religious. Therefore, it's no real surprise that there might be some bump in IQ numbers for "liberals." Also, as others have pointed out, those who are brighter tend to go to college, and are then subject to all the Marxist professors that plague our higher education systems.

But I would bet my last dollar that "atheist libertarians" would have significantly higher IQs, on average, than "liberals."

Are there any studies of this type that include libertarians?

[FrankRep]

The IQ differences, while statistically significant, are not stunning -- on the order of 6 to 11 points -- and the data should not be used to stereotype or make assumptions about people, experts say.

This is a non-story. Over hyped, Sensationalism.

[PlzPeopleWakeUp]

I love Big Brother.

[Todd]

"Atheism" and liberalism makes one have a higher IQ? Wow. Now I've heard it all. Oh, wait a minute. We live in a time where people like AL Gore and Barack Obama can be awarded Nobel Peace Prizes, and all the while be wrong about their policies and beliefs. Yeah, IQ doesn't mean anything.

No kidding.....
Seems most IQ tests are geared as a measurement of the potential to learn and knowledge you already have.
It doesn't mean a damn thing if you don't have the capacity to APPLY any of it to the ability to critically think.

[LibForestPaul]

So what was the purpose behind that "report"?
Educate the masses?

More likely create false divides between people. Oh, you are religious, let me speak slower. I better not go to temple, might catch stupid.

What do you believe the reason for this article?

[nate895]

Religion correlates to lower IQ. That's a fact.

What do you say to my explanation of that phenomena in an earlier post?

[newbitech]

Correlation does not imply causation.



"It helps life to be paranoid, and because humans are paranoid, they become more religious, and they see the hands of God everywhere," Kanazawa said.


Here is where I think the 'researchers' went completely off the rails.

So lets flesh this out.

Act smart ->Do drugs -> Find God -> Vote for a NeoCon -> Enlist in the Military -> Become a Democrat -> Go Broke -> Act Smart

Yep, sounds like we have this trend figured out.

[RyanRSheets]

The IQ is a bullshit measure in the first place. Human viability is so much more complex than an arbitrary number. Those things can also be linked to indoctrination.

[newbitech]

I have a fairly high IQ... so I skipped the article entirely.

nice, I was hoping the article had some more Matt Collins pics.

[Liberty Stud]

When I took a do-it-yourself MENSA IQ test, I scored better than 98.7% of the population (it only gave you a percentile score), and I'm extremely religious.

My guess as to the reason why these stats are the case has more to do with the popularity of atheism/agnosticism. Those theological positions are outside of the mainstream of thought in today's society, and generally people who hold to minority positions like that have higher IQs because they are more curious than the average Joe. The default positions in today's society as far as religion goes is to be moderately religious. Most of the people who are moderately religious are there simply because that is the way to be. I guess if they actually did this study in a society where atheism is the default position, and religious conservatism is an extreme minority, the situation could easily be reversed.


Not likely. Higher intelligence, with all other factors being equal (culture, etc), correlates with superior critical-thinking ability. Superior critical thinking leads to an examination of the lacking "evidence" for modern religious claims, and therefore, less religious belief.

This is also true of belief in things such as astrology, alien abductions, etc, which have no real evidence behind them. Critical thinkers require evidence for extraordinary claims.

So I think your idea is wrong. The smartest people would not suddenly turn off their critical-thinking faculties and rush to embrace some kind of nonsense belief.

[nate895]

Not likely. Higher intelligence, with all other factors being equal (culture, etc), correlates with superior critical-thinking ability. Superior critical thinking leads to an examination of the lacking "evidence" for modern religious claims, and therefore, less religious belief.

This is also true of belief in things such as astrology, alien abductions, etc, which have no real evidence behind them. Critical thinkers require evidence for extraordinary claims.

So I think your idea is wrong. The smartest people would not suddenly turn off their critical-thinking faculties and rush to embrace some kind of nonsense belief.

Ahhh....but you assume too much and aren't thinking about the fact that many people's critical-thinking capabilities lead them not too be less religious, but more religious. My point in the post was that minority positions tend to be held by those who are intellectually curious, and intellectual curiosity is really the only way to try to objectively determine how "smart" someone is without assuming that the position you hold is right, which is what you do in your post. I am certainly not lacking in "critical-thinking" abilities, and I have come to the conclusion that the first axiom must be Holy Scripture, and if you don't start there, then your thinking is flawed at best, or wholly false at worst.

[libertythor]

You are right about it not meaning anything about somebody being truthful or right about something, but it does have a strong correlation with economic success, staying out of prison, and health.


"Atheism" and liberalism makes one have a higher IQ? Wow. Now I've heard it all. Oh, wait a minute. We live in a time where people like AL Gore and Barack Obama can be awarded Nobel Peace Prizes, and all the while be wrong about their policies and beliefs. Yeah, IQ doesn't mean anything.

[ChaosControl]

All this tells me is that people are still stupid no matter what belief or lack of belief they have.

[ChaosControl]

So I think your idea is wrong. The smartest people would not suddenly turn off their critical-thinking faculties and rush to embrace some kind of nonsense belief.

Global Warming?

[AuH20]

You would think that a so-called 'abundance' of intelligence would lead an individual to being less sure of their surroundings, as opposed to committing oneself to such a narrow-ended philosophy as atheism. I'm an agnostic and I have as much distaste for atheists as I do for fundamental Christians. We're very much in the dark about the history of the universe and we have 2 groups making absolute conclusions, with little if any empirical evidence.

[TheEvilDetector]

You would think that a so-called 'abundance' of intelligence would lead an individual to being less sure of their surroundings, as opposed to committing oneself to such a narrow-ended philosophy as atheism. I'm an agnostic and I have as much distaste for atheists as I do for fundamental Christians. We're very much in the dark about the history of the universe and we have 2 groups making absolute conclusions, with little if any empirical evidence.

Are you open minded to the possibility of a 3 legged unicorn sporting an upside down teapot dangling from its horn orbiting the universe issuing commands to the planets? If not why not?

There is no evidence one way or the other, I would assume you leave the possibility open...

[Liberty Stud]

I am certainly not lacking in "critical-thinking" abilities

No offense intended, but you are definitely lacking critical-thinking skills if you believe in something for which there is no reasonable evidence.

If I believed in unicorns that can lay golden eggs, would you say I have good critical-thinking skills? Hardly.

[AuH20]

Are you open minded to the possibility of a 3 legged unicorn wearing a microscopic teapot orbiting the universe issuing commands to the planets? If not why not?

We're imprisoned in these bodies with limited senses. On top of it, any 'memory' retained by our corporal forms is for a brief instant in relation to the timeline of the universe. We're not in any position to make absolute declarations about anything, for one, since we don't even know how many dimensions there are. Secondly, established norms in physics are in subject to scrutiny, as exhibited by the recent torsion field revelations. So with each 'monumental step' we supposedly take as a species, hundreds of new paths diverge not only in front of us, but in every direction of space. ;)

[TheEvilDetector]

We're imprisoned in these bodies with limited senses. On top of it, any 'memory' retained by our corporal forms is for a brief instant in relation to the timespan of the universe. We're not in any position to making it absolute declarations about anything, for one, since we don't even know how dimensions there are. Secondly, established norms in physics are in subject to scrutiny, as exhibited by the recent torsion field revelations. So with each 'monumental step' we supposedly take as a species, hundreds of new paths diverge not only in front of us, but in every direction of space. ;)

I understand what you're saying.

For practical purposes however, you giving the 3 legged unicorn the benefit of the doubt does not put the possibility of the existence of imaginary friend in the sky in favourable light imo.

Also since we are imprisoned in our bodies with limited senses, what would be the point in speculating on the undetectable as far as science goes (arts, religion etc are another story)?

[AuH20]

I understand what you're saying. For practical purposes however, you giving the 3 legged unicorn the benefit of the doubt does not put the possibility of the existence of God in favourable light imo.

What is God by your definition? I don't believe in a personal god like the Christians espouse, but I'm skeptical that such a mathematically impossible event could randomly align two thousand critical enzymes in a perfect sequence, so that DNA could thrive. We could be the products of a long-dead 'clockmaker' but even that is unprovable.

[TheEvilDetector]

What is God by your definition? I don't believe in a personal god like the Christians espouse, but I'm skeptical that such a mathematically impossible event could randomly align two thousand critical enzymes in a perfect sequence, so that DNA could thrive.

In my mind there is a simple explanation:

The universe is immeasurably large and all possibilities have a chance.

In other words, given enough typewriters and enough monkeys, you can have Shakespeare come out.

Consider this:

We are just a variation and only significant to ourselves because we are self-aware.

In the grand scheme of things (ie. removed from our self-awareness entirely) we are no more significant than rocks, just a different arrangement of matter.

[nate895]

No offense intended, but you are definitely lacking critical-thinking skills if you believe in something for which there is no reasonable evidence.

If I believed in unicorns that can lay golden eggs, would you say I have good critical-thinking skills? Hardly.


First off, your second statement is the fallacy of equivocation. The type of evidence required for unicorns existing is not the same as to the existence of God. One requires someone going out and documenting a siting of a real-life unicorn. The existence of God is the highest metaphysical question. In order to determine the existence of God, you must use philosophical reasoning. Using philosophical reasoning, it can easily be deduced that unless God exists, then nothing is true, which is an absurdity (contradicts itself). God, and His Revelation in Holy Scripture, must be accepted as the first axiom before you even begin to reason anyway. I am accepting God axiomatically, which means before I even begin to "critically think," I accept God and His word as true in all cases. Debate me on it, I dare you.

Also, we believe in a lot of things on which we have zero evidence. For one, since you are taking the time to argue with me, I am going to assume you and I both mutually acknowledge that each other's mind exists and that we aren't debating with a robot. Also, how do you know that this world isn't ruled by the great deceiver and everything you think you know is a lie? You accepted that you could acquire knowledge before you ever sought about attaining it. How do you know knowledge is possible at all? All of these things you take on faith, and yet you get on me for taking Christianity on faith and say I'm not "critically-thinking." Now, I can assert that the existence of God is on par with those things and I am using a valid equivocation because they are all to be figured whether or not they are true in the same matter.

[nate895]

In my mind there is a simple explanation:

The universe is immeasurably large and all possibilities have a chance.

In other words, given enough typewriters and enough monkeys, you can have Shakespeare come out.

The problem is that in order for the monkeys to type up Shakespeare, someone had to come up with the English language first in order for it to not just be gibberish. DNA has all the constructs of a language, and so someone, somewhere, has to have given that language a meaning. Only a personal being is capable of doing that.

[TheEvilDetector]

First off, your second statement is the fallacy of equivocation. The type of evidence required for unicorns existing is not the same as to the existence of God. One requires someone going out and documenting a siting of a real-life unicorn. The existence of God is the highest metaphysical question. In order to determine the existence of God, you must use philosophical reasoning. Using philosophical reasoning, it can easily be deduced that unless God exists, then nothing is true, which is an absurdity (contradicts itself). God, and His Revelation in Holy Scripture, must be accepted as the first axiom before you even begin to reason anyway. I am accepting God axiomatically, which means before I even begin to "critically think," I accept God and His word as true in all cases. Debate me on it, I dare you.

Also, we believe in a lot of things on which we have zero evidence. For one, since you are taking the time to argue with me, I am going to assume you and I both mutually acknowledge that each other's mind exists and that we aren't debating with a robot. Also, how do you know that this world isn't ruled by the great deceiver and everything you think you know is a lie? You accepted that you could acquire knowledge before you ever sought about attaining it. How do you know knowledge is possible at all? All of these things you take on faith, and yet you get on me for taking Christianity on faith and say I'm not "critically-thinking." Now, I can assert that the existence of God is on par with those things and I am using a valid equivocation because they are all to be figured whether or not they are true in the same matter.

Removed

[TheEvilDetector]

The problem is that in order for the monkeys to type up Shakespeare, someone had to come up with the English language first in order for it to not just be gibberish. DNA has all the constructs of a language, and so someone, somewhere, has to have given that language a meaning. Only a personal being is capable of doing that.

Why someone, why personal being? No reason, other than your declaration.

[nate895]

Why someone, why personal being? No reason, other than your declaration.

How can a non-mind create a language?

[tmosley]

Using philosophical reasoning, it can easily be deduced that unless God exists, then nothing is true, which is an absurdity (contradicts itself).

That is quite possibly the largest logical fallacy I have ever seen expressed in words.

You can't prove the existence of god with a system of logic that has the existence of god as an axiom.

If you want to prove that God exists, then start with this axiom: "I think, therefor I am."

You can also use these: "reality exists", and "I am able to sense reality using various parts of my body which send electrical and chemical signals to my brain."

If you can get God out of that without any type of logic failure, then you will convert me from Atheism immediately, and I will make sure that everyone knows about it.

Of course, if you want to live in crazy land and pretend that reality doesn't exist, then feel free, but don't try to pull others into your unfounded delusions.

Also, the scriptures are too long, and self contradicting to be taken as axioms. Further, no scripture says ANYTHING about reality being made up by the devil to fool you. You pulled that out of your preacher's ass. If God allowed such things, he would be crueler than any devil possible, and worship of him would be an abomination unto existance itself. Think about that one for a while.

[nate895]

That is quite possibly the largest logical fallacy I have ever seen expressed in words.

You can't prove the existence of god with a system of logic that has the existence of god as an axiom.

If you want to prove that God exists, then start with this axiom: "I think, therefor I am."

I am not demonstrating God using a system of logic, I am saying that unless the Christian God exists, there can be no logic at all. Furthermore, I am also saying that unless God exists, the world must contradict itself.


You can also use these: "reality exists", and "I am able to sense reality using various parts of my body which send electrical and chemical signals to my brain."

If you can get God out of that without any type of logic failure, then you will convert me from Atheism immediately, and I will make sure that everyone knows about it.

Of course, if you want to live in crazy land and pretend that reality doesn't exist, then feel free, but don't try to pull others into your unfounded delusions.

Also, the scriptures are too long, and self contradicting to be taken as axioms. Further, no scripture says ANYTHING about reality being made up by the devil to fool you. You pulled that out of your preacher's ass. If God allowed such things, he would be crueler than any devil possible, and worship of him would be an abomination unto existance itself. Think about that one for a while.

Of course, now you are taking axioms and demanding I subscribe to them, but apparently I am totally out of line when I do it. I will not demonstrate God on your ground, for you necessarily put God beneath us, for first you have our existence, and from that you must derive God's existence. That makes God's existence contingent upon our existence, an inherent contradiction.

[TheEvilDetector]

How can a non-mind create a language?

My example was a metaphor for the vast amount of possibility (biochemical combinations) in a vast physical world (universe).

If one consides human DNA a password to create a human being, then why can't that password be broken by brute force exhaustive attack?

Furthermore, we know that natural selection acted like password hints.

Lastly DNA itself is made of basic building blocks bound by the aforementioned principles.

[TheEvilDetector]

I am not demonstrating God using a system of logic, I am saying that unless the Christian God exists, there can be no logic at all. Furthermore, I am also saying that unless God exists, the world must contradict itself.


I agree with tmosley, your statements are absurd.

[Pauls' Revere]

What do the lumps on my head mean?

[nate895]

My example was a metaphor for the vast amount of possibility (biochemical combinations) in a vast physical world (universe).

If one consides human DNA a password to create a human being, then why can't that password be broken by brute force exhaustive attack?

Furthermore, we know that natural selection acted like password hints.

Lastly DNA itself is made of basic building blocks bound by the aforementioned principles.

You continue to equivocate the process of selecting and making the appearance of letters in an alphabet with actually giving the combination of letters meaning. I am saying that DNA, which is a language in every respect of the word with the exception of it being spoken, and that the only way to give a language meaning is for there to be an intelligence that gives it meaning.

[TheEvilDetector]

You continue to equivocate the process of selecting and making the appearance of letters in an alphabet with actually giving the combination of letters meaning. I am saying that DNA, which is a language in every respect of the word with the exception of it being spoken, and that the only way to give a language meaning is for there to be an intelligence that gives it meaning.

There doesn't need to be an intelligence giving it meaning. It (DNA) doesn't NEED meaning.

It simply is. My points still stand. You are trying to bog the discussion down in the subjective analysis of language which is not relevant.

[nate895]

I agree with tmosley, your statements are absurd.

You are engaging in a philosophical dialogue, which means you have just accused me of contradicting myself (that is what an absurdity is). Either back the assertion or drop the objection.

[TheEvilDetector]

You are engaging in a philosophical dialogue, which means you have just accused me of contradicting myself (that is what an absurdity is). Either back the assertion or drop the objection.

Well, why would an imaginary friend be required for logic to exist?

[nate895]

There doesn't need to be an intelligence giving it meaning. It doesn't NEED meaning.

It simply is.

Yes it does. DNA codes for human beings one combination of genes says "brown hair, hazel eyes," and another says "blonde hair, blue eyes." DNA actually codes. Now who is the one who to deny reality again? Oh yeah, I'm just the crazy Calvinist who continues to use logic and reason and actually know what the words mean. Sorry, guess I'll go to church tomorrow morning with my fellow knuckledraggers and we'll talk about how stupid we are together.

[nate895]

Well, why would an imaginary friend be required for logic to exist?

That doesn't even deserve a response, besides this one:

Romans 1:18-23:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

[TheEvilDetector]

That doesn't even deserve a response.

Thank you for the discussion. I guess it ends here on this point.

[TheEvilDetector]

Yes it does. DNA codes for human beings one combination of genes says "brown hair, hazel eyes," and another says "blonde hair, blue eyes." DNA actually codes.

and?


Now who is the one who to deny reality again? Oh yeah, I'm just the crazy Calvinist who continues to use logic and reason and actually know what the words mean. Sorry, guess I'll go to church tomorrow morning with my fellow knuckledraggers and we'll talk about how stupid we are together.

I didn't accuse you of being stupid by the way.

[nate895]

That's the meaning you have derived from DNA. The DNA didn't come with this meaning, you inferred it.

Then how did it get that meaning? Someone, somewhere, gave it meaning. Otherwise DNA just a bunch of chemicals with absolutely no importance at all. Have you seriously ever taken biology? Even the atheists will talk about DNA being a code.

[TheEvilDetector]

Then how did it get that meaning? Someone, somewhere, gave it meaning. Otherwise DNA just a bunch of chemicals with absolutely no importance at all. Have you seriously ever taken biology? Even the atheists will talk about DNA being a code.

I erased that portion shorly after posting it, but since you brought it up:

DNA is a bunch of chemicals technically speaking.

It has importance to our world sure.

But I don't see how your points contradict mine.

I guess I fail to see why there must be someone? providing meaning? to it for it to exist..

Oh well, I am more than happy to disagree with you.

I respect everyone's right to hold an opinion (as long they don't use force against me).

[nate895]

I didn't accuse you of being stupid by the way.

I know, the other guy I was debating with earlier did and you kind of took his place, and I was simply trying to demonstrate that your side of the aisle accuses our side of being backwards hillbillies who know little to nothing, and whenever we actually demonstrate that we know a little about what they're saying, you (and you have done this) will just tell us to crawl back in our holes and shut up because we have no idea what we're talking about.

What I want to know is where all this stuff comes from. We creationists will quote atheists, in context, and refute what they're saying factually, and we are then accused of being backwards flat-earth types. We'll then quote an atheist pointing out difficulties in an atheistic worldview, and we are told to shut up. Why is this? The only reason in the whole wide world I can think of is right there in the Romans passage. Seriously, given everything I know, I still cannot understand half of it without appealing to Scripture. Maybe that makes me an idiot, but by God, the writers of Scripture must have been geniuses to have made is correlate so well.

[TheEvilDetector]

I know, the other guy I was debating with earlier did and you kind of took his place, and I was simply trying to demonstrate that your side of the aisle accuses our side of being backwards hillbillies who know little to nothing, and whenever we actually demonstrate that we know a little about what they're saying, you (and you have done this) will just tell us to crawl back in our holes and shut up because we have no idea what we're talking about.

What I want to know is where all this stuff comes from. We creationists will quote atheists, in context, and refute what they're saying factually, and we are then accused of being backwards flat-earth types. We'll then quote an atheist pointing out difficulties in an atheistic worldview, and we are told to shut up. Why is this? The only reason in the whole wide world I can think of is right there in the Romans passage. Seriously, given everything I know, I still cannot understand half of it without appealing to Scripture. Maybe that makes me an idiot, but by God, the writers of Scripture must have been geniuses to have made is correlate so well.

A famous person once said something like this:

I may not agree with what you have to say but I will defend your right to say it.

To summarise my view, I base it on a simple recognition that I have not witnessed any evidence suggesting that non man-made items around me were created by superior undetectable creatures.

It certainly may feel nice to believe it, but I haven't seen evidence to convince me of it.

I distinguish in my mind, pure faith and rational understanding.

My rational mind will not allow me to get comfy with an all powerful imaginary friend, simply because there is a book out there (with some contradictory advice).

[nate895]

I erased that portion shorly after posting it, but since you brought it up:

DNA is a bunch of chemicals technically speaking.

It has importance to our world sure.

But I don't see how your points contradict mine.

I guess I fail to see why there must be someone? providing meaning? to it for it to exist..

The reason why there must be someone giving it meaning is because nothing besides a mind, which is a characteristic of a person (and Trinitarian Christianity is the only religion with a truly personal God in every sense of the word), can make something like a language. There has to be communication of some sort in order for there to be a code or a language of any variety. Someone has to know have the "key" to the code in order for there to be a code at all. Otherwise, DNA would be gibberish and the next generation could look like absolutely anything at all, if DNA has no meaning and there is no code maker. This isn't actually my best area to argue, since argue much better philosophically, but I refer you to these by a recognized scientist in the field of information theory:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v10/i2/information.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/beginning-was-information/beginning-was-information
http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/In-the-Beginning-Was-Information,4631,226.aspx

[nate895]

A famous person once said something like this:

I may not agree with what you have to say but I will defend your right to say it.

To summarise my view, I base it on a simple recognition that I have not witnessed any evidence suggesting that non man-made items around me were created by superior undetectable creatures.

It certainly may feel nice to believe it, but I haven't seen evidence to convince me of it.

I distinguish in my mind, pure faith and rational understanding.

My rational mind will not allow me to get comfy with an all powerful imaginary friend, simply because there is a book out there (with some contradictory advice).

You have just as much faith, if not more, than I do. Hopefully someday you're eyes will be opened so you can actually see it.

[TheEvilDetector]

There has to be communication of some sort in order for there to be a code or a language of any variety.

With respect to our current topic of DNA:

Why?

Communication between who?

Isn't communication between chemicals sufficient?


Someone has to know have the "key" to the code in order for there to be a code at all.

Why?

Doesn't the simple passage of time itself hold the key?
(Natural Selection and Chemical Reaction being participants)

[TheEvilDetector]

You have just as much faith, if not more, than I do. Hopefully someday you're eyes will be opened so you can actually see it.

Why would you say this?

[kpitcher]

I have seen many studies showing that the higher the IQ the less happy the person was. For guys I see why, not getting as much action as others!

Of course this isn't new news, numerous studies have stated the same thing over the years. There's even a wikipedia article on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence)

[johngr]

this reminds me of Idiocracy. is Mike Judge a prophet?

No prophet. Just a parodist. Future dystopia is just a literary device. He was commenting on what was happening at the time.

[mczerone]

I have a fairly high IQ... so I skipped the article entirely.

win!


I, having faith in my beliefs, being in a committed relationship, and feeling that groupthink labels are counterproductive, think the article was more about ego-smoothing than anything: "atheist liberals" love to talk about how great they are.

This article is nothing but stereotyping for effect, something that would be wholeheartedly denounced by "liberals" if the results were in any way related to race. But say something good about them (and, by correlation, negative about conservative godwads), and they'll overlook the hypocrisy and lap up the praise.

[mczerone]

Why would you say this?

I don't know what he means, but my question is: do you have FAITH that there is no supernatural forces working upon the world, either now or during creation?

I have this faith, but I know that it cannot be proven.

I choose to see the beauty, complexity, and pure absurdness in what is actually presented to us as evidence in the form of the natural world. Others choose to ignore this, and insist on there being "something more". Either choice is a choice of faith.

[teacherone]

http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/imgad?id=CIaI37uTjtL6OhDUAxgxMgigzMlHKyO_SQ

[tmosley]

I am not demonstrating God using a system of logic, I am saying that unless the Christian God exists, there can be no logic at all. Furthermore, I am also saying that unless God exists, the world must contradict itself.



Of course, now you are taking axioms and demanding I subscribe to them, but apparently I am totally out of line when I do it. I will not demonstrate God on your ground, for you necessarily put God beneath us, for first you have our existence, and from that you must derive God's existence. That makes God's existence contingent upon our existence, an inherent contradiction.

One can infer that other things exist from one's own existence.

You don't understand what an axiom is if you think that the Bible is an axiom. The Bible contradicts itself in several places, and as such, no systematic logic can be built off of it. Further, the books that were included in the Bible were chosen by men from among numerous other written and oral histories. Further, the version of the bible which you chose as your axiom matters, because there are fundamental differences depending on the translation. For example, King James says "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" where the earlier Greek language version of the Bible says "Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live". Further than that, the Old Testament of the KJB uses the word Hell on many occasions, where the originals used at least three different words, implying different places and conditions.

If you use the Bible as an axiom, your logic will inevitably fall apart, because it has been changed over and over throughout history to conform to local norms, in addition to changes and errors introduced during translation. In addition, you use certain common American Christian beliefs as axioms that have no basis in the Scripture, but were simply MADE UP by certain preachers during certain popular sermons, and others that were often based off of writings tangential to actual scripture (such as The Divine Comedy, Paradise Lost, and even Faust).

If you want to pick some axioms out of the Bible, fine, but base your assumptions on SOMETHING, rather than something you vaguely point to without definition.

[erowe1]

This is not surprising to me at all.

One of my pet peeves is when people with good, pro-morality, pro-freedom, anti-big government, political views, act like the reason others don't think that way is because they're not as smart as us. That's totally backwards. They are the smart ones. What makes them different is not an intellectual failing on their parts, but a moral one. Liberals are kind of like the evil genius villains in super hero comics.

[Pericles]

All this tells me is that people are still stupid no matter what belief or lack of belief they have.

Actually the people in the study group were absolutely average. The "study"labeled low IQ as those who averaged 97 and high IQ as the group with an average of 103.

As 100 is the norm reference with a standard deviation of 10, two thirds of the population will have an IQ from 90 to 110, and being less than one standard deviation from the mean, are the average.

Now if you want to see how the really high IQ types score, you need to find people with IQ over 130, because those are the top .1% of the population.

[Epic]

Pew Poll on who is informed in America.

Answer: White, men, old people, republicans.

http://people-press.org/report/319/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions

[Bman]

IQ tests aren't bogus. They're just a test with no real application other than comparing one score to another.