Missing years

[Cris]

Muscelman,

How amny times is the word god mentioned in the American Constitution?

Zero.

Curious that for the most important document in the country to not mention it's alleged religion.

Let us hold fast to the sublime declaration of Lincoln. Let us insist that this, the Republic, is "A government of the people, by the people, and for the people."

 

[Voodoo Child]

I have mentioned this over trillion times (fos), I have done so and proved complex forms from biological to technological couldnt possibly "exist" by "LUCK" because science have proven so, curently speaking all the ignredients that makes up life forms are accessible and labeled, however there are differences between living complete body and dead complete body. Because of that, that amino acids are gathered, etc, and they still cant create a living cell, because of such failure by admittance, the conclusion is that "IF SCIENCE COULDNT CREATE A LIVING CELL BY PURPOSE, CONSIDERING THE FACT THEY DISCOVERED ALL THE NECESSARY INGREDIENT THAT MAKES UP A CELL (AMINO ACIDS, ETC.) AND STILL CANNOT CREATE A LIVING CELL, WHY THEN DO ATHEIST PROPOSE MR. LIGHTNING, EARTHQUAKE, AND HURRICANE DID IT?"

"I have done so and proved complex forms from biological to technological couldnt possibly "exist" by "LUCK" because science have proven so" Cite appropriate references, please.


So your argument is:

1) Scientists can't make a cell.

2) If scientists can't make a cell then it couldn't possibly form from insentient processes over billions of years.

3) Life was created by something intelligent.

Premise 2 is the problem here. You need to prove that if humans can't do it then nature can't do it over billions of years. Why should this be? Why shouldn't a billion years of natural processes be better than the purposeful design attempts of humans?

AGAIN IF GOD CREATED THE WORLD, WHO CREATED GOD? READ IN THE POST "GOD DOES NOT EXIST", THE ANSWER IS THERE AND I HAVE MENTIONED THIS ALOT OF TIMES.

http://www.sciforums.com/f22/s/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2569&perpage=20&pagenumber=7

And you got totally walloped there as well. Your explanation of God's design(as far as I can surmise) is:

God is a spirit. Thus causality does not apply. Except when he creates things. This is essentially the "God Is Magic" argument which is the theist's restraining order on the law's of physics, time/space, logic. However, we can also say, with equal validity: "life has spirit, life's spirit created life's body." Far more parsimonious explanation.
Furthermore, you are assuming that God is the intelligent designer, rather than a superintelligent alien or a lesser deity.

POSSIBILITY? A CLAIM OF POSSIBILITY NEEDS PROOF, OTHERWISE ANYONE CAN MAKE CLAIMS OF POSSIBLE AND IT WILL JUST BE ANOTHER WISHFULL THINKING OR PSYCHIC PHENOMENON. PERIOD..

Well, look who's talking. You need to disprove this actually. One of your premise's for God's existence is that life was created. You must substantiate this.

 

[axonio98]

Originally posted by Cris
Kiz,

Try this link –

http://www.objectivethought.com/atheism/iqstats.html

It shows a wide range of statistics taken at difference times throughout most of the past century.

Conclusion

The consensus here is clear: more intelligent people tend not to believe in religion. And this observation is given added force when you consider that the above studies span a broad range of time, subjects and methodologies, and yet arrive at the same conclusion.

A few random extracts –

9. Michael Argyle, 1958
Concluded that "although intelligent children grasp religious concepts earlier, they are also the first to doubt the truth of religion, and intelligent students are much less likely to accept orthodox beliefs."

1. Terman, 1959
Studied group with IQ's over 140. Of men, 10 percent held strong religious belief, of women 18 percent. Sixty-two percent of men and 57 percent of women claimed "little religious inclination" while 28 percent of the men and 23 percent of the women claimed it was "not at all important."

1. William S. Ament, 1927
C. C. Little, president of the University of Michigan, checked persons listed in Who's Who in America: "Unitarians, Episcopalians, Congregationalists, Universalists, and Presbyterians [who are less religious] are… far more numerous in Who's Who than would be expected on the basis of the population which they form. Baptists, Methodists, and Catholics are distinctly less numerous."

Ament confirmed Little's conclusion. He noted that Unitarians, the least religious, were more than 40 times as numerous in Who's Who as in the U.S. population.

According to Nature 394:313
A recent survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences showed that 72% are outright atheists, 21% are agnostic and only 7% admit to belief in a personal God.

According to the Skeptic magazine vol.6 #2 1998,
in multiple studies, there is a negative correlation between theism and morality. By Franzblau's 1934 study, there's a negative correlation between religiousity and honesty. Ross 1950 shows atheists and agnostics are more likely to express their willingness to help the poor than the deeply religious. 1969 Hirschi and Stark found no correlation in lawbreaking by churchgoing children and non-churchgoing children.

This same Skeptic published the results of another study that compared professions and likelihood of believing in God. The general public was just over 90% likely to believe in God. Scientists in general were just under 40% likely. Mathematicians were just over 40% likely, biologists just under 30%, and physicists were barely over 20% likely to believe in God.

Finale –

Why does this correlation exist? The first answer that comes to mind is that religious beliefs tend to be more illogical or incoherent than secular beliefs, and intelligent people tend to recognize that more quickly. But this explanation will surely be rejected by religious people, who will seek other explanations and rationalizations.

Hope that helps answer your question for some evidence.

Cris

Blablablablablaba....... Some people correlate race and intelligence, others correlate the size of the nose with the size of the penis. I sometimes correlate an ugly face with bad sex.
Mendel, the father of genetics, was a priest. Many great scientists are religious
Statistics is based on quick answers and little reflection, i woldn't give to mutch importance.

 

[Tiassa]

Ugly women

I sometimes correlate an ugly face with bad sex.

What's funny about that is that I recall that Aleister Crowley used to seek the ugliest women he could find on the presumption that their depravity would increase their sexual performance. Some say the Scarlet Woman was the ugliest woman he can find, but if she's the woman in the Laylah photo I've got, I don't know what people are talking about.

thanx,
Tiassa