the religious forum is getting stagnant. lets liven it up!.

[Quigly]

Yes, imagine how much safer and healthier humanity would be if that ratio applied to the whole world

I don't think that assumption could be evaluated or proved. Just remember, assuming makes an ASS out of U not ME.

 

[spidergoat]

Atheism cannot be fanatical or dogmatic, since it's the truth. Gods are silly fiction from a time before science.

 

[charles cure]

charles cure,

I didn't say you can't prove who's smarter than who. I said it's "too difficult to guage intelligence."

how are those two statements not, in essence, the same thing? you're saying oh well you cant have an accurate statistic of whether smarter people believe or dont because you cant determine who has more intelligence in any meaningful way. come on. just because someone disputes the validity of the average IQ test doesnt make it an obsolete measure. and it doesnt mean that you have to use that either, there are other more comprehensive tests out there i believe.

There are all kinds of ways to guage different kinds of intelligences. I was making that statement in the context of survey-taking. Quite frankly, I don't think IQ tests are accurate measures of Intelligence, and neither do a lot of scholars in the field. Intelligence Quotient tests only measure particular modes of thought, and so aren't actually fully measuring intelligence.

technically, using any scientific or empirical approach, all you can ever do is measure particular modes of thought, so each test on its own is imperfect, and apparently that means you cant rely on any of them to guage intelligence if you follow your line of reasoning.

My point is that the surveys conducted are biased in that when they talk about "intelligence" they're actually only talking about a particular aspect of intellect. You seem to think that intellect is completely and totally the "capacity for learning, problem solving, and abstract thought." This isn't the case. Those are simply mental processes carried out by a particular hemisphere in the brain. Also, in regards to the capacity to learn, with the exception of those with mental disorders that inhibit learning, everyone has a generally equal capacity to learn. The reason a lot of students have difficulty learning in school isn't because they have difficulty learning, it's because they have difficulty learning the kind of material presented in school. As I've already said, education focuses more on sciences than arts. They're two areas of learning that are controlled by different hemispheres of the brain.

actually, intelligence is exactly what i said it was. the definition of the word intelligence proves my point, as it is defined by Merriam-Websters New World Dictionary to mean:

1.ability to learn and understand or deal with new or trying situations. 2. mental acuteness. 3. information, news. 4. an agency engaged in obtaining information esp. concerning an enemy or possible enemy.

as you can see, a crucial part of that definition is "the ability to deal with new or trying situations" that is why children who cannot learn what is presented to them in a school setting are considered to be at least partially unintelligent, because they cannot adapt to learn or understand concepts delivered to them in anything but one or two specific ways. that need for a particularly conducive setting in order to foster their ability to learn is what culls them from the crop of otherwise intelligent people. your point is useless, because you are trying to say that all subjects require equal intelligence to understand, and in addition to that you are saying everyone absent mental retardation basically has the same capacity for learning. untrue. there are at least a dozen psychological, developmental, environmental, and experiential factors that effect a persons cognitive ability, and in many cases these may have as large of an effect as would a physiological disorder such as cerebal palsy or autism. guages of intelligence do not focus on subjects such as the arts and literature because "correct" answers to questions about them are subjective and open to a wide range of interpretations. this cannot be said however, for the outcome of a mathematical equation or physics experiment. these subjects are focused on and used as the guage because there is a strict limit to the range of correct answers yet a far wider range of creative approaches that can be used to obtain the correct result. that is a satisfactory way to measure the ability to learn and understand or respond to new and trying situations. the arts do not enter into it in as meaningful a way because their subject matter is mostly not fact based and is almost always subject to personal taste.

How many high-school drop-outs could tell you all about their favorite professional sport? Hockey, for example. Every team, the majority of the players on each team, the records of the players on their favorite team, the rules of the sport, the referees that ref the games, the technical details that take place behind the scenes, the business aspects of it, any other kinds of information pertaining to the sport? Probably a lot could tell you quite a bit about all that. It's really a matter of interest and content.

i bet if you did a study, you would find some high school drop outs that could tell you a lot of facts about their favorite sports teams because they are repeating information that is constantly bombarding them all the time if sports is the focus of their interests. this is nothing more than memory and the ability to recall facts that have been told to you over and over. retarded people can do that. i think you would find a significant drop in the understanding of the actual inner workings of the sports world as it relates to business practices were you to ask these same people. i guarantee each would have his or her own version of what they believe it to be like, but few would understand why these things take place or the consequences of the decisions made behind the scenes on any larger scale. and furthermore, were you to attempt to foster in these people, similar knowledge in a different subject area, they may not prove to be as efficient at learning something else because their disinterest in the subject would preclude it. intelligence is not the ability to learn one thing and recite it. intelligent people have the ability to learn and understand a wide range of concepts and information that is delivered to them in a variety or different ways and situations. your argument here is weak at best.

Learning doesn't really have a lot to do with intelligence.

wrong. it is the absolute core of intelligence. without the ability to learn you cannot know, without the ability to know you cannot judge, interpret, extrapolate, expand or expound on any concept, no matter how abstract or concrete. you need to go back to the drawing board and rethink this.

As for abstract thought and problem solving, those are only aspects of intelligence, and don't encompass the whole of the intellect. As I've already said, they're controlled by the left hemisphere of the brain. They're only a portion of cognitive capacity. Don't get me wrong, I think they're very important, they help very much in understanding highly complex ideas. In fact, we wouldn't understand highly complex ideas without them. However, that doesn't mean we couldn't know whether those ideas were true or not if we didn't have the ability to problem solve or think abstractly. We could know them to be true, but we would probably not understand them. This is because of intuition, an operation of the right hemisphere.

nobody said that guaging intellignece was relegated to only measuring one hemispherical function or another, many of the functions of the brain involve one hemisphere acting in conjunction with the other. there are not specific mental reasoning abilities that are strictly confined to each side because complex thought and understanding usually involve a combination of functions from both sides.

from http://coe.sdsu.edu/eet/articles/dominance/index.htm

Even though both hemispheres of the brain have independent functions, an individual benefits from the integration of the processing of information performed by each side. The hemisphere best suited to perform the processing will process information; this allows an individual greater understanding and learning potential of the situation that initiated the brain processing information.

 

[The Devil Inside]

Atheism cannot be fanatical or dogmatic, since it's the truth. Gods are silly fiction from a time before science.

fanatic
Pronunciation: f&-'na-tik
Variant(s): or fa·nat·i·cal /-ti-k&l/
: marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion <they're fanatic about politics>
- fanatic noun
notice the "marked by excessive enthusiasm" part. that matches almost every atheist i have met, when the subject of religion comes up.

and,
dogma
Pronunciation: 'dog-m&, 'däg-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural dogmas also dog·ma·ta
1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative.
2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated.

i rest my case.
:m:

 

[The Devil Inside]

*************
M*W: I agree. The Religion Forum has been getting rather dull recently. Many moons ago someone suggested we have a convention to meet each other, yet maintain whatever level of anonimity we desire. I think it's a great idea, but it seemed to just fall by the wayside. Would this be something of interest to the rest of you?

i would do that, if i were in america.
unfortunately, i am currently in europe for the foreseeable future.
hold this convention in western europe, and im game!!

 

[charles cure]

fanatic
Pronunciation: f&-'na-tik
Variant(s): or fa·nat·i·cal /-ti-k&l/
: marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion <they're fanatic about politics>
- fanatic noun
notice the "marked by excessive enthusiasm" part. that matches almost every atheist i have met, when the subject of religion comes up.

i could agree with fanatical or fanatic, as i think that some atheists may be a bit too enthusiastic in their desire to get rid of religion, however i think there should be a distinction made between people who want to rob others of their beliefs and people who simply no longer want to be forced to live under the yoke of others' beliefs. the latter is how i would characterize many of the atheists i know, and myself as well. i could care less what someone believes or how stupid it seems to me, as long as it does not become the defining feature of the laws and culture that we all have to live in.

and,
dogma
Pronunciation: 'dog-m&, 'däg-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural dogmas also dog·ma·ta
1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative.
2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated.

i rest my case.
:m:

this part is pretty ridiculous considering that what defines an atheist is a lack of belief in something. there cant really be any dogma involved in having no belief or no tenets. some atheist undoubtedly live with some type of ethical or humanistic moral code or belief in right and wrong, but it is not the atheist in them that is dogmatic, it is some other part.

 

[QuarkMoon]

this part is pretty ridiculous considering that what defines an atheist is a lack of belief in something. there cant really be any dogma involved in having no belief or no tenets. some atheist undoubtedly live with some type of ethical or humanistic moral code or belief in right and wrong, but it is not the atheist in them that is dogmatic, it is some other part.

For the last time, "lack of belief" refers to agnosticism, while "belief or self supposed logical conclusion of NO GOD" refers to atheism.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

i bet that would be interesting, but where would you do it these people are from all over the place.

*************
M*W: Maybe we should refer this project over to the Parapsychology Forum. Maybe they can tell us how to telekinesize ourselves to some warp hole or some other convenient translocation.

 

[The Devil Inside]

i just turn widdershins 13 times and pray to my coffee cup. usually i end up someplace interesting that way, mw.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

That would be funny if like, 10 atheists showed up, and only 1 fundie came... someone like Adstar

*************
M*W: Well, the odds are with us, you know. But, not to worry, none of the fundies would show-up. They'd be too scared! LOL
Besides, we would have nothing in common to break the ice with the small talk. Maybe the atheists should just get together on our on, since the fundies don't drink or party or do anything funny or cool, since they would put a major damper on it.

The fundies could get their likes to gather somewhere in the Bible Belt, I would expect. That way, they can bring their KJVs, and the Catholics could bring their holy water and incense, and maybe liven it up with a pedophile priest for a keynote speaker. Just a suggestion. Perhaps Woody could even cater the fundie convention with his holy B-B-Q. After all, Woody lives in the Bible Belt. Better yet, why don't all of the fundies show up unannounced at Woody's apartment? After all, a master-educated senior engineer who still lives in an apartment should be interesting, I would think. Woody's also into music, as I understand it, so he would be the cheapest entertainment in town.

For the atheists, BYOB.

 

[The Devil Inside]

why is this board seperated into "atheists" and "fundies"?
surely some of us are moderate spiritual folks.
i dont push my beliefs on others....please dont call me a fundie. most "fundies" of my particular religion despise my belief system.

 

[SnakeLord]

In a way I guess all of us here could be described as 'fanatical', (or certainly more so than your average joe).

Unlike 'normal' people that spend their life talking about their favourite soap opera, football team and other such worthless tripe, we all choose to go onto a forum and debate religious issues.

The religious people here clearly want to tell the world that what they believe is true.

The atheists here clearly want to tell the religious people that they're talking utter bollocks.

Only someone slightly 'fanatical' would even bother. Nobody else honestly gives a shit.

 

[The Devil Inside]

well put, snakelord.

 

[Starman]

it is my opinion that fanatical atheists (not all atheists fall into this category) are frequently as dogmatic as most religious folks, if not more so.

what is your opinion on "those that do not believe" being the sheep they claim the spiritual to be?

hit me!!

"Devil inside"

I guss you could say the Devil is in the details.

 

[The Devil Inside]

im not sure what you mean, starman.

 

[charles cure]

For the last time, "lack of belief" refers to agnosticism, while "belief or self supposed logical conclusion of NO GOD" refers to atheism.

lack of belief does not refer to agnosticism. agnosticism is non-allegiance to an organized "religion, but also not a denial of the existence of god.

atheism is a disbelief in the concept of god or gods. which, i suppose could be seen as "the doctrine that there is no god" but in that case there is only one doctrine, one piece of dogmatic belief. there isnt a specific set of things that a particular atheist must believe or deisbelieve in order to be an atheist. all that is required for the label it to deny the existence of god. so its hard to be dogmatic when at most you only have one "belief" if you could even call it that. the word itself strikes right at the heart of the matter. atheism - the absence of theism. theism is the word, a - the prefix meaning without or the opposite of. the defining root is theism. without theism there could be no atheism as atheism is little more than a reaction to or denial of theism. get with it.

 

[The Devil Inside]

Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g-
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
- ag·nos·ti·cism /-t&-"si-z&m/ noun


atheist
One entry found for atheist.
Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity
- athe·is·tic /"A-thE-'is-tik/ or athe·is·ti·cal /"A-thE-'is-ti-k&l/ adjective
- athe·is·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb


"one who believes that there is no diety."

not "one who has the lack of belief in a diety."

read a damn dictionary.

 

[The Devil Inside]

atheism is a disbelief in the concept of god or gods. which, i suppose could be seen as "the doctrine that there is no god" but in that case there is only one doctrine, one piece of dogmatic belief.

there isnt a specific set of things that a particular atheist must believe or deisbelieve in order to be an atheist.

um....these 2 sentences contradict eachother, yet one follows directly after the other.

so which is it, charles?

 

[charles cure]

um....these 2 sentences contradict eachother, yet one follows directly after the other.

so which is it, charles?

its exactly what i said. there is one thing that defines an atheist, not a whole range of things. there is no set of doctrines or dogmas. there is only one defining characteristic, which is the disbelief in or denial of the existence of god. please try to understand.

 

[charles cure]

Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g-
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
- ag·nos·ti·cism /-t&-"si-z&m/ noun


atheist
One entry found for atheist.
Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity
- athe·is·tic /"A-thE-'is-tik/ or athe·is·ti·cal /"A-thE-'is-ti-k&l/ adjective
- athe·is·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb


"one who believes that there is no diety."

not "one who has the lack of belief in a diety."

read a damn dictionary.

you read the dictionary and you find the same contradiction.

atheism
One entry found for atheism.
Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

try not being so pompous, we all have a dictionary.