The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination
- Thread starter PΛRΛDIGM®
- Start date
I am tired of atheists always trying to support the idea that all theists are fools by insisting that there are more atheist scientists than theist ones. Are these scientists all of the highest genius, or are they more of the same drone-like race? I believe science is the most valid tool we have for describing the known universe, and is extremely useful to guess at the unknown, but let me ask, "which type of belief can claim the largest number of true geniuses? "
I submit to you that if it is framed that way the split is equal or leans towards the theist.
Do we need to make a list or do you get the point that there is no real compelling argument in these types of statements?
Oh, except for, "me too," which is definitely not at the top of the innovator's thought pyramid.
I submit to you that if it is framed that way the split is equal or leans towards the theist.
Do we need to make a list or do you get the point that there is no real compelling argument in these types of statements?
Oh, except for, "me too," which is definitely not at the top of the innovator's thought pyramid.
Last edited:
Leo Volont
Registered Senior Member
cole grey said:
Helaire Belloc, a fairly readable Catholic Philosopher points out that most scientific work is drudge work -- an attempt to collect a complete number of particulars so that generalizations can be sufficiently proven. If anything, scientist prove more that they are stupid by often demonstrating that they cannot distinguish between different levels of quality in their collections of data... it screws with their math when not all points equal 1, and so they ignore particular greatness or extraordinary smallness and treat every statistical event as being equal. Which bring Belloc to one of his most interesting observations: that stupidity is defined by an inability to recognize categorical and qualitative distinctions.
Scientists do like categories... in fact they often make the mistake of supposing that because they can categorize, that is give a specific name to something, that they therefore have knowledge of it. Recognition is better than nothing, but we can't really say that recognition is all there is to knowledge. There is more to ducks than knowing one when one sees one. But regarding the appreciation of quality, scientists are completely lost and nobody could be more stupid... stupider.
Last edited:
lol stupider......
i agree, mr. leo.
science is the study of that which has no definite answer.
i maintain my stance that science and religion cannot contradict.
mathematical process (scientific thought) cannot rule out the existence of ANYTHING. all it can do is codify and categorize that which is already known.
"new" scientific data is not "new". it is just a new way to percieve things that have been going on since the dawn of time. just because i put a name on something doesnt mean that nothing can exist outside of that "set paradigm".
i agree, mr. leo.
science is the study of that which has no definite answer.
i maintain my stance that science and religion cannot contradict.
mathematical process (scientific thought) cannot rule out the existence of ANYTHING. all it can do is codify and categorize that which is already known.
"new" scientific data is not "new". it is just a new way to percieve things that have been going on since the dawn of time. just because i put a name on something doesnt mean that nothing can exist outside of that "set paradigm".
Cole Grey,
If you are so tired then perhaps it is time you fell asleep. Try these links that ACTUALLY support the idea rather than merely trying.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm
http://www.objectivethought.com/atheism/iqstats.html
Do you want more?
The overwhelming conclusion is that those with higher intelligence and/or the better-educated are far less likely to hold religious beliefs than the less intelligent or the ignorant. Or in other words the religious tend to be among the most stupid and ignorant.
Your perception of science could be better – science is about establishing new knowledge and not about describing what is already known.
Ahh you really don’t understand science. What you describe is in the realm of religion. Science is specifically NOT about guessing but about establishing knowledge based on evidence.
Yet you do not support your assertion with any facts though.
I have supported the claims with facts so yes I do need a list since your argument is not supported.
If you are so tired then perhaps it is time you fell asleep. Try these links that ACTUALLY support the idea rather than merely trying.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm
http://www.objectivethought.com/atheism/iqstats.html
Do you want more?
The overwhelming conclusion is that those with higher intelligence and/or the better-educated are far less likely to hold religious beliefs than the less intelligent or the ignorant. Or in other words the religious tend to be among the most stupid and ignorant.
Your perception of science could be better – science is about establishing new knowledge and not about describing what is already known.
Ahh you really don’t understand science. What you describe is in the realm of religion. Science is specifically NOT about guessing but about establishing knowledge based on evidence.
Yet you do not support your assertion with any facts though.
I have supported the claims with facts so yes I do need a list since your argument is not supported.
Leo,
No not really – that is simply poor science.
But somewhat ostentatious though. A more appropriate definition is “slow of mind”.
A rather efficient mechanism for filing knowledge.
Often? What is the source of your statistics? You have none, right? You are simply describing process failures that have nothing to do with the proven effectiveness of real science. Your point seems to be an erroneous conclusion based on misconceptions and ignorance of science.
But thankfully you are no longer talking about science.
A logical fallacy - Ignoratio elenchi.
No not really – that is simply poor science.
But somewhat ostentatious though. A more appropriate definition is “slow of mind”.
A rather efficient mechanism for filing knowledge.
Often? What is the source of your statistics? You have none, right? You are simply describing process failures that have nothing to do with the proven effectiveness of real science. Your point seems to be an erroneous conclusion based on misconceptions and ignorance of science.
But thankfully you are no longer talking about science.
A logical fallacy - Ignoratio elenchi.
Dear Devil Inside,
Mind creates also perceptions.
On one hand it may seems obvious that we become aware of a rose because the information "rose" comes to mind observing a source placed outside of ourselves.
So, for the most part, the obviety about the rose is taken from granted.
But is it obvious that we human beings can create abstractions and ideas?
The latter case of "creating" is self-contained - within the mind. In this case there are not references because a perception of an external "object."
Mind also create meanings. And in some cases mind creates new meanings.
Perhaps all I am trying to say is that the human mind not only has the ability to create but also can "recreate" itself; therefore perpetuating the creating
ability.
Let me remind you that the process of creation, where in my personal case some days are better then others, but mind has a lot to do with the creations of meanings. What is the meaning that we envision for ourselves?
That, is a task that only our mind can implement.
The Devil Inside,
Well of course you would. But then Leo didn’t know what he was talking about either.
Almost.
So you haven’t learnt yet. Science and religion are opposites. They are essentially and necessarily contradictory. Science operates only on reality while religion only operates on the imaginary. Science bases its conclusions on evidence while religion specifically does not use evidence but uses faith instead. Etc.
So what? That isn’t a goal of science.
No – science is about establishing new knowledge.
Not quite but you are close though. You are confused about what is meant by “known” and what has yet to be discovered. Until something is discovered or detected it will be unknown. Science is the discovery process.
Yet that doesn’t give you any authority to claim that something you imagine (e.g. a god) does exist outside of what is known. Science is about the discovery of things that do exist. It does not attempt to show that things do not exist and it makes no conclusions about imaginary things. In contrast religion is the opposite since it specifically claims certain imaginary objects are real.
Well of course you would. But then Leo didn’t know what he was talking about either.
Almost.
So you haven’t learnt yet. Science and religion are opposites. They are essentially and necessarily contradictory. Science operates only on reality while religion only operates on the imaginary. Science bases its conclusions on evidence while religion specifically does not use evidence but uses faith instead. Etc.
So what? That isn’t a goal of science.
No – science is about establishing new knowledge.
Not quite but you are close though. You are confused about what is meant by “known” and what has yet to be discovered. Until something is discovered or detected it will be unknown. Science is the discovery process.
Yet that doesn’t give you any authority to claim that something you imagine (e.g. a god) does exist outside of what is known. Science is about the discovery of things that do exist. It does not attempt to show that things do not exist and it makes no conclusions about imaginary things. In contrast religion is the opposite since it specifically claims certain imaginary objects are real.
CRIS,
As far as your false understanding of science goes,
1. Knowledge; knowledge of principles and causes; ascertained truth of facts.
2. Accumulated and established knowledge, which has been systematized and formulated with reference to the discovery of general truths or the operation of general laws; knowledge classified and made available in work, life, or the search for truth; comprehensive, profound, or philosophical knowledge.
3. Especially, such knowledge when it relates to the physical word and its phenomena, the nature, constitution, and forces of matter, the qualities and functions of living tissues, etc.; -- called also {natural science}, and {physical science}.
4. Any branch or department of systematized knowledge considered as a distinct field of investigation or object of study; as, the science of astronomy, of chemistry, or of mind.
And, if you will not restrict yourself to your one accepted meaning of the word "guess", you will see more clearly the error of your ways. If there was only one meaning of the word, that would be a lot better for your second, also false, attack on my understanding of science.
Notice especially #2, AND #3.
Guess \Guess\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. {Guessed}; p. pr. & vb. n. {Guessing}.] [OE. gessen; akin to Dan. gisse, Sw. gissa, Icel. gizha, D. gissen: cf. Dan. giette to guess, Icel. geta to get, to guess. Probably originally, to try to get, and akin to E. get. See {Get}.]
1. To form an opinion concerning, without knowledge or means of knowledge; to judge of at random; to conjecture.
First, if thou canst, the harder reason guess. --Pope.
2. To judge or form an opinion of, from reasons that seem preponderating, but are not decisive.
We may then guess how far it was from his design. --Milton.
Of ambushed men, whom, by their arms and dress, To be Taxallan enemies I guess. --Dryden.
3. To solve by a correct conjecture; to conjecture rightly; as, he who guesses the riddle shall have the ring; he has guessed my designs.
4. To hit upon or reproduce by memory. [Obs.]
Tell me their words, as near as thou canst guess them. --Shak.
5. To think; to suppose; to believe; to imagine; -- followed by an objective clause.
This is what happens when we all won't play together nicely, we waste a lot of time arguing back and forth about who can claim to be correct all the time, biting at each others' heels, and not looking at the road ahead. I honestly hope you will be right if I ever try to use this technique of rhetoric on you, so it can help establish some sense of the general weakness of these types of attacks when it comes to arguing a real question.
Let me, as an honorable person, give you some friendly advice... If you could have just left your post at my phrasing being confusing, or bringing up evidence, you would have been a lot better off. I would guess, from your posts on OTHER threads, that you are intelligent enough to work without lame tricks that only make you look bad.
Now that I have so completely established my correctness on that point...
let me go on to say that I could have phrased my original idea better by adding a qualifier where information has not yet come to an overwhelming preponderance. For that I apologize.
"I submit to you that if it is framed that way the split is equal or even leans towards the theist."
My mistake, in not putting forth the question in a less reactionary way.
If you feel that my supposition that the list will end up balanced or lean towards the theists is incorrect, please just react to that and leave your spite in your own life.
Either way, the idea that I was strongly advocating inserting into the discussion was, "do you get the point that there is no real compelling argument in these types of statements?", i.e., “there are more atheist scientists than theist ones.” If you read the whole post you will see my slight against the "me too" mentality and may understand why I didn't feel the need to fully research and argue the incredibly open-ended list, as this seems to me to require an extremely detailed analysis of many types of knowledge and their practitioners. "Me too," is, in my opinion, a weak argument that results in mob mentality and is one of the best ways to avoid thoughts of "genius". If you disagree, answer no, there is a great argument in these, "me too," statements, if you wish.
Please read my words in context, with proper definition, and account for the possibility of multiple definitions in the english language in the future, previous to trying for an assault on my intelligence.
I am sorry I responded in this way, I hope you will understand that I just do not like to have my time wasted in defending myself against arguments which are incorrect, especially when thrown out to discredit my opinions.
Also, there are many types of knowledge (this is relating to the other "me too" percentage which you claim.) A schizoid psychopath spending half of their time in delusions, who also has a great IQ score, does not win the prize for knowledge. What knowledge does that person even have of reality?
As far as your false understanding of science goes,
Science \Sci"ence\, n. [F., fr. L. scientia, fr. sciens, -entis, p. pr. of scire to know. Cf. {Conscience}, {Conscious}, {Nice}.]Cris said:
1. Knowledge; knowledge of principles and causes; ascertained truth of facts.
2. Accumulated and established knowledge, which has been systematized and formulated with reference to the discovery of general truths or the operation of general laws; knowledge classified and made available in work, life, or the search for truth; comprehensive, profound, or philosophical knowledge.
3. Especially, such knowledge when it relates to the physical word and its phenomena, the nature, constitution, and forces of matter, the qualities and functions of living tissues, etc.; -- called also {natural science}, and {physical science}.
4. Any branch or department of systematized knowledge considered as a distinct field of investigation or object of study; as, the science of astronomy, of chemistry, or of mind.
And, if you will not restrict yourself to your one accepted meaning of the word "guess", you will see more clearly the error of your ways. If there was only one meaning of the word, that would be a lot better for your second, also false, attack on my understanding of science.
Notice especially #2, AND #3.
Guess \Guess\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. {Guessed}; p. pr. & vb. n. {Guessing}.] [OE. gessen; akin to Dan. gisse, Sw. gissa, Icel. gizha, D. gissen: cf. Dan. giette to guess, Icel. geta to get, to guess. Probably originally, to try to get, and akin to E. get. See {Get}.]
1. To form an opinion concerning, without knowledge or means of knowledge; to judge of at random; to conjecture.
First, if thou canst, the harder reason guess. --Pope.
2. To judge or form an opinion of, from reasons that seem preponderating, but are not decisive.
We may then guess how far it was from his design. --Milton.
Of ambushed men, whom, by their arms and dress, To be Taxallan enemies I guess. --Dryden.
3. To solve by a correct conjecture; to conjecture rightly; as, he who guesses the riddle shall have the ring; he has guessed my designs.
4. To hit upon or reproduce by memory. [Obs.]
Tell me their words, as near as thou canst guess them. --Shak.
5. To think; to suppose; to believe; to imagine; -- followed by an objective clause.
This is what happens when we all won't play together nicely, we waste a lot of time arguing back and forth about who can claim to be correct all the time, biting at each others' heels, and not looking at the road ahead. I honestly hope you will be right if I ever try to use this technique of rhetoric on you, so it can help establish some sense of the general weakness of these types of attacks when it comes to arguing a real question.
Let me, as an honorable person, give you some friendly advice... If you could have just left your post at my phrasing being confusing, or bringing up evidence, you would have been a lot better off. I would guess, from your posts on OTHER threads, that you are intelligent enough to work without lame tricks that only make you look bad.
Now that I have so completely established my correctness on that point...
let me go on to say that I could have phrased my original idea better by adding a qualifier where information has not yet come to an overwhelming preponderance. For that I apologize.
"I submit to you that if it is framed that way the split is equal or even leans towards the theist."
My mistake, in not putting forth the question in a less reactionary way.
If you feel that my supposition that the list will end up balanced or lean towards the theists is incorrect, please just react to that and leave your spite in your own life.
Either way, the idea that I was strongly advocating inserting into the discussion was, "do you get the point that there is no real compelling argument in these types of statements?", i.e., “there are more atheist scientists than theist ones.” If you read the whole post you will see my slight against the "me too" mentality and may understand why I didn't feel the need to fully research and argue the incredibly open-ended list, as this seems to me to require an extremely detailed analysis of many types of knowledge and their practitioners. "Me too," is, in my opinion, a weak argument that results in mob mentality and is one of the best ways to avoid thoughts of "genius". If you disagree, answer no, there is a great argument in these, "me too," statements, if you wish.
Please read my words in context, with proper definition, and account for the possibility of multiple definitions in the english language in the future, previous to trying for an assault on my intelligence.
I am sorry I responded in this way, I hope you will understand that I just do not like to have my time wasted in defending myself against arguments which are incorrect, especially when thrown out to discredit my opinions.
Also, there are many types of knowledge (this is relating to the other "me too" percentage which you claim.) A schizoid psychopath spending half of their time in delusions, who also has a great IQ score, does not win the prize for knowledge. What knowledge does that person even have of reality?
Last edited:
isn't 'know-ledge' what has been KNOWN? so it is known now?
once at another forum i was being poetical about water...i was saying how it is the most amazing substance, as if in between spirit and matter--neither one nor tothere, and how it ripples, and is the symbol for several earth religions and philosophy--ie Taoism for the energy of life....etc
then i got a reply, curt, informing me that was a load of crap. it 'realliy is' "H2O"....he had learnt that and that was his knowledge what he had learnt at school, college, books.
So, when he sat in front of some amazingly lovely lake, or river, or near a bubbling brook, whats his mind gonna be at? is he going to be able to let his imagination flow..as is the water, and bging opening up to all kinds of associations, be sensitive to the light, and feelings etc. or so full of knowledge that it will look just like "H20' flat and that's that?
But it's not only such scientific indoctrination can do that, but also religious indoctrnation. which although harping on about 'faith'..really has enforced knowledge into its adherents heads. that 'God' is like so and so. and living the 'good life' means doing so and so. and that the Bible IS the 'word of God' sos everything in it is KOSHEr knowledge. more knowledge than what the scientist got
before you know where you are. you too sat at that water side will be soo full of THEIr knowledge, that that too inhibits free flow of information.
There is nothing WRONG with knowledge, but it has its place for what is its function. practicality
once at another forum i was being poetical about water...i was saying how it is the most amazing substance, as if in between spirit and matter--neither one nor tothere, and how it ripples, and is the symbol for several earth religions and philosophy--ie Taoism for the energy of life....etc
then i got a reply, curt, informing me that was a load of crap. it 'realliy is' "H2O"....he had learnt that and that was his knowledge what he had learnt at school, college, books.
So, when he sat in front of some amazingly lovely lake, or river, or near a bubbling brook, whats his mind gonna be at? is he going to be able to let his imagination flow..as is the water, and bging opening up to all kinds of associations, be sensitive to the light, and feelings etc. or so full of knowledge that it will look just like "H20' flat and that's that?
But it's not only such scientific indoctrination can do that, but also religious indoctrnation. which although harping on about 'faith'..really has enforced knowledge into its adherents heads. that 'God' is like so and so. and living the 'good life' means doing so and so. and that the Bible IS the 'word of God' sos everything in it is KOSHEr knowledge. more knowledge than what the scientist got
before you know where you are. you too sat at that water side will be soo full of THEIr knowledge, that that too inhibits free flow of information.
There is nothing WRONG with knowledge, but it has its place for what is its function. practicality
....continuuing. it IS wrong when knowledge concretizes into harmful dogma, beit religious or scientific
also i naver emphasized the theme i began lst effort with. that knowledge is what is KNOWN. so when you know something you then have it in a box so to speak. whereas imagination..is allowing mind open to be receptive to NEw information, rather than saying 'i KNOW it' and being inflexible
doesn't chaos theory show this? that the higer the complexity, then there can happen new bifurcationary creeative branches which were unexpected?....
Chaos implies uncertainty....imagination ...creativity
also i naver emphasized the theme i began lst effort with. that knowledge is what is KNOWN. so when you know something you then have it in a box so to speak. whereas imagination..is allowing mind open to be receptive to NEw information, rather than saying 'i KNOW it' and being inflexible
doesn't chaos theory show this? that the higer the complexity, then there can happen new bifurcationary creeative branches which were unexpected?....
Chaos implies uncertainty....imagination ...creativity