God bless america (Richard Dawkins)

a reply to: Gryphon66

The Lord loves you.......

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Gryphon66

Tao and Farrel were the two out of 10 who were considered not believers by the aggregator.

Right but Tao was counted and so was Hirata (and actually so was Farrell).

Let's count:

1. Kamal
2. Jelloul
3. Langan
4. Tao
5. Hirata
6. Katsioulis
7. Rosner
8. Predavec
9. Kasparov
10. Ferrell

The author of the linked article not only counts Ferrell (when they said they didn't) but Tao, Hirata and Kasparov.

Ferrell (He admits he doesn't know but counts him.)
Tao (He admits hd doesn't know, still counts.)
Hirata (Takes a comment about being nice to homeless folk as proof of Christianity).
Kasparov (Clearly says he is indifferent to Christianity) Should probably count half and half.

The only point I'm making is that the list is cherry-picked and misleading.

Disappointing in someone trying to prove the value of religious beliefs, no?

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Gryphon66

The Lord loves you.......

LOL. And random chance will treat you as equitably as anyone else ...

originally posted by: nwtrucker

The smile symbol is often used to point out humor.......

Ok. I fixed it. Is that better??

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: nwtrucker

The smile symbol is often used to point out humor.......

Ok. I fixed it. Is that better??

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Where does that leave you in the equation?

A lone jackass on the internet with a much smaller audience and less authoritarian impressed clout than Tyson or Dawkins. Then again, I don't sit around flexing and posturing on TV trying to convince a bunch of schleps that I'm among the smartest men in the world.

Opinions: we all have them.

Perhaps. I don't usually find you to be a jackass personally, for what that's worth.

I have a counter proposal.

Perhaps they are doing the thing you are doing in a different venue not because of "authoritarian impressed clout" (whatever that may be) but because people value their ideas and opinions:

perhaps they are speaking their minds and stating what they know to be true, just as you are.

Besides that, as far as authoritarianism goes ... you can't find many better examples of the concept than organized religion.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You can also look up that same exact list only it includes Hawking and James Woods. Yes James Woods apparently has an IQ of 180, who knew???

So it seems that it was a selective list in other ways as well.

Not that it proves anything either way though.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Gryphon66

You can also look up that same exact list only it includes Hawking and James Woods. Yes James Woods apparently has an IQ of 180, who knew???

So it seems that it was a selective list in other ways as well.

Not that it proves anything either way though.

Yeah. I really wasn't trying to disprove that folks with high IQs can believe in gods.

It just disappointed me that the author was dealing so dishonestly with the subject.

I've seen Hirata and Tao on atheist lists as well. I'm not into any of that.

I don't care what others believe as long as they don't try to legislate for the rest of us upon it.

When asked or when responding in a public forum, I'll share my understandings but ... none of us are infallible.

Sure as shoot not me.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I know what you mean. Just because someone is smart and calls themselves (insert religion) doesn't mean much anyway. Lot's of people who say they are such and such religion do so for many reasons other than actually believing in it.

Some people do it because of tradition, family, community, business relationships, etc.

a reply to: mOjOm

Yeah, if you read the Kasparov interview I read, it almost sounded like his Christianity was a social matter or something.

/who knows

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: mOjOm

Yeah, if you read the Kasparov interview I read, it almost sounded like his Christianity was a social matter or something.

/who knows

That is exactly what much of Christianity has become. It's no longer a religious belief, it's a social/political extension of communities.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: mOjOm

Yeah, if you read the Kasparov interview I read, it almost sounded like his Christianity was a social matter or something.

/who knows

That is exactly what much of Christianity has become. It's no longer a religious belief, it's a social/political extension of communities.

... and for some, perhaps, a political movement.

Or a path to notoriety ...

a reply to: Gryphon66

The difference there is that I am not much of a proselytizer. Richard Dawkins, especially, goes out of his way to not only mock anyone with a belief structure that includes a Creator, but encourages others to join him. I've known atheists who cannot stand the guy because he is a militant atheist tending almost towards hatred of not just beliefs, but believERS. That's the definition of a bigot.

Tyson, meh... I'm not big on astrophysics or astrophilosphy. I do not dislike the topics, but I am poorly read on them and haven't spent much time listening to Tyson, watching Tyson, or reading Tyson, so I can't really say much about the man one way or the other. My only exposure to him has involved me catching a few minutes here and there of him effectively ridiculing religious people as well as some sniping directed at anyone who dared even question the theories around global climate change.

My point in all of this is that mocking someone publicly for their religious choices makes even an individual with a genius-level mind look like an intolerant ass. The non-believers in the world are winning the war... the west is gradually moving to a secular system, why do the Icky Shuffle in the end zone? It makes these "intellectuals" look like narcissistic, menial nincompoops.

ETA: "authoritarian impressed clout" was me ham-handedly getting cute with the English language and failing miserably. I'm not sure there's a single word describing what I was getting at, but it was an attempt at relaying the fact that I feel a lot of these "intellectuals" who have conveniently been handed their own TV shows and grand stages are beneficiaries of little more than clout bestowed upon them by political and financial authorities within the world's powerful media outlets. In other words, they say what their masters want them to say and relay the messages their masters want people to receive, so they are elevated to positions of glorified clout and abstract purpose.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I don't care for Dawkins myself. But there's certainly nothing wrong with his mind.

I can't say who he hates or not.

I'm not sure why "ridiculing religious people" is any worse than "condemning non-religious people."

I'm not big on the "intolerant" thing either ... I'm fairly intolerant of several things. Tolerance has been ground down into non-meaning.

Live and let live and act toward others as you'd like them to act toward you tend to get me through.

I don't think Tyson or Dawkins look anymore narcissistic nor any more nincompoopish than the average TV evangelist and perhaps less so. Different strokes you know.

That last is a lot to say! LOL. I'm not sure I would have done as well as you did.

Since I pretty much see things from the other side of the window from you, when we are actually looking above or below the obvious sht-show that's portrayed for us day-to-day ... when we wonder about the true "powers behind it all" I am willing to bet that neither of our sides of the window are much more than a place to stand.

But those guys are almost as hard to nail down as any infinite master of the universe, LOL.

Thanks for the extended answer, Burdman ... I appreciate it.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
Yet no fewer than 8 of the 10 highest recorded IQs in the world are self professed people of Faith...
www.examiner.com...

Far too often on ATS prideful arrogance is confused for intellectualism.

Another confirmation of this is child prodigy Greg Smith whose IQ is so high that it cannot be measured.

He passed his mother and father intellectually at age 5 and started college at age 10 and finished at 13.

His mother once asked him why he was so smart:

His answer: "I go up into the sky and sit at the feet of God, who tells me everything he knows."

"I said, "Oh, really. What does God look like?' " Janet Smith says, smiling as she recounts her son's reply. "He said, "I don't know. I've never seen God. I only sit at his feet."

My theory is that genius may actually be divinely inspired.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Well I didn't mean entirely Johnny.

Good thing there's always Stephen Fry for a little straight talk...

a reply to: Murgatroid

LOL ... by that logic, are you claiming that all the serial killers who claim that god told them to do it are also "divinely inspired"?

I mean ... let's have some standard of reality here.

a reply to: Murgatroid

Can you provide a link to where you're getting that information about "God's Feet" and so on???

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Well I didn't mean entirely Johnny.

Good thing there's always Stephen Fry for a little straight talk...

Fry getting all upset and blaming God for what was obviously the result of blind random evolutionary forces.

Doesn't an emotional appeal against a supposedly non-existent God sound a little intellectually inconsistent?

Duh!

a reply to: chr0naut

Not really ... I've heard folks that have recovered from cancer speak about it as if they defeated an enemy in battle.

Speaking of intellectually inconsistent ... so if gods exist they would be responsible for "blind random evolutionary forces" no?

Since you offer nothing to prove that gods exist, while acknowledging that blind forces do ... /shrug

The interviewer asks what Steven would say to God IF God existed.

Steven was far too nice, from my perspective.