It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are atheists more intelligent than religious believers? Study suggests such a correlation

page: 12
24
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
the processor is the entity that the information is presented to, the act of processing is the presentation.


And the presentation is presented to?



Fine, ignore that. I'll say it again.

Conscious or not? That is a fairly stark false dichotomy you have there. There are other animals around us, animals that we share a common ancestor with somewhere back in time, yet none that we know of are as conscious as we are. Some are devoid of brains altogether.


Let me share something I came to understand while working on AI. I call it intelligence range. It occurred to me that if I was successful in creating it, in order for it to be recognizable to me(humans) as intelligent, it must fall within a certain range of intelligence. If the intelligence is above or below that range it will be unrecognizable.

Lets send you back in time 2000 years ago and you try to tell those people about germs and things of today. They will not think you are intelligent, they will think you are crazy, because you will not be in their intelligence range.

So you are simply talking about what is recognizable.




Weak dude. Weak. Spectacular cop-out. There is no such thing as truth, because absolute truth is unknowable and subjective truth is oxymoronic.


No, telling me I need to prove it to you was the cop out. Real truth is understanding, but that can only be expressed "absolutely". You are asking for absolute truth when you ask for proof.

A+B=C is the basic understanding of math. But we can only express that to each others in absolute ways. 1+1=2, 2+2=4 and so on. Even the A+B=C is an absolute expression of understanding.




An opinion justified.


Justification is also opinion.





No, you demonstrated what wisdom is.

The outcome of a decision (aka "choice") is determined by the input. That is a paraphrasing of what I said. That is not wisdom, that is the deterministic-choice.


Wisdom is being able to use experience, knowledge and understanding in order to make the correct choice.

Wisdom



The ability to discern or judge what is true, right, or lasting; insight.


Wisdom


Wisdom is an ideal that has been celebrated since antiquity as the application of knowledge needed to live a good life. Beyond simply knowing/understanding what options are available, "Wisdom" provides the ability to differentiate between them and choose the one that is best. What this means exactly depends on the various wisdom schools and traditions claiming to help foster it. In general, these schools have emphasized various combinations of the following: knowledge, understanding, experience, discretion, and intuitive understanding, along with a capacity to apply these qualities well towards finding solutions to problems. In many traditions, the terms wisdom and intelligence have somewhat overlapping meanings; in others they are arranged hierarchically, with intelligence being necessary but not sufficient for wisdom.




Consciousness has had billions of years to evolve. Give it time.


Time is an illusion, it doesn't exist. It's just a construct of perception.


[edit on 7/28/2009 by badmedia]




posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 11:45 PM
link   
What a complete and utter waste of time this thread has been when you really think about it.



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
What a complete and utter waste of time this thread has been when you really think about it.


Planting seeds. Nobody is ever going to come out and change their minds immediately. But little things will stick, and as time goes on those things will come to the front and "grow" until they can no longer be ignored.

Sometimes the dirt is a bit harder in places than in others is all.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


And the presentation is presented to?

.... The processor. Our brains aren't just sensory organs. Input goes in and decisions are made by the same unit, most decisions are completely unconscious - reflexes, others are deliberate.


So you are simply talking about what is recognizable.

Ok so a brainless jellyfish is actually an intelligent being that has some remarkable insights into the nature of comets with eccentric orbits, then.

Recognisable or no, some things are more conscious than others.


No, telling me I need to prove it to you was the cop out.

Hey, you are the one who proclaims that consciousness is a property of a spirit that has freewill, pal. Don't put that on me, it's your responsibility to back up your claims. This is how arguing works.


Justification is also opinion.

It's the best thing we humans have unless you have any absolute truths.


Wisdom is being able to use experience, knowledge and understanding in order to make the correct choice.

Or rather the *best* choice, but not everyone is good at that.


Time is an illusion, it doesn't exist. It's just a construct of perception.

Without time, nothing exists. I am, therefore time.


You are dragging this discussion to the absolute asinine. If you aren't going to justify your position then I'm not going to bother continuing.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 


Huh?
Would you please let me know the magic number of sources that will take your bloated ego down a notch and let you see what's right in front of your face?


Bloated ego?
You obviously don't know me. And beyond that, you blatantly ignored the second part of the definition you provided.


When have I ever made that claim? Answer: never.
Making a claim is not a requirement of atheism... Please actually read the quotes in my other post.

No seriously... PLEASE. I'm getting tired of writing the same thing over and over again.
To not know the exact definition of a word is fine.. But to deny something that's right in front of your face is ignorant.


To take the label atheist you are making a claim, just as when you adopt one of the sublabels of theism you are also making a claim. And we don't need to go into what that claim entails. Apparently unlike you I have no need to insult.


A mirror image is a good way of looking at it.. But isn't the picture completely reversed and not just part of it?

So while theism is a belief, what would that make atheism?
Lack of belief.


Once again more twisting to a favorable light. Atheism is a belief that there is no god er whatever like that. Then of course there is the methodology of the certain parts of the group that calls itself "Atheism" which is rather simular to their counterparts. Albeit in the negatory.


Actually the answer is even simpler than that..
I just want people to know the damn definition of what I am.
I'm tired of people thinking I'm something I'm not.


Firstly, you are not your label. I could say a million things about how people come to let their labels own them and it would fit into the conversation in the fact that you are twisting the definitions to try to set yourself apart and above those who adopt the label that is opposite of yours.
Which I find soo funny as absolutist stances either way are more than a bit spurious to me. And trying to hide from that fact shows more than a little in my book.



[edit on 29-7-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
.... The processor. Our brains aren't just sensory organs. Input goes in and decisions are made by the same unit, most decisions are completely unconscious - reflexes, others are deliberate.


You said the processor is what created the presentation. If something is being presented, then it is being presented to something.







Ok so a brainless jellyfish is actually an intelligent being that has some remarkable insights into the nature of comets with eccentric orbits, then.

Recognisable or no, some things are more conscious than others.


Again, I have no idea if a jellyfish is conscious or not. It is once again back to that range I was talking about,we are only able to recognize intelligence that falls in our range.

Do you realize science can't even agree on a definition for consciousness?




Hey, you are the one who proclaims that consciousness is a property of a spirit that has freewill, pal. Don't put that on me, it's your responsibility to back up your claims. This is how arguing works.


Ok fine, then prove your claims. Show me those magical chemicals that create consciousness. Show me the logic that creates consciousness.



It's the best thing we humans have unless you have any absolute truths.


And when you ask for proof are you not asking for an absolute truth?




Or rather the *best* choice, but not everyone is good at that.


Yeah, and?




Without time, nothing exists. I am, therefore time.


Time is an illusion and construct of perception.



You are dragging this discussion to the absolute asinine. If you aren't going to justify your position then I'm not going to bother continuing.


Make up your mind. In 1 minute you ask for absolute truth, in the next moment you are putting down absolute proof. In 1 moment you are making claims, in the next moment you are saying that I must prove my claims.

Your hypocrisy is what is asinine.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


You said the processor is what created the presentation. If something is being presented, then it is being presented to something.

That something is another part of the processor, the parts of the brain which are involved in making judgements.


Do you realize science can't even agree on a definition for consciousness?

I am aware.


Ok fine, then prove your claims. Show me those magical chemicals that create consciousness. Show me the logic that creates consciousness.

Well let's go with Occam's Razor here. My assertion, one that isnot at a variance with science is that consciousness is a collective of brain functions resulting in self awareness, ability to make critical decisions, emotions memory etc. That is to say that mind is to brain what OS is to PC hardware.

You say that somewhere involved there is a spirit that makes our choices for us - ones that are not deterministic.

Which requires the greatest number of assumptions? My money isn't on the supernatural one.


And when you ask for proof are you not asking for an absolute truth?

Outside of maths I would have to be. However I shouldn't call it proof. If I want to be correct I ought say 'evidence'....
Or more to the point evidence beyond reasonable doubt - have any of that?


Yeah, and?

Not everyone has great wisdom but everyone makes choices therefore they are not the same thing. What I described is still the deterministic choice.


Time is an illusion and construct of perception.

Without time, nothing exists. I am, therefore time.


Make up your mind. In 1 minute you ask for absolute truth, in the next moment you are putting down absolute proof. In 1 moment you are making claims, in the next moment you are saying that I must prove my claims.

You must at least supply support for your position otherwise....

Quod Gratis asseritur, Gratis negatur.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


I was going to respond line by line but it's really a waste of time.
Basically, atheism means without theism or without god. If you're not a theist, you fall under this category. The problem is that most people are starting to use the word to specifically describe atheists who claim the non-existence of deities as an absolute. Specifically atheists who push their views on others.

If you don't believe me, that's fine. I think, though, if you read those links I provided, you'll understand what I'm trying to say.

And I agree I shouldn't define myself by a label, but it does get annoying when everyone misunderstands what you do (or don't) believe in.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 01:04 AM
link   
This thread I think had good intentions but was doomed from the start. Any time you try and assert a higher level of Intelligence based on a certain belief there is bound to be bad blood.

It is like someone making a "Do Indigo's have higher intelligence?" thread.

Or a "Do (insert religious belief here) lead a happier/more peaceful/better life than those without faith?"



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 01:17 AM
link   
Does this study stand up to peer review? Has it been reviewed? I believe in God because of the relationship between proteins and RNA, and some holes in evolution that arise from the fossil record (which should consist of billions of transitional fossils, instead of none,) and the irreducible complexity of organelles and appendages that totally deflate the theory of evolution. I'm sure some athiest will have something rotten to say, though I'd be happy to consider any facts that could be offered (I'm not an athiest after all,) and neither was Einstein. Though Einstein believed God was impersonal, he still believed.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
That something is another part of the processor, the parts of the brain which are involved in making judgements.


So processors are processing presentations and from that consciousness is formed? That isn't very logical.



Well let's go with Occam's Razor here. My assertion, one that isnot at a variance with science is that consciousness is a collective of brain functions resulting in self awareness, ability to make critical decisions, emotions memory etc. That is to say that mind is to brain what OS is to PC hardware.


Your OS is your culture. And you did not prove it.



You say that somewhere involved there is a spirit that makes our choices for us - ones that are not deterministic.


No, what "you" really are is that spirit. It doesn't do them "for you", it is "you". All that you speak of are attachments/possessions. "Your" brain and so forth. Possessions. That spirit is "you" and what possesses those things.



Which requires the greatest number of assumptions? My money isn't on the supernatural one.


I'm not making any assumptions. I understand why you would believe that, but I use to believe like you, until I spent years of my life studying and working on this topic. As I have pointed out multiple times, go study up on AI and you will find person after person who understands these limits. If you could prove otherwise, you would be the richest man on earth, as you would have made the biggest discovery in the history of mankind.




Outside of maths I would have to be. However I shouldn't call it proof. If I want to be correct I ought say 'evidence'....
Or more to the point evidence beyond reasonable doubt - have any of that?


Again, go work on creating AI and coming up with logical solutions to what you say. You are asking me to put years of my efforts into a simple way you can accept. I can't do that. It would be like trying to teach a 5 year old quantum physics. You need a base understanding of things before you can begin to understand.




Not everyone has great wisdom but everyone makes choices therefore they are not the same thing. What I described is still the deterministic choice.


But it is what everyone attempts to do.




Without time, nothing exists. I am, therefore time.


Without time, change does not exist.




You must at least supply support for your position otherwise....


Go ahead and leave the topic, I don't care. As if!

You are almost downright funny. Your sig talks about how "absolute truth" is false, and at the same time all you speak about and do is "absolute truth". Just like your "deterministic choice" stuff. Your present that as absolute truth. Your entire view of reality is based on absolutes and determination.

I'm not your daddy, and I'm not going to sit here and hand feed things to you. If you can't, or aren't willing to study into things deeper, then it's your loss, not mine. I showed and gave you direction on where to look.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 


Taking a position is making a claim no matter how you wrap it. You take the position of atheism you are making a claim for atheism. And trying to state otherwise is dishonest.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by TurkeyBurgers
 


star - most likely true. And ofcourse it was never going to be supported by religious folk, and was obviously going to be backed by most Atheists.
I figured it was interesting though, and I still don't think too highly of the guy who performed it, when I consider his other works. Either way, the discussion definitely veered off into a whole new direction - one which is just as interesting as anything else really.
I more or less gave up replying...too much effort at this point. Call me lazy, I just want to read others' thoughts and posts now.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Taking a position is making a claim no matter how you wrap it. You take the position of atheism you are making a claim for atheism.


You say "taking a position", but the problem is I don't think you understand what my position is.
I don't believe in a god because there is insufficient evidence. I'm totally open to the idea of a god, and to be quiet honest I would prefer it. But there isn't enough evidence for me to convince myself that any deity exists.
I'm sure you would call me an agnostic, though atheist is more accurate.
I'm not making any claims that there isn't a god. I just don't prescribe to a theistic magazine is all.



Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
And trying to state otherwise is dishonest.


I'm not being dishonest.
If I was being dishonest I wouldn't have provided sources which support my claim.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 01:54 AM
link   
I may not be the smartest block in the pile, and I'm NOT a true ATHEIST, but my beliefs span a plethora of possibilities, most of which do NOT coincide with any of the norms. And I have a 172 IQ in my latest test (2006). I relate to my gut feelings, my dreams, and I usually do quite fine in my life choices.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 01:59 AM
link   
Here is the point I think. There is an observing self, one which chooses or distinguishes, and who has autonomous freedom to choose ie: try moving your finger one way, another, and then either moving it or not moving it (your choice) - question, who is choosing, is that a program, is it random? Or is there a you who is choosing?

Next, the mind, in terms of a conscious observer, can observe the mind thinking, and can be aware that it is aware of being aware that it is aware, etc. etc.

Furthermore, it can be said by this observing self that:

I represent the world in my brain. Also, my brain is part of the world.
So my brain is represented in the world represented in my brain.

And the world represented in my brain is represented in the world represented in my brain represented in the world represented in my brain ad infinitim.

All of these things involve something called a Von Neumann catastrophe
ei.cs.vt.edu...
And in potentia, beyond the past memory-based programming of the ego-mind, arises true consciousness as a type of meta programmer or transcendant ego, one for which the distinction between self consciousness and consciousness in general becomes blurred, such that there is no I choosing until a choice is made, collapsing possibility into a reality distinction. But then where is the I, the awareness of self, in between distinctions, or when "just sitting" and making no distinction of any kind - where if not in an indeterminate metaphysical "realm" of possibility?
clublet.com...
Super Free Will: Metaprogramming & The Quantum Self
astranaut.org...

In this way the choosing self, is a metaphysical phenomenon, and is located nowhere in particular, anywhere, and everywhere, until the distinction is made collapsing the realm of possibility into an actuality or an interpreted reality.

In the Eastern tradition, it is said that true liberation in the Tao resides and abides, provided one refrains from "picking and choosing". This is what may be considered "God consciousness".

Can the atheists grasp these concepts - are they willing to? Or will they merely make a bunch of statements of "fact" in relation to this, which simply attempts to show how smart they are, and how they have it all figured out already?

We are not just a machine - there is a ghost in the machine, a "spirit" if you will, an "I am that I am" who simply IS, but which or I should say WHO is not subject to a final distinction and so resides within a realm of quantum potentia - and within the context of a holographic mind imbedded within a non-local holographic universe, that realm extends to infinity, past the confines of the human scull, a sphere within a sphere, whereby the distinction between the smaller and the larger sphere also becomes blurred - provided the observer can observe while suspending all judgement and reaction/response mechanisms arising from the ego or the past memory program of conditioning. And this IS possible. It's called "sitting meditation", or "just sitting".

And on that note - where precisely IS the past anyway...?

Starting to get the picture..?

[edit on 29-7-2009 by OmegaPoint]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 02:00 AM
link   
reply to post by makinho21
 


The problem is, if you're an atheist and you believe this, you come off as egotistical. It's almost impossible to discuss this without offending someone
.
Personally I don't buy into atheists being more intelligent. I don't think an IQ test can accurately measure intelligence either, even aside from the fact that you can prepare for them.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
Can the atheists grasp these concepts - are they willing to? Or will they merely make a bunch of statements of "fact" in relation to this, which simply attempts to show how smart they are, and how they have it all figured out already?


And how do you know you're right? Isn't it just a theory?
You can't ask a realist to support a theory which isn't backed by sufficient evidence. That's all it comes down to in the end.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 


You see, I disagree atheist is accurate and it is setting the label "atheist" above and apart of the label "theist" all the while pretending that label "atheist" is synomous with label "agnostic" *I call that massively dishonest*. And the parts of the definition you ignore in favor of accentuating only the parts that are complentary to your claim. Perhaps you are being dishonest with yourself.... *shrugs*

You agree atheism is an absolute stance then proceed to say at length it is not by saying you are not absolute on it.

And it sounds awfully like the reasons for this are more social than anything else. Though I admittingly could be wrong. Motivations being the murky water it can be.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 


If you want to insist that you are nothing but a program, and a reaction/response machine, no matter how complex, running out a deterministic program based on nothing whatsoever but past conditioning, lacking any freedom to choose. pr co-creative ability to invent a new future, or a new you - you're welcome to that view. It's the cost of being an atheist, that's all. For everything there is a price, a payoff and a cost. I say you are cutting yourself off from a new possibility and a new understanding as to your true nature and standing, in a relative framework to the whole of all creation, and to your fellow human beings, all of whom share the same ground of being, the same consciousness generated "God-matrix" if you will.

It has implications, either way..



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join