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: 15
24
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


I assume many are simply scared to accept the conclusion we are not special.
Personally I think not being a divine creation that stands out compared to all the other creatures and organisms on this planet (and potentially others) is special. It means we can't just abuse our surroundings as we do - everything else is just as important and deserves life just as much as humanity.
We can not just live in a little bubble anymore.




posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by sickofitall2012
 

45 is pretty horrendous dude...I doubt you would be able write a properly communicated paragraph, let alone use a computer and the web.
Did you mistype that or...



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by badmedia
 


Not at all. It explains how a brain can evolve to produce intelligence, self-awareness, emotion, memory, what ever consciousness is, etc. Hell, life itself is just emergence in chemistry.

I don't see why you can't face this. Neuroscience has demonstrated that human characteristic like intelligence and sociability and everything comes down to brain activity - very advanced and developed brain activity.
It would come about via emergence in biology. Biology, itself, is an example of emergence.

Our minds have a perfectly naturalistic explanation, complete with evidence.

Not only that but it can be made to be understood, even to simpletons. It's not some "You have to experience it to understand" hooey that you're peddling.


What you are saying is it just happens magically or by chance. I asked you for the logic of it. Might as well just said god did it. Even a "simpleton" can understand that, and it doesn't require anything to understand it.

You just don't at all seem to get what I am talking about. I have stated before that the brain is a tool, and it defines our experience. I am not talking about what defines our experience, I am talking about that which actually experiences it.

The fact of the matter is, you accept that explanation because you haven't had any experience, or put any effort towards testing, and do not understand.

You believe you are flesh, and you will just look for things that validate that. The difference is, I actually put it it to the test.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


There is something humbling about being reminded that you aren't divine, that you are but the sum of your biology. It's arrogant to assume that we are divine in the same way it is arrogant to assume earth is the centre of the universe.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by makinho21
reply to post by Welfhard
 


I assume many are simply scared to accept the conclusion we are not special.
Personally I think not being a divine creation that stands out compared to all the other creatures and organisms on this planet (and potentially others) is special. It means we can't just abuse our surroundings as we do - everything else is just as important and deserves life just as much as humanity.
We can not just live in a little bubble anymore.


What is so scary about it? Nothing at all. You are right, it's just an assumption, and when you assume, you make and "ass" outta "u and "me".

I can easily just say you are scared that one day you might have to answer to a higher power for the things you've done. Or that you are scared to think you aren't at the top of the food chain or whatever. But it would all be assumptions, it's all BS and it's freaking retarded to make such claims.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


What you are saying is it just happens magically or by chance. I asked you for the logic of it. Might as well just said god did it. Even a "simpleton" can understand that, and it doesn't require anything to understand it.

You just don't at all seem to get what I am talking about. I have stated before that the brain is a tool, and it defines our experience. I am not talking about what defines our experience, I am talking about that which actually experiences it.

The fact of the matter is, you accept that explanation because you haven't had any experience, or put any effort towards testing, and do not understand.

You believe you are flesh, and you will just look for things that validate that. The difference is, I actually put it it to the test.


Well frankly I don't much care what you think anymore. Your argument is no longer with me and the phenomena that I cited for my reasoning - your argument is with science, most specifically Neuroscience.

AI is not a good analogue to the human mind because it doesn't evolve outside of human ingenuity. Make evolving AI and give it 3 billion years to evolve and see what emergence produces.

Goodbye.


[edit on 29-7-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


There is something humbling about being reminded that you aren't divine, that you are but the sum of your biology. It's arrogant to assume that we are divine in the same way it is arrogant to assume earth is the centre of the universe.


And one can easily say there is something humbling about knowing there is a greater power one must answer to and so forth.

Again, can we stop with the stupid crap? I asked for that bit of logic, and I'm still waiting for it.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
Well frankly I don't much care what you think anymore. Your argument is not longer with me and the phenomena that I cited for my reasoning - your argument is with science, most specifically Neuroscience.

AI is not a good analogue to the human mind because it doesn't evolve outside of human ingenuity. Make evolving AI and give it 3 billion years to evolve and see what emergence produces.

Goodbye.


Do you even know what phenomena means?



1. An occurrence, circumstance, or fact that is perceptible by the senses.
2. pl. -nons.
1. An unusual, significant, or unaccountable fact or occurrence; a marvel.
2. A remarkable or outstanding person; a paragon. See synonyms at wonder.
3. Philosophy. In the philosophy of Kant, an object as it is perceived by the senses, as opposed to a noumenon.
4. Physics. An observable event.


I am asking you what allows you to perceive phenomena in the first place, and your response is that phenomena caused it?



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by makinho21
 


IQ of 145 it was a typo.
I don't believe in God because some human said to, I believe because of what I see and know. My belief is based more on science than blind faith.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   
And so how does emergence work in the world of casuality? What is the cause? What is the logic behind it?

You have none.

Which is it? Casuality or emergence? If it's casuality, then it has a cause. If it has a cause, then there is logic behind it. Emergence is when there is no logical cause for the result.

Make up your mind.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


I am asking you what allows you to perceive phenomena in the first place, and your response is that phenomena caused it?


The phenomena is emergence, sentience, biology everything.

The brain does everything, part of it perceives, part of it thinks etc.

At every turn all you every did was say "no it doesn't" even when I actually cited an article that is doing ongoing research into seeing the brain think and make decisions, you still said "no it doesn't."

You refuse what science teaches about the mind and the brain and appeal to spirits, or the soul or whatever. You constantly rejected my reasoning by saying it wasn't what it was, and when it was my turn to ask for evidence, you refused.

I'm done relaying neuroscience and deterministic philosophy to you if you will deny it out of hand.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by badmedia
 


I am asking you what allows you to perceive phenomena in the first place, and your response is that phenomena caused it?


The phenomena is emergence, sentience, biology everything.

The brain does everything, part of it perceives, part of it thinks etc.

At every turn all you every did was say "no it doesn't" even when I actually cited an article that is doing ongoing research into seeing the brain think and make decisions, you still said "no it doesn't."

You refuse what science teaches about the mind and the brain and appeal to spirits, or the soul or whatever. You constantly rejected my reasoning by saying it wasn't what it was, and when it was my turn to ask for evidence, you refused.

I'm done relaying neuroscience and deterministic philosophy to you if you will deny it out of hand.


I didn't realize that having others repeat what you say was "proof". Silly me, I was trying to show you the understanding and reasons of why these things are said.


www.psych.utoronto.ca...

www.ai-forum.org...

www.aaai.org...



On one hand, there is the hope of being able to design better AI programs; on the other hand, the actual implementations of working systems could be helpful for understanding consciousness.


home.earthlink.net...

And plenty more.

It's an ongoing discussion and debate, and nobody has been able to solve it. Some have claimed it, but it's never actually held up.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   


Are atheists more intelligent than religious believers?


No.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


The minute we speak as you religious fanatics do, we get chastised? Atleast I admitted it was a personal assumption, and I never played it off as fact.
FACT - you and your compatriots do, because it is all you have to go by. As Welf said, AI is a poor analogy. It is progressing at a formidable rate, and I recall reading we have developed systems that do fix themselves internally and independently; however, we don't observe any self evolution or "mutation". (I could be wrong though, I don't study this too often)

You critique us when we simply make an admittedly personal conjecture, and yet that is all you have to back up your statements and claims. That is what occurs when one argues from the 'unkown' and 'absolute' - you can only make up theories that have no basis in practical every day life.
Abiogenesis has already been demonstrated to show how amino acids and proteins can form out of inanimate compounds and chemicals.
The study was performed under a different set of atmospheric conditions than earth's, but that is irrelevant; that fact is it has been performed and documented.
Go look it up...maybe you'll learn something

'The more you know'

[edit on 29-7-2009 by makinho21]

[edit on 29-7-2009 by makinho21]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


Yeah ok, when reality becomes known to be something other than naturalistic and material - spirits and other metaphysical options can be put on the table.

At this stage the best, most developed argument is the human is entirely biological.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by makinho21
reply to post by badmedia
 


The minute we speak as you religious fanatics do, we get chastised? Atleast I admitted it was a personal assumption, and I never played it off as fact.
FACT - you and your compatriots do, because it is all you have to go by. As Welf said, AI is a poor analogy. It is progressing at a formidable rate, and I recall reading we have developed systems that do fix themselves internally and independently; however, we don't observe any self evolution or "mutation". (I could be wrong though, I don't study this too often)

You critique us when we simply make an admittedly personal conjecture, and yet that is all you have to back up your statements and claims. That is what occurs when one argues from the 'unkown' and 'absolute' - you can only make up theories that have no basis in practical every day life.
Abiogenesis is has already been demonstrated to show how amino acids and proteins can form out of inanimate compounds and chemicals.
The study was performed under a different set of atmospheric conditions than earth's, but that is irrelevant; that fact is it has been performed and documented.
Go look it up...maybe you'll learn something

'The more you know'


I don't even belong to a religion, and I can't stand organized religion. Go ahead and read my posts, you think I give you a hard time, it's nothing compared to what I give them.

Read my sig, they are the ones who believe, you are the ones who don't believe. Neither actually understands, nor will they as long as they are belief based(for or against).

I really don't even think you guys have a clue what I am talking about.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia

Originally posted by Welfhard
Well frankly I don't much care what you think anymore. Your argument is not longer with me and the phenomena that I cited for my reasoning - your argument is with science, most specifically Neuroscience.

AI is not a good analogue to the human mind because it doesn't evolve outside of human ingenuity. Make evolving AI and give it 3 billion years to evolve and see what emergence produces.

Goodbye.


Do you even know what phenomena means?



1. An occurrence, circumstance, or fact that is perceptible by the senses.
2. pl. -nons.
1. An unusual, significant, or unaccountable fact or occurrence; a marvel.
2. A remarkable or outstanding person; a paragon. See synonyms at wonder.
3. Philosophy. In the philosophy of Kant, an object as it is perceived by the senses, as opposed to a noumenon.
4. Physics. An observable event.


I am asking you what allows you to perceive phenomena in the first place, and your response is that phenomena caused it?



Let's call this the "you're wrong and I'm right because you spelled or erred in grammatical use" game.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


I should simply word it as "spiritual" from now on - my bad. Using the term religious does not encompass many of the mindsets I am referring to.
However, you are still making faith claims *from what I have read* and that is what religious folk do.

If we have misrepresented what you are trying to say, please write it out for me.
I will gladly read it and try and understand - though, as you compared yourself to Einstein sharing knowledge with children - the vast difference in our mental capabilities may prevent me from truly becoming enlightened, as you so obviously are.

You never know - maybe one of those children did comprehend it entirely



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by badmedia
 


Yeah ok, when reality becomes known to be something other than naturalistic and material - spirits and other metaphysical options can be put on the table.

At this stage the best, most developed argument is the human is entirely biological.


You don't even know what "spirit" is or means. It's not a possession, it's that which possesses. All that you will define yourself as are external/physical attachments. Spirit/soul/god = consciousness.

Becomes known by whom? The majority? Authorities? Accepted by mainstream?

Sorry, but that is what I consider to be low levels of thinking, and the kind of thinking that holds understanding back, rather than pushes it forward.

By such levels of thinking, the earth would still be flat and 6000 years old. You would be pushing darwin down.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by makinho21
Let's call this the "you're wrong and I'm right because you spelled or erred in grammatical use" game.


Actually I didn't even do that.

Phenomenon, singular. Phenomena, plural. - although there are others.

And I was using the physics definition, #4.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join