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: 17
24
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   
studies can prove or disprove anything, it's all relative




posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by the hype
 


studies can prove or disprove anything, it's all relative

Relative to?



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 07:38 PM
link   
simply relative my friend. and everything is it.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by the hype
 


......


I see..



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   
The issue is that of materialist monism (matter is primary) vs. what might be called monistic idealism (consciousness is primary).

If it turns out that consciousness IS primary, which the work of people like David Bohm points to, and the object of his research has been to AVOID the various problems inherent in quantum entanglement and "action at a distance" non-locality (though proven by Bell's Theorem) then the whole worldview that these people believe in and accept as the gospel truth of "science", disintegrates.

Yes, everything is in a relative framework with everything else, everywhere, in a non-localized instantaneous timeless spaceless NOW - what IS, and that "presence" is pure God-consciousness, and it's accessible now via a certain substance that I cannot mention, having been warned, but there is not a single materialist reductionist or atheist who has been exposed to this substance, who has not undergone a complete and radical transformation in their viewpoint, worldview, frame of reference, whatever you want to call it.

From my perspective, they are wrong, simple as that, but arrograntly and presumptuously so, even contemptuous towards the very notion of a creator God and a consciousness generated universe which transcends a pure materialist reductionism.

But like the colour red, you can't PROVE it to anyone, they must have the "qualia" of it, to "get it", but to do so also requires an open mind, free of any contemptuous bias, prior to investigation, something the atheists appear to lack, which makes one wonder at the definition of "intelligence" and by what standard the atheist could possibly proclaim to be more intelligent that the inquiring believer.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by OmegaPoint]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 

Do you?

Or are you just being facetious?



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
I don't know what else to offer you. When watching a persons brain burst into action given certain mental tasks to complete, "the logic behind it" is besides the point - there it is infront of us.


Right, and that is what they said when they thought leaving wheat out in the barn in stacks would produce mice. Just because you can make the connection, doesn't mean that is really what the connection is.

In many cases I would simply give the benefit of the doubt, but this is just 1 topic where I can't do that. It's such a big leap from logic, and the action/reaction of this universe that I need to see the proof.




There is nowhere else to look, they once thought it was contained in the heart, at least emotions anyway. That was shown to be wrong, but the symbolism stayed, using a heart to express affection and love. Given the tools to reveal electrical activity in the brain, what did they see? Activity, but not just activity, very task-specific activity. They even found the parts of the brain involved in praying to god. Interesting stuff.


Well I don't know about the heart. But I do know many deep emotions are felt in that area so I can see how they might think that.

As well, I would say that consciousness is connected/inside the brain and so forth, so brain activity is not something I wouldn't expect. I'm not saying the brain doesn't have it's purpose and so forth, or that it doesn't do things. I'm just saying that consciousness itself is separate.

I just don't think you understand what I am saying. I see the brain as being a computer.




You say that consciousness is of the spirit and that the brain is a tool, so in this analogy the lights are the tool, but the spirit is not part of the brain, it is outside the brain interfacing with it. Therefore your analogy is that the lights are on, some one is out.
The lights being on is an indicator that someone may be home, whereas the lights being off indicates that no one is home - analogous of brain death.


But you are saying the lights is the consciousness itself and proof of it. I'm saying the lights are not proof either way. They are what they are, and it is a leap of faith to say that is evidence of consciousness.

Which is again why I ask for the logic, or the special chemical combination that creates it. Bear tracks are not the same thing as a bear.



Since we can see mental facilities burst into action in the same way that sensory facilities burst into action when the person views something, why would a person reasonably assume that consciousness is not a function of the brain - that is silly.


On most any topic except this one I would let it slide. But in this case it is an assumption, and as I am not looking for assumptions, but answers it simply isn't going to do. There are just too many things I know from experience that contradict it.



You say this stuff inspite of the evidence. Your anti-intellectualism strikes me as similar to creationist babble.


If you can show me the logic and such behind it, then I will change my mind. But there are things about consciousness which defy logic and so forth. As I have encountered such things, I simply can't ignore them.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


But there are things about consciousness which defy logic and so forth.

Just because it is not understood in it's entirety, doens't make it illogical. Perhaps the brain is not like a computer! Perhaps it has properties that are intrinsically different than a computer, like the fact that it has evolved over billions of years. Perhaps, just perhaps the logic of the mechanisms involved are difficult to understand.


As well, I would say that consciousness is connected/inside the brain and so forth, so brain activity is not something I wouldn't expect. I'm not saying the brain doesn't have it's purpose and so forth, or that it doesn't do things. I'm just saying that consciousness itself is separate.

If the brain was only a conduit or an interface then it would not need function when choices are being made, it would only be an interpreter of stimulus. But it does not do that. When people lie, and they use their imagination, we can see it, when they tell the truth, their memory recesses light up. When they listen to music, parts of their sensory system lights up, when they play music, their whole brain lights up.

Localisation of function. Everything we do cognitively has patterns


Which is again why I ask for the logic, or the special chemical combination that creates it. Bear tracks are not the same thing as a bear.

We don't need to see a bear to know that one is present.


If you can show me the logic and such behind it, then I will change my mind.

You keep saying that. I don't know what you are asking for.
I've explained that consciousness going to be something that is of degree that we only have occasionally.
That infants and other animals don't have it as much as we do because their brains aren't developed like ours, as much as ours. When our brain is functioning less, we go into subconsciousness, our more animalistic state.
I've explained that it came about by Emergence, a phenomenon seen everywhere in nature; where simple interactions produce complexity - in the case of the human brain, gradually.
I've explained that we can see that it is not a single thing but a cascade of distinct brain functions working together like a sophisticated network - as represented in Neuroscience by MRI and EEG brain scanning techniques amongst others.
I even outlined the deterministic thought process used in making choices, and explained that choice and freewill are not the samething.

Then there is Occam's Razor which says the explanation with the lest amount of required assumptions is the best and therefore ought be the default one until it is disproved.

- The theory that the mind is totally enclosed in the brain fits all evidence known to science and explains why locality of brain damage produces very subtle and specific deficiencies in character, personality, dispositions, reasoning, irritability, language, art etc.

- The theory that consciousness is outside of the brain fits some of the evidence but assumes also something metaphysical.


The latter requires 2 assumptions when the former requires 1 and the latter is also unscientific because it appeals to the metaphysical.


I have cited neuroscience from the start and you have cited nothing except your own experience. I'm sure of my position as the most reasonable, a position that I have pondered and deliberated on for 10 years, one I even held in the hight of my faith in a metaphysical God.


.... but, none of that seem to matter. You just dismiss it outright asking for the logic. I take it from every angle in effort to explain it and I humour you stepping about the issues. And then you again and again ask for the "logic" of it. Would not taking the path of least assumptions be the most logical?



[edit on 29-7-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by OmegaPoint
 


Do you?

Or are you just being facetious?


You're one to talk. I haven't seen you do anything in this thread accept tell people they are wrong and urge them to take a position of faith.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Yet I have explained multiple times as well and you fail to address one particular part. Every single time.


Well then maybe I overlooked something.
Mind telling me what that particular part is?

It comes down to this:
I don't really care if you choose not to believe me and the world's supply of dictionaries (we can drop this right now), but I do care that you accused me of lying and twisting words when I obviously was not.
I dunno, call me old fashioned, but that just seems a bit low, especially for someone who said he had no need for insults, and I very much take that as an insult.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Most of the greatest minds and thinkers on earth, including Newton, Copernicus, Freud, Jung, Einstein, Plato, Niels Bohr, Da Vinci, Edison, Tesla, Max Planck, etc.etc.etc. were not atheists. In fact they ridiculed them.



Couldn't that, perhaps, be because most of the 'minds' (excluding "greatest") in the history of human civilization have prescribed to some religion or another? Isn't it, by and large, indoctrination (whether good or bad, true or false) which determines a person's religious beliefs?
I mean lets be honest here, many of the greatest minds and thinkers on earth haven't had much of a chance to even consider atheism, that's because without a scientific alternative, everyone will look to the supernatural.

But, if you really believe what you just said, then I wonder what you'll think when (and really this day has practically arrived) a majority of the world's greatest thinkers are atheists.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think one group is more intelligent than the other, it has more to do with culture, indoctrination, and different methods of thinking.



Originally posted by Skyfloating
Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors."
- Isaac Newton


I suppose the Theory of Evolution changed that one, didn't it?




Originally posted by Skyfloating
Atheism is a disease of the soul before it becomes an error of understanding." - Plato


Someone claiming an error of understanding based on a subject which is unknowable must himself have an error of understanding.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by TruthParadox]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Yalls discussion is never going to make ground in either direction.

Using Science as a basis to Measure the Metaphysical is ridiculous!

Using Metaphysics to dispute Science is just as ridiculous!

This conversation is like Trying to say that Pearl Jam is better than Nicholas Cage.

Like trying to compare a BMW M3 to a Baseball Game.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Karl Pibram showed that the mind is not like a computer, but more like a holographic waveform. Interestingly, all indication is that the universe is the same thing, and that therefore mind and universe reflect one another in the most intimate way, where it could be said that relativity breaks down in the field of consciousness, and the only reason things appear separate and operate in a purely linear time-based causation, is our own filters and distinctions, and our egoic mind and pre-programmed conditioning, but that still resides emersed in a sea of universal consciousness, what some might call "God-consciousness" since it is not only innerant, but also transcendant.

Some things are right, and from what I've been able to gather, this model is infinitely more congruent with reality the way it REALLY is, than a materialist reductionist separation. Instead everything is wholistic, non-local, and holographic, and as I indicated before, this makes of consciousness, whever it is located, indestinguishable from the larger ocean of consciousness, the implicate order, the Tao.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by OmegaPoint
 


and the only reason things appear separate and operate in a purely linear time-based causation, is our own filters and distinctions, and our egoic mind and pre-programmed conditioning


Oh well that is convenient. For a sec there I thought time was going to collapse and I haven't received my copy of KotOR in the mail yet!

Phew! What a relief.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


It will come to us all, atheist and believers, someday. Be prepared.

No fear, only faith.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
Just because it is not understood in it's entirety, doens't make it illogical. Perhaps the brain is not like a computer! Perhaps it has properties that are intrinsically different than a computer, like the fact that it has evolved over billions of years. Perhaps, just perhaps the logic of the mechanisms involved are difficult to understand.


No, it goes beyond just being difficult to understand. You are talking about logic that has the ability to understand itself, logic that is able to create logic and so forth. You are going from action and reaction(which is a result of logic/is logic) to that which creates and understands the logic and is able to reason. From that to being able to observe, know what it means to be, and even ponder the deep questions etc.

That is a huge jump.

Plus, evolution is a topic in itself in regards to DNA being configuration code, and the result of that configuration being predetermined. The study of genetics is an attempt at reverse engineering that code through trial and error.





If the brain was only a conduit or an interface then it would not need function when choices are being made, it would only be an interpreter of stimulus. But it does not do that. When people lie, and they use their imagination, we can see it, when they tell the truth, their memory recesses light up. When they listen to music, parts of their sensory system lights up, when they play music, their whole brain lights up.


The brain does play a role in all that, I don't disagree. As I stated before, our brain does determine our experience, and what is possible. We do use it in such ways, just as we use our PC's in the same way. There is good discussion about how the left brain is more logical, and the right brain more creative etc. But that which experiences it is different than the experience itself.


We don't need to see a bear to know that one is present.


Consciousness being present isn't the issue. It's a matter of what it is that we are discussing here.



You keep saying that. I don't know what you are asking for.
I've explained that consciousness going to be something that is of degree that we only have occasionally. That infants and other animals don't have it as much as we do because their brains aren't developed like ours, as much as ours. When our brain is functioning less, we go into subconsciousness, our more animalistic state.
I've explained that it came about be Emergence, as phenomenon seen everywhere in nature where simple interactions produce complexity - in the case of the human brain, gradually. I've explained that we can see that it is not a single thing but a cascade of distinct brain functions working together like a sophisticated network - as represented in Neuroscience by MRI and EEG brain scanning techniques amongst others. I even outlined the deterministic thought process used in making choices, and explained that choice and freewill are not the samething.


I'm asking how you can go from patterns going on, into something which is able to percieve and understand and create logic. Saying it must be true and is sophisticated is the same logic people use when they just say "god did it".

Maybe this will help.

en.wikipedia.org...





Then there is Occam's Razor which says the explanation with the lest amount of required assumptions is the best and therefore ought be the default one until it is disproved.


I'm not a fan of Occam's Razor. It is completely subjective and opinionated. Assumptions are not good.

Also, consciousness is not "outside the brain". It's not physical in itself, and is like a void. If I had to point to it in the physical world, I would point towards the brain. But it's not really "there".



I have cited neuroscience from the start and you have cited nothing except your own experience. I'm sure of my position as the most reasonable, a position that I have pondered and deliberated on for 10 years, one I even held in the hight of my faith in a metaphysical God.


I don't accept things based on authority figures. Understanding is my authority.



.... but, none of that seem to matter. You just dismiss it outright asking for the logic. I take it from every angle in effort to explain it and I humour you stepping about the issues. And then you again and again ask for the "logic" of it. Would not taking the path of least assumptions be the most logical?


No, and this is where we are different. I do not think picking which authority figure to accept is intelligent at all. It's all about understand, and you are right - nothing less than that matters to me. Now, I can freely admit when I don't understand something etc, but I refuse to replace understanding with acceptance.

"Any fool can know, the point is to understand" - Einstein.

You are asking me to just accept it, and I can not, will not do that. Especially when the understanding I do have has lead me to way much more, and is contradictory to what you ask me to accept. I have literally had my entire consciousness pulled into another place, in an instant and so forth.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   
Badmedia, I know we can't see eye-to-eye on this but I spotted this Youtube vid on another thread which absolutely amazing me. Figure you may find it interesting.




posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   
The monkey stopped moving his arm!


That WAS wild! Thanks.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   
if self sufficiency isn't intelligent, then i guess safety is stupidity, right? to follow anything besides what is apparent is folly, at best
and maybe this Helmuth Nyborg guy doesn't !think! (its just a thought) the things he's studied... he probably !knows! (there is a huge difference) a great deal more about that stuff than us considering the fact that these are his fields of study...



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   
if self sufficiency isn't intelligent, then i guess safety is stupidity, right? to follow anything besides what is apparent is folly, at best
and maybe this Helmuth Nyborg guy doesn't !think! (its just a thought) the things he's studied... he probably !knows! (there is a huge difference) a great deal more about that stuff than us considering the fact that these are his fields of study...



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join