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

reply to post by 297GT


haha if you had seen my post after that you'd realize I was notified of that fact you said it was a fruit. My bad on that...
But yes - there are various types of tomatoes. Grape and cherry tomatoes are rather sweet, and one could, conceivably put them in a fruit salad.
It'd be a little different than the norm, but who wants to be like everyone else anyways?

I don't doubt you are smart (and your wife).
I don't dare claim that "all" religious people are less intelligent - the study does not even say that.
The only mindset that would dare claim to know for sure (in an absolute avenue) is that of the religious inclination - Media is a perfect example of this.

BadMedia seems to, somehow, fail to grasp this very important point:
the study is talking about a trend over a large group.
There is a trend which is observable, and (from what the study says) has been tested.

There are amazingly stupid non-religious people as well, I know some.
However, if we consider the study to be true or even accurate, it says that there is a higher likelihood religious folk will score lower than their non-believing brethren on a IQ test.

Time for a new thread I think.
Media's apparent anger and frustration is stifling any constructive debate that was taking place...

Originally posted by badmedia

Originally posted by Astyanax
If you knew all the necessary preconditions and forces involved, you'd be able to predict the outcome. Randomness would vanish.

And that is exactly what is being said. Things have been purposely limited from the infinite as a means of bringing about such an experience. Things are only random due to a lack of knowledge. That limitation from that which is all knowing, to that which is limited is the father/son relationship.

That which is all knowing(god), purposely limits it's knowledge in order to bring about the experience we have before us. Random is only 1 part of it, it's also what causes time, space and change(change being part of time). As when all is known, these things do not exist because there is nothing new or unknown which can happen.

Poker or looking at a deck of cards face down is a live example of us doing exactly that in order to gain the experience. If the cards were face up, and all was known then odds, probability and chance go out the window, and the experience itself could not exist. Chance being a part of random.

It is our ability to tap into that which is beyond this creation of causality, that breaks the bondage of causality. Otherwise known as creativity. To be more than automated robots and AI like. To be able to create logic, rather than be slave to it and so forth.

This has now been clearly explained to you numerous times. The errors and fallacies in your own arguments have also been made plain. Still you seem unable to understand. Good thing you've taken the trouble to keep us informed about how very clever you are, or some of us might by now be entertaining a very different opinion of your intelligence.

Compared to what? You constantly telling me otherwise, twice in just this response alone. Or how about the numerous posts calling me ignorant for even having any belief in god, or the title of this thread which also perpetrates that I am ignorant?

If you are going to call me ignorant, directly or indirectly I'm going to let you know you are wrong. If you want to pretend or put that up as arrogance because I dare to protest, then go right ahead. But it was this thread and it's contents which brought my intelligence into question, not me.

Funny how it's ok to call me ignorant, but it is not ok for me to say I am not.







[edit on 8/3/2009 by badmedia]

Please disregard this and scroll down to my next post, which is my response.

[edit on 3-8-2009 by makinho21]

[edit on 3-8-2009 by makinho21]

[edit on 3-8-2009 by makinho21]

reply to post by badmedia


So we're like a chip off the old block then and God is the love of universal providence, or the willingness to fall or dive down from absolute oneness, to have an experience, a willing sacrifice, and a dying so that everyone might live with God and in God and through God, and vice versa.

ie: "fear not, nor let your hearts be troubled, little ones, for it pleased the father to share his kingdom with all his children."

something as loving in mutuality, as it is powerful, and infinitely intelligent, embued with the perfect will to love.

That's very nice, very free, loving and extremely Liberating that conception of God - it's like a free open invitation to participate in an eternal act of cocreation, while remaining as an most intimate form of the Godhead via simple awareness and presence.

Gratitude seems to be the appropriate response that emerges, and I'm sure glad for it, that I am a believer, and a scientifically minded person - I get to be thankful to God for including me in his eternal creation, which also raises joy in me, because at bottom, I am then also thanking myself, or the part in me which is indestinguishable from God.

Nice!

reply to post by makinho21


Originally posted by badmedia
Originally posted by Astyanax

If you knew all the necessary preconditions and forces involved, you'd be able to predict the outcome. Randomness would vanish.



And that is exactly what is being said. Things have been purposely limited from the infinite as a means of bringing about such an experience. Things are only random due to a lack of knowledge. That limitation from that which is all knowing, to that which is limited is the father/son relationship.


That which is all knowing(god), purposely limits it's knowledge in order to bring about the experience we have before us. Random is only 1 part of it, it's also what causes time, space and change(change being part of time). As when all is known, these things do not exist because there is nothing new or unknown which can happen.

You are making faith claims, as always before. "Things have been purposely limited from the infinite"? That is your assumption. You can't know that for sure. Ofcourse you recognize this, so once again, the need to obfuscate things comes into play.
You are spouting theology without the label of Christian or Jew or Muslim.

Poker or looking at a deck of cards face down is a live example of us doing exactly that in order to gain the experience. If the cards were face up, and all was known then odds, probability and chance go out the window, and the experience itself could not exist. Chance being a part of random.

It is our ability to tap into that which is beyond this creation of causality, that breaks the bondage of causality. Otherwise known as creativity. To be more than automated robots and AI like. To be able to create logic, rather than be slave to it and so forth.

Creativity now equals "[tapping] in that which is beyond...causality"? So if I go and paint or draw - I am harnessing the divine?
Creating logic as opposed to being a "slave to it" resembles something like "I make up my own understanding of the universe, regardless of what my environment indicates."
You once again, already have assumed you know the divine and the 'that which is beyond this creation of causality' exists (and is within reach it seems).
That is pointless argumentation, you are not leaving open any possibility of being wrong (which is what you are saying we, non-religious people, should be doing - which we do in fact.)

This is why no one takes your posts seriously. You present your facts from a position of righteous arrogance, and yes you have been called it many times before, but for good reason. People agreeing that you are ignorant and arrogant should be a signal to you, not a badge of honor - to be thrown into conversation as a make-shift reason to back up your beliefs.

This has now been clearly explained to you numerous times. The errors and fallacies in your own arguments have also been made plain. Still you seem unable to understand. Good thing you've taken the trouble to keep us informed about how very clever you are, or some of us might by now be entertaining a very different opinion of your intelligence.



Compared to what? You constantly telling me otherwise, twice in just this response alone. Or how about the numerous posts calling me ignorant for even having any belief in god, or the title of this thread which also perpetrates that I am ignorant?

If you are going to call me ignorant, directly or indirectly I'm going to let you know you are wrong. If you want to pretend or put that up as arrogance because I dare to protest, then go right ahead. But it was this thread and it's contents which brought my intelligence into question, not me.

Funny how it's ok to call me ignorant, but it is not ok for me to say I am not.


[edit on 8/3/2009 by badmedia]

You have listed your superior intellect for us time and time again, as if that is to signify why you are right and we are mislead by not taking your religious fog as truth.
We are not wrong, no matter what you think - you have been shown and told why over and over again, but it doesn't seem to really make a difference to you.
As I said, it should be a signal or warning, that so many of us agree with the observation that you are blindly arrogant and ignorant when presenting your points.
However, like a misbehaved child, you simply ignore the sirens, and pretend not to listen.
Maybe you do have it wrong eh? Ofcourse you couldn't though - your IQ is way higher than everyone else's.


- I messed up my quoting, so I had to redo this one. Sorry for the double post.


[edit on 3-8-2009 by makinho21]

[edit on 3-8-2009 by makinho21]

reply to post by Astyanax


I wonder what kind of person would admire the works of people
like Nietzsche and Aleister Crowley???
Adolph Hitler was inspired by Nietzsche's works.
Aleister Crowley was one of the most evil men in the last century.

To makinho21,
You really go out of your way to give others the
impression you're a superior atheist.I doubt you are an atheist.
An atheist would not spend as much time,effort,posts and threads
on a subject they didn't believe in.
In my opinion,you are a God-hater,not the same as being an
atheist. A lot of your past threads deal with religion in one form
or another.
I don't know what your main agenda is.But,I know you have
one.I will be keeping an eye on you!! Just like when I watch my
grandkids' around the cookie jar before dinner.

Mamabeth is watching you!!! Have a nice day!

reply to post by OmegaPoint


Yes, within obvious rules. Still reap what you sow. Can't live in a world without theft, if you are thief. Makes it impossible.

Also, many people do things they don't realize. If you can't give freedom, you won't have it either. People think they are doing the right thing by choosing for another person, and making laws that say this and that. However, what they are really saying is it is ok for 1 person to dictate to another, and so while they cry about freedom, in action they actually work against it. They will not see their own hypocrisy, and they will think things happen to them for no apparent reason.

Basically need people who act like Jesus(and others like him, buddha, ghandi, krishna etc), and that being the norm, rather than people just worshipping and praising Jesus and acting nothing like him.

That should be the norm rather than the exception.



[edit on 8/3/2009 by badmedia]

Originally posted by makinho21
You are making faith claims, as always before. "Things have been purposely limited from the infinite"? That is your assumption. You can't know that for sure. Ofcourse you recognize this, so once again, the need to obfuscate things comes into play.
You are spouting theology without the label of Christian or Jew or Muslim.

So, how do you know I don't know such a thing and that it is just an assumption? Based only on the fact that you do not know it? So, does this mean that anything you don't know, or those who you think of as authority doesn't know that it is by default impossible to know.

Creativity now equals "[tapping] in that which is beyond...causality"? So if I go and paint or draw - I am harnessing the divine?
Creating logic as opposed to being a "slave to it" resembles something like "I make up my own understanding of the universe, regardless of what my environment indicates."
You once again, already have assumed you know the divine and the 'that which is beyond this creation of causality' exists (and is within reach it seems).
That is pointless argumentation, you are not leaving open any possibility of being wrong (which is what you are saying we, non-religious people, should be doing - which we do in fact.)

equals? Nah. Comes from? Yah. You are not harnessing the divine, it is the divine within you already that allows it.

Logic can not create logic. See, I'm a programmer and I work with logic for a living. I create systems based on logic, and I just so happen to be pretty good at it. Programs do many wonderful things because we are able to put our logic into the program, and the problem carries out that logic. However, the program which is nothing but logic is unable to create it's own logic.

This is why no one takes your posts seriously. You present your facts from a position of righteous arrogance, and yes you have been called it many times before, but for good reason. People agreeing that you are ignorant and arrogant should be a signal to you, not a badge of honor - to be thrown into conversation as a make-shift reason to back up your beliefs.

What ever gave you the idea that my posts aren't taken seriously?

I guess I forgot to mention that the majority of those in the past who have said that, no longer believe that and now share my opinions on the things they once disagreed with, and now come to me from time to time for advice and questions.

That's the thing. I don't expect anyone to change their minds today. The only way that will happen is if they foolish just accept what I say. And if I thought that would happen, I wouldn't post. However, in time things will become clear and people start to understand. They are unable to ignore the arguments made, and it will be a constant reminder anytime a situation comes up when the question is purposed.

Every man will think they are right, if they thought they were wrong they would change their mind.

Time proves me right, and if I am wrong then time will also prove me wrong.

You have listed your superior intellect for us time and time again, as if that is to signify why you are right and we are mislead by not taking your religious fog as truth.
We are not wrong, no matter what you think - you have been shown and told why over and over again, but it doesn't seem to really make a difference to you.
As I said, it should be a signal or warning, that so many of us agree with the observation that you are blindly arrogant and ignorant when presenting your points.
However, like a misbehaved child, you simply ignore the sirens, and pretend not to listen.
Maybe you do have it wrong eh? Ofcourse you couldn't though - your IQ is way higher than everyone else's.

This thread calls me ignorant. I dispute the claim.

You can liken that to sirens, but to me it sounds more like the neighbors dog who won't quit barking.

Interesting how those posts containing the brilliant scientists viewpoint of the new paradigm emerging which points a sturdy finger to God, went largely ignored.. just as I suspected.

Dude they are not to be swayed by ANY argument or any information, we can talk about consciousness, non-locality, holographic mind and universe 'til we're blue in the face, it makes no difference to the atheist - they are unwilling to consider any new information which is contrary to their already previously held firm view about themselves and the world and how it all works. They cannot move past their previously held bais and prejudice, and will not, under any circumstances. That's part of being an atheist, there is no room for God or even a non-local metaphysical connecting principal of cosmological unity, or transcendance. It just doesn't "compute" for them, can't you see that by now? It's a waste of time, there is no communication here, nor any possibility for it, where communication must be it's own definition involve and include the possibility of sharing ideas which are taken into consideration and evaluation.

I thought I made some fine posts back there, but the conversation goes on as if those ideas were not even presented in the first place.

But I have to say that I've never seen anyone more close minded or intellectually stubborn, and asbolutely convinced they are right, than the atheists. I almost feel deep compassion for them, in so far as they too will meet their maker, but are much more apt to reject anything novel from entering their sphere of conscious awareness.

The Tibbetan Book of the Dead speaks of this view, and how destructive it is to the soul.

I think they are afraid of God.

[edit on 3-8-2009 by OmegaPoint]

reply to post by OmegaPoint


I enjoyed the posts, and wouldn't mind more of them. I'm sure there are others who enjoy them as well.

Aside from that - patience. Can't expect a tree to grow overnight. It must build it's roots underground and out of view before it is strong enough to seek light.

There was a time when we were about to go to war with Iraq, and I belong too this small community. I told them day after day what was wrong with it, and how it would end up. All I got in response were names and threats. For a few years this was all I got from them.

But over time they couldn't ignore what I said. I quoted the constitution constantly and showed them how it was meant to be followed and such. They rejected it. They called me know it all and acted no different than they do now in this thread. In fact, this is actually much nicer than that was.

Slowly and surely, 1 by 1 they started to change. Now they quote the constitution and understand it and so forth. Now they know the 2 party system is a scam, they know the fed is a scam and so forth. I'm talking about people who would repeat Sean Hannity talking points word for word.

All that happened was those little things I said to them stuck in their mind, and everytime it is thought about and such, they remember it. The argument carries on in their head long after I the discussion is over. Eventually they come to understand, and as nobody wants to be wrong they change their minds.

So chin up. Seeds come with a shell for a reason.








[edit on 8/3/2009 by badmedia]

"

So, how do you know I don't know such a thing and that it is just an assumption? Based only on the fact that you do not know it? So, does this mean that anything you don't know, or those who you think of as authority doesn't know that it is by default impossible to know.

"

No, obviously you can learn and remember knowledge that I have not remembered or learned about. What you are claiming, however, is to know divine secrets of life - which are neither backed or evident - that you have concluded on your own. It isn't accessible to us all in the same way as learning history or chemistry is.

it's your own little realization, devoid of objective acceptance, that you, in turn, pass off as given fact - that is why it is different. That is why you are making assumptions. Does that statement produce testable observations? Predictions that can be view beyond your narrow arrogant mind?
If it does please tell me and I will revoke my accusation.

"

equals? Nah. Comes from? Yah. You are not harnessing the divine, it is the divine within you already that allows it. Logic can not create logic. See, I'm a programmer and I work with logic for a living. I create systems based on logic, and I just so happen to be pretty good at it. Programs do many wonderful things because we are able to put our logic into the program, and the problem carries out that logic. However, the program which is nothing but logic is unable to create it's own logic.

"

Where is this evident anywhere except in your head? I could simply say - you being a good programmer is the ancestral remnant genius implanted in our species by alien visitors millennia ago. Same sort of pointless, unfalsifiable statement. Bullocks is what is...not the divine showing through.

Computer systems are not animated evolving organisms. That is why AI fails to compare to humans and animals in terms of thinking and self-recognition (at this point in time atleast).
You are arguing, now, for a first cause syllogism using computer programs.
Like I said, all you have is faith-claims. Nothing more, nothing less.

The universe and our environment are not a computer program, nor does it act like one. It is changing and expanding, and while it conforms to laws and math we have started to understand, there is no evidence to suggest it is "programmed" by anything.
What a garbage program anyways, destined to eventually destroy itself. It's more like a self-deprecating virus. Everything in the universe is destined to eventually die, if you want to use that description. Heat-death is a known and observable trait. It is occurring around us all the time.
Whoever created it was rather sadistic don't you think? Providing us with an environment which will eventually cease to be habitable.

logic doesn't create logic, but genes do create more genes. Proteins do create proteins.
programs don't constantly take in new information and use it to expand their understanding. They are set in their tasks (atleast from what I have read. I could be wrong).
Humans and animals do. They are constantly learning and developing, they aren't just set in stone.
Their environment shapes them as well. Environment provides a input of information and logic that expands the organism.

I have no answer for where that original "logic" comes from. I would never dare be so arrogant as to say I do - which is drastically the opposite of yourself, who seems to think you know the mechanisms and inner-workings of how life started.
Ok tell us please. If you have been shown divine truth, share it with us.


"

What ever gave you the idea that my posts aren't taken seriously? I guess I forgot to mention that the majority of those in the past who have said that, no longer believe that and now share my opinions on the things they once disagreed with, and now come to me from time to time for advice and questions. That's the thing. I don't expect anyone to change their minds today. The only way that will happen is if they foolish just accept what I say. And if I thought that would happen, I wouldn't post. However, in time things will become clear and people start to understand. They are unable to ignore the arguments made, and it will be a constant reminder anytime a situation comes up when the question is purposed. Every man will think they are right, if they thought they were wrong they would change their mind. Time proves me right, and if I am wrong then time will also prove me wrong.

"



Are you a prophet now? You have changed the masses views of life have you? Do you run an evangelical church...because you sure sound like a reverend.
From what I read, everyone of the people arguing against you have come to the same conclusion. It is pretty easy for everyone to see.
Arrogance doesn't mean accurate.

Heresay reports are useless and don't help your arguments.
Does it matter you (perhaps) changed someones view and they now see as you do?
Not in the least.

Once again - I am not going to respond anymore because it's rather annoying to repeat the same thing over and over again,
you argue from a position of certain correction. Absolute knowledge, that you, know better than we.
That doesn't get us anywhere, it merely reinforces why people call you ignorant and arrogant.

"

if I am wrong, time will also prove me wrong

" - the first honest thing you have said this entire time.
Gidday preacher

Perhaps you should get your ears checked - sirens and barking aren't similar at all...







[edit on 3-8-2009 by makinho21]

[edit on 3-8-2009 by makinho21]

It's been explained to you over and over again, in many different ways, monkey jesus atheist god-hating person. Don't worry about it. Some who seek find. We get that you don't get it, and don't want to, it's fine. Surely this conversation has become a waste of time.. why go on?
There are people like you in every age, and you were also there in Jesus time shouting slurs and whatnot. For some, nothing will change, and nothing will ever change their mind, not even the miraculous.
One thing is certain, atheists are by no means more intelligent or capable of grasping complex and abstract scientific concepts.

reply to post by OmegaPoint


I am shocked OmegaPoint. It is NEVER a good idea to generalize and have a prejudice like that. Not ALL Atheists are not willing to look at new evidence.

I myself am the Polar opposite of what Badmedia is.

Badmedia is a fine example of someone who is NOT willing to look at new evidence. He will ADAMANTLY say that there is no way he will change his mind about his religious views in this lifetime.

That is such a hardliner statement.

To say that you are 100% correct and there is nothing that will ever change your mind.

What is the point of even posting in the thread other than to preach? If you are 100% sure that you are correct there leaves absolutely no room to gain any new insight or knowledge.

All you will say is "Wow great point, too bad your wrong because I am 100% correct".

You come to ATS not to gain insight, not to learn or be enlightened but to preach.

I am an Atheist and I am not like that. I will NEVER say that there is nothing that will sway me. NOTHING is 100% NOTHING.

We do not deal with Absolutes as Humans. We deal with something called time. We can make predictions based on current and past events but we can NEVER be 100% sure of something. 99.9999999% but NEVER 100%

The future is not knowable. We cannot know the future. Things can change in an instant.

To say that you are 100% sure you are right and NOTHING in this life will change your mind is the epitome of ignorance.

reply to post by OmegaPoint

Atheist and god-hating are contradictory terms. One cannot simultaneously be both.

reply to post by makinho21


It all boils down to you will deny anything that you yourself lack. That's it. The entire basis of your claim is that I can't possibly know what I do, because you can't see it as well.

There are simply limits to our communication which are impossible for me to break. I also can't show a blind man what the color blue is. Does that mean the color blue does not exist? No, it just means that because the blind man has never experienced the color blue, he is unable to understand.

Over and over I have tried to show you things. Examples of the same understanding. You guys can't even agree on that. And those are things which are common knowledge.

You get all on me about things, but yet at the same time you think something came from nothing and so forth. Why don't you go into fits when scientists tell you that? Because it's accepted by society is why. That is the only difference. If scientists came out tomorrow and started saying the same things I am saying, and the media treated it as some big new truth and discovery, you'd be repeating no questions asked.

I have yet to see you even really address anything I've said. All I ever see or get from you are personal attacks, and dogma saying I can't possibly know what I do.

It's not even that you disagree with me that is so disgusting here. It's the plain out fact that you can't even allow for such things. You claim to be open minded, you claim to be intellectual, but when put to the test you fall flat on your face and you are exposed as just another box.

And even if we simply assume I made it up - what does that say in itself? If I am able to make such a thing up, then what does that say for things which are even greater than I?

reply to post by TurkeyBurgers


lol, I am simply only talking about the construct itself. The possibilities within that are endless, as well as that in itself not saying anything about where we currently are.

There are tons of things I do not know and so forth. I am simply aware of the possibilities and the construct in which those possibilities arrive.

For all I know, this particular experience I'm having know could be a brain in a vat with some scientists sending electrical signals through my brain to produce the reality I see before me. And yet, even in that it says I could have any experience in itself depending on the patterns being thrown at me. 1 experience to the next is simply a matter of what the patterns are.

We haven't even gotten into realities within realities.

Who said anything about knowing the future?

But am I going to change my mind about that construct? Probably not. And why? Because within that construct there are an unlimited amount of possibilities. Every reality and experience fits into it.

Who knows what the experience itself will bring. That is part of the limitation of the experience itself.

Do you know what a pizza smells like? Now put that into words. Go ahead, I'll wait.





[edit on 8/3/2009 by badmedia]

reply to post by badmedia


Badmedia your belief is the ultimate Conman. It changes depending on how it is questioned. One minute it is the Bible and The Father, the next it is the Matrix. It adapts and survives because in fact YOU HAVE NO FRIGGING CLUE about what it is that you actually believe!

You refuse to accurately describe what you believe. If you do make any attempt to describe what you believe in any understandable way you then change the description for your belief in your next post as often as I change clothes.

Let me know when you actually figure out what you do believe so that we can have a decent discussion.

I am not going to answer you "Pizza Smell" question because I am sure the answer that I give you will end up much like your

So, what would it take to make you believe that 4+9=302?

When I gave you the answer of

I would take 4 objects (we will use apples for this demonstration) so 4 apples and 9 apples and put them into one large pile and count the number of apples in that pile.

And your response was

Honestly? I think you overcompensated a ton to promote your own bias. All that was needed, was - you would have to change my understanding. And there was somewhat of a personal lesson in that, because that is also what it would take for you to change. But no, instead you give me crap.

All the stuff about science this, reviews and such. That was nothing more than a bunch of you trying to promote your own views. And that you actually believed that I would not notice or let is slide is basically an insult, as you assume that I or others would not recognize it for what it is. By doing such, you imply that I'm too stupid to not see it.

It's not honest debate or discussion if you feel the need to put spin on your responses. You purposely avoided the meaning and point of the question, and I have no use or care for such things.

Hopefully you can take some time and reflect on yourself and what you do indeed believe. Get back to me when you figure that out.

PRO TIP - It is OK to say that you don't know

reply to post by TurkeyBurgers


Can you be a little more dishonest please? That is not all you said in response to that question. You went on into a big long blurb about having controlled environments, scientific papers published, peer reviews and on and on, which is why I said you were overcompensating the answer of the question.

Disgusting, and I have nothing for you if you are just going to be dishonest. You can remain ignorant for all I care at this point. My patience has limits and you just found it.

It's one thing to just not understand me and disagree. It's a completely other thing when you purposely lie and present things in a false light. You are not worth my time.

Trash is all that is. Straight up trash.




[edit on 8/3/2009 by badmedia]

For anyone curious. This is was his real response. Sorry Turkey, you have exposed yourself for what you are doing, promoting an agenda rather than searching for truth. Otherwise, these kind of lame tactics wouldn't be happening.

so much for being "more intelligent". I guess we need to work on being honest first.

www.belowtopsecret.com...

I would take 4 objects (we will use apples for this demonstration) so 4 apples and 9 apples and put them into one large pile and count the number of apples in that pile.

If the number of apples that exist in the pile when I put 4 apples and 9 apples together is 302 then I would question my own sanity.

I would seek to validate that 4 apples and 9 apples combined together suddenly now makes 302 apples.

This could be validated by performing experiments using the STRICT guidelines of the Scientific Method.

I could set up an experiment that used a DOUBLE BLIND to ensure that no Bias would corrupt the data from the experiment.

I would publish these findings and compare them to other published experiments using measurement and mathematics.

I would seek to see other Humans Scientific Experiments to validate that Mathematics had suddenly been altered.

I would be able to repeat the Experiments that other had performed and compare their results to my results.

How do you like DEM apples? errrr...bananas.

Trash sir, nothing but trash.

I'm done with you.

[edit on 8/3/2009 by badmedia]