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: 35
24
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by badmedia
 

You can't learn physics from the television. It is too complicated. There's too much of it. And the mathematics is too messy.

When you read science articles in the popular media - even the popular-science media - you aren't reading science. You're reading journalism about science. Big difference. Often - even on dedicated science media like Space.com - what you read is oversimplified, garbled through incomprehension, twisted to play up the 'story value' or just plain wrong.

To say you don't understand physics is not a personal insult. Neither is it an insult to point out that you are totally unqualified to talk about physics. These are simply facts, which you can rectify by taking a course in the subject.

It would be an insult if somebody said you were to stupid, or too crazy or whatever, to understand physics. Nobody here is saying that.


Which is again like saying I can't understand the basic principles of throwing and catching a baseball without knowing physics. I don't need to know the equations themselves in order to understand the general idea about it.

And it's common sense that the more force you put behind the ball, the further it will travel. Again, do I need to know physics in order to understand these things? No.

Also, what of the astrophysicist that was sourced who is saying the exact same things? All you are doing is attacking me on a person level as far as what you consider credibility, rather than the things I say. Are you going to tell that astrophysicist with all those credentials he doesn't understand physics when he repeats and says exactly what I say? Doubtful, which only goes to point out that all you have done is attacked my credibility and nothing more.

Good luck, I'm tired of wasting my time on people who when pushed resort to such ways. You ask for understanding or why, and then when I show why and the understanding, you attack my credibility. When I try to show that I'm not just some nut who's making things up, I'm attacked for supposedly putting myself above others.

In the end, the only thing you will find acceptable are those who parrot your own thoughts.




posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 06:55 AM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


What has made its round over and over again?
2nd line.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
Which is again like saying I can't understand the basic principles of throwing and catching a baseball without knowing physics... it's common sense that the more force you put behind the ball, the further it will travel.

My poor Badmedia!

The ball will not necessarily travel farther the harder you throw it. The angle of projection also affects the distance travelled. Choose the angle of projection right, and you'll need relatively little force to make the ball go far.


Again, do I need to know physics in order to understand these things?

It would seem so, wouldn't it? Even when it's something as simple as earthbound Newtonian dynamics. When we come to quantum mechanics, which is one of the most complex and counterintuitive subjects in all of physics, specialist knowledge is an absolute must.


All you are doing is attacking me on a person level as far as what you consider credibility, rather than the things I say.

I am doing nothing of the sort. It is the things you say that I disagree with, and which I have taken the trouble to refute. It is you and you alone who have brought yourself into the argument, by claiming that your knowledge is derived from a special, personal experience others cannot share.


Are you going to tell that astrophysicist with all those credentials he doesn't understand physics when he repeats and says exactly what I say?

I don't know which astrophysicist you are talking about, but I'll eat my hat if he really is an astrophysicist and is saying the same things you are.


Good luck, I'm tired of wasting my time on people who when pushed resort to such ways.

You'll be back, mark my words. And - by me, at least - you'll be welcome back.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


Can you really expect anything less considering your opponent?



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


www.thegodtheory.com...



Bernard Haisch, Ph.D., is an astrophysicist and author of over 130 scientific publications. He served as a scientific editor of the Astrophysical Journal for ten years, and was Principal Investigator on several NASA research projects. After earning his Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin in Madison, Haisch did postdoctoral research at the Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics, University of Colorado at Boulder and the University of Utrecht, the Netherlands. His professional positions include Staff Scientist at the Lockheed Martin Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory; Deputy Director of the Center for Extreme Ultraviolet Astrophysics at the University of California, Berkeley; and Visiting Scientist at the Max-Planck-Institut fuer Extraterrestrische Physik in Garching, Germany. He was also Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Scientific Exploration. Prior to his career in astrophysics, Haisch attended the Latin School of Indianapolis and the St. Meinrad Seminary as a student for the Catholic priesthood. The God Theory is his first solo book. He is married, with three children, and lives in the San Francisco Bay Area with his wife, Marsha Sims.


From the preface:

www.thegodtheory.com...



What I propose is an infinite conscious intelligence -- so let's call it God -- who has infinite potential, whose ideas become the laws of physics of our universe and others, and whose purpose in so doing is the transformation of potential into experience. The difference between being able to do something and actually doing it is vast: making it happen, experiencing what it feels like, savoring the sensations are the tremendous difference between theory and practice. Playing the game is far more satisfying than reading the rules.


From the Q&A

www.thegodtheory.com...



How does consciousness arise out of matter?
Well, actually, I don' believe it does. I think that ultimately it is the other way around: that the origin of this universe and all others that may exist lies in the will of a supreme consciousness, a consciousness that we all possess, in varying degrees. Somehow that consciousness created a physical universe. I think we will discover in this century that we shape our reality via consciousness to a much greater degree than is presently acknowledged. The study of consciousness will, I believe, take center stage in science in the decades ahead, and I do not mean simply neurobiology explaining, and thereby in effect explaining away, consciousness.


Same as what I say - creation does not create consciousness, but is rather a product of it. Consciousness is not a result of logic, but is instead that which creates logic. What is spirit is spirit(consciousness) and what is flesh is flesh(creation/the universe). They are separate.

I came to this understanding from working on AI and in doing so I came to recognize the limits of logic.

From the book:



If you think of white light as a metaphor of infinite, formless potential, the colors on a slide or frame of film become a structured reality grounded in the polarity that comes about through intelligent subtraction from that absolute formless potential. It results from the limitation of the unlimited. I contend that this metaphor provides a comprehensible theory for the creation of a manifest reality (our universe) from the selective limitation of infinite potential (God)...

If there exists an absolute realm that consists of infinite potential out of which a created realm of polarity emerges, is there any sensible reason not to call this "God"? Or to put it frankly, if the absolute is not God, what is it? For our purposes here, I will indentify the Absolute with God. More precisely I will call the Absolute the Godhead. Applying this new terminology to the optics analogy, we can conclude that our physical universe comes about when the Godhead selectively limits itself, taking on the role of Creator and manifesting a realm of space and time and, within that realm, filtering out some of its own infinite potential...

Viewed this way, the process of creation is the exact opposite of making something out of nothing. It is, on the contrary, a filtering process that makes something our of everything. Creation is not capricious or random addition; it is intelligent and selective subtraction. The implications of this are profound. If the Absolute in the Godhead, and if creation is the process by which the Godhead filters our parts of its own infinite potential to manifest a physical reality that supports experience, then the stuff that is left over, the residue of this process, is our physical universe, and ourselves included. We are nothing less than a part of that Godhead - quite literally.


See that? From that which is all knowing and all possibilities reduces/filters that down into the reality we see before us. This guy came to the exact same conclusions and understanding completely separate from me. I didn't even know he existed until Omega pointed him out.

Is it provable? About as much as you can prove the color blue. Can't prove the color blue, but you can understand it, you can experience, and among those who have done so you can even talk about it.

And sorry, but I will not be continuing on with the discussion in general. What you say about the ball is exactly why as well. As if I didn't know the angle of the ball had anything to do with it. I was simply trying to get a point across, and rather than you acknowledging the point, you purposely ignored it and went to the anal response of the angle. I'm simply not going to bother myself with such pettiness any longer. I love this topic in general and don't mind talking about it, but I have better things to do than sit around and debate such deliberate foolishness. If you want to understand, I will bend over backwards to try and share the understanding. If you want to be anal, find someone else.





[edit on 8/13/2009 by badmedia]



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 09:12 AM
link   
2012 is a beacon in our mythology, because it's a signal for us to prepare in love...

until now everything we decided or chose was based on faith.
Atheism disprooves itself finally, because they act the same as religion.
Observation is their game, the same for science.

The smalles thing we can find in our universe it the only thing humans could know.
Believes. We believe. An atom is a believe, by majority.

Honesty is the holy way to truth, also in science.
So you end up with believes and nothing more until
logic starts to proove God Himself.
The Arc Of the Covenant. Or the Paradox.

Believes are only possible by connection.
Life is One. Love is becoming One. Love grows by honesty. Honesty transforms anger into understanding, this is justification and is love.

God is One, message of every religion, but misunderstood.

thegospeloflove.com

Time to release the symbols.
The symbols pointed us to the way,
when the eagle-vulture landed on the moon
it means Michael the Archangel,
that what you are when there is only one option in every choice,
landed to be the sons, the moon
that reflects the father, the sun
sons become father after glorification.

Thats the way of the angels.
release symbols, grow love.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by pasttheclouds
 


until now everything we decided or chose was based on faith.
Atheism disprooves itself finally, because they act the same as religion.

In no way is that true, atheism isn't an organised dogma, no holy text, no unifying philosophy, no hymns, no prayer, no tithing, no spirituality, etc..


Believes are only possible by connection.

Please "learn to english".
Learn the difference between:

Belief
Beliefs
Believe
Believes



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 09:36 AM
link   
If athiest's are smarter that Christians then I must be an Athiest!



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by makinho21
 


Ok this is how it works...

First, the thing is that (sadly) being intellegent or being 'well off' in today's society is measured by material things and things of the world, is measured by the things you can attain with your knowledge. Athiests may seem to be more intellegent than believers because they are fully emersed in this world, they take pleasure in it and have no other option but to be of this world. Now God's people are NOT of this world... sure they are in this world and use the things of this world, but they do not abuse the resourses of the world. They only take what what they need and strive to live a simle happy life in the LORD.

It all really boils down to the love of money being the root of all evil.

But one thing i dont get... athiests BELIEVE that there is no God.. they believe in the fact that there is no such thing as faith. So if they believe in that fact, then there is no such thing as an athiest because even "Athiests" BELIEVE in something, and believing in something is called faith. no matter what it is, you still believe in it.. And that my friends, defeats the whole purpose of being an athiest.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 09:50 AM
link   
welfhard,

you talk to talk,

grammar is not important, truth is, because we exsist for that reason.

Atheism is a term, just as religion is, but everybody has his own believes.
but we have to use symbols, words, generalisation to understand the thing,
then we release them back.

That is how the paradox of life works,
it makes logic and the logic makes logic follow God instead of the other way around.
That is the symbol of the arc, which carries the testimony, we as one with life.
We in a prison by our own choice, not yet, because first there is growth by choice.

If you want to beat me, i invite you, but i will turn your head around, i promise.
I guess your answer will be thanks, your grammar is bad.

Ignorance is for those that care more about nothing then their whole selves.
Sckeptisism is the way to god, only when you allow truth to change you.

Jesus and his lost sheep, remember.
First lost, then boomerang.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by pasttheclouds
 


welfhard,

you talk to talk,

Really? I "talk to talk"?? I wish that made sense.


grammar is not important, truth is

It does if you want to communicate a clear and concise message. I've noticed a trend in my 20 years of life; as intelligence goes up grammar tends to follow.


Atheism is a term, just as religion is, but everybody has his own believes.

Dear o lord, it's 'beliefs' ok! Not believes, but beliefs.


That is how the paradox of life works,
it makes logic and the logic makes logic follow God instead of the other way around.
That is the symbol of the arc, which carries the testimony, we as one with life.
We in a prison by our own choice, not yet, because first there is growth by choice.

Some of the most nonsensical ramblings I've ever read.


If you want to beat me, i invite you, but i will turn your head around, i promise.
If you want to beat me, I invite you, but I will turn your head around, I promise.


Ignorance is for those that care more about nothing then their whole selves.
Ignorance is for those who care more about nothing than their whole selves. (well done on 'selves')


Sckeptisism is the way to god, only when you allow truth to change you.
Skepticism is the way to God (no comma) only when you allow truth to change you.


Jesus and his lost sheep, remember.
First lost, then boomerang.

Yea but I'm "sckeptical" that Jesus ever existed outside of fiction.


[edit on 13-8-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


There is no need to attack somebody's grammar. If they cannot write to a standard you expect then o well. As long as you can understand what they are saying, that is all that matters. Who cares if there are a few spelling mistakes. If something doesnt make sense, tell them so, just like you did in your referral to their 'nonsensical rubbish'.

I would like to carry on debating, not nit-picking at eachothers arguments, badmedia was correct on that one, but I admit, I BELIEVE (joking) that Astynaxx really was just having a laugh.

Anyway, I ask myself, do religous people have a lower general IQ than those that are atheists?

Well...as ive said before, it all depends what you define religious as.

Cheers!

Brad

[edit on 13-8-2009 by Toughiv]



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


"Aint no way, aint no how" *atheism* is just as dogmatic *in that it claims absolutes* as "There is, aint no way their aint" *theism*. But from a certain biased point of view you are correct.

Nouns
Belief
Beliefs
Verbs
Believe
Believes



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Atheists believe in rational, logic concepts. Religious belief - Faith - is none of those.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 11:06 AM
link   
On this forum intelligence is probably measured in how good your source is. And if your source is supported by other readers you will get stars and flags. How intelligent is that?

Intelligence shouldn't be measured by your source. It should be measured in how you understand the information told by the source.

If there is one thing i see its that most people dont understand what they read. Its like they say Mmmm is that how it works Okay ill use this as facts.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Toughiv
 


Like I said, certain biased points of view... Not that I would call restricting a word to only a certain personal definition for the reasons some do rational. You have faith just not in the existance of a deity.

Main Entry: 1faith
Pronunciation: \ˈfāth\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths \ˈfāths, sometimes ˈfāthz\
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust — more at bide
Date: 13th century
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

synonyms see belief

— on faith : without question

SOURCE:www.merriam-webster.com...



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


Funnily enough, i do believe in God. Im just saying faith baffles atheists. Id say im a balance between an atheist and a hippie


I.e. I believe in a god, but the mechanics of this world govern my life.

For me the evidence for God is the fact that over centuries and centuries, we still wonder, we appreciate beauty, we live and we die, we have emotions. AND WE STILL ARGUE ABOUT GOD.

It all just seems too meaningful for something that is brute fact / pure chance.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Toughiv
 


Guess that is what I get for assuming. But you must admit the argument you used was that classic cracked logic, faith is not just something one has when one is "religious" *a oversimplification stuffing the meanings of "Organised Religion", "Religion" and "spirituality" into one word for the sake of strong dislike*.
Atheists have "faith" in certain "scientists" *like Dawkins, though I would argue science is inherently agnostic at it's purest form* tells them.

[edit on 13-8-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Toughiv
 


There is no need to attack somebody's grammar.

Hey, I'm just trying to help, plus he doesn't make any sense so the bad grammar really isn't helping the situation.

[edit on 13-8-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   
okay, im not native english speaking, so thats the explination for my grammatical state.
The nice thing about this is, that you can easily ignore what i try to explain to you.

You want to know what faith is ? I just explained it to you
)

Faith is not unlogical, faith is destorying your current beliefsystem by allowing chaos,
to build further on the past a better beliefsystem.

So in a way everybody uses faith, faith is the goal where you build to.

You can build for your own dreams, are you can realise that freedom means that there is no real freedom if it doesnt count for everybody in the same way. (take ur time)

So the goals decides the portions of faith needed to obtain it
faith allows the intentions to work out in actions, if life allows you.
That is the works, build on faith, as written and explaine din the bible, but misunderstood by every religion.

Anyway, BELIEFS are purely based on FAITH, until you construct them on logic,
the nice thing is that logic always brings you to God, it's not that Newton did not had faith, it's that the chain was longer then his lifetime...he lived for truth, he lived by faith going forward to the goal, truth, which is absolute and is god.

That chainsystem is building the paradox of our lifes, and it is the logic of God.
That logic makes God free, and not in need of the logic anymore, so freedom replaces logic and becomes logic. Lucifer falls.

The only thing you know until this day is the beliefs you decided are true by majority or own choice, logic works not by positives in thiw world, but by cancelling all the negatives or untruths, and with this way you will find God.

Any further questions, don't hesitate.

It's not because i look stupid i really am stupid, just that you know


God is our home, his dwelling place is God, that's the new jerusalem, and now is the time to come home.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join