Liberals and atheists smarter?

[Ender EnZed]

To the first bit: I think we might just be confusing/not understanding each other here.

True...

Very good. Your first post in this thread stated otherwise. We're in agreement on this point now then.

the same could be levelled at any theory that has some form of basis, irrespective of how concrete it is... whether it be taken on faith or is proven in some way...

Any faith based theory cannot be disproved as by requiring faith it is by definition unfalsifiable.

I agree with you and would personally class the "agnostic thinkers" as those more likely to have above average intelligence...

I wasn't suggesting that. Just that it is possible to have an agnostic of greater than average intelligence. I have no reason to expect an average agnostic to be of greater than average intelligence.

primarily as they generally weigh up the pros and cons and undertake the course of action most likely to yield the "best" result (yes falsifiable)...

In my opinion they tend to be those too embarrassed to admit that they still believe in God despite knowing it is an illogical and irrational belief.

[Mudfart]

we hold such high opinions of ourselves we moulded god in OUR image. coz we so smart.

[Skyryder]

Yep any one who believes in the 7 day thing has got to have lost their smarts somewhere. And that horny guy that walks around carrying a trident that some believe is the cause of their own lack of self control is the manifestation of some loose change jingling in the cranial cavity.

To think that the sky is full of guys and gals singing in harmony amongst the clouds is just another sign that lost marbles is no substute for conkers. Why anyone would aspire to live in a place where there is no sex for all eternity is further proof that such people are bonkers.

Skyyrder

[mashman]

To the first bit: I think we might just be confusing/not understanding each other here.

What do you mean?

Very good. Your first post in this thread stated otherwise. We're in agreement on this point now then.

"True" in that there's nothing incorrect in your statement... to me anyway... Yes the original statement I made for my initial hypothesis is incorrect in that I didn't say the big bang and god could also be proven... A lesson learned.

Any faith based theory cannot be disproved as by requiring faith it is by definition unfalsifiable.

I would have thought faith based theories would be even more suseptable to falsification... primarily because faith can be "misplaced"... potentially falsified by further reasoning, further education, further understanding of the area that you may or may not have had faith in?

I wasn't suggesting that. Just that it is possible to have an agnostic of greater than average intelligence. I have no reason to expect an average agnostic to be of greater than average intelligence.

From what i can tell... you are saying that brighter agnostics are "possible", i'm saying that I would have thought, logically, that brighter agnostics were more "probable"...

In my opinion they tend to be those too embarrassed to admit that they still believe in God despite knowing it is an illogical and irrational belief.

Are you talking about atheists now? people in general? or agnostics (because they can't believe)? or ???

[Usarka]

The great thing about Religion (mainstream) is that you can Sin for 6 days of the week & repent on the 7th....

Tens of thousands of catholics reckon the great thing about religion is molesting children.

[scissorhands]

1% ers arnt always 'intelligent' by test, but not getting sucked in by the beast shows wisdom....

[Big Dave]

[QUOTE=Skyryder;1129672676 no sex for all eternity is further proof that such people are bonkers.[/QUOTE]

This is a flawed argument. How can they Bonk if there is no sex.

[Pixie]

LOL!!! Personally my measure of intelligence is how many of all the people you know, like and respect you, value your opinion and enjoy your company.

Funny,my measure of how much money you have is exactly the same

[Edbear]

Funny,my measure of how much money you have is exactly the same

You may have a point...

[Ender EnZed]

What do you mean?

That I you quoted me quoting you quoting me but on this line I think we lost each other some way back and i can't really be bothered identifying where and laying it out with tidy quotes. I think it was to do with you saying the Big Bang could not be disproven and I saying the Big Bang could be disproven. Which still leads me to...

"True" in that there's nothing incorrect in your statement... to me anyway... Yes the original statement I made for my initial hypothesis is incorrect in that I didn't say the big bang and god could also be proven... A lesson learned.

Are you saying here that the Big Bang and God could be proven??? That's the same as saying that the Big Band and God could not be disproven!!!

I would have thought faith based theories would be even more suseptable to falsification... primarily because faith can be "misplaced"... potentially falsified by further reasoning, further education, further understanding of the area that you may or may not have had faith in?

Faith requires you to believe something without logical proof or material evidence. I think there might be some misunderstanding of terminology here.
"Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment."
As such, the proposition "God exists" is unfalsifiable. It cannot be shown to be wrong by observation or experiment. The proposition "God does not exist" is falsifiable as it can be shown to be wrong by observation. If God sat down on a mountain and declared himself to exist, or just did anything suitably God-like in order to convince everyone, then we would have observed the proposition "God does not exist" to be false.

From what i can tell... you are saying that brighter agnostics are "possible", i'm saying that I would have thought, logically, that brighter agnostics were more "probable"...

I am indeed saying brighter agnostics are possible. I see no logical reason to expect brighter agnostics to be more probable (other than in a population in which the majority are theists).

Are you talking about atheists now? people in general? or agnostics (because they can't believe)? or ???

I was talking about the same "they" as you were when I quoted you. Agnostics.

[Skyryder]

This is a flawed argument. How can they Bonk if there is no sex.

No flawed arguement here.

Concise Oxford Dictionary. Bonkers = Crazy. There is no other meaning real or implied.

The only 'floored' aguement here is where some prefer to have a bonk.


Skyyrder

[mashman]

That I you quoted me quoting you quoting me but on this line I think we lost each other some way back and i can't really be bothered identifying where and laying it out with tidy quotes. I think it was to do with you saying the Big Bang could not be disproven and I saying the Big Bang could be disproven. Which still leads me to...

ha ha indeed too much quoting...

Are you saying here that the Big Bang and God could be proven??? That's the same as saying that the Big Band and God could not be disproven!!!

Anything is possible?

Faith requires you to believe something without logical proof or material evidence. I think there might be some misunderstanding of terminology here.
"Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment."
As such, the proposition "God exists" is unfalsifiable. It cannot be shown to be wrong by observation or experiment. The proposition "God does not exist" is falsifiable as it can be shown to be wrong by observation. If God sat down on a mountain and declared himself to exist, or just did anything suitably God-like in order to convince everyone, then we would have observed the proposition "God does not exist" to be false.

But what about a loss of faith? The person once had it... where did it go, why did they lose it? could it be that somehow they have falsified/disproved their own faith? perhaps off the back of a conversation with others, gaining of more knowledge etc...

I am indeed saying brighter agnostics are possible. I see no logical reason to expect brighter agnostics to be more probable (other than in a population in which the majority are theists).

As you say, anything is possible... I just would have expected agnostics to have been more likely to have had a "higher" intelligence "level"... I know that statement has no scientific basis... tis just an opinion based on my own logic... almost definately flawed logic... but just my opinion underpinned by my own reasons... I would have thought we are ALL theists by default (wether we categorise ourselves or are categorised to be so by others)...

I was talking about the same "they" as you were when I quoted you. Agnostics.

ha ha ha... so they'd rather be seen as an agnostic instead of an atheist?...

I give up...

[Boob Johnson]

An atheist is anyone who lacks a belief in a god. One does not have to explicitly disbelieve in gods to be an atheist.

That may be your own personal take on it but its not the def. of an athiest...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities.[1] It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[2] A broader definition is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]

The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without gods"

[bogan]

Liberals and Atheists Smarter?

Course! Only dense bogans believe all that stuff they are told to believe...

we bogans are a smart and intelligent people, I would stay and discuss this more but I'm late for a meeting with king brian to give him all of my moneys

[Badjelly]

An atheist is anyone who lacks a belief in a god. One does not have to explicitly disbelieve in gods to be an atheist.

That may be your own personal take on it but its not the def. of an athiest...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities.[1] It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[2] A broader definition is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]

The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without gods"

So Slyer's definition (and mine) is number 3, which accommodates numbers 1 and 2. I'm glad we've got that sorted.