God isn't real.

[autumnnight]

The main reason I replied to the OP was because of his assertion that a person who believes in God cannot be/is not intelligent. Then that was modified to "Well, they can have a high IQ, but they CHOOSE to be stupid."

 

Logical or not, the above assertions are at best insulting and rude and at worst patently false. I believe that a truly EMOTIONALLY intelligent person can abide another's belief or lack thereof without the extra little digs and insults.

[TaxAHCruel]

The main reason I replied to the OP was because of his assertion that a person who believes in God cannot be/is not intelligent.

 

I am not seeing such a claim in the OP however. What am I missing?

[Lostinlife4now]

We should all be open to spiritual experience, but "god" isn't real and I think most intelligent adults have some sense of this; if we take "god" to mean the man that can hear and answer prayers, or lives in the sky.

 

 

Oh YES HE IS!!!!! He is REAL IN MY WORLD! And I wouldn't have it any other way!

 

God Bless You!

[autumnnight]

I am not seeing such a claim in the OP however. What am I missing?

 

 

Here ya go:

 

"but "god" isn't real and I think most intelligent adults have some sense of this"

[Timshel]

"The question of whether there exists a Creator and Ruler of the Universe has been answered in the affirmative by some of the highest intellects that have ever existed."

Charles Darwin

 

"It may seem bizarre, but in my opinion science offers a surer path to God than religion."

Paul Davies, Physicist; 2001 Kelvin Medal, 2002 Faraday Prize

 

"Astronomers who do not draw theistic or deistic conclusions are becoming rare, and even the few dissenters hint that the tide is against them. Geoffrey Burbridge, of the University of California at San Diego, complains that his fellow astronomers are rushing off to join 'the First Church of Christ of the Big Bang."

Hugh Ross, Astrophysicist

 

"Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover....That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact."

Robert Jastrow, Astonomer, physicist and founder of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies

 

"What do we know as fact...absolute? Nothing, we know nothing and that is everything."

Director of Molecular Biophysics Institute, Florida State University

 

"The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who-in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses'-cannot hear the music of the spheres."

Albert Eistein

 

Oh wow, oh wow, oh wow, wow.

Steve Job's last words, CEO Apple

Edited March 17, 2015 by Timshel

[TaxAHCruel]

Here ya go:

 

"but "god" isn't real and I think most intelligent adults have some sense of this"

 

Yea that is what I read too. But nowhere in that line does it say "a person who believes in God cannot be/is not intelligent."

 

You appear to have taken what the OP said and changed it entirely into something else you could take further offence at.

[autumnnight]

You appear to have taken what the OP said and changed it entirely into something else you could take further offence at.

 

No, I'm just pretty good at picking up subtlety.

[TaxAHCruel]

If you mean seeing things that were never there - then yes you are.

[autumnnight]

If you mean seeing things that were never there - then yes you are.

 

touche (that was clever, I have to confess)

[stillcold]

Yea that is what I read too. But nowhere in that line does it say "a person who believes in God cannot be/is not intelligent."

 

You appear to have taken what the OP said and changed it entirely into something else you could take further offence at.

 

Although it was not explicitly stated as you had wrote, it was definitely stated in an implicit manner. Case in point: if the OP had said "but 'god' isn't real and I think most adults have some sense of this" then I would agree with you. However, the OP stated that "most intelligent adults have some sense of this" so the logical implication of such a statement clearly is: "a person who believes in God cannot be/is not intelligent."

[jen1447]

I've seen a few of these yes-no debates and it always puzzles me to see how much more emotionally invested the nos tend to be.

[alphamale]

We should all be open to spiritual experience, but "god" isn't real and I think most intelligent adults have some sense of this; if we take "god" to mean the man that can hear and answer prayers, or lives in the sky.

God is everywhere and takes care of all. He is all knowing and will eventually fill your prayers. You have to have faith and believe in Him.

[Haydn]

Saw him on the Jubilee line today. He jumped the barriers. Always well impressive.

[umirano]

Timshel, I see you try the old argument from authority. Yawn. Also, on another thread recently the big bang theory was used to discredit the skeptic/naturalistic viewpoint.

 

Both Darwin and Einstein were not theists. You can easily verify that by going to an actual library and reading their own accounts, instead of googling apologist provided out-of-context quotes (which in this case is bordering blatant lies, something which your god (sometimes) doesn't look favorably on, might I add).

 

To illustrate my point a little nicer: Even if tomorrow morning a historian would come forward with a letter with Einstein's DNA on it where E. declares he'd seen god, or some such nonsense, I'd still not believe in him. Large number of people, or important people, telling a lie will not change the fact that it's still a lie. Or an unfounded claim about our world.

[SawtoothMars]

 

Except very little of what you just said is true actually. There is no such "agreement" in the scientific community at all, and those few that are making such declarations are making some rather basic but fundamental errors in reasoning which I am happy to explain to you if required.

 

Yeah... because so many scientists choose to believe in the "multi-verse" theory. Which is in my opinion an absolute joke.

 

The universe is finely tuned. It IS possible there could be a silicone based life form or some such thing... but it's JUST as likely to form on earth as anywhere else... and it has never been documented.

 

I hold that atheism is an irrational and unscientific belief.

[endlessabyss]

Timshel, I see you try the old argument from authority. Yawn. Also, on another thread recently the big bang theory was used to discredit the skeptic/naturalistic viewpoint.

 

Both Darwin and Einstein were not theists. You can easily verify that by going to an actual library and reading their own accounts, instead of googling apologist provided out-of-context quotes (which in this case is bordering blatant lies, something which your god (sometimes) doesn't look favorably on, might I add).

 

To illustrate my point a little nicer: Even if tomorrow morning a historian would come forward with a letter with Einstein's DNA on it where E. declares he'd seen god, or some such nonsense, I'd still not believe in him. Large number of people, or important people, telling a lie will not change the fact that it's still a lie. Or an unfounded claim about our world.

 

 

(tips fedora)

 

 

Edited March 19, 2015 by endlessabyss

[TaxAHCruel]

Although it was not explicitly stated as you had wrote, it was definitely stated in an implicit manner.

 

Except no it was not. That is just the way people are choosing to parse it in order to manufacture offence - and to have something easier to rebut. The simple fact is the OP just did not say what people are claiming the OP said.

 

The simple fact is that if you poll people of higher intelligence or higher education or both - the results tend to show a lower incidence of religiosity. And in fact for some reason as yet unknown to me - the strongest correlation here comes with good education in mathematics. Where intuition might have had me expect physics of aspects of biology.

 

That is a correlation only however - and indeed too many atheists run away with that correlation and over extend it - and it is correct to move to rebut them when they do this.

 

But this is simply NOT the same as claiming - as another user did not me - that the OP said "a person who believes in God cannot be/is not intelligent.". The OPs words did not say that - did not imply it - did not contain it. It simply is not there. The implication you imagine is - well it is just that - imagined.

 

In fact history has shown us that the highly intelligent people can subscribe to unsubstantiated nonsense. Sometimes quite readily. Newton for example is probably the best mind our species has ever produced. Ever. And yet some of the unsubstantiated nonsense he subscribed to is staggering. And when he reached the frontiers and limits of his own intellect and capabilities - he too ended up invoking a divine mover - rather than simply admit intellectual defeat and declare "I do not know - and I can not figure it out".

 

To make an analogy to disease. If you maintain a healthy diet and lifestyle you rarely - if ever - get Diarrhoea. I could therefore quite rightly say "Most healthy and hygiene conscious people do not get Diarrhoea". And I would likely be correct. What I did NOT say there however - and I did not make the "logical implication" of - is "a person who has Diarrhorea cannot be/is not living a healthy or hygenic lifestyle.

 

That implication - like your own and that of the other user - is simply fabricated.

[TaxAHCruel]

Yeah... because so many scientists choose to believe in the "multi-verse" theory. Which is in my opinion an absolute joke.

 

It is worth understanding a little on who science works there however. It is not that scientists go around "believing" these things per se. More correct is that in our sciences we compile a mass of data. A data set.

 

We then look at that data set and say to ourselves "Ok what ideas can we come up with that fits this data set?". We then come up with ideas - sometimes intuitive - sometime fantastical - and test it against that data set.

 

And when it fits we have to take that hypothesis seriously enough to then go testing it - evaluating it - and either verifying or falsifying it. Though "verification" in science generally means a failure to falsify.

 

And in fact the idea of multiple universes is a hypothesis that does fit vast elements of the current data set. Regardless of how humorous you might find it - or fantastical - it still fits the data and explains the data closely enough to be worth taking seriously and investigating further.

 

You do of course get individual scientists who run away with it too early and get personally convinced that one theory has to be correct. String Theorists are the usual butt of the jokes on that one. They are jumping the gun. Lots of hypotheses fit the data but then later new data or tests falsify them. All we can do when people run away with a hypothesis too early is attempt to reel them back in and set them to the task of actually impartial scientific evaluation.

 

I personally see nothing that is a "joke" about the hypotheses of Multiple universes or further dimensions. By all means reign in anyone who subscribes too them too soon - but were they to be verified they could clear up many of the current biggest mysteries of science - such as what we currently (and badly as it happens) refer to as "Dark Energy" and "Dark Matter" - which could be neatly explained by Gravitation like effects of matter in other universes "beside" our own. Perhaps, as Neil Tyson often suggests - we should be calling those two things "Dark Gravity" instead.

 

The universe is finely tuned.

 

Alas repetition of a claim does not substantiate the claim. And therefore the response to someone questioning the "Fine Tuning" claim is not really to merely repeat the baseless assertion.

 

I see no reason to think there is any fine tuning - nor any evidence that it is so. Much less from you. I just see that assertion. I am still awaiting some substantiation of it.

 

I hold that atheism is an irrational and unscientific belief.

 

You can "hold" it all you like - and assert it until blue in the face. One wonders however can you substantiate - support - or coherently argue the claim. Assertion by fiat is not exactly a fine art.

 

While I personally do not subscribe to - or use - the term "Atheist" - I do describe myself and my world view quite simply as "If someone makes a claim to me - I do not subscribe to that claim without argument, evidence, data or reasoning supporting it".

 

GIVEN therefore that the claim - that there is a non-human intelligent and intentional agent responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintainence of our universe - comes before us without an iota of even a modicum of substantiation to lend it credence - I simply do not subscribe to the claim.

 

Perhaps you can coherently describe what is so "irrational and unscientific" about that position as described. It would be a welcome interjection if you can - because in 20 odd years of me asking - no one else has achieved it yet. Have at it - and good luck.

[Timshel]

Timshel, I see you try the old argument from authority. Yawn. Also, on another thread recently the big bang theory was used to discredit the skeptic/naturalistic viewpoint.

 

Both Darwin and Einstein were not theists. You can easily verify that by going to an actual library and reading their own accounts, instead of googling apologist provided out-of-context quotes (which in this case is bordering blatant lies, something which your god (sometimes) doesn't look favorably on, might I add).

 

To illustrate my point a little nicer: Even if tomorrow morning a historian would come forward with a letter with Einstein's DNA on it where E. declares he'd seen god, or some such nonsense, I'd still not believe in him. Large number of people, or important people, telling a lie will not change the fact that it's still a lie. Or an unfounded claim about our world.

 

I do not argue with anyone about their spiritual beliefs or the lack thereof. I have nothing to prove. You do not know my God as you do not know me.

I do present those excerpts as representative of what I believe, not what they do, as I do not know them. Except one.

[umirano]

The universe is finely tuned.

Because...?

 

How are you not being anthropocentric here? We will never observe a "non-finely" tuned universe because there's simply no possibility for us to exist. The fine-tuning argument is laughable. If it's "fine tuned" we can exist in it and it's, obviously, "fine tuned" for us to exist. If it's "wrongly" tuned we can never be in it.

 

It IS possible there could be a silicone based life form or some such thing... but it's JUST as likely to form on earth as anywhere else... and it has never been documented.

I don't know what you're trying to say here. Life on other plane hasn't been documented - yet, I presume - but there are already strong indicators, like - extremely simplified - certain wavelengths caught that are likely to stem from organic molecules.

 

There are about one hundred billion galaxies in the observable universe. Ours, a fairly average one, has about 200 billion stars in it. You don't really believe that our solar system, and an earth like planet are a singular phenomenon, do you?

 

I hold that atheism is an irrational and unscientific belief.

It's neither a belief nor is it irrational and unscientific. Atheism is the agnostic position that all theist arguments fall on their nose and likely are highly folklorized wishful thinking.

 

Atheism 101:

 

1. Ockham's razor: Don't go for a complicate explanation when there is a simple one. By extension, our world could simply be as it is purely as a result of naturally occurring phenomena. No god (complicated hypothesis) needed
   
2. Arguments for the theistic hypothesis are a collection of circular logic (the book is true because it says it's true) or purely a result of internal feelings and experiences. The latter of course ALSO do not count as evidence, as, like in any other area of our lives, evidence should be reproducible independently.
   

 

I do not argue with anyone about their spiritual beliefs or the lack thereof.

 

Well, actually were exactly doing that - arguing about whether or not belief in a deiety / deieties is rational.

 

I have nothing to prove. You do not know my God as you do not know me.

I don't have to know you to examine what you're contributing to the debate for correctness and honesty.

 

I do present those excerpts as representative of what I believe, not what they do

Huh, so you're admitting what you claim they said might not actually represent what they really believe? Interesting...

[Timshel]

Lol umirano, I am no evangelist, missionary, theoligist or person of any cloth looking to spread any gospel. I simply lack any ambition to present my opinion about whether God is real with any motivation to be persuasive. I have given my .02 on the subject and I do feel that it is quite literally one that any attempt to persuade or dissuade is futile, folly; a waste of time and effort. I do appreciate your obvious intellect on the subject; I would enjoy a good debate if we knew each other and would speak face to face.

Internet discussion to the extent of dissection is ridiculous, argumentative and unproductive in my opinion. Round and round, for what purpose? You will neither change my mind or I yours.

I do enjoy your points and passion on the subject. I am not a worthy adversary in this forum of discussion. I truly am at a disadvantage because you clearly are more adept at this type of written, religious internet debate; which for me is highly personal and quite intangible. I lack any sincere desire or time to engage in this manner. Shrugs. I believe what I believe and ask no one to hitch their horse to my wagon. I don't care if you disagree with me. I don't care if I disagree with you.

[Timshel]

Though I would like to have proper fun and have a beer, glass of wine and food (I'm hungry at the moment) over the topic. That would be good conversation and some laughs. You are quite fascinating.

[umirano]

Though I would like to have proper fun and have a beer, glass of wine and food (I'm hungry at the moment) over the topic. That would be good conversation and some laughs. You are quite fascinating.

 

Thank you, and these debates are definitely more fun face to face Have a nice weekend