Are religious believers just miseducated?

Dades

Ikky Poo2 wrote:

Still feels a bit arrogant of humanity to assume that it is the top dog when it comes to inteelgience.

But not as arrogent as assuming the entire universe revolves around humanity, right? Which is what religion teaches.

Besides I think most people here are open to the idea of (more) intelligent lifeforms existing in the cosmos. Just not omnipotent creator figures.

As Carl Sagan said, "It'd be an awful waste of space otherwise".

dr.bollocko

Sorry who is assuming what about the entire universe revolving around humanity? Surely thats the believers not the doubters right?

Sure aint me anyway. I am all too aware of my and our collective bug like status with relation to larger planetary equivalents.

ie we go squish and the universe doesnt give a flying fück.

Zillah

dr.bollocko wrote:

ie we go squish and the universe doesnt give a flying fück.

I'd be disappointed if a species or two didn't go "Aw crap, Species 9734 went kablamo...I had hope for them. They had already started nuking each other and shooting each other into space...I was just about to give them my perpetual motion machine. They would have experienced a thousand times what they call love, and ten thousand times what they call joy..."

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Zillah wrote:

Thats one of the most patently ridiculous things I ever heard. And I've been on the internet.

Science can explain everything as thoroughly as can possibly be understood by humanity.

Although I am fascinated; what forms of intelligence exist outside intellect?

Emoitonal.... Cognitive... Social.... Artistic....
There are many, idiot savants for example, intellectually retarded but incredibly gifted in other ways. If, as you claim, intellect is so high and mighty, are these people thick?

Zillah

You appear to have invented your own definition of the word "intellect" while neglecting to inform the rest of the English speaking world.

aidan24326

The Atheist wrote:

I think it's more the idea that if "something" has no evidence whatsoever to it's existence, then the question of proving it doesn't exist is irrelevant.

But doesn't this pretty much describe the agnostic viewpoint?

The idea of life on other planets at least has circumstantial evidence. If life could arise on our planet within a time frame, and the universe is so big and so old its a statistical possibility that life could have arisen somewhere, at sometime. See Drake's Equation.

Unfortunately the same vastness that makes intelligent life more probable also makes our ever meeting (or even communicating with) said lifeforms all the less probable.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Zillah wrote:

You appear to have invented your own definition of the word "intellect" while neglecting to inform the rest of the English speaking world.

Capacity and accumilation of knowledge and the ability to apply said knowledge solve problems.

Sleepy

Scofflaw wrote:

Well, existential cowardice perhaps. It's the main reason why the "world wishes to be deceived", as your motto has it (Cabell?).

It's one reason, perhaps, why young men (teens/20's) often take up atheism - they don't know enough yet to be existentially afraid. It's often temporary though.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I'd see it as either cowardice or extreme arrogance to refuse to just accept that we don't know everything, that as far as we know our lives are finite, that no matter how much you'd like something to be true it doesn't make it so (I realised this at 15 when Alicia Silverstone didn't arrive on my doorstep professing undying love :P).

I know it's "only human" to be afraid of the unknown but, speaking personally for a moment, I've found a sense of peace in the acceptance of this.

stevejazzx

zillah wrote:

Originally Posted by Zillah
You appear to have invented your own definition of the word "intellect" while neglecting to inform the rest of the English speaking world.

Ikky Poo2 wrote:

Capacity and accumilation of knowledge and the ability to apply said knowledge solve problems.

I don't folllow....

Playboy

Scofflaw wrote:

Well, existential cowardice perhaps. It's the main reason why the "world wishes to be deceived", as your motto has it (Cabell?).

It's one reason, perhaps, why young men (teens/20's) often take up atheism - they don't know enough yet to be existentially afraid. It's often temporary though.

cordially,
Scofflaw

excellent post

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

stevejazzx wrote:

[/I]



I don't folllow....

Responce to Zillah's post requesting my defintition of "intellectual".

Zillah

Ikky Poo2 wrote:

Capacity and accumilation of knowledge and the ability to apply said knowledge solve problems.

I see. Thats quite right. But with that in mind:

And Science to claim it can (or at some stage will be able to) explain everything because intellect is the only form on intelligence worthwhile.

This is once again the most patently ridiculous thing I've ever heard. What intelligence exists outside your definition of intellect above?

Now you've already said this:

Emoitonal.... Cognitive... Social.... Artistic....
There are many, idiot savants for example, intellectually retarded but incredibly gifted in other ways. If, as you claim, intellect is so high and mighty, are these people thick?

But thats nonesense. There's no such thing as "emotional intelligence", thats just emotions. "Cognitive intelligence" is redundant, cognition is already a subset of intelligence. "Social intelligence" is simply a set of learned behaviours/instinct and regular intellect. Being artistic is arguably an aspect of intelligence, otherwise its a learned skill or natural talent or both.

The point being that these other forms of intelligence you cite are either subsets of regular intelligence or are different things entirely. As for the idiot savant: Define "thick". And if its "lacking intelligence", then you've answered your own question.

So, could you start over for us?

Dades

Originally Posted by The Atheist
I think it's more the idea that if "something" has no evidence whatsoever to it's existence, then the question of proving it doesn't exist is irrelevant.

aidan24326 wrote:

But doesn't this pretty much describe the agnostic viewpoint?

Hmmm, that wasn't the intention. It's like the pink unicorn argument. The agnostic says we can't prove anything one way or the other - the atheist says we don't have to prove something doesn't exist. Unless there is a shred of evidence to the contrary the default is that logically it doesn't exist.

dr.bollocko

And the only contra-argument to the logical non-existance of god is blind faith. How can anyone hope to argue against blind faith?
"Were not supposed to prove God exists. He's testing us, and if we prove he exists we fail. Its like a God Pop Quiz."

Playboy

Zillah wrote:

But thats nonesense. There's no such thing as "emotional intelligence", thats just emotions. "Cognitive intelligence" is redundant, cognition is already a subset of intelligence. "Social intelligence" is simply a set of learned behaviours/instinct and regular intellect. Being artistic is arguably an aspect of intelligence, otherwise its a learned skill or natural talent or both.

The point being that these other forms of intelligence you cite are either subsets of regular intelligence or are different things entirely. As for the idiot savant: Define "thick". And if its "lacking intelligence", then you've answered your own question.

So, could you start over for us?

You are very certain of your opinion regarding intelligence. Afaik experts disagree on many aspects of what constitutes intelligence and if I remember correctly there is such a thing as emotional intelligence. Also I would disagree that social intelligence is only a set of learned behaviours/instincts. Can you point me to where you got all this info as I'd be interested in reading it

dr.bollocko

Circular.
Boring.
All the best points made ages ago.
A thread screaming "CLOSE ME!!!! Just CLOSE ME!!!! PLEASE FOR GODS SAKE, LET ME DIE!!!!!!"

Zillah

Playboy wrote:

You are very certain of your opinion regarding intelligence. Afaik experts disagree on many aspects of what constitutes intelligence and if I remember correctly there is such a thing as emotional intelligence. Also I would disagree that social intelligence is only a set of learned behaviours/instincts. Can you point me to where you got all this info as I'd be interested in reading it

I'm very certain of my opinion in regards to his assertion that intellect is seperate to intelligence.

Personally I think the human brain is so insanely complex that it would require an entire book to document any one person's traits, "intelligence" seems to be a convenient title for a bunch of similar attributes.

Do tell, what the hell is "emotional intelligence"?

In regards to "social intelligence" I didn't say it was only learned behaviours/instincts, I said it was those things and regular intellect.

Its very important that you read my post in the context of his definitions and implied defintions of things such as "intellect" and "intelligence". If you'd like to debate those from scratch then please feel free but I'd rather you not cut into the middle of something without heeding the context.

As for my sources, I didn't read some National Geographic article and repost it verbatim, my opinions are the result of the impressions gleaned from dozens of varied sources.

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

Do tell, what the hell is "emotional intelligence"?

Quote: "Emotional intelligence is the innate potential to feel, use, communicate, recognize, remember, learn from, manage and understand emotions." from here.

For various reasons, some PC (people are just 'differently intelligent'), and some functional ('there seem to be different aspects to intelligence'), there are now several recognised aspects/types of intelligence. Emotional Intelligence ('EQ' I'm sorry to say) is probably the most solidly defined one.

Partly, this hinges on the recognition that people with Asperger's (high-functioning autism) can have high cognitive skills (ability to logically follow a train of thought, ability to process information), while almost completely lacking emotional intelligence.

Partly it's from the study of idiot-savant cases, where someone who appears to be a complete idiot is capable of bizarre feats of arithmetic, or linguistics - which suggests that "intelligence" is made up of seperable modules.

Business has taken this up quite strongly, because people who are very smart but entirely unable to spot or process emotional cues are unable to participate in teams/manage/deal with customers.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

Oh God. I fully reject their attempts at codifying the brain in that regard.

I'm actually quite familiar with Asperger's Syndrome. They don't lack "Emotional Intelligence", they lack the inbuilt mechanisms for grasping the subtle tones of social encounters. Chalking it up to low "emotional intelligence" is a gross simplification and one I wholly reject.

Despite all that, the title has an inherent flaw. The word "intelligence" is vague and subjective anyway, thereby making any term using it completely redundant.

I will look into this more in the near future but as of right now I feel a mild intellectual disgust. I don't doubt the validity of their analysis, but their terminology needs serious overhaul.

Dades

dr.bollocko wrote:

Circular.
Boring.
All the best points made ages ago.
A thread screaming "CLOSE ME!!!! Just CLOSE ME!!!! PLEASE FOR GODS SAKE, LET ME DIE!!!!!!"

Uh, nobody's making you read it.

the_syco

Eglinton wrote:

But I honestly do think that if you believe in God etc etc, then you are not educated enough, intelligent enough or just afraid of the inevitability of death.

I can take it that sh|t happens, but where does sh|t begin to happen, and if nothing happened before sh|t moved, what started it all? Thus God. The big bang, for example: what made those particles collide? What made them move? God did it.

Which god? Dunno. Pick one

Zillah

the_syco wrote:

Which god? Dunno. Pick one

Shiva. Or Kali. I was always partial to Kali.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Zillah wrote:

Oh God. I fully reject their attempts at codifying the brain in that regard.

I'm actually quite familiar with Asperger's Syndrome. They don't lack "Emotional Intelligence", they lack the inbuilt mechanisms for grasping the subtle tones of social encounters. Chalking it up to low "emotional intelligence" is a gross simplification and one I wholly reject.

Despite all that, the title has an inherent flaw. The word "intelligence" is vague and subjective anyway, thereby making any term using it completely redundant.

I will look into this more in the near future but as of right now I feel a mild intellectual disgust. I don't doubt the validity of their analysis, but their terminology needs serious overhaul.

You seem to have an arrogant dependancy on intellect. Are you artisitc? If not, can I call you a moron? It is the same way you come across when you say intellect is the only way of judging intelligence. A bit like someone who gets 9 A1s on their Leaving Cert thinking they're a genius and nothing else is important.

stevejazzx

the_syco wrote:

I can take it that sh|t happens, but where does sh|t begin to happen, and if nothing happened before sh|t moved, what started it all? Thus God. The big bang, for example: what made those particles collide? What made them move? God did it.

Which god? Dunno. Pick one

The question is not how big bang started but how even the basic ingredients that started it got there.
Where? Good qustion, because there was nothing, but what is nothingness? Space? Time? How did these two concepts come into being?
Imagine if you will absolutely nothing, not even nothingness for that is something, not even or time or space, less than nothing. Now how does something happen, don't say sigularity because there isn't even one ingredient. How could there even be a god, where would he come from?
If he was to just appear and be, that means he must of been somewhere from whence he came, but where was he before the universe? What was he up to in this other dimension/realm,and how did this other dimension relam come into bieng. It goes on and on.
The origin is impossible but at least is science is backtracking and explaining some of the things we once thought couldn't be explained so there is hope through scienece of understanding how the world works at least.

stevejazzx

Ikky Poo2 wrote:

Responce to Zillah's post requesting my defintition of "intellectual".

Yes well seeing as I quoted both you and zillah in that post my "I don't follow" was in reference to the poor definition of intellect.
It essentially describes a academic problem solver. Intelligence is more intutive than is credited, the ability to 'learn intutition' and use it in life is a major part of intelligence.
Also it is not the learning and accumilation of facts, that is just memory, but rather the ability to comprehend these facts and again use them in further application. So essentially intelligence is more about how good someone is at filtering information into cohesive processess that can they digest and use.

robindch

> You seem to have an arrogant dependancy on intellect.

Good heavens, take it easy! All Zillah's pointing out is that pop-psychological terminology is useless -- as it is -- when it comes to dealing with what's actually going on between people's ears. If definitions can't be agreed upon (like "intellect"), then there's no point in using these words since everybody means something different. That's not arrogance: that's common sense.

Zillah

Ikky Poo2 wrote:

You seem to have an arrogant dependancy on intellect. Are you artisitc? If not, can I call you a moron? It is the same way you come across when you say intellect is the only way of judging intelligence. A bit like someone who gets 9 A1s on their Leaving Cert thinking they're a genius and nothing else is important.

Good lord.

My point so far has been that the terms "intellect" and "intelligence" are not two entirely different concepts as you have been maintaining. They are in fact the same thing, those words are virtually synonymous. Hence, what you've been saying makes no sense to anyone else.

I don't think artistic people are less worthy of life or anything else than scientists. I am an artist. However, if I wasn't artistic it'd be fine to call me "unartistic", and if I wasn't intelligent it'd be fine to call me "unintelligent". Every aspect of the brain isn't a form of "intelligence". Intelligence itself is an ambiguous quality that covers a great number of tricky mental processes. I never said that aspects of the mind other than intellect were not worthwhile, all I did was point out that your choice of terminology rendered your point meaningless.

Schuhart

There’s a post on the Christianity Forum from a former Jehovah’s Witness that made me think of this thread. It’s particularly when he says

You will also likely laugh me off and say its different for you, thinking, 'but I know the real truth', as I have done in the past, but I hope the message hits a nerve for someone.

While the person posting this is still a theist, I think the comment encapsulates that question – how do you get someone to cross that threshold and confront the reality that God doesn’t send angels to recite books to prophets, or pack people off down the mountain with commandments engraved on tablets of stone?

dr.bollocko

Yeah that was an interesting post alright.
Re. How do you get someone to cross that threshold? I reckon it is up to the church here to retain faith in the country. The catholic church is still the Majority church in Ireland, and yet its origins and current administration is rooted in sexism, racism, abuse and other injustices. Their stance on condoms is killing millions of people. If you want a good reason not to believe in god, have a quick look at the catholic churches recent "good works."

blorg

Eglinton wrote:

Well I'm sure I'll bring wrath upon myself from religious types. But I honestly do think that if you believe in God etc etc, then you are not educated enough, intelligent enough or just afraid of the inevitability of death. I know this is simplistic and of course there are exceptions (mental problems, strict upbringing, way of life, poverty etc) but there you have it. Anyone agree?

Well I think we have proof that atheists can be every bit as condescending towards non-believers as Christian fundamentalists. (And I'm an atheist myself and annoyed it wasn't an option in the recent census.)

dr.bollocko

Im pretty sure it was an option....
I remember trying to puzzle out what religion I could be pigeon-holed into for quite the wee while.

Zillah

dr.bollocko wrote:

If you want a good reason not to believe in god, have a quick look at the catholic churches recent "good works."

He's just testing your faith, heretic.

dr.bollocko

Yeah and so is Mickey Mouse, that clever high voiced bastid. U arent supposed to KNOW that Mickey is god, you can only believe it. Its blind faith, but its definitely in the subtext of many of his cartoons.
But U heard it here first.
I worship mickey.

Zillah

Poor deluded fellow, he's turned from God and has indugled in silliness.



(I'm a little upset at how easily I emulate fanatic-logic...)

dr.bollocko

I dunno, gonna sound pompous, but I reckon its the invisible friend theory. As a logical argument there is about as much information backing mickey mouse as there is backing god as a creator. Only you will get much longer odds on Mickey mouse in the bookies.
...
fanatic logic?

Zillah

dr.bollocko wrote:

I dunno, gonna sound pompous, but I reckon its the invisible friend theory. As a logical argument there is about as much information backing mickey mouse as there is backing god as a creator. Only you will get much longer odds on Mickey mouse in the bookies.

There is the bible! The word of God! And there is faith! Your idol worship is nothing more than the deluded fantasies of a fool!

fanatic logic?

I'm playing a rather ironic devil's advocate.

blorg

dr.bollocko wrote:

Im pretty sure it was an option....
I remember trying to puzzle out what religion I could be pigeon-holed into for quite the wee while.

The option was "no religion" which is not really the same thing.

Scofflaw

blorg wrote:

The option was "no religion" which is not really the same thing.

True. You had to tick "Other Religion" and write in Atheist. A lot of atheists disagree with doing that, of course....

cordially,
Scofflaw

dr.bollocko

Yeah those forms were misplaced theological mine fields.
Imagine.....
"No Religion"?