Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

by **Ivan** Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:37 pm

First topic message reminder :

Bertrand Russell once said that “the immense majority of intellectually eminent men disbelieve in Christian religion”, and research appears to support that remark. Michael Shermer, in ‘How We Believe: The Search For God In An Age Of Science’, describes a large survey of randomly chosen Americans that he and his colleague Frank Sulloway carried out. Among their many results was the discovery that religiosity is negatively correlated with education (more highly educated people are less likely to be religious). Paul Bell, writing in ‘Mensa Magazine’ in 2002 told us: “Of 43 studies carried out since 1927 on the relationship between religious belief and one’s intelligence and/or educational level, all but four found an inverse connection. That is, the higher one’s intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious or hold ‘beliefs’ of any kind.”

Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics and Political Science, suggests that more intelligent people are more likely to adopt evolutionarily novel preferences and values. He said: "Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid. This innate bias toward paranoia served humans well when self-preservation and protection of their families and clans depended on extreme vigilance to all potential dangers. So, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to go against their natural evolutionary tendency to believe in God, and they become atheists.”

Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (NLSAH) supports Kanazawa's hypothesis. Young adults who identify themselves as 'not at all religious' have an average IQ of 103 during adolescence, while those who identify themselves as 'very religious' have an average IQ of 97 during adolescence.

Shermer says that religiosity is also negatively correlated with interest in science and strongly with political liberalism. And the NLSAH data suggests that young adults who subjectively identify themselves as 'very liberal' have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence, while those who identify themselves as 'very conservative' have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.

Does this mean that people with left-wing views are more intelligent than those on the right? I’ve long thought that those with the independence of mind to be unaffected by the constant brainwashing attempts of the right-wing media must have a critical faculty which those who succumb to Tory and Republican propaganda clearly lack. It also appears to be the conclusion of experts at Brock University in Ontario, Canada, who studied research comparing childhood intelligence with political views in adulthood in 15,000 people. They found that intelligence, rather than education, wealth or social status, decides whether people are narrow-minded or bigoted in later life. Their report has been published in a journal called ‘Psychological Science’ and states: “Those with lower cognitive abilities may gravitate towards socially conservative right-wing ideologies that maintain the status quo. That is because it provides a sense of order". The authors found a strong link between low intelligence both as a child and an adult, and right-wing politics.

Sources used, and for further details:-

Richard Dawkins, ‘The God Delusion’, Bantam Press, 2006, p.102-3

http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/48586-intelligent-people-more-likely-to-be-left-wing-atheists

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/2012/02/04/labour-supporters-are-cleverer-than-tories-canadian-study-claims-115875-23734718/

by AwfulTruth Thu Mar 29, 2012 5:21 pm

Unless you are omnipotent I cannot see where you pull in any gravitas for your presumption that intelligent life is not possible elsewhere. The dogma is screaming out, sorry.

Of course it will not be human life - it will be some other manifestation of universal DNA. Let us think laterally, out of the human test tube...

Have you seen the film 'Alien'? Wink

by AwfulTruth Thu Mar 29, 2012 5:23 pm

Sorry - the system went haywire! I've deleted the duplicate posting. Must have been an alien invasion...

by Shirina Thu Mar 29, 2012 5:25 pm

If it’s not “indefensible”, please defend it.

What did I just say about not being qualified?

In the entire time in which I’ve been aware of Darwinism

Are we talking about Darwinism or evolution?

which I why I understand that Darwinism is indefensible.

Then so is the idea of an all-powerful creator with supernatural powers.

And you know this in spite of the fact that “by chance” approaches a statistical impossibility?

Okay, let's say you put a number of colored balls into a bag. The number of colored balls equals 10¹⁰¹²³. If each ball is a different color, the odds of picking one specific color is one in 10¹⁰¹²³.

However, the odds of picking a colored ball of any color is a mathematical certainty since we are given a chance to pick one.

The problem with using a statistic like the one you reported is that it focuses ONLY on the odds of a human being picked from a bag that might just as well contain 10¹⁰¹²³ different permutations of intelligent life. Creationists operate under the assumption that human life is the only possible outcome of intelligent life. In other words, putting 10¹⁰¹²³ number of balls into a bag and claiming the only pick that counts is the single white ball mixed in there somewhere. None of the other colored balls count. This fails to account for the existence of all the other possibilities.

We operate under the assumption that only human life is intelligent because we are the only species we know of that is, in fact, sentient. This gives us the illusion that intelligent life is rare. It may not be. It's the equivalent of standing in the middle of a desert and claiming that water is rare, giving astronomical odds for a rainstorm - despite the earth's surface being 70% water and rain being quite common elsewhere.

The long and short of it is: We don't have enough information about our universe - and other lifeforms that may reside within it - to make such a lofty claim about our random chance for existence. The only way the statistic works is if we discover we are truly alone ... and THAT, my friend, is unsubstantiated speculation, precisely the same kind that you accuse Darwinism of espousing.

The probability calculation takes variables into account.

Except the most important variable of them all: How many chances the universe had in getting humans "right." If I buy enough lottery tickets to play every possible number combination, the odds of winning becomes a statistical certainty instead of a statistical impossibility.

There is no such assumption; 10¹⁰¹²³ to 1 is the probability of human existence occurring by chance.

Which only emphasizes my point.

by oftenwrong Thu Mar 29, 2012 5:32 pm

There can be few sights more pathetic than that of someone intent upon explaining the inexplicable.

by Guest Thu Mar 29, 2012 7:40 pm

AwfulTruth wrote:
Unless you are omnipotent…

That’s not me. You’re speaking of YHVH Elohim.

AwfulTruth wrote:
… I cannot see where you pull in any gravitas for your presumption…

These are neither “[my] presumptions.” I have not calculated this probability; I’ve reported this probability, statistically and verbally. You flatter me far too much by presuming that I could have calculated this probability, but thank you anyway.

AwfulTruth wrote:
… that intelligent life is not possible elsewhere.

I’ve not reported “that intelligent life is not possible elsewhere”; I’ve reported that “[the] probability of all variables required for human existence to occur by chance is 10¹⁰¹²³ to 1”, or, stated verbally sans numbers, that “the probability of human existence occurring by chance is so statistically unlikely that it approaches a statistical impossibility.”

Nothing whatsoever in that report about “intelligent life.”

AwfulTruth wrote:
The dogma is screaming out, sorry.

I’ve mentioned no “dogma”; conversely, you’ve mentioned it directly above this comment. Perhaps, since you’ve mentioned it, you’ve brought it in for some purpose. I have no use for it.

AwfulTruth wrote:
Of course it will not be human life - it will be some other manifestation of universal DNA. Let us think laterally, out of the human test tube...

You’ve made two absolute statements (“it will not”, “it will). When speaking of things that haven’t happened, absolute statements can paint the one making absolute statements into a corner.

I suspect that the sun will rise tomorrow at dawn. Lacking omniscience, when speaking precisely, I customarily refrain from stating that it will rise tomorrow.

That being said, speculation is fun, and speculation about what life may be “out there” and what forms it may take are personally fascinating. In fact, I have a germinating hypothesis that if we eve discover life out there, it might take a similar form to that which we find on Earth (notice the two disclaimers).

Perhaps there’s a template that works and is thus replicated wherever life exists. The five most successful larger animal types, fish (including sharks and rays), amphibians, reptiles (including dinosaurs), birds, and mammals, share (1) a backbone, (2) an endoskeleton, even if of cartilage rather than of bone (3) a brain, and (4) a spinal chord connecting the brain to the body’s extremities. Additionally, most land versions of these five types have four limbs. Also, most have the same five senses, although with great range of acuity.

AwfulTruth wrote:
Have you seen the film 'Alien'?

Yes. Didn’t like it.

by Guest Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:38 pm

Shirina wrote:
If it’s not “indefensible”, please defend it.
What did I just say about not being qualified?

I’ve no problem with you doing so “by proxy.”

Shirina wrote:

In the entire time in which I’ve been aware of Darwinism
Are we talking about Darwinism or evolution?

Darwinism. I’ve no logical problem believing that which I’ve seen and of which I;ve seen convincing evidence. Collies and pit bulls have evolved in my lifetime, both to the detriment of the breeds, which is perhaps the number one reason of several that I despise dog shows and pedigrees.

I’m venting, but what the hell, I must be butter, ‘cause I’m on a roll. Got a sheltie when I was a teenager. The stupid dog breeder insisted on selling us his pedigree along with the dog himself. When we got the papers in the mail, his “name” was something like “Galahad of Nottingham.” What he hell kind of name is that for a dog? Or even a human? If that had been my name, I’d either be tough or dead toady, like the boy named “Sue!” I might’ve even been the little-ist son of a something to make the NFL as a DE!

My dog was not “Galahad,” He had a dog’s name, a dog’s life, and he had a ball living it. Smart as all get out, an used his smarts to mercilessly tease my little brother by grabbing his favorite sandbox toy out from under my brother’s nose and running throughout the yard with the toy in his mouth, avoiding capture, putting moves down like the “Kansas Comet”, Gale “Give Me Eighteen Inches of Daylight” Sayers.

And he was “natural”, un-tampered with, “un-fixed”, and yes, he went on escapades the destinations of which I knew not. I suspect that he had a ball during those non-breeder controlled journeys. No pedigrees for his offspring.

Shirina wrote:

… which I why I understand that Darwinism is indefensible.
Then so is the idea of an all-powerful creator with supernatural powers.

We can go into that on another thread, but right here I’m speaking of Darwinism and its indefensibility.

Shirina wrote:

And you know this in spite of the fact that “by chance” approaches a statistical impossibility?
Okay, let's say you put a number of colored balls into a bag. The number of colored balls equals 10¹⁰¹²³. If each ball is a different color, the odds of picking one specific color is one in 10¹⁰¹²³.

However, the odds of picking a colored ball of any color is a mathematical certainty since we are given a chance to pick one.

Doesn’t play in Peoria. We’re not talking about colored balls; we’re talking about the probability of human existence occurring by chance.

Shirina wrote:
The problem with using a statistic like the one you reported is that it focuses ONLY on the odds of a human being picked from a bag that might just as well contain 10¹⁰¹²³ different permutations of intelligent life.

No problem whatsoever. We’re speaking solely of human existence.

Shirina wrote:
Creationists…

Not my name; not my game. I’, speaking of the improbability of human existence occurring by chance.

Shirina wrote:
We operate under the assumption that only human life is intelligent…

I don’t operate under that assumption. Ever see orcas use complex hydrodynamics sans pencil, paper, slide rule, or calculator to get what they want?

Shirina wrote:
… because we are the only species we know of that is, in fact, sentient.

Uh uh!

Shirina wrote:
The long and short of it is: We don't have enough information about our universe - and other lifeforms that may reside within it - to make such a lofty claim about our random chance for existence.

The reported probability was calculated with more knowledge thereof than either you or I know. And as knowledge increases, the odds get longer. Back when I first heard “the number”, it was 6 X 10⁶⁵, or some exponent close to 65. Compare that to the recent reported exponent, calculated with as additional three or more decades of accrued knowledge of the universe available.

Shirina wrote:
THAT, my friend, is unsubstantiated speculation, precisely the same kind that you accuse Darwinism of espousing.

Not an accusation; an assertion of fact, easily refutable by provision of fact. Up till now, I’ve neither seen nor heard any factual refutation of this assertion of fact.

Shirina wrote:

The probability calculation takes variables into account.
Except the most important variable of them all: How many chances the universe had in getting humans "right."

That number has also been calculated. It’s kind of awesomely huge, as I heard it back when the exponent was a bit smaller (somewhere around 65) than it is today.

by AwfulTruth Thu Mar 29, 2012 9:22 pm

As I was coming down the stairs I saw a man who was not there, he was not there again today, I wonder if he'll go away?

Oh its OK - turned out to be a figment of some religious guys imagination!

Very Happy

:affraid:

by **astradt1** Thu Mar 29, 2012 9:31 pm

Roc stated,
I know that the quoted calculation is as accurate as is humanly possible.

The problem there is that Humans are fallible so this calculation could be very wrong....

Just think Roc with each new planet which is found the odd's, you so strongly support from, as you put it 'a reliable source' but have not given a link so that others may view that source!!!, get lower......

As god is supposed to have only 'created' Adam and Eve and they went on to have just two sons, one of whom killed the other and the killer son was then banished to the land of Nod where he met his wife.....Who 'created' her?

Were the first generations full of incestuous relationships?

When 'god' created all living things did he create all breeds of dogs or just one breed which then evolved into the many breeds now seen?

Now pick the bones out of that Roc.......

by trevorw2539 Thu Mar 29, 2012 9:37 pm

Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent? - Page 6 Empty

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?
by AwfulTruth Today at 9:22 pm

As I was coming down the stairs I saw a man who was not there, he was not there again today, I wonder if he'll go away?

Oh its OK - turned out to be a figment of some religious guys imagination

Er. Are there poppy fields in Cambridgeshire. Smile

by astra Thu Mar 29, 2012 10:38 pm

One fine day in the middle of the night,

Two dead men got up to fight,

Back to back they faced each other,

Drew their swords and shot each other.

The guy who wrote that had spent a day on the best altar water!

by oftenwrong Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:03 pm

My theologian's explanation of Religion is more credible than your theologian's.

by AwfulTruth Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:34 pm

oftenwrong wrote:My theologian's explanation of Religion is more credible than your theologian's.

Remember, God was once a woman then changed her mind: which is a sure sign that religion is sexist! sunny

Just a ray of light relief:

by Guest Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:01 am

astra wrote:
One fine day in the middle of the night,

Two dead men got up to fight,

Back to back they faced each other,

Drew their swords and shot each other.

The guy who wrote that had spent a day on the best altar water!

Five elementary school friends once recited this version to each other:

One bright morning in the middle of the night,
Two dead boys got up to fight,
Back to back they faced each other,
They drew their swords and shot each other,
A deaf policeman who heard the noise,
Drew out his gun and stabbed those boys.

It’s amazing that this jewel of wisdom survives cross-pond transport from Texas to our brother in Scotland!

by AwfulTruth Fri Mar 30, 2012 6:16 am

I remember that rhyme from years ago!

by trevorw2539 Fri Mar 30, 2012 9:06 am

AwfulTruth. quote

Remember, God was once a woman then changed her mind: which is a sure sign that religion is sexist! sunny

A very wise decision:silent:

by polyglide Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:55 pm

The odds that an eye could come about by chance are such that make the possibility, impossible.

The whole problem with the Darwin theory and do not forget Darwin himself at times doubted it, is that no one actually considers all the odds involved and in fact are more prone to faith than any religious person.

There was a little girl sat on her mothers knee holding a rag doll, mummy where did my doll come from said the little girl /.

Well it is like this.

There was a sheep in the field and it lost some of its wool, in turn this got wrapped round some barbed wire and turned into knitting wool, along came a weavel who weaved the wool together to form your dolls skin then along came a scarecrow with some straw and stuffed the straw into your dollies skin making the body firm, then along came an owl with a spare pair of eyes and fixed them on to your dolly etc; etc;

Mummy this sounds a little far fetched to me, yes love, y6u should just read the Darwin theory for something even more far fetched.

by Papaumau Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:45 pm

The possibility of there being life, ( not necessarily human life based around carbon - as we are ), is - as was said above - infinite in it's possibility of existence, as just about any planet, ( and there must be more than many trillions of them out in space that are sitting in the goldilocks area of their sun ), must be capable of producing living organisms that will almost certainly progress into intelligent beings of some sort. ( The reference to "Alien" being under consideration ).

For a very long while in astronomy and before cosmology there were known to be unlimited numbers of stars out there, ( each being a sun in it's own right ), but now we know that there are just as many galaxies out there as there was once known or guessed to be stars.

We sit at the edge of only one arm of the milky-way galaxy and within our own galaxy there are many trillions of stars, ( suns ), and without even leaving this galaxy there are enough stars, ( suns ), with the possibility of planets revolving around them that suggests that there might be a very good chance that life, ( not necessarily like ours ), is existing here.

Trying to image the total number of suns, ( stars ), out there in the cosmos - in all of those galaxies - that might have solar systems around them makes my head hurt if I think about those vast possibilities for too long.

Safe to say that there also has to be another old hairy-faced guy just like me - or even not like me - sitting at a computer discussing the exact same paradox on another internet that is made out of vegetables.

Regards....

Papaumau.

by polyglide Sat Mar 31, 2012 11:54 am

Yep, when you try to consider the extent of the universe you are in deep trouble, has it got an extent as we think of an extent?.

It is beyond our understanding, how on earth [pardon the pun] can something not have an end as we understand things? and if it has no end it must be travelling through something and if so what and where does that which it is travelling through end etc; etc;

So we must conclude that there is much that is beyond our limited means to understand and therefore anything is a possibility.

The obvious vastness of the universe opens up the possibility that there are far more superior beings than ourselves with powers far beyond our imagination

If you take the giant strides made in nearly every field in which we humans indulge, during the last less than a hundred years and think of the possibility of other beings having far superior abilities then creation becomes far less of a debate than a firm probability.

But it does take a little less arrogance and self importance on behalf of the human race to realise ttis.

by Papaumau Sat Mar 31, 2012 1:51 pm

Yeah, the idea that comes from the ones with faith states that we were made in "his" image and that HAS TO BE the most arrogant statement that any theist might make.

The science of evolution and the rules that nature makes us follow states that at any point in any branch of any arm of evolution ANY direction is possible, and if this is true there has to be the possibility that on any one of the possible unknown numbers of solar systems with "goldliocks" zones there has to be life of some sort.

For the theists to think that we - and the rest of them - were made in "his/her or it's" image has got to be arrogance of the highest magnitude.

Regards....

Papaumau.

by oftenwrong Sat Mar 31, 2012 2:31 pm

polyglide wrote:The odds that an eye could come about by chance are such that make the possibility, impossible.

The whole problem with the Darwin theory and do not forget Darwin himself at times doubted it, is that no one actually considers all the odds involved and in fact are more prone to faith than any religious person.

There was a little girl sat on her mothers knee holding a rag doll, mummy where did my doll come from said the little girl /.

Well it is like this.

There was a sheep in the field and it lost some of its wool, in turn this got wrapped round some barbed wire and turned into knitting wool, along came a weavel who weaved the wool together to form your dolls skin then along came a scarecrow with some straw and stuffed the straw into your dollies skin making the body firm, then along came an owl with a spare pair of eyes and fixed them on to your dolly etc; etc;

Mummy this sounds a little far fetched to me, yes love, y6u should just read the Darwin theory for something even more far fetched.

Those whom the Gods would destroy, they first make mad. ( Quem deus vult perdere, dementat prius )

by polyglide Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:12 pm

I could not agree more, I too think the evolutionists are mad.

by AwfulTruth Sat Apr 21, 2012 7:47 am

Those whom the Gods would destroy, they first make mad. ( Quem deus vult perdere, dementat prius )

Oh dear me I laughed so much my tits nearly flew off (as a female friend once said!).

Brilliant riposte Often, just brilliant! lol!

by Shirina Sat Apr 21, 2012 8:22 am

Oh dear me I laughed so much my tits nearly flew off (as a female friend once said!).

I heard a derivative of this when I was in high school.

Guy walks up to a girl and says, "I have a joke so funny it'll knock your tits off." Guy looks at girl's tits and says, "Oh, I see you've already heard it."

Heehee Laughing

by AwfulTruth Sat Apr 21, 2012 9:31 am

:affraid:

by polyglide Mon Apr 23, 2012 2:41 pm

I would have a little titter myself if the remarks were not so representative of the unintelligent and infantile.

by oftenwrong Mon Apr 23, 2012 5:32 pm

An atheist is an agnostic who's made their mind up at last.

by AwfulTruth Mon Apr 23, 2012 5:46 pm

polyglide wrote:I would have a little titter myself if the remarks were not so representative of the unintelligent and infantile.

Darling Polyglide it's called thigh-slapping, guttural giggling, tear-inducing humour - off-the-wall and maybe even just a little light bit of innocent titter - as Frankie Howerd of Up Pompeii fame would say: "Oh, she's very embittered, you know. Very embittered. You've seen the ring she had on? Well, allegedly, that was given to her by her fiancé when she was eighteen, and he jilted her, and she hasn't had it off since! Poor dear!"

Was he up for being so royally criticised? - or do you too think that such censorious sentiment is perhaps just a little bit reminiscent of disingenuous cant Wink

- or perhaps even of bitter invective? tongue

We live, by the way, in a universe dripping with wonderment, inspiration and thought-provoking splendour. Therefore Polyglide, it might do you good to just sit back, celebrate the difference, plurality and massive variety the world offers us, and then maybe just be still, quiet and contemplative that we are not alone and certainly not islands of cerebral exclusivity.

We share, we love, we hate, we experience life as sentient beings, the extravagant glory of the universe with us little people all alive and living on the face of a stupendously glorious earth!

Finally, Polyglide, working on finishing a historical novel, right now, and after doing a vast amount of research in order to write about real people, it is a reminder to me that in the microcosmic world of human beings, living in the shadow of the macrocosmic, as say visualized by the great Hubble telescope, that all humans are inextricably linked and conjoined by universal truth, philosophy and moral questions.

We may argue and discuss, but that does not mean we are inhuman, alien or 'other'...

by AwfulTruth Mon Apr 23, 2012 5:48 pm

oftenwrong wrote:An atheist is an agnostic who's made their mind up at last.

This is such a profound bit of wisdom I shall have to doff my cap to you! Very Happy

Another one:

"God was once a female but she was a misogynist and so changed herself into a man, and women have been paying for it ever since." clown

by Shirina Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:03 pm

I would have a little titter myself if the remarks were not so representative of the unintelligent and infantile.

Now you're flame-baiting, Polyglide. Posting insults within an actual argument is bad enough, but when you post ONLY to insult, then you're crossing the line of what Ivan, myself, and the rest of the staff consider acceptable behavior.

by Adele Carlyon Mon Apr 23, 2012 9:15 pm

I'd call it arrogant behavior...but what do I know? I'm one of the unintelligent unwashed!

by astra Mon Apr 23, 2012 9:47 pm

Dear Polyglide,

You appear to have an obsession about eyes.

Most creatures have eyes, so that takes in insects - bees are colour blind
Mammals
Birds
Marsupials well you get the gist.
Fish?

The Ceolanth, sorry for the spelling, but why did God leave this fish blind - ie no eyes? It's found in the Lake District - Windermere I think, and was thought to be extinct!

So why is it blind?

Please don't tell us some people, some cats and dogs are blind, as this is a whole species that is so aflicted. And YES, I am aware of the Purple fish and two headed fish caught in Loch Long, adjascent to the Submarine Bases

by trevorw2539 Mon Apr 23, 2012 9:50 pm

Adele Carlyon wrote:I'd call it arrogant behavior...but what do I know? I'm one of the unintelligent unwashed!

Welcome to the club:)

by AwfulTruth Mon Apr 23, 2012 9:53 pm

trevorw2539 wrote:
Adele Carlyon wrote:I'd call it arrogant behavior...but what do I know? I'm one of the unintelligent unwashed!

Welcome to the club:)

I started the club - I'm the original, darling!

by astra Mon Apr 23, 2012 10:03 pm

I started the club - I'm the original, darling!

GURRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!

I paid a wadge for what I was assured was the patent!! Sad

by polyglide Fri Apr 27, 2012 12:38 pm

I like a laugh as much as anyone else but I also think when debating a matter one feels is important then frivolity should take a back place.

If you want a laugh good, then lets have a thread dedicated to jokes, it might be fun.

This particular thread, was I thought, regarding intelligence and the fact is that whatever you consider to be intelligence you will find an equal amount within every aspect of life, I do not think any particular part has a greater amount than any other be it based on life style or any other aspect of life.

The best way in which to get the best response from many people is to give them a little kick up the back side, this usually brings out that which they want to say but would normally not do so and that is my usual style be it unfortunate or not.

by astra Fri Apr 27, 2012 2:18 pm

The best way in which to get the best response from many people is to give them a little kick up the back side

LATEST NEWS, JUST OFF THE PRESS!

Polyglide AT LAST admits the usefulness of Pugilism and Corporal Punishment

RESULT AT LAST!

A nice little rant about houmour, but no answers to my question! - again - "SO, Why is it blind?

by polyglide Sat Apr 28, 2012 1:48 pm

God made all creatures to suit their intended life style, I am very happy to believe that the fish to which you refer was happy with it's life and proof of which is the length of time it has apparently survived., it did not need eyes.

There is no doubt there will be many more instances of creatures that we are presently unaware of which just shows how wonderfull is God's creations, what a pity we do not appreciate many of them.

by **Ivan** Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:30 pm

polyglide wrote:-
If you want a laugh good, then lets have a thread dedicated to jokes, it might be fun.

There’s been one here since October 2011:-
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t37-favourite-jokes

Getting back to the topic…..

Religious people are less intelligent than atheists, according to analysis of scores of scientific studies stretching back over decades

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/religious-people-are-less-intelligent-than-atheists-according-to-analysis-of-scores-of-scientific-studies-stretching-back-over-decades-8758046.html

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:44 pm

The odds that an eye could come about by chance are such that make the possibility, impossible. The whole problem with the Darwin theory and do not forget Darwin himself at times doubted it, is that no one actually considers all the odds involved and in fact are more prone to faith than any religious person. wrote:polyglide

You can't be serious? Every stage of the evolution of an eye is present in living creatures right now, from a single light sensitive cell, to the complet eye, and what's more each stage gives the owner a distinct advantage in the chances of surviving long enough to pass on it's genes when compared to the previous stage.

The idea that complex patterns defying high odds prohibits it happening is also a fallacious assumption. The odds against wining the lottery are astronomical, but those odds are defied almost every day of the week, what you've failed to factor into your assumption is the enormous time-scales, and the vast attempts evolution will have made, the vast majority are failures so we don't see them, and then you falsley assume that the odds have been defied by a one off, like only one person doing the lottery and wining it, rather than being one of millions who do it, and then winning it. The species we see alive today are the winners that are left.

Lastly evolution requires no faith or belief, this is another fallacy, the weight of empirical evidence to validate it has long ago put it beyond repute. As for Darwin doubting it, that's how the scientific process works, there is no more critical or doubting group than scientists, it's how peer review helps remove subjectivity from the scientific process.

As for it being far fetched, you mean more far fetched than virgin births, magic apples, talking snakes, and a geocentric universe? sarcasm

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:50 pm

polyglide wrote:God made all creatures to suit their intended life style, I am very happy to believe that the fish to which you refer was happy with it's life and proof of which is the length of time it has apparently survived., it did not need eyes.

There is no doubt there will be many more instances of creatures that we are presently unaware of which just shows how wonderfull is God's creations, what a pity we do not appreciate many of them.

There is actually no such species as fish, the word we ascribe actually refers to many different species. That aside your assertion is made without evidence, as is the last sentence, it's wonderful all right, no argument there, but there isn't a single shred of empirical evidence that anything metaphysical caused it.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:56 pm

polyglide wrote:Yep, when you try to consider the extent of the universe you are in deep trouble, has it got an extent as we think of an extent?.

It is beyond our understanding, how on earth [pardon the pun] can something not have an end as we understand things? and if it has no end it must be travelling through something and if so what and where does that which it is travelling through end etc; etc;

So we must conclude that there is much that is beyond our limited means to understand and therefore anything is a possibility.

The obvious vastness of the universe opens up the possibility that there are far more superior beings than ourselves with powers far beyond our imagination

If you take the giant strides made in nearly every field in which we humans indulge, during the last less than a hundred years and think of the possibility of other beings having far superior abilities then creation becomes far less of a debate than a firm probability.

But it does take a little less arrogance and self importance on behalf of the human race to realise ttis.

Sorry but you're just making grandiose assumptions, with no evidence. The way you leap from a possibility to a probability without evidence is almost funny, strictly speaking it's possible that pink unicorns exist somewhere in the universe, or mermaids in the vast depths of the ocean, but most intelligent people would rule out such claims as absurd until some compelling evidence presents itself.

Interesting last sentence, how arrogant would it be to assume a being with both omniscience and omnipotence created the entire universe with us in mind, and with the earth at its centre, and that the same deity requires our worship and adoration, and get's angry if we don't give it? Talk about delusions of grandeur.

by Sponsored content