religiosity and/or strength of religious belief is associated with less intelligence

[charlie sc]

I use faith based on evidence because theres no direct proof. If there was direct proof, id say proof and no faith at all.

Sure, if you want to use faith like that

What has convinced me of a God is design and information in our world. Intelligent design. And spiritual experiences which consist of near death experiences and extra sensory knowledge experiences and apparitions. You may see these as anecdotal, but, there is too many of them to dismiss in my view.

Sure, that's fine, but some of it is examine-able. I looked at the studies, a while back, on spiritual experiences in near death experiences. They appeared to be showing most participants experiencing this. However, after they took account of non-religious people, then it was not universal. It seemed to only be happening in those who are ardent believers already.
All the, "extra sensory knowledge experiences and apparitions," are bogus. I just need to direct you to James Randi, where he debunks all these scam artists.

Intelligent design is a philosophical argument, which is not that good(because of the comparison problem) but, assuming it's true, it doesn't point to any one god.

I'm not an expert but that's what I know of the stuff you mentioned.

 

[Jollybear]

You missed it because, as I said, you did
not bother to look before you accused.

True, but it was not intentional. Just like when someone spills there glass of water over on the table, its not intentional.

I do not think you are the one to explain
about "proof" and "evidence" to me,
since you have no idea what you are talking about.

Wait a minute there: back up. How do you know i dont know anything im talking about? And yes, there IS a difference between proof and evidence. And i can talk about that.

Proof is something for distilled spirits,
and math. SCIENCE DOES NOT DO PROOF!!

Why doesnt science do proof? Arent they trying to do it? If not, why not?

It is about time you learned that.

I should learn it simply by accepting you telling me?

It is, yes, and I said so, honest of him
to state that his belief in yec is independent
of evidence.

His quote did not say independent of evidence. He was not admitting evidence went against YEC, he was saying he would admit it IF it did.

Instead of calling him dishonest, im curious why you dont call him delusional instead? Does it make you feel better if you call him dishonest or something? Why dont alot of atheists and agnostics understand what ad hominum is?

It is similarly and equally honest for a serial
killer, or a scam artist to openly admit to
everything they have done.

Your comparing apples to oranges. I dont see him comitting dishonesty. I see it as he truely thinks he is honest. And once again, calling him dishonest does not convince me that your position is correct.

If K Wise is not admitting that the evidence
goes against yec, that is even more dishonest
than I was giving him credit for being. But
I think you read him wrong.

I dont think i read him wrong. Again, why not call him delusional? Why does he have to be dishonest? Even calling him delusional, which is more nice, even that dont xonvince me your position is correct on the age of the earth.

Now, back to what this is all about.

It is impossible for a person to be a yec
or other kind of "creationist" AND be
well informed AND be intellectually honest.

Or other kind of creationist? So your saying a old earth intelligent design advocate is dishonest too?

The more you do that, the more unconvincing you are to me about your own position.

K Wise is wide open and frank about saying
that he will never accept evidence against
yec, no matter what.

That, my friend, is as intellectually dishonest as it
is possible to be.

Or, perhapsd its delusional OR perhaps he says it because he believes the YEC so strong that future evidence would shed KNEW light on old evidence.

Dont oversimplify people and dont ad hom them. It makes you look bad and makes your position look unconvincing to me.

And ill repeat for the record, im undecided on if YEC is true or not.

 

[Jollybear]

Ill respond to your post later eco. I gotta go for now.

 

[Audie]

True, but it was not intentional. Just like when someone spills there glass of water over on the table, its not intentional.

Try posting properly.
Everything after this is a mess.

And your sloppy search was no "accident".

You intentionally did a poor job.
Conscious decision to be careless.
Then you blamed me with a falsehood,
that it was my failure.

I am not impressed.

You going to claim your actions were
out of your control?

Try taking responsibility for yourself.

You make yourself look even worse
with lame excuses.

 

[Jollybear]

Where did I say that "the book of Genesis was written with the intent to explain all the knowledge and workings of the universe"? I didn't.

Your not following the conversation. I didnt say you said genesis was a science textbook. What it looked like to me you wer saying is that you thought that i looked at genesis as a science textbook to explain all the universe. Thats what im correcting. I do not look at genesis as a textbook. So, that means we both dont look at it that way then.

However, I do understand why the book of Genesis was written. It was written for the same reason thousands of other creation stories were written; to explain to ancient man "Where did we all come from?". That's nowhere near "all the knowledge and workings of the universe", it's enough to get by.

That reason, although not entirely bad, is i think oversimplified. I think God ACTUALLY exists and angels too. And they gave a revelation of what generally happened in the beginning.

You are entitled to your beliefs. You are also entitled to never question your beliefs.

So are you.

If you did, there are a few things that might have given you clues that men told the stories and eventually wrote them down. "Men" as compared to "Man". From the very beginning, the stories make women subservient to men. God created Adam and later, almost as an afterthought, created Eve.

Yea, well, God was never against hating women, if thats what your getting at. Also just because eve was created after adam, dont mean shes adams slave. But, do you really wanna branch away from creationism into this?

But don't concern yourself with questioning these things. Just keep believing.

You too, dont concern yourself with questioning the dogma of naturalism.

ecco previously: It's not dogma to realize that it takes thousands of books on geology, biology, physics, etc to describe the true complexities of nature.

Yea it is a dogma to believe EVERYTHING has a natural explanation. It dont matter if billions of books are written on it.​

Of course, I deny that. However, I am open to learning. Please present a few scientific book or papers by qualified people that deny the commonly accepted findings of geology, biology, physics, etc. Produce just one scientific book that proves evolution is wrong.

Of course you deny that, why not, huh?

Before i give you a few of those books and papers, first define for me what you mean by "qualified people"? After i understand that, then ill be better apt to give you some.

Accepting scientific facts is not dogma.

Yea, some things are facts, that i dont dispute, but some things are not, and thats where you have dogma.

Airplanes get and stay aloft because of the effects of air moving across the surfaces, especially the wings, of an aircraft.

Yea, apples to oranges. Im not talking about airplains, im talking about creation.

The path of an artillery shell can be precisely predicted given the weight of the shell and the force of the gunpowder.

Apples to oranges. You wont convince me of nothing comparing your views to guns and airplains. Sorry. Wont work. Im serious, wont work, not even an inch.

The ages of various levels of the grand canyon can be determined through the use of psychics.

There are some people who deny these things. They do not deny them because they have scientific facts. They deny them because of their religious dogma.

Well, thats for me to determine, not you.

But, let me ask you this. How does the physics determine the age of the earth? Breaker down. And dont give me an article that breaks it down either. If you understand and believe it, then you breaker down and be prepared because im gonna ask a boat load of questions.

I'm sure you can see the difference between accepting scientific findings that are the result of years of study, examination and exploration and denying these based on religious beliefs.

Dont broad brush everybody. On a podom pole theres not just two extreme polarized views, theres many views inbetween.

You act like theres just science, then theres religion. Wrong. Theres many views in between. And those years of study are not without controversy. And its not all due to religion.

ecco previouslly:
I can only go by what you post. How is it a strawman to point out that your belief system prefers a ridiculously simplistic view of nature?

No, in fact its the other way around. Your view is oversimplified. You broad brush everyone. Thats wrong. But, will you ever stop it? I would hope so, but, i doubt it. But, surprise me, please.​

Believing that God put the sun, earth, and planets where they are is an oversimplified view of nature. It's something a six-year-old could understand. How the solar system formed is a lot more complex. It's not something that can be learned by reading a few short paragraphs.

I didnt say we could learn it in a few short paragraphs.

I am saying the evidence for God is real. Its inferential evidence. I get bored saying that over and over and over AND OVER to atheists and agnostics so much.

 

[Jollybear]

Try posting properly.
Everything after this is a mess.

And your sloppy search was no "accident".

Yes, it was an accident. I unintentionally missed your link. I did not delebarately ignore it. After you reposted it, i looked back YET AGAIN and did see it the second time.

Honest MISTAKE. And i did take responsibility for it by my apology. But, apparently, the apology is not accepted. Very well then.

You intentionally did a poor job.

I gauss believing this makes you feel better, right? As long as it makes you feel good, keep on then.

Conscious decision to be careless.
Then you blamed me with a falsehood,
that it was my failure.

I am not impressed.

You going to claim your actions were
out of your control?

No, they wer IN MY control, but, because of the human factor, my brain went "blink" or my attention span, spanned out for a breif moment and i overlooked unintentionally your link. It was a HONEST mistake.

So, i was in control, but, when i blinked out, i figured i did not miss anything during the blink, if i had known i missed, then i would have recontrolled my attention BACK.

You understand?

Try taking responsibility for yourself.

I did.

You make yourself look even worse
with lame excuses.

Theres no excuse, thats EXACTLY what happened.

Sorry for being human.

Anyway, why is the earth old?

 

[Jollybear]

Sure, if you want to use faith like that



Sure, that's fine, but some of it is examine-able. I looked at the studies, a while back, on spiritual experiences in near death experiences. They appeared to be showing most participants experiencing this. However, after they took account of non-religious people, then it was not universal. It seemed to only be happening in those who are ardent believers already.

Thats not true. It is universal, it happens also to unbelievers. Theres many examples of that. And i can give you sources if you wish.

All the, "extra sensory knowledge experiences and apparitions," are bogus. I just need to direct you to James Randi, where he debunks all these scam artists.

There are scam artists yes, but that dont mean theres not the real.

Look at the video below. Jessica utts. She explains that ESP has hits above chance.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YrwAiU2g5RU&ved=0ahUKEwjCopX12IDhAhVLwYMKHejrDBkQo7QBCCgwAQ&usg=AOvVaw2mdaeEg-evu_n9AlIZRffU

Intelligent design is a philosophical argument, which is not that good(because of the comparison problem) but, assuming it's true, it doesn't point to any one god.

Well, theres no DIRECT proof of God because we dont see him. But, design as in complexity and information is a real phenomena. I just INFER actual design, where as atheists will say design is an illusion.

I'm not an expert but that's what I know of the stuff you mentioned.

Screw the experts, they disagree amongs themselves anyway, so what do they know? Lol

 

[charlie sc]

Thats not true. It is universal, it happens also to unbelievers. Theres many examples of that. And i can give you sources if you wish.

Yes, I need sources.

Look at the video below. Jessica utts. She explains that ESP has hits above chance.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...kQo7QBCCYwAA&usg=AOvVaw3O8E1eDfQdvClHx8UJFFsT

Is it possible I can get a timestamp? I'll try look at the whole thing.

Well, theres no DIRECT proof of God because we dont see him. But, design as in complexity and information is a real phenomena. I just INFER actual design, where as atheists will say design is an illusion.

Not entirely correct. The atheist does not necessarily think intelligent design is an illusion. They think it does not exist, but, if it did, it doesn't infer a personal god. That would require another logical argument. See, one of the problems with intelligent design is that it strongly emphasises examples. So, the watch maker or the builder, etc. However, we all see how they make these things, how it's done, and we can even do it ourselves. Yet, there is no such example for anything intelligent design proponents want to demonstrate. Every analogy intelligent design gives is false.

As an example of how ID can be seen incorrectly or have the illusion of appearing so, I went to Giant's Causeway - Wikipedia a while ago. There, there was a myth generated around these hexagonal stones. The natives thought giants did it. However, as our scientific knowledge grew and our understanding of the world, of course the giant tale was incorrect.

Screw the experts, they disagree amongs themselves anyway, so what do they know? Lol

Lol, well, sure

 

[charlie sc]

Look at the video below. Jessica utts. She explains that ESP has hits above chance.

I tried looking for this topic in the scientific literature. I couldn't find any. Then I saw this Jessica Utts - Wikipedia where one of her co-workers said how she is biasing the data, "the overwhelming amount of data generated by the viewers is vague, general, and way off target. The few apparent hits are just what we would expect if nothing other than reasonable guessing and subjective validation are operating."

This is common in any field, including the sciences, which is why replicability is vital. None of her remote viewing studies has been successfully replicated, as far as I can tell. I checked any scientific literature on parapsychology and there is very little traction. There was was one meta-analyses in 2010 that showed 1 out of 3 different types of tests showed significant result but it had a small effect size. However, this and other parapsychology studies are criticised for its methodology and mixed results. Here's one such study that tried to replicate the parapsychological studies and they were failures http://www.deanradin.com/FOC2014/galak2012.pdf This field is a far cry away from being taken seriously. Though, for arguments sake, I don't think you appreciate the disparity here. For these studies you need guess 1 correct answer out of 4. Their best results among participants found 30-34%(25% being random) chance of guessing the correct answer. Now, even though that is significant, in terms of statistics, I have no idea how you relate this to,"extra sensory knowledge experiences and apparitions." Assuming there are no flaws in the study, an objective person will see what it is: slightly above average chance of getting the correct answer. There can be numerous interpretations of the data, as seen in this OP alone. Yet, the person who’s motivated by ulterior reasons and is biased will look at only one explanation. So, from this, you’ve assumed people have psychic powers and even inferred god exists. Do you see the confirmation bias in this?

Actually, I have a question for you. Can you be wrong about the existence of God?

All scientific stuff, which atheists love, is fallible and prone to error, which is why it has to be rigorous, debated, tested and so forth, but this is also why it's so accurate. When a scientific theory has very little/obscure evidence then it's in a state of flux, so the scientific minded have to be open minded to change. However, for theists I notice they cannot give the same amount of scepticism. If you cannot admit your fallibility, then there's very little point talking about god from my perspective. It's basically a conversation where one person is talking with the person while the other is talking at the person. One cannot change.

 

[Audie]

Yes, it was an accident. I unintentionally missed your link. I did not delebarately ignore it. After you reposted it, i looked back YET AGAIN and did see it the second time.

Honest MISTAKE. And i did take responsibility for it by my apology. But, apparently, the apology is not accepted. Very well then.



I gauss believing this makes you feel better, right? As long as it makes you feel good, keep on then.



No, they wer IN MY control, but, because of the human factor, my brain went "blink" or my attention span, spanned out for a breif moment and i overlooked unintentionally your link. It was a HONEST mistake.

So, i was in control, but, when i blinked out, i figured i did not miss anything during the blink, if i had known i missed, then i would have recontrolled my attention BACK.

You understand?



I did.



Theres no excuse, thats EXACTLY what happened.

Sorry for being human.

Anyway, why is the earth old?

I suppose I should be less critical of you, and
take cultural differences into account. You are
much less well educated, so you become confused
on what it or is not science, what is intellectual
dishonesty, how research is done, or what
constitutes scientific evidence.

We are taught to quickly see when someone knows
more than we do, and to learn from them, not
look foolish trying to argue.

You were not taught to take personal
responsibility for your failures.

We are taught to be relentlessly self critical, and
that it is shameful to make excuses or try to
put the blame for our failures on others, that the
most shameful failure is when we do not even try.

You seem to like to reinforce your mistakes.

We learn that to make an apology, it must be
simple and sincere, not "if you feel that I..."
or any other half way and insincere apology.

Your apology was good until the excuses
and finger pointing began.

You did not learn better, so, I now know not
to expect it of you.

 

[Audie]

True, but it was not intentional. Just like when someone spills there glass of water over on the table, its not intentional.



Wait a minute there: back up. How do you know i dont know anything im talking about? And yes, there IS a difference between proof and evidence. And i can talk about that.



Why doesnt science do proof? Arent they trying to do it? If not, why not?



I should learn it simply by accepting you telling me?



His quote did not say independent of evidence. He was not admitting evidence went against YEC, he was saying he would admit it IF it did.

Instead of calling him dishonest, im curious why you dont call him delusional instead? Does it make you feel better if you call him dishonest or something? Why dont alot of atheists and agnostics understand what ad hominum is?



Your comparing apples to oranges. I dont see him comitting dishonesty. I see it as he truely thinks he is honest. And once again, calling him dishonest does not convince me that your position is correct.



I dont think i read him wrong. Again, why not call him delusional? Why does he have to be dishonest? Even calling him delusional, which is more nice, even that dont xonvince me your position is correct on the age of the earth.



Or other kind of creationist? So your saying a old earth intelligent design advocate is dishonest too?

The more you do that, the more unconvincing you are to me about your own position.



Or, perhapsd its delusional OR perhaps he says it because he believes the YEC so strong that future evidence would shed KNEW light on old evidence.

Dont oversimplify people and dont ad hom them. It makes you look bad and makes your position look unconvincing to me.

And ill repeat for the record, im undecided on if YEC is true or not.

I do not do ad hom, You are making that up.

You better come up with a REAL example
or take that back with another apology for
false accusation.

That, and "oversimplify" are things you like to
say to people, for lack of anything real to say.
Cut it out, it is stupid and tiresome.


How do you know i dont know anything im talking about? And yes, there IS a difference between proof and evidence. And i can talk about that.
Why doesnt science do proof? Arent they trying to do it? If not, why not?
I should learn it simply by accepting you telling me?

How do I know you dont know what you are talking about?
By what you say! Two lines after asking, you already
provided another example! (science / proof)

And of course you should not learn "simply" by
accepting what you are told. That is for religious
dogma. Check for yourself, if it makes sense,
adapt.

Perhaps you are only accustomed to just
listening and memorizing for class, with no
understanding. We've seen this before.

So no! Do not just accept what I say.
Question everything. But you only go maybe
half way. You question (disbelieve) but, you
do not check. We have seen that before.

No, you might (might) ask yourself, "Why
does Audie say that?"

A few keystrokes on google and you will find
that, no, science does not do proof. But you
will not understand why, unless your study a bit
more.

You didnt do that, did you? You just disagreed
like I dont know what I am talking about, and try
to counter argue. With no idea what you are
talking about!


Oh and one more thing. I did not say K Wise is
dishonest. I said he is intellectually dishonest.
Do try to figure out the difference. You do not
seem to know what intellectual dishonesty is.

You did not bother to look it up, did you?

 

[Audie]

In the hope of preventing further confusion
about intellectual honesty such as would
inevitably result from a sketchy search,
here is a cut n paste-


Intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem solving, characterized by an unbiased, honest attitude, which can be demonstrated in a number of different ways including:

• Ensuring support for chosen ideologies does not interfere with the pursuit of truth;
• Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one's hypothesis;
• Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another;
• References, or earlier work, are acknowledged where possible, and plagiarism is avoided.

Harvard ethicist Louis M. Guenin describes the "kernel" of intellectual honesty to be "a virtuous disposition to eschew deception when given an incentive for deception".[2]

Intentionally committed fallacies and deception in debates and reasoning are called intellectual dishonesty.

Our noted yec paleontologys, Dr KL Wise stated the
following

As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate


ETA- The simplest way I can think of to describe an intellectually honest
person is-

Someone open to new ideas, and willing to change his / her mind

so, Jollybear-does your K Wise say he will change his mind
if all the evidence in the universe goes against his beliefs?

 

[ecco]

Instead of calling him dishonest, im curious why you dont call him delusional instead?

de·lu·sion·al
/dəˈlo͞oZH(ə)nəl/
adjective

characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.
​

Delusional implies a mental disorder. Perhaps you are right. Perhaps people who believe Genesis over the accumulated knowledge of mankind do suffer from a mental disorder.

 

[ecco]

And ill repeat for the record, im undecided on if YEC is true or not.

Which is another way of saying you are undecided on what the writer(s) of Genesis meant when they used the term "day".

 

[ecco]

Your not following the conversation. I didnt say you said genesis was a science textbook. What it looked like to me you wer saying is that you thought that i looked at genesis as a science textbook to explain all the universe. Thats what im correcting. I do not look at genesis as a textbook. So, that means we both dont look at it that way then.

Fair enough.

That reason, although not entirely bad, is i think oversimplified. I think God ACTUALLY exists and angels too. And they gave a revelation of what generally happened in the beginning.

GodDidIt is by far a more simplified way of looking at things than then intricacies of atoms becoming molecules becoming amino acids becomming, eventually, humans.

Yea, well, God was never against hating women, if thats what your getting at. Also just because eve was created after adam, dont mean shes adams slave. But, do you really wanna branch away from creationism into this?

The way I look at it is either the bible say it or it doesn't. The creation of Eve and the treatment of women is all part of creation. Ya gotta take the bad with the good.

 

[ecco]

ecco previously:
But don't concern yourself with questioning these things. Just keep believing.​

You too, dont concern yourself with questioning the dogma of naturalism.

Why do you assume I (we) don't question? When a couple of guys said they had discovered a way to make cold fusion viable, I didn't just jump on board. However, I didn't have the knowledge or wherewithal to test things out for myself. So, I waited to see what other scientists would come up with.

That's pretty much the approach I take with things scientific, political and social. However, I don't need to go over the same old stuff repeatedly. I don't need to investigate claims of dowsing or talking to spirits each time a new one comes up.

In regards to "naturalism", it's been validated by countless scientists in many different areas of science - AS YOU KNOW.

ecco previously:
It's not dogma to realize that it takes thousands of books on geology, biology, physics, etc to describe the true complexities of nature.
​

Yea it is a dogma to believe EVERYTHING has a natural explanation. It dont matter if billions of books are written on it.

Actually, it does matter that naturalism has been verified by many different branches of science. That's why it is not considered "dogma".

/ˈdôɡmə/
noun
a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.
"the rejection of political dogma"​

However, if you want to give credence to "the supernatural" then you must give equal credence to the concept that everything was created Last Thursday.

ecco previously:
But don't concern yourself with questioning these things. Just keep believing.​

You too, dont concern yourself with questioning the dogma of naturalism.

Let's compare.
Since Darwin, all related branches of science have confirmed natural evolution.
Over the past 100 years there has been incontrovertible evidence presented that proves that the Great Flood never took place.
Over the past 50 years, Biblical scholars from the major branches of Abrahamic Religion have mostly concluded that Genesis was not written by Moses. These same scholars have mostly concluded that Genesis is based on various previous creation stories.

People on both sides of the argument, who have made the effort to ask questions, have found more and more reason to accept scientific findings and less and less reason to accept religious concepts and explanations.

 

[ecco]

ecco:
However, I am open to learning. Please present a few scientific book or papers by qualified people that deny the commonly accepted findings of geology, biology, physics, etc. Produce just one scientific book that proves evolution is wrong.​

Of course you deny that, why not, huh?

Before i give you a few of those books and papers, first define for me what you mean by "qualified people"? After i understand that, then ill be better apt to give you some.

Papers from people with advanced degrees in biology or paleontology showing evolution is wrong.

Papers on physics from people with advanced degrees in physics showing radiometric dating is wrong.

Papers on geology from people with advanced degrees in geology showing slow erosion of the Grand Canyon is wrong.

I think we can agree that people like Dr. Wise are not qualified because they have admitted they would not believe in naturalism regardless of the amount of evidence presented.

You might find one of each. But then you need to ask yourself why you believe the one instead of the vast majority of their peers.

 

[Audie]

de·lu·sion·al
/dəˈlo͞oZH(ə)nəl/
adjective

characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.
​

Delusional implies a mental disorder. Perhaps you are right. Perhaps people who believe Genesis over the accumulated knowledge of mankind do suffer from a mental disorder.

Hmm. I guess you are right. i was not going to
be that harsh but if it fits, it fits.

 

[ecco]

Yea, apples to oranges. Im not talking about airplains, im talking about creation.

Apples to oranges. You wont convince me of nothing comparing your views to guns and airplains. Sorry. Wont work. Im serious, wont work, not even an inch.

Actually, we are talking about science. The bottom line is that you believe and accept science only up to the point that it conflicts with your deeply held religious beliefs.

 

[ecco]

But, let me ask you this. How does the physics determine the age of the earth? Breaker down. And dont give me an article that breaks it down either. If you understand and believe it, then you breaker down and be prepared because im gonna ask a boat load of questions.

Nice try. I accept the knowledge of scientists. You accept the knowledge of scientists up to the point it conflicts with your deeply held religious beliefs.

Do you believe in Gravity? Are you prepared to give a detailed explanation of gravity? No articles. Just "breaker down". Are you prepared to answer a "boat load" of questions?

Let's not resort to making silly demands, OK?