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

[SkepticThinker]

Your question is incoherent.



Thats just the issue right there, NONE of your explanations are rational. Its amazing to the point of irretation to me that you insult the very word rational by claiming such.



That does not explain or account for anything. Its not rational.



Uh-huh



You dont seam to understand the basic difference between a genuine change and additional details given to a story. Why is this? Because YOU are NOT a rational person.

Also, i was honest enough to say my memory was mistaken about a hole, vs a burnt spot. But, the burnt spot was gone the next day she said.

As far as seeing the lightning before or after the male figure appeared, that was an additional detail i just found out YESTERDAY.



See, as in saw the actual string of lightning. My mom only saw the string, not my niece. Why is that an incredable claim for you?



Theres a thing called turning on the outside porch light in order to see at night. I cant believe i even gotta say that too you. The level of unrationality in you is startling to say the least.

Can you explain what you think the world "rational" means. I think we're operating with 2 different definitions here.

 

[Jollybear]

or

Whats that? A male figure? (Sarcasm)

There is no mistaking lightning for a male figure. To see a male figure in that you really have to stretch your imagination overdrive.

My mom and niece wer not exercising no imagination. They simply saw a male figure appear.

 

[Jollybear]

Can you explain what you think the world "rational" means. I think we're operating with 2 different definitions here.

I am rational and your not.

 

[Jollybear]

It definitely is, given that it's based in known reality. And it is certainly more plausible than your "explanation" which requires piling on assumptions and beliefs, and is not based in any known reality that most people are aware of.

But if you think it's not, perhaps you could explain further, instead of just saying "Nuh uh."

No, your explanations are not known reality.

 

[Jollybear]

And the story changes yet again. (my emphases in the following...)

Previously...


Bolt Struck ...then... Figure Appeared



Now you write:


Figure Appeared ...then... Bolt Struck

Credibility Rating (0-10): 0

I told you, I MISTOOK the order. I re asked my mom, she told me the order. The male figure appeared before the lightning. Plus the niece did not see the lightning.

 

[Jollybear]

And my experience is that videos and articles for public consumption are very poor at conveying QM.

Why?

That is already an assumption that there are no inherently probabilistic events and that everything has a cause. Both of those principles are directly rejected in QM.

Why is it rejected?

Actually, one aspect of QM is that there *are* probabilities that do not simply reflect ignorance, but are part of the nature of the events.

That makes no sense. To say something is probable means uncertainty. Uncertainty dont mean chance exists, it means ignorence exists.

I'm pointing out that this was a delusion as well. The abduction delusion is more common than you would think.

Why is it a delusion?

Is there such a thing as a atheist gene? Eco's point.

And there were tons of touched-up photos before cell phones. The frequency has decreased significantly.

How you know its decreased?

The movement would be the result of the afteimage.

The movement has nothing to do with anything because the image of lightning dont look like a male figure. And my mom and niece wernt exercising there imagination like people looking for faces in cloads. Plus, the appearence happened before the lightning strike anyway. Plus the niece never saw the strike on top of it.

And I would admit you had an experience. But I might doubt that you interpreted it correctly.

Whos better qualified to interprete my experiences, me, the experiencer or you, the none experiencer?

Once again, this is a common thing in terms of how many people report such things. I bet if you talk with 100 people at least 10 will have some sort of experience along this line.

10 out of 100 is not a big number. But, even still, sure. Some people experience seeing ghosts and flying saucers. Thats not my argument though. My argument is that they are smart enough to know the difference between a overworked imagination and something real but unusual happening.

 

[Jollybear]

You don't mock. You just insult.

No, im not insulting you, im telling you the truth. Your not rational. Simple.

You wer mocking. Mocking IS insulting. Geter straight.

 

[Polymath257]

Why?

Why are the popular articles on QM so poor? Mostly because to understand QM takes an understanding of some pretty advanced math. Also, most people still think in terms of classical notions of particles being little ball-like things that bounce off each other. Attempting to understand QM using classical notions is impossible. And that is why so many article focus on paradoxes and 'weirdness'. In actuality, it is attempting to understand QM with ideas that are just not compatible with it.

For example, in classical physics, a particle goes over some one path. In QM, that particle isn't limited to one path at a time: it really is in more than one place at a time. That is what allows things like 'quantum bomb detectors', etc. (look it up).

Why is it rejected?

Well, originally because that's how the mathematical model worked out: Later, specific experiments showed that determinism is inconsistent with reality. That lack of determinism is what we call chance.

That makes no sense. To say something is probable means uncertainty. Uncertainty dont mean chance exists, it means ignorence exists.

And you are showing your assumptions here. In QM, the uncertainty is inherent in the physics: you *cannot* know which of several alternatives will actually take place because it isn't determined ahead of time. What *can* be predicted is probabilities for the different alternatives. We can also compute correlations between different events. That is quite enough to do science and it agrees with observations in all tests that have been done (including ones specifically to test determinism).

Causality, as classically understood, is simply false. It is simply not the case that cause A always and reliably leads to effect B. It may well lead to effects B, C, and D with computable probabilities.

 

[Polymath257]

10 out of 100 is not a big number. But, even still, sure. Some people experience seeing ghosts and flying saucers. Thats not my argument though. My argument is that they are smart enough to know the difference between a overworked imagination and something real but unusual happening.

For this type of thing, 10 out of 100 is *huge*. it shows that there is something going on that is psychological and not aliens or a supernatural. People have strange experiences because their brains are physical things affected by the physical world.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I am rational and your not.

That's a questionable assertion, given what you've said on this thread.
And that's not a definition.
Care to try again, seriously this time?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Whats that? A male figure? (Sarcasm)

There is no mistaking lightning for a male figure. To see a male figure in that you really have to stretch your imagination overdrive.

My mom and niece wer not exercising no imagination. They simply saw a male figure appear.

You really need to learn a little bit about how the human brain works. Our brains make such mistakes all the time, without our being aware of it. "After images" are a real, documented phenomenon. But you'd rather eschew such well known phenomenon in favour of what you want to believe instead. It's not rational. It's the opposite, in fact.

Did you not read my sleep paralysis story? You have yet to respond to it and I'm wondering why.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, your explanations are not known reality.

In fact they are explanations that fit with known reality. YOUR assertions are not known reality.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I told you, I MISTOOK the order. I re asked my mom, she told me the order. The male figure appeared before the lightning. Plus the niece did not see the lightning.

I think you've thoroughly demonstrated how faulty human memories can be.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Why?



Why is it rejected?



That makes no sense. To say something is probable means uncertainty. Uncertainty dont mean chance exists, it means ignorence exists.



Why is it a delusion?

Is there such a thing as a atheist gene? Eco's point.



How you know its decreased?



The movement has nothing to do with anything because the image of lightning dont look like a male figure. And my mom and niece wernt exercising there imagination like people looking for faces in cloads. Plus, the appearence happened before the lightning strike anyway. Plus the niece never saw the strike on top of it.



Whos better qualified to interprete my experiences, me, the experiencer or you, the none experiencer?



10 out of 100 is not a big number. But, even still, sure. Some people experience seeing ghosts and flying saucers. Thats not my argument though. My argument is that they are smart enough to know the difference between a overworked imagination and something real but unusual happening.

A non-partial third party. Ideally.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, im not insulting you, im telling you the truth. Your not rational. Simple.

You wer mocking. Mocking IS insulting. Geter straight.

You are projecting.

 

[charlie sc]

No, im not insulting you, im telling you the truth. Your not rational. Simple.

That's a questionable assertion, given what you've said on this thread.

I think we just need to look at the OP to answer this

 

[Jollybear]

I think we just need to look at the OP to answer this

The OP states that atheists are more rational then religious people.

Its quite the opposite matter of FACT.

 

[Jollybear]

You are projecting.

You are denying.

 

[Jollybear]

I think you've thoroughly demonstrated how faulty human memories can be.

So what? I also proved my honesty in rechecking with my mom.

 

[Jollybear]

In fact they are explanations that fit with known reality. YOUR assertions are not known reality.

Your explanations are NOT known. Sorry pale.