TheWilliam
New Member
Stumbled on this forum while stuck indoors during a storm and signed up.
I don't post A LOT, but I try not to be dead weight.
Peace
TheWilliam
I don't post A LOT, but I try not to be dead weight.
Peace
TheWilliam
Out black atheist living in the South..... Hello
- Thread starter TheWilliam
- Start date
Morning Star
Well-Known Member
From one atheist to another who's also a southerner (Louisiana here)...
Welcome aboard to the forums!
Welcome aboard to the forums!
The Dark King
Well-Known Member
From one atheist to another who's also a southerner (Louisiana here)...
Welcome aboard to the forums!
Does that quote denote the exisitence of God all together or the way we've percieved it/him/her?
Morning Star
Well-Known Member
Largely, it can a direct shot at merely theistic ideologies. And theism is basically the conceptual idea or basis of a personal god. However, it doesn't quite express the Deistic concept of God - and it's not quite the same as the way we view a theistic god.
The Dark King
Well-Known Member
That part of athiesm I can understand and partially agree with. It seems to only address JudeoChrisitan and Islamic religions but doesn't seem to tackle harmonistic ideologies like Native American and African religions or even the Buddahist ideology which promote a harmony and equilibrium with your environment and the universe at large.
The Dark King
Well-Known Member
BBW I thought of you when I stumbled on this. Its some of the work from Chris Lagden (the highest recorded IQ of the 20th century probably since Newton) who believes that God exists and that the soul exists and he attempts to prove it. Amazing work.
http://www.ctmu.org/
http://www.ctmu.org/
Morning Star
Well-Known Member
Actually, all fundamental religions, including non-Abrahamic religions, which believe in a personal deity, are counted as theistic. There are African religions which adhere to a personal god or goddess. There are numerous ones. I must confess that I don't know all, but they all follow a theistic idea. Buddhism, on the other hand, is atheistic since it lacks the belief in a god. However, they do believe in spirits and dualism.
All religions do have certain quotes or statements relating to a doing good will and all that. But it's the issue of people following these other statements:
"Practice what you preach" and "Keep your beliefs to yourself." Some, not all, religions are inherently guilty of that.
One thing I've come to realize from a while back is that a person's IQ is practically irrelevant to one's intelligence. And to boast about that doesn't say much except that person just have a high number on a test. But back to your statement, there were a lot of intelligent people who believed in god, religious or spiritual. Regardless of how you shake it, anyone who tries to prove God through science only lessens their credibility and should they attempt to do that, they'll only fall into the regression of the mean. So, Chris Lagden may have been a smart person, but he was too arrogant to make that assertion. He wasn't the first though. Blaise Pascal used his "Wager" to prove god is real.
However, the question is: Did Lagden try to prove a deistic or a personal god?
All religions do have certain quotes or statements relating to a doing good will and all that. But it's the issue of people following these other statements:
"Practice what you preach" and "Keep your beliefs to yourself." Some, not all, religions are inherently guilty of that.
One thing I've come to realize from a while back is that a person's IQ is practically irrelevant to one's intelligence. And to boast about that doesn't say much except that person just have a high number on a test. But back to your statement, there were a lot of intelligent people who believed in god, religious or spiritual. Regardless of how you shake it, anyone who tries to prove God through science only lessens their credibility and should they attempt to do that, they'll only fall into the regression of the mean. So, Chris Lagden may have been a smart person, but he was too arrogant to make that assertion. He wasn't the first though. Blaise Pascal used his "Wager" to prove god is real.
However, the question is: Did Lagden try to prove a deistic or a personal god?
The Dark King
Well-Known Member
Deistic kind of like Eistien's God of Beauty. I don't know if I can agree with your statement about IQ. Seems like a lot of people who are incredibly intelligent had or have high IQs. Einstein, Hawkings, Darwin, Franklin, Dawkings, Da Vinci.
I don't think there's arrogance in the attempt all sciences try to grasp and understanding of this universe and our place in it. I don't know if his assertions are correct or incorrect but I admitt they are rather interesting. Much of his work is over looked since he didn't attend college but at this point things like that don't matter to me. Since you had minds like Newton that had the best formal education yet people like Einstein failed high school math.
I just admire his approach and his story. He's a fricking speciman. The man could bench 500lbs yet had an IQ over 200. How often do you see that? Closest persons I know of like that is maybe Benjamin Franklin and Dolph Londren.
Morning Star
Well-Known Member
This Harvard Study proves otherwise relating to IQ and whether it matters. Basically, IQ is only relative to the person applying themselves. I have an IQ 125 and that's based on five separate tests, all of which my score was exactly that. And that's considered above average. Yet, I don't feel that way. 
In other words, the way how IQ is determined is not necessarily concrete. Comparative studies can tell you that there's little research outside academia and intelligence goes beyond what you know or learn in the classroom or what tests you take. Just to further prove you wrong, consider George W. Bush. His IQ was considerably high, despite rumors speaking otherwise. Makes you wonder...
And for the record, Einstein's view of God wasn't deistic. It was more of a mix of pantheism and deism in a more naturalistic form. It's hard to completely explain it all, but I think you already have an idea what I'm referring to, so there's no need to go into detail. But I will address this, if what you're saying is true, then Lagden basically applies energy and force as "god".
In other words, the way how IQ is determined is not necessarily concrete. Comparative studies can tell you that there's little research outside academia and intelligence goes beyond what you know or learn in the classroom or what tests you take. Just to further prove you wrong, consider George W. Bush. His IQ was considerably high, despite rumors speaking otherwise. Makes you wonder...
And for the record, Einstein's view of God wasn't deistic. It was more of a mix of pantheism and deism in a more naturalistic form. It's hard to completely explain it all, but I think you already have an idea what I'm referring to, so there's no need to go into detail. But I will address this, if what you're saying is true, then Lagden basically applies energy and force as "god".
The Dark King
Well-Known Member
This Harvard Study proves otherwise relating to IQ and whether it matters. Basically, IQ is only relative to the person applying themselves. I have an IQ 125 and that's based on five separate tests, all of which my score was exactly that. And that's considered above average. Yet, I don't feel that way.
In other words, the way how IQ is determined is not necessarily concrete. Comparative studies can tell you that there's little research outside academia and intelligence goes beyond what you know or learn in the classroom or what tests you take. Just to further prove you wrong, consider George W. Bush. His IQ was considerably high, despite rumors speaking otherwise. Makes you wonder...
And for the record, Einstein's view of God wasn't deistic. It was more of a mix of pantheism and deism in a more naturalistic form. It's hard to completely explain it all, but I think you already have an idea what I'm referring to, so there's no need to go into detail. But I will address this, if what you're saying is true, then Lagden basically applies energy and force as "god".
Oh I agree with you. I've been tested above 140 which is suppose to be genius but I would never consider myself one since I am very much on the lazy side. Alex Gladwell also shares your perspective and desribes it perfectly in his book outliers. Webmaster posted a two hour video about last week, really interesting stuff. He makes the claim what makes genius irrelevant is the very thing you referred to and its hard work but one can also note that the harder you work the smarter you become at a given task.
For me Lagden offered a much needed mathematical and logical ellegance I don't see from many other theists.
The problem I have with many athiests like Dawkins Maher Hitchens and even you my friend is that they have an air of arrogance about their beliefs constantly calling religious folk stupid and crazy and their way is the only way. Im not saying they are necessarily wrong but their approach is usually so pompus it makes it hard to hear their point of view. Athiests like SE Cuppp and Dr. MIchiau Kaku have a much persuasive approach without the need to insult and belittle people. Its like if you know the sky is blue and trees are green why the need to defend so hard against those who say they are yellow and purple.
Morning Star
Well-Known Member
Well, I'm not going to deny there are some things in which we do have a knack for and it's innate. But much of everything else is learned and through hard work. I wouldn't necessary say "smarter", but I think more knowledgeable is a more appropriate term to determine how one can further improve their capabilities. Plus you need to factor in social adaptations and comprehension and basically, anything outside the academic circle.
As for the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and Maher, I'll take the devil's advocate approach and defend them in this respect: They are mainly going after organized religion and the theistic beliefs as opposed to the whole spectrum or overall concept of God. However, their arguments, if you read or paid attention to their lectures or speeches, is that they all deliver a certain strong and reasonable basis to disprove the existence of God and much of it is based on our lives, the history of superstition and how human beings work.
One example would be how current religious leaders often bastardize or create misinformed information relating to social issues and even things like injecting religion into the classroom. They are basically putting a philosophical, dogmatic position and claim it as a science driven theory. Again, science asks "How?" and it requires proven evidence. Yet, these religious leaders and evangelicals are willing to inject a certain ideology where for that to be proven true, it would require the proof of a designer. And this is where they refuse to bring to the table. The burden of proof is on them and they can't deliver. This is what people like Dawkins (evolutionary biologist) are arguing. There's more for me to speak on, but I think I'll keep my text to a minimum.
They also share one other trait: They're not philosophers. None of them can express their views on Atheism in a philosophical motif. There have been prominent atheist philosophers and the most known one of recent is Daniel Dennett. Below is a video of one of his lectures. There are many more of his lectures and even one in which he debated Dinesh D'Souza. Check them out when you have time.
SE Cupp, beautiful and sexy as she is, she's not the most intelligent person when it comes to debating on atheism. In fact, I'm certain she never really did any debates relating to her stance. She describes herself as someone who is "open to conversion" and that only tells me that she's not really able to argue her stance quite concisely. Maybe you can find some videos relating to that.
As for the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and Maher, I'll take the devil's advocate approach and defend them in this respect: They are mainly going after organized religion and the theistic beliefs as opposed to the whole spectrum or overall concept of God. However, their arguments, if you read or paid attention to their lectures or speeches, is that they all deliver a certain strong and reasonable basis to disprove the existence of God and much of it is based on our lives, the history of superstition and how human beings work.
One example would be how current religious leaders often bastardize or create misinformed information relating to social issues and even things like injecting religion into the classroom. They are basically putting a philosophical, dogmatic position and claim it as a science driven theory. Again, science asks "How?" and it requires proven evidence. Yet, these religious leaders and evangelicals are willing to inject a certain ideology where for that to be proven true, it would require the proof of a designer. And this is where they refuse to bring to the table. The burden of proof is on them and they can't deliver. This is what people like Dawkins (evolutionary biologist) are arguing. There's more for me to speak on, but I think I'll keep my text to a minimum.
They also share one other trait: They're not philosophers. None of them can express their views on Atheism in a philosophical motif. There have been prominent atheist philosophers and the most known one of recent is Daniel Dennett. Below is a video of one of his lectures. There are many more of his lectures and even one in which he debated Dinesh D'Souza. Check them out when you have time.
[YOUTUBE]dCgUJdsliEM[/YOUTUBE]
SE Cupp, beautiful and sexy as she is, she's not the most intelligent person when it comes to debating on atheism. In fact, I'm certain she never really did any debates relating to her stance. She describes herself as someone who is "open to conversion" and that only tells me that she's not really able to argue her stance quite concisely. Maybe you can find some videos relating to that.
Morning Star
Well-Known Member
Ms. J
Well-Known Member
ah honey, so glad you took my comments in the spirit i intended- 'cause i wasn't fussing just poking fun a bit :smt058
Morning Star
Well-Known Member
moddestmike
New Member
Glad you joined brotien shake. From one atheist to another, welcome aboard.
Morning Star
Well-Known Member
Well...well...we're all coming together fruitfully. Could it be? We're coming out in the limelight indeed!
moddestmike
New Member
Agreed we are. I just never see a need to announce it a I guess.
Last edited: