RAF,
IQ refers to a standardized international test that measures certain aspects of intellect with 100 being average intelligence. It's pretty well known. It only tests certain languge and cognitive skills. I understand that there are several different kinds of intelligence NOT measured by an IQ test.
Would I be influenced by someone with a high IQ? Perhaps in some ways, in the same way that I might pay more attention about how to succeed in business from a Donald Trump as opposed to Joe Blow down the street who has never run a successful business.
This has nothing to do with following someone - it's just logical to listen to people who have proven they know what they are talking about. When I want to learn something, I look for experts to help me. I don't become their follower, I just want to benefit from their expertise. That's the smart thing to do.
So, when I want to learn about this world I live in, I often turn to the people who are studying it most deeply and many of them are scientists. Interestingly, the majority of scientists have a good deal of education and higher than average IQs. Hmmm.. imagine that. Does that make them a better source of information? Not necessarily, but it would probably be the smart way to bet!!
NO one can say for sure whether god does or does not exist, we all agree to that at the moment - it's just that the TOTAL LACK of evidence makes it reasonable to assume there is no god. At some point a god may decide to reveal itsself. Until then it's a moot point. The BIG QUESTION is hardly a question at all. Does the Bible god exist has as much importance as Does the Spaghetti Monster exist, at this point. I consider that someone who worships god is using just about as much logic and reasoning ability as the person worshipping the Great Spaghetti Monster.
Again, if you read Mary's link, you'd see that it supports what I said - MORE scientists are likely to call themselves atheist by a factor of 2 or 3 over the average population. Again, I'll repeat for you, an atheist is not in any way saying that they can prove that god doesn't exist. That is simply the logical conclusion considering the lack of evidence.
Finally, when you wrote "(a fact is a fact, a not proved theory is a not proved theory and an opinion is an opinion)" - well, I'm just not going to deal with that again. You've shown in thread after thread that you have no concept of what a scientific theory is. Perhaps it's a language problem, but it is very hard to respect someone writing about what scientists think or don't think, when that person doesn't even understand the basic concept of scientific theories. There must be a few science books written for the layman in French. You need to take the time to read a couple.
S4
I REALLY DON'T CARE...............................
by Warlock 111 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Seeker4
-
5go
The above post by seeker to RAF
I would be a great example of what he is talking about. I am an athiest because of a lack of evidence. On the other hand I hope that we find such proof of dieties that care about us. Until then we might as well live like there aren't any.
-
RAF
S4
I understand about who you'd listen to as specialists. Now when it comes to state that God does not exist : Who is the expert really ?
A total lack of evidence ... doesn't tell anything ... but the lack of evidence or knowlege to get it (not more not less)what is reasonable in stating anything further from that? AND I'm not talking about the God of the bible ... I'm talking about God as essence (now that's an other topic) it would be just fair to not put everyone in the same basket (from your own personnal ex beliefs)
About Mary's link : we do not read the figures the same way !!! (maybe your belief got you blind)
About two-thirds of scientists believe in God ...The study, along with another one released in June, would appear to debunk the oft-held notion that science is incompatible with religion.
Nearly 38 percent of natural scientists -- people in disciplines like physics, chemistry and biology -- said they do not believe in God. ...
Some stand-out stats: 41 percent of the biologists don't believe ...
so now if 50% is the middle ... Well ... Still it doesnt prove anything like that must prove that God exist of course (Also I guess you've the other figures somewhere else because this studie doesn't tell about the average population ... and from where BTW?).
Finally, when you wrote "(a fact is a fact, a not proved theory is a not proved theory and an opinion is an opinion)" - well, I'm just not going to deal with that again.
Interesting that you don't want to deal with that (but your choice - you don't have to)
You've shown in thread after thread that you have no concept of what a scientific theory is.
Easy to state ... I guess you want to believe that
Perhaps it's a language problem,
sure ...
but it is very hard to respectsomeone writing about what scientists think or don't think,
You did ... .... When I've just said what they said ...
when that person doesn't even understand the basic concept of scientific theories.
Again easy to state ... I guess you want to believe that
There must be a few science books written for the layman in French. You need to take the time to read a couple.
Well ... but I guess this is the way are trying to prove your point (very interesting way really) ... but the study just shows the reverse (and they are talking exclusively about scientists) So ....
And when I will need your respect ... I'll let you know.
-
LearningToFly
BRAVO Raff! I may not agree with your theories, but I appreciate that you won't allow yourself to be treated like a doormat!
LTF
-
greendawn
I don't mind them bringing up arguments against the existence of a creator because a healthy debate is always useful. It may be that atheists find their belief helps them get over the WTS mind conditioning.
-
Warlock
It may be that atheists find their belief helps them get over the WTS mind conditioning.
greendawn,
Going from one extreme to the other would hardly help them get over WTS mind conditioning.
It actually re-enforces it. "I have the truth" to "I have the truth" helps them KEEP the WTS mentality.
Warlock
-
RAF
LearningToFly (thanks) : I may not agree with your theories
you don't have to ... those are just unproved theories anyway
But I like to share (and eventualy confront my point of view) on the matter conceptually just to go further on understanding possible aboutWHAT IS GOD which have been unexplored but in fact ignored by a majority by now (since I'm not the first and only one to think the same thing) - even regarding what the Bible is saying about it - which makes sense spiritually and conceptually talking to me) ...
Still I'm a believer ... (neither proud or ashamed of it) I just am
-
Seeker4
My comments are in bold.
RAF: Now when it comes to state that God does not exist : Who is the expert really ?
If we consider God to be the creator, it would seem that the people who study the things created would be specialists. In science there is a unified field of thought that can be taught at 100,000 universities and meeting a universal standard. Quite the opposite from religion and those who study the "holy writings."
RAF: "A total lack of evidence ... doesn't tell anything..."
I'm glad you're not a lawyer, and especially glad you're not a courtroom judge! Think about what you just said. Believing something extraordinary, when there is a total lack of evidence to support that belief, is simply a sad, sad commentary on the human condition. That type of thinking should have been shed like a dead skin after the Dark Ages. Unfortunately it continues to thrive worldwide, doing immeasureable damage.
The figures you quoted are quite easy to read - when from a third to a half of scientists don't believe in god, that's 3 to 5 times as many atheists among scientists as in the general population. And that proves nothing one way or another about the existence of god, it simply indicates what some scientists do and do not believe about the existence of god. In a culture where 85% of people claim to be Christian, indicating a belief in god, that difference in belief among scientists is huge.
RAF: You've shown in thread after thread that you have no concept of what a scientific theory is. Easy to state ... I guess you want to believe that
In the thread linked to below, you were seriously taken to school by Abbadon and tetrapod sapien on this concept of a scientific theory. All the evidence is there, for anyone who wants to wade through it.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/129048/2285368/post.ashx#2285368
LTF: BRAVO Raff! I may not agree with your theories, but I appreciate that you won't allow yourself to be treated like a doormat!Completely agree with that. Here's a place where we can openly debate ideas, which is a wonderful, wonderful thing. I'm really not trying to treat RAF like a doormat, but her constant misuse and misapplication of the concept of a scientific theory is frustrating and journalistically dishonest. It's the same technique the WTS used, the sad 'it's only a theory' concept you hear touted again and again by JWs, creationists, fundamentalists and the like. They present it like it's some great insight, when in truth it's like hanging a sign around your neck saying "I'm a scientific nincompoop!" There is no quicker way to get yourself labeled as scientifically ignorant than to say to a group of scientists, "Evolution is only a theory and there is no proof for it."
For anyone not blinded by fundamental religious dogma, there is simply no excuse for that type of dishonest use of words. I learned to despise that kind of twisted, Creation Book use of language as I was leaving the WTS. As a journalist, I feel more strongly about it than ever. Words have tremendous power, as we know. When they are misused, or used unethically, I see it as a bad thing. I've given RAF the benefit of the doubt about how she writes about scientific theories, because English is obviously a struggle for her, but I've seen her misuse this idea over and over, despite being directed to the actual definitions of this specific scientific term. That seems to make no difference.
Believe in god if you want. I really have no problem with that. Just carry on the discussion honestly and be willing to do a little background research.
S4
-
RAF
You know what since the first line you are using any king of fallacies/sophism (logic without total logic) to get your point ...
Guess what? ... No comment ! ...I have nothing to prove
-
Seeker4
RAF: Guess what? ... No comment ! ...
No surprise there!
RAF: I have nothing to prove
I couldn't have said it better myself.
S4