Oh, my bad, didn't notice that.

Actually, I didn't put him on the list because of his opinions. The thread was quite amusing to read till that, and I used to have respect for him before this, but his arguments started being everything but rational (unless you're a zealot, I guess), and his reply to Gaekwad was low, nasty, and half retarded.


Edit: Meh, it was still a bit childish putting him on the list, and I removed that.

Once again for you: I put him on the list to save myself from the temptation to sink to his level.

I really don't see why you got so angry, but if you explained it, I might. If you don't want to, it's fine though.

Don't worry, according to people who are finding ways for races to not exist, intelligence is an equally selected trait no matter the environment, and all populations have equal intelligence. :rolleyes:

You can call me a zealot, but also a father. A father who had a daughter that was well developed at 13. 6 LONG LONG LONG years of listening to how being a christian was an outmoded notion or evil and feeling like a prison guard.

A father who kept his daughter, christian and not pregnant, despite every problem with that. And rather than the school helping me, I felt they were preaching the opposite. Getting rid of the 22 year old boyfriend at 15......meanwhile listening to how evil christians were. And at 18 she had enough wisdom to make her own decisions. Good decisions.

Wasn't a load of fun.

Don't they rather say intelligence is mainly determined by the environment?

And isn't it rather the other side that claims the environment doesn't matter, that it's all genetics? :rolleyes:

@Phyltre: It wasn't just that post but his general attitude, judging a child by whether its parents are married is disgusting though.

he wasn't judging the child, he was judging the father. at least that's how I saw it. Where does he say anything bad about the kids? Calling them bastards? that just means the parents weren't married, maybe he could have said illegitimate, but shit means that same thing as crap.

And both are derogatory terms, or not?

That would depend on the connotation.

Yes, effectively, but that's not what I said. They say that intelligence is an equally selected trait, or, effectively, that no matter what the environment, intelligence improves survival and offspring rates at the same rate, which is why certain populations cannot have a significantly different degree genetics-based intelligence (which is why all variation comes from the environment).

The "other side" recognizes that the environment has some degree of impact (this is obvious), but that genetics play a large role.

I really think we are all dealt the same biological deck of cards, as far as intelligence, give or take a little and barring genetic defects like downs syndrome etc.

With europeans, I read germans are the smartest with an average IQ of 107, but all are in the 100 range, and probably all within statistical margins of error.

If you're interested in relative IQ scores, there's a whole bunch of them here. I believe that you're both right in saying that, on the whole, it's an environmental effect though.

An example is my friend Dennis. To talk to him you'd think he was a total "tool", and I'm sure if you gave him an IQ test, it'd reflect that.

He's still capable of moments of brilliance though, especially when it comes to being a mechanic. He's illiterate, not stupid, and capable of understanding very complex ideas.

I think IQ tests don't really reflect much.

And I've met guys like him too. I think everyone telling them they were stupid plays a big part. In his case, probably a reading disability no one fixed..maybe dyslexia.

They reflect a subset of reasoning, and are strongly affected by outside factors, yes.

And what would you say to a study which showed that identical twins' (separated at birth) IQ scores show a very high degree of correlation (about 0.8 on a scale from -1 to 1)?

/completely off topic

Haha. Yugoslavia - Zagreb. Oooh, if it was so. :rolleyes:

I think that some recent study put us (Croatia) as the second smartest in the world (despite hard evidence suggesting otherwise :D), after.. Israel I think. Probably that percentage jumped a lot when we dropped our eastern ex-compatriots. :p

Perhaps you should check your facts...

I am Catholic, went to Catholic schools from 1st through 12th grade.

I was taught abstinance. I was also told how to use a condom and the teacher that taught the class in question was a priest.



My 2 cents...
1. Most non-Christian people's opinions regarding Christianity are opinions based on hearsay.
2. Most non-Christian people's definition of a 'good Christian' has little resemblence to a true good Christian.

Allow a little explaination:
Point #1 is demonstrated above. (I am assuming that Will is not Roman Catholic.)

What I mean by Point #2 is that many people feel that Pat Robertson, Jesse Jackson, and the like are examples of good Christians. They believe the ideals preached by these folk are what being Christian is all about. They are wrong. Money grubbing, fame seeking people that preach retribution are not demonstarting Christianity but because they call themselves Christian in the public eye, it looks to others that Christian belief is hipocracy. Here is an example of what I mean:

Sorry, but you will never get an example in the media of the silent majority of good Christians. It just isn't news worthy. Only upholding a subset of your faith is not being a true Christian.

Sure it is. The good Christians often do this too (I know many myself). I was just giving an example of how this can be taken to bad extremes.

I've met very, very few Christians who follow the Bible word-for-word. I don't think this would produce a good Christian anyway.

Rules for being a true Christian:
1. Believe that Jesus is the son of God
2. That's really all there is.

There are more rules for being a good Christian, like following Christ's teachings and all that, but I'm pretty sure if you think Jesus is God you're a Christian.

Yeah, but the thing is that sometimes Jesus isn't Jesus. A lot of people that worship "Jesus" haven't got a clue as to who Jesus is and what he said.

Kind of like "Jesus lite" or "Artificial Jesus". You can call a pig Jesus, but that doesn't make it so.

I don't remember seeing in the bible any place "Thou shalt be called Pat Robertson, Get on TV, wear a $5000 suit and $20,000 worth of jewelry and babble.".

Nor did I see in Jim Bakers case: "Thou shalt rook thy flock to build a $40,000 dog house."

Or in Jimmy Swaggarts case "Thou shalt pick up the ugliest hooker you could find".

You can find people that worship and believe in the teachings of the real Jesus, and if you really have any inkling of the meaning of the bible, it's not very hard to tell.

The bible says "Beware false prophets". Most of us figure that out pretty easy.

Theres even a word for it... a Judas priest.

Like most things, if you see it on TV, it's probably the Roncomatic version of Jesus.

Salvation in 3 easy payments of $19.95 + shipping and handling.

Spaghetti-O's

Wrong assumption. To be Christian you have to believe that Jesus is God and willingly follow His teachings.

You can believe Jesus is God and still choose to worship Satan.

I'm not sure that Christian is so strongly-defined, but your definition is certainly the most common one, yes, Cabo.

There are differences in opinion of what "his teachings" were, of course.

Strongly defined by who? Non-Christians or people that are Christians in name only?

There are differences of opinion - Really ?
I may be wrong, but I think that every Christian religion's interpretation of the original Bible didn't change the fact that Jesus said there were two commandments: to love God with all your heart and to love your neighbor.

If I am wrong about this , please enlighten me.

If I am correct, then a lot of things that many so-called Christians do, are not very Christian. I understand that a lot of Christians believe they will be forgiven, but to be forgiven, you must want to be forgiven. If you want to be forgiven, you must try to be a better person.


{edit]Off topic: does anyone else notice the quick response box is gone?[/edit]

Yep.

and I agree with your post.

Both. Also Christians in name and action.

Yes. :)

Yes, but Jesus had plenty of "teachings" beyond this, and these end up being very open to interpretation. Jesus said a great many things, and there are myriad interpretations of those things in the world.

Besides, your wording there, by definition, is an interpretation, as flippant as that seems.

Critically, if you want to be forgiven, you must acknowledge that what you did was wrong, yes.

Religion - A concept of belief - which does NOT neccissarily mean it is true. It doesn't mean it's false either but it is only a concept.

Science - A method to find out FACT. To proof if something is real or not.

If though I was to take one story that has any meaning in the Religion support book, The Bible, I have to pick the story of the Samariton.

He wasn't religious or as science has informed us a basic biological being, or even an Athiest. He surpassed all of these nonsensical levels of argument and simply was himself, a simple, down to earth Human Being.

I heard a saying once, 'Actions Speak Louder Than Words'. Far as I am concerned?

Religion? Keep it - a load of gob-shites dressed in uniforms living of others (especially bloody nuns!)

Science - Oh for F***s sake - can't you guys do something 'Constructive' instead of 'Destructive for a change?

Samariton? Yes please - I love being a 'Human Being' - it's so much easier and if theres anything after? cool :) if not? oh well - least I know I did some really good, nice, hopefully helpful stuff with my life that I really do hope has benefitted others. Don't want no pats on the back for the nor any form of adulation, I'll just carry on my way happy to have helped out.

What do YOU want to be?

Religious?
Scientific?

or what you are? A simple Human Being. Take a look in a mirror - go on!! You might just get a shock!

LOOK!! IT'S ME!!!! (and carefully repeat) I'M A HUMAN BEING!! YIPPEEEEE!!!!! :)








nb: the silliness is there on purpose - it's meant to show how ridiculiss the whole argument is.....

Prove it was silly. :D

prove it wasn't...;)

The burdon of proof falls upon those who make extraordinary claims. Those claims require extraordinary proof.

The existance of a god is extraordinary. The burdon of proof falls upon those who claim god exists.

Exactly! Perfectly said!

I remember one of my course tutors at University gave us this lecture by The Simonyi Professor for understanding Science at Cambridge.

Part of the lecture was on belief or the understanding of belief. In it he used a 'Physical Anology' although in a hypothetical tense.


"I believe that a China Tea Pot is orbiting Jupiter" and experts upon experts discounted this belief. And say they even had the ability to take this person all the way to Jupiter to see for himself, he would still believe the teapot was there, irrespective.

Or you can take the Shamen of the mountains, who would say, 'The water follows the course it does down a mountain because it is guided by the water spirits. Of course, Scientifically we know that it is gravity that draws the water down the mountain and the course it takes depends on the densityu of the material that it pass's over.

You could even carefully explain this to the Shamen. The Shamen would consider this and reply " Ah yes I understand but it's the Water Spirits who guide the water to the softer more easily passable ground.

That is belief - it can be constructive with the deep understanding and peace of the Shamen or it can be destructive, such as the mis-guided belief concepts so fervantly followed with little or no supporting truth.

Reproduced from course work in Philosophy Lectures. Simonyi Professor for the understanding of Science and Belief. Cambridge, England.

You can try to figure out how gravitation works and what really causes the attraction. You can try to explain it with quantum physics or string theory, but nobody really has the answer. They just have some big words to not explain how it works.

So the shaman has as plausible an explanation as the shamans to the altar of science.

Existence... scientifically a miracle.

A final answer? No. Will we ever? Probably not. Do we have better understanding? Yes, certainly. Has this work proven itself useful and practical? Yes, of course. Does attempting to improve our understanding of things benefit all of us? Yes.

Science isn't about finding a "final" answer, at least not any time in the near future. There's just too much out there. But it is an iterative process, and it does improve our understanding of the world. They have some big words which approximate how it works extremely accurately.

Plausible? No, I think not.

Why do you hate science?

Don't be hatin' the scientist, hate the science.

Well, the Shaman thought it was water spirits guiding the river down the hill, but science has shown that whatever force guides water downward (here known as "gravity") is the exact same force that guides everything else downward, so probably not a water-based phenomenon. Even if we don't know exactly how gravity works.

Why is it extraordinary? Every culture on the planet has some sort of belief in some sort of higher power, God or Gods.
It can be argued that the claim that there is no god is a more extraordinary claim because the majority of people throughout history have believed in some God or other. ;)

Anyway the truth is that God cannot be proven or disproven and belief or nonbelief in God are both matters of faith.

I disagree because a person can not be taught something if they do not want to learn. For whatever reason, you 'scientists' have closed your mind to any possibility other than scientific 'fact'. You even admit that some of these facts are not yet proven, that we may never understand some of them, yet you cling to your belief. That doesn't sound too different than the Fundamentalist Christian that professes the earth is only 10,000 years old.

I have said it before... I don't see any thing contradictory in belief in God and belief in science. God may have started us down the road with the 'big bang' and is sitting back watching His grand experiment.

Sure it does, you just need to dig one level down. The belief of fundamentalists is exactly what is written in a book they believe was written by prophets. The belief of scientists is that we can increase our understanding by observation and speculation based upon the best information we have at the time.

False dichotomy anyway. There's a difference between believing something doesn't exist (your implication) and not believing something exists (closer to the truth).