how do atheists feel when they realize...

[laser23]

It's well known that higher educated people have a lower birthrate. Are you trying to show a correlation between ignorance and religion?

Chinese people as a population group have the highest iq in the world behind european jews. Chinese people according to your theory should becoming more secular in nature and not more Christian. The fact that christianity is growing at a phenomenal pace in that country proves that religion isn't only for brain dead morons. China is both growing in population and becoming more religious. Western Europe and north america are outliers. Also birthrates have more to do with birth control availability than with religiosity.

[redelite191]

Chinese people as a population group have the highest iq in the world behind european jews. Chinese people according to your theory should becoming more secular in nature and not more Christian. The fact that christianity is growing at a phenomenal pace in that country proves that religion isn't only for brain dead morons. China is both growing in population and becoming more religious. Western Europe and north america are outliers.

Gonna move to China....laser?

[Athanasius90]

I like how you write off the amputee argument so quickly. If Yahweh performs miracles how comE he never helps amputees? Either he hates amputees or these miracles don't exist. Catholics are always going on and on about miracles to canonize saints yet none of these miracles have been or are verifiable.

Your god doesn't exist bro. Umad

this

Lol.


Let's say an amputee did regrow a limb. Would everyone be like "omg gawd!"? Gawd is reel! Those illiterate goatherders! They were right!

No. Rather most likely we would look like for some medical anomaly, some extremely rarely activated pseudogene or something akin to how lizards regrow missing tails (in fact, IIRC fetuses can regrow missing parts if it happens early enough in the prenatal period--which means we still have the genes for it, somewhere)

And of course, we'd all be like "oh science explains it. Yay science! Gawd for the lose!"

[Mr Beer]

It's a common atheist asseration that christianity/religion is dying in general. Yes, in the west christianity is dying but at a macro level it is growing.

Seems you're conflating separate trends.

Religiosity is negatively correlated with education and wealth, hence it's on the decline in the West.

OTOH if you repress a billion people, denying them the option to be openly religious, and then you loosen up...you're going to see a whole lot of people getting religion all of a sudden. The same thing happened in Russia as well.

Based on that, I would expect to see many millions of Chinese becoming religious for some few decades and then less religious as the society (hopefully) becomes wealthier.

It's a very positive step that these people are getting the freedom to choose and publically express their religious affiliation. I'm all for it, good job China.

EDIT

BTW, the fact that religion is on the wane in the West, hardly means it's 'dying'. People are naturally superstitious, suffer from 'magical thinking' and are generally terrible at seeing things as they are instead of as they wish them to be. I expect religion to be a constant of human society for as long as it's recognisably human society.

[Mr Beer]

Let's say an amputee did regrow a limb. Would everyone be like "omg gawd!"? Gawd is reel! Those illiterate goatherders! They were right!

No. Rather most likely we would look like for some medical anomaly, some extremely rarely activated pseudogene or something akin to how lizards regrow missing tails (in fact, IIRC fetuses can regrow missing parts if it happens early enough in the prenatal period--which means we still have the genes for it, somewhere)

And of course, we'd all be like "oh science explains it. Yay science! Gawd for the lose!"

In fact scientists would attempt to confirm amputee healing via experimentation, at which point the miracle would be strangely resistant to repeatability and observation under laboratory conditions, just like every other miracle ever claimed.

Of course, if someone actually could heal missing limbs by calling on the Lord and be able to prove it, it would be scientists who would confirm that fact, since you know, any scientist would love to go collect the attendant and near-automatic Nobel prize and recognition as an outstanding mind of the 21st century.

[laser23]

Seems you're conflating separate trends.

Religiosity is negatively correlated with education and wealth, hence it's on the decline in the West.

OTOH if you repress a billion people, denying them the option to be openly religious, and then you loosen up...you're going to see a whole lot of people getting religion all of a sudden. The same thing happened in Russia as well.

Based on that, I would expect to see millions of Chinese becoming religious for some few decades and then less religious as the society (hopefully) becomes wealthier.

It's a very positive step that these people are getting the freedom to choose and publically express their religious affiliation. I'm all for it, good job China.

Yes a wealthy society is more non religious but their are numerous factors that cause that. Since the enlightenment western civilization has become less religious. Don't get it confused that science/progress and religion are opposing forces. Remember that the two greatest minds in human history Michaelangelo and Newton were both deists. 85 percent of the world believes in some sort of god.

[Mr Beer]

Yes a wealthy society is more non religious but their are numerous factors that cause that. Since the enlightenment western civilization has become less religious. Don't get it confused that science/progress and religion are opposing forces. Remember that the two greatest minds in human history Michaelangelo and Newton were both deists. 85 percent of the world believes in some sort of god.

Like I said before IQ =/= infallible and humans are basically terrible at understanding reality, we are prisoners of our evolved brains.

It's somewhat irrelevant to me, since facts don't become true or untrue based on popular vote. I don't care one way or the other whether 100 million humans become more or less religious over the next few years. It's much more important to me that people have the choice, so as I say, this Chinese development is all good as far as I'm concerned.

EDIT

It's also completely inevitable, if you force people to be public atheists, they didn't think their way to that position anyway. So remove the coercion, you are naturally going to see a lot of religion spring back.

[laser23]

Like I said before IQ =/= infallible and humans are basically terrible at understanding reality, we are prisoners of our evolved brains.

It's somewhat irrelevant to me, since facts don't become true or untrue based on popular vote. I don't care one way or the other whether 100 million humans become more or less religious over the next few years. It's much more important to me that people have the choice, so as I say, this Chinese development is all good as far as I'm concerned.

EDIT

It's also completely inevitable, if you force people to be public atheists, they didn't think their way to that position anyway. So remove the coercion, you are naturally going to see a lot of religion spring back.

I personally don't care if someone believes one thing or another. I just want to know if that person takes their beliefs to their logical conclusions or not. If an atheist lives like a deist or even a theist I call them out. I know nothing about you individually so it wouldn't be right for me to even begin to judge you or someone like you. I respect all belief systems. Srs

[Austanian]

Annnnnnnd I was misrepresented and caricatured to having said evidence was not valuable or worthy and evidence is synonymous with atheism.


I'm thinking of making a program which deposits a bitcoin into a private account everytime I'm misrepresented, caricatured or written off without a further thought. brb never working again.

THen why didn't you present it? If it is all out there.

You call evidence requests a meme. What are we suppose to get from that.

[StickingPoint]

Remember that the two greatest minds in human history Michaelangelo and Newton were both deists. 85 percent of the world believes in some sort of god.

Before we had great instruments of measurement and observation, the greatest minds also believed in flat earth, and a geocentric universe.

Why is proof of god virtually the only proof exempt from scientific method? There must be a reason.

[Athanasius90]

You call evidence requests a meme. What are we suppose to get from that.

Didn't say that. I said repeating one liners was an atheist trope.

Before we had great instruments of measurement and observation, the greatest minds also believed in flat earth, and a geocentric universe.

Why is proof of god virtually the only proof exempt from scientific method? There must be a reason.

@ bolded-- Did they?


"Why is proof of god virtually the only proof exempt from scientific method? There must be a reason"


It's not the only one. Plus, there's no such thing as "the" scientific method. It's a pop culture myth. There's no single, univocal thing which makes science science.

Gah, why can't we get over scientism on this forum?

[StickingPoint]

It's not the only one. Plus, there's no such thing as "the" scientific method. It's a pop culture myth. There's no single, univocal thing which makes science science.

Gah, why can't we get over scientism on this forum?

Okay, so you want to abandon any science based approach to proving god exists. What next?

srs.

Is ancient text the only thing you want to enter into the discussion? Or modern miracles? Just trying to get you to commit to SOMETHING for your proof. You keep offering nothing, but you denounce a science based approach. Give us something to work with.

[Athanasius90]

Okay, so you want to abandon any science based approach to proving god exists. What next?

No, I wish to abandon the belief that science answers literally anything and everything. The view is self-refuting, so why we still have discussions over this is puzzling.

The phrase "science-based approach" is different. If you mean reflecting on various scientific discoveries and see if they say something either way on the issue, or the possibility of scientific evidence supporting a premise in an argument, sure. Or discussing the integration and interaction of science and theology. These are good and fruitful discussions. But we shouldn't limit our approach to just science, as in, looking no further than a scientific paper(s). Science will always and forever fit into a bigger picture. This has never been a problem for theists, only the fringe elements. There are even entire theologies which take the natural sciences as their first principles.

[StickingPoint]

No, I wish to abandon the belief that science answers literally anything and everything. The view is self-refuting, so why we still have discussions over this is puzzling.

The phrase "science-based approach" is different. If you mean reflecting on various scientific discoveries and see if they say something either way on the issue, or the possibility of scientific evidence supporting a premise in an argument, sure. Or discussing the integration and interaction of science and theology. These are good and fruitful discussions. But we shouldn't limit our approach to just science, as in, looking no further than a scientific paper(s). Science will always and forever fit into a bigger picture. This has never been a problem for theists, only the fringe elements. There are even entire theologies which take the natural sciences as their first principles.

Okay, so science alone doesn't prove the existence of a god. Then WHAT does?

[laser23]

Okay, so you want to abandon any science based approach to proving god exists. What next?

srs.

Is ancient text the only thing you want to enter into the discussion? Or modern miracles? Just trying to get you to commit to SOMETHING for your proof. You keep offering nothing, but you denounce a science based approach. Give us something to work with.

Big bang cosmology points to a beginning of the universe or a multiverse if you prefer that. Moral absolutes also point to God. The empty tomb that Jesus Christ was buried in. Christianity being started in the city that Jesus Christ was crucified in. The absolute absurdity of life without God is probably the strongest though. The scientific method assumes that the universe can actually be studied fully. Einstein recognized that this strongly pointed to a creator of some sorts. Once atheism is embraced, man looses all reference points to himself, he is a cosmic orphan.

[StickingPoint]

Big bang cosmology points to a beginning of the universe or a multiverse if you prefer that. Moral absolutes also point to God. The empty tomb that Jesus Christ was buried in. Christianity being started in the city that Jesus Christ was crucified in. The absolute absurdity of life without God is probably the strongest though. The scientific method assumes that the universe can actually be studied fully. Einstein recognized that this strongly pointed to a creator of some sorts. Once atheism is embraced, man looses all reference points to himself, he is a cosmic orphan.

Well, we have an amalgamation of tidbits of philosophy and opinion, add some references to unverified bits of history. This is as strong as it gets? I can clearly see why you want to steer away from any science based approach to PROVING god's existence. Apparently it's absolutely necessary not to have to prove it.

[Athanasius90]

Okay, so science alone doesn't prove the existence of a god. Then WHAT does?

What do you mean here? How are you using the word 'proof'? Logical/mathematical proof? Historical proof? Preponderance of evidence? Beyond reasonable doubt? Balance of possibilities? Privately and personally and experientially compelling?

Science doesn't "prove" anything btw.

[StickingPoint]

What do you mean here? How are you using the word 'proof'? Logical/mathematical proof? Historical proof? Preponderance of evidence? Beyond reasonable doubt? Balance of possibilities? Privately and personally and experientially compelling?

Science doesn't "prove" anything btw.

For arguments sake lets go with "preponderance of evidence." Go ahead.

[Austanian]

What do you mean here? How are you using the word 'proof'? Logical/mathematical proof? Historical proof? Preponderance of evidence? Beyond reasonable doubt? Balance of possibilities? Privately and personally and experientially compelling?

Science doesn't "prove" anything btw.

I see why your signature is win souls not arguments....

You have yet to post any tangible evidence supporting A GOD. Let alone YOUR god.

From everything I have seen the God of Abraham is about as likely of existing as Heru-ur.

Maybe less considering Adam and Eve did not exist...

[sawoobley]

I see why your signature is win souls not arguments....

You have yet to post any tangible evidence supporting A GOD. Let alone YOUR god.

From everything I have seen the God of Abraham is about as likely of existing as Heru-ur.

Maybe less considering Adam and Eve did not exist...

You are not going to find that tangible proof. The best evidence you will find is from Christians themselves IMO. If you spend enough time around them and hear there testimonies of their conversion you have to conclude that they are either delusional or they have found something of real value in their life. If you are honest I think the delusional explanation is insufficient since many of them are so rational in every other aspect of their life and they are able to reason through their faith as well as can be expected with a subject like God. You can also find quite a few people who use to think like you yet were able to find real faith in God. Ultimately, you can find Christians from any kind of background and who has experienced anything you have and who has walked a similar path as you and yet who found God. It is not proof per se but it is something worth investigating IMO. The question is what separates them from you? It seems unreasonable to me to assume they are all delusional in their belief while there are those select few have found the truth that God does not exist through rationality. It seems more likely that there are people who have lost that faith or just haven't found God yet rather than the other way around.

[Austanian]

You are not going to find that tangible proof. The best evidence you will find is from Christians themselves IMO. If you spend enough time around them and hear there testimonies of their conversion you have to conclude that they are either delusional or they have found something of real value in their life. If you are honest I think the delusional explanation is insufficient since many of them are so rational in every other aspect of their life and they are able to reason through their faith as well as can be expected with a subject like God. You can also find quite a few people who use to think like you yet were able to find real faith in God. Ultimately, you can find Christians from any kind of background and who has experienced anything you have and who has walked a similar path as you and yet who found God. It is not proof per se but it is something worth investigating IMO. The question is what separates them from you? It seems unreasonable to me to assume they are all delusional in their belief while there are those select few have found the truth that God does not exist through rationality. It seems more likely that there are people who have lost that faith or just haven't found God yet rather than the other way around.

But I have found people that will attest to those same things about other Gods...

Why is your God better than theirs?

[sawoobley]

But I have found people that will attest to those same things about other Gods...

Why is your God better than theirs?

For most other people it is cultural IMO. When you do find similar claims it is on things that Christians can agree such as the existence of a supreme being. Honestly, I find other non-Christian beliefs lacking in this department. Keep digging and I think you'll find a difference.

[Harbinger]

For most other people it is cultural IMO. When you do find similar claims it is on things that Christians can agree such as the existence of a supreme being. Honestly, I find other non-Christian beliefs lacking in this department. Keep digging and I think you'll find a difference.

Well of course your god is completely different than the thousands of made up gods I mean, lets be real here.

[jtaylor2010]

No and the argument from ignorance is an old and tired argument that no intelligent theist would ever make. The universe is only perfectly balanced if you think that extreme chaos is what orgainized means.

Extreme chaos?? In a universe with extreme chaos there could never be scientific laws. You would never find that every single electron was attracted to every single proton, and vice versa. It would be completely random. That goes for everything in the universe. And I'm not even using this as the "oh well complexity so therefore God" in this case. I'm just saying it seems weird to just toss out the stability and structure of the universe as equaling no evidence that something created it, then turn around and say "the existence of this universe is obviously evidence that another one exists."


Plus that's a big leap anyway. This universe exists so another one exists. Strong faith.

[guyver79]

OP, I'm not too sure who Christopher Langen is, I've never heard of him, I'm trying to find some more info on him, could you link me to some of his published peer reviewed work or to something he's actually done or contributed by being the "World's smartest man."?

And so what if he believes in God?

Not too sure what your point is?

That "smart" people can believe in superstitious Jewish folk stories too?

If he changed his mind about god would you automatically change your mind too because he's the "World's smartest man."?

He lifts though!

[TrettinR]

If you spend enough time around them and hear there testimonies of their conversion you have to conclude that they are either delusional or they have found something of real value in their life.

Even if we assume this is a true dichotomy, finding value in a belief doesn't make the belief true.

[GregariousWolf]

Seems like a lot of Vile Atheophobes in the R/P lately.

[guyver79]

Hey OP, how to you feel when you realise you've been duped by the "World's smartest man."???!!!

I've been looking to try and find something by him, peer reviewed, some citations or opinions from people familiar with his work, but there's nothing!

It reeks of bullchit, all I can find with anyone with real credentials mentioning Christopher Langan is this lulzy critique by David Miller:

"This is what a Ph.D. physicist on another forum said:

"Let me see if I can clarify why no intelligent, educated people can think of Chris Langan as anything except a fool, a charlatan, or, possibly, a prankster with a somewhat eccentric sense of humor.

The problem is not his polysyllabic jargon per se. The various sciences and mathematics all have a lot of jargon. But the jargon serves a legitimate purpose there: it is easier for a topologist to refer to “homologous cycles” than repeat each time the hundreds (or thousands) of words encapsulated in that phrase of jargon. Most importantly, other practitioners in the field know what the jargon is shorthand for, and newcomers to the field can find out what the jargon means from standard textbooks. If someone in the field finds it necessary to introduce new jargon, he has an obligation to explain to everyone what it means, and he should not introduce new jargon unless it is really needed.

That’s Langan’s problem: his CTMU masterpiece consists largely of undefined jargon, not known to real experts and not explained by Langan himself.

That is the sure sign of a crackpot.

The other problem is that those of us who have some real expertise in some of the fields about which he pontificates find his musings to be nonsense.

I have a Ph.D. from Stanford in elementary particle theory: I know a great deal about quantum mechanics. I also am co-patentholder on several patents that apply information theory to various problems in computer and communication systems.

Quantum physics and information theory are two of the subjects Langan appeals to in his CTMU work. Part of the point is to make it sound as if you would recognize the profundity of his writing if only you understood all of the technical background as he does. Well, in those two fields, I do understand the technical background, and his use of those subjects is a sham: it only seems impressive to people who are as ignorant of those subjects as Langan is.

Personally, my guess is that it is all a big joke, like Mencken’s bathtub hoax: Langan is running an experiment to see how many gullible fools there really are in the country (answer: hundreds of millions – just watch the election!).

The only interesting question is whether there is any truth to Langan’s claims of extra-high scores on real IQ tests. If he really has scored that high, it is one more sign of the very real limits to the usefulness of IQ. I recommend James Flynn’s recent book, “What Is Intelligence?” to anyone interested in the meaning and limits of IQ tests (they are not completely meaningless, but their value is somewhat limited).

Dave Miller"

[jtaylor2010]

^

That guy seems pretty upset about not being able to comprehend Langan's theories

[guyver79]

^

That guy seems pretty upset about not being able to comprehend Langan's theories

^^^Can't tell if serious?