|
|
#1
09-21-2005, 12:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Sklansky
Sklansky here:
[ QUOTE ] "This must sadden you, so you share the anguish, sometimes even more than with a believer who can rationalize an afterlife." Exceptionally true. And by itself a strong refutation to those who think that most nonbelievers feel the way they do because it helps them pshychologically. [/ QUOTE ] Sklansky here: [ QUOTE ] "You're a pretty smart guy, David. Again I ask: Have you, yourself, taken an objective look at the evidence?" Nope. Would it change my mind? [/ QUOTE ] Sklansky here: [ QUOTE ] Guess what. No unintelligent person should be a serious non believer!...The better arguments against a personal God are scientifically and mathematically not easy to understand. A low IQ person is very unlikely to have followed the reasoning. [/ QUOTE ] Sklansky here: [ QUOTE ] I don't know all the counterarguments but I do know that physicists have them, and that they are, like it or not MUCH more intelligent than the average theologian, especially when it comes to topics like this. So I trust them. [/ QUOTE ] 
|
|
#2
09-21-2005, 02:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Insert \"the point\" here:
__________________________________________________ ___________
__________________________________________________ __________ __________________________________________________ ___________ __________________________________________________ _________
|
|
#3
09-21-2005, 02:29 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Insert \"the point\" here:
Ah good old ontological truth. How elusive yee be.
I always figured Skalansky for an existential rationalist. PPL with IQs over 150 tend that way.
|
|
#5
09-21-2005, 06:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Sklansky
From the latter two quotes:
[ QUOTE ] Sklansky here: [ QUOTE ] Guess what. No unintelligent person should be a serious non believer!...The better arguments against a personal God are scientifically and mathematically not easy to understand. A low IQ person is very unlikely to have followed the reasoning. [/ QUOTE ] Sklansky here: [ QUOTE ] I don't know all the counterarguments but I do know that physicists have them, and that they are, like it or not MUCH more intelligent than the average theologian, especially when it comes to topics like this. So I trust them. [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] Is this your point? In my post on nonbeliever anguish, I stated that no intelligent person should put their belief in a more intelligent nonbeliever without being capable and having deduced the reasoning themself. This would not be rational, and Sklansky strongly agreed. Otherwise, they are putting their atheistic belief in someone based on 'faith'? Of course this faith may be weighed as more likely, but that does not lead to being a true atheist. Basically for most, if not all, of the posters I've seen, if you have to have Sklansky make your atheist argument for you, then you're not really intelligent enough to be a real atheist. In fact, you may no longer be rational when you claim to be an atheist, since you're incapable of understanding why there is no God (I'm not saying there isn't). You're no different than biased Christians. Taking only these two quotes, looks like Skansky himself is relying on others to make his argument, which he doesn't understand or is ignorant of. Edit: Or maybe more simply. Sklansky's smart, but not that smart. He doesn't have a clue about some things. Most of us know that.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
