That one dang genius who believes?

[David Sklansky]

"Some of those things are stumbling blocks for a literal interpretation of the Bible, but I disagree that they necessarily suggest an atheist or deist outlook."

These things (DNA, Fractal geomety, Chaos theory, Quantum Theory, Relativity Theory Nuclear Fusion and Siefried and Roy) show how the world works perfectly fine without any present intervention from God. Until recently stuff happened (the sun burning, the mountains looking gorgeous, the fact that measles aren't caught twice, etc etc.) that were so unexplainable that invoking a God who kept a lookout on us seemed like a reaonable thing to do. When that changed the odds changed. A lot.

[BadBoyBenny]

And still believed in owning slaves should we reexamine the 13th ammendment?

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
"This is a huge result sexdrugsmoney. It clearly shows that his atheism is the result of personal belief and opinion, and not a deference to those more intelligent as he's been alluding to. It seems that was mostly just talk."

It's not a huge result. Deference to scientific genuises is merely one of many reasons I disbelieve. I use it a lot because it is clearcut. But I never implied it was my main reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

I want to precisely define my position on this matter.

First of all my definition of genuis is about the normal one except I don't rate spatial relations, musical ability, or the like as a big part of the assessment. I'm talking about analytical ability. The ability to EASILY get a Phd in subjects like physics, logic, economics, or maybe even law. Not just pure math ability.

My next contention is that such a genuis is a monster favorite to be right when he disagrees with a merely intelligent person in the genuis's chosen field. I doubt that is debatable.

My more debatable contention is that the genuis is a rather big favorite over a moderately intelligent person even when he disagrees about fields outside his expertise, and even if the questions have not yet been decided. AS LONG AS:

1. The genuis has studied the field almost as hard as the other guy (which automatically counts me out even if I otherwise qualified.)

2. The genuis is almost certain about his conclusions (which almost certainly means he DID study the subject)

3. The genuis is not one of those idiot savant, can't tie, his shoe types.

4. The subject has a degree of logical thinking involved with it and doesn't require a lot of artistic type talent.

If those four criteria are met, then if you were able to bet on who was right between a random genuis, and a random, kind of smart, person, I say you could certainly lay a big price on the genuis. Exactly how big depends on the subject. But religion definitely is one of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

According to your position, if Newton was alive and was more Christian than ever, he would be a "monster favorite" over you to be right, therefore it would be -EV for your soul if you disagreed with him. (consdering all religion is a 'wager' anyway)

Cheers,
SDM

[txag007]

Worldview.

[Prevaricator]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So what.

Bobby Fischer supposedely has a higher IQ than Einstein did and he believes in all sorts of wacky and inane things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just responding to the suggestion that genius and christian were mutually exclusive.

Newton was both.


chez

[/ QUOTE ]

contemporary genius.

i highly doubt today that if newton was alive today that he would still accept christianity.

BTW this is different from a belief in a creator, non-intervening god. Once you allow a god who can fiddle with the laws of physics, you run into trouble. That is why all the stuff in christianity is nonsense.

[siegfriedandroy]

It's not as if Newton existed as a caveman in the stone age of thousands of years past. I'm sure Newton was exposed to many of the same 'secular' arguments that Sklansky finds incontrovertible, yet was not convinced. Despite Newton's brilliance in physics, he still at the same time believed in the existence of supernatural and the possibility and even past occurrence of miracles.

[siegfriedandroy]

i appreciate the reference

[David Sklansky]

"I'm sure Newton was exposed to many of the same 'secular' arguments that Sklansky finds incontrovertible,"

Nope

[siegfriedandroy]

I dont see how all these new and more advanced formulations in modern physics make it so insurmountably obvious that there cannot be a God who intervenes in and upholds the universe. So what if things are incredibly complicated and esoteric? Even the most advanced of the great physicists who Sklansky worships know less than .00000000(ad infinitum zeroes)1 of all there is to know. Yet somehow many of the atheists on this site (who i believe truly know even far less than the above stated #, if that were possible), are continually arrogant, presumptuous, and sometimes disingenous, elevating their foolish, childish theories (fantasies) to godlike status, and an idol of sorts.

And to go back to Sklansky's Newton hypothesis, much of what he explained was very complicated (ie law of gravity). Yet this was not somehow bulletproof evidence against the possibility of God existing and intervening in the world.

Many of the atheist posters are clearly very intelligent (in their own ways, and in SOME areas). However, in my opinion most of them are also completely blinded to the immensity of what they do not know, putting in place of this vast ignorance a super inflated self ego and infatuation with unsubstatiated, suspect theories that none of them really know much about.

Socrates: "I know because I do not know." (or something to that effect)

[siegfriedandroy]

I think you are incorrect, in return, Mr Sklansky.

As surely as you would destroy me on the SAT (at least i think you would judging by your posts on wagering propositions!- I scored 1490 in high school (many years ago), but did not prepare much for it in my defense), Im nearly just as certain that many of the same arguments against God, Christianity, etc. that you find so persuasive have been around for hundreds of years, and were definitely considered and soundly rejected by Newton. Must I elaborate and spell them out; you really cannot think of any???