User Tag List

First 21293031323341 Last

Results 301 to 310 of 444

  1. #301
    The Eighth Colour Octarine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    MBTI
    Aeon
    Enneagram
    10w so
    Socionics
    LOL
    Posts
    1,366

    Default

    wildflower doesn't have to 'prove' anything with regards to personal belief, unless trying to convince others of the value of such a belief.

    But this thread was about qualitative associations with high IQs, and soon turned to whether those individuals are more or less likely to believe in a supernatural religion or other bizarre concepts like "The singularity".

  2. #302
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    1,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Catbert View Post
    wildflower doesn't have to 'prove' anything with regards to personal belief, unless trying to convince others of the value of such a belief.
    Semantics. The point of contention is why one perspective is more readily accepted than the other.

  3. #303
    Senior Member Lex Talionis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    382

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Resonance View Post
    Atheism doesn't necessarily demand proof and logical clarity - you're talking about a very specific, Western brand of atheism. The scientific, empirical one. I don't know if it has a particular name. Buddhism, on the other hand, is an atheistic religion which demands nothing of the sort :p
    So what? Simply because I did not specify which degree of atheism I was referring to does not invalidate what I have stated. If I posited that "birds can fly," it would be technically correct regardless of the fact that some birds are flightless.
    "Death is nothing, but to live defeated and inglorious is to die daily."
    —Bonaparte

  4. #304
    Senior Member Lex Talionis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    382

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wildflower View Post
    just using lex's claim here to show how we all have faith, which i believe he admits.



    if atheism demands proof and logical clarity then one must also demand proof and logical clarity to the assertions of atheism. since it is not possible to prove atheism to be true then one must employ faith to be an atheist. his faith just happens to be in atheism--it could be in any multitude of things. because none of us can prove anything absolutely we all have to subsequently employ faith to make our claims of truth. of course some arguments are more internally coherent than others. regardless, we all stand on the level ground of faith...whether we call it that or not. atheists are therefore believers.
    There is no manner of falsifying the existence of God, which in and of itself rings alarm bells in the mind of the skeptic. It is preposterous to demand "evidence" that something which cannot be felt, seen, heard, or smelled does not exist. In this situation, you are clearly free to manipulate the necessary "proof" to any extent you see fit. You demand that I "prove" a mental construct. On the contrary, I merely demand a positive justification for the existence of God—something external to your own beliefs.

    I cannot be absolutely certain that God does not exist, but I cannot be absolutely certain that Luke Skywalker isn't thwarting an imperial incursion in a galaxy far far away—and neither can you. Furthermore, you cannot be absolutely certain that God does exist. You are delineating arbitrary guidelines with no basis in anything other than your own mental projections. Skeptics, on the other hand, only point to this arbitrary nature of belief and attempt to distinguish what is merely constructed by the mind of the individual from that which exists outside of the individual (namely, the material universe).

    God is a logical paradox. The intangible nature of his existence implies that innumerable "supreme" entities can "exist" alongside each other. This is a contradictory position since all exist while excluding each other. If all deities are equivalent in the abstract, and none can be proven to exist by any manner of inquiry, then why should anybody choose to seriously entertain their presence?

    A mountain can be proven to exist by the fact that any of us can verify its form with simple observation. Denial of the existence of the mountain does not refute its presence, as it continues to exist within one's contextual reality whether or not one decides to "believe" in it. It is an integral component of one's reality whether one views the world through the lens of materialism or the extreme of solipsism. The same argument cannot be offered for deities and the rest of what constitutes the supernatural.

    That being the case, you must yourself admit that you cannot prove the existence of God, nor can you refute the existence of Odin, Zeus, Horus, or unicorns. The difference between you and I, then, is that I reject them all as fanciful constructs whereas you embrace one in particular for purely arbitrary purposes.

    Lastly, it does not fall upon atheists to prove a negative. Skeptical atheists ask that the faithful provide evidence for their positive assertions regarding God: they do not ask for absolute proof, only verifiable sources; theists fail to provide them with such. These atheists conclude that theistic allegations rest upon blind faith. They then proceed to posit that the deity in question is a false construct until it can be proven real or even probable given our understanding of the universe. Atheism is a disbelief due to lack of necessary information, not a disbelief because of faith in non-belief (a rather nonsensical interpretation).
    "Death is nothing, but to live defeated and inglorious is to die daily."
    —Bonaparte

  5. #305
    Senior Member Lex Talionis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    382

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    Semantics. The point of contention is why one perspective is more readily accepted than the other.
    It isn't semantics. He/she/it is correct insofar as personal belief is concerned. However, it is possible for atheists to demand evidence regardless of any positive claims on the part of the theist, as the very invocation of a "personal" deity is a declaration of its existence.
    "Death is nothing, but to live defeated and inglorious is to die daily."
    —Bonaparte

  6. #306
    Energizer Bunny Resonance's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    740

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lex Talionis View Post
    So what? Simply because I did not specify which degree of atheism I was referring to does not invalidate what I have stated. If I posited that "birds can fly," it would be technically correct regardless of the fact that some birds are flightless.
    No, it wouldn't be correct at all. You should say 'most birds can fly' instead.

    Also, not even the majority of atheisms require proof/logic/etc. A better analogy for what you have said would be "People have black skin."
    The beauty of a living thing is not the atoms that go into it, but the way those atoms are put together. ~ rCoxI ~ INfj ~ 5w6 so/sp

  7. #307
    Senior Member Sanctus Iacobus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    286

    Default

    Youtube video series on the 37 highest IQs of all time... you'd probably find it interesting, it has a short section about each person's life and education.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mjIO...eature=related
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1AwK...eature=related
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ3Ca...eature=related
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeNNQ...eature=related

  8. #308
    Senior Member Sanctus Iacobus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    286

    Default

    Another note on IQ scoring... it is highly misunderstood, I'm finding. Althought the I in IQ stands for intelligence, I don't believe it should be considered a sign or measure of intelligence. It's more accurate to say that on any given IQ test, your score is a measure of the rate at which your score is acheived.

    For example, a score of 100 is median. You have a 1 in 2 chance (50%) of scoring 100 or higher. Roughly 50% of people will be at or below this, and 50% at or above.

    If you've ever had a class where the teacher graded on a curve, you'll recognize this system. IQ is scored in the same way. Therefore, any given score is relative to your peers and will vary depending on the test used by the peer group.



    Another IQ concept is SD or standard deviation. This looks at both the below and above 100/mean sides of the curve. The typical standard deviation is 15. This means that 15 below 100/mean will be higher than 15% of the population, and 15 above 100/mean will be higher than 85% of the population. this means 70% of the population falls into the first standard deviation 85-115. 25% of the population falls into the second deviation 70-85 and 115-130. Less than 5% fall into the 3rd deviation, 55-70 and 130-145. Only ~.1% fall into the 4th or higher deviations (which is considered a "genius" or >146)

    The labels we have for each deviation should make sense... 1st deviation, above and below average, 2nd - highly intelligent and borderline deficiant, 3rd - gifted and mild retardation, 4th - genius and moderately retarded. However, saying that my IQ of 146 puts me in the same catagory as Leonardi or Einstein is very misleading. It would be like saying, in a class graded on a curve, that because you got, say, 95% and one of the highest grades in the class, an A, that you would always receive an A no matter what... even if the class curve included the world population. With that many people, you'd have a huge amount of people that scored higher than your pitiful 95% and when the curve was distributed, you'd probably get like a B or C.



    So, see, there is disagreement about what makes a genius because strictly by the numbers, someone with an IQ of 145 or more is a genius. But we understand this couldn't be true. Considering there are roughly 6.93 billion people, and on an SD 15 scale ~.1% (1 in 924) will be 146 or higher, meaning there would be over 7.5 million geniuses in the world today. Again, we understand that although this is mathematically correct, it isn't true. But if we look at all the people who have ever lived, say, 100 billion, and factor in the difference (100/6.93 or a factor of ~14.43), we have .0075% and apply it to this present day's 6.93b slice of the 100b pie, we find there would only be about 648,109, or 1 in every 10,693 people, "geniuses" in the world today once adjusted, and 9.4 million ever. In SD15 terms, that's 99.9999064 percentile or IQ 171-172 at any given point in time. When my IQ is adjusted it's 133-134, which is only a few points above the the large majority 95% of the population, so as you can see going from "genius" to "above average" this adjustment is significant and I believe what's needed to see the correct probability of actual geniuses as we'd define them in history apart from rote IQ scores. Seem a little more reasonable for a mathematical designation of "genius", no?



    Now with 9.4 million "geniuses", how come there are so few notable ones? Probably less than 1,000, generously? That is, very roughly, .01% or about 1 in 10,000 of the geniuses which actually did anything notable. That's like, the rarity of being a genius, that is how often a genius did anything notable. This is awfully below the percentage of "average" people that did great things. This is why I say, it is far more valuable to have an ambitious mind than a high IQ, without a doubt. Statistically, you could even argue that being a genius makes you less likely to do anything significant. So, if that's the case, and we really ought to use real world performance to gauge things as "intelligence", how could this possibly pan out?

    The only answer, simply, is that there are all sorts of aptitudes, and if there were a way to measure them I believe you'd find surprising results about what intelligence is.

  9. #309
    Energizer Bunny Resonance's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    740

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sanctus Iacobus View Post
    But if we look at all the people who have ever lived, say, 100 billion, and factor in the difference (100/6.93 or a factor of ~14.43),
    Uh, what?
    The beauty of a living thing is not the atoms that go into it, but the way those atoms are put together. ~ rCoxI ~ INfj ~ 5w6 so/sp

  10. #310
    Senior Member Sanctus Iacobus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    286

    Default

    I could try to explain but apparently it's not even my idea. It's scoring on an SD24 scale where the 4th deviation (genius) begins at 172-173 instead of 145-146.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattell_Culture_Fair_III

    The number that were posted are to support what I believe common sense will agree with.

Similar Threads

  1. To which level of hell are you going?
    By Virtual ghost in forum Online Personality Tests
    Replies: 145
    Last Post: 07-09-2017, 10:13 AM
  2. Is having a tendency to give someone the benefit of the doubt associated with F?
    By /DG/ in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 11-04-2015, 10:23 PM
  3. Do you need to sympathize with characters to enjoy them?
    By Ivy in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 03-07-2008, 03:28 AM
  4. [ENFJ] NT with Announcement to Share about ENFJ Friend :)
    By Usehername in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-24-2007, 03:07 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO