ex-President Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at low-info Boomers like my religions aunts. I have two questions:
a) Is anyone here who supports Trump bothered by lies like this?
b) Does anyone know what he's even talking about here? Like is there some grain of truth that he's embellishing on bigly?
Peaceful, tho. Or peacefully or wtf the clown said. Chessmate
there are countless examples of genius intellect scientists who were deeply religious
for example, heisenberg was a devout Christian his entire life and often letured on the dichotomy of the two seemingly opposing philosophies
why am I choosing heisenberg as an example, because his boss, hitler, was not religious at all
so are you on record supporting hitler d2?
there are countless examples of genius intellect scientists who were deeply religious
for example, heisenberg was a devout Christian his entire life and often letured on the dichotomy of the two seemingly opposing philosophies
why am I choosing heisenberg as an example, because his boss, hitler, was not religious at all
"Countless" is off by about countless. I mean, sure, there are exceptions to every rule, but if you could somehow take the top 10% of people measured by intelligence, I doubt even 1% of those would believe in a personal god. I would certainly be taking the under. If you restricted the sample space to "genius scientists", I'd be taking the under on 0.2% - 1 in 500 or so seems about right. This probably has a lot to do with how "intelligence" is defined - believing stupid superstitious stuff is kinda the opposite of it.
Sure, why not. He just wanted world peace, after all. I'm sure he said so once in one of his speeches.
there are countless examples of genius intellect scientists who were deeply religious
for example, heisenberg was a devout Christian his entire life and often letured on the dichotomy of the two seemingly opposing philosophies
why am I choosing heisenberg as an example, because his boss, hitler, was not religious at all
so are you on record supporting hitler d2?
Religion isn’t science .
So it shouldn’t be used at all in any policies being so divergent with so many people .
The insanity is everywhere: temporal and spiritual. Don't care about any preponderance.
It's fashionable to dismiss your very consciousness in this moment, which is inconceivable. It's superficial and flippant. Sure af doesn't satisfy. The 20 philosphers come to mind.
The insanity is everywhere: temporal and spiritual. Don't care about any preponderance.
It's fashionable to dismiss your very consciousness in this moment, which is inconceivable. It's superficial and flippant. Sure af doesn't satisfy. The 20 philosphers come to mind.
Philosophers aren't scientists, nor, IMO, are they geniuses.
So what's the science say? Nothing definitive on origin, meaning or fulfillment.
Origin of what? If you mean abiogenesis, then right, because we don't know. Giving plenty of charlatans ample leeway to pontificate about it. Same as 3,000 years ago we didn't know where lightning came from, so the prevailing theory was that it was from "the gods".
As for meaning and fulfilment, that is not the domain of science. If you find meaning and fulfilment in believing in a sky daddy and an afterlife, sure, go for it. Don't expect to be regarded as particularly intelligent, though.
"Countless" is off by about countless. I mean, sure, there are exceptions to every rule, but if you could somehow take the top 10% of people measured by intelligence, I doubt even 1% of those would believe in a personal god. I would certainly be taking the under. If you restricted the sample space to "genius scientists", I'd be taking the under on 0.1% - 1 in 1000 or so seems about right. This probably has a lot to do with how "intelligence
I'm not refuting your thoughts on saturation, I would agree
I'm just saying that it does exist out there in the real world where unquestionably brilliant people can deeply believe wholly irrational things
if you sat down with Heisenberg to discuss the holy trinity I'm sure he'd sound like an absolute idiot to most in this thread yet we objectively know that not to be case
are Bahbah and PB1200 poker Heisenbergs? Perhaps not. But simply adhering to an irrational belief system is not mutually exclusive with intelligence - in fact schizophrenia and other mental health issues are deeply correlated with high intelligence - but shows like the daily show will get better clips talking to the stupid ones
idk, I'm definitely applying my own bias, I was quite close with two different people who have schizophrenia, both are incredibly smart people (one is threatening to sue me now - she's attempting to sue everyone she's ever known because of course we're all conspiring against her, she even cc's oprah and zuckerburg and lebron james in those emails threatening lawsuits. She's incredibly smart, a published novelist and has undergrad and law school degrees from very prestigious universities - but she thinks I'm trying to ruin her life because when she showed me a photo from 2007 of our mutual friend holding a potato I didn't connect the dots with her to understand whatever it is that must have meant to her and to her it's so obvious that there's no way I couldn't have not understood it so by pretending to not understand the meaning of the photo, she now knows for certain that i'm clearly one of those conspiring against her
she's still incredibly smart though
Nothingburger
Sure, smart people can be legitimately mentally ill. Arguably, certain forms of mental illness are actually more prevalent amongst those towards the higher end of the intelligence spectrum. Perhaps ganstaman can weigh in on that as the resident expert on those topics.
None of this has anything to do with the donkeys identified as such ITT. They are just all round donkeys, as is easily established from their rich body of work in this forum.
#nothingpotato
He believes in it because he's uninhibited in ways you're not.
The nothingburgers don't satisfy
When discussing whether being smart makes it less likely to believe the precepts of a particular religion you really shouldn't include scientists who lived many years ago since there were so few explanations for things that we can now easily explain.
You also shouldn't include present day scientists and other smart people who have religious beliefs but at the same time are willing to admit that the evidence for their beliefs are weak. In other words, they admit that an objective observer who is trying to come to a conclusion about the subject, is not being illogical if his conclusion is that truth is somewhere between atheism and deism.
In other words the only extra smart people who are really exhibiting cognitive dissonance about religion are modern day scientists and their ilk who claim that logic should lead you to their personal belief. But even this third category of "geniuses" is a lot more prevalent than d2 implies exists. It's quite a bit more than 1%.
Considering that the debate was between two of my biggest detractors, it is not surprising that they would both be wrong.
Meanwhile no one should make the logical error of thinking that if very smart people are rarely very religious, it negates the equally true fact that people who are not religious are rarely very smart.
Considering that the debate was between two of my biggest detractors, it is not surprising that they would both be wrong.
While I am certainly one of your many ardent critics, I could never detract from your penchant for self-deprecating understatement and overall humility.
The point I was making is, it would take a hell of a lot more for someone who believes in a personal god to make it on to my "genius" list than it would for someone who doesn't. They are starting off with a massive handicap, so the chances that more than 1% make it over the threshold are pretty slim.
While I am certainly one of your many ardent critics, I could never detract from your penchant for self-deprecating understatement and overall humility.
The point I was making is, it would take a hell of a lot more for someone who believes in a personal god to make it on to my "genius" list than it would for someone who doesn't. They are starting off with a massive handicap, so the chances that more than 1% make it over the threshold are pre
I agree with your second sentence but it wasn't what you originally said.
In any case, your first sentence is similar to what rickroll has written in the past so perhaps you two can use my post as a first step towards reconciliation.
I agree with your second sentence but it wasn't what you originally said.
In any case, your first sentence is similar to what rickroll has written in the past so perhaps you two can use my post as a first step towards reconciliation.
I'm not really following or seeing how what I'm saying now is different to what I said previously. What specifically do you agree with and what do you disagree with? Note that there are 3 sentences in the post to which you replied, hence my confusion - I'm not sure whether you're counting the light-hearted trolling as the first sentence or not.
They weren't only stopping Biden from being certified as president, they were going to certify Trump as the winner (or at least that was the plan)
I don't think that was the plan, or at least not for that to happen that day.
All they had to do was stall things enough to finish doing more shenanigans.
I'm not really following or seeing how what I'm saying now is different to what I said previously. What specifically do you agree with and what do you disagree with? Note that there are 3 sentences in the post to which you replied, hence my confusion - I'm not sure whether you're counting the light-hearted trolling as the first sentence or not.
I agree that it should be a lot harder for religious people to make your genius list. (I could do it, God willing). But in order for your two statements to be equivalent it would require that for every 100 religious applicants for your list there needs to be 99 or more non religious applicants from which you accept 99. In other words you need to specify the ratio of religious applicants to non religious applicants and also specify the acceptance rate for the non religious ones.
I agree that it should be a lot harder for religious people to make your genius list. (I could do it, God willing). But in order for your two statements to be equivalent it would require that for every 100 religious applicants for your list there needs to be 99 or more non religious applicants from which you accept 99. In other words you need to specify the ratio of religious applicants to non religious applicants and also specify the accep
What, no. There are no applicants, the human race is the pool. I am saying that if we take the top 10% of them by some measure of intelligence of which I am the ultimate arbiter, then fewer than 1% of those will end up being religious, i.e. high intelligence (by my definition) + religiosity is a 1 in 1000 combination.
But yeah, for sure, I will hold your religiosity against you when deciding whether you're in the top 10%, because I'm super biased like that, and that was basically my whole point - that IMO, high intelligence is ipso facto/definitionally incompatible with religiosity.
frivolous motions keep failing
the former president knows he faces likely conviction
fact that the Defendant waited a mere 17 days prior to the scheduled trial date to file
the motion, raises real questions about the sincerity and actual purpose of the motion
Trump’s strategy of frivolous delay continues in each of his criminal cases.
Karma is nice, even if it takes awhile for the ass clowns to get owned.
What, no. There are no applicants, the human race is the pool. I am saying that if we take the top 10% of them by some measure of intelligence of which I am the ultimate arbiter, then fewer than 1% of those will end up being religious, i.e. high intelligence (by my definition) + religiosity is a 1 in 1000 combination.
But yeah, for sure, I will hold your religiosity against you when deciding whether you're in the top 10%, because I'm super b
The actual serious point I was making that I have made before, is that the intelligence demerits you get for being seriously religious depend on the year you were born and whether or not it is your contention that logical thinking should lead someone to believe that it is your religion is more likely than not to be the truth.
