God Alone Has Free WillPosted 7 years Ago

At 7/17/2014 4:51:28 PM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
God alone has free will.

Only the omnipotent, eternal, self-existent God has absolute freedom to do whatsoever he pleases.

All of creation is under the sovereign control of Almighty God, and can only do what God allows it to do.

And God created all things with certain limitations, that can only be overcome if God enables it.

The creature itself has no power to overcome those limitations.

Therefore, God alone has free will.

Can god move an unmovable object? Can god create a being more powerful than himself in every way, then destroy that being against its will? Can god defy logic? If so, then your concept of god is nonsensical, and as such not fit for discussion.
Forums Home > Religion

Atheists just need to admit they are wrongPosted 7 years Ago

At 7/18/2014 11:24:56 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/18/2014 6:18:18 AM, muzebreak wrote:


Why does proof of physical change have to be observation?

Response: Because there is no other way to know physical change.

Ok, take for example chemical reactions. Would you say it is impossible for someone to know how two chemicals will react when combined, before they observe the chemicals being combined?
Forums Home > Religion

Question for atheistsPosted 7 years Ago

At 7/18/2014 12:02:12 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Have you at any point in your life believed in God? If so, what was the turning point when you decided he doesn't exist?

I guess you could say I did. The turning point for me was when I first read the definition of atheism, and realised that it was even possible to not believe in a god. I spent a few days thinking about it, before I realised I had no good reason to believe in a god, so I stopped.
Forums Home > Religion

All Christians are smart and atheist are dumbPosted 7 years Ago

At 7/17/2014 8:00:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/17/2014 7:18:12 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/17/2014 3:32:34 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/17/2014 2:53:26 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/17/2014 2:05:13 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I knew of them too, but they make no comment about their personal beliefs. Langan believes in evolution but that God started it.

Dude, you stated langan and Ung-Yong were the people with the highest IQ. You didn't say they were the ones with the highest IQ of which you could find information on their religious beliefs. If you don't put in qualifiers like that people may think you're lying. In fact, let me be more specific, I think you're lying.
Also, seriously, read up on how Langan defines god. I guarantee it's nothing at all like you, or anyone you know. There is also good reason to dispute langan's claims about his level of intelligence. He claims to have an IQ of 195-210, but IQ tests can't measure that high. IQs of that level are determined by works created by the individual. For instance, Christopher Higata is estimated to have an IQ of 225 because of his independent arrival at Human Chemical Thermodynamics, also independently arrived at by Libb Thims and Johann Goethe. Langan's only work of note is his Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe, which is widely agreed to be a bunch bollocks. Like seriously, some of it is actually just nonsensical blabbering. And not in the way that people just might not be smart enough to understand it, but the way that it literally makes no grammatical sense.

I said the most intelligent people alive profess belief in God. Where is the lie? "Most" rich, "most" strong, etc., are among an elite few relative to the capabilities of the rest of us. I never excluded them as being the top two, nor did I lie.

Your exact words were that the most intelligent people alive profess belief in god. This is an absolute statement. It has no other grammatically correct interpretation than that the most, as in better than every single other, intelligent people claim to believe god exists. You gave two examples for this statement, the implication of which is that those two are the most intelligent people, considering the context this means they have the highest IQ. I gave two examples of people with higher IQs, making this absolute statement patently false. Instead of simply admitting your statement was an exageration, you tried to copout. That, to me, is lying.

The most intelligent people alive do profess belief in God. People means "human beings in general or considered collectively"-Google. That reads: "the most intelligent humans beings in general or considered collectively profess belief in God." Specifically, collectively given that the two that I had mentioned are on a list of people that are commonly referred to as the most intelligent people, so there's no contradiction or lying going on.

Langan is part of an ID society. He also believes in the soul and afterlife. Read up on where his IQ was measured. It was taken by a third party.

What part of 'IQ's cannot be measured that high' do you not understand?

Don't soak up everything you read from a wiki source. For the record, atheists on rationalwiki writing about Langan hate him because of his ego and because of his belief in God. If no test could measure that high then people's IQ that exceed his cannot be measured either, but apparently they have.

"Board-certified neuropsychologist Dr. Robert Novelly tested Langan's IQ for 20/20, which reported that Langan broke the ceiling of the test. Novelly was said to be astounded, saying: 'Chris is the highest individual that I have ever measured in 25 years of doing this."
web.archive.org/web/20030811145631/http://www.abcnews.go.com...

OK, now I'm certain that you're hardly even reading what I said, because I've already answered this point. IQ's of a level above 160, depending on the test, cannot be measured. In fact, this is further proved by your own quote, saying langan 'broke the ceiling of the test'. IQ's of the level Langan claims aren't determined by a test, they are determined by works completed. As I already said. For example, Christopher Hirata is measured to have an IQ of 225 because of his in depended arrival at Human Chemical Thermodynamics, which was also independently arrived at by Johann Goethe and Libb
Thims.
Forums Home > Religion

Atheists just need to admit they are wrongPosted 7 years Ago

At 7/17/2014 7:35:42 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/17/2014 7:26:14 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/17/2014 5:01:01 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/17/2014 4:51:10 PM, Saska wrote:

It is honestly entertaining how stupid you sound. A fossil is not evidence of a species in the act of evolving anymore than a footprint is evidence of a person in the process of walking, but it is still observable evidence. The fossils show us the make up of species throughout history. We are able to use various reliable dating methods to determine the age of the fossils and comparing many fossils over a large time frame shows the progress of evolution.

If you see one footprint in the sand and then follow it back and find many others that match it, one can deduce that a person walked down that path. Much the same way, looking at the fossil records over time, scientists can observe how species have changed.

And why do you keep saying atheists are debunked? Even if you prove evolution wrong, which no one has EVER been able to do as of yet, that still doesn't prove your god or any other god to be true. Atheism isn't hindered by evolution being proven false because atheism is not a belief system, it is merely the lack of belief in a god. Ignorant people like yourself who don't understand what atheism really is make all these assumptions about atheists but all you really know is that we see through all the gaping holes in your faith and it scares you because you don't want us to show them to you. So when you get into a discussion like this, you make it all about personal attacks and you ignore anything that is said that might hold water because you are so afraid of being proven wrong.

Maybe some day you will learn to stop blocking out facts and evidence and then you can actually grow as a person instead of being held back by a faith that forces you to be a slave to something written thousands of years ago by people who were incredibly uneducated compared to what we know and understand today.

As I said before, I am not a leading scientist in the field of evolution. If you want the whole truth, go read what the actual experts have said. Your unwillingness to read the truth just shows how afraid you really are of what it would do to your current beliefs.

Response: The idiocy has no apparent end I see. Fossils in no way shape or form proves evolution. For proof of physical change requires observation. Case in point, name the new color that was painted on the corner house on my street? Exactly. You can't tell me, because you haven't observed the change, thus debunking the foolish claim that a fossil proves evolution.

But the idiocy does not end there. You try to defend the foolish science fiction called evolution by comparing it to a footstep in the sand, not knowing that your own analogy disproves evolution. For we know it's a footstep because we can observe people leaving footsteps in the sand. Whereas, you've never seen a species evolve into another, therefore a fossil does not prove such has occurred. Debunked again.

So we see that the logic applied by atheists themselves shows evolution is utterly false, the proving the sheer delusion of atheism.

Fatiaj, do you believe that observation is the only thing that can provide evidence?

Response: All evidence does not require observation, but proof of physical change does.

Why does proof of physical change have to be observation?
Forums Home > Religion

Atheists just need to admit they are wrongPosted 7 years Ago

At 7/17/2014 5:01:01 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/17/2014 4:51:10 PM, Saska wrote:

It is honestly entertaining how stupid you sound. A fossil is not evidence of a species in the act of evolving anymore than a footprint is evidence of a person in the process of walking, but it is still observable evidence. The fossils show us the make up of species throughout history. We are able to use various reliable dating methods to determine the age of the fossils and comparing many fossils over a large time frame shows the progress of evolution.

If you see one footprint in the sand and then follow it back and find many others that match it, one can deduce that a person walked down that path. Much the same way, looking at the fossil records over time, scientists can observe how species have changed.

And why do you keep saying atheists are debunked? Even if you prove evolution wrong, which no one has EVER been able to do as of yet, that still doesn't prove your god or any other god to be true. Atheism isn't hindered by evolution being proven false because atheism is not a belief system, it is merely the lack of belief in a god. Ignorant people like yourself who don't understand what atheism really is make all these assumptions about atheists but all you really know is that we see through all the gaping holes in your faith and it scares you because you don't want us to show them to you. So when you get into a discussion like this, you make it all about personal attacks and you ignore anything that is said that might hold water because you are so afraid of being proven wrong.

Maybe some day you will learn to stop blocking out facts and evidence and then you can actually grow as a person instead of being held back by a faith that forces you to be a slave to something written thousands of years ago by people who were incredibly uneducated compared to what we know and understand today.

As I said before, I am not a leading scientist in the field of evolution. If you want the whole truth, go read what the actual experts have said. Your unwillingness to read the truth just shows how afraid you really are of what it would do to your current beliefs.

Response: The idiocy has no apparent end I see. Fossils in no way shape or form proves evolution. For proof of physical change requires observation. Case in point, name the new color that was painted on the corner house on my street? Exactly. You can't tell me, because you haven't observed the change, thus debunking the foolish claim that a fossil proves evolution.

But the idiocy does not end there. You try to defend the foolish science fiction called evolution by comparing it to a footstep in the sand, not knowing that your own analogy disproves evolution. For we know it's a footstep because we can observe people leaving footsteps in the sand. Whereas, you've never seen a species evolve into another, therefore a fossil does not prove such has occurred. Debunked again.

So we see that the logic applied by atheists themselves shows evolution is utterly false, the proving the sheer delusion of atheism.

Fatiaj, do you believe that observation is the only thing that can provide evidence?
Forums Home > Religion

All Christians are smart and atheist are dumbPosted 7 years Ago

At 7/17/2014 3:32:34 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/17/2014 2:53:26 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/17/2014 2:05:13 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I knew of them too, but they make no comment about their personal beliefs. Langan believes in evolution but that God started it.

Dude, you stated langan and Ung-Yong were the people with the highest IQ. You didn't say they were the ones with the highest IQ of which you could find information on their religious beliefs. If you don't put in qualifiers like that people may think you're lying. In fact, let me be more specific, I think you're lying.
Also, seriously, read up on how Langan defines god. I guarantee it's nothing at all like you, or anyone you know. There is also good reason to dispute langan's claims about his level of intelligence. He claims to have an IQ of 195-210, but IQ tests can't measure that high. IQs of that level are determined by works created by the individual. For instance, Christopher Higata is estimated to have an IQ of 225 because of his independent arrival at Human Chemical Thermodynamics, also independently arrived at by Libb Thims and Johann Goethe. Langan's only work of note is his Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe, which is widely agreed to be a bunch bollocks. Like seriously, some of it is actually just nonsensical blabbering. And not in the way that people just might not be smart enough to understand it, but the way that it literally makes no grammatical sense.

I said the most intelligent people alive profess belief in God. Where is the lie? "Most" rich, "most" strong, etc., are among an elite few relative to the capabilities of the rest of us. I never excluded them as being the top two, nor did I lie.

Your exact words were that the most intelligent people alive profess belief in god. This is an absolute statement. It has no other grammatically correct interpretation than that the most, as in better than every single other, intelligent people claim to believe god exists. You gave two examples for this statement, the implication of which is that those two are the most intelligent people, considering the context this means they have the highest IQ. I gave two examples of people with higher IQs, making this absolute statement patently false. Instead of simply admitting your statement was an exageration, you tried to copout. That, to me, is lying.


Langan is part of an ID society. He also believes in the soul and afterlife. Read up on where his IQ was measured. It was taken by a third party.

What part of 'IQ's cannot be measured that high' do you not understand?
Forums Home > Religion

Atheists just need to admit they are wrongPosted 7 years Ago

OK. I'm wrong. Do I win something? And what am I admitting to being wrong about?
Forums Home > Religion

All Christians are smart and atheist are dumbPosted 7 years Ago

At 7/17/2014 2:05:13 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I knew of them too, but they make no comment about their personal beliefs. Langan believes in evolution but that God started it.

Dude, you stated langan and Ung-Yong were the people with the highest IQ. You didn't say they were the ones with the highest IQ of which you could find information on their religious beliefs. If you don't put in qualifiers like that people may think you're lying. In fact, let me be more specific, I think you're lying.
Also, seriously, read up on how Langan defines god. I guarantee it's nothing at all like you, or anyone you know. There is also good reason to dispute langan's claims about his level of intelligence. He claims to have an IQ of 195-210, but IQ tests can't measure that high. IQs of that level are determined by works created by the individual. For instance, Christopher Higata is estimated to have an IQ of 225 because of his independent arrival at Human Chemical Thermodynamics, also independently arrived at by Libb Thims and Johann Goethe. Langan's only work of note is his Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe, which is widely agreed to be a bunch bollocks. Like seriously, some of it is actually just nonsensical blabbering. And not in the way that people just might not be smart enough to understand it, but the way that it literally makes no grammatical sense.
Forums Home > Religion

All Christians are smart and atheist are dumbPosted 7 years Ago

At 7/17/2014 11:26:42 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/17/2014 1:53:44 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/17/2014 1:19:28 AM, Mikal wrote:
This is so obvious

It seems you must be trolling. Obviously, you're aware that the vast majority of studies on the correlation between religiosity and intellect, have demonstrated that the relationship is inverse; more intelligent people tend to be less religious, and more religious people tend to be less intelligent.

Not the case. First, IQ tests consist of pattern recognition and problem solving which isn't synonymous with intelligence. The second problem with your post, is that you infer intelligence can be measured linearly based on IQ. You might be disappointed to know that by your standards, the most intelligent people alive profess belief in God. Christopher Langan IQ 195-210 and Kim Ung-Yong IQ 210.

Christopher Hirata 225, Terence Tao 220-230. Two people who have a higher recorded IQ than either of the people you listed. I can't find any sources on the religious leanings of either. Also, to say Christopher Langan believes in god is a pretty rough generalisation of what god means. You should read up on what he defines god as.
Forums Home > Religion

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.