I'll go off topic here -excuse me lord- but deci=lol.

...The most disturbing fact here however is he seems to make more sense as most other people.

> Justinian I wrote:

> V.Kemp,

If someone has absurd beliefs, it does not make them stupid or uneducated. []

erm...

yes it does.

> V.Kemp wrote:

> [V. Kemp, refrain from insulting, although you're the morally correct one. This is a warning.]

Morally correct by throwing insults?

Usually one resorts to insults in a debate if they feel they are getting overpowered and have nothing constructive to say anymore, realising that the one being insulted actually has far better arguements and that there is nothing he can say to disprove them.

>>Umm no. For example, the congresswoman Michelle Bachman is a real fanatical nut job. But at the same time she's intelligent and has the education of a lawyer. <<

There are many types of intelligence. Having absurd beliefs (believing the impossible, highly improbably, etc) is a sign that certain types are lacking. This is a stupid discussion of the obvious.

>>However, having silly beliefs says something about a person's intellectual character.<<

Intellectual character? Yeah this thread doesn't have enough retarded equivocation let's add some more. This is somehow entirely disconnected from intellect. Fascinating.

>>Usually one resorts to insults in a debate if they feel they are getting overpowered and have nothing constructive to say anymore<<

You've done a study? I explained why I have nothing but insults for that tool, whom I won't insult more because it gives the mods too much work. I explained myself; something I know is foreign to most of you.

You're all so disgusting because you're not even interested in having a conversation. This isn't, nor has it ever been, any sort of debate. I respond to posts and I respond to points made in response to my posts. That's how the discussion happens. We each question the basis of others' posts and question the rationale behind things people say. But there are many posters who do not satisfy any questions posed of them nor clarify their reasoning when they are ambiguous or equivocate like a 10 year old.

There's nothing to do with such a poster. They just repeat their rhetoric phrased differently and make outlandish comparisons that no one can follow becuase they, in fact, don't even make sense. The lesser intellects who already agree with them will still agree and figure the logic of the comparison is just beyond them right now, [insert excuse like tired, apathy, etc] and they'd get it if they just cared enough and reread it, or, when they're really bad, follow along the fallacy-ridden 'logic' and buy into the garbage. It's as old as Gorgias. There's no conversation here and I'm not "getting overpowered" or "have nothing constructive" to say because I'm having a one sided conversation with a child.

> V.Kemp wrote:

There are many types of intelligence. Having absurd beliefs (believing the impossible, highly improbably, etc) is a sign that certain types are lacking. This is a stupid discussion of the obvious.

Intellectual character? Yeah this thread doesn't have enough retarded equivocation let's add some more. This is somehow entirely disconnected from intellect. Fascinating.>

It isn't obvious to me. I fail to see how having absurd beliefs is a result of lacking a type(s) of intelligence. Rather it's a result of having biases, which has nothing to do with one's intelligence. Having biases is rather a psychological result of our cultural and personal experiences, and it's a result of having exemplary intellectual behavior (character, which you so easily dismiss as an "equivocation") that one actively identifies and corrects them.

>> Rather it's a result of having biases, which has nothing to do with one's intelligence. <<

You don't think a person believing in something they know to be impossible is any indicator of intelligence? Holding irrational beliefs is the definition of irrational. Irrational and intelligence are not a common pair.

You're all proud to attribute the phrase "absurd beliefs" to the word "bias" and think you've won the word game. They're just words.

"Holding irrational beliefs is the definition of irrational. Irrational and intelligence are not a common pair."

so like Albert Einstein wasnt intelligent because without any evidence supporting his belief in a God, he believed in a God; is that what you're saying?

"The desire to believe in an irrational belief..." is stupidity. That is all.

>>so like Albert Einstein wasnt intelligent because without any evidence supporting his belief in a God, he believed in a God; is that what you're saying?<<

Einstein had an understanding of the univerise no one I know of has had since. That he didn't spend his life trying to explain his reasoning to us heathens doesn't mean he was an idiot who just flipped a coin and decided to believe in God cause he thought it sounded nice.

The IC server sucks too much to load a page of forum text so I'll spare myself having to quote Deci.

V.kemp>There are many types of intelligence. Having absurd beliefs (believing the impossible, highly improbably, etc) is a sign that certain types are lacking. This is a stupid discussion of the obvious.
. . .
Justinian>It isn't obvious to me. I fail to see how having absurd beliefs is a result of lacking a type(s) of intelligence. Rather it's a result of having biases, which has nothing to do with one's intelligence
. . .
v.kemp>You don't think a person believing in something they know to be impossible is any indicator of intelligence? Holding irrational beliefs is the definition of irrational. Irrational and intelligence are not a common pair.

Irrational is pretty relative. I find the concept of space-time expansion creating the universe pretty irrational. That's a debate for another topic though. My point is that everyone's concept of irrational varies and is therefore not a good indicator of judging intelligence. In practice judging intelligence like this leads all individuals to view everyone else with differing opinions as stupid idiots. Based on their concepts of irrational they would always be right in their minds.

Now taking this idea back on topic, You can't call a racist stupid because they believe in ideas that you would call irrational. They would say your beliefs are stupid since you don't believe in the superiority of one subspecies over another.

>Your judgement isn't the point. The point is the connection between intelligence and not believing crazy absurdities.

Deciding what is and what isn't a crazy absurdity requires individual judgment. Your criteria for defining intelligence will producing varying answers from many individuals. To apply this to you, many people will think that your ideas are absurd and thus think your stupid and at the same time many people will think the opposite. This means that judging ones intelligence based on whether they believe crazy absurdities is an unreliable and ridiculous method for doing so.

>I can call a racist stupid.

Anyone with differing ideas can call you stupid.

>We're talking about human dignity and the irrationality of denying it in some races.

A racist could conclude that the differences between subspecies has led to the better fitness in modern society of one subspecies. Taking this further one could conclude that a subspecies with less fitness brings undesirable genes into the gene pool and should be eradicated for the health of the species.

I guess I'm role playing as the racist? Next time someone else needs to get stuck arguing the taboo opinion

"Because Einstein believed in God intelligence has no bearing on people believing crazy stuff? Not buying that one."

no; because intelligent people believe in irrational things; believing in irrational things doesnt make someone unintelligent or dumb.