The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
 10 posters qualify.
You have 0 points. Copying this list does not send funds. Paste it on Disperse, then connect your wallet there. |
How dumb do you have to be to not be religious
Poast new message in this thread
Date: September 22nd, 2019 6:06 PM Author: Bespoke native (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4348736&forum_id=2#38870234) |
Date: September 22nd, 2019 6:09 PM Author: Pumonymous https://www.nature.com/articles/28478 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4348736&forum_id=2#38870249) |
 |
Date: September 22nd, 2019 6:58 PM Author: Bespoke native Lmao (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4348736&forum_id=2#38870409) |
|
Date: September 22nd, 2019 7:31 PM Author: Pumonymous Sorry I gaped ur shitty thread (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4348736&forum_id=2#38870520) |
|
Date: September 22nd, 2019 7:32 PM Author: Bespoke native Lol what? You think scientists know anything about the human condition? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4348736&forum_id=2#38870527) |
|
Date: September 22nd, 2019 7:33 PM Author: Pumonymous Oh, are we changing the subject from intelligence to level of knowledge of the human condition? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4348736&forum_id=2#38870529) |
|
Date: September 22nd, 2019 7:34 PM Author: Bespoke native One does not have “knowledge” of the human condition. Nor is intelligence exhausted by analytical skill. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4348736&forum_id=2#38870531) |
|
Date: September 22nd, 2019 7:37 PM Author: Pumonymous Q. You think scientists know anything about the human condition?
A. One does not have “knowledge” of the human condition.
Literally answering your own questions here, chief. Happy to have helped you through your confusion!
"Nor is intelligence exhausted by analytical skill."
The level of analytical skill possessed by NAS scientists is easily sufficient to qualify as "highly intelligent," as that phrase is understood by virtually all English speakers, and so refutes your comment about non-religious people being dumb. |
|
Date: September 22nd, 2019 7:41 PM Author: Bespoke native Knowing something does not solely consist in possessing discrete units of mental content or data. See for example the myth of the given and associated works.
Analytical skill is necessarily but not sufficient for general intelligence as the concept should be understood in anything but the crudest levels of discourse
We should also note that you changed the subject from being dumb to lacking intelligence, an equivocation I would also contest. |
|
Date: September 22nd, 2019 7:44 PM Author: Pumonymous So you were just quibbling about my phrasing it as "level of knowledge"? My point was that the thread is about intelligence, not "knowing anything about the human condition."
How would you define "general intelligence" such that highly renowned mathematicians and scientists don't have it?
Edit: just saw your edit. How would you define "dumb" such that it includes renowned mathematicians and scientists? Also lol at using "dumb" and then whining about crude levels of discourse. |
|
Date: September 22nd, 2019 7:51 PM Author: Bespoke native And I am suggesting to you that in order to not be dumb one cannot simply point to their analytical skills or their ability to describe physical reality using mathematics.
Rather in order to not be dumb one must have religious beliefs, such that anyone, no matter their analytical skill, is de facto dumb simply due to their unbelief in god.
So accepting your premise that being dumb is lacking general intelligence, I would define intelligence as both analytical skill, eg that necessary to describe physical phenomenon using experimental and mathematical techniques, as well as a broader ability to see how those pieces hang together to form a beautiful and moral unity expressable only in the entity of god and, to a lessor but imo still generally defensible sense, Jesus as the Christ.
It is for precisely this reason that AI will only have the veneer of general intelligence, and there cannot exist a truly general AI, because AI will alway lack the phenomenological experiences that come from and lead us back to God |
|
Date: September 22nd, 2019 7:54 PM Author: Pumonymous "And I am suggesting to you that in order to not be dumb one cannot simply point to their analytical skills or their ability to describe physical reality using mathematics. Rather in order to not be dumb one must have religious beliefs, such that anyone, no matter their analytical skill, is de facto dumb simply due to their unbelief in god."
Link to any dictionary or other source defining "dumb" that way?
Also, if that's what dumb means, isn't the thread title basically a tautology? |
|
Date: September 22nd, 2019 7:57 PM Author: Bespoke native The thread title involves something more like a definition than a tautology (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4348736&forum_id=2#38870628) |
|
Date: September 22nd, 2019 7:58 PM Author: Pumonymous Link to any dictionary or other source defining "dumb" that way? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4348736&forum_id=2#38870643) |
|
Date: September 22nd, 2019 8:02 PM Author: Bespoke native Dumb as something more than lacking the 2 components of intelligence? I dunno dumb is a much cruder word than a simple dictionary definition of “lacking intelligence” would imply. Do you only use words according to precisely their literal dictionary definition? Why would there be a name for “lacking intelligence” if you could simply use the phrase? Are words only useful as more economic alternatives of other words? Could it not be that words have both definitions and broader connotations? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4348736&forum_id=2#38870676) |
|
Date: September 22nd, 2019 8:10 PM Author: Pumonymous Dictionary.com lists 9 different senses of the word dumb, none of which remotely matches your made-up definition. I don't think questioning your personal completely made-up deinition qualifies as "only us[ing] words according to precisely their literal dictionary definition."
Of course anything "could be," but you've yet to substantiate the suggestion that the word "dumb" means anything like what you say it means.
Also lol at "the 2 components of intelligence," as if anyone on the planet other than you recognizes that there are Two Components of Intelligence one of which is "seeing how the universe hangs together in the moral beauty of god" |
|
Date: September 22nd, 2019 8:11 PM Author: Bespoke native I must be doing pretty good if your only substantive argument is “lol” and you’re spending most of your time with “but read the dictionary tho” (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4348736&forum_id=2#38870722) |
|
Date: September 22nd, 2019 8:18 PM Author: Pumonymous You've made no substantive argument for your made-up definition of "dumb." If you don't like dictionaries, maybe you could link to some other source that uses dumb the way you use it? I'm sure you can easily provide examples in philosophical, theological, etc literature that demonstrates this connotation. Surely you don't expect me to convinced by "could it be" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4348736&forum_id=2#38870753) |
|
Date: September 22nd, 2019 8:18 PM Author: Bespoke native What’re you drinking tonight bro I’m goin on a beer run (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4348736&forum_id=2#38870756) |
|
Date: September 22nd, 2019 7:35 PM Author: beady-eyed casino Ur the first person to give him the time of day in a while (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4348736&forum_id=2#38870536) |
|
Date: September 22nd, 2019 7:52 PM Author: slap-happy impressive whorehouse (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4348736&forum_id=2#38870585) |
|
Date: September 22nd, 2019 8:42 PM Author: peach frum trailer park Only sub 85 iqs actually believe in god. Plenty pretend to for other reasons. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4348736&forum_id=2#38870877) |
|
Date: September 22nd, 2019 8:44 PM Author: Bespoke native Have you never glimpsed the moral beauty of our one true god? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4348736&forum_id=2#38870888) |
|
Date: September 22nd, 2019 9:25 PM Author: azure school cafeteria Cq (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4348736&forum_id=2#38871102) |
|
Date: September 22nd, 2019 10:48 PM Author: Mint Aromatic Hall In his novel Brideshead Revisited, Evelyn Waugh places us in the midst of a breakfast conversation at Brideshead manor between Father Phipps, of an English monastery, who has come to say Sunday Mass, and Sebastian Flyte and Charles Ryder, two of the book’s main characters. Ryder tells us that the priest displayed “an interest in county cricket which he obstinately believed us to share.” Sebastian, fearing a lengthy discourse on the subject, tells Father Phipps, “You know, Father, Charles and I simply don’t know about cricket.” The cleric is undeterred.
“I wish I’d seen Tennyson make that fifty-eight last Thursday. That must have been an innings. . . . Did you see him against the South Africans?”
“I have never seen him.”
“Neither have I. I haven’t seen a first-class match for years – not since Father Graves took me when we were passing through Leeds, after we’d been to the induction of the Abbott at Ampleforth. . . . You seldom go to see cricket?”
“Never,” I said, and he looked at me with the expression I have seen since in the religious, of innocent wonder that those who expose themselves to the dangers of the world should avail themselves so little of its varied solace. |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2019 8:31 AM Author: Scarlet mother (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4348736&forum_id=2#38872221) |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2019 8:43 AM Author: Hairless milk (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4348736&forum_id=2#38872233) |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2019 8:46 AM Author: blue senate boistinker this is why I watch anime (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4348736&forum_id=2#38872237) |