Atheists, smarter than religious people

Trouble-maker

0 Replies

Hey, I just put the sugarwater on the table. Let the flies come buzzing... :wink:

0 Replies

Oh snap!

Certainly no educated disscussion can come from this! I love it. It would only be a disscussion on first this man's credentials, then it would perhaps migrate to talking about the nature of each population... altogether, pretty hilarious.

0 Replies

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

Apparently he is a Danish psychologist who has previously done a lot of work on hormones and intelligence.

Cyracuz wrote:

Hey, I just put the sugarwater on the table. Let the flies come buzzing...

Would more flies come round if you knew that Nyborg is basically in agreement with the work of Arthur Jensen?

(Cyracuz- Didn't want to steal your thunder. Just felt like being a bit of a troublemaker today! )

0 Replies

Hi Everyone.

Did I hear that someone was trying to start trouble???

Cheeze...I love trouble. Especially when someone else starts it.

What I cannot understand is...if the atheists are so much smarter than religious peoplewhy do they allow themselves to be identified with a philosophical stance that makes no sense? Atheism, after all, is either hypocrisy...or just another belief system...and you will agree, that makes no sense.

Not that I am trying to start trouble. I'm just getting involved!

Twisted Evil

0 Replies

Frank- Although I have repudiated atheism, I think that the concept is situated on a higher intellectual level than theism. Theists, after all, accept a system of belief, some, more than others, "hook, line, and sinker". There needs to be no thought. In fact, theists apprently disdain thought, embracing "faith" as the higher moral stance.

For some, I would suppose, atheism would simply be the mirror opposite of theism. But, you must realize, that it does take a certain amount of individual introspection and resolve to remove oneself from the mainstream of society, denying what is believed as absolute truth by the masses, and finding oneself in the position of being "odd man out".

1 Reply

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Frank- Although I have repudiated atheism, I think that the concept is situated on a higher intellectual level than theism. Theists, after all, accept a system of belief, some, more than others, "hook, line, and sinker". There needs to be no thought. In fact, theists apprently disdain thought, embracing "faith" as the higher moral stance.

For some, I would suppose, atheism would simply be the mirror opposite of theism. But, you must realize, that it does take a certain amount of individual introspection and resolve to remove oneself from the mainstream of society, denying what is believed as absolute truth by the masses, and finding oneself in the position of being "odd man out".

I disagree with you on this, Phoenix. But I'm going to hold back for a bit on fleshing out my reasons for saying what I said.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Hi Everyone.

Did I hear that someone was trying to start trouble???

Cheeze...I love trouble. Especially when someone else starts it.

What I cannot understand is...if the atheists are so much smarter than religious peoplewhy do they allow themselves to be identified with a philosophical stance that makes no sense? Atheism, after all, is either hypocrisy...or just another belief system...and you will agree, that makes no sense.

Not that I am trying to start trouble. I'm just getting involved!

See, calling atheiests hypocrites, calling the stance of atheism making no sense- -That's waving a red flag. Because we have been over this several times already, I will not start in, but will only suggest that Frank is as usual, full of crap on the issue.

0 Replies

Ah, go pound sand, Cyracuz.

1 Reply

Atheism and theism are really just two sides of the same coin. They both revolve around religion, one to embrace, the other to reject.

It's the same as with christianity vs satanism. It's always great fun to meet a satanist. I usually go; "oh, so you're a christian?"
They always get offended, but to my mind, satan is a creature of the christian mythology, and if you're a satanist your beliefs are just one more of the myriad of christian beliefs.

So atheism is indeed religion. The dogma is to reject rather than embrace. Not a whole lot of difference.

1 Reply

Okayso we've got a couple of responsesand I guess it is time to make further comments.

Edgar wrote:

Quote:

See, calling atheiests hypocrites, calling the stance of atheism making no sense- -That's waving a red flag. Because we have been over this several times already, I will not start in, but will only suggest that Frank is as usual, full of crap on the issue.

I didn't call atheists hypocrites. I did say it makes no senseand it doesn't. I did say, "Atheism, after all, is either hypocrisy...or just another belief system...and you will agree, that makes no sense." Either/or! And it is.

So I am not full of crapI have hit the nail on its head.

Allow me to expand on my comments:

If, as Edgar does, the atheist simply asserts that there are no godsor asserts a belief that there are no godsit is a "belief system" exactly like the theistic "belief system" except in the opposite direction. Cyracuz pointed that out with his "two sides of one coin" comment. (I disagree with Cyracuz that atheism is a religion. It is not. But, in most cases, it is a belief system.)

But there is the charge of hypocrisy. And that charge I level at the many Internet atheists who want to pretend that their atheism stop with "I lack a belief in gods." Those phonies want to avoid the "I believe there are no gods" or "I assert there are no gods" rap, because they realize two things. One, they cannot substantiate the "I assert there are no gods"and two, they do not want to acknowledge the fact that atheism is nothing but a belief system that would be highlighted by the "I believe there are no gods."

I charge the Internet phony atheists who claim their atheism stops with "I lack a belief in gods" with hypocrisy.

Phoenix wrote:

Quote:

Although I have repudiated atheism, I think that the concept is situated on a higher intellectual level than theism. Theists, after all, accept a system of belief, some, more than others, "hook, line, and sinker". There needs to be no thought. In fact, theists apprently disdain thought, embracing "faith" as the higher moral stance. For some, I would suppose, atheism would simply be the mirror opposite of theism. But, you must realize, that it does take a certain amount of individual introspection and resolve to remove oneself from the mainstream of society, denying what is believed as absolute truth by the masses, and finding oneself in the position of being "odd man out".

I submit it takes absolutely no thought to make a blind guess in either direction on the question of whether or not there are gods involved in the REALITY of existence. I know atheists like to think they have thought out the issuebut all they are doing is making a blind guess. I defy any of them to produce the evidence they have that leads to the conclusion that there are no godsand hold it up to evaluation. Fact is, other than variations on "The theists cannot produce a god" or "There is no need for a God" (neither of which is evidence that there are no gods) I have never seen atheists produce any evidence that there are no gods.

It always is simply a blind guess and assertion.

Cyracuz is on the right track except for the "atheism is a religion" comment.

0 Replies

Frank- I hear what you are saying, and I agree, that in retrospect, atheism IS a blind guess. In this society though, which is heavily intertwined with the Judeo-Christian tradition, a person had to think beyond the familiar, and the accepted, in order to embrace atheism.

I think that it would be reasonable to say that the atheist is more evolved than the theist, but less evolved than the agnostic.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Atheism, after all, is either hypocrisy...or just another belief system...and you will agree, that makes no sense.

And what belief system would that be? Occam's Razor? Uh, yes, I do believe in Occam's razor. Guilty as charged I guess ....

PS: just to check your faith in agnosticism, are you truly, seriously agnostic about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? The Invisible Pink Unicorn? Russel's teapot in the sky? If not, would you seriously label your amonsterism, your aunicornism, and your ateapotism as "belief systems"? Just asking, no troublemaking intended. (He heee.)

0 Replies

Russell, in particular, makes the case for my variant of atheism so nicely that I'll just quote him:

Bertant Russell wrote:

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.

If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

- Bertrand Russell

In my estimation, the existence of god cannot be disproved; that makes it about as likely as the existence of Russel's teapot between Earth and Mars. Actually, it's less likely, because a god has to be a much more complex entity than a teapot -- and a less unlikely one as a result.

I'd say that makes me a nine on a scale from one to ten, where one means "absolute certainty that god exists" and ten means "absolute certainty that she doesn't exist". In your nomenclature, Frank, does this make me an atheist or an agnostic?

0 Replies

Cyracuz,

As an aspiring player in the bluebottle league I of course endorse the cited findings ! However two issues are worthy of discussion (1) the value of "intellectuality" with respect to "emotionality" and (2) whether "atheism" is dependent on "theism" as a position.

1. Some religions argue from the elevated position of "unconditional love" within their tenets that "the intellect" hinders "the truth". However this only seems to make complete sense from the position of "selfless spirituality" in which all "intellectual logic" (based on dualisms) is transcended. Such a position does not require "a deity" per se to be tenable.

2. In addition the Occam's Razor argument I reiterate my own view that all "existence" is about "relationship". It follows that "an atheist" cannot deny the "existence of the God concept"....he is essentially stating he has a negative relationship with it. His reasons for such a relationship are intellectual ones which may include Occam's Razor but the very fact that this position puts the difficult question "existence" under the microscope is testimony to the level of intellect required.

1 Reply

Thomas- I think that you and I thinking in a similar fashion. I would probably be a 9 also on your scale. I would say that the probability of a god is infinitismal, but I connot completely discard the possibility of there being SOMETHING out there (but who knows what?).

IMO, anyone who would put themselves between 2 and 9, would be, by definition, an agnostic.

0 Replies

ThomasI thank you for introducing those items this early in the discussion. I will discuss themand I hope you open your mind to the arguments I make about them.

You wrote:

Quote:

And what belief system would that be? Occam's Razor? Uh, yes, I do believe in Occam's razor. Guilty as charged I guess ...."

AhhhOccam's razor. Get into a discussion with an atheistand good ole Occam will rear his ugly head.

Thomas, Occam's razor is one of the most over-valued philosophical concepts ever created. That probably is why one almost never hears it invokedexcept in discussions where atheists are rationalizing their guesswork.

Occam's razor leads one as often to a wrong conclusion about a realityas it does to a correct one. Applying it to possible explanations of the apparent movement of celestial objectsto whether or not the Earth is flatto the composition of material thingsto the composition of atomic particlesto a plethora of other phenomenaleads to conclusions now verifiably wrong.

In any case, Occam's razor will NEVER lead to a denial that gods existand at best, will lead to the agnostic position of "It makes no sense to assume there IS or HAS TO BE a god or gods involved in the REALITY of existence. " (It also makes no sense to suppose gods are an impossibility in the REALITY.)

I agreeif you are on a ranch and hear hoof beatsdo not think Zebra. But that is a long way away from introducing Occam's razor in defense of the atheistic position.

In any case, Occam's razor what not what I had in mind when I called atheism a belief system. I was thinking more along the lines of the blind, unsubstantiate belief that there are no gods.

Quote:

PS: just to check your faith in agnosticism, are you truly, seriously agnostic about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? The Invisible Pink Unicorn? Russel's teapot in the sky?

Absolutely!

Here is a statement of my agnosticism: As regards gods, I do not know (cannot establish beyond a reasonable doubt) if there is a God involved in the REALITYand I do not know (cannot establish beyond a reasonable doubt) that there are no gods involved. Also, I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess on the issue.

Nowapply that to Flying spaghetti monsters, invisible pink unicorns, and teapots in the sky. I cannot establish beyond a reasonable doubt that there are no flying spaghetti monsters, invisible pink unicorns, or teapots in the sky. That is much too daunting a task. But I do have enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess on those items.

The only time I ever see them proposedare in discussions with atheists attempting to make their belief system seem more reasonable than it actually is. I suspect, therefore, that those items are simply the product of people trying to rationalizerather than the product of people proposing a POSSIBLE explanation for why existence IS. In fact, I NEVER see them proposed as possible ingredients to an explanation of how existence happens to be.

So, yesI am agnostic with regard to them. And I guess they are bullshyt.

(Actually, I think the "flying spaghetti monsters, invisible pink unicorns, or teapots in the sky" is way over doneand unworthy of people who consider themselves reasonable and logical.

Quote:

If not, would you seriously label your amonsterism, your aunicornism, and your ateapotism as "belief systems"? Just asking, no troublemaking intended. (He heee.)

NopeI would seriously label myself an agnosticno matter what.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

IMO, anyone who would put themselves between 2 and 9, would be, by definition, an agnostic.

Would you describe yourself as an agnostic on fairies too? How about unicorns? Or Poseidon?

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Quote:
In my estimation, the existence of god cannot be disproved; that makes it about as likely as the existence of Russel's teapot between Earth and Mars.

That is actually too silly to addressso I will just laugh at it. Take it to a logicianand watch him/her laugh also.

Quote:

Actually, it's less likely, because a god has to be a much more complex entity than a teapot -- and a less unlikely one as a result.

Horrible logic!

Quote:

I'd say that makes me a nine on a scale from one to ten, where one means "absolute certainty that god exists" and ten means "absolute certainty that she doesn't exist". In your nomenclature, Frank, does this make me an atheist or an agnostic?

In my mind, it makes you illogicalalthough that is not a choice, I see.

You are essentially arguing that "because a thing cannot be disproved"it makes it unlikely that it exists. (Or likely that it does not exist, if you prefer!)

THINK ABOUT THAT!

That is so bizarreI can only hope that you are drunk.

0 Replies

Atheists, smarter than religious people

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know