Atheists, smarter than religious people

DrewDad wrote:

Reposting:

DrewDad wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
How would a word's definition in 1950 affect a debate in 2007?

One of the points I made, Jackass...was that the changes were recent!

Try to wrap your mind around that thought.

And my point is that even if the changes are recent, it makes no difference to a debate happening today.

Your "open mind" is refusing to accept an updated concept.

My open-mindedness deals with comments about why this so-called updated concept is in existence.

In my opinion, the only reason atheists who claim their atheism ends with a lack of belief in gods...is because of the advantage such a position gives them in debate on the issue...not because it is the case.

In fact, I don't think it actually is the case is almost any of the instance where I've dealt with atheists asserting such a stance. The posts they make indicate that their atheism extends much further...to denial of gods.

But the "debate advantages" are: If they do not assert there are no gods...they are relieved in debate of having to substantiate such a pro-active assertion....and if they do not assert a belief there are no gods, they are relieved in debate of having to acknowledge that atheism is nothing more than a belief system...just like theism, except in another direction.

That is not close-mindedness. And I am not close-minded.

0 Replies

Re: Atheists, smarter than religious people

Cyracuz wrote:

Danish scientist Helmuth Nyborg concludes that this is indeed the case after a survey he conducted recently.

Now, this is also a guy who has stated that he's an atheist, and not neutral about religion, but hostile to it. Still, I figured this might make for some heated discussions

I was unable to provide a link in english. If I find one I'll let you know.

Well really... how smart can you be if you are willing to buy into a theory about some fairy tale "God" sitting on the edge of his "throne" waiting to hear your every call and answer your every prayer just because you are "special"? Religious people don't think for themselves. They let others tell them what they should think, what they should say, how they should act, and so on. You don't have to be smart at all to do that. Shoot... my dog is probably smarter than that even.

0 Replies

It's bound to have a more paws on approach in any case. Smile

To some extent I agree with your statement, although there are religious people who don't fit that description. But atheism isn't all that much better.

They're relating to the same issue. The only difference is that they disagree on it.

Better to just forget all about religion if you cannot make sense of it. Devoting your intellectual efforts to showing how ludicrous the notion of god is will get you nowhere, because ultimately such a claim is just as insubstantial as the oposite.

Which is pretty much what this debate has been about, as far as I can tell.

0 Replies

I have encountered smart and dull individuals in both categories. The only problem is that virtually all theists (and at least one agnostic) suffer from a terrible blind spot.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

I have encountered smart and dull individuals in both categories. The only problem is that virtually all theists (and at least one agnostic) suffer from a terrible blind spot.

All the non-dualists I've ever encountered have been pretty dull. They should have been included in the study...and maybe the theists would have done better.

But of course, like the theists and atheists...the non-dualists are prisoners of their belief system...and that pretty much says all there has to be said about their general intelligence.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

It's bound to have a more paws on approach in any case.

To some extent I agree with your statement, although there are religious people who don't fit that description. But atheism isn't all that much better.

They're relating to the same issue. The only difference is that they disagree on it.

Better to just forget all about religion if you cannot make sense of it. Devoting your intellectual efforts to showing how ludicrous the notion of god is will get you nowhere, because ultimately such a claim is just as insubstantial as the oposite.

Which is pretty much what this debate has been about, as far as I can tell.

You will excuse the expression, but...AMEN!

0 Replies

Frank
Is there such a thing as a non-dualist?

Non-dualism is a perspective. A recognition of the fact that boundaries between different concepts reside in the perciever, not what is periceved.

For example the terms "up" and "down". These are abstractions, the world knows no up and down. Only the mind knows up and down.

In my opinion neither JLNobody or fresco are dull. They are in possession of some of the sharpest intellects I've encountered on these pages. But maybe I think so because their ideas are so similar to my own. I don't know.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

It's bound to have a more paws on approach in any case.

To some extent I agree with your statement, although there are religious people who don't fit that description. But atheism isn't all that much better.

They're relating to the same issue. The only difference is that they disagree on it.

Better to just forget all about religion if you cannot make sense of it. Devoting your intellectual efforts to showing how ludicrous the notion of god is will get you nowhere, because ultimately such a claim is just as insubstantial as the oposite.

Which is pretty much what this debate has been about, as far as I can tell.

Absolutely. I didn't intend to put all religionists into one category. That was my oops here. There's smart people and dumb people on both sides. Though I do tend to think now that religion can have a bit more of a "dumbing up" effect than atheism, simply because of the brainwashing involved.

People come in all different sets of ideals. No matter what they believe I believe most everyone has the ability to maintain some sort of intellectual intelligence. However, the ones who don't grab that are the ones who follow religion like a sheep to the slaughter. Just blindly believing what ever they are told because it's easier to have someone else think for them than to actually have to make decisions or think on their own.

Perhaps you are right Cyracuz. Forgetting about religion could be a good thing for me. Though I'd rather find balance and a substantial position to stand in concerning religion, or any belief really. So forgive me if I'm a little wobbly in the process of looking for that balance. No harm intended to anyone on either side. Just trying to sort through 17 yrs of brainwashing. Heh...

Sorry if I breezed over the posts in this thread a little too quickly and missed some important points that have been made. Or worse yet completely missed the direction this thread is going. Eeek.

0 Replies

I'd say you got the gist of it heph.
All contributions are welcome.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

Frank
Is there such a thing as a non-dualist?

Non-dualism is a perspective. A recognition of the fact that boundaries between different concepts reside in the perciever, not what is periceved.

For example the terms "up" and "down". These are abstractions, the world knows no up and down. Only the mind knows up and down.

In my opinion neither JLNobody or fresco are dull. They are in possession of some of the sharpest intellects I've encountered on these pages. But maybe I think so because their ideas are so similar to my own. I don't know.

Well I certainly do not know for sure, Cyracuz...but if forced to make a guess, I suspect it has more to do with the similarity of ideas rather than anything else.

My "dull" comment was a rejoiner to JL's poke...nothing more.

I think JL and Fresco are both learned...although as I mentioned in a earlier post, I am of the opinion that "learned" and "intelligent" have quite different meanings.

I think both JL and Fresco....(I am not sure if you qualify also)...have fallen in love with their belief system...and like theists and atheists, refuse to acknowledge their belief system for what it is...a blind guess about the unknown gone apeshyt.

I certainly will discuss this...allthough I think this thread already has enough detours. Perhaps you will start another thread on the issue...but JL and I have pretty much talked it to death. JL seems to be pretty sure it is not a belief system...but a unique knowledge.

We have people in this very thread who know that certain gods do not exist....and cannot logically exist...

...we have people who know that a God exists despite the fact that there are others who know the God cannot exist...

...we have people who know the God some say they know exists, does not in fact exist...

...and we have people who know non-duality is the way things are.

We also have some people who understand that existence....that beingness...is so unique and unfathomable...that a best guess would be that all those people are full of shyt.

Weird situation!

I'll stick with: I do not know what the ultimate REALITY of existence is...and I do not have anywhere near sufficient probative evidence to make meaningful guesses about what can and what cannot be part of that REALITY.

Anyone who sees that as fence sitting...rather than a fairly logical recitation of the most practical stance to take on the issue...really is a jerkhoff in my opinion. I wish I could think of a nice way to say that...and I am open to suggestions...but that is the way things are.

0 Replies

Re: Atheists, smarter than religious people

hephzibah wrote:

Cyracuz wrote:
Danish scientist Helmuth Nyborg concludes that this is indeed the case after a survey he conducted recently.

Now, this is also a guy who has stated that he's an atheist, and not neutral about religion, but hostile to it. Still, I figured this might make for some heated discussions

I was unable to provide a link in english. If I find one I'll let you know.

Well really... how smart can you be if you are willing to buy into a theory about some fairy tale "God" sitting on the edge of his "throne" waiting to hear your every call and answer your every prayer just because you are "special"? Religious people don't think for themselves. They let others tell them what they should think, what they should say, how they should act, and so on. You don't have to be smart at all to do that. Shoot... my dog is probably smarter than that even.................

.............Though I do tend to think now that religion can have a bit more of a "dumbing up" effect than atheism, simply because of the brainwashing involved.

Really?

So how smart must one be to follow your example by taking cheap potshots at others, and comparing them with dogs, calling them 'brainwashed' etc.?

You must be brilliant. What stunning intellect.

0 Replies

When you are fed several sets of mantra--parables, adages, commandments, metaphorical vignettes and stories to account for nearly every aspect of life and you are made to feel so protective of and submissive to them that you may defend them unto death in some occasions--yet, you have no supporting personal facts to prove these stories that have been fed to you--brainwashing is an appropriate description.

0 Replies

Re: Atheists, smarter than religious people

real life wrote:

hephzibah wrote:
Cyracuz wrote:
Danish scientist Helmuth Nyborg concludes that this is indeed the case after a survey he conducted recently.

Now, this is also a guy who has stated that he's an atheist, and not neutral about religion, but hostile to it. Still, I figured this might make for some heated discussions

I was unable to provide a link in english. If I find one I'll let you know.

Well really... how smart can you be if you are willing to buy into a theory about some fairy tale "God" sitting on the edge of his "throne" waiting to hear your every call and answer your every prayer just because you are "special"? Religious people don't think for themselves. They let others tell them what they should think, what they should say, how they should act, and so on. You don't have to be smart at all to do that. Shoot... my dog is probably smarter than that even.................

.............Though I do tend to think now that religion can have a bit more of a "dumbing up" effect than atheism, simply because of the brainwashing involved.

Really?

So how smart must one be to follow your example by taking cheap potshots at others, and comparing them with dogs, calling them 'brainwashed' etc.?

You must be brilliant. What stunning intellect.

Heh... apparently your intellect isn't too far from mine... eh real life?

However, had you actually taken the time to read the my next post instead of jumping on your wanna be high horse you would have seen that I did not intend what I was saying as a potshot towards anyone in particular.

Once again religious defensiveness rears it's ugly head... further proving my point.

Thanks real life.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

When you are fed several sets of mantra--parables, adages, commandments, metaphorical vignettes and stories to account for nearly every aspect of life and you are made to feel so protective of and submissive to them that you may defend them unto death in some occasions--yet, you have no supporting personal facts to prove these stories that have been fed to you--brainwashing is an appropriate description.

Very well said Lash. Thank you.

0 Replies

Oh, it's SO good to have Frank back.

BTW, Cyracuz hit the nail on its head. There is no up and down in reality; the difference between up and down exists only as a mental distinction, within reality. Epistemologically, we need duallisms for everyday thinking, and that's why most people cannot or will not see them for what they are--too threatening. But "mystical" religions and, perhaps, contemporary western physics realize its delusional (even if useful) nature.
For some time now I have told Frank that his insistence that dualism actually describes the world is an epistemological expression of Naive Realism (that the world is simply as we think it to be). That's fine with me.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

And what of those of us who fit none of these caricatures?

The percentages did not add up to 100. You are in the other 5%, of course. :wink: Actually, respondents were given a list of 16 attributes for God, and were sorted into categories based on the ones they selected.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Terry...I respect you and the efforts you put into the words you post.

I have always had reservations about some of the arguments you have made that end with you declaring that such-and-such kind of god CANNOT exist.

I am not going to inflict any more damage in what I consider to be one of my long standing, very positive Internet relationships than absolutely necessary.

The best way I can handle what I have to say is...I refer you back to our three year ordeal with Ican over in Abuzz. Ican was constantly asserting that he had proved beyond reasonable doubt that a GOD had to exist.

He did not accomplish what he claimed to have accomplished.

You have not either.

I am disappointed in you, Frank, if you think that our relationship could be damaged by such a trivial disagreement. Sad

Not to mention that you have mischaracterized my position. I did not say that any specific god CANNOT exist, I listed shades of atheism that are not belief systems or blind guesses, and said that:

Terry wrote:

The Judeo-Christian concepts of God and immortal souls can be refuted logically and disbelief in them requires no guesswork, but it certainly takes more intelligence to study and reject centuries of apologetics than it does to simply accept the tenets of a religion that has been indoctrinating you since birth. Of course there are concepts of god that are not so easy to dismiss, which is why I'm still only a 9 on Thomas' scale.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

This idea of atheists being more intellegent bothers me. Intellegence is as I understand the combination of our inherit brain power (a genetic inheritance) and the exposure we give our brain to (and I'll use this term for convieniance only) "exercise."

1) Being atheist is not genetic.

2) Opportunity to use critical thought is not exclusive to atheists.

I'd give a lot more gravity to the later of the two personally. I'd say the most intellegent population is the culture which practices the most free thought. Teaching the brain to be rigid with new concepts can only handicap oneself.

A tendency to atheism might be genetic, if a specific brain region governs belief.

Certainly it takes critical thought to question and refute what you have been taught from birth. People raised in religions that discourage or punish heresy may be afraid to exercise critical thought for fear of incurring the wrath of God or Church. Would that make them less intelligent, or is it smarter to do what you need to in order to survive?

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Oh, it's SO good to have Frank back.

BTW, Cyracuz hit the nail on its head. There is no up and down in reality; the difference between up and down exists only as a mental distinction, within reality. Epistemologically, we need duallisms for everyday thinking, and that's why most people cannot or will not see them for what they are--too threatening. But "mystical" religions and, perhaps, contemporary western physics realize its delusional (even if useful) nature.
For some time now I have told Frank that his insistence that dualism actually describes the world is an epistemological expression of Naive Realism (that the world is simply as we think it to be). That's fine with me.

JL wrote:

Quote:

Oh, it's SO good to have Frank back.

BTW, Cyracuz hit the nail on its head. There is no up and down in reality; the difference between up and down exists only as a mental distinction, within reality. Epistemologically, we need duallisms for everyday thinking, and that's why most people cannot or will not see them for what they are--too threatening. But "mystical" religions and, perhaps, contemporary western physics realize its delusional (even if useful) nature.
For some time now I have told Frank that his insistence that dualism actually describes the world is an epistemological expression of Naive Realism (that the world is simply as we think it to be). That's fine with me.

Why don't you get your head out of you're a$$, JL.

I have NEVER insisted that dualism actually describes the worldand I NEVER WILL.

I have explained this to you dozens of times nowbut apparently you are too stupid to understand it.

I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA IF THE REALITY IS BEST DESCRIBED BY THE DUALISTIC PROPONENTS OR THE NON-DUALISTIC PROPONENTS. There is absolutely no way that I can think of knowing thatand I certainly do not have enough evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess. I leave that kind of silly, ignorant guessing to people like you.

I do thank you for the laugh you invariably give me by YOUR insistence that you KNOW which it iswhen it is obvious you are merely making one of those blind, ignorant guesses people make and then insist on claiming to be knowledge.

I hope all that is "fine" with you also.

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

Not to mention that you have mischaracterized my position. I did not say that any specific god CANNOT exist, I listed shades of atheism that are not belief systems or blind guesses, and said that:

Terry wrote:
The Judeo-Christian concepts of God and immortal souls can be refuted logically and disbelief in them requires no guesswork, but it certainly takes more intelligence to study and reject centuries of apologetics than it does to simply accept the tenets of a religion that has been indoctrinating you since birth. Of course there are concepts of god that are not so easy to dismiss, which is why I'm still only a 9 on Thomas' scale.

Had to go back and re-read what you wrote...and I STAND CORRECTED.

I was wrong...and I apologize.

One hell of a complicated paragraph that you wrote back there...but after spending some time with it...I understood what you were saying completely...and I definitely came away after my first reading with a wrong impression of your thesis.

I did disagree with the conclusion...that they are no belief systems...but you gave that conclusion as "in your book"...and at best I can argue that in my book, they are. Let's just agree to disagree on that point.

And of course, since I was wrong...I take back the Ican remark...which I regretted immediately...but still decided to allow in print. Hell of an insult, that!

0 Replies

Atheists, smarter than religious people

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know