Atheists, smarter than religious people

Frank, bless you. If you'd take your metaphorical head out of my metaphorical A$$, you'd realize that your opposition to nondualism implicitly* signals your TACIT belief that the world IS describeable by means of dualistic distinctions. What would I do without you?

*(pardon my dualism here. It shows how even we nondualists must use dualisms to talk--but at least we can see how it is in the nature of language, not the requirements of "objectively" picturing the "absolute" World, that we must do so).
As you must have figured out by now, I continue to interact with you not in order to inform or persuade you, but in order to present a different perspective to our general A2K community. You are hopeless but precious just the same.
Smile

0 Replies

Re: Atheists, smarter than religious people

hephzibah wrote:

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.

Yes, I read it. (Did you not notice I quoted from it?)

Even while claiming in the second post 'I really didn't mean to demean....' you couldn't resist adding the 'brainwashing' accusation to the dog comparison in the first post.

My question was, how does taking potshots (which they were , even if you claim they weren't aimed at any particular individual) give any credence to your claim that 'religious folks don't think for themselves' while you are parroting trash talking points?

How does pulling others down lift you up in any way?

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Frank, bless you. If you'd take your metaphorical head out of my metaphorical A$$, you'd realize that your opposition to nondualism implicitly* signals your TACIT belief that the world IS describeable by means of dualistic distinctions. What would I do without you?

*(pardon my dualism here. It shows how even we nondualists must use dualisms to talk--but at least we can see how it is in the nature of language, not the requirements of "objectively" picturing the "absolute" World, that we must do so).
As you must have figured out by now, I continue to interact with you not in order to inform or persuade you, but in order to present a different perspective to our general A2K community. You are hopeless but precious just the same.

You are simply so full of shyt...that no one should take you seriously.

In at least a half dozen of my previous responses to this kind of shyt, you moron, I have indicated that my personal inclinations are toward non-dualism...but that it was strictly a blind, out-of-the-air kind of inclination.

You are full of shyt. You really are.

And as for hopeless and precious...yeah...you are!

0 Replies

Yeah, just precious -- an predictably so Smile

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Yeah, just precious -- an predictably so

Yup...just another "believer" so in love with your blind, silly guesses that you cannot see reason.

You are pathetic.

0 Replies

There's another curiosity. Reason.

I see people everywhere who advocate reason, but who are as proficient in utilizing it as cats. In many ways, reason is the new religion. Sometimes the crap that passes for reasonable thinking is just amazing.

Not thinking of anyone in particular here...

0 Replies

I'm dropping out now. All this circular arguing is just too time consuming. My final statement is, atheism is the only outlook that makes any sense at all. Make of it what you will.

0 Replies

Bye, Edgar. I don't blame you.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

I'm dropping out now. All this circular arguing is just too time consuming. My final statement is, atheism is the only outlook that makes any sense at all. Make of it what you will.

I will agree that atheism makes as much sense as theism...on non-duality. A fine blind, unsubstantiated guess!

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:
I'm dropping out now. All this circular arguing is just too time consuming. My final statement is, atheism is the only outlook that makes any sense at all. Make of it what you will.

I will agree that atheism makes as much sense as theism...on non-duality. A fine blind, unsubstantiated guess!

I think you are as misguided as the theists, Frank. Razzberries to you on this.

0 Replies

0 Replies

Frank, seriously, I will agree with your thesis that everything we hold to be the case is guesswork if by that you mean, as does the philosopher, Charles Saunders Pierce, that all we really have are opinions. But in that case I would still insist that some opinions are better grounded in experience than are others.

0 Replies

I'd say there's nothing on this thread to prove the thesis of the thread, or the opposite.

0 Replies

I'd say you got that right.

But there's always the consideration that a theist who agrees to take a test formulated by an atheist with this purpose isn't being very smart. Wink

Kind of like the mouse going for the cheese in the mousetrap, even though he knows it's a trap...

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Frank, seriously, I will agree with your thesis that everything we hold to be the case is guesswork if by that you mean, as does the philosopher, Charles Saunders Pierce, that all we really have are opinions. But in that case I would still insist that some opinions are better grounded in experience than are others.

Yup...the theists think their opinions are better grounded in experience than are others...

...the atheists think their opinions are better grounded in experience than are the others...

...the non-dualists and dualists both think their opinions are better grounded in experience than are the others.

What a pathetic sight!

The people who cannot see the reality...that we don't know the answers to these kinds of questions...and any guesses are as good as any other guesses...

...just shouldn't be arguing over who is more intelligent than the others.

What a pathetic situation!

0 Replies

From wikipedia:

"The term nondual is a literal translation of the Sanskrit term advaita. That is, things remain distinct while not being separate. " End quote.

Perception operates on different levels.

You, Frank, practice non-dualism when you heap together "the people who cannot see the reality..", and percieve them as one lot, instead of many different groups.

Delving further into the matter, seing the issue at another level, you practice dualism, when putting theists up against atheists.

In many ways you are arguing that this dualism is insubstantial. It is focusing on the equalities rather than the differences.

In learning we practice both non-dualism and dualism.

In learning a piece of music, for instance. At first we percieve it as a unity. One piece of music.
Then we delve into it, dividing it into many parts. We no longer, (for the duration of the study) percieve it as a non-dualistic unity of sound, but as a system of many dualistic counterparts working together.
Then, when we've finished the learning we percieve the piece of music as a non-dualistic unity of sound once more.

Now, all this time the piece of music has been the same. It is only the experience of it that has altered. The same goes for everything that it is humanly possible to percieve. It is fracturable, which is a dualistic approach, and then we can unify the concepts, which is practicing non-dualism. Regardless of this, the thing itself remains constant. It is only the mind that alters.

Non-dualism is not a belief. It is a perspective. The belief is that viewing the world soley as a non-dualistic unity results in a more harmonic existene.

Judging from the personalities of those who follow this practice and those who don't I am inclined to say that this is indeed so.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

real life wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
While I don't mind the distinction of one who is without god, but who at the same time doesn't haggle over the possibility of a god, I don't see it that way at all. They invented god from the imagination, simply because their emotions, or reasoning, told them there has to be one. An assertion without foundation. I don't need evidence to reject such a fiction totally.

I can accept that you don't need evidence for your rejection. However, do you have evidence of the rest of your claim? Specifically that God was invented from the imagination of emotional people without reason?

Do you have evidence it wasn't?

It was your claim.....not mine. I take that as a no. You cannot provide evidence of what you are claiming.

The evidence is particularly in the religious inability to produce evidence, even with thousands of years to do so.

So, an argument from silence? That's it?

Again, I ask , what kind of evidence are you referring to?

Do you not think it absurd to expect 'natural' evidence of the 'supernatural'?

I expect more than your word for it.

That's a reasonable response.

There's probably nobody's word you would take for it, is there?

So it is left to you.

Since it is obvious that you won't likely find 'natural' proof of 'supernatural' or 'spiritual' things, you'll have to take a different approach.

I suggest that you test for yourself.

Prayer is an excellent way to do this.

For instance, if you want to know if the God of the Bible answers prayer, there is a simple (though not necessarily easy) way to find out.

1. Investigate and find under what condition(s) the God of the Bible says He will answer prayer.

2. Be certain that you are meeting said condition(s).

3. Pray (talk, listen and ask) specifically and regularly to God about your matter.

4. Do not add additional restrictions, conditions, etc to your prayer (or the answer that you are asking for), that are not found in the Bible.

While not strictly scientific (since the conditions will not be able to be duplicated and re-tested), the result should be enough to provide a satisfactory result.

0 Replies

May the bird of paradise bless you all, not least the primo believer in agnosticism.

Atheists, smarter than religious people

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know