Atheists, smarter than religious people

I'm late to this thread but if atheists are so much smarter than religious folk then why don't the atheists have their own broadcast networks, books, tapes, why aren't they selling atheist icons, why aren't they fleecing the public out of their hard earned money right out in the open, getting away with it, and even getting tax exempt status to do it? Hmmmm?

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

I'm late to this thread but if atheists are so much smarter than religious folk then why don't the atheists have their own broadcast networks, books, tapes, why aren't they selling atheist icons, why aren't they fleecing the public out of their hard earned money right out in the open, getting away with it, and even getting tax exempt status to do it? Hmmmm?

Frank.

Your genuine attempt to understand must start from this:

There is a level of "awareness of everyday self as an object" which is as as different to "the norm" as walking is to swimming. Like swimming this level cannot be "taught from outside the pool" it must be experienced. The experience is not about "belief" because there is "no believer" anymore...there is merely detached observation of a conditioned ego (one of many) interacting through language with "its world". The arbitrary conditioning, the attachments to "my things" including "my life" are seen as passing ripples within the flux. The experience may be fleeting but its quality is unmistakeable.....and within it lies "selfless communion with the whole"....not some illusary objectified deity which some worship as "God".

And you may well ask...having "experienced" this state why do I not give up my worldly goods and attachments etc?....because the state is transitory and any "I" returned to is enmeshed in its worldliness. This very act of communication with you is evidence of that worldliness for if we were both within that state no words would be necessary between us...indeed there would be no "us" ...only "consciousness".

There is no answer except to repeat to you that "delusion" is predicated on "worldly reality" (naive realism) and that observation is itself the very thing of "quality" that is "experienced". You will not grasp this from outside the pool and that is why citation of non-esoteric evidence of "the pool" (like the implications of QM) are important to the case.

...because there are two different "I's" in your question both at the same level (naive realism). In the scenario of "enlightenment" there is no "I" present in the "quality experience".

And even if you are intelligent enough to know or understand that you may in fact be deluding yourself (with your belief in a god figure that you may think is chosen instead of inherent), if it does impact your life in a positive way while you are living here on earth- in what way does that constitute a lack of logic, rationality, intelligence, or even a bad choice?

People who claim religious or spiritual beliefs score higher in terms of life satisfaction in almost every aspect of it- job, relationships, health, etc. So I disagree that it's a choice that is predicated solely on the wish for some future otherworldly existence that may or may not be forthcoming. Many people are more interested in what it provides in terms of experiences for whatever life they have while they're here.

I read this really interesting study in which they found that the strongest correlating factor for religious belief was the education level of the father. This would seem to speak to your point about naive realism. We all have the paradigms of our own individual experiences and realities affected or created in some way (at least the framework) by our own specific circumstances. Most often we choose the reality that is most comfortable (or familiar) to us.

DrewDad wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

I have no intention of hiding from my words...and I doubt I've ever given reason for anyone who is not a jackass, moron, or worse to think I would.

This almost managed to be clever.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Bite me, Moron!

This, sadly, is more your style....

So far...all you've done is snipe....right from your very first post.

If you have something to say on the issue being discussed...say it.

If not...why don't you back to playing with the other kids.

Cyracuz,

I think we need to distinguish between "observation of the world" and "observation of observation". The later is expounded within "second order cybernetics" (see Von Foerster) and examines nested levels of "systems". The tool of "nonduality" could either be used horizontally (no part of a system has "reality" independent of that system) or vertically (no system has "reality" independent of "the next level" (this corresponds to Godels incompleteness theorem). Franks concept of "nonduality" as a "belief system applies only to "observation of the world" where "the world" for him is one of "naive realism" i.e. one in which "reality" is distinguished from "belief". He has no concept of second order analysis and the interesting question of whether nesting is open or closed.