Atheists, smarter than religious people

I am gratified that some of the more technical stuff has rung a few bells and apologise to those who find it opaque. I would just add that if Frank thinks it gets me "through the day" I have not noticed it !

We know that in our actual experience everything exists in terms of degrees* which is why the best descriptions of life are the most nuanced ones. Descriptions in terms of absolutes appear as intellectual cartoons. Opposites, as I said, do not exist in nature; they only exist as matters of logic and then are imposed for its organizational value on experience.

real life wrote:

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?

Well... real life... I wasn't pulling anyone down. I was stating my opinion. This is a forum, people are allowed to do that. Right? The statements I made were not intended toward you, however it almost seems as though you are offended and feel it was some sort of indirect slight on my part. Never the less, to answer your question pulling others down does not lift me up. Actually, to be totally honest here it does nothing for me either way. What I said doesn't make me feel bad either. I don't regret what I said. I am speaking based out of what I have experienced through christianity. What I saw and lived and watched others live for 17 years of my life.

Simply put that is the majority putting on a plastic smile every sunday as if it were part of their wardrobe, walking around with a bunch of pat answers to the things they don't understand or know, and believing every word that is said by that most holy man behind the pulpit, simply because he said it. The icing on the cake is that when sunday is over so is the plastic smile. They go back to life as it was, unchanged, take every opportunity they get to tell someone they are going to hell for not believing in "god", or how they "ought to be" living their life, then pat each other on the back the next sunday at how many people they "witnessed" to that week.

Are all "christians" like this? Absolutely not. I've met some very sincere, kind, compassionate, gentle "christians".There's even a few here. Yet the majority are not. They are self-serving, self-righteous, hypocrites whose main concern in life seems to be how to get "god" to bless them more. Guess what real life. I was one of those "christians" too. For quite a while actually. I'm not stating anything that I haven't seen myself having fault in as well. We're all human after all. Trying to find our way through this maze of life.

However, that does not excuse in any way the things that "christians" are doing in the name of their "god". The lies. The double standards. The hypocrisy they practice while being in total denial that THEY could ever do anything hypocritical... I could keep going... but I'll stop there. So, no real life "pot shots" don't give credence to what I say. The nice thing is though, they don't have to. Anyone who has eyes and is standing outside of "christianity" doesn't need to hear what I have to say. They can see it for themselves. The only ones who can't are the very ones I'm calling brainwashed.

Go figure...

My last reponse to rl may have been too hard to find in the last post I made. It was an a2k glitch. But, this really is my final post here, at least for the time being. This was what I wrote:

I tried for several years to find belief within myself. Lived and breathed church and Bible until many folks expected I would become a minister and were surprised years later, when I did not. I simply could not dupe myself.



So, rl's suggestion only works on those predisposed to belief without anything real to go on.

edgarblythe wrote:

My last reponse to rl may have been too hard to find in the last post I made. It was an a2k glitch. But, this really is my final post here, at least for the time being. This was what I wrote:

I tried for several years to find belief within myself. Lived and breathed church and Bible until many folks expected I would become a minister and were surprised years later, when I did not. I simply could not dupe myself.



So, rl's suggestion only works on those predisposed to belief without anything real to go on.

Well, EB, you constantly ask for 'evidence' but dont state what type of 'evidence' would satisfy you.

My point is that 'natural' evidence of the 'supernatural' is probably a contradiction in terms, so a different tack must be taken.

I have found that very often I have received answers to prayer regarding things over which I had no control.

I am not talking about a good feeling, or similar subjective inner results of prayer, although that can seem emotionally satisfying.

I don't pray asking for, or expecting good feelings. So I don't think a predisposition to believe has any relevance to what I was discussing.

real life wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:

My last reponse to rl may have been too hard to find in the last post I made. It was an a2k glitch. But, this really is my final post here, at least for the time being. This was what I wrote:

I tried for several years to find belief within myself. Lived and breathed church and Bible until many folks expected I would become a minister and were surprised years later, when I did not. I simply could not dupe myself.



So, rl's suggestion only works on those predisposed to belief without anything real to go on.

Well, EB, you constantly ask for 'evidence' but dont state what type of 'evidence' would satisfy you.

My point is that 'natural' evidence of the 'supernatural' is probably a contradiction in terms, so a different tack must be taken.

I have found that very often I have received answers to prayer regarding things over which I had no control.

I am not talking about a good feeling, or similar subjective inner results of prayer, although that can seem emotionally satisfying.

I don't pray asking for, or expecting good feelings. So I don't think a predisposition to believe has any relevance to what I was discussing.

My asking for evidence is only rhetorical, since it is obvious there isn't any. Nothing will convince me a god exists, particularly one of the sort you may pray to.

OK, then, since the statement 'there is no God' apparently isn't falsifiable (at least in your view), would you agree that it does not qualify as a scientific statement?

If so, how does basing your view on an unproven, and unprovable statement that is outside the realm of science make you any different from those you criticize?

JLN.

Just to clarify, it was Von Foerster who developed "observation of observation" whereas Sobottka (a former renowned physicist) moves from QM's nonduality to develop an ontology involving "consciousness" along esoteric lines.

As for Frank's "belief sytem" it fails to have meaning at such levels of analysis because he contrasts "belief" with "naive reality". No such contrast is possible because "naive realism" is itself a "belief system" according to his (unstated) terms ! He cannot see that "knowledge" and "truth" are pragmatic and relative, not fixed or absolute, and that "belief" or "conjecture" is a vehicle for actively structuring all "mental activities". I of course appreciate and applaud the diplomacy of your replies to Frank in this matter and it is a shame that he thinks some of these basic points are "over his head".

Real Life,

You raise the question of the "scientific equality" of theists and atheists.
This is futile except to point out that the disputes amongst different varieties of theism naturally leads an atheist to the comment "a plague on all their houses" (apologies to the Bard). What matters is the pragmatics of the position and in terms of soporific and pernicious outcomes I argue that an intellectual tends to judge theism as an inferior position irrespective of any "scientific issues" like "falsifiability in principle".

Quoting Drewdad, apparently some hours ago; he said to Frank -

So, you close down debate by defining a term the way you choose to define it (close minnded), and by asserting that others don't really believe what they state that they believe and then attacking the position you claim they hold (strawman).

I do see that as your MO, Frank. Define others and taunt.

It isn't all that useful for exploration for many. I've held varied views, and bullyswatting hasn't affected change in my views, except to make me suspect the bully views. You don't listen to others explanations of how they think.

That is finally your loss, as we all form a kind of continuum.

Really, winning isn't an issue here, for many.

Frank, I regret that you've dragged me to the level of asking you: Does it actually feel good to pretend to be a jerk?* People who know you assure me that you are not.

* I refer not to your insults, but to your deliberate efforts to misunderstand what another is saying, and then to react in a sometimes childish way against that misunderstanding. Earlier you made an adult statement. Unfortunately I can't find it.

Now bring on your insult.