Atheists, smarter than religious people

mesquite wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
JL...according to his post...KNOWS the REALITY of what is or is not after death...and any possible afterlife scenarios have to be, in his wild, blind, unsubstantiated guess...fiction.

I would be interested in how you could possibly describe any afterlife scenerios as other than fiction.

POSSIBLE afterlife!

And I would like to know why you suppose it has to be fiction.

0 Replies

Frank, you godamm, phukin, moron*, I never said anything of the kind. I openly admit that I GUESS that after life will mostly likely be like before birth. I can't see any reason why they should be different.

*Oh, Frank, that felt SO good. Maybe you're right: that it's vastly superior to behave like a savage than a civil person.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Real Life asks: "Is it your position that science can establish or has established that there is no God?"
No, Science is too sober to address such a pseudo issue. But the world as Science has come to describe it seems totally inconsistent with the supernaturalist conception of reality. In the Middle Ages the general world view did not contradict the edicts of formal religion as much as does the Science-influenced world view that you and I live in.

Seems like you are trying to answer both 'No' and 'Yes' at the same time, JLN.

'No' because you know that to be the correct answer, science hasn't and cannot establish that there is no God. Not even close.

'Yes' because you are clearly uncomfortable with a straight 'No', so you relate what 'seems' inconsistent to you without citing any scientific evidence that would contradict the existence of God.

If 'No' is truly your answer, then the second question is quite relevant:

If not, isn't your philosophical atheism (i.e. non-scientific atheism) up against the same barrier that you claim the theists cannot get past, i.e. it is adopted for 'psychological reasons' of little objective value since they are not empirically based?

0 Replies

RL, there could be much to that. I certainly have no psychological need for either theism or atheism. Nor do I feel any need for Science to come up with a definitive disproof. As they say where Frank is from, "it makes me no nevermind."
I really don't care how individuals adjust to their mortality. I just hope it works for them--I'd prefer that they achieve what I consider spiritual liberation, but that's not my business. I do hope that they not adopt the belief that others are not only wrong but immoral in their error.

0 Replies

These idiots play the proof game, meanwhile asserting belief (or possibility of) in something that has absolutely no foundation. It's a fool's errand to try to be nice to their assertions.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

These idiots play the proof game, meanwhile asserting belief (or possibility of) in something that has absolutely no foundation. It's a fool's errand to try to be nice to their assertions.

Can I, as someone who asserts "belief", but doesn't indulge in the "proof game", claim exemption from your "idiot" label?

0 Replies

To Snood and Edgar-

I think that it is blatantly unfair to describe a believer as an "idiot", simply because his beliefs do not correspond with yours. On the other hand, if someone asserts his beliefs as truth in public, he is opening himself to evaluation and criticism.

0 Replies

We get called as bad or worse.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

We get called as bad or worse.

Maybe so, but two wrongs don't make a right.

I live in a town whose people are the essence of middle America. They are mostly church going Christians. I have friends amongst them, with whom I do not discuss religion. I have discovered a few like minded people in the area, and do sometimes discuss religion with them.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Quote:

Hi Frank,
I floated up from the basement renovations to have a bit to eat and ask question #2:

2) I claim that you, as an (rational sane) agnostic, can only argue in a real world pragmatic sense for the possibility of a god, if you are willing to assert that there could be a set of circumstances whereby at least you would be convinced of a god. Do you agree with my claim (yes or no)?

NO.

0 Replies

JL originally wrote:

Quote:

Real Life asks: "Is it your position that science can establish or has established that there is no God?"
No, Science is too sober to address such a pseudo issue. But the world as Science has come to describe it seems totally inconsistent with the supernaturalist conception of reality. In the Middle Ages the general world view did not contradict the edicts of formal religion as much as does the Science-influenced world view that you and I live in.

Regarding Gel's comment, pragmatically speaking, I do not think it makes a shred of difference FOR THIS LIFE whether or not God exists. He applies only to what happens to us in a fictious AFTER life, not in this (our only) life. Whether God does or does not exist is a difference that makes no difference.

To which, I replied:

Quote:

JL...as usual being unreasonable...has already determined that there is nothing after what he calls "this life."

JL...according to his post...KNOWS the REALITY of what is or is not after death...and any possible afterlife scenarios have to be, in his wild, blind, unsubstantiated guess...fiction.

I don't suppose JL would be willing to share with us just how he obtained this knowledge....or is he going to hide behind that "too sober to address a pseudo issue?" (Like a real scientist would predetermine that something is pseudo without investigation...as a rational for not investigating it!!!!)

Rather than backing up his original assertions that an afterlife is fictitiousand that "this" is our only lifewhich is stated as a fact, not as a guessJL wrote:

Quote:

Frank, you godamm, phukin, moron*, I never said anything of the kind.

Wellsince you didn't quote what was said hereI suppose you could weasel out of this by pretending you were talking about something elsebut if you were talking about the "afterlife" commentyou sure as shyt did say it. And there it is in black and white.

Quote:

I openly admit that I GUESS that after life will mostly likely be like before birth. I can't see any reason why they should be different.

Point out the wordingbecause it is not there. You described the afterlife as fictitious (you did misspell it) and you did assert that this is our only life. Not a word of "belief" or "guess."

Quote:

*Oh, Frank, that felt SO good. Maybe you're right: that it's vastly superior to behave like a savage than a civil person.

I know what you mean, JL. Actually, I never described it as vastly superiorbut I agree that it can be soothing. And it has the advantage of being real and honestrather than the kind of thing some people do with their backdoor insults carefully crafted to look as though they really aren't. Don't get too use to it, though. I can become seductive. Even I, an expert in its use, have to be careful and selective.

0 Replies

At the high risk of being shouted down by Frank's turgid "last wordism" I'm going to reiterate the central issue of this thread, that of the correlation between "intelligence " and "atheism". It is clear to me that anyone described as "intelligent" cannot accept a fundamentalist concept of "God" and must adopt ad hoc mental mechanisms to maintain any possibility of a providential anthropomorphic creator interested in the "welfare" of mankind. Where "intelligence" takes us beyond that (and I claim a certain modicum of that) is either towards "materiality" and "utilitarianism" or the possibility for "spirituality" (a bad word I think because it is sometimes confused with "religiosity") which is a transcendent observational mode in which the consequences of "the individual self" as an insignificant cosmic entity are contemplated. Such a contemplation involving awareness of one's own conditioning, requires significant "intelligence" and therefore may not be available to all.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Chumly wrote:

Quote:
Hi Frank,
I floated up from the basement renovations to have a bit to eat and ask question #2:

2) I claim that you, as an (rational sane) agnostic, can only argue in a real world pragmatic sense for the possibility of a god, if you are willing to assert that there could be a set of circumstances whereby at least you would be convinced of a god. Do you agree with my claim (yes or no)?
NO.

Given 1) how else would you argue for the possibility of a god, if not in a real world pragmatic sense in which you are willing to assert that there could be a set of circumstances whereby at least you would be convinced of a god?

1) For you as an agnostic you claim there is the possibility of a god.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

At the high risk of being shouted down by Frank's turgid "last wordism" I'm going to reiterate the central issue of this thread, that of the correlation between "intelligence " and "atheism". It is clear to me that anyone described as "intelligent" cannot accept a fundamentalist concept of "God" and must adopt ad hoc mental mechanisms to maintain any possibility of a providential anthropomorphic creator interested in the "welfare" of mankind. Where "intelligence" takes us beyond that (and I claim a certain modicum of that) is either towards "materiality" and "utilitarianism" or the possibility for "spirituality" (a bad word I think because it is sometimes confused with "religiosity") which is a transcendent observational mode in which the consequences of "the individual self" as an insignificant cosmic entity are contemplated. Such a contemplation involving awareness of one's own conditioning, requires significant "intelligence" and therefore may not be available to all.

After reading this post...I must reiterate my position that there is a difference between intelligence and being learned...and if Fresco is any example...atheists are not nearly as intelligent as most theists.

0 Replies

Still haven't seen that answer, Frank.
Meanwhile; does anyone remember the Rainmakers?

Bob Walkenhorst wrote:

The Wages of Sin

I was praying last night when an angel broke the line
She said I'm gonna have to put you on hold for a time
I said hold like hell, let me talk to the boss
She said sorry, sinner, it's the boss's day off
And I realized then that the wages of sin
Was two bucks an hour and working weekends

I was ignoring the thief who was lashed to the cross
He cried help me get this son-of-a-bitch off
I said I would if I could, I can't so I won't
Well I wouldn't want you messing your hair up, so don't
And I realized then that the wages of sin
Was all the lumber you can carry, all the nails you can bend

The wages of sin, the reward of fear
Is worrying and fretting every second of the year
If heaven is guilt, no sex and no show
Then I'm not sure if I really want to go

The wages of sin, the price that you pay
Is worrying and fretting every second of the day
The Church and the State, your God and Countrykind
One gets your body, the other gets your mind

Mary Mary Magdalene, how 'bout a date?
You've been wasting your time staying up so late
Your boyfriend's dead, the word is you're a whore
Just about then I heard a knock on the door
And I realized then that the wages of sin
Was a bad reputation and too many friends

The wages of sin

He really struck brilliance with No Romance.

0 Replies

Given 1) how else would you argue for the possibility of a god, if not in a real world pragmatic sense in which you are willing to assert that there could be a set of circumstances whereby at least you would be convinced of a god?

1) For you as an agnostic you claim there is the possibility of a god.

ChumlyI am asserting there is the possibility of a god.not that there is a set of circumstances whereby I would be convinced of a godwhatever that means to you.

There is the "possibility" of damn near anythingexcept for things defined as impossibleand there is no way I would say that my assertion of any of those possibilities are contingent upon a set of circumstances whereby I would be convinced of their existence.

You thesis is bizarre (not meaning an insult).

You pretty much forced me into a single word answerand the answer I think that comes closest to the reality for meis NO. If I had the opportunity to express the answer in more than one wordI would have said what I said earlir in response to this question: "I agree it would be difficult for me to KNOW the circumstances that would convince me of the existence of a godbut as I mentioned, if (SOMETHING) managed to write a specific prediction that the entire Solar System would be moved to somewhere else in the galaxyand if astronomers concurred that the entire Solar System indeed had been movedI certainly would pause and consider the notion. (I dare say most people would!) Whether it would convince me or not is speculation. I most assuredly will not be convinced by some statue "crying"or some "miracle cure" or the like. "

I further GUESS(the problem with hypotheticals is one must GUESS)that if I died and there is an afterlife and there is a God and the God greeted me in some unimaginable unambiguous way AS GODI would be convinced of the God's existence.

You seem amazed and perplexed by my responsebut I don't see it as all that complex.

Where are you going with this?

0 Replies

By the way, Chumly...

...if you feel my extended answer translates better into a YES...

...by all means, change my answer to YES.

I really would like to help you move this endeavor along.

0 Replies

Frank, your comment about Fresco reveals how an intelligent man (yourself) can render himself stupid for who-knows-what psychological reasons.
Frankly, your interpretations of my comments show how your only purpose here is to "win" something--who knows what?

Fresco, I appreciate your perspective on intelligence as a property that "takes us beyond" issues which are fundamentally a matter of the operations of lower levels of intelligence. I would argue that the fundamentalist conception of "a providential anthropomorphic creator interested in the 'welfare' of mankind" is NOT EVEN WRONG: it is absurd.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Still haven't seen that answer, Frank.

0 Replies

Bill, if I owe you a response to something...I missed it. Just repeat the question and I will respond.

0 Replies

Atheists, smarter than religious people

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know