Atheists, smarter than religious people

Just to return, quixotically, to the titular topic--i've known some awfully damned intelligent theists (with the exception of that one flaw in their perceptive abilities) and some awfully damned stupid atheists.

Carry on.

0 Replies

I don't think intelligence has anything to do with religious belief. Every person is different, so why generalize? Being smarter or more intelligent does not make a person "better" than one who is less blessed with intelligence, not to say also that being considered smart is a relative thing depending on the cultures.

0 Replies

cello, I hear you, and agree. Intelligence is no indicator of living a humanistic life (whatever that means).

0 Replies

Adolf was very intelligent. But that didn't stop him from exterminating millions of people.
It is possible to be very intelligent and very stupid all at the same time, same as it is possible to be not very intelligent and very wise.

0 Replies

Hitler was a f*ckin' idiot. The only skill he ever displayed in his life (apart from being a gopher in the Bavarian Army in the Great War) was gutter politics. The greatest friend the Allies had on the continent of Europe in the Second World War was Adolf and his hubristic stupidity.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Chumly wrote:
real life wrote:
Chumly wrote:
Now that's good humors! But how do you know you chose not to, and it was not pre-ordained?

Pre-ordained by whom?

The whole idea of 'ordain' implies intelligence and purpose, unless you insist on a 'special' definition of your own making (i.e. unless you change the meaning of the word to suit yourself).
Why, pre-ordained by whatever force might do such pre-ordaining, naturally. In your case that would be your god moving you to act for moral's sake, of which naturally, your god is bound by.

Thus again I ask: But how do you know you chose not to, and it was not pre-ordained?

Well, perhaps you should ask a Calvinist such a question.

As for you and me, it would make for better discussion if it covered a position at least one of us held.

You still have not proven you chose anything at all! Are you now saying your god is not bound to act for moral's sake? Are you now saying there was no great flood?

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

real life wrote:
Chumly wrote:
real life wrote:
Chumly wrote:
Now that's good humors! But how do you know you chose not to, and it was not pre-ordained?

Pre-ordained by whom?

The whole idea of 'ordain' implies intelligence and purpose, unless you insist on a 'special' definition of your own making (i.e. unless you change the meaning of the word to suit yourself).
Why, pre-ordained by whatever force might do such pre-ordaining, naturally. In your case that would be your god moving you to act for moral's sake, of which naturally, your god is bound by.

Thus again I ask: But how do you know you chose not to, and it was not pre-ordained?

Well, perhaps you should ask a Calvinist such a question.

As for you and me, it would make for better discussion if it covered a position at least one of us held.
You still have not proven you chose anything at all! Are you now saying your god is not bound to act for moral's sake? Are you now saying there was no great flood?

Perhaps you have read someone else address either of these topics, but I have not chosen to do so.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Chumly wrote:
real life wrote:
Chumly wrote:
real life wrote:
Chumly wrote:
Now that's good humors! But how do you know you chose not to, and it was not pre-ordained?

Pre-ordained by whom?

The whole idea of 'ordain' implies intelligence and purpose, unless you insist on a 'special' definition of your own making (i.e. unless you change the meaning of the word to suit yourself).
Why, pre-ordained by whatever force might do such pre-ordaining, naturally. In your case that would be your god moving you to act for moral's sake, of which naturally, your god is bound by.

Thus again I ask: But how do you know you chose not to, and it was not pre-ordained?

Well, perhaps you should ask a Calvinist such a question.

As for you and me, it would make for better discussion if it covered a position at least one of us held.
You still have not proven you chose anything at all! Are you now saying your god is not bound to act for moral's sake? Are you now saying there was no great flood?

Perhaps you have read someone else address either of these topics, but I have not chosen to do so.

But how do you know you chose not to, and it was not pre-ordained?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Chumly wrote:
real life wrote:
Chumly wrote:
real life wrote:
Chumly wrote:
Now that's good humors! But how do you know you chose not to, and it was not pre-ordained?

Pre-ordained by whom?

The whole idea of 'ordain' implies intelligence and purpose, unless you insist on a 'special' definition of your own making (i.e. unless you change the meaning of the word to suit yourself).
Why, pre-ordained by whatever force might do such pre-ordaining, naturally. In your case that would be your god moving you to act for moral's sake, of which naturally, your god is bound by.

Thus again I ask: But how do you know you chose not to, and it was not pre-ordained?

Well, perhaps you should ask a Calvinist such a question.

As for you and me, it would make for better discussion if it covered a position at least one of us held.
You still have not proven you chose anything at all! Are you now saying your god is not bound to act for moral's sake? Are you now saying there was no great flood?

Perhaps you have read someone else address either of these topics, but I have not chosen to do so.[/b]

Oops!

real life wrote:

mesquite wrote:
You are really into the literal reading of the Noah story aren't you real life?

Hi Mesquite,

The prediction that I referenced is regarding the end. It makes only a passing reference to Noah. But it happened all right, and so will the end that is similarly predicted.

And sorry, CI, I'm not a date setter.

0 Replies

In sum:

RL tells me he chose not to answer me, when I asked RL to prove his claim that JLN obviously had a choice on how JLN responded.

Thus I asked RL how he knew he chose not to answer, and that it was not pre-ordained that he chose not to answer.

RL said his position does not cover pre-ordained actions, and I should talk to a Calvinist.

Well here comes the humors; given that all god's actions must already known by god, all actions by god must preordained, thus the flood must have been preordained, and since it's also a given all god's actions must be moral, I thusly asked RL:

Are you now saying your god is not bound to act for moral's sake?
Are you now saying there was no great flood?

0 Replies

Gee, that's kind of sad to learn that god already knew he was going to flood the world so he would be asking Noah to build that huge boat.

He knew he was going to be a mass murderer before he even created this planet. GOSH!

Why did he even bother "sacrificing" his own son for the sins of the world? He knew all would be sinners. That sacrifice was for who, and to appease who? Getting a little confused.

0 Replies

Neo used to suggest at this point that god somehow hobbled his all-powerful-ness and was thus able to act. I never did understand how he made that suggestion real for himself, but as per the topic at hand, I guess it suggests he was creative, and creativity suggests intelligence.

CI, what happened to ol' Neo? Neo and RL used to make an entertaining tag team and I learned things along the way. I kind'a miss ol' Doc too, he often had interesting viewpoints as per his Satanism and thoughtful posts.

Anywho, the thing is, RL cannot say his position does not cover pre-ordained actions, and then say there was a flood, because the flood had to have been a preordained action.

Further, RL cannot say his position does not cover pre-ordained actions, unless he is willing to claim god is not bound to act for moral's sake, because how else would god know if his actions were moral, unless his actions and outcomes were preordained.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Neo used to suggest at this point that god somehow hobbled his all-powerful-ness and was thus able to act. I never did understand how he made that suggestion real for himself, but as per the topic at hand, I guess it suggests he was creative, and creativity suggests intelligence.

CI, what happened to ol' Neo? Neo and RL used to make an entertaining tag team and I learned things along the way. I kind'a miss ol' Doc too, he often had interesting viewpoints as per his Satanism and thoughtful posts.

Anywho, the thing is, RL cannot say his position does not cover pre-ordained actions, and then say there was a flood, because the flood had to have been a preordained action.

Further, RL cannot say his position does not cover pre-ordained actions, unless he is willing to claim god is not bound to act for moral's sake, because how else would god know if his actions were moral, unless his actions and outcomes were preordained.

You are mixing two issues.

Your original question regarding preordination was: how do I know MY actions are not preordained.

Now you are changing the question and asking if God had preordained HIS OWN actions.

Two completely different questions.

------------------------------------

And yes Mesquite, I've discussed the flood previously. My meaning was that I had not addressed it in THIS thread, when Chumly said 'Are you NOW saying......' when I had not said anything about it AT THIS TIME (i.e now).

0 Replies

I've clearly show you contradict yourself. Your unsubstantiated claim they are "completely different questions" lacks merit. It follows that if god knows what he will do, then he would know what you would do also.

RL cannot say his position does not cover pre-ordained actions, and then say there was a flood, because the flood had to have been a preordained action.

RL cannot say his position does not cover pre-ordained actions, unless he is willing to claim god is not bound to act for moral's sake, because how else would god know if his actions were moral, unless his actions and outcomes were preordained

0 Replies

Man has free will, but god does too! God just happens to know what kind of "penalty" he will exact to people/humans before the event occurs. He saved only two of each animal; all them other animals of the same species were sinners - after all! LOL

0 Replies

C.I., an old man told me this morning that he did not believe in God but that he is pretty sure God believes in him.

0 Replies

A copout statement if I ever heard of one.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

I've clearly show you contradict yourself. Your unsubstantiated claim they are "completely different questions" lacks merit. It follows that if god knows what he will do, then he would know what you would do also.

RL cannot say his position does not cover pre-ordained actions, and then say there was a flood, because the flood had to have been a preordained action.

RL cannot say his position does not cover pre-ordained actions, unless he is willing to claim god is not bound to act for moral's sake, because how else would god know if his actions were moral, unless his actions and outcomes were preordained

Yes, God knows what I will do.

That is not the same as saying that it was preordained, (i.e. that God 'caused' or ordered that I must do so).

from www.merriamwebster.com

Main Entry: pre·or·dain
Pronunciation: "prE-or-'dAn
Function: transitive verb
: to decree or ordain in advance : FOREORDAIN

Main Entry: or·dain
Pronunciation: or-'dAn
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English ordeinen, from Anglo-French ordener, ordeiner, from Late Latin ordinare, from Latin, to put in order, appoint, from ordin-, ordo order
transitive verb
1 : to invest officially (as by the laying on of hands) with ministerial or priestly authority
2 a : to establish or order by appointment, decree, or law : ENACT <we the people...do ordain and establish this Constitution -- U.S. Constitution> b : DESTINE, FOREORDAIN
intransitive verb : to issue an order

Main Entry: fore·or·dain
Pronunciation: "for-or-'dAn
Function: transitive verb
: to dispose or appoint in advance : PREDESTINE
- fore·or·di·na·tion /-"or-d&-'nA-sh&n/ noun

0 Replies

You still have not proven your so-called "choice" was not preordained, nor for that matter made argument as to why this "choice" was not preordained.

Well it's been insightful, but likely not for the reasons you might hope, cheers!

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

You still have not proven your so-called "choice" was not preordained, nor for that matter made argument as to why this "choice" was not preordained.

Well it's been insightful, but likely not for the reasons you might hope, cheers!

Since you and I agree that my actions were not preordained (you don't believe that God preordains, do you Chumly?), then what is your point in asking that I prove what you already believe?

0 Replies

Atheists, smarter than religious people

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know