Atheists, smarter than religious people

What amazes me about agnostics and the religious, they take a blind guess that there is or may be a god, then say atheists are making the wild guesses. It's like George Bush saying, we got to take Hussein out before he bombs Toledo.

I wonder what all this says about those born into an atheist family who become religious? Also, how specific is the line drawn between following the herd and thinking outside the box?

edgarblythe wrote:

What amazes me about agnostics and the religious, they take a blind guess that there is or may be a god, then say atheists are making the wild guesses. It's like George Bush saying, we got to take Hussein out before he bombs Toledo.

Nonsense, edgar (with all respect); agnosticism is the opposite of the very "blind guesses" which lead either to theism or atheism. Now, agnosticism may range anywhere from mild/questioning to strong/skeptical, but the core of agnosticism's thesis is "Insufficient data to support reasonable conclusion one way or the other". Theism guesses one way exclusively, atheism guesses exclusively the other way, agnosticism hazzards neither guess; agnosticism acknowledges the question is unresolved and admits the question may be irresolvable.

Ashers wrote:

I wonder what all this says about those born into an atheist family who become religious? Also, how specific is the line drawn between following the herd and thinking outside the box?

Thare have been prominent atheists, the children of ministers. To me, proving nothing.

I didn't call atheists hypocrites. I did say it makes no sense…and it doesn't. I did say, "Atheism, after all, is either hypocrisy...or just another belief system...and you will agree, that makes no sense." Either/or! And it is.

edgarblythe wrote:

Ashers wrote:

I wonder what all this says about those born into an atheist family who become religious? Also, how specific is the line drawn between following the herd and thinking outside the box?

Thare have been prominent atheists, the children of ministers. To me, proving nothing.

There have also been prominent theists, the children of atheists. To me, proving something.

Intrepid wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:

Ashers wrote:

I wonder what all this says about those born into an atheist family who become religious? Also, how specific is the line drawn between following the herd and thinking outside the box?

Thare have been prominent atheists, the children of ministers. To me, proving nothing.

There have also been prominent theists, the children of atheists. To me, proving something.

Proving what? In some families it goes one way; in other families another way. Seems to cancel any point to be made for either side.

edgarblythe wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:

Ashers wrote:

I wonder what all this says about those born into an atheist family who become religious? Also, how specific is the line drawn between following the herd and thinking outside the box?

Thare have been prominent atheists, the children of ministers. To me, proving nothing.

There have also been prominent theists, the children of atheists. To me, proving something.

Proving what? In some families it goes one way; in other families another way. Seems to cancel any point to be made for either side.

Exactly. Thus proving that atheists are not smarter than religious people.

Intrepid wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:

Ashers wrote:

I wonder what all this says about those born into an atheist family who become religious? Also, how specific is the line drawn between following the herd and thinking outside the box?

Thare have been prominent atheists, the children of ministers. To me, proving nothing.

There have also been prominent theists, the children of atheists. To me, proving something.

Proving what? In some families it goes one way; in other families another way. Seems to cancel any point to be made for either side.

Exactly. Thus proving that atheists are not smarter than religious people.

I'm not one who has said that religious folk are necessarily dumb. Only misguided.

Agnosticism is giving in to a blind guess that god exists, to the extent of giving it a sort of credence, simply because of the difficulty of proving the negative. The atheist sees that god is a rabbit out of a hat and refuses to be duped.

edgarblythe wrote:

Agnosticism is giving in to a blind guess that god exists, to the extent of giving it a sort of credence, simply because of the difficulty of proving the negative. The atheist sees that god is a rabbit out of a hat and refuses to be duped.

Sorry, edgar, that's a straw man, just sophism. Agnosticism - legitimate agnosticism - makes no guess, one way or the other, pertaining to the existence, non-existence, possibility, or impossibility of a god or gods. Its not a matter of "... giving it a sort of credence, simply because of the difficulty of proving the negative", it is a very simple and honest matter of refusing to be duped by any purportedly conclusive proposition relevant thereunto. Honest agnosticism entails accepting, objectively and logically, what is shown by the evidence as opposed to endorsing a preference. "I/We don't know" is an honest, objective assessment, "There is/is not a god or gods" is a preferential, subjective guess.