9
   

Atheists, smarter than religious people

 
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 09:24 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
Pauligirl
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 09:27 pm
Ok, how about this. I'm an atheist in that I don't think that any of the gods that have even been worshiped on this earth exists. No Jupiter, Thor, Jehovah, Krishna, Jesus, Allah and so on - the gods we've been spoon-fed since childhood but still find thoroughly unconvincing . When I say no gods exists, I mean of those so far offered as religion's deities. The word "agnostic" means literally "without knowledge" or, more simply, "I don't know," and I don't know what's out there. Maybe we need a new word for folks that have no belief in the gods of organized religion.

P
0 Replies
 
Ashers
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 09:30 pm
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?
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 09:33 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 09:35 pm
No offense taken edgar.

MAybe because I don't see your point :wink:
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 09:35 pm
timberlandko wrote:
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.


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.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 09:36 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 09:38 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:
I didn't call atheists hypocrites. I did say it makes no senseĀ…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.
Atheism does makes sense and it's just another belief system, to the degree with which it becomes ever more concrete over time, due to discovery by science, that a creator is not only not a necessary part of creation, but no evidence has been uncovered for such a creator.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 09:38 pm
has it been said......? Athiests are often highly educated - though not always. Is there a correspondence between higher ed and knowledge gained therein that combats a religious perspective?
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 09:40 pm
edit.... and it's (not) just another belief.....
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 09:46 pm
People, even very smart people, assume any comment about religion engages the concept of religion in some way - oh, look, fly in the ointment.



People who are void of engagement get lassooed into atheism of some intent. Having no theism doesn't call up intent.



I see that many cannot understand boredom towards their concentrated and elaborate thoughts, re or not, re 1% to 99%.



People fear the word "void", and so ascribe it attibutes.



As an aside, some of us just post to watch the flying spaghetti.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 09:49 pm
I wouldn't say one size fits ALL, but generally speaking most people who subscribe to religion have their questions answered, and stop thinking about a variety of puzzlements.

I think the ever popular "God said" defense of scientific events/hypothesis marks our Friends of the Smooth Cerebrum.

Just that small aspect and the continuing ruminations of the non-religious likely make them more knowledgable about a wider variety of subjects....eh?
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 09:50 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 09:51 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 09:54 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 09:59 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
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.


Smile Shocked
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 10:29 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 10:33 pm
timberlandko wrote:
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.


You can dress a duck in all sorts of outfits, but it's still a duck. Inventing a concept out of blue air is simply that; inventing it out of blue air. Expecting somebody to seriously consider it is to be removed from reality. Waiting for evidence of god. What a laugh.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 10:48 pm
Its not "waiting for evidence", edgar, one way or the other, its acknowledging no evidence, one way or the other, permits any definitive conclusion, one way or the other. Now, I will say that by the available evidence, the probability of the existence of any god or gods is vanishingly small, to the point of near certainty. However, for that, one must acknowledge only exceedingly - to the point of statistical insignificance - small probability is scientifically determinable. Science - contemporary, post Einsteinian Science - is not about absolutes, it is about questions and probabilities; both theism and atheism entail unquestioned absolutes.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 11:20 pm
It is possible to "create" a concept of god that would be indisputable.

An abstract that would have no relation to the actual world except as a construct for categorization of abstract terms.

But that's neither science or religion. It's philosophy, and in that game pretty much anything goes. After all, god is merely a word. The problem is that we define it as something impossible and proceed to argue wether it's true or not.
I have yet to see the -ism that seeks to define god as something plausible, something definable and unquestionable. It shouldn't be impossible. We have string theory, after all...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/18/2022 at 10:25:11