9
   

Atheists, smarter than religious people

 
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jan, 2007 07:51 am
Frank Apisa 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.


Only an atheist could conceive of saying that something "may be"…is a blind guess!


Giving credence to somebody else's blind guess.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jan, 2007 08:06 am
edgarblythe wrote:
Frank Apisa 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.


Only an atheist could conceive of saying that something "may be"…is a blind guess!


Giving credence to somebody else's blind guess.


If you want to insist that saying "gods may exist"...is a blind guess...do so. The fact is that saying "gods may exist" is essentially identical to saying "gods may or may not exist."

How that can be conceived of as a wild guess is beyond me. I guess you have to be an atheist to understand that kind of reasoning.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jan, 2007 08:07 am
Frank is back and must be well rested. He is making sense. Smile
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jan, 2007 08:08 am
Intrepid wrote:
Frank is back and must be well rested. He is making sense. Smile


Stick around!

Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jan, 2007 09:52 am
Is anybody on this thread intelligent enough to see that unless "existence" is defined and analysed the discussion is futile. So called "guessing" about "existence" when we are not prepared to say what "existence" entails is like juggling with water.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jan, 2007 10:00 am
fresco wrote:
Is anybody on this thread intelligent enough to see that unless "existence" is defined and analysed the discussion is futile. So called "guessing" about "existence" when we are not prepared to say what "existence" entails is like juggling with water.


For the pedant...I guess that is a problem.

For those of us "intelligent enough" to see that the discussion can continue without pendantry...it is not.

Perhaps you are involved in the wrong thread, Fresco.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jan, 2007 10:13 am
You still flunk the philosophy exam, Frank whatever you think of the material.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jan, 2007 10:37 am
existence:- the Is-tence of x. x-is-tence. In other words, presence. Smile
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jan, 2007 10:41 am
fresco wrote:
You still flunk the philosophy exam, Frank whatever you think of the material.


More than likely, Fresco...more than likely.

In any case...how about you give two conflicting definitions of "existence" and show how it impacts on what we are discussing.

You may have a point...but I sure as hell do not see it...and I honestly see it to be pedantry.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jan, 2007 11:06 am
To summarize,

This thread starts with evidence for the proposition that atheism is related to intelligence. (Such evidence is corroborated elsewhere). IMO The explanation for such a finding lies in at least four areas of mental ability.

(1) The ability to see that "evidence for God's existence" lies in the eye of the beholder.
(2) The ability to see that "spiritual transcendence of self" (isnness) (being a cornerstone of religion) requires no "deity" as a pre-condition.
(3) The ability to question "existence" as "naïve realism" and instead to conceive of it other terms (e.g. of social transactions with and without aspects of "physicality")
(4) The ability to see that ordinary "logicality" is insufficient as a vehicle for questioning the nature of conceptual categories like "gods" as "permanence within the flux".

Avoidance of areas such as these (especially 3 and 4) merely underscores the validity of the original proposition.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jan, 2007 11:24 am
...just to expand 3 a little...

"Naive realism" assumes there is a world of "things" out there independent of the activities of observers, whereas "reality as a social construct" sees the world as segmented.evoked, or "thinged" by the mutual needs of interlocuters via their common language. Thus in the second case "gods exist" by virtue of a common social need for "gods". The "physical evidence" for such gods if applicable at all is a side issue of little relevance in "this life" because "the need" places all bets on "the next".
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jan, 2007 11:56 am
Fresco…

…in the many years I've known you in cyberspace…I have seen you come into thread after thread…and go through the kind of shyt you are going through here.

I may be wrong…but (and I have mentioned this to you several times in the past) I have never felt you actually were trying to move a discussion along…or even contribute responsibly to it. You seem intent on being as pedantic as possible in damn near every one of your posts…and to be honest, most of them are boring almost to the point of numbness.

If you are trying to show that you are intelligent…even very intelligent…give it a goddam break…because it is obvious that you are very intelligent. Perhaps "learned" would be a better word, because "intelligence" normally includes some sense of proportion…which you are sorely lacking.

It is my opinion that this conversation was proceeding quite nicely without your input…and it is my further opinion that "your input" has had a negative effect on the quality of the substance…not a positive one.

And the non-duality guesswork that you work into so many of your posts is probably the most boring part of the entire enterprise.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jan, 2007 12:39 pm
On the contrary Frank, I consider I have moved this thread considerably along from a simplistic baying about "guesswork" that "an old dog" might indulge in with an aversion to "new tricks". Perhaps you would explain to us how you have addressed the correlation between "intelligence " and "atheism" other than to belittle it ?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jan, 2007 12:59 pm
Fresco wrote:

Quote:
On the contrary Frank, I consider I have moved this thread considerably along from a simplistic baying about "guesswork" that "an old dog" might indulge in with an aversion to "new tricks".


Well…I think you haven't…and if you can point to the responses to your thesis that indicate that you are indeed moving the discussion along…I will certainly re-read them. I could have sworn I heard you moaning that nobody was paying any attention…and that apparently nobody is intelligent enough to understand the problem.

But if I am wrong…I am sure you will show me that I am.


Quote:
Perhaps you would explain to us how you have addressed the correlation between "intelligence " and "atheism" other than to belittle it ?


I frankly do not see any correlation between intelligence and atheism that I cannot also see between intelligence and agnosticism or intelligence and theism. There are very intelligent atheists, agnostics, and theists…and there are atheists, agnostics, and theists who are just slightly above moron level.

So what is you problem with me not buying into your self-serving horseshyt game that you atheists are somehow smarter than anybody else?
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jan, 2007 01:12 pm
A simple reading of this thread should be proof enough that the original premise is false.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jan, 2007 01:21 pm
Intrepid wrote:
A simple reading of this thread should be proof enough that the original premise is false.


I agree...and that is not to say that atheists are not intelligent...just that the assumption they absolutely are is a bit of a stretch.

And I do not think that the kinds of intellectual parsing Fresco is calling for...is necessary to reach that conclusion. Most atheists are not atheists because of considerations of the stuff Fresco is presenting for consideration. Most are atheists for the reason most theists are theists...because that is their belief...their suppositions about what IS and IS NOT.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jan, 2007 01:26 pm
DrewDad wrote:
timberlandko wrote:
Science - is not about absolutes, it is about questions and probabilities; both theism and atheism entail unquestioned absolutes.
(Emphasis added)

Sure about that?

Within an approximation of probability vanishingly close to certainty - supporting no other conclusion - yes.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jan, 2007 01:31 pm
As to Fresco's point, there in nothing wrong in principle with defining your terms before agreeing to discuss the matter at hand, but in practice some terms defy definition.

In fact you could argue that all terms in essence defy definition, thus there is no point in discussing anything…..I think I'll try that on my wife and see if I can get out of renovating the bathroom!
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jan, 2007 01:37 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
A simple reading of this thread should be proof enough that the original premise is false.


I agree...and that is not to say that atheists are not intelligent...just that the assumption they absolutely are is a bit of a stretch.



I did not intend to infer such.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jan, 2007 01:42 pm
Intrepid,

No their are numerous studies supporting the general findings. See for example Wikipedia on "Intelligence and Religiosity".

Frank,

Item 3 outlined above opens the door to the definition of an "atheist" as one who has no (social) need for "gods". This is consistent with core views expressed by many who call themselves "atheists" even if they do not subscribe directly to "reality as a social construct". Your single issue about "guesswork" completely fails to ackowledge this irrespective of the fact that "guesswork" is predicated by "naive realism". In all honesty you cannot expect to be taken seriously at this level of discourse if you ignore the overwhelming evidence that "perception" is active not passive (as implied by naive realism) irrespective of whether you can see "nonduality" as a possible conclusion.
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 0.03 seconds on 08/10/2022 at 11:15:54