Atheists, smarter than religious people

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.

Intrepid,

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

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.

a·the·ism n.

1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

(French athéisme, from athée, atheist, from Greek atheos, godless : a-, without; see a-1 + theos, god.) emphases added

atheism: Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god. (emphasis added)

a·the·ism


noun
Definition:

unbelief in God or deities: disbelief in the existence of God or deities

[Late 16th century. < French athéisme < Greek atheos "godless" < theos "god"]

Frank has traditionally asserted (usually accompanied by vile characterizations of those who disagree with him) that he holds a morally superior position--therefore, to sustain that contention, it is necessary for him to ignore or even, as in this case, to deny the valid distinction between not believing in a god, and denying that any god exists. He also stumbles here in saying that he deals in the "historical" definition. The Greek "atheos" means godless, not god-denying.

I have before asked Frank how he responds to anyone who asserts that he or she has seen god, or spoken to god. He hasn't ever answered me, that i recall.

If he were to attempt to maintain that the existence of god is unknowable …

…
(something to which i don't object) in the face of such an assertion, then he would be in the position of asserting that any person who said he or she has seen or spoken to god is mistaken, deluded, or otherwise just plain wrong.

In short, he'd have to take a stand, something which he is constitutionally opposed to doing, on this question, at least.

Frank.

I'm an agolfist !

I don't deny "the existence of golf"....I consider to be an arbitrary form of "social occupation" which many people (other than me) need to give meaning to their mundane existence.

Does "agolfism" constitute a "belief system" ?

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.

Frank- Although I have repudiated atheism, I think that the concept is situated on a higher intellectual level than theism. Theists, after all, accept a system of belief, some, more than others, "hook, line, and sinker". There needs to be no thought. In fact, theists apprently disdain thought, embracing "faith" as the higher moral stance.

For some, I would suppose, atheism would simply be the mirror opposite of theism. But, you must realize, that it does take a certain amount of individual introspection and resolve to remove oneself from the mainstream of society, denying what is believed as absolute truth by the masses, and finding oneself in the position of being "odd man out".

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.

Phoenix wrote:

Frank- Although I have repudiated atheism, I think that the concept is situated on a higher intellectual level than theism. Theists, after all, accept a system of belief, some, more than others, "hook, line, and sinker". There needs to be no thought. In fact, theists apprently disdain thought, embracing "faith" as the higher moral stance.

For some, I would suppose, atheism would simply be the mirror opposite of theism. But, you must realize, that it does take a certain amount of individual introspection and resolve to remove oneself from the mainstream of society, denying what is believed as absolute truth by the masses, and finding oneself in the position of being "odd man out".

Several studies have shown an inverse correlation between education and belief, and education is correlated with intelligence. I wonder how many doubters profess belief in God to be accepted in an overwhelmingly theistic society such as the US, and how many intelligent people have simply never had any reason to question what they were taught about God?

But there is the charge of hypocrisy. And that charge I level at the many Internet atheists who want to pretend that their atheism stop with "I lack a belief in gods." Those phonies want to avoid the "I believe there are no gods" or "I assert there are no gods" rap, because they realize two things. One, they cannot substantiate the "I assert there are no gods"…and two, they do not want to acknowledge the fact that atheism is nothing but a belief system that would be highlighted by the "I believe there are no gods."

…

I submit it takes absolutely no thought to make a blind guess in either direction on the question of whether or not there are gods involved in the REALITY of existence. I know atheists like to think they have thought out the issue…but all they are doing is making a blind guess. I defy any of them to produce the evidence they have that leads to the conclusion that there are no gods…and hold it up to evaluation. Fact is, other than variations on "The theists cannot produce a god" or "There is no need for a God" (neither of which is evidence that there are no gods) …I have never seen atheists produce any evidence that there are no gods.

•The Authoritarian God (31.4% of Americans overall, 43.5% in the South) is angry at humanity's sins and engaged in every creature's life and world affairs. He is ready to throw the thunderbolt of judgment down on "the unfaithful or ungodly," says Bader.

Those who envision God this way "are religiously and politically conservative people, more often black Protestants and white evangelicals," says Bader. "(They) want an active, Christian-values-based government with federal funding for faith-based social services and prayer in the schools."

They're also the most inclined to say God favors the USA in world affairs (32% vs. 19% overall).

•The Benevolent God (23% overall, 28.8% in the Midwest) still sets absolute standards for mankind in the Bible. More than half (54.8%) want the government to advocate Christian values. But this group, which draws more from mainline Protestants, Catholics and Jews, sees primarily a forgiving God, more like the father who embraces his repentant prodigal son in the Bible, says sociologist Froese.

They're inclined (68.1%) to say caring for the sick and needy ranks highest on the list of what it means to be a good person.

•The Critical God (16% overall, 21.2% in the East) has his judgmental eye on the world but he's not going to intervene, either to punish or to comfort.

"This group is more paradoxical," says Bader. "They have very traditional beliefs, picturing God as the classic bearded old man on high. Yet they're less inclined to go to church or affiliate seriously with religious groups. They are less inclined to see God as active in the world."

Those who picture a critical God are significantly less likely to draw absolute moral lines on hot-button issues such as abortion, gay marriage or embryonic stem cell research. For example, 54.8% overall say gay marriage is always wrong compared with 80.6% for those who see an authoritarian God, and 65.8% for those who see God as benevolent. For those who believe in a critical God, it was 54.7%.

•The Distant God (24.4% overall, 30.3% in the West) is "no bearded old man in the sky raining down his opinions on us," says Bader. Followers of this God see a cosmic force that launched the world, then left it spinning on its own.

This has strongest appeal for Catholics, mainline Protestants and Jews. It's also strong among "moral relativists," those least likely to say any moral choice is always wrong, and among those who don't attend church, says Bader.

Only 3.8% of this group says embryonic stem cell research is always wrong, compared with 38.5% of those who see an authoritarian God, 22.7% for those who see God as benevolent and 13.2% who see God as critical but disengaged.

Knowledge is like salt - too much of it and it makes a person bitter.

A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.

Frank Apisa wrote:

But there is the charge of hypocrisy. And that charge I level at the many Internet atheists who want to pretend that their atheism stop with "I lack a belief in gods." Those phonies want to avoid the "I believe there are no gods" or "I assert there are no gods" rap, because they realize two things. One, they cannot substantiate the "I assert there are no gods"…and two, they do not want to acknowledge the fact that atheism is nothing but a belief system that would be highlighted by the "I believe there are no gods."

…

I submit it takes absolutely no thought to make a blind guess in either direction on the question of whether or not there are gods involved in the REALITY of existence. I know atheists like to think they have thought out the issue…but all they are doing is making a blind guess. I defy any of them to produce the evidence they have that leads to the conclusion that there are no gods…and hold it up to evaluation. Fact is, other than variations on "The theists cannot produce a god" or "There is no need for a God" (neither of which is evidence that there are no gods) …I have never seen atheists produce any evidence that there are no gods.

Gotta disagree with you on this one, Frank. There are shades of atheism all the way from "I refuse to believe that a God exists as described in the Bible" to "I find no evidence for the existence of any of the gods proposed by the various religions and religious belief can be explained psychologically and its evolution tracked historically, therefore I do not believe that any gods actually exist" to "Imperfectly engineered bodies, the existence of viruses, bacteria, and noxious parasites, and the failure of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent deity to alleviate the suffering on earth prove that such a being does not exist" to "All concepts of god are incompatible with logic and/or the laws of the universe (as we currently understand them), therefore no gods can or do exist." They aren't belief systems in my book any more than "ghosts do not exist" could be considered a "belief system."

The Judeo-Christian concepts of God and immortal souls can be refuted logically and disbelief in them requires no guesswork, but it certainly takes more intelligence to study and reject centuries of apologetics than it does to simply accept the tenets of a religion that has been indoctrinating you since birth. Of course there are concepts of god that are not so easy to dismiss, which is why I'm still only a 9 on Thomas' scale.