>>683247952 No, that's not even close to being accurate. In my experience it is people of far lesser intelligence who gravitate toward atheism. They embrace it as proof of their intellectual superiority much like how an awkward child must have Air Jordans to prove what a great basketball player they are.
>>683248543 >No, that's not even close to being accurate. In my experience >In my experience How about you look at some data. Atheists tend to have higher IQ than theists. >in before IQ does not mean anything!!! >except when used with racial arguments
>>683248543 Sounds like your only experience is with stupid people. There is absolutely zero proof that an invisible sky wizard exists. Only a very stupid person believes in magic. The very second that someone reveals that he believes in magic, he is put into the "moron" category. To even say "in your experience" proves that you are stupid. Anecdotal evidence is not real evidence. "Your experience" is not a valid statistical sample, it is a self selected, BIASED selection criteria.
>Doesn't bother to read the source >"nearly all the greatest, best, highest, most beautiful minds that ever existed were theists. Aristotle? Augustine? Confucius? Aquinas? Bonaventure? Copernicus? Bruno? Kepler? Galileo? Pascal? Descartes? Newton? Bach? Mendel? The list is endless." >Doesn't argue about this
This is why Atheists are stupid. They're not open minded
Are poorer. They are less urbanized. Have lower levels of education. They have less exposure to electronic media that increase intelligence (Barber, 2006). Experience a heavier load of infectious diseases that impair brain function. Suffer more from low birth weights. Have worse child nutrition. Do a poor job of controlling environmental pollutants such as lead that reduce IQ.
Also check out Zuckerman's study The "Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity: A Meta-Analysis and Some Proposed Explanations"
And yes, when I go outside I see religious people pushing their stupid ideas, denying evidences. This is not a matter of opinions anyway when we have data.
It is proven that religious people have lower IQ's.
What a dumb discussion! Hurr durr I'm an atheist I am so smart hurr durr! I don't really believe in God either but I tend to be jealous off religous people! Because they have something to believe in, something to explain their lifes! Atheist are just some faggots who say "oh I don't believe in things I can't proof but I believe in the Big Bang Theory (which they personally can't proof either, but sience says so, so it's totally legit) and I don't have a real explanation for my existance! Oh I am so much smarter than Theist.."
>Saudi Arabia, Qatar Oil rich countries. Having a lot of money mitigates some societal problems, but are you really going to argue Saudi Arabia and Qatar would not be better if they were secular? If so please dial 1-800 Come on Now
>Italy, Vatican Corrupt as fuck. Again, relatively rich but not because of resources but because of leeching money from gullible catholics the world over. Hardly a paragon of ideal society.
>USA A rich secular country built on secular values taken over during the Red Scare by Creationists (literally the most retarded tier of Christian).
>TLDR they're outliers, just as every statistical study has outliers.
Dawkins bases his views on the 5 senses He as a scientist should know better than anyone that the scientific method is limited, as are our perceptions. So no, I don't think it makes you more intelligent. I think it strengthens your illusion of being in control.
>>683247826 “But at least learn your inability to believe, since reason brings you to this, and yet you cannot believe. Endeavor, then, to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions. You would like to attain faith and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed… Now, what harm will befall you in taking this side? You will be faithful, humble, grateful, generous, a sincere friend, truthful. Certainly you will not have those poisonous pleasures, glory and luxury; but will you not have others? I will tell you that you will thereby gain in this life, and that, at each step you take on this road, you will see so great certainty of gain, so much nothingness in what you risk, that you will at last recognize that you have wagered for something certain and infinite, for which you have given nothing.” The Thoughts of Blaise Pascal, Pascal’s Wager (1657-1658), translated (1910) by W. F. Trotter, Blaise Pascal
>>683247826 There's no proven correlation between inteligence and atheism, several countries with rather large groups of atheists do, however, present excellent economic safety/stability, if that's because more money provides better formal education or is more related to comfort/free time is up to debate. (btw, i'm assuming that by inteligence you mean logical thinking, IQ etc, given your pic of Dawkins, but let's not forget that there are more types of inteligence)
>>683257413 I would rather say he bases his views on what can be tested. Since the hypothesis of god's existence doesn't come with any falsifiable predictions it should be taken just as valid as any other unfalsifiable claim. Of course science has its limitations. But you won't get beyond them by simply guessing. And how should one choose one specific unfalsifiable claim over another?
>>Does being an Atheist make you more intelligent?
No, but people are sure diluted into thinking it does.
For the truly scientific, the idea of a being or beings that exist above us is completely possible, especially given the extreme limitation of what is known in our universe. That fact alone is enough is provide reasonable doubt to atheism, not to mention that everything in the universe is created from a single underlying omnipresent, omnidirectional energy that can be construed as evidence of the presence of a single God creator.
But if your lack of imagination and ignorance of scientific principles makes you feel better about yourself, then so be it. Ignorance is bliss.
>>683250918 >"nearly all the greatest, best, highest, most beautiful minds that ever existed were theists..." >selectively cherry picked list, of thinkers from antiquity, when humans still had very limited knowledge about the universe or it's origins. >leaves out tons of extremely well respected atheist thinkers and inventors; Tesla, Nietzsche, Kant, Schopenhauer, Turing, Bentham. Comte. Dewey. Empedocles. Godwin. Heraclitus. Schrodinger. The list is endless.
>>683258840 Yes because the validity of a scientific principle is based on the number of people that believe in it. The entire scientific world believed that heavier objects fell faster than lighter ones until Newton proved otherwise.
>>683247826 “We need no great elevation of soul to understand that here is no true and solid satisfaction, that all our pleasures are but vanity, our evils infinite, and lastly that death, which threatens us every moment, must infallibly and within a few years place us in the dread alternative of being for ever either annihilated or wretched.
Nothing is more real than this, nothing more terrible. Brave it out as we may, that is yet the end which awaits the fairest life in the world. Let us reflect on this, and then say if it be not certain that there is no good in this life save in the hope of another, that we are happy only in proportion as we approach it, and that as there is no more sorrow for those who have an entire assurance of eternity, so there is no happiness for those who have not a ray of its light.
…I see those dreadful spaces of the universe which close me in, and I find myself fixed in one corner of this vast expanse, without knowing why I am set in this place rather than elsewhere, nor why this moment of time given me for life is assigned to this point rather than another of the whole Eternity which was before me or which shall be after me. I see nothing but infinities on every side, which close me round as an atom, and as a shadow which endures but for an instant and returns no more. I know only that I must shortly die, but what I know the least is this very death which I cannot avoid.” The Thoughts of Blaise Pascal (1657-1658), translated (1888) by C. Kegen Paul, Blaise Pascal
>>683247826 We have this thread almost every fucking day. No, but being intelligent makes you more likely to the an atheist. Simply choosing to adhere to a particular ideology doesn't magically raise your IQ.
To ask whether there is a "God" or not, one must first ask themselves how they define "God". Yep, I could be wrong, but for me "God" is an organised idea that man has created to give them hope, faith, and control. An omnipotent being? Probably not.
>>683247826 “Consult Zoroaster, and Minos, and Solon, And the martyr Socrates, and the great Cicero: They all adored a master, a judge, a father. This sublime system is necessary to man. It is the sacred tie that binds society, The first foundation of holy equity, The bridle to the wicked, the hope of the just.
If the heavens, stripped of his noble imprint, Could ever cease to attest to his being, If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him. Let the wise man announce him and kings fear him.” Epistle to the author of the book, The Three Impostors (1768), François-Marie Arouet (Voltaire)
Unintelligent response: I believe in nothing, it is all superstitious nonsense. If you don't agree, you're just stupid. (Concise, close minded, arrogant)
Intelligent response: What I think is (A) because of what I have experienced, but I am not certain and will continue to learn and challenge my position to grow and refine it. (open minded, exploratory, correct viewpoint)
>>683247826 No, intelligence as what I understand it to be is the ability to retain and utilize knowledge. Greater intelligence the ability to build on what has already been learned, to form new ideas of practical use on older concepts. Intelligent people don't sit around on forms arguing whether there particular brand of faggotry makes them look smart or not. Suck my cawk ere'one
i saw the future once. it was an annoying dream. i thought about the elements of the dream a lot. then i moved over 1000 miles to experience those exact elements many months later. there is no way those elements came together accidentally. it required at least 4 people to be in position months later, not to mention myself quitting my job and moving. that means we live in a recording. we don't know that usually. something showed it to me. it also showed me that we have no free will. we live in a recording. that recording is owned by whatever showed it to me ahead of time. that would be "god" or at least us, outside of the recording. atheism is blindness.
>>683258783 >especially given the extreme limitation of what is known in our universe So the more we know about the universe, the less probable the existence of a god becomes? You basically just admitted that you simply defined the reason behind everything we do not understand right now as god. You did nothing but giving it a name. Nothing of value follows out of that.
>>683259999 >Implying that the transcendental is something that leaves proof for the senses or can be hammered out through logic. What makes your heart beat? How will your logic help you find that out?
>>683247826 It is true that religion's defining attribute is faith and faith is a logical fallacy (begging the question), but so to is atheism.
Why all the passion devoted to a non-belief? Why are atheists so desperately seeking affirmation that are right? Does atheism now demand belief, and so meet the criteria of a religion. A true non-religious person would look upon this debate as a tedious waste of time and see both those who are religious and those who oppose religion as fools wasting precious time that could be better spent living life.
>>683247826 I've always believed that religion should not be taught to anyone until they are 18. If you buy into that horse shit when you're an adult, than yes...you're probably an idiot but at least you made up your mind for yourself. So many people who are ridiculously hardcore about their religious beliefs have had them pounded into their heads since they were little kids. They are taught the bible the same way they are taught math. You tell them you think the bible is a made up story and they hear you saying 4+4=9.
>>683259766 MOST Buddhist don't believe in a literal deity, Kant put up a front as a Christian in his day to day life, but his own diary makes it very clear he was atheist. But nice logic anyway "I personally think these two are wrong, therefore all of them are, checkmate atheists!" This is why people think theists are stupid.
I could be wrong, but I think many of these philosophers were using more of their mind than much of mankind does now. They were not a over-worked, under-slept, distracted cog in the post-industrial age. The mind-expanding opium helped as well.
i dont think you can lump humans into two categories and make a generalisation about their intelligence or open mindedness or whatever. some theists are smart, some are dumb, and the same goes for atheists. god is an incredibly personal concept as it purely depends on your belief or "faith". we look at richard dawkins as the atheism posterboy and i agree he is an incredibly smart man. however his crusade against religion is completely stupid as he is trying to argue against an idea (god) that no amount of science will ever be able to answer the question of whether god exists or not. so believe whatever you want to believe dont let anyone tell you otherwise. just make sure that your beliefs entail treating everyone else with respect.
I'm an atheist and I used to hate hearing other atheists say that their fellow atheists needed to chill out but as I've gotten older I'm totally just annoyed by most atheists. Somebody asked me once what I said when people say "God Bless You" and I just looked at them like they were retarded and said "Thank you." I don't care about anyone's personal business and their religion is none of my business. But anyone else's religion is LITERALLY none of my business. I don't want it in my laws or in my schools but other than that I don't fucking care what you do. Refuse gays at your shitty store, ban trannies from your bathroom, whatever. Fuck you and fuck everyone else too.
You think being passionate about stopping retards killing each other because of sky fairies is about faith?
It's more like a white mans burden kind of situation.
Religion is clearly stupid, and you require education.
You're maybe not smart enough to figure it out all on your own... sorry I'll rephrase that; You are smart enough and you know it's all horseshit but you're too invested in the lie or maybe have so much of your life built up around it that you can't just stop and go... oh yeah - it's all BS... WTF was I thinking?
I mean, nice post an all, trying to take the higher ground, but you can't give equivalence to non-belief and belief. To try and seek affirmation that it's the same by crudely and glibly double-thinking your way through a debate and then wasting your precious time typing out such a response bemoaning others for doing so is fucking weird.
>>683259999 Why make yourself a fool? Do you ever wonder why man has desires beyond what he needs? Why satisfaction in the physical is not enough for him. There cannot just be chemistry that makes a human. There is something else that is fundamental to man. A soul.
>>683261244 No, but they still believe in a certain way and law of life which differs from the one of an atheist. And my logic went like that because you showed clear sloppiness - which Im sure you're still doing.
>>683264291 Atheism is not the "lack of belief" in all deities. It is the active belief that no deity exists. I'm so tired of atheists blatantly lying about what they actually believe in a pathetic attempt to intellectually justify being no different from theists.
>>683264826 Atheism is simply the absence of belief in gods; anti-theism is a conscious and deliberate opposition to theism. Many atheists are also anti-theists, but not all. When defined broadly as simply the absence of belief in gods, atheism covers territory that isn't quite compatible with anti-theism.
>>683264888 That's like saying theism is broadly defined as the belief in all gods. Atheists purposefully misrepresent their beliefs in order to avoid cognitive dissonance. It is intellectually dishonest bullshit.
>>683264826 The textbook definitions of atheism differ from source to source so how does it make sense to call me a liar for not using the same definition as you do? My definition simply includes all kinds of nonbelievers regardless of how confident they feel about their nonbelieve. If you are so sick of the misusage of this definition then simply avoid it and ask for what people believe and not in which category they put themselves into.
>>683265374 Not who you're responding to, BUT you fundamentally misunderstand. You don't need evidence against 'x' to not believe in 'x', but you DO need evidence to make that claim 'not x,' and if one truly bases their beliefs on evidence, then evidence is also needed to believe 'not x.'
The only intellectually honest position is, "I don't know if it's 'x' or 'not x'.
>>683265587 No. That's like saying exactly what I said, atheism is not anti-theism, if you take an empirical stance and say that there IS NO God or god, then you are in anti-theism territory. They're two clearly defined concepts, just as theism is too. I'm not generalizing theists, so please don't generalize atheists or even anti-theists.
An atheist would understand there is room for a God in statistics, but that there isn't any empirical evidence or even a cognitively meaningful definition of the word God to even start from.
>>683266277 There's no such thing as 'lack of belief'. Once something is brought into awareness, a belief has already been formed. Whether that belief is "this is true," "this is false," or "I don't know if this is true or false," the end result is always SOME belief.
>>683266888 Option A: Believe Easter bunny is real. Option B: Believe Easter bunny is not real. Option C: Believe that one does not know / cannot know whether the Easter bunny is real or not real given the available evidence and one's current level of knowledge.
>>683266918 Except they should be if your definitions are true. You cannot "lack belief" and actively oppose belief because lacking belief for or against the existence of deities is a neutral standpoint.
>>683268684 >known There's your problem right there. Nothing can be known. If you think for a second that you're capable of grasping objective truth, you are more deluded than someone who believes Superman is real.
As I said before, there are three options. >A: Believe in x. >B: Believe in not x >C: Believe that one does not have enough knowledge or evidence to believe x or not x.
>>683268545 It is a much smarter defence against atheism to leave your god undefined. That means there's nothing to prove wrong, but weirdly means people like yourself have to subtly admit you lack belief in god as well because you've not the foggiest what you're talking about.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at [email protected] with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.