Atheists are more intelligent than Religious people

[onewheeldave]

That is what you said.

Again, and, as previously quoted, I said-

 

 

If however, we take an existing definition of Santa Claus, eg-

 

"Santa Claus is said to make lists of children........"

which so clearly differs from what you're saying I said, that I think we must conclude you're referring to a different post of mine?

 

In which case, now we both know that, we can presumably focus on the post I am talking about, the one which doesn't mention chimneys, and, which contains a definition of Santa (as follows)-

 

 

 

 

"Santa Claus is said to make lists of children throughout the world, categorizing them according to their behavior ("good" and "bad", or "naughty" and "nice") and to deliver presents, including toys, and candy to all of the well-behaved children in the world, and coal to all the misbehaved children, on the single night of Christmas Eve. He accomplishes this feat with the aid of his elves, who make the toys in his workshop at the North Pole, and his flying reindeer, who pull his sleigh. He is commonly portrayed as living at the North Pole and saying "ho ho ho" often."

 

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Claus

 

which, I am claiming, can, by empirical experiment, be susceptible to being disproved.

[Cyclone]

So you did say "an existing definition of SC".

A very common one includes coming down chimneys. I've no idea how this is confusing to you.

 

You can focus on it, take my post and replace the chimney phrase with one that fits. It's trivial to do, I'm pretty sure you understood the point that was made.

 

The EXISTENCE of SC cannot be empirically disproven, all you can prove is that a specific claimed behaviour has not been observed.

Perhaps you can tell me though if lack of evidence is the same as evidence of lack.

 

For the lack of ambiguity in your mind.

 

I think you've conflated existence with coming down chimneys. delivering presents, including toys, and candy to all of the well-behaved children in the world.

[onewheeldave]

So you did say "an existing definition of SC".

 

Yes!!! For the 3rd time.

 

In sharp to your claim, that I said-

"with existing definitions",....

 

which refers to multiple existing definitions.

 

Whereas my "an existing definition of SC" is singular, and specific (in that I quoted the actual and specific definition).

[mrcharlie]

Well I must be the odd one out here, I would never call myself intelligent and yet I believe in none of these old fables and tales.

But, most of these people were/are incredibly well read and very very intelligent. So why do they believe and I don't?

The holy scriptures that most religions adhere too are frankly laughable to read in this modern 21st century. There has never ever been any scientific proof to backup any of these religious claims.

I'm left cynical, feeling that the knowledgeable are leading the blind for either status or financial gain.

Edited June 4, 2017 by mrcharlie

[4head]

The question is whether religion is used as a repression of thought or a stipend to it...

[Cyclone]

Yes!!! For the 3rd time.

 

In sharp to your claim, that I said-

 

 

which refers to multiple existing definitions.

 

Whereas my "an existing definition of SC" is singular, and specific (in that I quoted the actual and specific definition).

 

You actually then gave an example using eg. I used a different example, it really wasn't difficult to understand.

 

I changed it though to keep you happy

 

The EXISTENCE of SC cannot be empirically disproven, all you can prove is that a specific claimed behaviour has not been observed.

Perhaps you can tell me though if lack of evidence is the same as evidence of lack.

 

For the lack of ambiguity in your mind.

 

I think you've conflated existence with coming down chimneys. delivering presents, including toys, and candy to all of the well-behaved children in the world.

 

Is there some reason you didn't reply to this and instead continue to focus on why I used a different example of behaviour?

Edited June 4, 2017 by Cyclone

[RootsBooster]

As has been pointed out all already, absence of belief is not a belief in nothing

 

Absence of belief and belief in absence are identical

*coughs*.............................

lack of evidence is not evidence of lack

Edited September 8, 2017 by RootsBooster

[El Cid]

I am an atheist and a remainer, I must be really bright

[achorste]

I am an atheist and a remainer, I must be really bright

 

Sounds like perfectly intelligent views to me. Carry on good sir.