Atheists are more intelligent than Religious people

[RootsBooster]

It's more specific than that, within the definition of atheist, I maintain than an atheist can have, and that how it is phrased is irrelevant.

A belief that there are no gods.

No belief in a god.

RB believes differently and that these are different things.

 

An atheist can indeed have a belief that there are no gods, just as he/she can have a belief that the Earth isn't flat or he she can have the belief that the Earth is flat.

 

The only belief that an atheist can't have is that gods (or god singular) exist, this is the qualifying criteria for atheism.

 

But a belief (A belief that there are no gods) and an absence of belief (No belief in a god) certainly are different things, I would have thought it was obvious.

 

Yes, because it's a binary option. If you don't believe that it's there, you believe that it isn't there.

We've been down this route before, belief is a binary option indeed - you're with or without it, not with it or with a different belief.

The last time we discussed this I posed a simple logic statement to you (several times) which went unanswered. Reposted here with different labels...

 

 

The question isn't about what you know, the question is asking if you have a specific belief, that a god exists.

 

The simplest way I can put it is that NOT having belief 1 does not mean that you HAVE to have belief 2.

 

Simple logic statement..

 

A= Belief that god(s) does exist

B= Belief that god(s) does not exist

C= Neither belief (absence of both beliefs)

 

If A = false then either B = true or C= true

If A = true then B=false and C= false

 

What you're saying is;

If A = false then B = true

 

so where does that leave C?

 

---------- Post added 23-05-2017 at 22:15 ----------

 

If you cant agree on where white paint is on a road what chance is there on debating something like this?

 

Actually I think Cyclone and I both agreed on the road markings.

 

---------- Post added 23-05-2017 at 22:19 ----------

 

Cyclone and carlinate are right here. We are talking about your belief, not reality. If the options are:

- there is a dragon

- there isn't a dragon

then if you believe one to be true you MUST believe the other is false. It's basic logic. A belief changes into a fact when they open the door as then you can assess the situation, but we aren't talking about facts, we are talking about beliefs.

 

They're not the options though, we're talking about a belief - a conviction, something you're convinced of.

So the options are that you are convinced (believe) the dragon exists or you are not convinced (don't believe) the dragon exists.

 

Not being convinced that the dragon exists does not mean that you are convinced that it doesn't exist.

 

Are you convinced that I have a key in my pocket? If not, does that mean you are convinced that I don't?

Edited May 23, 2017 by RootsBooster

[Cyclone]

That looks like a logical flaw where you claim that disbelief in a thing, is not belief that the thing isn't. This is the crux of our disagreement and neither of us is likely to convince the other.

 

---------- Post added 23-05-2017 at 22:39 ----------

 

Umm if you constrain it like that yes... but an absence of belief doesn't mean that you must therefore always believe the counter argument.

 

In short - the existence or not of the dragon doesn't translate to a similar number of outcomes in how I choose to feel.

 

There is a dragon.

 

There is not a dragon

 

I don't know if there is a dragon......

 

Basic logic doesn't have to be always binary.

 

If you answer "I don't know" then you have neither a belief that there is a dragon in the garage, nor a belief that there is not a dragon.

That describes agnosticism, not atheism, towards the issue of dragon in garage.

 

---------- Post added 23-05-2017 at 22:43 ----------

 

That is exactly what the title implies.

 

'Atheists are more intelligent than religious people'

Well when you described it you somehow accidentally inserted the word in bold all.

See how that changes the meaning entirely?

 

What other inference could be drawn from that title?

An inference that when measured on average the result is higher intelligence in the atheist set. Which is entirely different to what you said.

 

Had it said ' Generally speaking atheists are more intelligent than religious people' then it would have allowed for some latitude, but it didn't.

 

Had it contained the word 'some' or even ' most ' it would have made a more reasonable point, but it didn't.

 

It stated boldly with no qualifier that 'Atheists', which refers to everyone in the world holding that view, are more intelligent than religious people which again means every religious person in the world.

You realise that titles are restricted in length? It seems self evident to me that it refers to averages of large population groups.

But then, I'm an atheist.

[RootsBooster]

That looks like a logical flaw where you claim that disbelief in a thing, is not belief that the thing isn't. This is the crux of our disagreement and neither of us is likely to convince the other.

Assuming you're referring to my logic statement, could you point the flaw out to me?

 

If you answer "I don't know" then you have neither a belief that there is a dragon in the garage, nor a belief that there is not a dragon.

That describes agnosticism, not atheism, towards the issue of dragon in garage.

Obelix used a poor choice of words, it's not about what we do or don't know, it's about what we do or don't believe.

Do you believe? Yes I believe/I don't believe

Do you know? Yes I know/I don't know

 

I did ask you earlier in the thread but I'll repeat the question in case you missed it, where do you get your definition of 'agnostic' from?

Edited May 23, 2017 by RootsBooster

[Carlinate]

That looks like a logical flaw where you claim that disbelief in a thing, is not belief that the thing isn't. This is the crux of our disagreement and neither of us is likely to convince the other.

 

---------- Post added 23-05-2017 at 22:39 ----------

 

 

If you answer "I don't know" then you have neither a belief that there is a dragon in the garage, nor a belief that there is not a dragon.

That describes agnosticism, not atheism, towards the issue of dragon in garage.

 

---------- Post added 23-05-2017 at 22:43 ----------

 

Well when you described it you somehow accidentally inserted the word in bold all.

See how that changes the meaning entirely?

An inference that when measured on average the result is higher intelligence in the atheist set. Which is entirely different to what you said.

You realise that titles are restricted in length? It seems self evident to me that it refers to averages of large population groups.

But then, I'm an atheist.

 

I didn't accidentally insert the word in bold, I did it deliberately because it appeared that it had escaped your attention.

 

The word was there, it can't be ignored, you appear to be unable to comprehend simple sentences and what they mean.

 

The title clearly states that 'Atheists are more intelligent than religious people'

 

It doesn't allow for any other interpretation, there is no qualifier, you are making stuff up.

 

One word would have altered the meaning, take your pick, 'most' 'generally' ' mainly ' 'many'., but none were used.

 

Instead we were presented with a statement of fact which is clearly nonsense.

 

" You realise titles are restricted in length? "

 

Are they?

 

The title of this thread contains seven words, there are currently threads on this forum that contain ten and twelve words.

 

Now I'm aware that you like to keep arguing that black is white well past the point where it becomes ludicrous but you really ought to give this one up.

 

---------- Post added 24-05-2017 at 00:18 ----------

 

lol, no it wasn't demonstrated that i looked in the garage, you presumed that. If I'd found evidence to change my dragon belief, I would have.

 

As I said, I don't accept the claim that a god/gods exist because the evidence presented doesn't meet the burden of proof.

 

Yeah, I'd describe myself as an atheist

 

Can you say what you believe and why on the god/gods claim?

 

---------- Post added 23-05-2017 at 19:37 ----------

 

[/color]

 

Hardly a pathway to truth though is it, believing something because it feels good?

 

You said that you didn't believe in god/gods because you hadn't found any evidence to support the existence of god/gods.

 

That was you looking in the garage.

 

No, it isn't a pathway to truth and I didn't say it was.

 

It is however a means of dealing with life and its many travails for many people, and I wouldn't want them deprived of that by people who hold a contrasting view that they can't actually prove.

 

I had a religious upbringing but consider myself agnostic in that I don't believe that there is knowledge available to either prove or disprove the existence of a creator.

 

I await proof either way, it seems somewhat pointless to me to hold a view and try to propagate that view to others of an opposing opinion when you can't come up with proof.

 

Humanity will very probably never know the truth either way, and so it is pointless wasting time trying to fathom the unfathomable.

[SnailyBoy]

 

You said that you didn't believe in god/gods because you hadn't found any evidence to support the existence of god/gods.

 

That was you looking in the garage.

 

No, it isn't a pathway to truth and I didn't say it was.

 

It is however a means of dealing with life and its many travails for many people, and I wouldn't want them deprived of that by people who hold a contrasting view that they can't actually prove.

 

I had a religious upbringing but consider myself agnostic in that I don't believe that there is knowledge available to either prove or disprove the existence of a creator.

 

I await proof either way, it seems somewhat pointless to me to hold a view and try to propagate that view to others of an opposing opinion when you can't come up with proof.

 

Humanity will very probably never know the truth either way, and so it is pointless wasting time trying to fathom the unfathomable.

 

Did you believe in a creator during your religious upbringing?

[sgtkate]

I know we've completely derailed the thread, but this has been one of the most interesting threads in a while. I really enjoy philiosophical discussions (of which this has become) around thought processes and free will and beliefs etc. So thanks to all contributors!

 

Back to the dragon, I can see what both snailyboy and OB are saying, just trying to think it through. I can't see anymore than 2 options to the questions, 'Do you believe I have a dragon in my garage?' How can there be any other options than 'yes I believe' or 'no I don't believe'? You could say you don't know but that just kinda opts out of the question.

[Cyclone]

I didn't accidentally insert the word in bold, I did it deliberately because it appeared that it had escaped your attention.

It's not there... You inserted a word that isn't there...

 

The word was there, it can't be ignored, you appear to be unable to comprehend simple sentences and what they mean.

 

The title clearly states that 'Atheists are more intelligent than religious people'

Yes, but it doesn't say "all", it's quite clearly a statement about averages amongst populations.

 

It doesn't allow for any other interpretation, there is no qualifier, you are making stuff up.

 

One word would have altered the meaning, take your pick, 'most' 'generally' ' mainly ' 'many'., but none were used.

Neither was all.

 

Instead we were presented with a statement of fact which is clearly nonsense.

Only if you willfully misinterpret it.

 

" You realise titles are restricted in length? "

 

Are they?

 

The title of this thread contains seven words, there are currently threads on this forum that contain ten and twelve words.

It's a character limit, not a word limit.

 

Now I'm aware that you like to keep arguing that black is white well past the point where it becomes ludicrous but you really ought to give this one up.

You would say that I suppose, since you're obviously wrong.

 

---------- Post added 24-05-2017 at 08:35 ----------

 

Assuming you're referring to my logic statement, could you point the flaw out to me?

 

 

Obelix used a poor choice of words, it's not about what we do or don't know, it's about what we do or don't believe.

Do you believe? Yes I believe/I don't believe

Do you know? Yes I know/I don't know

 

I did ask you earlier in the thread but I'll repeat the question in case you missed it, where do you get your definition of 'agnostic' from?

 

It's the common one, we could look up it using wikipedia or a dictionary as you wish. But it won't alter anything.

[SnailyBoy]

I know we've completely derailed the thread, but this has been one of the most interesting threads in a while. I really enjoy philiosophical discussions (of which this has become) around thought processes and free will and beliefs etc. So thanks to all contributors!

 

Back to the dragon, I can see what both snailyboy and OB are saying, just trying to think it through. I can't see anymore than 2 options to the questions, 'Do you believe I have a dragon in my garage?' How can there be any other options than 'yes I believe' or 'no I don't believe'? You could say you don't know but that just kinda opts out of the question.

 

It's all about the claim of the dragon in the garage.

 

You're being given something to consider, 'There's a dragon in my garage'

 

There's a response based 'Yes, I believe you have a dragon in your garage',

 

or

 

you've failed to prove you have a dragon in your garage, therefore 'I don't believe you when you say that you have a dragon in your garage'

 

At no point have you stated that you believe there isn't a dragon in the garage, only given a belief on the claim that there is one.

 

On the god claim, theists claim that there is a god.

 

I say that claim has failed to meet the burden of proof, I don't believe the claim and am therefore an atheist.

 

I'm not making a claim that there isn't a god.

[sgtkate]

It's all about the claim of the dragon in the garage.

 

You're being given something to consider, 'There's a dragon in my garage'

 

There's a response based 'Yes, I believe you have a dragon in your garage',

 

or

 

you've failed to prove you have a dragon in your garage, therefore 'I don't believe you when you say that you have a dragon in your garage'

 

At no point have you stated that you believe there isn't a dragon in the garage, only given a belief on the claim that there is one.

 

On the god claim, theists claim that there is a god.

 

I say that claim has failed to meet the burden of proof, I don't believe the claim and am therefore an atheist.

 

I'm not making a claim that there isn't a god.

 

Now that makes sense. Instead of questioning the existence of the dragon, you are questioning the original claim.

[Cyclone]

That opinion on the dragon in the garage would appear to match the weak agnosticism definition.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#Defining_agnosticism

 

And from the same source atheism is defined in increasingly narrow specifics

 

Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2][3][4] Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist.[5][6] In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

 

---------- Post added 24-05-2017 at 09:08 ----------

 

Personally I think it's illogical to reject belief that any deities exist, yet not to finish concluding that you therefore believe that no deities exist. It's like you had a thought, but stopped it halfway.