Atheists are more intelligent than Religious people

[Cyclone]

Characterised as weak atheism specifically.

 

---------- Post added 24-05-2017 at 11:57 ----------

 

If I was cynical, I'd suspect there is an agenda behind the quote (there is behind most things); for example...

 

The people who actively consider and reject the notion of god, wanting a term that is associated with their theological position to be more encompassing of a wider set of theological positions, in order for their own position to be seen as more credible.

 

I think it's just a comment on the fact that the word exists for historical reasons, when everyone was a theist and to deny god was very unusual.

It's not at all unusual to deny the assertion that astrology makes useful predictions, so we don't have a word to describe disbelief in astrology, or fairies or santa or elvis being alive.

[Obelix]

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.

 

You are conflating the actual physical reality of the dragon (its either there or it isn't) with how we perceive it.

 

If the garage door is not there, or its made of glass, then it's a binary choice.

 

By placing a barrier in the way firstly you are not asking me to decide if there is a dragon there. You are asking me to decide if I believe your assertion as to the presence of the dragon.

 

I therefore have no less than seven options....!

 

If you say there is a dragon, I can believe you

or I can disbelieve you

or I can conclude you are mistaken and it's actually a unicorn

 

If you say there isn't dragon, I can believe you

or I can disbelieve you and choose to believe in dragons

or I can conclude you are mistaken and believe in unicorns.

 

Or I can conclude you are lying.

 

If there is evidence of dragons, like say belching fire from the windows then if you say there is a dragon I'll have a much different choice to if you say there isn't a dragon (and I can still see fire because unicorns don't breath fire)

 

The door is the problem. It makes things so much more delightfully complex..

[Carlinate]

So would you say you were a theist when you were younger and now you're no longer a theist?

 

Not really, even as a youngster I wasn't totally convinced as to the veracity of the actual religion that I was being taught, and I wasn't alone in that feeling.

 

The fact is that I always had doubts but I'm not convinced by any opinion which claims certainty but is unable to back it up with verifiable facts.

 

So attempting to get me to refer to myself as an atheist isn't going to work Snailyboy, must try harder.

[Cyclone]

The word was implicit in the statement, 'Atheists' with no further qualification means all atheists, how could it not?

 

You are the one willfully misinterpreting what is a quite straightforward statement.

 

" It's a character limit".

 

Thank you for proving my point regarding your habit of continuing to argue beyond any sensible point, and despite facts disagreeing with you.

I think you've confused being correct, with the facts disagreeing with me.

It's hardly my fault that you didn't understand how the max title length works.

The title of this thread contains 45 characters, the title of the thread regarding whether people feel happier when the sun is shining contains 52 characters.

I accept that it hasn't reached the maximum title length.

 

And had the OP worded his/her thread ' Generally atheists are more intelligent than theists ' it would have contained the same number of words and spared us both this debate.

Yes, that would have avoided your attempt to sideline the debate by pretending to misunderstand the title.

You could also have read the article the OP links to, which made it clear.

Miron Zuckerman, Jordan Silberman and Judith A. Hall from the University of Rochester and the Northeastern University conducted a meta-analysis (that's a statistical analysis that combines the results of multiple scientific studies) of 63 studies that showed a significant negative association between intelligence and religiosity.

[SnailyBoy]

Not really, even as a youngster I wasn't totally convinced as to the veracity of the actual religion that I was being taught, and I wasn't alone in that feeling.

 

The fact is that I always had doubts but I'm not convinced by any opinion which claims certainty but is unable to back it up with verifiable facts.

 

So attempting to get me to refer to myself as an atheist isn't going to work Snailyboy, must try harder.

 

No worries, you can refer to yourself as whatever you want.

 

It's interesting why the term atheist appears to bother you.

 

Why is that?

[Cyclone]

I think I'm still waiting for Carlinate to disprove the existence of Santa.

Or to declare that whilst not believing in him, they don't believe he doesn't exist... (Zombie santa if you will, or perhaps quantum santa).

[achorste]

I like this quote

 

I like it - it was the point I was trying to make earlier, atheism only exists if there is someone claiming that a god exists. Without someone making that claim, ahteism is completely redundant - the burden of proof is always on the person making the claim.

[Hairyloon]

If God created the world, then logically god must exist because the world exists, therefore the only remaining question is of the nature of god...

That starts with an unprovable axiom, so the entire thing becomes meaningless.

 

No, it starts with a conditional, but I find it sad that the both of you are unable to get past the first three words and on to the point.

I accept that is my fault: I should have started with a proposition: "let us give the thing that created the world a name, and for want of a better one, let's call it 'god'."

 

There is NO GOD or GODS...!

 

DNA...The Self Replicating Molecule..

 

Why do we have SEX..?.Purely to spread out Genes..

 

No God or Gods Needed once the RNA/DNA evolved..

 

Have you ever run the numbers?

It is all very well saying that we got here today through the actions of evolution on random mutation, but have you thought about the probabilities involved?

Think about the infinite number of monkeys and the script for Shakespeare that they're supposed to be working on and calculate how far they'd have got if there were only a finite number of them...

[RootsBooster]

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

 

If the common definition is the one used by its originator, Thomas Huxley, and the same as the one most dictionaries use, then it alters things a great deal. The position that nothing is or can be known about the existence of gods has no bearing about what you do or don't believe about the existence of gods. It deals with knowledge, not belief, and is not some kind of middle ground.

 

Huxley (the guy who came up with the word) considered himself an agnostic atheist.

 

---------- Post added 24-05-2017 at 13:24 ----------

 

Agnosticism is by necessity also atheism...

 

If you consider that the position of gods is unknowable then you cannot say you have a god. As such you must be atheist.

 

If you are certain that there is/are no god/s then I would call that strict or positive atheism.

 

You can believe there is a god without knowing there's a god. An agnostic can (and will) also be either an atheist or a theist.

 

---------- Post added 24-05-2017 at 13:28 ----------

 

Is it possible however to adopt a position such that you reject a belief that Elvis is alive, but you don't believe that he's dead. Does that leave you in some sort of zombie Elvis middle ground?

 

If you haven't been convinced he's dead but you haven't been convinced he's alive either, there's no conflict of beliefs.

Edited May 24, 2017 by RootsBooster

[SnailyBoy]

No, it starts with a conditional, but I find it sad that the both of you are unable to get past the first three words and on to the point.

I accept that is my fault: I should have started with a proposition: "let us give the thing that created the world a name, and for want of a better one, let's call it 'god'."

 

Does your argument still work if you replace' god' with 'universe creating pixie'?