Atheists are more intelligent than Religious people

[Obelix]

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 ----------

 

 

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 ----------

 

 

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.

 

If you argue that atheism deals with facts and agnosticism with beleifs then theres no real middle ground to meet on I feel.

[Hairyloon]

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

 

Not really: the argument is on the nature of god, and the nature of pixies is reasonably well established. Plus "god" is a much neater word.

 

---------- Post added 24-05-2017 at 13:43 ----------

 

If you argue that atheism deals with facts and agnosticism with beleifs then theres no real middle ground to meet on I feel.

 

I think you have that the wrong way around.

[SnailyBoy]

Not really: the argument is on the nature of god, and the nature of pixies is reasonably well established. Plus "god" is a much neater word.

 

---------- Post added 24-05-2017 at 13:43 ----------

 

 

I think you have that the wrong way around.

 

Great, as a starter which god are we talking about?

[Hairyloon]

Great, as a starter which god are we talking about?

 

You're really not following this are you?

[SnailyBoy]

You're really not following this are you?

 

Over to you then.

[Hairyloon]

Over to you then.

 

As put earlier, and clarified insofar as we have given whatever created the universe a name: "god".

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: is he no more than the aggregation of 15 billion years of the laws of physics acting upon a single point of nothing, which once exploded, or is he some kind of sentience?

 

Either way, can anyone argue that his creation is not a wondrous thing and therefore the wanton destruction of it is a sin against god, atheism notwithstanding?

[SnailyBoy]

As put earlier, and clarified insofar as we have given whatever created the universe a name: "god".

 

So you're adding the label 'god' to the Kalam cosmological argument?

[Carlinate]

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?

 

Why do you think that it bothers me?

 

It doesn't, what I find slightly annoying though is people ( not you necessarily ) that appear to have an obsession about labeling other people.

 

There are more than two viewpoints when it comes to the existence or non existence of god/gods.

 

The word agnostic was coined to refer to those people who don't fit into the atheist " there is no god/gods " nor the theist " there is a god/gods ".

 

It's nonsense to try to do away with the term because it doesn't suit your point of view.

 

Normally it's atheists that come out with that bilge, which sort of disproves the thread heading.

 

---------- Post added 24-05-2017 at 14:25 ----------

 

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).

 

Could you prove to me that there are people other than small children and their parents claiming that Santa does exist?

[SnailyBoy]

Why do you think that it bothers me?

 

It doesn't, what I find slightly annoying though is people ( not you necessarily ) that appear to have an obsession about labeling other people.

 

There are more than two viewpoints when it comes to the existence or non existence of god/gods.

 

The word agnostic was coined to refer to those people who don't fit into the atheist " there is no god/gods " nor the theist " there is a god/gods ".

 

It's nonsense to try to do away with the term because it doesn't suit your point of view.

 

Normally it's atheists that come out with that bilge, which sort of disproves the thread heading.

 

^

 

This is why I think it bothers you.

 

I'm agnostic too, I make no knowledge claims either way.

 

I'm also not a theist, like you.

 

So what does that make us both?

[sgtkate]

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..

 

That furthers a similar answer to snailyboys and you are right, I was focusing on the binary of whether there is or isn't a dragon rather than the claim which can be disputed in a wide range of ways.