Atheists are more intelligent than Religious people

[Hairyloon]

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

 

It sees to me that people are taking up their own labels and the argument is over the definition of those labels.

[Cyclone]

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 ----------

 

 

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

 

I claim that Santa exists.

 

Prove me wrong silent bob.

[DnAuK]

You can believe there is a god without knowing there's a god.

 

Isn't the nature of 'belief' that you don't actually 'know'? I know I am typing this whilst resting on a table, so I don't need to believe in the table and go around saying (in the words of the great Terry Pratchett) 'Oh great Table, without which we are nought...'

 

Some would argue that if God were proven there would be no religion, as there would be no need for it. No-one would need faith, as they would already know. And God would be subject to Daily Mail headlines on why he chose to make things like sugary foods so delicious yet so damn dangerous.

[Cyclone]

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'."

 

 

Your point now presupposes an actor, a thing that creates.

How can a thing that creates have existed before the universe existed?

 

As to it starting with a conditional, if you prefer, yes it does. And is then entirely circular.

 

Conditional (true) then conditional (true). Is what your sentence said.

If god exists to create the universe, then god exists.

Well, that's a self referential bit of logical that does nothing to help us consider whether a/any god(s) exist.

And equally if false it just restates itself,

If god didn't exist to create the universe, then god doesn't exist.

An entirely pointless statement as it's self evident.

 

---------- Post added 24-05-2017 at 15:29 ----------

 

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...

 

If you were the water filling a hole, thus making a puddle, and you ran the numbers to figure out just how unlikely it was that the precise hole that fitted your watery shape was, you'd think it very unlikely.

The very fact that you are there to question it makes it inevitable though.

 

If you want to use maths to prove intelligent design then I think you're going to have to try a lot harder than "it's pretty unlikely that we evolved".

 

---------- Post added 24-05-2017 at 15:31 ----------

 

 

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.

 

I can't believe that he is both alive and dead, or that he is neither alive nor dead. They are binary states. I could say that I don't know, thus refusing to express a belief. But if I refute that he is dead, then given the binary options, I am saying that he is alive.

Edited May 24, 2017 by Cyclone

[Obelix]

I claim that Santa exists.

 

Prove me wrong silent bob.

 

I claim that I in fact am Santa and I have the photos to prove it.

[SnailyBoy]

Isn't the nature of 'belief' that you don't actually 'know'? I know I am typing this whilst resting on a table, so I don't need to believe in the table and go around saying (in the words of the great Terry Pratchett) 'Oh great Table, without which we are nought...'

 

Some would argue that if God were proven there would be no religion, as there would be no need for it. No-one would need faith, as they would already know. And God would be subject to Daily Mail headlines on why he chose to make things like sugary foods so delicious yet so damn dangerous.

 

Isn't knowledge a subset of belief?

[Hairyloon]

Your point now presupposes an actor, a thing that creates.

How can a thing that creates have existed before the universe existed?

You have taken a leap, from the world to the universe, and a further leap to suppose that what created the world is a thing, and not, for example a set of laws.

 

All these leaps and still you cannot make it to the end of the sentence.

 

If you were the water filling a hole, thus making a puddle, and you ran the numbers to figure out just how unlikely it was that the precise hole that fitted your watery shape was, you'd think it very unlikely.

 

Er, no. If you apply the laws of physics to the water, you would find it inevitable that it fits the hole.

 

If you want to use maths to prove intelligent design then I think you're going to have to try a lot harder than "it's pretty unlikely that we evolved".

There is no question that we evolved, the relevant issue is the probability that we evolved in the available time frame without any help.

And yes, to prove it either way will require some serious number crunching, but on the face of it, the probability is so mind numbingly remote as to cast some doubt on the non-existence of god.

 

Isn't knowledge a subset of belief?

 

No.

[TheNugget]

Isn't knowledge a subset of belief?

 

I don't think so. Knowledge implies that something is known, and to know something implies that there is evidence providing my it beyond a reasonable doubt. Belief is simply choosing to believe something in the absence of evidence.

 

Belief coould be a subset of Knowledge, or at least a step in the way. A theory is akin to a belief. Testing and proving it makes it knowledge. Religion is firmly a belief as it hasn't been proven.

 

Atheism is not a belief. It is the absence of belief in what someone else asserts is true without evidence.

[Obelix]

There is no question that we evolved, the relevant issue is the probability that we evolved in the available time frame without any help..

 

The liklehood of it occurring is almost certain.

 

You only need 40 amino acids to create a self replicating peptide. The chance of that exact sequence occurring in a primordial goop is about once every six months for a litre of goop. Once you have that, you are off.

[TheNugget]

 

There is no question that we evolved, the relevant issue is the probability that we evolved in the available time frame without any help.

And yes, to prove it either way will require some serious number crunching, but on the face of it, the probability is so mind numbingly remote as to cast some doubt on the non-existence of god.

 

Species evolve all of the time. In the scheme of things it is not very long since dinosaurs roamed the earth. It doesn't seem that unlikely to me that in the course of 14 Billion years life has evolved. 14 Billion is an extremely long time.