Atheists are more intelligent than Religious people

[TheNugget]

Not as long as you might think.

 

Well that's a good start. Few more monkeys and a bit more time and they will get there.

[Carlinate]

Okay, do you accept theist claims on the existence of the Christian God have met the burden of proof?

 

No, in exactly the same way that I don't accept that atheist claims on the non existence of god/gods of any kind have met the burden of proof.

 

Neither of them can prove their contentions, which makes their views beliefs rather than facts.

[Obelix]

Can I press you for a reference for that?

I'm not doubting it, but assuming it is a proper paper, then it looks to be one worthy of further study.

 

But that would give us an ocean full of proteins, and I'll assume also nucleic acids and othe complex organic molecules. It is a long way from there to life as we know it.

 

The Miller-Urey experiemts showed that primordial gases and lightning etc will give you quite quickly a supply of amino acids.

 

Computational techniques will show the chance of any chain of amino acids forming - if you get a 26 acid chain that is self replicating but cannot mutate. A 40 chain one can. From that point on it will evolve.

 

The chance of life evolving from single cell organism to man is well known because we have the fossil record to prove it. It's the abiogenesis part that is poorly understood and this can be shown to be easily possible in the required timescale. The uncertaintly is actually what happened - the jump from 40 unit peptides to single cell life.

[SnailyBoy]

Logical?

 

Not prepared to hold any belief ( on this particular matter ) which cannot be proven using verifiable facts, and seeing no reason to do so as the possibility of either contention ever being proven is less than likely.

 

No, in exactly the same way that I don't accept that atheist claims on the non existence of god/gods of any kind have met the burden of proof.

 

Neither of them can prove their contentions, which makes their views beliefs rather than facts.

 

 

So you lack a belief in the existence of god/gods?

 

Ps. I haven't made a claim on the non-existence of god/gods.

[Carlinate]

So you lack a belief in the existence of god/gods?

 

Ps. I haven't made a claim on the non-existence of god/gods.

 

I don't hold a belief in either the existence or non existence of god/gods.

 

There is no knowledge available to enable me to reach a view either way.

 

Theists believe there are god/gods but don't have evidence to support that claim.

 

However, just because there is no evidence of god/gods does not prove conclusively that they/it doesn't exist. Black Swans?

 

Atheists hold a belief that there aren't any god/gods without the evidence to support that claim. Which means that they also are believers, whether they like that description or not.

 

Theists appear relaxed about being described as believers, atheists not so much.

 

Holding an opinion which you can't prove makes you a believer.

[SnailyBoy]

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.

 

Isn't belief accepting that a proposition is true or likely true?

 

---------- Post added 24-05-2017 at 18:19 ----------

 

I don't hold a belief in either the existence or non existence of god/gods.

 

There is no knowledge available to enable me to reach a view either way.

 

Theists believe there are god/gods but don't have evidence to support that claim.

 

However, just because there is no evidence of god/gods does not prove conclusively that they/it doesn't exist. Black Swans?

 

Atheists hold a belief that there aren't any god/gods without the evidence to support that claim. Which means that they also are believers, whether they like that description or not.

 

Theists appear relaxed about being described as believers, atheists not so much.

 

Holding an opinion which you can't prove makes you a believer.

 

You've shown in earlier posts that you've rejected the proposition that a god exists.

 

Okay, do you accept theist claims on the existence of the Christian God have met the burden of proof?

 

No, in exactly the same way that I don't accept that atheist claims on the non existence of god/gods of any kind have met the burden of proof.

 

Neither of them can prove their contentions, which makes their views beliefs rather than facts.

 

Theism is 'I believe a god exists'

 

Atheism is 'I don't believe a god exists'

 

Once again, I'm not making a claim on the non-existence of a god. Atheism is a rejection of the proposition that a god exists.

Edited May 24, 2017 by SnailyBoy

[RootsBooster]

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.

 

 

I think so too!

[Carlinate]

 

---------- Post added 24-05-2017 at 18:19 ----------

 

 

You've shown in earlier posts that you've rejected the proposition that a god exists.

 

Theism is 'I believe a god exists'

 

Atheism is 'I don't believe a god exists'

 

Once again, I'm not making a claim. Atheism is a rejection of the proposition that a god exists.

 

How do you manage to reach the conclusion that I have ' rejected the proposition that a god exists ' from my comment ' There is no knowledge available to enable me to reach a view either way '?

 

Additionally, what part of ' However, just because there is no evidence of god/gods does not prove conclusively that they/it doesn't exist ' did you not understand?

 

Did you understand why I referenced Black Swans?

 

You are making no sense whatsoever, your conclusion is at complete variance to what I said in my post.

[SnailyBoy]

Okay, do you accept theist claims on the existence of the Christian God have met the burden of proof?

 

No, in exactly the same way that I don't accept that atheist claims on the non existence of god/gods of any kind have met the burden of proof.

 

Neither of them can prove their contentions, which makes their views beliefs rather than facts.

 

How do you manage to reach the conclusion that I have ' rejected the proposition that a god exists ' from my comment ' There is no knowledge available to enable me to reach a view either way '?

 

Additionally, what part of ' However, just because there is no evidence of god/gods does not prove conclusively that they/it doesn't exist ' did you not understand?

 

Did you understand why I referenced Black Swans?

 

You are making no sense whatsoever, your conclusion is at complete variance to what I said in my post.

 

We're not talking about knowledge, but belief. Theists make claims, do you believe them?

 

I asked you if you accepted the theist claims of the existence of the Christian God.

 

You said 'No'

 

There was just one proposition to be considered, the existence of the Christian God.

 

You rejected it.

 

You don't believe them.

Edited May 24, 2017 by SnailyBoy

[RootsBooster]

I can't believe that he is both alive and dead, or that he is neither alive nor dead. They are binary states.

 

Of course you can't hold two opposing beliefs, that would be ridiculous. Because the binary state of each belief is that it is either present or it is not, you can be without both beliefs (without belief that Elvis is dead and without belief that Elvis is alive).

It seems that you're falling prey to circular logic, similar to that which theists use (when they say "God made the Earth, the Earth exists so God must exist").

In your case it's "If you don't believe in something, you can't just be without that belief, you must hold an opposing belief. I can't believe that something both exists and doesn't exist, therefore if I don't believe one I must believe the other".

 

The binary options of a belief are that it is present or it is absent. You think that the binary options are that a belief is present or another, opposing belief is present.

 

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.

Once again, when asked what you do/don't believe, responding with what you do/don't know is not a compatible answer. It's like someone asking you if you'd like an apple or prefer to go without and you answer "I'll take an orange please".

 

Because it keeps coming up, I have to ask - do think that what you believe and what you know are synonymous?

 

---------- Post added 24-05-2017 at 18:46 ----------

 

Theism is 'I believe a god exists'

 

Atheism is 'I don't believe a god exists'

 

Once again, I'm not making a claim on the non-existence of a god. Atheism is a rejection of the proposition that a god exists.

 

Exactly, it's like saying "No, not convinced, you'll have to present some evidence. That doesn't mean I have rule out the possibility and hold an opposing belief though."