Atheists are more intelligent than Religious people

[Carlinate]

Keep dancing

 

Keep trying to convince yourself that you're intelligent.

[RootsBooster]

He coined the term because he recognized that having only two terms available was insufficient.

 

It isn't a black or white, yes or no question, there is a third viewpoint.

Can you explain, exactly, what that third option is?

 

It's quite straightforward, a simple acceptance of the fact that we don't know, are unlikely ever to know and there is little point in worrying about it.

Again with the conflation of belief and knowledge, are you under the impression that they mean the same thing?

Some people appear to be under the impression that they know everything and such a viewpoint is unacceptable to them.

It's completely acceptable to me. Like many an atheist (without belief) I'm also agnostic (without knowledge) on the matter.

[Carlinate]

Can you explain, exactly, what that third option is?

 

 

Again with the conflation of belief and knowledge, are you under the impression that they mean the same thing?

It's completely acceptable to me. Like many an atheist (without belief) I'm also agnostic (without knowledge) on the matter.

 

The third option is to not accept either of the other two options as your viewpoint.

 

To not accept holding a belief, to insist upon waiting until knowledge is gained and facts obtained.

 

How did you come to the conclusion that I held the impression that knowledge and belief are the same thing?

 

They are opposites, knowledge is based upon verifiable facts and belief is held despite not having facts.

 

Atheist/agnostic, strange position to take, but as someone who detests those who attempt to label others against their wishes I accept your definition of what you are.

 

It seems strange because if you accept that you are without knowledge how did you decide to be atheist without any facts to justify that position?

 

Just curious, because what you believe, or disbelieve is known only to you, and challenging the opinion of your personal beliefs would be somewhat presumptuous and stupid, and I try to avoid being either as much as possible.

[Waldo]

Atheist/agnostic, strange position to take, but as someone who detests those who attempt to label others against their wishes I accept your definition of what you are.

 

I also really dislike that kind of thing; it's basically reductionist. There are as many different positions as there are people.

 

For me, I'm not sure I would even go so far as to say I'm agnostic. The question of god existing or not, is a nonsensical one; I don't believe anyone has any real idea of what they mean by 'god'. Perhaps 'ignostic' best describes my theological position.

 

That said; I believe the truth of the matter is the truth of the matter; things are as they are; the nature of reality (however it is) is as it is, no matter what I think. It makes no difference to anything what my own personal perspective on the matter is. It makes no difference if I think or feel I'm right or wrong. Things are as they are.

[Carlinate]

I also really dislike that kind of thing; it's basically reductionist. There are as many different positions as there are people.

 

For me, I'm not sure I would even go so far as to say I'm agnostic. The question of god existing or not, is a nonsensical one; I don't believe anyone has any real idea of what they mean by 'god'. Perhaps 'ignostic' best describes my theological position.

 

That said; I believe the truth of the matter is the truth of the matter; things are as they are; the nature of reality (however it is) is as it is, no matter what I think. It makes no difference to anything what my own personal perspective on the matter is. It makes no difference if I think or feel I'm right or wrong. Things are as they are.

 

Completely agree, we all rationalise our existence in a way that seems reasonable to us.

 

Attempting to impose your definition on someone elses view is narcissistic behaviour, showing no understanding of other peoples opinion.

[Cyclone]

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.

Yes, yes I do, because to reject one position is to adopt the other.

As you say, "I don't know" is not a statement of belief, so you either believe that Elvis is dead or that Elvis is not dead. There is no zombie state of belief. And having considered the question, it's not possible to form no opinion.

 

 

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".

Whereas you think that there is a 3rd answer to this question... Not me.

 

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

No. Knowledge is a subset of belief.

It could be described as beliefs with a high certainty or for which you believe the evidence is strong. But there may be (almost certainly are) beliefs for which the evidence is on the balance of probabilities or even worse. I wouldn't personally describe those beliefs as known.

 

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."

 

It's a cop out. If you believe that Elvis isn't alive, but are prepared to accept further evidence, you currently believe that he is dead, but are prepared to accept further evidence.

 

---------- Post added 25-05-2017 at 08:13 ----------

 

The santa analogy is stupid.

 

The scriptures are over 1,800 years old and whole religions have been founded on the contents.

 

No one has ever claimed that santa is real only children, their parents and people attempting to sound clever and failing miserably in these type of discussions.

 

Who the hell is silent bob?

 

It's not even an analogy, you refuse to answer it because it will falsify what your claiming about theism and atheism.

You continue to demand a proof of a negative, whilst secretly you understand that negatives cannot be proven.

 

---------- Post added 25-05-2017 at 08:15 ----------

 

Then maybe those people doing the defining should take a look at themselves and ask themselves what their problem is.

 

If someone on the forum tells me they are atheist, agnostic or theist then I take them at their word.

 

Requesting a definition so that you can pick holes in it and then try to persuade them that they've got it wrong and are really something different is weird behaviour.

 

There's probably a name for that also.

 

It's a discussion forum, why should "I am an atheist" be immune from any discussion about what that means or why they've reached that conclusion.

If you don't want to discuss it, don't post it.

[Carlinate]

 

---------- Post added 25-05-2017 at 08:13 ----------

 

 

It's not even an analogy, you refuse to answer it because it will falsify what your claiming about theism and atheism.

You continue to demand a proof of a negative, whilst secretly you understand that negatives cannot be proven.

 

---------- Post added 25-05-2017 at 08:15 ----------

 

 

 

It's a discussion forum, why should "I am an atheist" be immune from any discussion about what that means or why they've reached that conclusion.

If you don't want to discuss it, don't post it.

 

Yes it is an analogy, a comparison between two things to try to make a point.

 

Trouble is that it's a stupid analogy.

 

No one is seriously contending that santa is real.

 

No one is building churches and worshiping santa. No one is devoting their life to santa and no is prepared to sacrifice their life for santa.

 

Millions are prepared to do so for their god(s).

 

It's a daft analogy.

 

Take a look at the last post in which I replied to RootsBooster and pay attention to the last three paragraphs.

 

You will see that I'm asking him a question with regard to his beliefs.

 

Did you miss that?

 

My point is that whilst it's interesting to learn other peoples viewpoints it's presumptuous and ill mannered to then start trying to tell them that they aren't actually a theist/agnostic/atheist as they said they were.

 

You know better than they do as to what their beliefs are, and they are really a 'whatever' at which point the definition squad start trying to prove their brilliance to everyone and the thread eventually gets closed.

 

Prior to posting I've looked in on the forum from time to time and seen it happen.

 

Which is why I made it clear to RootsBooster that whilst I'm curious as to his thinking on the subject I accept his self definition.

[Cyclone]

Are you making an argumentum ad populum?

 

Why do you keep making a reference to an inability to prove a negative (atheists can't prove that god doesn't exist)...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof#Proving_a_negative

 

With some exceptions (bounded sets) it's impossible to prove a negative.

 

Theists (and yourself) are doing this

Shifting the burden of proof[edit]

One way in which one would attempt to shift the burden of proof is by committing a logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance. It occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.

 

The proposition to be clear, is that a god or gods exist.

So, given the lack of evidence for god (take your pick, but we could assume a christian one if it's comfortable), the default position is that it doesn't exist. Unless or until some evidence is provided for it.

Your reference to popularity is not evidence.

 

The only rational position to take is a belief that no god(s) exists, until some evidence is presented otherwise. Much like a rational position regarding santa is that he doesn't exist.

 

This point was made long before I thought of it by the way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

Using a teapot analogy instead of Santa.

 

---------- Post added 25-05-2017 at 10:42 ----------

 

 

They are opposites, knowledge is based upon verifiable facts and belief is held despite not having facts.

 

They're definitely not opposites. They're merely opinions on a sliding scale.

I both believe and know that my other half is at work in Derby right now.

I "know" that because it's where she told me she was going and where she goes on a workday.

I could be wrong though, maybe she bunked off to go shopping.

 

I "know" that it's sunny outside, it's less likely that I'm wrong about that, but perhaps I'm actually just having a complex delusion and really it's raining.

 

We generally believe things that we think we know... And quite often the knowing turns out to be wrong.

 

---------- Post added 25-05-2017 at 10:44 ----------

 

I also really dislike that kind of thing; it's basically reductionist. There are as many different positions as there are people.

 

For me, I'm not sure I would even go so far as to say I'm agnostic. The question of god existing or not, is a nonsensical one; I don't believe anyone has any real idea of what they mean by 'god'. Perhaps 'ignostic' best describes my theological position.

 

That said; I believe the truth of the matter is the truth of the matter; things are as they are; the nature of reality (however it is) is as it is, no matter what I think. It makes no difference to anything what my own personal perspective on the matter is. It makes no difference if I think or feel I'm right or wrong. Things are as they are.

 

Isn't that an argument to avoid stating your opinion?

If we were to talk about gravity, you'd probably be less shy and be happy to say that you believe it exists (you know it exists even). Your opinion doesn't alter the way the universe works of course, but we spend a lot of our cognitive effort in modelling the universe. It's what allows us to not fall over, to catch a ball, and to predict the behaviour of predators and prey to our advantage.

 

---------- Post added 25-05-2017 at 10:52 ----------

 

In his books A Devil's Chaplain (2003) and The God Delusion (2006), ethologist Richard Dawkins used the teapot as an analogy of an argument against what he termed "agnostic conciliation", a policy of intellectual appeasement that allows for philosophical domains that concern exclusively religious matters.[5] Science has no way of establishing the existence or non-existence of a god. Therefore, according to the agnostic conciliator, because it is a matter of individual taste, belief and disbelief in a supreme being are deserving of equal respect and attention. Dawkins presents the teapot as a reductio ad absurdum of this position: if agnosticism demands giving equal respect to the belief and disbelief in a supreme being, then it must also give equal respect to belief in an orbiting teapot, since the existence of an orbiting teapot is just as plausible scientifically as the existence of a supreme being.[6]

 

Relevant I think.

[Carlinate]

Are you making an argumentum ad populum?

 

Why do you keep making a reference to an inability to prove a negative (atheists can't prove that god doesn't exist)...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof#Proving_a_negative

 

With some exceptions (bounded sets) it's impossible to prove a negative.

 

Theists (and yourself) are doing this

 

 

The proposition to be clear, is that a god or gods exist.

So, given the lack of evidence for god (take your pick, but we could assume a christian one if it's comfortable), the default position is that it doesn't exist. Unless or until some evidence is provided for it.

Your reference to popularity is not evidence.

 

The only rational position to take is a belief that no god(s) exists, until some evidence is presented otherwise. Much like a rational position regarding santa is that he doesn't exist.

 

This point was made long before I thought of it by the way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

Using a teapot analogy instead of Santa.

 

---------- Post added 25-05-2017 at 10:42 ----------

 

 

They're definitely not opposites. They're merely opinions on a sliding scale.

I both believe and know that my other half is at work in Derby right now.

I "know" that because it's where she told me she was going and where she goes on a workday.

I could be wrong though, maybe she bunked off to go shopping.

 

I "know" that it's sunny outside, it's less likely that I'm wrong about that, but perhaps I'm actually just having a complex delusion and really it's raining.

 

We generally believe things that we think we know... And quite often the knowing turns out to be wrong.

 

---------- Post added 25-05-2017 at 10:44 ----------

 

 

 

---------- Post added 25-05-2017 at 10:52 ----------

 

 

Relevant I think.

 

You can't prove a negative, exactly that's the whole point.

 

Why do some people find it so hard to accept that some of us have no interest in speculating and deciding to refer to ourselves as atheists, a belief we can't prove or theists another belief that can't be proved and prefer to accept that no one knows and so it is pointless speculating.

 

Believing something that you can't prove isn't rational, it's the opposite.

 

A rational person would simply accept there is no proof and not form an opinion with no facts to support it.

 

Knowledge and belief are opposites. knowledge employs facts and facts are not opinions.

 

You know it's sunny outside because like me you can see it with your own eyes, that would be a fact.

 

You do not know that your wife is at work, you believe that she is because she told you but as you've admitted yourself she might not be, therefore you do not know you believe she's where she said she'd be.

 

Phone her works number, then you'll know, providing that she's there of course.

 

If we believe what we think we know and it turns out to be wrong then we didn't actually know it in the first place did we?

 

We assumed, we believed, but we didn't know.

[Entwined]

You can't prove a negative, exactly that's the whole point.

 

Why do some people find it so hard to accept that some of us have no interest in speculating and deciding to refer to ourselves as atheists, a belief we can't prove or theists another belief that can't be proved and prefer to accept that no one knows and so it is pointless speculating.

 

Believing something that you can't prove isn't rational, it's the opposite.

 

A rational person would simply accept there is no proof and not form an opinion with no facts to support it.

 

Knowledge and belief are opposites. knowledge employs facts and facts are not opinions.

 

You know it's sunny outside because like me you can see it with your own eyes, that would be a fact.

 

You do not know that your wife is at work, you believe that she is because she told you but as you've admitted yourself she might not be, therefore you do not know you believe she's where she said she'd be.

 

Phone her works number, then you'll know, providing that she's there of course.

 

If we believe what we think we know and it turns out to be wrong then we didn't actually know it in the first place did we?

 

We assumed, we believed, but we didn't know.

 

Donald Rumsfield, is that you?