Atheists are more intelligent than Religious people

[Cyclone]

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.

It's not speculation to require the burden of proof to rest on the claimant nor to apply occams razor. You don't call it speculating when you deny my claim that I can fly... Or that santa exists, or any other random assertion I care to come up with. Or perhaps you do, and you go around in life suspending judgement on every nonsense claim that you hear.

 

 

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.

The facts are that there is no evidence to support the existence of deities, the burden of proof rests on the people who assert they exist, so the rational position is to believe that they don't exist until presented with some evidence.

 

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

No, they simply are not. I've already demonstrated that they are a continuum.

 

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

No, that would be something that I think I know and that I also belief. There are plausible ways it could be untrue though.

 

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.

I know it to a lesser degree of certainty. I believe it in the same way that I believe it's sunny.

 

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

No I won't. It's possible that she might have the number redirected.

You're mistakenly claiming that the evidence of your own senses is inviolate and guarantees that something is correct.

 

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 thought we knew it. And that's all we ever do. We THINK we know something. It's just a stronger statement of belief.

 

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

 

No, we knew it. Assumption means without proof, but we had proof, and it still turned out to be wrong, because no matter how certain we are, there are no guarantees.

[Carlinate]

Donald Rumsfield, is that you?

 

Well that's an unknown known, my user name is a known known.

 

Got to admit when I heard him come out with that it made my day!

 

---------- Post added 25-05-2017 at 12:24 ----------

 

It's not speculation to require the burden of proof to rest on the claimant nor to apply occams razor. You don't call it speculating when you deny my claim that I can fly... Or that santa exists, or any other random assertion I care to come up with. Or perhaps you do, and you go around in life suspending judgement on every nonsense claim that you hear.

 

 

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.

The facts are that there is no evidence to support the existence of deities, the burden of proof rests on the people who assert they exist, so the rational position is to believe that they don't exist until presented with some evidence.

No, they simply are not. I've already demonstrated that they are a continuum.

No, that would be something that I think I know and that I also belief. There are plausible ways it could be untrue though.

I know it to a lesser degree of certainty. I believe it in the same way that I believe it's sunny.

No I won't. It's possible that she might have the number redirected.

You're mistakenly claiming that the evidence of your own senses is inviolate and guarantees that something is correct.

We thought we knew it. And that's all we ever do. We THINK we know something. It's just a stronger statement of belief.

 

No, we knew it. Assumption means without proof, but we had proof, and it still turned out to be wrong, because no matter how certain we are, there are no guarantees.

 

You are missing the point, I'm agnostic and what I know is that neither theists nor atheists can prove their beliefs.

 

I'm not asking them to, I'm quite happy to let them take whatever comfort or satisfaction that they gain from their viewpoint and let them get on with it providing they don't try to convert me.

 

Knowledge is fact based, belief is opinion, they are different and polar opposites.

 

It used to be believed that the sun orbited the earth and that the earth was the centre of the universe.

 

Both beliefs seemed perfectly rational, the sun does appear to rotate around the earth and looking at a clear star spangled night sky it's easy to believe that we are central to everything.

 

Then we obtained knowledge, and now we know that the earth orbits the sun and we are a small insignificant blue dot traveling through space, and our previous belief has been proven wrong.

 

Give me a plausible way that you can look out the window at a clear blue sky and sunshine on the trees and it not be true.

 

You cannot know something that is incorrect, you may think that you know it but you are mistaken.

 

Therefore you believed something was true but were without the actual knowledge to realise the truth of the matter.

 

You can't know without knowledge, which is why the first four letters are the same.

Edited May 25, 2017 by Carlinate

[Hairyloon]

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...

 

Strange way of going about it... no, not strange, simply a straw man approach.

"<This> is how I define god. <This> is a logical impossibility, therefore god does not exist."

 

And there is plenty of evidence, but evidence is subject to interpretation.

The evidence points to evolution.

You say evolution explains everything, but you do that as act of faith.

I am less convinced: where is the evolutionary pathway that created the zombie ant fungus? What is the evolutionary basis for the appreciation of beauty?

[SnailyBoy]

Strange way of going about it... no, not strange, simply a straw man approach.

"<This> is how I define god. <This> is a logical impossibility, therefore god does not exist."

 

And there is plenty of evidence, but evidence is subject to interpretation.

The evidence points to evolution.

You say evolution explains everything, but you do that as act of faith.

I am less convinced: where is the evolutionary pathway that created the zombie ant fungus? What is the evolutionary basis for the appreciation of beauty?

 

Who said evolution explains everything?

[Hairyloon]

Who said evolution explains everything?

 

All those who are so emphatic over the non-existence of god.

I should, of course have been more precise and said "everything biological" rather than irrationally assuming that everyone will infer that from the context, but hey ho.

[Obelix]

More tapdancing.

 

You stated clearly that you didn't believe in the existence of the Christian God, I asked if you accepted the theist claims, you said no. Post 159

 

Once again, this isn't about knowledge, but belief (accepting that a proposal is true or likely true)

 

You've not joined theists in a belief, you've considered a proposal (Existence of Christian God) and rejected it, you don't believe their proposal of the existence of a Christian God.

 

At no time has anyone suggested you come to a conclusion, all you've done is said that you don't believe a proposal.

 

It's almost as if Huxleys teapot never existed and needed resurrecting.

 

What about the Flying Spaghetti monster. If people choose to disbeleive that then I presume that's a positive rejection?

[SnailyBoy]

All those who are so emphatic over the non-existence of god.

I should, of course have been more precise and said "everything biological" rather than irrationally assuming that everyone will infer that from the context, but hey ho.

 

That's such a strawman, and a nice shifting of the burden of proof too.

 

Evolution doesn't explain abiogenesis.

[Obelix]

All those who are so emphatic over the non-existence of god.

I should, of course have been more precise and said "everything biological" rather than irrationally assuming that everyone will infer that from the context, but hey ho.

 

Why go for the mundane and rational when you can chuck supernaturality into things and make it really confusing

 

---------- Post added 25-05-2017 at 16:18 ----------

 

That's such a strawman, and a nice shifting of the burden of proof too.

 

Evolution doesn't explain abiogenesis.

 

Indeed how could it since by definition evolution can only occur after abiogenesis.

 

---------- Post added 25-05-2017 at 16:21 ----------

 

Strange way of going about it... no, not strange, simply a straw man approach.

"<This> is how I define god. <This> is a logical impossibility, therefore god does not exist."

 

And there is plenty of evidence, but evidence is subject to interpretation.

The evidence points to evolution.

You say evolution explains everything, but you do that as act of faith.

I am less convinced: where is the evolutionary pathway that created the zombie ant fungus? What is the evolutionary basis for the appreciation of beauty?

 

Beauty generally tends to reject deformity, insanity, etc. The absence of these is a positive selection pressure for more viable offspring

 

Standards of male beauty generally tend to emphasis physical prowess which is useful when the male is fighting off wolves, other males, digging fields, etc.

 

Standard for female beauty tend to emphasis the childbearing capacity.

 

The exercise with ant fungus is left to the reader, but I suspect that moving the ant upwards to the light or food source is probably a fairly compelling one...

[Hairyloon]

Beauty generally tends to reject deformity, insanity, etc. The absence of these is a positive selection pressure for more viable offspring

 

Standards of male beauty generally tend to emphasis physical prowess which is useful when the male is fighting off wolves, other males, digging fields, etc.

 

Standard for female beauty tend to emphasis the childbearing capacity..

 

Fair point, but don't you find flowers beautiful, or birdsong?

[Obelix]

Fair point, but don't you find flowers beautiful, or birdsong?

 

Well I've never wanted to hump a nightingale or a bunch of daffodils...

 

It is however an interesting point. Are this things considered beautiful because they are safe and not threatening or is this part of the human mind that is what sets up apart from other life? I mean - could my dog find a view beautiful or pleasant?