Atheists are more intelligent than Religious people

[SnailyBoy]

If you don't have a belief in Santa, then you believe that Santa doesn't exist.

 

When it's a binary choice, exist/not exist, then not believing one, means believing the other.

 

But weren't we going to drop this as not really on topic?

 

No it doesn't

 

If I'm on a jury and I don't believe the defendant is guilty, I can believe they're not guilty. It doesn't mean that I believe the defendant is innocent. Just that the burden of proof of guilt hasn't been met

[Cyclone]

If you claimed to have a dragon in your garage and I said that I didn't believe you, would it mean that I believed that you didn't have a dragon in your garage?

 

Yes, because it's a binary option. If you don't believe that it's there, you believe that it isn't there.

[SnailyBoy]

Yes, because it's a binary option. If you don't believe that it's there, you believe that it isn't there.

 

Wow, no it doesn't. There could be a dragon, all they have to do is open the door and prove the dragon claim.

[sgtkate]

Wow, no it doesn't. There could be a dragon, all they have to do is open the door and prove the dragon claim.

 

Cyclone and carlinate are right here. We are talking about your belief, not reality. If the options are:

- there is a dragon

- there isn't a dragon

then if you believe one to be true you MUST believe the other is false. It's basic logic. A belief changes into a fact when they open the door as then you can assess the situation, but we aren't talking about facts, we are talking about beliefs.

[Cyclone]

No it doesn't

 

If I'm on a jury and I don't believe the defendant is guilty, I can believe they're not guilty. It doesn't mean that I believe the defendant is innocent. Just that the burden of proof of guilt hasn't been met

 

If you believe that the burden of proof hasn't been met, then by definition, you believe that they are innocent.

 

---------- Post added 23-05-2017 at 17:18 ----------

 

Wow, no it doesn't. There could be a dragon, all they have to do is open the door and prove the dragon claim.

 

So I suppose you could state that you simply don't know. But that's a cop out, a failure to reach a conclusion given the evidence you've got so far.

It's not some sort of quantum system, if you don't believe it exists, then disbelief in existence is the same as belief in not existence.

 

---------- Post added 23-05-2017 at 17:19 ----------

 

Wow, no it doesn't. There could be a dragon, all they have to do is open the door and prove the dragon claim.

 

So you would then have been wrong, and you'd update your conclusion in the face of new evidence, so what?

[El Cid]

If you don't have a belief in Santa, then you believe that Santa doesn't exist.

 

When it's a binary choice, exist/not exist, then not believing one, means believing the other.

 

 

I dont believe in the Santa that flies through the sky with the reindeers; but I could believe that there is some truth in the St. Nicholas and his generous gifts to the poor.

[Carlinate]

Right then, if we're going to get the dictionary out - Theist does not = god. Theist is "belief in the existence of a god or gods" (get the Oxford English Dictionary out). Atheism is by definition the absence of belief.

 

There is no belief structure to atheism, there are no claims as to the existence of any kind of supernatural deity, it is essentially a vacuum of belief.

 

I would dispute that they have reached a conclusion that is unsupported by evidence - logical paradoxes alone dictate against the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient god.

 

If you want to get the dictionary out be my guest.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiN7bTQtYbUAhWnDMAKHYuZDxkQFghMMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.cambridge.org%2Fdictionary%2Fenglish%2Fatheist&usg=AFQjCNE8iZ6ImxKp23zi1VVBpkuYRV3LiA

 

And I would dispute that they have proven anything by logical paradox or any other conjecture.

 

Get back to me when you can prove the non existence of god/gods.

 

To save you some time this is where you reply by pointing out that it is impossible to prove a negative and I reply by saying Exactly!

 

---------- Post added 23-05-2017 at 17:31 ----------

 

I agree, there is or there isn't.

 

However, saying that I don't believe the claim that a god exists simply means that the god claim hasn't met the burden of proof.

 

That doesn't mean that I believe the opposite is true.

 

If you claimed to have a dragon in your garage and I said that I didn't believe you, would it mean that I believed that you didn't have a dragon in your garage?

 

Do you know what, I do believe it would.

 

Imagine your dismay when you enter my garage and my Komodo dragon attacks you and bites your leg off!

 

---------- Post added 23-05-2017 at 17:43 ----------

 

There are three possible answers yes/no/there is insufficient evidence to tell either way.

 

Which would equate to theist, atheist, agnostic.

 

But I wasn't replying to an agnostic, I was replying to someone who had stated that he didn't believe in god/gods which is an atheist point of view.

 

Someone who has formed an opinion has a yes or no option, and if it's no then logic dictates that they believe that there is no god/gods.

 

Agnostics don't hold an opinion as they accept that there is insufficient evidence on the subject.

[SnailyBoy]

If you believe that the burden of proof hasn't been met, then by definition, you believe that they are innocent.

No, they're found not guilty, the claim of innocence hasn't even been considered.

 

---------- Post added 23-05-2017 at 17:18 ----------

 

 

So I suppose you could state that you simply don't know. But that's a cop out, a failure to reach a conclusion given the evidence you've got so far.

It's not some sort of quantum system, if you don't believe it exists, then disbelief in existence is the same as belief in not existence.

 

No, I don't know is the right answer, based on the evidence provided which is simply a garage and a claim of what's inside. You don't know if there's a dragon in there, but based on the evidence you don't believe the claim that there is a dragon in there.

 

---------- Post added 23-05-2017 at 17:19 ----------

 

 

 

So you would then have been wrong, and you'd update your conclusion in the face of new evidence, so what?

 

Huh, so saying that you don't believe a claim, then change your belief when presented with new evidence means you were 'wrong' before? All it would mean is that the claim has been proven.

Edited May 23, 2017 by SnailyBoy

[Carlinate]

 

That isn't what the title implies at all, you've simply misinterpreted it.

 

That is exactly what the title implies.

 

'Atheists are more intelligent than religious people'

 

What other inference could be drawn from that title?

 

Had it said ' Generally speaking atheists are more intelligent than religious people' then it would have allowed for some latitude, but it didn't.

 

Had it contained the word 'some' or even ' most ' it would have made a more reasonable point, but it didn't.

 

It stated boldly with no qualifier that 'Atheists', which refers to everyone in the world holding that view, are more intelligent than religious people which again means every religious person in the world.

[SnailyBoy]

Cyclone and carlinate are right here. We are talking about your belief, not reality. If the options are:

- there is a dragon

- there isn't a dragon

then if you believe one to be true you MUST believe the other is false. It's basic logic. A belief changes into a fact when they open the door as then you can assess the situation, but we aren't talking about facts, we are talking about beliefs.

 

That's not what I said, I said that I didn't believe the claim. Yes there is or isn't a dragon, that's basic logic

 

However, the claim that there is a dragon inside the garage hasn't met it's burden of proof. It's just a garage and claim of what's inside

 

So therefore the claim shouldn't be believed. But there could be a dragon, as we know there either is or isn't.

 

So why if the initial claim that there is a dragon isn't believed because it hasn't been proven, does the belief automatically become that there isn't a dragon?

 

Can't it simply be, 'I don't believe you, prove it'?

 

---------- Post added 23-05-2017 at 18:08 ----------

 

If you want to get the dictionary out be my guest.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiN7bTQtYbUAhWnDMAKHYuZDxkQFghMMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.cambridge.org%2Fdictionary%2Fenglish%2Fatheist&usg=AFQjCNE8iZ6ImxKp23zi1VVBpkuYRV3LiA

 

And I would dispute that they have proven anything by logical paradox or any other conjecture.

 

Get back to me when you can prove the non existence of god/gods.

 

To save you some time this is where you reply by pointing out that it is impossible to prove a negative and I reply by saying Exactly!

 

---------- Post added 23-05-2017 at 17:31 ----------

 

 

Do you know what, I do believe it would.

 

Imagine your dismay when you enter my garage and my Komodo dragon attacks you and bites your leg off!

 

---------- Post added 23-05-2017 at 17:43 ----------

 

 

Which would equate to theist, atheist, agnostic.

 

But I wasn't replying to an agnostic, I was replying to someone who had stated that he didn't believe in god/gods which is an atheist point of view.

 

Someone who has formed an opinion has a yes or no option, and if it's no then logic dictates that they believe that there is no god/gods.

 

Agnostics don't hold an opinion as they accept that there is insufficient evidence on the subject.

 

I didn't claim that god/gods don't exist. I simply don't believe the claim that they do.

 

The burden of proof is with those that make the positive claim.

Edited May 23, 2017 by SnailyBoy