Correlation between increasing intelligence and atheism

nozzferrahhtoo

Freddie59 wrote: »

It's called splitting hairs my friend.

Not at all. There is a massive difference between the two statements. Take the same statement structure but not in a religious context. For example:

"Bird Flu tends to infect the very young and the very old"

"People with bird flu are either very young or very old".

There is a massive difference between the two statements and it is a lot more than "splitting hairs". It is a non-sequitur. The second sentence does not follow in any way from the first, and the person saying the first is in no way implying the second.

Yet you insist on making the same error by suggesting that anyone who says ''religion tends to take advantage of the uneducated and the ignorant'' is automatically in some way implying that if you are religious you are uneducated or ignorant. It, again, is a non-sequitur and an error you would do well to repair.

nozzferrahhtoo

Freddie59 wrote: »

Hedging the old bets there.........:)

Not exactly no, but you do highlight a problem with human discourse here. Were I to express any level of certainty on the matter I would be called "Close minded" and would be told that I would never accept the idea no matter how much evidence I was shown.

Yet when I express open mindedness on the subject... as I do on ALL subjects... by simply acknowledging that the idea is entirely unsubstantiated at this time and so we dismiss it, but I am perfectly willing to change my position should new data become available... I am told I am "Hedging bets".

No: The fact is if a claim is unsubstantiated I will dismiss it. Dismissing it is not the same as saying I will not reconsider the issue should anyone get around to presenting any evidence at all. The issue on subjects like "god" however is that after 18+ years of asking, asking and asking again not one person EVER has offered me the slightest shred of evidence, argument, data OR reasons to substantiate the claims whatsoever.

ed2hands

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I agree with it to a point. It would be dangerous however to read too much into the correlation. Very well educated and very intelligent people have been theists too. However an increase in education and intelligence does apparently correlate with a decrease generally in religiosity.

So where comes the apparent contradiction?

It comes from the fact that there are many reasons people subscribe to religion/god belief (not the same thing but for the purposes of this post they are close enough to make no difference).

Fear of death, child hood indoctrination, ignorance, wishful thinking, personal unexplained experiences, delusion, pride, simple laziness, or even claiming to believe for reasons when one actually does not... one could list all day the reasons for such beliefs.

So an increase in education standard will not wipe out religious beliefs as it only targets one of the many causes of such belief. Some of history's best minds had some of the weirdest delusional ideas. Look at Isaac Newton for example and some of the nutty ideas he subscribed to. No one would question his intelligence, yet he believed some entirely unsubstantiated things.

Just getting back to you about this. I usually enjoy reading what you have to say but this one was a little bit OTT.
On the one hand you've been proposing that there is very little in atheism or what most dyed-in-the-wool atheists say here that would be provocative and that they don't exhibit intellectual superiority, but then you and certain others will in the same breath do exactly what you're trying to distance yourself from.

Your list of up there for instance of reasons people subscribe to religion is i feel a little unfair and phrased to be as disrespectful as possible. And yet you wonder why some would view this take on it as quite arrogant; like you're observing the social habits of primates and taking notes. I gather faith is a little more complex than that.

You mix in a little condescention (" Very well educated and very intelligent people have been theists too") and then go on to equate faith/religion with being a virus that is being "targetted" by education, but unfortunately it wont "wipe it out" because of your lovely list of reasons.

I'm not saying we should all knock ourselves out to be ultrarespectful and wear kid gloves around this, just you know, it's the reason why people form stereotypical views about atheism and some atheists.

nozzferrahhtoo

ed2hands wrote: »

On the one hand you've been proposing that there is very little in atheism or what most dyed-in-the-wool atheists say here that would be provocative and that they don't exhibit intellectual superiority, but then you and certain others will in the same breath do exactly what you're trying to distance yourself from.

I can not find myself making any such claim in the text you quoted. Anywhere. My claim is simply this in the text you quoted:

1) There are many reasons why people end up thinking there is a god. Each person will have a different combination of 1 or more of these things.

2) Lack of education and ignorance is only one of those reasons.

3) Therefore an increase in education and a reduction of ignorance will of course correlate with a reduction in god belief but it will not eradicate it, and very intelligent people will sometimes still think there is a god because their reasons are not the ones connected with intelligence.

I am, as yet, unclear which part of that.... if any.... you are in disagreement with. Or is it simply you have imagined a tone in it which I did not actually hold, and you are disagreeing with HOW I said it rather than WHAT I said?

ed2hands wrote: »

Your list of up there for instance of reasons people subscribe to religion is i feel a little unfair and phrased to be as disrespectful as possible.

It is neither unfair nor disrespectful. Had I indicated that was a complete or exhaustive list then you might indeed have a good point. However I was careful to indicate that it is not an exhaustive list. There are many reasons that are not on that list. Maybe you can add some yourself. I chose the ones I chose for one simple reason: They are the reasons I personally encounter most often. Just me. Personally. I am saying nothing about what anyone else may have experienced.

Again however I hasten to point out the danger of getting too bogged down in HOW I said what I said rather than in WHAT I said. The content is, as far as I am currently aware, sound.

When I write I go to great lengths to write entirely without tone. This of course means some small number of people falsely imagine a tone and attribute it to me. However I have not moved to alter my toneless approach for 3 good reasons:

1) The number of people who have complain is thus far massively eclipsed by the number of people who praise or compliment my style or write to me in PM asking me to come to threads like this and weigh in (eeek I seem to have groupies, but for example I do not actually read After Hours. Ever. If you see me post on a thread here it is because I have been specifically requested to.) as they want to hear what I have to say on the issue.

2) I have seen what happens to people who go out of their way to be as respectful as possible, writing like they are walking on thin ice over a chasm of offence and doing their very best to pander to the sensibilities and vulnerabilities in the "other side". What happens is this: They still get called Shrill, Strident, Arrogant, Condescending and worse. Why??? Quite Simple. There are many people who genuinely find it better to play the player and not the ball and to call people such names in an attempt to entirely avoid having to deal with the content of what is being said.

3) The current strength in Atheism is the massive diversity of voices out there. As much as Theists want to pretend that (and many of them really do) we are all Dawkins Clones or Hitchens Clones or Harris Clones... the reality is actually that there is a diverse sea of voices. Some have angry tones (Hitchens? Myers?). Some have endlessly patient tones (Harris?). Some have authoritative tones (Dennett? Dawkins?). And some, like myself, write as factually as possible while attempting where possible to simply be toneless. No one of those people should be admonished to change and be more like any other one of them. The diversity is where the strength is and I applaud it.

AeoNGriM

Sorry to rant in your thread, OP. This isn't directed at anyone here, just getting it off my chest.

Can education/intelligence prove/disprove the existence of God? Nope. Then it's really just a coincidence at the end of the day isn't it? How intelligent would all educated atheists feel if conclusive proof was discovered tomorrow that God/Allah/Buddha (insert appropriate deity here) does in fact exist?

Less snobby atheist cnuts please, if you don't have definitive proof that there is no Heaven/Paradise/Whatever, then fcukoff and stop looking down your nose at everyone else, you pseudo-superior @rseholes. Seriously, atheism is the new bourgeois all of a sudden. Full of elitist wankbags who think they're better/smarter than everyone else. Fcuk you and your intellectually induced smugness.

Similarly, Godfags, please understand that not everyone shares your beliefs and they don't want to listen to you preach like a pious nonce. Learn to STFU and let people believe what they want, even if that is that God doesn't exist as per your beliefs. Show a little sense and don't just accept sh!t as truth just because someone tells you, use your brain a little and don't be a mindless twat, blindly following some nutbag 'holy man'. Fcuk you and your over-zealous insanity.

/rant

AeoNGriM

AeoNGriM wrote: »

Less snobby atheist cnuts please, if you don't have definitive proof that there is no Heaven/Paradise/Whatever

That's not how it works and you know it.

AeoNGriM wrote:

then fcukoff and stop looking down your nose at everyone else, you pseudo-superior @rseholes. Seriously, atheism is the new bourgeois all of a sudden. Full of elitist wankbags who think they're better/smarter than everyone else. Fcuk you and your intellectually induced smugness.

Pseudo-superior? What does that even mean? Most atheists aren't snobby. Can you provide any example to back up your claim? It sounds like you're one of those people who likes to complain about Dawkins because he's too 'arrogant' or 'confrontational', while not even absorbing the substance of the argument.

You might be referring to the fact that atheists and sceptics are starting to dismiss the notion that we should be respectful of batsh!t crazy ideas, but if that's the case, can you present a good argument for why they shouldn't do that?

There is nothing special about being an atheist; it doesn't automatically mean you're smart, educated or rational.

MagicMarker

AeoNGriM wrote: »

Sorry to rant in your thread, OP. This isn't directed at anyone here, just getting it off my chest.

Can education/intelligence prove/disprove the existence of God? Nope. Then it's really just a coincidence at the end of the day isn't it? How intelligent would all educated atheists feel if conclusive proof was discovered tomorrow that God/Allah/Buddha (insert appropriate deity here) does in fact exist?

Less snobby atheist cnuts please, if you don't have definitive proof that there is no Heaven/Paradise/Whatever, then fcukoff and stop looking down your nose at everyone else, you pseudo-superior @rseholes. Seriously, atheism is the new bourgeois all of a sudden. Full of elitist wankbags who think they're better/smarter than everyone else. Fcuk you and your intellectually induced smugness.

Similarly, Godfags, please understand that not everyone shares your beliefs and they don't want to listen to you preach like a pious nonce. Learn to STFU and let people believe what they want, even if that is that God doesn't exist as per your beliefs. Show a little sense and don't just accept sh!t as truth just because someone tells you, use your brain a little and don't be a mindless twat, blindly following some nutbag 'holy man'. Fcuk you and your over-zealous insanity.

/rant

See ya

nozzferrahhtoo

AeoNGriM wrote: »

Can education/intelligence prove/disprove the existence of God? Nope.

Something important to note is that people like myself are not looking for anything as lofty as "proof". I never ask for proof. I set the bar a lot lower and yet still no one can give me any. What I ask for is any evidence, argument, data OR reasons to lend the idea there is a god even a modicum of credence. That should be a lot easier than "proof" and yet nothing is as yet forthcoming.

AeoNGriM wrote: »

How intelligent would all educated atheists feel if conclusive proof was discovered tomorrow

The same as we do today I imagine. Being right or wrong is nothing to do with intelligence. Being capable of interpreting and analyzing evidence is. I can not conclude there is a god until someone gives me the evidence that there is. If such evidence comes tomorrow then I will change my position. That is nothing to do with how intelligent I am, or feel I am.

No one is stupid just because they came to the wrong conclusion in the absence of the right evidence. If new evidence came to light tomorrow that is no reflection on the intelligence of those who have thus far been forced to operate in the absence of such evidence.

AeoNGriM wrote: »

...snobby... cnuts... fcukoff... pseudo-superior @rseholes...elitist wankbags... .Fcuk you...smugness.

Worth noting is something I have learned over the years: Insults demean only the insulter. Never the Target. Ever. However given your clearly strong feelings on either side discussing the matter perhaps it is worth considering not taking the time to read posts on such topics as this and thus spare yourself the obvious torment of people exercising their rights to free speech on an issue that personally bores you.

yawha

af_thefragile wrote: »

A watch without a watchmaker doesn't make sense to me.

A watchmaker without parents doesn't make too much sense to me, personally.

Your posts strike me as indicating that you were once quite angsty or nihilistically inclined at some point in your life. I guess if religion can give you solace then fair enough.

But for me, the universe is more than enough to make my life feel meaningful. We have, on our planet, so many sources of beauty and wonder. Beauty and wonder which can be experienced first hand with our own senses.

I don't need to know where it all came from. I don't need to believe in a metaphysical entity that started it all, that ultimately I wouldn't be able to fully explain to myself anyway. For me, all I need is to look around me and witness the vast, intensely interesting, diverse, awesome planet I'm living on. It doesn't matter if I don't know, or can't know, what happened before it, even though one of the great things about our existence is the joy of investigation and discovery. All I know is, I want to live my life and I'm happy that I'm alive.

coffee_cake

buddha is not a deity

mcmoustache

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Can I ask any of the Atheists here, do you believe in an afterlife? I'm not talking about God, Jesus or any supernatural being, just plain and simple, afterlife yay or nay.

Speaking for myself here and not on behalf of others:

No, I don't think that there is an afterlife. I believe that when people die, depending on how they die (heart attack versus shotgun through the brain), their brains go through a shutting down phase. This includes the bright light, seeing relatives, out of body sensations and feeling blissful. Something like a dream state. How long they perceive this lasting is hard to say but dreams can feel like days when only 5 minutes pass by in reality.

This doesn't imply that there is an afterlife, only that people dieing can perceive what they think is an afterlife when they come close to death.

The problem I have with the concept of an afterlife is that there is no mechanism that would make this possible. Everything that it "me" is confined to this physical body of mine. My senses are all functions of my body and so are my thoughts and feelings. When I think "Oh, what a beautiful day it is", I have perceived my environment and something in my brain feels good as a result. All this has been explained by neurology so it's not magical.

Now if my body is dead and eaten by worms, I no longer have eyes to see nor do I have a brain to feel or process information. Lots of theists believe that something called a soul is what performs this perception in the afterlife but these same people believed that it performed this function in the earthly world too. The earthly soul can be easily enough dismissed since it hasn't been detected after plenty of people trying and has now been confined to the magic realm so the idea of a soul doesn't really fly with me.

tl;dr

I don't believe in an afterlife because I don't see how I could see or think without a brain or eyes. Magic brain and magic eyes isn't going to convince me.

MrPudding

af_thefragile wrote: »

As I said, its a personal belief. I see things in a different way from you do.
To me life in general makes more sense when seen from the religious/theological viewpoint. Everything fits better and completes the picture for me. There are still holes but its mostly due to my own lack of knowledge and it does little to distort the picture for me. A watch without a watchmaker doesn't make sense to me.

I can't live in a Godless nihilistic world cuz then everything would instantly lose meaning and I'ld rather wish a giant meteorite hit the planet and destroy everything cuz our existence is rather pointless anyway and there is way too much fighting, killing and general ugliness in this world to justify the reason for our existence. Extreme it may be but both science and history has proven the world would be better off without us humans.

But I don't live in a Godless nihilist world and I do believe there is an ultimate meaning, reason and purpose to everything we do and the way the world is. Its not instantly apparent to us because our intellects are mostly not capable of seeing "things as they truly are" and hence we can never fully decipher and comprehend the grand design of all events that take place and how each one of us fits perfectly in it. And just because we can not fully comprehend it doesn't mean there is no design. If there is anything such as an afterlife, there is a fine balance to existence. It completes the meaning and reason to our existence. It completes the cycle of ebb and flow to reach the perfect synchronous balance.

Many scientists even say we humans have evolved to believe in a God or at least in a higher being because that way it gives our highly unpredictable lives on this planet, the certainty we need to live in peace. That we are not just random pointless, product of chance, entities floating around pointlessly through the endless ocean of space and time. Instead our reality and life has a meaning and purpose which makes us responsible for ourselves, others and the world we live in. Scientists say its just nature's way of protecting our species. A theologian might say its God's way of protecting ourselves and what's around us.



So finally for me:

1. Believing in God and religion makes my life a lot more meaningful and purposeful.

2. A Godless nihilist world is inherently pointless as are our actions ultimately, in which at the end of it all we're just pointless beings floating pointlessly through the infinite universe and we'ld be better off by self destructing and ending our suffering.

3. We are inherently (call it by evolution) programmed to believe in God or a higer power or religion or a meaning and purpose to our life. The question of "who am I?" and "what is the purpose/meaning of life?" is a universal question that humans have been asking since they emerged on this planet.

4. That's 3 reasons already why I believe in God. Finally if you don't wager on the existence of God and you're wrong by even the minutest of percentage, you're going to end up in a pretty bad place and no one would like to end up in a bad place. Like Socrates said before being executed, loosely paraphrased, "If I'm wrong and there is nothing after death then its like a sleep without any dreams which is the most comfortable of sleep. But if I'm right then I'll be rewarded in the next life while you will end up in a bad place" (or something along those lines, sorry don't remember the exact quote, might check it later and correct it though I most probably wont, anyway the accuracy of my quoting abilities here don't matter). And hence its much better odds to live your life according to religious teachings than rejecting all and doing what you will.



So that's it. Now I'm off to get some lunch and need to wake up early for college tomorrow.

I pity you.

MrP

TheyKnowMyIP

bluewolf wrote: »

buddha is not a deity

Budda is a loadofmebollix.

ed2hands

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I can not find myself making any such claim in the text you quoted. Anywhere.

Sorry if that was implied. I actually didn't say it was in that text; but that you have said it. It's elsewhere on this thread.

(quote: In fact the position of most, if not all, atheists I have seen on these forums would be closer to what I wrote in post #91 above in response to dilbert2.)

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It is neither unfair nor disrespectful. Had I indicated that was a complete or exhaustive list then you might indeed have a good point. However I was careful to indicate that it is not an exhaustive list.

Yes you were careful enough to do that granted, but you listed only the ones that were the most.. let's say.. provocative. Ok let's look at your list again for clarity:

"Fear of death, child hood indoctrination, ignorance, wishful thinking, personal unexplained experiences, delusion, pride, simple laziness, or even claiming to believe for reasons when one actually does not... one could list all day the reasons for such beliefs."

I still think that list contains at least a slightly unfair and disrespectful bias towards the less attractive reasons, so am of the opinion it is, along with the rest of that post, not lacking in a certain tone.

Let's slightly modify/swing that list around a bit to reasons a person is an athiest, just for arguments sake, not that i actually think this:

Fear of ridicule, child hood indoctrination, ignorance, wishful thinking, delusion, pride, simple laziness, or even claiming to have a lack of belief when one actually does...one could list all day the reasons for such lack of beliefs.

I don't think it's exactly lacking in tone to be honest but there you go.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

When I write I go to great lengths to write entirely without tone. This of course means some small number of people falsely imagine a tone and attribute it to me.

:)Yes well, it's just my take on it. Maybe i'm imagining it. Anyhoo, I do enjoy reading your opinions and find them interesting.

nozzferrahhtoo

ed2hands wrote: »

(quote: In fact the position of most, if not all, atheists I have seen on these forums would be closer to what I wrote in post #91 above in response to dilbert2.)

That also does not contain me saying what you mentioned above. Mainly because when I said what I said here above I was again referring to the content, not the tone. when I said many atheists are closer to what I wrote in post #91 I meant only WHAT I wrote, not the tone, or lack of it, that I wrote it in.

The content of what I wrote however no one has actually replied to. I think the content is sound, and that most atheists agree with it, which is likely why no one has replied to it, but I stand prepared to be corrected.

ed2hands wrote: »

but you listed only the ones that were the most.. let's say.. provocative.

False. And an unusual mistake for you to make given I just told you in the last post exactly why I picked the ones I did. I picked them solely based on one thing: They are the ones I personally see most of. I am willing to explore any one of them you like if you want to pick one which you think was particularly out of line or unfair. However let us recognise it for the tangent it is while doing so, lest we leave ourselves or others confused.

Pick another atheist and he will likely have a different list. The list of examples, and what you put in it, are irrelevant however. If it bothers you then replace it with your own, my point will stay the same which is that an increase in education will only reduce religiosity in those for whom ignorance was their reason for thinking there was a god.

For those with other reasons, they will likely retain their faith regardless of the level of education they obtain.

Which explains why an increase in education can correlate with a reduction in the religious but can still leave well educated people believing. Apparent contradiction in reality explained.

That is my point, even if you would rather talk about my example and my tone rather than reply to it.

ed2hands wrote: »

Anyhoo, I do enjoy reading your opinions and find them interesting.

Thank you. I try.

Chuck Stone

ed2hands wrote: »

like you're observing the social habits of primates and taking notes.

I don't think the other primates believe in deities. At least there is no evidence by observing their behaviour AFAIK.

AeoNGriM wrote: »

Sorry to rant in your thread, OP. This isn't directed at anyone here, just getting it off my chest.

Militant agnostic?

MagicSean

Maybe it's just me but i think people are getting dumber not smarter. Our collective knowledge might be growing but there are some bat**** stupid people out there.

cosmicfart

the majority of educated people of the last 2000 years were probably practicing Christian's. So becoming smarter or more educated does not mean you are more mature and can explain away the mysteries of life. Atheistism itself is nothing more than a stick to bash religious people over the head with. you cant prove or disprove 'God' and thats a fact!

Kidchameleon

mcmoustache wrote: »

Speaking for myself here and not on behalf of others:

No, I don't think that there is an afterlife. I believe that when people die, depending on how they die (heart attack versus shotgun through the brain), their brains go through a shutting down phase. This includes the bright light, seeing relatives, out of body sensations and feeling blissful. Something like a dream state. How long they perceive this lasting is hard to say but dreams can feel like days when only 5 minutes pass by in reality.

This doesn't imply that there is an afterlife, only that people dieing can perceive what they think is an afterlife when they come close to death.

The problem I have with the concept of an afterlife is that there is no mechanism that would make this possible. Everything that it "me" is confined to this physical body of mine. My senses are all functions of my body and so are my thoughts and feelings. When I think "Oh, what a beautiful day it is", I have perceived my environment and something in my brain feels good as a result. All this has been explained by neurology so it's not magical.

Now if my body is dead and eaten by worms, I no longer have eyes to see nor do I have a brain to feel or process information. Lots of theists believe that something called a soul is what performs this perception in the afterlife but these same people believed that it performed this function in the earthly world too. The earthly soul can be easily enough dismissed since it hasn't been detected after plenty of people trying and has now been confined to the magic realm so the idea of a soul doesn't really fly with me.

tl;dr

I don't believe in an afterlife because I don't see how I could see or think without a brain or eyes. Magic brain and magic eyes isn't going to convince me.

Ok interesting post. Ill give you something to ponder, now I'm not trying to preach or change you in any way, just have a think...

I think you'll agree with me, you have hands, eyes, legs etc... Now ask yourself what are they made of? You probably answered that they are in fact made of energy, and you would be right. In fact, everything in the universe is energy, that is scientific fact. That computer screen in front of you, you can touch it and feel it, it is made of energy.

Your conscience, your thinking mind, what is that made of? It must be energy, since everything in the universe is made of energy. But can you touch it or feel it? How do you know it is there? Well you probably do know it is there if you are reading this! But basically my point is, it is energy but it doesent necessarily represent something physical...

Now lets get back to your hands for example. When you die, what happens to the energy they are made from? This energy is probably reconstructed into something else, who knows? But what happens to your mind? Remember it is not energy in the form of something physical. It is energy that represents something that you cant touch or feel or even see, yet you know you mind is there.

Remember, matter and hence energy cannot be destroyed. Not even behemoth black holes can destroy it.

MagicMarker

cosmicfart wrote: »

So becoming smarter or more educated does not mean you can explain away the mysteries of life.

Actually it does mean exactly that. The more we learn, the smarter we get will result in more mysteries being solved. I would have thought this was obvious tbh.

cosmicfart wrote: »

Atheistism itself is nothing more than a stick to bash religious people over the head with. you cant prove or disprove 'God' and thats a fact!

Is that what 'atheistism' is? Not to be mixed up with atheism of course, which is obviously something completely different.

MagicMarker

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Ok interesting post. Ill give you something to ponder, now I'm not trying to preach or change you in any way, just have a think...

I think you'll agree with me, you have hands, eyes, legs etc... Now ask yourself what are they made of? You probably answered that they are in fact made of energy, and you would be right. In fact, everything in the universe is energy, that is scientific fact. That computer screen in front of you, you can touch it and feel it, it is made of energy.

Your conscience, your thinking mind, what is that made of? It must be energy, since everything in the universe is made of energy. But can you touch it or feel it? How do you know it is there? Well you probably do know it is there if you are reading this! But basically my point is, it is energy but it doesent necessarily represent something physical...

Now lets get back to your hands for example. When you die, what happens to the energy they are made from? This energy is probably reconstructed into something else, who knows? But what happens to your mind? Remember it is not energy in the form of something physical. It is energy that represents something that you cant touch or feel or even see, yet you know you mind is there.

Remember, matter and hence energy cannot be destroyed. Not even behemoth black holes can destroy it.

If I take apart a PC will it continue working in some kind of transcendent state?

k.p.h

cosmicfart wrote: »

you cant prove or disprove 'God' and thats a fact!

Do you NOT get it ..!!!! You can't "disprove" something is the stupidest argument ever I have ever heard...!!!! I'm sorry, I am genuinely sorry, so sorry but someone who uses that as an argument in my opinion dose not understand what they are saying and must have some sort of logical though issues. I'm trying to find a nice way to say it but to be perfectly honest it dose not reflect greatly on your intelligence. I am so frustrated after reading that

You can't disprove just about anything .... Dose that mean its true ... NO ..! NO..! NO..!

You have things arse about tits their, its the other way round THINGS HAVE TO BE PROVEN ..!!! .. :rolleyes:

cosmicfart

MagicMarker wrote: »

Actually it does mean exactly that. The more we learn, the smarter we get will result in more mysteries being solved. I would have thought this was obvious tbh.

I would take the view that the more we learn the more mysterious our lives will become. Ants leaving their molehill and all that.

MagicMarker wrote: »

Is that what 'atheistism' is? Not to be mixed up with atheism of course, which is obviously something completely different.

Yes, I got my ISMS mixed up didnt I? tawt that wud have got u 100+ THANKS by now?? shame

cosmicfart

k.p.h wrote: »

Do you NOT get it ..!!!! You can't "disprove" something is the stupidest argument ever I have ever heard...!!!! I'm sorry, I am genuinely sorry, so sorry but someone who uses that as an argument in my opinion dose not understand what they are saying and must have some sort of logical though issues. I'm trying to find a nice way to say it but to be perfectly honest it dose not reflect greatly on your intelligence. I am so frustrated after reading that

You can't disprove just about anything .... Dose that mean its true ... NO ..! NO..! NO..!

You have things arse about tits their, its the other way round THINGS HAVE TO BE PROVEN ..!!! .. :rolleyes:

You clearly are superhuman!! im NOT religious but I can acknowledge that we mere mortals only know a small % of this universe and I am open to all sorts of possible ideas, including the 'supernatural'

Chuck Stone

cosmicfart wrote: »

I would take the view that the more we learn the more mysterious our lives will become. Ants leaving their molehill and all that.

But doesn't the whole god-made-it-happen thing not remove the mystery of the universe?

It's as if, for religious folk, we're merely walking around the master's back garden rather than setting out across the oceans on a voyage of discovery.

cosmicfart

Chuck Stone wrote: »

But doesn't the whole god-made-it-happen thing not remove the mystery of the universe?

It's as if, for religious folk, we're merely walking around the master's back garden rather than setting out across the oceans on a voyage of discovery.

Religious people have a belief but that hardly makes them stupid, close minded maybe, but not stupid.

Knasher

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Your conscience, your thinking mind, what is that made of? It must be energy, since everything in the universe is made of energy. But can you touch it or feel it? How do you know it is there? Well you probably do know it is there if you are reading this! But basically my point is, it is energy but it doesent necessarily represent something physical...

Any special energy which doesn't represent something physical, by definition, cannot be observed directly or indirectly in any way. Given that, if you think you have some special energy, that is completely an assumption on your half.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Now lets get back to your hands for example. When you die, what happens to the energy they are made from? This energy is probably reconstructed into something else, who knows?

The energy, expressed as mass, continues to exist after you die. Some of it will be reused elsewhere by decomposition quickly, and some of it will stay wherever you leave it for a while.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

But what happens to your mind?

My brain is composed of physical matter so what happens to my body will happen to my brain. My mind, by which I assume you mean the collection of experience, memory, perception, intelligence, etc, are just the manifestation of how the matter in my brain is arranged. After I die, the matter will no longer be arranged in the same way, but all the matter and energy will still exist.

k.p.h

cosmicfart wrote: »

You clearly are superhuman!! im NOT religious but I can acknowledge that we mere mortals only know a small % of this universe and I am open to all sorts of possible ideas, including the 'supernatural'

Hypothesis vs. Theory

Popularly, hypothesis and theory are used almost interchangeable to refer to vague or fuzzy ideas which seem to have a low probability of being true. In many popular and idealistic descriptions of science, the two are used to refer to the same idea, but in different stages of development. Thus, an idea is just a "hypothesis" when it is new and relatively untested - in other words, when the probability of error and correction are high. However, once it has successfully survived repeated testing, has become more complex, is found to explain a great deal, and has made many interesting predictions, it achieves the status of "theory."

What is religion ..? Is it a hypothesis .? Lets test it ... FAIL

Chuck Stone

cosmicfart wrote: »

Religious people have a belief but that hardly makes them stupid, close minded maybe, but not stupid.

I didn't claim that they were!

geetar

cosmicfart wrote: »

the majority of educated people of the last 2000 years were probably practicing Christian's.

where? western world? extremely made up fact and not true at all.

christianity wasnt exactly THE religion since 00 AD.

cosmicfart wrote: »

Atheistism itself is nothing more than a stick to bash religious people over the head with. you cant prove or disprove 'God' and thats a fact!

well i can prove the existance of many many things that are real.
i cannot disprove the existance of a box of marmite on jupiter, yet according to your logic its as likely to be true as false.



all people who believe in some sort of god today...
please answer this,

do you accept that had you been born in ancient greece, you would have worshiped zeus?

had you been born in iraq, muhammad?

and had you been born in thailand, you would believe in buddah?

with this in mind, i find the concept of religion has become lost on me. people would die for their gods they have been reared to believe is the one, true god. they would fight against their neighbour, when had they been born in their neighbours country they would be fighting alongside him, condemning their very own gods.