Correlation between increasing intelligence and atheism

Kidchameleon

k.p.h wrote: »

Dose that mean its true ... NO ..! NO..! NO..!

Does that mean it could be true ... YES ..! YES..! YES..!

k.p.h

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Does that mean it could be true ... YES ..! YES..! YES..!

It's OK for someone to think something could be true that has no consequence, but the consequences of religion are many and varied.So its not Ok to think something is true when it has been effectively scrutinized to the the umpth degree and turned no evidence what so ever.

Kidchameleon

k.p.h wrote: »

It's OK for someone to think something could be true that has no consequence, but the consequences of religion are many and varied.So its not Ok to think something is true when it has been effectively scrutinized to the the umpth degree and turned no evidence what so ever.

I said it

COULD

be true. (learn to read)

k.p.h

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I said it

COULD

be true. (learn to read)

Yeah I got ya, I was just trying to sum up my position on the "could" aspect. Don't mind me anyway I'm all over the place tonight.

nozzferrahhtoo

cosmicfart wrote: »

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

Probably, but so were the majority of people who spent their life plucking chickens. A statement like this says nothing really because most people were practicing in the past because socially it was unacceptable not to. There were times when expressing disagreement with such ideas would lead one to social, and often physical, peril.

However one must also normalise your statement for relative knowledge. A highly educated person from 500 years ago would still be ignorant of many things the average educated person knows today.

Which is where the religion and science conflict begins to arise. Each discovery we make, and each progression in our knowledge, reduces the size of Religions playground.

cosmicfart wrote: »

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

cosmicfart wrote: »

we mere mortals only know a small % of this universe and I am open to all sorts of possible ideas, including the 'supernatural'

Although the statements above are technically true, they say almost nothing of any actual use. We are well aware that one can not prove a negative, but the fact that you can substitute any insane idea into your first sentence in place of "god" and still make just as much sense should worry you.

Also one must not equate not accepting supernatural ideas with not being open to supernatural ideas. One can be entirely open to such ideas but that does not change the fact that not an iota of evidence has been presented to lend those ideas a shred of credence to date.

Open mindedness is not being willing to accept anything people say just because they say it. Open mindedness is being willing to accept anything at all, should sufficient reason be offered to do so.

Alas all too often "open mindedness" is being defined by people as "Agreeing with me".

nozzferrahhtoo

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I said it COULD be true. (learn to read)

Indeed you did but what is worth noting is that it is possible to use a lot of words and still say nothing at all. By pointing to something like "gods exist" and saying it "could" be true, you have said pretty much nothing at all. Especially in a world full of an endless list of other things that "could" be true.

We are aware that it "could" be true. The problem that many of us are actually concerned with is that there is not a single iota of evidence, arguments, data or reasons on offer to suggest that it is even remotely likely that it is true. The subject is not merely devoid of evidence. It is entirely devoid of even a modicum of credence.

Kidchameleon

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Indeed you did but what is worth noting is that it is possible to use a lot of words and still say nothing at all. By pointing to something like "gods exist" and saying it "could" be true, you have said pretty much nothing at all. Especially in a world full of an endless list of other things that "could" be true.

We are aware that it "could" be true. The problem that many of us are actually concerned with is that there is not a single iota of evidence, arguments, data or reasons on offer to suggest that it is even remotely likely that it is true. The subject is not merely devoid of evidence. It is entirely devoid of even a modicum of credence.

Where do atheists believe the universe came from?

Seachmall

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Where do atheists believe the universe came from?

Well there's a good few ideas bouncing around but ultimately, and this is a big one, we do not know.

We do not assume causality.
We do not assume metaphysical beings.
We do not assume anything.
We do not know.

MagicMarker

Seachmall wrote: »

Well there's a good few ideas bouncing around but ultimately, and this is a big one, we do not know.

We do not assume causality.
We do not assume metaphysical beings.
We do not assume anything.
We do not know.

It's unfortunate that you even have to explain this tbh.

Cú Giobach

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Where do atheists believe the universe came from?

Watch this show, prof Hawking explains how besides not needing a creator, the universe couldn't actually have had one.

CoolHat

I believe in god. I dont believe in the church as i think its nothing more than a business.

But you know what, no person on this planet has the right to tell me to what to believe in and what not to believe in. No one has to the right to tell me i'm wrong. As its my life, my choice. And certainly no one has the right to assume an athiest is automatically 'smarter' than me because of my fate.

Live and let live... but i think thats hard for certain people to abide by.

starlit

I suppose it is true. The more educated you are the more likely you are to be drawn to atheism or be non-religious. Though I don't think increasing intelligence makes a differences whether religious or not or atheism.

MagicMarker

CoolHat wrote: »

No one has to the right to tell me i'm wrong. As its my life, my choice.

You're wrong.

Looks like I have the right to tell you you're wrong. If you don't like it, tough shit.

The times they are changing.

CoolHat

MagicMarker wrote: »

You're wrong.

Looks like I have the right to tell you you're wrong. If you don't like it, tough shit.

The times they are changing.

So ... you have the right to tell me to not believe in a god?

Seachmall

CoolHat wrote: »

So ... you have the right to tell me to not believe in a god?

We have the right to call people out on their beliefs.

If someone walked into a pub and declared Elvis Presley is still alive he'd be criticized and laughed at and it would be socially acceptable to do that.

If someone walked into a pub and declared crackers literally turn into flesh his opinion, for whatever reason, would have to be respected.

I see no reason to distinguish between them. And I'd prefer if neither of them were leading my country or teaching my kids.

You have the right to believe what you want, you don't have the right to escape criticism because of it.

MagicMarker

CoolHat wrote: »

So ... you have the right to tell me to not believe in a god?

That very clearly is not what I said.

billybudd

Its like juggling an apple and orange and two idiots fixated on you each having turns saying ''apple'' ''orange'':rolleyes:

D1stant

So is the equation is non belief = intelligence

What does that make Neanderthal Man whose only beliefs were eatinbg, riding, fighting and scratching his nuts?

There must be formulae on cave walls somewhere

Seachmall

D1stant wrote: »

So is the equation is non belief = intelligence

What does that make Neanderthal Man whose only beliefs were eatinbg, riding, fighting and scratching his nuts?

There must be formulae on cave walls somewhere

There are so many problems with this I don't even know where to start.

MagicMarker

D1stant wrote: »

So is the equation is non belief = intelligence

Yes, quite clearly that is what everyone on this thread is saying. Congratulations, you win. Clearly you're on the non belief side after constructing such a perfect sentence.

CoolHat

Seachmall wrote: »

We have the right to call people out on their beliefs.

If someone walked into a pub and declared Elvis Presley is still alive he'd be criticized and laughed at and it would be socially acceptable to do that.

If someone walked into a pub and declared crackers literally turn into flesh his opinion, for whatever reason, would have to be respected.

I see no reason to distinguish between them. And I'd prefer if neither of them were leading my country or teaching my kids.

You have the right to believe what you want, you don't have the right to escape criticism because of it.

I see. Well lets take what you say on board.

Then that means one can think athiests are nothing more than stuck up as*holes who because of their chosen faith are automatically "better" than people of faith. People who tend to fight to the death to prove themselves to be right about the lack of god... who, in turn, act like religious manics with their die-hard fanitics.

Well I learned something tonight
Seems you have a right to judge someone, say they are wrong, have no respect for someones choice. Because you have a 'right' to.

CoolHat

MagicMarker wrote: »

That very clearly is not what I said.

I was. take a look back.
I was talking about my faith and no one having the right to say I am wrong.
you quoted me and said I was wrong. All text is there mate.

Seachmall

CoolHat wrote: »

I see. Well lets take what you say on board.

Then that means one can think athiests are nothing more than stuck up as*holes who because of their chosen faith are automatically "better" than people of faith. People who tend to fight to the death to prove themselves to be right about the lack of god... who, in turn, act like religious manics with their die-hard fanitics.

Well I learned something tonight
Seems you have a right to judge someone, say they are wrong, have no respect for someones choice. Because you have a 'right' to.

Except I never said I'd judge or generalize you.

I stated I reserve the right to question your beliefs.

That's not to imply I care about your beliefs but if I think they're relevant to me or will affect me I will ask and may criticize.

no one having the right to say I am wrong.

You said that, he said you were wrong and you some how got from that that he was saying you don't have the right to believe. How you made that jump I do not know.

MagicMarker

CoolHat wrote: »

I see. Well lets take what you say on board.

Then that means one can think athiests are nothing more than stuck up as*holes who because of their chosen faith are automatically "better" than people of faith. People who tend to fight to the death to prove themselves to be right about the lack of god... who, in turn, act like religious manics with their die-hard fanitics.

Well I learned something tonight
Seems you have a right to judge someone, say they are wrong, have no respect for someones choice. Because you have a 'right' to.

I respect your right to your belief, that doesn't mean I have to respect the belief itself. Frankly, I think the belief is stupid, and I have a right to say it's stupid.

You have the right to be offended, I have the right to not care.

MagicMarker

CoolHat wrote: »

I was. take a look back.
I was talking about my faith and no one having the right to say I am wrong.
you quoted me and said I was wrong. All text is there mate.

Wow, this thread is really embarrassing for theists tbh, you all seem to be displaying the same level of comprehension skills.

Go back and read again, you said you believe in god and no one has a right to tell you you're wrong, I told you you're wrong. NO WHERE did I say that I have a right to tell you not to believe in god.

Seriously, any moron would be able to understand this, it's basic stuff.

Chuck Stone

CoolHat wrote: »

But you know what, no person on this planet has the right to tell me to what to believe in and what not to believe in.

So you think children deserve the same level of regard when it comes to being indoctrinated in the religion of their guardians and community?

ed2hands

MagicMarker wrote: »

Wow, this thread is really embarrassing for theists athiests tbh

There you go Magic. Fixed it for ya;)

naldface

MagicMarker wrote: »

Wow, this thread is really embarrassing for theists tbh, you all seem to be displaying the same level of comprehension skills.

Go back and read again, you said you believe in god and no one has a right to tell you you're wrong, I told you you're wrong. NO WHERE did I say that I have a right to tell you not to believe in god.

Seriously, any moron would be able to understand this, it's basic stuff.

Yes you did!

AudreyHepburn

Seachmall wrote: »

We have the right to call people out on their beliefs.

If someone walked into a pub and declared Elvis Presley is still alive he'd be criticized and laughed at and it would be socially acceptable to do that.

If someone walked into a pub and declared crackers literally turn into flesh his opinion, for whatever reason, would have to be respected.

I see no reason to distinguish between them. And I'd prefer if neither of them were leading my country or teaching my kids.

You have the right to believe what you want, you don't have the right to escape criticism because of it.

So now the religious should not be allowed to play any part in public life?

Some of the opinions being expressed on this thread are so stuck-up and bigotted its laughable.

This kind of thing is exactly why I have such a problem with atheism , not the belief itself mind, just the attitude it fosters in some people.

MagicMarker

ed2hands wrote: »

There you go Magic. Fixed it for ya;)

And yet all you had to do was put an 'a' before 'theist', you probably would have known that if you had the brain power of an atheist.