Atheists are more intelligent than Religious people

[monkey104]

I've just been to a funeral, I go to quite a few these days, and most are fairly secular affairs and non the worse for that.

 

But this one was different. The lady (very intelligent) was a regular church goer and a firm believer. The full congregation knew her well. They had given her unending support and love, visited her regularly in both her home, care home and hospital, and spoke of the comfort her beliefs gave her towards the end. The service was also personal and beautiful.

 

I was impressed. I might not share her beliefs, but I have no doubt it supported her, as did her many church friends.

 

When I compare this to the general callousness that seems to permeate society these days it was incredibly refreshing to see that such love and kindness exists somewhere.

I wouldn't dream of knocking it. Maybe the non believers have something to learn here.

 

Poppycock!

I am an atheist and I too have attended more funerals in the last few years than I care to.

However, I attend the funerals to show love and support for the deceased, family and friends.

That, at the end of the day is what funerals are about.

Are you saying atheists have no compassion, love and kindness?

[Cyclone]

It's off topic - and is just going to end up derailing the thread whilst people argue over nothing.

 

So perhaps RB shouldn't have pulled Obelix up on it then. Why aren't you questioning him about it?

 

---------- Post added 22-05-2017 at 18:09 ----------

 

[/b]

 

Poppycock!

I am an atheist and I too have attended more funerals in the last few years than I care to.

However, I attend the funerals to show love and support for the deceased, family and friends.

That, at the end of the day is what funerals are about.

Are you saying atheists have no compassion, love and kindness?

 

Theists sometimes like to imagine that they have a monopoly on morality, compassion, empathy and so on. It doesn't take very much to disprove it of course.

 

---------- Post added 22-05-2017 at 18:11 ----------

 

It matters because otherwise we are potentially arguing different issues.

It doesn't fundamentally matter, but we should at least find a consensus on terminology, if only for the purpose of the debate.

 

I suggest we look to the etymology of the words:

 

theist: from theos ‘god

atheist: from a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god’.

agnostic: from a- ‘without’ + gnōstos ‘known’

 

It's more specific than that, within the definition of atheist, I maintain than an atheist can have, and that how it is phrased is irrelevant.

A belief that there are no gods.

No belief in a god.

RB believes differently and that these are different things.

[Hairyloon]

If God created the world, then logically god must exist because the world exists, therefore the only remaining question is of the nature of god: is he no more than the aggregation of 15 billion years of the laws of physics acting upon a single point of nothing, which once exploded, or is he some kind of sentience?

 

Either way, can anyone argue that his creation is not a wondrous thing and therefore the wanton destruction of it is a sin against god, atheism notwithstanding?

[Robin-H]

If God created the world, then logically god must exist because the world exists, therefore the only remaining question is of the nature of god: is he no more than the aggregation of 15 billion years of the laws of physics acting upon a single point of nothing, which once exploded, or is he some kind of sentience?

 

Either way, can anyone argue that his creation is not a wondrous thing and therefore the wanton destruction of it is a sin against god, atheism notwithstanding?

 

I'm struggling to find any logic in that statement. If the world was pooped out by a giant celestial zebra, then logically a giant celestial zebra must exist because the world exists.

[Hairyloon]

I'm struggling to find any logic in that statement. If the world was pooped out by a giant celestial zebra, then logically a giant celestial zebra must exist because the world exists.

 

You misunderstand logic: your statement is perfectly logical, but to avoid confusion, I will re-state the point.

 

If God is defined as that which created the world, then by definition god must exist because the world exists, therefore the only remaining question is of the nature of god: is he no more than the aggregation of 15 billion years of the laws of physics acting upon a single point of nothing, which once exploded, or is he some kind of sentience?

 

Either way, can anyone argue that his creation is not a wondrous thing and therefore the wanton destruction of it is a sin against god, atheism notwithstanding?

[Guest makapaka]

If God created the world, then logically god must exist because the world exists, therefore the only remaining question is of the nature of god: is he no more than the aggregation of 15 billion years of the laws of physics acting upon a single point of nothing, which once exploded, or is he some kind of sentience?

 

Either way, can anyone argue that his creation is not a wondrous thing and therefore the wanton destruction of it is a sin against god, atheism notwithstanding?

 

Riddle me this.

[achorste]

Is not by definition that if someone believes in something irrational & completely illogical with no evidence for it then they are less intelligent than someone who bases their decisions on evidence and observation?

[Carlinate]

Is not by definition that if someone believes in something irrational & completely illogical with no evidence for it then they are less intelligent than someone who bases their decisions on evidence and observation?

 

Seeing as there is no evidence whatsoever for proving the non existence of God then you could apply that equally to theists and atheists couldn't you?

 

Both are believers in something which neither of them can prove.

 

You may claim probability factors etc but that is proof of nothing.

 

Have you heard of the 'Black Swan' theory? Prior to the European discovery of Australia it was assumed on all empirical evidence that all swans were white.

 

They aren't, and things we think we know for certain based upon our knowledge to date are hostage to further research, which is as it should be.

 

As for intelligence and the belief in God some genius's have been known to hold a belief in a creative force which brought it all into existence.

 

Georges Lemaitre was a Belgian professor of physics and friend of Albert Einstein he was the man responsible for the 'Big Bang' theory of the origin of the universe.

 

He was also a Roman Catholic priest, a fact which didn't appear to cause him any conflict.

[SnailyBoy]

Seeing as there is no evidence whatsoever for proving the non existence of God then you could apply that equally to theists and atheists couldn't you?

 

Both are believers in something which neither of them can prove.

 

You may claim probability factors etc but that is proof of nothing.

 

Have you heard of the 'Black Swan' theory? Prior to the European discovery of Australia it was assumed on all empirical evidence that all swans were white.

 

They aren't, and things we think we know for certain based upon our knowledge to date are hostage to further research, which is as it should be.

 

As for intelligence and the belief in God some genius's have been known to hold a belief in a creative force which brought it all into existence.

 

Georges Lemaitre was a Belgian professor of physics and friend of Albert Einstein he was the man responsible for the 'Big Bang' theory of the origin of the universe.

 

He was also a Roman Catholic priest, a fact which didn't appear to cause him any conflict.

 

It all really boils down to not believing in something unless there's good a reason to do so.

 

I don't believe in a god/gods because I've yet to find any evidence to support the existence of a god/gods.

[Carlinate]

It all really boils down to not believing in something unless there's good a reason to do so.

 

I don't believe in a god/gods because I've yet to find any evidence to support the existence of a god/gods.

 

Entirely your choice, can't see why anyone ( other than lunatic religious nutjobs of whatever religion ) would object to your opinion.

 

Of course that's what it is, your opinion, and therefore a belief that you personally hold.

 

Were you able to prove your contention then it would become a fact, and no longer just an opinion.

 

It seems to me that some ( although not all ) atheists are under the impression that they are in some way a bit superior because of their views.

 

The title of this thread for instance implies that all atheists are more intelligent than all theists, which is of course nonsense.