Are all Athiests smarter than Believers?

Yes.

Everyone knows agnostic people are clearly the smartest.

@unbreakable_fs4:

Most would think you're either joking or had been raised to believe that statement was true.

...And they would also question whether or not you are a critical thinker. That is actually a very accurate portrayal lol. Look how many people claim that god is their father. "We are his children." This statement is almost ubiquitous when it comes to religion.

In any case, you said personal beliefs. When a person is likely to believe something ridiculous they are called gullible.

Your whole argument is based off an assumption. An assumption that excludes multiple viable circumstances that could have lead to such belief. So no, that's not an accurate portrayal, not in the slightest.

Once again, you fail to connect religion properly with your prior statement. You do realize that they claim God as their "father" based of the teachings that all things originated from him and him alone, right? You do realize that he is worshiped as the creator, a deity, right? If you do know this, explain to me how a nonsensical example of believing Santa is your uncle connects to this. On one hand we have a being who individuals are taught is the sole reason of their existence, on the other hand we have a being who individuals are taught bears no relation to them.

Also, regarding your last statement. Nice attempt at taking a shot at the religious beliefs of people, it truly shows how intelligent you are.

@llehdevil: I am saying being religious and basing your life on certain ideals even though the main components of the religion are scientifically impossible and unsuported makes it an illogical thing to do. I'm not saying religious people are smart either. There are smart and clueless people in any "group". So the people are the same, but the idea of religion and basing one's life off of it is not smart.

Your whole argument is based off an assumption. An assumption that excludes multiple viable circumstances that could have lead to such belief. So no, that's not an accurate portrayal, not in the slightest.

No, my argument does no such thing. I am taking into account the circumstances by which they gained their beliefs. Take this into account: Most religious indoctrination takes place at childhood. Why? Because that is a person's most gullible years. In order to even swallow religion you need a lack of intellect.

Once again, you fail to connect religion properly with your prior statement. You do realize that they claim God as their "father" based of the teachings that all things originated from him and him alone, right? You do realize that he is worshiped as the creator, a deity, right? If you do know this, explain to me how a nonsensical example of believing Santa is your uncle connects to this. On one hand we have a being who individuals are taught is the sole reason of their existence, on the other hand we have a being who individuals are taught bears no relation to them.

This has no bearing whatsoever on my argument. If a person came to you and seriously claimed something outlandish, but within a non-religious context, it would be logical to question their intellect. 'I can fly on the third day of June every year! I'm magical' You would ask yourself, is this person mentally ill. Remember you said "Intelligence can't be determined by personal beliefs." And I disagree.

Also, regarding your last statement. Nice attempt at taking a shot at the religious beliefs of people, it truly shows how intelligent you are.

Let's focus on the matter at hand.

Yes, pretty much.

If someone where to believe in the possibility of a god i'd respect that, but putting your faith in and shaping your life after something with 0 prood is just incredibly naive. Also using a book written by humans as proof makes it even more naive, hows that different from claiming Harry Potter is real because JK Rowling said so?

I'm sure they think so

Is it only an illogical thing to do because you think it is?

So you're saying in any religion or "group", the smart people are clueless. That's what your last post especially made it sound like.

And religious people who base their ideals off of their beliefs is not smart because you say so or think so?

L. D.

Just one question: If God spoke to people, why wouldn't they write it down??

Also, Humans write plenty of things but not everything we write is full of crap. Just saying.

Of course they would write it down. But there's absolutely no proof that god actually spoke to the author, except his word. Why would I take his word for it? There's plenty of crazies eating eachothers faces and claiming god told them to, should I take their word for it too? Point being - words are words, not proof.

Again sure, sounds like you assume im saying the bible (or any similar book) HAS to be wrong because it was written, im not, im saying there's no proof it is right - simply having something written down doesnt make it true.

@llehdevil: I never said the smart people are clueless. If you read what was typed I specifically put an "and" between smart and clueless. This signifies that there are smart people, AND there are clueless people in any group.

And to adress your last question, I have already answered it. I made the point that believing in something without evidence and that is scientifically impossible is illogical.

To further clarify here are those exact reasons laid out

1) the claims made in religion are scientifically impossible.

2) believing in something without evidence and basing your life off of it is inherently dishonest and a horrible way to find out truth. The method itself is deceiving.

You sure??

Also, How would God prove it? Speak to everyone in a voice of some kind? As if no one could possibly deny that as a form of evidence????????????

No, because not all Atheists are rational skeptics.

Look at Atheism Plus, for example - the group was the laughing stock of the Atheist community because of how idiotic and whiny they were.

Ha /thread, forgot that f@ckery.

@cable_extreme: Okay, thanks for trying to answer my questions clearly, but I'll have to respectfully disagree with everything you said prior. No comment to what you're tell me now.

L. D.

@immovableray:

No, my argument does no such thing. I am taking into account the circumstances by which they gained their beliefs. Take this into account: Most religious indoctrination takes place at childhood. Why? Because that is a person's most gullible years. In order to even swallow religion you need a lack of intellect.

No matter how much you attempt to justify your prior folly in logic, it wont change the fact it was an argument derived from assumption. What exactly does religious indoctrinations have to do with this and how does this relate to religious individuals calling God their father. I'll wait for you to make that connection since you so willingly choose to jump around in the discussion in an attempt to avoid proving my point.

This has no bearing whatsoever on my argument. If a person came to you and seriously claimed something outlandish, but within a non-religious context, it would be logical to question their intellect. 'I can fly on the third day of June every year! I'm magical' You would ask yourself, is this person mentally ill. Remember you said "Intelligence can't be determined by personal beliefs." And I disagree.

Again, no it would not be logical to question their intellect. You somehow manage to once again fail to see the fact that to come to that conclusion would be to have arrived at such conclusion on an assumption. If they were to come to me with such "outlandish" claims, rather than questioning their intelligence, I would want to see the reasoning behind such belief and the circumstances in which said beliefs were resulted.

Regarding your example. It once again does not correlate in the slightest. You somehow willingly gloss over the fact that most people adhere to their religious beliefs based on person experiences throughout their lives. Now explain to me who could have a personal experience such as "flying on the third day of June every year."

Also, regarding your last statement. Nice attempt at taking a shot at the religious beliefs of people, it truly shows how intelligent you are.

Let's focus on the matter at hand.

Oh so you do want to stay on topic. I presumed otherwise when you oh so willingly attacked many who hold religious beliefs by calling them gullible. If you don't want insults directed at you don't even dare directing them at others.

And next time, tag me when you respond

Some atheist do try to act like they're above those that believe and there are also some Christians that act the same way towards atheist. I'm Christian and my best friend is an Atheist. We both respect each others beliefs, I don't see why others can't do the same.

Nope, I have met some really stupid atheists and I know plenty of intelligent religious people. On average though atheists take the cake, typically atheists look at things more logically.

The title should be than* not "then."

For the most part no

Your tone could be a little calmer. Let's not get silly here.

@immovableray: I'll thoroughly respond after I get home from work.

If you believe that 2 + 2 = 5 for long enough eventually that does say something about your intelligence. Or rather, how intelligent you choose to be.

@unbreakable_fs4: Great. Really looking forward to it.

All I'm saying is Angels and Demons.

The book was better than the movie.

Well said.

>Dan Brown

BB

Thankfully it's over now, lol.

As a loving Christian, I say SCREW ATHIEST

Man that's a dumb title.

As a Christian you shouldn't be screwing anything before marriage. :p

@dernman: won't find me complaining. I want to keep my innocence

I think George said it best

than* believers?

@immovableray:

Your tone could be a little calmer. Let's not get silly here.

Fair enough, I'm actually pretty calm but I see where you're coming from. As well, I see no reason to berate a groups intelligence by calling them gullible, simply because they don't see things as you do.

Children are easier to indoctrinate, yes? Yes. Why is that? Becuase of a lack of intellect and reasoning skills. My argument is that intellect plays a huge role in the acceptance of religion. How can you not see that?

I disagree. You're basically spinning the general facts of psychological development to fit your argument.

A child will be easier to indoctrinate not because they lack intelligence but because it is a fundamental part of psychological development; modeling the behavior of their guardian.

Another area where your argument does not add up is the fact that there are extremely intelligent people that are religious, whether past or present. Are they gullible too and lack "reasoning skills" like you say?

Again, no it would not be logical to question their intellect. You somehow manage to once again fail to see the fact that to come to that conclusion would be to have arrived at such conclusion on an assumption. If they were to come to me with such "outlandish" claims, rather than questioning their intelligence, I would want to see the reasoning behind such belief and the circumstances in which said beliefs were resulted.

And then once you realize that I don't value logic or reasoning skills? Anyone testing intellect would mark off if they saw lack of reasoning skills.

How exactly does this response negate the undeniable truth that you did in fact derive your prior conclusion off an assumption?

Regarding your example. It once again does not correlate in the slightest. You somehow willingly gloss over the fact that most people adhere to their religious beliefs based on person experiences throughout their lives. Now explain to me who could have a personal experience such as "flying on the third day of June every year."

If I told a 6-year-old that he will fly on the June 3rd, and that he has been doing it since he was a baby, he would believe me. Even without evidence. Even though he knows that people don't normally fly. It is a demonstration of gullibility on his part for believing me.

You're really not giving 6-year old kids enough credit here lol. No, they will not believe you. How do you expect them to...they don't have amnesia and suddenly can't remember the past year of their life and the fact they never flew.