Professor Richard Lynn, Emeritus Professor of Psychology at Ulster University has claimed that many of those in the intellectual elite consider themselves Atheists. Or to be more precise, the proportion of atheists in this group is higher than average. He has also claimed that the increase in Atheism is directly linked to the average level of intelligence also increasing. This is something I’ve claimed previously.
I have really mixed feeling about this claim. While I think he’s right, I wish it was someone other than Richard Lynn making the claim. After all, Richard Lynn is known for making outrageous claims. I’m torn as to whether the person making the statement is enough to invalidate, or call into question, the claim itself.
Quite frankly, in this case, the claim is so strong, and backed up by so much circumstantial evidence. If you need any evidence of the lack of intelligence evident in “believers” (beyond the obvious), just look for any attempted use of logic, and you will no doubt find it.
When I first read this article, my initial response was “Yeah, and French people speak French”. It just seems so obvious that to believe in something that clearly isn’t true, to be subjected to years of brainwashing and lies and to not even begin to question it, you must be lacking something intellectually. After all, those who consider themselves to be intellectual question everything.
If you liked this post, you may also enjoy an attempt to logically disprove the existence of the Christian God.
Related posts:
The claim of increased levels of intelligence being positively corellated with high degrees of atheism is something that can be demonstrated.
Richard Dawkins has done so (google his TED lecture) as well as many, many others.
The ability to question one’s own inner convictions is usually not enough to escape theism however, the ability to think clearly certainly is. From my experience a sabbatical from religious observance can provide an ideal opportunity to stop, think, and question.
Lastly, critical thinking plays a very large part in atheism. Most people who actively identify as a-theists are taking an active position to reject the claims made by theists. In order to do this they must have taken the time to assess those claims objectively. The skills required to perform critical thinking are the same ones that are closely associated with higher levels of educational achievement and higher intelligence.
I really like your blog, and I’ve added you to my RSS reader. Please consider taking a look at my blog (link in my name).
Has anyone seen Christopher Hitchens debate? I’ve heard he is going to be debating D’Souza in St. Lous September 10th. I found this website http://www.godontrialdebate.com
I find almost every single arguement D’Souza makes is a logical fallacy and it is irrating to hear him speak.
He seems happy that British Christians brought Christianity to the heathen masses of India at the end of a bayonett which in turn led to him personally receiving the best of Western Culture.
He attributes everything that is good about Western values as coming from what he sees as the foundation of Western culture – Christianity.
Needless to say that he gives no credit to the Enlightenment and gives no stock to discussing the troubles of the dark ages. I believe he said that the Salem Witch Trials killed only “18″ people; so it’s not a big deal.
Hitchens on the other hand is a wonder to listen to. Very entertaining, although on his last debate with D’Souza he performed badly. I wonder if he was drunk at the time?
Best,
http://www.deconverts.com
I’d be very careful here. Obviously there are a lot of nitwit christians. There are also some very intelligent ones. I’d have to see some long term studies–some kind of empirical evidence to judge that atheists were more intelligent than theists. It may intuitively seem that way but that’s not good enough.
you sound mysteriously like a closet theist , i think you have a small bias , as an atheist i know for a fact that i am more intelligent then any religious fanatic or religious moderate , in fact saying that some religious people have smarts is an oxymoron
I’m sorry, but I fear I must disagree with you, as Christianity, nor any other religion and intelligence is mutually exclusive. Though people may hold irrational beliefs, that does not automatically destroy any intelligence that they have.
I am an atheist and I know Christians, Pagans, Buddhists (a lovely philosophy, not a religion), and agnostics who know far more about things than I do about certain subjects. Individualism is the key here, keep that in mind, mike.
And furthermore, don’t deal in absolutes, merely because it makes no sense and it puts you in league with the very people you claim to have superior intelligence to.
Sorry but surely you can’t honestly think this way. Augustine, Aquinas, Newman, Descartes, even Pope Benedict XVI are among the most intelligent people in history. You can’t simply state that the existence of God “clearly isn’t true” and that therefore all believers are “brainwashed” and “don’t question” anything. Have you read nothing at all of any of these and countless other intellects throughout history?
The most pernicious statement is your final one: “those who consider themselves to be intellectual question everything.” I think that this is indeed must be the mindset of an atheist, but it is patently too much just to get through the day.
In fact more than 99% of what you know you could not actually prove. Have you ever seen Saturn through a telescope? I haven’t but still believe the writers that tell me it’s there, pretty rings and all. It’s not just that enough people have said it, but that people I believe have said it. Similarly, I believe that my wife is being honest when she says she loves me – simply I have no grounds not to. We trust all kinds of people, particularly those closest to us. That is human and good. Faith is a vital part of everyone’s life. To get a better idea of how much faith you put in others all the time (including the fact that the supermarket checkout attendant will give you the correct change) think of a country under totalitarian dictatorship rule where everyone is afraid to put their trust in others and how awful this is.
Faith in God normally arises when you come to know a believer (highly intellectual or otherwise) and find their secret to their character and actions through their religious convictions.
There are stupid believers, there are stupid atheists; there are believers who are hypocritical; there are atheists who simply want an excuse to give in to all their basest inclinations.
You have effectively demonstrated your lack of intellectual curiousity by not Googling “Saturn” before commenting. Scientists had an accurate model of what Saturn was like *before* it was observed by Hubble.
Thank you for reinforcing my atheist views.
Melanie, but this is my point. Namely that you trust the Wikipedia for the information that is written there, both historical and scientific.
The fact that they believe in a all powerful god makes them very stupid , and yes you can have some intelligences on certain subjects but when you start praying to the invisible daddy in the sky that’s where you lose all credibility and become a moron .
Yo. Yesterday, I wore blue underpants, and was fired from my job. Today I wore green underpants, and my blood tests came back telling me that no, I don’t have HIV, just a cold. Therefore, blue underpants must give me bad days, and green underpants must give me good days.
Also, this happened about 2 years ago. I had a hot dog, and then I got the stomach flu. I was afraid to eat another hot dog for a year after that.
If A then B. It is a logical fallacy, as defined by my high school Oral Comm class. This man has no authority, nor any reasonable argument, to say that you have to be dumb and not question anything to be a Christian.
I personally have questioned my faith. I do it daily. I do it as I read these posts. I read an entire book questioning Christianity. Every time I pose a question against Christ, it comes back to strengthen my faith. In fact, you read the book that questions God. It’s called “The Case for a Creator” by Lee Strobel. It’s a good read, and poses many good questions. I read it during a time when I was considering going atheist, and it changed my mind in an instant. Again, the book is “The Case for a Creator” by Lee Strobel. I’ll buy it for you if you want a copy. Just give me your address. Email it to maddogmixing@aol.com. I’ll send you a FREE book. Do it. I dare you to remain atheist after that book. (No wait,
I TRIPLE DOG DARE YOU!!!!!! OOOOOOOOOOH! [giggles from the nearby schoolgirls])
Jonathan Baker – Yes, of course there are what may be perceived as intelligent people who are religious, and likewise there are atheists who are not. There are, however, two things at play here. You have a group of people, considered to be the most intelligent in their country (you’ll see that the figures are similar in the US and the UK, removing a statistical weighting that may be particular to a country), saying they don’t believe in a God. There are between 3 and 7% of respondents, depending on country, who do believe in a God, maybe these are the Newmans and Augustines you mentioned (the exceptions)? The other factor at play is an attribute that I would imagine the intellectual elite would consider themselves to have, and that is the drive to constantly question. If you are an intellectual, and you begin yo questions to world around you, there’s simply no debate to be had on religion.
Do you believe your wife when she says she loves you, or do you trust that she does? The difference between viewing Saturn through a telescope and the existence of a God is that, if I was so inclined, I could view first hand evidence of Saturn, yet no matter how hard I look I will never find evidence of something that does not exist.
The Investigator – I’ve gone to great lengths on this blog to point out that correlation does not equal causation, and it’s a rut we have to be careful not to fall into. In fact, for the very examples you gave, you cannot ever believe your prayers ever get answered. If you do, then you’re a hypocrite.
As for Lee Strobel’s book (or books, take your pick), I have little time for someone who sets out to answer questions they claim to know the answer to (bear in mind he was a Christian when the books were written) by interviewing people who share the same views. His books are the equivalent of me moderating this blog such that only pro-atheist comments appear (or possibly, more accurately, allowing only one anti-atheism comment then not questioning the responses to that comment). Clearly I don’t as I have an interest in stimulating and participating in debate, Lee Strobel does not. When reading one of Strobel’s books (and I have), ask yourself this, is he cross examining the responses, or is he simply accepting the answers he gets? See my comment above about the drive intellectuals possess to obtain the truth and constantly question things, Strobel took the first step but then backed down in the face of, quite frankly, inadequate answers. You’ll no doubt notice that there are numerous, detailed critiques of Strobel’s work out there which systematically and completely dismantle the poorly considered arguments. Although thankfully, and unlike many of the Atheist authors, Strobel has a very easy writing style which makes his books at lease easy to read.
The Atheist-You’ve got a very good point there, Lee Strobel does not cross-examine the responses. But you say you’ve read some of Lee’s work? I’m just wondering, which have you read? But anyway, I have to tell you that you, The Atheist, have better arguments than the people you quote in your posts. And I can tell that you are passionate on your stance, as am I. Unfortunately, I am not as good as you are, with putting together arguments. And to put you to rest, I will look into those critiques of Strobel’s work. But overall, I guess at least with the proving Saturn thing that you wrote to Jon Baker, you are completely correct in what you say. But it’s what you don’t say that I would like to comment on. As you said, there’s firsthand evidence for Saturn (I mean, come on, you can see it!), but no evidence for a divine being. But the thing is, you can’t disprove God. If you can, please inform me, I’d like to know. No argument can be placed against God, because with God, you don’t need an explanation for why something happens. And no, you can’t prove God either. (That’s why it’s called faith, and everything we ‘know’ has some kind of faith in it. If we took the time to question our oatmeal every morning, if we took the time to question every little thing we come across, what time would mankind have to accomplish everything?
Oh, and sometime can you give me all of the arguments for being an atheist that you can remember? I’d like to know that too.
“The Investigator” – “But the thing is, you can’t disprove God. If you can, please inform me, I’d like to know.”
You cannot disprove:
1. The magical fairies at the bottom of my garden
2. The loch-ness monster
3. That aliens do _not_ routinely abduct people from American farmsteads
4. God “Allah”
5. Krishna
6. Apollo
7. Zeus
8. Thor
9. The flying spaghetti monster
10. Jesus
11. Santa
12. God “Yahweh”
13. The flying teapot that orbits the sun
The point is that you cannot disprove something does not go towards increasing the probability of its existence. Not even slightly.
I assume that you are a modern, evangelical Christian. In which case my question to you is: Why do you believe in only TWO of the entities of the THIRTEEN in my list, and not in the others? If you are Muslim, why do you believe only in ONE of the entities on the list and reject the others?
The answer, I assume is because you will state that there is no evidence for those entities.
And I agree with you. We are all Atheists with respect to hundreds of thousands of Gods humanity has ever believed in. Some of us, just go one God further.
Regarding arguments for being an Atheist – Atheism is the null hypothesis in the same what that you are an “A-teapotist” and an “A-lochness-monsterist”. A-theism is simply the default position of one who refutes the claims made by Theists.
Your claim as a Theist, please provide rational argument to back it up. Of course, I’m not being fair here since there IS no rational argument for any form of Theism. If there was, it would be called Science, Fact or Evidence. Instead we call it “Faith”. And there is no “reason” for it.
Mike, thank you for your interesting list of ‘belief’ options. Actually I pick three of them, but not just at random. I do think that there are very good reasons for accepting that an infinite being exists as the only possible explanation for everything else. If you accept the princple of cause and effect, you must accept that either there is a first cause or the causal sequence goes back for ever. But the second option is impossible, because it would never actually get to start… it would always need something else ‘before’ it to get started… in short, there would have to be nothing at all. But since clearly there is something, there must be a First Cause…. and it has to be pretty big since it’s the cause of everything else… I call that God (or Allah if you happen to speak Arabic – so count 4 in too). I very much doubt the existence of the other things, but even if they did it would not matter very much. The difference between atheism and theism is not just a mathematical “one god”, but … everything!
By the way this is just one rational argument for belief in God. There are actually quite a few very famous ones, so you are wrong to say that there aren’t any arguments, even if you have bothered to look them all up and find them unpersuasive. Also, not all argument is scientific. This is half the problem. Philosophy works differently. So does faith. The word “faith” in modern English is normally used in a different sense than a Christian normally uses it. As you point out, it normally means something you don’t actually know. But in a more precise sense, faith means something that you find out from someone you trust who does know, so it’s not blind. If I tell you not to sit on that chair because it is broken, you will probably ‘believe’ it really is broken, assuming you trust my own knowledge of the matter. But if I told you I had no reason for thinking it, but just some vague intuition, then you would rightly find me less credible, and not believe.
Faith in Jesus means looking at the claims he made about himself and deciding whether they sound trustworthy or not, and similarly the testimony of the apostles. So it is really a question of trust. The question: “Does God exist” is not properly a question of faith at all, but a ‘preamble’ to faith. It is possible to reason this out for yourself without having to rely on the testimony of one who says that he has “come from God and going back to God.” The philosopher Aristotle, for example, accepted the “unmoved mover” precisely for the sort of reason I gave above about the impossibility of there being no first cause. He lived 300 years before Christ, and did not think there was any particular reason to worship this God, but simply accepted that such a being must exist.
Sorry, I would just like to add that as far as I know there is only one famous argument for atheism, or at least for a denial of some of the attributes of God: the problem of evil. It can be roughly stated as follows: God can not be both omniscient (know everything) and omnipotent (able to do anything) because evil exists. Either he knows about it and is powerless to stop it, or he doesn’t know about it. Therefore either he is not omniscient or omnipotent, ie not the God of the Christians and Muslims and Jews at least. It’s a great problem and occupied many minds… and I’d hate to spoil it by giving an answer without letting you think about it for a while…. oh, and do let me know if you have any other arguments.
That’s not the only argument, thankfully! Because it’s a bad one. “God is evil” answers your conundrum.
“God is evil” is presumably the conclusion reached from the argument that I gave. How else could you conclude that. By the way if God really is evil then he exists.
“I do think that there are very good reasons for accepting that an infinite being exists as the only possible explanation for everything else.”
I’d like to hear them. I can’t think of any good reasons.
“If you accept the princple of cause and effect, you must accept that either there is a first cause or the causal sequence goes back for ever. But the second option is impossible, because it would never actually get to start… it would always need something else ‘before’ it to get started…”
No. Are you aware that you are making the assumption that time is a linear measurement of “before” and “after”. It’s not. It’s bendable, deformable and depends totally on the observer. “My time” is different to “Your time”. Depending on our relative speeds, we have different passages of time for both of us. I could, in theory, slow my time right down (by travelling quickly) such that I outlive you by hundreds of years.
The big bang, the inflation of space AND time is the START of linear observation time events. To say “What happened BEFORE the big bang” is, to put it mildly, stupid. Since there is no “time” before the big bang. To posit a creator god would beg the question, “What created god”, and so on into an infinite regress. It’s a good drunken conversation to have, but nothing more useful than that.
“By the way this is just one rational argument for belief in God. There are actually quite a few very famous ones, so you are wrong to say that there aren’t any arguments, even if you have bothered to look them all up and find them unpersuasive”.
I’ve looked them up and found them to be búllshit, like the one you’ve just espoused here. I return your point to you, that you are wrong, very wrong and either haven’t been bothered to look up the problem, think about it yourself or find out if there’s been any scientific advancement in these areas since Thomas Aquinas first came out with these terrible arguements in the dark ages.
” If I tell you not to sit on that chair because it is broken, you will probably ‘believe’ it really is broken,”.
No, I won’t. I’ll assume you are right but I can easily go and check if I want to be sure.
” Also, not all argument is scientific. This is half the problem. ”
You mean, not all arguement is rational/logical/makes sense. I agree with you. If you hold a búllshit belief, then you’re right. Science/Logic/Knowledge becomes a massive problem for you.
“The philosopher Aristotle, for example, accepted the “unmoved mover” precisely for the sort of reason I gave above about the impossibility of there being no first cause. He lived 300 years before Christ, and did not think there was any particular reason to worship this God, but simply accepted that such a being must exist.”
And if Aristotle lived today, I know a bunch of 10 year olds that could give him such a tutorial, lessons in science and life and philosophy that would thrill him to the very center of his being. He would be shocked with awe at the information a child is able to provide him. If I could, I would introduce him to Stephen Hawking and the mysteries of the universe, space and time.
It’s such a straightforward cut-through-the-BS statement that I’ll say it again here in a brand new comment just for it:
“there IS no rational argument for any form of Theism”
And now in capitals:
THERE IS NO RATIONAL ARGUMENT FOR ANY FORM OF THEISM.
Mike, I’m afraid you haven’t understood the cosmological argument at all. Firstly, it’s actually got nothing to do with time per se, but about the existence of contingent being. How can I have an intelligent argument with someone who thinks that merely repeating (in capitals as if that strengthens the point!): THERE IS NO RATIONAL ARGUMENT FOR ANY FORM OF THEISM is a good argument?
In fact I am a philosophy student, so again you are wrong that I “either haven’t been bothered to look up the problem, think about it yourself or find out if there’s been any scientific advancement in these areas since Thomas Aquinas first came out with these terrible arguements in the dark ages.” For starters, Aquinas was merely one in the chain who took up the arguments [and the reasons for and against!] to see if they worked or not, and in fact, there have been some very clever atheists or agnostics who have come up with some very good arguments against them. Once again you seem to think that it is a question of science, as if God is a specimen to be stuck under a microscope: no wonder you never find him.
I am sure that Aristotle (who advanced scientist in his day) would be amazed at new discoveries, but he would also have a lot to teach those who think that science covers everything. You need to recognise that there are other fields of enquiry, especially philosophy (like logic, metaphysics, aesthetics). And questions like justice, love etc… can not simply be reduced to chemical equations.
~”especially philosophy (like logic, metaphysics, aesthetics). And questions like justice, love etc… can not simply be reduced to chemical equations.”~
Why not? Love and emotions are chemical processes and logic is a thought pattern or process. I a god is found or reveals itself I don’t see any reason we couldn’t eventually describe it with a mathematical formula. But isn’t that what we are trying to do with the unified field theory?
~”THERE IS NO RATIONAL ARGUMENT FOR ANY FORM OF THEISM.”~
What about power, politics and control. Authoritarian Personalities seem to need the illusion that someone is in control with a plan, not just traveling aimlessly through space for no reason.
Have another read of my response to you.
I explain quite clearly why you are wrong. Further, I did not say that God is a specimen to be placed under a microscope. My position is merely the null hypothesis.
You claim that there is a creator god, right?
Well, where is your evidence?
Until you can provide some evidence, you are merely delusional. How can I have an intelligent debate with someone who is delusional?
Mike, I have done the rereading you asked, but you are not always very clear. I will try to explicit the claims I think you are making:
1. I can’t think of good reasons for accepting an infinite being exists.
2. The cosmological argument for the existence of God, which makes use of the principle of cause and effect necessitates linear time, which is scientifically false.
3. It makes no sense to ask what happened before the big bang.
4. A creator God also needs a creator, so there is still an infinite regress.
5. I’ve looked up all the arguments for the existence of God and they’re all very very wrong.
6. I think you haven’t bothered to really look into the problem properly and think about it.
7. You can’t rely on anything said in the dark ages, so Thomas Aquinas’s use of an argument implies that it must be wrong.
8. I can easily check on facts like planets and chairs, so your arguments using these are fallacious.
9. Your basic problem is that you deny science/logic/knowledge, and so you’re happy to accept unreasonable arguments (like the Cosmological one).
10. Aristotle is someone else worth discounting because any 10 year old knows more about him in the areas of both science and philosophy.
11. Aristotle would be devasted by the blow to his system thanks to Stephen Hawking’s theories.
12. All things can be reduced to chemical equations or thought processes.
13. There exists a mathematical formula that explains everything about everything (the unified field theory).
14. Belief in God is often (usually? / always?) due to psychological weakness – the need for outside authority.
15. The existence of God needs to be proven scientifically or is just a delusion.
16. Summing up all these devastating blows, it is clear that “THERE IS NO RATIONAL ARGUMENT FOR ANY FORM OF THEISM.”
Fortunately I agree with you on one point, number 3. So this is a good place to start. We are both making the assumption here that the big bang is the beginning of time. If this is the case, then “before” is meaningless. Time (thanks to the useful definition of St. Augustine, at the beginning of the dark ages, so with luck he just escapes point 7) is the measure of change, and if nothing changes there is no time and therefore no “before”. So in the Big Bang, we suddenly have the entire universe coming to being in one big explosion. Either that or we assume that there was some matter/energy that produced it. In the latter case we can still talk of time, because we now have change. There is a before. Assuming that there was nothing however: no energy, no matter, nothing, we now have to find an explanation for something. E=mc2, perhaps, but if you start with no E and no m, c2 can’t do much by itself! We are now at the start of the problem that the cosmological argument seeks to resolve.
I will not comment on most of your other statements, because you might wish to reformulate them more accurately. I am hoping that you don’t really accept them as they stand. However, I would briefly like to comment on the following:
8. I can easily check on facts like planets and chairs, so your arguments using these are fallacious.
The point I was making is simply that you accept hundreds of ‘facts’ every day without proving them for yourself, or even being able to. The existence of a quasar, for example, or even a black hole, require specialised equipment to detect, so most of us have to rely on the experts. In other words, belief in the full sense (accepting the testimony of somethone that we trust in a particular area about something we don’t know anything ourselves) is actually an everyday experience. The other example I gave is love. Anyone who thought they constantly needed to ‘test’ their spouse’s (or children’s etc…) love before they accepted it to be true is clearly inhuman. Faith and love are closely aligned.
9. … you deny science/logic/knowledge…” I don’t think you have any reason to say that. In fact I have taught logic. (I suspect it wouldn’t be helpful to indicate Aristotle’s influence on that science!) I am not a scientist, but enjoy reading about it. I don’t see any threats to the existence of God, and nor do countless men and women who are scientists.
12. Everything can be reduced to chemical equations or thought processes.
This is not science but ideology if you really think that. In any case I’d be interested to hear why you seem to separate thought processes from chemical equations.
13. There exists a mathematical formula that explains everything about everything (the unified field theory).
More ideology if that is what it means. Does this formula already exist? If not what is your reason that it necessarily does exist? I would also add that even in that case it would not disprove God: why could God not be the formula-maker… (ie is a mathematical formula a description/model of reality or its contructor? In either case it cannot explain itself).
14. Belief in God is often (usually? / always?) due to psychological weakness – the emotional need for outside authority.
I am not a psychologist, but I don’t think you need to be to see the fallacy of this in the lives of well-balanced believers. I suspect, however, (and the writings of some famous atheists like Sartre and Camus and possible Nietzche) that atheism is often a reaction against a malinformed belief that God is just an indifferent autocrat.
15: I need scientific proof of God’s existence. I think this is your real point. If so, please let me know… otherwise…. let me know which of the first 14 points you accept in your defence of the 16! I would be grateful if you encapsulated each claim in a pithy numbered statement for future reference!
Happy New Year to all!
I am an atheist, a scientist, a philosipher, and a believer. How can this be? There is no greater being, in the sense that it can redeam us our sins. Science is study and those that spend a lifetime in study have have knowledge that we, unless we choose to learn from them, have no basis to question. Philosiphy is ponder, the questions of life and motive, why we we do, act and say what we do. I look out at nature everyday. I see the wonder of it and then I wonder about what I see. Nature is god and god is the natural universe. Nature does not care nor require our beliefs. It goes on dispite our questioning of it’s possible origins. It is greater than us, yet, is us. One day in the distant future, if we (as we sould) stride the path of knowledge, we yet may see the face of god.
First may we define our terms. The word Atheism comes literally from the Greek, negative alpha and theos [for God], therefore “negative God” or there is no God. It is not saying, “I do not think or believe there is a God”, rather it affirms the non existence of God. It affirms a negative in the absolute. Anyone who took philosophy 101 knows you cannot affirm a negative in the absolute. It is a logical contradiction. Therefore it is self defeating. It also breaks the rule of non contradiction by ascribing to itself a divine attribute while at the same time denying the existence of the Divine. Atheism not only denounces the existence of God, but by its own definition denounces the principle by which it criticizes the reality of God. To make an absolute statement in the negative is similar to saying that nowhere in the universe does there exist a flying spaghetti monster. For the atheist to make such a claim he must have unlimited knowledge of this universe. What the atheist is fundamentally saying is that he has infinite knowledge of this universe to affirm that there exist no being with infinite knowledge. It is self defeating.
Atheism is a religion and its promoters are its missionaries. Such as Burton Russell who spoke clearly, continually, and with conviction about reality, humanity [what is wrong and what is needed for a better life], and death [where there is no ultimate hope]. Therefore it is a worldview. Since Atheism denies the existence of God it does embrace and defend as sacred any theory that attempts to disprove God. It holds such men as Thomas Hobbes, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Friedrich Nietzsche, Charles Darwin and many others worthy of their attention and following. And the atrocities of the past two centuries prove that their ideas had consequences.
Now if atheism is true then ultimately there is no moral law in this universe. As a personal philosophy of live it offers no ultimate hope and death is the end of personal existence. Since there is no reference point for the meaning of life there is a complete loss of meaning. And ultimately if the atheist is wrong he has made an unreasonable commitment, for when he dies and finds out that God does exists there is no chance for recovery. But with God you have these and more.
Or are you truly an agnostic who with the evidence, philosophy, and data you have studied, has come to the conclusion that the existence of God cannot be proven with certainty. Agnostic comes from the Greek, alpha the negative and ‘gnosis’ to know, which means “doesn’t know”. That is easy to defend, all you has to prove is that you don’t know.
In God’s perspective there are two types of people those who bend their knee to Him and say “Your will be done”, and those that refuse to bend their knee and say, “No, my will be done.” In the conclusion of things Jesus will honor your choice, either eternal existence with Him, or eternity without Him. Don’t make the mistake of experiencing a Godless eternity because you thought you were too good, for God’s forgiveness, atonement, redemption, and justification.
In His Service
TWM
TWM, So you point is Pascal’s Wager or burn in hell?
=”In God’s perspective there are two types of people those who bend their knee to Him and say “Your will be done”, and those that refuse to bend their knee and say, “No, my will be done.””
This is a variation of the “How dare you Rebel against God” argument. So far these are all appeal to emotion fallacies and this one is more often received as submit to slavery or burn in hell.
=Thomas Hobbes, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Friedrich Nietzsche, Charles Darwin and many others worthy of their attention and following. And the atrocities of the past two centuries prove that their ideas had consequences.
Would you care to elaborate?
I love how all athiests try to pinpoint Christianity’s weak spots, and only focus on Christianity. Cause Christianity is the only religon that believes in god, and when you disprove Christianity, then Athiests have won against all religions.
this is pretty much because most of these arguments are happening between americans.
personally, i am bored with the endless discussion, i wish christians would not see atheists as a threat and would leave them alone, so that they too can calm down. personally, livin in the netherlands, the only time i encounter this discussion is when i read articles on the web and they are honestly always the same and we are not getting anywhere.
no sane person will be convinced in the existence or non existence of god via some goddamn comment on the web. i suggest that all these discussions be eradicated or moved into actual reality and without the buffer of the web.
For all of you who can’t figure out why Christians won’t shut up and leave atheists alone, here’s your answer. We care about you. That’s right. We’re annoying because we care. We don’t want to see the world suffer when this life ends. It’s not because we want to make a point. We want to save a life from eternal torture in the fires of hell. Even if you don’t choose to believe us, at least thank the person for trying to help. For the same reason you don’t say f**k off to someone who says “God Bless You”. They’re helping you in ways that they know how. So please, it’s not because we’re stuck up. Well, okay, a lot of Christians are stuck up (like Angela from The Office). But most are just trying to save your life. At least humor them and then say no thanks.
There is no god. Get over it.
Atheist’s shouldn’t be so smug and believe they have superior intelligence because only FOOLS discount all possibilities.
It’s too late to change your mind when your gone from this world. Your so called superior intelligence could be your most foolish illusion.
“A proud man is always looking down on things and people; and, of course, as long as you’re looking down, you can’t see something that’s above you.” – C.S Lewis, Christian and very intelligent man
Nice. Go CSL!
I just Google Stumbled this and read some of the comments on here. I just had to add my view.
I believe in God. Not this weird Christian God that likes to punish and roast flesh, but a God who is everything. Unfortunately, I can’t, after many years of trying, fully find any evidence for the existence of God, nor have I even been able to define God. I just *feel* like God exists.
I believe in God, but I am not so full of myself that I can say I’m right. I could very well be wrong. That is why I’m not Christian. I have to question things. If you question religion, all you can do is say either you don’t believe in God, or you do, but admit there is no real evidence to back up your beliefs and admit you might be wrong. Nobody who believes in God can know with absolute certainty that they’re not praying to thin air. Though I believe in God, I would never FOR ONE SECOND think my beliefs should dictate anyone else’s.
I just wanted to let atheists and Christians know that people like me exist, who believe in God, admit their uncertainty, and will never try to rule over anyone else based on their faith.
Well and humbly put Michelle. I’m with you and I’m sure there are many of us out there who live and let live without the urge or need to push their own intellectual egoistic barrow. As a grandfather approaching end days, when I had the time throughout life’s journey, I’ve fruitlessly endeavoured to come to grips with and understand the purpose of my existence but alas and alack I’ve resigned myself to the belief that when I ultimately expire all my life’s experiences “good or bad” (whatever that objectively means)will of been of no consequence except that I hold the perhaps forlorn hope that my undistinguished progeny may live to see and enjoy a meaningful and purposeful existence….that is if, and a very big if, the human species survive which to me at least seems mathematically improbable if not impossible.
I leave you with, in the words of a song which title eludes me, ‘Love the one you’re with’
I am so on board with you two.
“Human beings are perhaps never more frightening than when they are convinced beyond doubt that they are right.”
I claim myself agnostic, but love both sides of the argument, because of the passion it brings forth. I consider myself respectful of both sides, because of how I was raised, and because I don’t see how any person can “know” without a doubt. I hope we are all comfortable with the decision we have made individually but we must keep questioning. Either we will grow and change or hold steadfast in our ways, I only ask that everyone is open to… other input.
I adore science, because it explains so much that we once left to religion to explain. This leads me to believe that as humans, there are many things as of now that we have no explanation for, so we still turn to religion. Why not just say “we don’t know.” No harm in it. But we still have fear and want to credit a higher being. I cannot fairly deny the existence of a higher being, but we discredit ourselves so much with this belief. One such example is prayer. It is truly a powerful tool that heals and solves personal problems. But in actuality, we are not taking into account the power of the human mind. We are so powerful and do not fully understand or credit our own energy. We might see proof in prayer, I don’t disrespect that. But that is simply utilizing the human mind in ways we credit to a higher being based on lack of understanding. I consider myself to be a good person, and that is not because I fear an eternal life in hell. That should not be the only ambition to live a good life. I cannot say I am atheist because that seems arrogant to me, I am agnostic. I respect that we do not know. I am so grateful to those of you who respect both sides as well. If you choose to “believe,” who am I to judge? All I ask is the same in return. It seems to be the eternal question, thanks to all of you on here for giving me a stimulating evening-
Jonathan: if you’ve _really_ taught logic you should know about this little statement:
Knowledge is true, justified belief.
You have provided no testable evidence of the existence of god, and so it remains unjustified. Your claim that knowledge (of Saturn or any other ‘real world’ object) is simply the trust that you have in someone else telling you it’s true (whether scientist or otherwise) is also false. The reason we believe scientists when they tell us things is because their ideas are testable. Another scientist could repeat the experiment and either find the same result (which makes the result slightly more probable) or find a different result (which would lead to a questioning of the original theorem). Religious claims have no corresponding testability.
If you choose to claim that it’s not testable because its ‘faith’ then I’m sorry to say, you clearly are delusional (see this website for a graphic demonstration of this: http://www.motifake.com/motivational_posters/ceb018b370.jpg).
Others have said it quite clearly above, but here it is again, just for you: The onus of proof is on _you_ to demonstrate where a god exists. You have so far provided no such proof and you infinite regress argument is null and void, because the problem, if one actually exists, is equally applicable to god (what caused the ‘first cause’?). I eagerly await your proof – while you’re at it, please also tell me whether the dark side of the moon is made of cheese. Someone I trust told me that.