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.
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 [email protected]. 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 Godâ€, 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 knowâ€. 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 doneâ€, 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 doneâ€, 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.
Um i am with Thomas up there, and would just like to point out that the whole thing about being told about god by someone who knows and that’s your faith, is funny. If i put a sign on the door to you building that said “wet paint” and it didn’t look wet to you, you would still touch it. Is this because you lack faith or because you are looking to science for conformation?
ps as soon as i start to talk to some one who is a jesus freak i secretly automaticly feel bad for how stupid they are at such a petty level… not saying your all dumb.. its even worse when this person is smart.. then all there smarts go into trying to win the debate for there silly god. it is really saddening, there is soo much more to debate and congregate together about. but you all go sing your sing songs and read the good book. I will go do things with my time, in the physical plane. pss your all dumb
this is you being petty. being blinded by emotion is a human trait, you cannot think yourself superior for this, just like you cannot feel superior over people who are in love. we are rational beings but also emotional creature, no one is only one and this kind of atheist passive agressiveness is what sometimes makes me ashamed of certain atheists. the approach you took here is childish. you are not superiour in your argument.
I agree with the dirty European here. You also have no right to call our God silly, you sound like you’re barely aware of how to SPELL Christianity, let alone anything beyond that. Don’t try to win a Spanish spelling bee if you can’t speak Spanish, and don’t try to criticize Chisrianity if you know nothing about it.
Cool stuff. Yes it’s hard to look objectively at claims made by a demonstrated nutter. But there have been lots of studies showing a correlation between higher education and less religiosity.
Your closing paragraph is problematic. If someone is brainwashed for years it’s unfair to call his intelligence into question when it comes to belief. If one is brainwashed, than to him the belief is clearly true. If it “clearly isn’t true,” then he isn’t brainwashed.
Also, read “Why People Believe Weird Things” by Michael Shermer. He explains that smart people get really good at justifying their beliefs.
You know, the “Why People Believe Weird Things” thing really hits home with me. How is it that atheists have such a hard time with the Beginning of the world? They are perfectly content believing that the dense ball of matter before the big bang didn’t need to be created, and it was there for an infinite amount of time before the big bang. And yet, they come at Christians with this “Who created God” crap. If your dense matter sphere thing didn’t need I be created, then why does God need to be created? This sphere can exist without creation, but not God? Please help me out with understanding how any atheist could overlook this.
I’m sorry but you are somewhat mistaken in your assumption here on what science has to tell us about how the universe started. Scientists only make claims up to the point of the big bang because that’s what the evidence suggests. At the point of the big bang and before, science has not much to say but vague untested educated guesses. The point being that they are not making any actual solid claims are saying they know for sure. No scientist claims that there was some dense chunk of matter sitting there forever, they just claim that if you look at the evidence in the universe, everything converges to a point. End of claim.
although I will add the stephen hawking has some interesting theories involving cyclical universes in which entropy alternately increases and decreases so that at some point in the distant future our twin-reverse-bizaro universe would be born from a big-crunch of ours, which would then eventually result in another big bang.
The majority of the arguments presented on either side have extreme logical fallacies. There are some rules that must be played by on both sides, as well as things that must be understood that make a debate almost truly impossible to keep on one level.
1) The atheist argument is essentially that there is no reason to believe in a God because there is zero empirical evidence of a God. (very much unlike TWM’s definition).
2) The Christian (broaden this to theistic) argument is that there is no need for empirical evidence of God, due to an overwhelming faith or “knowledge” (I don’t use this term in mockery or insult).
This alone makes debate impossible. We (atheists and theists) both initially agree there is no empirical evidence for a supreme God (I would like to clarify this in saying the words “in present day”. This is to avoid the argument being made in the burning bush strain, as the burning bush isn’t a claim that can be validated currently. The main issue with the premise of argument is we are negotiating with the assumption we’re discussing the same subject. We aren’t. Atheists (typically) reject the existence of a God due to a lack of faith in this believer and a dispute with the credibility of the claims of divinity that theists make of their particular God.
So, tell me, if we both accept that there is no empirical evidence to *prove our own theory* then why is a debate necessary? Atheists essentially say “We looked, we haven’t found Him (God).” There is nothing to disprove in the mind of Atheist, because as previously stated, you can’t prove a negative. The theist argument is that they have a personal testament (proof?) that God exists and don’t need empirical proof. While I will agree that the burden of proof lies in the believe, for obvious reason; the issue lies in that theists truly don’t carry a need to have this type of argument, so they don’t.
Some of you make intelligent and very thoughtful points, but the atheist argument and the theist argument are still not in direct opposition of one another
TWM: “While I will agree that the burden of proof lies in the believe, for obvious reason; the issue lies in that theists truly don’t carry a need to have this type of argument, so they don’t.”
I would argue that an essential part of a (Christian) theists beliefs is in the desire to share those belies with others; if one truly believes that they hold the key to eternal happiness, they will naturally want to share those beliefs, regardless of other people’s initial unwillingness to hear them.
The point of deabte, therefore, seems to me to be to attempt to get the atheist to accept that debate itself can only go so far, that some issues are actually outside of reason. (The above question of what happened before the big bang is a perfect example; there is no anser that makes sense) Whilst i admit it is very unlikely that many staunch atheists will accept this, it cannot stop theists trying; they sincerely believe they are right.
Linked to this idea, and in response to some earlier posts, i feel there is confusion between the idea of an arugment being “rational” and being deductively true. They are not the same. If we relied only on deductively true arguments, science would have ground to a halt years ago; see Hume’s writings on the problem of induction for this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
It is possible for there to be rational arguments both for and against god’s existence, neither of which conclusively proove anything. Debate will never get anywhere whilst members on either side are hung up on this idea of conclusive proof; it cannot happen.
i agree with both of you and i honestly think that this should be published on the google home page or something, so that it could reach the largest possible audience, which would clarify so much.
the problem i see with your reply, joel, is that it is not necessarily rational arguments that atheists look for, but rather rational reasoning (although i think this is redundant) that leads to the conclusion that a deity exists. now of course, as was mentioned above, theists do not need this to believe, but what needs to be said is that atheists (as far as i know) pride themselves in looking for a reasonable train of thought and making use of probability. this is why atheists are aware that there can be no certainty and think that merely saying that one is certain about something is presumptious and puts too much value on your own ‘knowledge’.
consequently, the theist seems like the one that values his/her own opinion too highly.
I would just like to point out that Atheists (myself included) value rational reasoning as much (i would assume) as theists value their ‘key to happiness’, thus the reason for atheist ‘anger’ is that we want to spread rationality as it is the height of human achievement, thus there is benevolence on both sides.
or at least that is how i feel.
From my experience and readings, Atheists use scientific logic to state there are/is no god(s). Theists use faith-in-god(s) and a non-scientific logic, one that leaves out the possibility of something as an unknown.
As I see it, there is no way that either side will budge on their stance. No matter how many reasons are given from each side, if there is no common-ground to stand on, then the debates will turn to emotional arguments that, as I see it, essentially equate to “I’m better!” “No, I’m better!” without actually giving any reasons.
While I like to think I follow scientific logic, that doesn’t mean that I’m smarter or better than anyone else. If I were to think “because I’m an Atheist, I’m better than Theists”, then I am closed minded. That is no better than a Theist who defaults to a position of “because of god” to explain the unknown and doesn’t question that stance while believing they are better than non-Theists or those who don’t believe in their deity/deities.
Is the debate about Atheism vs Theism, really about being right in all things? As in “I’m right about X and you’re wrong”? I think so: I see it with Religion (those who think their god(s) are “true” and everything else “false”), Politics (“my political party is better because we believe X and the other political party doesn’t believe that”), and social interactions that don’t follow Religion and Politics (“my sports team is better than yours because yours sucks!”, “my Dad is better than your Dad!”, “Macs are better than PCs!”).
Why not believe your own stance and let anyone else believe their stance?
Because we are all humans, the desire to be “right” will happen, regardless of what thing we want to be “right” about.
as per usual the atheist / theist debate is getting very touchy and personal in some of these posts.
I am myself an atheist. I do not believe in a god or any magical, mystical or spiritual forces. For the record, I was brought up a strong Christian; over the last 5 or 6 years I have completely changed my beliefs, which is more than can be said for many people posting on this forum.
Being a tolerant person, I have no problem with any religious people whatsoever. I may sigh ironically at a couple of particularly ignorant theists, but those are people who deserve it, trust me.
I wanted to share an argument that I read recently. I think its particularly aimed at creationists, but it will work for theism in general too.
Imagine, if you will, an atheist and theist standing next to each other. For no apparent reason, the atheist picks up a baseball bat and smashes the theists knee.
THEIST: OUCH!!! what was that for??!!
ATHEIST: Sorry, did i do something wrong?
THEIST: YES!! you just really really hurt my leg! why did you do that?!
ATHEIST: I didn’t touch you, what are you talking about?
THEIST: YES YOU DID! you just hit me with that baseball bat!
ATHEIST: No i didn’t, wheres your evidence?
THEIST: Well I just saw you do it! Look, my legs all bloody and broken! theres also a big blood stain on that baseball bat. i can take that down to a scientific testing lab and PROVE that your fingerprints are on the bat and that my blood is there too therefore proving u did it
ATHEIST: well actually everything I believe in comes from this book. if its not in there then it didnt happen. there is no way you can prove it otherwise…
I could go on but I think Ive proved a point (erm… cough cough)
The point here is such: anything an atheist can try to argue will not succeed! it can be as reasonable, just, intelligent etc as it wants, but it cannot be proven in the eyes of a religious person.
Why are we trying to argue this stuff when nothing can be proven!? how do you think all religious wars started in the 1st place?
consequently this argument shows that no political system can be run religiously. im sorry to say this theist crew but justice, medicine, warfare, and most importantly education cannot be taught from a theists point of view. cus if it was then Joe Bloggs whos on trial for murder can say “well actually everything I believe in is in this book…”
Religion is fine but when your religion affects other people it CAN become a disaster. When you take your orders from a higher power you cannot let it affect other people. How is it fair to disregard everyone else in this lifetime, just to justify yourself in a another lifetime? what I think, personally, is crazy is how theists pin all their hopes and dreams to an afterlife they cannot sense in any other way than to believe.
To me, the only thing that matters is karma. If we as a race believe in karma, EVERYONE is happy, in this life and the next.
I like it! haha 😉
How childish and self righteous must people be to believe that we already have all the answers in pre-packaged in a handy book. You’re right, theists, science can not yet prove the absolutes of the universe, yet every day we unravel a tiny bit more of it’s structure. The human genome, sub atomic particle theory, astrophysics… It would seem that science, though still in its infancy, has advanced us eons beyond what religion was ever capable of.
I like this train of thought as regard all of the clever believers:
If I say that the moon is made of cheese, it’s clearly down to me to provide some evidence of the truth of that before any rational person will believe me. Clearly, I wouldn’t be able to, and so no-one would believe me.
In the thousands of years through which theist beliefs have grown and festered, not one bit of credible evidence for the existence of gods has been offered. Not one. What we get are statements about the requirement for evidence being a denial of belief.
By that measure, my moon-cheese assertion would be true simply because someone believed it; probably a thicko.
“If it were possible to reason with believers, there’d be no believers.”
🙂
I am from Romania, so I am sorry for the possible mistakes.
I have been an atheist since I was 13 although I was raised Sunday-Church day-Christian. From then until last year I have been constantly debating Christians because I thought religion is a major handicap, a syphilis of the mind. I have the same opinion today only that I realized that lots people die from such diseases. You will have to wait for them to discover the sickness, so they can cure it.
Don’t go into debate, it is useless. Try to make them question religion not by asking questions.
I wouldn’t link atheism to intelligence exclusively. In other words, I wouldn’t conclude that theists or believers are unintelligent. However, I would say to be a secure atheist requires an evolved level of maturity. Which is to say, to have the ability to accept truths even when they are unpleasant, to not be looking to another authority to be their moral guide, to trust they will make ethical decisions without a consequential God hovering over their shoulder. Two disclaimers: not all atheists are behaving as though they are intelligent, and I do believe in God, just not an Abrahamic God, but a spiritual dimension that lets us experience things of the heart.
i disagree, i think that some atheists (namely pissed off teenagers) can also be naive atheists, believing it simply because the awesome people on the internet are atheists. These people, I am ashamed of because they send off the wrong idea to people and represent themselves as speaking ‘for all atheists’.
The real difference between believers and non-believers is that non-believers follow where the evidence leads, whereas believers believe regardless of evidence (this is called “faith”). The reason they argue with each other is because believers like to pretend as though they follow the evidence, because they maintain a peculiar envy of science and logic. They envy them because they know that they will have to abandon them to the extent that they contradict their beliefs, which is inevitable. Refute a theist argument and watch them continue to believe anyway. They really don’t care about evidence or logic, and it isn’t so much a matter of intelligence as intellectual integrity and honesty.
Sorry, but I have to say you pissed me off when I read that you think that theists believe what they believe regardless of the evidence? Prove evolution and I’ll believe it. Make it more than a theory. But until you give me evidence, I will believe. I’m not a Christian because I reject evidence. I’m a christian because I have faith where there is no evidence for or against. Because you can’t have evidence either for or against God. You can have arguments over the logistics of having a God, but not over evidence. And let me tell you, the physical feeling you get when you accept Christ into your life, it’s unbelievable. You actually FEEL God’s Holy Spirit flowing into your heart, making you whole. And then you look off into the distance and see lightning, not a cloud in the sky. A scene from my Christian Bible camp, and the lightning occurs without a cloud in the sky. And the only night it happens is the night when the speaker invited those who don’t know Christ to accept him into their lives. Only the night when the Holy Spirit is active at the camp is there lightning. And it’s not just an annual phenomenon, same date every year. The timing of camp is sort of random, so as to fit the most people’s schedules. So how do you explain the lightning every year? Coincidence? Possibly, but seriously, the odds are for God. He wins (as usual). By the way, forgive me of there are some errors in this post. I’m writing it from my bed at 10:53pm on a school night. Gotta get up tomorrow and go to high school! Yay. (sarcastic)
Ah, here is the first mistake you made that prompted me to write this. Like many theist, you described evolution as “just” a theory. Let’s get one thing clear. Gravity is a fact. There is the law of gravity that states “things will fall to the center of the more massive object.” There is also a theory of gravity (wait WHAT? gravity is just a theory? Am I about to fly off earth right now?) Well, sadly no. The theory of gravity simple explains why things fall. Laws are facts, theories are scientific explanations that have stood ALL known evidence and are able to accurately predict future occurrences. Evolution is fact.(Disease mutating is a clear example). The evolutionary theory through natural selection explains this known fact by stating that the fittest survive. It has stood all found fossil records for about 150 years. It is able to accurately predict how old the fossils we find are suppose to be. Therefore, it is the best theory for the fact of evolution. Please, don’t say evolution is “just” a theory, because it is a scientific theory. Other theories include the germ theory, the theory of aerodynamic, the theory of electrostatic movement, and many more that you happily believe.
I think the atheism = intellgence hypothesis is pointless. That said, I like this sort of article. The replies from believers argue on the basis of faith in humanity rather than faith in the omnipotent….interesting.
This is ridiculously funny. Theres too many scientist with too much time annd this proves it. Beliefs cannot justify intelligence.
the debate seems to me be about if the soul exist, you cant prove it and you can not prove the opposite.
but I don’t doubt that GOD doesn’t have any power the symbol god has been given its powers from all his/hers believers. and if lots of people in a community does that it becomes a social fact becurse its the norm.
the bible is quite logical if.. you dont LIVE your EVIL and what’s LIVE spelled backwards? and what’s LIVED spelled backwards?
what if Jesus mother mary got raped by a Roman and thereby called a virgin because she is still innocent and what if she had twins! Jesus maybe had a step brother and that explains the resurrection his brother took over (twins has that strange connection with each other like they are one identity)
but how the F*ck did he feed all those people with 5 fishes? whales?
By the way I have never read the bible but I’m looking forward to it when I get a sign (probable comes when everything in my life crashes.. signs usually comes when Im desperate for any answer because im not happy with the sad truth behind the truth.
yea im a big moron but I think everyone is but I know I am so that’s f*cks things up a bit looking at all those sheep following the “Sheppard” and scared of the sheepdog (thats leadership 101) like rewards and punishments. but in a antsociety size
DELETE ALL
NEW IDEA!
what the f*uck is intellegens? dont we all have it? but just different based on differnent thought patterns based on thought experiances? simple is smarter then complex. we humans dont know shit we just makes names for an explanation so we symbolize it and give it more “truth” based on the believers..
why am i writing my thoughts? im not a blogger..
peace
Have to agree with Mike about Dinesh D’Souza. The man is extremely irritating and his mugshot should accompany the dictionary definition of “sophist”.
The debate about whether intelligent people are more or less inclined to believe in a god is an intriguing one. Both sides will claim many of history’s greatest scholars, but what is most important is what scholars think NOW. This is because we have access to a greater range of knowledge than ever before- we have more evidence and a greater body of arguments from which to draw our conclusions.
So the fact that most modern scholars reject theism is telling!
This healthily skeptical presence amongst our academics should allow us to continue to enlighten the world (as opposed to making the vague statement that some 2000-year-old pretentious carpenter is the “light of the world”) and bring about humanity’s long overdue emancipation from the chains of religion and superstition.
Yes, Dinesh D’Souza is indeed an obvious sophist. I watched him perform his deplorable stage act in person when he “debated” Christopher Hitchens in my home town.
“Quite frankly, in this case, the claim is so strong, and backed up by so much circumstantial evidence.”
I think you mean anecdotal evidence, which is of little value.
I agree with you on a more general basis.
teachers love/hate gifted kids because they ask too many kids. they question everything.
Looking back, it has mostly just been the OVERTLY religious–the ones commanding me to bow my head–that have been making me wretch and puke my guts out for forty years. Most people–including many religious ones–have qualities underlying their shortsightedness–qualities like empathy, kindness, compassion–that seem to be not at all intelligence-related but are nevertheless crucial, no doubt even to the survival of humanity.
BEFORE stumbling on to this I’d noticed that all this my-brain-is-bigger-than-your-brain bullshit has been making me as sick to my stomach as listening to religious morons intimidate THEIR flocks.
It’s not just this article. It’s everywhere. Religion is wrong. Hopefully it’s over. But this is embarrassing. More importantly, it’s stupid. It’s absolutely stupid as hell.
In the end it’s not about intelligence. It’s about freedom from oppression. Stupidity may in fact result from it, but stupidity doesn’t oppress. People do. Even and especially the “smartest” ones.
Excuse me, “religion is wrong”? First of all, how can you say something is wrong when you haven’t done any research? Like a fifth grader going on Jeopardy. If you never studied religion, you can’t say that it’s wrong. I’ve studied it, and the more questions I ask, the more I try to find thosenanswers that could destroy my belief, every time I find my belief in God gets stronger. Not that I find proof, or anything, I just understand more of how the world works, and realize that this is too complex for randomnimity. (spell check?) I just know that for humanity to have formed, after loads of random mutations, and things like that; you have a better chance of filling Texas knee-high with quarters, and randomly picking up one in front of you, and that quarter being the one you were looking for. I worded that terribly. But I hope you look past that and see the likelyhood of humanity, of life. But back to the point. Take some religion classes. Then I’ll be fine with you posting just outright “Christianity is wrong.”. Even if I don’t believe you. Oh, and I would say the same to a person criticizing atheism without knowing anything about it.
Religion is not only wrong, but harmful too! I think Thomas Jefferson summed it up nicely when he said:
“Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined, and imprisoned, yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites.”
You can say “randomness” BTW.
The problem with taking religion classes is that they only teach you one side of the story. It’s what’s known as indoctrination. True education gives you the facts and then let’s you make your own choices. Religion rarely does this.
It is after extensive research that I can confidently say that religion is wrong (your assumption that somebody else has done no research is rather arrogant and childish).
First of all, there is no evidence to support the claims of religion. There is, however, a colossal well of evidence in support of scientific claims.
Secondly, the argument from complexity- Paley’s long-defeated watchmaker argument- has no place in the modern world, given the incredible findings to support evolution. Just recently a transition fossil was found in Germany, further weakening the fundamentalist case (which was pretty weak to begin with) and further showing that science is progressive and ongoing while religion lays dead in the water (hopefully it will float down the drain).
For more information on the fact of evolution, try The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins.
Thirdly, the burden of proof lies with the believer, not the non-believer. If you’re going to make the claim that Christianity/Religion is true, you need to back it up with solid evidence. As this cannot be done, the only logical and fair thing to do is to dismiss your claim.
Here endeth the lesson.
The Investigator – I just wanted to highlight some of your pearls of wisdom from this comments thread.
You said:
So obviously you wouldn’t make any unsubstantiated claims without research. Except, you also say:
No one who had any knowledge at all of the origin of the universe would make that statement. Matter before the big bang? There for an infinite amount of time? If you do go on Jeopardy, let’s hope they don’t start off with “The event that caused the creation of matter where there was none before…” or you’d be in real trouble. But wait, there’s more…
Hm. Again, anyone who had even a passing interest in evolution would have stumbled across examples of observed speciation. If you haven’t yet, start here for a single example. You also need to be very clear on the difference between evolution and natural selection. There is a mountain of evidence for both.
I have to say the hypocrisy in your comments on this page is just staggering. To criticize other commenters for not being educated in religion and to then go on and make the completely uneducated statements you made amazes me. People in glass houses…
Now it’s religion vs. atheism?? But Buddhism is a religion and it’s also atheistic.
I still think that debating my moon-cheese thesis has more point to it than discussing religion with believers (they’re always going to believe whatever you say; maybe in 1,000 year’s time they’ll have died out along with the flat-earthers, witch stool-duckers and so on).
But, in discussing cheese, we may just get some cheese! Factor in the moon and we may even find that cheese is tidal and ebbs and flows in the fridge when we’re not looking (you know, during those times when Heisenberg and Quantum Physycists say that we don’t know whether the light is on, off, or in some intermediate multi-dimensional state).
(No, I’m not a real physicist.)
These discussions are really interesting.
I’m a 26-year-old from Norway (so please excuse any misspellings, lack of vocabulary, or grammar glitaches) brought up in a moderatly liberal christian, or at least spiritually searching home.
There are some arguments and statements from the christian side of the board that are kind of silly to me.
One person claimed atheists to be believers. We’re not. You can’t believe in nothing. As a wise man once put it; calling atheism a belief is like calling “bald” a hair color.
And to the one saying that theists approach atheists to help them – stop doing that. There’s no point. It’s as hopeless as a nun in a gay bar. She has nothing to offer. My disbelief is just as sound as your belief, and trying to offer me your christianity while I’m as convinced as i am, is like offering to chare your sandwich-lunch with me just after I left a restaurant where I ate a huge steak. It’s a kind offer, but i really don’t need it.
When it comes to theism, I have to admit that I understand the agnostics more than theists, although I share wievs with neither of them. I can appreciate the belief of something bigger than us, a creator, an overseer, and a protector. It gives comfort and it gives assurance. But to pinpoint it to one named diety is in my opinion baseless. Even if one “feels” the precence of a devine being, how is one to know that it’s (the christian) god, or Zevs, or Mithra?
Religion has evolved from lots of scattered cult-like parties to mainly just a handful major religions today. Religion, like most other belief/emotional audience, is inherited. Extremely few people growing up in e.g. a christian community will choose anything else than christianity, agnostisism or atheism. Finding the genuine right god or diety for one self is almost impossible, since almost every other denomination is outside reach due to the prevailing major religions today. Most of them are probably lost.
An then there’s the statement of “feeling” or “seeing” a diety or god.
My father, when he was a child, saw what we in Norway call a “nisse” (it’s basicly a gnome from the norse folklore). A man i know firmly believes in the old norse gods (Thor, Odin and so on), and claims that his prayers at the services he has attended has been answered. My ex’s grandfather have met an other creature from norse folklore, Huldra, twice. And every now and then we hear about people seeing Nessie, Chupacabra, the Yeti, experiencing alien abductions and so on.
To me as a non-believer there is no rational, emotional or logical reasons to believe them less – or more – than religious people telling me they have met their god.
To me “feeling” or “seeing” their god is not a convicting statement. If I am to believe christians claims to have met your maker, I also have to at least consider to believe in all the fictive animals, folklore creatures, and weird meetings people claim to have experienced.
Like Stephen F. Roberts said:
When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods (and i might add, the fictional creatures), you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Many theist fall on the fact atheist can’t disprove God without being omniscient. Well, I can. Let’s start off easy. You say there are cubic spheres, I say there is no such thing. You say I can’t prove you wrong, I say I can. First off, be definition, a sphere has no edges or vertex. By definition, a cube has 12 edges and 8 vertex. These two definitions contradict, therefore an object that is both a cube and a sphere cannot exist. Did I need to be omniscient, no, I just needed to know what a cubic sphere was. By definition, God is an eternal,perfect creator. Eternal means he has ALWAYS been there. Perfect ( a litte harder to define so I looked it up) “being complete of its kind and without defect or blemish”. Creator means…well..he created the universe. If he is eternal and perfect, he has Always been there and has ALWAYS been without defect and complete. SOmething that is perfect needs nothing else. Why then, did after eternity, did God decide to create the universe? Was he bored, lonely, sad? He’s perfect, something that is perfect needs nothing else to fulfill himself, therefore, by definition, something that is both perfect and creates cannot exist. Therefore, either God is not real, or he is perfect but did not create the universe, OR he created the universe but isn’t perfect. BUT WAIT, a God HAS to be perfect. But he also HAS to have created the universe (that’s why we call him God right? Otherwise he would just be some guy). Therefore the only choice left is he doesn’t exist. There. I’m done.
“I’m torn as to whether the person making the statement is enough to invalidate, or call into question, the claim itself.”
Is that not a logical fallacy? An ad hominem attack, and a plain one at that. And you complain about the logic of other people.
,,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.”
Faith and love are closely aligned, yes, however one can see evidence of the love that a spouse or child provides on a day to day basis. Where is your evidence for an all-loving god? Please, explain in a logical, coherent way, why your god is so vain and jealous that he needs you to acknowledge, despite a virtual world of evidence mounted against him, that he created you, loves you, talks to you (but only actually listens to you about 50% of the time, as scientific studies of prayer have shown-it’s meaningless) and you have to accept this on blind faith, else he will send you to a place of fire, torture, brimstone and anguish for eternity, to be mocked by those who rejected all logic (again, something that god has given us but does not allow us to use- much like free will. To a christian, free will does not exist. Sure, they have it, and they chose to believe in a delusion that the more rational and logical of us chose to reject on the basis of there being no evidence. God is so vain that he has to give us the choice to believe in him, without providing a single shred of evidence, and in fact, much evidence to the contrary, otherwise he will punish you for simply using something he gave you in the first place. That’s the definition of absolutely conditional love, not unconditional. In addition, assuming he is omnipotent, he knows exactly how you are going to react to this free will that he gives you. Having both defined the parameters for free will and your thought. Therefore, in creating me the way that I am, to use my free will to look and find no evidence of him existing, he simply created me as a pawn to torture forever. Fantastic guy. The absolute epitome of somebody with whom I would chose to spend eternity and allow into my heart.)
Many apologies for the tangent, but please, will a theist explain how that is the act of an omnipotent being, and not of a jealous, spoiled, petty, primitive child.
There absolutely is a God. That God is one thing. That thing is everything. Even nothing. Such is God. God is Everything, and by that I mean exactly what I say, Every single speck of every single thing and the space that separates one thing from another thing. All that is God. God is just the word we use to describe the universe. It is our place to try to figure out and explain the universe and thus understand God. Therefore Science is the ultimate religion. The problem of science is that it forgets to convey to those who study it the importance of the thing. Science becomes impractical and boring because it often overlooks the basic wonder to be felt about the universe. The universe is truly an amazing place and we get to be a part of it. Not only do we live here but our existence enables us to define reality. That is impressive and amazing and we forget it entirely too often. These thoughts are I think common only overlooked and augmented by people who pretend to have some knowledge of the thing. Some people are nihilists because they don’t understand how great it is to be alive the gift of human life and even more so the gift of human intelligence are the two most amazing things we know about and we forget or ignore how significant the planet that brought us forth truly is. We need to remember that the Earth is not just the place we live but it is our birther, our heavenly cosmic mother whose glory and magnificence need to be treated with the proper respect that they deserve. Remember always that the universe is God that the Earth is our mother and our home, that it is wrong to hurt your mother and that it only hurts you to destroy your home. Protect the Earth for it is truly an amazing and glorious thing that brought us forth. Remember where we are in the universe and the scale on which you live but don’t let that make you feel any less important than you are. For each and every one of us is gifted with intelligence and self awareness to an extent that is breathtaking and spectacular. Human life, each individual life is amazing and miraculous by its very nature. Let us not forget that we are animals living on a planet that supports us. We do not own anything except ourselves and our relationships with others, everything else is just pretending backed up with force. Love everyone you meet for each individual is an individual masterpiece, a miraculous work of art to be admired and respected. We were all birthed from this Earth within this universe and we are all in that way children of God. At the same time we are ourselves a part of God, which is to say the Universe. Do with the gift of life what you will, but for myself its time to realize more fully my relation with that which is divine, which is to say everything.
Samuel, is it safe to assume you’re a Spinozist? If so, would you mind elaborating on your beliefs. As I’ve brought up on this blog before, I find Spinoza fascinating and for many, including myself, his ideas are somewhat difficult to comprehend.
As for some of your other comments, dare I say they seem a tad conflicted. On the one hand you say:
But then go on to say:
On the one hand your praising our intelligence and quest for knowledge (by association), but then also criticizing science for not feeling wonder. Unfortunately, science necessarily tries to explain things, if this removes the wonder for you, then that’s unfortunate. There are those out there for which understanding the underlying processes provides wonder. As an analogy, you see a magic trick on TV, do you sit back and enjoy it, or do you enjoy it and then think about how it’s done? Personally, I enjoy the trick for what it’s worth, and then derive further enjoyment from trying to figure out “the trick”.
I have never heard of Spinoza before but if it sounds like this I’m down. This was the culmination of my thoughts on the subject of God. For a long time I was an atheist who believed in science as something completely separate from God. The kind of inspiration for this was actually when I read the lords prayer in its original Aramaic, it is quite a bit different from the translation that is more commonly heard and it speaks of God not as some dude up in the sky calling all the shots but rather as a “heavenly cosmic birther” which I took to mean that God is actually the planet that brought us forth. Thinking that way I followed through to this.
The reason I say science gets boring is because I feel like the way it is taught does not convey properly the significance of what it means. If it did there would be a lot more scientists.
When science tries to explain things it does not take away the wonder from them, quite on the contrary in fact. Science gets to explain those things and when we understand the universe for what it is it is so much more beautiful than when we pretend.
http://nmazca.com/verba/lord.htm (the lord’s prayer i refer to)
Richard Dawkins was also an inspiration to me, though I don’t think he meant to be.
I looked it up (Spinozism)and yeah, something like that but not really. But I am not a determinist in that sense, I absolutely believe in free will.
Also, just because I like some of what Christ might have said does not mean I am a Christian. Religion is a tool to control the masses and needs to be abolished so we can move forward with our understanding of God.
*edit* “Oh cosmic birther of all radiance and vibration” is what it actually says not “Heavenly cosmic birther” sorry
So to replace the current believer/atheist dichotomy we’ll rank everyone according to their IQ?? Sounds a step away from saying; if you’re not an atheist you’re dumb!! I read a lot of atheist literature and get so sick of people who want to be sure about just about everything. Like, “I’m an atheist, does that make me superior to others, does it, does it, somebody tell me, I’ve got to know!!!!!” You can choose not to believe in the existence of a god, or universal creator, but it doesn’t guarantee you’re going to find a lot of certainty in this uncertain universe. If others [foolishly in your eyes] choose to believe in a god [it is a ‘belief’ it can’t be proven], and they’re not harming anyone, then just leave them alone. There’s no need to look down on them, or mock them. Doing this in fact reveals your own insecurities that you have to legitimise your position by belittling others. Now, believers who send us to war, that’s another issue.
The correlation is between *knowledge* and atheism, not intelligence. It happens to be the case that people with greater intelligence have more knowledge, but knowing more about how things (including the universe) work helps you to avoid the whole god-of-the-gaps mentality.
I’ve got to say, I’ve stumbled on so many of these discussions in comments…I’ve never come away with the impression that anyone from the theist side had anything to offer. I read every word of this. Here’s my summary
1. Theist makes a claim
2. Athiest brings up the well known and obvious logical counter
3. Theist either makes nearly the exact same fallacious claim or has no rebuttal.
4. Someone makes a request that we all be nice / drop it
5. Repeat from step 1.
YES the moon is made of low fat chees and the earth is flat and a stork diliverd me and I love you.
I have an abiding beleif, faith if you will that terms like good and evil are human constructs and are wholly limited to our species and are meaningless in the total scheme of things. We can only think, act and behave as humans and as such, while we consider ourselves on top of the food chain on this planet logic essentially tells us we could not possibly have the attributes to be top of all life forms in the cosmos. Having said that, I believe that we have the potential to be so given the fullness of time via a scientific path and not via belief systems that declare we are the spawn of some individual almighty being….that is if in the meantime we are not rendered obsolete by some cataclysmic event which is indifferent to terms like good and evil.
As such there are few options available to humans to adopt in this reality – the most compelling of which is to procreate and continue our search for meaning and purpose of existence which will ultimately maybe solved by our descendants at which point we will have achieved god-like status although I personally am pessimistic that we as a species will survive to see this happen unless and until we evolve into some kind spiritual life forms free of the necessity of physical constraints.
I have garnered these viewpoints over the last 60 or so years in my part-time quest to find answers to my existence as an alternative to religious orthodoxy and not for a moment want to indicate that they were spontaneously inspired but are merely the amalgam of information that was available to me which sits comfortably.
“When you’re smiling, when you’re smiling, the whole world smiles with you “
I believe one day god will show him self when the time is wright it might be threw science. but I find it amazing you are talking about god debating arguing all god has to do is sit back and listen you are doing a fantastic job I like this site.God came to me I am not very intelligent I am a worker when there is a war I do the dieing when a wall needs to be built I build it.
Well that’s where you’re mistaken Peter …it takes a lot of natural intelligence to fight a war and build a wall plus a zillion other things that so called intellectuals are incapable of doing.
To me intelligence is basically divided into two parts – practical and abstract and I for one admire those who continually work on honing and improving their individual quotient.
Remember “no one is better than me and I am better that no one” a credo I’ve carried throughout life.
“Whoa-oa-oa! I feel good, I knew that I would, now I feel good, I knew that I would, now
So good, so good, I got you”
I had my arse kicked my face pushed in mud chocking by a evil entity I was lifted up by a angel then I was kicked face first back in the mud and was lifted up why was I kicked once by evil and once by you peter I will kick you as many times at it takes so you know it is real to say the least my bottom was sore.I believe I believe welcome to the real world I will give you one more proof of my existence so i asked her name Barbra then I told her my bottom was hurting no she replied not anymore you must put your coat on and tell a priest you have been touch by a angel.
Mate you’re either a pom or an aussie – the spelling of arse for yankified ass is a dead-giveaway…thus you must be seriously demented.
What are you smoking, drinking injecting inhaling or popping? I want some of it. And yeah, please learn to use punctuation, makes reading your posts a little easier and keep away from gay bars a well known source of mysterious bottom injuries.
PS: Is the moderator way on holidays?
I don’t take holidays. I certainly don’t take time off to celebrate Sol Invictus as many Christians do.
Compared to some of the comments that get automatically blocked, Peter’s are relatively mild.
Oops! – there you are ever vigilant:) …maybe I should have used the term vacation or break rather than ‘holiday’ which I assume is a derivative of holy day and which to me, is any day when you’re cognisant, upright and breathing.
Apologies for getting off-topic – have been enjoying this blog/thread and attendant interesting viewpoints though I’m pretty much convinced that Peter is taking the mick.
You should have seen my wife’s face when things were moving round the house on there own .She divorce me in five months my girlfriend doesn’t mind my radio turning on its own as long as I am with her.
Well I dont think it was just things moving on there own but I Was to Wake and warn her of fire I refused something lifted me took me up stairs woke her made me warner of fire.She it the roof phone my son I give her the keys to the house I left with my son .That night a electric fault on a fire caut fire I was three miles a away with my son.
I dont drink I dont take drugs and lie and I have proof I am a simple christian my knowledge Of evil and god and paranormal is a gift .I will share with any person I have proof and I only deal with facts.A door as been open for me I am careful I was married for 22 years.
I know this is a late post but after reading up on the previous comments I had to put in my two cents worth.
Firstly, I in no way think that all theists somehow are less intelligent than atheists. I work as a researcher and, granted most other PhDs that I run into are atheists (or at least agnostic), I have found a few that are theists. As is well understood, correlations do not define causations.
I can not recall ever believing in a God, even as a child. This often left me on the outside of a “religous” family.
Among my earliest issues was the idea of free will and an omnipotent, all-knowing, god who had a plan for the universe that could not deviate. How is this possible when human beings can act so irrationally/unpreditable? If a god knows this and has made appropriations for this behavior does this not mean that real free will is an illusion? Also, I have noticed that as time progressed the god became more forgiving/loving – is this a reflection of society? In the bronze age when the bible was written life was harsh and unpredicable thus so were the god(s) worshiped. As we became more knowledgable, the god(s) become more compassionate. Also, given that there are currently over 10,000 different religons in the world how do you know you have the right one – aren’t most religons geographic?
I can see the rational for the belief in a god and it exists outside of intelligence – comfort. It takes a strong will to live life being completely responsible for your own actions.
The emotional desire for a central authority, real or not, is strong and I believe embedded in the biological make-up of a lot of human beings.
One last note, just an observation. Why do religous people require you to believe what they believe “or else”. Believing is not a choice, either you do or do not. What kind of supreme deity would burn someone forever for simply questioning – something our brains naturally do? I am truly amazed at intelligent individuals that seem to block logic/reason and go to church every sunday – I assume that they see the bible as symbolic stories providing moral lessons. If they are just stories, why bother? Also, what kind of lessons in morality can be gathered from the absured violence of the book of Leviticus – do religous moderates just overlook it?
If I am wrong, please provide REAL proof. I would love to have the drunken happiness of believing in magic/god(s).
Proof I have all the proof I have all the proof in the world my family my friends and people I meet. I have never read much of the bible why pick me I went to church the sermon was god does not pick people because you tick boxes.People work harder than me for good so why me why didn’t god go to you researchers he pick me.I know I am on trial you are prosecutor judge juror you win.But my faith only gets stronger.
I always think that you should have some kind of list to “tick off” before you follow an ideaology, otherwise you are a fool and will be used as such by the religous/government leaders (e.g. Bin Laden, Jim Jones, Castro, etc).
Well, you won the debate. I can’t argue with your experience having family and friends it MUST be god. There is absolutely no way you could have a good job, friends, etc without divine logic. I don’t have these things myself because, as I am sure your preacher explains (when he is unravling the mysterys of the universe) atheist have no friends.
Yes, that’s right, atheists have NO friends. We hope to destroy all religon and eat your babies. We have no morality and often contemplate murder-suicides. Why, when I lost my invisible sky-man I wanted to eat human flesh – yummy.
Thats okay because your god(s)/goddess will burn me for eternity. By the way, I really love the way all you god-loving theists have taken care of “gods foot-stool” (you know Earth).
Well got to go, babies to eat and all. Hey, when you see your god be sure to ask him why he seemed to be so kind to western civiliaztion and so shitty to africa?
Adapted Cosmological Argument in Support of God’s Existence
1) Time is infinite in the past (support: time could not have been “caused” to begin – as causation yielding a change of state is a temporal phenonemum)
2) Our universe/multiverse of interacting forces, energy and matter is not infinately old (support: our universe has not reached completion yet – the deep freeze, per modern scientific perspective).
3) There was therefore a delay from an eternity past to allow provision, or at least first interaction of said forces, energy and matter to begin the universe/multiverse as we know it.
4) The delay mechanism must have
4i) traversed an infinite time a priori hence exhibiting a characteristic of transcendence over time, and
4 ii) demonstrated a property of selectivity, which implies intelligence and/or purpose.
5) The delay mechanism can be postulated as the creator of our physical universe/multiverse, with a characteristic of agency transcendent of time with suggested intelligence or purpose.
6) The creator of our physical universe has characteristics highly consistent with a theist deity – or God.
7) If a substantially non-equivalent scientific or philosphic alternative cannot be postulated or even imagined to explain the delay mechanism posited in (3 – 4), it is reasonalble to believe in a God until/if such alternative can be imagined or hypothesized (support: it is reasonable to place belief in a best, or only reasonable hypothesis/ theory in explanation of a phenonemum).
unfortunately it is impossible to use logical arguments to persuade a religious person to abandon his/her beliefs – ‘faith’ means they don’t have to have proof, nor do they listen to or believe evidence that proves their faith to be unfounded.
they have to make that decision on their own. here’s hoping the trend for this to happen around the world continues.