Are atheists more intelligent than religious believers? Study suggests such a correlation

reply to post by TruthParadox


Its about as far from ridiculous as it gets. I made a post that interfered in your belief system and you made all kinds of assumptions. Regardless, the point stands. Noted that you think there is a difference in "believing" and "believing not", but without proof that there is a God both sides must rely on beliefs instead of hard evidence.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Contradiction cha cha cha.

I never said all atheism is a lack of belief.

Allow me to quote:

The word atheist means lacking a belief in God.

SOURCE:www.abovetopsecret.com...&mem=TruthParadox

'Nother strawman.

Atheism is a lack of belief in deities. (broad term)
It can ALSO be defined as a strong belief AGAINST deities. (narrow term)

We've discussed this before (strong atheism & weak atheism), and you 'forgetting' that we did is dishonest at best.
If we were talking about negative numbers,
anything below 0 is negative.
Everything below -5 is also negative.
Just because everything below -5 is negative does not nullify the first definition - we've merely narrowed it.

But continue making strawman arguments if it makes you happy .

reply to post by TruthParadox


Not a strawman but you're of course welcome to hide behind that. You said it straight forwardly right there and then contradicted yourself later.

Originally posted by jprophet420
Its about as far from ridiculous as it gets.

Alrighty then, I'll take the fact that you don't worship Zeus as proof of your dogma and faith .

Since you don't hold a belief in the guy, you naturally must be actively denying his existence of course...

And 1+1=3...

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Google: "One word may have multiple definitions depicting more narrow or broad definitions of the term - all are accurate with no contradictions"

That should clear the root of the problem for yah' .

reply to post by TruthParadox


Yet you say at one point it was a lack then turn around say it wasn't.... Go figure. Your distortions were fun to begin with but now I find other more interesting things to do. Good day. I imagine this is where you will decide I am out to get you and all atheists again and tell anyone I happen to argue with.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Yet you say at one point it was a lack then turn around say it wasn't....

(I never said it wasn't)

Straw man argument

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

Originally posted by TruthParadox
Google: "One word may have multiple definitions depicting more narrow or broad definitions of the term - all are accurate with no contradictions"

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Your distortions

Not distortions, merely magnifying the fact that you don't seem to understand how definitions work.
You pointing to a narrow definition of a word and choosing to ignore the broad definition of a word does not make the broad definition of the word disappear. I've explained this to you several times...

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Good day.

Good day .

[edit on 15-8-2009 by TruthParadox]

reply to post by TruthParadox


Nope. Pointing out where you say one thing then say another then seek to add or twist information when called on it.

Originally posted by TruthParadox

Originally posted by jprophet420
Its about as far from ridiculous as it gets.

Alrighty then, I'll take the fact that you don't worship Zeus as proof of your dogma and faith

.

Since you don't hold a belief in the guy, you naturally must be actively denying his existence of course...

And 1+1=3...

Who told you I don't worship Zeus?

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


It's this simple:
An Atheist can be:
1) Someone who claims to know there is no God (strong atheism)
2) Someone who doesn't claim to know but personally believes a deity to be improbable (strong atheism)
3) Someone who doesn't believe in a deity and makes no claims of probability or knowledge. (weak atheism)

You're saying "#1 and #2 are atheists!".
I'm saying "Yes, but #3 is also an atheist".
I'm not denying that #1 and #2 are atheists - no matter how many times you say I do doesn't make it true.

The reality is, many people who call themselves atheists fall under category #3.

Just google it if you don't believe me .

[edit on 16-8-2009 by TruthParadox]

Originally posted by jprophet420
Who told you I don't worship Zeus?

Statistics.
I realize it was an assumption, but I also realize it's almost certainly a fact.

Was I wrong?

Either way you seem to have missed my point.

I'm sure there's some creature you don't believe in..

Does that lack of belief make you dogmatic?
Does it require faith?

reply to post by TruthParadox


And thus you try to claim the middleground *agnosticism*. And it's really understandable why if one is wanting to do whatever one can to make one's self sound better than one really is. Either way, you contradicted yourself and I will leave it at that. *you said it was then you said it wasn't*

[edit on 15-8-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
And thus you try to claim the middleground *agnosticism*. And it's really understandable why if one is wanting to do whatever one can to make one's self sound better than one really is.

If I was claiming to be agnostic I would say I'm agnostic

You seem to think that I secretly hold the position that "absolutely no deity exists".
That's a pretty big assumption.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Either way, you contradicted yourself and I will leave it at that. *you said it was then you said it wasn't*

I didn't contradict myself and I'll leave it at that .

reply to post by TruthParadox


Shall we compare your little attempt? Sure.

3) Someone who doesn't believe in a deity and makes no claims of probability or knowledge. (weak atheism)

This is the dictionary term for agnostic:

Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnōstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnōstos known, from gignōskein to know — more at know
Date: 1869
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2 : a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something

SOURCE:www.merriam-webster.com...
Now, your not bending things in such a way as to claim the middleground by saying agnostics are in fact atheist how? And I will ignore the silly obfuscation where you claim I am calling you an agnostic. And I do have to ask have you ever thought about a career in Political Spin Doctoring? You do seem to have the knack.



[edit on 15-8-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Shall we compare your little attempt? Sure.

3) Someone who doesn't believe in a deity and makes no claims of probability or knowledge. (weak atheism)

This is the dictionary term for agnostic:

Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnōstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnōstos known, from gignōskein to know — more at know
Date: 1869
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2 : a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something

Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Now, your not bending things in such a way as to claim the middleground by saying agnostics are in fact atheist how?

Again, atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
And I will ignore the silly obfuscation where you claim I am calling you an agnostic.

Where did I claim you called me agnostic?
Some specific evidence would be nice, though it always seems to be lacking from your end ...

Also, what about your assumption that I am secretly more than I claim (perhaps even a 'militant atheist' *gasp*)

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
And I do have to ask have you ever thought about a career in Political Spin Doctoring? You do seem to have the knack.

When I was 5.
Though I gave it up for motor-boating.

You think I made the wrong choice?

reply to post by TruthParadox


You responded as if I had:

If I was claiming to be agnostic I would say I'm agnostic

Despite I never claimed you were. I claimed you were trying to shove agnosticism under a atheist umbrella. Which is not where it belongs unless you take a dualistic view of the whole shebang that I would argue is exceedingly unrealistic and who's cause is at it's basis the charges I have brought against you before, the politics of seeming. Which is only achieved by bending terms into complementary ways.

And I would have to say you'd have a good career had you chosen to. But that is a great of us. Perhaps even me.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
You responded as if I had:

If I was claiming to be agnostic I would say I'm agnostic

Despite I never claimed you were.

I didn't say you claimed I was agnostic.

You said:
"And thus you try to claim the middleground *agnosticism*. And it's really understandable why if one is wanting to do whatever one can to make one's self sound better than one really is."

My point is, if I wanted people to see me as agnostic while secretly carrying the banner of strong atheism (that's what you seemed to be suggesting), I would simply call myself agnostic.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
I claimed you were trying to shove agnosticism under a atheist umbrella.

A person can be both or neither.
Though agnosticism is partially under the umbrella of atheism, it's also it's own monster.
And this is where I start to confuse myself and decide to end it here .

reply to post by TruthParadox


It's also partially under the umbrella of theism. And yes it is definantly it's own beast. And you are completely misunderstanding my stance as well. I claim just as I told you point blank in u2u, you are caught up in the group politics and upping your own group.

Im sorry, but i totally have to disagree. It has also been a PROVEN STUDY, that someone who believes IN SOMETHING...that has a religion or just something in general that they believe in.
That they are in better;

Health
they live longer.
they have less complications.
there body is in amazing shape for there old age
they are much much happier
they are truelly happy with there own skin
they have very little stress in there life if any
most have a very deep connection with THEMSELVES
they can do PHYSICAL FEATS, that MOST humans can NOT
they are "stronger"
they basically break all the SCIENCE RULES of what a human can be or should be.

so yea...science says that? but science also says this as well PLUS MORE which i wont go into detail, u can simply use the search bar =]

reply to post by kaskade


Your statement is contradictory. You say people "who believe in something." which is near every human on the planet - even many atheists believe in something, calling themselves secular humanists.

Then you say they can do physical feats that most humans cannot but they are most humans.

"they have very little stress in there life if any "
That's because they live is a smaller world, a naive little bubble. Religious people are more content because they live in a fantasy land while the rest of us actually recognise uncertainty in reality.

[edit on 16-8-2009 by Welfhard]