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

reply to post by Welfhard

Start with the presupposition and proof of existence of "I am", and "this is", and then consider that you are also a created being.

reply to post by halfmanhalfamazing

That's hilarious about the ex-Christian atheists!

What about us ex-atheist Christians, where does that put people like me? I must have dumbed down the more I learned in all my seeking, 'til now I'm toying with Buddhism. Eventually, the more I learn, the less I'll know until at last I'll know everything there is to know about nothing at all.

[edit on 28-7-2009 by OmegaPoint]

reply to post by OmegaPoint

In a sense, we are created beings but this doesn't really mean anything. Creation doesn't strictly imply a creator - leaving an open bottle of milk out for weeks "creates" a mess. Ontological proofs are fallacious.

Again, give a reason to believe and you may get somewhere.

Originally posted by jd140
My eyes are wide open thank you very much. That is why I don't follow any religion. That includes Atheism, which is very much a religion.

Har har...
Sorry I just have to laugh at the irony here...
You're bashing atheists and yet... You yourself are an atheist according to the definition of atheism, and the information you've given of yourself in this thread.

You aren't a theist, therefore you must be an atheist...
There is no inbetween..
Either you have a theistic belief or you don't lol.

Which one are you again? lol...


en.wikipedia.org...

Atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1] or the position that deities do not exist.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3]

And the other thing that's funny is calling atheism a religion lol...
It's a LACK of religion.. that's the whole definition..

Can somebody say "oxymoron"?

How is an ontological proof fallacious?

Are you at all familiar with concepts from Taoism, Buddhism and moden quantum physics, including the subject/object problem, non-locality and Bohm's holographic universe?

There is one thing, and consciousness is it's foundation. It is self aware. Everything is a part of it, and caused with intent or will, or there would be nothing at all.

Being is not fallacious nor is an argument for a self aware God consciousness based upon it, and the final relationship between the subjective observer and the objective reality.

Edited: double post

[edit on 28-7-2009 by TruthParadox]

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by OmegaPoint

 

Like I said, they MAY be more untelligent, up to the point where they are prepared to deny their own existence, before admitting to or ackowledging a creator God and a universal, self aware conscious being within whom exists everything in potentia and actuality.

Give an atheist reason to acknowledge a creator God, and he or she may. Your problem here is you think that most (or all) atheists do not wish a God to exist when it's simply not true. I'd love for a benevolent creator god to exist, I'd love to have reason to believe - but otherwise, it would just be wishful thinking.

[edit on 28-7-2009 by Welfhard]

As an atheist i would personally disagree with that.Like you said i simply to don't see any evidence to show a god exists.But a God doesn't appeal to me nor does an afterlife.I know the replies i will get for saying that(had them before) ohh you have sinned and don't want to be judged blah blah.No,i want to live my life as best i can,hopefully be cared about by people and die..no whizzing off to some distant plane etc And whats that quote? can't remember exactly but

" I propose that we are all atheists,i just believe in one less god than you do.When you understand why you don't believe in other gods, then you will understand why i don't believe in yours" I like that quote

reply to post by OmegaPoint

How is an ontological proof fallacious?

This is what I mean:

Of or relating to the argument for the existence of God holding that the existence of the concept of God entails the existence of God.

[Dictionary]
I would argue that centaurs exist so watch out for the centaurs on your way to work tomorrow.

There is one thing, and consciousness is it's foundation. It is self aware. Everything is a part of it, and caused with intent or will, or there would be nothing at all.

He speculates.
.... Read my signature.




reply to post by Solomons

But a God doesn't appeal to me nor does an afterlife.

Well fair enough, to each his own I guess. God & afterlife does appeal to me and most of the atheists I know. I've never bothered challenge my fear of death.


[edit on 28-7-2009 by Welfhard]

Originally posted by Solomons
And whats that quote? can't remember exactly but

" I propose that we are all atheists,i just believe in one less god than you do.When you understand why you don't believe in other gods, then you will understand why i don't believe in yours" I like that quote

Care to explain what is meant by that quote you like?

Why, because believers believe in only one universal God and none other, would an atheist not believe? That doesn't make any sense to me, except as a rebellious statement of non-conformity, which is no reason not to believe something. In fact, contempt, prior to investigation is a sure fire way to keep a man in everlasting ignorance.

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by OmegaPoint

 

How is an ontological proof fallacious?

This is what I mean:

Of or relating to the argument for the existence of God holding that the existence of the concept of God entails the existence of God.

[Dictionary]
I would argue that centaurs exist so watch out for the centaurs on your way to work tomorrow.

No, an ontological proof based on the fact of being of "I am" in relation to "what is", was my point. Nice spin..

From your Dictionary link

on⋅tol⋅o⋅gy  /ɒnˈtɒlədʒi/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [on-tol-uh-jee] Show IPA
Use ontological in a Sentence
–noun 1. the branch of metaphysics that studies the nature of existence or being as such.

You have no interest in any philsophical or metaphysical or quantum physical proof of the existence of a universal God consciousness, so what's the point in pretending you're open minded?

[edit on 28-7-2009 by OmegaPoint]

reply to post by OmegaPoint


It is mainly meant to address the god of the abrahamic religion.And why they do not believe in the thousands of other gods that litter history,asking them why they do not,and why they expect me to believe in theirs if they dismiss all the others like i dismiss their God...atleast thats how i interpret it.

[edit on 28-7-2009 by Solomons]

reply to post by OmegaPoint

All ontological arguments are equally as useless. The idea that I exist and therefore a god exists is flawed.

You have no interest in any philsophical or metaphysical or quantum physical proof of the existence of a universal God consciousness, so what's the point in pretending you're open minded?

Your words betray you. Proof only exists in one alley of science - Mathematics.
"Proof" doesn't exist elsewhere.

[edit on 28-7-2009 by Welfhard]

I do not want to get too off topic here but what is the deal with Monkey Jesus? Is this real or a joke? I am asking because I am honestly not sure. Some people have some strange beliefs and Monkey Jesus is one that I have not come across before.

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
Atheism tends to subsribe to a materalist monist viewpoint (matter is primary) and in that sense, it is narrow minded or close minded in relation to a monistic idealism (consciousness is primary), which opens up the possibility of a universal "God"-consciousness, which is self aware - by any difinition, God.

I'm open minded to there being an invisible being that created and guides the universe and everything in it to the degree that you're open minded to the idea that gravity can be explained by invisible fairies holding your feet to the Earth so you don't fly off and into space.

There could in fact be invisible fairies holding your feet to the Earth, but why would you invoke an unnecessary variable which only serves to complicate the issue? (IE: Where did the fairies come from? Why are they holding our feet to the Earth?) You can eliminate the fairies from the equation and use science and what we know about how the universe really works to explain why we don't fly off into space in a much more intellectually satisfying way.

There are some paths of modern science which are leading to the idea of a universal "God-mind" as essential to existence as a prime mover, and that it involves consciousness, and self awareness, and as such would be imbued with such characteristics as omniscience, compassion, a perfect will, etc. etc.

No, there really aren't any paths of modern science that are leading in that direction, sorry.

The problem with the atheist position is that they are indeed locked up in it, by asking that God be shown them on a plate under glass. I would suggest that any hardened atheist at some point in their life, expose their mind to 5-MeO-'___', to get a flavour for the type of God most rational and scientifically minded believers are talking about and advocating for as a very distinct possibility.

So because you don't understand the mechanism of action regarding '___' and the psychological effects which are derived from this mechanism, your god must be somehow intervening? I see.

Like I said, they MAY be more untelligent, up to the point where they are prepared to deny their own existence, before admitting to or ackowledging a creator God and a universal, self aware conscious being within whom exists everything in potentia and actuality.

Your matter of fact statement lacks... facts. In fact they're completely absent from your post.

The atheist lacks in imagination, and they begin with a fundamental presupposition that God cannot be proven, or experienced. And they are sadly mistaken in that regard. They are also very arrogant in my experience, re-affirmed again in reading this thread.

Do we? Tell me more about what I presuppose! Maybe it's another part of silly atheist dogma, but I believe education is vital, especially when you make assertions in debate; I don't presuppose anything.

reply to post by Solomons

Well I sure hope that's not the reason you're an athiest..?!

Me I'm a rebel who went in search of truth and meaning outside of religion, but I never was willing to dismiss anything out of hand, and so I included some of it in the crucible of my evaluative discernment, and at first I was troubled by it, and then astonished at what I discovered.

Here's my reasoning - the universe is made, not of matter in the traditional sense but of energy, and in particular, information, and this information is distributed or shared NON-LOCALLY (see Bell's Theorem). It is also holographic, as is the human mind (see the word of David Bohm and Karl Pibram), and intertwined with human consciousness which resides at the apex of cosmic evolution (remember the whole universe is a non-local interdependant whole).

Would not such a system have plenty of time to become self consciousness, if it was not already from the very moment of creation? And in part, it is through YOU, the atheist no less, than God is increasing his awareness!

Originally posted by ZombieOctopus

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
Atheism tends to subsribe to a materalist monist viewpoint (matter is primary) and in that sense, it is narrow minded or close minded in relation to a monistic idealism (consciousness is primary), which opens up the possibility of a universal "God"-consciousness, which is self aware - by any difinition, God.

I'm open minded to there being an invisible being that created and guides the universe and everything in it to the degree that you're open minded to the idea that gravity can be explained by invisible fairies holding your feet to the Earth so you don't fly off and into space.

Bu bye to "The atheists are smarter than believers" thread. I've seen enough. I'm outta here.

reply to post by ZombieOctopus

I'm open minded to there being an invisible being that created and guides the universe and everything in it to the degree that you're open minded to the idea that gravity can be explained by invisible fairies holding your feet to the Earth so you don't fly off and into space.

I actually thought this was a good analogy. I mean you cannot DISPROVE it but the fact that it cannot be disproven does not make it any more believable.

after reading the post of halfmanhalfamazing www.abovetopsecret.com... I would say the study should be discarded as false. the conclusion of the study was clearly premature and all aspects of religon or in this matter "non-religon" were not studied conclusively.

Originally posted by TruthParadox

Originally posted by jd140
My eyes are wide open thank you very much. That is why I don't follow any religion. That includes Atheism, which is very much a religion.

Har har...
Sorry I just have to laugh at the irony here...
You're bashing atheists and yet... You yourself are an atheist according to the definition of atheism, and the information you've given of yourself in this thread.

You aren't a theist, therefore you must be an atheist...
There is no inbetween..
Either you have a theistic belief or you don't lol.

Which one are you again? lol...


en.wikipedia.org...

Atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1] or the position that deities do not exist.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3]

And the other thing that's funny is calling atheism a religion lol...
It's a LACK of religion.. that's the whole definition..

Can somebody say "oxymoron"?

I don't accept or reject theism. I don't understand your thinking that I have to choose between atheism or theism. I reject and accept both equally.

Until someone proves to me with concrete proof that there is or isn't a God then I am on the sidelines watching both sides trying to prove they are right.

I honestly don't see how either side can be so vain as to say they are right when nobody will know for a fact until they die.

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
Well I sure hope that's not the reason you're an athiest..?!

There doesn't need to be a particular reason for not believing in something.
Is there any particular reason you don't believe in pink unicorns?
Why would you to begin with? There's no evidence. No reason.
Aren't we all born atheists? That is.. I've never heard of someone being born with the belief in a deity.

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
Here's my reasoning - the universe is made, not of matter in the traditional sense but of energy, and in particular, information, and this information is distributed or shared NON-LOCALLY (see Bell's Theorem). It is also holographic, as is the human mind (see the word of David Bohm and Karl Pibram), and intertwined with human consciousness which resides at the apex of cosmic evolution (remember the whole universe is a non-local interdependant whole).

Would not such a system have plenty of time to become self consciousness, if it was not already from the very moment of creation? And in part, it is through YOU, the atheist no less, than God is increasing his awareness!

Isn't that all just a theory though?
There's a lot of them out there...
And still no evidence of any god.
That's really all it comes down to for most atheists.

Originally posted by jd140
I don't accept or reject theism. I don't understand your thinking that I have to choose between atheism or theism. I reject and accept both equally.

That's not what I said.
You're either a theist (believe in a god), or you're not a theist (don't believe in god).
There is no inbetween.
You said you don't believe in God, so you must be an atheist.

Atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1] or the position that deities do not exist.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3]

So in the broadest sense of the word, if you don't pray to a god you're an atheist. Simple as that.
The word atheist is widely misunderstood as has been demonstrated several times in this thread.

Originally posted by jd140
Until someone proves to me with concrete proof that there is or isn't a God then I am on the sidelines watching both sides trying to prove they are right.

I understand.

Originally posted by jd140
I honestly don't see how either side can be so vain as to say they are right when nobody will know for a fact until they die.

That's certainly not what I'm doing.
There could be a god.
There could be an invisible goat floating in the cosmos.
Who am I to say? I've never been there.
But until there's any evidence, I'm not gonna hold my breath.