Just because you are an Atheist does not mean you are smart!

MayCaesar

Atheism/theism is just one of countless traits one may have; of course it is not exhaustive. However, it is worth noting that atheists, as you pointed, do not form sects, do not present a coherent group, do not blow themselves up on crowded streets in the name of the idea that there is no god... I would take Richard Dawkins' positions here: anyone can be smart or foolish in many different ways, but all other things being equal, a religious person is more foolish than an atheist person, because he believes in more fantasies and does not accept more facts. It is like knocking on wood when you hope for a good outcome versus not doing that: when knocking on the wood seriously, you are being foolish. That does not imply that you are foolish overall, but in this respect you are.

I have spent some time on dating apps recently, and I have noticed that many Christians write a lot about the importance of Christianity in their profiles - however, I have not seen a single atheist that would write about it there. "Who am I? - A devoted follower of Jesus Christ" - every 5th Christian profile. "Who am I? - A devoted denier of existence of god" - 0 profiles. Christians also frequently write in their profiles that they are only willing to date Christians, while atheists never write anything about their potential partner's religiosity. Christianity is a closed cult, and while there are certainly Christians who do not subscribe to their fellows' dogmatism and isolationism, they are a small minority.

It is better with Buddhists: they tend to treat their religion more as a philosophy of life, taking every fantasy element of it as a metaphor. I am not even sure if modern Buddhism should be considered a religion, considering how secular it has become in practice. 

Finally, I agree with you that many atheists make very poor arguments against religion. One I am especially fascinated with is: "If god existed, why would there be so much suffering in the world?" As if a supreme being, a creator of the Universe, would pay much heed to suffering of insignificant species on one insignificant plant. Does any one of us spend sleepless nights thinking about the plight of the poor mosquitoes having to suffer surviving in the modern urban cities? Well, to a creator of the Universe, a human would be far lesser a being, than a mosquito is to us.
That does not deny the fundamental fallaciousness of the religious approach, however.

Factfinder

@ZeusAres42

Great post. I'm atheist too. I would just say with santa, eventually the child learns it isn't real, it was just to make christmas more fun and supplied a way to remind the child to be good throughout the year. But god is real though they are told, or that you have to decide. In other words, another lie 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. 
Easily explained doesn't necessarily equate to correctly explained.
I agree, Atheists that claim evolution explains our origin are dumb. 
Everyone is born atheist. At the time of birth we have no belief system in place. Predispositions do not negate that fact.

The absence of evidence can imply no logical reason to believe.
How many books on santa?

How'd I do @ZeusAres42?  LOL

Factfinder

@ZeusAres42MayCaesar

I think one of the dumbest things atheists do (not all of course) but it seems the more combative ones(?) Pull verses from the bible out of the context they were written. Then assign meaning not intended by the author. Or pretend context doesn't matter. I don't know, just make me think it's a petty attempt to argue as opposed to debate. And the christian that's well read like @ZeusAres42 points out, recognizes that. 

ZeusAres42

Factfinder said:

@ZeusAres42

Great post. I'm atheist too. I would just say with santa, eventually the child learns it isn't real, it was just to make christmas more fun and supplied a way to remind the child to be good throughout the year. But god is real though they are told, or that you have to decide. In other words, another lie 

As stated in the OP Santa is falsifiable. For instance, we can assert that Santa doesn't reside in the North Pole and doesn't deliver gifts to every child's home. Without these actions, Santa ceases to be Santa and is considered nonexistent. Even if someone attempts some bizarre philosophical stance, arguing that we can't know if Santa resides at the North Pole or only gives gifts to a select few, there remains the fact that, unlike the widespread belief in some form of god or gods held by more than three-quarters of the world population, no mentally stable adult believes in Santa. This also suggests that there is a big difference between believing in God and believing in Santa. Thus my point still stands; this argument is nothing more than a mere false analogy. 

as for claiming that the idea of God is a lie is logically inconsistent with Atheism, that is if we are talking about Atheism at its core; I.E the absence and/or lack of belief in God or Gods. To say this is to imply that one that has a belief here which is the belief that God doesn't exist. Absence of belief is not a belief of absence and should ideally not be equated to as such. 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. 

While a famous quote often cited by Hichens (and a common argument over the years) what constitutes Extraordinary claims and evidence is a matter of subjective debate. As stated in the OP there is a big difference between proof and evidence. Now, one can argue that a piece of evidence in favor of God is weak but it is still evidence nonetheless. What matters is the quality and quantity of that evidence versus evidence against God's existence. 

Easily explained doesn't necessarily equate to correctly explained.

In this context, easily explained means correctly explained. Much like a knowledgeable mathematician can easily solve basic arithmetic problems which also means correctly so can a knowledgeable Christian explain away many of the proposed contradictions of the bible which btw often fall short of being actual contradictions at all. However, it is important to note that the Bible often is and can be up to subjective interpretation. 

Everyone is born atheist. At the time of birth we have no belief system in place. Predispositions do not negate that fact.

This is a reductionist stance that oversimplifies the complexity of cognition and human development. It's akin to saying that the brain at birth is like some blank slate (an empty tin can), which isn't the case at all; that's just not how our brains/minds work. Scientific evidence indicates the presence of numerous natural or instinctual biases that predispose us toward a belief in the supernatural. The inclination towards religion seems to be a natural outcome, stemming from our tendency to perceive agency even in the absence of actual agents. Young children naturally gravitate towards religious ideas, and the emergence of dualism can be seen as an evolutionary quirk. Additionally, numerous cognitive biases contribute to the formation of religious beliefs. A more precise assertion is that we are inherently inclined towards belief; it's the specific details of religions that require external teaching; it's these things that are absent until learned.

The absence of evidence can imply no logical reason to believe.

This is true and also very similar to what was stated I.E "Atheism here is simply a lack or absence of belief and/or the conclusion that there is no good reason to believe in God until any new info/evidence comes to light to suggest otherwise."

Factfinder 

MayCaesar

ZeusAres42 said:

This is a reductionist stance that oversimplifies the complexity of cognition and human development. It's akin to saying that the brain at birth is like some blank slate (an empty tin can), which isn't the case at all; that's just not how our brains/minds work. Scientific evidence indicates the presence of numerous natural or instinctual biases that predispose us toward a belief in the supernatural. The inclination towards religion seems to be a natural outcome, stemming from our tendency to perceive agency even in the absence of actual agents. Young children naturally gravitate towards religious ideas, and the emergence of dualism can be seen as an evolutionary quirk. Additionally, numerous cognitive biases contribute to the formation of religious beliefs. A more precise assertion is that we are inherently inclined towards belief; it's the specific details of religions that require external teaching; it's these things that are absent until learned.

I would make a slightly different argument. What we are predisposed toward is not a belief in the supernatural, but something more general: mystification and divination of the world around us. Even the most atheistic individuals still refer to a lot of mysticism in their words. I can be in love with someone and say things like, "The connection we have is stronger than the force that holds galaxies together." Of course, I do not literally mean it, and I understand that this is, on some level, just chemical reactions in our brains making us feel really good - nonetheless, there is no denying that part of my mind believes that what we have is above the mere physical laws of this Universe.

This, for the lack of the better term, instinct is what drives us to engage in fantasy-making. With our imagination we build fictional worlds in which physically impossible creatures exist, physically impossible natural processes occur. And even though these worlds are fictional, they, in a sense, become a part of us. No one seriously believes that flying fire-breathing dragons exist - yet exposure of our imagination to the idea of them makes us able to describe in great detail what they would be like if they did exist.

The stories in these worlds are shared across people and over time become an inherent part of the culture. The culture then processes and internalizes them, and they start affecting everything that happens in it, down to how people think and speak. Rituals start appearing, worship of powerful mystical creatures begins. It may start merely as a celebration of unity, much like Christmas nowadays is - yet over time it becomes something more.

Religion appears when these processes go so far, they become a force in themselves, become "alive" and start driving the cultural evolution. More than just a part of the culture, they become a separate entity that the culture is to service. And they are quite sticky, so even when the culture moves on from the stories that gave birth to religion, religion persists.

Now, let us come back to the child born in a family. What exactly is the child predisposed to believe? Nothing in particular, apart from the intrinsic drive to mystify everything. That drive can be channeled in different ways, and I do not think that religion/supernaturality forms a large fraction of the space of possibilities.
In my case I found the outlet in fictional worlds: books, cartoons, movies, video games... When I lived in the fictional world of Diablo 2, I did not experience any desire to have a supernatural entity watch over me: the fictional world gave me everything I needed.
In other kids' case their parents forced them to go to Sunday school where they were taught a different type of fiction, much more (in my opinion) boring.
Other kids still would join subcultures in which they could live together in the same distorted reality, not worrying about the adults' opinions.

To summarize, I do not at all think that religion has any particular qualities that make it more "sticky" than other kinds of mysticism. It only has some derivative qualities from its collision with the society: it is much easier to weaponize than, say, video games. There probably will never be a dictator controlling his population through getting them hooked on a video game - but there have been countless dictators that have used religion for that purpose.

Factfinder

ZeusAres42 said:

Factfinder said:

@ZeusAres42

Great post. I'm atheist too. I would just say with santa, eventually the child learns it isn't real, it was just to make christmas more fun and supplied a way to remind the child to be good throughout the year. But god is real though they are told, or that you have to decide. In other words, another lie 

As stated in the OP Santa is falsifiable. For instance, we can assert that Santa doesn't reside in the North Pole and doesn't deliver gifts to every child's home. Without these actions, Santa ceases to be Santa and is considered nonexistent. Even if someone attempts some bizarre philosophical stance, arguing that we can't know if Santa resides at the North Pole or only gives gifts to a select few, there remains the fact that, unlike the widespread belief in some form of god or gods held by more than three-quarters of the world population, no mentally stable adult believes in Santa. This also suggests that there is a big difference between believing in God and believing in Santa. Thus my point still stands; this argument is nothing more than a mere false analogy. 

as for claiming that the idea of God is a lie is logically inconsistent with Atheism, that is if we are talking about Atheism at its core; I.E the absence and/or lack of belief in God or Gods. To say this is to imply that one that has a belief here which is the belief that God doesn't exist. Absence of belief is not a belief of absence and should ideally not be equated to as such. 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. 

While a famous quote often cited by Hichens (and a common argument over the years) what constitutes Extraordinary claims and evidence is a matter of subjective debate. As stated in the OP there is a big difference between proof and evidence. Now, one can argue that a piece of evidence in favor of God is weak but it is still evidence nonetheless. What matters is the quality and quantity of that evidence versus evidence against God's existence. 

Easily explained doesn't necessarily equate to correctly explained.

In this context, easily explained means correctly explained. Much like a knowledgeable mathematician can easily solve basic arithmetic problems which also means correctly so can a knowledgeable Christian explain away many of the proposed contradictions of the bible which btw often fall short of being actual contradictions at all. However, it is important to note that the Bible often is and can be up to subjective interpretation. 

Everyone is born atheist. At the time of birth we have no belief system in place. Predispositions do not negate that fact.

This is a reductionist stance that oversimplifies the complexity of cognition and human development. It's akin to saying that the brain at birth is like some blank slate (an empty tin can), which isn't the case at all; that's just not how our brains/minds work. Scientific evidence indicates the presence of numerous natural or instinctual biases that predispose us toward a belief in the supernatural. The inclination towards religion seems to be a natural outcome, stemming from our tendency to perceive agency even in the absence of actual agents. Young children naturally gravitate towards religious ideas, and the emergence of dualism can be seen as an evolutionary quirk. Additionally, numerous cognitive biases contribute to the formation of religious beliefs. A more precise assertion is that we are inherently inclined towards belief; it's the specific details of religions that require external teaching; it's these things that are absent until learned.

The absence of evidence can imply no logical reason to believe.

This is true and also very similar to what was stated I.E "Atheism here is simply a lack or absence of belief and/or the conclusion that there is no good reason to believe in God until any new info/evidence comes to light to suggest otherwise."

Factfinder 

I agree with so much you have said here. It's obvious you've thought this through more than I have. 

But I disagree with the the assertion that in this context that easy explanations are the correct ones where biblical contradictions are concerned. Yes, there are easier ones to explain, and then there are those that aren't. BTW, I'm an apostate. Many say in some cases the message inferred wasn't the message implied, many claim translation error and so on. There are claims like that if Mathew said 2 were healed and mark says one that doesn't matter, the healing isn't the point of contradiction anyway. Well ok but those excuses aren't accepted in biblical terms: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,"  2 timothy 3:16

How can all scripture be god breathed from the all perfect god of the bible, when the bible is full of errors? Is the best an omniscient god can do is protect parts of his word, not all? A god who's very word claims all thing are possible with god? If he intentionally didn't preserve his word, wouldn't that be manipulation? Which would contradict the freewill teaching of scripture. How can one act on knowing the truth and the truth making them free when he intentionally failed to preserve the truth?

You've explained the predisposition aspect well. Seems pliable and I'd have to think on that some more. We are predisposed to the act of faith, I agree. Not sure it's specifically geared towards established styles of belief systems or not. (skeptical on that one) I tend to think that it's more on the educational environmental side of upbringing.

Factfinder

@ZeusAres42

Forgot to make this point on evidence: More important than the idea slim weak evidence stands up against  the 'no evidence god doesn't exist' position. (?) Is generally the burden of compiling evidence falls on the one making the claim of positive existence. Things that can be explained in a multitude of other ways don't count. Especially concerning supernatural claims precisely because of what you point out, what defines supernatural evidence? There has to be a falsifiable model to follow to consider such evidence once it is defined. 

MayCaesar

Factfinder said:

@ZeusAres42

Forgot to make this point on evidence: More important than the idea slim weak evidence stands up against  the 'no evidence god doesn't exist' position. (?) Is generally the burden of compiling evidence falls on the one making the claim of positive existence. Things that can be explained in a multitude of other ways don't count. Especially concerning supernatural claims precisely because of what you point out, what defines supernatural evidence? There has to be a falsifiable model to follow to consider such evidence once it is defined. 

Solid point. The way I like to put it is, "There is infinity of ways to be wrong, and only one way to be right". Only a finite number of things of a given category exist, but an infinite number of things of that category can be imagined. There are only approximately 400 different horse breeds, but there is infinity of horse breeds that could exist in theory. Therefore, when we have zero data on existence of a particular theoretical breed, the probability of its existence is infinitesimally small. This disparity is what warrants the "burden of proof" principle.

Barnardot

@ZeusAres42 Well your got to realize that on the face of it atheists who happen to be total thickos with an IQ of 7 just might be smarter than you think. Because by default there choice not to believe in God might be a built in defence mechanism where by they cannot conceive any thing that is or isnt. So thats pretty cool any way.

But consider the theists. Not one of them at all is smart.
The sheeples are so naive and simple minded that they believe any thing that suits there fairy land thinking. 
Then theres the other theists who are really atheists because they use God to shove fear and gilt in to the sheeples because they want to control others. There not so smart either because if they had any more sents then they would start up a business and still take control by screwing as much out of the world like Musk does.
Thats my theory and Im sticking with it.

ZeusAres42

Barnardot said:

@ZeusAres42 Well your got to realize that on the face of it atheists who happen to be total thickos with an IQ of 7 just might be smarter than you think. Because by default there choice not to believe in God might be a built in defence mechanism where by they cannot conceive any thing that is or isnt. So thats pretty cool any way.

But consider the theists. Not one of them at all is smart.
The sheeples are so naive and simple minded that they believe any thing that suits there fairy land thinking. 
Then theres the other theists who are really atheists because they use God to shove fear and gilt in to the sheeples because they want to control others. There not so smart either because if they had any more sents then they would start up a business and still take control by screwing as much out of the world like Musk does.
Thats my theory and Im sticking with it.

Now, if you are looking for the epitome of a foolish Atheist argument look no further than here. This is a brilliant example!

Barnardot

@ZeusAres42 ;Now, if you are looking for the epitome of a foolish Atheist argument look no further than here. This is a brilliant example! 

Well its all so fine fror you to be so self defecating but you can see what I mean. The way I see it is that there are 2 types of atheists. The first one is the dum atheists who are not much better than theists because they dont use there brains proprly. And like the theists there only reason is like derr I dont believe because I dont believe and derr theres no such thing and like I was brought up as one. And the same goes for theists. They have to be ignorant so they can fend off all the facts and realty.

Then theres the smart atheists because they became atheists by using their noggins to think it all out with reason and facts and un biased research. There the true winners in this world.

ZeusAres42

Factfinder said:

ZeusAres42 said:

Factfinder said:

@ZeusAres42

Great post. I'm atheist too. I would just say with santa, eventually the child learns it isn't real, it was just to make christmas more fun and supplied a way to remind the child to be good throughout the year. But god is real though they are told, or that you have to decide. In other words, another lie 

As stated in the OP Santa is falsifiable. For instance, we can assert that Santa doesn't reside in the North Pole and doesn't deliver gifts to every child's home. Without these actions, Santa ceases to be Santa and is considered nonexistent. Even if someone attempts some bizarre philosophical stance, arguing that we can't know if Santa resides at the North Pole or only gives gifts to a select few, there remains the fact that, unlike the widespread belief in some form of god or gods held by more than three-quarters of the world population, no mentally stable adult believes in Santa. This also suggests that there is a big difference between believing in God and believing in Santa. Thus my point still stands; this argument is nothing more than a mere false analogy. 

as for claiming that the idea of God is a lie is logically inconsistent with Atheism, that is if we are talking about Atheism at its core; I.E the absence and/or lack of belief in God or Gods. To say this is to imply that one that has a belief here which is the belief that God doesn't exist. Absence of belief is not a belief of absence and should ideally not be equated to as such. 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. 

While a famous quote often cited by Hichens (and a common argument over the years) what constitutes Extraordinary claims and evidence is a matter of subjective debate. As stated in the OP there is a big difference between proof and evidence. Now, one can argue that a piece of evidence in favor of God is weak but it is still evidence nonetheless. What matters is the quality and quantity of that evidence versus evidence against God's existence. 

Easily explained doesn't necessarily equate to correctly explained.

In this context, easily explained means correctly explained. Much like a knowledgeable mathematician can easily solve basic arithmetic problems which also means correctly so can a knowledgeable Christian explain away many of the proposed contradictions of the bible which btw often fall short of being actual contradictions at all. However, it is important to note that the Bible often is and can be up to subjective interpretation. 

Everyone is born atheist. At the time of birth we have no belief system in place. Predispositions do not negate that fact.

This is a reductionist stance that oversimplifies the complexity of cognition and human development. It's akin to saying that the brain at birth is like some blank slate (an empty tin can), which isn't the case at all; that's just not how our brains/minds work. Scientific evidence indicates the presence of numerous natural or instinctual biases that predispose us toward a belief in the supernatural. The inclination towards religion seems to be a natural outcome, stemming from our tendency to perceive agency even in the absence of actual agents. Young children naturally gravitate towards religious ideas, and the emergence of dualism can be seen as an evolutionary quirk. Additionally, numerous cognitive biases contribute to the formation of religious beliefs. A more precise assertion is that we are inherently inclined towards belief; it's the specific details of religions that require external teaching; it's these things that are absent until learned.

The absence of evidence can imply no logical reason to believe.

This is true and also very similar to what was stated I.E "Atheism here is simply a lack or absence of belief and/or the conclusion that there is no good reason to believe in God until any new info/evidence comes to light to suggest otherwise."

Factfinder 

I agree with so much you have said here. It's obvious you've thought this through more than I have. 

But I disagree with the the assertion that in this context that easy explanations are the correct ones where biblical contradictions are concerned. Yes, there are easier ones to explain, and then there are those that aren't. BTW, I'm an apostate. Many say in some cases the message inferred wasn't the message implied, many claim translation error and so on. There are claims like that if Mathew said 2 were healed and mark says one that doesn't matter, the healing isn't the point of contradiction anyway. Well ok but those excuses aren't accepted in biblical terms: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,"  2 timothy 3:16

How can all scripture be god breathed from the all perfect god of the bible, when the bible is full of errors? Is the best an omniscient god can do is protect parts of his word, not all? A god who's very word claims all thing are possible with god? If he intentionally didn't preserve his word, wouldn't that be manipulation? Which would contradict the freewill teaching of scripture. How can one act on knowing the truth and the truth making them free when he intentionally failed to preserve the truth?

@Factfinder I am not sure you understand what I am trying to say. I am not saying that the Bible is a flawless document. Nor am I saying it is without contradictions. My argument is that many of the proposed contradictions put forward by many Atheist individuals are not contradictions at all and hence can be easily and correctly explained away. As for the truth condition that doesn't matter here; all that matters the logic conditions and the subjective plausibility condition.

ZeusAres42

MayCaesar said:

Atheism/theism is just one of countless traits one may have; of course it is not exhaustive. However, it is worth noting that atheists, as you pointed, do not form sects, do not present a coherent group, do not blow themselves up on crowded streets in the name of the idea that there is no god... I would take Richard Dawkins' positions here: anyone can be smart or foolish in many different ways, but all other things being equal, a religious person is more foolish than an atheist person, because he believes in more fantasies and does not accept more facts. It is like knocking on wood when you hope for a good outcome versus not doing that: when knocking on the wood seriously, you are being foolish. That does not imply that you are foolish overall, but in this respect you are.

I have spent some time on dating apps recently, and I have noticed that many Christians write a lot about the importance of Christianity in their profiles - however, I have not seen a single atheist that would write about it there. "Who am I? - A devoted follower of Jesus Christ" - every 5th Christian profile. "Who am I? - A devoted denier of existence of god" - 0 profiles. Christians also frequently write in their profiles that they are only willing to date Christians, while atheists never write anything about their potential partner's religiosity. Christianity is a closed cult, and while there are certainly Christians who do not subscribe to their fellows' dogmatism and isolationism, they are a small minority.

It is better with Buddhists: they tend to treat their religion more as a philosophy of life, taking every fantasy element of it as a metaphor. I am not even sure if modern Buddhism should be considered a religion, considering how secular it has become in practice. 

Finally, I agree with you that many atheists make very poor arguments against religion. One I am especially fascinated with is: "If god existed, why would there be so much suffering in the world?" As if a supreme being, a creator of the Universe, would pay much heed to suffering of insignificant species on one insignificant plant. Does any one of us spend sleepless nights thinking about the plight of the poor mosquitoes having to suffer surviving in the modern urban cities? Well, to a creator of the Universe, a human would be far lesser a being, than a mosquito is to us.
That does not deny the fundamental fallaciousness of the religious approach, however.

@MayCaesar, 

I agree with almost everything you say plus other posts you have made in this thread except this: 

I would take Richard Dawkins' positions here: anyone can be smart or foolish in many different ways, but all other things being equal, a religious person is more foolish than an atheist person, because he believes in more fantasies and does not accept more facts.

The mere absence of a belief doesn't say anything about foolishness and intelligence. Thus there exist many Atheists who while lacking a belief in God also possess beliefs about conspiracy theories devoid of any evidence whatsoever, Alian abductions, Vampires, witches, psychic healing, ESP, Subliminal messaging, and all other kinds of woo! 

Factfinder

Thanks for the clarification @ZeusAres42. 

I don't like it when atheists do that too. Pulling scripture out of context and assigning their own meaning. Not exactly what you're talking about, but closely related to claiming contradictions that actually aren't. Both are the result biblical illiteracy coupled with no understanding of the nuanced subplots that stream throughout the 66 books. 

ZeusAres42

As for being predisposed to religious beliefs that is also technically what I am saying. To try to put it another way, based on the current understanding of how our brains/minds work there exists a framework in which we can be predisposed to religious belief, as well as a whole load of other beliefs. This is not to say, however, that this is the case, and will be the case for everyone. 

Barnardot

@ZeusAres42 ;Thus there exist many Atheists who while lacking a belief in God also possess beliefs about conspiracy theories devoid of any evidence whatsoever, Alian abductions, Vampires, witches, psychic healing, ESP, Subliminal messaging, and all other kinds of woo! 

I would have to pull up you there and say what the? Where did you get your data from that there are many atheists who believe about conspiracy theories and aliens and whiches and vampires and psychic healing and ESP and subliminal messaging. I bet theres not one single atheist who believes in that crap unless theres one who came from another planet that doesnt talk about God. I think you will find that any one who believes in God will also be so simple and not smart that there going to believe all the other woo crap also.

Factfinder

Barnardot said:

@ZeusAres42 ;Thus there exist many Atheists who while lacking a belief in God also possess beliefs about conspiracy theories devoid of any evidence whatsoever, Alian abductions, Vampires, witches, psychic healing, ESP, Subliminal messaging, and all other kinds of woo! 

I would have to pull up you there and say what the? Where did you get your data from that there are many atheists who believe about conspiracy theories and aliens and whiches and vampires and psychic healing and ESP and subliminal messaging. I bet theres not one single atheist who believes in that crap unless theres one who came from another planet that doesnt talk about God. I think you will find that any one who believes in God will also be so simple and not smart that there going to believe all the other woo crap also.

I don't know @Barnardot. I once knew an atheist back when I was a theist. He was well read, intelligent and educated. Yet he believed in astral projection. Out of body experiences. I know that's subjective but I doubt he is the only would be anomaly. Wonder how many young liberal atheists clung to conspiracy theories in 2016 when trump won the presidency? @ZeusAres42 makes a rational point.  

ZeusAres42

Barnardot said:

@ZeusAres42 ;Thus there exist many Atheists who while lacking a belief in God also possess beliefs about conspiracy theories devoid of any evidence whatsoever, Alian abductions, Vampires, witches, psychic healing, ESP, Subliminal messaging, and all other kinds of woo! 

I would have to pull up you there and say what the? Where did you get your data from that there are many atheists who believe about conspiracy theories and aliens and whiches and vampires and psychic healing and ESP and subliminal messaging. I bet theres not one single atheist who believes in that crap unless theres one who came from another planet that doesnt talk about God. I think you will find that any one who believes in God will also be so simple and not smart that there going to believe all the other woo crap also.

Again, another great example of a foolish atheist argument. In other words, this argument reads "Having a mere absence of belief in God's existence means you are smart, and also won't have beliefs about other kinds of woo." @Barnardot is doing a great job here at portraying the kind of stuff that just makes the Atheist look Dum.

His logical fallacy btw is mainly sweeping generlisation and some ad-hominems. 

And while I could pull up examples I don't need to do that when the logic of the argument is sufficient here. As stated, the mere absence of a belief in a God or Gods says nothing about intelligence and the notion that there do exist a bunch of atheists who believe in other kinds of woo such as those already mentioned is just basic probability.

MayCaesar

ZeusAres42 said:

@MayCaesar, 

I agree with almost everything you say plus other posts you have made in this thread except this: 

I would take Richard Dawkins' positions here: anyone can be smart or foolish in many different ways, but all other things being equal, a religious person is more foolish than an atheist person, because he believes in more fantasies and does not accept more facts.

The mere absence of a belief doesn't say anything about foolishness and intelligence. Thus there exist many Atheists who while lacking a belief in God also possess beliefs about conspiracy theories devoid of any evidence whatsoever, Alian abductions, Vampires, witches, psychic healing, ESP, Subliminal messaging, and all other kinds of woo! 

I thought about what you said a bit more, and I can see the flaw in my reasoning. I used the phrase "all other things being equal..." - however, technically, all other things cannot be equal, for religiosity/non-religiosity propagates through entire system of beliefs of the individual. I can see that there could be certain intellectual traps in which an atheist is more likely to fall than a theist - for instance, an atheist might be more inclined to accept reality of the alien abductions out of higher propensity to entertaining science fiction.

Perhaps it is more accurate to say that, while theism itself is irrational, being a theist provides certain protection from some of the other irrational beliefs. Irrational beliefs that clearly conflict with one's religion will be more easily detectable as irrational to them, than to someone who does not face such conflict. After all, alien abductions are scientifically possible, even if the serious evidence for their existence is nil.

Barnardot

@Factfinder ;I once knew an atheist back when I was a theist. He was well read, intelligent and educated. Yet he believed in astral projection. 

He was a theist all right. If he was so airy fairy that he believes in astral projection then I bet my backside dollar that he was really a theist.

There has been a lot of research done on this and scientists have discovered that the vesicular monamine transporter 2 gene pre disposes people towards thinking and believing spiritual things. Now weather its whiches or astral projection or God you can lump them in to the same nutty bag. What they also discovered is that people with this gene have a cross the bored lower IQs than atheists who dont have this gene.  The research seems to indicate that people with this gene have a tendency to block out information that contradicts there wacko beliefs there by restricting there education.

So what was he well red and educated in? The stuff that he wants to know and not much else I bet. So there fore I dont think he is very smart at all. Any one can get a college degree and there are people who do a PhD in real dopy things such as the transition aggregate of the forces required to turn a peace of butted toast up side down and land on the floor. Wheres he going with that qualification and how much smarter is he? So college education means diddly swat in the end. Its what you learn and how you use it that makes you smart.

Barnardot

@MayCaesar ;After all, alien abductions are scientifically possible, even if the serious evidence for their existence is nil.

Oh yes like how do you explain that peace of contradicory wisdom?

I cant wait for this one to pan out. I suppose its just like a crapey excuse for a laptop you initially pay nothing for is going to cost you nothing in the end lol.

ZeusAres42

Barnardot said:

@Factfinder ;I once knew an atheist back when I was a theist. He was well read, intelligent and educated. Yet he believed in astral projection. 

He was a theist all right. If he was so airy fairy that he believes in astral projection then I bet my backside dollar that he was really a theist.

There has been a lot of research done on this and scientists have discovered that the vesicular monamine transporter 2 gene pre disposes people towards thinking and believing spiritual things. Now weather its whiches or astral projection or God you can lump them in to the same nutty bag. What they also discovered is that people with this gene have a cross the bored lower IQs than atheists who dont have this gene.  The research seems to indicate that people with this gene have a tendency to block out information that contradicts there wacko beliefs there by restricting there education.

So what was he well red and educated in? The stuff that he wants to know and not much else I bet. So there fore I dont think he is very smart at all. Any one can get a college degree and there are people who do a PhD in real dopy things such as the transition aggregate of the forces required to turn a peace of butted toast up side down and land on the floor. Wheres he going with that qualification and how much smarter is he? So college education means diddly swat in the end. Its what you learn and how you use it that makes you smart.

@Barnardot (AKA Swollilw) Your logical fallacies are: 






Your argument also lacks factual accuracy. Poor old Barney. You do enjoy digging yourself deeper into that hole don't you eh? 

Barnardot

@ZeusAres42 ;Your argument also lacks factual accuracy.

I presented facts and my argument is sound. What facts do you think that lack accuracy and what is your refutation??

Factfinder

Barnardot said:

@Factfinder ;I once knew an atheist back when I was a theist. He was well read, intelligent and educated. Yet he believed in astral projection. 

He was a theist all right. If he was so airy fairy that he believes in astral projection then I bet my backside dollar that he was really a theist.

There has been a lot of research done on this and scientists have discovered that the vesicular monamine transporter 2 gene pre disposes people towards thinking and believing spiritual things. Now weather its whiches or astral projection or God you can lump them in to the same nutty bag. What they also discovered is that people with this gene have a cross the bored lower IQs than atheists who dont have this gene.  The research seems to indicate that people with this gene have a tendency to block out information that contradicts there wacko beliefs there by restricting there education.

So what was he well red and educated in? The stuff that he wants to know and not much else I bet. So there fore I dont think he is very smart at all. Any one can get a college degree and there are people who do a PhD in real dopy things such as the transition aggregate of the forces required to turn a peace of butted toast up side down and land on the floor. Wheres he going with that qualification and how much smarter is he? So college education means diddly swat in the end. Its what you learn and how you use it that makes you smart.

And that would be a bet you'd lose. As to intelligence he didn't speak with broad based statements and casual dismissals.  

ZeusAres42

Barnardot said:

@ZeusAres42 ;Your argument also lacks factual accuracy.

I presented facts and my argument is sound. What facts do you think that lack accuracy and what is your refutation??

You didn't provide anything to support what you claim to be facts. In summary, your argument lacks logical coherence due to correlation-causation fallacies and sweeping generalizations. The factual accuracy is uncertain due to the absence of specific references or details about the research mentioned. Additionally, the ad hominem attack on the intelligence of the individual based on their beliefs weakens the overall argument.  Your logical fallacy btw now is proof by assertion:

Barnardot

@ZeusAres42 ;You didn't provide anything to support what you claim to be facts

Yes I did. For example I quoted scientific evidence about the vesicular monamine transporter 2 gene. Now may be I am guilty of failing to get that evidence fully investigated and confirmed by a grand jury in order for it to conform to your strickt standards of what is acceptable. But then if you care to actually Google the evidence you will find at least 240 confirmed scientific reports confirming what I said. So there for my argument stands.