A company of atheists.

[shadow9d9]

I don't need to respond to ignorance. This kind of statement is just as ignorant as someone who comments negatively towards Gay folks.

Are you asking me if someone of religion is not as intelligent as an Atheist? I don't know it depends on the person. Being religious, or having a certain belief other than yours/his doesn't dictate intellect.

A lot of condescending attitudes on here....maybe you should kick that cat too if it makes you feel better.

Name something about a gay person that would have any bearing on their intellect.

I'll name something about a religious person. They believe in a supernatural sky creature that judges us, but no one has ever seen.

You see the difference, you just try to equate the 2 as a desperate attempt.

 

[mattpegher]

Name something about a gay person that would have any bearing on their intellect.

I'll name something about a religious person. They believe in a supernatural sky creature that judges us, but no one has ever seen.

You see the difference, you just try to equate the 2 as a desperate attempt.

Guys, there are many valid metaphysical and logical arguments against the existence of a god. You have resorted to name calling, and statements of superiority. It does not follow that intellect is dependent on frame of reference. Many men with intellects far superior than yours or mine have wrestled with these question. It is only recently that Hawkins had changed his position, based on mathematic models that none on this forum will ever understand. Great phylosophers have contemplated these issues and yet we chose to be so self-rightous. I am ashamed of my fellow atheist that we have sunk so low as to stand on a pedistal of science and redicule. You have become the inquisition.

 

[Mike Gayner]

Guys, there are many valid metaphysical and logical arguments against the existence of a god. You have resorted to name calling, and statements of superiority. It does not follow that intellect is dependent on frame of reference. Many men with intellects far superior than yours or mine have wrestled with these question. It is only recently that Hawkins had changed his position, based on mathematic models that none on this forum will ever understand. Great phylosophers have contemplated these issues and yet we chose to be so self-rightous. I am ashamed of my fellow atheist that we have sunk so low as to stand on a pedistal of science and redicule. You have become the inquisition.

lol what a i love you

 

[Angry Irishman]

Name something about a gay person that would have any bearing on their intellect.

I'll name something about a religious person. They believe in a supernatural sky creature that judges us, but no one has ever seen.

You see the difference, you just try to equate the 2 as a desperate attempt.

Who is desperate? Yes, the two comparisons are the same and there is no difference.

Do you at least believe in the concept of good and bad, right and wrong?

It's not right or good to judge someone's intellect based on their belief....religious or Atheist.

Why do you even care?

 

[mattpegher]

lol what a i love you

And yet you wish to have an intelligent discussion?

 

[shadow9d9]

Guys, there are many valid metaphysical and logical arguments against the existence of a god. You have resorted to name calling, and statements of superiority. It does not follow that intellect is dependent on frame of reference. Many men with intellects far superior than yours or mine have wrestled with these question. It is only recently that Hawkins had changed his position, based on mathematic models that none on this forum will ever understand. Great phylosophers have contemplated these issues and yet we chose to be so self-rightous. I am ashamed of my fellow atheist that we have sunk so low as to stand on a pedistal of science and redicule. You have become the inquisition.

You won't be able to quote me as name calling, as it never happened.

You don't need to prove anything against existence of something that doesn't have a shred of evidence FOR it.

As stated, generally speaking, those that believe in supernatural beings that judge us but never show themselves, will tend to be less intelligent. It makes complete sense. Do you consider ANYONE that believes in unicorns, leprechauns, santa, or the tooth fairy to be very bright? Have you noticed that you and others NEVER answer this question?

Just more dodging.

 

[mattpegher]

You won't be able to quote me as name calling, as it never happened.

You don't need to prove anything against existence of something that doesn't have a shred of evidence FOR it.

As stated, generally speaking, those that believe in supernatural beings that judge us but never show themselves, will tend to be less intelligent. It makes complete sense. Do you consider ANYONE that believes in unicorns, leprechauns, santa, or the tooth fairy to be very bright? Have you noticed that you and others NEVER answer this question?

Just more dodging.

But sir I know of no one that believes in unicorns, leprechauns and only children that believe in santa and the tooth fairy (because their parents tell them so). So I cannot make any comparison. I will admit that you have at least chosen to have a meaningful discussion.

For example, a fourth physical demension has been postulated by mathematicians based on the mathematic model that shows curvature of time/space. I find this interesting but difficult to handle mentally. I will admit that it is suggested by some models but that its detectability is impossible except in situations that as yet no human machine has percieved. The math suggests it as possible. Am I less intelligent for believing this without more concrete evidence. Some day new data may prove these theories wrong.

 

[nick1985]

Why not demand a bell in your coffin, just in chase you survive being embalmed and need rescue?

I like the way you think.

:thumbsup:

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Guys, there are many valid metaphysical and logical arguments against the existence of a god. You have resorted to name calling, and statements of superiority. It does not follow that intellect is dependent on frame of reference. Many men with intellects far superior than yours or mine have wrestled with these question. It is only recently that Hawkins had changed his position, based on mathematic models that none on this forum will ever understand. Great phylosophers have contemplated these issues and yet we chose to be so self-rightous. I am ashamed of my fellow atheist that we have sunk so low as to stand on a pedistal of science and redicule. You have become the inquisition.

You won't be able to quote me as name calling, as it never happened.

You just said they are stupid, even if you had IQ scores infront of you, it would still be name calling. But your big-man on the forums; look at you, soo good at calln' people dumb.

You don't need to prove anything against existence of something that doesn't have a shred of evidence FOR it.

This is false, please re-read Descartes; and if you are a fan of thinking try Heidegger as well.

Why not demand a bell in your coffin, just in chase you survive being embalmed and need rescue?

people don't survive embalming. We can show this empirically. You are trying to argue a negative that can be shown positively when the question is about a negative that can't be shown positively.

 

[shadow9d9]

But sir I know of no one that believes in unicorns, leprechauns and only children that believe in santa and the tooth fairy (because their parents tell them so). So I cannot make any comparison. I will admit that you have at least chosen to have a meaningful discussion.

For example, a fourth physical demension has been postulated by mathematicians based on the mathematic model that shows curvature of time/space. I find this interesting but difficult to handle mentally. I will admit that it is suggested by some models but that its detectability is impossible except in situations that as yet no human machine has percieved. The math suggests it as possible. Am I less intelligent for believing this without more concrete evidence. Some day new data may prove these theories wrong.

Notice how you couldn't quote me as name calling? That makes you a liar.

Santa IS god... just the version that is for a child. Magic abilities, judges you if you are good or bad, no one ever sees him. It is a child set up to transfer to belief to god. It is, for all intents and purposes, god.

Anyhow, you can surely make the comparisons. If someone believes in ANY type of fantasy, conspiracies, that gays or muslims are evil, that immigrants are the cause of all their problems, that the jews run the world, etc, then you can CERTAINLY make a judgement on their intelligence.

 

[mattpegher]

Notice how you couldn't quote me as name calling? That makes you a liar.

Santa IS god... just the version that is for a child. Magic abilities, judges you if you are good or bad, no one ever sees him. It is a child set up to transfer to belief to god. It is, for all intents and purposes, god.

Anyhow, you can surely make the comparisons. If someone believes in ANY type of fantasy, conspiracies, that gays or muslims are evil, that immigrants are the cause of all their problems, that the jews run the world, etc, then you can CERTAINLY make a judgement on their intelligence.

My statement about meaningful discussion was meant to state that I did not find you to be one of the name callers. Sorry you missed my intension, it could have been more clear.

Yes children are lied to about santa. I am not sure the intension is to soften them up to the idea of god. Santa follows from the christian tradition of Saint Nicholas, but has a bigger bank roll. There are also roots in pagan mythos. The idea of reward for being good is similiar. It creates an impartial judge for childrens behavior. Most children realize that their parents are anything but impartial. In practice, the tradition is less about giving the child a report card and more about witnessing the joy that children show when recieving a gift.
Although you can assume that the children who believe these lies are less intelligent than the adults that tell them, that is a poor attempt at a cohort study.
I cannot find any modern adults that believe in the mythologic creatures you state so I have no cohort to compare.
As for comparing those who may think that gays or muslims are evil, or that the jews or illuminati rule the world. I reserve my decision regarding there intelligence until I have an opportunity to evaluate them. You see I have met many people in my profession many of whom are biased due to experiences, or delusional due to mental illness, and I will tell you they were not univerally or even statisticly less intelligent than the general public. Many of my mentally ill patients are quite above average intelligence, which makes them harder to deal with.

 

[shadow9d9]

My statement about meaningful discussion was meant to state that I did not find you to be one of the name callers. Sorry you missed my intension, it could have been more clear.

Yes children are lied to about santa. I am not sure the intension is to soften them up to the idea of god. Santa follows from the christian tradition of Saint Nicholas, but has a bigger bank roll. There are also roots in pagan mythos. The idea of reward for being good is similiar. It creates an impartial judge for childrens behavior. Most children realize that their parents are anything but impartial. In practice, the tradition is less about giving the child a report card and more about witnessing the joy that children show when recieving a gift.
Although you can assume that the children who believe these lies are less intelligent than the adults that tell them, that is a poor attempt at a cohort study.
I cannot find any modern adults that believe in the mythologic creatures you state so I have no cohort to compare.
As for comparing those who may think that gays or muslims are evil, or that the jews or illuminati rule the world. I reserve my decision regarding there intelligence until I have an opportunity to evaluate them. You see I have met many people in my profession many of whom are biased due to experiences, or delusional due to mental illness, and I will tell you they were not univerally or even statisticly less intelligent than the general public. Many of my mentally ill patients are quite above average intelligence, which makes them harder to deal with.

I don't understand why you would need to meet someone who believes in fantasy in order to evaluate them. The fact that they believe in fantasy alone is enough of an indication for me.

Assume that someone is "intelligent" in your eyes, yet believes in godlike creatures... this will clash with reality in many ways... the supernatural way, which forms the basis of their belief system, always wins out. If it doesn't, then they aren't being honest about how they actually feel. You can't have it both ways. When reality is dismissed because of their fantasy godlike creature, it makes them less intelligent.

If you compare people of the same "intellect", but one of them believes in fantasy, which overrides reality, then of the 2 otherwise equal people, the religious based one will be less intelligent overall because of their delusions.

I've had otherwise intelligent people tell me that dinosaur fossils were put there as a ploy to test the faith of those that believe that the world was created 6000 years ago.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

The fact that they believe in fantasy alone is enough of an indication for me.

This offers absolutely no bearing on the intellect of the individual. We believe in what we intend to use. If we can use the idea of a unicorn to help us live our lives then we'll think about unicorn as real.

Same with God and democracy.

Just because an idea is an idea doesn't mean that it's without use or that someone is stupid for believing in their idea. God is as real as democracy because I have seen the powerful useful benefits of both; just as I have seen the powerful destructive outcomes of both.

 

[mattpegher]

I don't understand why you would need to meet someone who believes in fantasy in order to evaluate them. The fact that they believe in fantasy alone is enough of an indication for me.

Assume that someone is "intelligent" in your eyes, yet believes in godlike creatures... this will clash with reality in many ways... the supernatural way, which forms the basis of their belief system, always wins out. If it doesn't, then they aren't being honest about how they actually feel. You can't have it both ways. When reality is dismissed because of their fantasy godlike creature, it makes them less intelligent.

If you compare people of the same "intellect", but one of them believes in fantasy, which overrides reality, then of the 2 otherwise equal people, the religious based one will be less intelligent overall because of their delusions.

I've had otherwise intelligent people tell me that dinosaur fossils were put there as a ploy to test the faith of those that believe that the world was created 6000 years ago.

I know this is a loaded question but what do you do for a living? It seems that it may be possible that your daily human interaction may be limited to a small number of individuals.
I have met all kinds in my profession, from the highly intelligent to the near moronic, from psycologically well adapted to highly delusional, and my perception is that intelligence is a seperate objectively messurable characteristic from knowledge especially when it pertains to belief. I have met atheist and believers and I find that most of each group has spent far too little time contemplating the reasons that they choose to be of that mind set.

 

[HeavyD]

The majority of people I work with are Hindu, a couple are Catholic and a Sikh. Only two Atheist that I'm aware of which is normal I guess.

 

[freegeeks]

In my platoon there was only one religous person (the son of a priest) he was actually one of the only, truly religious people I know. In denmark you have to look long and hard for religious people (excluding all the muslim immigrants), if you go to church on sundays you're pretty much a freak, if you're openly religious people wont say anything but they will all think you're a moron.

Pretty much the same here in Belgium, we have to import African priests because there is no interest to become a priest anymore. Church attendance is less then 10% and is mostly just old people.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I know this is a loaded question but what do you do for a living? It seems that it may be possible that your daily human interaction may be limited to a small number of individuals.
I have met all kinds in my profession, from the highly intelligent to the near moronic, from psycologically well adapted to highly delusional, and my perception is that intelligence is a seperate objectively messurable characteristic from knowledge especially when it pertains to belief. I have met atheist and believers and I find that most of each group has spent far too little time contemplating the reasons that they choose to be of that mind set.

I think that the argument here is revolving around different definitions of the word 'intelligent'. For many of the definitions of the word a person connection to reality has no bearing. These definitions of intelligence would be defined as a person’s ability to learn, and retain novel information, and it is something that is almost impossible to test for. Using this definition there are some extremely intelligent autistic people that do little more then bang their heads against a wall and watch TV. But I think shadow9d9 and I are using a slightly different definition of the word intelligent, one that means more along the lines of able to use reason to understand and find appropriate reactions to events. This is something that is a combination of knowledge and pure intelligence, something we would probably be better off calling intellect.