Atheists are more intelligent than religious people, finds study.

[ill88eagle]

Atheism has no content. It's simply a matter of not being convinced by dogma. So your comment is absurd.

---

That is an ignorant comment.
Athiesm has an equal amount of dogma as any religion.
There is no proof that there is or isn't a god. So anyone who says there is, is a fool, and anyone who says there isn't, is just as much a fool.
Athiests are in a way almost stupider than religious people, when you think about it.
What if the religious person is right, no matter the religion? If you bellieve in that religion, then you win, and go to heaven or whatever it happens to be. If it isn't real in any way, then nothing happens.
If you are an athiest, it doesn't matter what is true, you die and go into the infinite oblivion that you were in before you were born, no matter what.
So it can't really hurt to believe in something.
But like I said, both are equally incorrect. Or correct. They are the same.

Finally something slightly intelligeble from you

The theological argument you refer to is Pascals Wager. Coincidentally the guy who invented and pioneered game theory, combinatorics and probability theory in math. The argument springs out of this kind of rational thinking. 

And yes, the problem with both atheists and religious fanatics is the inability to even try to understand any alternative ontology. Curiously enough, at the Time of Pascal, religion and science formed no dichotomy. In the later times of enlightenment, thinkers spoke out againts the church, but they did not deny the notion of god or religion as such. It werent until the hardcore positivism of the 19th century that science and religion became an unreconcileable dichotomy. And later thinkers have been ridiculed for expressing religious or spiritual leanings. C G Jung for instance was exhiled from the freudian community.

---

lol....

Eloquent and enlightening comeback. Really brings depht to the discussion

[joew771]

I was thinking of Pascal's Wager when I wrote that. But....

There is another possibility.

That is, if you believe in the wrong god or wrong religion, then you will be eternally punished, but believing in nothing causes no punishment, and believing in the 'correct' one provides eternal bliss.

What then?

Should a person risk eternal damnation to believe in a certain religion? Should you believe a specific religion to possibly grant you eternal happiness, and deny another, though it may comdemn you to 'hell'?

Or should you believe in nothing and accept oblivion?

This, I call the Joew771 paradox. Risk 'Heaven' or 'Hell' or settle for nothingness?

And I hate you all.

[ill88eagle]

I was thinking of Pascal's Wager when I wrote that. But....

There is another possibility.

That is, if you believe in the wrong god or wrong religion, then you will be eternally punished, but believing in nothing causes no punishment.

What then?

Should a person risk eternal damnation to believe in a certain religion? Should you believe a specific religion to possibly grant you eternal happiness, and deny another, though it may comdemn you to 'hell'?

Or should you believe in nothing and accept oblivion?

This, I call the Joew771 paradox. Risk 'Heaven' or 'Hell' or settle for nothingness?

And I hate you all.

A very neat refutal of the Wager. But continuing the argument, In some religions, "heaven" is nothingness. But again, those religions dont operate with deities, at least in their pure doctrine, and as such is such a strange phenomenon as atheist religion. In practice, your average buddhist and/or taoist prays to a wide range of spirits and such tho.

Me, like LZA, I chose not to draw conclusions about that which I cannot know. But I am spiritually inclined, and curious. So I've been dabbling in various religious texts, mysticism and so forth for years. And there are things I know for fact because I've experienced them first hand through spiritual practice. That being said, what I've also learned from my studies is this: all religious systems are just that. Systems. Dogmatic ones. And as such reductive and oppressive. Furthermore, all institutions, religious or secular are, like tolstoy said, violent by definiton.

[joew771]

Athiests are idiots. Religionists(?) are idiots. Simple as that.

Also I'm not that smart.

[dueda]

Jesus what an unbalanced dispute, if we can call it...

There are thousands of religions not to mention philosofic credos. On the most popular there is a God and either you follow the rules you will be damned, blessed if you do, for they divide between good and evil.

Real world has both good and evil inside and proof of none. But it would be a sign of intelligence to doubt things made up by humans specially if they can serve domination by misconception. Atheists aren't more or less intelligent - Luther's new church was result of his brilliant mind and objective observation of the Middle Age society. Yet he was totally pious. So it sounds logic that intelligent people do question more, follow less and have their own conclusions.

[ill88eagle]

Jesus what an unbalanced dispute, if we can call it...

There are thousands of religions not to mention philosofic credos. On the most popular there is a God and either you follow the rules you will be damned, blessed if you do, for they divide between good and evil.

Real world has both good and evil inside and proof of none. But it would be a sign of intelligence to doubt things made up by humans specially if they can serve domination by misconception. Atheists aren't more or less intelligent - Luther's new church was result of his brilliant mind and objective observation of the Middle Age society. Yet he was totally pious. So it sounds logic that intelligent people do question more, follow less and have their own conclusions.

Luther also condoned polygamy for the priviledged plus supported and facilitated the elite in their slaughter of the uprising peasant revolution, so yea, nothing is black or white

[dueda]

Luther also condoned polygamy for the priviledged plus supported and facilitated the elite in their slaughter of the uprising peasant revolution, so yea, nothing is black or white

That I didn't know of / remember. it's always a price, a wicked thing when humans are present.
Religion is often paired or entangled with politics. Maybe we should question why.

[ill88eagle]

Luther also condoned polygamy for the priviledged plus supported and facilitated the elite in their slaughter of the uprising peasant revolution, so yea, nothing is black or white

That I didn't know of / remember. it's always a price, a wicked thing when humans are present.
Religion is often paired or entangled with politics. Maybe we should question why.

I posted the answer ITT already. Institutionalism. Its violent and oppressive by definition. Tolstoy is always relevant, but especially in this discussion.

[LZA]

I just want to reiterate that I agree that there is a dogma in either religion or atheism.

I don’t believe intelligence or stupidity are nouns like everyone uses them as. I think of them more as verbs as people can ACT Intelligent or stupidly . Intelligence is a dynamic thing. Just because you are more adept at one specific thing doesn’t make you smarter or more stupid than someone else. The nouns I prefer to use are "strengths" and weaknesses"

That being said. I can see where the logic of Politux's article is going. Since the inaction of religious people to think for themselves is like committing an act of stupidity.  Atheist’s think outside of the box and think beyond what they are told, in effect acting more intelligently, since they are making an effort to act at all.

Again, I agree the extreme believers are both the same dogmatic type of thinking. so if someone on either side won’t budge because they think they are right, they are acting unintelligent. All jokes aside that's another reason why I'm an open minded agnostic. I'm smart enough to know that I'm nowhere near smart enough to know what is going on. I know there is a realm/dimension past this existence, but I don’t know what it is. What I do know, it's nothing like as described in any organized religion.

Right now, we are physical beings who live in an existence backed by science, which is why if I had to take sides, I’d rather be atheist than religious, since science is proven and can be backed up with reality... This may be a point that the survey is trying to illustrate as well. Religion speaks in theories to an unproven existence, atheism speaks to facts on a scientific basis. If we lived in the unknown spiritual realm, it would be known, but we don't so all we have are facts. If I was atheist, those would be my reasoning’s... Fuck religion though, they are all written by man, who exists on a physical, scientific plain... Men can lie to us, as they always do.

You have to think spiritually, not religiously (imho), and that’s tailored specific to the individual. Like there is no end to the infinite universe in the physical realm (scientists can’t see where it ends), then the spiritual world is also infinite. So much so that IMHO we can all have a different view of it and as long as we believe it in our hearts, we can all be correct… It’s too large to be an either/or situation like religion states. This is why I can have my opinions, but if someone says something that intrigues me, can modify my belief system, as long as I’m true to myself. Being an agnostic, I just don’t know all the factors involved.

…That is, if you believe in the wrong god or wrong religion, then you will be eternally punished, but believing in nothing causes no punishment, and believing in the 'correct' one provides eternal bliss.

What then?

Should a person risk eternal damnation to believe in a certain religion? Should you believe a specific religion to possibly grant you eternal happiness, and deny another, though it may condemn you to 'hell'?

That was my dilemma when I was still religious many years ago. In my personal experience I’ve learned that if you believed in your heart that what you believed was correct, then you were saved regardless if you were wrong or not. You were only condemned to hell if you believed something because it was in the public opinion of “the right thing to do”. If you were not true to yourself, you were not true to god. Since god knows we don’t have the answers, he can’t hold us as incorrect if we made a good faith effort.  That was my reasoning.

For those to believe god is rigid and only one way, those are the really unintelligent people that I think is targeted by this survey. If your that fucking dumb, then god help you… But then if you believe the creator of everything is that narrow minded then god won’t help you since he is a jealous BITCH.(applying human type thinking on a deity…Would that be defining anthropomorphizing as well???)

The only way I’ll be fucked is if organized religion is correct… Because I don’t follow any of it exclusively. If that’s the case then “fuck you , god! I defy you!!!” because I’m going to hell anyway.

I also agree with joe (I tried to explain a similar opinion on IRC), that why not give myself hope in another life after this… If there is nothing and I am wrong, I’ll be dead and not know I’m wrong. Truly, if this life I have is all I have… that would truly be pathetic… Next life I’m coming back rich… I’ll be the owner of Suprbay and give myself 500 positive rep points..

[politux]

If anyone can thoughtfully watch this entire video and still hang on to some bizarre bronze age god fetish I would be quite surprised.