Religious people less intelligent than atheists?

[YWN666]

Most fundamentalist christians I have encountered demand that. That is their justification for proselytizing. Your question also points out the vague nature of religious beliefs - ask 1,000 people what god is and how he operates and you'll get 1,000 different answers.

I am me, not a bunch of people you are making up in order to justify your attempt to define God the way you want.

I am making this up? Is that the best you can do? If you don't recognize that there are many christians who have that belief, you are deluding yourself.

 

[FA_Q2]

It is not always possible but desirable.

I use scientific as an adjective when talking of evidence because there are so many who use "proof" in a non-scientific manner. Someone said a sunrise is proof that god exists - it is "proof enough for them" but it is not scientific proof so you can drop the smug attitude, it just emphasizes your ignorance.

You used it wrong because you think someone else used a different word wrong? That still makes you wrong.

Which means that, even if I am smug, I am not ignorant.

Having "faith" (I prefer the phrase "rational expectation" in this context) that you will see platelets when looking at blood under a microscope is a WHOLE lot different than having faith in the existence of something that has NEVER been proven. You're playing word games to lower rationality to the level of religious belief.

Something that has never been proven? Would that include the existence of dark matter and energy? Or is it rational to believe in those after you examine the evidence?

No, not everything can be proven but at least science can come up with something that is entirely plausible that doesn't violate the laws of physics unlike religious claims that have men riding white horses out of the clouds to take all of the christians off the planet when the world ends.

That is because that is the point of science which is NOT the same point of religion. You are only proving that you really do not understand faith at all. The concept is not difficult, even of you are not faithful. It only requires that you have sufficient respect in others and be humble enough to not automatically assume that you are better than they are. Avatar4321 has already given you some very good information as to what faith is and means to the faithful.

Science is all well and good but it has NOTHING to do with faith and cannot ‘prove’ anything in that realm. They are 2 different concepts and faith is a personal thing.

 

[FA_Q2]

It must be? In that case nothing Jane Goodall did was science. I am sure you will be happy to go down to your local library and demand that all of her work be removed from the science section and moved into the religion section.

Rule of thumb, absolutes are an indication that you don't know what you are talking about, and, more often than not, will end up with you being wrong.

I think you're misunderstanding the use of the word "accessible" here. Scientific proof must be able to be observed with no conditions of faith. Just because someone accepts a sunrise as proof of god doesn't mean it is proof. It just means that person has lowered their standards for proof.

No I am not, I am pointing out that repeatability is not a criteria of science. despite the massive amount of ignorance that permeates this board on the subject. It is nice that things are repeatable because it makes it easier for other people to double check the work, but some things are not, by their very nature, repeatable. For example, Shoemaker-Levy gave us a lot of data about the makeup of both comets and the atmosphere of Jupiter, but no one is demanding that the data be repeated with another identical comet before the data can be used to argue their favorite conclusion.

Which brings me to another point, stop using scientific as an adjective to make it seem like there are different types of proof/facts, it just emphasizes your ignorance. All evidence is of the same value, what matters is how you analyze it to draw conclusions. There is nothing scientific about data because data is not a process, and the scientific method is a way of analyzing that data.

Also, there is nothing in the scientific method that prohibits you from approaching the data without a belief set, or faith, as long as you are willing to accept the possibility that your beliefs are wrong. Quite honestly, it would be impossible for a human to approach anything without expecting to find something. You cannot analyze blood without the faith that it is composed of red cells, white cells, platelets, and plasma. That is what you are looking for when you start,so it is perfectly acceptable, and part of the scientific method, to have faith that they will be there. The big news would be if they weren't.

The problem here is not the people who have faith, it is the people who don't understand faith. Or science.

Repeatability is definitely a cornerstone of all science. You are claiming that a dataset that is not repeatable has shown that science does not need to be repeatable and then go on to claim that data is not science but rather the way that you analyze it is. The shoemaker-levy comet showed us a data set and that data made determinations about the makeup of Jupiter’s atmosphere due to repeatable scientific experimentation that gave us insight into what the results would be un those impacts and how they would very given the materials that would cause those outcomes.

Data is not a matter of repeatability but the conclusions that you draw based on that dataset IS a matter of repeatability. Repeatability is not a nicety in science, it is essential in sciences conclusions made on observations.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, not everything can be proven but at least science can come up with something that is entirely plausible that doesn't violate the laws of physics unlike religious claims that have men riding white horses out of the clouds to take all of the christians off the planet when the world ends.

I hate to point out the obvious, but invisible, undetectable matter actually does violate the laws of physics.

"There is something out there that we cannot see, or prove exists, that is holding the universe together by increasing the mass of the universe. We are going to call it magic matter.

"What do you mean we can't use magic? What should we call it?

"Dark matter, got it."

If I chose to call that same thing The Flying Spaghetti Monster, can you prove it isn't a valid name?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Most fundamentalist christians I have encountered demand that. That is their justification for proselytizing. Your question also points out the vague nature of religious beliefs - ask 1,000 people what god is and how he operates and you'll get 1,000 different answers.

I am me, not a bunch of people you are making up in order to justify your attempt to define God the way you want.

I am making this up? Is that the best you can do? If you don't recognize that there are many christians who have that belief, you are deluding yourself.

You keep talking to people who are not in the thread, would you prefer I use the word schizophrenic?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think you're misunderstanding the use of the word "accessible" here. Scientific proof must be able to be observed with no conditions of faith. Just because someone accepts a sunrise as proof of god doesn't mean it is proof. It just means that person has lowered their standards for proof.

No I am not, I am pointing out that repeatability is not a criteria of science. despite the massive amount of ignorance that permeates this board on the subject. It is nice that things are repeatable because it makes it easier for other people to double check the work, but some things are not, by their very nature, repeatable. For example, Shoemaker-Levy gave us a lot of data about the makeup of both comets and the atmosphere of Jupiter, but no one is demanding that the data be repeated with another identical comet before the data can be used to argue their favorite conclusion.

Which brings me to another point, stop using scientific as an adjective to make it seem like there are different types of proof/facts, it just emphasizes your ignorance. All evidence is of the same value, what matters is how you analyze it to draw conclusions. There is nothing scientific about data because data is not a process, and the scientific method is a way of analyzing that data.

Also, there is nothing in the scientific method that prohibits you from approaching the data without a belief set, or faith, as long as you are willing to accept the possibility that your beliefs are wrong. Quite honestly, it would be impossible for a human to approach anything without expecting to find something. You cannot analyze blood without the faith that it is composed of red cells, white cells, platelets, and plasma. That is what you are looking for when you start,so it is perfectly acceptable, and part of the scientific method, to have faith that they will be there. The big news would be if they weren't.

The problem here is not the people who have faith, it is the people who don't understand faith. Or science.

Repeatability is definitely a cornerstone of all science. You are claiming that a dataset that is not repeatable has shown that science does not need to be repeatable and then go on to claim that data is not science but rather the way that you analyze it is. The shoemaker-levy comet showed us a data set and that data made determinations about the makeup of Jupiter’s atmosphere due to repeatable scientific experimentation that gave us insight into what the results would be un those impacts and how they would very given the materials that would cause those outcomes.

Data is not a matter of repeatability but the conclusions that you draw based on that dataset IS a matter of repeatability. Repeatability is not a nicety in science, it is essential in sciences conclusions made on observations.

I didn't say it is not a foundation of science, I said it is not necessary for a specific field of study to be science. If something is unrepeatable, like plate tectonics, that does not mean science has to ignore it.

 

[FA_Q2]

No I am not, I am pointing out that repeatability is not a criteria of science. despite the massive amount of ignorance that permeates this board on the subject. It is nice that things are repeatable because it makes it easier for other people to double check the work, but some things are not, by their very nature, repeatable. For example, Shoemaker-Levy gave us a lot of data about the makeup of both comets and the atmosphere of Jupiter, but no one is demanding that the data be repeated with another identical comet before the data can be used to argue their favorite conclusion.

Which brings me to another point, stop using scientific as an adjective to make it seem like there are different types of proof/facts, it just emphasizes your ignorance. All evidence is of the same value, what matters is how you analyze it to draw conclusions. There is nothing scientific about data because data is not a process, and the scientific method is a way of analyzing that data.

Also, there is nothing in the scientific method that prohibits you from approaching the data without a belief set, or faith, as long as you are willing to accept the possibility that your beliefs are wrong. Quite honestly, it would be impossible for a human to approach anything without expecting to find something. You cannot analyze blood without the faith that it is composed of red cells, white cells, platelets, and plasma. That is what you are looking for when you start,so it is perfectly acceptable, and part of the scientific method, to have faith that they will be there. The big news would be if they weren't.

The problem here is not the people who have faith, it is the people who don't understand faith. Or science.

Repeatability is definitely a cornerstone of all science. You are claiming that a dataset that is not repeatable has shown that science does not need to be repeatable and then go on to claim that data is not science but rather the way that you analyze it is. The shoemaker-levy comet showed us a data set and that data made determinations about the makeup of Jupiter’s atmosphere due to repeatable scientific experimentation that gave us insight into what the results would be un those impacts and how they would very given the materials that would cause those outcomes.

Data is not a matter of repeatability but the conclusions that you draw based on that dataset IS a matter of repeatability. Repeatability is not a nicety in science, it is essential in sciences conclusions made on observations.

I didn't say it is not a foundation of science, I said it is not necessary for a specific field of study to be science. If something is unrepeatable, like plate tectonics, that does not mean science has to ignore it.

Fair enough. I just wanted to be clear on that particular boobs boobs boobs boobs…

Damn, your avatar distracted me

Anyway, just wanted to be clear on that point and scientific experimentation.

 

[daveman]

You're making excuses as to why there is no evidence to show that he exists. If an all powerful god wanted everyone to believe in him, he could snap his fingers and prove to everyone that he exists beyond any doubt.

No. Im trying to teach you how to find out for yourself that He exists. There is plenty of evidence of God because everything in existence is evidence of a God. Look at yourself in the mirror. That its evidence of God. You might choose to disregard the evidence. But it's evidence nonetheless.

No, it is not and that is the point I made in another post. Just because you have a lower unscientific standard for evidence doesn't make it evidence. If I see my image in a mirror as proof of the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, will you accept that?

I will accept that you see it as proof.

You seem to be unable to return the favor.

Same question to you as I asked numan:

Why the hostility? No one is forcing you to alter your beliefs. No one is demanding anything of you. You are not in danger of being forced by the government into a profession of faith.

So why are you so hostile to believers? NOTE: "Because they're stupid!!" is insufficient. Surely someone as intelligent as you are can come up with a clear and logical reason to explain your hostility to believers.​

 

[Papageorgio]

Any group that needs to prove they are smarter than another group, has some real insecurity problems and are probably immature.

 

[numan]

Why the hostility? No one is forcing you to alter your beliefs. No one is demanding anything of you. You are not in danger of being forced by the government into a profession of faith.

So why are you so hostile to believers? NOTE: "Because they're stupid!!" is insufficient. Surely someone as intelligent as you are can come up with a clear and logical reason to explain your hostility to believers.

I am not "hostile" to religious lunatics. Their stupidity just disgusts me and makes me nauseous. In the modern world, stupidity endangers mankind and the whole natural world.

"Stupidity, from being an amiable individual defect, has become a monstrous and deadly social crime."
J. D. Bernal

.

 

[numan]

Personal Anecdote does not constitute proof.

Scientific proof must be accessible to all observers -- and repeatable.

That proves, then, that anthropogenic global warming is a matter of faith.

It is scientific experiment which must be repeatable !!

No one has ever claimed that observations must be repeatable.

The massive evidence for global heating rests on innumerable and careful observations and experiments.
No hypothesis can ever be certain, but global heating is a fact that increasingly approaches to within smaller and smaller epsilon of certainty.

Much, much closer to certainty than any notions that are likely to be in the defective brains of you Denialists.

.

 

[theword]

All religious ideas and science came from the "beast", which is God's plan to teach men how to build things and get to His latest technology to help explain His invisible Kingdom called Heaven.

Now we know that His invisible Kingdom is made up of wavelengths of energy, which are bits of information that when processed, gives us a defined world to perceive from our created being, which is also made up of wavelengths of energy.

We are very close to ending this first age because God has connected with His last saint to reveal His last bit of information to clarify "Christ" that all His saints have witnessed and testified to for the past 2,000 years. This will end the "1,000 year reign of Christ".

The reason the prophecies say, "Satan will be loosed for awhile" after the reign of Christ, such as in the prophecy of Revelation 20, is that there won't be anymore flesh called saints that God will raise up and reveal anymore information from "Christ". Life in this world will continue on until the "Last Day" when God planned to destroy this world and end this delusion ( the Old covenant, or the "veil") we're in.

Isaiah 25: 6-9
6: On this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of fat things, a feast of wine on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wine on the lees well refined.
7: And he will destroy on this mountain the covering that is cast over all peoples, the veil that is spread over all nations.
8: He will swallow up death for ever, and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from all faces, and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth; for the LORD has spoken.
9: It will be said on that day, "Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him, that he might save us. This is the LORD; we have waited for him; let us be glad and rejoice in his salvation."

 

[daveman]

Why the hostility? No one is forcing you to alter your beliefs. No one is demanding anything of you. You are not in danger of being forced by the government into a profession of faith.

So why are you so hostile to believers? NOTE: "Because they're stupid!!" is insufficient. Surely someone as intelligent as you are can come up with a clear and logical reason to explain your hostility to believers.

I am not "hostile" to religious lunatics. Their stupidity just disgusts me and makes me nauseous. In the modern world, stupidity endangers mankind and the whole natural world.

"Stupidity, from being an amiable individual defect, has become a monstrous and deadly social crime."
J. D. Bernal

.

No, that's not hostile at all.

 

[daveman]

Personal Anecdote does not constitute proof.

Scientific proof must be accessible to all observers -- and repeatable.

That proves, then, that anthropogenic global warming is a matter of faith.

It is scientific experiment which must be repeatable !!

No one has ever claimed that observations must be repeatable.

The massive evidence for global heating rests on innumerable and careful observations and experiments.
No hypothesis can ever be certain, but global heating is a fact that increasingly approaches to within smaller and smaller epsilon of certainty.

Much, much closer to certainty than any notions that are likely to be in the defective brains of you Denialists.

.

Yes, I'm sure it makes you feel better about yourself to believe that.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

I'm sure it comforts atheists to think they're smarter than religious people. God deniers have so little, it's probably best to leave them to their delusions.

 

[daveman]

I have a theory about why militant atheists are so hostile towards believers.

They're afraid we're right.

 

[BreezeWood]

I have a theory about why militant atheists are so hostile towards believers.

They're afraid we're right.

In the modern world, stupidity endangers mankind and the whole natural world.

who's we ?

.

 

[daveman]

I have a theory about why militant atheists are so hostile towards believers.

They're afraid we're right.

In the modern world, stupidity endangers mankind and the whole natural world.

who's we ?

.

Christians.

You don't see the level of animosity Christians receive from militant atheists also directed to other faiths.

Why is that?

 

[Tuatara]

Christians.

You don't see the level of animosity Christians receive from militant atheists also directed to other faiths.

Why is that?

Militant??? Are they coming after you with weapons or are you just a big crybaby?

 

[HUGGY]

No. Im trying to teach you how to find out for yourself that He exists. There is plenty of evidence of God because everything in existence is evidence of a God. Look at yourself in the mirror. That its evidence of God. You might choose to disregard the evidence. But it's evidence nonetheless.

No, it is not and that is the point I made in another post. Just because you have a lower unscientific standard for evidence doesn't make it evidence. If I see my image in a mirror as proof of the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, will you accept that?

I will accept that you see it as proof.

You seem to be unable to return the favor.

Same question to you as I asked numan:

Why the hostility? No one is forcing you to alter your beliefs. No one is demanding anything of you. You are not in danger of being forced by the government into a profession of faith.

So why are you so hostile to believers? NOTE: "Because they're stupid!!" is insufficient. Surely someone as intelligent as you are can come up with a clear and logical reason to explain your hostility to believers.​

I'll be your Huckleberry. Believers are dangerous to the survival of the inhabitants of this planet. They believe that "god" has a plan and have resigned themselves to leave everything up to the allmighty's wishes. When I look out and see the moon my hostility towards you fools is focused and clear. Anyone can see the huge craters on the surface of the moon. There are several that if occured here on the surface of earth would wipe out us and every other living thing except maybe moles and bats(They reside underground). The moles eat grubs AKA maggots and the bats dine on insects AKA flies. There will be a lot of flies and maggots when the big rock smacks into our planet from all the decaying flesh.

We need to stop all our foolishness and get serious about what we need to do to prevent the next cosmic holocaust. I hate the religious because they waste time and money on a grand scale that could be put to better use than the pursuit of thier delusions.

Stop acting and believing as children...grow up...face reality head on and maybe...just maybe we will have a chance to survive into the future.