GunnerJ

Be careful what you wish for. While this is certaintly true, I think it should give us pause to consider its most likely replacement. That's right, the world's fastest growing religion: Islam. ::shudders::

Indifference

But does the death of Christianity inevitably give rise to other religions? Not necessarily. Islam isn't gaining ground by way of converted Christians. At least i don't think so. If anyone knows why though, I'm open for suggestions.

nixon

Yes it does! Because most people are stupid and guillible. That's not to say that all religious people are stupid. But I know I can safely say most of them are. And they're not stupid because they're religious. They're religious because they're stupid. They never studied their religion. They're just doing what most of the people in their life are telling them to do. And if those friends and family become muslim, then thats what all the stupid people will be too.

Indifference

Actually, I was thinking of starting a thread that had to do with this. Because i've noticed the intelligence level of atheists, on average, far surpasses the theist. Now obviously there are exceptions to the rule on both ends.

[ April 20, 2002: Message edited by: Indifference ]</p>

Gurdur

Amazing. You mean that more than 50 % of people are stupid. You mean the bell curve is heavily skewed in surprising ways ? That it's no longer a bell curve ?

Just FYI, I had a lot to do with study and research into human cognition, and your discovery surprises me immensely for all sorts of reasons.

Ah, I don't suppose you have the relevent scientific literature to hand ?

Ah, I don't suppose you have the relevent scientific literature to hand ?

You know something ?

These kind of statements make <a href="http://www.lds.org" target="_blank">Joseph Smith</a> look intelligent.
Come to think of it, they make L. Ron Hubbard look intelligent.

You may think that shouting at theists "You're dumb ! " will suddenly save the world, or more as I suspect, you may simply be bolstering your ego by praising yourself for being so more incredibly enlightened than the common stupid herd.

In neither case, will you ever really understand religion, or its attractions, or its history, origins or developments, nor will you be of any help to atheism whatsoever.

Indifference

Now, while i don't agree completely with nixon, he did tap into something interesting.

The bell curve, as you probably know, does not suggest that 50% are smart, and 50% are stupid. This is where i DO disagree with nixon.

But...

If you look at bell curve, where is the majority? In the middle, right? ant the minority is on either side.

Now, what are the stats on believers and non-believers.

Majority = believers
Minority = non-believers

I'm not suggesting all theists are retarded, but I AM suggesting that most atheists are more intelligent than most theists. I mean seriously, anyone who is gifted can usually identify others who are as well. We can smell our own, if you will. And I smell a whole lot of intelligence in this forum.

[ April 20, 2002: Message edited by: Indifference ]</p>

Indifference

BTW... it takes a considerable amount of analytical thought to question what one has always been told to be true. The neo-cortex houses analytical thought. It is the most evolved part of the brain. We atheists have outstanding analytical ability. Be proud to be evolved!

[ April 20, 2002: Message edited by: Indifference ]</p>

Gurdur

And that is precisely where we part ways irrepairably.

It always amuses me to see the evolution thingy brought up, as if somehow atheists were more "evolved" than theists.

As a long-term habitué of this board, I can safely state that a lot of atheists don't have outstanding analytical ability.

A trawl through the Political Forum or even the Morality Forum is more than enough evidence.

Once again, you are confusing the development to be emotionally independent from the attractions of religion with an overall higher intelligence, and also a trained or self-trained analytical ability.

I'll take pride in being what I am, which is a humanist human; I take no great pride in being an atheist, which after all is not all that much harder than not throwing money down one-armed bandits in Las Vegas.

[ April 20, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p>

Indifference

First of all, I wasn't suggesting that we are more evolved. To be noticeably more evolved would millenia. I understand this.

What I was getting at, was that its a great thing to use what we have, which is thought and reason.

Second, i know i haven't been around this forum as long as you, but i can safely assume that the vast majority of atheist DO have great analytical ability. The arguments that I watch devolope are overwhelmingly intriguing. I sometimes can't pick a side because both present such well thought out views. I mean, you for example, are swaying me a bit and it's my own damn argument.

I haven't found one theist that I can't make retreat into an "unknowable god" or "you just aren't looking hard enough". I'm sure most of the members here can do the same. Have you seen one argument won by a theist in this joint? I haven't and don't expect to.

Gurdur

LOL, flattery will get you everywhere.

Pardon me if I sound really, really sharp about this whole issue, but after a long while on SecWeb it's actually very important to me, and something I feel a bit sore about.

Actually, I've seen quite a few arguments "won" by theists on this board, though no arguments about the existence of God or Gods.
What interests me is why theists believe in God(s), not the unmistakable fact that the existence of God(s) is not and never will be proven (IMHO).

We used to have some very intelligent theists here, but most seem to have disappeared, which is unsurprising, given that the signal-to-noise ratio on this board goes through large fluctuations, and can be incredibly bad at times.

My point is is that theism is only one small part of the total emotional-cognitive landscape; you can be an atheist and still be as dumb as a McDonald's hamburger left in the gutter a whole rainy week.
I don't like self-congratulatory sessions, since I see them as being far too conducive to errors and blindness; and I for one would far rather understand religion and its attractions to people - and many religionists are highly intelligent; Isaac Newton was a weird religionist, Martin Gardner is a fideist, Alvin Plantinga is just not a slowcoach - than I would simply be dismissive of theists on bigoted terms.

Take my word for it, I'ld like to see far more secular humanists; but I'm going to keep my feet on the (scientific) ground, I really don't like political and rhetorical hyperbole.

[ April 20, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p>