You Are Stupid...Unless you're an Atheist

Are you a theist or not?

Yes. GODZORZ IS TEH REAL!	19.9%	[ 140 ]
No. I LOL AT JOOR INVISIBLE SKY MAN!	26.9%	[ 189 ]
I'm an agnostic. I CAN'T PROVE NOTHIN'!	21.1%	[ 148 ]
GIMME JOOR GOLDZ!	32.1%	[ 225 ]
Total Votes:			[ 702 ]

[Unemphatic]

MyxineDamion

Unemphatic

MyxineDamion

Who's talking about maths?

Me.

Fair enough.
But I was talking about biology and chemistry exercises.

Oh.

Quote:

Might be a lack of interest. I can't remember s**t unless I'm interested in it.

Which explains why I remember all 491 of the pokemons and the names of their moves in at least 2 languages, but I still have to look for EVERY phone number. Or even my address. I feel like a nerd.

Mhm.

Quote:

I don't think I suck that bad at english. But it could be debatable too.

Learn all of Cantonese; then I'll be impressed.

Quote:

Doubt it. I remember that you're scary, but not why.

I won't lie; I am a frightening person.

[That Ska Kidd]

Hark the people say: "God doth exist"
The Atheist reply: "Proveth that he doth"
The people say: "Proveth that he does not!"

A senseless argument neither side can prove the other wrong so why continue, it's like fighting in a trench war.

burning_eyes

[SkiDMiKMarKs]

If I enter into your house, and speak badly of you, will you let me stay? IF I suggest an insecurity in you, will you let me reside with you? You should not! So it is the same.

Agreed, but a chatroom is not the same as a house. The fact that it's a chatroom means that it was intended for discussion and debate, even though it may not be used as so.

They shouldn't have responded with vulgarity and sarcasm assuming that he did present his opinions and beliefs respectfully.

[Unemphatic]

SkiDMiKMarKs

Myself

If I enter into your house, and speak badly of you, will you let me stay? IF I suggest an insecurity in you, will you let me reside with you? You should not! So it is the same.

Agreed, but a chatroom is not the same as a house.

A chatroom built for Athiests is indeed the house of the Athiest; a church in the real world is considered the house of the Diety and those who believe yes? A virtual congregation is no different.

Quote:

The fact that it's a chatroom means that it was intended for discussion and debate, even though it may not be used as so.

We do not know whether this is true or not; some rooms are not intended for debate, but rather for others to come together under the same roof and feel welcomed and free of attacks. A support group of sorts.

Quote:

They shouldn't have responded with vulgarity and sarcasm assuming that he did present his opinions and beliefs respectfully.

Here, we look at the question of the house; you agreed that if I came into your demense and insulted you, even if tactfully, you should not have to take it. What is the difference? We assume so much of the situation.

[Phorcys]

Unemphatic

Phorcys

Unemphatic

RollerDisco

...And I just said. This does not back up the argument for God by any means.

A concept: Instead of saying "God is real" try and look for the disproving of the statement "Atheists are smartest".

It's probably not an arguement for God at all. rolleyes

What?! What does this even mean? You have just espoused a meaningless sentence tantamount to

Bread + Abe Lincoln = (Goats x Led Zeppelin)

You couldn't be more unclear if you tried.

Simplified: She suggests that certain people in history, when stated as having a religion, was used to justify religious dieties.

I stated that instead of such a thing she might assume that these people, who were revolutionaries, may have been diestic. To that end atheistic people are not better / smarter than diestic people.

Read the signature; you've my pity.

Your train of thought seems to run thus:

Historical figures MAY have been deistic (incidentally, this assertion lacks any of the citation that you originally demanded of your opponent). These figures were intelligent. Therefore, atheistic people are no more inherently intelligent than deists, and to suggest otherwise would be arrogant, since you are effectively suggesting that you are more intelligent than <said historical figure>.

In addition to the fact that this is an obvious appeal to authority ("look, these recognised people are smart, smart, deists, so you can't say deists are stupid" wink which was the original point in question (since such appeals are fallacious) you have failed to examine the individual belief itself. An idea is judged on its own merits, not by those who hold to it.

Otherwise, I would be free to do s**t like this:

"Thomas Jefferson was a smart man. He also advocated slavery. Therefore, slavery is acceptable! Yay! . . .Or do you think you're smarter than Jefferson?"

or

"Hitler was a vegetarian. Therefore, vegetarianism is bad. Hiss."

This is irrational argument. Whatsmore, you communicated it badly. You didn't 'simplify' it, because it wasn't very complex. You merely clarified it, because it was horrendously unclear. This distinction is important because the difference lies in your own smug sense of self-satisfaction.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

And there's a whole chapter in the book on Einstien's religion.

"The Book?"

Quote:

Yes, "The Book", you bloody pedant. Clearly the book that started this conversation: The God Delusion.

More pity.

Quote:

Quote:

'A deeply religious non-beliver'

'I don't try to imagine a personal God; it suffices to stand in awe at the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it'

Quoted from where?

Quote:

Oh, where the hell do you think? From the ******** God Delusion, which was stated mere seconds prior, and originally from Albert Eistein.

Since you seem unable to make the simplest of connections between x and y in terms of reference, one can only conclude one of two things:

Either you are trying to waste time by getting people to re-state obvious facts in the debate, or you honest to god can't figure simple things like this out on your own.

So which is it: are you trying to waste our time, or are you just an idiot?

More pity.

Underlined: Even more pity.

Oh no! "pity, pity, pity" it's like I'm talking to Mr. T here. While I am slightly curious what it is about me that you pity so much (since you haven't made the slightest attempt at rebuttal) I simply must comment on how long it's been since I've seen someone get up on their high horse as a means to escape criticism. Must've been primary school.

How about you demonstrate something to be incorrect instead of just acting like a pompous arse-hole?

Heaven forbid, if I keep pissing you off, I might have to endure (gasp) a rolling-eyes-emoticon! That would surely prove how smart and right you are.

[Lucifae]

I think that that's a rather large generalisation but you have a good point, it's all too easy to assume superiority over something which is fundamentally based on faith as opposed to facts. It's a pity that because of this big-headedness some poeple see it as their right to laugh at poeple with a faith when really to some extent they should be envious I believe. I can't imagine how it must feel to have suhc a strong, positive driving force behind all of the things that you do and to have that feeling that you're never, ever alone and someone will always care for you.

[SkiDMiKMarKs]

Unemphatic

SkiDMiKMarKs

Myself

If I enter into your house, and speak badly of you, will you let me stay? IF I suggest an insecurity in you, will you let me reside with you? You should not! So it is the same.

Agreed, but a chatroom is not the same as a house.

A chatroom built for Athiests is indeed the house of the Athiest; a church in the real world is considered the house of the Diety and those who believe yes? A virtual congregation is no different.

Quote:

The fact that it's a chatroom means that it was intended for discussion and debate, even though it may not be used as so.

We do not know whether this is true or not; some rooms are not intended for debate, but rather for others to come together under the same roof and feel welcomed and free of attacks. A support group of sorts.

Quote:

They shouldn't have responded with vulgarity and sarcasm assuming that he did present his opinions and beliefs respectfully.

Here, we look at the question of the house; you agreed that if I came into your demense and insulted you, even if tactfully, you should not have to take it. What is the difference? We assume so much of the situation.

i guess we're being equally presumptuous until one of us takes a look at what "Paltalk" is all about.

[Tani-san]

1. Does being an atheist make you smarter than anyone else?
No more than being Christian does.

4. Is faith just a crutch?
It is not "just" a crutch. People put "crutches" down, belittle them, and view people who use them as weak. I don't see it that way at all. I don't think people are particularly weak or stupid for accepting that little bit of assurance - life is so complicated, so confusing and so... difficult. I can see the comfort in leaving that one little part of you up to someone else. Also - humans are painfully fallible. An omneiscient, constant and perfect being? Hell, I think it's comforting to think that something like that exists, whether or not it has any interest in my well-being.

5. Are you ever skeptical that they might ever be evidence (scientific proof) of a deity?
Proof... wouldn't help, I don't think. Even if there was some sort of scientific proof (I can't possibly imagine what that would be), it would, at best, be ignored or dismissed by the world at large. At worst it would cause all out religious warfare.

[Ihavenoarmz]

Hm. I feel the need to point and laugh at the OP at least once.

Kimihiro_Watanuki

So, I've been browsing the web and found videos, article, etc. on Richard Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" Frankly, my point here is that it doesn't just offend me, it really pisses me off. Richard Dawkins deliberately puts down any deity based faith, and then uses what is seemingly out going, controversial literature, lectures, and speech to back it up with.

The wonders of free speech.
I will admit that poor Dawkins spent too much time talking to fundies. He's starting to act like them.

Quote:

And the sad thing is, I've seen his books become a sort a sort of "Atheist's Bible".

I'm not sure what definition of "Bible" you're using.

Quote:

Allow me to draw one very important point form his book. Very early on, he calls faith and religion delusions. He says anyone who has delusions, is classified mentally ill. He later on makes the connection. All religious people are mentally ill.

A mild form of illness, yeah. Hysteria, apophenia/pareidolia, obsessions... are all disorders.
So? I like how you just paraphrased him without further comment. Seems like you were going for an appeal to ridicule.

Quote:

God, Allah, Vishnu, and Zeus are no more provable than an orbiting tea cup, or an invisible pink unicorn.

Appeal to ridicule again? That's pretty much a fact.

Quote:

Now, about the Atheist's Bible part. I frequently use and online chat messenger hybrid called PalTalk. It has voice and video capability, and a wide variety of rooms to search for. Of course, the most popular rooms are the religious ones. I try to stop by an atheist room when I get the chance to, just to listen in. (I'm not exactly Christian. I'm sort of a Deist, with Christian influence thrown in.) When I voice my opinion, it is immediately shot down. And not even in a decent manner. I get met with personal insults, sarcasm, bigotry, and vulgarity. It's like a pack of wolves jumping on a dead rabbit. They immediately regard anything as I say as the wrong opinion. And the worst part is they have a seething hatred for all Christians. Not just the fire and brimstone kind. They hate EVERY SINGLE ONE, and then try to use nothing but the Old Testament and history to back up their claims.

You've never said "God doesn't exist" on a Christian forum, did you.

They want atheists to be burnt at the stake, apparently. Hell, Bush wonders if they should be considered citizens.

Quote:

1. Does being an atheist make you smarter than anyone else?

Inherently, or statistically?

Quote:

2. Are deities and religion nothing but delusions and forms of crowd control?

Why not?

Quote:

4. Is faith just a crutch?

It certainly is a crutch.
It's an awesome tool and a leash too.

Quote:

5. Are you ever skeptical that they might ever be evidence (scientific proof) of a deity?

I don't see how there could be scientific proof of anything ressembling the Abrahamic deity, and I would say some other deities have been disproven. (You can climb on Mount Olympus, people.)


I took the liberty to correct some mistakes in the post.

[Kimihiro_Watanuki]

ReesesPeanutButterCun t

All groups of people have those morons, and snobby douche bags that think their belief system means they're superior to anyone, and everyone. I don't hate christians, and can respect them, and anyone else religious, and I am an atheist. Now you've met one that wont outright insult you. I do believe that religion is a drug used to keep people in check. I believe it's self-destructive to be religious, and that religion is just bad for the mind. I'll provide reasoning upon request.

This is me, requesting reasoning.

[A Lost Iguana]

Unemphatic

A Lost Iguana

I really wish people didn't cite Einstein as an example of a religious super-genius, it is pure myth.

Bolded: Cite.

His position as a "super-genius" is a matter of opinion. I fail to see how he was that much smarter or more insightful than, for example, Bohr, Schrödinger, Dirac, Pauli, Fermi or Landau. That's just people who were around at the same time as he was. He's the most famous of them all, but that's because he was widely outspoken in his views and appealed to the public. He was brilliant, but I'm not sure that his insight was that astounding: the principle of relativity was originally conceived by Galileo, and the constant speed of light was a result of Maxwell's work [those are the only two postulates in special relativity; his general theory was insightful work in regarding accelerations and forces as the same].

To bring up my previous post in the thread:

I

Eh, what is with the debate about Einstein? A majority of the mathematics in his work was developed by the likes of Riemann; but he had "that year" in 1905 and cemented his place as one of the most notable of scientists. He wrote extensively on religion and to describe him as "Jewish" would be to do a disservice to his views. I would not describe his as Jewish but as a sort of pantheist.

He did not accept the idea of an anthropomorphic God dictating matters in the universe.

He's not really relevant to the discussion at hand.

Edit: he's very famous, but I would not say he was any more of a genius than some of the other great scientists in the past. People like Wolfgang Pauli, Enrico Fermi and Lev Landau were all brilliant but are largely ignored by the public at large.

If you want examples of supposed leanings toward pantheism, then you could count the number of times he finds himself agreeing with Spinoza about spiritual matters.

He is invariably quoted by people thinking that when he says "God" or "religion" he is using the same terms as they are, but his conception of "God" and his views on religion make a simple comment in saying he is "Jewish" miss the point. He is spiritual but he is not "religious" in the same way most theists appear to be "religious" [theologians are a notable exception because they think deeply about their faith which I have never seemed to encounter with a vast majority of people who would describe themselves as "religious"].

Thus, I say he is not a religious [that term is loaded and oversimplifies his views] super-genius [he was smart but I really do not think he was the greatest scientist of his time so calling him a "super-genius" is absurd].

Regardless: on his connections to Spinoza, http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/spinoza.html ; a vast collection of cited quotations, http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Sourced .

Edit: the OP is bunk, by the way; I just picked up on yet another "Einstein was Jewish and thus a theist" line.

[KittyBird95]

i am an athlete and a smart so i am still dumb? eek

[Mangeycat]

Quote:

1. Does being an atheist make you smarter than anyone else?

No. I've met plenty of stupid people who were religious and plenty of stupid people who were atheist. Of course, I've met smart people in each group, too. For experience, though, when you meet people who just blindly accept whatever is handed to them, they can fall under either catagory.

Quote:

2. Are deities and religion nothing but delusions and forms of crowd control?

Some are. But, in a sense atheism and evolutionism can work the same way. People's beliefs, weath supporting creation of evolution, can be used against them and used to the advantage of others.

Quote:

3. Where did I mess up? Logical errors, etc.

Um... I don't know.

Quote:

4. Is faith just a crutch?

For some people, yes. I've met a lot of people who fall back on their faiths without really thinking about it. But, I've also met people who use the idea of evoltution as a crutch, as well. To a certain extent, though, evolutionism is a faith. Anything that we believe that cannot be proven is one, really. I've seen people who were atheist who were just as dependent on their "faith" as some religious people are on theirs.

Quote:

5. Are you ever skeptical that they might ever be evidence (scientific proof) of a deity?

Sort of. I think it's one of those things that can neither be proven nor disproven.

[Kimihiro_Watanuki]

Well, let me change the topic a little by adding more questions.

1. Is Richard Dawkins generally right? Does he have all his facts straight, or is he jsut a religiong bashing assclown, looking to be the leader of atheism?

2. Does being an atheist make you more intelligent period? Inherently or otherwise.

3. Is the OP just a crock full of errors that I failed ot miss becasue I was basically, ranting?

4. Does the history of a group of people make them wrong?

5. Do the religious teachings of a group make them wrong, even though they beleive they are right?

[ShrinkWrapped]

Atheists smarter? Nope. Some think so because they equate scientific knowledge with intelligence and see spiritual knowledge as insignificant.

Look at the Nobel Prize lists. Jews are well represented - maybe the divine spark aids creativity and knowledge!