06 Nov 12
Originally posted by kd2aczIn 2008, intelligence researcher Helmuth Nyborg examined whether IQ relates to denomination ...... His results, published in the scientific journal Intelligence, demonstrated that Atheists scored an average of 1.95 IQ points higher than Agnostics, 3.82 points higher than Liberal persuasions, and 5.89 IQ points higher than Dogmatic persuasions.
WG
I can certainly understand that atheists are more liberal; better read, maybe... maybe not; more intelligent? Hmmm, I would believe that some may suffer from elitism, thinking they are more intelligent... in fact I know a few. I think you are being just a tad unfair, don't you?
-K
source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence
Originally posted by wolfgang59Perhaps the answers for the questions on his IQ test were not all correct. Or perhaps he did not test any conservative Christians. IQ is not always related to the knowledge of the truth.
In 2008, intelligence researcher Helmuth Nyborg examined whether IQ relates to denomination ...... His results, published in the scientific journal Intelligence, demonstrated that Atheists scored an average of 1.95 IQ points higher than Agnostics, 3.82 points higher than Liberal persuasions, and 5.89 IQ points higher than Dogmatic persuasions.
source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
06 Nov 12
Originally posted by sumydidAgain no.
I apologize in advance for participating in a thread after several pages have been generated, only to go back to what someone said on page 1. Problem is, I don't participate daily and I like to start from the beginning when I respond in a thread, and often I find something to reply to on page 1.
I've already read up on a recent exchange where someone sai ...[text shortened]... nother thing altogether and that's what separates the Agnostic from the Atheist.
Agnosticism relates to what you claim to know (or can know)
An agnostic claims not to KNOW if there is a god or not (or sometimes that it can't be known if there is a god or not)
however theism and atheism relates to 'belief' not knowledge.
You can believe that there is a god but not that you know there is one.
In which case you are an agnostic theist.
And again the atheist community is mainly made up of people who simply don't have a belief in gods rather than
have a disbelief in gods.
So it's just flat out incorrect to say that to be an atheist you have to disbelieve in gods existence.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
06 Nov 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes. This, very much this.
Actually words are defined whatever way you want to define them. They only take on popular usage when no definition is offered and it is unknown what usage is intended.
When someone says he is an atheist then he means whatever he takes to be the definition. What popular usage has to say, or what other people have to say are irrelevant as the important t ...[text shortened]... ble that there are other people who label themselves atheist but mean something quite different.
The idea that you can go to a major atheist convention with thousands of atheists in attendance
and tell most of them that actually no they are not atheists because "see we have redefined the
word so most of you don't qualify any more" is absurd.
I agree that it was nice that the OP asked what an atheist was rather than tell us what we believe/don't
believe which is what usually happens.
Originally posted by sumydidAn atheist (properly speaking) does not "believe" there is no god. Atheism is not a belief (no matter how strongly you wish to construe it as such). It is a lack of belief.
I apologize in advance for participating in a thread after several pages have been generated, only to go back to what someone said on page 1. Problem is, I don't participate daily and I like to start from the beginning when I respond in a thread, and often I find something to reply to on page 1.
I've already read up on a recent exchange where someone sai nother thing altogether and that's what separates the Agnostic from the Atheist.
The atheist does not make a judgement that there is no god. The atheist agrees with the so-called "agnostic" that it cannot be know whether or not there is a god. But the atheist observes that since the theist has failed to demonstrate sufficient proof for his claim, and since the burden of proof lies entirely upon the theist, that belief must therefore be withheld from the theist's claims. The atheist does not claim to 'know' that there is no god (which cannot be known), but instead goes by the provisional assumption that there is no god. The atheist will act as though god did not exist without ever claiming any knowledge in that regard.
06 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe evidence would seem to indicate otherwise. There is a much lower incidence of conflict between the Amish community and mainstream society than there is between members of mainstream society amongst themselves. And this low level of conflict is due almost entirely to Amish religious beliefs, which include a strict adherence to non-violence - a set of religious beliefs that are maintained mostly through a separation from mainstream society and the maintenance of a separate, distinct identity.
The fact that you can find examples of peaceful interactions tells us nothing. It remains a fact that as long as that Amish guy maintains his religion, there is a higher likelihood of social conflict between him and those of others in the area. Sure, if the work hard at maintaining peace they may manage to do so, but they must work at it.
If they wa and completely stopping them from interbreeding only leads to genetic disease and weakness.
The implication that this has any similarity to apartheid, or racism, is simply absurd. This separation is not imposed upon the Amish. They choose it themselves.
06 Nov 12
Originally posted by rwingettWell then they can be commended for their hard work at maintaining the peace. But this is despite the problems that separation causes not because of it.
The evidence would seem to indicate otherwise. There is a much lower incidence of conflict between the Amish community and mainstream society than there is between members of mainstream society amongst themselves. And this low level of conflict is due almost entirely to Amish religious beliefs, which include a strict adherence to non-violence - a set of rel ...[text shortened]... ough a separation from mainstream society and the maintenance of a separate, distinct identity.
The implication that this has any similarity to apartheid, or racism, is simply absurd. This separation is not imposed upon the Amish. They choose it themselves.
The white people chose apartheid for themselves too. The Jews are doing something similar in Israel. It is discrimination and it is morally wrong.
In this particular case the Amish probably do not exert much power over those they discriminate against, so the effects are less noticeable - but it is nevertheless wrong.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
06 Nov 12
Originally posted by rwingettAn atheist is not required to believe there is no god to be an atheist.
An atheist (properly speaking) does not "believe" there is no god. Atheism is not a belief (no matter how strongly you wish to construe it as such). It is a lack of belief.
The atheist does not make a judgement that there is no god. The atheist agrees with the so-called "agnostic" that it cannot be know whether or not there is a god. But the athe ...[text shortened]... ct as though god did not exist without ever claiming any knowledge in that regard.
There are however atheists who do have a belief that there is no god.
And not all atheists/agnostics agree that it 'cannot' be known as to whether a god exists or not.
The only requirement for being an atheist is an absence of belief...
However there are those who go farther than that, and they are still atheists.
06 Nov 12
Buddhists rely upon simple experience of the real world, and scientifically based at that.
Buddhists do not deny the existence of a higher power, but we wait for the proof of it, by physical experience and proven data.
Our philosophy of morale, codes of conduct and socialistic rules of general acceptance, of deeds done, makes for no knowledge of a known god, nor disproof of the existence of the higher power. or a 'God' as defined by various religions.
We adhere to simple psychological kindness, for better of another, and wait for proof of a god to arrive. However, in general, we don't hope for or against. We await the appearance of a God, to further implement our path of known goodness as it is practised.
-m.
06 Nov 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeYes, of course there are atheists (somewhere) who claim to 'believe' or to 'know' that there are no gods. All they accomplish, however, is bolstering the type of claims made by people like Sumydid. It's both unwarranted and a poor strategy. It relieves the theist from having to shoulder the entire burden of proof.
An atheist is not required to believe there is no god to be an atheist.
There are however atheists who do have a belief that there is no god.
And not all atheists/agnostics agree that it 'cannot' be known as to whether a god exists or not.
The only requirement for being an atheist is an absence of belief...
However there are those who go farther than that, and they are still atheists.
06 Nov 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe whites in South Africa exercised state power to exclude others from their community and give themselves preferential treatment. The Israelis do the same. The Amish exercise no state power at all. There is no comparison between the two.
Well then they can be commended for their hard work at maintaining the peace. But this is despite the problems that separation causes not because of it.
[b]The implication that this has any similarity to apartheid, or racism, is simply absurd. This separation is not imposed upon the Amish. They choose it themselves.
The white people chose aparthei ...[text shortened]... se they discriminate against, so the effects are less noticeable - but it is nevertheless wrong.[/b]
06 Nov 12
Originally posted by rwingettI agree that much of the bad that was/is perpetrated by the whites in South Africa and the Israelis is not being perpetrated by the Amish. But once again, this has more to do with their own restraint or their own lack of power than anything else. It is almost certainly the case that someone who is not Amish cannot got to live in their midst.
The whites in South Africa exercised state power to exclude others from their community and give themselves preferential treatment. The Israelis do the same. The Amish exercise no state power at all. There is no comparison between the two.
Deliberate segregation also negatively affects minorities who lack power (such as was the case with the Jews in Europe or the Rohingya in Myanmar) although one cannot directly blame them for the violence perpetrated against them the situations would not have arisen if it wasn't for segregation resulting from religion.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
06 Nov 12
Originally posted by rwingettHi, welcome to somewhere.
Yes, of course there are atheists (somewhere) who claim to 'believe' or to 'know' that there are no gods. All they accomplish, however, is bolstering the type of claims made by people like Sumydid. It's both unwarranted and a poor strategy. It relieves the theist from having to shoulder the entire burden of proof.
There is more than one atheist on this site who goes further than saying that they
"don't believe that gods exist", to saying that they "believe gods don't exist"...
And I am one of them.
However my point which you missed is that when you define what it means to be an
atheist you should include all atheist positions not just your own personal set.
It's a totally different discussion, but my belief that god/s does/do not exist is perfectly
warranted and has nothing to do with any strategy.
I don't adjust my beliefs based on what I think would be good for convincing theists that
my position is correct and justified.
I hold beliefs that I think the evidence supports and justifies... period.
And no my position does not remove one Iota of the burden of proof from theists.
They claim that their god exists and they have the burden of proof to demonstrate that...
Irrespective of my position on the subject.
In making the claim that gods (as typically defined) don't exist I also gain a burden of proof...
However I can meet mine.
06 Nov 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeWell I admire your position, I really do. And I would be delighted to see this particular war won by those who share your views, but I fear it's already pretty much lost. In my experience, as I think I said, most people (atheist and christian alike) view the term 'atheist' as applying to somebody who believes there is no god. That means if you are going to call yourself an atheist, you're going to have to explain the actual definition whenever it comes up in conversation! Me, I prefer the easier route, I'll just call myself agnostic or technically atheist and then think "agnostic atheist you dumbass but I'm not going to waste my breath explaining that to you".
I am not 'being canute' about it.
I am fully aware that there is a popular misconception about what the word 'atheist' means.
Which is why I jump up and down and correct people when they get it wrong.
The meaning has been hijacked and distorted (particularly in America) by Christians seeking
to discredit atheists and atheism.
We (the organi ...[text shortened]... ike me defining what it is to be a Christian, or Muslim, or Hindu, ect....
06 Nov 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeWell, good for you.
Hi, welcome to somewhere.
There is more than one atheist on this site who goes further than saying that they
"don't believe that gods exist", to saying that they "believe gods don't exist"...
And I am one of them.
However my point which you missed is that when you define what it means to be an
atheist you should include all atheist positio ...[text shortened]... cally defined) don't exist I also gain a burden of proof...
However I can meet mine.