Religious people less intelligent than atheists?

[Ava]

I know VERY intelligent and highly educated people and some are Christian and some are agnostic and some are atheist. They are all equally good, and of sound mind, in the way they live their lives, from my perspective.

 

[Tuatara]

Feeling your toes stepped on? Given your emotional response, it sure looks that way.

My toes have not been stepped on. I just find it amusing that you are throwing out the word militant when no one here is being anymore agressive verbally with you than you are with them. You dodge issues and would rather resort to labels and namecalling.

I'm sorry; I didn't know every single atheist in the world was posting in this thread.

Or you could just realize I was speaking generally of aggressive atheists.

And I think I see a footprint on your toes.

Who was talking about every single Atheist? I certainly were not. Please point out where I mentioned anything about every single atheist in the world posting in this thread. As I said before, no one in this thread is any more agressive than you are.

 

[daveman]

My toes have not been stepped on. I just find it amusing that you are throwing out the word militant when no one here is being anymore agressive verbally with you than you are with them. You dodge issues and would rather resort to labels and namecalling.

I'm sorry; I didn't know every single atheist in the world was posting in this thread.

Or you could just realize I was speaking generally of aggressive atheists.

And I think I see a footprint on your toes.

Who was talking about every single Atheist? I certainly were not. Please point out where I mentioned anything about every single atheist in the world posting in this thread. As I said before, no one in this thread is any more agressive than you are.

Really, dood? I said I was speaking generally. That means I was talking about ALL militant atheists, the vast majority of which have NOT posted in this thread.

Understand now, or are you going to trot out the strawman again?

And no one has answered my question:

Why do militant atheists give Christians a boatload of hassle, but are silent on other faiths?

 

[Ernie S.]

You file suits against us for our decorations and holiday displays, claim to be offended when someone wishes you happiness on December 25th and are pissed off when we use words like "war on Christmas? How friggin hypocritical can you people get?

Never heard of an atheist being offended by someone wishing them happiness on December 25th. War on Christmas is a bit of a stretch because Atheista are only pointing out that when you want religious displays in public areas that it's going to open up a can of worms of other religious and non religious dislpays. Not in your constitution.

A Nativity scene in the park does you no harm yet you ask the government to pass judgments restricting the free exercise of religion.

Yet would you welcome an Islamic display or a Hindu display or a FSM display?

Atheists do not have a belief system Atheists put up a few bill boards and many, many christians tried to get them taken down.

I would fight any attempt by my city to finance a religious holiday display. That would violate the "establishment clause. But simply allowing others to use public property for such a display, doesn't bother me in the least.

So you would have no problem with a Satanist display?

Public property belongs to Christians as much as it does to anyone else and passing an ordinance or a court order prohibiting religious displays violates the free expression clause.

Like I said. It may open up a can of worms you don't like.

I'll address the bolded above.
1. Not at all. I believe in freedom OF religion. You believe in freedom FROM religion.
The Constitution does not limit the People. It limits the Government. It says in plain language that the Government cannot tell us how to worship. As a matter of fact, the 1st Amendment forbids the government from all religious discussion or enacting ANY law for or against any form of religious belief system

2. While I personally would have a problem with a Satanist display, and may, as a private citizen speak out against such a display, I would not seek to enact a law prohibiting such a display because the 1st Amendment forbids such a law.

3. What can of worms is that? What I like is irrelevant. What the First Amendment to the US Constitution has to say on the matter is what counts.

I notice that you are not even in the US. Why do you care about our First Amendment debate. Aren't there any Christians left in British Columbia for you to bitch about?

 

[Agent.Tom]

Why do militant atheists give Christians a boatload of hassle, but are silent on other faiths?

Let me put it this way... a person cannot be offended by someone unless (a) there is an element of truth in the offending claim, or (b) the offended person gives the other person some credibility. Example: Are you offended if a 2-year-old or a complete stranger who knows nothing of you, insults you? No. Can you be offended if an adult who knows something about you insults you? Yes. Because they just might have some basis for their claim.

In that light, I believe that Atheists pile it on vs. Christians because the Christian faith has at least some credibility to them (no they won't consciously admit it).

Any skeptic or cynic that gives the Christian faith the slightest shred of credibility, would obviously do everything they could to keep from being reminded of it. They would find the whole idea offensive and painful; they would go out of their way to keep from being reminded of it. The unbelievers know that if the Christian faith has any truth to it at all, they've got a lot of explaining to do. So, like people always do when they enter a state of denial; they avoid any and all things that bring to mind what they are denying.

You don't see skeptics and cynics clammering to silence anyone who puts up a Santa Claus display or a Peter Pan display. Of course not. It doesn't bring them pain to be reminded of Santa Claus or Peter Pan. Because they don't give the stories a second's thought, as they give them zero credibility. If they felt just the same vs. Christianity they wouldn't be forming mobs and making demands not to have to see Christian symbols.

 

[HUGGY]

That is a lot of tall claims based on nothing at all.

Christians, in general, are not doing anything at all that would stop research or attempts to avoid the next ‘cosmic cataclysm.’ Last I checked, it was our secular government that seems to think that science like NASA is not really important anymore.

Scientific research is independent of faith. The two have very little to do with each other.

But when it comes down to a matter of life and death, many religious folks will toss aside their beliefs and rely on reality. Reality rules over religious beliefs. If you're in a plane that's going down and you can either take a parachute and jump or pray to your god that the plane doesn't crash, which would you do?

False dichotomy -- unless atheists are withholding parachutes from believers.

December 10, 1999, a C-130 almost crashed in Kuwait.

I was on board.

After the plane struck the desert floor at Al Jaber, it regained the air. The loadmasters strung cargo straps from the front bulkhead of the cargo deck to the rear -- they were afraid the fuselage would come apart in flight. The impact, the tears in the airplane from the landing gear components punching up though into the cargo deck, the smell of hydraulic fluid, the sound of the wind coming through the holed fuselage, the sight of Airmen attending to the wounded -- all terrifying. We were packed in tight. Couldn't move. Couldn't do anything.

Couldn't do anything but pray.

For 45 minutes, while we flew over the Gulf dumping fuel, I prayed.

I prayed to God that He would take care of my girls -- my wife and my almost-4-year-old daughter -- and that if He had to take those of us on the Herc, that it would be quick and painless. I prayed that He would guide the aircrew to bring us safely to a halt back at Kuwait International. I prayed that those who had been injured at the point of impact would be okay, and that they weren't in any pain (I found out later that three Airmen had died. I spoke with a flight nurse and a chaplain later during counselling, and the nurse said that with the injuries of those killed, they would have never regained consciousness, and thus died in no pain. That was important to me).

God's given me peace over this accident. I haven't had any nightmares, no sleepless nights, no PTSD, nothing. I'm forever grateful for that, and that I had my faith to lean on during a terrifying time.

Perhaps, like many atheists, you simply don't understand the nature of faith. As for your claim: "But when it comes down to a matter of life and death, many religious folks will toss aside their beliefs and rely on reality" -- that simply doesn't hold up to reality.

Christians die for their faith every day.

The January 2011 issue of the International Bulletin of Missionary Research reported the number of Christian martyrs per year peaked at around 160,000 in the year 2000, but since the cessation of hostilities in the Sudan it had fallen to around 100,000 per year.

A second source cited by the Italian sociologist, The Price of Freedom Denied, published by sociologists Brian J. Grim and Roger Finke, estimated the number of Christian martyrs per year was higher, ranging from 130,000 and 160,000.

His estimate of 105,000 Christian martyrs in 2011, “between 287 and 288 martyrs per day: twelve per hour, or one every five minutes,” was a conservative estimate that could be adjusted up or down. “At any rate, figures are horribly high. This is the situation I wanted to alert the audience to in Gödöllo,” he said.​

You may have no beliefs you're willing to die for. But don't project that onto everyone.

To whomever wrote the above description of the almost plane crash. Get a fuckin grip!!!!

Fly with better pilots !!! I've had several almost crashes from overloaded cargo when I was smugglin. Stupid fucking Colombians !!! Stop whining !!! The pilot is in absolute charge of weight and balance on the loading of an aircraft. You should have pulled his ass out of the cockpit upon landing and beat the stupid cocksucker to an inch of his life. Also he should have had his medical removed for life for almost getting everyone killed.

That is all.

 

[YWN666]

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

They're afraid we're right.

That's not it at all. We just get a little tired of being treated like second class citizens when we have to accomodate the wishes of christians. This whole "war on christmas" argument is a perfect example..

You file suits against us for our decorations and holiday displays, claim to be offended when someone wishes you happiness on December 25th and are pissed off when we use words like "war on Christmas? How friggin hypocritical can you people get?

A Nativity scene in the park does you no harm yet you ask the government to pass judgments restricting the free exercise of religion.

Christians do not, in any way, seek to stop atheists from practicing their belief system, because we feel the Constitution protects you as much as us.

I would fight any attempt by my city to finance a religious holiday display. That would violate the "establishment clause. But simply allowing others to use public property for such a display, doesn't bother me in the least.
Public property belongs to Christians as much as it does to anyone else and passing an ordinance or a court order prohibiting religious displays violates the free expression clause.

WARNING: the following response is in bold so you might want to look away if your sensibilities will be harmed.
Wow, lots of inaccuracies in your response so I will address them point by point.

War on christmas - we are not claiming to be offended when someone wishes us a Merry Christmas. The problem is when idiots like Bill O'Reilly claim that christians are being offended when a store employee says Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas. In other words, he wants all business to address every customer with the christian greeting. It's selfish and pure bullshit.

Religious displays on government property should not be allowed, regardless of whether the government or a private individual provides the display because it implies government endorsement over other religions. The only exception is if the government allows ALL religions to put up a display. Allow all or allow none. If a christian display is allowed to the exclusion of others, then harm IS done and it is a violation. Prohibiting that is not violating anyone's freedom of religion. As we said in another thread, there are reasonable limits on our freedoms when exercising them violates someone else's rights.

Atheism is not a "belief system"

 

[Quantum Windbag]

WARNING: the following response is in bold so you might want to look away if your sensibilities will be harmed.

Warning, the quote is in monospace because the idiot who posted thinks using bold makes him look intelligent. This can be best exemplified by the fact that he is attempting to defend a study which intelligent people all reject, and by the fact that he is offended simply because other people hold a different point of view.

Wow, lots of inaccuracies in your response so I will address them point by point.

War on christmas - we are not claiming to be offended when someone wishes us a Merry Christmas. The problem is when idiots like Bill O'Reilly claim that christians are being offended when a store employee says Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas. In other words, he wants all business to address every customer with the christian greeting. It's selfish and pure bullshit.

He is now showing signs of the delusion that he can speak for people he never met, even if he disagrees with them.

Religious displays on government property should not be allowed, regardless of whether the government or a private individual provides the display because it implies government endorsement over other religions. The only exception is if the government allows ALL religions to put up a display. Allow all or allow none. If a christian display is allowed to the exclusion of others, then harm IS done and it is a violation. Prohibiting that is not violating anyone's freedom of religion. As we said in another thread, there are reasonable limits on our freedoms when exercising them violates someone else's rights.

Atheism is not a "belief system"

A belief that there is no God is not a belief. What is it?

Tell me something, if the government owns a cemetery, like Arlington, should people that are buried there, and their families, be denied the opportunity to express their faith? How does allowing them to be buried with a Wicca symbol on their headstone imply government endorsement of Wicca over Hinduism?

Wouldn't a standard that demands that the government act like religions do not exist be an endorsement of religion in and of itself?

The only people that see religious displays as government endorsement of religion are idiots that are incapable of thinking for themselves. People like this all tend to use bold type because someone told them once that it makes their posts stand out.

Feel free to prove I am wrong about you.

 

[Avatar4321]

Atheism is not a "belief system"[/B]

Atheism
noun

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a Supreme being or beings.

Atheism | Define Atheism at Dictionary.com

Atheism is by defintion a belief. It certainly isn't based on any form of logic.

How is it logical to believe there is no God? The only possible way to know there isn't a God is if you were everywhere at the same time and at all times. In otherwords, in order to prove there is no God you would have to be a god.

What is reasonable then? I only see two options.

1) You don't know if there is a God or not. You freely admit you don't know there is a God, but recognize that since you can't possibly prove that there isn't one, you leave open the possibility that there is one. We can call this a reasonable agnostic. We can just call it neutral. Doesn't really matter. The danger with this option is that many who adopt agnosticism also adopt the pressumption that because you don't know, no one knows and no one can ever know. That is where agnosticism becomes unreasonable.

2) You know there is a God because of personal exeriences and through eye witness encounters with Diety. At which point it becomes completely unreasonable to ever think there is no God.

So summary, the only reasonable positions about the existence of God is 1) Don't know but possible. or 2) Do know through personal experience.

Anything else is just a belief that may or may not be correct. Which is the problem with atheists and atheism. They think they are reasonable when by every definition of the word, their assumptions are only beliefs and can only ever be beliefs.

The problem with using reason as a basis for belief is that most people have no clue what reason actually is. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with belief at times.

 

[007]

I think that's very rude to infer that Obama is not intelligent just because he's a Christian.

You're lying. You don't think its rude at all. But, ignoring your lame ass attempt at sarcasm ...

I have often written that, IMO, its horrifying that any, some, many, most world leaders are getting advice from an imaginary creature.

Prove God is imaginary, then prove the universe wasn't created.

OK... no reason to wait around here... you can't. However you do love to bash religion... shocker.

Idiot.

 

[YWN666]

WARNING: the following response is in bold so you might want to look away if your sensibilities will be harmed.

Warning, the quote is in monospace because the idiot who posted thinks using bold makes him look intelligent. This can be best exemplified by the fact that he is attempting to defend a study which intelligent people all reject, and by the fact that he is offended simply because other people hold a different point of view.

That's not what I am saying at all as we already discussed in the other thread. You're being disingenuous but that seems to be a favorite tactic of yours.

Wow, lots of inaccuracies in your response so I will address them point by point.

War on christmas - we are not claiming to be offended when someone wishes us a Merry Christmas. The problem is when idiots like Bill O'Reilly claim that christians are being offended when a store employee says Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas. In other words, he wants all business to address every customer with the christian greeting. It's selfish and pure bullshit.

He is now showing signs of the delusion that he can speak for people he never met, even if he disagrees with them.

How am I speaking for people I never met? Explain your accusation, windbag and maybe then you can address the issue.

Religious displays on government property should not be allowed, regardless of whether the government or a private individual provides the display because it implies government endorsement over other religions. The only exception is if the government allows ALL religions to put up a display. Allow all or allow none. If a christian display is allowed to the exclusion of others, then harm IS done and it is a violation. Prohibiting that is not violating anyone's freedom of religion. As we said in another thread, there are reasonable limits on our freedoms when exercising them violates someone else's rights.

Atheism is not a "belief system"

A belief that there is no God is not a belief. What is it?

If atheism is a belief, then not collecting coins is a hobby. For many atheists, atheism is the absence of a belief.

Tell me something, if the government owns a cemetery, like Arlington, should people that are buried there, and their families, be denied the opportunity to express their faith? How does allowing them to be buried with a Wicca symbol on their headstone imply government endorsement of Wicca over Hinduism?

You're having a hard time grasping the concept of government endorsement, aren't you? Individual headstones with religious symbols on them are not a problem. A large cross on the grounds of the cemetery at the entrance, for example, IS a problem because it implies that it is a christian cemetery. I never said anything about denying people the opportunity to express their faith.

Wouldn't a standard that demands that the government act like religions do not exist be an endorsement of religion in and of itself?

Strawman - I'm not asking for the government to act like religions don't exist. I'm asking for the government not to favor or endorse one particular religion.

The only people that see religious displays as government endorsement of religion are idiots that are incapable of thinking for themselves. People like this all tend to use bold type because someone told them once that it makes their posts stand out.

Feel free to prove I am wrong about you.

All you posted were false accusations and insults so I think you did a fine job of making yourself look like an ass. If you want to discuss thing rationally like an adult, I'm all ears.

 

[YWN666]

Atheism is not a "belief system"[/B]

Atheism
noun

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a Supreme being or beings.

Atheism | Define Atheism at Dictionary.com

Atheism is by defintion a belief. It certainly isn't based on any form of logic.

Baloney. It is not a religious belief and does not have a belief system. "Atheist" means "not theist" in the same way that "atypical" means not typical.

What is reasonable then? I only see two options.

1) You don't know if there is a God or not. You freely admit you don't know there is a God, but recognize that since you can't possibly prove that there isn't one, you leave open the possibility that there is one. We can call this a reasonable agnostic. We can just call it neutral. Doesn't really matter. The danger with this option is that many who adopt agnosticism also adopt the pressumption that because you don't know, no one knows and no one can ever know. That is where agnosticism becomes unreasonable.

2) You know there is a God because of personal exeriences and through eye witness encounters with Diety. At which point it becomes completely unreasonable to ever think there is no God.

This is what you call logic? "Personal experiences with god" are unprovable and saying that we can't prove there isn't a god is a meaningless challenge since you can't prove the non-existence of anything. If you think you can, then prove to me that flying 6 legged elephants don't exist.

You people who make the positive assertion that god exists have the burden of proof and yet not a single person in the history of mankind has been able to provide credible evidence for the existence of your god or ANY god for that matter. Do you think you will be the first?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's not what I am saying at all as we already discussed in the other thread. You're being disingenuous but that seems to be a favorite tactic of yours.

Funny, I don't recall saying you said anything. I guess that means you are lying.

Again.

How am I speaking for people I never met? Explain your accusation, windbag and maybe then you can address the issue.

I get it, when you claimed that no one is saying that hearing Merry Christmas offends them, and that Hannity said something he didn't, you weren't actually speaking for them, you were lying.

What did you think the issue is?

If atheism is a belief, then not collecting coins is a hobby. For many atheists, atheism is the absence of a belief.

That was absurd. Atheism is the belief that there is no god. An absence of a belief in that area is called agnosticism.

Don't worry though, you still have a fake study, and your bold font, to prove how smart you are.

You're having a hard time grasping the concept of government endorsement, aren't you? Individual headstones with religious symbols on them are not a problem. A large cross on the grounds of the cemetery at the entrance, for example, IS a problem because it implies that it is a christian cemetery. I never said anything about denying people the opportunity to express their faith.

Did you, or did you not, say that all displays of a religious nature on government property are an endorsement of religion? If you did, then I am not the one that is not grasping the concept.

Strawman - I'm not asking for the government to act like religions don't exist. I'm asking for the government not to favor or endorse one particular religion.

Yet you just argued in favor of religious displays on government property, which you claimed were government endorsing religion.

I suggest you make up your mind.

Or stop trying to prove you are smarter.

All you posted were false accusations and insults so I think you did a fine job of making yourself look like an ass. If you want to discuss thing rationally like an adult, I'm all ears.

You are the one that said that all displays of a religious nature on government property amount to the government endorsing the religion no matter how they got there. How does me taking that premise, and forcing you to retract, demonstrate that I am using false accusations?

 

[YWN666]

I think that's very rude to infer that Obama is not intelligent just because he's a Christian.

You're lying. You don't think its rude at all. But, ignoring your lame ass attempt at sarcasm ...

I have often written that, IMO, its horrifying that any, some, many, most world leaders are getting advice from an imaginary creature.

Prove God is imaginary, then prove the universe wasn't created.

OK... no reason to wait around here... you can't.

Only because it is logically impossible to meet such challenges. I can't prove that leprechauns don't exist. Is that proof to you that they DO exist?

 

[Avatar4321]

Only because it is logically impossible to meet such challenges. I can't prove that leprechauns don't exist. Is that proof to you that they DO exist?

No. Just evidence that it's reasonable to believe in them if one chooses to.

 

[YWN666]

That's not what I am saying at all as we already discussed in the other thread. You're being disingenuous but that seems to be a favorite tactic of yours.

Funny, I don't recall saying you said anything. I guess that means you are lying.

Again.

How am I speaking for people I never met? Explain your accusation, windbag and maybe then you can address the issue.

I get it, when you claimed that no one is saying that hearing Merry Christmas offends them, and that Hannity said something he didn't, you weren't actually speaking for them, you were lying.

What did you think the issue is?

I explained what the issue is - the fake "war on christmas" and you're still ignoring it.

That was absurd. Atheism is the belief that there is no god. An absence of a belief in that area is called agnosticism. [\quote]

Yes, some atheists do believe that there is no god but that is not a religious belief. "Belief" in that context is used in the same manner as someone saying "I believe I'm going to buy a new car." There are many other atheists, including myself, who define "atheist" as having no belief in a god"

Don't worry though, you still have a fake study, and your bold font, to prove how smart you are.

What "study" are you referring to?

Did you, or did you not, say that all displays of a religious nature on government property are an endorsement of religion? If you did, then I am not the one that is not grasping the concept.

You're arguing apples and oranges. A huge cross erected at the gate of a national cemetery implies that it is a christian cemetery which is endorsement. A cross on an individual headstone is NOT. Do I really need to explain this to you or are you being intenioinally obtuse?

Strawman - I'm not asking for the government to act like religions don't exist. I'm asking for the government not to favor or endorse one particular religion.

Yet you just argued in favor of religious displays on government property, which you claimed were government endorsing religion.

I did not.

I suggest you make up your mind.

Or stop trying to prove you are smarter.

You keep doing that for me, windbag.

All you posted were false accusations and insults so I think you did a fine job of making yourself look like an ass. If you want to discuss thing rationally like an adult, I'm all ears.

You are the one that said that all displays of a religious nature on government property amount to the government endorsing the religion no matter how they got there. How does me taking that premise, and forcing you to retract, demonstrate that I am using false accusations?

A cross or a star on an individual headstone is not a "religioius display" in the same manner as the other cases we've discussed. I don't think you're bright enough to understand what the distinction is and why. Do you need me to dumb it down for you?

 

[YWN666]

Only because it is logically impossible to meet such challenges. I can't prove that leprechauns don't exist. Is that proof to you that they DO exist?

No. Just evidence that it's reasonable to believe in them if one chooses to.

Can you believe that 3 + 5 = 12 if you choose to? Proof is not dependent on belief.

 

[numan]

Prove God is imaginary, then prove the universe wasn't created.

OK... no reason to wait around here... you can't.

Only because it is logically impossible to meet such challenges. I can't prove that leprechauns don't exist. Is that proof to you that they DO exist?

These incoherent siblings of mental chaos clearly do not have the faintest knowledge of basic logic.

.

 

[daveman]

Why do militant atheists give Christians a boatload of hassle, but are silent on other faiths?

Let me put it this way... a person cannot be offended by someone unless (a) there is an element of truth in the offending claim, or (b) the offended person gives the other person some credibility. Example: Are you offended if a 2-year-old or a complete stranger who knows nothing of you, insults you? No. Can you be offended if an adult who knows something about you insults you? Yes. Because they just might have some basis for their claim.

In that light, I believe that Atheists pile it on vs. Christians because the Christian faith has at least some credibility to them (no they won't consciously admit it).

Any skeptic or cynic that gives the Christian faith the slightest shred of credibility, would obviously do everything they could to keep from being reminded of it. They would find the whole idea offensive and painful; they would go out of their way to keep from being reminded of it. The unbelievers know that if the Christian faith has any truth to it at all, they've got a lot of explaining to do. So, like people always do when they enter a state of denial; they avoid any and all things that bring to mind what they are denying.

You don't see skeptics and cynics clammering to silence anyone who puts up a Santa Claus display or a Peter Pan display. Of course not. It doesn't bring them pain to be reminded of Santa Claus or Peter Pan. Because they don't give the stories a second's thought, as they give them zero credibility. If they felt just the same vs. Christianity they wouldn't be forming mobs and making demands not to have to see Christian symbols.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You're lying. You don't think its rude at all. But, ignoring your lame ass attempt at sarcasm ...

I have often written that, IMO, its horrifying that any, some, many, most world leaders are getting advice from an imaginary creature.

Prove God is imaginary, then prove the universe wasn't created.

OK... no reason to wait around here... you can't.

Only because it is logically impossible to meet such challenges. I can't prove that leprechauns don't exist. Is that proof to you that they DO exist?

Why can't you? Do you lack the training in logic to use it to prove something? Do you expect me to make up for it by pretending it is impossible to prove a negative?