Religious people less intelligent than atheists?

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. :lol:

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!!!!
I wrote it. Moron.
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.
In the military, you don't get to pick and choose who your aircrew is. Moron. And 86 passengers and no cargo will NOT overload a C-130. Moron.

THAT is all.
 
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?

What other cases have we discussed? I don't recall discussing any religious displays with you. If a cross on a headstone is not a religious display, why is a cross that is not on a headstone a religious display if it is placed somewhere with the same intent?

I am willing to bet you that if I gave you several real world examples of "religious displays" that had been decided by the Supreme Court you wouldn't get half of them right. I know people that have written books on the subject that tell me that they never know which way the court is going to come down, but you think there is a clear cut definition that can be understood by people who type in bold font.

You are an idiot that is so stupid you don't even know that you are stupid.
 
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. :lol:
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?
You need to define who these militant atheists are. I've seen and heard more hateful and agressive Christians beyond the scope of any atheist. The most famous atheists like Dawkins, Hitchings and Harris have all criticized other faths but I'm sure the main reason Christianity is criticized more is because these and other atheists come from predominantly christian populated countries. The christian influence affects them a lot more.
 
These incoherent siblings of mental chaos clearly do not have the faintest knowledge of basic logic.

.

Using basic logic, explain to me why it is impossible to prove a negative.

http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

Since you can't, and it is actually possible to prove a negative, does that prove I don't understand logic?
That link is nothing but gobbledegook. Tell you what. Prove to me the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist.
 
These incoherent siblings of mental chaos clearly do not have the faintest knowledge of basic logic.

.

Using basic logic, explain to me why it is impossible to prove a negative.

http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

Since you can't, and it is actually possible to prove a negative, does that prove I don't understand logic?
That link is nothing but gobbledegook. Tell you what. Prove to me the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist.

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

.

Using basic logic, explain to me why it is impossible to prove a negative.

http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

Since you can't, and it is actually possible to prove a negative, does that prove I don't understand logic?
That link is nothing but gobbledegook. Tell you what. Prove to me the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist.

Logic is nothing but gobbledygook, what's your point?
 
Last edited:
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.
Wrong on all accounts. The only believers in Peter Pan and Santa Claus are children. Peter Pan and Santa Claus believers don't hold powerful places in companies and politics. They don't force others to hear to recite their prayers. The whole premise is ridiculous. See post #246 for the real reason.
 
Using basic logic, explain to me why it is impossible to prove a negative.

http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

Since you can't, and it is actually possible to prove a negative, does that prove I don't understand logic?
That link is nothing but gobbledegook. Tell you what. Prove to me the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist.

Does oxygen exist?
Of course. We can measure it, detect it and of course breath it. Oxygen can also be produced industrially by fractional distillation of liquefied air.
 
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.
I guess not believing in the Easter Bunny is a belief system too. It's like talking to children .

It certainly isn't based on any form of logic.
But logic tells us the events in the bible are not validated by history or the laws of nature.

How is it logical to believe there is no God?
Which God? There have been hundreds throughout history. Do you believe in them all? You must because you just questioned the logic in not believing in 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.
Not one atheist has ever stated they could prove God does not exist. Just like you cannot prove there is one.

What is reasonable then? I only see two options.
I see many

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.

Here are the better options:

1 You believe in God
2 You are not sure whether there is a god or not
3 You don't believe God exists
4 You believe in another God/Gods

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 is possible. Zeus could exist, there is a possibility but I'm sure most christians don't even believe in him. Many believers of God are believers without having a 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.
See above, the part about the Easter Bunny.

The problem with using reason as a basis for belief is that most people have no clue what reason actually is.
Yes, your post proved that.

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with belief at times.
And nothing wromg with non-beliefs.
 
Last edited:
Using basic logic, explain to me why it is impossible to prove a negative.

http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

Since you can't, and it is actually possible to prove a negative, does that prove I don't understand logic?
That link is nothing but gobbledegook. Tell you what. Prove to me the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist.

Logic i nothing but gobbledygook, what's your point?
Thought so, you're done. You are only proving the OP to be correct.
 
Are you talking about the liquid known as water? Two parts Hydrogen, one part Oxygen.

You're the one that brought up liquefied air. I asked you about oxygen.
And Like I said before, we can detect oxygen. What does this have to do with proving a negative?

Without sensors how can you detect anything? how do you know that oxygen is their? can you see it? feel it? Taste it
Prove to me that oxygen exist.
 
But logic tells us the events in the bible are not validated by history or the laws of nature.
.

or the laws of nature.


the same is true of Intelligence as a validation for Atheism where the Laws for existence have origins of their own making.

.
 
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?
You need to define who these militant atheists are. I've seen and heard more hateful and agressive Christians beyond the scope of any atheist. The most famous atheists like Dawkins, Hitchings and Harris have all criticized other faths but I'm sure the main reason Christianity is criticized more is because these and other atheists come from predominantly christian populated countries. The christian influence affects them a lot more.
This atheist knows there are militant atheists. He says Dawkins is one of them.

Anyone who says religion must be eliminated is a militant atheist.

Religion Must Be Destroyed, Atheist Alliance Declares - Matt Purple

Should we try to eliminate religion?

Sam Harris: Science Must Destroy Religion

Why Religion Should Be Destroyed - Philosophy and Religion - English - The Free Dictionary Language Forums

Still want to believe there's no such thing?
 

Forum List

Back
Top