"I'm a little confused in regards to your first refutation, but my assertion is not in regards to intelligence and irreligiosity, but only intelligence and religiosity. I apologize if I had mistakenly asserted the same, though. It was not my attention. Also, I don't mean to claim all or nothing on the resolution on this correlation but I do assert the importance of not over extending the correlation. Meaning, not making 30-40% correlation look like 60-80% correlation. "

Sorry, trying to read and post while running a scanning microscope. I get rushed.

I'm somewhat uninterested in the numbers associated with this. The fact that there is a correlation and it is a strong one is an interesting fact but beyond that I put little interest in it. If that correlation is 30% or 70% makes no difference to me one way or another. I tend not to judge the intelligence of a person based on their position as theist, deist, or atheist. My parents are brilliant and both are theists. My ex is an atheist and one of the densest people I have ever met. I do make some intelligence judgements based on dogmatic following, but I think that's different.

(July 28, 2014 at 2:37 pm)Natachan Wrote: "I'm a little confused in regards to your first refutation, but my assertion is not in regards to intelligence and irreligiosity, but only intelligence and religiosity. I apologize if I had mistakenly asserted the same, though. It was not my attention. Also, I don't mean to claim all or nothing on the resolution on this correlation but I do assert the importance of not over extending the correlation. Meaning, not making 30-40% correlation look like 60-80% correlation. "

Sorry, trying to read and post while running a scanning microscope. I get rushed.

I'm somewhat uninterested in the numbers associated with this. The fact that there is a correlation and it is a strong one is an interesting fact but beyond that I put little interest in it. If that correlation is 30% or 70% makes no difference to me one way or another. I tend not to judge the intelligence of a person based on their position as theist, deist, or atheist. My parents are brilliant and both are theists. My ex is an atheist and one of the densest people I have ever met. I do make some intelligence judgements based on dogmatic following, but I think that's different.

Oh, I get you. I agree.

May I kindly ask what it is you are scanning?

Air percent in paste content for concrete samples, to compare different paste mixes.

Quantum, although I agree that there are atheists who are as equally ready to accept what they read without critical analysis as believers are, let's keep one thing in mind: many of them come from religious backgrounds. While they may have thrown off the chains of superstition, learning how to assess an argument and ask the right questions requires a degree of proper education in its own right, and one indisputable contribution that religion makes to all cultures it infects is greater difficulty for achieving this.

(July 28, 2014 at 2:36 pm)Quantum1Connect Wrote: I find no fault, and further have no refutations for these authors, only for those who accept them as prophets and gods.

I have never heard the argument "atheism is true because 'someone' said so"; i.e, holding up famous atheist authors as prophets and gods. Do you have examples?

well, just another sect of atheist.
All religions have them I guess.

(July 28, 2014 at 1:45 pm)Quantum1Connect Wrote: As sure as the sky is blue, we could agree that being atheist is quite the extraordinary thought process. Atheism is not just a lack of belief but it should also be a well calculated and thought out thought process. Atheism should not be "I don't believe in God (gods)."

Have to say, I stopped reading right here. Sorry, but you don't get to dictate what atheism is to anyone else. Not believing in god(s) is plenty good enough for most of us.

Wouldn't atheism be a logical position to take regarding the god claim? I don't see what other justification one would need in order to say "I don't believe that claim until you can prove it."?

(July 28, 2014 at 4:08 pm)Cato Wrote:

(July 28, 2014 at 2:36 pm)Quantum1Connect Wrote: I find no fault, and further have no refutations for these authors, only for those who accept them as prophets and gods.

I have never heard the argument "atheism is true because 'someone' said so"; i.e, holding up famous atheist authors as prophets and gods. Do you have examples?

Yes, I have a few friends who are atheist and treat authors like these as the now-all-say-all. They are usually the same type of persons who find themselves in and out of faith their entire life. But if you are asking for verifiable resources, I have nothing but experience to offer.

---

(July 28, 2014 at 9:28 pm)GalacticBusDriver Wrote:

(July 28, 2014 at 1:45 pm)Quantum1Connect Wrote: As sure as the sky is blue, we could agree that being atheist is quite the extraordinary thought process. Atheism is not just a lack of belief but it should also be a well calculated and thought out thought process. Atheism should not be "I don't believe in God (gods)."

Have to say, I stopped reading right here. Sorry, but you don't get to dictate what atheism is to anyone else. Not believing in god(s) is plenty good enough for most of us.

Please correct me so I can understand, are we believing in no gods for the sake of the idea, or because we have used our mental faculties to discern truth from rubbish?

You're right, I don't have the right to define atheism, but when those who call themselves "atheist" and degrade others simply due to belief warrants the argument thereof. I do not wish to associate myself with atheists who refuse to see common sense and empathy to contrary ideas and the thinkers who hold them.

(July 29, 2014 at 12:30 am)Quantum1Connect Wrote: Yes, I have a few friends who are atheist and treat authors like these as the now-all-say-all. They are usually the same type of persons who find themselves in and out of faith their entire life. But if you are asking for verifiable resources, I have nothing but experience to offer.

So your entire screed is based on your creation of a fictitious class of being you dub pseudo-atheists. This creation is in turn only based on a handful of personal relations referencing the work of renowned atheists; a fair assumption since you admitted that you did not refute the claims of said atheists. It seems to me that you are taking the position that you properly consider atheist arguments from popular sources, but others aren't properly skeptical and are intellectually lazy to the point of accepting arguments solely on an assumed fealty to authority.

Packed with unverified assumptions, your arguments come across as those of an elitist desperately attempting to justify an unsubstantiated intellectual superiority.