Religious people are less intelligent than atheists

[ignoramus]

Taking Yahweh's name in vain is saying something like "God is my witness" or something equally stupid like "I swear to tell the truth so help me God" in court.

Yeshua said in Matthew 5:34-37 (TLB) = "34 But I say: Don’t make any vows! And even to say ‘By heavens!’ is a sacred vow to God, for the heavens are God’s throne. 35 And if you say ‘By the earth!’ it is a sacred vow, for the earth is his footstool. And don’t swear ‘By Jerusalem!’ for Jerusalem is the capital of the great King. 36 Don’t even swear ‘By my head!’ for you can’t turn one hair white or black. 37 Say just a simple ‘Yes, I will’ or ‘No, I won’t.’ Your word is enough. To strengthen your promise with a vow shows that something is wrong."

That's correct, and not too many people know the meaning as you've just explained. But like my latest post, it is off topic.

---

@Starhunter

Correct, the scientific method doesn't exclude "God"; but neither does it include the concept. It makes no judgement of the concept at all, except where gods ought to affect reality.  As AronRa said, any time "God" reaches into the material plane, it should pull out its hand dripping with physics.

So let's cut to the chase. I'm sitting here, with zero belief in your - or any - god. What can you give me to alter my position? Can you show me that there's even a 'there' there?

I can give you my point of view, but it would be a tangent to the thread. If Jesus was actually the Son of God as claimed, then wouldn't that be dripping with physics?

What kind of physics would be convincing, other than the fact that God "upholds all things" as the Bible puts it, causing a continuous existence of all material things by his power?

Any type of physics would suffice!
Your claim of a higher power is completely untrue at this stage according to observations of our natural universe.
And no, there are no supernatural observations possible under this natural universe. Only wild unsubstantiated claims.

[Banned]

Any type of physics would suffice!
Your claim of a higher power is completely untrue at this stage according to observations of our natural universe.
And no, there are no supernatural observations possible under this natural universe. Only wild unsubstantiated claims.

Then your name is a lie, it should be "Knowall."

[ignoramus]

Yeah, that was taken!

Seriously, it's really not my fault your God won't interact with our reality.
It's just a little sad that your God is about as real as Puff the magic dragon...
True Story!

[AFTT47]

Any type of physics would suffice!
Your claim of a higher power is completely untrue at this stage according to observations of our natural universe.
And no, there are no supernatural observations possible under this natural universe. Only wild unsubstantiated claims.

Then your name is a lie, it should be "Knowall."

I'm surprised nobody has talked about "burden of proof" yet.

You seem to be unaware of this concept. I can make all kinds of claims which ARE possible - like the claim that there is a teapot orbiting Jupiter. Would you take me seriously if I made such a claim? You might if I could prove that I was an engineer on one of the NASA probes that sent orbiters to Jupiter. Even then, you SHOULD have some serious skepticism because launching anything to Earth-orbit - never mind on a trajectory through the solar system - is very challenging and expensive. Why to Hell should anyone take the extra effort and expense to deploy a teapot around Jupiter? It IS possible but ridiculously unlikely.

That's where we stand with your God claim. Sure, it's possible - especially if you invoke a supernatural realm into which we cannot peer. But why should we take such a claim more seriously than a teapot around Jupiter? Don't you see? You are making an extraordinary claim yet are offering no reason at all to take it seriously.

[Banned]

Yeah, that was taken!

Seriously, it's really not my fault your God won't interact with our reality.
It's just a little sad that your God is about as real as Puff the magic dragon...
True Story!

If I convince you otherwise, you'll have to admit that the religious are more intelligent. 

---

I'm surprised nobody has talked about "burden of proof" yet.

You seem to be unaware of this concept. I can make all kinds of claims which ARE possible - like the claim that there is a teapot orbiting Jupiter. Would you take me seriously if I made such a claim? You might if I could prove that I was an engineer on one of the NASA probes that sent orbiters to Jupiter. Even then, you SHOULD have some serious skepticism because launching anything to Earth-orbit - never mind on a trajectory through the solar system - is very challenging and expensive. Why to Hell should anyone take the extra effort and expense to deploy a teapot around Jupiter? It IS possible but ridiculously unlikely.

That's where we stand with your God claim. Sure, it's possible - especially if you invoke a supernatural realm into which we cannot peer. But why should we take such a claim more seriously than a teapot around Jupiter? Don't you see? You are making an extraordinary claim yet are offering no reason at all to take it seriously.

I haven't even started on that subject, I'm saying that if atheists are only a fraction more intelligent than retarded religious folk, then that can't mean that they are all that bright.

[brewer]

Yeah, that was taken!

Seriously, it's really not my fault your God won't interact with our reality.
It's just a little sad that your God is about as real as Puff the magic dragon...
True Story!

If I convince you otherwise, you'll have to admit that the religious are more intelligent. 

Waiting! Time for your best shot.

[ignoramus]

I'm happy to admit that now... No need to wait for anything...

Newton was A Christian, right?
I rest my case... He was a lot smarter!

(But we won't mention his 2 failings. His false beliefs in alchemy and his skydaddy)
Oh well, no-one's perfect.

Didn't also fail at Calculus at school? That's right ...now I remember! It didn't exist until he invented it! lol

[Banned]

That's correct, and not too many people know the meaning as you've just explained. But like my latest post, it is off topic.

---

---

I can give you my point of view, but it would be a tangent to the thread. If Jesus was actually the Son of God as claimed, then wouldn't that be dripping with physics?

What kind of physics would be convincing, other than the fact that God "upholds all things" as the Bible puts it, causing a continuous existence of all material things by his power?

---

In Post #143 you are the one who introduced the subject of "taking God's name in vain".

That's because the religious people are up for insults that put them down as stupid and delusional, and someone claimed that they did not do that, to which I replied that misrepresenting God is to take his name in vain, and is an insult to those who love him.

---

If I convince you otherwise, you'll have to admit that the religious are more intelligent. 

Waiting! Time for your best shot.

I'd love to, but a new thread is required, which I am not about to start, because I can't always be there.

[brewer]

In Post #143 you are the one who introduced the subject of "taking God's name in vain".

That's because the religious people are up for insults that put them down as stupid and delusional, and someone claimed that they did not do that, to which I replied that misrepresenting God is to take his name in vain, and is an insult to those who love him.

---

Waiting! Time for your best shot.

I'd love to, but a new thread is required, which I am not about to start, because I can't always be there.

Put up or shut up time. You took the "convince" us position.

[AFTT47]

Yeah, that was taken!

Seriously, it's really not my fault your God won't interact with our reality.
It's just a little sad that your God is about as real as Puff the magic dragon...
True Story!

If I convince you otherwise, you'll have to admit that the religious are more intelligent. 

---

I'm surprised nobody has talked about "burden of proof" yet.

You seem to be unaware of this concept. I can make all kinds of claims which ARE possible - like the claim that there is a teapot orbiting Jupiter. Would you take me seriously if I made such a claim? You might if I could prove that I was an engineer on one of the NASA probes that sent orbiters to Jupiter. Even then, you SHOULD have some serious skepticism because launching anything to Earth-orbit - never mind on a trajectory through the solar system - is very challenging and expensive. Why to Hell should anyone take the extra effort and expense to deploy a teapot around Jupiter? It IS possible but ridiculously unlikely.

That's where we stand with your God claim. Sure, it's possible - especially if you invoke a supernatural realm into which we cannot peer. But why should we take such a claim more seriously than a teapot around Jupiter? Don't you see? You are making an extraordinary claim yet are offering no reason at all to take it seriously.

I haven't even started on that subject, I'm saying that if atheists are only a fraction more intelligent than retarded religious folk, then that can't mean that they are all that bright.

Well, I'm not the one making the claim that atheists are at all any more intelligent than theists. I'm AM however calling you out on your claim that atheists disregarding your unsubstantiated claims of God are automatically claiming omniscience. One does not need to be omniscient to recognize that someone else making a claim they cannot back up is probably full of shit.