Two studies of Atheism and Theism.

[Gilgamesh]

MysticKnight, in my own life at least, I don't see anything to suggest that atheists are any wiser, overall, than believers. And even if the particular instance of belief in God, I do not see how a default atheism is any wiser than unquestioned faith. Even if god were a convenient fiction that belief could still be more useful in guiding rational thought than not relying upon it. For example, we use the imaginary numbers in mathematics all the time. There is no square root of -1, but certain equations would be impossible to solve without it.

I concur with the first sentence and the first sentence only.

Arithmetics represent real, objectifiable things, by the way.

[Mystic]

MysticKnight, in my own life at least, I don't see anything to suggest that atheists are any wiser, overall, than believers. And even if the particular instance of belief in God, I do not see how a default atheism is any wiser than unquestioned faith. Even if god were a convenient fiction that belief could still be more useful in guiding rational thought than not relying upon it. For example, we use the imaginary numbers in mathematics all the time. There is no square root of -1, but certain equations would be impossible to solve without it.

As far as belief in God, then that is open to debate. As I am one who believes in supernatural creator/higher power, I tend to agree that we need belief in that (and even perhaps God) to guide reasoning because I am strong believer in the moral/praise/greatness argument. I also don't think we can be justified in holding to the concept of perpetual identity without a belief in a soul.

Of course, none of this proves (analytically wise)that God exists or a supernatural creator exists, but that it seems to me, to be useful in guiding reasoning.

So I to tend to agree with you. However, from the neutral stand point (agnostic)...we know for certain that Atheists are wise in the instance not to follow a false religion, while Theists in general (only the right religion believers can be an exception) are being foolish in the instance of following a false religion.

Now whether belief in 'God' or 'Creator/Designer' falls under that category of foolishness is up to debate. I tend to agree that it would not be foolish to believe in it, if it justified our reasoning (ie. belief in morals, praise, etc), even if it was false, because it may seem that way for various reasons that we aren't being foolish about (ie. perhaps evolution programmed us to believe goodness was reference to something spiritual and not physical).

[Mister Agenda]

I can't be arsed to cite it, but I recall reading that the difference in IQs between theists and atheists turns out to be very specific if it you break it down: atheists tend to be better at estimating.

Estimating in what sense? I'm a little confused. Like numbers only? Or estimating correct things vs incorrect things?

Numbers, probabilities, and visual comparisons, like whether two lines are the same length or different.

[Mystic]

Estimating in what sense? I'm a little confused. Like numbers only? Or estimating correct things vs incorrect things?

Numbers, probabilities, and visual comparisons, like whether two lines are the same length or different.

Ahh...thanks a lot. I had no idea before. Should've researched more into it.

[Mister Agenda]

MysticKnight, in my own life at least, I don't see anything to suggest that atheists are any wiser, overall, than believers. And even if the particular instance of belief in God, I do not see how a default atheism is any wiser than unquestioned faith. Even if god were a convenient fiction that belief could still be more useful in guiding rational thought than not relying upon it. For example, we use the imaginary numbers in mathematics all the time. There is no square root of -1, but certain equations would be impossible to solve without it.

I think in the bolded sentence you may have hit upon a more crucial difference between intellectual Christians and skeptical atheists.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Arithmetics represent real, objectifiable things, by the way.

Curious. In what way, it seems to me that numbers are abstract symbols independent of any particular real objects.

[Mystic]

MysticKnight, in my own life at least, I don't see anything to suggest that atheists are any wiser, overall, than believers. And even if the particular instance of belief in God, I do not see how a default atheism is any wiser than unquestioned faith. Even if god were a convenient fiction that belief could still be more useful in guiding rational thought than not relying upon it. For example, we use the imaginary numbers in mathematics all the time. There is no square root of -1, but certain equations would be impossible to solve without it.

I think in the bolded sentence you may have hit upon a more crucial difference between intellectual Christians and skeptical atheists.

I think so too. He finds it more wise to be useful and doesn't emphasize foolishness in being wrong. I think Theists look for what gives them happiness and meaning through religion, and that it's primarily important (ie. useful), and being right is important but not that important, but Atheists care more about being right and worry about being wrong more and it's the primary importance.

However there is a fine line we have to tread. If we abandon intuition, we lose morality, praise, free-will and human rights....and if we care so much about being right and worry about being wrong about those, we won't really function well and could even possibly miss out on the way of knowledge which maybe via faith (trust).

[Neo-Scholastic]

Even a purely atheistic philosophy, like Objectivism, relies on unprovable axioms.

[Mister Agenda]

True that, but if axioms were provable, they wouldn't be axioms. The whole point of axioms is that it's impossible to prove everything.

[Mystic]

True that, but if axioms were provable, they wouldn't be axioms. The whole point of axioms is that it's impossible to prove everything.

Is this true? Can't there be axioms that stand on their own and can be proven as well?