RE: Atheists= intelligent?
September 22, 2008 at 7:26 pm
(This post was last modified: September 22, 2008 at 7:30 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
On AVERAGE i'd say atheists are more intelligent than theists based on both my own experience and the surveys like the one you mention.
I believe however God cannot be DISPROVED there is merely (if you think it's merely!) piles and piles of evidence against God making his likely hood as likely as 'Russel's Teapot' or pink unicorns.
I used to be an atheist that believed 100% that there is no God because of personal choice rather than evidence...I prefered the idea of evolution and the big 'bang' to God because I thought it was more believable and I hated the God of the old testament.
I didn't know anything about the evidence for or against God though so my claim that God 100% does not exist IMHO was actually a kind of atheistic faith...because my atheism was not based on evidence - therefore it was faith.
And because it was a faith and not supported by evidence that faith eventually converted to faith in a God of some kind.
After I recovered from that I read the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins (and the like) and now I have evidence against God and FOR evolution other than intuitive guess, which is not true scientific evidence (although it can lead to such evidence).
Now I know WHY I believe what I believe...it is based on evidence...not preference or 'intuitive observation of transparent psuedo-evidence' or whatever.
Finally, I think if you believe in an ultimate 100% proof or disproof of something, then that's faith not evidence. The idea of ultimate proof or disproof may contain some evidence....but to believe 100% either way; it must contain some faith, atleast to fill the gap of evidence. So if atheism is based on - or its gap in evidence is filled up with - faith then I suspect that stance is less intelligent on average than atheism entirely based on evidence; atleast for the time, because intelligence and consciousness can certainly be raised as I believe mine has atleast somewhat.
I believe however God cannot be DISPROVED there is merely (if you think it's merely!) piles and piles of evidence against God making his likely hood as likely as 'Russel's Teapot' or pink unicorns.
I used to be an atheist that believed 100% that there is no God because of personal choice rather than evidence...I prefered the idea of evolution and the big 'bang' to God because I thought it was more believable and I hated the God of the old testament.
I didn't know anything about the evidence for or against God though so my claim that God 100% does not exist IMHO was actually a kind of atheistic faith...because my atheism was not based on evidence - therefore it was faith.
And because it was a faith and not supported by evidence that faith eventually converted to faith in a God of some kind.
After I recovered from that I read the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins (and the like) and now I have evidence against God and FOR evolution other than intuitive guess, which is not true scientific evidence (although it can lead to such evidence).
Now I know WHY I believe what I believe...it is based on evidence...not preference or 'intuitive observation of transparent psuedo-evidence' or whatever.
Finally, I think if you believe in an ultimate 100% proof or disproof of something, then that's faith not evidence. The idea of ultimate proof or disproof may contain some evidence....but to believe 100% either way; it must contain some faith, atleast to fill the gap of evidence. So if atheism is based on - or its gap in evidence is filled up with - faith then I suspect that stance is less intelligent on average than atheism entirely based on evidence; atleast for the time, because intelligence and consciousness can certainly be raised as I believe mine has atleast somewhat.