Atheists outperform theists at nearly all reasoning skills

[ImmortalFlame]

We need 3 things, You, I and a third thing. You said it is X at a certain time, space and in a certain sense. I say it is not-X at the same time, space and in the same sense. That is how certain versions of different gods are contradictory. But that is not so just for gods. The same e.g. apply for claims of knowledge. All knowledge for all humans can't be X and non-X, yet in effect just like gods, humans hold contradictory views about what real, existence, reality and what not is, regardless of atheism and what not. E.g. it can be know and unknown if there are any gods at all. So a strong and weak atheist contradicts each other just like a Gnostic Christian and believer in Islam.

The difference is that you're framing it as a contradiction specifically WITHIN atheism, as if this contradiction is inherent TO atheism and unique TO atheism. It isn't, so your argument makes no sense.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Last time was on another forum. It goes like this: Only the objective is real and the subjective is imagined and unreal. Religion is subjective, thus... You fill in the rest yourself.

It is off on a tangent, but the words god, real and existence are in the ontological sense the same. They are man made and have no physical and natural science reference as being empirically observable. From a point of view of belief there is no difference between "God exists" versus "I am looking at a cat, the cat exists and it is real".
You can't e.g. see god, real nor existence. Real and existence are words, which marks confidence and certainty. They are psychological in a sense.

Except there is a difference, because the word "God" refers to something different to "cat". To CLAIM one or the other exists are not actually the same, even psychologically.

 

[Audie]

Except there is a difference, because the word "God" refers to something different to "cat". To CLAIM one or the other exists are not actually the same, even psychologically.

Shootin' fish in a barrel, how is that psychologically?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The difference is that you're framing it as a contradiction specifically WITHIN atheism, as if this contradiction is inherent TO atheism and unique TO atheism. It isn't, so your argument makes no sense.

No, it happens with science, philosophy and religion all the time. And atheism is a part of those 3.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Except there is a difference, because the word "God" refers to something different to "cat". To CLAIM one or the other exists are not actually the same, even psychologically.

No, they share that to at least some humans, they are objective as in having reality independently of the mind. I know to you if you are an atheist, that to you the cat is objective and god subjective. But to me they share that what someone believes about them is always individually in psychological sense. To some people it is equally meaningless to deny that they are real and exist. I know that you understand that differently, but having reality independently of the mind as X is independent of the mind and actually exists and is real; is a belief.
All knowledge about what goes on outside your mind, is conditioned on you not being a Boltzmann Brain or there being a trickster god. The same with me.
I can see your stance on ontology, mine and everybody else's as what it is, namely philosophy. You are confusing ontology with psychology. And I accept that your beliefs are different, where as you properly believe that mine are wrong or what not.

That is the joke about reality, exists, real and so on. We both believe that we share the same reality, yet we can both get away with believing differently about what reality really is and thus one of us hold a logically false position. Personally I don't worry about that any more, because I have a good enough life and I bet you also have one.
Reality can't in the same sense both be natural and supernatural. The fun start when we try to agree how we ought to treat each other.

 

[ecco]

Last time was on another forum. It goes like this: Only the objective is real and the subjective is imagined and unreal. Religion is subjective, thus... You fill in the rest yourself.

Dictionary
re·li·gion
/rəˈlijən/
noun

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
   "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
   synonyms: faith, belief, divinity, worship, creed, teaching, doctrine, theology; More
   
   
   • a particular system of faith and worship.
     plural noun: religions
     "the world's great religions"
   • a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
     

sub·jec·tive
/səbˈjektiv/
adjective

1. 1.
   based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
   "his views are highly subjective"
   synonyms: personal, personalized, individual, internal, emotional, instinctive, intuitive, impressionistic; More

Given the above definitions, please explain why you state that religion is subjective. If you want to say that various religious beliefs are subjective, I would agree.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No, they share that to at least some humans, they are objective as in having reality independently of the mind. I know to you if you are an atheist, that to you the cat is objective and god subjective. But to me they share that what someone believes about them is always individually in psychological sense. To some people it is equally meaningless to deny that they are real and exist. I know that you understand that differently, but having reality independently of the mind as X is independent of the mind and actually exists and is real; is a belief.

None of that means that all claims are equal. Do you understand that "claim x" and "claim y" are not the same merely by virtue of the fact that they are claims?

All knowledge about what goes on outside your mind, is conditioned on you not being a Boltzmann Brain or there being a trickster god. The same with me.
I can see your stance on ontology, mine and everybody else's as what it is, namely philosophy. You are confusing ontology with psychology. And I accept that your beliefs are different, where as you properly believe that mine are wrong or what not.

I don't think you're wrong, I think you're very confused.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

None of that means that all claims are equal. Do you understand that "claim x" and "claim y" are not the same merely by virtue of the fact that they are claims?

No, not all claims are equal, besides being claims. You have to look at what x and y are about. 5+5=a and 5+5=b are equal as math, but different for the results. All claims about the status of "das Ding an sich" are equal as within ontology and epistemology in some form of combination, but produce different results. But nobody so far in the recorded history of mankind have been able to give proof or evidence for what reality really is. We all on reflection hit this limit to knowledge:

1. The circular argument, in which theory and proof support each other
2. The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum
3. The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts

I know this, because I have replicated it myself.
So in practice for how reality works, there are for some humans, namely those with cognition enough to reflect, 3 positions of what reality really is:

• I don't care
• I can do it as knowledge despite the limitations of knowledge and everybody else, who can't, are confused and/or what not.
• I can't do what is beyond "das Ding an sich", so I use a set of axioms.

Further there is no universal axiom in the strong sense as for ontological physicalism, materialism, naturalism, idealism and what not. That is how science arrived at methodological naturalism. Even falsification as a methodology has a limit.

I don't think you're wrong, I think you're very confused.

And I know, that your assertion that I am confused is not a fact within methodological naturalism. It is something you think, I am, but you have no empirical evidence for it, rather it is a result of cognitive relativism. We think differently, yet we are both a part of reality. Nobody died because of this exchange here and we will both continue on with our individual lives and hopefully both have a good enough life respectively.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No, not all claims are equal, besides being claims. You have to look at what x and y are about. 5+5=a and 5+5=b are equal as math, but different for the results. All claims about the status of "das Ding an sich" are equal as within ontology and epistemology in some form of combination, but produce different results. But nobody so far in the recorded history of mankind have been able to give proof or evidence for what reality really is. We all on reflection hit this limit to knowledge:

1. The circular argument, in which theory and proof support each other
2. The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum
3. The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts

I know this, because I have replicated it myself.
So in practice for how reality works, there are for some humans, namely those with cognition enough to reflect, 3 positions of what reality really is:

• I don't care
• I can do it as knowledge despite the limitations of knowledge and everybody else, who can't, are confused and/or what not.
• I can't do what is beyond "das Ding an sich", so I use a set of axioms.

Further there is no universal axiom in the strong sense as for ontological physicalism, materialism, naturalism, idealism and what not. That is how science arrived at methodological naturalism. Even falsification as a methodology has a limit.



And I know, that your assertion that I am confused is not a fact within methodological naturalism. It is something you think, I am, but you have no empirical evidence for it, rather it is a result of cognitive relativism. We think differently, yet we are both a part of reality. Nobody died because of this exchange here and we will both continue on with our individual lives and hopefully both have a good enough life respectively.

If I'm completely honest, you seem to be using an awful lot of words to say very, very little.

 

[Audie]

If I'm completely honest, you seem to be using an awful lot of words to say very, very little.

Such doth transpire muchly among those who would'st practice
the dark art of "philosophy".

 

[charlie sc]

What are you guys even arguing about lol ?

 

[Audie]

What are you guys even arguing about lol ?

haha. Argue? I agreed with the "many words, little
content". Self styled philosophers do that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If I'm completely honest, you seem to be using an awful lot of words to say very, very little.

Yes, you are honest. But you haven't used reason, logic or evidence.

 

[charlie sc]

Yes, you are honest. But you haven't used reason, logic or evidence.

I’ve noticed to don’t critique anything I say

 

[Cooky]

"....what (I) apparently claim according to some scientists"

Again, irrelevant, and made up besides.
It does not even make sense. Its is garbage.

Along with all the other things you go on to make
up about me. Enough, off to ig city with you.

Yes off to "ig city" with him. Or perhaps, off with his head.

 

[Spartan]

Atheists are better at reasoning(E.G. logic problem solving) than the religious. I'm sorry agnostics, you're just bellow atheists A proposed explanation, from this study, why atheists tend to have high IQ than theists is that religious people are more likely to use intuitive decision making. To confirm this theory, the study found working memory increased with religiosity(I.E. strength of belief) but decreased with reasoning/cognitive skills and deductive reasoning stayed the same all-round. Similarly, apostates(I.E. converts either way) showed similar results. This study suggested it's not an impairment but rather a bias, "religiosity effect reflects cognitive-behavioral biases that impair conflict detection, rather than general intelligence." The authors conclude from the results that religious people tend to forgo logical problem solving when an intuitive answer is present. Therefore, if the intuitive answer is it seems like god-did-it or it's a supernatural answer, then nothing else need be examined. Nonetheless, from these results, this cognitive bias seeps into more than just religious dogmatism and axioms. Religiosity generally makes people worse at reasoning. Interestingly, working memory increases with religiosity/dogmatism(not as much as the atheist though) and deductive reasoning is the same as others. Perhaps some people can explain why they think this is the case?

This particular study had 63 235 participants, in total, of all age groups, education and country of origins. These variables were also cross examined to see if there were conflicting co-variables - there were none. The online tests took about 30+- minutes to finish and gave the participants a plethora of test, such as:The Grammatical Reasoning Task, Colour Word Remapping (CWR), Interlocking Polygons task, Paired Associate Learning (PAL), Spatial Span and Self-Ordered Search, Spatial Rotations tasks and so on.

So, my question to you is, how certain are you god(s) exists?
1 = Absolute Certainty, 2 = Strong, 3 = Not Certain, 4 = Very Doubtful, 5 = Atheist

Of course, you may critique the study or anything else. If you are going to question the study, I recommend you put your thinking caps on and either read it(it's free) or give some constructive criticism. Just saying something is wrong, especially if the thing you're against has evidence, is an assertion. Assertions can be answered with assertions and are pointless beyond words. In other words, put because after you said something

Don't confuse intelligence with Godly wisdom. Slick Willie Clinton was intelligent, but because he didn't have Godly wisdom he was impeached.

And how smart are atheists really, since the Bible says all unbelievers will be cast into the Lake of Fire (Revelation 21:8). That's hardly smart to wind up there.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I’ve noticed to don’t critique anything I say

I suppose you meant to write:
I’ve noticed you don’t critique anything I say

Was that it?

 

[charlie sc]

I suppose you meant to write:
I’ve noticed you don’t critique anything I say

Was that it?

Very funny.

 

[charlie sc]

Don't confuse intelligence with Godly wisdom. Slick Willie Clinton was intelligent, but because he didn't have Godly wisdom he was impeached.

Pray tell, what is Godly Wisdom?

And how smart are atheists really, since the Bible says all unbelievers will be cast into the Lake of Fire (Revelation 21:8). That's hardly smart to wind up there.

Assuming this is correct, which is quite the assumption let me tell you, your god sounds like some maniac despot if he/she/it throws souls(?) into the, "Lake of Fire," for not believing in he/she/it. Consequently, I'd rather suffer than worship such a monster, but you may continue in your thought slavery and/or blind worship.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Very funny.

Okay, I will "bite".
Here is an example of some form of reasoning:
Ayn Rand on logic:

... Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. A contradiction cannot exist. An atom is itself, and so is the universe; neither can contradict its own identity; nor can a part contradict the whole. No concept man forms is valid unless he integrates it without contradiction into the total sum of his knowledge. To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality.

—Ayn Rand Lexicon

So here is what I expect of you. You are so intelligent that you can do an abstract, general analysis of that piece of text and spot the problem.
Notice that when you "unpack" the words and "look behind" there are ontology, epistemology and logic in that text.
Here is the rest of the quote from the start:

All thinking is a process of identification and integration. Man perceives a blob of color; by integrating the evidence of his sight and his touch, he learns to identify it as a solid object; he learns to identify the object as a table; he learns that the table is made of wood; he learns that the wood consists of cells, that the cells consist of molecules, that the molecules consist of atoms. All through this process, the work of his mind consists of answers to a single question: What is it? His means to establish the truth of his answers is logic, and logic rests on the axiom that existence exists. ...

Again it is a combination of ontology, epistemology and logic.

So what did she overlook?
I mean I can using falsification and reduction ad absurdum in combination show that her model of reality overlooked something.

Now in general terms, Ayn Rand is a particular example of an overall sub-field with philosophy of science. Namely, how does knowledge work and is the only one kind? Are there several kinds, but are they related in that they can be done with strong rationality? Or is there in practice a limit to knowledge just as there is a limit to human mobility? Just as you can't move around as you like, is it the case that you can't do everything with knowledge, reason, logic and evidence?

Put me on ignore, don't answer, answer that I am what I am in your view or what ever. I have been doing this for 20+ years now, day in and day out. Trying to figure out how humans can disagree about what reality is and yet all be a part of reality.