Are theists dumb by default?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I already asked in the OP. Can you provide research like I asked?

Not for you.

Otherwise you are just having blind faith which is irrational and deluded one may accuse you of.

I'm sure you think that's true.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

1. Who believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

How's that relevant?

What are the evidences given by them?

The same as the evidences for other gods, plus a compelling correlation between the decrease in pirates and global warming:

Open Letter To Kansas School Board « Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

2. What evidence do you have for the non-existence of Gods?

- the countless observations that show a godless model of the universe has excellent predictive value.
- the evidence that humans are hard-wired for the rudiments of theism (i.e. a tendency to favour Type I errors over Type II errors, and an overactive tendency to attribute agency to things in our environment).
- the evidence for how various god-based religions came to be (which varies from religion to religion).

 

[Subduction Zone]

1. Who believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? What are the evidences given by them?
2. What evidence do you have for the non-existence of Gods?

Substantiate your claims if you could.

The evidence for the FS< is the same as the evidence for any god.

And your second question is a shifting of the burden of proof.

 

[firedragon]

How's that relevant?

I dont know. You brought it up. Now you ask how is that relevant? Really??

The same as the evidences for other gods, plus a compelling correlation between the decrease in pirates and global warming:

What exactly?

- the countless observations that show a godless model of the universe has excellent predictive value.
- the evidence that humans are hard-wired for the rudiments of theism (i.e. a tendency to favour Type I errors over Type II errors, and an overactive tendency to attribute agency to things in our environment).
- the evidence for how various god-based religions came to be (which varies from religion to religion).

Anything specific at all? Anything proper?

 

[Scott C.]

If you are part of RF and explore this forum a bit, you would notice that since of recent times the frequency of Atheists alluding to theists as dumb. A lot of circumventing language will probably be used to call them plain dumb. Some claim they are mentally handicapped, and some "uneducated", while some others even go into calling theists by statements such as delusional and intellectually stunted, which are all statements used to plainly call theists "dumb" and maybe even just plain "stupid".

Of course there will be some atheists who would say "not all atheists do this" which is true.

I would like to understand if there are any proper research done in modern times, and in retrospect that atheists who claim to be "scientific" would have to contribute to this discussion. The world has people from all walks of life and progress or even science has and will swing this way and that way in advancement. Todays big shot may not be tomorrows. For example, the UK was the empire where the sun never sets, and now the United States which is a fairly new country maybe a few hundred times more sophisticated in military and economic spreading of their wings. Some time ago, it was the Ottoman Empire. Long ago it was the Romans. Well, this could go on, and you get the gist.

Thus, are there any good researches done that could contribute to this discussion, this way or that way?

(I will just for the sake of it put up a poll here though I believe they contain a lot of baggage, hawthorn effects, and voters cloud).

Thanks in advance.

There are plenty of highly intelligent, well educated, critical thinkers, who believe in God. I think it's a fair question to ask if atheism runs at a higher percentage among the more educated, than among the less educated. I don't know but it might. My reason would be that pride is a stumbling block to spiritual truth. Education, wealth, social standing, beauty, and fame are among factors that can lead to pride which then leads to less spirituality and capacity to believe. Note: Not all athiests are proud. Not all believers are humble. But pride is a vice and humiliy a virtue that leads to faith.

 

[firedragon]

Not all athiests are proud. Not all believers are humble.

This is absolutely true. I might use this phrase again and sorry I cannot pay you for intellectual property rights.

 

[Valjean]

1. Who believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? What are the evidences given by them?

FSM, Cthulu, pink unicorns, &c, are epistemic examples of faulty reasoning. They draw a parallel between belief in God and belief in the FSM. They're meant to clarify. Nobody actually believes in them.

People don't believe in the FSM because there's no evidence for it. Atheists don't believe in God for exactly the same reason. If disbelief in the FSM is reasonable, so is disbelief in God, yet theists constantly fail to see the parallel.
Flying Spaghetti Monster - Wikipedia

2. What evidence do you have for the non-existence of Gods?

What evidence do you have for the non-existence of the FSM? See the corollary?

This is another of our recurring beefs with theists. They don't understand burden of proof. They keep asking for evidence where none is needed.
Non-belief is logically assumed in the absence of evidence, it's the default.

 

[Valjean]

But how do prove its fantasy with scientific evidence? Do you have any?

Logic 101: non-belief is assumed.
Non-believers make no assertions. There's nothing to prove.

The burden of proof is entirely on the believers.

 

[firedragon]

FSM, Cthulu, pink unicorns, &c, are epistemic examples of faulty reasoning.

They are a bunch of aunty sally's you are used to.

What evidence do you have for the non-existence of the FSM? See the corollary?

See, when someone asks for evidence to one of your claims YOU MAKE, and you turn back and ask for evidence for a caricature, that is a burden of proof fallacy.

Maybe this is the type of evangelistic apologetics you have been taught by your group, but it is still a logical fallacy. Maybe you have too much of a tribalistic attitude to accept when you are plainly making fallacies. Some people are like that.

 

[firedragon]

Logic 101: non-belief is assumed.
Non-believers make no assertions. There's nothing to prove.

The burden of proof is entirely on the believers.

the burden of proof is on the claimant, and you claimed that theists are just mentally incapable by default, which of course you changed into three different things in no time. Then you claimed that you have evidence to the contrary of what a theist believes and that is why theists are delusional by default, but you still have not provided this so called evidence.

So since you are unable to you go to the logical fallacy of burden of proof.

If you read through this thread I have not claimed anything. So asking me for proof for a strawman you wish to create is your problem of accepting your fallacy. Try and understand that.

 

[Valjean]

So you believe it is all false and fantasy because you have not been shown evidence to a particular phenomena. You have no evidence to prove this wrong either. Right? Thus, aren't you very blindly believing all this is false without evidence?

I criticize the reasoning. Not the poster.

 

[Valjean]

They are a bunch of aunty sally's you are used to.



See, when someone asks for evidence to one of your claims YOU MAKE, and you turn back and ask for evidence for a caricature, that is a burden of proof fallacy.

But we aren't making any claims!

Maybe this is the type of evangelistic apologetics you have been taught by your group, but it is still a logical fallacy. Maybe you have too much of a tribalistic attitude to accept when you are plainly making fallacies. Some people are like that.

No! The logical fallacy is yours!
This is why we get so frustrated and start throwing out words like "dumb."

I agree with your last two sentences, but they don't apply to us.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

1. Who believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? What are the evidences given by them?
2. What evidence do you have for the non-existence of Gods?

Substantiate your claims if you could.

You see what you just did? Because you don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the only question you asked was "what are the evidences?" You want ot rig the game in your favor, and cheaters never prosper.

So, right back to you: what is your evidence for the non-existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I dont know. You brought it up. Now you ask how is that relevant? Really??

I brought up the FSM. You brought up believers in the FSM. I asked how believers in the FSM are relevant.

Edit: and the question still stands.

What exactly?

Well, that correlation is the best evidence for a god I've ever seen.

Have you seen the graph?

New chart « Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Anything specific at all? Anything proper?

It's all stuff you're more than capable of googling, and you haven't really done anything to justify me putting a lot of effort into this discussion.

 

[Valjean]

the burden of proof is on the claimant, and you claimed that theists are just mentally incapable by default, which of course you changed into three different things in no time. Then you claimed that you have evidence to the contrary of what a theist believes and that is why theists are delusional by default, but you still have not provided this so called evidence.

Who claimed theists were mentally incapable? Perhaps obtuse, or even deluded, but I try to address the ideas, rather than the presenters.
I do get frustrated at times, though.

Theists make many historical, and scientific claims. There often is contrary evidence, and we point it out. But if a belief is not based on evidence, then evidence often has little effect on it. If it's not based on evidence, it still carries a burden of proof if it's presented as fact.

If you read through this thread I have not claimed anything. So asking me for proof for a strawman you wish to create is your problem of accepting your fallacy. Try and understand that.

Not you, personally, but theists do make claims, often unevidenced ones.

 

[firedragon]

But we aren't making any claims!

Yes you are. You claim that "there is evidence to the contrary, and that's why theists are delusional".

No! The logical fallacy is yours!
This is why we get so frustrated and start throwing out words like "dumb."

Maybe that's your nature. Its your problem.

But its the burden of proof fallacy.

 

[firedragon]

You see what you just did? Because you don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the only question you asked was "what are the evidences?" You want ot rig the game in your favor, and cheaters never prosper.

So, right back to you: what is your evidence for the non-existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I never claimed anything. I didnt claim anything is correct or false. It was you who brought the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

So who claimed this monster? And who claimed as you said "easter bunny did the same thing"?

 

[firedragon]

I brought up the FSM. You brought up believers in the FSM. I asked how believers in the FSM are relevant.

Edit: and the question still stands.

So who claimed anything about this "FSM"? Please quote whoever claimed it, and what they presented. Go ahead.

 

[firedragon]

Well, that correlation is the best evidence for a god I've ever seen.

Have you seen the graph?

New chart « Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Well, that correlation is the best evidence for a god I've ever seen.

Have you seen the graph?

New chart « Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

So the church of the flying monster right you are quoting? And some chart?

Is this a religious group? Where is this church situated? Who are the adherents? Who is the priest or elder in this church? What is their theological claim? Please do explain.

 

[Clara Tea]

Atheists alluding to theists as dumb.

DNA is adequate to prove court cases. DNA proves evolution. The inability of theists to not understand this, doesn't mean that they are dumb. The fact that theists try to use science without studying science, certainly doesn't make them dumb.

Reverend Robert Schuller's son was just photographed with booze in one hand, a scantily clad blonde woman in another, and his pants were unzipped and his penis was hanging out. Having inherited $50 million (sale of the Crystal Cathedral) from his dad, he is living the life of a jet setter, while being president of Liberty University (a Christian college).

It isn't dumb to honor and respect the morals and ethics of this lascivious man. Nor is it dumb to honor and respect Reverend Jim and Tammy Fay Bakker who stole money from donations to feed starving Africans so they could buy their mansion and air condition their dog house. Nor is it dumb to follow an anti-Batman campaign designed to be a red herring to distract from Reverend Jimmy Swaggart's arrest for hiring a prostitute in Lancaster, California.

However, respecting the morally bereft shows a lack of discernment, and it shows that theists place their faith in those who don't deserve it. It is because they have faith without requiring proof.

Atheists don't believe anything until there is proof. So, it might be possible to believe (without proof) in the Easter Bunny (following a rabbit around the yard, eating anything chocolate colored that emanates from the rear of the bunny), or believe in the tooth fairy, or believe in Fred Flintstone. The fact is, the belief in a sinning man is no different than belief in God (or a false God, for that matter).

From the overwhelming response to your question, you can be assured that no one is calling you silly, but questionable decisions make some wonder about decisions (and actions upon those decisions....such as declaring war on Iraq without proof of involvement in terrorism). Yet, theists are not supposed to judge.

Yet, theists do judge. They judge science to be a threat to their religion, and Reverend Savonarolla's Bonfire of the Vanities burned a lot of books. Puritans judge singing and dancing to be evil. A lot of theists judge that people's idle hands are the tools of the devil.

With incontrovertible proof that ESP (psychic abilities) exist (see Jessica Utts), we must accept that Revelation might be right. The bible says that if we attack Iraq we will face God's wrath (such as Revelation 15 (seven plagues)). We also must accept that churches that writhe on the ground and babble in tongues (kjlsjkdflskjd) might, indeed, be speaking with God. Some might think that such behavior is nutty (delusional), but we really can't reach that conclusion.