Are theists dumb by default?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

Yes. Did you look at the 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.

I think you have me confused with your personal research service.

 

[firedragon]

DNA is adequate to prove court cases. DNA proves evolution. The inability of theists to not understand this,

Which theists dont understand this?

 

[firedragon]

I think you have me confused with your personal research service.

Well, those who dont have any research to back up their claims dont have any other answer I suppose. Good going.

 

[firedragon]

Yes. Did you look at the 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.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, those who dont have any research to back up their claims dont have any other answer I suppose. Good going.

In any case, since you apparently know nothing about the FSM or the evidence for him, I trust that you don't believe he's false... right?

 

[firedragon]

Yet, theists do judge. They judge science to be a threat to their religion

Who? All the theists? Really?

Can you prove this?

 

[Colt]

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
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.

"The exquisite and transcendent experience of loving and being loved is not just a psychic illusion because it is so purely subjective. The one truly divine and objective reality that is associated with mortal beings, the indwelling spirit fragment, functions to human observation apparently as an exclusively subjective phenomenon. Man's contact with the highest objective reality, God, is only through the purely subjective experience of knowing him, of worshiping him, of realizing sonship with him." UB 1955

 

[firedragon]

In any case, since you apparently know nothing about the FSM or the evidence for him, I trust that you don't believe he's false... right?

You just made that up. see, making up lies about others is pretty bad.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

The point is that atheists tend to be book smart but immoral/unwise/religiously dumb.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You just made that up. see, making up lies about others is pretty bad.

I guess assuming you'd be capable of a real discussion was my fault, since you've never given me the slightest indication that you are.

 

[Valjean]

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

Maybe that's your nature. Its your problem.

But its the burden of proof fallacy.

If a theist is delusional it's because s/he holds a fixed, usually unevidenced, belief unaffected by contrary evidence.

Atheism, per se, makes no claims. Theism, per se, lacks evidence, so fails by default. But theists often make specific, factual statements that are at odds with extant evidence. It's these unevidenced assertions of fact that I take issue with.

Give me a specific example where I claimed, but did not produce, contrary evidence, and I'll try to address it.

 

[Valjean]

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"?

Again: Flying Spaghetti Monster - Wikipedia

 

[Valjean]

The point is that atheists tend to be book smart but immoral/unwise/religiously dumb.

But atheists score higher than the religious in surveys of general religious knowledge, and we tend to have strong, internalized moral codes.
Prisoners comprise a higher proportion of believers than the general public, indicating that belief doesn't seem to correlate with moral behavior.

I contend that we're generally better informed and more moral than the religious.

 

[firedragon]

I guess assuming you'd be capable of a real discussion was my fault, since you've never given me the slightest indication that you are.

There. Showed ur colours.

 

[firedragon]

If a theist is delusional it's because s/he holds a fixed, usually unevidenced, belief unaffected by contrary evidence.

Whats this "contrary evidence"?

 

[firedragon]

Again: Flying Spaghetti Monster - Wikipedia

So who claimed this monster?

 

[Valjean]

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.

It's a parody "church," conceived to illustrate the logical inconsistencies of the religious.

So who claimed this monster?

Read the Wiki article. It discusses the history.

 

[firedragon]

It's a parody "church," conceived to illustrate the logical inconsistencies of the religious.

So a strawman.

 

[Valjean]

So who claimed this monster?

"The exquisite and transcendent experience of loving and being loved is not just a psychic illusion because it is so purely subjective. The one truly divine and objective reality that is associated with mortal beings, the indwelling spirit fragment, functions to human observation apparently as an exclusively subjective phenomenon. Man's contact with the highest objective reality, God, is only through the purely subjective experience of knowing him, of worshiping him, of realizing sonship with him." UB 1955

I have no argument with this.

 

[Valjean]

So a strawman.

A teaching aid; a clarification of the reasoning and claims made by the religious by way of an absurdist, parallel example.