Are atheists smarter and better educated than Christians?

[Lobouspo]

Ahhh, but the odds of any singular arrangement are not equally small, because you have to carefully consider the variables....Here's an analogy since the Olympics are starting...in basketball before qualifying lets say you have 80 countries that are in qualifying rounds with the ultimate goal of going to London and winning the gold medal. Now the United States are one of those countries competing, but the odds of them winning the gold are 1 in 80?..Noooo..lets look at the variables. They have Kobe, Lebron, Durant and all of these other great players which makes the odds of them winning the gold medal a practical certainty....as opposed to lets say Costa Rica winning because they have inferior talent so the odds of the winning are even less than 1 in 80...so what I am arguing and even Hawking agrees with this....the odds of life as we know it thriving and surviving on planet earth is like Costa Rica winning the gold medal in basketball when considering the variables....only the odds are even more improbable.

[123321]

The finite elemental nature of the Universe we exist in (the Planck constant and its ramifications) is an interesting thing. If I was an advanced and powerful being who wanted to model something like our Universe then I would need some fine but finite resolution limit to make things more readily computable. If I did so, would I be the God of that realm?

 

What would the rights of my creations be, and what if anything would I owe them? Would that Universe be provably different from the one we live in by creatures living within it?

[thatone]

So the begging the question part is A) Our existence is so improbable which defies the law of probability and reason that there must be a creator behind it, or you have this multiverse hypothesis which basically states there are billions or an infinite number of universes that cannot sustain life as we know it, and we just happen to be the one or one of the few that did. That there are other universes does not explain why they exist, so this leaves two options: either there is some unknown universe creating mechanism, or they just came into being without any rational explanation. So an athiest may say, "Yeah all this came to be for no reason." If this the argument though, scientific pursuit becomes pointless, things can come into existence out of nothing for no reason, so there is no reason to assume any particular thing will have a cause. I mean if your walking the jungles of Africa and on your journey you discover an exquisitely made Rolex watch under a tree, you know it justs not part of nature that came to be, someone made and fine tuned that beautiful watch to what it is. I would submit that the complexities of our universe are like a finely tuned Rolex, but much more complicated and awesome.

 

creationists trying to latch on to the 2nd law of thermodynamics has been thoroughly debunked, but thanks for trying. most simply, because it violates the 1st law of thermodynamics.

 

more easily observable by anyone than the 1st law of thermodynamics, a snowflake disagrees with you. in fact all snowflakes disagree with you. they are symmetrical, all of them. and they arise from the random movement of water vapor. the same entropy that you're incorrectly labeling as random isn't random, the evidence comes along every winter.

 

just because YOU don't want to grasp the concepts of entropy and the laws of thermodynamics doesn't mean they support your position.

 

in short, the universe isn't ordered by your imaginary god because you fail to grasp how random isn't actually random.

 

there's also the fact, that we know, that the universe is expanding. if it's expanding it's not finite. if it is, the question becomes, 'expanding into what?' the definition of universe is everything, if it's expanding into something else it's not everything. so it's either infinite, or the multiverse theory is the correct one, one or the other. the infinite theory prohibits creation. the multiverse theory lends no support to it, either.

 

so either way creation doesn't hold any water.

Edited July 29, 2012 by thatone

[wuggle]

None of you athiests were able to rebut Collins' scientific argument on the existence of God, and you are so obtuse, that you cannot even acknowledge that he is way smarter than all of you. I guess you gotta be pretty stupid to map the human genome!! LMAO at all of you...

 

The ability to ask a difficult question does not in anyway make a person smarter than the person unable to answer it. Even a child can ask the question "Why are we here ?".

 

The true value in the scientific method lies with honest practitioners saying "we don't know yet, but we will keep on looking", and not accepting answers until evidence bear them out, as opposed to some who say "I KNOW, it's all Gods work" and when challenged to provide proof, say "there is none, It's all a matter of faith ! just trust us, we KNOW best !"

 

You should admire Dawkin's (and other good scientists) honesty and humility. It is this that has brought us to the level of understanding we have today, even if it is not complete. If it was not for thier spirit of honest inquiry where would we be ?

 

By the way in your original summation of that discussion you say that if you are an athiest you must either accept the incredible odds or the multiverse therory. Even I with my limited knowledge know that there are other possible options, certainly to be considered (and actively are being). A quick google search will reveal other proposed models of reality. My current favourite (that I am reeling against totally) is that all reality is merely a subjective construct, that is a swine to argue against.

 

You make the first mistake that science always seeks to avoid - assumption..

 

You shouldn't LYAO too loud.

Edited July 29, 2012 by wuggle

[Fugu]

I think this thread misses the point. The issue is, do you accept the scientific method, or don't you? If you do, then you have good reason to be highly skeptical of religious dogma - and that's putting it mildly. If you don't accept scientific method, then quite frankly, you might as well live among the Amish or an otherwise primitive existence to match your primitive thinking. All of the conveniences and benefit of modern living are the result of scientific processes of inquiry, hypotheses, testing, observation, and conclusions, which either lead to more experimentation or theory. And theory enables us to manipulate the environment around us. You can pick and choose your beliefs, but you cannot pick and choose the outcome of the scientific process to adapt to your systems of belief; it should be in reverse: you should adapt your beliefs to fit the observations that we can mostly agree upon.

 

It is possible to believe in a higher power while simultaneously respecting the outcomes of scientific research and academic inquiry. I have no problem with people who believe in a higher power. My problem is that there are some primitive belief systems that people refuse to discard because science challenges and flatly disproves many of the literal interpretations of what is said in holy books. That's the problem.

[M30USA]

I think this thread misses the point. The issue is, do you accept the scientific method, or don't you? If you do, then you have good reason to be highly skeptical of religious dogma - and that's putting it mildly. If you don't accept scientific method, then quite frankly, you might as well live among the Amish or an otherwise primitive existence to match your primitive thinking. All of the conveniences and benefit of modern living are the result of scientific processes of inquiry, hypotheses, testing, observation, and conclusions, which either lead to more experimentation or theory. And theory enables us to manipulate the environment around us. You can pick and choose your beliefs, but you cannot pick and choose the outcome of the scientific process to adapt to your systems of belief; it should be in reverse: you should adapt your beliefs to fit the observations that we can mostly agree upon.

 

It is possible to believe in a higher power while simultaneously respecting the outcomes of scientific research and academic inquiry. I have no problem with people who believe in a higher power. My problem is that there are some primitive belief systems that people refuse to discard because science challenges and flatly disproves many of the literal interpretations of what is said in holy books. That's the problem.

 

Just to clarify in the hopefully unlikely case that you all aren't already aware, the scientific method is a term with specific meaning, not just science. It has specific criteria and is only applicable to certain types of experimentation.

[Fugu]

Just to clarify in the hopefully unlikely case that you all aren't already aware, the scientific method is a term with specific meaning, not just science. It has specific criteria and is only applicable to certain types of experimentation.

 

I think you get the point. Not all opinions have validity -- in fact, many don't. I'm not sure what your point is by posting the above, but I'm pretty sure my point posted earlier is clear.

[BetheButterfly]

I don't think one is more intelligent than the other. There are some brilliant theologians and scientists who are Christians.

 

Agreed

 

Personally I simply reached a tipping point where I didn't need to dance to a rain god anymore. It was silly. I understand how many things work in nature, and it's not because of divine intervention. I could dance all day and that will never ever ever ever affect the atmosphere. The universe just wasn't made for little old us.

 

Most ancient cultures that believe in a "rain god" actually understand that the "universe just wasn't made for little old us." Even though I'm not Native American and don't believe in Native American spiritual beliefs except a few which are similar to Judeo-Christian beliefs, I am very intrigued by Native American beliefs. There were reasons why they believed what they did. Maybe you don't care for those reasons, and that's fine. Personally, I actually prefer the respect many of them have for the earth than the blatant egocentric superior manner of other people, including my ancestors, who migrated to the USA with their advanced weaponry and destroyed many people, animals (for sport as well as for food) and trees. I still wish the bison and buffalo roamed...

 

What clinched it for me is the sources in Christian theology are unreliable. Seems everything happened 2000 years ago and the POOF! God and Jesus disappeared. Haven't heard a peep. And it's been 2000 YEARS and counting. Call me crazy but I think after 2000 years you gotta start asking questions.

 

You don't hear when someone in China gets called by their Mom, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. God normally seeks only those who seek Him, though there are some exceptions. If you don't want God, He's a Gentleman and He isn't going to force Himself on you.

 

Better by far to embrace the hard truth than reassuring fables.

 

Just because you don't personally believe the history of a specific group of people, that doesn't mean it is false. Rather, it means it's of no importance to you, which is fine.

 

I personally believe the history of Muhammad, though I don't believe all the stories are true. However, I'm not going to call what Muslims believe fables because I wasn't there when certain events allegedly happened. I don't know. Sadly, at the time period of Muhammad, video cameras didn't exist. At the time period of Jesus, video cameras didn't exist either. At the time of Buddha, video cameras didn't exist either. At the time of Moses and Abraham and all the other people thousands of years ago, video cameras didn't exist so it's hard for us to know 100% sure what happened.

[M30USA]

I personally believe the history of Muhammad, though I don't believe all the stories are true. However, I'm not going to call what Muslims believe fables because I wasn't there when certain events allegedly happened. I don't know. Sadly, at the time period of Muhammad, video cameras didn't exist. At the time period of Jesus, video cameras didn't exist either. At the time of Buddha, video cameras didn't exist either. At the time of Moses and Abraham and all the other people thousands of years ago, video cameras didn't exist so it's hard for us to know 100% sure what happened.

 

I used to think all the claims by Muhammad, Joseph Smith (of Mormonism), and even the leader of the modern "Raelian" movement were just fictional nonsense. I knew they were all--supposedly--visited by an "angel" or, in the case of Rael, an "extraterrestrial", but I thought they just made up the stories.

 

Now that I've studied angels, I have changed my mind. I believe that these people really did encounter an angel, but they were fallen angels with the intent to deceive. Why do I say this? Well it's interesting that in the Galatians 1 it says: Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!

 

This verse in Galatians seems to hint that it might happen where an angel (ie, fallen angel) comes from heaven to deceive. I find it interesting that all the major world religions, and even some modern cults such as Raelian movement, claim to have an angelic/extraterrestrial visitation at their origin. That's why I no longer think Buddhism, Mormonism, etc, are fictional, but I take them seriously. On one hand, just like the Gospel of Christ (which is truth), they truly didn't originate from earth; but on the other hand they are lies.

Edited August 7, 2012 by M30USA

[fallenheart]

Yes, OP, atheists are smarter and better educated than Christians.

[M30USA]

Yes, OP, atheists are smarter and better educated than Christians.

 

The main thing I'm looking for is people to volunteer their own education level and religious/non-religious belief.

[Forever Silent]

I used to think all the claims by Muhammad, Joseph Smith (of Mormonism), and even the leader of the modern "Raelian" movement were just fictional nonsense. I knew they were all--supposedly--visited by an "angel" or, in the case of Rael, an "extraterrestrial", but I thought they just made up the stories.

 

Now that I've studied angels, I have changed my mind. I believe that these people really did encounter an angel, but they were fallen angels with the intent to deceive. Why do I say this? Well it's interesting that in the Galatians 1 it says: Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!

 

This verse in Galatians seems to hint that it might happen where an angel (ie, fallen angel) comes from heaven to deceive. I find it interesting that all the major world religions, and even some modern cults such as Raelian movement, claim to have an angelic/extraterrestrial visitation at their origin. That's why I no longer think Buddhism, Mormonism, etc, are fictional, but I take them seriously. On one hand, just like the Gospel of Christ (which is truth), they truly didn't originate from earth; but on the other hand they are lies.

 

Are you aware that you indicted almost 4 billion people.

[soccerrprp]

Atheists are equally ignorant of what is beyond our existence here on earth as any other...smarter, no. Just better educated to "sound" like they know what they're talking about...oh, agnostic here...

[HisGraceisSufficient]

My own theory:

 

Having a high degree of intelligence can often lead a person to pride, conceit and self-sufficiency. All three hardens one's heart toward God as "Im good enough," repels the message of the Gospel. A dependence on oneself (intelligence) resists the humble dependence on God.

 

This is why Thomas a Kempis states:

 

"It is better to have but little knowledge with humility and understanding,

than great learning which might make you proud."

Edited August 15, 2012 by HisGraceisSufficient

[M30USA]

Nobody is too stupid or too much of a mess for Jesus; however, many a people are too strong and self-reliant for Jesus.

[Garfish]

oh brother

[M30USA]

Guess his father isnt the same way, he just kills people when they dont do what he wants.

 

Yeah, but the difference is that God is holy, and we are not. If a human did what you just said (killed people for not doing what he wants), then that person would be bad. But God is holy. If he choses to do this, he is just in his decision. (And for the record, God's mercy is astonishing. He doesn't kill literally every person who doesn't do what he wants. If that were the case, we'd all be dead.) It seems like your main theological issue is regarding God's identity and character; not the secondary actions. I would suggest tackling the issue of God's identity first and it might help you. A great place to start is the book "Discovering the Character of God" by George McDonald.

[Taramere]

It's something I hear all the time: atheists are smart and scientific while Christians are stupid and superstitious.

 

While I understand formal education is not everything, can we start taking a survey on this forum about our religious orientation and education level? I'm just curious.

 

I will start.

 

Religion: Christian (Bible-believing)

Education: Master of Science

 

Religion: Cultural Christian. Regard the Bible not so much as an oracle as ancient wisdom about human nature and the eternal conflicts (between right and wrong, good and evil) that most of us struggle with

 

Education: Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Laws...general professional emphasis on conflict resolution.

 

I don't believe that the fact of somebody being an atheist automatically propels them into a state of being able to think logically and scientifically. In the same way, professing a faith doesn't automatically transform a deeply flawed human being into an enlightened one.

 

Religion and philosophy are intertwined. Even some very ardent atheists out there search for a personal and/or political philosophy they can identify with. LIbertarianism is popular with a lot of atheists, and debating libertarian thinking with the very staunch libertarian (especially those whose beliefs stem in great part from Nietzschian notions of master morality) can be as frustrating as debating religion with a fundamentalist. Both will tend to believe in the perfection and infallibility of their own belief system.

 

I think that selecting a faith or a philosophy by which you will identify yourself is the easy way out. Philosophies and religion can provide people with moral or ethical guidance, but we have to look inside ourselves for answers to the dilemmas we encounter in life.

 

The world of science I regard as generally separate. An area of learning that is concerned with facts rather than ethics...but of course, society presses for scientists to employ ethics. Medical ethics, ethics in research methods and the ethics of disrupting nature's balance to an extent that even the best scientists lack the knowledge or ability to put right.