Atheism is for intelligent people, religion for the rest - debate.

Here is my take on Atheism its not for everyone, intelligent and well people who work at the facts of religion and think more deeply and investigate religious claims tend to be Atheists as in they find out religions are built on sand and digging undermines it. And are good due to believing in a moral system thought out and rational.

Ordinary people are simple and don't really want to do the investigation and are happy to take religious claims on face value, and for them being good means following what their faith system says IS good. And rarely dig or even bother to study their religious books. From my experience many Christians don't know what's in the Bible much at all and gladly take the case against bad things as what their pastors tell them ... nothing more if they bother at all.

What Atheism needs to do is come up with a simple moral system you can explain to a five year old before you can consider attacking religion since without something that is simple to replace it, most people will cling to their faith, since that is a scary idea to them, to not need it anymore.

Just look at Hinduism its simple you be a good person you move up the Karmic scale and if you don't you go down which encourages being good to people who lets face it are poor, often not well educated and have nothing else to cling to. The same for your typical evangelical they are raised up in their faith so tend to be less informed in science and other things so gladly cling to their simple beliefs and try to spread this because Jesus loves them and will get them into heaven. And Muslims I'm sure many are decent people but how many study Arabic and then work at reading their book and think things out rationally maybe under 1% the educated religious elite, your typical poor laborer and convert rarely would bother with all that trusting their Imams for guidance and moral teachings a scary thought if that Imam is a dangerous radical element.

Atheism on the other hand gives nothing but you try to be good because one should be good, under a moral system one must reflect on and you die and what you do here and now matters more than anything else, your a cog in the species to promote the future of the species. So to give up faith reason needs to overcome a lot especially among the poor masses of the world and I don't see that as likely.

Well those are my thoughts to start.

 

RE: Atheism is for intelligent people, religion for the rest - debate.
※→ tkolter, et al,

I'm not sure this is accurate assessment. In that regard I offer an alternative perspective.

(COMMENT)

I see three different premises in your opening statement:

• Atheism is not for everyone.

√ Clearly the first claim is most probably true.

§ This answer supposes that humanity has a choice either to believe in a Supreme Being (SB) and Ultimate Cosmic Creator (UCC) or not.​

• Intelligent people tend to lean towards Atheism.

√ Clearly in question.

§ Studies on the demographics of atheism have concluded that self-identified atheists comprise anywhere from 2% to 13% of the world's population, whereas people without a religion comprise anywhere from 10% to 22% of the world's population.
§ GALLUP POLL: Those without what is considered an education are the most religious (80%) but religious people are a majority in all educational levels.
§ Neil Gross and Solon Simmons (2009). The religiosity of American college and university professorsIn terms of university professors, one study concluded that in the US, the majority of professors, even at "elite" universities, were religious.​

• The examination and investigation into religion undermines belief systems.

√ Probably not accurate.

§ Unsubstantiated.
§ Evidence Driven (Neil DeGrasse Tyson)
​

For more than a thousand years - a time of pre-Socratic Greek philosophy, some of the greatest minds of humanity asked and answered questions relative to the SB/UCC; including metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. But the idea of a SB/UCC is a "Belief System." Scientific Study is entirely different, which is based on research and empirical evidence tested using the "Scientific Process. The two concepts are entirely separate. Monsignor Georges Lemaître is an example of a Catholic Scientist that formulated the mathematical evidence of an "expanding universe;" a concept which would later become known as The Big Bang Theory.

(COMMENT)

Religious Claims and Moral Values are culturally based; not a product of the physical laws of the universe. The Moral Values that you must follow are codified in legal statues based on sovereignty and governmental authority; different from the Bible.

(COMMENT)

Science is all about what makes the natural and physical world act the way it does. Science is separate and distinct from Religious Belief Systems. Gravity (a Physical Force in the universal) works exactly the same for Western Christians as it does for an Islamic Cleric; yet, the moral values, religious practices and laws are very different.

(COMMENT)

Atheism is a binary state (on - off); belief or don't belief. It is NOT a system or structure.

"[T]o promote the future of the species" one must make a meaningful contribution to humanity. Israeli Scientist have been awarded more Noble Prizes for their contributions to the advancement of humanity than the entire contribution made by the 22 Members of the Arab League. Yet the moral judgement from most of the world is that Israel should be replaced by the Arabs; proven to be totally unproductive in the development of humanity. What does this example mean? It means that religious, ethical, and moral practices do not follow a path that is beneficial to human development.

∑ These two concepts are not similar in any way, shape or form. They should not be considered or evaluated with respect to the other.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

I am non-religious myself, but I don't think it's as simple as just being smart or honest. I think there are plenty of religious people who are smart and honest too, but I think our willingness to question certain things (and our focus of what to question) relies on many more things, like experiences. "Atheism" for instance, looks very different in the different geographical areas I know (Sweden, US and to some extent UK) so I think there is a lot of feedback within the groups as well, most atheists don't just conjure up their atheism, they are greatly influenced by their intellectual surroundings too, in a manner which has some similarities with religion. That's not really a problem for atheism, but it should humble us when talking to religious people.

As for morality, there are many attempts, but just like morality can be tough in reality, finding the foundations are tricky. There are attempts, from utilitarianists, humanists, Rawls, Nozick and so on. Many of them are simple enough, but they all have flaws (just like religious moralities do). None of them can be easily "picked" (although I tend to default to Rawls).

Yeah, that's tough for non-religion, but that just seems to be the case. Besides, people are rarely persuaded by arguments alone, I don't think it's that bad a loss. Secularism is gaining ground at the moment. That'll probably continue. There'll be several back-lashes (as there is whenever a system of thought grows quickly at the expense of others) there'll be some stale-mates. An outright war seems unlikely (because the geography of atheism) but who knows.

I think that'd be the case even if there was an obvious choice for morality though.

 

Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

The Golden Rule is what I do my best to live by, and I believe the world would be a whole lot better if more people did similarly. I think that's why it appears, in various wordings, in the scriptures of so very many religions. Whether true believers or white-lie charlatans, most religious visionaries whose work inspires popularity realize that compassion is a foundational -- perhaps the foundational -- human value.

 

Atheism is for anyone born with a silver spoon in their mouths who have had no need of strengthening from an Invisible God.

 

Atheism is also popular with severely traumatized persons such as the holocaust Jews or some veterans of wars wherein their reliance on a Theistic Religion failed them.

 

Atheism has nothing to do with intelligence.

You have to be actually quite stupid to believe in atheism.

 

Extremely intelligent people will become agnostics, rather than either atheist or religionist.

Although philosophically speaking, there is little logical argument against Deism as a faith system, particularly in light of Aristotle's and Aquinas' arguments.

An atheist or an agnostic would need to be completely ignorant of Aristotle and of Aquinas. But an agnostic could simply maintain "prove it to me scientifically" and that is a perfectly valid and logical position -- as long as the agnostic agrees to swing religionist once the proof has actually been provided.

Atheists on the other hand are and always will be totally stupid and ignorant.

Q.E.D.

 

Atheism is for the strong and the brave... especially if you come from a deeply religious background, it takes strength and courage to break through the mental wall of belief, to stare all hell and condemnation in the face and explore alternatives.

 

I think most people are fine with their moral code being handed to them as that is easier than doing an objective analysis of morality. Most of my life I parroted the morality handed to me and sheepishly followed because I was expected to. Over time I began to take issue with some aspects of the moral code that I was handed, and when I asked questions I was met by sterns and dire warnings to stay the course as opposed to having the objectionable points of morality objectively explained to me.

The above will not change many if any Christian minds as religious morality is seen as the domain of God and the will of God trumps the will of humanity.

As for intelligence, we are all intelligent to one degree or another.

 

Gotta say, even coming from an essentially non-religious background, some days it's really really tempting to believe that there's something more than the horrible things we do to each other and the darkness of the human mind. I've come to grok why so many people prefer the mirage to the desert.

 

I don't see myself being in the desert at all, in fact the knowledge and understanding that human decency is within our reach if we choose it, instead of only given to us/forced on us at the whim of a god brings me much comfort and joy.

It is the misguided belief, to be a good person you need religion that causes religious people to think Atheists are evil or bad... when in fact it's the opposite. There are no hypocrisy pretending to live to a set of rules that we are not programmed for but only an honest life with the conscious decision to be a good person and contribute to society.

I am a happier person without religion than when I went to church twice on a Sunday, those sitting in church benches whilst living terrible lives confused me and my own sins/sinful feelings left me guilt ridden.

 

No you have to be really stupid to participate in a discussion about the existance of a God without first defining the attributes required of a god.

 

RE: Atheism is for intelligent people, religion for the rest - debate.
※→ CourtJester, yiostheoy, et al,

This is confusing, to be sure...

(COMMENT)

"yiostheoy"

You cannot say BOTH:

• Belief in Atheism is independent of intelligence.​

THEN SAY

• A Lack of intelligence (stupid) is a prerequisite for the Belief in Atheism.​

The "CourtJester" is correct in his implication. To say you believe in a supernatural Supreme Being (SB), is to imply that you know what a supernatural SB is. It is to say that you can distinguish traits, characteristics, attributes, and domain of the SB from that of other supernatural entities (angels, spirits, souls, demons, Banshees, djin, ghosts, ghouls, vampires, witches, werewolves, etc).

I can say that I believe in the "Great Framastat;" yet such a claim means nothing because in the realization that neither you nor I know what a "Great Framastat" is.

Holding a strong belief in a SB is a matter of faith; based (philosophically) on spiritual apprehension (fear of a judgmental entity - the nature of which is unknown) rather than evidentiary observations.

Most Respectfully
R

 

I think you're equating intelligence with logic, which, while technically correct, ignores the emotional and instinctual nature of humanity. Theres mountains of research suggesting (while certainly not proving) that humans have a capacity for a 'sixth sense.' I would recommend some research into the pineal gland, for a start. The short version is that its a biological antenna (the third eye) which for some reason has either evolutionarily disconnected or has not yet evolved into connectibility... with whatever its supposed to connect to. A comparison would be the sense of direction. Some people have a proveable, replicatable ability to 'know' which direction they're facing regardless of their ability to see their surroundings. This suggests a human capacity to detect magnetic feilds, just like we know many other species can do. Some animals can also see heat or feel vibrations well outside of the human range. The point is that there are many aspects of our environment that we simply dont perceive. Hundreds of years ago, the concept of seeing heat or feeling magnetic feilds was anathema. Hundrefs of years from now, theres no telling what facets of reality we'll discover, whether through technological sensory advancement, evolution, OR BOTH, that will further our understanding of the universe. What people think (feel) is God may yet become scientifically testable, replicatable and quanifiable. Those who are able to 'sense' the unsensivle today may be considered 'less intelligent' because we simply call it logicless 'beleif', but what would they be if/when they're proven to be sensing something that the others are not, something that actually exists outside the commonly perceivable spectrum of human sensory capacity?

 

One point. What you think you are measuring in terms of 'being simple' or being too lazy to ask questions and research those answers with a lack of education, often reflects a lack of sufficient time and energy to pursue the topic. This is the kind of thinking that blue collar families, cease when they are no longer allowed the time. Its not that 'simple people' cannot think about such serious matters as a change in faith or from/to faith. Its that they are exhausted and too tired to spend time thinking and researching these abstract questions. When I am done standing on my feet for 10 hours, and finally finish with the kids, and the adult responsibilities, I am not going to spend that last hour revisiting questions of mortality, morality or any other themes of ages. I am going to watch some tv, do some facebook, text some acquaintances and go to sleep. If I don't have a university education, I am more likely to be physically tired at the end of each day and I will reach for what is familiar tonight, and do so tomorrow night and the next night. This process produces philosophic stagnation wherever you start it. If If I am already an atheist, I am not going to explore religion. If I am already a theist, I will stay one. If I am a catholic, I won't be researching Judaism. I will research my dinner, a few video games and my shower, and my bed.

People have a lot of daily stress and fatigue, and what is comfortable is what one puts on in times of stress. As an atheist, I am likely to stay one, because I don't feel like reading an annotated version of some bible to see if it fits me better than my atheism.

 

I am always amused with atheist, for something they don't believe in, they sure spend every minute of the day talking about it...I got news for you we know God exist and that's the end of it...it seems to me atheist are scared ..


.

 

RE: Atheism is for intelligent people, religion for the rest - debate.
※→ Bear513, et al,

It is a discussion group.

Since the time of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, the discussion of the supernatural has become a recurring theme among theologians, philosophers (soft science), and Scientist (hard science). And for the non-conformist, there has always been a threat from the Zealots, Religious Fanatics and Extremists to people like Socrates (sentence to die by poison), Hypatia (stripped and brutally beaten, who's body was dragged through the streets of Alexandra), Dr M Servetus (arrested, tortured and burned at the stake), Galileo (sentence to house arrest for life), and even Einstein (banned from teaching, revoked membership from the Prussian Academy of Sciences, property was seized, his books were burned for being Jewish).

I think it is the other way around.

As Dr Neil DeGrasse Tyson is fond of reminding us:

• Galileo said that "The Bible tells us "How to Go to Heaven, Not How the Heavens Go."

(OBSERVATION)

Excerpt - Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
First published Wed Oct 10, 2012
Existence raises deep and important problems in metaphysics, philosophy of language, and philosophical logic. Many of the issues can be organized around the following two questions:

• Is existence a property of individuals?
  
• Assuming that existence is a property of individuals, are there individuals that lack it?

(COMMENT)

Questioning the realm and domain of the supernatural, and the related issue of what you know and how do you know it, will be on the table for as long as the man searches for the truth of universe.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

No it is a flame bait thread....look at the first paragraph of the OP



Here is my take on Atheism its not for everyone, intelligent and well people who work at the facts of religion and think more deeply and investigate religious claims tend to be Atheists as in they find out religions are built on sand



.

 

Atheism is the end result of rational and critical evaluation of the existence of a God.
Agnosticism is the same thing with a mind fully open.
Religion is the purposeful decision to forgo such things in preference of community and acceptance.

 

You just need to bear in mind that once you leave Deism and wander into the forest of Theism, you have left Philosophy and entered superstition.

And similarly atheism is the other side of the coin of Theism -- pure superstition.

 

You are generalizing way too much here. There are atheists that cannot shut up and there are theists that cannot shut up. We tend to notice this when that someone who won't shut up, is talking about something we disagree with. In most societies theism is the cultural norm and in many communities there is real discrimination against atheists. In some cultures is downright dangerous to be an atheist. One side effect, is the 'closet atheist'. Not only do these atheists refrain from talking about it, they go out of their way to pretend they are beleivers in the local deity. You will find closet atheists in churches, synogogues, as one of the Pastors children, anywhere. You don't know squat about closet atheists because they work hard to make sure you don't. That way they will still be invited to the potlucks and the barbeques, and they don't have to listen to the busybody Christian trying every conceivable trick to convert them.

As for your last sentence, it is just bizarre.

 

There is no scientific evidence that people possess a sixth sense. And as far as I know science is never involved in " suggesting". Perhaps you are confusing anecdotal evidence with science.

 

Source, if any?