Radical Atheist

Atheists are as closed minded as fundamentalists. You'll read this and dismiss it just as fast as a fundie would evolution. That's not intelligence. Neither side's theory make much sense to me.

Search on google for "Religiousness vs IQ" (without quotes) and similar searches and you can actually find graphs enforcing this: On average, the more religious someone is, the lower their IQ!

Bear in mind these are averages.

I don't think "intellectualism" needs to be Godless, I't can very well be the search of God through the intellect. Many great scientist, phylosophers, writers, etc, etc, found God in nature, in themselves and their quest was to relate that "feeling" of the divine with the knowledge of man.

We are only primates, highly evolve ones with a highly evolve language, but our language has limits, they can't describe God.
So, there's no sense in organiza religion, but the search for God or the divine shouldn't be banned or frowned upon.

Lately some atheist seem to be getting pretty religious about the affair, holding themselves as if they hold the truth, just like the religious folk they attack.

A bright thought would be this, I am but a mere human, trapped in a body that doesn't reflect the true nature of my intellect, I do not have the power to see God's true nature, I seek it on my own and respect every one's quest to find their own personal god. It seems more consecuent with the intellectualism claim.

The idea of the bright thing is that some people don't want atheism to simply be the opposite of something else. It has nothing to do with being smarter than someone.

RA,

How do you know that atheists are smarter than theists? I suspect that they are, based on my own personal experience, but where's the empirical data? I mean, there was that study about how an overwhelming majority of scientists in the National Academy are atheist, but that only proves so much. All I'm saying is that you should provide all the evidence you have when making a claim, and refrain from acting like its a certainty unless you can show that it is. What about all the nontheists around the world that were in fact born into secular societies (and therefore families), who did not come to the conclusion on their own? I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but there are just major holes in your argument, and as atheists, rigorous logic and rhetoric are things that we have got to uphold.

You said, 'I challenge any theist to provide an intellectual reason for their belief that doesn't, in the end, come down to, "you must have faith".' I wonder how you would respond to your own challenge? (I am assuming that you would say you were agnostic on the question of a deity if you were relying solely on doubt and skepticism as your mode of reasoning, and that to take the further step to positively declare that there is no God requires a sort of 'forward motion' of thought. How do you destroy the doubt of agnosticism?)

Let me start off by saying I'm an atheist. I was born an atheist and have never been a theist. I did not come to my conclusions through logic or science or reason. I became an atheist because the religions around me were too confusing. I didn't really understand them. When I was younger I sought answers to the questions theists told me to ask. Why am I here? etc. However, now that I'm older I've come to some conclusions about life that most atheists have not.
Firstly, I don't think theism is a "bad" or "dumb" idea at all. I ask myself metaphysical questions often and find no solace in my atheism. Of course, I find no solace in theism either. But, some people do. Some people make their whole life about God, and they're the better for it.
Everything is contingent. Christians are contingent. The reason they are Christians is based on the way they think about the world. Atheists are contingent, and their atheism comes from their metaphors for life. And since there is no ultimate truth why not trust people to describe the world in the way that makes them feel most comfortable.

It'd be very illuminating indeed, the notion that belief in a deity is antagonistic to intelligence. I see just two things wrong with your conclusion, however. First, it's based upon an entirely faulty premise, and secondly, it's completely irrelevant.

Your faulty premise is the flat-out assumption that theists have not formed their personal beliefs from logical, reasonable investigation. "We had to use our curiosity and intellect, because our religious leaders didn't encourage skepticism and doubt." The implication is that those who believe have not used curiosity or intellect.

"I challenge any theist to provide an intellectual reason for their belief that doesn't, in the end, come down to, "you must have faith.'"

Okay. LaBrant's Postulate states that any logical argument against the existence of god(s), in the subjective presence of such god(s), will appear absurd. Indeed, is it somehow wiser to embrace objective proof and eschew subjective experience than to do the opposite, eschewing objective proof and embracing subjective experience? Stating "You must have faith" is almost as ignorant as stating "You mustn't have faith." And the implication "I'm smarter than you because I can ignore part of the human experience" is humorous in the same way as the joke about the blind men checking out the elephant.

Spiritual phenomena are, by definition, almost entirely subjective. Trying to apply science is about as appropriate as trying to barbecue chocolate chip cookies. Yes, you can barbecue cookies. Yes, you can use a bayonet to open a can of tuna. No, it's probably not the most efficient or effective way to accomplish your aims.

Your argument is irrelevant in that even a watertight proof that atheists are smart would accomplish approximately nothing. On balance, there's still the other (how many percent?) portion of humankind that does believe, and must be dealt with, and must have their beliefs understood at some rudimentary level to be dealt with effectively. Two men are having a discussion. One is caught in a bear trap, the other walks by. One proves the other is less intelligent. Which one? What's change? Answer? Not a thing.

Ultimately, the appeal for intellectuals to a theistic point of view is that atheism is in so many ways a philosophical dead end, and while it encourages scientific curiosity, actively avoids nonsensical questions of why.

Religion discourages skepticism, but atheism makes it irrelevant. Why question the motives of a being who doesn't exist? Why examine the purpose of something that happened on its own and therefore has no purpose?

We humans are purpose-driven animals, with a plethora of different notions as to what the underlying purpose actually is. A few humans have managed to adopt the notion that there's no purpose at all, and it's charmingly quaint. Not wrong, just cute.

The lack of intellectualism certainly is disappointing. Theism in itself, however, does not imply anti-intellectualism; it is possible to be a theist and yet still question the world around you. Blind theism is annoying; what's [I]really[/I] annoying is when theists try to force their beliefs on the rest of us (banning of gay marriage, women's right to abortion, etc., etc.) or ignore things like global warming, even with plenty of evidence, because it contradicts their religion.

Because those likely to be too offended by this have stopped reading by now, check this out! http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/uberdylan/YMCA.jpg

I was once a very educated Catholic. Now I am a very educated atheist. And happy too !

dude - I"m pretty radical, and I would never say any of the shit you wrote up there to a christian - but it totally caught my attention. The anti-intellectual argument can't be denied, though. I'll commend you for preaching it to the stumble-leftist choir, I'll even give you the SU thumbs up!

there are good and bad points to either theory. the christians have made up for themselves a reason to be here, the way they got here and where they'll go once they pass on. however, they are very hypocritical. one of the big parts of christianity is 'love your brother'. which, in my interpretation is simply a way of saying 'be open minded', yet the christians are against gays, divorce, abortion and anyone/anything that doesn't fit their white-picket-fence dream existence.
atheism promotes an inquiring mind. atheists have been trying to disprove the existence of a god of any kind, and are trying to discover how the universe came about and what'll happen once we're gone. in the mind of an atheist, the reason to live is purely scientific: reproduce. the downside to atheism is that they too, are quite close-minded, not taking the insights of their religious neighbours into consideration while forming militant arguments of 'why there can't be a god'. if the atheists would listen to the christians and perhaps try to build on their beliefs and their quest for truth, and if the christians would simply accept the fact that there might not be a god, we'd all get along so much better.

personally, i've been on both sides of this argument. i used to go to church every sunday, then an agnostic friend of mine convinced me to drop that, and i became a non-believer in the most extreme sense of the word.
now i follow pastafarianism. i turned to the flying spaghetti monster in the summer, and i've felt more peaceful and at ease with the world ever since.

seriously, come on. believers: i think it's great that you've found something to hold on to. props for trying to stay strong.

atheists: learn to laugh at yourselves. don't take yourselves so seriously, and take a detour on the Quest for Truth every now and then to smell the roses.

All most atheists demand to change our views is proof or the ability to prove the existence of a God. Since it cannot be proven, faith is pointless, and some people don't really like wasting their entire lives on pointless pursuits.

Also, the graph:
godandscience.org/apologetics/religion_vs_iq.html
w-uh.com/posts/031226a-religion_vs_IQ.html

Perhaps the "intellectuals" amongst you should use your brains to figure out that most of the time you are not rejecting God, but those who claim to represent him. Think deeply about what I just wrote before replying. In the very recent past I've begun having discussions with educated individuals about the concept of intelligent design. There is no doubt amongst many of the brightest individuals in this country (I'm in the USA) that random chance is a ludicrous explanation for the universe in which we live.

Imagine if you'd use that vast "intellect" to examine context of "sacred" writings (ie: the Bible) and to then use what you found to teach those who take their religious manuscripts literally. Imagine if you were to discover that the Bible, for example, doesn't contradict science when looked at on a deeper level.

Compare Genesis chapter 1 to the theory of evolution. Most evolutionists believe the universe came into existence with a bang, then over time planets formed, lower forms of life emerged, leading to man.

When I read Genesis Chapter 1 I see this:

God speaks everything into existence (nothing was there, then "bang"... he speaks it into existence).

Planets are formed.

On earth, water is separated from land.

Grasses and lower forms of life are created.

Birds and other creatures are created.

More advanced forms of animals are created.

Man is created.

When I read that... it sure sounds evolution to me. And when the context of the words used in the original language are examined, the term translates to eon. Each "day" in the Bible wasn't a literal 24 hour period, but was in fact an "age". In this case, science and the Bible are not in conflict. The process was simply guided by an intelligence many of us call "God".

To me, any person with the "intellect" you claim to possess can not possibly look at even the most basic forms of life without seeing an intelligence in the design of that life.

What a pile of pooh. You are being so arrogant and going on such a diatribe I do not know how to begin.

I am a member of mensa (so reasonably intelligent) was not raised in a Christian family, but I am now a Christian. totally opposite of what you are saying here.

Some people use their intelligence and come to the conclusion their is a God.

Knowledge has limits.....ignorance is limitless. There is a Flat Earth Society if you would care to join.

What you perceive as arrogance is actually just assurance. I've followed a long road to reach the conclusions I have, and I'm firm in my conclusions. There are otherwise intelligent people who are believers. I can certain question their thinking in that one area while still acknowledging their intelligence in other areas. Someone could come along and present an argument that altered my conclusions, but I doubt it will be a person who claims membership in Mensa yet cannot use the correct form of there/their/they're in context.

@Donny:
It should be obvious that if anything is being "rejected" it's the followers of gods. Since gods don't exist, it makes no sense that anyone would reject something that isn't there.

There are those who are both educated and support ID. Being smart in one field does not mean you're equally smart in every field.

When you say, "There is no doubt amongst many of the brightest individuals in this country (I'm in the USA) that random chance is a ludicrous explanation for the universe in which we live" you make two errors of fact. Since you cannot know the mind of another, it's impossible for you to say there is no doubt. Perhaps none was expressed to you, but that hardly supports your contention. Secondly, what standard are you using to determine "the brightest individuals"? Your statement sounds lofty until examined closely.

You suggest, "Imagine if you'd use that vast "intellect" to examine context of "sacred" writings (ie: the Bible) and to then use what you found to teach those who take their religious manuscripts literally" you don't make sense. Are you suggesting the literalists are wrong? Based on what? How can you say with authority that a literal interpretation is less correct than a watered-down reinterpretation? If the Bible is literally correct, than we should be stoning disobedient children and killing those who work on the Sabbath.

Theists would not agree across the board with you when you say, "Imagine if you were to discover that the Bible, for example, doesn't contradict science when looked at on a deeper level. Compare Genesis chapter 1 to the theory of evolution. Most evolutionists believe the universe came into existence with a bang, then over time planets formed, lower forms of life emerged, leading to man. When I read Genesis Chapter 1 I see this: God speaks everything into existence (nothing was there, then "bang"... he speaks it into existence). Planets are formed. On earth, water is separated from land. Grasses and lower forms of life are created. Birds and other creatures are created. More advanced forms of animals are created. Man is created. When I read that... it sure sounds evolution to me. And when the context of the words used in the original language are examined, the term translates to eon. Each "day" in the Bible wasn't a literal 24 hour period, but was in fact an "age". In this case, science and the Bible are not in conflict." There are many creationists who accept a six-day creation. Again, what makes your interpretation more correct than theirs?

"To me, any person with the "intellect" you claim to possess can not possibly look at even the most basic forms of life without seeing an intelligence in the design of that life." You fail to appreciate that perception is a human attribute, and what we perceive is limited by our less-than-perfect senses. What you see as design another might perceive as chaos. There is no absolute definition of design, no absolute standard to measure nature against. It's common to see what you expect to see. You expect to see intelligent design and you do. I expect to see the workings of natural processes and I do.