Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One doesn't "convert" to being an atheist (you don't capitalize the "a") there is no conversion process or ritual. You may come to the realization that you don't believe in religion or a supernatural power
Well that ain't right! The sum total of person's intelligence can't not be determined by one set of personal beliefs. If being an atheist is a sign of superior intelligence then how would you weight the mind of a Augustine of Hippo or Thomas Aquinas vs, the mind of a Stalin or Hitler?
I don't think you are right. I think I did "convert". Here are a couple definitions of "convert":
1. to turn to another or a particular use or purpose; divert from the original or intended use 2. to modify (something) so as to serve a different function
and i 'absolutely' believe that there IS a conversion 'process' which 'leads' to the realization!
Well that ain't right! The sum total of person's intelligence can't not be determined by one set of personal beliefs. If being an atheist is a sign of superior intelligence then how would you weight the mind of a Augustine of Hippo or Thomas Aquinas vs, the mind of a Stalin or Hitler?
I agree with your first point on realization. Good point and I agree.
Small point, but keep in mind that Hitler wasn't an atheist.
Second, I think it could be argued that many theistic philosophers would have had slightly different views in the 21st century. Would they have been a-theistic? It's certainly possible and likely probable, but I'm not even saying that - but it's no doubt that even Acquinas' writings would have been different after such technological and information waves that we understand today.
I've made this point before about how I feel about many believers. I think there's a great many of them who have placed the subject of their religion off limits to any real scrutiny or questioning. I've known some very intelligent people who are very religious but are high functioning individuals at work and obviously able to think rationally in order to be productive employees. I don't feel it's accurate to state that believers are just a little dumber than those of us who are atheists and I don't like the idea of coming across as some sort of arrogant person who is condescending to those who are religious. I'll admit that I often shake my head in disbelief at some of the posts that certain believers make on this forum but there's obviously also some pretty bright members who happen to be Christians and can express themselves very well. I've also read posts by atheists that made me wince because they didn't appear to know what they were talking about so it works both ways.
I have the opinion that many believers would feel like they were betraying their God and their faith if they even had doubts about any particular detail in the Bible and they build a kind of mental wall around it because even thinking about it would make them feel guilty. The whole concept of faith is based on the idea that you've got to accept these religious beliefs in their entirity even though there's no evidence that would support it.
MontanaGuy,
that's a good point.
i agree with you 100%. i'm not suggesting that me thinking religious folks i encounter are all un-intellectual sheep...i'm basically saying that i subconsciously feel that way and so i find myself looking down on them thinking that they are not thinkers.
i know this is NOT the correct reaction and i'm trying to see if there's anything i can do about it.
I was also interested to see whether others share the same/similar feelings as what i am.
Hi,
I recently converted to being an Atheist and discrediting the claims of all religions (after months of thinking and research). Mainly thanks to Richard Dawkins.
Since then (Nov. 08), I have this realization/feeling that others who do believe in a God are less than intelligent. I can't help but look down on them, although I don't say anything in that regard.
Is this normal? I don't think it's quite fair since I believed the same things less than a year ago! I don't want to be a hypocrite but at the same time, it's clear to me how delusional they are!
Is anyone experiencing the same thing?
I don't think i would go so far as to say that believers are less inteligent, i see it more of a different thought process and worldview.
There are definitely individuals on both sides of the table that are very inteligent and very not inteligent, so i think it might be a bit unfair to label one side or the other as more or less inteligent. Believers and nonbelievers approach life from different standpoints, and also interepert their life experieces differently.
Believers found their convictions on faith and acceptance, whereas nonbelievers are more apt to use reason and skepisism. Now this dosent mean that one cannot not be as inteligent or as wrong as the other, its just the way an individual carries out their life. And if that works for any particualr individual, who am i to tell them they are wrong?
Last edited by forkpower; 07-08-2009 at 12:14 PM..
Less intelligent? Nah...well maybe some of them, but I think that's just innate to those individuals. It wouldn't matter if they were theists or not. Why are people theists (several reasons)?
a) They grew up in it. In certain cultures, it's sort of a "that's just what we do" type of thing.
b) They were scared into it by threats of eternal damnation and are too scared to get out of it, though their rational mind knows it's all a bunch of crap....just in case.
c) They are uneducated. They just don't know anything else.
d) They are mindless sheep. To these people, it would not even occur to them to question it. Besides, they might be sent to hell if they do (see b).
e) They are otherwise intelligent, but get stuck at certain mysteries of the universe and nature. Yeah, they get the Big Bang and even believe it in, but they can't get around the old, "so where did the singularity come from?" Rather than taking an agnostic stance (such as I have), and saying, "I don't know", they assign these mysteries to a deity. It is comfortable. Many people don't like to admit to subscribe to, "I don't know."
I don't look down on them, because after all, I was one of them at one time. I freely admit, I really don't like evangelicals and fundamentalists for the most part. I honestly don't care what someone believes or does not believe. If that makes them happy, then so be it. I do not see it as my place to convince them otherwise. However, I will go to war with evangelicals as they see it as their place to make everyone believe as they do, even to the point of attempting to institute their pseudo-theocracy here in the States through measures such as forcing the teaching of creationism in the schools and so on. They also will not stop no matter how many times you tell them you are not interested. I have no problem going to war with them or anyone else who feels you MUST think like they do.
One time I asked my grandfather why the Lakotas (and some other plains nations) do their Sun Dance with the piercing and all that, but our people don't. He explained to me why and said, "But son, that is their way and you respect it. But, don't let anyone tell you you are wrong. And make damn sure they respect your way too!"
Last edited by Fullback32; 07-08-2009 at 12:52 PM..
.....certain mysteries of the universe and nature. Yeah, they get the Big Bang and even believe it in, but they can't get around the old, "so where did the singularity come from?" Rather than taking an agnostic stance (such as I have), and saying, "I don't know", they assign these mysteries to a deity.
To be consistent, shouldn't you reject any theory of a 'singularity' without empirical evidence?
The singularity is, after all, a supernatural explanation for the origin of the universe.
Consider:
-- there is no proof that it actually ever existed
-- it exercised power over the entire universe
-- it is not a part of the universe but is said to be outside and independent of space/time
-- it is not bound by the laws of our universe governing matter/energy
To be consistent, shouldn't you reject any theory of a 'singularity' without empirical evidence?
This just proves you don't read. I am not an atheist. I'm an agnostic. This means, in just a few words, "I don't know". I don't know if there is a god or not, but I am open to the possibility. I don't know where this singularity came from or if it even existed (this is why it's called a theory BTW). However, it makes sense to me (as does evolution). Besides, there's evidence (if not outright proof) for some of these things at least. That can't be said of religion no matter how hard you try. I am sure as time goes on, more will be known rather than theorized. I admit that I am a bit vexed by the "where did the singularity come from" question. I don't know how these things came about. But I do know this:
If there is a god, it isn't the Christian god or the Jewish god or the Muslim god or the Hindu gods or any other god of the world's religions.
If there is a god, I don't know what it is - A senitent being? A spirit? A force of some sort? I don't know.
If there is a god, it is SO far beyond humans in power and intelligence, that we can't possibly really understand it. These books that make people such as yourself say, "I know god. See, here he is in this box", is so absurd it's ridiculous. We barely understand nature and the universe, let alone a god (if it exists). I've heard people like yourself pay lip service to the immensity and unfathomable nature of this thing (if it is), yet you persist in telling everyone that "you KNOW god", "you KNOW Jesus", "you KNOW its mind", "you KNOW its heart". There's even a group in town called "All About God Ministries". Ppppffffttt...as if. You know NOTHING. This thing (if it exists) is so far beyond you and your puny minds (and by this I mean humans in general), it would laugh at you for your pride and arrogance in all your "knowledge" of it.
If there is a god, to date, it has not made itself know in any meaningful way. It says in your book that it is not a god of confusion. I argue that it is the author of it as it refuses to make itself known in an unambiguous manner. We have many religions and many denominations of those religions all saying, "WE'RE RIGHT! You are wrong and we'll kill you or at least bug the crap out of you to prove it. And if we don't, the loving god will ensure you are tormented forever because you didn't think right." This is all in spite of the fact that it still refuses to make itself know and plays mind games like "Have faith! Just listen to these jerkwads I have speaking for me and all will be well. Ignore that none of them agree with each other about me. Ignore that their books have massive translation errors and have been bent to fit what they want. And definitely ignore that men wrote them...not me. Pay no attention to the horrible things people have done to others because I supposedly told them to do so. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!" Either all that or maybe, just maybe, it doesn't exist or isn't what any of us (humans as a whole) think it is.
Since I don't know, I prefer to stay an agnostic. I cannot take the atheist stance myself. There are possibilities. Since that is the case, I will stay with the traditions of my Comanche people. They makes as much sense as anything else - belief-wise anyway (actually more IMO).
Last edited by Fullback32; 07-08-2009 at 02:07 PM..
To be consistent, shouldn't you reject any theory of a 'singularity' without empirical evidence?
Or he could remain consistent by claiming, "I don't know", untill such a thing is proven
Quote:
Originally Posted by c'est la vie
The singularity is, after all, a supernatural explanation for the origin of the universe.
Only supernatural in the sense that we dont yet understand the mechanics behind such an event, as most every day physics collapse at the quantum level. Just means we have more to learn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by c'est la vie
Consider:
Quote:
Originally Posted by c'est la vie
-- there is no proof that it actually ever existed
pot... kettle...
Quote:
Originally Posted by c'est la vie
-- it exercised power over the entire universe
Power over? No. For an example, when a bullet is fired, the explosion propelling the bullet does not have power over the bullet, it cannot bend the bullet to its will. The only influence the explosion has on the bullet is to propel it along its trajectory, a simple transfer of kinetic force.
If such a singularity were the birth of the known universe, that singularities influence would have stoped right there. The conditions were right, mass was condensed, and boom, lots of pretty lights, the rest is as they say history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by c'est la vie
-- it is not a part of the universe but is said to be outside and independent of space/time
True, many think that such an event was the birth of space and time, just another part of this theory that is not completed yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by c'est la vie
-- it is not bound by the laws of our universe governing matter/energy
Again, at our current understanding of quantum physics, yes, but this just means we have more learning to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by c'est la vie
It's supernatural.
When would that ever stop you from believing in something?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
