Atheist=smarter and better person?

[Juan_Bottom]

The second is easy. Parole boards tend to look favorably on religion. Not to mention that clergy are some of the few people who prisoners have the right to see, often in person.

Hey, I just want to say that I have done thirty days county time. No prison time. But I was in the "out pen" for prisoners going to prison.

I disagree based on that experience. Those were some of the dumbest people I have ever met. And In my thirty days, of about sixty people I met, only one other wasn't Christian. And yeah, they did make me afraid a couple of times.

Anyway that other fellow was a satanist.... a preacher for the Church of Satan. It was pretty cool how he forced the guards to find him a copy of his Bible, and get his recruitment papers.

Just wanted to say I disagree, but that I hadn't actually been to prison.

[Nataki Yiro]

Lol... your sources are lame. Not only are they wrong but it makes no mention of two facts.

Neo-Darwinism shuns almost all other viewpoints out of the scientific realm to protect it stance (really open minded right)

Next to none of the people admitted into prisons are Christian or believers in Christ, but about 4/5 of people admitted into long term sentences become Christians or believers in Christ. (I liked how you twisted the facts)

Please for the sake of intelligence don't try to force your retarded viewpoints, that have no true backing, down the throats of those who are smart enough to admit there is a God.

[Backglass]

Please for the sake of intelligence don't try to force your retarded viewpoints, that have no true backing, down the throats of those who are smart enough to admit there is a God.

Please for the sake of intelligence don't try to force your ancient viewpoints, that have no true backing, down the throats of those who are smart enough to realize there are no magical beings impregnating earth women and producing half-god children.

[Caleb the Cruel]

72% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences are atheists and 21% are agnostic
According to the leading science journal Nature 394:313, a recent survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences showed that 72% are outright atheists, 21% are agnostic and only 7% admit to belief in a personal God. This survey and many more showing that more intelligent people tend not to believe in religion.

80% of U.S. prisoners are Christian and 0.2% are atheists
Data source is The Federal Bureau of Prisons, March 1997.

So these "smart" scientists are mostly atheists, eh? If they were so smart, they'd believe in God, duh! But seriously, these scientists are the same people who insist that evolution is completely true, and a Creator kind of messes up most of their theories so of course they don't believe in Him! They'd rather believe in themselves and their "brilliant" new discoveries!

There are a lot of criminals who convert while in jail thanks to jail evangelism programs. Plus, saying you're a Christian doesn't hurt when you're trying to get parole, early release, or something of that sort.

[Ditocoaf]

Neo-Darwinism shuns almost all other viewpoints out of the scientific realm to protect it stance (really open minded right)

"Outside of the scientific realm"? You realize the scientific realm accepts anything that has any logic or proof to back it up. So there are only very few things outside of the scientific realm, and most of them are like such: "Believe this because I say so", "I believe this because I want to", "I believe this just because", and "I believe this is true for no reason at all, but will continue to believe it, because it is true". So you're right, these people do shun those lines of reasoning.

Who coined the term "Darwinism", anyway? What does it mean? Does it just mean someone who follows scientific evidence that leads them to believe that the theory of evolution, originally proposed by Darwin, is one of the most likely explanations for many observed phenomena?

Or to be a Darwinist, would you have to believe in evolution like a religion: "Darwin was right, and I won't accept any evidence to the contrary"... because if that is the case, there are very very few "darwinists."

[Neutrino]

So these "smart" scientists are mostly atheists, eh? If they were so smart, they'd believe in God, duh! But seriously, these scientists are the same people who insist that evolution is completely true, and a Creator kind of messes up most of their theories so of course they don't believe in Him! They'd rather believe in themselves and their "brilliant" new discoveries!

How so? I can think of no reason at all that leads God and evolution to be mutually incompatable.

There are a lot of criminals who convert while in jail thanks to jail evangelism programs. Plus, saying you're a Christian doesn't hurt when you're trying to get parole, early release, or something of that sort.

I think this is an excellent example of just how screwed up the US legal system is. Religion before justice.

[Nataki Yiro]

You are right... how foolish of me. Why would I want to believe a belief that is so outdated and has been around for some 6,000 years and who's book contains the oldest known history records? I could just jump on the bandwagon with another religion that is less than 2,000 years old or jump in on Atheism, which has only made an appearance in the past 200 years.

Let's ditch the brightest possibility so I feel better about having sex with my girlfriend, because their is no God to judge me.

[Ditocoaf]

You are right... how foolish of me. Why would I want to believe a belief that is so outdated and has been around for some 6,000 years and who's book contains the oldest known history records? I could just jump on the bandwagon with another religion that is less than 2,000 years old or jump in on Atheism, which has only made an appearance in the past 200 years.

Let's ditch the brightest possibility so I feel better about having sex with my girlfriend, because their is no God to judge me.

There have always been non-believers... just less of them before science offered an alternative way of finding out answers ("believe what this guy's saying" used to be the only option... now there's "believe what this guy's saying IF he presents proof").

But if you're going to go for the oldest relegion, then why aren't you going for some of the many, many religions older than Judaism (which branched into christianity)? Abraham was a prophet that added a new religion to the mix, just like John Smith was for Mormonism.

[Neutrino]

You are right... how foolish of me. Why would I want to believe a belief that is so outdated and has been around for some 6,000 years

Uhhh, no. 2000 years only for Christianity. You can eke another 2000 (I think) if you extend your definition of "Christianity" to include Judaism, but that still leaves you 2000 years short.

and who's book contains the oldest known history records? I could just jump on the bandwagon with another religion that is less than 2,000 years old or jump in on Atheism, which has only made an appearance in the past 200 years.

Let's ditch the brightest possibility so I feel better about having sex with my girlfriend, because their is no God to judge me.

Wait, your only criteria for a religion is age? If I took the Scientology holy-book (if they have one) back 10 000 years and to an obscure corner of the world, loaded it up with local history and started a religion based on it, would you convert based on it's obvious aged wisdom?
Summary: Age =! Accuracy.

[Nataki Yiro]

Well it's obvious someone hasn't read the Bible...

There are no official proven fallacies in the Bible. All you can find is people who half read it taking things out of context. If they did that with Shakespeare someone would murder them.

Obviously you know nothing about space envelopes otherwise you would know that if time travel was possible we could only go forward. So dragging books into the past isn't a problem.

[Neutrino]

Obviously you know nothing about space envelopes otherwise you would know that if time travel was possible we could only go forward. So dragging books into the past isn't a problem.

Surprisingly, I was aware of this rather obvious limitation. It was an example that had little to nothing to do with actual physics and a lot to do with the point I'd designed it to represent.
Anyways, can you respond to the point this time?

[Hologram]

Atheists are probably smarter as a general rule, as the more intelligent people generally don't like clinging to superstitions and whatnot, but it's definitely not absolute.

I classify myself as one of the people who are able to reconcile science with my religion and vice versa. It's worked well for me so far.

[kagetora]

Well it's obvious someone hasn't read the Bible...

There are no official proven fallacies in the Bible. All you can find is people who half read it taking things out of context. If they did that with Shakespeare someone would murder them.

Obviously you know nothing about space envelopes otherwise you would know that if time travel was possible we could only go forward. So dragging books into the past isn't a problem.

PROVEN FALLACY IN THE BIBLE: There was no global flood.

As to Christianity being the oldest religion out there, if you actually use scientific evidence, there was no Adam and Eve. And before people required explanation, there was no god. Therefore atheism is the oldest "religion."

The Bible is not the oldest known recordings. Heck, a lot of it is sh*t pulled out of people's @$$es. Let's see, Dead Sea Scrolls, Egyptian hieroglyphs, LIBRARY OF ALEXANDRIA?

[kagetora]

Lol... your sources are lame. Not only are they wrong but it makes no mention of two facts.

Neo-Darwinism shuns almost all other viewpoints out of the scientific realm to protect it stance (really open minded right)

Next to none of the people admitted into prisons are Christian or believers in Christ, but about 4/5 of people admitted into long term sentences become Christians or believers in Christ. (I liked how you twisted the facts)

Please for the sake of intelligence don't try to force your retarded viewpoints, that have no true backing, down the throats of those who are smart enough to admit there is a God.

I never said sh*t about Darwinism.

I didn't twist the statistics. I just found them.

.

Well it's obvious someone hasn't read the Bible...

There are no official proven fallacies in the Bible. All you can find is people who half read it taking things out of context. If they did that with Shakespeare someone would murder them.

Obviously you know nothing about space envelopes otherwise you would know that if time travel was possible we could only go forward. So dragging books into the past isn't a problem.

Now, I was a Christian for 12 years . I was born and raised Christian. You know what I found? A large portion of what I was taught contradicts itself. I have read the bible. I know it is largely BS. (Not all)

As for your statement to time travel, do you know how many solutions to Einstein's equations allow backwards time-travel? Here's the first one that was solved. If the universe rotated, and you left Earth and traveled around the universe, you would arrive before you left

Please, for the sake of intelligence don't try to force your retarded viewpoints, that have no true backing, down the throats of those who are smart enough to admit there is not a God. And also, please, for the sake of intelligence, bring points to the table. Not insults.

[Visaoni]

Atheists!!!

Do you have a response to about 3:35 in this clip?

For the first part, about how the Earth seems more or less tailored to our needs, of course it is! Where else would live develop? I highly doubt we're going to see life develop on a place not suited for it. Do people really expect life to develop on Pluto and say, "Oh shit! It is too cold, there is no atmosphere, oh wait, I'm already dead. Crap." The day that happens, maybe that argument will hold a grain of sand (and even then, not really).

As for the part you mentioned, the only claim he made that isn't exactly opposite of the way he portrays it is in the arts. The Christian Church has funded many very famous art works, but that doesn't mean anything other than they paid painters. Those painters could/do have many beautiful paintings or other art that is not related or even funded by religion. As for the rest, I'm sure science has cured more diseases than faith (and studies show scientists are, by and large, Atheists or at least Agnostic). And somehow I think there is a lot more evidence for the Big Bang and Evolution than there is for Creationism. All evidence scientists have collected on the cosmos, and things we have actually seen happen (drug resistant virus strains anybody?), vs a book written by many different people at different times, with selective writings chosen for it, and the many different translations of translations... I think the answer is obvious.

[jay_a2j]

PROVEN FALLACY IN THE BIBLE: There was no global flood.

You watch TV much? Because the flood has enough evidence so as not to be ruled out.

The Great Flood

[Visaoni]

I thought that athiests were supposed to have some sort of profound logic and wisdom with which they could persuade people to their point of view. So far you're just regurgitating someone else's self righteous drivel.

Eh... sure. We consider ourselves logical, but how does that make us masters at persuading people who have spent their whole lives being told not to question certain ideas?

so we're supposed to decide our beliefs on what's the most comforting? On what simplifies the world's complexities for us the most?

That's what most people do whether or not they believe in God. People are afraid of going to hell so they either say they believe that God exists so that they don't get sent there, or they deny the existance of God and Hell entirely. The same motivation manifests itself in two different ways.

If somebody merely pays lip service to God, I doubt they are avoiding hell. He would, after all, know they are just afraid of hell are just saying they believe in case he does exist.

Also, all this talk about science is kind of pointless. If there is a God, science is just the observation of the rules he has set in place, the settings of the Universe so to speak. Should God exist he would have the ability to change these things at a whim and then we would observe something else, a new "science" so to speak. Any obervation could be manipulated so that scientists would observe exactly what God wanted them to. Thats just one of the perks to being all powerful.

As much as all of you self proclaimed athiests don't like to acknowledge this, God can never be disproven while if he exists, he could reveal himself to us. He could also choose not to for his own reasons which he would not need to explain us.

I myself am an agnostic and frankly it wouldn't take much to convince me that God exists. All it would take would be God, but no man could do it.

See, this is exactly the problem of arguing with somebody who will not be persuaded, at least on the topic of religion. Of course, if God does exist he would be able to change our observations and throw the scientific community into chaos. So far, they have not changed. New things have been discovered, but they all work together. If you have something better to go on (and don't tell me the Bible is, I think it has been covered by now exactly how unreliable it is). However, it would not, as you said, be a new science. It would be the same science, but it would have different rules, depending on what God changed. If your going to pull out the "science doesn't matter, God could change it all anyway" card then I'm going to pick bones. On that note, how is God both Omniscient and Omnipotent? If he knows how everything happens ahead of time, then how can he be all powerful to change things? He already knows what he is going to do, so he has no real choice at any given moment. That doesn't sound to powerful to me.

And of course God cannot be disproven. I call myself an Atheist, but I suppose I am really an Agnostic. I am just 99.9% sure God does not exist. I won't say God cannot exist, because I can't prove that any more than I can prove he does exist. But I'm pretty sure he doesn't, and am going to act as if that is the case until he manages to prove me wrong.

[jay_a2j]

I am just 99.9% sure God does not exist.

Good! Because I'm 150% sure that God does exist!

[Visaoni]

You are right... how foolish of me. Why would I want to believe a belief that is so outdated and has been around for some 6,000 years and who's book contains the oldest known history records? I could just jump on the bandwagon with another religion that is less than 2,000 years old or jump in on Atheism, which has only made an appearance in the past 200 years.

Let's ditch the brightest possibility so I feel better about having sex with my girlfriend, because their is no God to judge me.

You do realize there are many religions quite a bit older than Christianity right? And the Bible isn't even 100% accurate in it's history. Also, if your going to base your believe based on ancient writings, why are you not of some Mesopotamian religion? If you truly believe Atheism has only come about in the last 200 years, you are quite insane. Do you know the social implications of openly being an Atheist more than 200 years ago? And before that, the effects it would have on your ability to keep breathing? Of course Atheism has been in the shadows all this time. Besides, Atheism is much, much older than Christianity. It came about the second there first was a religion. As soon as there was a religion to believe in, there was a religion to not believe in. So Atheism is really much, much, much older than Christianity.

Well it's obvious someone hasn't read the Bible...

There are no official proven fallacies in the Bible. All you can find is people who half read it taking things out of context. If they did that with Shakespeare someone would murder them.

Obviously you know nothing about space envelopes otherwise you would know that if time travel was possible we could only go forward. So dragging books into the past isn't a problem.

No official proven fallacy? How about this one? In order to get Jesus born in the right place to fit Judaism's prophecies some gospel or another claimed some Roman emperor called a census and made everybody return to the town of their namesake or some such bullshit. Basically made them go back to a town their not so recent ancestors came from. Not only does that make no sense, but there wasn't even a census called that year the Bible claimed. There ya go, a historical fact in the Bible that isn't actually a fact.

I am just 99.9% sure God does not exist.

Good! Because I'm 150% sure that God does exist!

You do realize you made the point I was attempting to make, way better than I ever could right?

[PLAYER57832]

The second is easy. Parole boards tend to look favorably on religion. Not to mention that clergy are some of the few people who prisoners have the right to see, often in person.

Hey, I just want to say that I have done thirty days county time. No prison time. But I was in the "out pen" for prisoners going to prison.

I disagree based on that experience. Those were some of the dumbest people I have ever met. And In my thirty days, of about sixty people I met, only one other wasn't Christian. And yeah, they did make me afraid a couple of times.

Anyway that other fellow was a satanist.... a preacher for the Church of Satan. It was pretty cool how he forced the guards to find him a copy of his Bible, and get his recruitment papers.

Just wanted to say I disagree, but that I hadn't actually been to prison.

I am not sure what you are disagreeing with.

I never claimed that folks in jail are intelligent. I merely said that they have reason to look to religion and, even if they don't really believe, to claim they believe.

[Nataki Yiro]

Actually even evolution says we are the offspring of two (Adam and Eve) original beings. To claim that there was no Adam and Eve is idiotic because essentially all religions and sciences believe that (I thought you believed in science).

The sciences confirm many events SUCH AS THE FLOOD from the Bible. If you aren't going to take the time to know your stuff I'm not going to waste my time on you.

Oh and the census you claim didn't exist is in secular Western Civilization books (I took 2 classes in college / at a secular college). Don't make all these claims if you are just going to make things up.

[william18]

Please for the sake of intelligence don't try to force your retarded viewpoints, that have no true backing, down the throats of those who are smart enough to admit there is a God.

Please for the sake of intelligence don't try to force your ancient viewpoints, that have no true backing, down the throats of those who are smart enough to realize there are no magical beings impregnating earth women and producing half-god children.

Seems more likely then a universe the size of a shoebox explodes and nubulas appear then planets begn to be created. The odds of that happening coincedently are less the the universe being shaped by an ultimate being. And the fact that the big bang is a theory is because most people in the National Academy of sciences are athiest, they persist to prove this theory because they can't accept the other option.

[InkL0sed]

Actually even evolution says we are the offspring of two (Adam and Eve) original beings. To claim that there was no Adam and Eve is idiotic because essentially all religions and sciences believe that (I thought you believed in science).

The sciences confirm many events SUCH AS THE FLOOD from the Bible. If you aren't going to take the time to know your stuff I'm not going to waste my time on you.

Oh and the census you claim didn't exist is in secular Western Civilization books (I took 2 classes in college / at a secular college). Don't make all these claims if you are just going to make things up.

Oh yes, I believe in science. I believe it can be scientifically proven that I am Adam, my girlfriend is Eve, and we're both thousands of years old. Yes, yes indeed.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Actually even evolution says we are the offspring of two (Adam and Eve) original beings. To claim that there was no Adam and Eve is idiotic because essentially all religions and sciences believe that (I thought you believed in science).

Umm, wow.
So evolution claims we are all the incestuous children of 2 people.

Who exactly told you these terrible, terrible lies?

The sciences confirm many events SUCH AS THE FLOOD from the Bible. If you aren't going to take the time to know your stuff I'm not going to waste my time on you.

Again maybe, you could enlighten us unwashed masses as to these unequivocal proofs of a flood that destroyed all living things on Earth

Seems more likely then a universe the size of a shoebox explodes and nubulas appear then planets begn to be created. The odds of that happening coincedently are less the the universe being shaped by an ultimate being. And the fact that the big bang is a theory is because most people in the National Academy of sciences are athiest, they persist to prove this theory because they can't accept the other option.

Firstly, sorry you don`t understand how stars are formed and so on, this can only be because you do not wish to understand and do not look them up.
Also, no matter how unlikely the universe is the odds of it appearing "coincidentally" are higher than of it being designed.
Why?
Because a designer would need to be even more complex than the universe he designs, so it is even more unlikely he would appear(if you`re going to say, the designer always existed, then I`m just going to say the universe always existed, either way a designer only makes things more unlikely)

Also, again, I`m sorry you do not understand the word theory in the scientific context. For the scientist, "theory" is not in any way an antonym of "fact". For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of gravity , and the general theory of relativity.

Yep Gravity is a theory, like Cell theory, Atomic theory, Plate tectonics and so on.

But the scientists are also probably still trying to prove that pesky gravity theory, when by now they should be looking for alternatives

[PLAYER57832]

Actually even evolution says we are the offspring of two (Adam and Eve) original beings. To claim that there was no Adam and Eve is idiotic because essentially all religions and sciences believe that (I thought you believed in science).

Umm, wow.
So evolution claims we are all the incestuous children of 2 people.

Who exactly told you these terrible, terrible lies?

Science DOES say that all human beings currently alive can trace their ancestry to one female... nicknamed "Eve" after the Bible. This is based upon mitochondrial DNA evidence, mitocondria being passed on with very little change from the mother. Similar studies are going on in the Y chromosomes for males, but the male versions show more "drift".

Neither actually proves that there was one Eve and one Adam.... think of it this way, you are descended from the same grand parents as your cousins, but also have 3 other grandparents. In the case of "Eve", we would have millions of "cousins". BUT, it is not disproven, either ... which means it could be possible, scientifically.

For the Christian, it is so because the Bible says it is (though please note, that does not mean that Jay's particular narrow version is correct .. much of what Jay claims is plain false).

The sciences confirm many events SUCH AS THE FLOOD from the Bible. If you aren't going to take the time to know your stuff I'm not going to waste my time on you.

Again maybe, you could enlighten us unwashed masses as to these unequivocal proofs of a flood that destroyed all living things on Earth

Again, there is evidence that the Earth was inundated by floods, though not necessarily at the same exact time. However lack of evidence is not proof against a world-wide flood. Scientifically, it is a "maybe".

Religiously, this is an area of disagreement within the Christian community. Some feel, that it was, literally, a world-wide flood of 40 days and that the evidence has been obscured by various geologic processes. Some feel, for a lot of reasons (namely surrounding passages in the Bible and early Jewish writings) that there were beings not covered by the flood, that the "entire world" was the entire world of Noah. Some feel that while human beings perceived it as one event, it might actually have been a series of events and that the distinction was not critical to human understanding and so has been blurred by us. (sort of like trying to explain outer space to someone who thinks the world is flat -- no matter how clear you try to be, some concepts will just not be understood)

Others feel it was not meant literally at all, that it spoke of evil and destruction and rescue by God and that the importance is belief in God, adherance to the law, etc.

Seems more likely then a universe the size of a shoebox explodes and nubulas appear then planets begn to be created. The odds of that happening coincedently are less the the universe being shaped by an ultimate being. And the fact that the big bang is a theory is because most people in the National Academy of sciences are athiest, they persist to prove this theory because they can't accept the other option.

Interestingly enough, most Christians seem to think the "big bang theory" matches Genesis pretty well.