Atheists outperform theists at nearly all reasoning skills

[ImmortalFlame]

Some atheists say there is evidence for there being no gods.
Some atheists say that this is unknown whether there is a creator god or not. That there is no evidence both in favor of and against a creator god.
There can't be evidence for no gods and no evidence for there not being a creator god.
Do they logically agree with each other? No. Can both be right? No, both cannot be right.
That is the contradiction.

Um, no. That's two people having different opinions or perspectives. Two people not agreeing isn't contradiction - it's only contradiction of the positions are both held by a singular entity. Atheism isn't a monolith, so atheists have a wide variety of views and perspectives - really no different to any other religious or non-religious group. You're confusing disagreement among people with contradiction within a singular ideological stance, which is fallacious.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Nope-- it has 100% to do with the point you failed to make.

You attempted to use a very immoral book (bible) to argue your moral case.

You undermined your argument from the start.

Using a moral argument against theism undermines the argument!

 

[ecco]

Some atheists say there is evidence for there being no gods.
Some atheists say that this is unknown whether there is a creator god or not. That there is no evidence both in favor of and against a creator god.
There can't be evidence for no gods and no evidence for there not being a creator god.
Do they logically agree with each other? No. Can both be right? No, both cannot be right.
That is the contradiction.
Lack of evidence of a creator god is not evidence for no creator god.

Those who say it is "unknown" are agnostics, not atheists.

Nevertheless, your argument is baseless.

There is a bag - this represents the universe.
Throughout history people have asserted there is/are a/many quaqle(s) of many different colors in the bag.

The Christian will assert that the quaqle in the bag is red
The Hindu will assert that the quaqle in the bag is white
The Agnostic will assert that there may or may not be a quaqle of unspecified color in the bag. Most Agnostics will assert that even if there is a quaqle, it is definitely not the red quaqle nor the white quaqle.
Some Atheists will say there is no evidence that there is, or ever has been a quaqle or quaqles in the bag.
Some Atheists will say there is abundant evidence to show that quaqles are nothing more than the creation of man's imaginings.

On the part of the Christians and Hindus, there is a definite logical contradiction. The quaqle cannot be a red quaqle and simultaneously a white quaqle.


On the part of the atheists, there is no logical contradiction to the question of the presence of a quaqle. Both say there is no quaqle in the bag.



The remainder of your post...

That atheists contradicts among them as for what morality is. I.e. meta-ethics and realism versus anti-realism.

Yes, and so what in the following sense - could you please explain what morality has to do with reason and how morality/ethics/politics differ among atheists. E.g. communism can't both be true and not true.

... is completely off the topic we have been discussing.

 

[ecco]

One thing you can look at is the ethics as espoused by the Christian Bible and compare them to American laws which have, at least recently, discarded reliance on The Bible. As just one example, slavery was once accepted with Biblical support. Now slavery is prohibited.

Miscegeny and laws against homosexuals would be a couple more examples.

Yes, and so what in the following sense - could you please explain what morality has to do with reason and how morality/ethics/politics differ among atheists. E.g. communism can't both be true and not true.

I was commenting on the morality espoused by the Bible compared to the morality espoused by primarily secular laws. If you would care to comment on that, OK. However, I don't want to get into yet another topic (Communism and the truth thereof) before addressing the ones in front of us.

 

[ecco]

God, you have told us, has existed forever.
Jesus didn't exist until about 2000 years ago.
Half God had His other Half God (The Holy Ghost) impregnate a young virgin.
Out of all of eternity, Jesus lived on earth only about 30 years - not even a blink in the eye of an eternal God.
During that time he was tortured for a relative millisecond.

It's far more painful for a human to cut one hair off his head.

How can you argue against the Bible while making singularly uniformed statements like "Jesus didn't exist until about 2000 years ago."

Maybe read, um, the first verses of John's gospel, then get back to me.

So, you are one of those who equates The Word with Jesus. OK. I'll reword my previous post to make it adhere to you viewpoint.

God, you have told us, has existed forever.
Jesus didn't exist until about 2000 years ago.
Half God had His other Half God (The Holy Ghost) impregnate a young virgin in order to turn "The Word" into earthly flesh.
Out of all of eternity, Jesus lived on earth only about 30 years - not even a blink in the eye of an eternal God.
During that time he was tortured for a relative millisecond.

It's far more painful for a human to cut one hair off his head.​

 

[Audie]

Those who say it is "unknown" are agnostics, not atheists.

Nevertheless, your argument is baseless.

There is a bag - this represents the universe.
Throughout history people have asserted there is/are a/many quaqle(s) of many different colors in the bag.

The Christian will assert that the quaqle in the bag is red
The Hindu will assert that the quaqle in the bag is white
The Agnostic will assert that there may or may not be a quaqle of unspecified color in the bag. Most Agnostics will assert that even if there is a quaqle, it is definitely not the red quaqle nor the white quaqle.
Some Atheists will say there is no evidence that there is, or ever has been a quaqle or quaqles in the bag.
Some Atheists will say there is abundant evidence to show that quaqles are nothing more than the creation of man's imaginings.

On the part of the Christians and Hindus, there is a definite logical contradiction. The quaqle cannot be a red quaqle and simultaneously a white quaqle.


On the part of the atheists, there is no logical contradiction to the question of the presence of a quaqle. Both say there is no quaqle in the bag.



The remainder of your post...

... is completely off the topic we have been discussing.

Our dane kinda demonstrates the point of
the OP for us.

 

[Polymath257]

Using a moral argument against theism undermines the argument!

Why would you think that? Morality doens't depend on deities. It depends on basic compassion and a sense of fairness.

 

[Audie]

Why would you think that? Morality doens't depend on deities. It depends on basic compassion and a sense of fairness.

For an extreme example we have the religious beliefs
of the Aztecs, whose compassion extended to cutting
open the chest of living victims, removing the still beating
heart and offering it to their "gods".

Without the "god's" determining morality, I kind of dont
believe anyone would think that was moral or compassionate.

 

[ecco]

There is no single type of measurement that can capture all aspects of human existence, especially in relation to happiness and fulfilment.

There is no single type of measurement that can capture all aspects speed, growth and color especially in relation to volume and density.

Do either of our posts have some deep meaning?

Cognitive research has revealed that each of us has two types of intelligence, known as fluid and crystallized. Fluid intelligence is our capacity to reason and solve novel problems, independent of knowledge from the past, and it peaks earlier in life. Crystallized intelligence is the ability to use skills, knowledge and experience; it shows rising levels of performance well into middle age and beyond.

Can you show the studies that have revealed that each of us has two types of intelligence, known as fluid and crystallized?

Psychologists use the term ‘executive function’ to indicate neurological maturity. Executive function has nothing to do with IQ, potential or talent. It is simply the ability to see ahead and plan effectively, to connect actions to possible consequences, to see the probabilities of risk and reward.

It is hard to plan ahead effectively if one is not intelligent enough to discern between fact and fiction.

In my view, most spiritual/religious persons would be rich in the knowledge of futility of small gains. We know too well that death snatches away all pride related to one’s intellect-wealth-fame, the physical parameters that gauge success in world.

Atheists know that death is the end. It is only the spiritual/religious persons who have hope of something continuing.

 

[Audie]

There is no single type of measurement that can capture all aspects speed, growth and color especially in relation to volume and density.

Do either of our posts have some deep meaning?







Can you show the studies that have revealed that each of us has two types of intelligence, known as fluid and crystallized?



It is hard to plan ahead effectively if one is not intelligent enough to discern between fact and fiction.






Atheists know that death is the end. It is only the spiritual/religious persons who have hope of something continuing.

The arcane wisdom of the godies
usually devolves to this-

A deepity is a proposition that seems to be profound because it is actually logically ill-formed. It has (at least) two readings and balances precariously between them. On one reading it is true but trivial. And on another reading it is false, but would be earth-shattering if true.

 

[Audie]

In my view, most spiritual/religious persons would be rich in the knowledge of futility of small gains. We know too well that death snatches away all pride related to one’s intellect-wealth-fame, the physical parameters that gauge success in world.

It’s Never Too Late to Start a Brilliant Career

So- it does not matter if you get nothing from life,
because you wont get anything from death either.

On the "never too late" thing, how often do we
hear people invoke that prime
example of a truism that is seldom so, if
true at all.

I am only 34, is it too late for me to be
Ms America? I am not quite 5 ft tall, is it
too late for me to grow a bit more?

Maybe Justice John Paul Stevens is ready
to start a brilliant new career?

Shall we go for more examples?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

LOL! Ever questioned deeply where in you the I sense comes from? Does it really come from mechanical play of chemicals? If so, then what is your reality?

Yes. No. Cogito Ergo Sum.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Of course you don't: You have show, time and time again, that you have no idea what "Justice" is, nor do you know what "Logic" means.

Just using the description of your bible? We can determine your god is the opposite of "Just"-- and is therefore, immoral.

This is the logical conclusion based on what the bible describes!

It is Un-Just to use a Scape-Goat-- that's considered Immoral.

Jesus, as written, would be the Ultimate Scape Goat: Ultimate Immorality.

Justice requires Morality.



You show again and again, that you have no idea what "logic" even means! YOU JUST SHOW IT AGAIN, HERE!


Which would be contrary to what the BIBLE states...!

Why do you make such obviously false claims!



Again-- logic escapes you-- the bible says OVER AND OVER, that Jesus is PURE, SINLESS, INNOCENT.



That is one of the most illogical things you have said! And-- that's actually quite impressive, considering your record so far...!

"SIN" isn't a rock, or a bucket of sand, or a new iPod.

"SIN" isn't a thing.... yet your sentence above requires exactly that!

Wow..... that's actually kinda breath-taking, in it's Fractal Wrongness.


See above.

Again: The Bible says "He made Him without sin to BECOME sin for us." I'm (sometimes) happy to argue the Bible with you, but first let's choose to debate what it actually says!

LEARN HOW TO QUOTE PROPERLY. Sheesh... this isn't rocket science! And you can EDIT your post!

I have no frikkin CLUE what you are attempting to say.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Using a moral argument against theism undermines the argument!

Actually? It most certainly does not!

For starters-- all theists claim to have the High Moral Ground.

All we need to show? Is how very false that claim is-- which I have done, repeatedly, with respect to Traditional Christianity.

Without the "moral high ground"? Theism falls apart, and loses what little value it may have had.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Lets see how you do at logic.
Lack of evidence of a creator god is not evidence for no creator god.

Lets change "god" to buffalo herd.

...

A "god" is not the same as a "buffalo herd". That you know that there is something independent of your mind, only means that in the literal and concrete sense. Metaphysical and epistemological natural realism or what ever you believe that there is independent of your mind other than being independent of your mind is logically unknowable, because if knowledge requires a mind then epistemological solipsism is correct. You can't know anything other than what is in your mind/consciousness. It is unknowable if you are in the Matrix, a Boltzmann Brain or if a trickster god created the universe and only true agnostics go to Heaven. Replace agnostics if you like with true atheists or what not.
Methodological naturalism assumes a fair, natural universe where we can trust our sense, experience and so on. That is the assumption behind evidence and that is not evidence. It is the cognitive basis for making a reasoned claimed, but it doesn't make it so. You could still be a brain in a vat and it wouldn't change no matter, how much that is meaningless/insane/irrational/senseless or what not to you or indeed me.
You or I don't control reality/everything/the universe regardless of what it is independent of the mind.
I assume that we are both in reality and so do you. But that is not evidence, that is an assumption.

I have been doing this for many years now and that has in part made me a skeptic. I don't believe in any version of Truth, Knowledge, Evidence, Reason, Logic, God or what not.
It in part always end here. If in the strong sense all of reality was like gravity, then the following examples are not possible.
Someone: Reality is physical.
Me: No!
Someone else: Reality is from the One True God.
Me: No!
The joke is that any version of an Absolute assertion of what reality really is, is in practice in effect falsified by the fact that humans can get away with holding logically contradictory claims and apparently still be a part of reality.

So here it is for logic!
Someone: Reality is logical.
Me: No!
You only have logic, because there is also the illogical. If there wasn't a difference, you couldn't tell logic and the illogical apart.
And while you might have a coherent worldview, I don't need that. And yet you are still reading this. So I am still in the same reality as you, right? How logical is that?
And please don't go normative/perspective on me and claim you have evidence for the fact, that I ought to be exactly like you to have a life. The evidence doesn't support that. And please don't start with a better life. You can be informed by science, but you can't use science alone to have a good life.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Um, no. That's two people having different opinions or perspectives. Two people not agreeing isn't contradiction - it's only contradiction of the positions are both held by a singular entity. Atheism isn't a monolith, so atheists have a wide variety of views and perspectives - really no different to any other religious or non-religious group. You're confusing disagreement among people with contradiction within a singular ideological stance, which is fallacious.

We need 3 things, You, I and a third thing. You said it is X at a certain time, space and in a certain sense. I say it is not-X at the same time, space and in the same sense. That is how certain versions of different gods are contradictory. But that is not so just for gods. The same e.g. apply for claims of knowledge. All knowledge for all humans can't be X and non-X, yet in effect just like gods, humans hold contradictory views about what real, existence, reality and what not is, regardless of atheism and what not. E.g. it can be know and unknown if there are any gods at all. So a strong and weak atheist contradicts each other just like a Gnostic Christian and believer in Islam.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Those who say it is "unknown" are agnostics, not atheists.

...

And off to the race of the correct definition of a word, we are.

Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2][3][4] Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist.[5][6] In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[1][2][7][8] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[9][10] which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.[10][11][12]

Atheism - Wikipedia

You believe in one version of atheism, but there are other beliefs about that. Sorry to break it to you, you are no the authoritative source of what atheism. It is a collective field of similar stances, but not all are exactly the same.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I was commenting on the morality espoused by the Bible compared to the morality espoused by primarily secular laws. If you would care to comment on that, OK. However, I don't want to get into yet another topic (Communism and the truth thereof) before addressing the ones in front of us.

Well, they are different moralities. But you can't use science to determine which one is correct or not. You can only describe, predict and explain in a morally neutral sense using science. You can't do normative/morally prescriptive judgments using science. That goes for all moral judgments.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Someone up thread referenced fairness, I believe. There is no scientific theory of fairness in the same sense as gravity. The former is biological, social, cultural, relative and what not. Where as the latter is in practice the same for all humans. If we are to do how reality works in practice then fairness and gravity don't work in the same sense.
I understand where you as a group/sub-culture/tribe are coming from. I get you want a better world. I just don't share your belief that you can do it with science alone.

https://www.simplypsychology.org/kohlberg.html
This is science and it tells you that morality is not independent of individual humans as e.g. gravity is.

So if we are to do fairness, how do you with fairness threat those who are unfair? And are all cases of fairness exactly the same in the sense as gravity.
Western liberal secular democracy is somewhat good, but if you look closer even that can be done better, maybe
It goes off the rail, because we can't in effect agree on what a good life is. Just look at political ideologies. Western liberal secular democracy is a political ideology and not just in opposition to some version of understanding of the Bible.

No one holds objective authority over reality for all aspects of it. Not you, I, science, philosophy or religion. There is no moral high ground.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This is science and religion.

You are know a scientist in the field. You observe humans and note a difference in behavior: Some are religious and others are not.
So it is a fact, that there are religious humans. Then answer me this:
How can that be wrong using only science, reason AND logic?

Remember only evidence, reason AND logic!

Now I will tell you what happens: You can't only using evidence, reason AND logic to say that religion is wrong. How is that: Well, it is a fact, that their behavior is without evidence, reason AND logic, yet it is a fact, so it is real and a part of existence and how reality works.
Now what happens next, is always a variant of this however phrased: Don't you think, that we ought to... Or: I think, that we ought to...
But that can't be answered with evidence, reason AND logic alone. How is that? Because they are not alone in reality. The belief and it is a belief, that evidence, reason AND logic is the only thing real and existence besides the physical/material, is falsified by observing that some humans in some cases are without evidence, reason AND logic.
And it overlooks the IS-OUGHT problem. No one has solved that using evidence, reason AND logic alone. Neither science nor philosophy or indeed religion.
That is the end game and it has a name: Cognitive relativism.
BTW - real and existence are not scientific terms. They have no observable referent. They are at best only relevant in some forms of philosophy. You can do science without any metaphysical assumption. It is called pragmatism or instrumentalism and some variants are a form of anti-realism.
As far as realism versus anti-realism go, there are 3 possible approaches:
I am a realist.
I am an anti-realist.
I don't care, I just do science.

So here it is as what we share: If I cut you, you bleed. If you cut me, I bleed. We share, that we are humans, but are different as individual.
You are neither better or worse as a human than me or in reverse. That only counts if it matters and that is not evidence, reason AND logic alone.

As long as we can't agree on that, I don't mind being "wrong or what ever" in your view, because I know it is not based on science, evidence, reason AND logic alone.