Atheism

[Arsene]

There are two studies from before the 50s. The hunter study asked people with an IQ above 135 if they were religious, only 15% were so. Terman study asked people with an IQ above 140 if they were religious, only 13% were so. And at this time +95% of America used to be religious. Remind yourself that less than 1% of the population has an IQ above 140. From these studies I conclude that the very few people who are able to solve very hard puzzles were you need to have a very logical brain for, tend to recognize the irrationality of religion. So I suspect that the average atheist during medieval times who had to shut their mouth about it, where on averagely very significantly more intelligent than the average, because back than there was nothing conforming about being atheists, if you were atheists, it was so because of your own realizations by your own cognition. I can tell that most of you atheists would be theistic if you were born in medieval times. Regarding the fact that several studies show how schizophrenic experience very real spiritual hallucinations. I'd like to make this categorization:

-Conforming/environmental theists/atheists (Huge majority, 95%)
-Theists by own cognition (schizophrenics)

-Atheists by own cognition (very rational people)

I don't think you can explain the increase of atheism the last 50 years by telling that we all suddenly have a more rational brain. Well for a fact that is true, you have the Flynn effect that tells you how the newer generations score better on IQ tests than the old generations, so I suspect that the "Atheists by own cognition" group increased. But the biggest factor that caused the atheists increase is due the fact that it's now conforming to be atheist in some environments (like my sister who was theistic all her life and now suddenly claims she doesn't believe in god since she has a strong atheistic boyfriend). And now because of the increase of rational brains we are with more to inspire brains who would be theistic 80 years ago, to be atheistic.

(Btw, yes being religious is completely irrational and being atheists is rational.)

This also explains the religiosity % of countries and their IQ.
North-East Asian countries: Average IQ 106: About50% irreligion.
Western Countries: Average IQ 100. About 20-30% irreligion.
Middle East: Average IQ 85. >5% irreligion.
African countries: IQ 60-80. >1% irreligion

(Numbers are a bit out of my head.)

[Will Torbald]

I can tell that most of you atheists would be theistic if you were born in medieval times. Regarding the fact that several studies show how schizophrenic experience very real spiritual hallucinations.

 

Philosophers were destroying theism before the medieval times without the modern scientific knowledge we have now. An actual "god doesn't exist" atheist only needs philosophy to support his position, the rest are either agnostic or undecided. The second sentence however is very strange: "very real spiritual" is a laughable oxymoron. Are you honestly suggesting that schizophrenic people are actually in contact with spirits rather than having brain damage?

[Arsene]

Philosophers were destroying theism before the medieval times without the modern scientific knowledge we have now. An actual "god doesn't exist" atheist only needs philosophy to support his position, the rest are either agnostic or undecided. The second sentence however is very strange: "very real spiritual" is a laughable oxymoron. Are you honestly suggesting that schizophrenic people are actually in contact with spirits rather than having brain damage?

 

Ok please let's leave the atheists/agnostic shit out of the discussion. There isn't really a difference, atheism/theism is about what you believe, agnostic/Gnostic is about what you know. Most atheists would admit to being a agnostic atheist if you explain to them the what agnosticism/Gnosticism is. I also call myself atheist for the ease of it, but of course am I factually an Agnostic Atheist. Because even though I believe that there is no god, I also admit that I do not know if there is no god. Just leave that out. It's fkn boring.

 

Oxymoron? Stop copying the words you hear Stefan use, you are not making sense out of it. "Experience very real spiritual hallucinations." Ofcourse do I not imply that it's physically happening, otherwise you wouldn't find the word HALLUCINATION behind it. There is nothing wrong with saying that someones spiritual hallucinations are very real, it's implying that his experiencing hallucinations very vividly. Just like this guy:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xn-sXUNyooQ

[shirgall]

As they say, Aristotle had four causes, and none of them were gods.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes

[jpahmad]

It doesn't take a rational person to be an atheist.  Animals are atheist.

[dsayers]

If you're interested in trees, you look to the roots, not the leaves. We know that childhood trauma negatively impacts IQ. We know that theism isn't a conclusion arrived at by way of logic, reason, or evidence. Rather, it is inflicted upon the young, who lack the intellectual fortitude to resist, which is traumatic. I think this correlation is more meaningful, both in its ability to encapsulate the correlation you're referencing, as well as empowering us to deal with these problems rather than just summarize them.

[Will Torbald]

Ok please let's leave the atheists/agnostic shit out of the discussion. There isn't really a difference, atheism/theism is about what you believe, agnostic/Gnostic is about what you know. Most atheists would admit to being a agnostic atheist if you explain to them the what agnosticism/Gnosticism is. I also call myself atheist for the ease of it, but of course am I factually an Agnostic Atheist. Because even though I believe that there is no god, I also admit that I do not know if there is no god. Just leave that out. It's fkn boring.

 

Oxymoron? Stop copying the words you hear Stefan use, you are not making sense out of it. "Experience very real spiritual hallucinations." Ofcourse do I not imply that it's physically happening, otherwise you wouldn't find the word HALLUCINATION behind it. There is nothing wrong with saying that someones spiritual hallucinations are very real, it's implying that his experiencing hallucinations very vividly. Just like this guy:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xn-sXUNyooQ

 

Why should it be left out of the question? You are making predictions and assumptions about people with your "I can tell that most of you atheists would be theistic if you were born in medieval times" comment. Well, what kind of atheist? Why medieval and not pre medieval? I pointed out that it doesn't take modern knowledge to be an atheist, that it was well established before medieval times, and that the nature of the character you are predicting is important. What you're doing is a broad shotgun method of lumping people together with no regard to accuracy. I would not want to be lodged in with an agnostic atheist like you, nor would I like to be told what I would do in a situation without any relevant parameters as if you knew anyone outside of you.

 

As far as your hypothesis goes, atheism has been increasing due to the spread of science into the popular culture, stronger evidences for evolution, big bang, and so on. People no longer need to wonder in the dark and turn to religion for answers when science already does that. Also, it is growing in countries were separation of church and state is somewhat respected, but everywhere else is still stuck in the 15th century. It could be that some people are getting smarter, but it also is that smart people have better answers now.

[utopian]

This thread is relevant to my interests.

 

I am not quite sure where i fall on the athiest/theist scale. I admit I have never seen any evidence of there being a god. This is not proof that there is no god, however. It is possible that god is outside the realm of our senses, like radiation, gravity, dark matter etc. Before these things were known, we thought they did not exist. We also used to think the earth was flat. What if god is outside our current human understanding?

 

I have been interested in Kabbalah for a while now, an ancient Jewish religion, which is supposedly a science. Some of Kabbalah's concepts have gone on to be proven by quantum mechanics, like the principle of vibration. What interests me most about Kabbalah is that it claims that there is a god, and that god is "the all". God is everything. God is the universe. Planets are but atoms in the mind of god.

 

I find it to be an interesting correlation between Kabbalah and Christianity, where Christianity says "we are made in god's image". Kabbalah says that is a misinterpretation. It is not that we are created in god's image, as if god were human, and we are imitating the form of god. Kabbalah says "we are made in god's image-INATION" the IMAGINATION of god is where we, and the universe, are created. The universe is a thought of god, a simulation.

 

 

Considering this, I stumbled upon an interesting TEDX talk that supports such a theory that we are all a simulation;

 

 

 

 

Now before I have to raise my fecal shield, I would like to say all of this is just an interesting observation of mine, and I have no proof there is a god, and there may in fact not be one. I do want there to be one however. It is more comforting to think of.

[Kevin Beal]

Considering this, I stumbled upon an interesting TEDX talk that supports such a theory that we are all a simulation;

A simulation cannot directly produce mental states; it could only do it indirectly by presenting you with scary images (for example). Mental states (thoughts, feelings, desires, etc) are presented, not represented.

 

You can then argue that we exist somewhere else and are hooked up to the matrix, but then we still exist somewhere else, which is a different argument than "the universe is a simulation". If the universe is a shorthand for saying "the entirety of existing entities" (synonymous with "reality"), then this is categorically false.

 

A simulation describes a relationship – it is a simulation of a thing. It's like when people say that god created existence. That logically makes god something other than existing (non-existent). If god exists (which is false), then existence must already be a thing prior to him doing whatever is described as "created existence". Likewise, something other than the simulation must also exist – some entity(ies) to simulate. If you say that what is being simulated is god (as the universe) as you described, then you define god as existence.

 

First existence created existence is categorically false, but also, I'm not sure what that explains, if anything. People define god as love, so the existence of love proves the existence of god; it's tautological. If god is existence, and existence exists, then god's existence is proven. But all it is is a definition; there is no logic there.

 

So, even if the observable universe were a simulation of something else, none of that can logically support the existence of a god.

[Will Torbald]

This thread is relevant to my interests.

 

I am not quite sure where i fall on the athiest/theist scale. I admit I have never seen any evidence of there being a god. This is not proof that there is no god, however. It is possible that god is outside the realm of our senses, like radiation, gravity, dark matter etc. Before these things were known, we thought they did not exist. We also used to think the earth was flat. What if god is outside our current human understanding?

 

I have been interested in Kabbalah for a while now, an ancient Jewish religion, which is supposedly a science. Some of Kabbalah's concepts have gone on to be proven by quantum mechanics, like the principle of vibration. What interests me most about Kabbalah is that it claims that there is a god, and that god is "the all". God is everything. God is the universe. Planets are but atoms in the mind of god.

 

I find it to be an interesting correlation between Kabbalah and Christianity, where Christianity says "we are made in god's image". Kabbalah says that is a misinterpretation. It is not that we are created in god's image, as if god were human, and we are imitating the form of god. Kabbalah says "we are made in god's image-INATION" the IMAGINATION of god is where we, and the universe, are created. The universe is a thought of god, a simulation.

 

 

Considering this, I stumbled upon an interesting TEDX talk that supports such a theory that we are all a simulation;

 

 

 

 

Now before I have to raise my fecal shield, I would like to say all of this is just an interesting observation of mine, and I have no proof there is a god, and there may in fact not be one. I do want there to be one however. It is more comforting to think of.

 

To say that everything is god is equal in practice to nothing being god. But you don't earn a get-out-of-jail free card by making that assertion since you haven't proven a positive claim. At least, I admire your honesty in how this is just comforting for you to think about. At some point the training wheels have to come out, though.

[dsayers]

It is possible that god is outside the realm of our senses, like radiation, gravity, dark matter etc. Before these things were known, we thought they did not exist. We also used to think the earth was flat. What if god is outside our current human understanding?

Is this a question you pose out of curiosity, or matter of factly as if doubt is sufficient? Because I think it falls apart once you begin to jump down that rabbit hole.

 

Radiation might've been imperceptible to us at one point, but its effects were not. This is very important to understand because suppose radiation existed, but did not effect us in any way. Then for it to exist or not exist would functionally make no difference. Nor would we have any reason to suspect there was such a thing as radiation. So the fact that we can even have this conversation means the theory of outside our understanding fails.

 

So let's take a closer look. Let us suppose that the first time the concept of a deity entered human consciousness was by observing the sun. I'll roleplay that primitive mind: I see this thing that I cannot reach. When I can see it though, everything is easier to see and everything is warmer also. This doesn't fit anything I understand. When I was a child and understood nothing about my world, I turned to this larger being who was heavily invested in my care and maintenance (parents). Therefore, I'm going to ascribe what I'm seeing as a deity since it's the closest explanation I have.

 

Fast forward and we learned what the sun is and why it appears to come and go. At this point, deity should've been shaken from human consciousness. It wasn't though because it was a comforting thought. So comforting in fact that some people needed for it to be true. Or were subjected to others who needed it to be true to the point of inflicting it onto others.

 

For the concept to survive for millenia with zero reason to suspect it is valid, for the ultimate defense of the possibility to be maybe it's outside our understanding, you're basically proving that it is the product of wishful thinking. I don't live in the world where deity might be possible. I live in the world where consciousness is an emergent property of matter. If someday it is revealed that hot damn, there is a deity, then that will be the reality we're living in. Until such a time, to say it's possible is to reject reality. I spent so much of my life in a reject reality mode by no choice of my own that I don't have any interest in those who do. Somebody that thinks they can wish a problem away won't be searching for the actual solution, and therefore would be a liability in my life.

[Des]

This thread is relevant to my interests.

 

I am not quite sure where i fall on the athiest/theist scale. I admit I have never seen any evidence of there being a god. This is not proof that there is no god, however. It is possible that god is outside the realm of our senses, like radiation, gravity, dark matter etc. Before these things were known, we thought they did not exist. We also used to think the earth was flat. What if god is outside our current human understanding?

A deity is either omnipotent or not. If not, what is the difference between saying "space alien" and saying "deity"?

I am not atheistic iro space aliens.

If omnipotent, then I am in the universe of René Descartes Evil demon - and therefore for me to claim to know anything is just nonsense.

So, when someone makes a claim or a prediction, he is directly implying his atheism iro omnipotent deities.

 

You can choose. You can say you know nothing and can predict nothing, or, you can admit atheism.

If you claim to know something or have some prediction and also claim to be subject to an omnipotent being, you are confused, sort it out.

 

See my new topic