Atheism is low iq

[yushmaxx]

Idk. Def not created by a personal god tho

Saying “I dont know” is a perfectly okay response. Religious people cant understand.

 

[ICXCLuvr]

Saying “I dont know” is a perfectly okay response. Religious people cant understand.

They’re stubborn and think that having an “explanation” means they’ve won

 

[Hess]

of course, there’s a million other factors at play here

the better statistic would be is that as we look at different levels of education, religion prevalence crashes by like 60%

vast majority of PhDs are atheists

They also make up 65 percent of nobel prize holders and 56 percent of post graduate degrees today, its not that strong of an argument, if they still make up a majority in a lot of uni level education then it is not some slam dunk against religion, not to mention there is a huge amount of actual atheist skeptics that have debated the issue a lot that have conceded to metaphysics arguments and largely turned more agnostic because of it

(Graham Oppy has been on record saying that christian metaphysics are highly rational, deeply explanatory and structurally sound, antony flew abandoned atheism for deism due to his consession to the teleological argument and metaphysical challenge of how life could emerge from non living matter,quentin smith conceded that scientific discoveries like the big bang lent a dangerous amount of plausibillity to theistic metaphysics, there is a lot more cases like this which one can go on about)

trying to prove which population category is more higher IQ in this case is just a useless debate that proves nothing outside of some adhom dunk out of arrogance, both sides are fairly reasonable and trying to portray your opponent as stupid is just as low IQ (I am a nietzschean so I do not believe in religion either, I just find this arrogrance on atheist sides silly)

 

[Hess]

atheists tend to operate on critical thinking. which is based on skepticism, testing, evidence, etc

religious people on the other hand operate on intuitive thinking. they take things more at face value, with quick judgement and gut feelings

Atheists do this just as much on a variety of topics, this is just a trait for normies, there are so many christian theologians that have extensively used logic to argue for the existence of God that are as logical as atheist skeptics

 

[Askinov]

You are approaching this in a fundamentally wrong way.

The one true god is a cookie monster who lives under my bed, and you have NO evidence to defy its existence.

Atheists have no burden of proof, it falls on the religious man.

science doesn't have reason for what happened before big bang where did it came from will i think it may will do ig

neither the religion has explained who was before god only thing is i saw ts from hinduism and it says the concept of beginning doesn't apply there is no day 1 aka Omni-temporality

at the end i think it comes down to people and they should select what they believe on and can gain advantage on

and if you you just don't follow religion blindly and use it to understand life and stuff and take some helpful advice from it its lit tho

 

[Mogger]

I dont know. Scientists have theories, one day we will figure it out.

When we didnt know how the weather, or rain, or the sun, or natural disasters worked, we blamed it or attributed to god.

Then scientists found the real reasons behind those things.

Humans get smarter and gods domain gets smaller, that is how humanity has been trending for the last 3000 years, its called “god of the gaps”

Even a complete scientific explanation of the universes physical history wouldn’t necesarily answer why physical reality exists at all. The argument for god is about the ultimate explanation of existence and not filling gaps in scientific knowledge.

 

[WonkyChin186]

.

studies show atheists have higher iq

 

[Mogger]

neither the religion has explained who was before god

Things that begin to exist need a cause but God, by definition in classical theism, didn’t begin to exist so it doesn’t need a cause

 

[Hess]

So many low IQ ppl in this thread that are too low IQ to engage in actual skeptic debates that think they have the right to call any side low IQ considering majority of atheist skeptics and theists that debate as their career both concede regularly to both sides and are far more understanding towards one another and agree far more with each other as they both have extremely strong arguments

 

[irisdipigmentation0]

.

reason being?

 

[Mogger]

reason being?

It’s a logical conclusion that god exists

 

[yushmaxx]

science doesn't have reason for what happened before big bang where did it came from will i think it may will do ig

science always finds an answer

we didnt know how clouds formed 100 years ago

give scientists 100 years and we will
know why

 

[yushmaxx]

Even a complete scientific explanation of the universes physical history wouldn’t necesarily answer why physical reality exists at all.

how can you be so sure? Where is your evidence? Quantum computing has only become better and better.

just to remind you humans used to think earthquakes were god punishing us (some retarded subhuman malnourished cult member apes still think this )

The argument for god is about the ultimate explanation of existence and not filling gaps in scientific knowledge.

Dude, that is quite literally what god has been used for for THOUSANDS OF YEARS

since we were cavemen we attributed things we didnt understand to god

im actually baffled, why cant people just understand that god is a figment of our imagination made to comfort us?

i would be so much more inclined to believe in god if there was one consistent god that everyone believed in, not thousands over humanity

 

[yushmaxx]

They also make up 65 percent of nobel prize holders and 56 percent of post graduate degrees today, its not that strong of an argument

You understand “as a percentage of a whole” right?
When 90% of the world believes in god, only 50% of postgrads believing in god is actually a very good example of how education leads to more atheist tendencies, thanks for helping me out.

Also, with the “many scientists/nobel prize winners” believe in god argument, use your brain a LITTLE please.

You realize many of these scientists would literally have their lives ruined and be executed if they came out as atheists?
These scientists often had research funded by the CHURCH. You think the church would support and fund an atheist scientists research?

Why do you think almost all scientists NOW are atheists compared to the past?

trying to prove which population category is more higher IQ in this case is just a useless debate

I agree its not a productive argument but its so damn obvious that atheists are smarter (on avg) from like a million different metrics

 

[Hess]

Also, with the “many scientists/nobel prize winners” believe in god argument, use your brain a LITTLE please.

You realize many of these scientists would literally have their lives ruined and be executed if they came out as atheists?
These scientists often had research funded by the CHURCH. You think the church would support and fund an atheist scientists research?

Why do you think almost all scientists NOW are atheists compared to the past?

Are you retarded? the nobel prize was invented in 1895, the enlightenment and the rise of non-christian rationalism was already a prominent feature of discussion and debate for hundreds of years since the french revolution around the late 1700s, there was no hunting of atheists and the church was not the ruler of all morality and law during the 1800s, how do you conflate medieval history with early modern history LMFAO especially considering with how irrelevant christianity was rapidly becoming in its relations to politics in the state, these scientists were not funded by churches or forced into being christian especially when society was governed by more enlightenment ideals, this just shows how low IQ your understanding of history is

You understand “as a percentage of a whole” right?
When 90% of the world believes in god, only 50% of postgrads believing in god is actually a very good example of how education leads to more atheist tendencies, thanks for helping me out.

My point is that this is just a useless line of thinking, all of the national socialist high command of hitler's germany were tested with IQs ranging around the 140-120, does this suddenly mean they were right because they were so smart? not to mention that all of the university intellectuals then argued for nazism and were heavily biased towards nazism during their reign, obviously it was more authoritarian and enforced but the point that im making here is that more intelligent people arguing in favour for something is a useless line of thinking as institutions are heavily influenced by ideology of the state and will follow trends as they go, they arent fully rational actors and can be very easily influenced and just arent worth bringing up as some dunk against people (even in free democracies, if you tried to argue for race realism you would get banned and face extreme pushback, look at nathan cofnas or edward dutton)

I agree its not a productive argument but its so damn obvious that atheists are smarter (on avg) from like a million different metrics

Majority of atheists (not the actual skeptic debaters which I like but the average) arent that smart and are not superior to the religious people they pushback on, they are just as much of cattle as christians are who blindly accept their faith as true, not to mention how very dishonest a lot of them are in debates or how a lot of these surface level atheists are very instantly shut down in debates when they have to debate a theist that is actually versed in their religion's, not to mention that a lot of them will happily accept objective morality as a fact with zero basis outside of their feelings and instincts, which is a stupid thing to base an objective morality on

 

[Yuqwi]

.

High iq, we don’t need a fictional person to explain our existence

 

[Mogger]

High iq, we don’t need a fictional person to explain our existence

explain it then