Is it possible that atheists don't believe in religion because they are not smart enough to grasp the concepts of faith...

Is it possible that atheists don't believe in religion because they are not smart enough to grasp the concepts of faith and spirituality?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=nYvl5HdvrSc
dictionary.com/browse/evidence
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/fusion.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–energy_equivalence
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence
myredditvideos.com/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

No, atheists are generally smarter, or more intellectual at the least. Anyway, why would believing in Norse paganism (or any other religion) make you smarter than someone who doesn't believe in a god?

No, the majority of atheists are stupid


youtube.com/watch?v=nYvl5HdvrSc

Just memeworthy, studies show that the average IQ of non-believers are higher than believers, it's just fact.

Just to illustrate my point, what's the most religious demographic in the united states today? Niggers. And the least? Asians.

>studies show

Have you ever participated in a 'study' of any kind? Do you know anyone who has?

Also, what studies are you even referencing?

None probably, most atheists are cringey edge lords anyway.

>studies show

Stop, every fucking time you retards say this and present NOTHING.

Learn to into burden of proof.

Is it possible that religious people believe in religion because they are not smart enough to grasp the concept of science and technology?

>Niggers
>""""Religious""""

>atheism = science

nice meme

>grasp the concepts of faith and spirituality?

Don't most religious people just steam roll all over this and parrot the same shit their parents/church just tell them to believe?

Do you realize you can be spiritual and faithful without adhering to a single religion or even believing in God?

>Every religion on earth argued that the other was wrong.
Maybe they just listened?

Most of these "atheists" would've been Christians had they been born a hundred years earlier. They're just atheists now because of the current anti-Christian social narrative, or because they've read Carl Sagan or whatever, not because they can think for themselves. Basically memes.

The real intelligent people are Agnostic, they realize that there things we don't know, and to claim there is no God is just as foolish as claiming there is a God. (pic related)

Also Asians are just more pragmatic, not atheist. They accept there's no real point of thinking about the afterlife while we're alive, its just mental masturbation.

Also, the communist state enforced ideology of atheism is also a fairly modern meme in Chinese people, not the natural state of Asians.

Source: I'm an Asian, the leaf memes are real

More like because it's not currently illegal.

they're just not scared of questioning everything, including stuffs that are 'forbidden' to be questioned.

or

they love their pressure free life too much, they don't want to give it up to be scared of hell or not doing something fun and exciting just because of the hell threat.

oh, and hating gays doesn't make sense because no one can really choose to be not gay. atheists don't hate religion, they (we) hate unreasonable hatred.

Atheists who never become agnostic are unintelligent.

Not particularly. One could argue for the existence of extra-dimensional beings, but believing there is such a being was described in a book millennia ago and is watching over us is plain stupid.

>doesn't know the meaning of agnostic

>One could argue [...] believing there is such a being was described in a book millennia ago [...] is just plain stupid
but, isn't it the case that that argument is a genetic fallacy?
are you sure you're not the stupid one?

>not smart enough to grasp the concept of blind adherence to something with no evidence
That's probably it yeah

u don't undersant faith then.

>no evidence

I'm not really sure why you're trying to say. Humanity can't perceive extra dimensions with the technological advances we've had in the past century. We are nowhere even close.
You can take a stab if it exists, or not. But you can make a safe assumption that it did not present itself to a villager 2000 years ago.

"strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof."

Its weird, you drone on about how your opinion and claim atheists cant think for themselves. Yet, the same could be said for theists who have to rely on a single book to tell them how to live their life. I find this an odd proposition.

Did you read my post beyond the first two lines?

>to claim there is no God is just as foolish as claiming there is a God

Nowhere did I say organized religion is correct.

Non athiests are stupid

>The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue) is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context.

your argument was basically
>p1: if x was described in a book millennia ago, then x is wrong
>p2: x was described in a book millennia ago
>c: therefore x is wrong

i don't know what you're talking about with 'extra dimensions'
the Christian God came to earth and had a length, width and height

>But you can make a safe assumption that it did not present itself to a villager 2000 years ago.
how? show your reasoning.

>not smart enough to believe (without a shred of proof) in an invisible floating man in the sky

The point is, neither side can think for themselves. The only valid stance is admitting we don't know - Agnosticism.

Oh, fun. A picture.

>"based on 'my own' criteria"
>"an arbitrary frame that 'I' set up"
>assuming anyone wins

I bet you've said something similar to "we cant come from nothing, evolution doesnt exist"

dictionary.com/browse/evidence

The fact that the universe exists at all is inconsistent with our understanding of physics. The universe has either always existed, or was created by an outside source; science can currently explain neither. And, if it can, it means that scientific "laws" can be broken, so anything we currently know is meaningless.

That being said, to say that it is in any way more logical to assume (((science))) and God cannot be compatible than to say they can is, well, retarded.

kys

>the fact that the universe exists is inconsistent with physics
>t. Not a physicist

Yeah, lets do that with everything while we're at it. Just stop learning about the world and give up at the point where we don't know things. Throw your hands up with me, while tilting your head slightly to signify your level of uncaring.

Can I be done with this non-point please

Learn to stop the fallacy fallacy stupid

True or false: Matter cannot be destroyed, nor created.

>I'll never accept an inductive argument!
Well, might as well throw the justice system out while we're at it...

>concept
Please have cancer

>Its current year and you're not an agnostic

False, matter can be converted into energy and vice versa as is often the case in particle colliders

Matter and energy, then, if you want to be pedantic.

sure

Any serious studies of history disprove Christianity and Islam. People who believe in a sky daddy who watches his special snowflakes on some random planet are laughable. That being said, the laws of physics are so specific, it's very likely the universe was created by some extra dimensional being

The valid stance is apatheism. Who gives a shit?

It... hasn't though. At least not yet.

Once you accept the ancient astronaut theory it all becomes clear

I would say the net energy content of a closed system can't change

people seek faith when they're cornered in life. or when they can't accept the whole "there's no paradise after this, only nothingness".or when they're too stupid to live not their own goal but their god's goal. i mean how can anyone live knowing that their body and goals aren't theirs ?

there are different epistemologies.
what sort of, or amount of evidence needed to sufficiently give warrant to a proposition is subjective to the individual making the assessment, it's also weighed against their own worldview.

example:
while punching someone in the shoulder would allow a normal person to think that the person punching them is real, and not just a mental construct of theirs, a solipsist would not find that evidence sufficient.

>I bet you've said something similar to "we cant come from nothing, evolution doesnt exist"
yeah, the first half.
out of nothing, nothing comes.
ex nihilo nihil fit

Matter is frequently converted into energy in particle physics. Another example is nuclear reactions, for instance two atoms fusing into one atom with a lower mass and releasing the difference as energy

Right.

Then how can the creation of the universe be explained, fampai?

A large and sudden shift from energy to matter?

No matter has been created or destroyed though. We've simply reduced them to constituent particles and we haven't yet converted matter into energy or vice versa.

I would like to see a source on your claim though. I'm highly interested if true.

If I knew that for sure I'd be collecting my Nobel prize, but people like Lawrence Krauss (who is a meme-tier philosopher but an accomplished physicist) have argued that our universe has a net zero energy content and thus doesn't represent the creation of energy.
You also have all manner of string theory stuff that posits explanations but frankly I don't put much stock into that until I see some kind of experimental requests

Where did the energy come from?

You're intentionally avoiding the point.

Dont know yet.

How do you think we'll find out?

1.) By science.
2.) Praying for the answer.

At absolute best only one religion can be correct, that means at a minimum 99.9999...% of religions have to be utter bull shit. Any religious person must agree with this sentiment unless they don't actually believe in their own religion.

So you know perfectly well what it is like to think religions are retarded and not believe in them, it's your go to stance for everything other than CURRENT_RELIGION. This means you're just one step away from growing up and realising they're all a crock of shit kiddo :^)

I've never understood this point of "worldview", as if its some viable excuse to divide reality from what people want to believe. I never needed the bible to tell me every aspect of life as a christian kid, we use reason and critical thinking regardless of what people want to believe. This whole "worldview" nonsense that somehow got into this discussion is beyond silly.

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/fusion.html
I don't want to sound like a smartass but nuclear fusion transforming matter into energy is considered the basics of nuclear fusion. For instance: two hydrogen atoms each have a mass of 1.007 amu. They fuse into a helium atom with mass 4.007 amu. That means there's .01 amu of mass that got lost somewhere

Why does every fedora assume religion and science are incompatible?

The explanation literally doesn't matter. Anything that caused it to happen (or, it being eternal, either way) necessarily is inconsistent with what we currently understand to be physical laws. With that being said, if laws can be broken, then what we currently know is meaningless.

Conversion to energy is not loss in the context of this conversation.

I believe in God, but I'm not religious like most people are.

is it possible that atheists are a judgement of abandonment against a nation who no longer recognizes the Creator?

>Why does every fedora assume religion and science are incompatible?
Then I guess demanding an answer for the beginning of the universe isn't a serious defense for religion, huh?

>caused it to happen
Nothing caused it, it's spontaneous if the energy chance is zero. According to Krauss.
>if laws are broken what we know is meaningless
Not at all, we just make better laws. That's how progress is made
Sure it is. It's not matter any more, it's energy now. That was my point.

>he doesn't know scientific theories are constantly updated
Might as well stop using your computer then. Those theories we hold about electricity MUST be useless, so the computer must be useless, right?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce

Because science is logical, objective and evidence based whereas religion is illogical, dogmatic and entirely based in faith.

They are utterly conflicting mindsets.

Religion to me is less about the literal truth of it all and more about the spiritual zeitgeist that links humanity. There is power in religion that can't be ignored.

>Why does every fedora assume religion and science are incompatible?
In the defense of fedoras, religious people that are willing to accept science are and have been a minority at best. The Catholic Church acknowledging evolution as a viable theory and a potential means God used to create life is a very recent thing, and even still the Protestants and Orthodox have yet to make any similar widespread acceptance.

But the more important thing to note is that to someone fervently religious, science must always come second to faith. They're not willing to consider viewpoints that do not mesh with their doctrine in a way they find acceptable, because they cannot stand to face the possibility their beliefs are wrong. So rather than ye old Isaac Newton types using science to understand the world they believed was made and ordered by God, you get faggots making shit like that Creation Museum and big Noah's Ark recreation in Kentucky.

I'm afraid that red pill is too big for both Christians and atheists to swallow.

Praise Kek.

God has never helped anyone
:^)
Evolution is a fact, physic laws are facts, we don't need some creature to explain the world around us, not because it doesn't exist (anything can exist in your imagination irl, that's possible, why not) but because it's just useless, we can explain where we came from without any god

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–energy_equivalence

Right, but that isn't consistent with the universe's inception. It existing forever, or being created, necessarily violates scientific laws. To say "God is not logical, but assuming He isn't, is," is a statement with no logical basis.

>theories and laws are the same thing
kys

This is more about the concepts that the followers.

Why does this thread even exist?

>he literally calls the operation of the universe LAWS
laughinggirls.png

You may all think he's kidding, but this is the closest thing you'll find to the truth. If we praise him, we will raise him. Real eyes realize real lies.

Wrong pic.

I'm not sure what that link is expected to prove
>theories and laws are the same thing
Laws are based on observed phenomena and theories are explanations to explain phenomena. Both of them can be updated in the face of evidence, that's necessary for science

>No, atheists are generally smarter, or more intellectual at the least.
This is fallacious.

Believing or disbelieving in spirituality or a greater consciousness has absolutely no relationship with intelligence. It's this kind of thinking that persuades the most average intellects which can't form their own opinions to be atheist purely out of the connotation that it's what smart people are. Pity forming your opinions via an appeal to authority absolutely isn't something smart people do.

All those things are facts, but they're still highly interconnected natural laws with a lot of parallels. Almost seems like some of it has some deliberate intent behind it.

Asians are immensely spiritual and superstitious... You're incredibly ignorant.

Also, they're kind of autistic, which has been linked to atheism as well.

t. 99.9th percentile IQ white guy studying in a University full of chinks

I'm not exactly Christian but I believe in a god, and the words of Christ, and the teachings of Buddha & Laozi, etc... There are many fantastic lessons to be learned from religions, and many experiences to be had.

In this sense, atheists are stupid. Because they lack experience and sight.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspects of the universe.

describes some aspects of the universe.
describes some aspects of the universe.
describes some aspects of the universe.

You're memeing too hard.

That's not how the word "agnostic" works. I don't think you know what the term means. It's a modifier, you dumpy idiot.

no, it's just that none of them are right. they also cause a lot of problems. people really need to study more mathematics (not arithmetic, but axioms of math) and then they'll gain true enlightenment. inb4 euphoric. i'm being serous

>I've never understood this point of "worldview", as if its some viable excuse to divide reality from what people want to believe.
i can't make sense of this statement. i'm not sure what you're trying to say.
everyone has a worldview.

>I never needed the bible to tell me every aspect of life as a christian kid,
needed for what?
to be happy? to feel fulfilled?
to please God?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence

guys, google is at your fingertips. just type the shit in.

idk about y'all but i hate the term "atheist" to me it implies an active attitude of "fuck religion and you're all stupid but I'm not", but maybe that's just contextual based on where i grew up, how i was raised etc, . I guess personally i am agnostic, mainly i don't give a shit but its the hypocritical nature of many adherents that drives me away. I can definitely see some benefit in terms of reinforcing social norms, but not to go all "opiate of the masses" i.e the lower classes or intellectual inferior, on you but I kind of cant see the point of a religion when I am capable of living an honorable life, leaving things better than I found them, and generally doing right by others, then whey do I need the promise of fire or paradise to motivate me to do those things? I guess my hang up is the faith part, I can't bridge that gap.

They're pretty much connected, I don't know what are you talking about m8
Again, there is no need for some creature to explain things in science. Yeah, you could believe in anything you want tho. Me personally, I belive in Great Kek, be its blessing upon you my friend
Praise the Kek!

>Makes argument for deism
>Probably believes one specific religion along with all its dogma is correct

Pick one

>your argument is invalid because you didn't spoonfeed me everything on this site that is part of the biggest collection of free, searchable human knowledge ever to exist

It is the smarter thing to do though. At least as long as we're talking about institutional religion and not just the personal believe in a higher power.

>existentialism
Or should I say positive Nihilism? Please stop edge lord.

What you define as good is only what you decide. You are nothing/meaningless. Therefore your concept of good is nothing/meaningless. Everything about you is nothing and meaninglessness.

devious dubs

Agnosticism is the most scientific religious position.

There is no definitive evidence to prove either claim, therefore no conclusion can be reached - just sought.

This doesn't mean you cant abide by moral beliefs - but you are free from the restraints of laws created by men to control and placate others.

modern day Islam is infected. Radials are the zombies

You have to choose one of the abrahamic religions to follow. The coming end times requires it.

What's your point? The existence of the universe doesn't require the 'creation' of anything out of nothing.

Jesus told you not to worry about others and care about your own actions. Buddha said the same thing.

If you try to control the actions of others, you're no better than all authoritarians in the current era. You can't force someone at gun point to do a good deed. You're removing the aspect of charity, that someone is giving their time/money for the benefit of another, and replacing it with survival. The person preforms the formally good action, not because it's the right thing to do, but rather because otherwise there life would be ruined or they would be killed.

>The existence of the universe doesn't require the 'creation' of anything out of nothing.

The literal only other possible option is that it's existed forever.

I fucking love this meme. Agnosticism isn't a choice you retard. Theist and atheist is a binary choice, agnosticism doesn't make you some sort of middle ground faggot who JUST IS COMPLETELY NEUTRAL DUDE.

FUCK you. Learn the definition of words before you use them you fucking subhuman downie retard.