Total Posts:170|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Are atheists inferior?

Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 1:59:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Before anyone gets too upset I want to make clear that I could just as easily have asked the same about theists. The thing I'm curious about is the existence of dividing-lines that seem to separate people and make both sides feel superior, whether the line be political, theological, geographical, etc. In the past few years debate over religion has become one of the hottest issues I've seen, and everybody seems to claim that the other side's claims demonstrate inferior thinking. Why can't people discuss a subject like religion as equals with different points of view? Just wondering.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 2:44:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 1:59:06 PM, Idealist wrote:
Why can't people discuss a subject like religion as equals with different points of view?

I think it's because a lot of internet atheists have had bad a bad experience/experiences with religion, hence their vocal pronouncement of atheism and the scorn they direct towards the religious.
TheOncomingStorm
Posts: 249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 2:57:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 1:59:06 PM, Idealist wrote:
Before anyone gets too upset I want to make clear that I could just as easily have asked the same about theists. The thing I'm curious about is the existence of dividing-lines that seem to separate people and make both sides feel superior, whether the line be political, theological, geographical, etc. In the past few years debate over religion has become one of the hottest issues I've seen, and everybody seems to claim that the other side's claims demonstrate inferior thinking. Why can't people discuss a subject like religion as equals with different points of view? Just wondering.

Because everyone who doesn't agree with me has the mental capacity of a two year old...

Lol just kidding.

I think it's because poisoning the well is kind of natural to humans. So instead of explaining why they think someone's logic is inferior they just assert that the other person's mind is inferior, which has gotten pretty out of control now.
Official "Director of Weather and Hyperbole in the Maximum Degree of Mice and Men" of the FREEDO bureaucracy.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 3:35:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 2:44:14 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 3/19/2014 1:59:06 PM, Idealist wrote:
Why can't people discuss a subject like religion as equals with different points of view?

I think it's because a lot of internet atheists have had bad a bad experience/experiences with religion, hence their vocal pronouncement of atheism and the scorn they direct towards the religious.

Yeah, I've thought that myself from time to time. But it seems to me that for some reason, in the past few years the emotions have run much deeper. According to conflict hypothesis, " there is an intrinsic intellectual conflict between religion and science . . . [that] inevitably leads to public hostility." But the original form of the thesis is no longer widely supported by most intellectuals. I can't help but wonder if it's becoming too much an emotional idea for people to be able to separate their personal feelings from their rational thoughts. But that doesn't help anyone. For hundreds of years the French and British fought over whether the wafers and wine they consumed in church were just symbolic of Christ's flesh and blood or whether they actually underwent a full transformation as they were swallowed. I understand that organized religion can be and often is dangerous, due to it's propensity for mass-control of people. But why do individuals feel so personally invested, as if they are being singled out? And why do so many atheists get so angry that they are willing to judge even the most intelligent and accomplished persons as idiots simply for believing in something bigger than science? It would be an awesome subject for conversation if people could keep cool heads and really think about what they feel and what they say. :)
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 4:00:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 2:57:17 PM, TheOncomingStorm wrote:
At 3/19/2014 1:59:06 PM, Idealist wrote:
Before anyone gets too upset I want to make clear that I could just as easily have asked the same about theists. The thing I'm curious about is the existence of dividing-lines that seem to separate people and make both sides feel superior, whether the line be political, theological, geographical, etc. In the past few years debate over religion has become one of the hottest issues I've seen, and everybody seems to claim that the other side's claims demonstrate inferior thinking. Why can't people discuss a subject like religion as equals with different points of view? Just wondering.

Because everyone who doesn't agree with me has the mental capacity of a two year old...

Lol just kidding.

Well, anyone who disagrees with me has the mental capacity of a 1-year-old! lol

I think it's because poisoning the well is kind of natural to humans. So instead of explaining why they think someone's logic is inferior they just assert that the other person's mind is inferior, which has gotten pretty out of control now.

This is a good point. Everyone hates to be be accused of making straw-man arguments, but it is the easiest type of argument to make and can make you feel superior too boot. I've always believed there is always something to learn by simply listening to people, even if you are sure they are wrong. Their explanations of why they believe what they do can be very enlightening. We all have the capacity for stupidity, but not everyone has the capacity for genius. We all want to be on the genius side, but genius takes real work, while stupidity is usually quite easy. Do you think it's possible to have a serious discussion about an overriding philosophy unless you are prepared to surrender your own beliefs?
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 4:05:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 3:33:16 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Nope, we are all equally children of God.

I personally believe that this would actually be a close-to-perfect response if you had left it at "Nope, we are all equal."
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 4:08:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 4:05:53 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 3/19/2014 3:33:16 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Nope, we are all equally children of God.

I personally believe that this would actually be a close-to-perfect response if you had left it at "Nope, we are all equal."

I said what I meant, and meant what I said. It was intended to be both truthful from a theist perspective and funny in relation to the question posed.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 4:35:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 2:44:14 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 3/19/2014 1:59:06 PM, Idealist wrote:
Why can't people discuss a subject like religion as equals with different points of view?

I think it's because a lot of internet atheists have had bad a bad experience/experiences with religion, hence their vocal pronouncement of atheism and the scorn they direct towards the religious.

I disagree.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
uncle-creepy
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 4:42:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 1:59:06 PM, Idealist wrote:
Before anyone gets too upset I want to make clear that I could just as easily have asked the same about theists. The thing I'm curious about is the existence of dividing-lines that seem to separate people and make both sides feel superior, whether the line be political, theological, geographical, etc. In the past few years debate over religion has become one of the hottest issues I've seen, and everybody seems to claim that the other side's claims demonstrate inferior thinking. Why can't people discuss a subject like religion as equals with different points of view? Just wondering.

I wouldn't say "inferior." That may be too harsh of an adjective to give them.Even though I've come under the impression that some of them can be very narrow-minded,condescending,and angry people who would rather be right than to consider what the implications of them being right would be,I can not paint them all with a broad brush.I think that it's natural and normal to question things,especially when it comes to very deep subjects like God.I do not think that it's wrong to doubt.I look at my own experience.I came very close to being an atheist and I would not consider the me then to be inferior to the me now.That's something that I have to take into consideration even though I would identify myself as being a theistic person.

I've been in debates and have had discussions with atheists and I try not to resort to anything deemed to be disrespectful.Although,at times,I have fallen prey to the emotion that can come with a theist-atheist dialogue,I try to be mindful that there is more to that person than just a viewpoint that I personally disagree with.I'm sure that there are many atheists out there who are decent human beings and I try not to allow the smug or militant ones to suck me into stereotypical thinking.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 5:34:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 1:59:06 PM, Idealist wrote:
Before anyone gets too upset I want to make clear that I could just as easily have asked the same about theists. The thing I'm curious about is the existence of dividing-lines that seem to separate people and make both sides feel superior, whether the line be political, theological, geographical, etc. In the past few years debate over religion has become one of the hottest issues I've seen, and everybody seems to claim that the other side's claims demonstrate inferior thinking. Why can't people discuss a subject like religion as equals with different points of view? Just wondering.

I personally wouldn't say the other side's claims involves inferior thinking. IMO, most people never seriously consider their beliefs. If a theist has contemplated the lack of evidence for God and knows it takes faith alone to believe, then I have no issue with that. The same can be said for atheists. If you have considered God might exist and continue to hold that position, so be it. The problem, as I see it, is people who have not considered their position continue to fervently believe in order to mitigate a (subconscious) fear of dealing with the implications the other side presents (bringing on high emotion, which is not known for bringing about logical conversations!). The positions of militant theist (there is absolutely nothing that can persuade me God does not exist!) and militant atheist (there is absolutely nothing that can persuade me God is real!) are completely unreasonable, and do demonstrate inferior thinking.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
superflymegastallion
Posts: 370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 6:21:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 1:59:06 PM, Idealist wrote:
Before anyone gets too upset I want to make clear that I could just as easily have asked the same about theists. The thing I'm curious about is the existence of dividing-lines that seem to separate people and make both sides feel superior, whether the line be political, theological, geographical, etc. In the past few years debate over religion has become one of the hottest issues I've seen, and everybody seems to claim that the other side's claims demonstrate inferior thinking. Why can't people discuss a subject like religion as equals with different points of view? Just wondering.
The best way I can put it is:
Both sides assume they are correct. I do as well, so I'm lumped into that category.
As are you, and others.
There are many people, you included, that can have meaningful discussions.
But there are others, instalgoo, you are one, that you can't say anything to.
I'm right, and that's it. End of discussion. I thought ethang was somebody I could talk to and I found out, that he is deceptive.
That is the foundation of the issue I think.
Be open to the other side. I hope to think that I am. But at this point, I don't agree.
An atheist thinks that they show the reason why they think, and can't understand why a theist doesn't "get it". I think the same is true on the flip side of the coin.
Some of my best friends are theists. What an atheist doesn't get is that for some crazy reason, we don't deserve to be heard. And when we demand to be heard, as many theists do, we get labeled as XXX. Are our viewpoints not as valid as a theists?
superflymegastallion
Posts: 370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 6:27:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 4:42:43 PM, uncle-creepy wrote:
At 3/19/2014 1:59:06 PM, Idealist wrote:
Before anyone gets too upset I want to make clear that I could just as easily have asked the same about theists. The thing I'm curious about is the existence of dividing-lines that seem to separate people and make both sides feel superior, whether the line be political, theological, geographical, etc. In the past few years debate over religion has become one of the hottest issues I've seen, and everybody seems to claim that the other side's claims demonstrate inferior thinking. Why can't people discuss a subject like religion as equals with different points of view? Just wondering.

I wouldn't say "inferior." That may be too harsh of an adjective to give them.
You just nailed what I said to idealist. Too harsh? Ok, what do you have to call them?

Even though I've come under the impression that some of them can be very narrow-minded,condescending,and angry people who would rather be right than to consider what the implications of them being right would be,I can not paint them all with a broad brush.
Neither can I, but you give the impression that you do in fact think that all atheists are narrow minded, condescending, and angry. Thanks. The implications of me not being "right" are what?
I think that it's natural and normal to question things,especially when it comes to very deep subjects like God.I do not think that it's wrong to doubt.I look at my own experience.I came very close to being an atheist and I would not consider the me then to be inferior to the me now.That's something that I have to take into consideration even though I would identify myself as being a theistic person.

I've been in debates and have had discussions with atheists and I try not to resort to anything deemed to be disrespectful.
Too late for that.
Although,at times,I have fallen prey to the emotion that can come with a theist-atheist dialogue,I try to be mindful that there is more to that person than just a viewpoint that I personally disagree with.I'm sure that there are many atheists out there who are decent human beings and I try not to allow the smug or militant ones to suck me into stereotypical thinking.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 6:31:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 4:08:00 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 3/19/2014 4:05:53 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 3/19/2014 3:33:16 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Nope, we are all equally children of God.

I personally believe that this would actually be a close-to-perfect response if you had left it at "Nope, we are all equal."

I said what I meant, and meant what I said. It was intended to be both truthful from a theist perspective and funny in relation to the question posed.

But don't you think it might have been more diplomatic to say "I believe we are all children of God" instead of stating it as an incontrovertible fact? This is the very kind of statement which baits others into equally improvable claims and impairs the process of rational debate about the whole subject.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 6:49:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 4:42:43 PM, uncle-creepy wrote:
At 3/19/2014 1:59:06 PM, Idealist wrote:
Before anyone gets too upset I want to make clear that I could just as easily have asked the same about theists. The thing I'm curious about is the existence of dividing-lines that seem to separate people and make both sides feel superior, whether the line be political, theological, geographical, etc. In the past few years debate over religion has become one of the hottest issues I've seen, and everybody seems to claim that the other side's claims demonstrate inferior thinking. Why can't people discuss a subject like religion as equals with different points of view? Just wondering.

I wouldn't say "inferior." That may be too harsh of an adjective to give them.Even though I've come under the impression that some of them can be very narrow-minded,condescending,and angry people who would rather be right than to consider what the implications of them being right would be,I can not paint them all with a broad brush.I think that it's natural and normal to question things,especially when it comes to very deep subjects like God.I do not think that it's wrong to doubt.I look at my own experience.I came very close to being an atheist and I would not consider the me then to be inferior to the me now.That's something that I have to take into consideration even though I would identify myself as being a theistic person.

Yes, there's a lot about this I agree with. But what about the tendency of most people to jump-in with both feet on one side or the other? There have been famous atheists who turned to religion after a lifetime of not believing, and the opposite has also happened. But once the transformation is made it seems to be an infinite leap. Why can't we talk about why people see the world the way they do, and how that worldview leads them to believe in the existence or absence of God? Why can't we exchange questions with genuine curiosity instead of bating each other with Red-Herrings? I mean, this has to be very close to being the most important question there is, yet we tend to approach it like children. Why do you think it's so difficult to put our emotions aside and rely on well-thought reason instead, and to refrain from gloating whenever we feel we've achieved some kind of personal victory?

I've been in debates and have had discussions with atheists and I try not to resort to anything deemed to be disrespectful.Although,at times,I have fallen prey to the emotion that can come with a theist-atheist dialogue,I try to be mindful that there is more to that person than just a viewpoint that I personally disagree with.I'm sure that there are many atheists out there who are decent human beings and I try not to allow the smug or militant ones to suck me into stereotypical thinking.

Now this is more what I was talking about. Why can't these same rules and actions be spread across a larger, more general front? Why do so many atheists deride believers by saying that they only believe because they are afraid of death, when it's pretty commonly accepted that nobody wants to die? Why don't more people show a real interest in truly understanding why people think what they do instead of merely focusing on the fact that they believe it?
biomystic
Posts: 606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 7:05:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I will unequivocally state that atheist intellectual thinking is inferior to spiritually conscious intellectual thinking. It is not inferior to emotionally based traditional religious thinking.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 7:13:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 5:34:16 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/19/2014 1:59:06 PM, Idealist wrote:
Before anyone gets too upset I want to make clear that I could just as easily have asked the same about theists. The thing I'm curious about is the existence of dividing-lines that seem to separate people and make both sides feel superior, whether the line be political, theological, geographical, etc. In the past few years debate over religion has become one of the hottest issues I've seen, and everybody seems to claim that the other side's claims demonstrate inferior thinking. Why can't people discuss a subject like religion as equals with different points of view? Just wondering.

I personally wouldn't say the other side's claims involves inferior thinking. IMO, most people never seriously consider their beliefs. If a theist has contemplated the lack of evidence for God and knows it takes faith alone to believe, then I have no issue with that. The same can be said for atheists. If you have considered God might exist and continue to hold that position, so be it. The problem, as I see it, is people who have not considered their position continue to fervently believe in order to mitigate a (subconscious) fear of dealing with the implications the other side presents (bringing on high emotion, which is not known for bringing about logical conversations!). The positions of militant theist (there is absolutely nothing that can persuade me God does not exist!) and militant atheist (there is absolutely nothing that can persuade me God is real!) are completely unreasonable, and do demonstrate inferior thinking.

Very nicely said! How many of us do actually spend much time seriously considering our beliefs? What we feel is (in most cases) largely emotional. If you are not willing to consider the possibility that you might be wrong then you are not really considering the issue at all. I admit that I've found myself reacting emotionally to something I really didn't know much about. This is exactly the kind of thinking I was talking about; the kind of thinking which puts everything on the table. If you are certain of your beliefs then you shouldn't be afraid of any challenges made to them. Thanks for helping me think this through.
TheOncomingStorm
Posts: 249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 7:29:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 4:00:41 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 3/19/2014 2:57:17 PM, TheOncomingStorm wrote:
At 3/19/2014 1:59:06 PM, Idealist wrote:
Before anyone gets too upset I want to make clear that I could just as easily have asked the same about theists. The thing I'm curious about is the existence of dividing-lines that seem to separate people and make both sides feel superior, whether the line be political, theological, geographical, etc. In the past few years debate over religion has become one of the hottest issues I've seen, and everybody seems to claim that the other side's claims demonstrate inferior thinking. Why can't people discuss a subject like religion as equals with different points of view? Just wondering.

Because everyone who doesn't agree with me has the mental capacity of a two year old...

Lol just kidding.

Well, anyone who disagrees with me has the mental capacity of a 1-year-old! lol

I think it's because poisoning the well is kind of natural to humans. So instead of explaining why they think someone's logic is inferior they just assert that the other person's mind is inferior, which has gotten pretty out of control now.

This is a good point. Everyone hates to be be accused of making straw-man arguments, but it is the easiest type of argument to make and can make you feel superior too boot. I've always believed there is always something to learn by simply listening to people, even if you are sure they are wrong. Their explanations of why they believe what they do can be very enlightening. We all have the capacity for stupidity, but not everyone has the capacity for genius. We all want to be on the genius side, but genius takes real work, while stupidity is usually quite easy. Do you think it's possible to have a serious discussion about an overriding philosophy unless you are prepared to surrender your own beliefs?

I think you always have to be open to the possibility your wrong. I learned there has to be a balance of information as well, which is why it's nice to have friends that share your belief. I wouldn't claim to ever know everything there is to know about one topic, and it's nice to have other people that can help you with your side while you're challenging the opposite side and seeing where the truth really falls. It's easy to get biased on your stance, but the only way to really desire truth is to be prepared to surrender your own beliefs given there's proof they're wrong.
Official "Director of Weather and Hyperbole in the Maximum Degree of Mice and Men" of the FREEDO bureaucracy.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 7:32:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 7:05:16 PM, biomystic wrote:
I will unequivocally state that atheist intellectual thinking is inferior to spiritually conscious intellectual thinking. It is not inferior to emotionally based traditional religious thinking.

What is this "spiritually conscious intellectual thinking" you speak of? :p
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 9:33:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 6:21:53 PM, superflymegastallion wrote:
At 3/19/2014 1:59:06 PM, Idealist wrote:
Before anyone gets too upset I want to make clear that I could just as easily have asked the same about theists. The thing I'm curious about is the existence of dividing-lines that seem to separate people and make both sides feel superior, whether the line be political, theological, geographical, etc. In the past few years debate over religion has become one of the hottest issues I've seen, and everybody seems to claim that the other side's claims demonstrate inferior thinking. Why can't people discuss a subject like religion as equals with different points of view? Just wondering.
The best way I can put it is:
Both sides assume they are correct. I do as well, so I'm lumped into that category.
As are you, and others.
There are many people, you included, that can have meaningful discussions.
But there are others, instalgoo, you are one, that you can't say anything to.
I'm right, and that's it. End of discussion. I thought ethang was somebody I could talk to and I found out, that he is deceptive.
That is the foundation of the issue I think.
Be open to the other side. I hope to think that I am. But at this point, I don't agree.
An atheist thinks that they show the reason why they think, and can't understand why a theist doesn't "get it". I think the same is true on the flip side of the coin.
Some of my best friends are theists. What an atheist doesn't get is that for some crazy reason, we don't deserve to be heard. And when we demand to be heard, as many theists do, we get labeled as XXX. Are our viewpoints not as valid as a theists?

I don't think either side "gets it" on the surface, otherwise they would all just agree. But isn't better to explore our differences constructively rather than fight for superiority? When I meet someone and make friends with them, I rarely ask if they are an atheist or not. And I've never let a person's religious affiliation affect my opinion of them as a person. I don't believe that anyone should be labeled as anything other than what they obviously are. I am obviously a white man, so I should be labeled as caucasian. I shouldn't be labeled as racist.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 9:52:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 7:05:16 PM, biomystic wrote:
I will unequivocally state that atheist intellectual thinking is inferior to spiritually conscious intellectual thinking. It is not inferior to emotionally based traditional religious thinking.

Spiritual belief is dependent on one's level of intellectual thinking in order to demonstrate why God is necessary, while atheism relies more on raw science to give examples of why they think God isn't necessary, then use the lack of need to rule out the likelihood of God's existence. It has become more difficult to support one's spiritual beliefs because scientists have widely replaced clergy as the miracle-men of the modern world. It used to be that when something bad happened people turned to the Church. Now they tend to turn to science. I myself am a spiritual person (though not religious) so I know how frustrating this change of events has been. But I believe that if a thing is true then it will never be proven wrong, and therefore am not afraid of challenges to what I believe. Of course what I believe is fairly flexible, which allows me more room to maneuver.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 9:55:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 7:29:58 PM, TheOncomingStorm wrote:
At 3/19/2014 4:00:41 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 3/19/2014 2:57:17 PM, TheOncomingStorm wrote:
At 3/19/2014 1:59:06 PM, Idealist wrote:
Before anyone gets too upset I want to make clear that I could just as easily have asked the same about theists. The thing I'm curious about is the existence of dividing-lines that seem to separate people and make both sides feel superior, whether the line be political, theological, geographical, etc. In the past few years debate over religion has become one of the hottest issues I've seen, and everybody seems to claim that the other side's claims demonstrate inferior thinking. Why can't people discuss a subject like religion as equals with different points of view? Just wondering.

Because everyone who doesn't agree with me has the mental capacity of a two year old...

Lol just kidding.

Well, anyone who disagrees with me has the mental capacity of a 1-year-old! lol

I think it's because poisoning the well is kind of natural to humans. So instead of explaining why they think someone's logic is inferior they just assert that the other person's mind is inferior, which has gotten pretty out of control now.

This is a good point. Everyone hates to be be accused of making straw-man arguments, but it is the easiest type of argument to make and can make you feel superior too boot. I've always believed there is always something to learn by simply listening to people, even if you are sure they are wrong. Their explanations of why they believe what they do can be very enlightening. We all have the capacity for stupidity, but not everyone has the capacity for genius. We all want to be on the genius side, but genius takes real work, while stupidity is usually quite easy. Do you think it's possible to have a serious discussion about an overriding philosophy unless you are prepared to surrender your own beliefs?

I think you always have to be open to the possibility your wrong. I learned there has to be a balance of information as well, which is why it's nice to have friends that share your belief. I wouldn't claim to ever know everything there is to know about one topic, and it's nice to have other people that can help you with your side while you're challenging the opposite side and seeing where the truth really falls. It's easy to get biased on your stance, but the only way to really desire truth is to be prepared to surrender your own beliefs given there's proof they're wrong.

I very much concur. Does that mean I can depend on you to straighten-me-out when I wander from the truth? :)
biomystic
Posts: 606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 10:29:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 7:32:22 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/19/2014 7:05:16 PM, biomystic wrote:
I will unequivocally state that atheist intellectual thinking is inferior to spiritually conscious intellectual thinking. It is not inferior to emotionally based traditional religious thinking.

What is this "spiritually conscious intellectual thinking" you speak of? :p

What the words mean when you read them..
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 10:55:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 10:29:59 PM, biomystic wrote:
At 3/19/2014 7:32:22 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/19/2014 7:05:16 PM, biomystic wrote:
I will unequivocally state that atheist intellectual thinking is inferior to spiritually conscious intellectual thinking. It is not inferior to emotionally based traditional religious thinking.

What is this "spiritually conscious intellectual thinking" you speak of? :p

What the words mean when you read them..

Oh, I am not sure I have ever seen such a thing! j/k
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 11:12:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 1:59:06 PM, Idealist wrote:
Before anyone gets too upset I want to make clear that I could just as easily have asked the same about theists. The thing I'm curious about is the existence of dividing-lines that seem to separate people and make both sides feel superior, whether the line be political, theological, geographical, etc. In the past few years debate over religion has become one of the hottest issues I've seen, and everybody seems to claim that the other side's claims demonstrate inferior thinking. Why can't people discuss a subject like religion as equals with different points of view? Just wondering.

"A"--not
"Theist"--theo, God, ist-relating to.

Atheists are inferior, because they are not a god, unlike me.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 11:30:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 11:12:56 PM, kbub wrote:
At 3/19/2014 1:59:06 PM, Idealist wrote:
Before anyone gets too upset I want to make clear that I could just as easily have asked the same about theists. The thing I'm curious about is the existence of dividing-lines that seem to separate people and make both sides feel superior, whether the line be political, theological, geographical, etc. In the past few years debate over religion has become one of the hottest issues I've seen, and everybody seems to claim that the other side's claims demonstrate inferior thinking. Why can't people discuss a subject like religion as equals with different points of view? Just wondering.

"A"--not
"Theist"--theo, God, ist-relating to.

Atheists are inferior, because they are not a god, unlike me.

Oh, so you're the one who speaks through bornofgod? :)
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 11:35:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 11:30:04 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 3/19/2014 11:12:56 PM, kbub wrote:
At 3/19/2014 1:59:06 PM, Idealist wrote:
Before anyone gets too upset I want to make clear that I could just as easily have asked the same about theists. The thing I'm curious about is the existence of dividing-lines that seem to separate people and make both sides feel superior, whether the line be political, theological, geographical, etc. In the past few years debate over religion has become one of the hottest issues I've seen, and everybody seems to claim that the other side's claims demonstrate inferior thinking. Why can't people discuss a subject like religion as equals with different points of view? Just wondering.

"A"--not
"Theist"--theo, God, ist-relating to.

Atheists are inferior, because they are not a god, unlike me.

Oh, so you're the one who speaks through bornofgod? :)

No, I'm her parent :P
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 3:00:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 7:05:16 PM, biomystic wrote:
I will unequivocally state that atheist intellectual thinking is inferior to spiritually conscious intellectual thinking. It is not inferior to emotionally based traditional religious thinking.

I hate to break it to you but there is another term which accurately describes "spiritually conscious intellectual thinking". It's called "emotionally based religious thinking".