In my view god is as likely  to exist as Santa Clause. Just because we can't proof 100% he doesn't exist, it doesn't matter because of the burden of proof and personal opinions, no matter how educated, is irrelevent.

I don't think being atheist necessarily makes you smarter than theists.

I don't want to bat semantics around like a whiffle ball... suffice it to say that I do honestly and without sarcasm believe that those of us who don't hold to a MAJOR delusion as fact are 'smarter', more RATIONAL than those who do...

LC >;-}>

Where did we ever claim that? Atheist does not address education level, it is a position, not a degree. Specifically the "off" position. I've met plenty of atheists who do not know the things I know and simply meander through life with merely "that doesn't make sense'.

Scientific method is not owned by a label because it isn't used to promote a label. It is a TOOL that anyone of any label can use.

But, science is constantly moving much faster into the future and away from claims of invisible beings because of the tool of method.

You are needlessly getting upset because of your evolutionary sense of "fairness".

The problem is that claims are not true by default and claims are not 50/50 propositions merely because humans can utter words.

If someone today went around claiming the sun was a god, would you merely say "it's ok to believe that", or would you rightfully be concerned and say "That is not true no matter how much you want to believe it".

It is not the fault of scientific method or even scientists that people believe all sorts of absurd claims. We don't go around making claims of Big Foot. We don't go around claiming the Mayans met little green men a long time ago. And since you RIGHTFULLY gave up on your own woo of pantheism, you should understand that this is not about human rights or protection of believers. This is strictly about the claims people make.

If you are going to falsely equate a label with a degree which are two completely separate issues, you might as well go back to believing what you did when you first came here.

Bob Spence for example, has far more knowledge about science than I do. I also know others who are atheists that have the same level of education that an average week end worshiper does.

You are falsely trying to blame scientific method for the claims it does not make. You are trying to, with good intent, all be it misplaced, trying to say "cant we all just get along", which is not our argument here.

Humans can and should get along. But when it comes to science and scientific method, that is not something to be confused with labels or morality. It is a tool, not a label, not a moral code.

Louis did.

It has nothing to do with fairness. From what I've seen, on average atheists have at most 5.8 IQ points [or something to the effect] difference. I'm not saying it's  a 50/50 proposition and I agree that thinking the sun is a god is irrational.

The point is that just because you rationally reject gods, doesn't make you more rational that somebody that does. It does when it comes to religion. For example not believing unicorns are real is rational, but just because a Christian doesn't believe in them doesn't mean he's rational.

rationality is based on what you believe, not so much on what you don't. Being an atheist only means you don't hold a certian irrational belief. It says nothing about other areas. Not everybody who rejects the existence of Santa Clause is rational.

I like your approach of attack claims, not people, but you tend to misread things sometimes.

Evaluating scientific information seems more intelligent than ignoring it and replacing it with "Goddidit".

Pineapple listen to yourself.

Didn't you just say that it was irrational to believe the sun is a god? So if someone did believe that ON THAT ISSUE ALONE based on that claim, if they made that claim, I would be more rational ON THE ISSUE of that claim.

There are lots of things that people get irrational about, god claims are just one aspect of life. I am quite sure that if you spent a week with me I am quite sure I would have at some moment an irrational reaction to something.

Deity believers can be quite rational outside the issue of a god claim. But once they know about science and are given the facts, they don''t have any excuse.

The scientific fact is that consciousness only exists in the context of biological evolution. Anyone claiming an invisible friend BY ANY LABEL is being irrational. That does not mean they are dumb or bad and some of them are even scientists. And the scientists who still cling to some invisible friend claim, the only ones I would trust would be the ones who separate their pet whim from actual labs and study. Any scientist who is unwilling to do that does not belong in a lab.

Blindly accepting a claim about the nature of reality without verification is part of our evolution, a very unfortunate part of our evolution. Gap filling is natural only in the sense that it is a product of evolution. The good part of our evolution is the ability to recognize when we are being irrational.

Yeah, it damned well does.

Acceptance of god belief is a slippery slope that allows all sorts of logical disconnects... From denial of simple human rights based on sexual orientation to beheading witches.

I don't really care if it's PC or not... religion makes you stupid.
The fact that you may be able to function otherwise normally doesn't alter the base premise.

LC >;-}>

To both of you:

Yes you are more rational than theists in when it comes to a belief in magic sky daddies.

But overall rationality? I'm not convinced.

Wouldn't holding fewer irrational beliefs make one rational overall?

                                                                                               What would would it take to convince you ?

Irony: Sol is the only thing observed to in any way match a description of a god. Therefore it is the only rational thing to deify, if one must deify anything.

Yes, but I'm not convinced that it's the case. Magic sky daddies is just on in a zillion things that one can be irrational about.

Evidence of course. Irrationality isn't a theist or atheist trait, it's a HUMAN trait. I can't for the life of me concieve how rejecting an irrational belief somehow makes you more rational overall. Like I said, Ray Comfort doesn't belief in the tooth fairy, he's rational in one area [magic tooth fairies] but that doesn't make Ray a rational person.

Dont you mean..."all those bazillions of OTHER primitives..." ?

You are one of us arent you?

Of course you are. LOL.

Good on you for at least admitting its just a "belief" you hold.

Technically its two beliefs you hold.

1. That you're smarter than people you dont even know.

2. That theism - of a type you havent identified - is a delusion.

I'm not a primitive... you may be. But there is no difference between a naked savage in feathers with a bone through the nose and a preacher with meteor proof hair and a three piece suit... Both believe in magical beings.

I have no problem with the idea that I'm smarter than people I don't know. If they believe in invisible, intangible sentient beings with magical powers, how smart can they be?

All theism is delusional. I make no distinction.

Any questions?

LC >;-}>

I don't care if all 7 billion people were all atheists or all Muslims or all Jews or all Christians ect ect ect........Those are just labels. Part of evolution is the side affect of irrationality.

What does work in our evolution is when we find better data and discard old data our species moves forward.

Religion as a collective body politic and ANY form of dogmatism is irrational. State religion in the word "nationalism" is replacing the god with the state being the god.

Having said that, because no human can be completely rational 100% of the time every second of there lives, it becomes important at the political and educational level to filter out bias. If we always allow people to go around claiming absurd things and never challenged them we would still believe the earth to be flat.

It becomes a necessity to move humanity forward. It was understandable when we knew less, but now that we have the facts, there is no excuse not to challenge those claims.

And when I say challenge, I don't mean oppress, just debate, ridicule and blaspheme to the point it would be embarrassing to hold such beliefs. Just like it would be  irrational if an adult at the age of 45 still went around claiming that the baby came out of the ass and not the vagina after someone pointed out that error.

FYI, that was what I thought at the age of 7. My buss driver told me the truth and the entire bus laughed at me. It seemed cruel at the time, but it was not true no matter how much I insisted on it. I should have thanked her instead of crying because my absurd belief got picked on. Would you find it irrational if I still believed today that the baby came out of the ass and not the vagina, especially after having sex education?

What I did as a kid was understandable, but could you imagine if society including my parents taught me "It's ok to believe the baby comes out of the ass? You have the right to believe that."

It is NOT ok to believe in gods. We know why now those beliefs exist. God belief exists because of human imagination, nothing more.  We also know that consciousness does not exist outside biological evolution.

People have the RIGHT to claim whatever they want, and we have the right to call them on it. We are doing things like this to get more and more people to the Age Of Enlightenment 2.0.

We are better off as a species when we give up on bad information and bad data. That wont make the world a perfect utopia, no such thing will ever exist. But it will maximize quality control to insure no form of absurdity can corrupt politics or education to the extent it harms society.

Yep. What if you're (completely) wrong and a bazzilion theists are all (partly) right?

Still would not change much for me. Lets pretend there was a god with all the typical omni- attributes. The only thing that would change is that I would with the empirical evidence, would have to accept it. But I would still not worship such a prick who set up such a crappy house full of disease, famine, war and crime, with no way to get off this planet.

The reality is however, that life and the universe look exactly like it should if there was no god.

If it is popular for the majority of the world's population to believe falsely that the earth was flat. And it is possible for people to falsely think the sun was a god, it makes sense to me that the unfortunate side of our evolution in gap filling with deities is the majority.

But we are working long term to ween as many people as we can off of superstition.

I'll file my fear of that right up there with my deep seated terror of being stomped by Godzilla, being sucked dry by Dracula or being gang probed by little gray space aliens.

That's pretty much all the thought it deserves, remember after all, my OP is that there is no god, and no reason to even think there MIGHT be one. No matter how many people believe a lie, it remains a lie.

LC >;-}>

 I think that honestly all the controversy over 'God' is the very definition of the word. The notion of 'God' being a giant man in the sky who created Earth in seven days and turned the Nile to blood is ridiculous. A basic science course will tell you as much. But God being simply the idea of human morality, and as the Bible being a book of fables, which many learned theologians believe is perfectly rational.