Why are non-believers smarter than Chrsitians?

Question

I need more please

Because they use common sense, logic, evaluate and think before they come to a conclusion.

Because one of the smartest men in history (Albert Einstein) didn't believe in the religious God. That is the God in the Bible along with most other scientist and educated people in our world.

They don't just follow blindly any old stupid thing someone tells them.

They are able to prove their theories with actual evidence and not 'faith'.

They are guided by intelligent thinking and not wishful thinking.

They don't believe in a God that got scared when people built the tower of Babel because he was afraid they would break into his house.

They don't believe in talking asses.

They don't believe that God is talking to them when they hear voices.

They don't believe that drinking holy water and screaming Hail Mary can heal their physical ailments.

If something doesn't make sense, they don't defend it to the death.

Lastly, because they don't believe in God and the bible.

Answer 1

Hello!! :o) A lot of non-believers [like yourself - I'm guessing] are arrogant. They are not in fact smarter. They just THINK they are. But truth be told - they are cowards. For they FEAR that which they do not know or understand. And lack the courage to admit to that fact. They are control freaks. The idea of NOT being able to explain their existence frightens them and in response to that fear - they have deluded themselves into believing that they are 'intellects'. ["I do not believe what YOU believe - because I am SMARTER than YOU!!"] I have far more respect for an agnostic than I do an atheist. At least an agnostic is willing to admit to a universal truth - and that is that none of us can be absolutely sure of anything. That all said... I sympathize with atheists - for it seems obvious to ME that someone or some event caused such individuals to reject the concept of a creator. But not just to the point of saying, "I do not THINK there is a God", but to the point of proclaiming that, "There IS no God!!" As I see - a true 'intellect' would NOT dismiss ANY concept that literally BILLIONS of people accept as the 'truth'. But that's me. Craig!! :o)

Answer 2

"Because they use common sense, etc." -
Such a universal statement that all materialist are "smarter" hardly bolsters your point! Was Noble prize winning Sir John Eccles 'stupid' for being a dualist, as was Sir Karl Popper [v. The Self and its Brain]? Clearly "evaluation" is something that you are not doing with YOUR thinking.

"Because one of the smartest men in history" -
I've already shown there are other 'smart men' who disagree with you. However, the fact that one is good at one thing does not confer a sort of 'universal validity' on all one's statements. This is a form of the ad hominem fallacy.

"They don't just blindly follow, etc." -
Like those followed Chairman Mao in China and killed 60 million people?

"They are able to prove their theories, etc." -
No empirical observation can confirm any modern cosmology. They are all very fluid constructs and often mutually contradictory. it's the same with modern theories of the mind. No one even has a basic model of the physical neurology of consciousness yet they all base theories upon this intellectual flaw.

My post has been long enough to show that we have here a classic example of prejudice and ignorance so deep that it thinks by chirping a few worn nostrums it is 'smart' like the 'cool people.' I warn against prolonged exposure to this windbag, the gas might suffocate a breathing mind!

Answer 3

If I had to choose between these arguments and Christianity, then I would choose Christianity. Here is why:

"Because they use common sense, logic, evaluate and think before they come to a conclusion. "

This commits 2 fallacies. The fallacy if Hasty Generalization (1) and Fallacy of Inconsistency (2), the Fallacies of the Excluded Middle (3). You don't offer any argumentation as to why Christians don't use common sense, logic, You jump straight to the conclusion without the logic (fallacy #1). Second, based on the previous, you are doing the exact same thing you criticize Christians as doing (fallacy #2) and Third, just because some Christians don't use logic doesn't mean that all Christians do logic. The vary nature of me (a Christian) writing this proves that there is at least one Christian who uses logic. So your claim is false. (fallacy #3)

"Because one of the smartest men in history (Albert Einstein) didn't believe in the religious God. That is the God in the Bible along with most other scientist and educated people in our world. "

You make the conclusion because Albert Einstein believed in God, that educated people don't believe in God. That commits the fallacy of Appeal to Authority, that would be the same as me saying, Isaac Newton believed in God, so therefore educated people must believe in God. This is simply not true. Second, by example, I can say that at least one educated person believe in God. Newton was probably one of the smartest men to ever live, yet he was a Christian. So your argument that educated people don't believe in God doesn't hold water.

"They don't just follow blindly any old stupid thing someone tells them. "

First, This commits the fallacy of attacking the person. This is a sign of weakness in argumentation, not a sign of strength. Galileo was a Christian, and he didn't blindly follow what everyone told him. In fact, he upset the status quo and paid dearly for it.

"They are able to prove their theories with actual evidence and not 'faith'."

This is a misunderstanding of reason. The scientific method is proof by induction, or inductive reasoning. When scientists create theories that best fit the data without empirical proof, they are using abductive reasoning. Abductive theories are those theories like the big-bang, and abiogensis. There is no way to empirically prove or deny these theories using inductive reasoning. It's not that abduction is bad, it is just that it isn't as certain as induction. If a theory cannot be empirically proven or denied, then it has to be accepted on faith, but not without reason. So to say that scientist don't have to use faith is non-sequitor.

"They are guided by intelligent thinking and not wishful thinking."

Wishful thinking is making a conclusion true because I want it to be true. If I can arrive at a conclusion using sound arguments, then it is not wishful thinking. Such arguments are the cosmological, moral, ontological, and teleological arguments for the existence of God.

Group the following:

"They don't believe in a God that got scared when people built the tower of Babel because he was afraid they would break into his house."

"They don't believe in talking asses."

"They don't believe that God is talking to them when they hear voices."

"They don't believe that drinking holy water and screaming Hail Mary can heal their physical ailments."

These are all instances supernatural events. If supernatural events didn't occur, then it leaves everything to purely random chance. If everything occurs by random chance, then the universe randomly came out of nothing, life originate purely by random chance, and then evolved into human being by purely random chance. First, If is highly improbably for all this to happen. Just the chance for human beings to evolve is like 1 in well over a google (10 ^ 100). There aren't even that many stars in the universe. If I am truly a rational person, then I cannot accept this. While this doesn't guarantee that it didn't happen, it just makes it very, very, very, very unlikely. A more probable. Second, there is origin. One could claim that the universe has always existed, but if that were true, would have dissipated into heat a long time ago. If it is eternally expanding and contracting, that still doesn't answer the question of origin, and it is purely speculative at that point. Speculation cannot be proven deductively, inductively, or abductively, so the arguments are very weak. Third, a purely naturalistic explanation doesn't explain things like justice, beauty, and love. If I whipped out a gun and shot somebody, all a naturalist could say is that it was a series of chemical reactions in the brain, and couldn't prosecute me. Justice therefore has more intrinsic value than just a chemical reaction. It doesn't have the explanatory power that theology coupled with naturalistic explanation has.

"If something doesn't make sense, they don't defend it to the death."

First, Not all Christians do this, and second just because things don't make sense to you doesn't mean they don't make sense to others.

"Lastly, because they don't believe in God and the bible. "

This commits the genetic fallacy, plus it doesn't have any argumentation to support the conclusion.

If I were you, before you start making claims and jumping to conclusions about Christians, stop doing it yourself. You are doing more of a disservice to persuasion than a persuasion.

Answer 4

Most of your statements are flawed, since there is no way that you could know, some, or even a few of the beliefs of the huge community of scientists and scholars you just described. Regardless, of the fact that most of your statements are assumptions and opinions, it is also doubtful that you have made any real attempt to understand or study the scriptures to make a reasonable statement about them, much less the huge generalities you just applied to a huge group of learned individuals, that make up only a small percentage of the recent development in scientific studies. If you had done any research, you would have found that for as far back as you care to go, most learned individuals came from and worked in religious circles, throughout the world.

Answer 5

Blind doubt is just as dumb as blind faith. Someone who refuses to believe in anything no matter what is just a coward, not smart.

....................................

...The resurrection of Christ was the legitimate climax to his unique life and death. He foretold his resurrection to his disciples directly (Mt.16:21) and to others through parables (Mt. 12:40).

Frank Morrison, a British lawyer of the 1930s, undertook an expedition to collect circumstantial evidence to disprove the resurrection. Such evidence, of course, is admissible in all courts of law in civilised countries to prove or disprove events of which there are no living eyewitnesses. When he analysed the evidence, he reached a stunning conclusion: The resurrection had actually taken place! Morrison presented his case in his book, Who Moved the Stone?

Another factor worth considering is the character of the disciples. They were eleven cowardly men who shut themselves in a room after the crucifixion because they were afraid. Yet what galvanized them into action so that within their own lifetime, much of the thenknown world could hear the message of Christ? Some of them paid for this message with their lives. Would they have done so if the resurrection were a hoax?...

Answer 6

that isnt necessarily true. we have been programmed to believe that if we are athiests we are intellectual and if we believe in god, we are backwards and ignorant. however, this is bullsh*t. there are very smart people in the scientific field especially that do believe in God and are fighting the current status quo that has been forced upon us without us having even realised it. but we dont hear about them do we? just to set things straight, Einstein did believe in God, he just didnt strongly affiliate himself to Judaism which he was born into.

Answer 7

Einstein did believe in God. This God is the Universe itself.

Answer 8

This argument is going nowhere. It looks like your assuming atheists and christians make up the entire world population. Actually I have met a few christian mystics who are extremely intelligent.

Answer 9

No one has proved God exists

No one has proved God doesn't exist

Not sure how that makes one of them smarter than the other.

Answer 10

What a sec - Im an atheist, and I beleive in talking asses.....all day long I see these beautiful asses walking around my office, and they are all calling me, speaking to me, telling me to eat them and poke them.....

But I digress.
Atheists also do not feel it necesary to beleive in a God that is supposedly omniscient and all powerful - but not powerful enough to destroy satan, who poisoned man with sin. So, in his moment of weakness, this God sent his only son so that he might die and save mankind from.....the wrath of God himself? Does that make any freakin sense?????