is it smart to be an atheist?

They didn't do a study to find it, they analyzed a bunch of other studies that were done for other reasons to come up with this. Basically, they took studies that had groups of religious and non-religious people and used the data, defined intelligence in some specific way, then related it to the question "which group is more intelligent?"

My question is what is the control group that would bring validity to such a study? It's easy to massage data to make people who don't believe in God feel good. It would be very easy for me to say, "See? I'm smarter!" but then, because I actually am intelligent I spent some time reading how they came up with this and realize it was not a controlled study looking to answer this question, nor was it 53 controlled studies to find the answer to this question... it really was just some people playing with statistics of people who participated in some other studies that fall within their specific definition of intelligence.
 
"Smart" is sort of a relative term, anyway. I mean, we all know "book smart" people who aren't necessarily that bright.

The crew that put together the Vietnam war, for instance, is probably one that would be considered "smart." But obviously, they weren't.
 
I think it's pretty stupid to be an atheist. I mean, I get that there is no evidence supporting the existence of a divine being and all, but the downside if you're wrong is pretty steep. Eternal punishment is a pretty harsh consequence if you got it wrong. Sure, enjoying your corporeal existence has it's perks, but I doubt it's worth it in the infinite run.
 
going by fact instead of rumor is smart.


going with TRADITION is what many cultures do.


Until they need the real facts to solve some issue that then forces them to give up useless traditions
 
Is it smart to say that one should not believe in something that cannot be proved and then say "purple unicorns don't exist".


yes it is

there is as much proof that purple unicorns exist as their is proof that god exists.
 
evince said:
Is it smart to say that one should not believe in something that cannot be proved and then say "purple unicorns don't exist".


yes it is

there is as much proof that purple unicorns exist as their is proof that god exists.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that's an accurate statement. It depends on what you mean by "god."

Certainly, there have been many scientific studies of near-death experiences that at least offer possible proof (note the "possible") for an afterlife and a higher order to things.
 
Yes and you have as much proof that its real as you have proof for purple unicorns run that after life and not your imagined god
 
evince said:
the same that I have for purple unicorns being imagined instead of real
Click to expand...

There isn't a heck of a lot of "proof" either way.

But, like I said - NDE's have been studied extensively. If you believe the conclusions, it offers more than conjecture that there is the existence of - at the very least - a higher intelligence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top