Atheists are more intelligent than religious people according to dozens of studies.

A scientist looked through 63 studies to conclude atheists are more intelligent than religious people

Atheists are more intelligent than religious people according to dozens of studies.

Miron Zuckerman, Jordan Silberman and Judith A. Hall from the University of Rochester and the Northeastern University conducted a meta-analysis (that's a statistical analysis that combines the results of multiple scientific studies) of 63 studies that showed a significant negative association between intelligence and religiosity.

The association was strongest among university students and weakest in teenagers and children.

It was also stronger for religious beliefs than religious behaviour. In effect, people who believe religious teachings as opposed to those practising religions.

Religiosity was defined as "the degree of involvement in some or all facets of religion." This included beliefs in supernatural agents and "costly commitments to these agents" such as offering of property as a sacrifice. Another 'facet' is participating in communal rituals, such as going to church, and "lower existential anxieties such as death due to a belief in supernatural agents" (i.e. being less scared of death because you believe you're going to heaven).

It's not entirely clear why non-religious people are more intelligent - but the difference varies with age

At University the divide is the strongest.

It may be because more intelligent students are more likely to embrace atheism as a form of non-conformity. University tends to expose people to new ideas and influences, students tend to lose their beliefs or get more religious during this time, according to the study. These changes are often as a result of "the self-exploration that typifies emerging adulthood and that is often observed in students" as "the separation from home and the exposure to a context that encourages questioning may allow intelligence to impact religious beliefs". The study adds that

Using analytic (as opposed to intuitive) thinking, more intelligent college students may be more likely to eschew religion. If atheism is disapproved of at home, higher intelligence may facilitate resistance to conformity pressure.

Whereas later in life, more intelligent people are more likely to get and stay married which makes them less reliant on the attachment that the function of religion provides. More intelligent people are also more likely to have higher level jobs and spend more time in school, which leads to higher self-esteem and "encourages control of personal beliefs" according to the study.

Ageing, however, is more likely to increase awareness of mortality

The research has been going on for almost 80 years and has measured association with individuals of all ages.

Religious beliefs can help manage the terror of one’s impending death

According to the study, there is no evidence pertaining to the relation between intelligence and death anxiety. Although this logic suggests that "the negative relation between intelligence and religiosity might decline at the end of life, the relevant evidence we have indicates otherwise."

The highly intelligent members of the sample retained lower religiosity scores, relative to the general population, even in their golden years (age 75 to 91).

eddie wrote:

Thorin wrote:


There must be one that takes over your ability to rationally think, when it comes to medical matters.

Well I don't get ill and whenever I've been to a GP I have known more about what could be wrong with me than they did. Anything they know can be found on Google.
GP's are the people you go to see so you can see someone more knowledgeable to actually help you.  GP's are great for giving you blood test forms and repeat pescriptions.

Some are great.  Most are below average.

So yes, the T-Rex in my head is working pretty well for me.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Thorin wrote:


You still are not getting this Zack

I dont believe any gods exist.

I am unable to disprove any exist

I am able to say there is no evidence for any god existing

I am open to the possibility of being wrong, as I cannot disprove any exist

The definition is clear and I do not believe any Gods exist, which makes me atheist.

You need to see what people are saying to you.

You've made my initial reply all about you, where I was arguing about the definition in general.

You can describe yourself how you wish. I'm not here to pander to your narcissism.

Here's the actual definition of:

agnostic:

a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

Then read your own sentences above starting with "I am...."

Then ask yourself, are you really an atheist? It could be a defining moment in your life.

Thorin wrote:

eddie wrote:

Thorin wrote:


There must be one that takes over your ability to rationally think, when it comes to medical matters.

Well I don't get ill and whenever I've been to a GP I have known more about what could be wrong with me than they did. Anything they know can be found on Google.
GP's are the people you go to see so you can see someone more knowledgeable to actually help you.  GP's are great for giving you blood test forms and repeat pescriptions.

Some are great.  Most are below average.

So yes, the T-Rex in my head is working pretty well for me.

So you want me to take the above on faith and not evidence.

Go figure


So you think you know more than GP's medically

So lets just scrap all qualifications for the medical profession and allow people to set up their own untrained practices, because apparently you and others think you know best

I seriously cringe when I read your views on this and how utterly dangerous they are.

I think the T-Rex in your head needs the rational side to tell it to shut up before it ends up doing some real damage to you. It clearly works on eating healthily on sound advice but on medically, the doolally part keeps taking over.

eddie wrote:

Thorin wrote:

So you want me to take the above on faith and not evidence.

Go figure


So you think you know more than GP's medically

So lets just scrap all qualifications for the medical profession and allow people to set up their own untrained practices, because apparently you and others think you know best

I seriously cringe when I read your views on this and how utterly dangerous they are.

I think the T-Rex in your head needs the rational side to tell it to shut up before it ends up doing some real damage to you. It clearly works on eating healthily on sound advice but on medically, the doolally part keeps taking over.

ROAR!  

eddie wrote:Are you being dinosaurist? Where's your belly laughter gone? Come on shake that belly like it's made of jelly!

veya_victaous wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Once again, we fall into the trap of insisting that atheists have beliefs.

Once again -- atheists do not believe. Period!

A belief is something that, in the sane mind, is predicated on overwhelming evidence. There is no overwhelming evidence for the existence of any deity ever described by any person.

Thus, an atheist does not believe in any god on the basis of the absence of evidence.

Okay, let's tackle the notion of an atheist being convinced that nobody will ever produce evidence of the existence of any god. Well, can you blame us? We've been at this for about 10,000 years and ... zilch. Nada. No cigar.

I've said this before. I can't prove beyond a shadow of doubt there isn't an invisible, weightless T-rex that lives on my head. But we all know how unlikely that is.

Atheism isn't belief. It's a lack of belief. I think the problem so many people have is that they can't accept the idea of not having a belief on this topic, because it's something we're brought up to think that we have to have a belief about, one way or another.

spoken like a true devotee to the cult of zero

Zero does not equal Unknown

All I am truly asking is that atheist hold their opinion (hypothesis) to the same standards they hold religious people to (that of scientific methodology)

If atheists truly held no opinion than why do atheist keep bringing it up? they are the Vegans of the spiritual world

and i countered this already  Can you see the sun? do you agree with science that it causes the existence of the Goldilocks zone that allows life on this planet?  Sun is a god in all is compressed hydrogen glory, as all visible gods so far have been

Thorin wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

You've made my initial reply all about you, where I was arguing about the definition in general.

You can describe yourself how you wish. I'm not here to pander to your narcissism.

Here's the actual definition of:

agnostic:

a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

Then read your own sentences above starting with "I am...."

Then ask yourself, are you really an atheist? It could be a defining moment in your life.

Wow, so now you act immaturely claiming I am very selfish and crave admiration, even though I tell anyone exactly what I think of their views? I dont do sucking up, I leave that to fake people like yourself buddy...

Wow indeed, so when shown to be wrong, you get personal

That says more to me you know you are wrong

I am atheist, because I do not believe in any Gods or that any exist

Do you want me to explain this again for you?

Like I say I cannot disprove the existence of whether there is a god or Gods, but I do not believe any exist.

Its quite simple so unsure why you get confused over this.

I am just showing myself as have other atheists here, how you are completely and utterly wrong.

Its not my fault you cannot see when you are wrong. At the end of the day you are atheist in regards to other other non-abrahamic religions. You do realise that do you not?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Wow, so now you act immaturely claiming I am very selfish and crave admiration, even though I tell anyone exactly what I think of their views? I dont do sucking up, I leave that to fake people like yourself buddy...

Wow indeed, so when shown to be wrong, you get personal

That says more to me you know you are wrong

I am atheist, because I do not believe in any Gods or that any exist

Do you want me to explain this again for you?

Like I say I cannot disprove the existence of whether there is a god or Gods, but I do not believe any exist.

Its quite simple so unsure why you get confused over this.

I am just showing myself as have other atheists here, how you are completely and utterly wrong.

Its not my fault you cannot see when you are wrong. At the end of the day you are atheist in regards to other other non-abrahamic religions. You do realise that do you not?

The funny thing is, you're the only atheist on here who appears to be closed minded.

And your last paragraph is beyond ignorance. Firstly, you cannot be an atheist against another religion. Atheist is a noun. You either are, or you're not.

But I'll ignore your first stupid mistake to highlight the second: Muslims, Christians (the father) and Jews all believe in the same God.

This is why you should not conflate definitions. You end up a confused mess.

Thorin wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Once again, we fall into the trap of insisting that atheists have beliefs.

Once again -- atheists do not believe. Period!

A belief is something that, in the sane mind, is predicated on overwhelming evidence. There is no overwhelming evidence for the existence of any deity ever described by any person.

Thus, an atheist does not believe in any god on the basis of the absence of evidence.

Okay, let's tackle the notion of an atheist being convinced that nobody will ever produce evidence of the existence of any god. Well, can you blame us? We've been at this for about 10,000 years and ... zilch. Nada. No cigar.

I've said this before. I can't prove beyond a shadow of doubt there isn't an invisible, weightless T-rex that lives on my head. But we all know how unlikely that is.

Atheism isn't belief. It's a lack of belief. I think the problem so many people have is that they can't accept the idea of not having a belief on this topic, because it's something we're brought up to think that we have to have a belief about, one way or another.

spoken like a true devotee to the cult of zero

Zero does not equal Unknown

All I am truly asking is that atheist hold their opinion (hypothesis) to the same standards they hold religious people to (that of scientific methodology)

If atheists truly held no opinion than why do atheist keep bringing it up? they are the Vegans of the spiritual world

and i countered this already  Can you see the sun? do you agree with science that it causes the existence of the Goldilocks zone that allows life on this planet?  Sun is a god in all is compressed hydrogen glory, as all visible gods so far have been

Well there is a very simple reason as to why it is constantly brought up.

Thousand of years of barbarity done in the name of religion which is still done today, based off absolute beliefs.

How is my no belief going to effect anyone, when I simple do not believe any Gods exist.

I have no doctrine on this or any set standards I have to follow to not believe.

With religions you often do.

Happy to hold religions to scientific testing So then hold atheism to it too

The fact is atheist dont have to disprove the existence of something that has not been proven to exist. WRONG!!! zero is a definitive answer thus you must support your claims to a definitive answer with mathematical evidence that can be peer reviewed anything less is an affront to scientific principals, as acknowledged by Dawkins

The onus is on the believer to prove what they believe exists. So you say the sun does not exists? Or that Solar radiation is not responsible for life on earth, Photosynthesis is not a thing or plants are not the base of the food chain? or that the sun doesn't hold our planet in the Goldilocks zone for life?

You claim the Sun is a God? Hypothesize!!!!! I am the one that states I do not know, I never claim to have an answer that is why I am Agnostic:roll:

Really based on what? What is your basis of zero claimed upon it is you that claims to have a finite answer not me? I say gods equals n+1(since i say monotheism is the most unlikely) you say gods equal zero, a finite number no variable at all

It clearly is not immortal then your claim to this deity. Other gods have died in theocracy too OR are you too obsessed with the Abrahamic Fairytales has it Permanently damaged your capacity to reason

I mean what next?

Can your farts be described as living Gods?

Thorin wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

The funny thing is, you're the only atheist on here who appears to be closed minded.

And your last paragraph is beyond ignorance. Firstly, you cannot be an atheist against another religion. Atheist is a noun. You either are, or you're not.

But I'll ignore your first stupid mistake to highlight the second: Muslims, Christians (the father) and Jews all believe in the same God.

This is why you should not conflate definitions. You end up a confused mess.

Well lets look at the definition

atheist
ˈeɪθɪɪst/Submit
noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

You certainly like all religious people lack belief in the existence of other Gods, making you an atheist to say Hinduism

What mistake, when I said Abrahamic religions?

Now again I do not believe any gods exist

Its about as clear cut as it gets

So how does this make me close minded, when if evidence proved there was, I would admit I was wrong?

You just act very immature because you dont like the fact your claims are poor, the kind of way children act in the playground.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Well lets look at the definition

atheist
ˈeɪθɪɪst/Submit
noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

You certainly like all religious people lack belief in the existence of other Gods, making you an atheist to say Hinduism

What mistake, when I said Abrahamic religions?

Now again I do not believe any gods exist

Its about as clear cut as it gets

So how does this make me close minded, when if evidence proved there was, I would admit I was wrong?

You just act very immature because you dont like the fact your claims are poor, the kind of way children act in the playground.

You said I was atheistic towards the other Abrahamic faiths.

Firstly, it wasn't stupid to use the word atheist in that context.

Secondly, all 3 faiths believe in the same God. So you're wrong anyway.

I really can't be more simpler than that without being patronising.

Its not my fault you cannot see when you are wrong. At the end of the day you are atheist in regards to other non-abrahamic religions. You do realize that do you not?

Thorin wrote:1) Eh why does no belief require testing?

That makes absolutely zero sense. You want to test for something bot believed?

Doh

2) PMSL we are not talking about zero, but existence of a supreme being, of which requires the onus of the person that believes to prove what they believe it exists. I suggest you read Lawrence krauss to understand why you are wrong on zero

https://www.edge.org/conversation/lawrence_m_krauss-the-energy-of-empty-space-that-isnt-zero

3) Never made any such claim. The Sun exists, what is being debated here is over your claim as to this being a god of a living being. As of yet you have failed to do so.

4) Its still you making the claim that it is a God, which again you failed to reason why.

5) Refer to my earlier point, has nothing to do with the number zero, but that no gods exists, there is zero evidence.

6) You then end with further gibberish

veya_victaous wrote:

Thorin wrote:1) Eh why does no belief require testing?

That makes absolutely zero sense. You want to test for something bot believed?

Doh

2) PMSL we are not talking about zero, but existence of a supreme being, of which requires the onus of the person that believes to prove what they believe it exists. I suggest you read Lawrence krauss to understand why you are wrong on zero

https://www.edge.org/conversation/lawrence_m_krauss-the-energy-of-empty-space-that-isnt-zero

3) Never made any such claim. The Sun exists, what is being debated here is over your claim as to this being a god of a living being. As of yet you have failed to do so.

4) Its still you making the claim that it is a God, which again you failed to reason why.

5) Refer to my earlier point, has nothing to do with the number zero, but that no gods exists, there is zero evidence.

6) You then end with further gibberish

1 proves you have no clue how science works and that you are indeed to uneducated for this discussion.

Nothing is not of no consequence, nothing is in fact a very definitive thing. Zero is the most spectacular answer cause it means all is balanced, all variable accounted for.
Why do you think so much effort has been put into finding out about the 'nothingness' of space?
Nothing Implies Zero, yet the equations we have discovered for the universe do not work with zeros, because we are left with remainders, atomic weight and energy unaccounted for.

If you just 'don't believe' or have no opinion then WHY do you post anything on the subject? just say you have no opinion and that is not atheism by the way, atheism is an opinion.

2 So you admit that your mind is too damaged by previous interactions with abrahamism to even comprehend than MOST gods were not supreme beings just superior ones.

no point answering the rest since you simply too feeble minded to understand the question, let alone attempt an answer

but @4
because it allowed and sustains life on earth, literally when we search for life outside our solar system we look for something like it because we can not comprehend 'life' existing without one. everything we know is due to it all our ancestors back to the bacteria in the primordial soup.
What more do you want? is being responsible for everything within human experience and understanding not enough to be called divine?
Maybe the issue is the arrogance of man, to think his being is greater than a celestial

stardesk wrote:Veya you said: 'Maybe the issue is the arrogance of man, to think his being is greater than a celestial.'

Read the following figures of disasters and deaths based on just the last 2000 years and then tell us He is great.

Earthquakes                                       7,316,400
Hurricane/tornado/cyclone                   1,162,500
Volcanoes                                             458,400
Tsunami                                           63,850,000
Drought & Famine                             30,833,000
Plague & Disease                              82,000,000
-----------------------------------------------------------

I see Him as the God of chaos, and if you blame Satan then that makes him greater than God, as he undid God's work.

stardesk wrote:Veya you said: 'Maybe the issue is the arrogance of man, to think his being is greater than a celestial.'

Read the following figures of disasters and deaths based on just the last 2000 years and then tell us He is great.

Earthquakes                                       7,316,400
Hurricane/tornado/cyclone                   1,162,500
Volcanoes                                             458,400
Tsunami                                           63,850,000
Drought & Famine                             30,833,000
Plague & Disease                              82,000,000
-----------------------------------------------------------

I see Him as the God of chaos, and if you blame Satan then that makes him greater than God, as he undid God's work.

Thorin wrote:

stardesk wrote:Veya you said: 'Maybe the issue is the arrogance of man, to think his being is greater than a celestial.'

Read the following figures of disasters and deaths based on just the last 2000 years and then tell us He is great.

Earthquakes                                       7,316,400
Hurricane/tornado/cyclone                   1,162,500
Volcanoes                                             458,400
Tsunami                                           63,850,000
Drought & Famine                             30,833,000
Plague & Disease                              82,000,000
-----------------------------------------------------------

I see Him as the God of chaos, and if you blame Satan then that makes him greater than God, as he undid God's work.

+1

The issue is. As above, why give two fucks about Gods that allow the above.
They clearly are not something to be loved or even worshiped. They have no care what so ever what happens to us or anything else on this planet.

Its like I said before, that supreme intelligence would not be swayed by emotions. That if there was a supreme being, it would have as much care as we can have to animals, seen lesser than us. Like when we experiment on other animals, in order to find answers to things that can help humans and not the animals themselves.

So if this deity created us, it did so for the benefit of its own species and not ours. As we would be nothing more than lab rats in this experiment.

Thorin wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Thorin wrote:1) Eh why does no belief require testing?

That makes absolutely zero sense. You want to test for something bot believed?

Doh

2) PMSL we are not talking about zero, but existence of a supreme being, of which requires the onus of the person that believes to prove what they believe it exists. I suggest you read Lawrence krauss to understand why you are wrong on zero

https://www.edge.org/conversation/lawrence_m_krauss-the-energy-of-empty-space-that-isnt-zero

3) Never made any such claim. The Sun exists, what is being debated here is over your claim as to this being a god of a living being. As of yet you have failed to do so.

4) Its still you making the claim that it is a God, which again you failed to reason why.

5) Refer to my earlier point, has nothing to do with the number zero, but that no gods exists, there is zero evidence.

6) You then end with further gibberish

1 proves you have no clue how science works and that you are indeed to uneducated for this discussion.

Nothing is not of no consequence, nothing is in fact a very definitive thing. Zero is the most spectacular answer cause it means all is balanced, all variable accounted for.
Why do you think so much effort has been put into finding out about the 'nothingness' of space?
Nothing Implies Zero, yet the equations we have discovered for the universe do not work with zeros, because we are left with remainders, atomic weight and energy unaccounted for.

If you just 'don't believe' or have no opinion then WHY do you post anything on the subject? just say you have no opinion and that is not atheism by the way, atheism is an opinion.

2 So you admit that your mind is too damaged by previous interactions with abrahamism to even comprehend than MOST gods were not supreme beings just superior ones.

no point answering the rest since you simply too feeble minded to understand the question, let alone attempt an answer

but @4
because it allowed and sustains life on earth, literally when we search for life outside our solar system we look for something like it because we can not comprehend 'life' existing without one. everything we know is due to it all our ancestors back to the bacteria in the primordial soup.
What more do you want? is being responsible for everything within human experience and understanding not enough to be called divine?
Maybe the issue is the arrogance of man, to think his being is greater than a celestial

1) immature response yet again, showing you can only ever make poor claims

2) What has that got to do with the fact there is zero evidence for any gods?
You see you go off something mathematical and yet it shows there is no evidence for any gods.

3) More infantile responses, as your question had no relevance

4) You then offer excuses, lol

5) Water sustains life, does that mean its a living being with a conscious mind?
Hence you need to show the Sun is a conscious living being that is able to control its actions. You have failed to do that. So again put up or go and sulk like the child you are.

veya_victaous wrote:

Thorin wrote:


+1

The issue is. As above, why give two fucks about Gods that allow the above.
They clearly are not something to be loved or even worshiped. They have no care what so ever what happens to us or anything else on this planet.

Its like I said before, that supreme intelligence would not be swayed by emotions. That if there was a supreme being, it would have as much care as we can have to animals, seen lesser than us. Like when we experiment on other animals, in order to find answers to things that can help humans and not the animals themselves.

So if this deity created us, it did so for the benefit of its own species and not ours. As we would be nothing more than lab rats in this experiment.

So you want some imaginary god to appear  as i said Intellectually DAMAGED
the universe does not revolve around what YOU or Humans want, the universe IS what IS
So if there is a god it is Part of the universe
to even suggest there should be a 'real' entity that is outside of 'reality' is stupid, just think on the logic behind that for a second. You want something that is unreal to be part of what is real? You want something that will do what NOTHING in the universe does? Clearly cause all that YOU think it should prevent happens with great regularity.

And Why IF you have 'no belief' do you only refer back to the stupid childish shit you where raised with? WHY not utilize sciences to openly investigate the universe or Just Shut up until people smarter than you find out

Because even What you suggest 'god should be defined as' is dumb(so dumb one can find that sort of nonsense in the bible), how does the 'make believe god you are defining' and then denying fit in with knowledge of dinosaurs? If it let dinosaurs die WHY would it not let humans die?
SO if you take your 'fairytale god' and put it in reality all those points are nothing.

veya_victaous wrote:

Thorin wrote:

1) immature response yet again, showing you can only ever make poor claims

2) What has that got to do with the fact there is zero evidence for any gods?
You see you go off something mathematical and yet it shows there is no evidence for any gods.

3) More infantile responses, as your question had no relevance

4) You then offer excuses, lol

5) Water sustains life, does that mean its a living being with a conscious mind?
Hence you need to show the Sun is a conscious living being that is able to control its actions. You have failed to do that. So again put up or go and sulk like the child you are.

Water only exist in the Goldilocks zone it is what defines the Goldilocks zone the presence of water is intimately linked to the sun/stars. Maybe try learning some science

Any way I am sick of discussing with one so ignorant, get an education.

Ben Reilly wrote:To me, an essential part of the definition of a god is that it's sentient. If we're talking about something that doesn't think as a deity, we're really far from anything atheists are railing on about and more into the territory of interesting conjecture.

eddie wrote:Spot on Veya and a green from me chap.

veya_victaous wrote:I proved it is unknown
Only your definition is known to be false
But the fact you cant move away from your definition makes you guilty of thinking "based off absolute beliefs."

eddie wrote:Spot on Veya and a green from me chap.

Thorin wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:I proved it is unknown
Only your definition is known to be false
But the fact you cant move away from your definition makes you guilty of thinking "based off absolute beliefs."

PMSL

So if its not known, what have you proved?

Nothing

You then make further unfounded assumptions.

Again you were asked to show whether the Sun is a living sentient being able to control its own powers.

You failed to do that.

I have no issue with the possibility of there being countless sentient beings in the Universe, but we are talking about Gods here

veya_victaous wrote:

eddie wrote:Spot on Veya and a green from me chap.

thanks eddie


You seem to have greater understanding of what it means to 'Hypothesize in an attempt to seek enlightenment' than those that propose they have an answer

veya_victaous wrote:

Thorin wrote:


PMSL

So if its not known, what have you proved?

Nothing

You then make further unfounded assumptions.

Again you were asked to show whether the Sun is a living sentient being able to control its own powers.

You failed to do that.

I have no issue with the possibility of there being countless sentient beings in the Universe, but we are talking about Gods here

So what is a god?

If you can't define it how can you honestly look for it?
And if you define it as something we know doesn't exist, it is illogical and counter the objectives of scientific methodology

veya_victaous wrote:Shut Up Or I will lock the thread to stop you having the last word

You haven't said anything new through out the whole thread

Just you "believe X' so that is the only answer
Same as a dipshit Fundamentalist

Let People that want to debate talk Since you have no interest in doing so

Thorin wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Thorin wrote:


PMSL

So if its not known, what have you proved?

Nothing

You then make further unfounded assumptions.

Again you were asked to show whether the Sun is a living sentient being able to control its own powers.

You failed to do that.

I have no issue with the possibility of there being countless sentient beings in the Universe, but we are talking about Gods here

So what is a god?

If you can't define it how can you honestly look for it?
And if you define it as something we know doesn't exist, it is illogical and counter the objectives of scientific methodology

Well it would have to have power over nature and the universe itself.
It clearly would have to exceed what any species could do, otherwise it would simple be just an intelligent being.

veya_victaous wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Well it would have to have power over nature and the universe itself.
It clearly would have to exceed what any species could do, otherwise it would simple be just an intelligent being.

So you exclude all Norse, Greek, south American, Indian and Aboriginals (etc) gods from being gods?

Do you just live by the words in the bible? Do you believe the bible to be the only truth?
If not than why do you sue it to define a concept that is far older and broader than Abrahamism?

Also you are expecting a god that you can define and prove in this universe to be greater than the universe? seem rather illogical unless you think the universe is very small like those that wrote the Abrahamic fairytales did.  

veya_victaous wrote:Also Nature on earth Completely controlled by sun and moon. Unless you think there is a magic sky giant that is doing shit

Thorin wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:Also Nature on earth Completely controlled by sun and moon. Unless you think there is a magic sky giant that is doing shit

Its not completely controlled.

Are you claiming all species are effected and dependent on the sun and moon?

You would be very wrong Veya

Which is all irrelevant anyway

You would have to show they are Gods

Which brings us back to what you failed at earlier

veya_victaous wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Its not completely controlled.

Are you claiming all species are effected and dependent on the sun and moon?

You would be very wrong Veya

Which is all irrelevant anyway

You would have to show they are Gods

Which brings us back to what you failed at earlier

look up creation of earth in terms of gravity holding our planet together and the Goldilocks zone and the fact that the bottom of the food chain is fed through photosynthesis

That is enough to be god it is actually more than Thor or mars or Athena ever did. And no they Norse and Greek gods did not have powers over the universe they were beholden to even greater powers, there is literally a norse story where thor loses to a troll king that harness the powers of nature, and the greek gods where the children of mother earth

Accept your are completely out of your depth Or Continue to prove your ignorance of science and non abrahamic mythology , whatever i am waiting for ben or someone with a brain to respond

stardesk wrote:Hi gang.
I think one or two of you are missing a very vital Godly/contradiction. ie: As God supposedly created the Earth and everything on it, then why oh why didn't he stop a 10mile wide asteroid slamming into the planet killing off the dinosaurs and most other life-forms?

Why didn't he intervene in the catastrophes I mentioned above, and stop them from killing off millions of humans and other life?

He is supposed to be like a loving, caring father, but to my mind he is no more than a bungling twit or he just doesn't care about his so-called creations.

Sermon over. Night night.

eddie wrote:You are of course, both answering as to your own ideas and images of what you think God should be.

I think that's where the difference lies for many people.

stardesk wrote:Hi gang.
I think one or two of you are missing a very vital Godly/contradiction. ie: As God supposedly created the Earth and everything on it, then why oh why didn't he stop a 10mile wide asteroid slamming into the planet killing off the dinosaurs and most other life-forms?

Why didn't he intervene in the catastrophes I mentioned above, and stop them from killing off millions of humans and other life?

He is supposed to be like a loving, caring father, but to my mind he is no more than a bungling twit or he just doesn't care about his so-called creations.

Sermon over. Night night.

eddie wrote:You are of course, both answering as to your own ideas and images of what you think God should be.

I think that's where the difference lies for many people.

veya_victaous wrote:

stardesk wrote:Hi gang.
I think one or two of you are missing a very vital Godly/contradiction. ie: As God supposedly created the Earth and everything on it, then why oh why didn't he stop a 10mile wide asteroid slamming into the planet killing off the dinosaurs and most other life-forms?

Why didn't he intervene in the catastrophes I mentioned above, and stop them from killing off millions of humans and other life?

He is supposed to be like a loving, caring father, but to my mind he is no more than a bungling twit or he just doesn't care about his so-called creations.

Sermon over. Night night.

Zeus was the child of mother earth and father sky
So what are you talking about ?

veya_victaous wrote:

eddie wrote:You are of course, both answering as to your own ideas and images of what you think God should be.

I think that's where the difference lies for many people.

well I think we can point out 2 atheist to which the OP does not apply

I find it funny that it is so obvious that they are still referring to Abrahamic god and  they still only accept him as a god instead of the thousands of others that have been created by man through out the ages, plus the dozens we could make up right now