Is atheism/agnosticism stupid?.

[Anonymous No.19577144]

I have never met an atheist who has read a single professional paper in a academic field and in almost all the debates that I have had with atheists, their knowledge of philosophy and of the limitations of the scientific method and science in general comes to touch ignorance.

The funny part is that the best scientists and philosophers in history were theists, a large part were Christians and the other simply theists skeptical of religion.

Have you had similar experiences?.

[Anonymous No.19577159]

>>19577144
Yeah I think the "smart atheist" cope is because atheism was derivative of their main beliefs (like humanism, liberalism, hegelian-marxism for Hitchens etc). You find the atheist celebrities are pretty unique even from each other while almost every atheist proponent, who only knows atheism, rejects absolutely everything and they imagine themselves intelligent. They have no ability to accept truth as they can only reject an undefined God.

[Anonymous No.19577190]

The technological singularity implies that God exists. God is an AI and we live in a simulation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxYbA1pt8LA

[Anonymous No.19577195]

>>19577190
AI is composed of parts so no

[Anonymous No.19577202]

>>19577144
I can bet those so called """Christians""" and """Jews""" weren't even practicing believers. What a retarded image to lure in more retards. You people are same like nationalist who have no personal achievements so they have to cling to the achievements of their fellow men, stupid tribal apes.

[Anonymous No.19577220]

>>19577202
Christian metaphysics are for all. You accept "objective truth" right?

[Anonymous No.19577225]

>>19577144
anecdotally yes but I personally dont like the way they do it. I would rather be around firebrands then the weird Peterson pseudo-Gnostics and dramatist "believers"

[happiness !!a/OIDIldPy9 No.19577341]

The source is a highly questionable book, once read how they compiled that data and the presumption of what being christian mean for the author.

See
>Shalev, Baruch Aba (2003). “Religion of Nobel prize winners”. 100 years of Nobel prizes.

[Anonymous No.19577351]

>I have never met an atheist who has read a single professional paper in a academic field

I'm an atheist and I've published a few academic papers.

[Anonymous No.19577357]

>>19577351
Yes but not as an atheist you dumbass unless by academic you mean sociology.

[Anonymous No.19577381]

>>19577357
you're making no fucking sense

Believing in God made you this stupid?

[Anonymous No.19577422]

>>19577144
>A meta-analysis of 63 studies showed a significant negative association between intelligence and religiosity.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23921675/

>Confirming previous conclusions, the new analysis showed that the correlation between intelligence and religious beliefs in college and noncollege samples ranged from -.20 to -.23.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31610740/

>The negative association between cognitive intelligence (CI) and religiosity has been widely studied and is now well documented.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31748923/

>Recent research has indicated a negative relation between the propensity for analytic reasoning and religious beliefs and practices.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23784742/

>Participants more willing to engage in analytic reasoning were less likely to endorse supernatural beliefs. Further, an association between analytic cognitive style and religious engagement was mediated by religious beliefs, suggesting that an analytic cognitive style negatively affects religious engagement via lower acceptance of conventional religious beliefs.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22481051/

>Our results indicate that the association between analytic thinking and religious disbelief is not caused by a simple order effect. There is good evidence that atheists and agnostics are more reflective than religious believers.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27054566/

>What age or period of life is the most addicted to superstition? The weakest and most timid. What sex? The same answer must be given.
—David Hume, Natural History of Religion

>On this question, the pronouncements of highly learned men are so varied and so much at odds with each other that inevitably they strongly suggest that the explanation is human ignorance, and that the Academics have been wise to withhold assent on matters of such uncertainty; for what can be more degrading than rash judgement, and what can be so rash and unworthy of the serious and sustained attention of a philosopher, as either to hold a false opinion or to defend without hesitation propositions inadequately examined and grasped?
—Cicero, The Nature of the Gods, 1.1

I don’t feel so good religious bros…

[Anonymous No.19577443]

>>19577381
Atheism has no ontological narrative to accept truth or write in its conception of truth. As any ideology we can do that. Atheism is the acceptance of some theology then the negation of it. It literally points nowhere, not even necessarily away from theology. Naturalism doesn't deny theism even if its not theist. It says where it is (in your neurons). You can't deny it after you just said it existed. You see how stupid you sound?

[Anonymous No.19577445]

most of these religious people are larpers anyway. I have more esteem for a true atheist - I bet there are intelligent ones.

[Anonymous No.19577449]

>>19577445
>i have more esteem for a true atheism
Euphoric, now define atheism you sovlless cvnt

[Anonymous No.19577453]

>>19577449
triggered

[Anonymous No.19577505]

>>19577453
I said define it retard, you have the floor. Show us monkey man if you can speak intelligently and defend your claims. Well, I'm waiting? You can go now. At any point. Geez guess atheists are still biding their time for the perfect opportunity. We'll pretend it's a belief (or an anti belief) like hitchens used to criticize not long ago *smug* *smirk* mmm toasty

[Anonymous No.19577511]

>>19577195
>superintelligent AI is composed of parts therefore superintelligent AI can't exist
?

[Anonymous No.19577518]

>>19577511
It just means it's not God dumbass which was the claim

[Anonymous No.19577553]

>>19577357
"professional paper in an academic field" does not imply papers about atheism.

[Anonymous No.19577598]

[Anonymous No.19577696]

>>19577422
>No Nobel
Where is your Nobel?.

See OP pic.