adewaletb3:
Damn this guy is so dumb. What a _fucking _retard.

WarRLaY:
1) Being atheist does not make you smart
Or rational and logical. Yes I know we all saw
that one study that seemed to say otherwise but
I would be very hesitant about bringing up
something so controversial and with it’s own fair
share of issues. Even if the findings of that
study turn out to be true it will only be talking
about averages (i.e. the average atheist is
smarter than the average believer) not that you
are smarter than the average believer.

Telling a person that because they believe in a
god they must be so stupid as to not understand
you’re arguments not only makes you look like a
pompous ass but also only manages to alienate
anyone you might be debating with. If your
intention was to bring them over to your side
then that is the exact opposite of what you
should be doing. It also ignores the fact that
their have been many smart people throughout
history who have believed in a god and in a way
actually gives the theists an argument.
See any time the question of intelligence and
religion is brought up it’s almost inevitable that
someone will eventually say “But Einstein
believed in God (or Newton/Descartes/Galilaeo/
etc.) Are you saying you’re smarter than
Einstein?” This is a pretty popular comeback
since it appeals to the logical fallacy we seem to
like the most; appeals to authority. The truth is
most people debating about religion (or for that
matter climate change/evolution/etc.) on the
internet don’t actually understand the topic well
enough to be debating it in the first place. As
such any opportunity to bring in the word of
someone more versed in the subject than they
are is a welcome relief since it allows them to
score a point without having to actually make an
argument.

This is doubly annoying since as
anyone with a basic background in logic knows
the veracity of an argument is not based on the
intelligence of the person arguing it but on the
strength of the evidence in its favor. Bringing up
much smarter, more rational and more logical
you are isn’t only a fallacy in itself but will
almost certainly perpetuate more fallacies.

WarRLaY:
2) Stop misusing the word logical

---

This is one that really gets to me because I see
it everywhere. I can’t count the number of times
I’ve seen a person attack a religion for not being
“based on logic” at the same time implicating
that atheism is a logical belief. Often this is said
in the manner of a winning argument as if the
person thinks they have made some grand
insight which cannot be countered. Hate to break
it to you but all you’ve done is shown that you
don’t understand what the word logical means.
Quick philosophy lesson. Logic is a branch of
philosophy which studies what makes an
argument valid. While there are a few types the
one most of us are familiar with is deductive
reasoning, which generally takes the form of if x
than y. A example of that might go as such:

---

A: All apples are fruit

---

B: Some apples are red.

---

Therefore: Some fruit is red.
The conclusion follows perfectly from the
assumptions. As such, that right there is a
logically valid argument. But is it true?
Some are probably saying “Of course it’s true,
you just said it was valid” and therein lies the
confusion. A valid argument is not necessarily a
true one. All it needs to be valid is for the
conclusion to follow from the premises, not that
the premises be correct themselves. To illustrate
that point let’s try another one.

---

1: All things created have a creator.

---

2: The Earth was created.

---

Therefore: The Earth has a creator.

---

This also is a logically valid argument and a
perfect example for why attacking religion as
illogical is a terrible debating tactic. Religions
can and have produced many perfectly valid
arguments for the truth of their beliefs based on
the assumptions of their faith. While we can
certainly attack the truthfulness of their
assumption speaking of religions as illogical only
exposes our own ignorance. Speaking of
ignorance…

WarRLaY:
3) Quit parroting arguments you heard from someone else

---

Let me be very clear what I’m talking about here.
I do not mean utilizing arguments you read about
elsewhere for yourself. Nothing wrong with
learning from another, that is after all one of the
best ways to learn. What I’m talking about is
when the only argument you can muster is
entirely made up by other people. Or to put it
succinctly let’s construct an imaginary (though in
truth very common) exchange.

---

Person 1: Atheists have faith just like theists.

---

Person 2: Whatever, atheism is like religion the
way bald is a hair color.

---

Do you see the problem there? Simply quoting a
popular saying does not advance the
conversation. It does not add to the debate. It
doesn’t even show that you understand what
you’re debating about. All it shows is that you
are capable of memorizing an internet meme.
Again there’s nothing wrong with using the ideas
of others in you argument but you have to
actually make an argument.
Well I think that will do for now. Honestly there
are probably a few more that could be added to
this list but perhaps I’ll save those for another
time. Happy debating!

WarRLaY:

---

1: All things created have a creator.

---

2: The Earth was created.

---

Therefore: The Earth has a creator.

---

This also is a logically valid argument and a
perfect example for why attacking religion as
illogical is a terrible debating tactic. Religions
can and have produced many perfectly valid
arguments for the truth of their beliefs based on
the assumptions of their faith. While we can
certainly attack the truthfulness of their
assumption speaking of religions as illogical only
exposes our own ignorance. Speaking of
ignorance…

undercat:
The OP is quite right, if you think about it. Especially that part about misusing "logical".

johnydon22:
I quite agree with the Op title, it is very true...

undercat:


It is. People are smart or not before they become religious or not. I agree with much more than just the title tho.