• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Atheism, Agnosticism and Theism

Which is more "intelligent"? Atheism, Agnosticism or Theism?


  • Total voters
    25

ThePlayDrive

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Messages
19,610
Reaction score
7,647
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Which is the most "intelligent" philosophy?

Intelligent means "based in a reasonable application of one's knowledge and understanding of reality".

I ask this because I've been in and seen conversations with atheists and theists who treat their opposites as completely stupid. I genuinely want to know which one of the three people think is more intelligent and why. Other arguments are encouraged as well.

I personally think they're all equally intelligent.
 
I voted other. I believe theism is the most intelligent. However, not all theistic philosophies are equal and many are very unintelligent in my opinion.
 
Agnosticism, because the only thing we can absolutely be certain of when it comes to whether there is a God or multiple Gods or not is that we just don't know.
 
None of them are really an indicator of intelligence.
 
Atheism is, by far, the most rational.
 
I voted other. I believe theism is the most intelligent. However, not all theistic philosophies are equal and many are very unintelligent in my opinion.
What do you think separates intelligent theistic philosophies from unintelligent ones?
 
Atheism is, by far, the most rational.
But which is most intelligent using the definition I used? Can you explain your position any further?
 
None of them are really an indicator of intelligence.
Will you explain your position more? Why do believe that intelligence does not factor into the conclusion one comes to about the existence or non-existence of God/gods/etc.?
 
What do you think separates intelligent theistic philosophies from unintelligent ones?

If it's based on human nature or the nature of God. I believe that someone can hold the most intelligent belief in my opinion, yet still be unintelligent in other areas. Metaphysical beliefs aren't the sole determiner of intelligence.
 
But which is most intelligent using the definition I used? Can you explain your position any further?

I don't think one necessarily has to be unusually intelligent to make a rational conclusion, in this case, one rational conclusion, it's just less likely/more difficult. It depends on what you mean by 'intelligence.'

Athiesm, as I said, given the availible data, is the most rational position, rather, the only rational position.
 
I don't think one necessarily has to be unusually intelligent to make a rational conclusion, in this case, one rational conclusion, it's just less likely/more difficult. It depends on what you mean by 'intelligence.'

Athiesm, as I said, given the availible data, is the most rational position, rather, the only rational position.

My definition of an intelligent belief/philosophy is one "based in a reasonable application of one's knowledge and understanding of reality". In other words, the philosophy most grounded in the reality of what we know and understand about the universe.
 
Your subject useage makes this difficult - do you mean what the individual "knows" and understands about reality, or what we as a species know and understand about reality? Very different questions in my mind.
 
My definition of an intelligent belief/philosophy is one "based in a reasonable application of one's knowledge and understanding of reality". In other words, the philosophy most grounded in the reality of what we know and understand about the universe.

'Intelligence' has more than one definition, however I typically think of it as being the aggregate sum of a person's knowledge, or the rate at which someone is able to process new information. I don't think one would have to be especially quick, or learned to be an Atheist.

As I said, given what we know, Atheism is the most rational philosophy.
 
Your subject useage makes this difficult - do you mean what the individual "knows" and understands about reality, or what we as a species know and understand about reality? Very different questions in my mind.
The latter - what we as a species know about reality (although our perception of what the species knows depends on what we as individuals know about reality).
 
Will you explain your position more? Why do believe that intelligence does not factor into the conclusion one comes to about the existence or non-existence of God/gods/etc.?

Religion is based around a concept of faith. faith or a lack thereof is completely different from intelligence.
 
You cannot prove a negative, and in the absence of any of proof of any kind of divine being, agnosticism is the only rational choice.
 
Atheism. Since agnosticism is basically the only other competing idea here, apart from "all equal," I'll address it directly.

To say agnosticism is the most intelligent stance relies on 2 false ideas.

1. A generally faulty idea of what atheism is
2. The false impression that, in terms of what we know, god vs. no god are equal contenders.

First of all, atheism is not the claim that there is no god - that is anti-theism (and it is not the same as anti-religion). Atheism is a disbelief in deities, since there is no logical reason to think otherwise. So atheism does not exclude the possibility.

Second, with where the evidence is pointing, if there is some all-powerful thing at work, it is probably nothing like anything humans have ever imagined, and probably not something we would call a "god" with how the term is typically used. Using a traditional definition of a sentient, usually semi-anthropomorphic god, there is absolutely no evidence for that and the idea itself is somewhat fanciful. It doesn't present itself, in the modern era, as a serious idea that can be argued seriously. All such gods can be traced to roots of storytelling and mythology. They are all logically flawed in some very deep way. To present that as being on equal footing with science is ridiculous.

Agnosticism is more politically correct than intellectually serious, basically.

Implicit in the above is why I don't think the answer is theism.
 
Last edited:
You guys are making the mistake that somehow belief is something that is neither provable nor unprovable somehow is more rational. This is not the case.
 
The question and any answers to it are pointless. There are no right or wrong answers here.
 
Which is the most "intelligent" philosophy?

Intelligent means "based in a reasonable application of one's knowledge and understanding of reality".

I ask this because I've been in and seen conversations with atheists and theists who treat their opposites as completely stupid. I genuinely want to know which one of the three people think is more intelligent and why. Other arguments are encouraged as well.

I personally think they're all equally intelligent.

They are the same, it is very subjective.
 
Just adding some people seem to think "rational" is somehow equal to "intelligence" and they are not at all the same thing. Someone can be rational and still be as dumb as a box of rocks. Someone can be irrational and still be very intelligent.

I am a theist and I am just as intelligent and rational as anyone here.
 
I don't understand how atheists can claim they know God doesn't exist. They ask God believers where the proof is, yet provide no proof that God does not exist.

A few pieces of proof in my eyes that God exists is that I exist... I have a consciousness... my body is insanely complex... and the world is perfectly balanced to support life.


But personally I feel agnostic people are more intelligent when it comes to the subject of the existence of God. At least they're honest enough to say "I really don't know". Because no one really knows...
 
An atheist does not have faith a god exists. Theism requires faith. Atheists do not have that faith.
 
I don't understand how atheists can claim they know God doesn't exist. They ask God believers where the proof is, yet provide no proof that God does not exist.

A few pieces of proof in my eyes that God exists is that I exist... I have a consciousness... my body is insanely complex... and the world is perfectly balanced to support life.

But personally I feel agnostic people are more intelligent when it comes to the subject of the existence of God. At least they're honest enough to say "I really don't know". Because no one really knows...

Good post. But don't agnostics say "It can't be known?" I don't know.
 
Back
Top Bottom