Why are non religious people smarter than religious people? These countries all have the highest standards of living
Why are non religious people smarter than religious people? These countries all have the highest standards of living
Why are non religious people smarter than religious people? These countries all have the highest standards of living
It’s not atheism that causes material prosperity but material prosperity that caused atheism.
Apart from China, they were very religious before decades of state enforced atheism under the CCP
The more prosperous / well-read a culture is, the less likely they are to turn to religion. That doesn't exactly speak positively about religion in the first place.
Likely because the meaningless boredom and trite ambiguity of modern life not because of a well reasoned to position. Also, the modern world was found in opposition to religion and most people are sheep. They replaced the church with the state frankly, even the most ardent anarchists and communists have. It’s not at all an admirabl exchange imo
If religion can't compete with the artificial God of the state, what does that say about the God(s) of religion?
>They replaced the church with the state
You don’t have to replace church with anything. It’s just an extra belief, I think you’re thinking of people with obsessive compulsive tendencies.
None of that explains why religious people are less intelligent.
You kind of have to be a bit dim to genuinely believe, "I've chosen/been brought up in the only correct religion and every other religion on Earth is man-made garbage probably inspired by evil spirits"
Except that’s true if you’re a Christian tbh
It’s true. Look up the satanic verses. Muhammad obviously was inspired by a demon or the devil. The rest of the world religions are crude polytheistic, animist nature worship. Christian apologetics are the best of all the world religions.
Also europe and North America, once the greatest places to live in the world (and still are for the most part) are clearly suffering divine retribution for their adoption of atheistic moral relativism.
You're either slow or just mentally ill to not get just how much you're proving my point right now
You didn’t make any point, you just made a low iq polemic and I responded by pointing out why it’s facile and wrong. It’s okay that I’m smarter than you like I don’t look down on you for it or anything
>Um actually it's because it's boring
How do things being boring make one less religious?
>Trite ambiguity
Ok so you are just using words to sound smart.
>The modern world was founded in opposition to religion and most are sheep
Ok why?
This says nothing about what's right or wrong and more about what's popular. Do you think your cool and different? Because you aren't.
>The church has been replaced by the state
In what regard? How does this prove your point or argue against ops point. You sound like a baby frankly.
>They replaced the church with the state frankly
Most people don't pay attention to the state, and when they do, they generally hate it. That's not a glowing review of the church, but does explain why they stopped going.
Almost as if religion is just a cope
>Apart from China, they were very religious before decades of state enforced atheism under the CCP
They are still very religious, it's just that east asian religions only count people as members if they're clergy or some kind of sect.
Just look at that Japan 86%, you better fricking believe they're all going to pray for luck at the local shrine and call a monk for funerals.
One of the main causes seems to be that intelligent people know when to use logical analytical thought and ignore their intuition. Less intelligent people rely on their intuition too much, at least for the questions that require sober, lucid analytical thought. I mean you see it manifest here pretty often. Religious people will list scientific facts sarcastically as if the vibe of a right answer not matching with what makes you feel comfortable or makes intuitive sense means that fact is wrong. They really struggle with the universe being weird and unsatisfying to the sort of character centric narrative structure present in fiction and religions.
Furthermore it’s just that dumber people are bad at getting the right answer to questions. I’m not necessarily saying atheism is certainly the right answer but at least being secular is in the sense that all religions are myth based superstitions.
Stupid people are more likely to be convinced there's a israelite in the sky.
>highest standards of living
>populated by mentally ill, nihilistic, neurotic freaks who think men can be women
Religious bros, we can't stop winning.
You're getting raped to death by Ukrainian nazi death squads tho.
Really makes you think why all these highly developed countries are more accepting while the undeveloped ones dont
What's up with Latin America?
Catholicism.
t. lives in a concrete Commie block where half the population is alcoholic and the other half sniffs gasoline to get high
Wrong on all accounts except the alcoholism.
>*Downs a bottle of vodka*
>You degenerate
>*Beats wife*
>Backwards
>*Runs credit card scam*
>Be able to bask
>*Gets aids*
>In the light of pure trash Russia
>>*Runs credit card scam*
>>*Beats wife*
>>*Downs a bottle of vodka*
All very based.
Also we don't use the asterisk here, the greentext suffices.
People who slap a religious identity on themselves as a political larp and convert to a new larp once a month tend to be as mentally unstable as leftists.
I think some of the posts here are arguing from a misguided position.
The idea of "religions" used to not exist, there was only a true reality and a belief in God.
Those who didn't believe what the majority believed were seen as heretics.
This is obvious but what you must understand is that the majority of people didn't simply change, notice for example how many cults exist in Japan or China.
People simply replaced God with what I call the "cathedral of the state and its experts".
As long as scholars and statesmen say a thing exists, the average joe will believe it if there's no intervention by actual independents.
You can easily get people to believe things as long as you're backed by believable power or societal standing.
It's easy to say that you don't believe in God in a poll, but do most people actually have the diligence to remove the doubts of whatever truths they believe in?
Or will they comfortably trust others with credentials and readily accept their truths without fact-checking? The latter happens regularly and is no different from a peasant believing the cathedral back in the day.
I'll say this; the vast majority of people today are not smarter than people in the past, they've just been given knowledge from actual truthseekers in the past who did their due dilligence.
Japan and China in particular are very conformist society that stress harmony, they'll obviously do well when they're given knowledge that's been fact-checked but they're equally disastrous when they accept falsehoods.
>muh you worship xyz
I call this the folly of low IQ specimens who think that "belief" is synonymous with "religious belief".
Indeed, only an idiot would for instance say that Stalinism is a religion.
Oh wait atheists do that all the time.
Yeah sorry mate I apologize, you're correct that eating oatmeal for breakfast is a religion.
Because that's totaly what I said.
Basically, yeah.
How come?
The quickest way to tell if a person is stupid is if they take a really long time to say something very simple.
>These countries are just a superstitious as their religious counterparts and simply find other ways to satisfy it. Like trust in science and the state.
There you go pal.
>what I call
What you stole from some youtuber and the flowered up the words.
>It's easy to say that you don't believe in God in a poll, but do most people actually have the diligence to remove the doubts of whatever truths they believe in?
I doubt the abilities of other drivers on roads, but I still go on them with my car. Someone doubting their beliefs is a good thing, as someone who blindly follows them is the one who will hold onto incorrect beliefs in the face of evidence.
>Or will they comfortably trust others with credentials and readily accept their truths without fact-checking?
We're at an all-time high of doubt in all of our institutions. Political, medical, scientific, business, entertainment, and news media.
>The latter happens regularly and is no different from a peasant believing the cathedral back in the day.
There's a pretty big difference in trusting the researchers and engineers that make our technology, that we actively interact with, and someone who says sweetnothings to them about "life after death".
>I'll say this; the vast majority of people today are not smarter than people in the past
Proof: You.
Because atheists control society and they only give high paying jobs and good education to their own kind?
Did you get kicked out of school because you believe in god, or did you get kicked out of school because you're moronic and failed your exams?
Knowledge is a hinderance between you and finding God. There is a reason why the original sin was eating from the tree of knowledge. It impairs your judgement by making you think you know better
>The Japanese concept of religion differs significantly from that of Western culture. Spirituality and worship are highly eclectic; rites and practices, often associated with well-being and worldly benefits, are of primary concern, while doctrines and beliefs garner minor attention.[8] Religious affiliation is an alien notion. Although the vast majority of Japanese citizens follow Shinto, only some 3% identify as Shinto in surveys, because the term is understood to imply membership of organized Shinto sects.[9][10] Some identify as "without religion" (無宗教, mushūkyō), yet this does not signify rejection or apathy towards faith. The mushūkyō is a specified identity, which is used mostly to affirm regular, "normal" religiosity while rejecting affiliation with distinct movements perceived as foreign or extreme.[11][12]
>The Japanese concept of religion differs significantly from that of Western culture
Yeah, they give their useless toys to Buddhist temples to do toy burning rituals.
Their beliefs are fricked.
>china
>japan
>vietnam
>"atheist"
Just because most of them didn't subscribe to Abrahamic religion's concept of God doesn't means that they don't believe in a heavenly supreme being
I don't think these "researchers" understand the cultural nuances. Either that or they knew their "research" is fundamentally flawed but they did it anyway to fit certain narratives
Also good luck getting straight answers in China when even looking at things the wrong way can get you in trouble
I'm sorry which of these nations put 12 men on the fricking moon?
Also China is only that high due to moronic communism banning religion
the only people who advocate atheism are israelites and commies, to anyone with a brain its better to be religious
>the only people who advocate atheism are a religious group and commies
israelite is an ethnicity. The modern Israeli state was founded on nationalism and race and only recently has a religious emphasis returned since the 70’s. Israel is one of the most secular places on earth too.
Agnosticism is the correct take. Saying you know for sure that no Divine forces exist is just as much a leap of faith as saying that "my culture's idea of a Divine force is the only correct one"
>my culture's idea of a Divine force is the only correct one
thats a more productive attitude to have, who cares about foreign morons feelings getting hurt, its better for people to be moralised
Except religion historically hasn't "moralized" any culture. Just look at how violent Medieval Europe was and that was basically a Christian Theocracy.
No. Look at a few generations ago, when people went to church and believed in god. you are a moron modern goytoy to think that faith is either nonexistant or muzzie moron holy wars
>Look at a few generations ago
When World Wars were being fought? Or even earlier when inter-denominational Christian wars dominated Europe? Religion doesn't abate the bloodshed, rape, and general moral decay that comes with civilization - if anything it just provides a convenient pretext to do more of the same.
>When World Wars were being fought?
over ideology, a replacement for religion. Im not saying there is a utopia in society being religious. But for the average joe, its better, you would find a whole lot less moral decay and suicide and broken families, you are just in commie denial at the facts. that atheism does more harm than good.
And I'm saying read one book about Medieval Europe and you'll quickly realize that Christian Theocracies aren't any less destructive than their secular counterparts.
>Medieval Europe
there it is again, i already addressed i was not talking about a 1000 years ago dumbass, there were bigger differences between the middle fricking ages and us that religion this pil pul shit is pathetic
You don't need to go back a thousand years to see Christian brother wars destroying Europe. The English Civil War was as much an inter-denominational feud as it was a class struggle, for example.
ah so you are a fricking commie, listen to my posts, people, individually are better off religious, thats something you concede because your alternative is NOTHING AND NIHILISM. if you want peaceful times and religioun just look at the pax britannica, the world wars were NOT about religon, infact WW2 was about religions replacement
You're saying that society was peaceful/"better off" when Western leaders were Christian (legitimately, not like in the modern sense). I'm saying history proves you wrong. You don't have a real counterargument to that.
>Western leaders
Why are you just making shit up? im talking about people, and culture, which are both ruins nowadays. And you know that. Dont you? People would be better off religious, as just a few generations ago proves which now that i think on it, were run by irreligious leaders. huh.
*kind of irreligous
aristocracy certainly went to church, but it was the irreligious leaders of WW2 which lead to the worst wars in human history
Violent crime rates were higher, it's just that you think getting a blowjob from some chick you met at a concert is worse than shooting a random chick you met at a concert.
see
you people are morons, you have no point, you concede every negative thing thrown at you. Follow your nihilistic ideology and kys (you have no reason not to).
>you people are morons
I'm not the one who thinks that getting a blowjob from some random chick you met at a concert is worse than killing some random chick you met at a concert.
>SEX SEX SEX CUMMIN IM GOONA COOM ITS ALL SEX SEX
more atheistic drivel. see
>SEX SEX SEX CUMMIN IM GOONA COOM ITS ALL SEX SEX
That's you. You reduce the realm of morals to sexual ethics and ignore things like violent crime rates because you only care about sex.
guh? im talking peoples happiness, im not advocating religious war you inbred, you would realise that if you read my posts. Now be quiet.
Where did I say you're advocating religious wars? I'm saying that you're ignoring violent crime rates and focusing on sexual ethics instead.
>That's you. You reduce the realm of morals to sexual ethics and ignore things like violent crime rates
you posted schizo shit, it was not a favela in the past, when people didnt off themselves for lack of a reason not to, and it was YOU that brought up sex (because cooming and pleasure is your entire philosophy)
Mate you can delude yourself in an attempt to justify your religion, but it's a fact that violent crime rates have been dropping over time.
With regards to favelas, I recommend looking at the religiousness rates in the countries that have those.
>violent crime rates have been dropping over time
and suicide has risen, and culture has died, first world (white) people with religion, are obviously better off than the drones of nowadays, your fixation on crime and pretending it was the middle ages im talking about, show you are desperate to justify your soulless modern culture. People are better off with religion.
Islam can't take over fast enough.
islam is too brown and warlike, the more i think on it, the more i realise its a white christian religion thats good, so the nemsis of lefties
The christcuck reveals itself.
im right thoughever
>i hate atheism the world should be religious
>OK
>noooooo not like that
Open your wallet and prepare to pay dhimmi christcuck.
im right in saying that thoughever, and you are wrong, thats what matters, the truth not gay little arguments.
You only think culture has died because you're consuming global slop made for the lowest common denominator. That's nobody's fault but your own.
L M A O you are kidding right? thats a joke right?
Why would I be kidding? It's true, you read some moronic capeshit comics or whatever and then cry that the west has fallen and billions must die because your comic books for children are not intellectually stimulating.
dude STOP. think of it this way, the "lowest common denoninator" (which is 85% of people) wouldn't become trannies or kys or live for nothing other than the moment and not have a family if the norm was to be religious.
And you are absolutely moronic to act like culture isnt as dead as its ever been. its too much for people to have the woman take the mans name in a marriage, or even GET marrried or have a distinction between man and woman there is no tradition, or history, its all dead and stagnant. and replaces with atheicuck bullshit
So you're just mad about troony/incel shit and that's what you mean by culture? Have sex lmao.
please do tell me what modern culture is, and dont say sportsball
Wait, so you don't care about cultural artifacts like arts and customs and instead want one big overarching memetic blob? That's what makes you seethe, why you can't sleep at night? That's funny.
>cultural artifacts like arts and customs
Those are dead, museums are from the uhh past. You got nothing huh?
This is just looping back to you consuming popular slop.
I already asked you what todays culture is. please tell.
This is just you looping back to demanding one big memetic blob and not caring about cultural artifacts like art and customs.
>like art and customs
those are dead, i already described how dead they were earlier in the thread, people dont marry, or go to church, its all dead. Now try again.
That's you looping back to consuming popular slop and seething that you're too socially maladjusted to find a wife.
i asked you 3 or 4 times to tell me about some of modernitys culture, you never did. because there is none
You can't even write properly, moron. You're in no position to cry about a lack of culture.
lel what do you get out of this blatant evasion? are you protecting your ego? this is the last reply you are getting moron. KYS
KWAB
A few generations ago, when people went to church and believed in god, they were bombing random countries 7000 miles away because they were shitting their pants in terror. Pinnacle of morality.
>Agnosticism is the correct take
Agnosticism is about whether you "know", in this case, saying that you don't "know".
Atheism is about whether you "believe", in this case, saying that you don't "believe".
There are 4 categories:
Gnostic Theist - I know and believe in god(s).
Agnostic Theist - I don't know, but I believe in god(s).
Gnostic Atheist - I know and believe in no gods.
Agnostic Atheist - I don't know, but I believe in no gods.
>inb4 you don't understand what know & believe mean, and try to say that agnostic is separate, without understanding what words actually mean
That's complete bullshit. Agnosticism = "I don't know" - saying that you don't know but believe in God anyway is most religious people. That's not really agnosticism.
>That's complete bullshit
>in after you not understanding what know & believe mean, and try to say that agnostic is separate, without understanding what words actually mean
Called it. But go ahead and continue to not understand.
>Meme internet shit
It's literally what the words mean. Why do you think the "a" prefix of those words are for? It's not a coincidence.
>a-
>variant of an-
>1 before a consonant, meaning “not,” “without”: amoral; atonal; achromatic.
>Gnosticism - after gnôsis, the Greek word for “knowledge"
"Not"Gnostic meaning - not knowing
Same shit for atheist. Not believing in god
Keep coping that you don't know what words mean.
I sometimes wonder if IQfy is actually for people who have actually read epistemology, or if it's just for the same morons that go on all the other boards.
>It's literally what the words mean.
It's not how the words were ever used in serious philosophical discourse. It's a popular definition pushed by people like Dick Dawkins.
t. atheist with master's in philosophy
>It's not how the words were ever used in serious philosophical discourse
They absolutely are, you're confusing "serious philosophical discourse", with whatever is done online. Those are literally the definitions from my Phil of Religion textbook. We did an entire section on the epistemology.
>t. atheist with master's in philosophy
Get a fricking refund, because your schooling was a waste.
You should feel shame about not knowing where "a-" came from, and the difference between knowing and believing.
Also a master's in philosophy is a stupid endpoint. Bach or Doctorate, all of my previous professors will back my up on this.
>Your semantic games don't change the fact you fundamentally don't understand what the term means.
There's no semantic game. You don't actually know what those words mean, as you've confused what the literal meaning of agnostic means.
>a - not, without
>gnostic - Greek for knowledge or insight
It's literally a knowledge claim, not a belief claim. Please read some epistemology, before you try to have a philosophical conversation, with someone using actual philosophical definitions.
>They absolutely are, you're confusing "serious philosophical discourse", with whatever is done online. Those are literally the definitions from my Phil of Religion textbook. We did an entire section on the epistemology.
Post textbook. Did you go to some shitty private school?
>Get a fricking refund
Likewise.
>Also a master's in philosophy is a stupid endpoint. Bach or Doctorate, all of my previous professors will back my up on this.
I did double honours, the masters of philosophy was a passion project.
>Post textbook. Did you go to some shitty private school
I'm not driving hundreds of kms to take a picture of a textbook. It was from university. If you actually had a master's in philosophy, you'd already be well versed in epistemology, and you'd understand the difference between believing and knowing, and how they're different.
>Likewise.
But why? My university actually taught me.
>I did double honours, the masters of philosophy was a passion project.
You wasted your time, effort, and money. Resulting in you having a shit education, and a faulty passion project.
At no point, have you actually done any actual philosophy, to prove what I said was wrong.
Note: You're unable to, because you're aware that I'm using the actual proper definitions, not the pop culture shit that you're used to.
>There's no semantic game.
It's not a "game", to use proper terms, when discussing philosophy, and then expecting others to use them too. I haven't made up brand new terms. I did the exact opposite, in fact. I took the word, and broke it into its parts, to show what the word actually means, and how you're using it wrong.
Knowing and believing are two different, although related things.
>Stop misusing words you don't understand.
But I literally showed you what the word means, by splitting it into its parts. You're the person who doesn't know what they mean.
You're used to the pop culture understanding.
Where there's theists, agnostics, and atheists. But that's the incorrect categorization. If that's how you want to talk about them, then go talk to someone else, because that's not what words mean.
You want agnostics to be fencesitters, saying "I dunno", I completely understand how you're using the word, and you're using it wrong.
It's like how "begs the question" is used wrong. People use it to mean "what requires us to ask the question", when it actually means "an argument that is circular, by having the conclusion as an assumption or unstated but required".
>I'm not driving hundreds of kms to take a picture of a textbook. It was from university.
From your shitty private university? Figures lol.
>If you actually had a master's in philosophy, you'd already be well versed in epistemology, and you'd understand the difference between believing and knowing, and how they're different.
I understand the difference, which is why I understand that all three are stances of belief.
>inb4 you don't know what gnosis means
Agnosticism is a doxastic position regarding a specific area of knowledge.
>But why? My university actually taught me.
Taught you meme shit lol.
>You're unable to, because you're aware that I'm using the actual proper definitions, not the pop culture shit that you're used to.
You're the one using the pop culture definitions pushed by redditors and non-philosophers.
>From your shitty private university? Figures lol.
No, a regular public university.
>I understand the difference, which is why I understand that all three are stances of belief.
lol
lmao even
I'm so sorry that your professors did you a disservice.
>Agnosticism is a doxastic position regarding a specific area of knowledge.
Intentionally using big words, that have simple meanings, is a general sign of someone who doesn't actually know what they're talking about.
And yes, it's regardless of a specific area of knowledge, but we've framed it within the religious debate, and I used it as qualifier for a knowledge claim. If you actually understood what I said.
>Taught you meme shit lol.
Taught me proper epistemology, and the way to understand what words mean. To properly talk about a topic. It followed straight from the regular epistemology course.
>You're the one using the pop culture definitions pushed by redditors and non-philosophers
You've literally supported my entire claim that (a)gnostic is a knowledge claim, while the (a)theist is a belief claim.
Still waiting for you to define these words, as you didn't actually define what agnostic means. Your failed education makes you think that you did.
>Definition of 'doxastic' 1. of or relating to belief. 2. denoting the branch of modal logic that studies the concept of belief.
You haven't actually said anything meaningful.
"Agnosticism is of or relating to a belief position regarding a specific area of knowledge."
Congratulations, you've proven yourself to be "that" guy in class.
>No, a regular public university.
Seems like it was a shitty one.
>I'm so sorry that your professors did you a disservice.
Likewise.
>And yes, it's regardless of a specific area of knowledge, but we've framed it within the religious debate, and I used it as qualifier for a knowledge claim. If you actually understood what I said.
You didn't get my point because you're a brainlet. That's ok.
>Still waiting for you to define these words, as you didn't actually define what agnostic means.
Already did.
>You haven't actually said anything meaningful.
>"Agnosticism is of or relating to a belief position regarding a specific area of knowledge."
It's the belief that you don't know, i.e. that either of the two other positions isn't actually justified under the jtb schema.
>Seems like it was a shitty one.
It wasn't.
>Likewise.
Not at all.
>You didn't get my point because you're a brainlet. That's ok.
I understand your point. You're wrong about it, and I've already explained why.
>Already did.
You defined one, and you didn't even do it properly, and you gave a general definition, while we're talking about a specific topic.
>It's the belief that you don't know, i.e. that either of the two other positions isn't actually justified under the jtb schema.
And, we're talking about a specific topic, so properly refine your definition.
Also No. That's not what the word means. You've created a 3rd category.
It's either P or Not P. There is no 3rd option. Which is why I posted the swimming pool picture.
It's not: P or Not P.
>thinking that the JTB is the actual answer to knowledge, when it's incomplete due to being inductive
lol
lmao even
I'll keep waiting for you to post the definitions in relation to the religious discussion that we're having, and not just general definitions.
Also, you need to define ALL 4 terms.
>It's not: P or Not P or Not Not P.
whoops. fixed
>You defined one
I literally defined all three.what are you smoking?
>And, we're talking about a specific topic, so properly refine your definition.
Are you moronic? The two positions in question are theism and atheism.
>Also No. That's not what the word means. You've created a 3rd category.
I did not "create" a third category, the third category is what the term refers to in philosophical discourse.
>It's either P or Not P.
Sure. And the agnostic doesn't feel justified in believing either that it is P or that it's ~P, so he believes neither.
>I'll keep waiting for you to post the definitions in relation to the religious discussion that we're having, and not just general definitions.
I literally posted them here
.
>I literally defined all three.what are you smoking?
No, you didn't. You tried to give some halfassed definitions. Yet no one who actually wants to talk about this topic would understand or accept.
>Are you moronic? The two positions in question are theism and atheism.
Are you? You can't even define agnostic, so I'm not going to trust that you understand those two words either.
>I did not "create" a third category, the third category is what the term refers to in philosophical discourse.
You absolutely are following in the "agnostic isn't part of theism or atheism" creators.
>Sure. And the agnostic doesn't feel justified in believing either that it is P or that it's ~P, so he believes neither.
No, because gnosticism isn't about belief, it's about knowledge. (A)Theism is about belief. I've already been over this.
>I literally posted them here
And they were shit. If this is how you would try to act in an actual philosophy class or on a essay, it wouldn't go over very well.
(You)'re starting to sound like one of those Cs Get Degrees people.
Anyways, if you're not actually going to actually define the words, or understand what I'm saying, I'm going to leave, because I don't feel like wasting my Sunday, arguing with a moron who failed epistemology and can't apply it to a specific topic, like religion.
You know what? I'm tired of you acting like a moron. Name five academics in philosophy of religion who use the terms the way you do and I'll name five who use them the way I do.
>no response
Yeah that's what I thought, you little b***h.
>There's no semantic game.
>Proceeds to argue semantics
You're not the brightest porpoise in the aquarium, huh? Stop misusing words you don't understand.
Believing is choosing to think you know something even when there's no proof. Agnostics don't believe or disbelieve because there's not enough evidence in one direction or the other. Your semantic games don't change the fact you fundamentally don't understand what the term means.
Meme internet shit. The traditional philosophical definitions are as follows:
>theist - I believe there is/are god(s)
>atheist - I believe there is/are no god(s)
>agnostic - I believe the case for both is equally strong/weak
Are you agnostic to leprechauns?
Why is it better to believe in a flying rabbi? Atheists are richer, smarter, better educated and higher status than religtards.
People who are smart in their own eyes do not like the idea of a being so superior to them that he makes them seem like a grasshopper by comparison. They like they idea that they are awesome super smart beings who can one day be on the same level as the holy ones in heaven, who they call aliens in space.
I think I'm mid brain wise and I just don't like the idea of bowing and scraping to anyone.
If god has complaints he can just fricking torture me in hell forever cause I ain't gonna scrape.
Not like I haven't made a billion bad decisions already in my life anyway lmao what's one more?
China is fake atheist, they unironically believe thinks like their zodiac and almanac are 100% true. They aren’t really “atheist” like neckbeard fedoras .
So do religious nones in America
"The Nones place a high value on science, but most believe in God or a higher power (70 percent) or in spiritual forces beyond the natural world (63 percent). Only 17 percent identify as atheists. Half of those whose religion is “nothing in particular” maintain a belief in heaven, and 41 percent believe in hell. Nearly a quarter of all Nones believe in God, the human soul, the supernatural, and heaven and hell."
christcuckolds BTFO'd
>highest standards of living
>China
lol, lmao even
humiliation ritual
YHVH is the Demiurge, so he damaged your mind because he psyvamps you.
Even perfectly atheist people like Anton Szandor Lavey called him a psi vamp.
Japan might have a lot of atheists, but they aren't an atheist nation culturally, also very disingenuous to link the two as if those countries do not have vastly different educational systems.
>UK
lmao
>the country may be a secular culture where the vast majority of people don't believe in god but it isn't an athiest country.
I don't know what do you mean that atheist have higher iq's when the path to become a priest is harder and longer than most college careers.
>I don't know what do you mean that atheist have higher iq's
He means that every study comparing average IQs among the religions and atheists show that atheists have higher average IQs than the religious.
It's actually probably not that hard to be a priest.
Because they mistakenly value this life over the next life.
china, japan, and ESPECIALLY vietnam are all very religious places, it's just not the same thing as abrahamic religion. those stats are done poorly.