Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 180

Thread: Non-religous are more intelligent than religous

  1. #1 Non-religous are more intelligent than religous 
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Watch this video.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goQaj...eature=related


    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    People who don't say dumb things like the title of this thread are likely to be smarter than those who do. This is a matter of evidence after all. Positive evidence correlates with that state of affairs which it is the evidence for. Some people like to turn this around and say that correlation implies evidence but we must observe that it is a very different sort of evidence (statistical evidence) which requires the proper context in order for it to be applicable. The value of statistical evidence depends on the state of knowledge you have about what you are applying the evidence to. Basically it requires the assumption of "all else being equal" or in other words "if we know nothing else about them".

    For example, stating statistics that 6 year olds are more likely to be able to add numbers than 5 year olds will not be applicable to a 5 year old whom you happen to know is quite capable of addition. On the other hand, a child stating (with all sincerity) that 2 plus 3 equals 4 is quite a different sort of evidence about that child's ability to add.


    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    I am reminded of the story of the class dummy who returned to a class reunion 10 years after receiving a fake diploma during graduation ceremonies. He showed up in a large limo, got out accompanied by two beautiful girls, bedecked in finery with a large diamond ring on each hand.

    When asked how he got so rich he replied that he had invented an airplane part that increased fuel efficiency and engine reliability and that it is now used on every airplane that is built and that his factory is the only producer of the part. "We can make them for $2000 and sell them for $5,000. It is amazing how fast that three percent profit adds up," he opined.

    IQ is an indicator of potential knowledge, not practical use of that knowledge. There are a lot of stupid people with high IQs as indicated by the map. Plus, what is the source of the statistics? Probably somebody with a high IQ making estimates.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    There are some actual studies just now being done on individual state IQ's (Unsurprisingly, Mississippi is terrible), but the majority are faked. This one, incidentally, is one of those faked ones.

    http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/061022_iq.htm

    Here is (I think) a legit estimation.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Like Darius, I googled "IQ by state" and found similar results at a number of sites showing just how much the chart displayed in verzon's entry distorts and misrepresents the truth.

    I find this a particularly offensive attribute of some atheists who seem to have to resort to such tactics to discredit those who believe differently from them.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    I'm sorry, dayton, but what studies do exist on religion and IQ show that the most intelligent people have a lower ratio of religious belief. Also, those intelligent people rarely follow orthodox religion (going to church, etc).

    http://answers.google.com/answers/th...id/211920.html

    A good discussion on the matter.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    I'm sorry, dayton, but what studies do exist on religion and IQ show that the most intelligent people have a lower ratio of religious belief. Also, those intelligent people rarely follow orthodox religion (going to church, etc).
    It's true that there's an inverse correlation between religiosity and intelligence, but it's pretty weak. I believe several studies have found that really unusually intelligent people who have IQs several standard deviations above normal are much less likely to be religious, and vastly less likely to be involved in any sort of "fundamentalist" religion. But since people who are several standard deviations away from normal are a pretty small percentage of the population, in the general population the correlation between intelligence and lack of religiosity is much smaller.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    240
    I don't know, I know some pretty stupid atheists...

    I have a question about statistics. Since the overall number of non-religious people is generally accepted to be smaller than religious, would this have any effect in skewing the statistical results?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by KomradRed
    I don't know, I know some pretty stupid atheists...

    I have a question about statistics. Since the overall number of non-religious people is generally accepted to be smaller than religious, would this have any effect in skewing the statistical results?
    Not for any immediate mathematical reason if that is what you mean. If HOWEVER you were able to demonstrate that lower IQ people had a significant tendency to adopt the beliefs and position of the majority then that would constitute a reason why this would skew the results. This is actually a very reasonable hypothesis, especially in a changing demographic (I am suggesting that lower IQ people are more likely to uncritically accept what they have been taught and thus are less likely to change their viewpoint).

    HOWEVER, I do not think it is likely that this accounts for the inverse correlation in its entirety. There are new and really dumb relgious groups starting up all the time and clearly the majority of those who get involved are not the brightest people in the world. Furthermore, I think it is fair to say that intellegence and rationality are not typically the highest values or the primary means of appeal for the majority of religious groups. However, there are not only exceptions, but in times past religion has often been on the intellectual forefront rather than in the backwater.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Not for any immediate mathematical reason if that is what you mean. If HOWEVER you were able to demonstrate that lower IQ people had a significant tendency to adopt the beliefs and position of the majority then that would constitute a reason why this would skew the results.
    Although I agree, I'm not sure that would really count as "skew."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Well, you are still dealing with cause and effect without explaining which is cause and which is effect. Nor are we explaining whatever role correlation or coincidence might have

    Is intelligence the cause of whether a person is religious or non-religious? Or does a person's religious beliefs determine whether he is intelligent or not?

    I am convinced there is no pure unbiased data which will lead you to either of those conclusions. Even if you took the original video post as accurate (which it isn't), it would only show that people with higher IQs are more likely to favor socialistic ideas than free market ideas.

    So are we to conclude that the most intelligent people are socialists while the less intellgent are free market advocates.

    However, if you look at some of the sites with IQ statistics that probably reflect a more accurate picture, you find that some of the states with higher average IQs are Bible belt states (Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, the Dakotas), while some with lower IQs are low on the religion list -- California, need I say more? http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/061022_iq.htm

    What we can also note looking at the chart there and pointed out in the text, the seemingly higher IQs seemed to be located in the more northerly states while the lower IQs seem to be located in the more southerly states. From that it should be easy to conclude that climate is the cause and intelligence is the effect. Surely it could not be opposite -- intelligence would not drive someone to live in North Dakota, would it?

    It is really a study in foolishness to try to draw such conclusion from totally unrelated data. But that is what happens when you attempt to attribute and effect to something that was not the cause. And I do note, that it is almost always atheists on this forum who are exercising this kind of foolishness.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    just because a few do not dowhat they Bible says does it mean that religious people are less intelligent, it just means they did not develope what they have been given or have a misunderstand or whatever.

    laying down false charges like the Op did shows that he has no copmprehension of what free choice means and how it can be used and is just looking for a way to justify his sinful choices.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Here is yet another site that has decent stats on estimated IQ averages per state compared to how they voted in 2004. I mean, if you are really interested.

    http://sq.4mg.com/IQpolitics.htm

    This seems to similar to the V Dare one sited by Darius with some slight rearranging but most states are listed close to the same position in each study. (I like this one because it shows my state much nearer the top than the V Dare one.)
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    An video that puts atheism as opposed to religious, instead of theism is questionable at best because religiosity and theism are not the same thing.

    Most people come to religion because they are taught religion as a child. I have no doubt that a higher IQ and the usually higher secular education that often comes with it in the Western nations decreases faith, or changes the perspective on the fundamentalist faith.

    On the other hand, what happens to people who's education is steeped in more advanced studies of the faith as valued by their societies--Bin Laden is an example of someone who's probably certainly highly intelligent, (perhaps even a genius), but who went the religious route. In those societies someone of high intelligence often becomes a respected member noted for a skill in his religioun, such as a qadi (an Islamic judge) etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    There is, actually, a recent study that shows a positive correlation between conservative religiosity and cognitive function. I'll give you the gist of the study, but Fair use prevents me from simply posting the entire article, but the full paper is available in volume 37 of Intelligence, which is available at most university libraries or via public libraries either in their stacks or online access. Ask your local librarian.

    Abstract
    The present study examined whether IQ relates systematically to denomination and income within the framework of the g nexus, using representative data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth (NLSY97). Atheists score 1.95 IQ points higher than Agnostics, 3.82 points higher than Liberal persuasions, and 5.89 IQ points higher than Dogmatic persuasions. Denominations differ significantly in IQ and income. Religiosity declines between ages 12 to 17. It is suggested that IQ makes an individual likely to gravitate toward a denomination and level of achievement that best fit his or hers particular level of cognitive complexity. Ontogenetically speaking this means that contemporary denominations are rank ordered by largely hereditary variations in brain efficiency (i.e. IQ). In terms of evolution, modern Atheists are reacting rationally to cognitive and emotional challenges, whereas Liberals and, in particular Dogmatics, still rely on ancient, pre-rational, supernatural and wishful thinking.
    The “g nexus” that Dr. Nyborg refers to is the “general intelligence” factor, a construct used in psychology to quantify common trends across various methods of scoring intelligence. Basically, there is an assumption that there exists a factor in human cognition that drives intelligence which may be phenotypical and an indicator of brain efficiency. While the g factor hypothesis generated a fair bit of controversy in the early 1980s, most notably from Stephen J. Gould, it has since become widely accepted with the advent of much empirical research. Wikipedia barely touches on this topic for which entire texts have been written, but I provide that link as a starting point for anyone interested in further information.

    What Nyborg attempts to do (and appears to succeed) is to bring religiosity into the g nexus. Nyborg acknowledges the scientific curiosity of the “origin, development and persistence of religion worldwide” in his introduction to the research questions. He also notes the pervasive nature of religion across global boundaries as a human condition, anthropologically relevant to understanding human cognition in general given the presence of religion in both developing and developed nations and given the diverse range of superstitions and beliefs which exist.

    Nyborg describes his research thus:
    The present study examines the working hypothesis that
    dogmatism reflects a neurologically less than optimally evolved low g brain that seek supernatural guidance in ambiguous or life threatening situations. The study begins with two sets of a priori assumptions. First, high g people have a brain based biological capacity for solving complex problems, and for acting rationally when confronted with fundamental questions about existence, human nature, underlying causes, or the “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune”. Second, low g people lack this protection and are therefore unfairly ordained to live in a prerational world based on poorly validated evidence and little accumulated insight. They accordingly often find themselves in cognitively, emotionally, or morally challenging situations and have to use plan B, that is, to call upon easily comprehensible religious authoritative guidance and to submit more or less uncritically to culturally given stereotyped rituals. Frustration with their life may also make them seek redemption or faith in an after life.
    Nyborg also describes Six testable syllogisms about g which defined the empirical program:
    Syllogism 1
    Premises 1 and 2:
    Cognitively complex people typically resort to reason, science and data to reduce uncertainty,whereas people lacking this cognitive protection often resort to ancient supernatural beliefs and claims. Ergo: High-IQ people gravitate towards atheism and/or science, and low-IQ people become religious.

    Syllogisms 2a–c
    Premise 1 and 2+premise 3:
    Denominations differ in cognitive complexity. Ergo, 2a: Cognitively highly complex people choose Atheism/science; 2b: Medium complex people choose liberal denominations (i.e. fairly open, critical, less committed, metaphorical, cultural heritage type), and 2c:Least complex people drift towards dogmatic denominations (committed, personal relationship with Jesus, emphasis on sinfulness, fixed rules for behavior, and need for atonement).

    Syllogism 3

    Premise 4: Denominations of different conceptual complexity also differ in IQ. Ergo: Denominations can be systematically rank ordered by average IQ.

    Syllogism 4

    Premis 5: Denominations that differ in distribution score will according to Gaussian distribution theory also differ in the proportions of high-IQ individuals (i.e. with IQ≥120)—the group from which society primarily recruits its members for the upper positions. Obviously, the absolute denominational contribution of high-IQ members also depends on its numerical size. Ergo: Large denominations may offer more gifted individuals to occupy the upper religious and social positions in society than do small denominations, even if they do have relatively low mean IQs and Sds.

    Syllogism 5
    Premise 6:
    IQ is the most important single predictor of income. Ergo: Denominations with high IQ earn more than less favored denominations.

    Syllogism 6
    Premises 7 and 8:
    The indicator for the heritability of IQ goes up with age as children have more chances to actively create their own environment rather than just reacting passively to parental directions. Moreover, individuals tend to gravitate over time towards a job with a task complexity that matches their own cognitive complexity level— the so-called Gravitation hypothesis. In the present context the Gravitation hypothesis gives basis for the expectation that individuals will gravitate over time towards a non-faith/faith position with a degree of complexity that matches their own cognitive complexity. Ergo: Agnostic and Atheist persuasions become increasingly more prevalent from ages 12 to 17, and the proportion of religious believers drops accordingly.
    Methodology

    Nyborg conducted 12 sub-tests on sample sizes that exceeded 10,600,000 adolescents based on CAT-ASVAB97 test scores converted to IQ across 19 denominations which included Roman Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Muslim, atheist, agnostic Pentecostal, and Presbyterian among others.
    Results of these data show:

    Group................N....................IQ..............SD
    atheist..........117,681...............111.08..... .....12.78
    Religious.......10,531,586..........105.95........ ..13.54
    Total.............10,650,267..........106.01...... ....13.54

    Difference is 5.13 IQ points b/w Religious-Atheist groups in general.
    The data, as we can see in the lengthy and detailed methods section of his paper, aren't from Nyborg's own survey questions, questionnaires, or subjective hypotheses. They are arrived at using existing test scores used by the Department of Defense (the ASVAB test that many adolescents take every year in high school) and use to place potential service members in jobs and specialties to which they are cognitively suited.

    The results are clear: “white religious people trail Atheists by 5.13 IQ points. Analysis of variance on the actual number of respondents indicates that this difference is statistically significant (p=.02).”

    The study itself makes no assertion of why, but seeks only to demonstrate the correlation between cognitive function and what people are willing to accept with regard to beliefs.

    Pentecostals, for instance, are among the more dogmatic of religious adherents and I don't think it would be a stretch or generalization to imagine that the vast and overwhelming majority of this denomination are conservative republicans.

    Pentecostals, however, also subscribe to the most fantastic of beliefs -things that are completely without intellectual merit or expectation of being true by those who are among the population who have higher cognitive function. Things like snake-handling, speaking in tongues (glossolalia), young-earth creationism, etc.

    The prediction of the study is that this group would have a lower IQ (lower cognitive function) than more liberal groups. I actually didn't look at the table in the study before choosing Pentecostal as an example, but it turned out that the prediction holds. Pentecostals scored an average of 101.89 as an IQ whereas atheists scored an average of 111.08.

    Interestingly enough, and for those that might think so, I'm not asserting atheists are "smartest" nor is Nyborg. Indeed, the data are clear on this: The Episcopal/Angelican group scored the highest IQ at 113.43 with the Jewish denomination a close second at 112.43. Atheists actually placed 3rd and Agnostics 4th with an average IQ of 109.13.

    When comparing religious denominations, Nyborg rated (by using the ratings of previous authors/studies) denominations as either liberal or dogmatic, defining both thus:
    a. Liberal: fairly open, critical, less committed, metaphorical, cultural heritage-type persuasion.
    b. Dogmatic: more committed, personal relationship with Jesus, emphasis on sinfulness, explicit rules for behavior and need for atonement.
    References:


    Nyborg, Helmuth (2008). The intelligence-religiosity nexus: a representative study of white adolescent Americans. Intelligence, 37(1), 81-93.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Here is yet another site that has decent stats on estimated IQ averages per state compared to how they voted in 2004. I mean, if you are really interested.

    http://sq.4mg.com/IQpolitics.htm

    This seems to similar to the V Dare one sited by Darius with some slight rearranging but most states are listed close to the same position in each study. (I like this one because it shows my state much nearer the top than the V Dare one.)
    Is this evidence of hotter climates having a deletorius affect on human intellegence or at least on IQ test performance?
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Lynx-Fox says:

    Most people come to religion because they are taught religion as a child.
    Oh geeze, here we go with this old fallacious bromide again.

    Statistics show that approximately 70 to 80 percent of the youth brought up in the church leave the church almost as soon as they get out of the family nest to go to college or take up life on their own.

    Then, sometime after they get married, begin a family, have responsibilities and experience trying to deal with the realities of life, they see the futility of a meaningless, Godless life, and return to the church. The question becomes: do they return to religion because of their upbringing or because of the emptiness of their atheistic or agnostic life.

    There are also many who, without a church upbringing, turn to religion -- both Mitchell and I are examples of that.

    It is usually these people who find God without a church upbringing who become the most outspoken apologists because we understand the difference between adult lives as atheists and lives with God. Sort of like ex-smokers being the most outspoken people against smoking. My bet is that most of the atheists and agnostics posting on this forum are in the 18-30 age bracket, unmarried and without children.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    I'm engaged (have the date set and everything). does that count as married?
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathamatition
    I'm engaged (have the date set and everything). does that count as married?
    No. Nor does actually being married. It is really the humbling experience of parenthood that is the really piviotal experience that Dayton is talking about, which in addition sheds a whole new light on idea of God in the role of parent. This is NOT to say that those who are only married or only engaged do not experience such changes especially if they go into that relationship to raise a family, because the real key here I think is the change of mindset from child to parent.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    It is usually these people who find God without a church upbringing who become the most outspoken apologists because we understand the difference between adult lives as atheists and lives with God. Sort of like ex-smokers being the most outspoken people against smoking. My bet is that most of the atheists and agnostics posting on this forum are in the 18-30 age bracket, unmarried and without children.
    This is an interesting observation. I am 30, unmarried and childless, but from where I am now I can't see myself ever going back to religion or general theism. I have plenty of meaning in my life and with a family I will have even more. I think a large part of people turning back to religion after marriage also has to do with the parents and the religion of the partner.

    Also, just because someone leaves their church does not mean they have become atheistic or agnostic. I'd bet that the vast majority of those people would still answer yes if you asked them if they believe in a god. One of the added bonuses of a church oriented life is the support that such a group can provide. It provides a community where people can feel they belong and where one can make an attempt at being a good person if you should believe that going to church is a good way to be one. This is after all ingrained in our genes, in our very make-up as humans.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Statistics show that approximately 70 to 80 percent of the youth brought up in the church leave the church almost as soon as they get out of the family nest to go to college or take up life on their own.
    If they did, wouldn't you have included the source? Find it. I dare you.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    OK, Darius, here are three sites found on the first page that shows up when you are not too lazy to google "youth leaving church" for your own slothful a$$.

    http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2008/1...ny-yout-1.html

    http://www.crossexamined.org/

    http://mondaymorninginsight.com/inde...r_high_school/
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    You DO realize your own statistics prove your other statement wrong?

    70%: LifeWay Research study in 2007 (LifeWay also found only 35% eventually return)
    Then, sometime after they get married, begin a family, have responsibilities and experience trying to deal with the realities of life, they see the futility of a meaningless, Godless life, and return to the church.
    *BUZZER* WRONG! After they become educated, most don't return to the church and such bible thumping ways. Frankly, considering you proved atheism/liberal religious belief is on the rise, I'm very happy being wrong about the 70% statistic not existing.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Read all the articles. My stats were an estimated average of the many articles you can find on this topic with the numbers ranging far and wide and coming to different conclusions.

    You have to take into account the axe grinding manipulations and alarmists crying wolf. The obvious thing is that a high percentage of youths leave the church when they also leave home. But many eventually return.

    This is evidenced by other stats which show church attendance remains fairly constant. Any idiot could figure out that if you were losing 70-80 percent of your youthful attenders, church attendance would drop dramatically in rather short order.

    And if your recidivism rate was only 35 percent, again, average attendance would, again, show a dramatic decrease in short order. That is not happening.

    If you google "church attendance trends," you will find numbers all over the board on this, too. And, again, you have to consider the source and what axe they are grinding and adjust their claims accordingly or try to find a middle ground.

    It is clear that church attendance has declined in the last 50 years, but that must be considered in conjuction with the statistics which show that the number of people who believe in some spiritual essence has increased. (Sheesh, one Pew poll showed 21 percent of atheists believe in God, indicating that a lot of people have no idea what they believe.)

    My take on this is that people are being less attracted to traditional church environments for whatever reasons. But then you must counter with the fact that the Mormon church is considered by some studies to be the fastest growing church. While mainstream Christianity rejects LDS as a church with some seriously faulty doctrines, LDS does represent a fairly conservative approach to social issues similar to mainstream Christianity.

    I do not think it wise to attempt to use any of these statistical studies or polls to support personal views. You can only throw them out and suggest what they might show or not show.

    But you aren't ever going to get the straight poop from one study or poll. You need to read several including those from axe grinders on both sides of the issue and those which should be somewhat neutral such as the Pew, Gallup and Harris polls. But even they are not immune to some slanting.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    Honestly, dayton, I really liked this post. I liked it so much there's not much I can point out as being wrong. Your analysis seems decent. One thing, though:

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    And if your recidivism rate was only 35 percent, again, average attendance would, again, show a dramatic decrease in short order. That is not happening.
    Unless births were high enough to compensate. Chances are, they are. Also, all of these statistics tend to be church specific. Conversions happen almost all the time, and may also make up for it. The only way to exclude this effect would be to examine all popular churches at the same time, or possibly include conversion rates and birth rates within that church.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Lynx-Fox says:

    Most people come to religion because they are taught religion as a child.
    Oh geeze, here we go with this old fallacious bromide again.

    Statistics show that approximately 70 to 80 percent of the youth brought up in the church leave the church almost as soon as they get out of the family nest to go to college or take up life on their own.

    Then, sometime after they get married, begin a family, have responsibilities and experience trying to deal with the realities of life, they see the futility of a meaningless, Godless life, and return to the church.
    You aren't even trying to address the same issue. People in college loose a lot of their former routines, they stop playing musical instruments for example, but that doesn't mean they stopped being religious or lost their skill for music. After they settle down most return to a church of the same religion because they finally have a stable routine and want to raise their kids in the pattern and model similar to how they were raised. It certainly isn't evidence of an objective review of all religions (or lack there of) which would be indicated if most of them returned to a church of a completely different religion or branch.

    You're also just addressing the US trends, not the much larger global trends which are also brought in the terrible vid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Lynx-Fox says:

    Most people come to religion because they are taught religion as a child.
    Oh geeze, here we go with this old fallacious bromide again.

    Statistics show that approximately 70 to 80 percent of the youth brought up in the church leave the church almost as soon as they get out of the family nest to go to college or take up life on their own.

    Then, sometime after they get married, begin a family, have responsibilities and experience trying to deal with the realities of life, they see the futility of a meaningless, Godless life, and return to the church. The question becomes: do they return to religion because of their upbringing or because of the emptiness of their atheistic or agnostic life.
    So, once again, you present that fallacious argument, even though you were shown it was fallacious. Well done, dayton.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    if you want to add personal experience to that statistic, i would say about 90% of my church friends, people i grew up with (we are talking about 18 years here and not those who moved away), left the church in their teens or as soon as they could.

    this does not mean that at some point later in their lives they did not return to attending church but they did leave for a long time.

    But thathas nothing to do with intelligence. what non-believers foregt is that God has given everone a certain amount of intelligence, and what the people do with it, how they develope it is up to them. a non-religious person is NOT smarter than a religious person, they have just exercised their ability of free choice and rejected jesus as their savior.

    In reality, that decision makes them quite stupid not intelligent. there are quite brilliant religious people, ravi zacharias comes to mind, (google him).

    it is completely ridiculous to make such comments 'non-religious people are smarter...' as that just shows ignorance, arrogance and whatever other negative you want to put in there. All of which makes a person very unintelligent.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Personal experience is irrelevant. Moreover, what science has shown us is that the general trend is that the more religious one is the less intelligent they are. That is to say, the most conservative (i.e. fundamentalist) religious believers trend toward the low end of the intelligence scale. Less conservative religious adherents, agnostics, and atheists trend towards higher cognitive function.


    In addition, no one is disputing in this thread that brilliant, intelligent, or even genius religious adherents do not exist. Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins are but two that I can think of just off the top of my head. The argument is, however, that the degree of religious fanatism is negatively correlated to intelligence. The more fundamentally religious a person is, the less intelligent he/she is likely to be.

    Comments like archy's above show an inability to comprehend logical/reasoned argumentation and think critically and, ironically, exemplify the results of the Nyborg study I discussed on the previous page.

    @Daytonturner: in your "statistics" (I'm at work and haven't had the opportunity to follow your links yet), how are the non-churched differentiated from the non-religious? I've reviewed many studies and polls conducted by Barna, Pew, Gallop, etc. but in all cases I can think of there is no differentiation between "unchurched" or "non-churched" and those who are non-religious or godless. There are some great studies done on church demographics which show increases and declines in church attendence, but even these don't account for cross-denominational and multi-denominational attendence or even attendence between churches of the same or similar denomination (there are people who attend multiple churches for various reasons -familial, social, fads, etc.).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    what science has shown us is that the general trend is that the more religious one is the less intelligent they are.
    shouldn't that be the other way round ? the less intelligent will be in a poor position to appreciate the strengths of science, and hence are more likely to embrace religion as an alternative to it ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    what science has shown us is that the general trend is that the more religious one is the less intelligent they are.
    shouldn't that be the other way round ? the less intelligent will be in a poor position to appreciate the strengths of science, and hence are more likely to embrace religion as an alternative to it ?
    I think we're saying the same thing:


    More Religious-------------------Less Intelligence
    |
    |
    |
    |
    |
    |
    |
    V
    Less Religious-------------------More Intelligence
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    it's just that i'm questioning which is cause and which effect
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    it's just that i'm questioning which is cause and which effect
    They reinforce each other I'd say.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    it's just that i'm questioning which is cause and which effect
    I'm just speaking to the correlation and the correlation only. In social systems like this, where religio-magical institutions and cultural traditions are constructed by society, the causes/effects are likely to be complex and systems in themselves.

    In all likelihood, the correlation between conservative religiosity and lower than average cognitive function are complex systems including feedback loops. In instances where cognitive funciton is congenital, it's probable that this is conducive for challenges or even deficits in critical thinking, abstract thinking, etc., making religious superstition appealing for explaining the universe and relying on for worldview.

    But its also probable that intense indoctrination in conservative religious cults like Pentacostalism, The Assembly of God, etc. result in impeded or retarded critical thought and basic scientific understanding.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    in short, it's a vicious circle
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,220
    [quote="daytonturner"]Lynx-Fox says:


    Then, sometime after they get married, begin a family, have responsibilities and experience trying to deal with the realities of life, they see the futility of a meaningless, Godless life, and return to the church.
    Hmm, I'm 50, married, and raised a child. I myself was raised in a church-going family, but turned agnostic, but never once felt my life futile or meaningless or felt any urge to return to the Church.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Lynx-Fox says:


    Then, sometime after they get married, begin a family, have responsibilities and experience trying to deal with the realities of life, they see the futility of a meaningless, Godless life, and return to the church.
    Hmm, I'm 50, married, and raised a child. I myself was raised in a church-going family, but turned agnostic, but never once felt my life futile or meaningless or felt any urge to return to the Church.
    likewise

    why should you assume that people will turn to god when they grow old and fearful ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Personal experience is irrelevant. Moreover, what science has shown us is that the general trend is that the more religious one is the less intelligent they are. That is to say, the most conservative (i.e. fundamentalist) religious believers trend toward the low end of the intelligence scale. Less conservative religious adherents, agnostics, and atheists trend towards higher cognitive function.
    Skinwalker proves here that non-religious people aren't that smart. Where does he think 'science' or scientists get their data? from their rear-ends? NO, from observing someone's personal experience.

    also, observations from one's personal experience is NOT irrelevant because they are witnesing an event with their own eyes and it is NOT second hand information. they are just doing it in a manner skinwalker does not approve.

    I would like to point out the using the words 'religious' or 'religion' doesn't mean that the topic is limited to those ideas concerning church groups and cults.

    Ask oxford states in definition #2: 2 treated or regarded with care and devotion appropriate to worship.

    which can be applied to one's attitude towards their car. (etc.)

    and the oxford advanced learner's dictionary in definition #3:

    "a particular interest or influence that is very important in your life"

    Thus to say that one is less intelligent because they are religious means that einstein was NOT that smart. So this whole thread is just one big hate crime as it seeks to attack the intelligence of those who believe in God.

    it also shows the prejudice of those who claim NO belief in any god or God and makes them less intelligent than those they wish to attack.

    NOW it is a given that many spiritual people do NOT develope the intelligence God gave them (palin) BUT that does NOT mean they are less intelligent than atheists or agnostics, it just means that they are lazy. of course we could apply the same attacks to those unbelievers who only watch t.v. and apply what they see on screen to real life but that would be attacking those who are lazy as unbelievers.

    it is clear that the people who say religious people are less intelligent are just looking for an excuse to make personal attacks against christians in a legitimate setting.

    (notice i did not attack skinwalker there, like he does me)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    [quote="archaeologist"]So this whole thread is just one big hate crime as it seeks to attack the intelligence of those who believe in God.[quote]
    No one is proposing violence against anyone with this thread...if anyone perceives it that way that need a serious reality check. It's even a bit creepy given its the say type of argument make by our enemies which are laying IEDs against us.




    it is clear that the people who say religious people are less intelligent are just looking for an excuse to make personal attacks against christians in a legitimate setting.
    It's considerably broader than just Christianity.

    I do agree though I don't think there's any kind of link between IQ and theism. There is most definitely a link between secular education, which is a component of standard IQ test and Western Education, and theism.

    --
    I was raised Catholic, but rejected faith as I started to learn sciences (like many other scientist I know), and never returned. Most of my associates assume I'm religious--a confounding observation but I even consider myself quite spiritual, though a firm atheist. One of my closest friends is a Chaplain, which makes for excellent conversations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Personal experience is irrelevant. Moreover, what science has shown us is that the general trend is that the more religious one is the less intelligent they are. That is to say, the most conservative (i.e. fundamentalist) religious believers trend toward the low end of the intelligence scale. Less conservative religious adherents, agnostics, and atheists trend towards higher cognitive function.
    Skinwalker proves here that non-religious people aren't that smart. Where does he think 'science' or scientists get their data? from their rear-ends? NO, from observing someone's personal experience.
    LOL. You're confusing anecdote with objective data. In the case of the Nyborg study, the data are collected from intelligence tests administered to many teens in high school -namely the ASVAB and CAT exams which establish baseline g. These instruments are correlated to the religious affiliations of those that took them and the correlation is made.

    Not personal experience (a.k.a. anecdote) but objective evaluation of available data collected with an impartial and unrelated agenda (ASVAB, for instance, is used for placing potential service members in military occupational specialties).

    also, observations from one's personal experience is NOT irrelevant because they are witnesing an event with their own eyes and it is NOT second hand information. they are just doing it in a manner skinwalker does not approve.
    They are anecdotes. Worthless as data and considered the worst possible source of information. They're valuable to those with lower cognitive function, however, since it requires less abstract thought. For instance, big foot believers, UFO nutters, and those who think astrology works each rely heavily on anecdotal accounts.

    I would like to point out the using the words 'religious' or 'religion' doesn't mean that the topic is limited to those ideas concerning church groups and cults.
    I'm happy to see that we agree. This is basically what I was pointing out in earlier posts. One need not be belong to a church or other specific cult to be superstitious and conservatively religious.

    Thus to say that one is less intelligent because they are religious means that einstein was NOT that smart. So this whole thread is just one big hate crime as it seeks to attack the intelligence of those who believe in God.
    "Thus," suggests that you are concluding a logical argument, however, your premises are deeply flawed. Even if Einstein was religious, it doesn't follow that a single outlier (or even a handful) would be enough to invalidate the statistical results of the trend. In addition, its also clear that you didn't actually read either my summary of the study or subsequent posts sufficiently since the conclusion is that there is a negative correlation between conservative religiosity and cognitive function. Meaning, that those who are most conservative (i.e. fundamentalist) in their religious beliefs are more likely to be of low intelligence than those of more liberal, or no, religious adherence.

    Therefore, it is completely expected within the results of the study to find very smart and intelligent people who are religious. Indeed, the more intelligent groups were actually religious with agnostics and atheists in a close, statistical third. Fundamentalists groups (i.e. nutters that think evolution isn't an accurate explanation for life, that Noah rode out a flood, that the bible is inerrant, etc.) scored worse of all on intelligence tests.

    it also shows the prejudice of those who claim NO belief in any god or God and makes them less intelligent than those they wish to attack.
    A confidence statement to which you have not demonstrated. At all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    No one is proposing violence against anyone with this thread...if anyone perceives it that way that need a serious reality check. It's even a bit creepy given its the say type of argument make by our enemies which are laying IEDs against us.
    Woud you please double check your grammar and spelling because the last half makes no sense whatsoever.

    also, i did not say anything about violence but was referring to the attitude behind this thread. It is clearly targeting a certain group of people simply because they hold spiritual religious beliefs.

    You're confusing anecdote with objective data.
    Not at all and skywalker's 'labelling' of my example distorts what is being said. I am not going to take the time to refute what he has said because he has a blind belief IN science and nothing I say will make a difference to him.

    Even if Einstein was religious
    the above quote is why 'assumption' and 'informed assumption' are dangerous. i never claimed that Einstein was SPIRITUALLY religious. yet skinwalker assumes something not in evidence and that is just wrong and lead him down the wrong path.

    if people would take the time to read the quoted definitions, they would see that even the love of science and it being important to Eintstein or other scientists makes one 'religious'. such a definition does NOT imply spiritual beliefs whatsoever and it would be wrong to insert such thinking into comments made that have excluded SPIRITUAL beliefs from the person being used as an example.

    Also, i ignore skinwaker's limited perspective on what science or scientific work is or does and it would be fruitless to rebut someone who is very closed-minded.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    No one is proposing violence against anyone with this thread...if anyone perceives it that way that need a serious reality check. It's even a bit creepy given its the say type of argument make by our enemies which are laying IEDs against us.
    Woud you please double check your grammar and spelling because the last half makes no sense whatsoever.
    sure....

    It's even a bit creepy given it's the same type of argument made by our enemies which are laying IEDs (improved explosive devices) against us.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    close, allow me...

    "It's even a bit creepy given it's the same type of argument made by our enemies whom are using IEDs (improved explosive devices) against us."

    (I guess I have too much time on my hands... might as well become forum editor)
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Uhhh, not to get overly picky, but it should be who since it is the subject of the adjective phrase modifying enemies. Also, it is improvised explosive devices not "improved."

    Somewhere back there someone was claiming that there is a concerted effort on this forum for the non-believers to assert that they are smarter than the believers. If this forum alone were the criteria for such a study, I am not certain our atheist friends would average out better than our believing friends.

    Why don't we all get together in Fiji or Samoa or someplace like that, take an IQ test and settle this thing once and for all?
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Why don't we all get together in Fiji or Samoa or someplace like that, take an IQ test and settle this thing once and for all?
    If you're buying, I'm flying!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Not at all and skywalker's 'labelling' of my example distorts what is being said. I am not going to take the time to refute what he has said because he has a blind belief IN science and nothing I say will make a difference to him.
    Oh come on archaeologist! That is a lame copout. Though, skirting issues is your whole modus operandi, so it is not much of a surprise.

    Thus to say that one is less intelligent because they are religious means that einstein was NOT that smart. So this whole thread is just one big hate crime as it seeks to attack the intelligence of those who believe in God.
    As has been pointed out, this is a stupid statement. The study showed that religious people are more likely to be less intelligent as measured by the particular tests employed. It does not mean they are all stupid or that all atheists are intelligent. You are just too used to dealing in absolutes I guess.

    Now, instead of flinging accusations around and resorting to ad hominems, would you care to comment on the data itself? Do you think it was falsified deliberately by the children of Satan in order to attack Gods faithful people?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Oh come on archaeologist! That is a lame copout. Though, skirting issues is your whole modus operandi, so it is not much of a surprise.
    You would be wrong as usual. I was at my place of employment and did not have time to deal with the post and i should be gone all weekend , so i doubt you will hear from me.

    As has been pointed out, this is a stupid statement. The study showed that religious people are more likely to be less intelligent as measured by the particular tests employed
    The bias of those tests need to be taken into considerationas do the type of questions asked. it was once discussed, this was years ago so the source is gone, why Blacks failed or did so poorly on I.Ql. tests.

    Turns out the I.Q. tests were geared towards white people and their cultural norms and did not represent a true intelligence test. it was offered that if the I.Q. tests included questions that pertained to items familiar to the Black population then you would see their scores rise.

    BUT to offer you an explanation to the quoted portion above, if it were true the reasons are two-fold; 1. some intelligent people woud see no need for a savior or think they were too smart to believe in a God you could not see or prove existed. Plus they would reject, lik eyou all, the act of faith because they would seek physical roof, like the apostle thomas, before believing.
    2. the less intelligent people would gravitate towards the church because they would receive unconditional acceptance for who they were, they would NOT be put down for being less intelligent and they could contribute without fear of reprisal.

    it is basically the same reason you find more fat, ugly women in a church than slender beautiful ones--the fat ones get the love and acceptance they need while the slender ones get allthe want and more outside of the church.

    Now you may disagree with those words but they are valid and based upon sources other than myself. unfortunately, it has been awhile since i have read those studies and cannot recall the source titles.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    You would be wrong as usual. I was at my place of employment and did not have time to deal with the post and i should be gone all weekend , so i doubt you will hear from me.
    Those are not the reasons you gave.

    As for the second part of your post: Bravo! Now we have something reasonable to discuss. You make good points that deserve consideration.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Those are not the reasons you gave
    do you think I have only 1? am i not allowed to have more than 1?

    i see no one discussed the points, oh well.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    I would side with Arch here, he's made a very good point. A direct connection between 'faith' and 'intelligence' may be a very hard line to draw. I'd say there's a tendency for those who are less intelligent to 'find religion' as a means to cope with life. labeling faith in and of itself as a breeder for lesser intelligence, well, that would be wrong. Religion, in this respect, can be extended to all manner of denominations, and even cults, as they are accepting of all people (usually) and nurture the desire to be loved and accepted in people.

    Many of the most intelligent people born to this planet were raised in a faith-based environment, even if later in life they ceased to beleive, they still had the upbringing. I'd rate a person who has faith as just as likely to be the next Einstien, or Hawking, as any person who isn't a believer. However, I'd also make the argument that the more extreme an individual's faith (or lack thereof) would have a direct correlation on open-mindedness. A deeply faithful, 'career' christian, I'd say, is much more likely to be closed minded than a christian who is less faithful, a 'casual' christian. And the carrer christian is just as likely to be closed minded as the extremist Atheist, the fundamental muslim, and all manner of other extreme.

    Intelligence, may be loosely connected to religion in this respect, but may also be more of a product of the 'closed-minded' factor. My examples; (Q), Archy, and Verzen. all three of them are INCREDIBLY extreme in their worldly and moral views, each a bit different, and, as I have interacted with each of them, very closed-minded. No offense ment, it's just the way they are.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathamatition
    Many of the most intelligent people born to this planet were raised in a faith-based environment, even if later in life they ceased to beleive, they still had the upbringing. I'd rate a person who has faith as just as likely to be the next Einstien, or Hawking, as any person who isn't a believer. However, I'd also make the argument that the more extreme an individual's faith (or lack thereof) would have a direct correlation on open-mindedness. A deeply faithful, 'career' christian, I'd say, is much more likely to be closed minded than a christian who is less faithful, a 'casual' christian. And the carrer christian is just as likely to be closed minded as the extremist Atheist, the fundamental muslim, and all manner of other extreme.
    That just isn't right! Consider quantum physicist John Polkinghorne which has gone full time into the Anglican ministry. Let us say instead that those who have given their whole life from beginning to end to the study and work of one religion and only that are probably not going to be all that interested in science or other religions. But that is of course practically a tautology --- OF COURSE they are not interested because otherwise they would have made different choices for their life, duh!

    This of course means that you need to makes some distinction here between narrow mindedness and narrowness of interest - and THAT may be a rather difficult thing to do in practice.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    However, I'd also make the argument that the more extreme an individual's faith (or lack thereof) would have a direct correlation on open-mindedness. A deeply faithful, 'career' christian, I'd say, is much more likely to be closed minded than a christian who is less faithful, a 'casual' christian.
    the term 'closed-minded' needs to stop being genralized and applied with a wide brush. it is used too often as a derogatory remark to bash another person. In some cases it applies but when one uses it with a christian they must take the time to investigate why the person is refusing to listen to your points.

    For some, like me, when we found the truth, we go with it and we do NOT need to re-address all the issues all over again. we do not need to struggle with things just because another person is struggling with them, w have found the answer and we will stick with that and not question any more.

    what the non-religious world does not comprehend is that there is an answer, there is an end to struggling, there is a finish to questioning because we were OPEN-MINDED enough to accept the truth long before meeting the next atheist or unbeliever.

    We do not listen to others, not because we are closed-minded, but because we do not have nor want to return to the ways we have left. When you find the answer, or the truth, one does not continue in questioning, struggling or whatever--you have a choice and once you accept the answers your struggle is complete and you now trod a different path.

    narrow mindedness
    same as above. also, the person leveling the charges must take the time to realize that the rejection given to their arguments is NOT always due to being narrow-minded but because the other person has found the truth and they do not have to rehash everything all over again.

    to assume and accuse is a wrongful act on the part of the accuser and assumer not the person rejecting the argument.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    My examples; (Q), Archy, and Verzen. all three of them are INCREDIBLY extreme in their worldly and moral views, each a bit different, and, as I have interacted with each of them, very closed-minded. No offense ment, it's just the way they are.
    It is quite clear that the inclusion of members names and not using outside examples is a form of bashing and trying to get around the rules.

    Arcane shows he has no comprehension of what being 'closed-minded' really is and assumes everyone must be like him, roaming around in the dark, ignoring the way out. True christians do not need to roam, we have the light to lead us and we do not need to question because we have found the answer.

    We do not need to remain at square one but grow in knowledge and learn more of what is right or wrong, avoiding what is wrong so we do not get snared in evil once again. We do not have to be wondering what is right because we know what is right and we are NOt closed-minded because we reject untruths, we are standing firm in our beliefs and not compromising them to appease a few who belong to the blind leading the blind group.

    Those who level the 'closed-minded' false accusation need to stop looking at the situation solely from their unbelieving and narrow-minded viewpoint and learn that there is more to life than their way and their ideas. the answer is out there you just refuse to allow it to change your lives.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    and we do not need to question because we have found the answer.
    If you truly believe that you found the answer to life, the universe, and everything then you are blind to what reality is. Our perception of reality constantly changes when we obtain new information. Why live your life willfully in ignorance?
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    and we do not need to question because we have found the answer.
    If you truly believe that you found the answer to life, the universe, and everything then you are blind to what reality is. Our perception of reality constantly changes when we obtain new information. Why live your life willfully in ignorance?
    Not even worth the time to rebut. I am not going to address insults and personal attacks.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    If you truly believe that you found the answer to life, the universe, and everything then you are blind to what reality is. Our perception of reality constantly changes when we obtain new information. Why live your life willfully in ignorance?
    I agree with Verzen on this issue.

    the term 'closed-minded' needs to stop being genralized and applied with a wide brush. it is used too often as a derogatory remark to bash another person. In some cases it applies but when one uses it with a christian they must take the time to investigate why the person is refusing to listen to your points.
    Being able to adjust a world view is being open minded. Being unable to adjust the world view is close minded. Christians or people of other faiths do not get a free walk on this term.

    What are we supposed to be doing here? Do we have to state:

    You are close minded on an issue unless there are extenuating circumstances which may include, but are not limited to ... blah blah blah?

    I am willing to accept "I am going to disregard this information because my faith does not allow me to see the world as it is."

    What is odd is when close minded people state something like "My eyes are closed and I refuse to acknowledge, but I'm certainly not close minded on this subject." Sometimes this is followed up with, "because god told me so."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57 Re: Non-religous are more intelligent than religous 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    I will agree that the Old Testament DUMBS people down to a cartoon level because it is a creation of the human mind while on the other hand , the study of Nature and what it teaches is much more informative and beneficial.

    After all, all these conveniences we have are copies of Nature like airplanes (birds), boats (water fowl), submaries (fish), dams (beavers), military tanks
    (turtles), sonar and radar (dolphins and bats) and there are some others not so obvious.

    So what did the OT invent?
    Ham sandwiches (AbraHAM, Ismael and Isaac) and the hot dog (jewish 6 pointed star of David).
    So these two fast foods are the standard in the US.

    So eat your fruit and veggies instead.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathamatition
    Many of the most intelligent people born to this planet were raised in a faith-based environment, even if later in life they ceased to beleive, they still had the upbringing. I'd rate a person who has faith as just as likely to be the next Einstien, or Hawking, as any person who isn't a believer. However, I'd also make the argument that the more extreme an individual's faith (or lack thereof) would have a direct correlation on open-mindedness. A deeply faithful, 'career' christian, I'd say, is much more likely to be closed minded than a christian who is less faithful, a 'casual' christian. And the carrer christian is just as likely to be closed minded as the extremist Atheist, the fundamental muslim, and all manner of other extreme.
    That just isn't right! Consider quantum physicist John Polkinghorne which has gone full time into the Anglican ministry. Let us say instead that those who have given their whole life from beginning to end to the study and work of one religion and only that are probably not going to be all that interested in science or other religions. But that is of course practically a tautology --- OF COURSE they are not interested because otherwise they would have made different choices for their life, duh!

    This of course means that you need to makes some distinction here between narrow mindedness and narrowness of interest - and THAT may be a rather difficult thing to do in practice.
    okay... if I don't really care about science, I wouldn't bother to argue the points made through out science, would ? narrowness of interest is more like that, where a narrow minded individual feels the need to spout "I'm Right! You're Wrong! So myuu!!" I don't think a large number of people who follow religion and are deeply ingrained in their religion really care about science, and thus don't bother to learn it, but rather, many either care enough to say 'God has all the answers' or challenge it. the 'God has all the answers' group represent the narrowminded situation that I was talking about. Very focused on putting all aspects of life in one nice neat bag. the portion that could hear about evolution, or the big bang, or anyother aspect fo science, and go 'yeah yeah yeah, that's nice' would be the people who are focused on interest. I guess the distinction I'm making is that application of ignorance is what makes a person narrow minded. Not caring about a subject shows disinterest, and would warrent the label willfully ignorant to the point of dont give a crap...

    Archy, I used the names from the forum because they are what we all know, and all relate to, not as an attack on you for being who you are. You can't change who you are, nothing can, and nothing ever will. You can only descover more about yourself than you previously knew. BUT, so that you won't be too mad at me, I'll go a step further, and label people outside of the forum to illustrate my point better:

    NarrowMinded
    • Christopher Hitchens
      Sam Harris
      The Pope
      Michel Onfrey
      *most other notable atheists
      James Ussher
      The Pope
      *most fundamentalist religious figures
      *all YEC's, by definition.


    Open Minded
    • Indiru Ghandi
      Muhatma(can't spell his name for crap) Ghandi
      Most Children
      Most Students
      Julia Sweeney
      Albert Einstein
      Thomas Edison
      Brian Greene
      Maya Angelou


    If I must say more, I'll find more. I know more atheists than outspoken christians, so I naturally listed more atheist names. On the whole, Any fundamentalist is, by definition, narrowminded. And I don't know any outspoken atheists who are openminded, nor outspoken christians who are openminded.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Not even worth the time to rebut. I am not going to address insults and personal attacks.
    You just did.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathamatition
    And I don't know any outspoken atheists who are openminded, nor outspoken christians who are openminded.
    I think Einstien, Hawkings, Ursula Goodenough and many other scientist would fall into that category. By common definition of some personal god, or greater intelligence guiding things, they are atheist, though they might use the term "god" to describe the sum total physical laws of our universe. Some scientist avoid the term though--calling themselves naturalist to avoid the politically charged language or to avoid misunderstanding. The Dalai Lama would probably qualify as well...and think their question about whether he was an atheist, not even worth asking or thinking about due to lack of tangible evidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    hokie said:

    Being able to adjust a world view is being open minded. Being unable to adjust the world view is close minded. Christians or people of other faiths do not get a free walk on this term.

    What are we supposed to be doing here? Do we have to state:

    You are close minded on an issue unless there are extenuating circumstances which may include, but are not limited to ... blah blah blah?

    I am willing to accept "I am going to disregard this information because my faith does not allow me to see the world as it is."

    What is odd is when close minded people state something like "My eyes are closed and I refuse to acknowledge, but I'm certainly not close minded on this subject." Sometimes this is followed up with, "because god told me so."
    I would agree that we, as Christians, have a narrow view, but necessarily so. If one believes there is only one God and there is only one way to have a relationship with Him, how could we have a broad view which includes multiple Gods, no God, or multiple ways to have a relationship with him? It is not that we have refused to consider those possibilities. I readily agree those are possibilities in a universe of infinite possibilities. But having considered them, I have rejected them.

    Anytime one has a view which he thinks is correct, he will necessarily have a narrow view. If you do not believe in God and are convinced you are right, how could you have any other view? I cannot see how it is OK for you to have a narrow view, but not for me.

    But even having a narrow view is not the same as being narrow minded and being narrow minded is not the same as being closed minded. The reason we have these three terms is because they are different concepts. If they were the same, we would have only one term. The fact that some people ignorantly use them interchangeably does not alter their meanings.

    To say one has a narrow view is a description what is believed; narrow minded is a description of how it is believed. One reflects on the belief while the other reflects on the person.

    It is likely that a person who does not have a narrow view probably doesn't have any view at all! This, of course, is rationalism in which everybody is right so long as it doesn't offend something you believe.

    Actually, a person who adjusts to every world view available would be sorely confused and directionless -- much like it would appear hokie is.

    But that is not the same as being closed-minded which suggests unwillingness to listen to and/or consider other views. If an atheist is truly open minded, he must consider and agree that there is the possibility that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the God of the universe and that Jesus Christ is His son and the rest of the gospel story. But, of course, that removes you from the school of atheism and puts you into the category of agnostic.

    A truly open-minded person would consider that, among all the possibilities in the universe, what Christians believe could be true and respect them for it even if it is not the possibility that you believe.

    Are there closed minded and narrow minded Christians? Certainly. And since there are a lot more Christians than atheists, there are probably more who are narrow minded or close minded.

    Virtually every comment you made is more reflective of the statement you made than it is on what you were commenting on. But what is so sad, is that you probably do not realize the hypocrisy of the statements.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Basically what atheists and other non-believers are saying--'because you do not believe or act like me, you are closed-minded'

    Which is far from the truth. We believers were once like you and have since made a decision to follow a certain path, which happens to be JEsus and the truth. We can no longer 'BE LIKE YOU' because we have made a choice and will stick with that decision.

    We have the right to choose what we want to accept and believe, you do not have the right to deny that choice nor ridicule us for it. If you refuse to make the same decision then that is your choice and your right. Do not deny to some what you practice yourself.

    I can't add anything to what dayton has said as he has said it elequently enough.

    What i see from arcane's and other's position is a weak attempt to drag down those who have found the truth and bring them back to their level of following whatever feels good. It has its roots in jealousy as we have something they do not, we have peace of mind, the truth, and a direction with Someone who is more powerful than they.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    An atheist can accept the possibility of christianity without being agnostic. Agnosticism(is this really a word?) would be more accepting that maybe there is a god, maybe there isn't, but not welling on the matter. An atheist dwells, and comes up with the ideal 'there isn't a god until I see there is proof that there is a god.' that's the interpretive difference in my mind.

    Archy, you are exemplifying what I mean. You choose to go the path of the judeo-christian god, and refuse the validity of anything else. you saw the 'Truth' of Jesus, and labeled him Christ. it is a choice, but not one I'm jealous of.

    I want to question.
    I want to see what really is there.
    I can't stand the idea that we really know everything there is to know (Goddidit).
    It pains me to know there are people out there willing to throw away the gift that God gave them, the ability to reason and question, for the interest of accepting what they are told.
    Label me however you like, form whatever preconcieved notions you want, and by all means disregard everything I say; it will never change what is, and what is not.
    The world is a mystery, and it's yours to solve, and I suppose you've solved all the mystery you want to, but don't call me jealous because I didn't solve it the same way. I enjoy the mental stimulation that comes with a puzzle, and I cherish the very idea of attempting to figure it out. Why would I want to accept your world view, unconditionally, as if it's perfect? It has never looked perfect to me, so how am I jealous?

    and a side-bar, christians say it too, quit acting like you're culture's shit don't stink.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Archy said:

    I want to question.
    I want to see what really is there.
    We've already gone through that process and you chastise us for finding what we believe is really there?????

    You may find something else you believe to be true and you will, no doubt, attempt to convince us that you have found what is really there.

    That is all we are doing.

    If I found a way for anyone to make a million bucks, what would you have me do -- keep it to myself? And if I told you, what would you do, go on a continued self search for a way to make a million bucks?

    We believe that salvation through Jesus Christ assures those who accept it of an eternal life in the home of a holy, loving and righteous God. Why would we not want to share that news? It is far more valuable than a million bucks. And why would we now consider other alternatives?

    Maybe we are NOT, as a group, as intelligent as atheists, but neither are we so stupid as to keep looking after we have found what we were searching for and longing for -- a relationship with our creator, the eternal living God.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    So if I have a narrow view of the world, but can alter that narrow view to reflect new knowledge about the world doesn't that suggest being open minded?

    Actually, a person who adjusts to every world view available would be sorely confused and directionless -- much like it would appear hokie is.
    That is well said daytonturner, but wrong. I do not adjust to every world view. What I do is adjust my world view based on new evidence.

    Let's begin with the supposition that I am an atheist. So I do not believe in god. Being open minded does not mean that I have to accept the possibility that god exists. Since there is no evidence of god I do not consider that part of my world view. Hence I am still an atheist. Then, suppose one day evidence of god is revealed to me. At that point changing my world view is based on evidence. Unless that happens I can stay an atheist. To reject the evidence and to remain an atheist is the sort of close minded attitude we are discussing here isn' it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Archy said:

    I want to question.
    I want to see what really is there.
    We've already gone through that process and you chastise us for finding what we believe is really there?????

    You may find something else you believe to be true and you will, no doubt, attempt to convince us that you have found what is really there.

    That is all we are doing.

    If I found a way for anyone to make a million bucks, what would you have me do -- keep it to myself? And if I told you, what would you do, go on a continued self search for a way to make a million bucks?

    We believe that salvation through Jesus Christ assures those who accept it of an eternal life in the home of a holy, loving and righteous God. Why would we not want to share that news? It is far more valuable than a million bucks. And why would we now consider other alternatives?

    Maybe we are NOT, as a group, as intelligent as atheists, but neither are we so stupid as to keep looking after we have found what we were searching for and longing for -- a relationship with our creator, the eternal living God.
    you consider because it's what makes you human. you consider because it's what I feel is the way to understand. You ACCEPT other views, you consider them, you give them the respect they deserve, and then you come to the conclusion that yours is better. I didn't chastise you, but you put those words in my mouth.

    You found a way to make a million bucks, I'll look into it. let's say I found a better way, a faster way, would you consider my path? Or would you stick to your own? The Idea behind the continued questioning is to find perfection, the unattainable perfect senario. I doubt very much, by the way you said that, that you WOULD continue to search. the example is the same, and your salvation isn't necessarily what everyone wants. if it's right for you then, hell, go for it. But me, I can't unconditionally accept it. You will. so you are narrowminded because I can't show you another path that you will respect, consider, or even evaluate as having ANY merit. BUT, you will show me salvation, and I'll look at it. I'll evaluate it. I'll respect your THEORY for what it is. But I will NOT accept it as the 'ultimate' answer. I can't find anything wrong with it, but I can't question it either, because my questions go either unanswered or unwelcomed.

    oh, my name is ARCANE. NOT ARCHY
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    arcane sed

    then you come to the conclusion that yours is better.
    And, of course, you do not feel yours is better? Which is why you object to mine. You do not see the irony and hypocrisy of such a statement. Of course, I think mine is better. If I thought yours was better, I would change, wouldn't I? If you didn't think yours was better, you would change.


    arcane wrote:


    I didn't chastise you, but you put those words in my mouth.
    No those were my words of evaluation of your statements. It seemed to me you were chastising Christians for having found what you seem to be looking for.

    Arcane had said earlier:
    It pains me to know there are people out there willing to throw away the gift that God gave them, the ability to reason and question, for the interest of accepting what they are told.
    Sadly, it is you who is throwing away the free gift of eternal life which God offers and which we Christians have accepted. I am not sure what it is you think we are told to do as though you do not follow any life instructions. As though you have made up your own code of conduct from a vacuum.

    We Christians are also creatures of free will who act based on what we think is the right thing to do in a specific circumstance based on our knowledge and experience. We question and reason every day. Two thirds of the scientist in the U.S. are believers. Not all Christians, but believers. Do they reason and question less than non believing scientists? How do you decide what to do? Determine what is the worst thing to do, and act accordingly?

    You somehow present the opinion that your way is better, but that I am not entitled to feel the same about my way. Why is that? I respect your right to make the choice you have made in rejecting God. I think you are wrong -- that you have traded eternal life with God for whatever the alternative of eternal death is. But if God has given you that right, I must also do so. Apparently your "god" does not insist you do the same.

    Sorry I called you archy. I hate to have insulted archy that way. Hope the mod does not think that was an ad hominem attack on Archy.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    the alternative is non-existence after death. Quite bleak, but without some evidence that there IS a heaven, or a hell, I feel no reason at all to believe they exist. I'm not telling you that you are wrong. by all means you may be right, I may be wrong. I don't know. I think you are wrong, but I don't KNOW you are wrong. Either way, what it comes down to is the point where you STOP considering. You may stop looking for another way, but when you STOP considering the possibilities that you are wrong, then you are closed-minded. I'm being general, and you are taking what I say as a focused attack. DT is twisting the words I say to make it seem as though I'm assaulting people of faith, when I'm not. Why are you trying to peg down my words?

    When you cease to look at other views as viable, at that point you no longer consider the posibilities of other answers. to use your money making example, it's like winning the lottery, and then going, 'nope, no other way to get a million bucks.' you closed yourself off from other possible methods, not even considering that they may work. THAT is being closedminded. THAT is the point where you cease to be a thinking individual who swallows what you are told by the proponents of your view. I'm not making the case that YOU, personally, apply to this. It's mearly how I define closed-minded individuals.

    You're taking everything I'm saying out of context, and making it an attack on christianity. NO, I'm NOT saying that my way is the best. I'm NOT saying you aren't entitled to feel yours is the best. I'm NOT saying that different rules apply to me, than to you. What I AM saying, is that:

    IF you accept that there is no alternative to God, you are throwing away the ability to question, to think.
    IF you consider that your way is the single, best, most perfect way, then you follow it, and allow others to present to you other ways, that you MUST consider as viable to be openminded. the lack of consideration makes you CLOSEDMINDED, and you will act accordingly.
    now, I find that in any given situation, the best action to take is the one that demonstrates the ability to question, think, and decide. Rather than the fundamental christian ideal of have my decisions made for me by the bible. I will THINK for myself, and come up with the way to behave ON MY OWN. Why should I rely on something I will NEVER experience to guide me? Why allow someone I will never know to decide for me? should I allow YOU, to come up with whats right for me? NO! I respect your OPINION, but's that all it is, and that's all it ever will be. Just like mine, I'm no different. No exceptions.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathamatition
    I'm being general, and you are taking what I say as a focused attack. DT is twisting the words I say to make it seem as though I'm assaulting people of faith, when I'm not. Why are you trying to peg down my words?

    When you cease to look at other views as viable, at that point you no longer consider the posibilities of other answers. to use your money making example, it's like winning the lottery, and then going, 'nope, no other way to get a million bucks.' you closed yourself off from other possible methods, not even considering that they may work. THAT is being closedminded. THAT is the point where you cease to be a thinking individual who swallows what you are told by the proponents of your view. I'm not making the case that YOU, personally, apply to this. It's mearly how I define closed-minded individuals.

    You're taking everything I'm saying out of context, and making it an attack on christianity. NO, I'm NOT saying that my way is the best. I'm NOT saying you aren't entitled to feel yours is the best. I'm NOT saying that different rules apply to me, than to you. What I AM saying, is that:
    BRAVO! A response like this makes it self-evident that what you say is the truth. A person that does not value open-mindedness would not bother with such denials. You deny these accusations because you do value these things and that makes the accusations fall flat on their face.

    The typical response of the truly narrow minded and intolerant person on the other hand will be arguments about how open-mindedness is nonsensical and how tolerance is impossible. I have heard such arguments quite often. They will say that tolerance is illogical because to be tolerant you would have to be tolerant of intolerance. Can you believe that people can spout such garbage?
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    verzen are you actually trying to use this as an argument???

    *shakes head in disbelief*

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    I have been cutting down my time here which is why you do not see me very often simply because both dayton an dI have answered your questions, made good arguments and it is tiring going round and round addressing the same things over and over.

    Most of you are NOT satisfied with the ability of free choice and are nothappy until everyoneis in the same baot as you. Well some of us got off the sinking ship long ago because of God's grace, that doesn't make us less intelligent but very smart for we realized the boat was sinking and took action.

    Sitting there sayionf, 'i want to question this' still leaves you in the boat, in danger and no amount of questioning will save you because you did not take the appropriate action. Your selfish desires are what entraps you as you do not realize that questioning can still take place.

    We need to know how photosynthesizing works, we still need to know how animals feed, and act, as examples. There is nothing wrong with figuting out how to fly. The questioning doesn't stop we just do it differently and attribute the results to the correct source.

    The world is a mystery, and it's yours to solve, and I suppose you've solved all the mystery you want to, but don't call me jealous because I didn't solve it the same way. I enjoy the mental stimulation that comes with a puzzle, and I cherish the very idea of attempting to figure it out. Why would I want to accept your world view, unconditionally, as if it's perfect? It has never looked perfect to me, so how am I jealous?
    Since when is the world 'a mystery'? The world is evidence for God and by examining it we see a lot about God we may not have seen before. I look at the variety of different species and see how creative God is, how detailed he is and so on. it has nothing to do with the world but with God.

    This is where nonbelievers get tripped up. Because of their misconception about God, they scoff and ridicule those who see the world in its proper place because they credit God instead of some 19th century fable. The problem of a closed or narrow mind is not with the Christian but with the unbeliever as they reject the God factor and do not consider that option because they say it interferes with 'science'.

    Science was created by God thus including God does not interfere with science but makes it better, more enjoyable and provides answers not more questions. those who adhere to the modern definition of science fail to realize that that is a human construct and has no application to what real science is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Since when is the world 'a mystery'? The world is evidence for God
    No, sorry, I have to call a logical fallacy on this one.

    The world is no more evidence for god than webcams are evidence for australian chardonnay.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    and by examining it we see a lot about God we may not have seen before. I look at the variety of different species and see how creative God is, how detailed he is and so on. it has nothing to do with the world but with God.
    Yes, god, that alternative solution to any problem. But are you seriously saying that knowing god caused it helps with the treatment of, say, HIV?

    Drugs for use against HIV were made by studying HIV, not by praying or looking for god.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    This is where nonbelievers get tripped up. Because of their misconception about God, they scoff and ridicule those who see the world in its proper place because they credit God instead of some 19th century fable.
    Given the advances in science, I trust the 19th century fable over the 20th century BC myth.

    And are you saying that advances in technology are due to god and not science? I didn't realise you were dillusional.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    The problem of a closed or narrow mind is not with the Christian but with the unbeliever as they reject the God factor and do not consider that option because they say it interferes with 'science'.
    I am open to all evidence.

    You, however, deny evidence which does not back your view up. Don't deny it; we've all seen you do it.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Science was created by God thus including God does not interfere with science but makes it better, more enjoyable and provides answers not more questions.
    UP YOURS, GOD!!!

    Does this mean I will never work in science?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    those who adhere to the modern definition of science fail to realize that that is a human construct and has no application to what real science is.
    Thank-you, Doctor Archie, PhD.

    I'm sure you, as a devout christian, have many 'helpful' contributions to make to science...
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Then, suppose one day evidence of god is revealed to me. At that point changing my world view is based on evidence
    The evidence for God already exists, you just reject it or attribute it to something else. There was a thread on evidence for the Bible and the same thing happens as it always does--people are given what they want and they find some excuse to dismiss it.

    They really do not want evidence, they use that demand to protect themselves from the truth and so they do not have to change their lives.

    You found a way to make a million bucks, I'll look into it
    Right, as soon as getting rich is involved people are very interested yet when their soul is on the line, they find any excuse to ridicule such an idea. it is a step of faith and no matter what evidence is produced because people do not want togive up their lifestyles, they will reject the evidence. even if we found the ark of the convenant or noah's ark, people would question it till they found the excuse they need to reject them.

    BUT, you will show me salvation, and I'll look at it. I'll evaluate it. I'll respect your THEORY for what it is. But I will NOT accept it as the 'ultimate' answer
    Therein lies your problem. you will not accept it for what it is. we have shwn you salvation,it is found in john 3:16 & 17 go and evaluate it and report back to us in a week.

    the alternative is non-existence after death
    No, the truth does not change because you do not accept it. There is life after death no matter what, how yours is depends upon your decision here and now.

    IF you accept that there is no alternative to God, you are throwing away the ability to question, to think
    Not at all. we learn to question and think in the correct way. evolutionists reject alternatives to evolution, are you saying they no longer question and think? if you apply that idea above to chrisians you must apply it to everyone or you are using a double standard.

    realizing that there is no alternative to God is discovering the truth andcoming to grips with THE reality.

    IF you consider that your way is the single, best, most perfect way, then you follow it, and allow others to present to you other ways, that you MUST consider as viable to be openminded. the lack of consideration makes you CLOSEDMINDED, and you will act accordingly
    When we decide for God, in a sense, we do become closed minded. We stop accepting the old ways and their arguments and open our minds to God's ways. We have made a choice and w have every right to pursue that course no matter what nonbelievers think about it and we have every right NOT to listen toideas or thoughts that will detour us from our new direction.

    We obey God not man. That doesn't make us closed-minded but obedient servants. Just as you would not expect a negro slave of the pre-20th century tolisten to every white man except their own masters, you cannot expect christians to listen to anyone except Jesus and God. They are our masters not yu, not science, not evil. do not expect us to listen to those outside of God.

    The typical response of the truly narrow minded and intolerant person on the other hand will be arguments about how open-mindedness is nonsensical and how tolerance is impossible.
    Then you are calling God intolerant and narrow-minded. He says to 'follow Him' continually throughout the Bible, hHe does not say listen to the secular world, in fat He was very clear in His instructions on whom to listen to. the choice is clear--we either listen to God or we don't and when wehave chosen to follow Him, then we listen to Him not the world.

    They will say that tolerance is illogical because to be tolerant you would have to be tolerant of intolerance. Can you believe that people can spout such garbage?
    actually i can't believe you spout the garbage you do, so why would i think the above is weird? one can be a christian and still be tolerant, we allow you to pursue your choices without fear of harm. God has allowed you to pursue your desires without Him, thatis being very tolerant as He gives you chance after chance to change--yet most do not.

    the charge of intolerance is false when applied to the christian belief because there has to be rules or there is no need for Christ to sacrifice Himself for us and there is no need for order as anarchy would be as right as law and order.

    what people are saying when they lay the charge of intolerance is that 'they do not like the rules and do not want to change' and that is where you go wrong. why is it okay for countries to have rules an dlaws to enter thier borders but it is wrong for God to have rules to enter into His kingdom?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    The evidence for God already exists, you just reject it or attribute it to something else.
    I've never been shown evidence. All I've ever seen in this forum is the natural world with statements that the supernatural is involved. Evidence of the supernatural requires something that does not have a natural explanation. That has not been shown here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    The existence of the universe and of intelligent, self aware life, is evidence for God. It is not especially good evidence, but it is evidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Thank you archy for predictably providing me with a contrasting example.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    They will say that tolerance is illogical because to be tolerant you would have to be tolerant of intolerance. Can you believe that people can spout such garbage?
    actually i can't believe you spout the garbage you do, so why would i think the above is weird? one can be a christian and still be tolerant, we allow you to pursue your choices without fear of harm. God has allowed you to pursue your desires without Him, thatis being very tolerant as He gives you chance after chance to change--yet most do not.
    It does not surprise me in the least that archy takes exception and implicitly equates what he calls christianity with this sort of arguement. The contrast with what AM said is pretty stark isn't it. You see if you pay careful attention to the words you will see quite clearly that for all that he objects to being called intolerant, archy never actually voices any support for the ideas of tolerance and open-mindedness. This is the how the truly intolerant close minded people always speak, they cannot effectively deny the truth because they simply do not value these things.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    The existence of the universe and of intelligent, self aware life, is evidence for God. It is not especially good evidence, but it is evidence.
    OK. You're losing me here. Where does the supernatural come into play? I see that the universe exists, but why do I have to suppose that there is something outside of the natural world?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    If I may be permitted to join in on this discussion at such a late stage. Whilst not having read all the previous contributions, I would like to make what will most likely be a particularly unpopular note on both sides of the fence; that both science and (especially) religion have been for too long, missing out on an essential lineament between the two.

    Science has always given regard to intelligence and understanding - being concomitant with (hopefully) an open minded approach to things observed - which not surprisingly advances an intelligent awareness.

    The religious among us would rather be 'faithful' to some variety of 'super outsider', which permits them as 'lesser' beings, to sacrifice the exercising of their intelligence for the sake of their inculcated servitude. They then happily promote their peculiar belief system to everyone else as the only awareness that counts, without ever really testing that 'awareness' against anything but their variety of blind 'faith'. This is truly sad, for they have (for almost everyone alive today) become the default arbiter of morality and spirituality via what is fundamentally both, an immoral and unspiritual determination.

    So in my opinion all religion has sadly missed the mark in their reliance upon the detached 'super guy in the sky' - as generalized. Such propagated concepts are profoundly a testimony to the failure of lazy people to come to grips with the abounding realities of our existence. Yet I would argue; so has science failed to recognize the same realities.

    John Galt wrote;
    The existence of the universe and of intelligent, self aware life, is evidence for God. It is not especially good evidence, but it is evidence.
    Science prudently defers to intelligence, without recognizing this very thing IS 'God', whilst religion defers to 'God' without awakening to exactly the same awareness - that 'HE' is not and never has been removed (detached) in any way, but is the very 'thing' they so dishonor in the name of their faith - being intelligent understanding of 'WHAT IS' (or 'What Exists').

    So clearly I concur with Hokie's question;
    "why do I have to suppose that there is something outside of the natural world?"
    Prior to submitting this observation, and if it needs to be noted - whilst in the past I have been an observer of religion, I no longer in any way endorse any concept of 'God' via any standard definition. For mine, the authentic approach to discovering 'God' is to commence by rejecting this and all other man-made terms with perhaps - 'WHAT IS'.

    With that behind us, we might discover John's evidence!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    If I may be permitted to join in on this discussion at such a late stage. Whilst not having read all the previous contributions, I would like to make what will most likely be a particularly unpopular note on both sides of the fence; that both science and (especially) religion have been for too long, missing out on an essential lineament between the two.

    Science has always given regard to intelligence and understanding - being concomitant with (hopefully) an open minded approach to things observed - which not surprisingly advances an intelligent awareness.

    The religious among us would rather be 'faithful' to some variety of 'super outsider', which permits them as 'lesser' beings, to sacrifice the exercising of their intelligence for the sake of their inculcated servitude. They then happily promote their peculiar belief system to everyone else as the only awareness that counts, without ever really testing that 'awareness' against anything but their variety of blind 'faith'. This is truly sad, for they have (for almost everyone alive today) become the default arbiter of morality and spirituality via what is fundamentally both, an immoral and unspiritual determination.

    So in my opinion all religion has sadly missed the mark in their reliance upon the detached 'super guy in the sky' - as generalized. Such propagated concepts are profoundly a testimony to the failure of lazy people to come to grips with the abounding realities of our existence. Yet I would argue; so has science failed to recognize the same realities.

    John Galt wrote;
    The existence of the universe and of intelligent, self aware life, is evidence for God. It is not especially good evidence, but it is evidence.
    Science prudently defers to intelligence, without recognizing this very thing IS 'God', whilst religion defers to 'God' without awakening to exactly the same awareness - that 'HE' is not and never has been removed (detached) in any way, but is the very 'thing' they so dishonor in the name of their faith - being intelligent understanding of 'WHAT IS' (or 'What Exists').

    So clearly I concur with Hokie's question;
    "why do I have to suppose that there is something outside of the natural world?"
    Prior to submitting this observation, and if it needs to be noted - whilst in the past I have been an observer of religion, I no longer in any way endorse any concept of 'God' via any standard definition. For mine, the authentic approach to discovering 'God' is to commence by rejecting this and all other man-made terms with perhaps - 'WHAT IS'.

    With that behind us, we might discover John's evidence!
    complete b.s.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    This is the how the truly intolerant close minded people always speak, they cannot effectively deny the truth because they simply do not value these things.
    people who call others intolerant when it comes to scriputres usually do not want to obey God but want to add their own ideas and ways to the mix. They just do not like being called wrong, heretic or whatever but want the good things of christianity while removing what they consider the bad.

    They want their own way even though it is God's kingdom and God's rules.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote;
    complete b.s.
    What a surprise - a religionist not liking the clarity of observation as expressed - even if he could understand it. Of course he sadly cannot permit himself to go there.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    This is the how the truly intolerant close minded people always speak, they cannot effectively deny the truth because they simply do not value these things.
    people who call others intolerant when it comes to scriputres usually do not want to obey God but want to add their own ideas and ways to the mix. They just do not like being called wrong, heretic or whatever but want the good things of christianity while removing what they consider the bad.

    They want their own way even though it is God's kingdom and God's rules.
    Incorrect. People call others intolerant when they see them making their idea of the way things are or should be the justification for the condemnation and abuse of people who think differently. For them it is not murder, it is a "holy war". For them it is not assault it is the discouragement of immoral behavior. For them it is not the physical and mental abuse of a spouse, it is asserting the divine order. For them it is not the abuse of children, it is "instruction". We see the damage of human lives in the wake of their arrogant self-important plow across the course of human society and human history and we attribute this tragic WASTE of human life and well being to an intolerance of the fact that people can and will not agree with them.

    So while the intolerant people look for any excuse to bomb, rape, abuse, discriminate, and legislate the people who do not agree with them out existence, there is a growing body of people who are just not willing to put up with this anymore. We understand that we must force some values on everyone. In that we have no choice. But what we can choose is whether what we force on people are those values of a free society or not and those are the values of tolerance and religious freedom that keep the control of power and force out of the hands of religions and under secular control instead. We will force civilization on the fanatical weirdos because we realize that it is in their own best interest whether they lack the rationality to understand this or not. If you don't like it then you can move to a theocracy in the middle east where they share your views on tolerance.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Masters Degree samcdkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    640
    If you don't like it then you can move to a theocracy in the middle east where they share your views on tolerance.
    Doesn't work anymore. They are getting liberated by bombs there.

    So while the intolerant people look for any excuse to bomb, rape, abuse, discriminate, and legislate the people who do not agree with them out existence, there is a growing body of people who are just not willing to put up with this anymore. We understand that we must force some values on everyone. In that we have no choice.
    Clearly, that is why the intolerant people are bombing, raping, abusing, discriminating and legislating their values into Afghanistan and Iraq.

    More people have been killed by the actions of democracies in the last few decades than any other ideology.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    [quote="Apopohis Reject"]John Galt wrote;
    The existence of the universe and of intelligent, self aware life, is evidence for God. It is not especially good evidence, but it is evidence.
    I have no idea how your comments relate to my remarks. Can you elucidate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    With that behind us, we might discover John's evidence!
    It is already discovered. It is the entire universe. I thought I had said that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    [quote]
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    John Galt wrote;
    Quote:
    The existence of the universe and of intelligent, self aware life, is evidence for God. It is not especially good evidence, but it is evidence.
    I have no idea how your comments relate to my remarks. Can you elucidate.
    Any variation on 'God' is an entirely man-made concoction by people who increasingly fail to get their minds around the reality of what has always been, and still is 'spiritual' - being (as far as man is concerned) that portion of all of us that cannot be touched or measured or seen - (both) our intelligence and our emotions. We know these exist for we have no problem seeing the results of them, yet they have absolutely zero physical attributes. Nonetheless, again a physically focused man finds it difficult to entertain something which is not in some way physical.

    For such as these, the evidence for a spiritual origin cannot exist, except that 'He' is in some measure physical - hence the 'super guy in the sky' contrivance. However the spiritual universe as explained above certainly does exist and we have no problem regarding evidence there - once we remove the physical from the equation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    Help me out here John. You say the universe is evidence for god. I'm not clear where something other than the universe comes into play here.

    Are you suggesting the universe and god are the same thing?
    Are you suggesting there are as many gods as there are universes?
    Are you suggesting that there must have been a creator of the universe?
    Are you suggesting that the fact that universe has changes in it that something kicked it off or keeps it running?

    I think of god as being outside of the natural world, a supernatural being. I'm not clear where evidence of the supernatural is exhibited by the existence of the universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    God is evidenced by the fact that the entirety of the universe spontaeneously came into existence. Whether or not God can interact in the universe is another matter, but the Fact that the universe was once complete non-existence, is the evidence that something made it so. It's weak, but it's also stable evidence.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by hokie
    Are you suggesting the universe and god are the same thing?
    No. that is not my contention, though I do no rule out the possibility that the Universe could become God, or that it may not already have attributes that many would consider godlike.
    Quote Originally Posted by hokie
    Are you suggesting there are as many gods as there are universes?
    I do not know if there are multiple universes.
    I do not think that the idea of singularity or multiplicity necessarily applies to God.
    Quote Originally Posted by hokie
    Are you suggesting that there must have been a creator of the universe?
    Absolutely not. I have no clear view either way. I just think the fact that something even exists is rather peculiar of itself and suggests that there may be something going on that we don't understand. That something might be called God.
    Quote Originally Posted by hokie
    Are you suggesting that the fact that universe has changes in it that something kicked it off or keeps it running?
    I don't yet see anything in the universe that suggests there is ongoing involvement of a God. Everything I see can be explained either by chance, or by a God who sets the rules then lets them play out.

    Quote Originally Posted by hokie
    I think of god as being outside of the natural world, a supernatural being. I'm not clear where evidence of the supernatural is exhibited by the existence of the universe.
    Well, its bloody peculiar - as noted above - that anything at all exists. It is even more peculiar that the universe has become self aware. It is stranger still that the conditions that permit this self awareness appear to be finely tuned. Coincidence? Maybe, but maybe not - and therein is the evidence.

    Remember evidence is not proof.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    I'll buy the argument that the universe has an apparent beginning. The creation of the universe suggests the possibility that something external to the universe created the universe. That may not be true, but there's no reason to suppose it is not true.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by samcdkey
    More people have been killed by the actions of democracies in the last few decades than any other ideology.
    So you are claiming that if you restrict yourself to the last 20 years alone and count every country other than the Islamic theocratic states as democracies or some other "interesting" definition of "democracy" you can manage to make a case for this statement being true? LOL It would be amusing to see how you do this, but what is really amusing is that you think this 20 years is significant.

    Just one small point however, the issue here was not democracy but the principles of tolerance and relgious freedom. For example the Soviet and Chinese bloc called their governments democracies too. Putting on a show of democracy proves nothing about how tolerant one is of diversity in human though and lifestyle.

    But my curiosity is peaked. So with whatever strange sort of justification, you would argue against tolerance and relgious freedom? What religion/philosophy were you thinking should be forced on people? What is the flavor of your narrow minded intolerance?

    Here is an interesting site for some data: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm
    Dont forget to hit the forward button at the bottom to go to the next lower scale of conflict.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    I like your argument John. I can accept simple of the type you suggest as evidence. Also, I agree that evidence is not proof.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    More people have been killed by the actions of democracies in the last few decades than any other ideology.
    I have to disagree on this one. Let's get some figures out there for us to examine. This is your claim and I don't buy it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    597
    [quote="samcdkey"]
    Clearly, that is why the intolerant people are bombing, raping, abusing, discriminating and legislating their values into Afghanistan and Iraq.

    More people have been killed by the actions of democracies in the last few decades than any other ideology.
    I think that democracies are no more, and no less, violent than other forms of government.

    There is a theory called "democratic peace theory" that is based on data that shows that democracies rarely fight other democracies.

    I think that this "democratic peace theory" was part of the "rationalization" for the conflicts you mention. Clearly the idea that you can force a democracy on people that have no history of it is bad policy and wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    It becomes obvious to me that many of the contributors on this forum just do not understand what tolerance is. This has been discussed before, but it just does not seem to sink in.

    A popular view of tolerance today is that it is a position of neutrality. This is an assumption rooted in the prevalence of today’s relativism and post modernism. This point of view says that the “tolerant” person must occupy neutral ground, a place of complete impartiality wherein each person decides for himself, makes no judgments, makes no attempt to “force” personal views and maintains a neutral posture toward all others’ convictions.

    While we can hear the proponents of this view rally around their base cry, “There is no truth,” their cry actually attempts to express two truths. First is their attempt is the irrational and illogical oxymoron that the only truth is that there is no truth. The second is a moral truth that one ought to tolerate all other peoples’ view points and behaviors.

    Webster’s Collegiate Edition presents the idea of tolerance as being, “to allow or to permit, to recognize and respects others' beliefs and practices without sharing them; to bear or put up with someone or something no necessarily liked.” I find it interesting that Wikidictionary adds an element of “not interfering.”

    But no matter whose definition we use, there are three elements: 1) permitting or allowing; 2) disagreement over a conduct or a point of view; 3) respect for the other person.

    I think the first thing to notice here is that tolerance cannot come into play unless there is disagreement. There is no need to tolerate someone who shares our values. They are on our side; there is nothing to put up with. The only time we need to exercise tolerance is when we think the other person is wrong in thought or deed.

    Yet, this point seems to be lost on the relativists and post modernists. When you disagree with them, you are called intolerant. So you end up with an impossible situation. In order to be tolerant, you must disagree with something, but if you disagree, you are considered intolerant. This, of course, is totally illogical, but that does not bother the post modernist.

    The situation if further complicated by the idea that tolerance could apply to three different things – people, actions or ideas and the application of tolerance to these three different things play out differently. The essence of bilateral tolerance is that one should have the freedom to express one’s ideas without the fear of reprisal.

    Proper application of tolerance requires respect for the person no matter how strongly we may disagree. So we do respect the person, but whether his behavior is to be tolerated is an entirely different question. Our concept of freedom of expression and laws surrounding it insures that each person is permitted to express his views. But at the same time, our laws also place limits on certain behaviors. Thus we are almost always permitted to say what we want (No yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, tho), but we are NOT allowed to do just anything we want.

    We must also differentiate between tolerance of persons and tolerance of ideas. Tolerance requires that each person’s view receives a courteous hearing. But not all views have equal worth or merit. The view that no person’s ideas are any better or any truer or any more valid than some other ideas is both absurd and irrational. To argue that a particular idea is false or immoral or illogical or just plain silly does not violate any standard of tolerance.

    The real problem comes when people confuse these different aspects and attempt to fuse them into only one possible response in which if one rejects the ideas or behaviors of another, he is automatically accused of rejecting the person – of not respecting the person. This provides a situation in which no idea or behavior can be objected to or opposed, no matter how graciously or politely, without inviting the charge of intolerance or incivility.

    Furthermore, there is a similar attempt to fuse the idea of tolerance with acceptance and condoning. Tolerance does not require that one accept a particular idea as valid nor a particular behavior as moral or productive merely because someone else thinks it is.

    It seems to me that there is a real intolerance on the side of those who wish to practice behaviors which have long been considered immoral. Those who advocate the maintenance of these standards which have helped keep humanity in good health for thousands of years. Those who advocate the tearing down of these moral standards accuse the opposition of intolerance and bigotry and then show their own intolerance and bigotry by berating those who have a view that is contrary to their own.

    Within their approach is the implication that everyone should be allowed to believe and do whatever they want and that no one should be allowed to force his viewpoint on others. But – note the irony – that is their viewpoint!!! And they incessantly attempt to enforce it on others, and often in an abusive way.

    Those of us who come on this forum and express views from a Christian standpoint are accused of intolerance, close-mindedness, stupidity and all sorts of things which are not at all related to views or behaviors or processes of evaluation, but rather attacks on our personage.

    (Note: much of the above is paraphrased, condensed from or expanding upon an article by Greg Koukl at Stand to Reason. I apologize for its length, but this is not an easy topic to address in just a few paragraphs.)
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    dedo said:
    I think that this "democratic peace theory" was part of the "rationalization" for the conflicts you mention. Clearly the idea that you can force a democracy on people that have no history of it is bad policy and wrong.
    From this, are we to deduce that a society that destroys the clitoris of young girls should not be stopped because they do not have a history of not doing that? Are we to leave primitive people devoid of modern practices and education because they lack a history of them?

    I believe it was Abraham Lincoln who said, "It is never right to do wrong." Neither is it ever right to tolerate wrong. Repressive governments are wrong.

    It is always right to oppose repressive governments to whatever extent is practical. I think most free societies agree that armed conflict is an opposition of last resort and probably used only to halt the spread of repression.

    If you believe that freedom is better than repression, why would you feel it better to let the victims of repression wallow under the thumb of their despotic repressive leaders? I think the Iraqi desire for democracy was dramatically exemplified in the way they went to the polls for the first time in the face of threats from those who oppose democracy.

    So where is it that anyone is trying to "force" democracy on a people that do not want it. It is not the people in Islam who do not want democracy, it is the despotic repressive religious or political leadership which does not want democracy.

    It is always wrong to tolerate wrong doing.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    It becomes obvious to me that many of the contributors on this forum just do not understand what tolerance is. This has been discussed before, but it just does not seem to sink in.
    This I shall simply ignore as unworthy of comment.

    The rest, ignoring a few irrelevant soapboxing moments haranging ideas that the author doesn't approve of, is reasonable until we reach the following:

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    It seems to me that there is a real intolerance on the side of those who wish to practice behaviors which have long been considered immoral. Those who advocate the maintenance of these standards which have helped keep humanity in good health for thousands of years. Those who advocate the tearing down of these moral standards accuse the opposition of intolerance and bigotry and then show their own intolerance and bigotry by berating those who have a view that is contrary to their own.
    That something has been done or prohibited for thousands of years cannot be construed as lending any sort of legitimacy to it. Slavery was practiced for thousands of years and by this argument people can claim that slavery should be tolerated and that the demand for equal rights under the law should not be tolerated. Women have been treated as property of their husbands and by this argument of Dayton's people can claim that the abuse and disenfranchisement of women should be tolerated and that the demands for protection from abuse, sufferage, child abuse, and rape should not be tolerated. Those who advocate the tearing down of these "moral standards" rightly accuse the opposition of intolerance and bigotry because these sorts of inequities have absolutely NO JUSTIFICATION.


    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Within their approach is the implication that everyone should be allowed to believe and do whatever they want and that no one should be allowed to force his viewpoint on others. But – note the irony – that is their viewpoint!!! And they incessantly attempt to enforce it on others, and often in an abusive way.
    This is just another verson of the same old irrational attempt to claim that tolerance is inconsistent and unsupportable.

    The question here again is if we must force certain values on all people of society then which values are the most important? The choice of a free society are that the values of tolerance and relgious freedom are paramount. These are defined quite easily in that you cannot impose personal beliefs, personal moral ideas and commitments, and various activities and practices upon other people. This very restriction automatically implies most of the restrictions of our legal system. The prohibition of murder does not have to rest on the law in some religious text because it is already implicit in the ideal of tolerance, but there are many others such as the prohibition of rape which may lack clear prohibition in relgious text but which ARE automatically implied in the ideal of tolerance.


    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Those of us who come on this forum and express views from a Christian standpoint are accused of intolerance, close-mindedness, stupidity and all sorts of things which are not at all related to views or behaviors or processes of evaluation, but rather attacks on our personage.
    Sometimes. And sometimes it is justified and a 100% accurate assessment of the views which that person has been promoting on the forum.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Mitchell said:

    That something has been done or prohibited for thousands of years cannot be construed as lending any sort of legitimacy to it. Slavery was practiced for thousands of years and by this argument people can claim that slavery should be tolerated and that the demand for equal rights under the law should not be tolerated. Women have been treated as property of their husbands and by this argument of Dayton's people can claim that the abuse and disenfranchisement of women should be tolerated and that the demands for protection from abuse, sufferage, child abuse, and rape should not be tolerated. Those who advocate the tearing down of these "moral standards" rightly accuse the opposition of intolerance and bigotry because these sorts of inequities have absolutely NO JUSTIFICATION.
    Nor can the fact that something has been done or prohibited for thousands of years be construed as lending any sort of support to the idea rendering it no longer legitimate.

    Slavery was not ended by people who agreed to slavery. Slavery was ended by those who spoke out against it in the face of those who would have quelled their opposition just as today's liberal element wishes to quell the opposition to such things as abortions and gay marriage or any discussion of Intelligent Design. That is the height of intolerance -- to attempt to stifle the opposing voice.

    You are merely agreeing with those who have the same views as you. That is not an example of tolerance. Agreement and tolerance are not one and the same. I don't think I advocated tolerating "behaviors" which one thinks are wrong. Views yes, behaviors no. There are people today who advocate behaviors which I think you would be opposed to. But then, if you agree that tolerance requires a neutral position, you would not be opposed to any behaviors. We accept people, tolerate views, oppose behaviors.

    Mitchell wrote:

    This is just another verson of the same old irrational attempt to claim that tolerance is inconsistent and unsupportable.
    I do not understand this. Do you mean verzen? Oops, sorry. I am not sure who you think is attempting to claim tolerance is inconsistent and unsupportable. Or in what way that is being shown. Tolerance is inconsistent and unsupportable when it is not tolerance, but rather intolerance under the guise of some other quality being mislabeled as tolerance.

    Mitchell also said:


    The question here again is if we must force certain values on all people of society then which values are the most important? The choice of a free society are that the values of tolerance and relgious freedom are paramount. These are defined quite easily in that you cannot impose personal beliefs, personal moral ideas and commitments, and various activities and practices upon other people. This very restriction automatically implies most of the restrictions of our legal system. The prohibition of murder does not have to rest on the law in some religious text because it is already implicit in the ideal of tolerance, but there are many others such as the prohibition of rape which may lack clear prohibition in relgious text but which ARE automatically implied in the ideal of tolerance.

    This, again, sounds very much like the tolerance of agreement. We will not all agree on what values must be enforced in societies nor which values are the most important within a specific society. It is not as though one group has a monopoly on the best ideas and views.

    I would disagree that you cannot impose personal beliefs, personal moral ideas, etc. That's what a legal system does. Although I agree that laws need not rest on religious texts, they are voted upon by people who influenced by various inputs, some of which may be religious, some of which may be economic, some of which may be altruism. There are many ways in which social change is brought about. But just because a change is supported by a certain group does not mean that we must allow that change in a misplaced effort to be tolerant of that which is wrong. And wrongness need not be defined only by religious codes. Are not many things we deem wrong, not even the subject of religious writings? What religious writing proscribes driving a vehicle 100 mph in a residential zone? We do not condone nor accept nor tolerate such behavior. We listen to the idea of changing the speed limit and then refuse to accept the idea as reasonable.

    My point was and remains that we must accept other people; we must tolerate their views even though we disagree; but tolerance toward behaviors does not require accepting the behavior as proper nor condoning it when we think it wrong.

    It almost sounds as though you think we will all eventually agree on the vast majority of social, economic and moral issues.

    A world in which the religious voices of opposition are squelched will be no better than the Dark Ages when the non-religious voices of opposition were squelched.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Quote;
    complete b.s.
    What a surprise - a religionist not liking the clarity of observation as expressed - even if he could understand it. Of course he sadly cannot permit himself to go there.
    all you wrote was based completely in arrogance and not intelligence. it wasn't worth responding to as it showed how much of an unintelligent person you are.

    Any variation on 'God' is an entirely man-made concoction by people
    This is an empty charge because you cannot prove it so. you wish it so but know deep down that it isn't. such a charge is also based upon the ignoring of the fact that if there was no God, there would be no concept of what a god/God was.

    Plus if there was no God, the entire concept would have been proven false millenium ago and there would be no temples, no churches, no missionaries and so on because no one would follow a false idea for very long.

    For people to follow things like cults or heresies, there has to be some tuthmixed in, which is why you see the characteristics of Christ edited into all cultic religions. without His truth in some way added to their ways...they would have died out long ago.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    That something has been done or prohibited for thousands of years cannot be construed as lending any sort of legitimacy to it. Slavery was practiced for thousands of years and by this argument people can claim that slavery should be tolerated and that the demand for equal rights under the law should not be tolerated. Women have been treated as property of their husbands and by this argument of Dayton's people can claim that the abuse and disenfranchisement of women should be tolerated and that the demands for protection from abuse, sufferage, child abuse, and rape should not be tolerated. Those who advocate the tearing down of these "moral standards" rightly accuse the opposition of intolerance and bigotry because these sorts of inequities have absolutely NO JUSTIFICATION
    The above shows a great mis-understanding of God's ways and human nature. Along with ignoring the influence of evil, sin and other desires which lead people to do things others think is not right.

    it also confuses man's ideas with God's and fails to see the boundaries between the two. Moral standards come from God or we are left with the definition of morality that is changed ever time someone takes power.

    The south thought it was very MORAL to own slaves and had no problemwit that, who is to say, without God's standard, that they were wrong? The Nazis thought it was very moral to kill Jews and communists. Without God's standard who is to say they were wrong?

    For those who say the above is wrong, where did you get your moral standard from? if you do not say God, then you do not have an argument against anyone else who derived their moral ideas from other sources than Him.

    YET when those who stand upon the truth that God's morality is the standard, or make the claim that all morals come from Him, they are declared 'intolerant' because they are not 'open-minded' and are charged with seeking toimpose their beliefs upon others.

    'Intolerant' is a charge laid when a person, creating their ownideas, are blocked from declaring they are something, eventhoughtheir ideas are contrary tothe group they want to belong.

    example: homsexuals want to practice homosexuality and still be called christian because 'God is love'. they aren't because they violate what God has said. instead of accepting that fact and changing, they start to level charges of 'intolerance' and try to force their ways upon a church who can do nothing to change God's rules.

    their charge of 'intolerance' is false for the simple reason the homosexual wants to continue in sin and ignore the rules God has laid out. in other words they want what they want and to heck with what God said, even though it is His kingdom and His rules.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    false charges of 'intolerance' comes when people do not like the rules of one group and instead of going and forming their own little organization, they try to impose their beliefs upon an unwilling group of people who do not accept those changes.

    God makes the rules for the church and it is not up to the church member to circumvent those rules and if people do not like the rules you have an option not to join the group. you do NOT have the option nor the right to force your ways upon God's church or people.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •