Respect of other beliefs

Playboy

The Atheist wrote:

I've just read about half this (under work pressure) and I have to agree with this.

Poole, summarizes, paraphrases and then fails to reach a point in many cases.

I disagree .. I think he makes a valid point every time.

The Atheist wrote:

Where is the confusion - Dawkins has taken "faith" and "miracles" and shone a scientific light on them. Poole seems affronted by the conclusion, and yet has nothing in the way of rebuttal except that Christians view the words differently?

The confusion is that the concepts of faith and miracles for christians are not the same concepts to which Dawkins refers.

growler

I think there may be some mileage in the invisible pink unicorn idea, it would certainly fill some philosophical gaps in my understanding of life the universe and everything, can anyone point me at some ancient texts that will allow me to learn more about this all powerful force?

Ta.

Zillah

Playboy wrote:

I disagree .. I think he makes a valid point every time.

You've yet to summarise any of his specific points in simple English. I know you've said he says Dawkins is wrong about religion, but how? Aside from the semantics of particular words theres very little sense.

The confusion is that the concepts of faith and miracles for christians are not the same concepts to which Dawkins refers.

I think Dawkins cuts through the crap and gets at what the issue actually is. I'm open to correction if you'd oblige.

Playboy

Zillah wrote:

You've yet to summarise any of his specific points in simple English. I know you've said he says Dawkins is wrong about religion, but how? Aside from the semantics of particular words theres very little sense.

Here is a summary of the argument .. I dont' have time to trawl through the whole piece only to repeat what is already said by Poole in what seems to me like plain english. Semantics are very important .. I cant see how you could think they are not. The whole argument hinges on the meaning of the words used and how they are interpreted. If Dakwins is criticizing faith but on false grounds because he doesnt understand what the word faith means then his points are moot.

5uspect

Playboy wrote:

If Dawkins wants to make pronouncements about religion and matters of faith then he needs to know what he is talking about.

As a former christian I'm sure he knows quite well.

Playboy wrote:

As Poole has shown Dawkins completely misunderstands concepts such as faith.

Poole wrote:

Christian faith is grounded on a combination of evidence, including that drawn from history, personal experience and the world around.

Pools evidence for supporting faith is underlined can can be seen as follows:
1. History is writen by the victors
2. Personal experience isn't testable evidence but maybe an interesting psychology paper
3. The tired and worn out arguement from design

Then Poole rambles on about sex and "Right use, not disuse, is the antidote to misuse" whcih is the general cop out that religion is a required force for good no matter if it is true or not.

Nothing here shows Dawkins is wrong.

Poole wrote:

To summarise so far, on theological matters Dawkins treats the concept of God as that of a created being;

Dawkins assumes that all intelligence is a by produce of an evolutionary process which is exaclty and only what we have observed. If a theologian says different fine, but prove it, otherwise you're making it up.

faith as unevidenced belief;

Dictionary.com defines faith as:
"1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
...and there's more religious stuff and oaths etc"
Sorry to quote the list but the only one remotely close to Poole's definition is number 1 but that doesn't contradict Dawkins that there is no evidence.

Poole seems to try to lift god and faith up to some sort of mysterious untouchable level where they cannot be critized because their definitions are so vague and meaningless that to even try is sneered at as being childish and obviously silly.

Playboy wrote:

The point is that Dawkins hasnt read the exact same literature. He frequently misunderstands many aspects of religion because he is either being purposely disengenous or he he genuinely doesnt understand the concepts to which he is refering.

Maybe a lifetime of study in the field of theology is what differentiates theologians from scientists and their ability to understand the said texts?

I'm sorry is there another Bible that I wasn't told about?
A lifetime of science allows greater understanding of nature as experiments either give the results you expect or they don't and you need to go and think about the problem again. A life time of theology requires you to think of what some ramblings in an old book mean, make up an idea and say "now all done, any question?". Realy whats the point?

Surely if theology was anything approaching a respectable subject they have to conclude that they cannot possibly understand the workings of something that they are so eager to point out is beyond science?

Playboy wrote:

Well yes they may just make it up and maybe they don't. Me, you and everyone not religious assumes that they make it up but religious people would disagree otherwise they wouldnt be religious now would they?

I wonder if there is a thread on the limbo thing over on Christianity....goes to check...

Scofflaw

5uspect wrote:

Surely if theology was anything approaching a respectable subject they have to conclude that they cannot possibly understand the workings of something that they are so eager to point out is beyond science?

Good Lord. Theology isn't respectable? That's an interesting viewpoint.

mildly shocked,
Scofflaw

Sangre

Scofflaw wrote:

Just to be certain I don't get tarred with the same (inaccurate) brush....I'm not advocating religion, I'm just decrying weak arguments against it.

Nor do I claim that having faith is anything other than circular - the believer believes that He has evidence for the God he believes in, because he sees things in the light of his belief. It's as circular as you get, and I get to point that out roughly every 5 pages on the Creationism thread.

Unfortunately, the 'scientific' argument for atheism is equally self-referential and circular. Both sides believe their position to be the more logical and the better supported by evidence, and science has actually yet to judge between them. The atheist claims that introducing supernatural entities destroys the theist's case - the theist claims the reverse.

What science can, and has, unequivocally disproven, is any named and described God. This, I suspect, is one of the reasons Dawkins dislikes wishy-washy formless Deists - you can't disprove their God - it's like punching fog. Fundamentalists are easy - they have such a rigid conception of God that he's almost immediately disprovable.

cordially,
Scofflaw

A scientific atheist can only dsimantle the beliefs placed in front of him, not a general 'god' or 'gods'. He has to be given a definition of what is, its basic boundaries and what it claims to do/can't do. Until then he is trying to disprove a very wide negative.

Of course you can't claim 'God' doesn't exist based on scientific evidence because there is no exact, scientific definition of it, until then people will knock down the more defined established religions they have been given.

Scofflaw

Sangre wrote:

A scientific atheist can only dsimantles beliefs placed in front of him, not a general 'god' or 'gods'. He has to be given a definition of what is, its basic boundaries and what it claims to do/can't do.

Of course you can't claim 'God' doesn't exist based on scientific evidence because there is no exact, scientific definition of it, until then people will knock down the more defined established religions.

Yes, exactly. Therefore the claim that science has "disproven" God, or "proven" atheism, is either straightforwardly inaccurate (I am unable to find a peer-reviewed paper in which any God is disproven), or at best parochially Christian.

Science is incapable, by definition, of handling the supernatural. Nor is it actually capable of absolutely ruling out alternative explanations where these do not actually conflict with observed reality. Claims to have disproven God using science are actually claims of (a) the non-observation of God, (b) the non-observation of the expected results of intervention by a benevolent God, and (c) the philosophical rule about not multiplying entities, which, frankly, is theology, not science - the most elegant solution has not always proven true, scientifically.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

Scofflaw wrote:

Yes, exactly. Therefore the claim that science has "disproven" God, or "proven" atheism, is either straightforwardly inaccurate (I am unable to find a peer-reviewed paper in which any God is disproven), or at best parochially Christian.

I never said science had proven God doesn't exist. Thats the point. Science doesn't need to prove God doesn't exist. Anything that can't be supported by evidence is assumed to not exist until such evidence is forthcoming. In this manner it is the exact same as Atheism. And despite your dismissive attitude, the Invisible Pink Unicorn/Teapot argument is a valid one. The only thing that makes God special is that lots of people fell for it.

Q: Are you deliberately ignoring my observation that the burden of proof lies on the claiment? Because I've said it several times now and you keep ignoring it, thats not very cordial. Science does not spend its time disproving everything it comes across; the only things it sets out to disprove are theories that possess falsifiability, and ambiguous God theories lack falsifiability.

Contrary to popular belief, science rarely works in absolutes. Everything is an approximation. However, once something gets into the 99% type of bracket its generally accepted unless further evidence shows otherwise. This is the outlook of most Atheists. I think any logical Atheist will admit that technically we cannot be absolutely, completely and utterly sure there is no God, but its such a remote possibility that has absolutely no evidence that we will reject the notion unless someone can budge the case from the 99% bracket. Which is exactly the same approach taken by science.

Zillah

Playboy wrote:

Here is a summary of the argument ..

Ok, yes, it is as awful as I suspected.

Here we go, first a summary, then my rebuttal:

God -
Dawkins insists that if God created the universe then something had to create God. However, the God that Christians believe in is eternal and infinate, and therefore Dawkins is not even talking about their God.

Z: Dawkins is not making a statement about Christian belief, he is making a criticism; he asserts that the notion of an infinate being is unfounded and that using God as an answer to what created the universe only removes the origin question one step back.

(I'm not familiar with the "traces of God" situation)

Miracles -
Dawkins refers to the "highly unlikely event" type of miracle, whereas the bible refers to different sorts of miracles and therefore Dawkins is not even criticising Christian beliefs.

Z: That criticism is not levied at Biblical miracles, it is directed at the sort of miracles that the majority of Christians refer to and believe in, whether they feature in the bible or not.

Faith -
Dawkins claims faith is "unfevidenced belief", but belief in the Christian God is founded on evidence from history, personal experience and the natural world.

Z: History according to a single collection of books, written, collected, extensively altered, omitted and translated by those who had a vested interest in using it to further their own ends. The bible is a highly suspect historical text. "Personal experience" of the religious kind is subject to the same gross failings of personal experience of every kind; people willfully perceive what they want to percieve. And the natural world argument is probably referring to intelligent design, which is a travesty of a "science".

Meme's-
Dawkins asserts that religion is like a horrible meme spreading through society. Dawkins says "The ‘everlasting arms’ hold out a cushion against our own inadequacies which, like a doctor’s placebo, is none the less effective for being imaginary."

The retort is that the arms could be real.

Z: One point of view requires the existence of a supernatural being whos existence has not been proven and so is a far less valid theory than the other.

- Disbelief is as valid a meme as belief.

Z: No it isn't. Disbelief holds far less (if any) of the placebo effect that is central to Dawkins' point.

Virus-
Dawkins compares belief in God to a virus spreading through society. However, disbelief in God could be compared as easily to a virus.

Z: No. Disbelief rejects all supernatural unfounded belief and in that way is a neutral point of view. Belief in the Christian God furthers a specific agenda relating to an unfounded claim of the supernatural.


Annnd thats all I have the energy for. The summary is almost as convoluted as the article.

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

I never said science had proven God doesn't exist. Thats the point. Science doesn't need to prove God doesn't exist. Anything that can't be supported by evidence is assumed to not exist until such evidence is forthcoming. In this manner it is the exact same as Atheism. And despite your dismissive attitude, the Invisible Pink Unicorn/Teapot argument is a valid one. The only thing that makes God special is that lots of people fell for it.

Q: Are you deliberately ignoring my observation that the burden of proof lies on the claiment? Because I've said it several times now and you keep ignoring it, thats not very cordial. Science does not spend its time disproving everything it comes across; the only things it sets out to disprove are theories that possess falsifiability, and ambiguous God theories lack falsifiability.

I do apologise! I wasn't ignoring the question at all, but it may not have been obvious that I was answering it.

The point I have been trying to make is that:

1. you and I as atheists and scientists (I'm assuming) would apply a scientific standard to evidence for/against God (because we're scientists) and start with the assumption that the claim for God's existence needed to be verified (because we're atheists)

2. the believer does no such thing. He starts with his faith, and interprets the evidence in the light of that, thereby seeing almost everything as evidence for God's existence. To the believer, all of science is proof of God, if you like (I am leaving out the ridiculous Biblical literalists).

Now, we would claim that our position is the more logical, by which we mean, presumably, more logically coherent, and more tenable, and perhaps, more scientific.

My first counterpoint is that belief, viewed from the believer's point of view, is entirely tenable, coherent, and unchallenged by science. If you believe in God, there is no burden of proof - God is visible everywhere. Therefore, the only logical response is to believe.

That this is, to an outsider, circular, and ridiculous, is neither here nor there - it is coherent. That we would not accept the "evidence" for God that they "see" is irrelevant to the believer - they regard it as proof. It is impossible for us to prove (in the majority of cases) that it is not God behind the evidence.

My second counterpoint is that God, having been proposed as a hypothesis explaining the world, must be considered as seriously as any other hypothesis. The use of Occam's Razor is pointless - as I said above, science does not require that the most elegant (in the sense of devoid of unnecessary entities and apparent kludges) solution be the true solution. Many physical processes are far from elegant, particularly in biology/ecology and geology. Even in physics/cosmology, elegance is not the determinant of correctness. Many people disliked rapid inflation as part of the Big Bang because it looks like an inelegant kludge, but the evidence supports it.

Further to that last, "the evidence supports it" - the evidence in science is either positive: (a) accounted for by the hypothesis; (b) predicted by the hypothesis: or negative: (c) impossible to account for by the hypothesis. It is unusual, to say the least, that we should claim a hypothesis to be incorrect solely by virtue of lack of observation of the mechanism or agent the hypothesis relies on. We have no direct knowledge of the workings of stellar cores, but we theorise about them. We have no direct knowledge of historical evolution, which was accepted as a theory long before we observed the mechanisms even to the small degree we have now done. If I state that such and such a series of trace fossils are the footprints of a raptor, no-one in their right mind requires that I produce the relevant raptor.

If we examine the God hypothesis in this light, we must find that we cannot discount it based on a lack of evidence for God himself, where God is held to be the agent of creation and maintenance of the Universe.

We are therefore left asking whether the God hypothesis accounts for the observed evidence, and we are forced to conclude that it can, as long as we are not too fussy about defining God. Is there any evidence that is impossible to account for using the hypothesis? Again, no, with the same caveat.

All we are left with is the observation that while the God hypothesis is certainly a possible explanation, it will never be elevated to the status of theory because it lacks predictive power (in the absence of a well-defined God), and is not falsifable (the other side of the same coin). Unfortunately, being unfalsifiable does not disprove a hypothesis either, although it automatically makes it suspect.

That, to my mind, makes it entirely possible for someone well-educated to believe in the God hypothesis (particularly in the fuzzy Deist sense) out of personal preference, while fully retaining all their logical faculties - that being the original contention that I so disliked.

Zillah wrote:

Contrary to popular belief, science rarely works in absolutes. Everything is an approximation. However, once something gets into the 99% type of bracket its generally accepted unless further evidence shows otherwise. This is the outlook of most Atheists. I think any logical Atheist will admit that technically we cannot be absolutely, completely and utterly sure there is no God, but its such a remote possibility that has absolutely no evidence that we will reject the notion unless someone can budge the case from the 99% bracket. Which is exactly the same approach taken by science.

Again, I am not aware that the probability of God has been examined in any peer-reviewed journal. If it has been, I'd love to read it!

In summary, once someone has proposed God as an explanation for the Universe, you will find that we cannot disprove it, although we do not have to elevate the hypothesis to a theory. We cannot dismiss it for lack of the agent, and Occam's razor is not actually applicable. All we can say is that it is a hypothesis devoid of predictive power, and unfalsifiable, therefore suspect.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

Scofflaw wrote:

1. you and I as atheists and scientists (I'm assuming) would apply a scientific standard to evidence for/against God (because we're scientists) and start with the assumption that the claim for God's existence needed to be verified (because we're atheists)

Not a scientist, just scientific I'm glad that I can pull off the impression though

2. the believer does no such thing. He starts with his faith, and interprets the evidence in the light of that, thereby seeing almost everything as evidence for God's existence. To the believer, all of science is proof of God, if you like (I am leaving out the ridiculous Biblical literalists)

But...they're just wrong. Their thinking is broken. You're far too tolerant for my tastes

As for the rest of it I suppose I'll have to conclude that I again need to seperate my anal philosophical agnostic position and practical Atheist position.

Scofflaw wrote:

Further to that last, "the evidence supports it" - the evidence in science is either positive: (a) accounted for by the hypothesis; (b) predicted by the hypothesis: or negative: (c) impossible to account for by the hypothesis. It is unusual, to say the least, that we should claim a hypothesis to be incorrect solely by virtue of lack of observation of the mechanism or agent the hypothesis relies on.

Could you further illustrate all that hypothesis malarky please? I'm still fairly sure I'm right but I'll have to learn this strange language you speak first.

All we can say is that it is a hypothesis devoid of predictive power, and unfalsifiable, therefore suspect.

Hmm. So one could argue that Atheist-hypothesis (not being suspect) has more scientific support that God hypothesis (being suspect)?

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

Not a scientist, just scientific I'm glad that I can pull off the impression though

No problem. We don't get inducted after all, just warped...

Zillah wrote:

But...they're just wrong. Their thinking is broken. You're far too tolerant for my tastes

I only hate Creationists, or any other claimant that science supports position x. It's been abused so often!

Zillah wrote:

As for the rest of it I suppose I'll have to conclude that I again need to seperate my anal philosophical agnostic position and practical Atheist position.

I combined them into alatrism - there may be Gods, but so what? I don't know of any any worth worshipping.

Zillah wrote:

Could you further illustrate all that hypothesis malarky please? I'm still fairly sure I'm right but I'll have to learn this strange language you speak first.

Technically, a hypothesis is a proposed explanation for whatever. If it survives pretty rigorous testing, it makes it to the status of theory. If it seems really rock-solid, and embraces a large enough field, to the point where it's a paradigm, it's generally given a capital T for Theory, and a nickname (Theory of Gravity).

So, the minute someone puts forward God as an explanation for the Universe being the way it is, that's a hypothesis. Hypotheses have to be considered.

Zillah wrote:

Hmm. So one could argue that Atheist-hypothesis (not being suspect) has more scientific support that God hypothesis (being suspect)?

Not as such, alas. You're allowed to mutter darkly, though. On the other hand, the minute some fool of a believer steps out into the light and starts putting a shape on their concept of God, you can generally blow them out of the water straight away.

One of the great difficulties is the absence of a control. At the end of the day, we can't tell the difference between a Universe with God in it and one without God in it, because we don't have a comparable Universe to hand. It's a bugger.

cordially,
Scofflaw

5uspect

Scofflaw wrote:

All we are left with is the observation that while the God hypothesis is certainly a possible explanation, it will never be elevated to the status of theory because it lacks predictive power (in the absence of a well-defined God), and is not falsifable (the other side of the same coin). Unfortunately, being unfalsifiable does not disprove a hypothesis either, although it automatically makes it suspect.

I see your point and I do agree with the logic, my problem is the vagueness of the definition of god in this situation, you may as well replace god with anything your imagination can come up with. This results in the dismissal of pretty much every theistic religion and all we're left with is deism which doesn't amount to much for any religious person who would see it almost as selling out to atheism.

That's my problem with theology and its self inflated opinion of its self. Its all just make believe built on an assumption that if there is possibly something for which we can never know, which is described by the god hypothesis, then it is this way (insert holy book here) because we say so.

As a mentioned earlier I think its the weight that is assigned to a particular description of the god that is the problem. Neither Allah, Yaweh or Russell's Teapot are any better able to develop anything from this god hypothesis.

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

But...they're just wrong. Their thinking is broken. You're far too tolerant for my tastes

After yet another day battling Captain Capslock and his broken thinking on the Creationism thread, let me just register my full agreement with your comment.

He shows some apparently genuine mental blind spots - he is entirely unable to separate the experiment from the experimenter, for example, so any experiment that demonstrates the power of random-mutation-plus-selection as a method for evolving software/hardware/organisms is simply taken to only work because the experiment has an "intelligent designer". Additionally, he is unable to conceive of evolution except teleologically - that is, that evolution has to have a goal (presumably him), and must be working towards it. His cognitive dissonances are extremely fine also...

wearily,
Scofflaw

liooeight

The Atheist wrote:

Before you continue to consume that can of worms you just opened , I just like to voice my dissent at this list. I don't think you can pigeonhole over 3/4's of the worlds population into one of these because they disagree with your understanding.

science/scientific fact, logic, reality.
thats my religion, yes there are alot of questions still to be answered by science but when they are, the answers will raise even more questions.

religion is for the weak minded.

Zillah

liooeight wrote:

science/scientific fact, logic, reality.
thats my religion -- religion is for the weak minded.

Luckily for you, your mind is a bastion of independent thinking and razor sharp clarity...

liooeight

Zillah wrote:

Luckily for you, your mind is a bastion of independent thinking and razor sharp clarity...

sarcasm is the recourse of a weak mind

Zillah

Opinions on humour techniques aside, your post was very badly constructed. First of all you assert that science is your religion. Science is not a religion, by definition, and if you subscribe to it as one then you don't understand science.

Then you go on to claim that religion is for the weak minded. Two posts on boards and they both disparage others for their weak minds. You're off to a sterling start.



OT: And I happen to like sarcasm. Is often carries a particular cutting quality that other forms lack.

Scofflaw

liooeight wrote:

religion is for the weak minded.

liooeight wrote:

sarcasm is the recourse of a weak mind

Is it? Hmm. Nearly all our atheist posters are sarcastic, and nearly all our Christian posters aren't. Interesting, interesting...

cordially,
Scofflaw

aidan24326

Zillah, to be fair I think liooeight was using the word religion in a purely metaphorical sense.

I do agree with Dawkins that theology barely deserves to be classed as an academic subject at all. Overall I thought Poole's critique of Dawkins wasn't too bad, certainly much fairer and more balanced than many of the other reviews/critiques of Dawkins views and writings, in which he is frequently misqouted, misrepresented and deliberately quoted out of context.

But Poole's point about scientists lacking the 'expertise' to tackle questions of the origin of the universe and a purpose to existence etc. was just plain ludicrous, and Dawkins unsurprisingly laughed at the sheer arrogance of anyone to claim any sort of expertise in that area. If physicists can't answer those questions then you can be damned sure that theologians can't either, and nor will they ever.

I believe in respecting people's right to believe what they want, but I certainly don't respect the intellect of people who can believe stuff which is provable nonsense. And it is provably wrong, and that is a key point. As someone pointed out early in this thread (can't remember who) the god that the vast majority of religious believers believe in is the unsophisticated prayer-answering kind of god, not any other more sophisticated version of a non-intervening universe designer.

And we know, for example, that the christian idea of a benevolent, all-powerful, all-knowing, prayer-answering god is a logical impossibility. It falls apart under a fairly basic logical analysis, and yet millions of people carry on believing it anyway.

GWolf

Richard W wrote:

Anyone ever find that notion that you should respect other people's religious beliefs is a bit... wacky?

No. I think everyone is entitled to their beliefs, and no one has the right to belittle those beliefs. I also think that people who make fun of, or insult, other people's beliefs are very shallow and weak minded.

liooeight

liooeight wrote:

religion is for the weak minded.

Why don't you go ahead and prove it.

No. I think everyone is entitled to their beliefs, and no one has the right to belittle those beliefs. I also think that people who make fun of, or insult, other people's beliefs are very shallow and weak minded.

What if I believe something entirely wacky? What if that belief is that I'm justified to infringe your rights, etc? What if I try and teach my wacky belief to kids and kick up a fuss if I'm prevented?

I've come across 2 people on this thread in the last couple minutes who seem rather caught up in the notion of a weak mind
feeling insecure or arrogant today?

5uspect

GWolf wrote:

I think everyone is entitled to their beliefs

I would agree

GWolf wrote:

...no one has the right to belittle those beliefs. I also think that people who make fun of, or insult, other people's beliefs are very shallow and weak minded.

Here I do not agree. To hold a belief you must be able to admit that it is exactly that just a belief. If you take offence at insults etc then you are taking your beliefs too far and are no longer willing to admit that such an idea may be completely and utterly wrong. Often what may seem like insults and sarcasm is the only way to get a point across, its not a nice thing to have to resort to but it is effective.

Zombrex

GWolf wrote:

No. I think everyone is entitled to their beliefs, and no one has the right to belittle those beliefs. I also think that people who make fun of, or insult, other people's beliefs are very shallow and weak minded.

Everyone has the right to believe what they like, but that doesn't mean everyone must respect those beliefs.

I don't respect the belief that Jews are money sucking paracites and that the Nazi's were right that they should have all been killed. If someone wants to believe that they can, I am against laws such as holocaust-denial law. But I am not going to respect the idea just because someone holds it. And I will insult and make fun of it any chance I get.

Zillah

Wicknight wrote:

I am against laws such as holocaust-denial law.

Its one of my particular pet peeves.

But I am not going to respect the idea just because someone holds it. And I will insult and make fun of it any chance I get.

Exactly. Respect their right to have it. Doesn't mean the belief itself gets respected.

aidan24326

bluewolf wrote:

Why don't you go ahead and prove it.


What if I believe something entirely wacky? What if that belief is that I'm justified to infringe your rights, etc? What if I try and teach my wacky belief to kids and kick up a fuss if I'm prevented?

I've come across 2 people on this thread in the last couple minutes who seem rather caught up in the notion of a weak mind
feeling insecure or arrogant today?

Bluewolf, I don't know if you're a religious person or not, but if you are I think asking somebody to prove something would be a bit hypocritical.

Zillah

bluewolf wrote:

Why don't you go ahead and prove it.

There actually is a correlation between above average intelligence and disbelief in God.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061114112533AAkoA0d
http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm

aidan24326

Zillah wrote:

There actually is a correlation between above average intelligence and disbelief in God.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061114112533AAkoA0d
http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm

Don't know how accurate that info is though it would seem reasonable that atheists might be, on average, a little smarter.

Scofflaw

GWolf wrote:

No. I think everyone is entitled to their beliefs, and no one has the right to belittle those beliefs. I also think that people who make fun of, or insult, other people's beliefs are very shallow and weak minded.

I believe Creationists are entitled to their belief, but I also believe I am right to mercilessly mock their belief...

cordially,
Scofflaw