Question for Athiests and church bashers

philologos

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I don't think I said that it did!

That's ultimately what someone means when they talk about compartmentalisation. They mean that you keep everything else aside from the fairyland that is in one part of your brain.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I ask a different question - how does the person making the claim expect me to believe it is true? If they can prove the claim, I know it's possible for me to verify it for myself, should I have doubts.

I don't expect you to believe that Christianity is true. I hope that you do, as I hope that everyone does.

As for proof. Proof lies only in the realm of mathematics. What one should be discussing is probabilities. I believe that it is most probable there is a God, that He created the world, and that He has revealed Himself to us. Others may disagree.

Admittedly, I do reject insinuations that I and others must be dumb if we decide to believe in God. I think most right minded people should too.

Helix

LighterGuy wrote: »

And thats what I dont like about athiests. Alot are stuck up :rolleyes:

the facts back it up

education does not equal intelligence by the way, nor does it mean school, but dont let that get in the way of a good old dig

RichieC

LighterGuy wrote: »

And thats what I dont like about athiests. Alot are stuck up :rolleyes:

Truth always hurts.

Shenshen

LighterGuy wrote: »

Need proof? 6th post in this thread with loads of "thanks" from other users:

small families tend to come with education, and our parents' and grandparents' generations didnt have the same level of that as we do.

And thats what I dont like about people with fewer than 3 children. Alot are stuck up :rolleyes:

FYP

Helix

CorkMan wrote: »

But one thing I notice is that Religion is "fading" in these extremely well to do countries, ie the US, Western Europe.

again it ties into what i said earlier. usually with education comes increased bias towards atheism or agnosticism. the more people know about the world, the people in it, the past and the present the less need they tend to have for believing in god because they're told to. they will question things more

you dont get that in countries without the same resources

Fremen

Downlinz wrote: »

What does that say about your judgment on the intelligence of your parents, grandparents and other relatives who more than likely devoted so much of their lives to these causes?

Disclaimer: I'm athiest.

So many athiests are smug, superior cnuts that think being non-religious somehow makes them smarter than theists (at least, so many of the vocal ones on the internet). It's one of the reasons I'd never join an athiest society.

It's incredibly hard to break out of the modes of thought that were programmed into you as a child. Children are basically designed to believe whatever you tell them. Most athiests of the "smug, superior" variety probably carry around many assumptions about the way the world works that they never bothered to challenge. Assumptions about gender roles, for example, or the superiority of capitalism over other types of government.

Monty Burnz

LighterGuy wrote: »

That they feel they are more intelligent than who believe in god.

And I think a lot of people don't read as widely as they should...did you look at the academic paper that was linked earlier?

Dravokivich

CorkMan wrote: »

What I don't get is that it has only been in the past 30 years has Religion been questioned in this country. Christianity has been around for a very long time, but now in 30 years a generation has turned atheist?

I feel that the revelations of the church has been turning people off as well. But one thing I notice is that Religion is "fading" in these extremely well to do countries, ie the US, Western Europe. In the poorest parts of the world Religion is still strong and it will stay that way. I feel that if the world was hit by some catastrophe tomorrow (like a comet hitting earth) Religion would be stronger in the western world.

What turned me off Religion was learning about the existence of others with no reason at all to believe what I was told as a kid, is more right than what someone else was told as a kid. Essentially that's where the foundation of a person's faith is usually built up.

Monty Burnz

philologos wrote: »

That's ultimately what someone means when they talk about compartmentalisation. They mean that you keep everything else aside from the fairyland that is in one part of your brain.

Well, I'd argue that you don't test things in this area as rigorously. If you were shopping for a car and went into a car showroom, and the salesman said 'this is the best car for you', would you buy it immediately? Or would you check out all the other brands first and then make up your mind for yourself?

In the religious sphere - something a lot more important that just buying a car - there are many showrooms. How many of them did you go into before you made your decision? I'm going to guess just one. But even if you tell me that you learned all about a couple of other major religions, you still ignored the vast majority of them.

philologos wrote: »

As for proof. Proof lies only in the realm of mathematics. What one should be discussing is probabilities. I believe that it is most probable there is a God, that He created the world, and that He has revealed Himself to us. Others may disagree.

That's a bit of a dodge to be fair. I can prove almost everything that is believed to be fact to you, or point you to someone who can. You want proof that DNA is the fundamental building block of a human being? It can be done. You want proof that Buenos Aires is the capital of Argentina? We can do that. So it's not just in the 'realm of mathematics' that proof exists.

analucija

I met enough stupid atheists to know that not believing doesn't make me smarter than my religious friends or family members.

Monty Burnz

analucija wrote: »

I met enough stupid atheists to know that not believing doesn't make me smarter than my religious friends or family members.

You're probably right. But the research linked earlier indicates that on average, atheists are more intelligent.

thebaz

it is kind of cool to be an atheist these days in Ireland - but I prefer the term agnostic - those, including myself who are unsure of an existence of a God - if there was always nothing, then nothing would exist - fundamentalism on either end is what I have a problem with

Ray Palmer

philologos wrote: »

As for proof. Proof lies only in the realm of mathematics. What one should be discussing is probabilities. I believe that it is most probable there is a God, that He created the world, and that He has revealed Himself to us. Others may disagree.

.

Probability is maths and it is probable that all gods are a creation of man's imagination given what we know now. This can be shown by the fact there are so many gods and creation myths. As people interacted more and more it was probable that some beliefs would be eliminated and or modified.
Christianity as a popular world leading religion became quite probable as divinity for living people became more unbelievable combined with the discovery of a socialism and science.
Christianity is probably a mixture of many different religions starting with Judaism and mixing with Mythos and other roman religions.

So when you actually talk about probability you should use it in it's correct terms and use it correctly in your thought processes applied to your Christian beliefs. I doubt you can

As for my family members who believed in religion I don't think they assumed their ancesorters were all idiots so why should a difference in view change my view of my family. It is people who claim to have a reasonable argument and use fatally flawed logic to claim they are right I have a problem with. To claim God exists because the bible said so is the most idiotic logic I ever hear.

Penn

I only think someone is stupid when they prove themselves to be. Religion isn't a factor.

Fremen

Monty Burnz wrote: »

You're probably right. But the research linked earlier indicates that on average, atheists are more intelligent.

Gah! Athiesm is an "evolutionarily novel" concept? That's evopsych nonsense. Granted I only flicked through the article, but I don't see him establishing a causal link (which, by the way, is incredibly hard to do). He doesn't account for confounding factors. For example, a religious family might be more likely to be working class, and working class people tend to do worse on intelligence tests. This is just a hypothetical example of a confounding factor, so please don't jump down my throat about specifics.

You've probably heard the phrase "don't believe everything you read in the papers". This applies just as well to academic papers, and in particular to "soft science" papers in areas like economics, psychology and sociology. You need lots of studies and meta-studies to be able to draw conclusions.

Greenmachine

It's called indoctrination.

Chuck Stone

Thank God for atheists.

raah!

Fremen wrote: »

You've probably heard the phrase "don't believe everything you read in the papers". This applies just as well to academic papers, and in particular to "soft science" papers in areas like economics, psychology and sociology. You need lots of studies and meta-studies to be able to draw conclusions.

+1. I don't know how many times I've had some nonsense "survey" linked where no connection between the data and the conclusion is shown, but which is gormlessly accepted because the the term "science" has been appended to it.

The kind of mentality where people think being a "rationalist" or "scientific" amounts to simply agreeing with consensus really is not an intellectually healthy one. Take those articles for example; instead of actually reading through them, trying to see the data leading to the conclusion, they just go "I like this conclusion", and then link it to support their arguments, thinking that other people share the same debilitating deference when it comes to questioning anything someone decides to call science. They have such great respect for science that they are afraid to think scientifically themselves.

It's not surprising that people go to such extents to class themselves as more intelligent than others. The internet is full of "IQ tests". Those internet IQ tests cater to the same crowd that Dawkins et al do with their "All you have to do to be intellectually superior to other people is describe yourself with this title." A sad state of affairs.

aidan24326

philologos wrote: »

As for proof. Proof lies only in the realm of mathematics. What one should be discussing is probabilities. I believe that it is most probable there is a God, that He created the world, and that He has revealed Himself to us. Others may disagree.

Admittedly, I do reject insinuations that I and others must be dumb if we decide to believe in God. I think most right minded people should too.

What people mean when they talk about compartmentalisation, is that you would not ordinarily believe something in your everyday life if it was equally devoid of credible evidence, and that you haven't exposed your religious beliefs to the same level of logical, rational assessment that you would routinely do with other things, because if you had you most likely wouldn't believe it. Because none of it makes any sense.

And for any person who believes in some of the more ridiculous dogma, like transubstantiation, they quite simply simply have to be isolating that belief from the more rational parts of their brain because any exposure to logical scruting would quickly reveal it as complete nonsense.

Monty Burnz

Fremen wrote: »

You've probably heard the phrase "don't believe everything you read in the papers". This applies just as well to academic papers, and in particular to "soft science" papers in areas like economics, psychology and sociology. You need lots of studies and meta-studies to be able to draw conclusions.

I'd guess (without searching) that this is the way the evidence points, but you are of course correct, one swallow does not make a summer.

aidan24326

raah! wrote: »

Those internet IQ tests cater to the same crowd that Dawkins et al do with their "All you have to do to be intellectually superior to other people is describe yourself with this title." A sad state of affairs.

I don't believe Richard Dawkins ever said any such thing. Dawkins is trying to promote a more rational, sceptical, evidence-based approach to how we think about things. And there's no denying that the world badly needs more of that, and there's equally no denying that religion seeks to suppress that way of thinking with its promotion of a faith-based 'belief without evidence' view of the world.

The former thought process has given us every medical,scientific and technological advance that has made our lives so much easier than that of our ancestors. The latter has given us nothing but superstition, sillyness and worse.

marty1985

What I don't get is atheists who say things like "thankfully in years to come there will be no more religions."

I live in the Far East, and in the past three years I've noticed more and more churches being built. Most other foreigners are either here teaching English or evangelising. Christianity here is absolutely booming, and all the different churches are involved in something that might as well be known as the Scramble for China.

And the Asian people who do convert - and I know many - do not leave their beliefs at home the way most Irish people would. They are really passionate about it.

For the record, I'm agnostic, but I think religion is gonna get bigger and bigger, regardless of what the trend might be in Ireland these days.

I believe religion is an inbuilt instinct, much like language, used to hold societies together. We are wired to have religion.

Fremen

marty1985 wrote: »

We are wired to have religion.

Well, couldn't it at least be something fun, like Oprah-ism, or voodoo?

pragmatic1

marty1985 wrote: »

What I don't get is atheists who say things like "thankfully in years to come there will be no more religions."

I live in the Far East, and in the past three years I've noticed more and more churches being built. Most other foreigners are either here teaching English or evangelising. Christianity here is absolutely booming, and all the different churches are involved in something that might as well be known as the Scramble for China.

And the Asian people who do convert - and I know many - do not leave their beliefs at home the way most Irish people would. They are really passionate about it.

For the record, I'm agnostic, but I think religion is gonna get bigger and bigger, regardless of what the trend might be in Ireland these days.

I believe religion is an inbuilt instinct, much like language, used to hold societies together. We are wired to have religion.

Yeah same thing happened in former soviet countries with the fall of the USSR. It happened because religion was supressed. Dont think we're wired for religion though. My nephews and niece dont believe any of it and they're just kids.

raah!

I don't believe Richard Dawkins ever said any such thing. Dawkins is trying to promote a more rational, sceptical, evidence-based approach to how we think about things. And there's no denying that the world badly needs more of that, and there's equally no denying that religion seeks to suppress that way of thinking with its promotion of a faith-based 'belief without evidence' view of the world.

The former thought process has given us every medical,scientific and technological advance that has made our lives so much easier than that of our ancestors. The latter has given us nothing but superstition, sillyness and worse.

I wasn't quoting him. What he is saying amounts to as much. What he promotes is anti religious feeling, if he wanted to promote these things which are supposedly synonymous with science, then he would have to do little other than promote science. We both know he does alot more than this.

There is plenty of denying of both of those things. You also don't seem to understand what religion is, by that post. It's not generally seen as a means of understanding physical processes, just so you know.

I'm not gonna get into an involved discussion here. However, if you are 16 or something, then I only reccommend that perhaps you wait a while and read a bit more before deciding that you know everything there is to know about science philosophy and religion. Yes I'm talking about you and not your post. It's personal advice from me to you. Spend less time in internet circle jerks and more time actually reading. If you actually want to learn and acheive your goal of being an intelligent fellow. It's clear where the two paths there lead to, and come from. The former from a desire to be seen as intelligent, and the latter from a genuine desire to learn (or perhaps also just to seem intelligent, but in a more legitimate way).

marty1985

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Yeah same thing happened in former soviet countries with the fall of the USSR. It happened because religion was supressed. Dont think we're wired for religion though. My nephews and niece dont believe any of it and they're just kids.

Religion has been important ever since we moved from hunter gatherer societies to settled societies. Religion held societies, tribes, together and helped eliminate freeloaders by having a strong price to pay, whether it's genital mutilation to adhering to strict dress codes - these are ways to show allegiance and forced people to work for the good of the group. God, whether it is Yahweh or the Sun God of the Aztecs, also served as an important invisible government.

It's a part of evolution, survival of the fittest. The fittest societies were ones united in religion. So, that's why I believe it's more or less in our genes.

philologos

aidan24326 wrote: »

What people mean when they talk about compartmentalisation, is that you would not ordinarily believe something in your everyday life if it was equally devoid of credible evidence, and that you haven't exposed your religious beliefs to the same level of logical, rational assessment that you would routinely do with other things, because if you had you most likely wouldn't believe it. Because none of it makes any sense.

It makes perfect sense as far as I can see it. If it didn't I doubt I would be here on this forum claiming otherwise.

I don't believe that Christianity is devoid of reason either.

Compartmentalisation namely the idea that I have one fairyland part of my brain and I treat everything else outside of that as separated only comes into play on the atheistic assumption that this is indeed a fairyland rather than reality. That makes it null and void as an argument to point at a Christian, as you will never be assured of the initial common ground required.

It's absolute nonsense that I haven't subjected my beliefs to scrutiny, given that I read the Bible and thought through on the basis of Christian arguments and critques from non-believers during the time when I was considering adopting faith. That was about 4 years ago. Over the past few years I have welcomed to criticise my beliefs in a calm and reasonable manner (that being the prerequisite to discussion) and I aim as best as I can to respond. Where's the lazy attitude in respect to reasoning it through?

marty1985

Helix wrote: »

in the years and generations to come we'll see religion having less and less of a place in the civilised world anyway and even our current society will be looked back at with the same kind of shame we look back on the child abuse of previous generations

Think about it though. Is there anything else that is dominating the world at the moment more than religion, and the religious tensions that come with it? Is there anything else dominating politics from America to the Middle East? It's not going to just disappear. Your beef is probably with the Catholic Church or something. If anything, the influence of religion is growing more and more out of control. A society without religion never lasted long. The Soviet Union? Maybe 70 years.

Helix

marty1985 wrote: »

Think about it though. Is there anything else that is dominating the world at the moment more than religion, and the religious tensions that come with it? Is there anything else dominating politics from America to the Middle East? It's not going to just disappear. Your beef is probably with the Catholic Church or something. If anything, the influence of religion is growing more and more out of control. A society without religion never lasted long. The Soviet Union? Maybe 70 years.

it took religion to cause the only real problem scandanavians have faced for a while. theyre an athiest society and they do pretty bloody well

goat2

Downlinz wrote: »

If you believe the church is corrupt + power hungry and that god isn't real.

What does that say about your judgment on the intelligence of your parents, grandparents and other relatives who more than likely devoted so much of their lives to these causes? As a huge part of our society wouldn't it imply you believed they were gullible and naive people to live the way they did? Perhaps weak-willed to stand out from the crowd and question accepted truths?


(p.s. I am an athiest and pondering this question myself. Not looking to start some sort of shame parade or anything)

i am a catholic, i beleive in my god, i dont have to beleive in a bunch of men and women,