Question for Athiests and church bashers

Ray Palmer

joseph brand wrote: »

I would consider my father very intelligent, due to the amount of books and newspapers he reads/ has read.

Knowledge and intelligence are two different things. Generally intelligence is taken as the application of knowledge and the logical deductive reasoning of said knowledge.

It is like if you give somebody the classic puzzle like you have 2 jugs of different amounts and you have to figure out how to get a third measurement. One can remember the answer or somebody else can work it out. The person remembering the answer isn't showing intelligence.

I will accept somebody will override logic and their intelligence for belief. It is when they claim it is logical or they apply the same ideas to real world things they will drop in my view very quickly. No point in having intelligence and not using it you might as well be an idiot.

philologos

I don't see how believing in God isn't using your intelligence any more than someone who doesn't believe in God is using theirs. We have to adopt your atheistic assumption for that POV to make sense.

Ush1

Although funnily enough....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence

philologos

Ush1 wrote: »

Although funnily enough....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence

In Australia, 23% of Christian church attenders have earned a university or postgraduate degree, whereas the figure for the general population is 13%

Studies of Mormons in the US show that Mormons with higher education attend church more regularly than uneducated Mormons. Survey research indicated that 41% of Mormons with only elementary school education attend church regularly. By contrast, 76% of Mormon college graduates attend church regularly and 78% of Mormons who went beyond their college degrees to do graduate study attend church regularly.

It seems a mixed picture.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

I don't see how believing in God isn't using your intelligence any more than someone who doesn't believe in God is using theirs.

You might have a point if that was what you were doing. However the fact that your belief in god is not just slightly, but ENTIRELY unsubstantiated tells us that whatever path led you to a belief in god it was not through intelligence or reason. More likely emotion and confirmation bias to name but a few.

The "Richard Carrier Skepticon 3" talk would enlighten you on this further were I to believe you would actually watch it.

That is not to say that there might be some people who have reasoned their way intelligently into thinking there is a god. There may be. I am just entirely unconvinced you are one of them.

Studies like linked above do show however a correlation between higher intelligence and religious belief. However as I stated in my first post on this thread, just because intelligence is a negative predictor of religious belief in a general sample population, it by no means precludes it.

philologos wrote: »

It seems a mixed picture.

Only because you are falsely equating church attendance with actual belief. If you separate the two in your mind the "mixed picture" becomes a lot more clear.

In the mormon communities there are a lot more pressures than mere belief in god which influence church attendance. "Shunning" comes to mind at once.

Ray Palmer

philologos wrote: »

I don't see how believing in God isn't using your intelligence any more than someone who doesn't believe in God is using theirs. We have to adopt your atheistic assumption for that POV to make sense.

Well you are again not reading the point and being obtuse. Religious belief is the suspension of reason which is fine it is when you try to argue it isn't YOU personally fail but so do other people too. To apply outside of your religious belief is a big fail.
A prime example is your use of the term "probable". You use your belief to substantiate that and ignore real probability and know facts.

Your belief is yours no point claiming it has logic or forcing logic on top when it is quite apparent you are cherry picking where and when not to apply it.

philologos

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Well you are again not reading the point and being obtuse. Religious belief is the suspension of reason which is fine it is when you try to argue it isn't YOU personally fail but so do other people too. To apply outside of your religious belief is a big fail.
A prime example is your use of the term "probable". You use your belief to substantiate that and ignore real probability and know facts.

How is it the suspension of reason? What are you defining as reasonable? What is "real probability" in your opinion?

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Your belief is yours no point claiming it has logic or forcing logic on top when it is quite apparent you are cherry picking where and when not to apply it.

What is your basis for saying this? *

* Buckle up folks, I'm expecting a strawman and a half

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

Buckle up folks, I'm expecting a strawman and a half

Well given the number of strawmen you pull out of your hat I am sure you are more than qualified to recognise one when you see one. You have erected enough on this forum in your time to raise a whole army of Worzel Gummidge.

However if his accusation is your selective application of things like logic then I find his accusation perfectly sound. I have pointed out before, for example, how you selectively apply claims about how likely it is for things to occur. You have a penchant for saying things are not likely, when in fact they happen all the time, because their not being likely makes your Christianity Fairy Tale sound more plausible.

marty1985

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Not religion. Religious belief and ritual is learned.



Well this is your opinion. I try not to get involved in discussions about the future because they are pretty fruitless.



Science will point you to the grave in which our dead parents are buried and say 'right there - that's where they are'.



It may not be the job of science and reason to eradicate religion like it might a virus but it will inevitably shine a critical light on some of the superstitions to which religions hold dear.

Also, religion is being 'sanitizied' by science. What people who subscribe to religious teachings tend to do is move with science and change their stance to accomodate new theories and discoveries so in that way religion is being rationalized by science.

For example most rational people will now reject the idea of Adam and Eve and the talking snake in favour of Darwin's theory of evolution.

I would like to point out I am discussing religion of itself and not Christianity or the particular Holy Text of any religion.

I am not an atheist and I am not a Christian, I have a nice seat here on the fence from where I can see the atheists and Christians both being dogmatic in their assertions, and they are both so similar it is uncanny.

Faith brings personal rewards, but I was discussing religion, which is a social force. When this thread went off on a tangent about morals and such, what a lot of the posters arguing didn't seem to realise was that religion creates circles of trust among its members. This is usually why religious people often mistakenly believe their religion is the source of morality. Religion strengthens the social fabric in most cases, and was the only thing to do so in early societies that had not developed any civil authorities or governments. You'll point out that this may not be relevant to modern societies, but my point is that religion has existed before most other things - it was not tacked on to a secular society by Kings or priests to control people. Religion existed long before any high priests or Kings. My point: it is natural to humanity. We built our civilizations around religion.

Religion bonds people in ways that nationality, ethnicity and language cannot. When a nation is under threat, they usually define their cause by religion, to bind themselves. See America, the foundation of Israel, Europe's wars with Islam.

Before this thread, it hadn't really occurred to me that atheists would deny the social benefits of religion, or the longevity of it, instead viewing the subject in clear black and white terms.

It can be argued about whether rituals and religious behavior are learned. It is a complex cultural behaviour on top of genetically shaped learning abilities - the same as language. People are born with the innate instinct to learn a language and the religion of their community. That's why languages and religions differ so widely by place to place.

I believe in evolution. Religious behavior evolved. It evolved because, like language, it offered members of a social species the ability to communicate and share thoughts. It had to, therefore, offer the species some benefits, other than spiritual fulfillment.

Regarding spiritual fulfillment, the search for truths that are unattainable, such as what happens when we die, is never going to end. You can't stop people turning to religion, if they want. Science won't point to graves and say "that's where your dead parents are."

analucija

There could be billion reasons for correlation between religion and intelligence. As far as I know IQ tests are considered to be biased towards white middle class males anyway.

We are all individuals and no general statistic can mean that somebody has 10 IQ points less or more just because of their belief. As for brain washing, there used to be an atheist ideology called communism that was very successful at it. I'm an atheist, not agnostic, a 100% atheist but I still find militant atheists extremely annoying. On one side religious nutjobs can be laughed at but on the other side you have militant atheists who obviously think that their calling is to enlighten great unwashed who are not so intellectually capable and they should be thanked for it. Jumping on a bandwagon of atheism couple of hundred years after Voltaire denied existence of a god as presented by catholic church isn't exactly an achievement. I prefer people who follow their beliefs, whatever they might be, without notion of superiority.

nozzferrahhtoo

marty1985 wrote: »

what a lot of the posters arguing didn't seem to realise was that religion creates circles of trust among its members.

Sometimes maybe. But the fact there is.... for example.... well over 33000 branches of Christianity alone with many differences, some of them irreconcilable, between them makes one also see just how quickly such trust can break down.

One wonders if you might not have it entirely backwards. Maybe people who trust each other come together under the banner of religion.... not people coming together under the banner of religion and being caused to trust each other.

This is a common mistake and morality is one of those places where the mistake is made, in case you need another example. People claim falsely that religion causes people to do good. However there is nothing in religion that does this so it is just as likely people who are simply good people are attracted to things like religion where they think their goodness will "fit".

Religion and theists of course are only too happy to gain respect by proxy to such people and claim it is from their religion the good comes, and not the people coming into it.

marty1985 wrote: »

My point: it is natural to humanity.

Maybe it is. I think much of it in fact is. However saying it is natural to us does not mean it is true, good, useful or any other such nice label. Things natural to us are not always good. You might point out for example that all civilizations as far back as we as a species can remember have had religion. I could also point out however that all civilizations as far back as we can remember have also had the common cold.

Saying something is natural to us therefore clearly is not to say anything automatically good about it. Saying something was useful in the past by the way would also not say anything about its utility TODAY, which is an error many people also make and is worth adding on here as you appear to be starting down that road too.

marty1985

Sometimes maybe. But the fact there is.... for example.... well over 33000 branches of Christianity alone with many differences, some of them irreconcilable, between them makes one also see just how quickly such trust can break down.

I don't want to get into a debate about theological differences, but saying there are 33,000 branches of Christianity is not true. Most branches exist because of geological differences. You might like to join the Church of Ireland, or Church of England, or some church in New Zealand, but it will largely depend on where you are.

One wonders if you might not have it entirely backwards. Maybe people who trust each other come together under the banner of religion.... not people coming together under the banner of religion and being caused to trust each other.

Which do you really think was most likely in the survival of the fittest?

Maybe it is. I think much of it in fact is. However saying it is natural to us does not mean it is true, good, useful or any other such nice label. Things natural to us are not always good.

Nothing is black and white. It has the potential to be used for good and for evil.

You might point out for example that all civilizations as far back as we as a species can remember have had religion. I could also point out however that all civilizations as far back as we can remember have also had the common cold.

Saying something is natural to us therefore clearly is not to say anything automatically good about it. Saying something was useful in the past by the way would also not say anything about its utility TODAY, which is an error many people also make and is worth adding on here as you appear to be starting down that road too.

It is an evolved behavior, bear in mind the term I used was religious behavior. We weren't banging our heads against a wall for thousands of years, only harming ourselves. We were doing something because it had some sort of benefits for us. Religious societies had an advantage to survive above others.

Ray Palmer

philologos wrote: »

How is it the suspension of reason? What are you defining as reasonable? What is "real probability" in your opinion?

I explained this already but you ignored it. Very simple probability is based on previously recorded information. So it was probable that earth and intelligence would exist. It is also probably a religion would win out over others. There is not probable information for a god. The whole premise of Christianity is faith nothing else is require so it is by its own definition it requires the suspension of reason. Probability is a mathematical concept there is no probability for a god as you have explained it. No form of logic involve suspension of logic for belief.

philologos wrote: »

What is your basis for saying this? *

* Buckle up folks, I'm expecting a strawman and a half

The fact you run and hide from some posts and ignore detail. Then using the language of reasonable logic and only selectively applying it to your own points.

You are so obvious to everybody nobody is fooled if you think you are debating the points you are being informed right now that you are not. You just avoid and repeat. So cherry picking is your game and the fact is it is obvious.

marty1985

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Saying something was useful in the past by the way would also not say anything about its utility TODAY, which is an error many people also make and is worth adding on here as you appear to be starting down that road too.

I haven't said anything about whether it's good or useful today. I said it's had benefits for societies to evolve, and also, that it's just not going to go away, which is what I believe from looking at the world today, as I believe religious fervour is increasing, dangerously.

Shane L

I'm more anti theist because it just seems way too far fetched that a Man type figure with morals created the Universe. Animals need morals like ourselves so we don't wipe out each other out, its a survival tool , part of our evolution not something divine. Religion tries to simplify the world when we all know that it is an extremely complicated place governed by laws discovered only recently in terms of our existence on this planet.

And I'm going to bash Atheists as well..... how can there be structure and equations which hold the universe together if it wasn't "created" I don't mean this in a religious sense but there must be something that holds this complicated mess together :P

Religion = too simple and childish
Atheism = no answer

I bash religion and atheism :pac: I'mma be a man of science

Oh_Noes

Atheism and church-bashing don't go hand-in-hand in spite of what you'd believe reading boards and its athiests forum.

I'm an atheist but I still have a lot of respect for the Catholic church because I think they did a lot of good things in this country. That by no means excuses the horrific stuff that's come out over the years but it is unfair to discount the work of the good apples in the organisation.

Shane L

It's 'atheist', not 'athiest'.

Shane L wrote: »

Religion = too simple and childish
Atheism = no answer

I bash religion and atheism :pac: I'mma be a man of science

What's wrong with throwing up your hands and saying 'I don't know'? Nothing. Good science avoids coming to conclusions without conclusive evidence.

nozzferrahhtoo

marty1985 wrote: »

saying there are 33,000 branches of Christianity is not true.

Yes. It is true. Source: World Christian Encyclopedia 2000 version. Check it yourself.

I have not updated my figure but if anyone has a later version than the 2000 one they are invited to tell me what the number is up to now.

And as I said the differences between them are a lot more than merely geographical (I assume you meant that and not the study of rocks) and there are often very much irreconcilable theological differences between many of them.

marty1985 wrote: »

Which do you really think was most likely in the survival of the fittest? Nothing is black and white. It has the potential to be used for good and for evil.

Possibly, but then an interesting fact emerges when you explore that line of thought. Nothing good has EVER come from religion that is not just as attainable without it. There is no good action done or morally pleasant statement made that could not, and often has not, been made by people with no religion.

Which shows that whatever else religion may be, it is entirely superfluous to requirements. Therefore if it can be indicted on one thing, only one, then this means it has gone into negative equity of usefulness and has become quite harmless.

Alas I can think of more than 1.

marty1985 wrote: »

It is an evolved behavior

Not really. Not directly anyway. At least not any more than the common cold is.

We are not evolved to catch colds. We ARE evolved to do other things which the common cold can usurp for it's own ends. That is how disease works. It has itself evolved to use aspects of us to further itself.

Similarly I do not think religion (or religious behavior) is evolved per se, but rather it is a meme that takes advantage of other evolved traits in us. Traits which we are learning a lot more about as science progresses such as hyper active agency detection, confirmation bias, and many others I can list if asked.

Which means....

marty1985 wrote: »

We were doing something because it had some sort of benefits for us. Religious societies had an advantage to survive above others.

.... this is also called into questions. I can think of no real advantages of religion that could not have been attained without it. Like any virus religion most likely uses aspects of us to benefit itself. Plus we do not really have "non religious" societies to compare with to suggest they survive better do we? Superstition and religion has pervaded our species for so long that I am not sure we have relevant examples on which to base such comparisons.

marty1985 wrote: »

I haven't said anything about whether it's good or useful today.

I know! Thats exactly what I said. I said you appeared to be erring down towards that road. I never once complained you actually said it A lot of your words are making the same overtures as someone who does claim this and so I felt it useful to preempt that direction of discourse.

marty1985

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Sometimes maybe. But the fact there is.... for example.... well over 33000 branches of Christianity alone with many differences, some of them irreconcilable, between them makes one also see just how quickly such trust can break down.

One wonders if you might not have it entirely backwards. Maybe people who trust each other come together under the banner of religion.... not people coming together under the banner of religion and being caused to trust each other.

I think I should elaborate on what I mean by trust, and how it relates to religion.

You can study the links between religion and economics, that is, religion and trade, it's well documented, particularly by Max Weber over 100 years ago. An example that springs to mind is that the Jews have built so many businesses based on ties of their religion. Islam spread as a means of trust and trade. All before the advent of banking.

My point: Trust is earned within religion. It could be by having your foreskin shaved off, or by devoting 10% of your income, or 10% of your time, but this is how circles of trust are created.

Liam Byrne

Has the OP even come back with an explanation as to why they lumped the two together and why they choose to portray valid criticism of the church's actions as "bashing" ?

nozzferrahhtoo

marty1985 wrote: »

it's just not going to go away, which is what I believe from looking at the world today, as I believe religious fervour is increasing, dangerously.

I think I am somewhat more optimistic than you on this score. I think it is dying. Slowly, but it is. Atheism for example is the fastest growing minority in some countries. Studies have been referenced in news papers of late predicting the death of religion in some countries.

That it is becoming more vocal and fervor is heightening I can agree with, but I think that is only in a vocal minority. I do not think it is true of religion as a whole. Plus such increase in ranting and raving can may be likened to the extra fight an animal will put in when cornered and scared and dying.

I have no illusions that I will see major victories in the war against religion in my life time, or even that my great grand kids will live in a world vastly religiously different than the one I live in... but I am seeing progresses. Both against religion, and in battle grounds that have long been linked to religion such as evolution, abortion, homosexuality and more.

I find it does not bother me that I will likely never see the change I help in my own small ways to work on, but I do feel proud to have been a part of it and continue to be apart of it, whether posting on forums confronting the lies of people like Jackass/philologos above so such arguments do not go unchallanged and readers can see exactly why such arguments fail.... or whether it is with my work in and around organisations such as Atheist Ireland (of which I am a founding member) and other organisations around the world that I work on.... or whether it is simply working to help the success of meetings like the recent Atheist Alliance 2011 Convention in dublin which I helped all I could with.... I have played my small part and I am seeing progress, no matter how small, and it is heartening.

marty1985

[QUOTE=nozzferrahhtoo;73493624
Possibly, but then an interesting fact emerges when you explore that line of thought. Nothing good has EVER come from religion that is not just as attainable without it. There is no good action done or morally pleasant statement made that could not, and often has not, been made by people with no religion.

Which shows that whatever else religion may be, it is entirely superfluous to requirements. Therefore if it can be indicted on one thing, only one, then this means it has gone into negative equity of usefulness and has become quite harmless. [/QUOTE]

I understand what you're saying, but the issue of morality might be a separate issue. Whether it is useful now is a separate issue to whether it was useful for societies trying to survive and stick together 10-15,000 years ago.

philologos

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I explained this already but you ignored it. Very simple probability is based on previously recorded information. So it was probable that earth and intelligence would exist. It is also probably a religion would win out over others. There is not probable information for a god. The whole premise of Christianity is faith nothing else is require so it is by its own definition it requires the suspension of reason. Probability is a mathematical concept there is no probability for a god as you have explained it. No form of logic involve suspension of logic for belief.

Probability is based on likelihood. All you and others can do is complain about what other people present rather than presenting a coherent argument for your own position.

Personally, I find it patently irrational to think that this universe came about by its own accord, or indeed that it created itself. Simply put causation makes sense particularly in bodies of a finite age such as our universe. When we say that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, we say that the universe came into being 13.7 billion years ago. As such something happened 13.7 billion years ago which caused the universe to come into being. That's reasonable as far as I see it. It is perfectly reasonable given the sophistication of the universe that that could be a Creator.

Despite what people may claim. I don't believe that Christianity is without ground, and indeed I have provided my reasons as to why I believe in it. Some of them didn't hold up, and I accept that. Others were fobbed off without decent explanation. The Resurrection one in particular was fobbed off without basis other than to bring in the completely unrelated cases of Joseph Smith, and Sri Sathya Sai Baba. No argument dealt with it on its own basis.

Others proved themselves to be incapable of holding a calm and respectable conversation. I predicate all discussion on mutual respect. Otherwise I'm wasting my time.

Indeed, in all of the years I've posted on boards.ie I've heard no substantive argument as to why I should be an atheist rather than a Christian. All I've heard is demands for proof, a demand which is inconsistent when one takes a moment to think of the assumptions that atheists apply to the universe without proof (I.E that all things are material).

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The fact you run and hide from some posts and ignore detail. Then using the language of reasonable logic and only selectively applying it to your own points.

That's nonsense really.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

You are so obvious to everybody nobody is fooled if you think you are debating the points you are being informed right now that you are not. You just avoid and repeat. So cherry picking is your game and the fact is it is obvious.

I have no intention of "fooling" anyone, most of these accusations fall flat considering that I've made a better case for Christianity than most of you have made for atheism.

What I am fed up of is this kind of nonsense though. You've presented nothing to debate apart from your unfounded prejudices.

Edit: Lobbing criticism at a position doesn't provide credence for your position. Even if you determined that Christianity was false for arguments sake, that still doesn't of necessity make me an atheist, nor does it affirm that position.

nozzferrahhtoo

marty1985 wrote: »

An example that springs to mind is that the Jews have built so many businesses based on ties of their religion. Islam spread as a means of trust and trade. All before the advent of banking.

That religion is increasing trust between them is one interpretation that is possible. That it is precluding trust between people of other religions thus leaving said groups trading more successfully amongst their own is another.

I would not be so far to leap to the assumption that religion is increasing trade trust between the in groups, when the idea it is causing distrust towards the outgroups is just as valid.

Plus as I keep pointing out, if you can achieve X with religion and without religion then religion is clearly superfluous to requirements. Even if your claim was true that religion increases such trust I would still point out that such trust is attainable without religion too.

Overheal

Sad to say I feel offended that this thread has gone on an extra 100 posts and nobody wrote me a response.

But everyone here is still too busy debating Creation and Evolution. Again. Y'all suck.

nozzferrahhtoo

marty1985 wrote: »

I understand what you're saying, but the issue of morality might be a separate issue. Whether it is useful now is a separate issue to whether it was useful for societies trying to survive and stick together 10-15,000 years ago.

Good because I made something of a typo in the text you quoted! So I am glad you got the meaning anyway. I said "harmless" when I was meant to type "harmful".

I am not focusing what I am saying JUST on morality though. There has NEVER been anything good to come out of religion that I am aware of that was not just as attainable without it.

Jump from morality to.... say... science for example. Ask yourself the two part question: Has there ever been a question that once had a scientific answer for which now the best answer we have comes from religion? I can not think of one.

Has there however been questions that once had a religious answer that now the best answer available to us is scientific? I can think of a list that would take me days to type.

This shows two things... firstly religion is not offering us anything useful except fantasy to fill in the gaps in our knowledge. Secondly there is cause to be more optimistic about the death of religion because the answers to those two questions show very clearly that the conversation between science and religion is going in one direction only, with the steady erosion of the latter by the former.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

All you and others can do is complain about what other people present rather than presenting a coherent argument for your own position.

Actually no, that is what you are doing. And you are not even doing it well given when you talk about other peoples arguments you actually claim they say things different to what they actually say (Strawman). Such as....

philologos wrote: »

When we say that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, we say that the universe came into being 13.7 billion years ago.

....No we do not. What we are saying is that the universe entered its current form 13.7 billion years ago in an expansion event laughing called the "big bang". Nothing about it "coming into being". The universe expanded from a singularity of infinite mass and density 13.7 billion years ago. That is a change of state. A change of state is NOT a coming into being.

What did "come into being" at this point is likely "time". This is interesting because "time" is required for causality and since it did not exist as an attribute of the previous state of the universe... your claims about "causation" and "first cause" and all that are baseless.

So it might be "reasonable as far as you can see it" but the problem is you are not seeing very far, and what you are seeing you are getting wrong. Probably on purpose.

philologos wrote: »

I don't believe that Christianity is without ground, and indeed I have provided my reasons as to why I believe in it. Some of them didn't hold up, and I accept that. Others were fobbed off without decent explanation.

Actually NONE of them held up and you were given AMPLE explanation as to why in this post here, and this post here, but you ran for the hills to get away from them. Both of them reply to all the points you make in the link you just posted above.

Ush1

philologos wrote: »

It seems a mixed picture.

Well not from what you quoted.

Mine details links to IQ and religion.

aidan24326

analucija wrote: »

I prefer people who follow their beliefs, whatever they might be, without notion of superiority.

Pointing out the fallacies in religious beliefs has nothing to do with 'superiority'. Much of what is considered dogma in religion is blatantly absurd and often demonstrably false. To say that is simply to call a spade a spade, it's not about feeling intellectually superior.

In saying that, some religious beliefs are so ridiculous as to almost deserve mocking. Fairytales for grownups who ought to know better. I don't go out of my way to mock but when you claim to believe in things that make absolutely no sense you're leaving yourself open to it, and holding those beliefs under the banner of religion doesn't give them any more credibilty whatsoever.

philologos

Ush1 wrote: »

Well not from what you quoted.

Mine details links to IQ and religion.

Those quotes are from your link. The results don't seem too conclusive if both are true.