Intelligent people = 'less likely to believe in God'

[Zonorhc]

Protip: WWII also had economic grounds for justification, not just the social Darwinist aspect. In fact, it had a lot of root causes beyond the social Darwinist aspect. Picking that out as the major - in fact, even as a major reason for WWII is to blatantly ignore everything that happened in the two decades before it.

[tripsis]

Since people aren't brought up with atheism, I don't agree. To get to atheism, most people have to go against their upbringing. That requires questioning and seeking of answers.

 

 

 

Not true in the least. I am just one example of someone not brought up with an actual belief system. At 9 years old, I was told that I can find my own path, rather than be forced into a path set by either parent. I found my own path, through trial and error. I studied, tried different things, and realized that I didn't need a preset path.

 

 

 

I guess the point I'm making is don't make assumptions. I've known a good number of people who were raised to find their own way, so don't generalize and say all kids are forced into a religion.

 

There's a difference between your parent(s) saying, "There is no god and you better not believe in one" and telling you to choose your own path. I personally have never seen a parent who tried to force atheism upon their child, or even raised their children with a constant reminder about how there is no god. Don't get me wrong - I'm sure it has happened somewhere, but I think it is far less common than someone being brought up with a religion, or someone whose parents have tried to force their religion upon them.

 

 

 

As an example, my mother is Catholic and my father is atheist. My mother has tried non-stop to force her religion upon me and has constantly told me that I'd go to hell if I didn't start believing in God. My father, on the other hand, never tried to force atheism upon me.

 

 

 

If you wanted the ultimate proof that the Big Bang Theory is wrong, look at the name. It's a theory.

 

Does that mean that all theories in the world are wrong, just because they're unproven? If you want to base this on "theory = wrong; fact = right," than technically every theory - including religion - is wrong. In my opinion, the Big Bang Theory is hardly any different from a religion. Religions are based on faith, and in a sense, believers in the Big Bang Theory have to have faith as well, because there isn't really much evidence to support it. But does that mean it's wrong? NO. Because nobody knows how the Earth/universe/etc. came to be. So who are you (or any of us) to say that it - or any other religion - is wrong?

 

 

 

In my opinion, the most "factual" way to go about thinking about the creation of the Earth/universe/etc. is just to not make any assumptions at all. Why do we have to make assumptions anyway? Humans are so insistent on knowing EVERYTHING - even the things that are possibly meant to remain unknown.

[IGoddessI]

I don't believe the US or religion had anything to do with the start of any of the major wars in the 20th century. All of the US vs. Muslim stuff has taken place in the 21st and is completely minuscule to the bloodshed occurring in the World Wars (which were secular in nature... World War 2 being started by atheist Darwinists, actually). Note that you left out my example of the holocaust and WW2... the bloodiest, most disgusting show of injustice the world has ever seen, justified by Darwinism.

 

 

 

To be honest I didn't read your post properly I was on my way out the door.

 

 

 

Well technically your first sentence is true. A lot of events happening in the 20th century were politically not religiously motivated.

 

 

 

However, as others have pointed out Darwinism had nothing to do with WW2 rather, from one mans madness (Adolf Hitler). While that's no justification for the holocaust it explains why the Nazi's did what they did.

 

 

 

Hitler's extermination of the Jews was religiously motivated.

[bloodyhatchetbear]

Hitler's extermination of the Jews was religiously motivated.

 

 

 

Actually, that's not the complete truth.

 

 

 

Yes, they were Jewish. But it wasn't completely because he hated the religion. It was actually because most Jewish people only married other Jews. Because of this, it caused alot of hereditary diseases to be passed down, and also inter-family marriage, making other diseases prevalant, i.e. birth defects caused by breeding between cousins. Now, this is not an excuse for a mass genocide. It's just an explanation as to why it was done.

 

 

 

Now, if he had made laws saying you can't marry people who were related to you that closely, it would have made more sense to me.

[IGoddessI]

That's right. However, he had a radical Christian belief. It has been found in his records (if you will) that he altered some parts of the bible that he didn't like. Rather than having Jesus as a saviour, he created an alternative version where Jesus was a fighter against the Jewish people. It was from this belief that he began to imprison and treat the Jews as poorly as he did. Secondly, the interbreeding of Jews prevented Hitler from breeding his master race which also contributed to his plan of mass extermination.

[Barihawk]

We can't only blame Hitler. Many of his staff were just as fond of eugenics as he was. In fact in that time period (1890-1945), eugenics was a popular notion being debated around the world. Until the Nazi's kind of killed it.

 

 

 

And while Social Darwinism may not be Darwinism, it derives from it. That's the point whoever said it was trying to make.

 

 

In my opinion, the most "factual" way to go about thinking about the creation of the Earth/universe/etc. is just to not make any assumptions at all. Why do we have to make assumptions anyway? Humans are so insistent on knowing EVERYTHING - even the things that are possibly meant to remain unknown.

 

 

 

And that's the thing that causes these debates. We have people on both sides who feel that way.

[Killy_the_Kid]

[hide=]

I've always wanted to do this.

 

 

 

This is the biggest argument in the world. Did the Universe create itself, or did SomeOne Else? I'm gonna try to make this as nuetral as possible, but a certain group may not favor this. If you wanted the ultimate proof that the Big Bang Theory is wrong, look at the name. It's a theory. Faults:

 

1. Okay, the Big Bang. What banged? What exploded? I have seen an evolutionary documentary and apparently it was a superlikeultramega condensed particle of pure mass and energy that finally burst. Okay. Where'd that come from? Keep asking the previous question and you'll stump anyone.

 

 

 

And that is my fight. Go ahead. Call me an "unintelligent" conservative fool. How bout you try reading the above words, using your feeble brain to comprehend and think, "Hmm, there's a teeny tiny possibility my evidenceless theory might just be wrong.

 

 

 

I just saved the human race. Your welcome. Nobel Prize, please.

 

 

 

What is there to prove a higher entity exsists? Your so called omnipotent being?

 

 

 

1. (Since I'm only addressing this) What created your god then? Hmm? Did he appear out of nothingness? What created him? I used your logic there to [bleep] up what you are trying to get at.

 

 

 

You are an unintelligent conservative fool. How about you with your feeble brain, analyze all the veiws. You just made a fool out of yourself by using logic that can be reversed and used against you.

 

 

 

Besides, I believe there is some proof of the big bang somewhere in the universe. The universe is infintely expanding I believe, and with all the phenomenoms happening, we might never find this proof, we might never find out what happens inside a Black Hole. But hell, it doesn't stop us trying.

 

 

 

The ability to question things is one of humanity's traits.

 

 

 

I'll take that noble prize back and give you a swift kick in the nuts for trying to claim you saved humanity with false logic.

[/hide]

 

 

 

Oh, and the response is attacking me, instead of defending himself. How odd.

 

 

 

1. Yes, I really feel like you're "only addressing this." As for "my God," which, by the way, I never said, I was attacking, not defending AnyOne. Since, obviously, in this argument the attacker is your "side," while the defender's statements are drownded out by repeated "What proof do you have" and "We're right, you're wrong, end of story." I am standing up for the little guy, and attacking you, since obviously that's the only way you'll listen. It worked the same when I was tired of my friend bothering me about my musical taste, so I wiki'd his bands. Let's just say 18 ex-bandmates and a tour bus incident did the job well.

 

Back on-topic, "my God" is eternal, always was and always will be. By your logic, the universe is the same. That's your excuse for, "Where'd it come from?" "It always was."

 

2. Ah, personal attack. How odd.

 

3. The ability to question things is one of humanity's traits. Then question, don't pin me against a wall and scream in my face. That's not a debate.

 

4. Thanks, and with that kick I take your reasoning, true debating skills, and intelligence.

[Ginger_Warrior]

And while Social Darwinism may not be Darwinism, it derives from it. That's the point whoever said it was trying to make.

 

By that logic, the New Jesus Army derived from Christianity, so all Christians are to blame for their aggresive actions.

 

 

 

At least I can see the flawed logic in that.

[ThurinEthir]

Honestly, to be blunt, anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is an idiot. Note that I'm saying evolution in general, not human evolution.

 

And you can neither prove nor disprove the Bible...To be honest, no one can answer either "Where did God come from?" or "Where did the particles causing the Big Bang come from?" Sure, we can hold our beliefs that God has always been here, and atheists can create theories, but neither is conclusive.

 

Killy, though I sort of agree with you, please find better arguments. People like you may give Christians a bad name. :|

 

(Okay, that was a bit harsh....Don't take it too personally...)

[Barihawk]

And while Social Darwinism may not be Darwinism, it derives from it. That's the point whoever said it was trying to make.

 

By that logic, the New Jesus Army derived from Christianity, so all Christians are to blame for their aggresive actions.

 

 

 

At least I can see the flawed logic in that.

 

 

 

I think the point is more that the New Jesus Army would not exist if there was no Christianity. He isn't blaming Darwinists for the Eugenics movement, he's just saying that it's a stem of it.

[hellbellz]

And you can neither prove nor disprove the Bible...To be honest, no one can answer

 

I'm sure scientists can prove how a man cannot simply spread water how The Bible describes it. :roll:

[ThurinEthir]

And you can neither prove nor disprove the Bible...To be honest, no one can answer

 

I'm sure scientists can prove how a man cannot simply spread water how The Bible describes it. :roll:

 

...Let's see the proof then.

 

The Bible mainly uses circular reasoning, as in parts of it are possible only if other parts are possible. For example, the parting of waters is possible if God exists - But does God exist? Prove/disprove His existence...Good luck.

[hoffman44]

actually the parting of waters is scientifically possible, saw a cool documentary on the discovery channel, (everyone knows right before a tsunami the water drains from the shore) basically a part of the land fell away and splashed into the sea, causing a tsunami, the water parted for a while, and then the water came roaring back as a wave.

[Kilo]

In my opinion most people who believe in god know nothing about the religion they follow and just stuck with whatever religion they were brought up to believe in.

 

 

 

However if you become more knowledgeable and look into other things other than just god creating everything you might see them as more rational and logical.

 

 

 

Something came out of nothing is more rational? The chance isn't only small it's beyond probability.

 

 

 

I believe that most people look at the two ideas and logically assume that a higher being created everything as opposed to nothing to something. I mean what determines intellect? Degrees and titles? If a majority believes in one thing and and a small minority believes in another, isn't it probable to assume the mass has found the truth?

 

 

 

This is only my opinion, no one quote bash me please, this is why I stay away from these topics..

[Kilo]

double post... not looking inteligient :P

 

 

 

 

 

And you can neither prove nor disprove the Bible...To be honest, no one can answer

 

I'm sure scientists can prove how a man cannot simply spread water how The Bible describes it. :roll:

 

...Let's see the proof then.

 

The Bible mainly uses circular reasoning, as in parts of it are possible only if other parts are possible. For example, the parting of waters is possible if God exists - But does God exist? Prove/disprove His existence...Good luck.

 

 

 

Granted the Bible has to be believed to a point, but what about Evolution? You have to assume something can come from nothing, then mutated, half-dead rat-lizards evolved into super half rat-dogs. Both are religions undoubtably because both require a lot of belief, it's my preference the bible needs less.

[Barihawk]

actually the parting of waters is scientifically possible, saw a cool documentary on the discovery channel, (everyone knows right before a tsunami the water drains from the shore) basically a part of the land fell away and splashed into the sea, causing a tsunami, the water parted for a while, and then the water came roaring back as a wave.

 

 

 

That's how it's described in the bible, too. But the question is, how did it happen exactly as the Hebrews crossed?

 

 

 

You can't prove/disprove miracles with science. That's just a silly thought, really.

[Lateralus]

f a majority believes in one thing and and a small minority believes in another, isn't it probable to assume the mass has found the truth?

 

 

 

Argumentum ad populum. The number of people who believe in something has nothing to do with it being true or not.

[BlueLancer]

f a majority believes in one thing and and a small minority believes in another, isn't it probable to assume the mass has found the truth?

 

 

 

Argumentum ad populum. The number of people who believe in something has nothing to do with it being true or not.

 

 

 

Exactly.. By that logic, since the majority of Germany agreed with the nazis and voted them into power, nazi philosophy was the "truth", which couldn't be further from reality.

[Astralinre]

Hi, y'all. it's good to see some familiar faces around here. *waves to Barihawk, Lateralus, insane, and warrior*

 

 

 

I don't have time to go through all ten pages, so forgive me if I'm repeating somebody. At the risk of missing out on some great tangential debates, I'm just going to give my opinion on the original post.

 

 

 

In my experience and observation, whether or not someone believes in God is a decision that has nothing to do with logic. This is not to say that theism or atheism is illogical; merely that people do not embrace them for logical reasons. When you get right down to it, most people choose belief or disbelief because they have a need, a wound, a tendency, an emotion, a hunch, a desire, a hope, an anger, or some such thing. There is nothing wrong with this. Logic is a wonderful thing; humans, however, are extra-logical beings. Logic is useful, even vital to us, but it is not all-encompassing. We have non-logical needs and desires, and these are usually at the core of why we choose our most basic assumptions, whether we realize it or not. Now, once we have those assumptions, we use logic to try to justify them or disprove contrary ones, but that does not make the assumptions themselves the result of logical processes. (It's entirely possible that there be an occasional person who has to his assumptions based purely on logic, but I have yet to meet one.) This, I think, is why so few people ever change their views in theism versus atheism debates: Those positions are results of the human heart, not human logic.

 

 

 

There may be a current correlation between IQ and disbelief, or education and disbelief, but also consider that this correlation has not held true in every period of history. Plenty of brilliant astronomers, physicists, doctors, poets, lawyers, rulers, generals, and business men have believed in God. Plenty of them haven't. I maintain that it is irrelevant.

 

 

 

// Astra

[Barihawk]

Yay for Astralinre and sense! :D

[insane]

Social Darwinism is something completely different!!

 

 

 

Social Darwinism is based on Darwinism, meaning it is not completely different... it is in fact natural selection from a social angle, quite similar if you ask me.

 

 

 

World War 2 was NOT being started by atheist Social-Darwinists, it was started completely in whole by Adolf Hitler!

 

 

 

While Hitler wasn't an atheist, he certainly didn't prescribe to any one religion and he was a social Darwinist. Atheists in the Nazi regime also rose quickly in the ranks (source) . It would appear that a largely atheist and entirely secular regime that believed in social Darwinism started world war 2 and used it to justify the murder of six million Jews.

 

 

 

I didn't mean for this to become a massive tangent; my point was that during our societies' "wonderful" secularization has come more bloodshed than ever before... it was just a sidenote, not meant to be argued against.

 

 

 

 

 

Protip: WWII also had economic grounds for justification, not just the social Darwinist aspect. In fact, it had a lot of root causes beyond the social Darwinist aspect. Picking that out as the major - in fact, even as a major reason for WWII is to blatantly ignore everything that happened in the two decades before it.

 

 

 

Yep, I wasn't arguing for social darwinism being the main cause, I was arguing that religion had little or nothing to do with the most disgusting display of human action in history. I just thought it was a little ironic that one of religions biggest proponents was used as justification.

 

 

 

Hitler's extermination of the Jews was religiously motivated.

 

 

 

If you mean it was motivated through his antisemitism, then sure... but that's more of an anti-religious motivation. Hitler wanted to keep a religiously neutral state (source)

[IGoddessI]

Insane -

 

 

 

Hitler was a hardcore Christian (Roman Catholic if you want to get technical) who prescribed to his own radical Christian ideas. Aka Jesus as a warrior against the Jewish people. I made a post about that so you probably either disregarded it or haven't read it yet. Secondly, he wasn't a social nor to say regular Darwinist. Rather than believing the German race should "wipe out" all others he wanted to breed a master race. This is eugenics not Darwinism.

 

 

 

So religion motivations did allow for the justification of exterminating the Jewish race.

 

 

 

You can actually find that source on the same Wiki article you presented me with lol maybe you overlooked it (found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler#Religious_beliefs)

 

 

 

Steigmann-Gall, Richard. The Holy Reich, Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 19191945. Kent State University, Ohio: Cambridge University Press - as cited from your wiki article.

 

 

 

 

 

I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.

 

 

 

(Adolf Hitler, from John Toland [Pulitzer Prize winner], Adolf Hitler, New York: Anchor Publishing, 1992, p. 507.)

 

 

 

 

 

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.

 

 

 

(Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Ralph Mannheim, ed., New York: Mariner Books, 1999, p. 65.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I never used to know anything about the guy until I dated a man who decided to add hundreds of history books to my psychology collection lol

[Barihawk]

If you go along that route, Goddess, Hitler was a pedantic psychopath who mixed and matched religions at will. He set out for trivial objects like the Spear of Destiny and the Holy Grail and was obsessed with creating his own religion. He was a certifiable loon, albeit a genious at that.

[IGoddessI]

Quite true but it was still religiously motivated.

[user1991]

You can't just call something a theory then act like it holds equal weight to every other theory simply because it is one.

 

 

 

Obama is an alien.

 

 

 

Wow, a theory.

 

 

 

Steps to make a theory:

 

 

 

Hypothesis-->Experiment-->Repeat Experiment-->Submit for Peer review--> Editor writes back-->Revise-->Retest-->Resubmit for publishing (if it gets published, that is)-->If published scientists attack like vultures to disprove because science is essentially the art of disproving-->Scientists may accept it into the community--> THEORY!

 

 

 

Now that I have labelled it a theory, I can act as if it suddenly makes sense/means anything. Yeh, because technically it is my theory, it actually holds equal weight with every other theory about Obama out there, simp ly cause the word "theory" is mentioned. I'm a genius.

 

 

 

What do the other scientists think?

 

 

 

People outside the scientific realm blur the lines of context between a scientific theory and the everyday use of the word "theory".

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's exactly my point. Just because someone uses the word "theory", doesn't make it a valid theory. Creationists like to act like Evolution is equal to their ideas simply because "Theory of Evolution" has the word "Theory". They fail to realise that it actually means something completely different.

 

 

 

Christians out there, what makes the Bible the Word of God?