Jump to content

Intelligent people = 'less likely to believe in God'


DaN
 Share

Recommended Posts

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

 

 

 

[hide=Disclaimer]Being funny here, don't shoot me.[/hide]

 

 

 

Even thought the Bible was written by a bunch of old guys it was inspired by God, so just the fact that it says it's the word of God is enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 250
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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)

 

This is the danger of studying history through the analysis of a single man - Hitler alone did not create Nazism. He may have lead it, but it the result of a massive split in German politics and religion at the time and therefore was as much a movement from below as above. So let's move off this meaningless debate over whether Hitler was religious or not, and let's look at groups in German society who were religious.

 

 

 

The Roman Catholic Church in Germany for example was hardly opposed to Hitler. In fact, the Pope made deals with Hitler to prevent Roman Catholic schools being abolished under the new regime, in realisation Hitler felt religion would hinder his creation of the Volksgemeinschaft.

 

 

 

The extermination of the Jews was hardly a 'bolt out of the blue' - there had been warnings for several years before the declaration of war in 1939 that the Nazis were practising Social Darwinism. Disabled people were exterminated under the T4 program. Families with hereditary illnesses were castrated (or had other methods used on them to terminate their ability to have children) in order to increase the frequency of the perfect race in German society. All of which happened while the Catholic Church sat there and watched, doing deals with its leader.

 

 

 

Much as Social Darwinism may have stemmed from science (although you'd have been hard pushed to find a majority of scientists that actually agreed with it), religious groups were certainly not blameless in the Nazis' actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well of course they are.

 

 

 

Intelligent people are more likely to challenge an upheld belief, while those of lesser intelligence are more likely to accept it unquestioningly.

 

 

 

Of course many intelligent people have thought things through and decided that a religion makes sense to them, and that doesn't make them any less intelligent.

 

 

 

[hide=just to make my post opinionated]All this debating whether religion is "true" or not is irrelevant. :P

 

 

 

But I personally believe that it's impossible to know that the world is one way or another - sure it's possible that it was made by a supreme being. But then that just leaves the question of what created the supreme being - so I say it's equally possible that the universe exists of its own accord, since a universe isn't any less likely to create itself than a supreme being [is to create itself] imo.

 

 

 

Christianity is based on the bible, which could truly be a record man's contact with God, or it could be a bunch of stories. Impossible to prove either way.[/hide]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the Nazi thing, Hitler was NOT Christian, he was an atheist who used Darwin's "survival of the fittest" thinking to exterminate the Jews. He viewed them as a weaker, filthy race* that was tainting the Arian race. He did try to gain Christians on his side by reminding them that the Jews killed Christ**, while also saying, "You are either Arian or Jewish. There is no other."

 

 

 

Furthermore, perhaps this entire argument cannot be won. Both sides will remain theories, and end in a tie (the kind where both sides lose). In the end, for both sides, what drives us is faith, not fact. Hopefully we will realize this before humanity itself is completely torn apart (we've done a pretty good job so far).

 

 

 

*Note: Hebrew is not a race. It has been proven that you cannot be genetically Jewish. It is pure faith. The technical race is Arab. That means the majority of European Jews during the Holocaust were, in fact, Caucasian variants. Sorry, but it's the truth. If you don't practice it, you're not Jewish.

 

 

 

**Note 2.0: It was the Pharisees, not the Jews, who condemned Jesus; plus, He kind of planned to get killed, so yeah.

Hyt Chat FOREVER

Killy_Da_Kid.png

Killy_Da_Kid.png

I have quit RuneScape. I have posted on the Leaving sticky saying so. Goodbye.

"Too late... my time has come... gotta leave you all behind and face the truth."

~ Freddie Mercury ~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the Nazi thing, Hitler was NOT Christian, he was an atheist who used Darwin's "survival of the fittest" thinking to exterminate the Jews.

 

 

 

Hitler was religious, and 'survival of the fittest' is life's 'thinking'. Linking Darwin and Eugenics is not really fair.

La lune ne garde aucune rancune.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the Nazi thing, Hitler was NOT Christian, he was an atheist who used Darwin's "survival of the fittest" thinking to exterminate the Jews.

 

 

 

Hitler was religious, and to 'survival of the fittest' is life's 'thinking'. Linking Darwin and Eugenics is not really fair.

 

 

 

On that note, linking modern Christianity to the Crusades is not fair. But it has been done time and time again on these forums.

Untitled.png

My heart is broken by the terrible loss I have sustained in my old friends and companions and my poor soldiers. Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won. -Sir Arthur Wellesley

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the Nazi thing, Hitler was NOT Christian, he was an atheist who used Darwin's "survival of the fittest" thinking to exterminate the Jews.

 

 

 

Hitler was religious, and to 'survival of the fittest' is life's 'thinking'. Linking Darwin and Eugenics is not really fair.

 

 

 

On that note, linking modern Christianity to the Crusades is not fair. But it has been done time and time again on these forums.

 

 

 

Crusades were a result of Christian ideology. You can't blame science or Darwin for Eugenics because there's nothing morally wrong with natural selection because it's just information. Eugenics and social Darwinism are bastardisations of correct science, and have always been seen as such by all but a select few.

La lune ne garde aucune rancune.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Crusades were just as much a perversion of religion as the eugenics movement was a perversion of science.

Untitled.png

My heart is broken by the terrible loss I have sustained in my old friends and companions and my poor soldiers. Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won. -Sir Arthur Wellesley

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Crusades were just as much a perversion of religion as the eugenics movement was a perversion of science.

 

 

 

I would argue that science can't be perverted, and eugenics is more of philosophy or school of thought. The Crusades were approved of by the church, which is the governing body of the religion. You might feel it was a perversion of how you view Christianity, as I'm sure at least some people did at the time, but if the church sanctions it, you can criticise the religion for it.

La lune ne garde aucune rancune.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I remember correctly, there was great praise in the scientific community for the concept of eugenics from the 1880's to the 1940's. The only real reason people started to universally look down upon it was because of the Nazis.

Untitled.png

My heart is broken by the terrible loss I have sustained in my old friends and companions and my poor soldiers. Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won. -Sir Arthur Wellesley

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the wiki page on Eugenics:

 

 

 

Earlier proposed means of achieving these goals focused on selective breeding, while modern ones focus on prenatal testing and screening, genetic counseling, birth control, in vitro fertilization, and genetic engineering.

 

 

 

I don't particularly have a problem with these things as long as they're not mandatory, most of them are even good ideas. I don't see anything wrong with praising these things, and like you said, the scientific community did not praise Hitler's interpretation of them.

La lune ne garde aucune rancune.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Crusades were just as much a perversion of religion as the eugenics movement was a perversion of science.

 

 

 

Science is completely amoral, and is simply a method for discovering truth. As Lateralus said, the Crusades might be a perversion of a modern, more liberal interpretation of the Bible and Christianity but at the time they clearly had religious justification. Who are you to say who's intepretation of the Bible is more correct? Surely it's highly subjective (within some bounds)?

"Da mihi castitatem et continentam, sed noli modo"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Crusades were just as much a perversion of religion as the eugenics movement was a perversion of science.

 

 

 

Science is completely amoral, and is simply a method for discovering truth. As Lateralus said, the Crusades might be a perversion of a modern, more liberal interpretation of the Bible and Christianity but at the time they clearly had religious justification. Who are you to say who's intepretation of the Bible is more correct? Surely it's highly subjective (within some bounds)?

 

 

 

Actually the entire reason I brought up Hitler/social Darwinism being responsible for the holocaust was because of the oft appearing "Christianity is responsible for the Crusades" argument. It's interesting to note that many people think it's okay to blame religion for a slaughter started by religion applied in an incorrect, immoral way, but at the same time turn around and disagree when someone blames science for a slaughter started by science applied in an incorrect, immoral way. That's putting science on a subjective pedestal.

summerpngwy6.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that you came in here, blaming atheists for something religion caused, even if in an incorrect, immoral way is a subjective pedestal in itself. The fact that you won't even apologize for making a statement which was disproved, just goes to show how high up on that subjective pedestal you put it too.

 

 

 

I'm neither atheist or Christian so I'm putting neither on any stool. It's time to agree to disagree and move on, whether you're going to apologize for the statement you made or not. Keep your pride mate lol

igoddessIsig.png

 

The only people who tell you that you can't do something are those who have already given up on their own dreams so feel the need to discourage yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is that science is completely separate from morality. Science does not tell you to kill people. The science or critical thinking behind Eugenics says that if you don't allow people with hereditary diseases to breed, you will encounter less people with the disease, or that if you kill all the Jews, then there will be no more Jews. It doesn't say anything about whether or not you should do it. Science tells me that if I put arsenic in your drink that you'll die, but this isn't justification for doing it.

 

 

 

Trying to blame the holocaust deaths on science is like trying to blame science for the deaths at Hiroshima.

La lune ne garde aucune rancune.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually the entire reason I brought up Hitler/social Darwinism being responsible for the holocaust was because of the oft appearing "Christianity is responsible for the Crusades" argument. It's interesting to note that many people think it's okay to blame religion for a slaughter started by religion applied in an incorrect, immoral way, but at the same time turn around and disagree when someone blames science for a slaughter started by science applied in an incorrect, immoral way. That's putting science on a subjective pedestal.

 

Science is not an ideology - it's the process of discovering the world through experiments which prove or disprove specified hypotheses. There is no section of science which tells you to slaughter other members of society simply for being different. Darwinism is a part of science; Social Darwinism is a political ideology inspired, but not created by, Darwinism and most certainly is not a part of science.

 

 

 

The Crusades, however, came from religious theocracy. It was quite clearly a battle between Islam and Christianity over control of their respective Holy City. I don't know about Christianity, but in Islam there are certainly sections inside the Qu'ran which actually specify when violence should be used to defend your faith.

 

 

 

Moving on from the Crusades, the start of the Protestant Reformation caused many wars in Northern and Central Europe, which while also fuelled by social and political upheaval, were clearly a result of hostility between different branches of the Christian faith.

 

 

 

Fancy words like 'perversion' can't escape the glaringly obvious facts - there have been many wars and lives lost in the name of advancing religion. No report from a respected scientist, however, has ever called for likewise action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then why cant they explain why the big bang happend etc ...

 

 

 

thats a fairly big thing to ask.

 

and actually scientists do have several good ideas as to what happened.

 

the bible also cant explain alot of things

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then why cant they explain why the big bang happend etc ...

 

 

 

thats a fairly big thing to ask.

 

and actually scientists do have several good ideas as to what happened.

 

the bible also cant explain alot of things

 

 

 

The Bible is more of a spiritual and non-literal book than a definitive answer to how the world was born... Few people *actually* believe the world was made in 7 days, is flat, and only 6,000 years old.

 

 

 

You can still be realistic and accept scientific facts, and be a devout christian/muslim/jew etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Crusades, however, came from religious theocracy. It was quite clearly a battle between Islam and Christianity over control of their respective Holy City. I don't know about Christianity, but in Islam there are certainly sections inside the Qu'ran which actually specify when violence should be used to defend your faith.

 

 

 

Moving on from the Crusades, the start of the Protestant Reformation caused many wars in Northern and Central Europe, which while also fuelled by social and political upheaval, were clearly a result of hostility between different branches of the Christian faith.

 

 

 

Fancy words like 'perversion' can't escape the glaringly obvious facts - there have been many wars and lives lost in the name of advancing religion.

 

 

 

I would agree... many wars and lives have been lost in the name of advancing religion - but it's entirely in hindsight. We're currently quite early in the scientific revolution... maybe hundreds of years down the road we'll look at medical experiments, euthanasia, and abortion as many lives lost in the name of scientific advancement. You can't blame science OR religion just like you can't blame aerodynamics for a deathly plane crash. Principles and ideals can't do anything but take physical manifestations that are separate from the principles and ideals themselves.

 

 

 

 

 

No report from a respected scientist, however, has ever called for likewise action.

 

 

 

Well you technically don't know that; that's just your opinion that a respected scientist would never have such "immoral" views, and if a scientist did call for likewise action, you would blame the scientist for being an idiot, not science.

 

 

 

 

 

The fact that you came in here, blaming atheists for something religion caused, even if in an incorrect, immoral way is a subjective pedestal in itself.

 

 

 

The fact that you won't even apologize for making a statement which was disproved, just goes to show how high up on that subjective pedestal you put it too.

 

 

 

Why are you taking this so personally? I try and make a comparison between blaming science for the holocaust to blaming religion for the crusades and I have to apologize? Your opinion that I've been disproved is a "subjective pedestal"... I think both modes of thinking in the comparison are invalid and I used one invalid mode of thinking to attempt to expose another. At the risk of "keeping my pride mate lol"... what kind of point are you trying to make? This isn't even debatable; it's just an emotionally charged personal attack. I don't understand why you so badly want me to apologize if you're "putting neither on any stool"; it looks like I have different views than you and you can't tolerate them.

summerpngwy6.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are you taking this so personally? I try and make a comparison between blaming science for the holocaust to blaming religion for the crusades and I have to apologize? Your opinion that I've been disproved is a "subjective pedestal"... I think both modes of thinking in the comparison are invalid and I used one invalid mode of thinking to attempt to expose another. At the risk of "keeping my pride mate lol"... what kind of point are you trying to make? This isn't even debatable; it's just an emotionally charged personal attack. I don't understand why you so badly want me to apologize if you're "putting neither on any stool"; it looks like I have different views than you and you can't tolerate them.

 

 

 

As I quoted, I'm neither Christian nor atheist so taking it personally is out of the question and doesn't even make logical sense. What I'm concerned about is you gave incorrect information and choose to ignore it. Whether we have different views or not is respectfully irrelevant. The information you gave is not factual and is documented in history as it stands today. If anything, it seems as though you can't tolerate this factual information as it interferes with your faith. If this is correct, I'm happy to not bring it up again, as the last thing I want to do is upset you.

 

 

 

If you have anything else to say on the matter or are somehow confused on where you've given incorrect information, please PM me. If you don't choose to PM me, I'll understand that you're upset and will leave it be. I was actually going to PM this to you personally because I'm currently doing the wrong thing but I've already posted now which was a mistake on my behalf.

igoddessIsig.png

 

The only people who tell you that you can't do something are those who have already given up on their own dreams so feel the need to discourage yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-'less-likely-to-believe-in-God'.html

 

 

 

Professor Richard Lynn, emeritus professor of psychology at Ulster University, said many more members of the "intellectual elite" considered themselves atheists than the national average.

 

 

 

A decline in religious observance over the last century was directly linked to a rise in average intelligence, he claimed.

 

 

 

Thoughts, opinions?

 

 

 

Personally I'm not surprised by this result, people with higher IQ's are more likley to obtain knowledge than someone of lower IQ.

 

 

 

Hot piss! I was thinking the same thing.... after all, people of higher IQ can ALL definitely prove the origins of the Universe, beyond the shadow of a doubt.

sigon4.jpg

handed me TWO tissues to clear up. I was like "i'm going to need a few more paper towels than that luv"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the article. my reason? god is the answer to anything we don't know the answer to. Like how humans are here , someone without proof usually points to god (I think the whole bacteria from a volcano thing is the most accurate). So I think that religion is almost a way of ignorance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While southern states such as Texas and Louisiana top the charts as the most religious. And well, we all know the stereotypes of the south.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tell me about it... people in Oklahoma..... *shudder*

 

 

 

I'm just gona go ahead and jump in here.

 

 

 

I don't have the time to go through the rest of the pages.

 

 

 

I live in OKC, what would you like to know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, according to the Bible...

 

Wisdom Is Meaningless

 

12 I, the Teacher, was king over Israel in Jerusalem. 13 I devoted myself to study and to explore by wisdom all that is done under heaven. What a heavy burden God has laid on men! 14 I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind.

 

 

 

15 What is twisted cannot be straightened;

 

what is lacking cannot be counted.

 

 

 

16 I thought to myself, "Look, I have grown and increased in wisdom more than anyone who has ruled over Jerusalem before me; I have experienced much of wisdom and knowledge." 17 Then I applied myself to the understanding of wisdom, and also of madness and folly, but I learned that this, too, is a chasing after the wind.

 

 

 

18 For with much wisdom comes much sorrow;

 

the more knowledge, the more grief.

 

...intelligence is overrated.

untitledyw7.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, according to the Bible...

 

Wisdom Is Meaningless

 

12 I, the Teacher, was king over Israel in Jerusalem. 13 I devoted myself to study and to explore by wisdom all that is done under heaven. What a heavy burden God has laid on men! 14 I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind.

 

 

 

15 What is twisted cannot be straightened;

 

what is lacking cannot be counted.

 

 

 

16 I thought to myself, "Look, I have grown and increased in wisdom more than anyone who has ruled over Jerusalem before me; I have experienced much of wisdom and knowledge." 17 Then I applied myself to the understanding of wisdom, and also of madness and folly, but I learned that this, too, is a chasing after the wind.

 

 

 

18 For with much wisdom comes much sorrow;

 

the more knowledge, the more grief.

 

...intelligence is overrated.

 

 

 

:) Don't we all love how religion goes about re-enforcing that its superstitions remains.

img.cfm?img=41871

Yeah...Some people just go out of their way to ruin other peoples fun.
Sounds like Jagex to me...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.