Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
RE: Religious people are less intelligent than atheists
December 22, 2017 at 4:20 am
(December 22, 2017 at 2:23 am)Bow Before Zeus Wrote:
(December 21, 2017 at 7:56 am)Starhunter Wrote:
But if you haven't retaliated - then you are the better one of any party.
I don't believe I have taken the name of god in vain. I have called out your particular creator-god being for all the horrific killings and other actions that are attributed to him in the biblical texts. I don't think I have actually used his name to swear.
We are meant to test and challenge belief systems, like you do, particularly if they gender false ideas.
What I have been saying is that the Bible has been misconstrued by those who claim its authority - such hypocrisy. Your challenges are against misconceptions.
Hypocrisy is inconsistency, it is not rational and true, and on that basis, it is a fair thing to say that religious people are not being rational, as its opponents are.
We don't want to swing too far to the right or left, but be independent in our observations.
RE: Religious people are less intelligent than atheists
December 22, 2017 at 4:34 am
(December 21, 2017 at 7:56 am)Starhunter Wrote:
(December 20, 2017 at 9:38 pm)Bow Before Zeus Wrote: So how do you account for all the insults that xtians have hurled at me with not a single retaliation from myself? Does that make them stupid?
I don't know anything about that, but when you take the name of God in vain, you are giving one of the highest possible insults to anyone loyal to God.
So can you really say that you haven't retaliated?
But if you haven't retaliated - then you are the better one of any party.
Yahweh, the God of the Hebrews and the God of the armies, is not my God and I will crap all over his name whenever I want to.
Exodus 20:7 (WEB) = “You shall not take the name of Yahweh your God in vain, for Yahweh will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain."
RE: Religious people are less intelligent than atheists
December 22, 2017 at 7:27 am (This post was last modified: December 22, 2017 at 8:47 am by Banned.)
(December 22, 2017 at 4:34 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Yahweh, the God of the Hebrews and the God of the armies, is not my God and I will crap all over his name whenever I want to.
Exodus 20:7 (WEB) = “You shall not take the name of Yahweh your God in vain, for Yahweh will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain."
You are not on the topic, so I'd question your ability to take aim.
RE: Religious people are less intelligent than atheists
December 22, 2017 at 8:19 am
(December 22, 2017 at 4:00 am)Starhunter Wrote: I'll give you another example to make the point, which wasn't about whether Aboriginal trackers had access to supernatural powers,
but to show that just because something cannot be percieved does not mean it doesn't exist.
I'm not going to chase your herring, so I'll just say that you're completely off the point. Nobody's saying that something which can't be perceived doesn't exist; simply that without any indication that a thing might exist, it's irrational to posit the existence of one. People who suggested the existence of the thing that would turn out to be the Higgs boson before there was a reason to suspect it would still have been guessing. They merely proved to be accurate.
That's my stance on the proposition of gods. Compound that with the logical and linguistic acrobatics that are generally offered in lieu of evidence, multiplied by all the excuses for why we shouldn't even expect evidence, and you start to get a handle on the scale of the problem.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
RE: Religious people are less intelligent than atheists
December 22, 2017 at 9:17 am (This post was last modified: December 22, 2017 at 9:20 am by Banned.)
(December 22, 2017 at 8:19 am)Cyberman Wrote: I'm not going to chase your herring, so I'll just say that you're completely off the point. Nobody's saying that something which can't be perceived doesn't exist; simply that without any indication that a thing might exist, it's irrational to posit the existence of one. People who suggested the existence of the thing that would turn out to be the Higgs boson before there was a reason to suspect it would still have been guessing. They merely proved to be accurate.
That's my stance on the proposition of gods. Compound that with the logical and linguistic acrobatics that are generally offered in lieu of evidence, multiplied by all the excuses for why we shouldn't even expect evidence, and you start to get a handle on the scale of the problem.
I can understand the scale of the problem that you are talking about, the lack of what some would call empirical evidence, or peer reviewed papers,
so let's say that religious people are delusional. Does that mean that they are not intelligent, or not as intelligent as the ones that aren't delusional?
We both know that highly intelligent people can be deluded, but it doesn't remove their intelligence, it just misdirects it, doesn't it?
So now we may also conclude that intelligent atheists can be deluded, no?
Well, you would rather think that religious people are delusional. And I'd have to agree with you, religions are filled with delusions/lies. So are atheists on another level.
The Bible exposes both groups. And there is the clanger for someone who doesn't have a proper knowledge of the Bible, because they associate religious conundrums with it.
And I get what you are saying, that the ideas of God etc come from the Bible, which is nonsense, as far as you are concerned, because of the evidence for evolution, and other scientific treatises.
And you can't see how going against popular science can have anything to do with truth/reality, because the world survives by scientific inventions and discoveries. Here again, the 60% of people who believe in God, work in scientific areas which benefit the world. Scientific thinking isn't exclusive to atheists, it's global.
There's a great deal of practical science, without any atheistic ideas.
And if we look at the true scientific method, it does not exclude God at all, and it doesn't jump to atheistic conclusions.
RE: Religious people are less intelligent than atheists
December 22, 2017 at 11:23 am
(December 21, 2017 at 5:31 pm)Starhunter Wrote: That's a reasonable stance. But for example,
the Australian Aboriginal people were used as trackers, to hunt down wanted men. They could see, percieve and hear things that no white fellow could.
People can see, percieve and hear things that others simply cannot, and of course as the Bible puts it, they, and I include myself here, are willingly ignorant, they don't want to know, so they cannot know. There are things God would have me realise that I don't, because I am limited, blind and lazy.
Perhaps it is the lazy belief that God has a plan and will provide and will reveal all when the time is right that is the actual result of your indolence (as opposed to what I bolded).
RE: Religious people are less intelligent than atheists
December 22, 2017 at 11:30 am
@Starhunter
Correct, the scientific method doesn't exclude "God"; but neither does it include the concept. It makes no judgement of the concept at all, except where gods ought to affect reality. As AronRa said, any time "God" reaches into the material plane, it should pull out its hand dripping with physics.
So let's cut to the chase. I'm sitting here, with zero belief in your - or any - god. What can you give me to alter my position? Can you show me that there's even a 'there' there?
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
RE: Religious people are less intelligent than atheists
December 22, 2017 at 12:41 pm
(December 22, 2017 at 7:27 am)Starhunter Wrote:
(December 22, 2017 at 4:34 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Yahweh, the God of the Hebrews and the God of the armies, is not my God and I will crap all over his name whenever I want to.
Exodus 20:7 (WEB) = “You shall not take the name of Yahweh your God in vain, for Yahweh will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain."
You are not on the topic, so I'd question your ability to take aim.
Taking Yahweh's name in vain is saying something like "God is my witness" or something equally stupid like "I swear to tell the truth so help me God" in court.
Yeshua said in Matthew 5:34-37 (TLB) = "34 But I say: Don’t make any vows! And even to say ‘By heavens!’ is a sacred vow to God, for the heavens are God’s throne. 35 And if you say ‘By the earth!’ it is a sacred vow, for the earth is his footstool. And don’t swear ‘By Jerusalem!’ for Jerusalem is the capital of the great King. 36 Don’t even swear ‘By my head!’ for you can’t turn one hair white or black. 37 Say just a simple ‘Yes, I will’ or ‘No, I won’t.’ Your word is enough. To strengthen your promise with a vow shows that something is wrong."
RE: Religious people are less intelligent than atheists
December 22, 2017 at 5:35 pm (This post was last modified: December 22, 2017 at 6:30 pm by Banned.)
(December 22, 2017 at 12:41 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Taking Yahweh's name in vain is saying something like "God is my witness" or something equally stupid like "I swear to tell the truth so help me God" in court.
Yeshua said in Matthew 5:34-37 (TLB) = "34 But I say: Don’t make any vows! And even to say ‘By heavens!’ is a sacred vow to God, for the heavens are God’s throne. 35 And if you say ‘By the earth!’ it is a sacred vow, for the earth is his footstool. And don’t swear ‘By Jerusalem!’ for Jerusalem is the capital of the great King. 36 Don’t even swear ‘By my head!’ for you can’t turn one hair white or black. 37 Say just a simple ‘Yes, I will’ or ‘No, I won’t.’ Your word is enough. To strengthen your promise with a vow shows that something is wrong."
That's correct, and not too many people know the meaning as you've just explained. But like my latest post, it is off topic.
(December 22, 2017 at 11:30 am)Cyberman Wrote: @Starhunter
Correct, the scientific method doesn't exclude "God"; but neither does it include the concept. It makes no judgement of the concept at all, except where gods ought to affect reality. As AronRa said, any time "God" reaches into the material plane, it should pull out its hand dripping with physics.
So let's cut to the chase. I'm sitting here, with zero belief in your - or any - god. What can you give me to alter my position? Can you show me that there's even a 'there' there?
I can give you my point of view, but it would be a tangent to the thread. If Jesus was actually the Son of God as claimed, then wouldn't that be dripping with physics?
What kind of physics would be convincing, other than the fact that God "upholds all things" as the Bible puts it, causing a continuous existence of all material things by his power?
RE: Religious people are less intelligent than atheists
December 22, 2017 at 7:22 pm
(December 22, 2017 at 5:35 pm)Starhunter Wrote:
(December 22, 2017 at 12:41 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Taking Yahweh's name in vain is saying something like "God is my witness" or something equally stupid like "I swear to tell the truth so help me God" in court.
Yeshua said in Matthew 5:34-37 (TLB) = "34 But I say: Don’t make any vows! And even to say ‘By heavens!’ is a sacred vow to God, for the heavens are God’s throne. 35 And if you say ‘By the earth!’ it is a sacred vow, for the earth is his footstool. And don’t swear ‘By Jerusalem!’ for Jerusalem is the capital of the great King. 36 Don’t even swear ‘By my head!’ for you can’t turn one hair white or black. 37 Say just a simple ‘Yes, I will’ or ‘No, I won’t.’ Your word is enough. To strengthen your promise with a vow shows that something is wrong."
That's correct, and not too many people know the meaning as you've just explained. But like my latest post, it is off topic.
(December 22, 2017 at 11:30 am)Cyberman Wrote: @Starhunter
Correct, the scientific method doesn't exclude "God"; but neither does it include the concept. It makes no judgement of the concept at all, except where gods ought to affect reality. As AronRa said, any time "God" reaches into the material plane, it should pull out its hand dripping with physics.
So let's cut to the chase. I'm sitting here, with zero belief in your - or any - god. What can you give me to alter my position? Can you show me that there's even a 'there' there?
I can give you my point of view, but it would be a tangent to the thread. If Jesus was actually the Son of God as claimed, then wouldn't that be dripping with physics?
What kind of physics would be convincing, other than the fact that God "upholds all things" as the Bible puts it, causing a continuous existence of all material things by his power?
In Post #143 you are the one who introduced the subject of "taking God's name in vain".
