Does a belief in a god show lack of education?

[A Vestigial Mote]

You give such a convincing impression of a person with entrenched opinions that no, I don’t imagine I could persuade you to question them even for a second. You can’t change a closed mind.

Note you didn't even try to refute the portrayal I made of you or what you were doing. Boom. Gotcha.

I may be extremely opinionated (not going to deny it) but one could definitely change my mind with the correct evidence.

Finally, I would be willing to bet that yours is actually the mind more closed off to alternative explanations for various things than mine is - it is just that one thing you won't be able to do is win me over from evidenced claims with what amount to mere guesses or fluff from your imagination. I think this is where theistic thinkers get a bit confused. That is, in thinking their brands of "evidence" are what everyone uses all the time to make all their determinations on all items that require such in their entire lives (hence the reasons there are so many picking at "science" and constantly comparing it to "belief" of the kind they are wont to participate in). The most interesting thing there is that not even THEY discern to the same caliber of evidence on all things - otherwise they would necessarily subscribe to and feel required to participate in a good number of religions equally at the same time.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Note you didn't even try to refute the portrayal I made of you or what you were doing. Boom. Gotcha.

I may be extremely opinionated (not going to deny it) but one could definitely change my mind with the correct evidence.

Finally, I would be willing to bet that yours is actually the mind more closed off to alternative explanations for various things than mine is - it is just that one thing you won't be able to do is win me over from evidenced claims with what amount to mere guesses or fluff from your imagination. I think this is where theistic thinkers get a bit confused. That is, in thinking their brands of "evidence" are what everyone uses all the time to make all their determinations on all items that require such in their entire lives (hence the reasons there are so many picking at "science" and constantly comparing it to "belief" of the kind they are wont to participate in). The most interesting thing there is that not even THEY discern to the same caliber of evidence on all things - otherwise they would necessarily subscribe to and feel required to participate in a good number of religions equally at the same time.

Boom, gotcha? Seriously?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Boom, gotcha? Seriously?

Yes. Seriously.

Still no refutation. You want another "boom?" I've got loads of them.

 

[KWED]

I've seen it said to people here on numerous occasions that they are not highly educated if they believe in a god.

Educated people can believe in god and atheists can be idiots.
However, studies have shown a clear correlation between increased level of education and lack of religiosity. The better educated you are, the less likely you are to be religious.

I've seen it said to some that claim that a god has spoken to them that they are possibility suffering of mental illness.

Claims of encounters with the supernatural are probably either delusional or fabricated.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Yes. Seriously.

Still no refutation. You want another "boom?" I've got loads of them.

No idea what I'm supposed to refute, and not hugely interested tbh. What you assume about me is your business, not mine.

You don't seem interested in other people's spiritual journeys, other than to ridicule the idea that anyone might even be on such a thing. As for any original or interesting ideas you may have about Life, the Universe, and everything well, you'd have to come out from behind your ego to shed any light on that. Not seeing much evidence that this forum is the sort of place you're likely to do that. If you're just here to shout "Boom, Gotcha", I don't see a lot of point engaging with you tbh.

 

[KWED]

Of the 10 Highest IQ’S on Earth,, 8 are theist, 6 are Christians. examiner.com

Genuinely intelligent people don't take IQ tests because they know they are meaningless as an indication of anything.

 

[KWED]

What's the difference between having faith in God and having faith that there is no God? If a theist has faith that God exist and an atheist have faith that no God exist, which belief is the correct one? Both have equal amount of faith for their beliefs, so how do we determine which one is true? Of the two, which one is the one who is being rational? Both? Neither one of them?

And the follow up question. Why?

Atheists generally don't have "faith" that there are no gods. They simply see no evidential or logical reason to accept the extraordinary claims of religions.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

No idea what I'm supposed to refute surprise, and not hugely interested tbh. What you assume about me is your business, not mine.

No need to assume. The evidence is plain in the post that I originally responded to. Not sure what you think I need to "assume." You basically are guilty of the exact same things you're accusing me of. Go back and look. I triple dog dare you. Hahaha...

You don't seem interested in other people's spiritual journeys,

Absolutely on the mark on this one. Glad you picked that up. For a moment there I wasn't sure I was making that plain enough.

As for any original or interesting ideas you may have about Life, the Universe, and everything well, you'd have to come out from behind your ego to shed any light on that.

Ah, one of those. The people who think that the import of a particular idea is tied directly to how "nice" the person delivering the point is being. Good luck with that.

Not seeing much evidence that this forum is the sort of place you're likely to do that. If you're just here to shout "Boom, Gotcha", I don't see a lot of point engaging with you tbh.

Sure thing. I'll be sure to just come back at you some other time I witness you make a ridiculous assumption about someone with insult in the subtext. Bet on it. Take care now.

 

[RestlessSoul]

No need to assume. The evidence is plain in the post that I originally responded to. Not sure what you think I need to "assume." You basically are guilty of the exact same things you're accusing me of. Go back and look. I triple dog dare you. Hahaha...

Absolutely on the mark on this one. Glad you picked that up. For a moment there I wasn't sure I was making that plain enough.

Ah, one of those. The people who think that the import of a particular idea is tied directly to how "nice" the person delivering the point is being. Good luck with that.

Sure thing. I'll be sure to just come back at you some other time I witness you make a ridiculous assumption about someone with insult in the subtext. Bet on it. Take care now.

Thing is though fella, I believe we’re all on a spiritual journey, yourself included. You’re just a little lost right now.

The reference to your ego wasn’t a jibe btw. The ego is man’s worst enemy. Don’t be a slave to yours. That voice in your head? It isn’t you.

Take care now. Sincerely.

 

[Sheldon]

Would this be coming to the defense of post #107? Perhaps you can read it and give us your take on it?

Indeed, it seemed odd to me, but I am more than happy for anyone to explain post 107 to me. I had no agenda, and just spoke plainly.

You give such a convincing impression of a person with entrenched opinions that no, I don’t imagine I could persuade you to question them even for a second. You can’t change a closed mind.

You do see the irony of using such a strident closed minded response to accuse someone else of being closed minded?

 

[Sheldon]

Sorry, mate, genuinely thought you were on the wind up.

What specifically made you think that?

Your avatar might have had something to do with that.

Well I'd assumed everyone could see the irony intended in the avatar, the show is quite well known.

Didn’t realise you took your own posts seriously.

I don't know what you mean by "take them seriously," and again unless you offer something specific it's going to be hard to address your comments?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I have a feeling your intention is to get a confirmation that your beliefs are OK.
They are not automatically OK just because you believe them.
It is OK to believe them as long as you don't care about being right or rational but then it is just that, an irrational belief.

There is a definitive difference between it being OK to believe something and the belief being true.

So you have solved the problem of truth? Okay. Then publish it.

 

[Sheldon]

So you have solved the problem of truth? Okay. Then publish it.

That's not remotely what he said:

Here it is verbatim

I have a feeling your intention is to get a confirmation that your beliefs are OK.
They are not automatically OK just because you believe them.
It is OK to believe them as long as you don't care about being right or rational but then it is just that, an irrational belief.

There is a definitive difference between it being OK to believe something and the belief being true.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Thing is though fella, I believe we’re all on a spiritual journey, yourself included. You’re just a little lost right now.

You're not really saying anything here. I know you think you are. I get it. But seriously, please examine what it is you have said and find any shred of cogent, realistic information to be gleaned from it. Seriously.

The reference to your ego wasn’t a jibe btw. The ego is man’s worst enemy. Don’t be a slave to yours.

I am a person who genuinely believes/recognizes that I, myself, am objectively no more important to the universe at large than a stone.

That voice in your head? It isn’t you.

I have voices in my head? Since when? You mean my consciousness? I am also a person who believes that my consciousness is nothing more than a hired out part of the overall colony of cells that is my body - whose job is literally nothing more glamorous than to decide where the body is at, and what goes into my mouth. There is nothing else I can think of that the consciousness is literally in charge of. Nothing. how's that for "ego?" Where does that fit in this "spiritually lost" narrative of yours about me, I wonder? And wait... wasn't it just you who was worried about what I might be assuming of you? One of the two of us is a bit in denial about how much judgment is forthcoming from ourselves. And I readily admit I judge and do plenty of it. So I think that gives us our answer...

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's not remotely what he said:

Here it is verbatim

He used the word true as if he had solved the problems of what truth is.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Indeed, it seemed odd to me, but I am more than happy for anyone to explain post 107 to me. I had no agenda, and just spoke plainly.

I entirely realized this, being familiar (and as confused) with the poster myself. Which is why I jumped on @RestlessSoul - whose treatment of the situation seemed entirely less than fair.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I hope he hasn't set himself up for a relapse if he has a crisis of faith.

Me too! So far so good.

Two events that shaped my view of whether religious belief actually helps cope with death. Both are anecdotes, so give them weight or not as you see fit:

First, I was still married to my ex when my father died. While he was dying and after he died, I went through all the normal emotions of grief: sadness, anger, etc. My ex went through them, too... but with an extra level on top: guilt and shame.

She approached the world with a theistic mindset, assuming that God's holy plan was behind everything. I think she took her anger at what was happening as anger at God's plan, and by extension anger at God, and therefore a sign of lack of faith. IOW, she interpreted her normal grief as a personal failing.

It certainly didn't seem to me that her faith was a comfort.

On the other side was another family death: my Dad's cousin's wife. Most of her family was very religious, and the way that they behaved at the funeral was downright creepy.

In contrast to my ex, they didn't have any conflicted emotions. They were fine - they behaved as if all the tenets of Christianity were true, not just platitudes: that Kathy really was in a better place and that they really would see her again soon. Her death just rolled off their backs.

While I suppose they were happier than they'd have been without these beliefs, their denialism didn't strike me as positive or healthy.

TLDR: in my experience, I haven't seen religion used as a support in times of crisis except for ways that seem ultimately unhealthy.

I can appreciate that perspective! Certainly, losing faith is a problem when the focus is on an omni-everything god from the perspective of emotional, feeling beings in a complex and tumultuous Universe.

But I am careful not to judge how a person handles grief too closely. What's healthy for one person often looks entirely different to another.

Of course, that's not to say using god in this manner can't be unhealthy. That's certainly true; but I have seen both sides, including atheists struggling with grief.

Tools, including symbols, don't always work out and can be misused--a too often problem in religion. But they can be useful for some people.

 

[Sheldon]

He used the word true as if he had solved the problems of what truth is.

No he didn't, that was how you represented it, and I quoted his post verbatim to show that, now you have omitted it to repeat your assertion.

 

[Suave]

Indeed, it seemed odd to me, but I am more than happy for anyone to explain post 107 to me. I had no agenda, and just spoke plainly.



You do see the irony of using such a strident closed minded response to accuse someone else of being closed minded?

My dear RF comrade, please let us kindly regard post #107 as perhaps being some sort of word salad.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I've seen it said to people here on numerous occasions that they are not highly educated if they believe in a god.

I've seen it said to some that claim that a god has spoken to them that they are possibility suffering of mental illness.

Do you think these hold truth's?

No it's sour grapes. Kinda like misery loves company.

 

[rational experiences]

I'm relatively new here, are these posts some sort of windup?

Human men set the accepted group standard relativity agreement.

How else does it change actually when relativity is meant to be true exact for your machine design plus reaction.

Must be because you change your machine design and the reaction.

Satanisms. Egotism.