Intelligence Vs. Religion?

[Jollybear]

Anybody that wants to get along lives by the golden rule

I agree.

which has nothing to do whether gods exist or not, how you can conflate the two is beyond me.

I conflate the two based on the premise that God made the universe and people. Therefore logic dictates that people to prosper together, they must live by the golden rule. It also dictates that this law comes from God too.

If God dont exist, morality makes no objective sense either.

No one gives a crap about any ultimate first God whatsoever, anymore than any lowlife last God.

Wrong. If anyone did not care, then no one would persue even the very question whether God exists or not. Since thats not the case, some people thus do care.

You even care, for if you didnt, you wouldnt even bother responding in a hard way to my very post. So, logic dictates even that you care.

The bigger question is why you say you dont care?

Nothing changes whether they exist or do not exist. Even if your ultimate first God does exist so what? What do you expect anybody to do about it? We live our lives, gods, God, or no God/s.

I agree. Nothing changes. Its not about if something changes though, its about persuing greater understanding.

Furthermore, i think things would change to some degree. You see, if everyone believed God existed and demanded we live by the golden rule or else, then things may change for the better. Less selfishness would be in the world.

 

[lukethethird]

Furthermore, i think things would change to some degree. You see, if everyone believed God existed and demanded we live by the golden rule or else, then things may change for the better. Less selfishness would be in the world.

Yes, we need more punishment and killing in the name of God to change things for the better, you are so right.

 

[Jollybear]

Yes, we need more punishment and killing in the name of God to change things for the better, you are so right.

So people should not be punished for wrong doing?

Also, hows doing it in the name of God any worse then doing it in the name of government?

 

[lukethethird]

So people should not be punished for wrong doing?

Whatever turns you on.

Also, hows doing it in the name of God any worse then doing it in the name of government?

Like I said, whatever turns you on you're going to do anyways, God or not God.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

"I don't understand how lightening happens," says a young boy, and the father gets the local priest to explain, "it is caused by Zeus." To be "intelligent," the boy must accept that explanation. To be "intellectually bankrupt," he must try to thing his way through conjectures and experiments that might actually show that lightening isn't caused by Zeus at all. (And by the way, the work has been done, and it isn't.)

​

​

My computer is displaying your post. That is because the electronics are all working correctly. It is also because I chose to read it (I must be a glutton for punishment). Where is the contradiction?

Lightning is an electric discharge. Sometimes that is arranged by Zeus to make a point. Where is the contradiction?

 

[Jollybear]

Whatever turns you on.

Like I said, whatever turns you on you're going to do anyways, God or not God.

And this is one of the reasons i say atheism is intellectually bankrupt. It argues from emotionalism rather then rationality.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Id like to add this though. Anytime i debate, i do so because theres a inkling of doubt in the back of my mind. However, in my experience, after debating, the inkling tends to vanish and i become more stronger in my view because i see the atheists logic totally breaks apart.

And this is one of the reasons i say atheism is intellectually bankrupt. It argues from emotionalism rather then rationality.

But in fact, I have to tell you that in reading your posts, the one thing that I do NOT find is logic. In fact, what I DO find is an emotional attachment to a notion for which you can provide nothing but statements declaring themselves factual, which are backed up by...nothing at all.

 

[LuisDantas]

So people should not be punished for wrong doing?

Fairly often they indeed should not.

Punishment only serves an useful purpose to the extent that it discourages further damage or somehow helps in fixing existing harm.

Also, hows doing it in the name of God any worse then doing it in the name of government?

That is not a very natural question for this moment, but in any case the answer should be obvious.

Acting "in the name of God" carries with it a presumption of supreme exception and expectations of unaccountability.

Even the most tyrannical of governments are tangible realities.

But what you really should be asking about is how lay morality is superior to divine command theory.

Divine command theory - Wikipedia

To which the answer is: in every single way.

 

[wellwisher]

If you look at concepts in science, like dark energy and dark matter, nobody has ever seen either of these in the lab to prove they are real. Dark matter and dark energy are inferred by affects that they appear to induce. These are concepts used to fudge flawed theory that now is showing problems. Dark energy and dark matter is fudge used to fill in gaps in observation, due to advances in technology, that have occurred faster than advances in foundation theory. However, nobody has seen these in the lab to prove they are real, yet het are used anyway. The advances in theory have been limited due to religious devotion to the past.

This situation is very similar to religion. We can't prove or observed God in the lab any better than we can observed or prove dark energy or dark matter in the lab. God, for many, is inferred from the observations of reality in its entirety, since even science can't definitively say how reality appeared from nothing. Science tries by using a God of random who has the power to do anything; even make a universe. Then do the same thing.

One of the problems pitting science and against religion is there is not a good definition of religion that is even consistent across all religions. For example, not all religions worship deities. Buddhism does have deities, yet it is considered one of the largest religions. There is something more general than deities. Under a more general definition, even atheism would be a religion.

Atheism is similar to Buddhism. Where they differ is in Buddhism one evolves oneself through introspection, whereas Atheism does this through extroversion and materialism. Neither believe in deities. Atheism is more mass minded than Buddhism since introspection brings one into contact with unique things though the unique of individual experience/memory.

Most scientists are atheists, however, most atheists are not scientists. If the latter was true there would not be many atheists, since the number of scientists is limited. The correlation between atheism and science is a magic trick used to fool their flock into thinking being an atheist is as good as being a scientist. However, theone task of not believing in God, does not make you an intellectual. That is not even rational.

 

[questfortruth]

If you look at concepts in science, like dark energy and dark matter, nobody has ever seen either of these in the lab to prove they are real. Dark matter and dark energy are inferred by affects that they appear to induce. These are concepts used to fudge flawed theory that now is showing problems. Dark energy and dark matter is fudge used to fill in gaps in observation, due to advances in technology, that have occurred faster than advances in foundation theory. However, nobody has seen these in the lab to prove they are real, yet het are used anyway. The advances in theory have been limited due to religious devotion to the past.

Here is convincing explanation of DM and DE:
Файл из Облака Mail.Ru
Do you like it?