No FACTS = NO god !

[Cobblestones]

It's basic religio-phobia.

I'm having a hard time taking you seriously. Even a light perusal of human history demonstrates the overt oppression of people by the religious and your refutation against people who have, quite rationally, pointed out the complete lack of evidence of a deity is to call them relgio-phobes?

When name calling is your argument, you have nothing to contribute to the discussion.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I'm having a hard time taking you seriously. Even a light perusal of human history demonstrates the overt oppression of people by the religious and your refutation against people who have, quite rationally, pointed out the complete lack of evidence of a deity is to call them relgio-phobes?

When name calling is your argument, you have nothing to contribute tot he discussion.

I didn't call anyone names.

I merely demonstrated how your "logic" doesn't work.

 

[slave2six]

Mr Bloom is providing sources of evidence that people with lower IQs tend to be more religious. This is certainly what I have experienced...

I think that in light of this divergence on the topic, it would behoove us to ask ourselves whether theocratic societies have tended to advance or hinder scientific discovery. Certainly the Egyptians were very religious and also very intelligent (at least the ones who weren't hauling stones around for a living). Similarly, the South American and Australian natives developed cosmological discoveries and were also very religious. It is when we look at Judaism, Islam and Christianity that we see a distinct difference because they did not incorporate cosmology or Earth studies into their religions. Certainly Islamic and Judaic societies have not been on the forefront of scientific discoveries through the ages past and Christianity tortured and killed scientists.

The age of reason has brought forth more scientific discoveries than any time before it and this largely by shunning religion as a basis for understanding the universe. Even Einstein was held back by his belief that "God would not work this way" and so he shunned quantum physics as a result.

No matter how you look at it, it seems plain that religion either squashes intelligence or simply does not appeal to the intelligent.

 

[Cobblestones]

I didn't call anyone names.

I merely demonstrated how your "logic" doesn't work.

By replacing an argument in favor of the existence of an invisible deity with and argument in favor of the existence of black people? How is that a valid comparison? Or do you think that black people are gods?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

By replacing an argument in favor of the existence of an invisible deity with and argument in favor of the existence of black people? How is that a valid comparison? Or do you think that black people are gods?

haha

It's a valid comparison because you were just replacing one word for another without regard for any other component of the argument.

 

[Cobblestones]

It's a valid comparison because you were just replacing one word for another without regard for any other component of the argument.

I am trying to follow your reasoning here.

Basically, materialists like you and me only care about what can be proven whereas some here accept any cockamamie concept as entirely plausible and just because it hasn't been proven yet doesn't matter to them. It is the fact that they think it that makes it real. I am convinced that some of these people could build an entire religion around the Silmarillion and the Lord of the Rings series and they would make the same arguments in favor of such a belief system as they do presently.

Yes, and what facts did you use to convince yourself of this?

Straight logic my friend. Take any posts from the people I described and replace the word "God" with "Iluvatar" and the substance of the argument does not change one iota. If A=B and B=C then A=C. Call the variable "God" or anything else and the equation remains consistent.

If we apply Cobbles' logic to this mess, we can replace "theist" or "religion" with "black people" and say that Mr. Blooms is arguing for racism.

So, in essence, you don't see the difference with replacing one imaginary being with another imaginary being without the result varying and comparing actual people who were tested for IQ and for where they stand on the issue of religion and replacing the terms of the IQ/Religious evaluation with an ethnic background that has nothing to do with IQ or choice?

If you are going to try to sound logical, then please be logical. If you simply don't see the difference, perhaps we could enter this as proof in favor of the findings of the aforementioned tests.

 

[slave2six]

Even I followed your logic.

Allah = God
God = Illuvitar
Allah = Illuvitar
​

So that when someone claims "Allah commands..." there is just as much evidence for such a statement as there is for "Illuvitar commands."

However:

IQ Level <> Black People
and/or
Religion <> Black People
​

Therefore you cannot replace "People with a high IQ" or "People who participate in religion" with the phrase "Black people" and so angellous_evangellous is incorrect in stating "If we apply Cobbles' logic to this mess, we can replace "theist" or "religion" with "black people" and say that Mr. Blooms is arguing for racism."

And yet this same person in posts 14 and 16 mocked Cobblestones' comments. This mocking of what one clearly does not comprehend is baffling. To then go on and completely misrepresent the original statement is simply a display of sheer ignorance.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

To then go on and completely misrepresent the original statement is simply a display of sheer ignorance.

.....

 

[Smoke]

It would seem that religious people are more stupid than atheists.

I'm both a religious person and an atheist, and I dislike the never-ending opposition of the two on these forums. It should not be assumed that all religion is either theistic or dogmatic. For that matter, it should not be assumed that all theists are religious. There are plenty of people who, if asked, would say they believe in some god or other, but who give that god no more thought in their daily lives than I give to Millard Fillmore.

I would not even say that religious people who adhere to dogmatic systems of religion are necessarily more stupid than atheists. You can easily find on these very forums people who believe the most remarkable and unlikely religious teachings but are demonstrably more intelligent than some of the atheists here.

I do think that intelligent people are more likely to become atheists than stupid people, both because they are more likely to question religious teaching and because they are less likely to be satisfied with religious answers. Various studies and surveys do tend to support the idea that intelligent and/or educated people are more likely to be atheists.

I think there's a more important distinction, though, and that is between ways of being religious. To choose two well-known examples here, look at Katzpur and Angellous. Both are very religious people, and both believe things that I, personally, consider to be very unlikely, but they are both intelligent and thoughtful people. As an atheist and a non-dogmatic Buddhist (and as a fairly intelligent person), I think I can more easily find common ground with them than I can with a stupid and thoughtless atheist, even though the atheist shares my views about gods.

Likewise, I think they can more easily find common ground both with thoughtful atheists and with thoughtful theists who believe things contrary to their own beliefs than they can with stupid and thoughtless adherents of their own religions. Katzpur is as faithful a Mormon as you'll find anywhere, but her views are often at odds with those of her more fundamentalist-minded brethren. And my parents are Christians like Nathan, but they would consider him so "liberal" as to find the distinction between him and an atheist merely academic.

In my view, it is not religion that is the enemy, but fundamentalism, stupidity, and intolerance.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I think there's a more important distinction, though, and that is between ways of being religious. To choose two well-known examples here, look at Katzpur and Angellous. Both are very religious people, and both believe things that I, personally, consider to be very unlikely, but they are both intelligent and thoughtful people.

Some people are blinded by the light rather than lead by it.

Note: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/historical-debates/86472-humanist-atheism.html

 

[Smoke]

However:

IQ Level <> Black People
and/or
Religion <> Black People
​

Therefore you cannot replace "People with a high IQ" or "People who participate in religion" with the phrase "Black people" and so angellous_evangellous is incorrect in stating "If we apply Cobbles' logic to this mess, we can replace "theist" or "religion" with "black people" and say that Mr. Blooms is arguing for racism."

However, you have not accounted for the uncomfortable facts that (a) black people score lower on IQ tests, on average, than white people, who in turn score lower, on average, than East Asians, and (b) East Asians are more likely, in general, to be atheists than white people, who are more likely, in general, to be atheists than black people.

 

[Cobblestones]

To then go on and completely misrepresent the original statement is simply a display of sheer ignorance.

Was that really necessary?

 

[Cobblestones]

Some people are blinded by the light rather than lead by it.

Can you put that into terms that someone who does not think in metaphysical terms can understand please? What "light" are you talking about? Are you talking about personal revelations or something along those lines? Mystic speak always throws me for a loop.

 

[Cobblestones]

However, you have not accounted for the uncomfortable facts that (a) black people score lower on IQ tests, on average, than white people, who in turn score lower, on average, than East Asians, and (b) East Asians are more likely, in general, to be atheists than white people, who are more likely, in general, to be atheists than black people.

Kinda hard to paint with such a wide brush, don't you think? I know many very intelligent black people and some ignorant orientals. You cannot paint an entire race as being intellectually inferior to another.

 

[Storm]

Kinda hard to paint with such a wide brush, don't you think? I know many very intelligent black people and some ignorant orientals. You cannot paint an entire race as being intellectually inferior to another.

Painting religious folk takes an even wider brush.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Can you put that into terms that someone who does not think in metaphysical terms can understand please? What "light" are you talking about? Are you talking about personal revelations or something along those lines? Mystic speak always throws me for a loop.

See Plato's Allegory of the Cave - The Internet Classics Archive | The Republic by Plato

 

[Smoke]

Kinda hard to paint with such a wide brush, don't you think? I know many very intelligent black people and some ignorant orientals. You cannot paint an entire race as being intellectually inferior to another.

I didn't. Nor did I paint all theists as intellectually inferior to atheists. Both lines of reasoning are equally true and equally fallacious, and that was Nathan's point.

 

[Cobblestones]

See Plato's Allegory of the Cave - The Internet Classics Archive | The Republic by Plato

2,500 year old explanations of that which I cannot reasonably presume to exist is not really helpful. It's great literature, certainly, but to accept that premise is to ignore two and a half millennia of human advancement.

This is the problem that I have with religion in general. One has to become primitive in thinking to accept a ridiculous premise (e.g. the whole Adam & Eve in the Garden nonsense without which Christian could not stand) and then use one's intellect to delve into the depths of the imaginary world that they have accepted rather than using their intellect for something useful.

It staggers my imagination that there are universities dedicated to such useless pursuits as "Religious Studies" and that great minds devote a lifetime to thinking about, discussing, and writing about such things when they could have done something useful for humanity instead.

If people like this had devoted their energies to religion rather than science, we'd never have discovered cures for polio, the pox, or any number of other diseases or developed cool prosthetics or even discovered the x-ray or developed the MRI.

I just don't understand why anyone would spend a lifetime re-hashing the same nonsensical theological discussions that have been bantered about for the past 6,000 years. There's nothing new there to be discovered. It's like priding oneself on how well they can use an abacus. I just cannot comprehend it.

 

[Storm]

It staggers my imagination that there are universities dedicated to such useless pursuits as "Religious Studies" and that great minds devote a lifetime to thinking about, discussing, and writing about such things when they could have done something useful for humanity instead.

If people like this had devoted their energies to religion rather than science, we'd never have discovered cures for polio, the pox, or any number of other diseases or developed cool prosthetics or even discovered the x-ray or developed the MRI.

Would you say the same of music? Philosophy? History?

I just don't understand why anyone would spend a lifetime re-hashing the same nonsensical theological discussions that have been bantered about for the past 6,000 years. There's nothing new there to be discovered. It's like priding oneself on how well they can use an abacus. I just cannot comprehend it.

We each have our passions.

I've asked before and got a flip answer, I'll ask again: if you think the topic of religion is so worthless, why did you join a forum devoted to it? It's not a backhanded way of telling you to go away, I'm genuinely curious.

 

[Bloomdido]

Would you say the same of music? Philosophy? History?

We look at the historical context to learn about the evolution and diversification of music. It changes and folds back on itself like a meandering river. Mathmaticaly there will come a time when every song has been written as there is only a fixed number of permutations and combinations of notes within a given time frame.

We al know what music is, although there are some that push the boundaries into noise. We accept the different genres and although we may think our taste to be best, we don't tend to cast people out into the wilderness for liking something we don't (unless it's rap of course).

As a musician, I don't dictate which instruments people are able to play or what they can play on them. I don't teach people outdated techniques that restrict them from playing different styles and I would never (as much as I may want to) tell people not to go near opera or country.

We each have our passions.

I've asked before and got a flip answer, I'll ask again: if you think the topic of religion is so worthless, why did you join a forum devoted to it? It's not a backhanded way of telling you to go away, I'm genuinely curious.

I can't answer for others but I am fascinated by the subject. I made the local press as a child protesting about the legal requirement for religious assembly in England and I feel I must put the other point of view across. It helps me to develop my analytical skills and comprehension. The more I look, the more I see.