"People who have faith . . . are not as smart as others"

[First Baseman]

Who says Christians are threatened by science?

See http://www.icr.org/.

We merely interpret the scientific evidence differently. Big Bangers interpret the evidence in accordance with their world view. We do the same.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes, yes he is. Shadow Wolf bit off more than she could swallow in that debate.

Just to make sure you are aware of the exchange in this "debate." I have mentioned a few Christians in rebuttal of the OP, I was very clear and specific in the type of faith that I used to have and said that can only be proven wrong when exposed to the world, and despite this Serenity accuses me of taking "shot gun blasts" against Christians.
It has nothing to do with my "biting off more than I can swallow," it has everything to do with Serenity claiming he is being attacked when I never attacked him or the RCC (to the contrary, I am very aware that the Vatican scientists accept modern science).

 

[Skwim]

There are just so many holes in what this person is saying....

Care to share?

Why make a scientific theory, and then use the definition of faith from the Bible.

What scientific theory? All they did was make a study and report their findings. And believe it or not, the Bible and Christianity don't have exclusive rights to the use of the term "faith." But out of curiosity, what is this particular definition of "faith" from the Bible?


.

 

[Skwim]

You've been on this forum for six years, and you still think you can post a thread on a study suggesting that religious people are less intelligent than non-religious people and some people on both sides of the aisle will NOT take that to mean that religious people's notions are wrong?

If anything, it would be those on only one side of the aisle; guess which one. In any case, until such a person comes on board I think your "wrong" post was unreasonably premature. But hey, people with "premature" problems aren't all that uncommon. There's even medication for it.


.


.

 

[Sunstone]

If anything, it would be those on only one side of the aisle; guess which one. In any case, until such a person comes on board I think your "wrong" post was unreasonably premature. But hey, people with "premature" problems aren't all that uncommon. There's even medication for it. .

Oh, don't be a sore loser, Skwim. It's unbecoming.

 

[wizanda]

But out of curiosity, what is this particular definition of "faith" from the Bible?

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.

Care to share?

The fault is within putting forward that faith has to mean blind faith, as comes from the Biblical understanding, rather than it being a word meaning to trust.

 

[Skwim]

Oh, don't be a sore loser, Skwim. It's unbecoming.

Now this is beneath you, Sunstone. Really it is. I expected a far more sophisticated retort, and hate to think I've driven you to scraping the bottom of the barrel. Please . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

.​

.

 

[lovesong]

I guess I overestimate the intelligence of the ordinary reader in thinking it's at least average.

If anything, it would be those on only one side of the aisle; guess which one. In any case, until such a person comes on board I think your "wrong" post was unreasonably premature. But hey, people with "premature" problems aren't all that uncommon. There's even medication for it.

Come come now, must we really resort to being rude as a means of supporting our arguments? I thought we were more civilized here.

 

[Sunstone]

Now this is beneath you, Sunstone. Really it is. I expected a far more sophisticated retort, and hate to think I've driven you to scraping the bottom of the barrel. Please . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

​

I thought the very same thing of your retort, Skwim. Beneath you.

 

[Skwim]

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.

Okay, but where do you see them using this definition? Christians don't have a monopoly on faith.

The fault is within putting forward that faith has to mean blind faith, as comes from the Biblical understanding, rather than it being a word meaning to trust.

Don't see a thing in the article referring to faith as being the "blind" kind or coming from the "Biblical understanding."

Come come now, must we really resort to being rude as a means of supporting our arguments? I thought we were more civilized here.

In as much as you're new here, and until you've become accustomed to they lay of the land, perhaps you should refrain from judging the remarks between others. What I said was in jest and Sunstone knows it.



.

 

[Skwim]

I thought the very same thing of your retort, Skwim. Beneath you.

Hey, my retort was pretty clever---not my best, but surely worthy of my target---even though you obviously don't recognize it. In time though, you'll come to realize what a gem I am around here and start saving my remarks, possibly appropriating them for your own use. (There! now don't say I never left you an opening.)


.

 

[lovesong]

In as much as you're new here, and until you've become accustomed to they lay of the land, perhaps you should refrain from judging the remarks between others. What I said was in jest and Sunstone knows it.

"I guess I overestimate the intelligence of the ordinary reader in thinking it's at least average." You're calling the average reader here unintelligent, this is rude however you slice it.

 

[Skwim]

"I guess I overestimate the intelligence of the ordinary reader in thinking it's at least average." You're calling the average reader here unintelligent, this is rude however you slice it.

Try putting it into context; the exchanges that led up to my remark. If you still think I was being rude then so be it. I can't care about how everyone regards my remarks, and don't. Fact is, almost everyone here takes the same position. Welcome to RF.


.


.

 

[Serenity Now]

Shadow Wolf,

You are picking and choosing your arguments against Christianity and lumping and unlumping the different demnominations of Christians at your whim.

There are huge differences between Bible literalist and say the Catholic Church. In fact it was a Catholic scientist priest Georges Lemaitre who first proposed the Big Bang theory. A Catholic scientist named Jean-Baptiste did extensive work early on the theory of evolution as did the Augustinian Friar Gregor Mendel.

Don't be so sold on what you think you know because there is a lot of counter information to what you perceive is the truth.

 

[lovesong]

Try putting it into context; the exchanges that led up to my remark. If you still think I was being rude then so be it. I can't care about how everyone regards my remarks, and don't. Fact is, almost everyone here takes the same position. Welcome to RF.
.

Yes everyone does seem to be taking the same position, one that challenges your original post. And it seems as if in reaction to this you've resulted to rude remarks and an overwhelming plethora of "so what?"s, not just to Sunstone but in general. Seem's a tad childish if you ask me.

 

[Serenity Now]

Just to make sure you are aware of the exchange in this "debate." I have mentioned a few Christians in rebuttal of the OP, I was very clear and specific in the type of faith that I used to have and said that can only be proven wrong when exposed to the world, and despite this Serenity accuses me of taking "shot gun blasts" against Christians.
It has nothing to do with my "biting off more than I can swallow," it has everything to do with Serenity claiming he is being attacked when I never attacked him or the RCC (to the contrary, I am very aware that the Vatican scientists accept modern science).

You really haven't been as clear as you are claiming, in fact your posts tend to have a lot of incorrect assumptions.

 

[wizanda]

Okay, but where do you see them using this definition?

Within the article, they're applying the word faith in terms of a broader topic of a blind faith in something, without scientific evidence to substantiate it....

Yet i find that a very naive definition of some religious understandings....

We can show advanced understanding in a yogis practises, they have faith to withstand extreme conditions, and it is based on years of research (scientific data).

Not everyone who is religious or spiritual applies faith into things, without rational scientific reasoning into it....

Got loads of spiritual friends who do Yoga because it is healthy for you, and could explain the reasons why they practise it.

We could say a small group of Christians, who haven't really even bothered reading the Bible, have the characteristics described within the article; yet it doesn't apply to all religious, and spiritual people to be ignorant.

"A stream of research
"Our studies confirmed

Then to be coming across as if somehow it is scientific, makes me think it is some anti-theist author; who doesn't recognize religion, and spirituality doesn't imply everyone is the same.

 

[Valjean]

Unsupported you say. Then I assume you've read their work and can show us why it's unsupported. Please share. Thank you.

No, no. I was referring to certain posters' interpretations of the study as unsupported, not the study itself.


.

 

[Skwim]

Yes everyone does seem to be taking the same position, one that challenges your original post. And it seems as if in reaction to this you've resulted to rude remarks and an overwhelming plethora of "so what?"s, not just to Sunstone but in general. Seem's a tad childish if you ask me.

ONE (1) "so what?" (post 45) amounts to an "overwhelming plethora." My god woman, what must two of them make up, a plethora of overwhelming plethoras? And in case you didn't know "So what?" is a legitimate question. Jesus even asked it when he was accused of being god.


.

 

[wizanda]

'Atheists, the researchers found, are most closely aligned with psychopaths...'