Religious people less intelligent than atheists?

[westwall]

The question should have been "has anyone seen God?" You might not have seen China but we can prove that it exists. There is no credible evidence to prove the existence of any god.

The answer to that question would be yes.

Personal Anecdote does not constitute proof.

Scientific proof must be accessible to all observers -- and repeatable.

.

Funny how you don't require that of the global warming cultists.....oh yeah, it's a religion too! That explains everything!

 

[numan]

'
That is just silly, Mr. Fighter-Jet-Toy.

The evidence for global heating is enormous -- and accessible to everyone but you wacko Denialists.

.

 

[FA_Q2]

The question should have been "has anyone seen God?" You might not have seen China but we can prove that it exists. There is no credible evidence to prove the existence of any god.

The answer to that question would be yes.

Personal Anecdote does not constitute proof.

Scientific proof must be accessible to all observers -- and repeatable.

.

And that is KEY.

 

[YWN666]

The answer to that question would be yes.

Personal Anecdote does not constitute proof.

Scientific proof must be accessible to all observers -- and repeatable.

.

It is repeatable. It requires you to humble yourself and seek the Lord. If you refuse to do that, then why would you ever expect to have your own experience with the Lord?

"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God who gives to all men liberally and upbraideth not and it shall be given to him. But ask in faith, nothing waivering."

Experiment on the Word my friend. Do His will and you will know if the doctrine comes from the Father or from man.

So in order to believe in God, you must first believe in God.

Yep, makes perfect sense.

 

[FA_Q2]

Personal Anecdote does not constitute proof.

Scientific proof must be accessible to all observers -- and repeatable.

.

It is repeatable. It requires you to humble yourself and seek the Lord. If you refuse to do that, then why would you ever expect to have your own experience with the Lord?

"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God who gives to all men liberally and upbraideth not and it shall be given to him. But ask in faith, nothing waivering."

Experiment on the Word my friend. Do His will and you will know if the doctrine comes from the Father or from man.

So in order to believe in God, you must first believe in God.

Yep, makes perfect sense.

Do you not understand faith?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The question should have been "has anyone seen God?" You might not have seen China but we can prove that it exists. There is no credible evidence to prove the existence of any god.

The answer to that question would be yes.

Personal Anecdote does not constitute proof.

Scientific proof must be accessible to all observers -- and repeatable.

.

It must be? In that case nothing Jane Goodall did was science. I am sure you will be happy to go down to your local library and demand that all of her work be removed from the science section and moved into the religion section.

Rule of thumb, absolutes are an indication that you don't know what you are talking about, and, more often than not, will end up with you being wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Personal Anecdote does not constitute proof.

Scientific proof must be accessible to all observers -- and repeatable.

.

It is repeatable. It requires you to humble yourself and seek the Lord. If you refuse to do that, then why would you ever expect to have your own experience with the Lord?

"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God who gives to all men liberally and upbraideth not and it shall be given to him. But ask in faith, nothing waivering."

Experiment on the Word my friend. Do His will and you will know if the doctrine comes from the Father or from man.

So in order to believe in God, you must first believe in God.

Yep, makes perfect sense.

You do not have to believe to believe, you have to admit that you might be wrong to learn.

 

[LittleNipper]

People who believe religious people are not as intelligent may wish to read the following --- that also goes for Uniformitarians & evolutionists: Are Atheists Really Smarter Than Religious People? | TheBlaze.com

 

[YWN666]

It is repeatable. It requires you to humble yourself and seek the Lord. If you refuse to do that, then why would you ever expect to have your own experience with the Lord?

"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God who gives to all men liberally and upbraideth not and it shall be given to him. But ask in faith, nothing waivering."

Experiment on the Word my friend. Do His will and you will know if the doctrine comes from the Father or from man.

So in order to believe in God, you must first believe in God.

Yep, makes perfect sense.

Do you not understand faith?

I understand that it is not proof.

 

[YWN666]

The answer to that question would be yes.

Personal Anecdote does not constitute proof.

Scientific proof must be accessible to all observers -- and repeatable.

.

It must be? In that case nothing Jane Goodall did was science. I am sure you will be happy to go down to your local library and demand that all of her work be removed from the science section and moved into the religion section.

Rule of thumb, absolutes are an indication that you don't know what you are talking about, and, more often than not, will end up with you being wrong.

I think you're misunderstanding the use of the word "accessible" here. Scientific proof must be able to be observed with no conditions of faith. Just because someone accepts a sunrise as proof of god doesn't mean it is proof. It just means that person has lowered their standards for proof.

 

[asterism]

So in order to believe in God, you must first believe in God.

Yep, makes perfect sense.

Do you not understand faith?

I understand that it is not proof.

While that's a valid point with regards to the limited scope of scientific evidence, it's like trying to prove harmony to a deaf person.

 

[numan]

'
Your "faith" is just personal anecdote.

Further, people have "absolute faith" about things which are mutually contradictory.

Historically, they have fought to the death about personal anecdotes which don't agree.

Faith is worthless about the truth of anything.

.

 

[YWN666]

Do you not understand faith?

I understand that it is not proof.

While that's a valid point with regards to the limited scope of scientific evidence, it's like trying to prove harmony to a deaf person.

If I am the deaf person in that analogy, then you're playing the same circular reasoning game. Faith is not an exemption to scientific proof.

 

[Avatar4321]

'
That is just silly, Mr. Fighter-Jet-Toy.

The evidence for global heating is enormous -- and accessible to everyone but you wacko Denialists.

.

You just have to completely ignore the data showing the tempature of the world cooling over the last 15 years.

 

[Avatar4321]

Personal Anecdote does not constitute proof.

Scientific proof must be accessible to all observers -- and repeatable.

.

It is repeatable. It requires you to humble yourself and seek the Lord. If you refuse to do that, then why would you ever expect to have your own experience with the Lord?

"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God who gives to all men liberally and upbraideth not and it shall be given to him. But ask in faith, nothing waivering."

Experiment on the Word my friend. Do His will and you will know if the doctrine comes from the Father or from man.

So in order to believe in God, you must first believe in God.

Yep, makes perfect sense.

Except that isn't what I said at all. You just have to believe that if there is a God that He can communicate with you.

I didn't always know there was a God. But I reasoned that if He did exist, He could find a way to let me know. That gave me enough incentive to experiment on the Word.

The scriptures say to ask and you will recieve, to seek and you will find. The Lord has given us a way and a method to learn from Him. it requires action on our part. But if you cannot even believe that you can someday know, you never will know. Because to learn of the Spirit, you have to have an active mind and actually do things. It's not just a philosophical exercise. God isn't going to give you something you aren't seeking because it's more merciful for you if you are ignorant and since then if you know and you sin.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Personal Anecdote does not constitute proof.

Scientific proof must be accessible to all observers -- and repeatable.

.

It must be? In that case nothing Jane Goodall did was science. I am sure you will be happy to go down to your local library and demand that all of her work be removed from the science section and moved into the religion section.

Rule of thumb, absolutes are an indication that you don't know what you are talking about, and, more often than not, will end up with you being wrong.

I think you're misunderstanding the use of the word "accessible" here. Scientific proof must be able to be observed with no conditions of faith. Just because someone accepts a sunrise as proof of god doesn't mean it is proof. It just means that person has lowered their standards for proof.

No I am not, I am pointing out that repeatability is not a criteria of science. despite the massive amount of ignorance that permeates this board on the subject. It is nice that things are repeatable because it makes it easier for other people to double check the work, but some things are not, by their very nature, repeatable. For example, Shoemaker-Levy gave us a lot of data about the makeup of both comets and the atmosphere of Jupiter, but no one is demanding that the data be repeated with another identical comet before the data can be used to argue their favorite conclusion.

Which brings me to another point, stop using scientific as an adjective to make it seem like there are different types of proof/facts, it just emphasizes your ignorance. All evidence is of the same value, what matters is how you analyze it to draw conclusions. There is nothing scientific about data because data is not a process, and the scientific method is a way of analyzing that data.

Also, there is nothing in the scientific method that prohibits you from approaching the data without a belief set, or faith, as long as you are willing to accept the possibility that your beliefs are wrong. Quite honestly, it would be impossible for a human to approach anything without expecting to find something. You cannot analyze blood without the faith that it is composed of red cells, white cells, platelets, and plasma. That is what you are looking for when you start,so it is perfectly acceptable, and part of the scientific method, to have faith that they will be there. The big news would be if they weren't.

The problem here is not the people who have faith, it is the people who don't understand faith. Or science.

 

[theword]

It is repeatable. It requires you to humble yourself and seek the Lord. If you refuse to do that, then why would you ever expect to have your own experience with the Lord?

"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God who gives to all men liberally and upbraideth not and it shall be given to him. But ask in faith, nothing waivering."

Experiment on the Word my friend. Do His will and you will know if the doctrine comes from the Father or from man.

So in order to believe in God, you must first believe in God.

Yep, makes perfect sense.

Except that isn't what I said at all. You just have to believe that if there is a God that He can communicate with you.

I didn't always know there was a God. But I reasoned that if He did exist, He could find a way to let me know. That gave me enough incentive to experiment on the Word.

The scriptures say to ask and you will recieve, to seek and you will find. The Lord has given us a way and a method to learn from Him. it requires action on our part. But if you cannot even believe that you can someday know, you never will know. Because to learn of the Spirit, you have to have an active mind and actually do things. It's not just a philosophical exercise. God isn't going to give you something you aren't seeking because it's more merciful for you if you are ignorant and since then if you know and you sin.

Joseph Smith was guided by satan to deceive millions of people into religion and enslaved to his religious ideas that keeps them from the knowledge of God that Joseph Smith never had.

 

[YWN666]

It is repeatable. It requires you to humble yourself and seek the Lord. If you refuse to do that, then why would you ever expect to have your own experience with the Lord?

"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God who gives to all men liberally and upbraideth not and it shall be given to him. But ask in faith, nothing waivering."

Experiment on the Word my friend. Do His will and you will know if the doctrine comes from the Father or from man.

So in order to believe in God, you must first believe in God.

Yep, makes perfect sense.

Except that isn't what I said at all. You just have to believe that if there is a God that He can communicate with you.

I didn't always know there was a God. But I reasoned that if He did exist, He could find a way to let me know. That gave me enough incentive to experiment on the Word.

The scriptures say to ask and you will recieve, to seek and you will find. The Lord has given us a way and a method to learn from Him. it requires action on our part. But if you cannot even believe that you can someday know, you never will know. Because to learn of the Spirit, you have to have an active mind and actually do things. It's not just a philosophical exercise. God isn't going to give you something you aren't seeking because it's more merciful for you if you are ignorant and since then if you know and you sin.

You're making excuses as to why there is no evidence to show that he exists. If an all powerful god wanted everyone to believe in him, he could snap his fingers and prove to everyone that he exists beyond any doubt.

 

[theword]

So in order to believe in God, you must first believe in God.

Yep, makes perfect sense.

Except that isn't what I said at all. You just have to believe that if there is a God that He can communicate with you.

I didn't always know there was a God. But I reasoned that if He did exist, He could find a way to let me know. That gave me enough incentive to experiment on the Word.

The scriptures say to ask and you will recieve, to seek and you will find. The Lord has given us a way and a method to learn from Him. it requires action on our part. But if you cannot even believe that you can someday know, you never will know. Because to learn of the Spirit, you have to have an active mind and actually do things. It's not just a philosophical exercise. God isn't going to give you something you aren't seeking because it's more merciful for you if you are ignorant and since then if you know and you sin.

You're making excuses as to why there is no evidence to show that he exists. If an all powerful god wanted everyone to believe in him, he could snap his fingers and prove to everyone that he exists beyond any doubt.

You must be patient. God will prove to everyone who He is in the next age but still, no one will ever see Him because He's invisible.

 

[asterism]

I understand that it is not proof.

While that's a valid point with regards to the limited scope of scientific evidence, it's like trying to prove harmony to a deaf person.

If I am the deaf person in that analogy, then you're playing the same circular reasoning game. Faith is not an exemption to scientific proof.

I never said it was. However, scientific proof is limited and cannot prove everything.