Religious people less intelligent than atheists?

[asterism]

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.

The key there is "if."

Faith and belief in God are choices.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Who said God wants people to know He exists? Who said He is all powerful?

I am not, I am explaining to you, as nicely as possible, that the problem is you. The simple fact is that, even if I laid out all the evidence I have for the existence of God for you, you wouldn't accept it because you would not be able to analyze it without your own inherent bias.

Your inflexibility and pride refuses to let you think you could be wrong, so you refuse to use the methods you claim I am ignoring.

That doesn't make you dumb, but it does make you wrong, even if God doesn't exist.

 

[numan]

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.

Of course it is !! BUT IT IS A HELL OF A LOT BETTER THAN RELIGIOUS FANTASY AND DELUSION !!!!!!!!!!!

,

 

[YWN666]

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.

It is not always possible but desirable.

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.

I use scientific as an adjective when talking of evidence because there are so many who use "proof" in a non-scientific manner. Someone said a sunrise is proof that god exists - it is "proof enough for them" but it is not scientific proof so you can drop the smug attitude, it just emphasizes your ignorance.

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.

Having "faith" (I prefer the phrase "rational expectation" in this context) that you will see platelets when looking at blood under a microscope is a WHOLE lot different than having faith in the existence of something that has NEVER been proven. You're playing word games to lower rationality to the level of religious belief.

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

That is a lame excuse used by people who can't prove that their religious beliefs are fact.

 

[theword]

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.

Of course it is !! BUT IT IS A HELL OF A LOT BETTER THAN RELIGIOUS FANTASY AND DELUSION !!!!!!!!!!!

,

God's plan called the beast was used to teach man how to build things in this world to help us understand His invisible Kingdom called energy.

He started out using religion and religious ideas to separate man into different nations. They built their false gods without knowing that our Creator gave them all their thoughts to build things with. These religious people built the buildings, cities and governments with all their laws according to God's plan ( beast ) until it spawned science and certain individuals to build the microscopes and telescopes we have today to see God's infinite nature.

Now that we have the modern technology in place that God designed and created, we can learn about how He created us as wavelengths of energy that needs to be processed to give us the illusions we see, hear, taste, smell and touch in this world.

Wavelengths of energy is the lowest form of information that exists and were spoken into existence with God's first created invisible machine called His voice ( the Word ).

 

[YWN666]

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.

Who said God wants people to know He exists? Who said He is all powerful?

Most fundamentalist christians I have encountered demand that. That is their justification for proselytizing. Your question also points out the vague nature of religious beliefs - ask 1,000 people what god is and how he operates and you'll get 1,000 different answers.

I am not, I am explaining to you, as nicely as possible, that the problem is you. The simple fact is that, even if I laid out all the evidence I have for the existence of God for you, you wouldn't accept it because you would not be able to analyze it without your own inherent bias.

If you laid out cold hard evidence of the existence of a god (and I'm talking about the kind of evidence that could not be explained by anything other than the existence of god), then I would have no choice but to accept his existence. The problem is that no one in the history of mankind has been able to provide such evidence. Have your deity of choice turn a housecat into an ocean liner right in front of me on my cue and I will say "god exists". Proof of god would also present a problem for believers - it would prohibit them from stretching the god story to cover everything they can't explain.

Your inflexibility and pride refuses to let you think you could be wrong, so you refuse to use the methods you claim I am ignoring.

That doesn't make you dumb, but it does make you wrong, even if God doesn't exist.

When it comes to proving the existence of a higher being, I am as inflexible as science and mathematics are. If you say 3 + 3 =6, would you accept it if I said "no, 3 + 3 = 9 but you have to have faith in order to see that"?

"Faith is deciding to allow yourself to believe something your intellect would otherwise cause you to reject"

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

No. Im trying to teach you how to find out for yourself that He exists. There is plenty of evidence of God because everything in existence is evidence of a God. Look at yourself in the mirror. That its evidence of God. You might choose to disregard the evidence. But it's evidence nonetheless.

My testimony that the Lord has revealed Himself to me is evidence that there is a God. You might not believe my testimony. But it's still evidence.

What I've explained to you is the method the Lord has given for all to learn for themselves. If you choose to disregard the method and never use it to learn for yourself, but instead choose to remain ignorant, that is your perogative. But if you want to know for yourself, you need to do so in the way God has appointed.

 

[daveman]

Not what I said now, is it? I think it's totally dumb to live your life worshipping an invisible being that you don't even know exists.

I thought you said you understand faith?
Doesn't look like.
I KNOW God exists.
Now stamp your feet and tell me I don't.

Ok, so what's your basis for this claim, anything?

Again: Faith.

As I thought, you do not understand the nature of faith.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Hebrews 11:1​

 

[daveman]

If you have proof of your close encounter, I'm all ears.

In reality -- no, you're not. You're not interested in anything that challenges your views.

 

[daveman]

Interesting. I would like to point out exactly how asinine this assertion is though. It is a known fact that blacks have a lower IQ than whites. Asians are higher than both.
Race and intelligence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are we then to assume that blacks are dumber than whites who are dumber than Asians? I for one am not going to make that monumentally bigoted assertion. Apparently those here that think the same with religious individuals can’t see their own bigotry no matter how stark it is.

I don’t know why the tests turn out the way they do and quite frankly I don’t care. You see, I am going to judge people as individuals rather than parsed out groups as grouping people will ALWAYS lead to asinine assertions like the OP’s cited ‘study.’ I could test people with dogs and with cats and I can guarantee that one group is going to test lower than the other. Will it mean anything? Nope. Nor does this.

This one means something to those who have to have its validation.

 

[daveman]

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.

.

That proves, then, that anthropogenic global warming is a matter of faith.

 

[daveman]

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

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

.

The SR-71 is not a fighter jet. Nor is it a toy.

And the evidence says the planet is not heating.

 

[daveman]

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.

Sure, He could do that -- but then worship would be meaningless.

If a mugger steals a hundred dollars from you, do you feel generous?

If you give a hundred dollars to your favorite charity, do you feel generous?

That which is coerced is worthless compared to that which is freely given.

 

[daveman]

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.

Of course it is !! BUT IT IS A HELL OF A LOT BETTER THAN RELIGIOUS FANTASY AND DELUSION !!!!!!!!!!!

,

Why the hostility? No one is forcing you to alter your beliefs. No one is demanding anything of you. You are not in danger of being forced by the government into a profession of faith.

So why are you so hostile to believers? NOTE: "Because they're stupid!!" is insufficient. Surely someone as intelligent as you are can come up with a clear and logical reason to explain your hostility to believers.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It is not always possible but desirable.

I use scientific as an adjective when talking of evidence because there are so many who use "proof" in a non-scientific manner. Someone said a sunrise is proof that god exists - it is "proof enough for them" but it is not scientific proof so you can drop the smug attitude, it just emphasizes your ignorance.

You used it wrong because you think someone else used a different word wrong? That still makes you wrong.

Which means that, even if I am smug, I am not ignorant.

Having "faith" (I prefer the phrase "rational expectation" in this context) that you will see platelets when looking at blood under a microscope is a WHOLE lot different than having faith in the existence of something that has NEVER been proven. You're playing word games to lower rationality to the level of religious belief.

Something that has never been proven? Would that include the existence of dark matter and energy? Or is it rational to believe in those after you examine the evidence?

Wait, you can't examine the evidence, you can't do the higher order math that is necessary for you to see why we need to postulate something that is holding the universe together, and something else that is keeping it from collapsing. All you can do is listen to other people who say they have done the math and take what they say on faith.

This is why you cannot win an argument, you don't understand science.

That is a lame excuse used by people who can't prove that their religious beliefs are fact.

I don't need to prove they are fact, just like you don't have to prove yours are. The difference between us is I know that, and you don't.

 

[YWN666]

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.

No. Im trying to teach you how to find out for yourself that He exists. There is plenty of evidence of God because everything in existence is evidence of a God. Look at yourself in the mirror. That its evidence of God. You might choose to disregard the evidence. But it's evidence nonetheless.

No, it is not and that is the point I made in another post. Just because you have a lower unscientific standard for evidence doesn't make it evidence. If I see my image in a mirror as proof of the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, will you accept that?

 

[YWN666]

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.

What I've explained to you is the method the Lord has given for all to learn for themselves. If you choose to disregard the method and never use it to learn for yourself, but instead choose to remain ignorant, that is your perogative. But if you want to know for yourself, you need to do so in the way God has appointed.

Wow, that's pretty arrogant. Your assumption that god is real and that everyone else is just too stupid or pigheaded to believe is based on your belief only - that and $5.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. Get back to me when you have evidence that will satisfy people other than yourself. How is it that you people accept standards of evidence/proof in your everyday lives but when it comes to religion, you throw it all out the window?

 

[Hollie]

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.

Court rejects appeal of man who claims God told him to kill his daughter - Las Vegas Sun News



Speaking of hearing voices, how do we know the man in the linked article didn't literally hear the voice of the gods.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Most fundamentalist christians I have encountered demand that. That is their justification for proselytizing. Your question also points out the vague nature of religious beliefs - ask 1,000 people what god is and how he operates and you'll get 1,000 different answers.

I am me, not a bunch of people you are making up in order to justify your attempt to define God the way you want.

I am willing to bet you right here and now that I could ask half a dozen astrophysicists what dark energy is, and I would get a dozen different answers. Just because people do not agree on a definition you like does not mean the subject is invalid.

If you laid out cold hard evidence of the existence of a god (and I'm talking about the kind of evidence that could not be explained by anything other than the existence of god), then I would have no choice but to accept his existence. The problem is that no one in the history of mankind has been able to provide such evidence. Have your deity of choice turn a housecat into an ocean liner right in front of me on my cue and I will say "god exists". Proof of god would also present a problem for believers - it would prohibit them from stretching the god story to cover everything they can't explain.

Thanks for making my point. I didn't say I would lay out cold hard evidence for the existence of God, I said that if laid out all the evidence I have for the existence of God you wouldn't examine it with an open mind. By demanding that my evidence meet a standard of rigor that does not exist anywhere in the real world you have proved that your mind is closed, and that is why I will not waste my time showing you why I believe, or even telling you what I believe.

When it comes to proving the existence of a higher being, I am as inflexible as science and mathematics are. If you say 3 + 3 =6, would you accept it if I said "no, 3 + 3 = 9 but you have to have faith in order to see that"?

"Faith is deciding to allow yourself to believe something your intellect would otherwise cause you to reject"

Define higher being. Are humans higher than amoeba? If so, wouldn't the existence of beings higher than humans be the inevitable result of evolution?

As for your example, who is trying to tell you that something that you see is really something else? Is it that same voice in your head that tells you that I think God is all powerful?

By the way, 3+3=10 in base 6 math. Which actually makes the point that looking at things differently can result in you seeing something you wouldn't normally see.

 

[YWN666]

It is not always possible but desirable.

I use scientific as an adjective when talking of evidence because there are so many who use "proof" in a non-scientific manner. Someone said a sunrise is proof that god exists - it is "proof enough for them" but it is not scientific proof so you can drop the smug attitude, it just emphasizes your ignorance.

You used it wrong because you think someone else used a different word wrong? That still makes you wrong.

Which means that, even if I am smug, I am not ignorant.

Having "faith" (I prefer the phrase "rational expectation" in this context) that you will see platelets when looking at blood under a microscope is a WHOLE lot different than having faith in the existence of something that has NEVER been proven. You're playing word games to lower rationality to the level of religious belief.

Something that has never been proven? Would that include the existence of dark matter and energy? Or is it rational to believe in those after you examine the evidence?

No, not everything can be proven but at least science can come up with something that is entirely plausible that doesn't violate the laws of physics unlike religious claims that have men riding white horses out of the clouds to take all of the christians off the planet when the world ends.