The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation

[mickeyg13]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I get angry when an atheist claims that he has some sort of proof that his position is correct, because it's not even possible to have such proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

What proof could he possibly need? His position is correct, it's the same one you use for alien abductions and elves and people walking through walls ... "until you have proof, your claim is unproven and I have no reason to treat it as true."

Why would your claim be granted some special status and be accepted without evidence being presented.

If you make specific physical claims, such as age-of-earth etc, then an atheist may say he has evidence you are wrong.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the Earth is likely about 4.5 billion years old, though I'd be willing to modify that belief in light of new evidence. My religious beliefs do not contradict that. A lot of people don't know this, but Catholicism and the theory of evolution are not mutually exclusive.

We do not have evidence that atheism is correct, nor do we have evidence that it is incorrect. As a result, some choose the route of agnosticism, and in some ways that is the most philosophically sound route to take. However, I choose to have faith in something that I do not have evidence for or against. Logically there is nothing wrong with that. Strong atheists are essentially doing the same thing; they have faith in nonexistence even though they have no proof.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
We do not have evidence that atheism is correct,

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean you believe in thor? wow.
Atheism is correct because if you don't believe in thor or yahwah or whoever, you are an atheist, by definition .. it HAS to be correct.

Explain how it is incorrect.

I may be an atheist because I am an agnostic ( they are not contradictory positions they deal with different topics).

luckyme

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> As a result, some choose the route of agnosticism, and in some ways that is the most philosophically sound route to take. </font>

Most atheists are indeed agnostics. I certainly don't claim to know for sure there isn't a god. But I think it's so unlikely that I feel very comfortable dismissing the notion altogether. Thus to you, I guess I'd be considered an atheist.

You should also understand that there shouldn't even be a term for someone who doesn't believe in something. There's no anumerologists, or atoothfairyists, and there shouldn't be atheists either. I presume you yourself are an atheist with respect to many of the ancient gods who have been put out to pasture such as Zeus, Thor, Wotan, etc. What you describe as an atheist, is merely someone who lumps the God of Abraham into this same mythological heap.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I get angry when an atheist claims that he has some sort of proof that his position is correct, because it's not even possible to have such proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

What proof could he possibly need? His position is correct, it's the same one you use for alien abductions and elves and people walking through walls ... "until you have proof, your claim is unproven and I have no reason to treat it as true."

Why would your claim be granted some special status and be accepted without evidence being presented.

If you make specific physical claims, such as age-of-earth etc, then an atheist may say he has evidence you are wrong.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the Earth is likely about 4.5 billion years old, though I'd be willing to modify that belief in light of new evidence. My religious beliefs do not contradict that. A lot of people don't know this, but Catholicism and the theory of evolution are not mutually exclusive.

We do not have evidence that atheism is correct, nor do we have evidence that it is incorrect. As a result, some choose the route of agnosticism, and in some ways that is the most philosophically sound route to take. However, I choose to have faith in something that I do not have evidence for or against. Logically there is nothing wrong with that. Strong atheists are essentially doing the same thing; they have faith in nonexistence even though they have no proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

We do not have evidence that unicorns DONT exist (well, we have tons of evidence if you count the fact I've never seen one, but certainly no proof) and yet taking a tentative (technically) stance that unicorns don't exist is still correct.

But ZOMG unicorns != God amirite?

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> I seem to agree with DS on a surprising number of points, considering he is an atheist and I am not. </font>

There's a reason for that. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

<font color="blue"> I get angry when an atheist claims that he has some sort of proof that his position is correct, because it's not even possible to have such proof. </font>

We don't need proof. We're just saying there is no compelling reason to buy the fact that there's an invisible man upstairs that no one can see. If you want to convince rational people to believe that there is, then YOU'RE the one who's gonna need the proof. Not us.

If I tell you my dead aunt's ghost visits me every night and guides me through life, why would you accept that was true without any proof? More importantly, why should I become agitated with you just because you can't prove she doesn't visit me?

[mickeyg13]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> I seem to agree with DS on a surprising number of points, considering he is an atheist and I am not. </font>

There's a reason for that. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

<font color="blue"> I get angry when an atheist claims that he has some sort of proof that his position is correct, because it's not even possible to have such proof. </font>

We don't need proof. We're just saying there is no compelling reason to buy the fact that there's an invisible man upstairs that no one can see. If you want to convince rational people to believe that there is, then YOU'RE the one who's gonna need the proof. Not us.

If I tell you my dead aunt's ghost visits me every night and guides me through life, why would you accept that was true without any proof? More importantly, why should I become agitated with you just because you can't prove she doesn't visit me?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not angry because atheists can't prove their position; I get angry when an atheist thinks he CAN prove it though. Clearly many do not believe they can prove that, so no hostility there.

[Lestat]

I guess anyone can be a nut. But I don't know of any non-believers who claim they can prove there isn't a god. We might try to prove that it's more logical to hold the position there isn't one however. I for one, claim this and believe I can show it to be logically correct. I would never claim I could prove there isn't a god. Everyone should know you can't prove a negative.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not angry because atheists can't prove their position; I get angry when an atheist thinks he CAN prove it though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's see... you claim you have an invisible friend. My position is " I don't think there is evidence to support that belief" ...and rest my case.

Proven.

What other evidence do I have to come up with... photographs of the invisible guy not being there?

luckyme

[mickeyg13]

Perhaps I should explain a bit how I arrived at my beliefs. I was raised in an Irish-Catholic household and didn't question the faith taught to me very much as a child. Although I believed, I wasn't really educated enough to have much opinion either way. When I received Confirmation, I did question myself to make sure I believed what I claimed, but again I feel I wasn't in a great position to do so (even though I was 18, much older than most when they receive Confirmation).

I went to a Catholic undergraduate university (Jesuit in fact), and we were required to take a bunch of philosophy and religious studies courses. I surprisingly enjoyed the PL courses and took a few more and minored in it (in addition to my double major in math/CS). I spent a fair amount of time pondering the origin of the universe. Either the universe has always existed, or it has not. The former seems to be a troublesome infinite regress, so consider the latter. If it has not always existed, either some Supreme Being(s) created it, or they did not. In the latter, I'm troubled by the idea that the universe suddenly came into being out of nothing. I can accept the Big Bang and all the stuff thereafter, it's getting to the Big Bang that is troublesome for me. However, the notion that some Supreme Being(s) lit the fuse for the Big Bang is also troublesome, as it leads to the question of where the Being(s) came from. The default answer is that God always has and always will exist, but again that is troubling. No matter which way you pick, it seems you must run into some rather troubling ideas. I am slightly less troubled by the idea that some sort of omnipotent being could have, in His omnipotence, somehow managed to have always existed than I am by the idea that the Big Bang could have spontaneously arisen from nothing. You could argue then I suppose that agnosticism is the correct path. However, the fact that we have something rather than nothing, that the universe exists at all, is very troubling. My troubles are slightly more eased with the belief in some sort of God.

Now how do I get from there to Catholicism? Well I won't deny that much of it has to do with the fact that that is how I was raised. However, I really do like Jesus' message and style. Many sects of Christianity believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible, which I believe (as do the atheists here) has some problems. That is not a problem for Catholics though. Several times on this forum I've read someone criticizing Christianity, but I've observed that that particular criticism does not apply to Catholicism.

I'd set the over/under on the number of posts before someone makes a Catholic joke at 1.5...

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the truth of their own beliefs is SELF EVIDENT, once the appropriate literature is studied.


[/ QUOTE ]
ie.
[ QUOTE ]

logically self evident.


[/ QUOTE ]

You have been corrected about this premise of yours repeatedly on this Forum by countless spokespeople for Christianity, yet you persist in your mistaken notion. They tell you that something more goes on than logical evalulation of evidence. Why do you insist on ignoring their response and persist in misrepresenting their position?


[ QUOTE ]
This is important because lots of religious thoughts and actions can only be justified if believers can claim non believers are unreasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, according to you. The rejection which they claim condemns the nonbeliever is not the rejection of reason.

There's really not much point in Christians talking to you. You don't listen.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm I'm Christian yet I kinda think DS has a point. I haven't been around here long, but in what I've read thus far, I seem to agree with DS on a surprising number of points, considering he is an atheist and I am not. He seems to have great tolerance and understanding of the "Enlightened Theist," whereas others here seem to belittle even that position.

I get angry when an atheist claims that he has some sort of proof that his position is correct, because it's not even possible to have such proof. Similarly though I don't like when my Christian friends seem to think that they have proof that Christianity is correct. I recognize that my stance requires faith, but that faith is not illogical as some claim. It may be illogical to believe in something in spite of evidence to the contrary, and logical to believe when there is evidence. However, in the absence of evidence, it's pretty much a logically neutral position. I don't know why some people have a hard time understanding this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not really that logical to believe 100% in the divinity of Christ and salvation through him "in the absence of evidence." Its arbitrary, not "logically neutral."