The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation

[pokervintage]

[ QUOTE ]
Most highly intelligent people realize that it ridiculous to think that any religion's beliefs can be arrived at through rational thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you mean highy intelligent people that have survived the brain washing of religion? Unfortnately, even for your premise to be correct one would have to assume that the development of religious tenets were based on irrational concepts made by less than or even by highly intelligent people.

I believe that the one of the most difficult relgious beliefs to accept is the Christian miracle of Easter. Yet it a totally rational and logical concept to believe that a God would have the power to resurrect a dead human. After all since he created them he must know how they work and has the power to make them again or even bring them back to life. Most concepts of religion are indeed logical and rational if one accepts that there is an all powerful being. I do not understand why you do not understand this. Belief is the key to religion and because they believe they do not question their beliefs. But usually what they believe has a rational and logical reason behind it. One reason usually is to govern behavior of the individual. Another is to show the power of God. These are perfectly rational and logical reasons.

pokervintage

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> Most concepts of religion are indeed logical and rational if one accepts that there is an all powerful being. I do not understand why you do not understand this. </font>

I think he does understand this, but that's not his point.

The point is that even an intelligent Christian who accepts what the bible says and therefore believes his religion is rational, should also accept that those who worship a different bible or set of beliefs are behaving in no less of a rationally manner than he is.

In other words, while he might not agree with his Muslim neighbor and might even pity him for believing in the wrong religion, an intelligent Christian would not say that his neighbor's beliefs are any less rational than his own. Only someone who is not very smart could think that.

This is also the reason why hard line fundamentalists of any religion are almost always the least intelligent. This has nothing to do with piety. Even the pope could recognize that Muslims are no less rational than he is. Even if he does think they are wrong and going to hell.

[PairTheBoard]

[ 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

[vhawk01]

[ 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 ]

Also not the point. It doesnt matter if he says "logically" self evident or "rasberry-flavored" self evident.

[mickeyg13]

[ 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.

[madnak]

[ 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. 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 ]

What you believe is highly relevant here. Do you believe in hell? Do you believe that human nature is inherently wretched and shameful? No? Then I wouldn't call you a "Christian." Semantic maybe. But given that so many people (including at least 50% of my own country) believe that I, as an atheist, deserve to be tortured for eternity, and that my whole species is basically a spit-ball stuck to the bottom of God's desk, I can deal with a little "collateral damage."

If you can't understand why there's some hostility from atheists toward your religion, then you're missing something big. I'm fine with the Buddhists - and remarkably, none of them think I deserve to be tortured until the end of time for my beliefs.

[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. 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 ]

What you believe is highly relevant here. Do you believe in hell? Do you believe that human nature is inherently wretched and shameful? No? Then I wouldn't call you a "Christian." Semantic maybe. But given that so many people (including at least 50% of my own country) believe that I, as an atheist, deserve to be tortured for eternity, and that my whole species is basically a spit-ball stuck to the bottom of God's desk, I can deal with a little "collateral damage."

If you can't understand why there's some hostility from atheists toward your religion, then you're missing something big. I'm fine with the Buddhists - and remarkably, none of them think I deserve to be tortured until the end of time for my beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are lumping all Christians together, seemingly assuming they all believe in the same stuff. While it's true that many Christians don't understand atheists, I think it's also true that many atheists don't understand Christianity. They know that they have serious problems with some beliefs of some Christians, but those beliefs are not universal.

I believe that humans have, in general, a tremendous capacity for good, but inevitably we will make mistakes. I'm not sure how that answers your second question. As for the question of Hell, in recent years I've been troubled by that notion and now think it's unlikely that it exists, at least in the form it's commonly portrayed. I can't reconcile the notion of an omni-benevolent God with the notion of eternal punishment. Personally I'm Catholic, but I don't know whether or not those beliefs (or any others I have) happen to directly violate any parts of Canon Law of the Church.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally I'm Catholic, but I don't know whether or not those beliefs (or any others I have) happen to directly violate any parts of Canon Law of the Church.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shouldn't you find out, given your belief that your eternal soul depends on it, and that the whole universe is based on it?

I won't go into specific Catholic beliefs because they're convoluted in the extreme. If we take it at face value, Catholic doctrine is both cruel and illogical. But few Catholics do take it at face value.

However, the Catholic Church does make a number of specific statements and take a number of specific actions supported by funds from its membership. Particularly if you grant the primacy of the Pope, I think it's perfectly fair to criticize you on the basis of those statements and actions (even if you don't know what they are). Even moreso if you've personally given money to the Catholic Church.

Going any further will get off-topic, and I'm not in the mood for a detailed criticism of the Catholics, and I'm angry enough about it that I'll have trouble staying reasonable, so I'll leave it at that.

[carlo]

What you believe is highly relevant here. Do you believe in hell?



[ QUOTE ]
To the extent the soul world is the abode of man immediately after death, it is called the region of desires. The various religious systems that have embodied in their doctrines a knowledge of these conditions are acquainted with this region of desire under the name “purgatory,” “cleansing fire,” and the like.

The lowest region of the soul world is that of Burning Desire. Everything in the soul that has to do with the coarsest, lowest, most selfish desires of the physical life is purged from the soul after death by it, because through such desires it is exposed to the effects of the forces of this soul region. The unsatisfied desires that have remained over from physical life furnish the points of attack. The sympathy of such souls only extends to what can nourish their selfish natures. It is greatly exceeded by the antipathy that floods everything else. Now the desires aim at physical enjoyments that cannot be satisfied in the soul world. The craving is intensified to the highest degree by the impossibility of satisfaction. Owing to this impossibility, at the same time it is forced to die out gradually. The burning lusts gradually exhaust themselves and the soul learns by experience that the only means of preventing the suffering that must come from such longings lies in extirpating them. During physical life satisfaction is ever and again attained. By this means the pain of the burning lusts is covered over by a kind of illusion. After death in the “cleansing fire” the pain comes into evidence quite unveiled. The corresponding experiences of privation are passed through. It is a dark, gloomy state indeed in which the soul thus finds itself. Of course, only those persons whose desires are directed during physical life to the coarsest things can fall into this condition. Natures with few lusts go through it without noticing it because they have no affinity with it. It must be stated that souls are the longer influenced by burning desire the more closely they have become related to that fire through their physical life. On that account there is more need for them to be purified in it. Such purification should not be described as suffering in the sense of this expression as it is used in the sense world. The soul after death demands its purification since an existing imperfection can only thus be purged away.


[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]


Above excerpt is from Steiner's "Theosophy".



In Hindu parlance this is known as Kamaloca. Read the "Tibetian Book of the Dead" and the "Egyptian Book of the Dead" and they offer hints as to the afterlife. The priest is speaking to the dead in order to help them in the way through the afterlife, prayer as speaking to the dead.The period in the "soul world" lasts about one third of a man's life on earth,i.e. Lives 72 years and travels through the "soul world" during a period of about 24 years. And yes there is more, much more, to the tune of about 900 years betweens incarnations. This of course is variable dependent upon the persons development.

This doesn't speak directly to "hell" but it can give some clarity to the present age's misrepresentation of the after life.

In consideration of "original sin" a perspective that it is our "heredity' which is this very first "original sin". All that passes from generation to generation via heredity is that very 'sin" in which man works in returning to the world from which he came which is the same world we return to in the after life. Only upon his "return" or "salvation" he is reborn anew into the spirit cleansed and purified and stands as a free spirit in that world. This is his work.

I will repeat the mantra that this can only be accomplished through reincarnation and karma.And yes, Christ is the Lord of Karma.

[luckyme]

[ 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