The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation

[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 ]
no religion can lay claim to being logically self evident

[/ QUOTE ]

Most religions can lay claim to be logiclly self evidient. Proof that there is a God is not logically self evident, that is true. But most religions are based on the fact that they believe that there is a God. Consequently, the laws they follow are given to them by God (of whom they believe exists). It is therefore logically (self evident) that if one believes in God and accepts him that he religiously follows his laws or suffer the consequences. Nothing is more logical than that.

pokervintage

[/ QUOTE ]

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH

[madnak]

I completely agree, David.

The idea that some people will go to hell because they're too logical is absurd, and any belief system tossing atheists into hell suggests just that. Even when everyone "deserves" to go to hell and only some people "find salvation" (an absurd point in general IMO), if those who fail to find salvation fail only because they respect logical thinking, then it's their logical nature that results in their damnation. This can't be a sensible position. (It can be logical, but only given bizarre premises.)

[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.

[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.

[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

[David Sklansky]

"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?"

You are completely confused. I never said that this is most Christian's position. In fact the only regular Christian poster who takes that position is txaq. In fact my OP is saying that most intelligent believers of any religion don't take that position. And I neve mentioned Christianity specifically at all.


[ 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."

I didn't say it was. What I said was that those religious people who admit that their faith isn't clearly the most "reasonable" can't claim that non believers are automatically evil, lazy, or have ulterior motives. And if they can't claim that, most people would agree that it is wrong to ponounce others condemned.

There was a time when you agreed with all that.

[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.