The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So, a person can both believe that it is not possible to know something and believe that they do know it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Slowly -
A person believes it's not possible to know (agnostic), therefore they find it impossible to believe, therefore they are non-believers ..aka atheists ( when the topic is god/s ).

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll say this so that you can understand: 'slowly' has no bearing on an internet forum except to be condescending.


[/ QUOTE ]

Slowly means -- actually take the time to read the words AND the message they contain ... then respond. Rather than typing the reply while reading.
The condescending connotation was just a lucky coincidence.

luckyme

[cowboy2579]

Ok, would this be esentially what the agnostic athiest would think:

I do not know if there is any higher power or not, but in my opinion, there is not.

?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, would this be esentially what the agnostic athiest would think:

I do not know if there is any higher power or not, but in my opinion, there is not.

?

[/ QUOTE ]I guess that would be OK, but what is wrong with this? A person believes it's not possible to know (agnostic), they have a default position about things that cannot be known and that is to not believe in them, therefore they are non-believers ..aka atheists ( when the topic is god/s ).

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, would this be esentially what the agnostic athiest would think:

I do not know if there is any higher power or not, but in my opinion, there is not.

?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not "I have no belief in god." That covers the atheism part. Is it even possible to find out if God exists? Depends on what kind of God. That covers the agnostic part. Atheism is a LACK of belief in God, and actually, its just a lack of belief in any particular God, usually Allah because the major monotheists are egotistical/lack imagination.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, would this be esentially what the agnostic athiest would think:

I do not know if there is any higher power or not, but in my opinion, there is not.

?

[/ QUOTE ]

Cliffs: There wouldn't be an ultimate power, but an infinite regression of power.

Well, yes and no.

The concept is that there is no ultimate God, but a succession of intelligences without end. So omnipotence would be illogical.

The agnostic atheist who understands the infinite would see there is no God, but a hierarchial progression. It's not a simple concept, and in this day and age, people are beginning to grasp quantum mechanics. There isn't a complete solution yet. The thing is, there will never be.

That's my personal take on it anyway. I assume there already or will be a type Omega civilization (see Kardashev Scale) and that such an intelligence exists or will exist. And the power and talent set of such is limitless. The universe itself is just a closed mathematical set in their understanding.

And that perception of time isn't linear but an expanding solution set with interconnections appproaching infinity but never getting there.

I see basic deity-based religion as a panacea for individuals that have not come to terms with their own individual death and need to grasp at that to allay their fears of such.

Just thoughts from an agnostic atheist. Felines have it simpler.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
<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.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll buy that Lestat, but what's the point?

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Well first of all, I think that anyone (atheist, theist, agnostic, whatever) that spends enough time thinking about the subject should be very confused about the origin of the universe, first cause, or whatever you want to call it. I feel any answer any side provides is very inadequate and likely leads to more questions than answers. It seems so much more likely to me that nothing would exist than that something would exist. If I weren't so certain of my own existence, I would have concluded that the universe does not exist [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

I think it's pretty clear that science does not yet have a satisfying answer to this. However, I believe that this is fundamentally different from the types of questions science didn't have answers to in previous centuries. It seems to me that not only does science not presently have an explanation, but it is not possible for science to ever have an answer. Now many natural phenomena that were once explained merely by God have since been explained through science. One could criticize me by saying that this is another example, and that one day it will be explained. However, as I understand the problem and the limits of science, it seems it is fundamentally outside the reach of science. Maybe that's a bit naive of me to think, and maybe you think it's no different from a "God of the Gaps" argument used hundreds of years ago by someone who couldn't explain how the sun worked, I don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is all correct, but it doesn't answer the question. What does any of it have to do with God?

God doesn't present an answer to the dilemma of why there is something rather than nothing. The existence or nonexistence of God is completely irrelevant to that dilemma.

The idea that God exists without cause may seem more palatable to you than the idea that the universe exists without cause, but this is hardly a good argument. You're basically saying that you believe in God because it's comfortable - I view that as a form of intellectual dishonesty.

I also believe the argument that introduces unnecessary elements is always inferior to the argument that does not. The variable of God's existence has no bearing on the question of why there is something rather than nothing - thus, introducing this variable into the consideration of that fundamental question is illogical.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, would this be esentially what the agnostic athiest would think:

I do not know if there is any higher power or not, but in my opinion, there is not.

?

[/ QUOTE ]

We think different things. We tend to oppose organized groups with specific beliefs, and authoritative pretensions to knowledge. So our ideas vary considerably from person to person.

Personally? I think there probably are gods of some kind. However, I think it's impossible for human beings to learn anything about them, and therefore I proceed based on the practical assumption that they don't exist. That is, for all intents and purposes there is no God.

In terms of the "atheist" label, belief is important. While I consider the probability of a god or gods existing to be relatively high, I do not believe in God. This is a strange position, and I'd have to get into a massive tangle of semantics and philosophy to justify it, but the fact that I don't believe in God makes me an atheist (even though I think it's likely that there is a god).

[mickeyg13]

[ QUOTE ]

I also believe the argument that introduces unnecessary elements is always inferior to the argument that does not.

[/ QUOTE ]

For someone living hundreds/thousands of years ago, which of the following is inferior based upon your own criteria?
1) People get sick because God is punishing them for their sins
2) People get sick because there are these tiny microscopic organisms that swim around their body. These organisms, too small to see with the naked eye, jump from person to person spreading the disease.

It would have seemed like #2 included unnecessary elements, so by your criteria it would have been deemed inferior, even though we know it to be correct with a great deal of certainty.

[vhawk01]

Isnt God like crazy complex though? So the answer is pretty much always 1.