Intelligent people less likely to believe in God

Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
reply to post by Quazga

 

Being against religion is for 95% of people a fad, and it is born from the idea that it is hip and trendy to rebel against institutions. As with all fads, it will die out in a few years and then re-emerge again in the next few.

If it were only being done by 20 somethings I would agree with you. But I'm in my late 30's coming to these conclusions, and so are most of the people I know who are also coming to these conclusions.

I'd admit that it is more relevant to the situation now because religion has sure made a mess out of things, but it's not a fad it is a movement. It happened in Europe, and now it is happening in the US. As a society, we are simply growing up, and don't need the nursery rhymes and fairy tales to explain the pleasure and the pain in our world. And besides, it's the religious zealots who are causing all the problems today.

reply to post by Quazga


There is a lot of "encouragement" to supress/suspend thought in favor of faith.

Of course the 'intelligent' people can't undertsand God. No mind can. The whole Bible talks of faith as the way to God. believing in God is intelligent considering the alternative.
1. There is a hell and lots of intelligent people can spend the rest of eternity working out how they didn't see it
2. They are right and no one loses anyway.

And they call themselves intelligent??? yeah Right!

reply to post by Quazga


It is mostly 20 somethings and a few 30 somethings. As people grow older they generally begin to note their mortality, and all of a sudden being a rebel against institutions to be trendy isn't as important. Occasionally, in the desire to break free of any bounds of morality (since belief in God usually also requires some sort of morality if you want to remain in God's graces), some people will rationalize their way out of belief later in life.

I know many people coming to the opposite conclusion - most people realize belief in nothing is extraordinarily easy, and is the result of their mind trying to give them an excuse to do whatever they want. I admit, its seductive, a world without god where we can do whatever we want and never have to explain our actions - I used to fall for it too.

Being anti-religion is a even larger fad than it once was. Religion, of course, has made a mess out of nothing, men have. But in the desire to not be under the constraints of morality and to make life easier, its very easy to be trendy and bash religion since the mass media encourages it. It will change as people realize how foolish they've been.

It tends to be the atheist zealots causing a majority of the problems I see.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
reply to post by melatonin

 

Awesome Melatonin. That's essentially my stance too. We don't know whats out there, but to believe that the most powerful 'being' in the universe, and the one that created the universe itself is subject to petty jealousy and functions on a reward/punishment standard like a dog with a biscuit or rolled up newspaper is ridiculous.

Rewards and going to heaven for doing good deeds, keeping a moral compass, etc..yet burning and suffering in pain for all eternity for breaking the rules (i.e. commandments in christianity). He will burn you for all eternity and make you sufferin pain and anguish forever and ever but, as George Carlin sais "He loves you".

And make no mistake about it, religion is a cash+ enterprise which don't have to pay taxes like the rest of us who work for our entire lives and pay taxes on that. Yet religion can receive all this money from their followers because of coarse "god needs it". There are literally thousands of people (more) and organisations in this country who rely on a religious following for profit and monetary gain (with no taxes). It's almost like extorting tax-free income from the willing masses.

And what about religion and it's ancient connections to astrology? Many of the world's religions are based upon the ancient art of astrology, which was primarily based on mythical stories and personifications of constellations. Religion used to be so widespread and feared due to being a larger force in society that could strike back if toyed with. It could extort whatever money it needed. The rules were much different back then. Today, the rules are a little bit different, but instead of fear-mongering the population and using it's power alone to it's advantage, religion has to "ask" for money because "god needs it" right?

Religion is such a backwards, twisted, fanatical concept that will always result in death. IMO, The more fanatical one is about religion, the more the wool is pulled over their eyes. That's the entire reason we had 9/11. And There is a fine line between innocent faith and extremism. Just how far would Christians go to defend their religion from outsiders? War will always be a result of religious fundamentalism. It is proof that religion is man-made, not perfect, and always prone to the same faults we all have.

Does a search for truth and God have to end up a religious quest? Would god not, himself, be sickened by seeing the religious bickering and death? What religion teaches, what it stands for, etc.. is completely different than the people with faults who follow that religion. So, in that aspect, religion will ALWAYS be evil and will always have it's own agenda (because we are inherently evil).

-ChriS

A lot of intelligent people believe in God. What they don't believe in is religion. Big difference.

You are not your mind. Your mind is a tool, and nothing more. I suppose it makes sense that if a person is gifted with a powerful intellect, then it provides them with solutions to basic human needs, and they are less inclined to listen to a small, still voice coming from a little deeper within.

Some cognitive theories speculate that the social mind of primates was an evolutionary adaptation that made it possible for one monkey to construct a simulation of what the next monkey intended, thereby making social interaction possible. Some would call it a "theory of mind". One byproduct of this development is the fact that not only does the mind create a simulation of the next monkey but it also creates a simulation of the self. Imagine yourself walking to the refrigerator to grab a cold one. There you go. Refreshing, isn't it?

Well, we have such powerful minds that we mistake this internal simulation of self to be the self. It isn't. Watch children play. Little boys imagining to be super heroes. Little girls singing into hairbrushes. As we mature, we continue playing these games, but with more expensive toys and for greater stakes. We feel separate because there is a separateness between the reality we are immersed in and the illusion or narrative of self that we are forever generating within.

Consequently, we strive for connectedness. The sciences are also searching for absolutes, and the scientists are sublimating their search for connectedness vis a vie the discipline which attracts them the most.

[edit on 14-6-2008 by applebiter]

when you can prove evolution you can bring this argument to the table. all the evidence for evolution is random fosils that have a slight resimblance to one another. it full of missing links and assumptions much like religion. and if im not mistaken it was the guy who came up the the theroy of evolution that said some thing along the lines of, "their is too much wonder and beauty for their not to have been a devine creator."

You're welcome.

Of course the 'intelligent' people can't undertsand God. No mind can. The whole Bible talks of faith as the way to God. believing in God is intelligent considering the alternative.
1. There is a hell and lots of intelligent people can spend the rest of eternity working out how they didn't see it
2. They are right and no one loses anyway.

And they call themselves intelligent??? yeah Right!

I think we're all aware of Pascal's Wager. The difference is that most of us know how to properly label it.

Allow me to ask you this: If you're suggesting that people should believe in the Roman Catholic God (which you may or may not be referring to), then how will those people who believe in the Protestant God, or the Mormon God, or any number of other Christ-based religions' Gods avoid "hellfire"? Better yet, how will Muslims, Jews, Hindus (and their Dvaita, Dvaitadvaita, Advaita and Vishishtadvaita schools of philosophy), Buddhists, early Greeks and Romans, early Egyptians and followers of the MANY different forms of paganism avoid "hellfire"? This same argument applies to your chances of avoiding any of those religions' ideas of punishment for disbelief.

Furthermore, how will your Deity fail to realize that there are many people who are believing in him simply to avoid "hellfire"? Apparently, he's now a gullible perfect being.

Honestly, this argument is so overused and ridiculous that I can't believe anyone still feels the need to use it.

[edit on 14-6-2008 by Majal]

Religion is another product of the mind. I used to be an atheist. I can tell you with certainty there is no way to use logic and reason to prove the existence of God. But logic and reason are techniques applied by the intellect to question nature. It is not the only way to question nature. Having a direct experience of the divine is much more satisfying than an explanation. It also results in the realization that explanations that the mind can contain are woefully inadequate to the experience. If you haven't experienced it, you should. I recommend it highly.

God is a brand. Just like Nike.

Just pray! (oh, and remember to give money, he spend all his last weeks funds).

First of all, an "open mind" is not, never has been, nor ever should be assumed to indicate intelligence. Some of the most open minded people out there are the Hollywood elite, who ironically enough with only a handfull of exceptions, are about as smart as a box of rocks. Secondly, It never ceases to amaze me that the people who believe in the unbelievable and uncomprehensible to our mortal minds, that being a creator God and all of His magnifigence, are called the "closed minded" ones. Which takes a more open mind and less constrained pattern of thought, breaking everything in the universe down to molecular levels and saying "Hmm, everything's composed from the same pool of 112 (sorry if this has changed since I was in college) elements... it all came from a big explosion that flung elements from hell to breakfast!" or believing that something which no man has truly seen based purely upon faith?

As far as the intelligence question goes, I believe in God. In fact, more than believe in God, I have no doubt He exists. He and I have had our share of conflicts, many involving me standing in the rain at night pointing, cursing, and shaking my fist at the Heavens. But at no time during any of that have I lost my faith or my knowledge that He exists and is behind everything before us. So by that admission, I guess I'm supposedly a halfwit or a dunce according to the OP. I've always believed that arguing your own intelligence on the internet is right up there with pissing contests, being that neither one is likely to get you anywhere in life or in society. So I'll let my posts speak to my intelligence level. Chances are, you can probably find a good sized handfull of ATS members who will say "Yes, he believes in God and clearly he has proven the OP right because his posts look like they were composed by a pudding head." Chances are you'll find some who believe the reverse.

All I know is that on judgement day all the Harvard degrees, university fellowships, intelligencia community kudos, etc won't mean jack squat when stacked up against that one question Jesus will ask us all "Did you believe in Me?" I'd much rather be considered a fool on Earth so that I can answer truthfully "Yes, Lord." on that day than get all those awards and adulations down here only to admit to the Holiest of Holies that I didn't believe in him because impressing my educated friends and colleagues was more important to me than the King of Kings.

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
First of all, an "open mind" is not, never has been, nor ever should be assumed to indicate intelligence. Some of the most open minded people out there are the Hollywood elite, who ironically enough with only a handfull of exceptions, are about as smart as a box of rocks. Secondly, It never ceases to amaze me that the people who believe in the unbelievable and uncomprehensible to our mortal minds, that being a creator God and all of His magnifigence, are called the "closed minded" ones. Which takes a more open mind and less constrained pattern of thought, breaking everything in the universe down to molecular levels and saying "Hmm, everything's composed from the same pool of 112 (sorry if this has changed since I was in college) elements... it all came from a big explosion that flung elements from hell to breakfast!" or believing that something which no man has truly seen based purely upon faith?

Would you suggest that people who believe in the existence of the Land of Oz are more open-minded than those who don't believe in the existence of the Land of Oz, unicorns, fairies, Count Chocula, Captain Crunch, the Purple People Eater or any number of other fictional literary creations?

I find it quite funny that you chose to take a shot at evolution while claiming that those who don't believe in God and Creationism are less open-minded.

In reality, no one who has carefully studied evolution has ever claimed that an explosion created all life or that "elements" were "flung".

Please refer to my previous post for more on this matter.

[edit on 14-6-2008 by Majal]

this talks for me: youtube.com...

Singularity.
God.
G.eneral O.rganisational D.irectory. The totality of experience, the vanishing point of comprehension.
The end of I.
Artists bring forth visions of unexperienced elswhere and otherwise, haunting, they linger on the edge of this awareness.
Musicians find the lost chord, poets the perfect emotive pronouncement of language.
Hendrix's key fit the door of the red house, the wind cried Mary, and castles built of sand slip into the sea.
Eventually.
Please feel free to love any of these, but take caution to heart.
Don't dare Dame Nature, nor deny Jove his bolts, Thor his hammer, Neptune his trident, Dianna her arrows, Bachus his wine, Venus her beauty, Mercury his winged heels, Pan his pipe, or Loki his mischief, Vulcan Hephaestus his Fire and forgel, The Fate's, , The Graces, That which whispered into the ear of the Oracle at Delphi, the Siren who lured sailors beneath the waves. Horus will assist you, and the Hydra will hinder your way, Sheva welcomes you with open arms, and Gonesh with kind heart. Aescalapius can disassemble you, and The Light Bearer vanquishes the night.
If somehow you find youself in eternal twilight at the edge of a river, after passing pylons and giving forth the salutation required at each,you'd do well to know the name of the boatman, and bring him a gift (he is fond of riddles).
You might ask his advice in deity's, surely one has need of worshipful rememberance.
The Lotus is both question and answer.
Stone the crows, and kill the Buddha.

Meanwhile.
Transitions can be rough.
www.youtube.com...

reply to post by jamie83


Did you ever think why these people dont believe in god, do they something we dont?

For ages, a deadly conflict has been waged between a few brave men and women of thought and genius upon the one side, and the great ignorant religious mass on the other. This is the war between Science and Faith. The few have appealed to reason, to honor, to law, to freedom, to the known, and to happiness here in this world. The many have appealed to prejudice, to fear, to miracle, to slavery, to the unknown, and to misery hereafter. The few have said "Think" The many have said "Believe!"

-Robert Ingersoll, (Gods)

Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion - several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn't straight.

-Mark Twain

Originally posted by Maxmars
Sorry people, this sounds like wishful thinking.

True faith may be amongst the highest expression of intelligence, after love of course.

No apologies, you don't have to agree, it comes from my gut.

I think it might just be a balance of both and find attempts like this to quantify what is so very complex and simple at the same time into one definitive statement or theory a rather sad statement in and of itself. Intelligence as defined by whom? And by what measure?

The truth is no one really knows what true intelligence is...it's a struggle for all of us, some just take different paths, and that's okay, because I strongly suspect that the path converges at some point.

What's not okay is bickering with each other, judging another, or tryng to convert each other to the point of hatred along the way because that will prevent us all from getting to the convergence.

Originally posted by Truther
reply to post by jamie83

 

Did you ever think why these people dont believe in god, do they [know] something we dont?

yes. often. i think it takes as great a leap of faith to say you don't believe in god as to say you do.

and i do think that people who don't believe in god know something that those who do believe don't know, but that the opposite is also true. and i'm speaking here at a pure fundamental or spiritual level...leaving out all the fringe debates and arguments that in my mind are just distractions.

[edit on 14-6-2008 by ~Lucidity]

Originally posted by jsobecky
I don't know what your views are regarding the existence of a Creator. You call yourself a "baby eating atheist" and propel yourself (in your mind) ahead of Einstein in that regard.

Ahead of him? In what way? I'm an agnostic atheist. So I'm a bit agnostic (i.e., I accept that we can't test and know such vacuous concepts), but am happy to accept that I do not have a belief in gods/godesses, and am therefore a godless heathen. I go further than Einstein on the scale of belief I think about (i.e., a Likert-style scale with 1 as 100% belief, 7 as 100% disbelief - I'm probably 5/6ish for Oom; if Einstein was a perfect agnostic, he'd be a 4).

I just clarified because I wasn't sure whether Raso thought that was my own position. I think some of his comments on 'professional' atheists are a bit naff, same with his claim about reacting against indoctrination. He wasn't the king of the world whose opinions we must take as infallible - a sort of modern pope.

Some like to attempt to use him that way though.

You call Einstein an agnostic.

He called himself one.

I don't care for that definition

Don't think Einstein will care to argue that point.

it has the same limitations as the evangelical's definition of God. I don't think you know what Einstein meant when he said he was deeply religious. From the first quote I supplied way back when

Why even bother? I think dragging Einstein's corpse around in the service of propping up our positions on theology and philosophy is a waste of time. No more than an argument from authority. He was a physicist, and a damn good one. His musings on theology are just that. Not much better than the opinion of my postman.

Theists have been doing this argument from authority stuff with Einstein for years - 'look Einstein was clever and he said the word god'.

People were climbing all over themselves to offer their "intelligent" input. Hilarious.

lol

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
I know you're an atheist based on previous posts. What I meant was that my beliefs were in line with Einsteins.

Yeah, fair enough. Just thought it was a bit opaque.

The funny thing is that you say you're one step past Einstein, but it seems like you're one step behind.

IMHO....

You're trying to read my mind, like j. 'One step past' (probably more) on the scale of belief (see Dawkins' TGD).

A bit like someone saying 'I'm 50/50, and therefore agnostic', I'm a bit further along the scale of 'disbelief'. Probably my lack of clarity and perhaps people's interpretation of my words biased by the 'arrogant' stereotype associated with atheists. It's not a race or anything.

However, I'll catch with him one day. We all will.

ABE: As far as pantheism goes, if people want to define nature as 'god'. OK. Not sure it really means much. IMHO, feels like a claim of theism for those not really theistic. But defintions of god are quite individualistic, and so even ignosticism has value.

[edit on 14-6-2008 by melatonin]

Arrogance of the simple minded. Fill ones brain with data then believe the source is himself.

The most "intellegent" are those who come to realize "they" are not the center of the universe, only a very small "speck" in the vastness of God's creation.