It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Intelligent people less likely to believe in God

page: 14
26
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
reply to post by applebiter
 


Truth hurts. People forget pseudo-intellectuals have their fads. First new age thought, then communism and socialism, now religion bashing.


Fads again!?

Is this all you know? Fads?

Wow, you are lame.




posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 03:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Quazga
 


All that truth is getting to you. I understand. Its usually best to ignore it and throw insults rather than try to address reality.



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quazga
Man, all you know how to do is throw out witticisms like "Straw man" and talk about fads.

Do you even *have* an education? I'm done with this one.


For someone who doesn't know what logical fallacies are (I'll throw you a hint: not a 'witticism'), and to use them as much as you do to form "arguments," I really wouldn't try to insult my education.

The irony is just too delicious for words, given the subject of this thread.

[edit on 15-6-2008 by ALightinDarkness]



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 04:36 AM
link   
Well read up on SPIRAL DYNAMICS....it explains this whole issue.

Basically the BLUE MEME (level of psych development) still has the most amount of people. Thats the mythic meme of religious fools believing in any random mythic story of jesus or what not.

Then once you get out of that stage is a large group of people in the ORANGE MEME. Thats the rational meme that grew during the scientific revolution. Thats about 25% now i guess. Naturally athiesm is the next step and many intellectuals are here.

Oh but when will we realize its all just stages .

then the GREEN meme...going back to nature. Maybe have a pagan nature loving god or just seeing nautre as god. 25% here too

Then finally we have the YELLOW MEME. This is the integration meme. Where we realize theres loads of levels and life isnt God or no god. Getting to understand the paradox of life and that its all integrated.
About 2 maybe 3 percent is here. But its should be exploding soon like the 60s exploded into the green meme.

From there its hard to say....we need buddha or someone to tell us.

does God exist or not. Is it yes or no? the question isnt even a question, because the duality is an illusion...ALL IS ONE! So now we realize the cosmic joke. Endless murdering for millenia over a question that doesnt exist. lol



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by ALightinDarkness
 


I know what informal logical fallacies are, and I can chart arguments according to formal logical notation. So what? You're so proud of yourself for spotting a few fallacies in the noise that you aren't even paying attention to signal any more. You don't have time to sit and smirk over your little piece of knowledge. Other people, who aren't so concerned with rank or dominance, are whizzing right past you while you pat yourself on the back.



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by onlyhurtsu
 


Awesome post! Starred!



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Very interesting points of views, and I'm only on page 5. These are my thoughts thus far:

Intelligent people less likely to believe in God
I'm going to have to disagree with a shake rather than a "yes" nod

I earned a degree at the college level
and i believe in God and the devil

So are you saying i lost my smarts
Because i disagree with the above part

Calling someone unintelligent based on disbelief
Leaves me in much grief


No greater or less of a man should he finish or quit school
For he may be be wise and you unable to call him a fool


To be intelligent is to know the facts
To be aware of what may be behind your back

Now that i said my spiel
Let's break down this deal



Take the first word in theline
Intelligence and you will quickly find

It is created through ego
Let us suppose so

A species whether beast or man
Are all created from this land

His innate push is to be the best
And rise above the rest

You put enough light on a fire
No one will question your desire

Because the fuel has increased the light
And will push more men together in plight


To feed their ego's ambition
They will do whatever they need to increase their position

Push the ego aside
And open up your eyes

For a wise man will discern what is true
Where the intelligent will look for facts like the sky is blue

It is the wise to know
To allow spirit to grow

Wisdom comes from the soul
Helping discern between goals

Wisdom is for the abstract
That is the fact

Intelligence is a human trait
Think of it as fish bate


You want it to feed you
So you seek for clues

It doesn't matter how much you learn
Just in how you discern

The intellect will choose
And whether his ego will cause him to lose

To only use his learned mind
Leaving his wisdom behind

Doesn't make him less of a man
For nothing is quicksand

Everything coexists
And sometimes there isn't always a fit

Let's take one more word
That I'm sure you have heard

It is "god" and means his only son
It means becoming number 1

It means Allah
And even Kaballah

The word God has many edits
Depending on who gives it credit

So many word choices
The best we can do is listen to all voices

Faith creates a point
Science will strengthen or weaken the joint

Intelligent men discern the facts
And the wise show their ego their backs

So do not call a man unintelligent no matter his position
For everyone should listen

Lead with your heart
And know that will give you a head start



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 12:32 PM
link   
I may have to agree with some of the critics and say this is a bit simplistic. What I believe people reject more than anything else is dogma. Humans need to explore, without information we die. Simple as that. Dogma removes the mystery and enchantment of discovery, intelligent people will reject this, even one such as myself that does believe in God yet seek the truth through REAL science.

Just my two cents.



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by kmadison
 


I think you completely misread the title.. It didn't say "People who believe in God are not intelligent" It said "Intelligent people *LESS LIKELY* to believe in God"


Can you see the difference here?



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 01:26 PM
link   
I believe the reason "more intelligent people are less likely to believe in God" is because of the Institutionalized Dogma that exists in Academics where professors teach that its "uncool" to believe in the Invisible God!!!!

This was started a long time ago and has been set in stone in the U.S. and U.K. at least for the last 5-7 decades little by little.

Hell, Ben Stein even made a documentary about it...and athiests shoot down the documentary and bash....even though its true. Academia has a bias towards shooting down the belief in God.

That's why this OP rings true



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Im sorry if this has been said but from reading the last couple pages im not so sure. I tried to edit something very similar to this into my last post though that seems to have failed.

To the people saying there is little if any correlation between intelligence and the belief in god i would say you are closer to correct. I wouldnt say its about Intelligence vs a lack of as much as i would say its a strength of Will vs a lack of strength or weaking of. god is a crutch(to put it simply and lightly).
Intelligence is nothing if you dont have the will to use it.

Food for thought:
Doesnt anyone get the feeling that god is much too human?
A result of him being created by them i think.
Even Aliens and whatnot, why is everything so HUMAN!?
We cant see outside ourselves. Everything is a reflection of ourselves in some form or degree. Imaginary.


Anyway, just thinkin outloud.



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by applebiter
 


Congratulations, you took an undergraduate logic class. Obviously not enough, since you cant figure out when someone is using a fallacy to deflect from the main points of a debate. I hope you have enough time to read everything while your blowing all this hot air and being arrogant.



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   
How does it go? Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things to come.

I would say that anyone that applies any innate intelligence to the act of faith in a religion or a self-spiritual faith, has to come up with the fact that it doesn’t stack up to evidence of your existence? I would suggest that you use religion as a crutch to make sense of all that we can’t or don’t want to try and explain. The big one is the fact (I’d love to see the presented evidence to contradict this?) that we die and that’s it. Scary?



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 02:54 PM
link   
The Peace of God to all that belong to the light,
Dear Reader,

I think the claim of that open this thread about the inverse proportional relationship between religious and intelligence is a so relative and in my personal opinion objectable proposition, depends of course of the very materialistic mentality of some western scientists, that dont not allow them to see that the boundaries between the academic disciplines and the three great sources of knowledge: Philosophy, Religion and Science are not defined in the so rigid way you claim.

If that would be the case there has not been opportunity to exist for the Parapsicology that is a modern Science incharged of the study of all the paranormal pheonomenon & we can say the same about Sophrology an entire branch of Medecine focused in the connection between mind and body.

The first thing that I feel is necessary to explain is that Science has two major lines of research and knowledge my friend:

- The Aristotelic one that follows and priviledged the observation as the only source of knowledge, approach that is very used in natural sciences, that was exhaustived explored in the XX century. I think that is the one that is behind and supported the so dared claim that open this thread.

- The Platonic one, that found all his work in the pure reasoning, in other words it claims that only the reason can reach the actual knowledge of the things since any that can be detected by the senses is mere appearance, and the appearance usually deceives. This is the way of Mathematics by excelence.

Let me illustrate this idea by mentioning Igor Shafarevich, a Mystic but also famous Russian Algebraic Geometer:




"Mathematicians don't make Mathematics, they are instrument for mathematics to make itself. This strange sounding theory is supported by many instances of repeated or simultanous discovery."



Is it possible to find a more religious way to express the advance of the Queen of all the Sciences, the one that gives scientific character to many other academic disciplines?

If you want to know more about this concept pls visit the following link:

books.google.com...

By the way I suggest you also to give a glance to the interesting article:

Russian Religious Mystics and French
Rationalists: Mathematics, 1900–1930
by Loren Graham and Jean-Michel Kantor

available in the web at: www.amacad.org...

Throug these readings it is possible to expand not only the knowledge about the History of Mathematics to understand that the paradigms, like the one given to open this thread are certainly so rigid and relatively false.

Sir Isaac Newton, the father of the modern Physcis, was a famous Alchemyst, you can verify that by watching the nice documentary of Nova about that topic, look at it in the PBS website.

The French Mathematicians Rene Descartes and Blas Pascal were both active members of the Rosacrusian Mystic Secret Societes of their epoch.

It is possible to track how close has been mysthics and esoterism with mathematics starting with the trips of Archimedes to the great temples of Egypt and the Secret Society that Pithagoras leaded in ancient Greece.

The topic of this thread recall me How attonished was for the Scientific community only few years ago the attitude of Dr Gregori Perelman, the enigmatic Russia Mathematician of the University of St Petersburg that finally successfully solved the Poincare Conjeture, a so complex challlange in that discipline for more than a century.

Greater suprise is the one produced when this same personage, that has a very Mystic look, decided to reject the famous Field Medal and the European mathematical society prize.

If you are not familiar with this business pls chk the Article of New York times:

Ideas & Trends
The Math Was Complex, the Intentions, Strikingly Simple
By GEORGE JOHNSON
Published: August 27, 2006

www.nytimes.com...

or

Russian mathematician announces proof of celebrated Poincaré Conjecture
By Alex Lefebvre

www.wsws.org...

It is still a huge mystery the strange traditional relationship that has in Russia the Mathematical science with the Mysticism and the esoterism, a possible continuation of the Pithagoric tradition that Russia inherit from ancient Greeks and Bizantines.

If you want to know more about this point of view, let me tell to you that I am a Scientist & a Psyquic that usually publish in dreams and predictions at BTS and in Predictions & Prophecies at ATS, with a higher level of accompliment in forecasts.

Pls Chk my profile at:www.abovetopsecret.com...

and my threads at:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Your friend,

thanks


The Angel of lightness




"God doesnt play with dice."

Albert Einstein






“If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants.”

Isaac Newton





[edit on 6/15/2008 by The angel of light]



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ALightinDarkness
 


It looks to me as though the only thing that matters to you is finding where someone's words are wrong. Do you have it in you to be less rigid and look for what is right? No one can live up to the standards you have set. Not even you.

It's good if you can identify ad hominem circumstantial versus tu quoque. If we were competing in a debate, it would be appropriate to draw attention to these details. But this isn't a collegiate debate. It's a conversation, and that means that sometimes people relax their debating skills and try to get ideas flowing. You seem to resent it. You want it to be a competition, and you want to win. Do you know how to just relax and have a conversation?



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ALightinDarkness
 


reply to post by applebiter
 


Dear members in this thread,

Hi,

I sincerely think that it is better to conserve the necessary politness in this thread to give higher level to this discussion.

I have explained calmy my point of view, even suporting it with quotations and articles since as a disciplined scientist I am not here looking to be accepted only by my own words or thoughts. I think that is the best attitude in this type of discussions to focus us on the facts and not to make this a personal confrontation.

The participation in this thread, that is something nobody can forbid to anybody, must be with enough respect to the points of view of other people. The thing that somebody does not share such points of view does not mean at all that somebody can come here to argue or insult other member.

It is not a smart strategy to try to create here a storm in a glass of water or to start a war of replies, anyway it is better to report the fault to the manager of the forum. The reply that started this confrontation is probably one of the most pathetic that I ever remember in my time in BTS or ATS.

I would suggest to avoid these situations, to fill with a little more oil of better quality your patiencemeters in order to be able to read and discuss other points of view with less passion and more objectivity.


thanks,

be in Peace with God,

The Angel of lightness




[edit on 6/15/2008 by The angel of light]



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by onlyhurtsu
 


Excellent post, but you are posting 50 years too early.



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by applebiter
 


This victimization mentality hurts your point...if you have one. I'm not sure. You seem to be stalking me across various threads on ATS.

I hate to steal a line from Barack Obama, but words have meaning. When your argument for suggesting some sort of correlation between IQ and not believing in god is founded in logical fallacies, which examines the logic in the meaning behind your words, using this victimization based rhetoric fails.

By the way, those are some pretty elementary logical fallacies you've identified. If your going to start arguing over this in an attempt to throw another red herring, use some of the more advanced ones. Might want to throw in some proofs, too. I mean if your going to throw out red herrings, at least do a good job at it.

And I had no idea that conversations meant you were now allowed to throw logic and reason out the window. Thanks for the memo.

For someone who claims to be interested in a conversation, why is it that you keep responding to my posts and complaining about my pointing out logical fallacies? Its quite obvious your here to troll.

[edit on 15-6-2008 by ALightinDarkness]



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by AKnight
It is ridiculous to say that because you are an atheist, you are more intelligent. There are plenty of kids who choose be an atheist to rebel against the norm. and of course we see that the claim is made by an atheist. Religion is something that cannot be pinned down to something like intelligence. If that were true we would see all religions in undereducated areas of the world. Todays science elite reject religion, but i feel they try to make people who do practice religion stupid.


What part of the world are you from, where being religious is the norm? The US or Ireland or some other place? Just curious, no offence meant.

[edit on 15-6-2008 by BlueEyes]



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 04:56 PM
link   
"God is a crutch, it's all about faith, it's all belief in invisible realities"

HAHAHAHAHAHAhahahaha

Im sorry but I dont use faith or belief. I see and speak with God daily and I know 100% that God is real. It's a comedy for me to watch athiests post their "reason"

Your not gonna find God using science which studies physical and measurable matter. So in that light.....Science your "Crutch" to argue for the non-existence of God.

Science is not looking for God. The people the look for God find him. I know I did and I'll bet my savings account and my own life and soul for that matter that I and the other thiests/diests are right.



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join